Over in Existence of God(s), someone asserted:

I'm not precisely sure that this statement is accurate and I'm not sure precisely what it means. Were they willing to die for their faith or were they defending the truth of their actual experiences? Do we have independent attestation and/or physical evidence?

What's the actual evidence and what does the evidence say?

I'm not sure there is any distinction between their "faith" and their "experience." On what basis do you make this distinction?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 20, 2001).]

Did such people actually see a guy rise from the dead, or did they hear about it?

Let's say that you have never actually experienced a miracle -- you can still have faith that miracles can and do occurr. This is the distinction I'm trying to make.

And again, I want to understand two things: The claims we are evaluating, and the quality of the evidence for those claims.

That's presumably the story of Nero's making scapegoats out of some early Xtians in Rome on account of a big fire there. That story has been questioned; it has been suggested that it was some accidental insertion in Tacitus's document.

So you are distinguishing between those early Christians, who suffered persecution, who converted but never saw the resurrected Jesus, and those that claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus?

I think, at a minimum, the historical evidence is very strong for Paul, Peter, and James. (Paul's own letters, Acts, 1 Clement, Josephus, with some possible corroboration from Tacitus). There is also evidence for James, the disciple (executed), and John the disciple (tortured). Both found in Acts.

I'd have to spend some extra time thinking and researching your point.

But again, your distinction is a good one. One I fear most Christians fail to make. However, I would not say that the perseverance of those who did not witness the resurrection is immaterial to our historical inquiry into the historical Jesus.

Questioned by whom?

SingleDad:

One part of this question was dealt with in an interesting article in the July/August 1997 issue of The Skeptical Review: Farrell Till's How Did the Apostles Die?. He concludes that there is scant evidence that any of the apostles died for thier beliefs outside of the Bible. (And of course, as Till points out, relying on "evidence" from the Bible on a point like this is rather silly:

"... if the accuracy of the New Testament is to be assumed, then it would be pointless to debate any of the major apologetic claims, because the New Testament does claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he worked many miracles, that he was resurrected from the dead, that he ascended into heaven, etc."

Till also concludes that there is little evidence that any significant number of believers was persecuted for their beliefs, at least prior tho the third century.

Of course, if all this is true, there is little point asking whether these few people died for their faith or died because they had direct evidence of the Resurrection. In any case, only the apostles had (or so it is claimed) direct evidence.

I'd like to know the motivation for inventing stories of persecution would be from the Christian perspective for this. It's also interesting that the gospel of John refers to Peter being martyred("indicating the death by which Peter died") but does not explain exactly how Peter died. He seemed to assume that the reader would already know. And if Peter died as an old man why would John write this? There would obviously be people who really knew how Peter died: the fact that John assumes the martyrdom of Peter is common knowledge reflects how likely it must be that Peter did die this way. It is not common knowledge that Jimi Hendrix spontaneously combusted; because he did not.

And what documents give different accounts of the apostles' deaths- that is un-persecuted endings?
There is no extraordinary claim, or motive to make such a claim, in the "persecution of the early church." It's easier to understand why a skeptic would doubt the "miracles" of the NT because they are not a common fact of life for most people; persecution of a minority group should not seem that unlikely. That has been a fact of life for all cultures and ages.

Opus1

It's important to note that the resurrection was not a major issue in the early church. Circumcision, Kosher food laws, and keeping the Sabbath were. (See Gal. 5)

Stephen is stoned by an angry mob, but Jesus' resurrection is never mentioned. Nowhere does anyone say "Recant your testimony that Jesus rose from the dead or we'll stone you!"

Except that Paul was persecuting Jewish Christians well before the issues of kosher food laws or keeping the sabbath were an issue. They, as well as Stephen and James were martyred because they claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, and perhaps more. Ditto Peter and John's torture at the hands of the Sanhedrin.

None of the above was due to the food laws or sabbath keeping. They were based on the early Church's high eschatology, which was dependent on the Church's belief in the resurrection.