Which is stronger evidence for the Resurrection or are they equal?

[earl40]

#1 As one that is convinced by The Holy Spirit that the bible is The Word of God I can and do believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus from the dead.

#2 I also believe that the Apostles died for what they did not believe to be a lie. In other words, sane men do not die for a lie. Now here is the question. in your opinion which is a greater evidence? The testimony that Jesus rose from the dead as the bible says or that our belief that the Apostles were sane (as conveyed by scripture) and did not die (as conveyed by historical tradition) for a lie?
The reason I ask is becaue I base this second premise (the death of the apostles via martyrdom by tradition and extra biblical resources).

Now in writing this I would like to point out that there is a difference in saying sane men will die for what they believe in but sane men will not die for a lie.

 

[Philip B]

#1 is the testimony of God. There is nothing stronger than that.

Westminster Confession, Chapter I, Paragraph IV: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

 

[VictorBravo]

I agree with Phillip that the first is the stronger reason, but for different people, the second might be a more persuasive reason.

I'm thinking of my own personal experience. It was my reading of Paul that led me to think, "here is a smart guy that believes that what Jesus said was true. I need to look into this more."

This led me to think along the lines of "if Paul believes that, I'd better pay attention."

Which then forced me to pay attention to what Jesus said. I found that, for one thing, Jesus very clearly spoke of the Old Testament Scriptures as God's eternal Word, and he spoke of himself being revealed in those words.

So, my respect for Paul led me to listen to the Lord, which pointed me to his Word, which pointed me back to him. At that point, no philosopher, biblical critic, or chirping agnostic could point to anything more authoritative than their gripes and grouses, so--checkmate: God brought to himself another child from the rubble.

The reason I ask is becaue I base this second premise (the death of the apostles via martyrdom by tradition and extra biblical resources).

But you can also see the death of martyrs in Scripture, so it is not necessarily an extra-biblical reason. Stephen in Acts. And Hebrews 11:33- end.

 

[Jack K]

Also, perhaps we shouldn't think of the word of God and the word of the apostles as being all that different. God chose to speak through the apostles and their eyewitness accounts. So if we believe based on the reasonableness of the the apostles' reports and their lives which fit what they believed, we are still, in a very real and important sense, basing our belief on the word of God.

 

[Cymro]

" For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man
some would even dare to die. But God commendeth His love toward us, in that,
while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

 

[earl40]

" For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man
some would even dare to die. But God commendeth His love toward us, in that,
while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Indeed, though a sane man will not die for what he knows to be a lie.