# Can martyrdom still be a valid "proof" for Christi



## Craig (May 19, 2004)

I was listening to a tape earlier today that was about business motivation...and for some reason, the guy talked about religion and how one can't prove whether a sould goes anywhere after death...plus I looked at the pictures of Nick Berg being brutally murdered, and then pondered the homocide bombings by muslims....killing themselves (and others) for their &quot;faith&quot;.

I remember in Christian school we discussed the reliability of Scripture and why we could trust the testimony of the apostles...the appeal was that many died in the spread of the gospel and also the early church was willing to die for this message. In spite of martyrdom, Christianity spread.

Well, muslims like killing themselves or being killed in their desire to spread their venom. There is also an appealling aspect of this &quot;faith&quot; to the world. In spite of the evil of this religion, people are STILL trusting in it and we're finding that Europe is quickly becoming more of a muslim part of the West and no longer a part of the &quot;Christian&quot; West...can we STILL use martyrdom of most of the apostles as evidence of the reliability of Scripture?


----------



## Ianterrell (May 19, 2004)

Well the apostles martyrdom certainly suggests their confidence in the gospel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 19, 2004)

*There's a real difference*

:wr50: Sure we can, as far as any &quot;evidence&quot; can be used to demonstrate Christian truth to people who can only appreciate it by a work of grace.

Anyone who refuses to see the difference between a willingness to die at the murderous hands of an unbeliever--including (or especially, today) an islamic fanatic--and the same fanatic killing himself or dying with his finger on the trigger of his smoking AK-47, is willfuly blind. Martyrdom for the Christian is radically different from &quot;martyrdom&quot; for the jhihadist, or any other violent extremist. The &quot;success&quot; of Christian martyrdom in the very beginning (and ever since when it has croppped up; I'm thinking major, large-scale persecution) has flown straight in the face of worldly wisdom. 

&quot;Huh?&quot; say they. &quot;You're all willing to go like lambs to the slaughter? To suffer and die for the name of this Jesus, a crucified, dead and buried 'messiah' figure? That's madness.&quot; This is the natural response. And by nature the Christian religion should have died out with the apostles.

But we believe in a Heavenly Father, who loves us more than we love our own children, who tells us by Paul, &quot;it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ&quot; (2 Thes. 1:6-8). &quot;'Vengeance is mine. I will repay,' says the Lord.&quot; 

When the Holy Spirit works through that fearless testimony in the mouths of his sheep, his harmless lambs, in the face of merciless hatred--he often melts those hearts in grace, and they decide they'd rather be on the side of the Avenger, rather than the objects of his just wrath. Or they want to know whence came this steely confidence in the face of certain and painful death. 

The muslims range force against force, violence against violence. They recruit from the ranks of the oppressed, promising them glory and favor in a sensual paradise. They believe, and their faith is contagious. People are attracted to and motivated by commitment. Pragmatism (no eternal principles) is a fickle religion, because when nothing &quot;works,&quot; whole societies lose confidence. The bottom falls out. Western nations have officially abandoned Christian principles, and replaced them with power and pragmatism, politics and violence. When persuasion (to adopt our unprincipled way of life) fails, all we have left is armageddon, if we have the stomach for it. 

If that is the choice this degenerate society makes--to go for broke, rather than lose confidence in itself--I pray that Christians will take the principled stance and say, &quot;not with my cooperation.&quot; Because in the aftermath, the society will lose its confidence anyway. In order to deal with that blow to its collective conscience it will turn the knife in on itself. God is not mocked. How will the quiescent church handle itself then? Wouldn't it be better to suffer the scorn of the world now? When, by being a thorn in their side, we might suffer for doing good, and perhaps prevent both calamities?


----------



## Mary (May 20, 2004)

[quote:5425752f8a][i:5425752f8a]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:5425752f8a]
Well the apostles martyrdom certainly suggests their confidence in the gospel. [/quote:5425752f8a]

That has always been my understanding, too. A martyr today, or even in 300 AD, is a different animal than one of the original 11 (Judas excepted) who walked and talked with Jesus. We have historical evidence that 10 of the 11 suffered horrible deaths rather than deny Jesus. And John's life wasn't a cakewalk either...


[quote:5425752f8a]
within a non-Christian worldview....nope. I mean, if I were an atheist I would just point to every other religion who has had martyrs and say that those prove thier religion as well. Maybe Mormonism is true because Joseph Smith was martyrd. 
[/quote:5425752f8a]

This is also a good point - I can die for the religion of Me - that doesn't make me a valid God. I guess a non-religious person can claim a sort of mass-hysteria effect on the 11...I just can't imagine going through half of what those men went through and not backing down, unless I knew it to be true...

Although (and I am not up on my Mormon history and doctrine here) wasn't Joseph Smith sort of the &quot;Jesus&quot; figure of Mormonism? In which case, the question would become, how many of the men who walked with Joseph Smith were martyred for their faith?


----------



## Mary (May 20, 2004)

&quot;I think that people would die for something they knew was false in order to promote a political ideal. Maybe they believed that there story would bring down the roman empire...and guess what...it did. &quot;

Ah. Good point. I know someone who's mother self-immolated during the Vietnam War. I don't think she was a buddhist (although I'm sure that's where the idea came from) but rather as an anti-war protest. So her intention was to end the Vietnam War. So, in a way, it worked...eventually.

I guess &quot;intention&quot; is involved on some level. Is Matthew Shepard a &quot;martyr&quot; or is he a &quot;victim&quot;? (Or both?)

Somewhere in there you run smack up against the fact that you believe in what the 11 died for. So faith is involved...

Mary


----------



## Craig (May 21, 2004)

Paul said:
[quote:44b169b864]
within a non-Christian worldview....nope. I mean, if I were an atheist I would just point to every other religion who has had martyrs and say that those prove thier religion as well
[/quote:44b169b864]
That's too bad. When I've been in doubt I have considered saints being martyred and I felt assured that Christianity and Scripture are true. :no:

I think I need to start reading some apologetics material...I'm definitely getting sloppy in my thinking. What are good Reformed apologetic books to read? Not too terribly beginner...something intermediate? Thanks!


----------



## Craig (May 21, 2004)

Thanks Paul! I have the &quot;media budget&quot; this next month (my wife and I switch who gets what each budget period). I am definitely looking into that site.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 23, 2004)

I always understood it that the only reason martyrdom can be used to 'prove' the gospels etc... is that the WRITERS of it died rather than change what they believed. Unless all of them bar John decided to die for a lie (and certainly John suffered!) it is only logical they must firmly have believed what they claim to have witnessed.

Modern Muslim Fanatics going and martyring themselves show no such truth as they were not witnesses to the Qu'rans creation and their deaths only prove that they certainly believed in something. The Qu'ran is also in a different situation because it is all the revelations given to a single man. Because of its very nature there can not be a witness saying 'I saw Allah give this to him without a doubt' and so even if a follower saw Mouhamud recieve a revelation, even if he died saying he was a 'witness', even he can not prove his evidence is trustworthy.

To my understanding I do not believe even Mouhamud had to die for his beliefs...


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 23, 2004)

Yet these men all agreed and died for their beliefs. As I said I did not know if Muhammad was martyred or not but the point is it was one man. He alone saw the revelations. The gospels were written by eye witnesses, and far more than one alone.

You are right, these do not prove that God exists etc... but it gives more weight to saying the apostles wrote what they saw.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 23, 2004)

I see your point but not completly. An atheist looking at it is looking at it differently from the apostles who would have been thinking with a Jewish upbringing. Whether 'Christian' or not it would be hard to imagine people possibly indoctrinated in everything but atheism condemn themselves through dieing for lies.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 23, 2004)

I see your point.


----------

