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?

[Clownboat]

So because you believe it because you did research, then it must be true? Have you ever considered what you were taught is actually not true?

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/0 ... -part-one/

Your conspiracy sites cannot make me unlearn what I have learned. Want to falsify evolution? It's easy. Find a fossil out of place. Find a rabbit in the Cambrian period for example, something a global flood surely would have done.

Why did I learn about various global flood scenarios and not lose my faith?

Since you asked, I believe it is because you are unthinking and would prefer to amend reality to your pet notions than to ever amend your notions themselves.

I think it is a case of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. It's either or for you.

You can say that, but you still do not seem willing to ever amend your notions so reflect reality, however, amending reality to fit your notions is seen all over in your posts.

So do I know for a fact that Mohammed was in contact with ETs? Nope, but I believe it is possible.

Perfect timing. Thanks for the example of being willing to amend reality to fit your notions.

Ha ha ha ha ha! More preconceived notions that you MUST protect. You could not have done this at a better time. Thanks for evidencing my claim further!

You seem to think that just because I don't know your life circumstances that I can't accurately give you the reason why you don't believe in something because of what you have said here. That's arrogance. You think you are beyond correction.

This did nothing to refute that you have preconceived notions that you MUST protect. Call me arrogant if that makes you feel better, but when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

You just won't listen will you? I fought tooth and nail to keep my beliefs. And this 'immediately' crap from you is beyond tiring.

Fighting tooth and nail does not mean you understood God.

I never said it did. I said it to illustrate just how bad I wanted to maintain my beliefs. This just seems to go over your head.

What if I am here to explain why you don't believe now?

I would find it more likely that you suffer from religious paranoia and that you think you are some special messenger from a god. Religious paranoia is real, but actual special messengers from the gods, never witnessed that.

What if God has sent me to reach out to you? You don't know but you think that you are beyond correction now.

More delusions? Please show that you are not delusional and that you are not protecting your pet beliefs by making this false claim that I think I am beyond correction. How did you acquire this knowledge that I argue is false?

How many times must I tell you?
I prayed for god to use me as he will and to make himself real in my life. I never asked for evidence or for a miracle.

Oh, then why did you say you didn't get answers if you weren't looking for evidence?

Because Claire, I did not get any answers. Either way, prayer is not an avenue to receive evidence. Heck, prayer has been shown to be ineffective in studies.

Here is another thought:

Please stop. I had 2 decades of preaching thrown at me. I don't come here to get preached at by you.

This proves everything to me. You don't want to know. You cannot bear the thought of having to reassess what you believed and why you don't believe it anymore. Instead, you go and cover your ears and go, "Na, na, na!"

More delusion! Clownboat may have been a Christian for 2 decades, but what he really needs is to hear about it from me, Claire, because I am a special messenger sent from the gods. Do you not hear yourself?
This being a debate site, I'm hear to debate, not be preached at.

I really am not surprised why you didn't know God and why you believe it is God's fault. Let's not further waste each other's time.

I address your posts not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those that read here. My time is not being wasted.
I'm accomplishing things, while you, someone that thinks has a god on their side seems helpless. Why do you think that might be?

[marco]

You missed my point. You are accusing me of hatred for exposing the evil in the Catholic Church but when Jesus exposed the evil of the Pharisees, that is not hateful to you?

Your point was too obvious to miss. I wasn't accusing you but the maker of the video you referred us to; it seems obvious that the fool was on a dark mission.

I do not appreciate it that you ignore the most important point here about Mary worship. I referred you to the relevant post yet again you chose to ignore it. The question is, why? Is it because of the cognitive dissonance?

I have explained fully what the RC position is on Mary - she is not worshipped. You showed some videos again and pictures that represent the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima, an unexplained apparition.

In 1916, nine-year-old Lúcia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto were herding sheep at the Cova da Iria near Fatima in Portugal. They claimed to have experienced the visitation of an angel on three occasions. The angel, who identified himself as "The Angel of Peace", taught them how to pray and make sacrifices, and to spend time in adoring the Lord, not Mary.


The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary 2 millennia ago. Many accept this. Were the 3 kids lying or deceived? Who knows? A thorough investigation suggested there was truth in the stories. As far as I know no one did a thorough investigation of Gabriel's visit to Joseph and to Mary, but it is given credit.

I have no idea what I am supposed to comment on, other than the fact that Mary is honoured. You seem unusually receptive to tales of supernatural soliciting, so why disbelieve these Portuguese children? Ah - they were Catholic kids!

[Claire Evans]

It didn't mean it literally. I mean that even though one has renounced the Christianity religion, an ex Catholic will still have the need to defend it vociferously.

I found myself in that curious position on another forum, an ex-Catholic arguing that, no, Catholics do not worship Mary as the fourth book in the Holy Trilogy. If I had no love for truth I would let it slide, let the Protties and Cathlicks duke it out.

I agree. I do hit a brick wall with a lot of people but I also make comments because I know other people will read it.

[Claire Evans]

You missed my point. You are accusing me of hatred for exposing the evil in the Catholic Church but when Jesus exposed the evil of the Pharisees, that is not hateful to you?

Your point was too obvious to miss. I wasn't accusing you but the maker of the video you referred us to; it seems obvious that the fool was on a dark mission.

The maker of the video was exposing the Catholic Church and you can't refute the video. Why do you call him hateful for just exposing the truth? Would you call Jesus hateful for exposing the Pharisees?

I do not appreciate it that you ignore the most important point here about Mary worship. I referred you to the relevant post yet again you chose to ignore it. The question is, why? Is it because of the cognitive dissonance?

I have explained fully what the RC position is on Mary - she is not worshipped. You showed some videos again and pictures that represent the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima, an unexplained apparition.

In 1916, nine-year-old Lúcia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto were herding sheep at the Cova da Iria near Fatima in Portugal. They claimed to have experienced the visitation of an angel on three occasions. The angel, who identified himself as "The Angel of Peace", taught them how to pray and make sacrifices, and to spend time in adoring the Lord, not Mary.




The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary 2 millennia ago. Many accept this. Were the 3 kids lying or deceived? Who knows? A thorough investigation suggested there was truth in the stories. As far as I know no one did a thorough investigation of Gabriel's visit to Joseph and to Mary, but it is given credit.

I have no idea what I am supposed to comment on, other than the fact that Mary is honoured. You seem unusually receptive to tales of supernatural soliciting, so why disbelieve these Portuguese children? Ah - they were Catholic kids!

The Lady at Fatima is Mary to those who believe. Therefore crowning the lady at Fatima is worshiping her. Aren't idols worshiped? Then why do people pray to a statue of Mary?

Also:



The English word "venerate" comes from the Latin word "veneratus", which means: "worshipped, adored, revered, venerated." So the word "venerate" can also mean to worship.

That's the last picture I post for you.

I'm assuming you will address my Vatican argument in another comment.

[Claire Evans]

So because you believe it because you did research, then it must be true? Have you ever considered what you were taught is actually not true?

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/0 ... -part-one/

Your conspiracy sites cannot make me unlearn what I have learned. Want to falsify evolution? It's easy. Find a fossil out of place. Find a rabbit in the Cambrian period for example, something a global flood surely would have done.

Why did I learn about various global flood scenarios and not lose my faith?

Since you asked, I believe it is because you are unthinking and would prefer to amend reality to your pet notions than to ever amend your notions themselves.

I think it is a case of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. It's either or for you.

You can say that, but you still do not seem willing to ever amend your notions so reflect reality, however, amending reality to fit your notions is seen all over in your posts.

So do I know for a fact that Mohammed was in contact with ETs? Nope, but I believe it is possible.

Perfect timing. Thanks for the example of being willing to amend reality to fit your notions.

Ha ha ha ha ha! More preconceived notions that you MUST protect. You could not have done this at a better time. Thanks for evidencing my claim further!

You seem to think that just because I don't know your life circumstances that I can't accurately give you the reason why you don't believe in something because of what you have said here. That's arrogance. You think you are beyond correction.

This did nothing to refute that you have preconceived notions that you MUST protect. Call me arrogant if that makes you feel better, but when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

You just won't listen will you? I fought tooth and nail to keep my beliefs. And this 'immediately' crap from you is beyond tiring.

Fighting tooth and nail does not mean you understood God.

I never said it did. I said it to illustrate just how bad I wanted to maintain my beliefs. This just seems to go over your head.

What if I am here to explain why you don't believe now?

I would find it more likely that you suffer from religious paranoia and that you think you are some special messenger from a god. Religious paranoia is real, but actual special messengers from the gods, never witnessed that.

What if God has sent me to reach out to you? You don't know but you think that you are beyond correction now.

More delusions? Please show that you are not delusional and that you are not protecting your pet beliefs by making this false claim that I think I am beyond correction. How did you acquire this knowledge that I argue is false?

How many times must I tell you?
I prayed for god to use me as he will and to make himself real in my life. I never asked for evidence or for a miracle.

Oh, then why did you say you didn't get answers if you weren't looking for evidence?

Because Claire, I did not get any answers. Either way, prayer is not an avenue to receive evidence. Heck, prayer has been shown to be ineffective in studies.

Here is another thought:

Please stop. I had 2 decades of preaching thrown at me. I don't come here to get preached at by you.

This proves everything to me. You don't want to know. You cannot bear the thought of having to reassess what you believed and why you don't believe it anymore. Instead, you go and cover your ears and go, "Na, na, na!"

More delusion! Clownboat may have been a Christian for 2 decades, but what he really needs is to hear about it from me, Claire, because I am a special messenger sent from the gods. Do you not hear yourself?
This being a debate site, I'm hear to debate, not be preached at.

I really am not surprised why you didn't know God and why you believe it is God's fault. Let's not further waste each other's time.

I address your posts not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those that read here. My time is not being wasted.
I'm accomplishing things, while you, someone that thinks has a god on their side seems helpless. Why do you think that might be?

Let's not waste each other's time

[marco]

The Lady at Fatima is Mary to those who believe. Therefore crowning the lady at Fatima is worshiping her. Aren't idols worshiped? Then why do people pray to a statue of Mary?

Phaedrus wrote a fable about a wolf and a lamb. The lamb correctly answered all the wolf's allegations but since the wolf wanted to eat the lamb anyway, truth did not matter. I have already given you truthful explanations about the honour paid to Mary.

As for:
"I'm assuming you will address my Vatican argument in another comment"

your whole point rested on a wrong translation. You admitted the translation was wrong and then attempted to force the same meaning out of the word "Vatican."

Obviously the Vatican rose from what used to be the centre of the Roman Empire. To take some aspect of Roman religion and associate it with Catholicism just because the Vatican stands where Roman culture was once practised doesn't merit any refutation from me. It refutes itself.

But we should move towards the OP, the resurrection as a historical fact. Surely the Satanic in Catholicism shouldn't occupy a greater place than Christ's master miracle.

I contend that the resurrection is a claim which, under scrutiny, does not hold up. Ergo it is not a fact.

[Clownboat]

Let's not waste each other's time

I have no expectations about getting through to you or changing your mind. If that ever happens, like for myself, you will need to be the one to make it so.

I post for our readers Claire, therefore I don't feel like my time is being wasted.

[Claire Evans]

The Lady at Fatima is Mary to those who believe. Therefore crowning the lady at Fatima is worshiping her. Aren't idols worshiped? Then why do people pray to a statue of Mary?

Phaedrus wrote a fable about a wolf and a lamb. The lamb correctly answered all the wolf's allegations but since the wolf wanted to eat the lamb anyway, truth did not matter. I have already given you truthful explanations about the honour paid to Mary.

I cannot make you see the truth. This is most likely due to cognitive dissonance.

As for:
"I'm assuming you will address my Vatican argument in another comment"

your whole point rested on a wrong translation. You admitted the translation was wrong and then attempted to force the same meaning out of the word "Vatican."

Obviously the Vatican rose from what used to be the centre of the Roman Empire. To take some aspect of Roman religion and associate it with Catholicism just because the Vatican stands where Roman culture was once practised doesn't merit any refutation from me. It refutes itself.

But we should move towards the OP, the resurrection as a historical fact. Surely the Satanic in Catholicism shouldn't occupy a greater place than Christ's master miracle.

I contend that the resurrection is a claim which, under scrutiny, does not hold up. Ergo it is not a fact.

I made this confusing. The quote was that the Vatican Hill was named after oracles.


"The Vatican Hill takes it name from the Latin word Vaticanus, a vaticiniis ferendis, in allusion to the oracles, or Vaticinia, which were anciently delivered here."

http://biblelight.net/vatican.htm

This is an area where the Vatican knew witchcraft was practiced here. So why name their hill after oracles?

You are very selective in what you have addressed. Why is the papal crest of Marduk, the serpent dragon? Why is the Pope holding a snake staff?



As for the OP, I have discussed this much earlier on in the thread, obviously. I don't think the resurrection could ever be considered a fact. It is obviously evidence that can be demonstrated to be true.

[Claire Evans]

Let's not waste each other's time

I have no expectations about getting through to you or changing your mind. If that ever happens, like for myself, you will need to be the one to make it so.

I post for our readers Claire, therefore I don't feel like my time is being wasted.

You told me to stop preaching at you so I won't risk doing that again.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1132 by Claire Evans]

I attempted to point out that if someone is intent on seeing dragons, then dragons will be seen. As for:

"I cannot make you see the truth. This is most likely due to cognitive dissonance."
You are selling truth in the wrong package if you seek to persuade me by insulting my intelligence.

The Roman state, like most ancient people, believed in prophecy and in oracles. Today people consult horoscopes. Witchcraft has nothing to do with what the "sacerdos" or "vates" did in his priestly role. I'm not going to glorify staff being serpent with a reply. You can find rubbish on the internet and it is up to you to believe it all, some of it or none of it.


In the same way if one insists on accepting the physical resurrection, that is a matter for faith not reason. Clearly, if one is predisposed to accepting a variety of myths and magic then accepting one more is no problem.

However, even if one accepts that people truthfully testified to what they saw, we still don't have a historical fact. We have the interpretation of people whose stories we can no longer check. Were they around today our first reaction would be disbelief until we examined the case. We can't do that with the resurrection, so it can never be a historical fact.