‘The Gospel Must Be True Or Christians Wouldn’t Have Died for It…’

People using the ‘the gospel must be true or people wouldn’t have died for it’ argument better be careful because that argument can also ‘prove’ the truth of Islam, Hinduism, and a whole range of beliefs few Christians would deem orthodox because people have died for those beliefs too.  Arguments cut both ways and shoddy arguments cut three.

One thought on “‘The Gospel Must Be True Or Christians Wouldn’t Have Died for It…’

  1. Exactly! But there is one vailid argument as we preserve the question of the martyr-like death of some of Jesus’ followers. That’s when often unbelievers or believers of other religions argue (and they do often) that the “disciples hid Jesus’ body”, or, as the Muslim (some, at least) argue, Allah miraculously put a Jesus double on the cross and the “dicsiples knew it”. My response to these arguments is simple: Since when is it human nature of a human trait to die for a known lie? If the resurrection was a lie why would some of Jesus followers, eyewitnesses of his resurrection subject themselves to horrible tortures and ultimately an excruciatingly painful death? Would a witness be tortured and die for a lie he knows is a lie?
    In that we can find a reason for the argument that the “people died for the Gospel” because it is not within human nature, and I suppose it has never been human nature, to die for a known lie. So, the eyewitness testimony should be taken as truthful.


Comments are closed.