There were many religious groups formed in those days with followers just as fervent. Either resurrection was the basis for the formation of all those other groups, or you have to admit that such a group could have risen sans resurrection.
But their groups didn’t have the success. Of course it’s possible the disciples could have formed the church without resurrection, but then why would they have put such stress on that one factor?
I can think of other things that lead to the success of Christianity-can’t you?
BTW, did you know that many biblical scholars think the original manuscript of Mark’s ended at 16:8(the finding of the empty tomb), and that Mark 16:9-20 were later additions?
A ruthless, violent, wealthy and powerful Church/ruling party? The Crusades? What time period are you referring to?
Yes, but it still leaves the question of why they would put so much emphasis on Christ’s resurrection.
Yes, the best regarded supposition is that the end of Mark’s scroll was torn or ruined, and there are at least two different endings which are assumed by the majority of Bible scholars to be the work of well-meaning scribes. The other ending is shorter, and contains nothing not found in 16:9-20.
I’m referring to the 1st Century AD, when the disciples organized into the church.
The resurrection story is by no means unique to Christianity.
For the same reason you expect others to accept your brush with the divine. Certain types of people are vulnerable to extraordinary claims made by people with authority.
Aside from that, Jesus may have retracted his claim of divinity once, but by and large he made a habit of implying he was the half-immortal son of God. With that kind of prelude, a posse of yes-men, and a reputation for performing magical feats the crowd was primed for a final extraordinary act that would shore up his claims of divine parentage.
True enough, there’s the Dionysian mysteries for one. BUT if the disciples were forming a religion where Jesus’s sacrifice as atonment for all mankind’s sins, the fact is they wouldn’t need a resurrection. The sacrifice alone would suffice in that case. The fact that they were stressing Jesus’s resurrection is all the more important that it was a point of embarassment: if he did return from the grave, then you’d think he’d be around to show himself. His Ascension made that needlessly problematical if it was a fiction.
I hate to interject in this theological debate, but I’m pretty sure **Prof. Pepperwinkle ** has repeatedly stated in this thread he doesn’t expect others to accept it.
Without a resurrection there is no tie at all to the Jewish concept of a returning Messiah. Jesus had to return from the dead to establish a new kingdom.
edited to add: If his killing hadn’t been made into a public spectacle I’m sure they wouldn’t have emphasized it so much, and probably would have just cast doubt that he had ever died in the first place. The resurrection story was a necessity due to immediate circumstances.
If you check the OP, I’m pretty certain I said that I don’t expect people to accept it here, and that if it hadn’t happened to me I wouldn’t believe it either.
Your interesting perspective on Christ’s ministry points up the key issue: if it is as you stated, wouldn’t the whole thing have fallen flat if he didn’t return from the grave?
My answer stands. The ruling party held an awful lot of power. Whatever rhetoric they spouted to reinforce their divine right to rule was law. The resurrection is a pretty good story with a historical precedent. Several historical precedents, actually.
Thank you.
Did it fall flat in the Egyptian empire?
Nobody was expecting a spiritual Messiah. In the past century there had been at least three leaders who declared themselves to be the Messiah, and in each case they were military/political, and not someone who claimed that his kingdom was not of this world.
I assumed he meant he didn’t expect skeptics to accept it. But he certainly has enjoyed some kinship with others making similar claims. The same types of people would have been receptive to religious epiphany 2,000 years ago.
Not sure what you mean here. The beginning church was considered at first a faction of Judaism, and only developed into something otherwise through its missions to the Gentiles. They didn’t rule anything, and were barely tolerated by the other Jews.
I confess I’m lost. Are you referring to Moses and the Exodus?
I actually am very surprised that other people have related similar experiences here. I’d expected to be roundly criticized and questioned, but didn’t expect any support.