[...]
BH>Pim, I think your objection stems from a lack of understanding
BH>of Christian doctrines. There is absolutely no point in having
BH>faith without the resurrection. The continuance of a faith
BH>which was worthless could hardly have been a motivation for
BH>lying.
This might be valid in discussion of Christian communities
later on, but I think that Brian needs to show that faith in
resurrection was a necessary attribute for messianic judaism
for his rebuttal to hold in discussion of the faith of the
disciples/apostles. The Sadduces, at least, appeared to feel
their own faith to be not pointless, and they had no belief
in resurrection.
It seems that many in this discussion wish to accord to the
disciples/apostles a mindset that incorporates all the finer
points of modern Christian doctrine. I don't think that that
stance bears out. The disciples/apostles were Jews, and what
they considered to be a faith of value would be derived from
that belief system as it existed at that time. The Peter/Paul
rift over gentile entry into the faith is a clue that doctrine
developed over time, and was not sprung fully into being all
at once.
The political dimension of the belief of the disciples/apostles
is also something that has not been given due regard in this
discussion, so far as I've followed it. Judas at least was
identified as being of a revolutionary bent; Matthew was a
collaborator of uncertain personal leanings. Was there one
coherent political stance of the disciples? Perhaps, or
perhaps not. However, a resurrection could serve more than
just the purpose of establishing a faith; it could help move a
population closer to revolt as well. Rebels are well-known for
willingness to die in advancement of the cause. Trying to deal
with the motivations as being rigidly applicable in only one
domain at a time is the wrong way to approach this topic.
Wesley