Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[marco]

With same logic how can you deny the bible as a historic book and have no reference to actually support your point

It does not set out to be a history text. The purpose of a Holy Book is to introduce God. History has nothing to do with it.
BUT
you can use the Bible to check details of history; tribes are mentioned and customs. We can compare the myths in the Bible with those in the Koran and even though they are fiction, they give us an idea of what ancient people believed.

Why not history?
Because many of the events - especially the stuff about creation in Genesis and the tale of Adam and Eve - or Christ alone in the wilderness - were not witnessed. Other events involve belief in the supernatural and it is not the business of history to accept such things on faith alone. The story of Noah strains credulity to breaking point and cannot be considered as history, just the imaginative account of a possible flood.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 985 by H.sapiens]

Have you got earlier parchments speaking about Jesus ?
.........

No, but mores the point neither do you or anyone else.

You wanted historians yet you give me opinion of priest I'm a bit confused
.........

I am not giving you the opinion to make your own, just to demonstrate the issue, which you see to miss.

These are all secondary or tertiary sources of worse.

Give me your best sources then

There are no primary sources, that is the problem and so the biblical "scholars" lie and promote inferior sources to primary status rather than admit the ain't got none.

so far you provided 0 source only some random information.

My point is not that I have better information, it is that you and yours are flogging inferior crap as the real thing.

I do not need to bring forward better sources (which don't exist) to criticize your sources, just as I do not need to be an automotive designer to tell you when a car will not start.

[Bust Nak]

My point is not that I have better information, it is that you and yours are flogging inferior crap as the real thing.

Moderator Comment

Please mind your tone, that was needlessly aggressive.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[mms20102]

[Replying to marco]

Now you believe all those are myths give me your proof

it does not set out to be a

history text

. The purpose of a Holy Book is to introduce God. History has nothing to do with it.

I suppose you wanted to say historical text . Few posts ago I gave definition of history and historian and historic textbook is actually a book stating things happened in the past .
Now denying the bible as historic book is denying your own language ! whether you agree to its content or not the bible will always be a historic book

We can compare the myths in the Bible with those in the Koran

For what purpose we do so ? this post is not speaking about Myths in the bible nor comparing bible to Quran

they give us an idea of what ancient people believed

In fact that's what we can rely on , to make conclusions about what happened in the past since you have no idea about what happened and you can't deny what happened with any reliable source you either accept what happened depending on existing sources or deny it due to having stronger sources or be neutral since you have no reference to support your point

Because many of the events - especially the stuff about creation in Genesis and the tale of Adam and Eve - or Christ alone in the wilderness - were not witnessed.
so I will just ignore it

And did you witness Darwin theory ? or did any witness big bang theory but for sure every ancient nation witnessed ancient Egyptians magic and recorded it would you accept magic as real ?

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 997 by H.sapiens]

No, but mores the point neither do you or anyone else.

Great now another question do you have any source to criticize what we have right now ? I mean do you have any source of historians denied the existence of Jesus from the same period those historians mentioned him ?

I am not giving you the opinion to make your own, just to demonstrate the issue, which you see to miss.

With words of a priest how can I judge historic book ? I would be more convinced with the words of historians and not priests

There are no primary sources, that is the problem and so the biblical "scholars" lie and promote inferior sources to primary status rather than admit the ain't got none.

Well they have sources of information they have the right to claim yet you have none how can you judge weather they are lying ?

I do not need to bring forward better sources (which don't exist) to criticize your sources, just as I do not need to be an automotive designer to tell you when a car will not start.

Of course you need to bring same or better sources to support your point or you can't just deny sources by claims you will not know engineering until you study it otherwise why engineers do exist . without instructions given by engineers you won't . Just like programming I can give you a code can you provide why its not working ?

[marco]

Now you believe all those are myths give me your proof

Let us apply common sense. That will suffice.

it does not set out to be a

history text

. The purpose of a Holy Book is to introduce God. History has nothing to do with it.

I suppose you wanted to say historical text . Few posts ago I gave definition of history and historian and historic textbook is actually a book stating things happened in the past .
Now denying the bible as historic book is denying your own language ! whether you agree to its content or not the bible will always be a historic book

I said history text and I "wanted to say" history text. Avoid, if you will, correcting my English. In passing, let me explain to you that historical and historic have very different meanings. Historic means something famous in history, like the historic Battle of Lepanto. The Bible is not a text book dealing with history; it gives guidance in dealing with God.

We can compare the myths in the Bible with those in the Koran

For what purpose we do so ? this post is not speaking about Myths in the bible nor comparing bible to Quran

But I am comparing the Bible to the Koran because I want to make the point that both contain myths and as such do not qualify as history (sic) books.

And did you witness Darwin theory ? or did any witness big bang theory but for sure every ancient nation witnessed ancient Egyptians magic and recorded it would you accept magic as real ?

It is hard to understand what you are trying to say. Because people from the past say that a woman was turned into a pillar of salt does not render it true. The Big Bang Theory was arrived at not through superstition or faith but through logical deduction. I haven't expressed an opinion on it.

Because events are described does not render them historical (sic) facts. Jesus rising from the dead is not a historical fact since the fantastic event has not been subjected to the required scrutiny. But lest you imagine that the Bible is alone in displaying fictions I will say, relevantly, that the same applies to Muhammad in his cave. This is NOT a historical (sic) fact. To Muslims it might be a historic (sic) event, of course.
All that glisters is not gold (as Shakespeare put it); all that's recorded in Holy Books is not historical (sic) fact.

[marco]

With words of a priest how can I judge historic book ? I would be more convinced with the words of historians and not priests

Good. Now apply this rule consistently and ignore imams when thy say the Koran accurately records history. Listen to historians.
Incidentally, historians CAN make mistakes, as can priests and imams.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1001 by marco]

Let us apply common sense. That will suffice.

Applying common sense will only suffice individual opinions according to their cultures and is not a scientific way for debating

history text

Well it's either historical or historic but not history at all and if I don't correct then we will get misconception unless you mean history textbook

Usage Note: Historic and historical have similar, though usually distinct, meanings. Historic : refers to that which is associated with significant events in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. Thus, a historic house is likely to be of interest not just because it is relatively old, but because an important person lived in it or was otherwise associated with it. In contrast, historical refers more generally to that which happened in the past, regardless of significance: a minor historical character in the novel, the historical architecture in the center of town. These distinctions are not always observed, however, and a historic tour of a city might include the same sights as a historical tour. Therefore, it is important to make sure that the context makes the intended meaning clear.

If you don't think that the bible has influenced all those Christian and it's important thing to them then I guess you are wrong

The Bible is not a textbook dealing with history; it gives guidance in dealing with God.

I guess you should add " some of " while also considering the fact that the bible is not only one single book . In fact, stories about Noah Jesus and others are actually part of history, being unable to have original sources doesn't mean we reject opinions from other sources came after any event

But I am comparing the Bible to the Koran because I want to make the point that both contain myths and as such do not qualify as history (sic) books.

Again we are not discussing whether they contain myths historians included myths in their books and still considered as a reliable source
Quran Romans 30: 2-4 ( The Byzantines have been defeated In the "nearest( can also mean lowest )" land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.In a few years )
Would you consider this preaching ? or faith testing ? or actual historic fact ?
Yet I will not go farther through Quran since its out of topic thing.

logical deduction

And Christian scholars and historians did the same

Jesus rising from the dead is not a historical fact since the fantastic event has not been subjected to the required scrutiny.

According to bible's story, Jesus wasn't raised from the dead and didn't even die as explained by the post earlier but being Jesus crucified or not I would say he wasn't

But lest you imagine that the Bible is alone in displaying fictions I will say, relevantly, that the same applies to Muhammad in his cave. This is NOT a historical (sic) fact. To Muslims it might be a historic (sic) event, of course.

Again you put claims about my prophet while it's not about him I wonder for how long you will keep doing so and what is the use of it here

All that glisters is not gold (as Shakespeare put it); all that's recorded in Holy Books is not historical (sic) fact.

prove to me one only the crucifixion issue see I make it easy for you

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1002 by marco]

Good. Now apply this rule consistently and ignore imams when thy say the Koran accurately records history. Listen to historians.
Incidentally, historians CAN make mistakes, as can priests and imams.

Through my past posts, everyone is eager to speak about Islam while actually, none started a post at the sub-forum of Islam

But I have a reply for you. Imams sometimes make wrong fatwas and same for priests sometimes they say wrong things because they are humans

Want to speak about Quran got to the sub-forum and make a thread because in the next posts i will ignore anything you will say about Quran

[marco]

Applying common sense will only suffice individual opinions according to their cultures and is not a scientific way for debating

Thank you for your opinion. When one is confronted with the fantastical and nonsensical, it is a good to apply common sense. I think scientists use common sense too.

history text

Well it's either historical or historic but not history at all

One can use "history" as an epithet. In fact, in English, nouns are often brutalised into adjectives. It is courageous of you, given the limitations in your own command of English, to try to assist me towards a better understanding of my native tongue.

But I am comparing the Bible to the Koran because I want to make the point that both contain myths and as such do not qualify as history (sic) books.

Again we are not discussing whether they contain myths historians included myths in their books and still considered as a reliable source

Yes, Livy for example includes myths in his History of Rome but these are not regarded as truths. The Biblical myths, unfortunately, are regarded as truths. Gibbon mentions some of the myths associated with Muhammad (forgive me for mentioning the Prophet again) but he makes it clear he doesn't believe what he is reporting.

According to bible's story, Jesus wasn't raised from the dead and didn't even die as explained by the post earlier but being Jesus crucified or not I would say he wasn't

Well all this is conjecture and what you would say isn't going to add any weight to what others have written.

You ask for "proof" that the crucifixion took place. I see no reason to doubt that Christ was indeed crucified. Whether he got up from the grave is another matter.