Skeptic argument about the apostles motive

[DRDS]

Hey guys. When presenting the case for the resurrection to skeptics I typically see something like this pointed out. These are the common three possible scenarios regarding the apostles willingness to die for the claim that Christ rose from the dead.

1. They died for a lie and knew it (unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive).
2. They were all delusional and crazy (but this would take more faith than any option since you would have to explain how they all had the same delusion and craziness many being at different places and different times).
3. What they said was true. Christ did rise from the grave and is who He said He was.

Well this skeptic whom I've been talking to at a chatroom wanted to focus on the first option. Hey particularly zeroed in on the phrase "unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive". He claims he found a good reasonable motive. I want to know what you all here think. This skeptic claims that the apostles all died for the claim that Christ rose again, they knew it was a lie, but they did so anyway so that each of them and their whole group could be "remembered" for ages to come for their courage, faith, zeal or just to be remembered or have a legacy. He went on to say that it's important to note that in order for any of them to be remembered all of them had to keep silent about the fact that it was all a lie. But if all of them kept true to their tale and seriously tried to convince others that it was true it would keep their memories or their legacy alive. That is his argument, now this is what I'm wondering, was it a common thing for 1st. century Jews to desire to be remembered for generations? Did they commonly make a big deal out of having a legacy? What is a good way to respond to this? I look forward to what you all know, thanks.

[Canuckster1127]

Men don't die for lies. Not 11 men when in many instances a simple word from them recanting would have saved their lives.

The argument of the skeptic makes no sense on several levels. All these disciples of Christ couldn't know what the future would hold. If anything, they were in a despised group that was persecuted and hated. There was no glory in their suffering while they lived or in their deaths. They were looking to the return of Christ and resigned to persecution and suffering. They died not knowing and not seeing what was to come later. Their hope was in Christ. If Christ's resurrection was a known lie and deception, by the words of Paul representing the others, they were of all men most to be pitied. It's one thing to claim one or two men would die for delusion or a lie. It's not reasonable to believe all 11 would without even one recanting when to do so would relieve them of torture and death.

Your skeptic is arguing through the lens of his knowledge of what Christianity became. He's projecting that knowledge upon men who had no way of knowing there would be any "glory" in their names or actions.

[DRDS]

Thank you, that's good, I"ll explain that to him next time I run into him.

[jlay]

Men don't knowingly die for lies.

The only problem with the theory this person presents, is that by the end the disciples were seperated, jailed, scattered, and yet there is never any evidence of one of them recanting their faith or claims. Plus the NT writings are consistent, over the 30+ or so years they were penned. Why would a person attempting to deceive, write for believers to submit to the governing authorities? Anytime their is deceit, it is followed by other corruption. You can examine all cults, religious sects, etc. The evidence of deceit will always manifest itself in other areas. Yet, the NT text, and all other evidence point to a movement rooted in moral excellence.

We also know the Jews wrote critically about the apostolic movement, and yet provided no evidence against the resurrection.
The NT gospels and letters were being highly copied and circulated early on. There would have been plenty of opportunity for critics to dispute the events, such as those on the day of Pentecost, and a variety of other miracles. Yet nothing.

[mandelduke]

If I remember right Jesus appeared to like 300 or 500 people. And Paul was a persecutor of the Apostles. Yet he became the most prominent of all the Apostils.

[DannyM]

People have been prepared to die for something they believe to be true, but nobody is ever prepared to die for something they know to be false.

[Dark Pony]

I've heard the hallucination theory before. The problem is 1 person can have there own hallucination. 500+ people can't have the same hallucination all at once....not possible

From all my studies and just living life I believe a man won't die for something he doesn't truly believe. The fact that we have first century evidence for the Resurrection and accounts 20-25 years after it happened, I believe these men knew whole heartedly Jesus was indeed risen.