Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Seven Words]

So as a clarification: The example of martyrs was not (necesarily) meant to be applied to the question of the vericity of Christianity, rather to argue that Christianity was not established as a means to obtain and maintain political control?

brings to mind a line from Jesus Christ Superstar...."Did you mean to die like this, was that a mistake huh? Or did you know your message then would be a record breaker?"

We've seen in politics, the "dirty tricks" people, of BOTH parties, get caught, and "for the good of the party" fall on their swords...go to prison, etc. Does their willingness to sacrifice for their cause mean the party is not a means to obtain and maintain political control?

Martyrs simply people people really, really believe in a cause. The PTB of said cause may not (often, DON'T) share that dedication to the ideals.

[Cybrweez]

So as a clarification: The example of martyrs was not (necesarily) meant to be applied to the question of the vericity of Christianity, rather to argue that Christianity was not established as a means to obtain and maintain political control?

Yes, and it seemed clear to me.

[rdhopeca]

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

So, if enough of the non-believers die for their non-belief, eventually that will be the One Truth as well? There are plenty of martyrs in other belief systems as well. It just means someone had a strong belief and was willing to die, not that their beliefs were the universal truth.

You're taking something that I am saying in regards to one argument (the idea that the Church was formed by secular power-grubbers) and turning it to a different argument - whether Christianity is superior to other faiths that also have martyrs. That argument has different refutations.

Actually, no. My point is that martyrs prove only one thing: that they were willing to die for what they believed. It has no impact on the superiority of one belief over another, or the truth of what they believed, or the falsehood of anything else. It only proves they were willing to die for what they believed because it was important to them, nothing more.

That belief could just as easily been that the Church, because it is the One Truth, should have political and secular control as well. People die for government idealogy as well, don't they?

And before you go and say anything about how many martyrs there might have been, that is only a product of how many believers you had historically (the more believers, the more chance you might have martyrs), or the beliefs themselves, should they glorify martyrdom excessively.

[rusmeister]

So as a clarification: The example of martyrs was not (necesarily) meant to be applied to the question of the vericity of Christianity, rather to argue that Christianity was not established as a means to obtain and maintain political control?

In this instance, yes.

[rusmeister]

So, if enough of the non-believers die for their non-belief, eventually that will be the One Truth as well? There are plenty of martyrs in other belief systems as well. It just means someone had a strong belief and was willing to die, not that their beliefs were the universal truth.

You're taking something that I am saying in regards to one argument (the idea that the Church was formed by secular power-grubbers) and turning it to a different argument - whether Christianity is superior to other faiths that also have martyrs. That argument has different refutations.

Actually, no. My point is that martyrs prove only one thing: that they were willing to die for what they believed. It has no impact on the superiority of one belief over another, or the truth of what they believed, or the falsehood of anything else. It only proves they were willing to die for what they believed because it was important to them, nothing more.

That belief could just as easily been that the Church, because it is the One Truth, should have political and secular control as well. People die for government idealogy as well, don't they?

And before you go and say anything about how many martyrs there might have been, that is only a product of how many believers you had historically (the more believers, the more chance you might have martyrs), or the beliefs themselves, should they glorify martyrdom excessively.

Hi, Rob,
I get your point. However, the fact remains that you are responding to a comment on the vector of veracity of the religion when said comment was aimed at the question of obtaining secular/political control. Regarding that, it reveals the idea that such people would desire such control and hold it to be of more value than their faith to be nonsense.

I'm not saying that the martyrs are unquestionable proof of the truth of the Faith. However, they are a powerful blow against some of the false ideas floating around.

[rusmeister]

So as a clarification: The example of martyrs was not (necesarily) meant to be applied to the question of the vericity of Christianity, rather to argue that Christianity was not established as a means to obtain and maintain political control?

brings to mind a line from Jesus Christ Superstar...."Did you mean to die like this, was that a mistake huh? Or did you know your message then would be a record breaker?"

We've seen in politics, the "dirty tricks" people, of BOTH parties, get caught, and "for the good of the party" fall on their swords...go to prison, etc. Does their willingness to sacrifice for their cause mean the party is not a means to obtain and maintain political control?

Martyrs simply people people really, really believe in a cause. The PTB of said cause may not (often, DON'T) share that dedication to the ideals.

Again, SW, the bishops (the top-level people) did periodically run up against the problem of truth or death/torture/exile, and unlike modern western politicians, who nearly universally sacrifice truth for power, there are plenty of documented cases where the Christian bishops chose not to, which again, makes nonsense out of the application of the analogy of a modern western political party. Compromise is something that is alien to such people if it means selling out on truth. The large number of bishops on the councils - numbering in the hundreds and being documented, again, makes rather improbable the idea of conspiracy to gain sceular power, especially if you know what a person had to accept and go through to become a bishop in the first place.

[Seven Words]

And many examples of people of other faiths doing so can be found. You seem (I'm not saying you ARE, merely the impression I'm getting) to be saying that your particular faith is a shining example of selflessness and faithfulness, far superior to all others. If that is what you believe, not my place to argue it with you (nor my interest)...but such an assumption of superiority would undermine your arguments (arguments in the logical/debate sense, not vitriolic back-and-forth sense), making them more self-serving rationalizations rather than chains of reasoning from observed fact.

[rdhopeca]

You're taking something that I am saying in regards to one argument (the idea that the Church was formed by secular power-grubbers) and turning it to a different argument - whether Christianity is superior to other faiths that also have martyrs. That argument has different refutations.

Actually, no. My point is that martyrs prove only one thing: that they were willing to die for what they believed. It has no impact on the superiority of one belief over another, or the truth of what they believed, or the falsehood of anything else. It only proves they were willing to die for what they believed because it was important to them, nothing more.

That belief could just as easily been that the Church, because it is the One Truth, should have political and secular control as well. People die for government idealogy as well, don't they?

And before you go and say anything about how many martyrs there might have been, that is only a product of how many believers you had historically (the more believers, the more chance you might have martyrs), or the beliefs themselves, should they glorify martyrdom excessively.

Hi, Rob,
I get your point. However, the fact remains that you are responding to a comment on the vector of veracity of the religion when said comment was aimed at the question of obtaining secular/political control. Regarding that, it reveals the idea that such people would desire such control and hold it to be of more value than their faith to be nonsense.

I'm not saying that the martyrs are unquestionable proof of the truth of the Faith. However, they are a powerful blow against some of the false ideas floating around.

They've certainly never (and I mean never) had any profound "powerful" impact on my "false ideas". If anything, martyrdom only strengthens what I believe. It goes back to the whole "multiple truths" thing you deny. If every martyr act has such power, then every martyr who died in support of a non-Christian faith would have the same "powerful" blow against the "falsehood of Christianity", right?

[rusmeister]

And many examples of people of other faiths doing so can be found. You seem (I'm not saying you ARE, merely the impression I'm getting) to be saying that your particular faith is a shining example of selflessness and faithfulness, far superior to all others. If that is what you believe, not my place to argue it with you (nor my interest)...but such an assumption of superiority would undermine your arguments (arguments in the logical/debate sense, not vitriolic back-and-forth sense), making them more self-serving rationalizations rather than chains of reasoning from observed fact.

No, there's a fair amount of sin in the Church, which teaches that all have sinned, and are sinners, thus making it right when its members do sin - and completely failing to surprise its members with allegations that they sin, whatever scandal you might turn up.

The teachings and premises of this faith, however, really do make it difficult to support the premises that you have put forth, unlike many others. If the whole point of the faith is that the good things of this world, though good, are temporary and not to be loved (excessively), and that we must kill that tendency to sin and selfishness within us, then it is extraordinarily difficult to a) 'get ahead' in any sense of worldly power, or b) having got there, to consistently do things that would run afoul of the teachings of the Church once you've gotten there. In Orthodoxy, even a Patriarch is not immune - and can be deposed by a Synod. (This essentially happened with the last leader of the Orthodox Church of America, for example.)

[rusmeister]

Hi, Rob,
I get your point. However, the fact remains that you are responding to a comment on the vector of veracity of the religion when said comment was aimed at the question of obtaining secular/political control. Regarding that, it reveals the idea that such people would desire such control and hold it to be of more value than their faith to be nonsense.

I'm not saying that the martyrs are unquestionable proof of the truth of the Faith. However, they are a powerful blow against some of the false ideas floating around.

They've certainly never (and I mean never) had any profound "powerful" impact on my "false ideas". If anything, martyrdom only strengthens what I believe. It goes back to the whole "multiple truths" thing you deny. If every martyr act has such power, then every martyr who died in support of a non-Christian faith would have the same "powerful" blow against the "falsehood of Christianity", right?

Apples and oranges, Rob. You are still presenting me as making an argument that I am not making, and from where I stand, it looks like you are just distracting from the point that I DID make by being concerned with whether martyrdom proves Christianity. I have already said that it does not, so fail to understand why you are continuing as if I had said such a thing.

My point is that it is implausible to level charges of desire of worldly gain against people whose tenets are based on denial of worldly gain.

[rdhopeca]

Hi, Rob,
I get your point. However, the fact remains that you are responding to a comment on the vector of veracity of the religion when said comment was aimed at the question of obtaining secular/political control. Regarding that, it reveals the idea that such people would desire such control and hold it to be of more value than their faith to be nonsense.

I'm not saying that the martyrs are unquestionable proof of the truth of the Faith. However, they are a powerful blow against some of the false ideas floating around.

They've certainly never (and I mean never) had any profound "powerful" impact on my "false ideas". If anything, martyrdom only strengthens what I believe. It goes back to the whole "multiple truths" thing you deny. If every martyr act has such power, then every martyr who died in support of a non-Christian faith would have the same "powerful" blow against the "falsehood of Christianity", right?

Apples and oranges, Rob. You are still presenting me as making an argument that I am not making, and from where I stand, it looks like you are just distracting from the point that I DID make by being concerned with whether martyrdom proves Christianity. I have already said that it does not, so fail to understand why you are continuing as if I had said such a thing.

My point is that it is implausible to level charges of desire of worldly gain against people whose tenets are based on denial of worldly gain.

I am directly responding to this:

I'm not saying that the martyrs are unquestionable proof of the truth of the Faith. However, they are a powerful blow against some of the false ideas floating around.

How is this presenting you as saying something you did not say?

[rusmeister]

Simple.
I was defending one specific idea. I wanted to leave open the possibility that it might also defend others (I I didn't want to claim that that was all Christian martyrdom meant). I made that comment AFTER you posted an impression that I had been claiming that martyrdom proves Christianity, which I did not.

Otherwise, see my previous post. I don't want to go in circles repeating this, and I really think you are kind of set to misunderstand me, no matter what I say. (personal impression, subject to correction)

[Cybrweez]

Yea Rob, I'm not sure why you keep going down a road that rus isn't. He says martyrdom makes it hard to argue the church was built to gain political power, but also the idea of martyrs shoots down some other false thinking, or is a powerful argument against them (while not specifying any of those arguments). You answer, the martyrs never had a profound impact on your beliefs.

Do you see how that's not speaking to what rus said?

[rdhopeca]

In fact, I do. I said, quite clearly, I was responding to a specific thing that was mentioned, that as part of whatever his point was, martyrdom is not sufficient justification for anything, nor proof of anything. That was the only point I was making, regardless of any point he was making.

As someone who has been classified on this board as one of those "uninformed, unlearned, ignorant, unwilling to read up on all he does not know, and therefore incompetant to debate" types, I have been trying to only make points about things that I feel strongly about and can make a halfway decent case for. Sorry if I don't "balloon" those points out to make them apply to your entire arguments, but then I am sure I would again be told that I have not yet learned enough to comment intelligently.

[rusmeister]

In fact, I do. I said, quite clearly, I was responding to a specific thing that was mentioned, that as part of whatever his point was, martyrdom is not sufficient justification for anything, nor proof of anything. That was the only point I was making, regardless of any point he was making.

This means one of two things. Either you are denying my point or your thought is non-sequitur to mine. In the latter case, it would be good to post your thought without quoting/referencing mine. (Then we don't need to go back and forth hashing out that your comment has nothing to do with mine.)

As someone who has been classified on this board as one of those "uninformed, unlearned, ignorant, unwilling to read up on all he does not know, and therefore incompetant to debate" types, I have been trying to only make points about things that I feel strongly about and can make a halfway decent case for. Sorry if I don't "balloon" those points out to make them apply to your entire arguments, but then I am sure I would again be told that I have not yet learned enough to comment intelligently.

On this I can only say "If the shoe fits...". Are these charges true? Are there things that you don't know about, yet comment about? If not, then comment away. If others do think there's something you don't know, they'll tell you - then you can examine the sources, determine whether they are reasonable or not, etc etc.

I think most, if not all of us in modern society, are trained, via schooling and media, to want to feel that we can have an opinion on anything, whether we know about it or not. "Have your say!" "What's your opinion?" "Vote now!" "Your opinion matters!" Such slogans and calls scream at us from every street corner and channel. And we reach out and 'vote' (what a profanation of something that once meant real power!) in all sorts of polls on a great many questions and subjects that we actually know very little about.

As someone who, for example, started learning about Russia by encountering the artificial hatred and bigotry fostered in the military against "enemies", and from there going on to learn the language, marry and ultimately settle down there, and then reading pompous comments from so-called "Russia experts" in, say, the New York Times, or hear them on CNN or whatever, who in fact have little basis outside college courses (themselves questionable) to be called experts, from the inside I see the paucity of their 'knowledge'. But they are, to a great extent, victims of our culture of "everybody's an expert". I can only know that because it became one of the things I really DID learn about.

Christianity is one of the things I really have learned a good deal about, especially over the past six years, and what is remarkable about what I've learned is that it contradicts and proves wrong much of what I had been taught, both as a Baptist youth and as an agnostic adult. At the very least, I have seen how both schooling and media are used to propagate the widespread ideas that I now see to be wrong through genuine experience.

[rdhopeca]

In fact, I do. I said, quite clearly, I was responding to a specific thing that was mentioned, that as part of whatever his point was, martyrdom is not sufficient justification for anything, nor proof of anything. That was the only point I was making, regardless of any point he was making.

This means one of two things. Either you are denying my point or your thought is non-sequitur to mine. In the latter case, it would be good to post your thought without quoting/referencing mine. (Then we don't need to go back and forth hashing out that your comment has nothing to do with mine.)

I'll quote what I like and respond as I see fit, dude. As far as the rest of your post, since I know nothing about Russian experts or the failures of those who comment on them, I'll let it lie as you've requested.

[aliantha]

The trouble with citing facts (noting SW's post as well) is that historians generally include the facts that support their position and exclude (via ignorance or more directly through denial of the fact as fact) those that do not.

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

Sorry for the delay in responding, rus. Work got really busy last week, and my oldest kid graduated from college this past weekend so I've been out of town.

I would disagree with you on two points:

1. Your contention that my idea is predicated on "valuing power, wealth and pleasure in the world", and is therefore false. My idea was actually predicated on the fact that, just like all of us, the early church fathers were human, and therefore fallible. You yourself have observed that we are all human, and therefore imperfect. The idea that imperfect humans can get together in a committee -- in itself, a blatantly imperfect human construct -- and create a perfect religious creed is, sorry, just too hard for me to swallow.

2. As regards Christian martyrs, I agree with what others have said: just because certain people have died for their beliefs doesn't prove the truth of those beliefs. It simply proves that the martyrs believed in the thing strongly enough to have died for it. An example: A doctor who performs abortions continues to run his abortion clinic despite repeated protests, rocks through the clinic windows, etc., because he believes strongly that women should be able to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Then an anti-abortion-rights zealot wires a bomb to the starter of the doctor's car. The next morning, boom! The doc is dead. He's certainly been persecuted for his beliefs. He even died for them. That's pretty much the definition of a martyr, no? And so, by extension, we can say that God supports a woman's right to choose, right? Of course not. All we can say is that the doctor believed in abortion rights so strongly that he was willing to die for them.

[rusmeister]

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

Sorry for the delay in responding, rus. Work got really busy last week, and my oldest kid graduated from college this past weekend so I've been out of town.

I would disagree with you on two points:

1. Your contention that my idea is predicated on "valuing power, wealth and pleasure in the world", and is therefore false. My idea was actually predicated on the fact that, just like all of us, the early church fathers were human, and therefore fallible. You yourself have observed that we are all human, and therefore imperfect. The idea that imperfect humans can get together in a committee -- in itself, a blatantly imperfect human construct -- and create a perfect religious creed is, sorry, just too hard for me to swallow.

2. As regards Christian martyrs, I agree with what others have said: just because certain people have died for their beliefs doesn't prove the truth of those beliefs. It simply proves that the martyrs believed in the thing strongly enough to have died for it. An example: A doctor who performs abortions continues to run his abortion clinic despite repeated protests, rocks through the clinic windows, etc., because he believes strongly that women should be able to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Then an anti-abortion-rights zealot wires a bomb to the starter of the doctor's car. The next morning, boom! The doc is dead. He's certainly been persecuted for his beliefs. He even died for them. That's pretty much the definition of a martyr, no? And so, by extension, we can say that God supports a woman's right to choose, right? Of course not. All we can say is that the doctor believed in abortion rights so strongly that he was willing to die for them.

Hi Ali,
First of all, congrats on the graduation!!

This is the crux of the matter. If such people BELIEVE that what they are doing is right and based on the truth, then it's one thing. If they do not, and are only seeking power or material gain, then it's another. You seem to be talking about the former, I think most here tend to see it more as the latter, and that's what I was speaking to. Thus, the martyrs DO prove the falsehood of the idea that these same people were gunning for wealth and power - and they WERE the same people.

Now if they really DID believe - as I contend, and you seem disposed to possibly agree - then the nonsense is in the idea of them falsifying things to make it come out the way they wanted. If they believed in something that they saw as true, then it would be direct contradiction to claim, generally speaking, that they falsified their claims to make a construct as they saw fit.

Ergo, the idea that the early Christians, including the leadership, were disposed to desire power is wrong. They believed in what they were doing, and in general saw what they expressed as truth to BE the truth. The only problem left is the question of whether it was (is) true or not. if not, you have honestly mistaken people, but not people who manipulated events to reproduce something based on their own wisdom. For here I agree with you. It IS impossible for imperfect humans to form a perfect religious creed. There's one exception - and that is if it actually IS true, if it really IS guided by the Holy Spirit of God. In that case you have an institution that is both a) filled with imperfect, messed-up humans and b) divinely guided and inspired. The intersection of heaven and earth.

I went on about Chesterton's "Everlasting Man" - truly a masterpiece - because it does take the historical facts we were all taught in school, and connects the dots, and the result is a picture. For me, it was the chapter on Carthage that was epiphanic - when I realized that the lame and skimpy explanations in the school textbooks made no sense - that Rome actually did absorb practically every civilization that it conquered. Except one. (I'll leave Corinth out of it.) But then, no one here is going to read it, and a good thing for their beliefs, imo.

On your example of the doctor - I disagree that he is a martyr. There is a big difference between taking risks for which you might be killed (but sincerely hope that you will not and do everything to avoid it) and going consciously to your death with your head held up, knowing that it will happen. (So Dicken's Sydney carton IS a martyr, for example, but such a doctor is not - although he may be a brave soul, it is not the same thing).

[aliantha]

Thanks for the congrats, Rus.

If all of the conditions you mention were in fact met -- if all the committee members believed in what they were doing, were acting on truth, and had divine guidance/inspiration -- then yes, I concede, imperfect humans could create a perfect creed. But again, I'm being asked to take a lot on faith: 1) that nobody had an ulterior motive; 2) that they were in fact acting on The Truth; 3) that there's one God; and 4) that that God was involved in the process. I'm confident that I've established that I'm not on board with number 3, which immediately calls numbers 2 and 4 into question for me. You, and others here, clearly disagree with me. I'm cool with that.

As for my example of the abortion doctor -- well, you're using one definition of martyr and I'm using another.

mar·tyr (mär'tər)
n.

1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3.a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

I'm pretty sure we could go back and forth for quite awhile, with examples of folks who fit your definition, both Christian and non- (what about the 9/11 bombers, who *want* the US to put them to death? But they already sinned by killing people. Well, Joan of Arc led troops into battle -- where does that put her on the continuum? etc.). But I'm on vacation. And anyhow, it wouldn't change the validity of the point that I, and others, made, which was that holding a belief so strongly that one is willing to die for it doesn't say a thing about the truth of that belief.

[rusmeister]

Thanks for the congrats, Rus.

If all of the conditions you mention were in fact met -- if all the committee members believed in what they were doing, were acting on truth, and had divine guidance/inspiration -- then yes, I concede, imperfect humans could create a perfect creed. But again, I'm being asked to take a lot on faith: 1) that nobody had an ulterior motive; 2) that they were in fact acting on The Truth; 3) that there's one God; and 4) that that God was involved in the process. I'm confident that I've established that I'm not on board with number 3, which immediately calls numbers 2 and 4 into question for me. You, and others here, clearly disagree with me. I'm cool with that.

As for my example of the abortion doctor -- well, you're using one definition of martyr and I'm using another.

mar·tyr (mär'tər)
n.

1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3.a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

I'm pretty sure we could go back and forth for quite awhile, with examples of folks who fit your definition, both Christian and non- (what about the 9/11 bombers, who *want* the US to put them to death? But they already sinned by killing people. Well, Joan of Arc led troops into battle -- where does that put her on the continuum? etc.). But I'm on vacation. And anyhow, it wouldn't change the validity of the point that I, and others, made, which was that holding a belief so strongly that one is willing to die for it doesn't say a thing about the truth of that belief.

Maybe this is just being repetitive...

On number 1) I'd say that no, you don't have to think that NOBODY had ulterior motives - just concede that most did not.

on #2+3) That's something that you have to come to (or not) on your own.
However, if there is truth to be found then it is entirely possible that some have already found it.

#4 can be discussed but is contingent on the answer to #2+3.

The critical difference in definitions is all the difference as to why people in ancient Rome should have seen something special in Christianity. A number of pagan philosophies, most notably Stoic, also had people prepared to risk or face death. But they had run their course and failed to provide answers that really satisfied. It was the conscious choice of accepting death (as distinct from suicide) that distinguishes it from mere risk-taking - the point when it is no longer risk but 100% certainty that the choice results in death that disproves the idea that the early Christians were in it for personal gain (which is what I was actually talking about). Agreed that it does not prove the faith itself - that's just beating a dead horse.

Thus, the 9/11 terrorists would be martyrs by their own lights - but even by most Islamic standards they sinned as you pointed out and this distinguishes them from the Christian martyrs; never mind that they took the pro-active actions that directly caused their deaths, rather than accept death at the hands of others for the sake of their faith. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for refusing to renounce her beliefs, and that is why she is considered a martyr in the Catholic Church, not because she led troops in battle.

And for some saints, major portions, if not most of their lives, were led in sin (so pointing out prior sin would be irrelevant regarding saints). The apostle Paul had been Saul, the Christian-killer. St Mary of Egypt lived the liberal dreams of free love with all comers until she was 30 years old. The key point, the cause of change in their lives was repentance – that they really spurned and came to hate the things they had formerly loved or valued – they really saw their ultimately destructive nature.

(Edit) a comment on the definitions of "martyr" that you offer - the 2nd definition is already a smearing that clouds the meaning of martyrdom, and the third definition completes that process - by broadening the definition it makes it relatively more meaningless, making the word mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and thereby making it useless for the purposes of discussion or debate - because we mean completely different things using the same word. It kills precision of thought and effective communication. Thus, the only use of the word that I admit at all is the first definition. Otherwise we might as well just speak gibberish. Doesn't that make more sense?