Print

[Copernicus]

Some people confuse philologists with linguists.  A friend of mine (who considers herself a philologist) once did a survey of linguists on just what they thought a philologist did and how they differed from linguists.  She was surprised at the variety in the responses that she got back.  Philologists are people who study the origin, development, and use of words.  One could legitimately call them "word lovers", but I'll be danged if I know what they really do.  (She used to go nuts when I told her that.)

BTW, the omission of a syllable is call "haplology", although some wags like to call it "haplogy".  

[Cogito]

Anyway. . . back to the thread.

sntjohnny says

Cogito argued that history is filled with people dying for things that they sincerely believed is true. No argument there, however, in Christianity, the people who died were people who would have known the resurrection claims were a lie.

This assumes two points that ought not to be assumed. First, where is the indisputable evidence that the apostles were in a position to know that the resurrection was a lie? It's entirely possible that the apostles themselves were mistaken or deceived. In fact, if they sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected, it's even likely that they were.

Since most of the apostles never claimed to have witnessed a resurrection in the first place, it's impossible that they died for the belief that a resurrection that they witnessed occurred.

It is possible OTOH that they died for the belief that a resurrection which they never claimed to have witnessed occurred. However, even that lesser claim has yet to be demonstrated.

Second, where is the indisputable evidence that the apostles died for their beliefs? We know that the apostles died. We know next to nothing about the circumstances that surround their deaths.

If the apostles actually were tortured and then executed by their Roman masters, for instance, why would the Romans have confided that the apostles never recanted their beliefs before dying? Would it not be in the Romans self interests to lie and to say that, yes, the apostles actually did recant before they died?

Since clearly the apostles themselves were in no position to write about the circumstances that surrounded their deaths and since the people who killed them (if indeed they were killed) would not have written favorably about the circumstances surrounding the apostles' deaths, who then were the people who wrote those accounts, from where does their information come, and why should it be regarded as in the least bit reliable?

[Anthony Horvath]

"Anyway. . . back to the thread. "

Actually, that is not back to the thread.  This thread was meant only to catalog similar instances.  Apparently no one can think of any.  You might wish to deny or dispute that the Christians died for something they knew was a lie, but that wouldn't change the purpose and point of this thread.  I have already said, and you agreed, that thinking anything else means there were some underlying set of events to cause the 'deception.'  I am more than happy to allow that, for that is obviously what I think.  But that is not the point of the thread.

I shall presume from the responses on this thread that it is conceded that no one can think of any substantial example in history where somebody died for something that they knew was a lie.  So, if it is determined in another thread that this is the alternative remaining for the apostles, we'll already have it on record that this is an exceptional explanation, reserved only for them.

[Ragnar]

For the last time, NO ONE IS OR HAS EVER SAID THAT THE APOSTLES DIED FOR SOMETHING WHICH THEY KNEW TO BE A LIE. Get off it already.

[Anthony Horvath]

:)

[Cogito]

This thread was meant only to catalog similar instances. [emphasis mine]

Similar instances to what?

Since no one says that the apostles died for something that they knew to be a lie, what "similar instances" are you referring to?

We don't know why the apostles were killed or even that they were killed.

Since few, if any, of the apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses to a resurrection, we know that they were not killed for refusing to recant that particular claim.

I shall presume from the responses on this thread that it is conceded that no one can think of any substantial example in history where somebody died for something that they knew was a lie.

Very true. No one (and this includes sntjohnny) can think of any substantial example in history where somebody (including the apostles) died for something that they knew was a lie.

Thank you for that concession.

OTOH, we know that lots of people in history (possibly including the apostles) have died for false beliefs that they've held.