Mr Carcer

Many Christians have argued that Christian martyrdom proves the validity of Christianity. They claim that if the disciples of Christ had been making it up they wouldn't have died for it. Numerous times I have pointed out that people have often died for things which can be construed as wrong, e,g. suicide bombers.

Outside of the Bible is their any evidence that the disciples of Christ died for their faith? By disciples I mean those who are supposed to have known Christ the person, e.g what proof do we have that Andrew was cucified at Patras.

Amaleq13

Some earlier thread on the subject:

Christian Martyrs

Martyrdom of the apostles

The Martyrdom of the Apostles

Welcome to IIDB!

Diogenes the Cynic

The short answer is that no, there is no evidence outside of Christian tradition that any direct follower of Jesus was martyred for their faith. There is a disputed passage in Josephus that James, "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" was executed by the high priest, Annas, but does not say why. There is no other non-Christian historical corroboration that the apostles even existed, much less that they were martyred. Even more significantly, there is no real evidence that anyone who ever knew a Historical Jesus ever claimed or believed that he came back from the dead. There is no first hand testimony from any of Jesus' disciples and the first unambiguous claim of a physical resurrection doesn't arise until the Gospel of Matthew, 50-60 years after the alleged crucifixion (if not later). The author of GMatt never met Jesus and never met an apostle. He got the empty tomb story from Mark (who also never met Jesus and never met an apostle) but Mark ended his story with he women running away from the tomb (and according to Mark, not telling anyone about it). Matthew composed the first appearance narratives.

Chunk

I find it interesting how members of this forum are quick to jump on people when they make sweeping claims that dont have any evidence to support them, yet they do the same in arguements against Christianity.

I think Mark makes the case for the resurrection. I dont see why its ambiguous.

How can you know that?

Again, how do you know that. The fact he read Mark and used it, doesnt mean he "got" the story from Mark.

How can you know that?

But Mark makes it sound that they dont tell anyone on their journey back to Peter and the disciples. Not that they dont tell anyone at all, ever!

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark makes no explicit claim for a physical resurrection, but the more significant factor is that he makes no claim that he was seen by the apostles. In fact, he implies that they did not see Jesus.
Because he writes 50 years after the alleged crucifixion, because he relies entirely on secondary sources and because whatever he doesn't get from a secondary source he makes up out of the OT or his own imagination. Also because he makes ludicrous assertions (zombie assault on Jerusalem, Jesus riding two different animals at once) which could not have originated from or been endorsed by any witnesses and because Matthew himself never makes any claim to have ever met Jesus or an apostle. Having said all that, it's not my burden to disprove that Matthew ever met Jesus or an apostle. The burden rests on anyone who wants to claim that he did (and I repeat, it's not a claim that Matthew even makes for himself).
Yes it does. He copied almost the entirety of Mark word for word and Mark invented the empty tomb story himself. There is no mention or implication of an empty tomb in any extant Christian literature before Mark's gospel.
Because, like Matthew, he makes no such claim for himself, because his Gospel was written outside Palestine to a Gentile audience 40+ years after the alleged crucifixion, because, as with Matthew, some of his stories are so implausible (as with the entire Passion narrative from trial to tomb) that they could not have originated with eyewitness accounts of history, because, as with Matthew, much of his narrative is derived from the OT and because his Gospel is filled with mistakes about Palestinian geography, Jewish customs and Jewish law that could not have come from an author intimately acquainted with Palestine or Palestinian Judaism and would certainly not have come from apostles.

And once again, as with Matthew, the burden of proof rests not with me but with anyone who wants to make a claim about the author that the author does not make for himself.
No, Mark says they were too afraid to tell anyone...THE END. The entire point of Mark's ending is that he is letting his audience in on a secret that the apostles were too stupid to get.

Doug Shaver

The book of Acts records two martyrdoms, of Stephen and a James identified as "the brother of John." The killing of no other particular Christian is reportered anywhere in the New Testament, and even those two incidents are shaky as grounds for the specific claim.

Why was James killed? This is all the author tells us:

It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. (Acts 12:1-2)

And here is the specific accusation brought against Stephen:

This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place [the temple] and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us. (Acts 6:13-14)

Stephen's defense is presented in Chapter 7. Nowhere in it does he say anything about Jesus having died to save the world from sin, and nowhere in it does he attest to Jesus' resurrection. The only thing he says about Jesus to his accusers is, "You have betrayed and murdered him." (Acts 7:52)

As for extra-biblical evidence, even if we assume that the James whose death was reported by Josephus was the Christian leader of that name, Josephus provides no hint of the high priest's specific motivation. There is no clue from Josephus that James was killed on account of anything he said about Jesus.