Mageth

How so? None of them were at the tomb when this allegedly took place.

Argumentum ad Nauseum.

This argument is not improving with age, O_F. It sucked the first time you posted it, and it still sucks. It's a bad argument.

Again, there is little evidence to even support the notion that "religious Jews in first-century Palestine willingly died" for their beliefs, esp. the Apostles and others that allegedly witnessed the resurrected Christ.

And no one but you has claimed anything along the lines of "religious Jews in first-century Palestine would willingly die for worshipping a dead corpse." That is a red herring of your own making.

No one here has claimed that the early Christians didn't believe something, nor has anyone here (to my knowledge) claimed that the apostles "lied". Again, a red herring.

The earliest Chrsitians believed something about Jesus, his death, and something about "after" his death. What exactly they believed has been obscured by time. The earliest recordations of their beliefs came decades after the fact. It's quite possible that the legend of his "physical" resurrection grew over time from an original belief in some sort of a "spiritual" resurrection or continuation of life, and was written into the Gospels.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Ok, I know that you are smarter than you seem in this question. They went to the tomb to verify its emptiness and they also witnessed the risen Christ, in the flesh. Now, this best explains why they would die for Him. No one dies for what they know for a fact to be a corpse. That's obvious.

Mageth

Missed the winkie smiley, did you?

This was in response to:

"The Apostles were in the unique position to know for a fact whether or not Jesus physically rose from the dead."

And, while originally said tongue-in-cheek, it does bring up an interesting point:

According to the Bible, no one was there to witness the actual resurrection. (Further, IIRC, the "disciples" were not there to witness the entire crucifixion/death/burial of Jesus. They all ran away and hid, IIRC.)

So, no, there were (according to the Bible) no eyewitnesses to the physical resurrection. What the Bible claims is that 1) Jesus was killed; 2) Jesus was buried; 3) some times after that, some of his followers claimed to have encountered a "risen" Jesus in various places. What happened between the burial and the later alleged sightings is not spoken of.

But the Jesus they allegedly encountered was not described as exactly physical, at least not in the way we currently understand "physical." He would appear and disappear, walk through doors, and would up ascending into heaven. Not things one expects physical bodies to do.

Sounds as much, or more, spiritual than physical.

So the story goes - sorta. Again, it's a story, and not established history, and you should not claim it as a fact. And again, physical "flesh" doesn't appear and disappear, and does not walk through doors.

Claiming the post-resurrection "Jesus" as "physical" and "flesh" is problematic, considering the way that apparition was described in the Bible.

Umm, O_F, have you totally ignored the many times this "argument" of yours has been hammered into dust?

Again, no one has made an assertion along the lines of "the apostles died for what they knew in fact to be a corpse." That is a red herring of your own invention, or borrowed from somewhere else.

Need I even repeat the many problems with this "arugment"? OK; here's some:

1) The tales of the apostles' martyrdoms are largely church tradition, not established historical fact. IOW, the claim that they "died for Him" has little support in the first place. And you have yet to support this assertion.

The Bible says little or nothing about the Apostles' fates - only mentioning the deaths of one or two. And also includes accounts of some of them establishing churches in Jerusalem, traveling around, etc. The idea that the Jews and/or Romans were entirely hostile to the new sect is itself a "church tradition", and appears to be more invention than fact.

2) If some of them did die for their beliefs, this is not at all unusual in history. Many people have died for "weird" beliefs. Dying for a belief does not make it true.

3) It's quite possible, and quite plausible, that the early Christians developed a belief in a "spiritual" resurrection, from which the fiction of the "physical" resurrection was later created. If early "apostles" died for their beliefs, there were other beliefs available than a "physical" resurrection for them to die for. (Indeed, the Bible includes evidence that points to the fact that a belief in a non-physical resurrection was present in at least some early Christians).

4) The early disciples/apostles believed whatever they believed. No one's claiming that the early Christians didn't believe something. If some of them died for those beliefs, again, that is not at all unusual in history, and does nothing to prove those beliefs true.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The empty tomb is spoken of as are the Apostles in touching the actual flesh of the risen Christ. This is more than a story but history if the Gospels can be trusted as primary source documents. I see no reason why we shouldn't treat them with the same historical standards of all ancient documents. Being religious in nature does not rule out actual facts. Whenever someone doubts the Gospels, this always brings me back to the question of why no one in the first century disputed their historicity.

Not-For-Prophet

Until you have mention of this event from more than one source, it isn't a historical event.

Toto

No historian accepts ancient documents on their face. If you apply historical standards to the gospels, they do not inspire any confidence that they report historical facts. They do not contain a statement from the author(s) as to the source of the information or consistent dates, they do not recount events that can be cross checked with other historical documents, etc.

You can't even show that the gospels existed in the first century. There are no first century documents that even reference the gospels.

funinspace

Yep, I've always found this historical faith book to be interesting...And I treat it by the same historical standards.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/BOD125.HTM

Orthodox_Freethinker

Matthew and John were Apostles of Christ and utilized their own eye witness and memory.

John 19:35
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.


Have you not heard of the Magdalen papyrus?

Furthermore, one mustn't discount the extra-Biblical testimony of their authorship, even if it does not appear until the second century. For example, Iranaeus knew John and recounted that John had authored the fourth Gospel.

We accept the biography of Alexander the Great as generally reliable of a source even though it was written hundreds of years after his death. I fail to see why we should apply a different standard in assessing the historicity of the Gospels, which were written very close to the events described in comparison.

Orthodox_Freethinker

One musn't create a false dichotomy between history and faith. What matters is whether or not the events described in the Gospels historically occurred.

John A. Broussard

[QUOTE]They were? Do you have some contemporary evidence for this statement--not something written decades later?

"Generally reliable!" Will you accept that as a description of how we should regard the NT?

Thank you.