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?

[mms20102]

[Replying to marco]

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.

newton never used common sense or any of the scientists in fact they used mythical ideas and started digging for the truth and made it true. If you tell a man 200 years ago only that you can speak to another man in Australia while you are in Africa with wireless phone he will think you are saying a myth and the same applies in reverse

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.

well excuse my illiteracy but as far as I have searched I provided information for what I have found

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

Well this is not some thing that can be measured. our fingers are not like each other some may find it good some may find it bad in the end it depends on the readers

You ask for "proof" that the crucifixion took place. I see no reason to doubt that Christ was indeed crucified.

And how are you sure about that ?

[H.sapiens]

[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 ?

Logic dictates that that would include every historian who fails to mention him, that is (as I gather) all in the world but the three who cite single secondary and tertiary sources.

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

What on earth are you talking about?

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 ?

No, they have secondary and tertiary sources that on any other subject would be considered inadmissible without significant directly corroborating sources.

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 ?

Here you are wrong, it is quite possible (and often done). A poor source is a poor source, if you have nothing better that does not turn a poor source into a good one, that mean that you only have a poor source and that you have failed to make your case ... at lest that is true in any field except Biblical "scholarship" where a poor source is perfectly adequate when you can not find anything better. I real science operated this way we'd still be bleeding people when they got sick and trying to turn lead to gold.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Warning

mms20102

Do NOT post offensive material even if quoting someone.

I removed the offending post.



Review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Claire Evans]

So you can't differentiate between the context of the two faiths?

How did you arrive at this? I clearly stated, "How is a mechanism that leads to false beliefs a good thing?"

Faith that leads to a false belief is obviously destructive but that is not always the consequence of faith.

Says you! Can you provide me with an example for when faith leads to true religious beliefs, and if so, please provide the evidence that shows the belief to be true.
I ask, because I am only aware of faith leading to seemingly false religious beliefs, but I'm open to being shown to be incorrect.

I'm a little confused at your position. You said, "Thank God" in your next comment. Is that God you are talking about something you are not sure about? You cannot prove the Holy Spirit. You say that faith leads to seemingly false religious beliefs. What made you come to the conclusion that religious beliefs are false?

Obviously. Babies can't believe in anything. They don't have the ability to appreciate the concept of God.

I take it you retract the claim where you said I "seem to think that it is only possible to have faith if you start off not being sure He exists in the first place."
Thank you.

And when one gets to the age where they can be sure? I have always believed. There was never a case where I wasn't sure. I have questioned things in the Bible but never the existence of God.


I can recall me saying it is not possible to have faith not sure He exists in the first place? Didn't I say there are two different types of faiths?

I'm saying this is the type of thing that leads to false beliefs.

This doesn't mean much coming from a person that cannot show that their beliefs are true in the first place.
Consider this, if Christianity is truly man made, then all Christians are equally wrong in their belief. This would make not just faith, but also Christianity as a mechanism that leads to false beliefs.

Can we be sure it is man made?

I do not see the point of worshiping a god one is not sure exists unless they are obliged to.

Here is the thing, you don't 'know' any gods exist. You only have 'faith' (something used to believe in false things) that your chosen god is real.

You assume that.

Please provide some evidence that you know, or have a relationship with an all knowing entity that can create universes with words. Telling me what the note on my desk says would be a great place to start. Something a universe creator could surely do.

You know, I am asked for my personal beliefs and I give it. Would there be any atheists if all those thing you want actually happened?

The truth is not always logical. I'm not saying my beliefs are fact because

I'd have to prove it then with empirical evidence.

[quote="Clownboat"Not all of them. For example, I think most everyone would agree with this claim of yours: "There were fallible people who wrote the Bible. "

You'd be surprised. There are tons of people who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Do you agree that the Father doesn't resemble Yahweh? We have Jesus who did not behave the way Yahweh did. Yahweh was a god of war, yet Jesus said those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Again... In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name should be pronounced "Yahweh."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... or-jehovah

That's beside the point. The Canaanite God, Yahweh, is described as being the God of Israel thus the logical conclusion is that they are one and the same.

So what if Jesus came to earth to testify to the truth that the Jews did not have?

Why oh why would anyone assume this to be the case though? Should I believe this claim about Mohammed as well for the Muslims? This starting point is odd if you ask me.
What if there is a more reasonable scenario, like for example, Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist. We at least know that Buddhist exist. Mohammed being placed on the earth to testify to the truth of the Arabs is a bit far fetched don't you think?

Then why else, if we believe this to be true, would Jesus need to change the beliefs that the Jews had about Yahweh? Surely they would know God already?

Buddhists don't believe that God had a son. They don't believe in God.

I think it is possible that Mohammed could have had contact with extra-terrestrials.

I'm not saying that those people just have beliefs that those gods existed. They interacted with them.

To this day, we still have people that claim that they interact with the gods. This is nothing special.
Please show that you speak the truth when you claim that ancient Bible writers interacted with the gods.

I don't know about the writers but the characters in the Bible sure did. I mentioned Exodus 33.

Gods could very well be extraterrestrials.

Sure, I guess. I have never met or seen an extraterrestrial though. I do however realize that all the competing god concepts can't exist. Knowing that frees me of being obligated to make assumptions about ancient people we know very little about. Except for you it seems, you seem to have this uncanny knowledge about their lives. Still not sure how you can claim to know much of what you say ("They interacted with them").

I think Exodus makes it very clear that there were interactions with gods. Numbers 33:4 says this:

who were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them; for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods.

Unless these gods were real beings, this doesn't make sense. You can't judge an idol.

The literal translation of the OT suggests this. Remember that Yahweh was described as a literal being.

Sure, but you already admit that the Bible was written by infallible men. So anything in it is suspect.

But you are assuming that this is suspect? You asked me what they believed in and it surely wasn't a spiritual god.

Exodus 33:18-23

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.�

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This is not about Biblical contradictions, but thanks for bringing these up.
See also Romans 9:15-16 +18 For Paul's take on Exodus 33
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. [18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

Now contrast with what Jesus is reported to have said in Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

First of all, Paul believed all the stories in the OT. He didn't know any better. This was said to explain why God would favour the Jews over others. Why would God show mercy to the Jews but not to the Egyptians?

The context of mercy what Jesus says is this:

"If you are blessed with sorrow for your own failings (the second beatitude) and with right relationships (the fourth beatitude), you will not find it difficult to show mercy to others on the job or anywhere else. Mercy consists of treating people better than they deserve from us. Forgiveness is a type of mercy. So is aiding someone whom we have no obligation to help, or forbearing to exploit someone’s vulnerability. Mercy, in all these senses, is the driving force of Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection. Through him, our sins are forgiven and we ourselves receive aid by the gift of God’s spirit (1 Corinthians 12). The Spirit’s reason for showing us this mercy is simply that God loves us (John 3:16).

At work, mercy has a highly practical effect. We are to aid others to attain their best outcomes, regardless of how we feel about them."

So Exodus 33 and Matthew 5:7 aren't related in my opinion. If so, doesn't that make God contradictory? Shouldn't that mean Jesus should show mercy to some and not others? Should it mean he should not show mercy to the gentiles or those who do Him wrong? Doesn't it rather mean to be the better person which reflects the nature of Jesus?

https://www.theologyofwork.org/new-test ... atthew-57/

20 But,� he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. 21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.�

Another good one! Thank you.
Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.
Genesis 32:30 For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Apparently in Exodus, God's face was glowing at that time, which seen, would cause radioactive burns to Moses so he could not look at Yahweh.

So how could you not see that the Father is not Yahweh?

I think you are forgetting that I don't see a reason to believe in a Father nor a Yahweh any longer. Either way: Again... In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH.

Whether you are a believer or not, you must see there is an inconsistency between Yahweh and Jesus. Why?

Why do you assume that just because the OT is pagan based, that suddenly makes Jesus not the Son of God?

There is a long list of reasons to not consider Jesus the son of a god.
The Hebrew religion being pagan based is just a reason to doubt the Hebrew god claims in general. It being pagan based would not automatically make Jesus not a son of a god, but him being a Buddhist does seem more reasonable don't you think? Do you believe that Mohammed was sent by a god?

Although at the time of the events of the early scriptures were pagan based, it evolved into monotheism. Therefore the Jews at during Jesus' time did not believe in pagan gods and thus would not have entertained any claims of Him being the Son of God if Judaism had still been pagan. I think Mohammed could have been sent by Allah but not Allah incarnate. I think Allah was an extra-terrestrial being using Allah as an agent.

It's irrelevant in my opinion.

The Bible not being anything special will be relevant for many.

I'm not saying it is not special but it is not infallible.

Does the betrayal of the OT dent my faith in the slightest? Absolutely not. I do not base my faith on the scriptures. You do understand my belief that once one knows the Teacher, whatever is written in the scriptures is not that important. If you are looking for perfection in the scriptures to have any sort of faith, you are wasting your time.

Please show that you know a teacher. Provide some sort of evidence that you don't suffer from religions paranoia or that you are just an outright fraud.

You must find out for yourself.

It's a bit odd that you think God can be proven especially over the Internet. If Revelation is to be believed, Jesus will come again and prove He is the Son of God.

It's odd that you believe a god can create universes with words, but can't prove himself even though you claim to know him. This thing you know should be able to tell you what I have written on my desk. I don't believe you empty claim that you know any god or any teacher. I am open to being shown wrong though, and with you knowing the creator of the universe, this task for you should be extremely easy.

I don't believe God created the universe with words. Why do you think I should go about proving God over the Internet?

Now watch this:

Now read this:

Apophenia: The experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

Why do you automatically assume that? Is it not logical to assume that dumping tons of radioactive water into the Pacific indefinitely will eventually cause the death of the Pacific Ocean?

I make note of Apophenia existing. I can not comment on radioactive water in the Pacific at this time, nor its effects. If it's somehow relevant to this thread, feel free to discuss it further.

Just something to think about.

Does that Revelation passage seem more plausible now?

No, it contradicts 1 Corinthians anyways. Can't have you cake and eat it too.

Please elaborate.

Will do.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

First we have 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Now see 1 Corinthians 13:5 (Love) doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taken not account of evil.

The Christian god both takes accounts of evil and doesn't take accounts of evil too. However, contradictions in the Bible are not something there is a shortage of.

Completely different contexts. Revelation is the judgment of people according to how they lived their lives. The evil will show no repentance and thus have condemned themselves. When Corinthians states, "...taken not account of evil", it means not to hold grudges. Once a person repents and is forgiven, their sin must not be mentioned again.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 959 by Claire Evans]

Why would the devil deceive people to go to the Holy Spirit, which would mean those people would reject him? A kingdom divided cannot stand.

You ask an interesting question. How do you propose we go about getting the answer to it? Perhaps, the Christian "kingdom" doesn't stand on solid ground at all. Perhaps it stands on falsehoods. I think having a good reason to think our beliefs are true is really important.

That's why we ask Christians how they know that their beliefs are true.

But you are talking hypothetically, no? So I'm telling you why I don't believe the devil is the Holy Spirit based on my beliefs. It doesn't make sense.

Atheists obviously can't evaluate your beliefs based of your beliefs alone.
You DO have beliefs, but we are asking how do you know that your beliefs are true?

That is true but we can't assume He was a deceiver.

Should we assume anything about the HS?
Is assuming something a guarantee that it is true?

Have you come into this debate with any notion I could be right?

How do you propose to demonstrate that you are indeed right?
As atheists, we have no "faith" that you are right about your religious beliefs, so we have to demand for evidence. We have no other choice, otherwise, we would have to believe ANY religious claim.

And there are lots.

I won't be preaching to you.

[Claire Evans]

Why can others believe and not need miracles? Why should someone thing they should be entitled to it. If makes me think that they don't want to make the effort to know Jesus and just have Him fall into their laps.

Why? Some people are more gullible than others. On top of that, pastors, preachers, shamans and Imams are bribing them with everlasting life claims and virgins and such.

Some people are just more skeptical than others. Just because they have a harder time then you when listening to the claims of a preacher, shaman, Imam, etc... does not mean they deserve to burn in a hell forever I wouldn't think.

Being gullible is not exactly having a relationship with God. Why would God favour a gullible person over a skeptic? That is not why people burn in hell. It is the rejection of God that is known to a person that condemns a person to hell.

Especially if they are willing to believe, but just can't find god claims to date to be credible. For these people, at least being shown that there is a supernatural realm would go a long way. For many, it would change the hypothetical destination for their soul.

And when Jesus showed supernatural natural powers, did it make all who witnessed it believers? Having a love of God is what makes people believe in Him. People who want supernatural things demonstrated to them want short cuts. They don't want to set out on a journey which takes a long time to refine their faith.

Unfortunately, we know fraud after fraud is done in the name of religions. All knowing gods would know that some people will be faced with deciding if claims made my pastors, shamans and Imams are just more of the same.

Perhaps 'faith' is still the problem. I don't have the faith that you must have in order to believe the claims made by pastors, shamans nor Imams. However, being shown that there is a supernatural realm would go a long way.

Pastors can claim things all they like but it is not what they say that makes me a believer. They quote OT nonsense but that doesn't make me believe.

I, unlike others will require more than a pastors, shamans or Imams word that a holy book is true.

And you can get that. Start off by praying.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1010 by Claire Evans]

People who want supernatural things demonstrated to them want short cuts. They don't want to set out on a journey which takes a long time to refine their faith.

Again, false, in my case, Claire. I never wanted a shortcut.

Claire, I urge you to listen to me and to take on board what I write about myself. Please remember what I am saying, so that you NEVER again write the above, or anything like the above.
I WAS a Christian. I dedicated myself to God. I prayed to God. I was willing to 'set out on a journey'. I asked God to use me as his tool/agent/whatever, to tell me what to do.
OnceConvinced, if I recall correctly, says he spent DECADES as a fervent Christian. Decades, Claire. Does that sound like someone who wants a shortcut?
Whenever I see claims like the above from people like yourself Claire, that makes me even LESS likely to believe whatever it is you say about God than before you said it. It's because it reveals that you don't know anything about supernatural beings of any kind (surely they would have told you not to make that claim about shortcuts).

The reason I demand evidence of the supernatural is the EXACT same reason that I demand evidence that the house I'm buying is in good repair. I want to make sure, I don't want to be 'ripped off', or swindled. I don't want shortcuts when house-buying, I want to make sure.

Pastors can claim things all they like but it is not what they say that makes me a believer. They quote OT nonsense but that doesn't make me believe.

They quote NT as well, just so you know.

And you can get that. Start off by praying.

Takes a deep breath
Claire...before making suggestions like that, look at your opponent. Try looking at their usergroups. Clownboat (and myself) are members of 'I truly believed'.
The description of that group is

For those who, prior to losing their religious conviction, sacrificed for and lived their lives deeply devoted to their faith... even to their detriment.

How many times do we have to tell you that we have done that? We HAVE PRAYED. And NOTHING came of it. Nothing at all.

[polonius]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

For those who, prior to losing their religious conviction, sacrificed for and lived their lives deeply devoted to their faith... even to their detriment.

How many times do we have to tell you that we have done that? We HAVE PRAYED. And NOTHING came of it. Nothing at all.

RESPONSE: What does that tell you about Jesus' promise that one will receive what one prays for?

[marco]

newton never used common sense or any of the scientists

We are debating here. I think when Isaac was debating he did use common sense. We all do - well, most of us.

well excuse my illiteracy but as far as I have searched I provided information for what I have found

Well perhaps marco knows a bit more about English than the source you stumbled on. I can readily excuse your illiteracy - it is your insistence on teaching me English that I find hard to tolerate. It makes discussion of the OP quite difficult. You can save yourself a search by asking for clarification and I will enlighten you. No one expects you to handle English perfectly.

Well this is not some thing that can be measured. our fingers are not like each other some may find it good some may find it bad in the end it depends on the readers

I'm sorry but I cannot guess what you might mean by all this unless you're simply saying opinions differ. And yes, they do, for what it's worth.

You ask for "proof" that the crucifixion took place. I see no reason to doubt that Christ was indeed crucified.

And how are you sure about that ?

I didn't express certainty. There is nothing miraculous in someone being crucified. Spartacus was, and I've no reason to think otherwise, so why would I disbelieve reports that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus, whom I have read, casually mentions that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty.

Yes, we can make up stories that somebody else was crucified instead, but these require proof, not the standard version of how things occurred. I don't believe in the Incarnation, the Resurrection or the Ascension into heaven but that he died at the hands of Roman executioners is perfectly plausible and doesn't require me to believe in miracles.

My best regards to you.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1013 by marco]

The point is if you have a source that Jesus was crucified that source for sure would tell if he was raised alive very simple