• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Origins of Resurrection Belief

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What are the factual origins of the disciple's belief that Jesus was resurrected?

Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig confirmed that Dr. Gary Habermas, another New Testament scholar, recorded 1400 different scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) of whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive / resurrected. 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

The belief by the disciples was (1) sudden; (2) profound; and (3) life-changing.

Christian traditions (i.e. early church sources, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, etc.) show most of the original disciples of Jesus having been martyred for their faith in Jesus.

What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection? If you say they copied it from the "Q" source document (a speculative and IMO a thoroughly discredited hypothesis for which there is zero manuscript evidence), then where did Q get the belief from?

If you claim the resurrection was based on mythical deities (Mithra, etc.), then you need to show compelling evidence about WHO SPECIFICALLY COPIED WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and hopefully why. Just belching out "They copied it from the Osiris story" isn't going to cut it. You have to show some evidence and direct linkage, otherwise all you have is an unfounded hypothesis.

So, how did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about? What's responsible for it? The New Testament says it came about by the actual resurrection of Jesus, and that alone seems to explain the change in the disciple's thinking, beliefs, and actions. The best explanation for that - "Occam's Razor" - is, IMO, the resurrection.
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What are the factual origins of the disciple's belief that Jesus was resurrected?

Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig confirmed that Dr. Gary Habermas, another New Testament scholar, recorded 1400 different scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) of whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive / resurrected. 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

The belief by the disciples was (1) sudden; (2) profound; and (3) life-changing.

Christian traditions (i.e. early church sources, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, etc.) show most of the original disciples of Jesus having been martyred for their faith in Jesus.

What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection? If you say they copied it from the "Q" source document (a speculative and IMO a thoroughly discredited hypothesis for which there is zero manuscript evidence), then where did Q get the belief from?

If you claim the resurrection was based on mythical deities (Mithra, etc.), then you need to show compelling evidence about WHO SPECIFICALLY COPIED WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and hopefully why. Just belching out "They copied it from the Osiris story" isn't going to cut it. You have to show some evidence and direct linkage, otherwise all you have is an unfounded hypothesis.

So, how did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about? What's responsible for it? The New Testament says it came about by the actual resurrection of Jesus, and that alone seems to explain the change in the disciple's thinking, beliefs, and actions. The best explanation for that - "Occam's Razor" - is, IMO, the resurrection.

I would change those last two words to, "...because they wanted to think the guy had been resurrected."

I think Occam's Razor is a useless philosophic tool...but that is where the razor would lead in my opinion. Much more surely than to "...the resurrection."
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I would change those last two words to, "...because they wanted to think the guy had been resurrected."

You have a hypothesis there, Frank.

And WHY did they want to believe he was physically resurrected?

I'd like posters in this thread to have something more than just hypotheses. I want them to have some meat to their arguments. Do you have any?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,370
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dr. Gary Habermas is a historian and a "philosopher of religion" but what he is not is a objective source for proving the resurrection.

Just about everything on that page is a reference to biblical account, and where not the attempt is to blend in "medical" data and thought exercise based conclusion to what ultimately is a biblical story. One that was never intended to be treated in the same manner as an academia based process of proof.

To engage in debate on these points ultimately takes us back to the same problem, trying to bridge the gap between a system of belief and a system of process. When the entire point of religion, in this case the Bible and Christianity, is to believe in something without looking to "prove it" in the context of academia.
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have a hypothesis there, Frank.

And WHY did they want to believe he was physically resurrected?

I'd like posters in this thread to have something more than just hypotheses. I want them to have some meat to their arguments. Do you have any?

As much as you had when you used "...the resurrection" as the closing words to that sentence, Logicman.

Why do you want me to come up with more beef than your hamburger had?
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
9,733
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What are the factual origins of the disciple's belief that Jesus was resurrected?

Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig confirmed that Dr. Gary Habermas, another New Testament scholar, recorded 1400 different scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) of whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive / resurrected. 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

The belief by the disciples was (1) sudden; (2) profound; and (3) life-changing.

1: Christian traditions (i.e. early church sources, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, etc.) show most of the original disciples of Jesus having been martyred for their faith in Jesus.

What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection? If you say they copied it from the "Q" source document (a speculative and IMO a thoroughly discredited hypothesis for which there is zero manuscript evidence), then where did Q get the belief from?

If you claim the resurrection was based on mythical deities (Mithra, etc.), then you need to show compelling evidence about WHO SPECIFICALLY COPIED WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and hopefully why. Just belching out "They copied it from the Osiris story" isn't going to cut it. You have to show some evidence and direct linkage, otherwise all you have is an unfounded hypothesis.

So, how did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about? What's responsible for it? The New Testament says it came about by the actual resurrection of Jesus, and that alone seems to explain the change in the disciple's thinking, beliefs, and actions. 2: The best explanation for that - "Occam's Razor" - is, IMO, the resurrection.

I question point 1. What factual proof is there that most of the original disciples were martyred?

Point 2: You're entire argument here seems to be based on a big argument from ignorance. "Well you can't give me a 100% accurate representation of everything that happened therefor we have to believe this story".

Even if we get to the point where you have proven 100% that there were 12 disciples that followed Jesus and were all martyred for their faith, and that they all seemed certain of the resurrection, that still doesn't lead us to the conclusion that they most probable explanation is an actual resurrection. It just tells us that we found 12 people that really believed a story, and we have countless examples of people being firm in their beliefs yet being incredibly wrong. Happens all the time.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
9,733
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You have a hypothesis there, Frank.

And WHY did they want to believe he was physically resurrected?

I'd like posters in this thread to have something more than just hypotheses. I want them to have some meat to their arguments. Do you have any?

We have countless examples of humans being fervent in their beliefs even when they are wrong. We don't have any examples of an actual resurrection that I'm aware of.

So you're essentially asking "why do you think that this explanation, for which we have hundreds of examples, is more likely than this explanation, in which we have zero recorded examples of?"

This is exactly what you do in every thread. You make a weak argument from Habermas, then twist the entire argument to put the burden of proof on everyone except your argument.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why would such similar prior "descendent of god" stories not plant the idea that a resurection was the "logical" explanation for an empty tomb?

5 Near-Identical Jesus Christ Myths That Predate Jesus

10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus - Listverse

Well for one thing the prophecies about Jesus were first seen in the Old Testament.

Second, and again, what you have is a theory / hypothesis, without any evidence the disciples copied from the pagan deities.

And third, those claims have been discredited.

23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.c...-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dr. Gary Habermas is a historian and a "philosopher of religion" but what he is not is a objective source for proving the resurrection.

To the contrary, he's researched the resurrection more than any New Testament scholar I know of.

Just about everything on that page is a reference to biblical account, and where not the attempt is to blend in "medical" data and thought exercise based conclusion to what ultimately is a biblical story. One that was never intended to be treated in the same manner as an academia based process of proof.

We're talking about the Biblical accounts of the resurrection, and the origin of those beliefs, so it's apropos.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
As much as you had when you used "...the resurrection" as the closing words to that sentence, Logicman.

Why do you want me to come up with more beef than your hamburger had?

Listen, whether you want to regard them as such or not, I have historical sources - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc. You have what sources?
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I question point 1. What factual proof is there that most of the original disciples were martyred?

Point 2: You're entire argument here seems to be based on a big argument from ignorance. "Well you can't give me a 100% accurate representation of everything that happened therefor we have to believe this story".

Even if we get to the point where you have proven 100% that there were 12 disciples that followed Jesus and were all martyred for their faith, and that they all seemed certain of the resurrection, that still doesn't lead us to the conclusion that they most probable explanation is an actual resurrection. It just tells us that we found 12 people that really believed a story, and we have countless examples of people being firm in their beliefs yet being incredibly wrong. Happens all the time.

Believe what you want, but even if they weren't martyrs, the question remains: How did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about? Who or what's responsible for it? The New Testament says it came about by the actual resurrection of Jesus, and that alone seems to explain the change in the disciple's thinking, beliefs, and actions.

I have independent, historical sources. You have WHO exactly to contradict it?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,370
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To the contrary, he's researched the resurrection more than any New Testament scholar I know of.

Exactly, it makes sense for him to try to bridge the academia gap (that you cut out of my post.) Does not mean we have to agree with him.

We're talking about the Biblical accounts of the resurrection, and the origin of those beliefs, so it's apropos.

Again... exactly. We are talking about systems of belief here, not a system of process. That is the whole point of belief, being able to do so despite evidence to the contrary. Appropriate in the area of theology, rather useless in the area of philosophy.
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Listen, whether you want to regard them as such or not, I have historical sources - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc. You have what sources?

Okay...enough kidding around about "historical" sources.

You've had your little joke.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,370
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Believe what you want, but even if they weren't martyrs, the question remains: How did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about? Who or what's responsible for it? The New Testament says it came about by the actual resurrection of Jesus, and that alone seems to explain the change in the disciple's thinking, beliefs, and actions.

I have independent, historical sources. You have WHO exactly to contradict it?

Actually, the whole idea of resurrection was a bronze age myth (one of many.) Long before Christianity knew what it was missing out on, images of a resurrection (and several other myths that made their way into Christianity also) appeared as Egyptian inscriptions on the Luxor Temple around 1400 BC.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
79,306
Reaction score
47,115
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Listen, whether you want to regard them as such or not, I have historical sources - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc. You have what sources?

The Bible isn't proof the bible is right. We did this song and dance before. The bible was CO.liked much later and it's books were specifically chosen. You need something outside the bible to point to the bible being right.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
9,733
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's still more than you have to counter it, Frank!

And there ya go. Doesn't want to honestly defend his evidence, but rather continues to ask for evidence disproving his claim.

It's like arguing that Zeus is clearly the best reason for lightning because we don't currently have a better explanation. No, it doesn't work that way. If you want to claim Zeus as the explanation you need to provide evidence rather than keep twisting it to "well do you have evidence Zeus?"

Logic, we don't need a competing idea and we don't need proof for a competing idea. You need to provide clear evidence for yours. Four anonymous sources, for which we have no originals, and that we know have been changed over time by scribes as they continually copied and translated it, is not enough evidence to support a resurrection. It's just not. When a historical document claims a miracle occurred, that the natural laws that govern our universe were broken, then we can't just say "Ok, good enough".
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,126
Reaction score
12,782
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Elvis died in August, 1977. There is no question that he died and was buried.

Hundreds of people spotted Elvis after his death, in some cases years after.

The only possible conclusion we can draw is that Elvis is also the Son of God, and he should be worshipped as an equal to Jesus.

Obviously, we will have to revise the Trinity. I vote we call it The Squares.

Edit: Better yet, let's call it the Pyramid Scheme. Elvis at the top of the pyramid, the other three at the bottom.

Maybe I have to sketch it out. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:

Doc Doom

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
68
Reaction score
20
Location
Souhern US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Believe what you want, but even if they weren't martyrs, the question remains: How did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about? Who or what's responsible for it? The New Testament says it came about by the actual resurrection of Jesus, and that alone seems to explain the change in the disciple's thinking, beliefs, and actions.

I have independent, historical sources. You have WHO exactly to contradict it?

I have independent, historical sources. You have WHO exactly to contradict it?

Then post them and stop talking about it! Geeessh! You want people to believe you without so much as a question....Then get all pissed off when they contradict what you say. Your worst than a two year old that does not get its way.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
29,453
Reaction score
12,885
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Doc Doom

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
68
Reaction score
20
Location
Souhern US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Listen, whether you want to regard them as such or not, I have historical sources - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc. You have what sources?

Historical sources? OK...lets start with Mark being the first Gospel...Marks original writing never contained the resurrection story it was added later. Marks story was later changed by Matthew and Luke...The oldest manuscript for the NT is the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and neither have the ending of Mark in them. And neither record the resurrection.

Paul asserts that jesus was crucified yet there is no mention of it in the Gospels.

Pauls account of the resurrection contradicts the Gospels.

The problem with Mark is that he was not an eye witness to the account. Mack Burton a "Chrisitian Scholar" says this:

“There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material” (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87) I have this book you should read it.

Paul was the earliest Christian writer yet he does not reveal any details that were recorded in the Gospels....Why? If Paul was the earliest writer then he has to be relating tradition yet there is not mention of it in the Gospels....Why again?

Again going back to Paul....He totally contradicts the Gospel writers:

See 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

What are the problems with this?

Firstly there was never a third day prophecy in the Old Testament.
Secondly where is your evidence that 500 people saw Jesus? Do you have statements or writings from any of these?
Back to Paul, Paul says Jesu first appeared to Peter yet the Gospels claim he appeared to women!
Peter did not believe Jesus resurrected..
Paul says Judas did not hang himself and was still alive....This totally contradicts Matthew 27:5
Again to Paul. he describes Jesus as spiritual yet the Gospels claim he was physical....Why

No there are plenty of holes in this story if you look at it without blinders on....Pauls accounts are damaging to the Gospel writers without doubt. Paul and the Gospel writers contradict each other at every turn......

Does all this make it not historical? No. But it casts doubt on the entire story as a whole....
 
Last edited:

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually, the whole idea of resurrection was a bronze age myth (one of many.) Long before Christianity knew what it was missing out on, images of a resurrection (and several other myths that made their way into Christianity also) appeared as Egyptian inscriptions on the Luxor Temple around 1400 BC.

Please read the OP. If you think Christianity copied this from the Egyptians please provide evidence.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
19,292
Reaction score
1,934
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Historical sources? OK...lets start with Mark being the first Gospel...Marks original writing never contained the resurrection story it was added later. Marks story was later changed by Matthew and Luke...The oldest manuscript for the NT is the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and neither have the ending of Mark in them. And neither record the resurrection.

Paul asserts that jesus was crucified yet there is no mention of it in the Gospels.

Pauls account of the resurrection contradicts the Gospels.

The problem with Mark is that he was not an eye witness to the account. Mack Burton a "Chrisitian Scholar" says this:

“There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material” (Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 87) I have this book you should read it.

Paul was the earliest Christian writer yet he does not reveal any details that were recorded in the Gospels....Why? If Paul was the earliest writer then he has to be relating tradition yet there is not mention of it in the Gospels....Why again?

Again going back to Paul....He totally contradicts the Gospel writers:

See 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

What are the problems with this?

Firstly there was never a third day prophecy in the Old Testament.
Secondly where is your evidence that 500 people saw Jesus? Do you have statements or writings from any of these?
Back to Paul, Paul says Jesu first appeared to Peter yet the Gospels claim he appeared to women!
Peter did not believe Jesus resurrected..
Paul says Judas did not hang himself and was still alive....This totally contradicts Matthew 27:5
Again to Paul. he describes Jesus as spiritual yet the Gospels claim he was physical....Why

No there are plenty of holes in this story if you look at it without blinders on....Pauls accounts are damaging to the Gospel writers without doubt. Paul and the Gospel writers contradict each other at every turn......

Does all this make it not historical? No. But it casts doubt on the entire story as a whole....

You don't know what you're talking about.

The OP is based on the New Testament. Don't like it then go make your own thread.

Now where's your explanation of the origin about why the original disciples believed Jesus was resurrected? Let's see that bad boy.
 
Top Bottom