Would men die for something they did not believe?

[spiritually inclined]

The "eyewitness" gospel accounts are not history for a resurrection. The details of the resurrection accounts deviate too wildly to constitute historical evidence. Examples of this can be found at the following link:

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Empty Tomb

In the very beginning verses of the first chapter of Luke, the author does not even claim to be an eyewitness himself!

Luke 1
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus,

This and other evidence makes it very likely that the gospels were intended to be something other than history.

James

[Storm]

Originally Posted by 4troof

I dont believe any of the gospels end that way at all. They all continue to tell the story of Jesus walking the earth for 40 more days.

I'm sorry, Penguin was right, it was the Gospel of Mark, not Peter. However, the original (we think) ending was the one I gave.

From the great Wiki:

Ending

Main article: Mark 16
Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Some scholars[who?] believe that a scribe who was copying the text thought it was vague and/or confusing how it ended, so he added v. 9-20 for additional clarification.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by 4troof

I am basing it on that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw a previously dead man walking the earth again.

Then why are there no contemporary accounts?

Any kind of historical research would tell you that what was written was written by the people that says they are writing it, and during the time it is said to have been written. Big difference between the writing of the New T. and any traditional/nostalgic stories.

Uh, no, any real historical research reveals that we don't know who wrote any of them, not for sure.

[spiritually inclined]

Then why are there no contemporary accounts?

To add to this point, the gospel of Matthew records people coming from the graves and walking about. If that happened, why isn't such a miraculous event evidenced in secular historical sources?

James

[UltraViolet]

Men and boys die in wars all the time for things they both know nothing of,
and don't believe in. Very often they die in wars, believing in lies as well.

[painted wolf]

The Ghost Dancers saw people come back from the dead, they saw a lot of miracles.
They were a very powerful religious revival among the oppressed Native American people.

They were hunted down by the American Government and killed.
They died for their faith, for their way of life.

wa:do