Origins of Resurrection Belief

[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....

I don't have all day to go through these (although there's a lot of erroneous info, or "arguments from silence" there), so let's just look at one. You said,

"Paul says Judas did not hang himself and was still alive....This totally contradicts Matthew 27:5"

So, where did Paul say Judas did not hang himself and was still alive? Scripture # ?

 

[Doc Doom]

Who wrote the Gospels?

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

Who did? They are anonymous no one knows who wrote them....

 

[Frank Apisa]

I don't have all day to go through these (although there's a lot of erroneous info, or "arguments from silence" there), so let's just look at one. You said,



So, where did Paul say Judas did not hang himself and was still alive? Scripture # ?

The fact that "the Resurrection" had to be invented is not the worst part of this story, Logicman.

Jesus had to be "resurrected" because he had been put to death. The reason he was put to death is because this god of yours said to humanity, "I will forgive you for offending me (by being human)...but before I forgive you, you must first torture and kill my son."

Doesn't that seem a stretch to you? Doesn't that seem a bit vile, even for someone buying into this particular religious mythology?

"Believe" what you want...but to post this kind of thing in the Philosophy section rather than the Religion section...is the wrong way to go.

 

[Doc Doom]

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.

New Testament? Paul is crucial in the whole mess since he was the earliest writer and closer to the actual event if it even happened. What the disciples believed about the resurrection is irrelevant since none of them were eye witnesses to the actual event.....They are in legal terms second hand hear say.....Without a resurrection and death story christianities entire foundation crumbles....

 

[Doc Doom]

I don't have all day to go through these (although there's a lot of erroneous info, or "arguments from silence" there), so let's just look at one. You said,



So, where did Paul say Judas did not hang himself and was still alive? Scripture # ?

“‘Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.’
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood)…” (NASB)
– Acts 1:16-19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

This is contradicted in Matthew:

“Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ But they said, ‘What is that to us? See to that yourself!’ And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.” (NASB)
– Matthew 27:3-5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

Since many scholars agree that Acts was written in whole or in part by Luke.

I don't have all day to go through these (although there's a lot of erroneous info, or "arguments from silence" there), so let's just look at one. You said,

I guess you don't because in your opinion your right and everyone else here is wrong. First you have to establish if the Gospel writers were actual witnesses to the event which you have not.....

Here is an eye opening posts on Neil Godfreys blog Vridar:
Vridar » Why the Gospels are Historical Fiction

Read it..Or even join the blog which I do not think you will do.

 

[OrphanSlug]

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

How did this belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about?

In post #12, you asked the above. I provided where the "belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about," we have evidence that the Egyptians had the idea of a resurrection granted in a slightly different context more than 1500+ years before the NT was written. The idea appears on inscriptions on the Luxor Temple walls dated around 1400 BC.

I am not saying Christianity directly copied some other system of belief, but I am saying there were many bronze age myths and concepts that ended up in various systems of belief to explain this or that.

The point is there are thousands and thousands of systems of belief that humanity has established over just what we can find recorded (or though some other anthropological evidence.) Many basic concepts on the idea of deity and their interaction with humanity exist across them all.

The idea of resurrection is not original in Christianity... nor is the idea of a man born by an act of God, nor is the idea of a man having various supernatural abilities, nor is the idea of prayer, nor is the idea of service to a system of belief, nor is the idea of sacrament/baptism, nor is the idea of gifts to religion, nor is the idea of religious authority, etc. There is even carry over of some basic concepts from Polytheistic based systems of belief to Monotheistic systems of belief. As in the idea of a creator at all, and the idea of a God (or Gods) in the first place. As we advance we tend to put our knowledge against the prevailing system of belief at the time. We even do that today.

In philosophical terms your Gary Habermas has not proven that Christianity owns the idea of resurrection, nor has he really proved that it occurred at all. All he has done is establish via a system of belief an argument. You problem... still... is the argument that something is fact because a system of belief tells him so. That does not prove anything. You (your source, and plenty of others) are trying to bridge a gap that is inherently adversarial to the entire point of a system of belief. Meaning, to believe.

 

[Logicman]

The fact that "the Resurrection" had to be invented is not the worst part of this story, Logicman.

Jesus had to be "resurrected" because he had been put to death. The reason he was put to death is because this god of yours said to humanity, "I will forgive you for offending me (by being human)...but before I forgive you, you must first torture and kill my son."

Doesn't that seem a stretch to you? Doesn't that seem a bit vile, even for someone buying into this particular religious mythology?

"Believe" what you want...but to post this kind of thing in the Philosophy section rather than the Religion section...is the wrong way to go.

So you claim 'man' invented the resurrection? Still another unfounded hypothesis, Frank? You guys revel in those!

As for why Jesus paid the price he did at Calvary, would you rather it be you up on the cross, or God paying instead for your sins. You get a better offer than that let me know.

 

[Logicman]

New Testament? Paul is crucial in the whole mess since he was the earliest writer and closer to the actual event if it even happened. What the disciples believed about the resurrection is irrelevant since none of them were eye witnesses to the actual event.....They are in legal terms second hand hear say.....Without a resurrection and death story christianities entire foundation crumbles....

None of them eyewitnesses to the resurrection? That's your spin. The Gospels and Acts confirm the disciples all saw the resurrected Jesus.

 

[Logicman]

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".

'anonymous sources'? That's comedic. I've already provided a link with evidence they weren't anonymous.

So, one more post and still no credible, alternative explanation - other than the Gospel accounts - of the origins of the disciples beliefs in the resurrection.

 

[Logicman]

In post #12, you asked the above. I provided where the "belief in the resurrection ORIGINALLY all come about," we have evidence that the Egyptians had the idea of a resurrection granted in a slightly different context more than 1500+ years before the NT was written. The idea appears on inscriptions on the Luxor Temple walls dated around 1400 BC.

I am not saying Christianity directly copied some other system of belief, but I am saying there were many bronze age myths and concepts that ended up in various systems of belief to explain this or that.

The point is there are thousands and thousands of systems of belief that humanity has established over just what we can find recorded (or though some other anthropological evidence.) Many basic concepts on the idea of deity and their interaction with humanity exist across them all.

The idea of resurrection is not original in Christianity... nor is the idea of a man born by an act of God, nor is the idea of a man having various supernatural abilities, nor is the idea of prayer, nor is the idea of service to a system of belief, nor is the idea of sacrament/baptism, nor is the idea of gifts to religion, nor is the idea of religious authority, etc. There is even carry over of some basic concepts from Polytheistic based systems of belief to Monotheistic systems of belief. As in the idea of a creator at all, and the idea of a God (or Gods) in the first place. As we advance we tend to put our knowledge against the prevailing system of belief at the time. We even do that today.

In philosophical terms your Gary Habermas has not proven that Christianity owns the idea of resurrection, nor has he really proved that it occurred at all. All he has done is establish via a system of belief an argument. You problem... still... is the argument that something is fact because a system of belief tells him so. That does not prove anything. You (your source, and plenty of others) are trying to bridge a gap that is inherently adversarial to the entire point of a system of belief. Meaning, to believe.

Can you identify a PHYSICALLY resurrected SAVIOR other than Jesus?

And I'm glad you said that you're not arguing that Christianity copied the resurrection, because that would require some evidence to back that up, and we don't see that in history.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Can you identify a PHYSICALLY resurrected SAVIOR other than Jesus?

By what standard?

If exclusively within the area of systems of belief, I already have. Resurrection of the Egyptian King as Ausar (Osiris,) not as a savior though. But you asked where the concept of resurrection came from, and we have a mythical account of one that predates Jesus by a long way. We are talking about an idea from the time frame somewhere in the 1800-1900 BC range.

Again, in terms of philosophy you have failed to show by question or answer why Christianity owns this concept.

 

[Logicman]

By what standard?

If exclusively within the area of systems of belief, I already have. Resurrection of the Egyptian King as Ausar (Osiris,) not as a savior though. But you asked where the concept of resurrection came from, and we have a mythical account of one that predates Jesus by a long way. We are talking about an idea from the time frame somewhere in the 1800-1900 BC range.

Again, in terms of philosophy you have failed to show by question or answer why Christianity owns this concept.

This thread is not about whether there were resurrection beliefs prior to Christianity, because even the Old Testament mentions them. The specific question in the OP is, What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection of Jesus? We're talking about the disciples here and Jesus. What changed their lives? And their life changes were profound and sudden. It sure wasn't some ancient Egyptian writing that did that. They believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. The vast majority of scholars concede that point.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This thread is not about whether there were resurrection beliefs prior to Christianity, because even the Old Testament mentions them. The specific question in the OP is, What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection of Jesus? We're talking about the disciples here and Jesus. What changed their lives? And their life changes were profound and sudden. It sure wasn't some ancient Egyptian writing that did that. They believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. The vast majority of scholars concede that point.

Then why would you make a thread, in the philosophy section, on the origins of the resurrection belief? To try to confine it exclusively to Christianity means purposeful avoidance of the inherent relationship between all systems of belief. And honestly many concepts from the bronze age that made their way into many religions.

Moreover, the vast majority of scholars may concede the point but would that be based on their own beliefs and because they engaged in the same exercise as Gary Habermas or because someone accidentally made the bridge between systems of belief and systems of process? It is an important question because the fact cuts both ways, the whole point of a system of belief is to believe. Your source did not really make that bridge, no one has proven in terms of science that the resurrection ever happened. The reliance for the event is on the system of belief itself, which I contend is a concept that predates Christianity by at least 1500 years. Your own reference to the OT proves my point more than yours, the idea already existed before it impacted the story of Jesus. Many bronze age myths did.

You could also argue well that all miracles across all systems of belief are supposed to be profound no matter how quickly they materialize in terms of the story.

Other than repeating the mistake that Gary Habermas made, you also made the mistake of opening this up in Philosophy. We have every reason and duty to question using all our scope of knowledge, not some box you attempt to have us operate in to prove a point that is based on beliefs.

 

[Logicman]

Then why would you make a thread, in the philosophy section, on the origins of the resurrection belief?

Myself and others have commented in the past about how easy it is to get in trouble with the powers that be in the religion forum.

To try to confine it exclusively to Christianity means purposeful avoidance of the inherent relationship between all systems of belief. And honestly many concepts from the bronze age that made their way into many religions.

The OP stands.

Moreover, the vast majority of scholars may concede the point but would that be based on their own beliefs and because they engaged in the same exercise as Gary Habermas or because someone accidentally made the bridge between systems of belief and systems of process? It is an important question because the fact cuts both ways, the whole point of a system of belief is to believe. Your source did not really make that bridge, no one has proven in terms of science that the resurrection ever happened. The reliance for the event is on the system of belief itself, which I contend is a concept that predates Christianity by at least 1500 years. Your own reference to the OT proves my point more than yours, the idea already existed before it impacted the story of Jesus. Many bronze age myths did.

Two things: 1. As the OP link mentions, both SKEPTIC and non-skeptic scholars conceded the point that the disciples believed in a resurrected Jesus. And as I asked previously, where is the ancient idea of a PHYSICALLY resurrected SAVIOR, apart from Christianity? It's unique to Christianity, is it not?

Other than repeating the mistake that Gary Habermas made, you also made the mistake of opening this up in Philosophy. We have every reason and duty to question using all our scope of knowledge, not some box you attempt to have us operate in to prove a point that is based on beliefs.

I don't see where Habermas made any mistake, and posters should focus on the specific issue: What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection of Jesus? Do you have anything?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Myself and others have commented in the past about how easy it is to get in trouble with the powers that be in the religion forum.

I have little comment on that other than the Religious section of the forums has those rules for good reason.

The OP stands.

I disagree.

Two things: 1. As the OP link mentions, both SKEPTIC and non-skeptic scholars conceded the point that the disciples believed in a resurrected Jesus. And as I asked previously, where is the ancient idea of a PHYSICALLY resurrected SAVIOR, apart from Christianity? It's unique to Christianity, is it not?

It does not matter that skeptics concede the point on what disciples believed, that still dot not prove that it actually happened. It only proves we can acknowledge the impact of any system of belief on really anyone in history.

And you added the "SAVIOR" qualifier, that does not mean that Christianity owns the idea of resurrection.

I don't see where Habermas made any mistake, and posters should focus on the specific issue: What is the origin of the disciple's early belief in the resurrection of Jesus? Do you have anything?

I do, he is making the mistake of taking a system of belief and making it "fact" by offering "proof" based on the system of belief. The origin for the story of Jesus in totality is the authors of the NT, but that still does not prove all that much in ownership of the concept.

 

[Northern Light]

Yeah, we know that there are many earlier versions of the resurrection story, spanning other cultures. That point has been repeated enough times.

What I want to know is, if we were to hypothetically go back in time to a distant enough point, would we eventually find *THE* original Jesus story, in the real live flesh? The very first?

For something to span so many cultures over so many thousands of years, it was either the best story of all time, or something amazing happened before recorded history and it has become a timeless legend. Either that, or maybe the story originates where all humans originated, and as we fanned out we took the story with us. I don't think that's the case though because we would see alternate versions of it in Asia and we don't

Maybe the Jesus story really did happen, just under another name and in a much older time?

 

[roughdraft274]

'anonymous sources'? That's comedic. I've already provided a link with evidence they weren't anonymous.

So, one more post and still no credible, alternative explanation - other than the Gospel accounts - of the origins of the disciples beliefs in the resurrection.

Firstly, we've been over this. They are anonymous. But regardless, let's say that it's been proven who the authors are, THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH. Are any of these 4 supposed authors well trusted historians? Or are they instead, incredibly biased witnesses?

Secondly, again and again you spin this. I'm not coming up with another claim Logic. If you want to show that your explanation is true then you need to prove it. You can't say "mine is true because you don't have any evidence for anything else" and you can't say "mine is true til you prove it wrong". Those are logical fallacies.

If you just want to say "I believe this because I find it the most likely scenerio" then fine, that's your opinion. But if you want to try to convince others you need evidence, and right now it's very much lacking. If you claim to have 4 accounts, I can easily find you hundreds of accounts of alien abductions, all of which will tell you a similar story. Can you explain to me how 4 testimonies from thousands of years ago of an event that literally violates the natural laws of our universe is good enough evidence to warrant a belief in their story, but hundreds if not thousands of first hand accounts of events that while incredibly unlikely, do not violate natural laws is just not good enough to warrant belief?

 

[RAMOSS]

'anonymous sources'? That's comedic. I've already provided a link with evidence they weren't anonymous.

So, one more post and still no credible, alternative explanation - other than the Gospel accounts - of the origins of the disciples beliefs in the resurrection.

You posted a raw link. However, coudl you please explain what in that link you found convincing?? It looked like , well, unsupported claims and confirmation bias to me.

 

[Logicman]

And you added the "SAVIOR" qualifier, that does not mean that Christianity owns the idea of resurrection.

According to the accounts, Jesus was the Savior, so it's an important qualifier.

The origin for the story of Jesus in totality is the authors of the NT, but that still does not prove all that much in ownership of the concept.

It tilts the preponderance of the evidence in the favor of the NT accounts.

 

[Logicman]

Yeah, we know that there are many earlier versions of the resurrection story, spanning other cultures. That point has been repeated enough times.

What I want to know is, if we were to hypothetically go back in time to a distant enough point, would we eventually find *THE* original Jesus story, in the real live flesh? The very first?

For something to span so many cultures over so many thousands of years, it was either the best story of all time, or something amazing happened before recorded history and it has become a timeless legend. Either that, or maybe the story originates where all humans originated, and as we fanned out we took the story with us. I don't think that's the case though because we would see alternate versions of it in Asia and we don't

Maybe the Jesus story really did happen, just under another name and in a much older time?

According to multiple, independent sources, the story of Jesus did happen. And unlike pagan myth deities, Jesus was a real person in history and his disciples / eyewitnesses were also real people. That sets it apart from pagan myths which have no credible, contemporary eyewitnesses.

 

[OrphanSlug]

According to the accounts, Jesus was the Savior, so it's an important qualifier.

Not in the context of where the idea of resurrection originated, and it sure was not Christianity.

It tilts the preponderance of the evidence in the favor of the NT accounts.

No, it really does not. Belief is not evidence.

 

[Northern Light]

According to multiple, independent sources, the story of Jesus did happen. And unlike pagan myth deities, Jesus was a real person in history and his disciples / eyewitnesses were also real people. That sets it apart from pagan myths which have no credible, contemporary eyewitnesses.

Just because Jesus existed doesn't mean that his story happened. The man and the myth can be two different things, just like those Pagan stories.

I was just postulating anyway. Who really knows.

 

[jet57]

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.

So, have non religious archaeological and historical professionals reviewed this material? And - if they did - what'd they rule?

 

[jet57]

According to the accounts, Jesus was the Savior, so it's an important qualifier.



It tilts the preponderance of the evidence in the favor of the NT accounts.

No, what you have at best, is a minority of circumstantial evidence and that does not make it in science. You're thread here would be better received in the Religious forum.

 

[Logicman]

No, what you have at best, is a minority of circumstantial evidence and that does not make it in science. You're thread here would be better received in the Religious forum.

Well why don't you hop over there and start one?