Reasonable belief in the resurrection?

[Holoman]

How is this relevant to Roman persecution? Also, you have not explained why the Romans were trying to stamp out Christianity and yet allowed Paul to direct, organize, and instruct the church by delivering his mail.



The "so what?" is that they were not being martyred for what they knew was a lie. They were being martyred for defiance. Thus there is no reason to believe that the line of questioning by the Roman inquirer included the opportunity to recant and go free, since faith in Christ was irrelevant to the actual crime committed.

This entire thread is about the "Why die for a lie?" argument, and you seem to have admitted that it is entirely debunked. Therefore you have not shown that the disciples' claim of the resurrection cannot be a lie.

The only evidence we have for the resurrection is second-hand, decades-old testimony that is biased and cannot be ruled out as a lie.

I haven't admitted anything of the sort. Like I said, they were persecuted for preaching the Gospel, and they knew exactly the consequences of their actions. Paul's epistles are full of him talking of his persecution in the name of Christ. I think you are just looking for an excuse to dismiss the obvious fact that the were willing to suffer and die rather than stop preaching the gospel.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I haven't admitted anything of the sort. Like I said, they were persecuted for preaching the Gospel, and they knew exactly the consequences of their actions.

The "Why die for a lie?" argument goes as follows:

1. The eyewitness disciples were arrested and given the chance to recant and go free
2. They refused, and were executed

I can grant you that Peter was executed. But please show me WHERE it is stated that Peter or any of the eyewitness disciples were given the chance to recant and go free. I am looking for something like Jesus' trial, but less detail is fine as long as we actually can follow the line of questioning that Peter is being subjected to. How do we know it wasn't something like this:

Roman Inquirer: Admit that you were preaching the gospel or else I'll torture you until you do; you'll die in the end regardless
Peter: Yes, I was preaching the gospel

or perhaps

Roman Inquirer: I find you guilty of sedition and blasphemy of our Roman gods, the punishment for which is execution

Paul's epistles are full of him talking of his persecution in the name of Christ.

And I asked you why exactly the Romans treated him so poorly and yet still delivered his mail while he was in prison. You have not responded, which I take to be an admission that your version of events is not plausible.

I think you are just looking for an excuse to dismiss the obvious fact that the were willing to suffer and die rather than stop preaching the gospel.

If these facts are so obvious then please tell me where to find them - whether in the Bible or elsewhere. Unfortunately I was not present 2000 years ago so I have to go off of historical record.

And you'll pardon me if I don't believe word of mouth from pastors since, as I've already shown, I've caught them lying to support their Bible on multiple occasions.