Elijah

I'm saying that martyrdom is the only evidence I could imagine that would lead someone to believe in a literal resurrection. I don't know what the initial disciples believed, they didn't leave any writings. Paul did believe, and if Acts is somewhat correct, then that belief came to him after seeing Stephen imitate Jesus' sacrifice.

TedM

There is a disconnect here. Does anyone think that the Jim Jones followers were resurrected simply because they all took the poison? There would have been a REASON the martyrs believed in resurrection, right? There would also have been a reason those that were not martyrs STILL believed in resurrection, right?

Elijah

No, we don’t think that Jim Jone’s or his followers were resurrected because they took the poison, or that belief is why they took the poison. They took the poison because he was their leader and they were following his example because people are sheep. The same thing with Jesus’ disciples, they don’t need a reason to sacrifice themselves, they just need to be sheep imitating their shepherd.

Those who weren’t martyrs were being convinced by the sacrifice of those in Jesus name that this was a sign of this being genuine. We have no idea what the initial disciples thought in regards to the resurrection or how their visionary experience could have influenced their belief in a resurrection of Jesus. We can say they belonged to a culture that believed in the future resurrection, so were looking for signs of proof that it was possible, so took the best example they could find and ran with it. We can also say that they were establishing an ideological/spiritual king, who exists eternally so the concept of Jesus living on after death was a necessary component of the movement, and gets confused for speaking about an actual resurrection of Jesus.

TedM

That's a bit hard for me to believe. It would seem more reasonable that there was a belief in resurrection following martyrdom than just they blind following the blind. RE Jim Jones, Wiki says belief in reincarnation may have inspired some to take the poison.


I'm looking for something more specific. Do you think Jesus' preaching addressed the issue of resurrection? Do you think Jesus' preaching addressed the issue of an ideological/spiritual king? Would he had to have been a healer? Charismatic? To have made claims for himself? What would have been necessary to get this group to believe Jesus had been resurrected in the first place?

Elijah

People believe in the resurrection and reincarnation all the time but that isn’t’ what drives someone to take their own life. Usually people need example from others to follow. I’m not saying that faith in life after death is one of the justification in the mind of the individual but it is just sheep being sheep.
I don’t know what you are looking for specifically.

I think Jesus is addressing the issue of the resurrection because he is establishing the kingdom that leads to that event.

Yes, I think he is preaching an ideological king and that is the reason for being a serving healer, instead of a typical ruler.

Jesus didn’t make the claim for himself, John is what started off the belief that he was the messiah, not Jesus’ own claim.

The necessary ingredient for someone to believe in an actual resurrection would be either seeing one or belonging to a group that believed in it. Since we have no evidence of an actual resurrection being possible, and have evidence the Jews believed in an actual resurrection they picked up from the Persians, then we can assume the later is the rational choice for why they believed in the resurrection.

Toto

I find the premise hard to take seriously, but people under the sway of a religious leader believe strange things, and do strange things.

If it's not a trick question, show you hand. What's the explanation?

TedM

I think you are referring to the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, right? My premise doesn't require the Jesus of the gospels. I'm just wondering what it was that a preacher who gets crucified had to have said or done to get his followers to believe that he was resurrected and or that resurrection to have 'stuck'. Maryrdom isn't enough. We have to know what the group believed about the leader, I would think.

Elijah

Yes, I'm referring to the man depicted in the Gospels. I'm not sure who you are trying to construct or why actually. I think you are diminishing the impact of witnessing an actual martyr, and what the justification of that sacrifice would have looked like in a community that believed in a resurrection being possible, along with confusing the ideological presence of the man of being the return of the actual man.

TedM

I don't know how anyone could find the premise hard to take seriously. Even Earl D. It's not at all hard to imagine that a preacher with a following was crucified for offending someone. Is that part hard for you to take seriously?



One explanation that makes some sense to me is that his followers thought he might be the Messiah. IF he was crucified during passover, it would have been very easy to connect him with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, which suggested resurrection, and confirmed the Messiac status. I do not find the crucifixion during a passover to be implausible. Belief in resurrection doesn't necessarily require any human witnesses to such resurrection, if scripture is the 'witness'.

If he wasn't crucified during passover, the connection still could have been made, but may have taken longer, and may have required some dreams or visions of resurrection by distraught followers, or preaching about salvation from sins..(a JTB theme)

TedM

Sorry for the confusion. I'm asking you to construct the man without the gospels as your guide. What would he have to have done? Belief in resurrection doesn't explain why people thought HE had been resurrected. Without gospels as a guide, why might he have been considered a martyr? Didn't Judas the Galilean die in war--why wasn't he considered to have been resurrected martyr? What would have been different with Jesus?