This line of reasoning is used by nearly all judeo-christian theologies in order to substantiate their faith. It utilises a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.
The fallacious nature of this argument is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Muslims and Mormons can also employ the same false reasoning to uphold their competing theologies.
I am not citing all early Christian martyrs, I am only citing the witnesses of Jesus resurrection who were martyred for what they witnessed and would not recant. That is the diff. JW martyrs exist because they believe not to take blood and they die for their beliefs. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist martyrs have died for their beliefs, but the examples that I am citing were witnesses. That is why you cannot cite false reasoning or say that it is an argument of ignorance. That doesn't fly for the examples that I cite.
It is also incorrect to presume that the first century martyrs knowingly died for a lie. The fact that they died by such gruesome executions indicates the extent of their conviction in what they believed.
Yes, my point exactly, they did not die for a lie. They would have not died for a lie, if they did, then they were the ones lying. They were the start of the Christian faith. A faith that the authorities did not want to continue.
However, this only goes to demonstrate the folly of using faith as a metric to assess what is truth. Faith allows people to hold conviction in their beliefs without sufficient evidence. As a result, people have died because of holding fast to a belief based on poor epistemology.
Again, they were not martyred because of the conviction of their faith, they were martyred because they witnesses the risen Lord and would not recant or deny what they had witnessed.
Being martyred because of adhering to faulty premises only reveals the fallibility of religious conviction. People can die for being mistaken, which is certainly no indication that what they died for is true. Therefore the martyrdom of the first century Christians can hardly be used as evidence that what they believed in was truth.
Too many witnesses for being mistaken. Many of these people were considered a lower class of society. Fishermen, tax collectors, beggars, women, etc. Yet they all held onto their witnessing of the risen Lord.
" Although both were martyrs, there's a major difference when you are a witness and know that it is false."
Such evidence can only be considered anecdotal and is impossible to distinguish from folklore. That's still not sufficient evidence for God.
This evidence is anything but anecdotal or folklore. There are thousands of pages written about these events.
The above statement negates the unfalsifyiable claim that the martyrdom of the first century Christians can in any way be considered as evidence that the god of the bible exists. If believers of other theologies can have faith based on false beliefs, it leaves us no methodology in order to be able to distinguish the early Christians from any other believer.
Nothing to do with the bible or even religion. Has all to do with what they saw and how they would die rather than say they didn't see it with their own eyes..
For example, the prophet Muhammad many times witnessed an Angelophany as well as many other miracles. He also died a martyr.
The faith of Islam and classic Christianity contradict each other in many ways, yet by the above reckoning they both equally tick the criteria that qualifies as evidence of their gods. This way of reasoning is therefore irreconcilable and defies the laws of logic.
The only way to prove either theological claim would be to supply sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claim was factual. Therefore, testimony from either of the religious fables cannot be considered as evidence, because they both meet the required criteria while at the same time prove contradictory to each other.
As there is no contemporary evidence to substantiate that the early Christians did actually witness the resurrection of Jesus, (a point equally applicable to the assertions surrounding the prophet of Islam) the testimony of their claim cannot be verified one way or the other. It therefore cannot be considered evidence for God.
Many of the early church fathers speak about the witnesses of Christ's resurrection. Thousands of pages are available. Frankly, though, if one cannot see the difference between on being martyred for ones beliefs as opposed to being martyred for what YOU witnessed, then I am only wasting typing time here.