TedM

If one accepts the premise that Jesus had been a preacher who gained a following but had done something to cause himself to be crucified--

Why did the idea that he had been resurrected not only start, but persist over time?

aa5874

This is like accepting the premise that the earth is FLAT.

Must we PRESUME that stories of the resurrection were invented in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century???

There is NO need to PRESUME/ASSUME anything. We have the Recovered Dated NT Manuscripts and Codices and they DESCRIBED the nature of Jesus that was BELIEVED in antiquity.

Toto

Is the point of your question that the stories of the resurrection do not flow from the history of the preacher who was crucified, therefore there probably was no such preacher?

Is there any point to separating the crucifixion and the resurrection? They are parts of the same story.

jdboy

I think it's a good question. As aa keeps referring to the short ending of Mark which had no resurrection. Why revive a crucified messiah? Is there anything in the OT that supports raising a messiah from the dead?

sotto voce

'"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."' Mk 16:6 NIV

Toto

The short ending Mark has an empty tomb and a resurrection, but nobody knows about it except the women, who told no one because they were afraid.

Paul's letters have both crucifixion and resurrection, although the exact nature of the resurrection is subject to debate.

There are no Christian documents that show anyone knew about a crucifixion without a resurrection.

sotto voce

We don't know that. We don't know that others were unaware. We know that these particular women were afraid, and said nothing, at first, anyway. The author knew what had occurred, so someone must have told him, at any rate.

The author's purpose may have been to pointedly illustrate fear, rather than provide a full chronology. He may well have assumed prior knowledge of the resurrection by his readers.

TedM

I'm not talking about a 'story'.

The premise is of an existing history of a man named Jesus who had been a preacher who gained a following but had done something to cause himself to be crucified. IF that was true history why did the idea that he had been resurrected not only start, but persist over time?

Elijah

Jesus introduced the idea of martyrdom to his disciples and the rest of the world. When people saw his disciples imitate his self-sacrifice, they assumed it could only be from them seeing something that alleviated their fear of death. The line of martyrs was hard to explain at the time without the Resurrection and is still used as evidence of an actual Resurrection by Christians today.

TedM

Most reasonable scholars and ordinary people accept the premise as legitimate history. Most reasonable scholars and ordinary people do not accept a 'premise' that the earth is FLAT.

However, since you don't like the premise you should ignore this thread.