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]

And your cousins have the exact same voices?

They don't have the same head, certainly and I can manage to count to two. I think you've lost track of what we are arguing about and why.

Oh my goodness...

Based on what gospel accounts say, water coming out from a pleural effusion is fitting. It is caused from trauma. Do you think the gospel writers knew why water would come out? So why would they make that up? If someone today had water coming out of them being pierced, we would come to the same conclusion. Is it impossible to say how someone died 1000's of years ago because we weren't there?

One must examine a body to see if water came from a pleural effusion or from the drink he was given or from some other cause; and yes, there would be people who had seen many crucifixions and would know what to expect; the reported details may have come from seeing another crucifixion. If someone today had water coming from them on being pierced then I guess there would be a variety of explanations. The doctor in question already knew the accepted explanation and, without being able to examine the body, simply concurred. That's fine.

It is impossible to be certain in the present case but in the case of John the Baptist we can be reasonably sure of what killed him.

Are you going to break the legs of someone who is dead or at least unconscious? They didn't break legs for fun. It was to kill a person within minutes. The whole point of a crucifixion was to let them hang there for days.

Sorry, I thought the Roman soldiers in that area might have been rough. You know, the sort that would beat Christ to a pulp, for fun. I didn't know they were humanitarians.

Why would anyone but the disciples want Jesus' body to make up a resurrection story? They weren't the first to herald the news. When one wants a likely explanation, one must always ask, "Who benefits?"

This was the conspiracy bit of the argument . Perhaps the Essenes or some other group that Christ did his secret dealings with (you remember the arrangements he made for the Last Supper) had an interest. The indication that another group was involved would be if some influential person stepped in and offered a handy sepulchre.

You see, I think the problem with you is that you believe you cannot be wrong.

Sadly, we can all be wrong in matters of speculation. I am not being definitive, as you are. I am pointing out that there ARE other possible explanations. Before we raise corpses to life we should be certain that ordinary factors are not in play. We've spent some time dealing with lots of alternative explanations and sometimes your refutation is no more than: "My goodness!" As for my ignoring the hallucination argument, I pointed out that saying many people witnessed the event (and so were not hallucinating) could be applied to Fatima, an event you choose NOT to believe in. You are therefore applying double standards. Your thesis on what constitutes hallucination and who might be susceptible is an irrelevance.


It is wise to keep posts succinct and so it's unnecessary to comment on every comma.
This post is itself over-long but I am resisting the charge of avoidance.

[polonius]

marco
Quote Reply Report MPG Donate

Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:30 am
Subject: Re: Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not

Claire Evans wrote:

The disciples wouldn't have been fooled.

RESPONSE: The first time the Resurrection story appeared was in Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 which he wrote about 55 AD, or 25 years after the fact. The second story appeared in Mark's gospel written 40 years after the fact.

Neither were witnesses to any resurrection themselves.

Do you have any proof any "disciples" knew anything about it when it occurred, or was it just a story you've read?

[Claire Evans]

And your cousins have the exact same voices?

They don't have the same head, certainly and I can manage to count to two. I think you've lost track of what we are arguing about and why.

This is an evasion. You must acknowledge that people who knew Jesus well would know His voice and see that it differs from His brother's. Anyway, we have to assume that all the witnesses actually met Jesus and I don't think that is likely.

Oh my goodness...

Based on what gospel accounts say, water coming out from a pleural effusion is fitting. It is caused from trauma. Do you think the gospel writers knew why water would come out? So why would they make that up? If someone today had water coming out of them being pierced, we would come to the same conclusion. Is it impossible to say how someone died 1000's of years ago because we weren't there?

One must examine a body to see if water came from a pleural effusion or from the drink he was given or from some other cause; and yes, there would be people who had seen many crucifixions and would know what to expect; the reported details may have come from seeing another crucifixion. If someone today had water coming from them on being pierced then I guess there would be a variety of explanations. The doctor in question already knew the accepted explanation and, without being able to examine the body, simply concurred. That's fine.

It is impossible to be certain in the present case but in the case of John the Baptist we can be reasonably sure of what killed him.

What are you inferring by the water He drank? He wasn't given a drink and even if He did, the bladder wasn't pierced and it would have been urine, anyway.

What other medical explanation can you come with that would cause water to come out of the side of a pierced dead body?

Are you going to break the legs of someone who is dead or at least unconscious? They didn't break legs for fun. It was to kill a person within minutes. The whole point of a crucifixion was to let them hang there for days.

Sorry, I thought the Roman soldiers in that area might have been rough. You know, the sort that would beat Christ to a pulp, for fun. I didn't know they were humanitarians.

I don't know if you are willfully ignoring what I'm saying. Breaking legs was only done when the Romans wanted the person to die within minutes. The storm and the quake, etc, as reported in the Bible, would explain why they wanted to kill the other crucified by breaking their legs because they wanted to go as soon as possible.

Why would anyone but the disciples want Jesus' body to make up a resurrection story? They weren't the first to herald the news. When one wants a likely explanation, one must always ask, "Who benefits?"

This was the conspiracy bit of the argument . Perhaps the Essenes or some other group that Christ did his secret dealings with (you remember the arrangements he made for the Last Supper) had an interest. The indication that another group was involved would be if some influential person stepped in and offered a handy sepulchre.

How would the Essenes have benefited from a made up resurrection story? I think that rumours of a resurrection would certainly have gotten the attention of the disciples.

You see, I think the problem with you is that you believe you cannot be wrong.

Sadly, we can all be wrong in matters of speculation. I am not being definitive, as you are. I am pointing out that there ARE other possible explanations. Before we raise corpses to life we should be certain that ordinary factors are not in play. We've spent some time dealing with lots of alternative explanations and sometimes your refutation is no more than: "My goodness!" As for my ignoring the hallucination argument, I pointed out that saying many people witnessed the event (and so were not hallucinating) could be applied to Fatima, an event you choose NOT to believe in. You are therefore applying double standards. Your thesis on what constitutes hallucination and who might be susceptible is an irrelevance.



It is wise to keep posts succinct and so it's unnecessary to comment on every comma.
This post is itself over-long but I am resisting the charge of avoidance.

I have been addressing the other possibilities but they don't pan out. I suppose you could call it a process of elimination.

The reason why I deviate regarding Fatima is that what their claimed could not be corroborated. In other words, it was refuted unlike the resurrection.

Polonius wrote in post 1150

"Regarding Fatima. Did the Sun actually dance and fall from the sky? Are there other reports from observatories to this effect?"

Observatories could not corroborate what they said:

"However, it was proven that there were no such thing as meteorological occurrences all sun anomalies as claimed:

"Mass hysteria and optical distortion alone would account for such reports but one might also offer local meteorological conditions as a possible (though hardly necessary) additional explanation. Needless to say, astronomical observatories saw nothing unusual in the sun's behavior that day."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lo ... cle-fatima

Now, we should expect those who heard about the resurrection to refute it, too. There was just silence. The silence means that the resurrection could not be refuted because people in Jerusalem saw Him.

[Claire Evans]

marco
Quote Reply Report MPG Donate

Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:30 am
Subject: Re: Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not

Claire Evans wrote:

The disciples wouldn't have been fooled.

RESPONSE: The first time the Resurrection story appeared was in Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 which he wrote about 55 AD, or 25 years after the fact. The second story appeared in Mark's gospel written 40 years after the fact.

Neither were witnesses to any resurrection themselves.

Do you have any proof any "disciples" knew anything about it when it occurred, or was it just a story you've read?

There was such a thing called oral tradition so it was irrelevant that it wasn't written down all those years later.


I think Peter would have set Paul straight if he was lying about the resurrection. I don't even know what the motive would be for Paul to lie. Therefore Paul knew about the resurrection from the disciples, the witnesses!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1158 by Claire Evans]

Why is it always a black and white dichotomy with you, either they were lying or what they were saying was the complete truth, with no other possibilities?

[marco]

This is an evasion. You must acknowledge that people who knew Jesus well would know His voice and see that it differs from His brother's. Anyway, we have to assume that all the witnesses actually met Jesus and I don't think that is likely.

Claire, when I start to be evasive (perish the thought) I will knock on a church door. I have not the slightest reason to evade anything you say.

I am methodically going through EACH item you said had been refuted and I am illustrating possibilities. We know little or nothing about Christ's family and for all the apostles knew (remember he appeared out of the blue) he COULD have had a twin brother. And I told you it is easy to confuse twins - for I do so. This is not as improbable as a resurrection, therefore worth consideration. There may have been a bigger reason, such as a planned insurrection, behind Jesus.


The medical facts you give are not facts at all. You blithely say: "His bladder wasn't pierced. The water wasn't urine." How on earth do you know this? Are you suffering from that awful confirmation bias virus you passed on to me?

Are you going to break the legs of someone who is dead or at least unconscious? They didn't break legs for fun. It was to kill a person within minutes. The whole point of a crucifixion was to let them hang there for days.

Well I am not personally going to break anybody's legs but the Roman soldiers or mercenaries posted there would have certainly been capable of breaking legs just for the fun of it. They already, according to Mel, were over-enthusiastic in their scourging. The crucifix often had a foot support so that the victim could push up. When legs were broken he was incapable of doing this and his body weight would make it eventually impossible to breathe and he would die of asphyxiation. It didn't happen to Christ because a 21st century doctor declared him dead, depriving the soldiers of some further fun.

How would the Essenes have benefited from a made up resurrection story? I think that rumours of a resurrection would certainly have gotten the attention of the disciples.

I take it you mean "rumours of an insurrection". So nothing would have evaded the cleverness of the disciples? Hmmm. The politics of the time would have given rise to plots and perhaps the appearance of a sacrificial figure would have served a purpose. Speculation- yes - but better than rising corpses.

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

[polonius]

Marco replied to Claire Evans thus:

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

.

RESPONSE: Wait a minute. Who were the “so many� who witnessed the Resurrection?

[marco]

Marco replied to Claire Evans thus:

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

.

RESPONSE: Wait a minute. Who were the “so many� who witnessed the Resurrection?

Polonius, you will have to ask Claire since I am merely offering a refutation of her assertion that "many witnessed" the resurrection and they couldn't all be mistaken.

Presumably she means the assembled apostles and others, and perhaps a modern doctor who specialises in doing autopsies on absent corpses.

[Clownboat]

And your cousins have the exact same voices?

They don't have the same head, certainly and I can manage to count to two. I think you've lost track of what we are arguing about and why.

This is an evasion. You must acknowledge that people who knew Jesus well would know His voice and see that it differs from His brother's. Anyway, we have to assume that all the witnesses actually met Jesus and I don't think that is likely.

Oh my goodness...

Based on what gospel accounts say, water coming out from a pleural effusion is fitting. It is caused from trauma. Do you think the gospel writers knew why water would come out? So why would they make that up? If someone today had water coming out of them being pierced, we would come to the same conclusion. Is it impossible to say how someone died 1000's of years ago because we weren't there?

One must examine a body to see if water came from a pleural effusion or from the drink he was given or from some other cause; and yes, there would be people who had seen many crucifixions and would know what to expect; the reported details may have come from seeing another crucifixion. If someone today had water coming from them on being pierced then I guess there would be a variety of explanations. The doctor in question already knew the accepted explanation and, without being able to examine the body, simply concurred. That's fine.

It is impossible to be certain in the present case but in the case of John the Baptist we can be reasonably sure of what killed him.

What are you inferring by the water He drank? He wasn't given a drink and even if He did, the bladder wasn't pierced and it would have been urine, anyway.

What other medical explanation can you come with that would cause water to come out of the side of a pierced dead body?

Are you going to break the legs of someone who is dead or at least unconscious? They didn't break legs for fun. It was to kill a person within minutes. The whole point of a crucifixion was to let them hang there for days.

Sorry, I thought the Roman soldiers in that area might have been rough. You know, the sort that would beat Christ to a pulp, for fun. I didn't know they were humanitarians.

I don't know if you are willfully ignoring what I'm saying. Breaking legs was only done when the Romans wanted the person to die within minutes. The storm and the quake, etc, as reported in the Bible, would explain why they wanted to kill the other crucified by breaking their legs because they wanted to go as soon as possible.

Why would anyone but the disciples want Jesus' body to make up a resurrection story? They weren't the first to herald the news. When one wants a likely explanation, one must always ask, "Who benefits?"

This was the conspiracy bit of the argument . Perhaps the Essenes or some other group that Christ did his secret dealings with (you remember the arrangements he made for the Last Supper) had an interest. The indication that another group was involved would be if some influential person stepped in and offered a handy sepulchre.

How would the Essenes have benefited from a made up resurrection story? I think that rumours of a resurrection would certainly have gotten the attention of the disciples.

You see, I think the problem with you is that you believe you cannot be wrong.

Sadly, we can all be wrong in matters of speculation. I am not being definitive, as you are. I am pointing out that there ARE other possible explanations. Before we raise corpses to life we should be certain that ordinary factors are not in play. We've spent some time dealing with lots of alternative explanations and sometimes your refutation is no more than: "My goodness!" As for my ignoring the hallucination argument, I pointed out that saying many people witnessed the event (and so were not hallucinating) could be applied to Fatima, an event you choose NOT to believe in. You are therefore applying double standards. Your thesis on what constitutes hallucination and who might be susceptible is an irrelevance.



It is wise to keep posts succinct and so it's unnecessary to comment on every comma.
This post is itself over-long but I am resisting the charge of avoidance.

I have been addressing the other possibilities but they don't pan out. I suppose you could call it a process of elimination.

The reason why I deviate regarding Fatima is that what their claimed could not be corroborated. In other words, it was refuted unlike the resurrection.

Polonius wrote in post 1150

"Regarding Fatima. Did the Sun actually dance and fall from the sky? Are there other reports from observatories to this effect?"

Observatories could not corroborate what they said:

"However, it was proven that there were no such thing as meteorological occurrences all sun anomalies as claimed:

"Mass hysteria and optical distortion alone would account for such reports but one might also offer local meteorological conditions as a possible (though hardly necessary) additional explanation. Needless to say, astronomical observatories saw nothing unusual in the sun's behavior that day."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lo ... cle-fatima

Now, we should expect those who heard about the resurrection to refute it, too. There was just silence. The silence means that the resurrection could not be refuted because people in Jerusalem saw Him.

You are leaving out the possibility that no one found the resurrection story as believable from the time when it took place.

What I see is that it gained credibility many decades later in areas where the event didn't take place by people that were not there to witness the event themselves.

It seems more likely to me that a guard was set at an already empty tomb. Come Sunday when the tomb was verified to be empty, no one was surprised. Then decades of oral story telling took place and some ignorant men believed it. Not really their fault, resurrection claims were not all that uncommon back in ancient times before men knew any better.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1158 by Claire Evans]

Why is it always a black and white dichotomy with you, either they were lying or what they were saying was the complete truth, with no other possibilities?

Then let's discuss the other possibilities.