Obviously, they couldn't dismiss a possibility that he may have just been a prodigy of cleverness. Perhaps some were faking, or weren't all as they thought to have been. Human skepticism knows little bounds.
Dying and coming back to life three days later however is not something a mortal human can do.
So you are saying that Jesus could fake the resurrection of Lazarus but could not fake his own resurrection? The Lazarus story says that Lazarus was quite dead, in fact there was the unmistakable stench of death that overwhelmed the crowd. That's pretty dead. Yet Jesus rose that man from the dead and the disciples were still hesitant and cowardly, but then suddenly they became bold after Jesus rose himself from the dead? So it's possible to rise a rotted corpse from the dead, but it's impossible to rise oneself from the dead?
Did anyone put a gun to those people's heads and inquire? All the apostles were willing to die, and they did. The blood of the saints secure their testimony.
Joseph Smith was martyred for his claims. Does that make them true? Does his martyrdom even give us a good reason to believe in his claims? No, because although he was shot to death, he was not given the chance to recant his claims and go free. He was going to die no matter what he said or did.
The disciples were martyred, but what were the circumstances? Imagine that the line of questioning was this:
Inquirer:
"You were preaching the gospel, weren't you?" *Stands aside to reveal dozens of tools of torture.*
"Don't lie to me, you'll just make it worse for yourself."
Eyewitness disciple:
Well I'm going to die regardless, I might as well appear proud of my beliefs while also avoiding needless torture. "Yes, I preached the gospel!"
This is a scenario where the disciple could know full well that his claim of the resurrection is a lie and yet still will be executed without ever recanting. This scenario is not excluded as a possibility because we have no specific details of the martyrs of the eyewitnesses, and in fact I find it more likely than the scenario that the disciple was given the chance to recant and go free because generally criminals are not given the chance to go free no matter what they say (Christians were wrongfully charged with sedition and also arson after the fires of AD 64, both of which were capital crimes, and no amount of recanting would negate the death penalty). I've heard the claim that the Romans were itching to stamp out Christianity, and thus would've provided incentive for the disciples to recant (such as the promise of clemency), but the obvious question I respond with is this: "If the Romans wanted to stamp out Christianity, why did they allow Paul to write all those letters from prison to direct and organize the churches?" I've never in my life gotten a single response to this, let alone a satisfactory one.
I'm sorry, was that in your original challenge?
I am not obliged to argue against new lines
of inquiry that are off topic.
You aren't obligated to argue against anything. Do what thou wilt.
But yes, it was in the original challenge. The quote of mine to which you are referring is,
Ask yourself how that very brief description of James' death refutes the idea that James completely fabricated the resurrection or the idea that the resurrection was invented decades after Jesus' death.
Observe that in my original proposal I said,
So really we do not have the "Why die for a lie?" argument.
This is presented as a conclusion to my argument. My entire case is summarized as follows:
1.) It generally makes no sense for a group of people to invent a religious lie and then be willing to die for it, so if the disciples were given the chance to recant and go free, yet declined to do so, then that is powerful evidence for their testimony of the resurrection.
2.) Aside from pulpit inventions, there is no actual claim in Christianity that the disciples were given the chance to recant and go free. Therefore premise 1.) is not satisfied.
3.) There is generally no good evidence to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead, so belief in it based entirely on faith, not reason. Furthermore, belief in the resurrection is biased if one refuses other eyewitness testimonies, such as that of alien abductions or Elvis sightings.
And I leave it to you to deduce
4.) There is generally no good reason to accept Christianity over any other religion aside from having been conditioned to believe in it from youth.
If you do not agree that this summarizes the intent of my original challenge, then that's fine with me. The point still stands as an opposition to your worldview, regardless of if I presented it in the correct legal format.
It is said that it was not from whooping cough.
It was related to his adherence to his beliefs.
And Joseph Smith did not die of a cough but rather for his adherence to his beliefs. That does not convince me to believe in anything he said.