- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 23,086
- Reaction score
- 2,375
- 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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
To the contrary, he's researched the resurrection more than any New Testament scholar I know of.
We're talking about the Biblical accounts of the resurrection, and the origin of those beliefs, so it's apropos.
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.
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?
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?
It's still more than you have to counter it, Frank!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?