there are cases of people dying for falsehoods that they nonetheless believed to be true, but i’m not sure you’re going to find cases of people dying for beliefs they knew to be false.
and even if you did, you’d perhaps find isolated cases of individuals doing so, but in all likelihood not whole groups of people giving their lives for a position they fabricated and know to be false.
but that is as may be: any evidence you have for this claim of yours is obviously historical, and would consist of a litany of alleged facts about these people and the circumstances surrounding their deaths. now, unless there’s documented evidence that these people actually knew they were dying for a falsehood, how would you go about demonstrating that this is what they were in fact doing, and not dying for something they believed to be true?
in short, the historical evidence for your claims that many people have died for lies of their own making (that were also believed to be false at the time of their deaths) is going to be much the same as the christian evidence that the apostles didn’t die for myth they spun themselves.
and those arguments must be judged on their own merits as pieces of reasoning.
so - maybe you can present the case for your claim, above, and we’ll go from there…
[quote=patg]There is no historical evidence of the resurrection (evidence that a historian would say makes a case for it).
this is just false: there are christian historians that find the historical case very compelling…
if you want to make an epistemological claim about the degree of warrant required for reasonable belief in historical claims, then please do so - i agree it’s important to have a justificatory benchmark for such things - but it’s unhelpful simply to say that such a benchmark cannot be met without defining just what counts as meeting it.
[quote=patg]It is purely a matter of faith.
in some sense, sure, just like it’s a matter of faith that the things i read about julius caesar’s battle with vercingetorix have been reliably recounted to me by the writers of the history. but once i make that leap, the truth of those claims can only be ascertained by deduction, induction, and abduction…
look, “faith” isn’t just believing in some proposition without any evidence at all - the apostles weren’t faithless because their belief in jesus wasn’t formed immediately after jesus said “i am the messiah”; the apostles’ faith grew based on the things jesus both said and did, including his miracles, like the resurrection.
faith is supported by reason, it just isn’t determined by it.
[quote=patg] Is there a single history book which states that a person rose from the dead in 33AD?
the bible and many patristic sources.
[quote=patg] Is there any documentation from anyone other than a couple of documents written long after the event and written by those who were already believers?
so i shouldn’t read any books on world war 2 that weren’t written within a year or two of the event, and by veterans of the events that are being written about?
[quote=patg]I’m not saying it is not true but it is clearly *not *in the realm of history.
yes, it is. jesus either rose from the dead or he didn’t. if he did, it’s a historical event (i.e. it is an event that occurs in the history of the world). trying to determine whether the recorded historical facts warrants such a conclusion is precisely the purview of the historian. that is to say, it is one of the historians jobs to argue from recorded historical fact to un***recorded historical fact. and those conclusions are history***.