No One Would Die for a Lie

That's the premise in C.S. Lewis's classic defense of the resurrection, and it is one that has been resurrected, as it were, by N.T. Wright in his update of Lewis's argument (see The Resurrection of the Son of God, if you can wade through it). It goes like this: Jesus died; something happened; bad people became good people; cowards became martyrs; therefore, resurrection happened. The idea being, according to Josh McDowell and others, that people who knew the truth wouldn't die for a lie. It sounds like a pretty good argument. The problem was that we were removed from the events and the reasoning by two millenia. Leighton has pointed out the impact of Polycarp on the martyr mentality of the early church, and he has rightly pointed out that not everyone died; some recanted only to later resume their practice of the faith. But the argument has always rested primarily not on second and third generation martyrs, but upon the apostles themselves. Church history, tradition actually, has them all dying a martyr's death except for John. Putting aside the impossibility of knowing anything like that, and recognizing that Peter and Paul were likely caught in a pogrom, a cleansing that eliminates all people in a subgroup without respect to their actual practice of a faith (e.g., Jews in WWII), we can still look at the question of whether or not anyone would die for a lie if they knew the truth. Just ask the Mormons.

Christians have always believed that the Church of Jesus Christ - Latter Day Saints is a cult. They believe that Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. They believe that Brigham Young and other early leaders were knowing accomplices in a ruse. All of that might be true. The question is really whether or not early Mormon leaders were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs. It has been shown many, many times that belief often has nothing to do with "truth." If early Mormons who were in on the "lie" were willing to suffer and die, which they did, why is it inconceivable that early Christians would do the same? Once a life is fully committed to a belief system, it is difficult to rework the entire worldview that follows that belief system. Often, it's simply easier to believe the "lie." At that point, suffering for it, even dying for it, functions as a justification that a belief system is actually worth dying for and might even be true. Why would anyone kill someone for something that wasn't true? It's a small matter to work in a few phrases about persecution and its eternal reward to establish the mentality as righteousness. (Think Campbellites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many premillenial dispensationalists—they have weathered significant disappointments, events that gave the lie to what they believe, yet they persisted in belief. Membership in the group is only strengthened by scorn and persecution from outside the group.)

This is not to say there was no resurrection. There might have been. I just don't care. But I am a little weary of the whole martyrs for Jesus equals truth argument. Peace.

Comments

[Jerry Jones]

SUMMARIES OF 600 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES


The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 100+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

The following website summarizes over 285 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, and/or incidents involving problem JW Employees:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

[cheek]

I think it is an intuitively good argument that fails upon comparison to what actually happens in the world. The psychology of belief is beyond weird even outside the realm of religion. Look at the bizzarro-world behavior of devotees to political parties. To this day, if you poll active Republicans you will get a majority who believe there were WMD in pre-war Iraq despite extensive documentation of the opposite. Once a person has invested himself in a particular group, he will often refuse to believe anything that might threaten the group. It's tribal behavior, and reflecting on its possible ramifications is absolutely terrifying.

[Dallas Tim]

Martyrdom certainly doesn't equal truth. My initial comments should have been more specific. As far as the written record of the Disciples and Apostles, they carried their message to their deaths. We, obviously, do not have first-hand knowledge of these events but the absence of first hand knowledge hasn't stopped people like Hawking and Dawkins from informing the rest of us (with odd certainty) about what happened millions of years ago.

There will always be questions, but Jesus was a historical figure who's teachings revolutionized the Roman empire, initiated the largest religious movement in history and has been reaffirmed (with debate and discussion, to put it nicely) for over 2,000 years. During that time, the central message is just as it appeared in the earliest accepted texts (by "accepted" I mean canonized) and even the debate amongst Catholics and Protestants about the other books don't affect who Jesus was and is.

Death for a cause sometimes only shows how gullible some people can be (Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, etc...).

As far as Christianity, the evidence is just to overwhelming to chuck it into the pile of failed movements and questionable events. It's founder and initial leaders were consistent with their message and to this day it has remained the same. I wasn't there, but if that's my only criteria for belief then I can pass on anything that happened before 1971.

The Bible appears to be the only book in history where a clear message is answered with "So what if they said it, it's not really what they meant. And they probably didn't say it anyway."

[Reality Check]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

What?!?!

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Huh?!?!

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Wait a minute?!?!?!?

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

Wow!!!!

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Was he drunk again??????

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

hmmmmmmmm... I thought only the Republicans were convinced Sadaam had WMD's???????

[jvpastor]

According to wiki (so it must be true) Muhammad and his early followers suffered persecution.

I have never thought much of the "radical change" must mean that the resurrection is true argument was a very good one. I first heard it from the Bible Answer man. Most evangelical arguments are not good.

I actually taught from Giesler's "Unshakable Foundations" one time in Sunday School until I realized he held other faiths to a logic standard that he was not holding Christianity too.

[Jay Kelly]

One thing to keep in mind about Christian apologetics: Apologists often try to make inductive arguments have the force of deductive arguments. The 'who would die for a lie' argument is inductive. It doesn't PROVE the Resurrection, but it is evidence in support of it. So the question is not whether or not it's a legit argument. It is. The question is HOW MUCH should it count as evidence/justification for the reality of the Resurrection.

[Jay Kelly]

Just re-read the first of your post. You set it up as a deductive argument. Per my previous comment, that's a little unfair, you bastard. I love you.

[greg]

reality check,

let us know when you're done watching fox news. this wasn't a discussion of politics.

[Leighton]

It's founder and initial leaders were consistent with their message and to this day it has remained the same.

Tim,

As I mentioned in my last post in the other thread, we can't possibly affirm this with any confidence. I'll get to posting a fuller reply later today when I've finished cleaning up after the cats' nighttime activities.

[cheek]

Sorry to invite the trolling, Greg. The example I gave of Republicans being tribal could easily be applied to Democrats, Libertarians, and Greenies as well. My point was about the psychology of belief and the weird-ass way in which people will ignore all manner of evidence if it threatens the validity of their allegiances.

Jay, its being a "legit argument" would depend on the quality of the induction. To measure that, I would compare the relative liklihood of possible explanations for their behavior. When I have a choice between believing they acted in an intuitively weird way that has nonetheless been fairly common in history and an event that seems to defy the expectations derived from the combined force of all human experience, like resurrection, the argument doesn't seem too legit to me.

[Reality Check]

I was replying to the Cheek comment about "polling active REPUBLICANS" about WMD's

Whatever extensive proof there was that they didn't exist was obviously missed by leading democrats as well.

Sorry the clarification led to so much confusion.

[Leighton]

The Bible appears to be the only book in history where a clear message is answered with "So what if they said it, it's not really what they meant. And they probably didn't say it anyway."

But I do want to shoot this down quickly--every religious book, every work of mythology, every work that presumes to give an account of history is treated this way by people who study them for a living. Every last one, without a single exception.

The reason you don't hear about others being publicly questioned is that nobody tries to post the great monologues of Agamemnon in courthouses, nobody is trying to mandate readings of the Lotus Sutra in schools, nobody uses Merchant of Venice or Titus Andronicus to argue that Jews and African Americans are inherently untrustworthy, and nobody with any kind of position of authority in the U.S. says of any book other than the Bible, "This book is authoritative," by which they [the leaders] almost always mean "You should listen to me and vote the way I say you should." It's pure politics, with no connection to the way scholars actually treat the works themselves.

[cheek]

My point, Reality Check, is that even now, most Republicans believe. I agree with you that the majority of Democrats in Congress back at the beginning were gutless wonders.

[Jon Xlin]

Wasn't there some documents that were floating around with sayings of Jesus that were circulating long before Paul's letters.And didn't many of many of these sayings make it into the gospels we have today?

Can't we garner some of the thoughts of early Christianity from those?

[Leighton]

Wasn't there some documents that were floating around with sayings of Jesus that were circulating long before Paul's letters.And didn't many of many of these sayings make it into the gospels we have today?

There's the hypothetical source Q with sayings that supposedly made it into Matthew and Luke, but we've never actually seen a copy of that.

Some scholars claim that a version of the Gospel of Thomas predates the canonical gospels, but I haven't looked closely those arguments, and there's no significant overlap between the sayings in GThom and the canonical gospels anyway.

So, long story short, there's not a lot we can use for that particular purpose. Give it a few decades, though; we occasionally come up with some surprising finds in earthenware jars buried in the sands, or in caves somewhere.

[Leighton]

Going to address some more Christian supremacist propaganda before I head out for lunch:

We, obviously, do not have first-hand knowledge of these events but the absence of first hand knowledge hasn't stopped people like Hawking and Dawkins from informing the rest of us (with odd certainty) about what happened millions of years ago.

Tim,

Which parts of my comments to bobstevens in this thread do you disagree with? There's nothing the least bit odd about being confident of our models of the early universe. Remember that confidence is different than certainty. Certainty is a non-cognitive experience that has no place in any coherent epistemology.

There will always be questions, but Jesus was a historical figure who's teachings revolutionized the Roman empire, ...

...eventually, after Constantine made Christianity the state religion in the 4th century.

...initiated the largest religious movement in history...

If this mattered, which it doesn't, I'd like to see the figures recalculated after disqualifying Christianity and Islam for proselytizing at swordpoint.

During that time, the central message is just as it appeared in the earliest accepted texts (by "accepted" I mean canonized)

"Central message" is weaselly language, since I've never seen it mean anything other than "That which wasn't changed during the substantially documented alterations to the works that eventually became canonical in the early centuries CE." Which specific things are you thinking of?

As far as Christianity, the evidence is just to overwhelming to chuck it into the pile of failed movements and questionable events.

You never just "discard" a living religion. This has nothing to do with the evidence concerning its origins, and everything to do with relating to the living, breathing people you share the world with.

It's founder and initial leaders were consistent with their message and to this day it has remained the same.

This is objectively, factually false. Differences between Pentecostals and Eastern Orthodox Christians dwarf many differences that were grounds for excommunication from small-c catholic church.

I wasn't there, but if that's my only criteria for belief then I can pass on anything that happened before 1971.

"Someone said they saw it, therefore it's true" makes a very bad general rule both for living life and for doing history. You need to be able to examine the testimony against something else. It's that which we're lacking in the case of the resurrection.

This is only a problem if evidence is your only criteria for belief. It never is, since there's more to faith than doing history.

[lacochran]

Interesting post. See connected but much simpler view at http://lacochran.blogspot.com

[Dallas Tim]

What I believe and what a document like say, the Nicene Creed says are more than similar... they are virtually exact. That creed is from approx. 325 A.D. Those tenets mirror the teachings of Paul whose letter came within a generation of Jesus Himself. Very coincidental indeed.

Sure there were disagreements, debates, sectarian divisions. Those were recorded even during the time of Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels. Even the disciple's disagreements were documented in the very texts that proclaim unity in the Kingdom of God through Christ.

You assume a vast known-world conspiracy of leaders who wanted to quash all other voices save their own? You assume that no one could have been interested in what the truth was. Were any of the early fathers interested in the actual life and message of Jesus, Peter, Paul? Not according to your explanation. We have to believe, according to your theory, that every document we have is the doctored result of a movement not interested in truth but in power. These are the very followers who were burned at the stake, killed in the colliseum and various other forms of death. Rome tried for the first two to three centuries to extinguish this fire and then Constantine eventually dubbed it the official religion.

Yet somehow the insiders of the movement were able to eliminate all competition so that our current texts are only the ones "they wanted us to see." I agree that they tried to silence the heretics, but according to almost every early source that criticism was based on getting and and preserving the truth of the Christian faith.

The writings on Clement, Origen, Ignatius, Tertullian, Chrystostom, et al... were all centered around the expansion of the message of Jesus as we have it in our current Bible. Sure they went out of a few limbs as humans always due, but what they were teaching and what we believe today (Dispensationallism vs. Covenant Theology aside) are still very close.

The early "Central message" has remained in tact and the early writings of the men who wrote them are proof enough. Heretics were villified and silenced but only because the truth was important.

[Dallas Tim]

wow - no spell check - sorry...

[Leighton]

You assume a vast known-world conspiracy of leaders who wanted to quash all other voices save their own?

Not known-world; just small-c catholic church leaders. I don't assume this; I read the writings of the Church Fathers themselves.

You assume that no one could have been interested in what the truth was.

They were all interested in what the truth was. It's just that they didn't agree what it was.

We have to believe, according to your theory, that every document we have is the doctored result of a movement not interested in truth but in power.

It's more relevant, in my view, that dissenting views were censored, and the records of them mostly destroyed; this is not questioned by anyone. This doesn't mean the contents of the surviving books are necessarily false, but from the standpoint of someone who doesn't find the claim of the resurrection plausible, the destruction of opposing views is mighty suspicious coming from people who supposedly had nothing to hide and everything to tell.

Regarding "doctored" works, seriously, read Metzger sometime. There are plates where you can see with your own eyes the changes early Christians made to some of their texts. You can argue (and many, many scholars do) that these changes don't alter the central meaning of the text, but the changes are there, in fact, plain as the noses on our faces.

These are the very followers who were burned at the stake, killed in the colliseum and various other forms of death. Rome tried for the first two to three centuries to extinguish this fire and then Constantine eventually dubbed it the official religion.

Yet somehow the insiders of the movement were able to eliminate all competition so that our current texts are only the ones "they wanted us to see."

Yes, exactly. Persecution wasn't nearly as systematic as hagiographers like Eusebius claim; Christians became very good about worshipping in secret. Most trials of Christians were ceremonial, and by the third century were more often about political disputes and personal grievances with the charge of Christianity used as a still technically legal pretext.

I agree that they tried to silence the heretics, but according to almost every early source that criticism was based on getting and and preserving the truth of the Christian faith.

Nobody disputes (so far as I know) that the church fathers sincerely believed they were upholding the truth. My point is that we know from all our experiences with politics that power corrupts not just behavior, but an understanding of our actions. Being bishop of a church was a position of considerable social prestige--not mainstream prestige until Constantine, but authority over the life and salvation of every parishoner. That's a terrifying amount of influence to have. I wouldn't trust myself with it; why would I trust it to the judgment of anyone else?

The writings on Clement, Origen, Ignatius, Tertullian, Chrystostom, et al... were all centered around the expansion of the message of Jesus as we have it in our current Bible.

Yes, because they were all little-c catholic. Throw in the writings of Marcion, Valentinus, Pelagius, and the Ebionites, and suddenly early Christianity isn't univocal any more. Never mind that there were substantial disputes about the canon even after Nicea. The Egyptian Church considered the Gospel of Peter canonical until at least the sixth century.

The early "Central message" has remained in tact and the early writings of the men who wrote them are proof enough.

Proof enough for what? For you to continue believing? Absolutely. You have life experience corroborating your beliefs, which is something no historical study can take away from you. For someone who doesn't have those experiences and is just looking at what's left of the physical evidence, though, it's barely even a case, let alone a convincing one.

[Leighton]

I do want to be clear that there were certainly other causes to the disappearance of other early Christian groups than direct opposition by the church fathers (probably the Romans did more to eliminate the Marcionites and the Ebionites), but small-c catholic church took great pains to weed out the Gnostics among them and destroy their works.

[Leighton]

Heh, spellcheck wouldn't have caught "in tact" anyway. Stupid software. When I was in college, the MS Word (6.0 I think) spellchecker would autocorrect "Cyprus" to "cypress," which drove a friend of mine from Cyprus absolutely crazy.

[Jeff]

D.T.,
"What I believe and what a document like say, the Nicene Creed says are more than similar... they are virtually exact. That creed is from approx. 325 A.D. Those tenets mirror the teachings of Paul whose letter came within a generation of Jesus Himself. Very coincidental indeed."

Why is this coincidental? You choosing to believe a 1800yr old creed, and it's writers believing a guy dead for 350yrs, is not coincidental. I could decide to believe what someone said 5000yrs ago and it wouldn't be a coincidence. It would be coincidental if you independentally created a belief system, and discovered later that it already existed.

[Jon Xlin]

I think he was being facetious Jeff. He said coincidental to point out that he thought that it was anything but.

[Dallas Tim]

Leighton,

If the leaders were truly interested in the truth, the actual historical events and words, then were did what we have come from?

OUr current texts (Gospels, Epistles, etc... the NT) reflect actual events and words. These originated from the very founder and initial proponents of the movement.

The founder of the movement was pretty big on truth, and yet his followers and those who compiled the written record choose to not take the first hand accounts of people like James, Peter, John, and eventually Paul (who went as far as correcting Peter himself)?

You conclude that we have reason to doubt this record even though the men were (as you earlier mentioned) determined to stay true to the original message. Were they not able to study the accounts of the early followers? What about the teachings of Peter and the rest? Were thay not competent enough to teach the truth and make sure that the records of these events were correct, seeing as this was the message of God incarnate, the King of the universe?

Now, the answer to many may be "no" they were not indeed able to sift through all of the data and then determine based on first hand accounts (as the message spread) what actually happened, but if you read early writings of people like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Athanasius, etc... we have variations about certain things (remember this was a developing movement that was just beginning in a world where information took weeks, months and years to make the rounds) and those were taken very seriously by those in authority and councils were convened to make sure that the truth was maintained and taught.

Yes, there were men like Marcion, but there are men like Fred Phelps even today and we try and shut them up because they're idiots and if that doesn't work we just have to ignore them as best we can.

The issue isn't that there were men like Marcion, but that inspite of their foolishness, the leaders of the Chruch held councils that codified the message and made sure the riff-raff was trimmed away (I wish they had done the same with dispensationalism as well, but that didn't show up until the anti-semitism of men like Darby really took hold in certain part of the Church). Anyway...

I don't mind that fact that changes took place. Especially the ones that took place early on. Correcting dates, places, words (you may say in attempt to quash opposing views, but I can just as confidentally assert that it was to make sure the truth was kept entact) was helpful and even demanded with regards to something as vital as the message of Christianity.

Your last comment about my faith playing a part is absolutely correct. My faith must take it's place, but that place is alongside a hisorically sound movement whose beginnings, formation, writings (errors and corrections included) and development have been the subject of the most intense scrutiny since the dawn of time and whose message is virtually a duplicate of the early creeds and patristic writings that accompanied that development.

If we get to lump people like Marcion in with true Christianity, then we also get to lump Piltdown man in with true archaeology and call it all bunk.

BTW, if you're ever in the Dallas area we should get together for lunch.