Historically, people came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. They thought that Jesus being God's son was the best explanation for what was happening to them. Look, you go from Peter being so terrified of the authorities that he tells people he didn't even know Jesus to getting up in front of the gate in Jerusalem and telling everyone "You know the Jesus guy YOU put to death? Yeah him. You know what? God has resurrected him from the dead and vindicated him despite the fact that YOU had him put to death in the most humiliating way possible. In other words God vindicated him (and what does that say about you?). How does this sort of thing happen? How much guts does that take, and how did Peter get such a massive infusion of intestinal fortitude all of a sudden? He's getting in the faces of people who exercised the powers of government to have someone executed, and is telling them that God has vindicated the very man they disgraced and executed.
5 comments:
One possible explanation is that it simply didn't happen. Or at least not from one day to the next. It might have taken a decade or more before Peter did anything in public.
So the new Testament author is just lying about what happened?
The textual evidence outside of the New Testament that we have from the late 1st/early 2nd Century strongly supports the idea that events occurred with extreme rapidity after the Resurrection. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch, dated during the reign of the Emperor Trajan (A.D. 98-117), detail a Church already widespread across the Roman Empire and generations old. This would simply not be possible without an explosive period of growth from the get-go. The writings of the other early Church Fathers also describe a Church that is already "old", despite the similarly early dates of their letters, etc. Even within the NT itself, the letters of St. John allude to the rise of heresy and schism, both of which require time to gestate, especially in the absence of modern means of communication and transportation.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The best evidence we have for the historical veracity of the NT narrative (to include Acts) is found not in the NT itself, but in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Their existence alongside a made up NT is so highly improbable that it might as well be considered impossible.
Victor Reppert,
So the new Testament author is just lying about what happened?
The author isn't relating a historical tome, he's telling a story. So it's not lying.
"The author isn't relating a historical tome, he's telling a story. So it's not lying"
I've heard, and heard, and heard, and read good stories. I'm always wondering what part is true while thinking the story is mostly exaggeration. I try to be polite while listening.
Having listened to a lot of stories, I think the resurrection of Jesus is true. Perhaps it's just instinct after listening to so many stories.
Post a Comment