(July 19, 2015 at 10:07 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fact number 2 is a thinly veiled declaration that the resurrection actually happened. All the other 'facts' are red herrings to distract from the questions which surround fact #2. Supposedly, the disciples were martyred still clinging to their story of a physical resurrection. Supposedly, the only reason they would have done so is if they truly believed. Supposedly, they would only have truly believed if they had witnessed it. And supposedly, they would only have witnessed it if it actually happened. However, the belief part is a side effect of the resurrection story. It wouldn't have made sense to tell a tale of resurrection without witnesses to vouch for the story. The existence of witnesses is demanded by the consistency of the story. So the two together form a single piece of embellishment. So #2 is just a stalking horse for these other claims. It's little more than claiming that the miracle of the resurrection is a historical fact. But miracles are supposed to be excluded from historical reconstruction. "Fact #2" is little more than an illicit attempt to sneak a miracle in the back door.
#2 is not a thinly veiled declaration of anything. It is a shout from the rooftops.
The disciples BELIEVED that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.
Whether he did not not is still up for discussion, but there is no doubt about the fact that they believed that they saw him alive.
Do you have any theories that explain this?
