Origins of Resurrection Belief

[Logicman]

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]

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]

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?

 

[ttwtt78640]

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

 

[OrphanSlug]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Logicman]

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

You've had your little joke.

It's still more than you have to counter it, Frank!

 

[OrphanSlug]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Doc Doom]

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]

opcorn:

 

[Doc Doom]

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....

 

[Logicman]

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]

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.

Who wrote the Gospels?

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[Logicman]

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.