Wow - lots of things to reply to, so I'll try to do it in one post. First of all, the point I am making is NOT that the disciples died for their beliefs, therefore it is true. The point I am making is that, since they were claiming to have seen the risen Jesus, they were in a position to know whether or not their belief was false (that is, if they were making up the whole thing). Yes, many people do die for false beliefs; but nobody dies (and willfully faces the ongoing threat of persecution) for something they KNOW to be a lie.
Well, that's not entirely true. I guarantee some people have died for things they knew to be lies. It could have been to protect someone else, or several other reasons. However, the point here is that the belief could be false, but they didn't know it, and that's why they died for it.
So, what was the point of this, then? You're right, they were in the position to know whether or not their beliefs were false. They may have been mistaken or the stories may have been recounted inaccurately, since it wasn't the actual apostles who wrote the New Testament.
The importance of the early oral traditions is that they provide evidence that the disciples did claim to have seen the risen Jesus. The 1 Cor. 15 creed dates to within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion, which rules out legendary development. That the disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus is also witnessed to by the apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp. This creed also is evidence that resurrection belief was part of the Christian proclamation in its earliest form, so it is very important indeed.
I'm not sure why this is that important. Yes, some people in the bible claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus among other things. We know that. That still doesn't make it very reliable.
Since the disciples didn't knowingly fabricate a lie, what of the idea that they were deceived or mistaken? It could not have been a hallucination - hallucinations are by definition not group occurences.
Really? I've never heard that definition of hallucination. Why can't they be group occurences. As MidnightBlue pointed out, there are many examples in history of group hallucinations, including ones that happened at the same time, and ones that happened over a longer period of time. I'd like to know what, other than your own desire to be right, rules out the possibility of hallucinations here.
It has to have been something outside of their minds.
Why?
What was it that convinced the persecutor Paul? What was it that convinced the skeptic James? If we argue (as some have) that Paul's (or even all the disciples') experiences were spiritual visions, then some clear definition is in order. Was this a purely inward event? Then we face the same problem as the hallucination theory. Was it an event caused by an external source? In that case, the appearance-experiences were objective, and thus real.
Sure, it could have been caused by an external event. Sometimes, a group of people sees a shadow and thinks it's some kind of monster. Sometimes, people see things that aren't there, and sometimes they see things that are there and think they're something else, especially when they want to see something.
The empty tomb alone could not have produced faith in the resurrection - grave-robbing was well known back then. The appearances alone could not have produced faith in the resurrection - because of course many people claimed to have seen loved ones after their deaths, but this didn't lead them to proclaim their loved ones as Lord and Messiah, risen from the grave. The ONLY theory that accounts for these things is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
That's quite a leap in logic. That is not the only theory that accounts for those things. You just don't want to accept any other theories. We've been over this. Graverobbing is a possible explanation for the empty tomb, people seeing things and thinking they're something else and then relaying that message to others could account for the "appearances". And generally, a desire to believe because of the bad situation they were in helps account for all of it.
Now, that's not to say that you're necessarily wrong, but saying that the theory that God raised Jesus from the dead is the only logical possible explanation is just wrong.
Finally, resurrection as a bodily event: In the first century world, pagans universally denied resurrection, and many (but not all) Jews affirmed it.
What do you mean by this about pagans and Jews? There were many pagan myths about resurrection, and I can't imagine what you mean by the comment about Jews.
It is extremely significant that 'resurrection' language was only used to denote a physical, bodily event (I recommend reading NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" for a detailed look at the ancient sources). There were many who believed in a non-bodily life after death, but this was never referred to as resurrection. Resurrection always denoted the second stage in a two-stage view of life after death.
I think you need to review myths from other times. There were plenty of myths that dealt with physical resurrection as a symbol for spiritual resurrection. That's exactly what the Jesus myth is about.
Besides, what's the point of saying this was the only one dealing with bodily resurrection? So what? How does that help prove its veracity?
Thus when the early Christians proclaimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, this was understood by all - pagans and Jews alike - as a bodily event. Hence the earliest critics of Christianity accused the disciples of stealing the body.
First, that's not true. There have been many groups over the centuries, including at the time of Jesus's life that believed this story to be a metaphor, or at least not to be literally about the bodily resurrection.
Second, what's the point? Even if all people assumed they were talking about a physical event, what does that do to help your point?
