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?

[JLB32168]

Uh, well, no one ever said that Judaism was monolithic, and it does not show that the Messiah/Son of man was anything more than an extraordinary man , who was righteous

Contrary to what you just said, someone did assert that Judaism never taught a messiah that was anything other than a mere man.
As for being an extraordinary man – what do you mean? The text says that he existed before creation, that he would be worshipped, that he would answer prayers, etc. I don’t think the word “extraordinary� accurately represents such a description since it makes no distinctions and is somewhat like the statement “Diamonds and Coal are the same – they’re made of Carbon.� The statement is true, but it isn’t accurate.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 114 by Ancient of Years]I would invite you to see TFV's citations from the sixty-first chapter of Enoch. [edit for spelling error]

We should look at the whole passage to understand what is going on.

Enoch 61:1 Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who dwell on earth, saying, Open your eyes, and lift up your horns, if you are capable of comprehending the Elect One.

Enoch 61:2 The Lord of spirits sat upon the throne of his glory.

Enoch 61:3 And the spirit of righteousness was poured out over him.

Enoch 61:4 The word of his mouth shall destroy all the sinners and all the ungodly, who shall perish at his presence.

Enoch 61:5 In that day shall all the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who possess the earth, stand up, behold, and perceive, that he is sitting on the throne of his glory; that before him the saints shall be judged in righteousness;

Enoch 61:6 And that nothing, which shall be spoken before him, shall be spoken in vain.

Enoch 61:7 Trouble shall come upon them, as upon a woman in travail, whose labour is severe, when her child comes to the mouth of the womb, and she finds it difficult to bring forth.

Enoch 61:8 One portion of them shall look upon another. They shall be astonished, and shall humble their countenance;

Enoch 61:9 And trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold this Son of woman sitting upon the throne of his glory.

Enoch 61:10 Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify him who has dominion over all things, him who was concealed; for from the beginning the Son of man existed in secret, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, and revealed to the elect.

Enoch 61:11 He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect; and all the elect shall stand before him in that day.

Enoch 61:12 All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule over all the earth, shall fall down on their faces before him, and shall worship him.

Enoch 61:13 They shall fix their hopes on this Son of man, shall pray to him, and petition him for mercy.

Enoch 61:14 Then shall the Lord of spirits hasten to expel them from his presence. Their faces shall be full of confusion, and their faces shall darkness cover. The angels shall take them to punishment, that vengeance may be inflicted on those who have oppressed his children and his elect. And they shall become an example to the saints and to his elect. Through them shall these be made joyful; for the anger of the Lord of spirits shall rest upon them.

Enoch 61:15 Then the sword of the Lord of spirits shall be drunk with their blood; but the saints and elect shall be safe in that day; nor the face of the sinners and the ungodly shall they thenceforwards behold.

Enoch 61:16 The Lord of spirits shall remain over them:

Enoch 61:17 And with this Son of man shall they dwell, eat, lie down, and rise up, for ever and ever.

Enoch 61:18 The saints and the elect have arisen from the earth, have left off to depress their countenances, and have been clothed with the garment of life. That garment of life is with the Lord of spirits, in whose presence your garment shall not wax old, nor shall your glory diminish.

The Lord of spirits (God) is sitting in judgment. He tells everyone to look at the Elect One (aka Son of man) who is sitting on a throne of his own. It is the Elect One who will separate the righteous. The bad guys (the kings, the princes, the exalted) know they are in for it. They try to get the Elect One to have mercy on them but to no avail. The Lord of spirits sends the bad guys off to punishment. But the good guys are safe and will be happy with the Son of man in what sounds like the messianic age.

Looking at the whole picture it appears very likely that the word ‘worship’ in 61:12 was originally shachah (H7812) which means to prostrate one’s self. This is the word used in 1 Samuel 24:8 for when David prostrated himself before Saul. David was not worshipping Saul as a divinity.

[YahWhat]

The resurrection is a story that grew in the telling with the earliest "appearances" being that of "visions" and "revelations" as attested by Paul himself c. 50 CE, then evolving into encounters with a physically revived flesh and blood corpse - Luke c. 85 CE and John 90-110 CE. These reports are not consistent and consistency is what we should expect if the story were true. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by polonius.advice]

Let’s start at the beginning. There are several historical sources dealing with the death of Jesus. Outside of the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles, a source thought to be reliable is that of the Roman historian Tacitus Book 15, chapter 44, written about 116 AD.

So, at best, this is evidence that a Jesus was put to death. This says nothing about any resurrection at all, or that a resurrection occurred or can occur.

Note that Tacitus reports that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judaea from 26 to 36 AD. By determining when Passover would occur just before a Sabbath during these years, it is concluded that Jesus was crucified in 30 or 33 AD.

Tacitus reports what the Christians believe.

We have absolutely no reason to think that the resurrection of a Jesus occurred by what Tacitus wrote. A modern historian might say that many UFO enthusiasts believe that aliens have visited our planet. This report is NOT evidence for the visitations but of the BELIEFS themselves.

However, what the Christians believe might not be true.

There are two versions of events which followed Jesus’ death. One claims that Jesus rose on the Sunday he resurrected and ascended into heaven on the same day from Bethany (Gospel of Luke), or ascended into heaven 40 days later from Mt. Olivet (Acts of the Apostles).

So the accounts of the resurrection are unclear and contradictory. This is not what I would call good evidence.

But there is agreement on the claim of the Resurrection. It occurred on the Sunday following the crucifixion.

There is an agreement among those who believe in the resurrection that a resurrection occurred. Why is this a surprising development? There is agreement among the UFO enthusiasts that aliens visit the Earth. Agreement does NOT count as evidence for anything OTHER than an agreement.

Curiously, there are no writings by any witnesses reporting the amazing fact of Jesus' appearance during the forty day (or a long indefinite period) before his ascension.

It wouldn't really matter if there was. It would still be JUST claims.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 109 by Tired of the Nonsense]


If you believe the flat earth society and the Christian message can be compared, then I really do not know how to help you out, because it does not compare.

You continue to talk about the most, "natural and probable explanation" as if this means the "most probable, and natural explanation" wins out. However, the flat earth society position actually works against you!

You see, before we had all the knowledge we have today, the most "probable and natural explanation" to the naked eye was that the earth was flat. To the naked eye, the sun certainly seems to be revolving around the earth. Therefore most people at the time, worked from the most, "probable and natural" position. But as we now know, the most, "probable and natural" explanation was in error. What this actually means is the most, "natural and probable" explanation could blind those who believe in it, to what reality actually is.

Those who worked from the position the earth was flat, failed to consider there may be other factors involved they could not see, which means they were blind to the reality. This is why we should all, no matter what position we take, keep in mind the possibility of our error. If we do not, we could make the same errors, as the flat earthers.

You continue to claim that I make assertions when I am not making any assertions at all, rather I am examining assertions made by others, along with the evidence. You see, whether you like it or not, we do have evidence of the claims made, one of which is the Biblical writings themselves. Now of course you attempt to explain these writings away, and you must. The reason why you must is because these writings are evidence. If the Biblical writings were not evidence, then there would be no need in attempting to explain them away.

As we look at the Biblical evidence, it has to be admitted that the writers, whom ever they were, had no knowledge of the Book we now call the Bible, which means they were not writing material for inclusion into the canonical Bible. A great example of this would be the two letters attributed to Luke. This author is clearly writing to a friend, he gives his reason for writing, and also the way in which he attained his information, one of which was "careful investigation." There is also very good internal evidence in the second letter, when compared to the writings attributed to Paul, that this author was in fact along with Paul during Paul's missionary journeys all the way up until Paul's house arrest, which means this author claims to have been an eyewitness to extraordinary events. The point is, the Biblical writers did not collude together in order to write things that would one day end up in the book we now call the Bible, rather they were simply living their lives, and these letters are the by product of their lives. These letters happened to be saved, and it was not until much later that they were included into what we now know as the New Testament.

Another mistake you make, is that you seem to assume that I do not understand the improbability of a corpse coming back to life. But you see, I not only understand the improbabilities, I also understand that it is impossible! This impossibility is what makes these claims extraordinary. It is beyond argument that at least Paul made extraordinary claims within his lifetime. As I have also mentioned, the evidence is over whelming that Luke was indeed the author of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts. This means Luke would have wrote his letters during his lifetime.

All of the above is evidence, and we have not even gotten into how these men were able to tie the death, and Resurrection of Jesus into the Old Testament, which of course was written hundreds, and even thousands of years before.

The point to all of this is, I understand you and others who may take your view, have used reason, and that you have reasons for your beliefs. However, for you to suggest that it is not possible for someone to use reason to come to believe the Christian message, is beyond an unreasonable position.

As far as the authorship of 2 Peter, that is really not the point. This may be my fault because I am usually careful to qualify by saying something like, "the author of 2 Peter," which I did not do in this case, but my point was to address your concerns about these reports being, myths, fables, etc. No matter who the author was, it is clearly his concern in the passage I cited, to ensure his readers, the events he is speaking of were not "cleverly invented stories" like some of the other religious beliefs at the time, but rather they were based on eyewitness testimony. No matter who the author, he was either reporting the truth, or lying! It cannot be said, "he was simply reporting what he had been told."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 124 by Realworldjack]

If you believe the flat earth society and the Christian message can be compared, then I really do not know how to help you out, because it does not compare.

Really? Is says in your book of revealed truths that the sun once stopped it's movement through the sky for about a 24 hour period at a command from Joshua. And you DON'T find that in any way comparable to believing that the Earth is flat? Of course perhaps you don't believe that the sun actually stopped dead in the sky yourself, despite the fact that it is clearly stated in the Book of Joshua to have done so. If you DON'T believe this story yourself, please say so.

You continue to talk about the most, "natural and probable explanation" as if this means the "most probable, and natural explanation" wins out. However, the flat earth society position actually works against you!

Works against me HOW? By establishing that the world has it's share of total idiots? I am all too aware. I have never been certain that the Flat Earth Society folk are not simply having a laugh at everyone else's expense however. And if they are, that still leaves me plenty of reason to conclude that the world has way more than it's fair share of total idiots. I have encountered individuals who are completely certain that NASA has has found that 24 hours is missing from time(23 hours and 58 minutes in fact), and that the government is withholding this information from us. It worries me that these people might attempt to walk and chew gum at the same time, only to sadly discover that NOT walking into oncoming traffic is simply one thing to many for them to handle. Nixon referred to this group as "The Silent Majority." Generally, people who found it too taxing to form an opinion on their own. Now though they seem to be generally known as Trump supporters.

You see, before we had all the knowledge we have today, the most "probable and natural explanation" to the naked eye was that the earth was flat. To the naked eye, the sun certainly seems to be revolving around the earth. Therefore most people at the time, worked from the most, "probable and natural" position. But as we now know, the most, "probable and natural" explanation was in error. What this actually means is the most, "natural and probable" explanation could blind those who believe in it, to what reality actually is.

Those who worked from the position the earth was flat, failed to consider there may be other factors involved they could not see, which means they were blind to the reality. This is why we should all, no matter what position we take, keep in mind the possibility of our error. If we do not, we could make the same errors, as the flat earthers.

Mainly true. The intelligent among us figured out that the Earth was round thousands of years ago however. A Greek scholar named Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) was the first person to fairly accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth. He used a empirical observation of the length of shadows cast by sticks to do the job. We use the empirical method today for gathering accurate information and call it science. By in large however what ancient peoples did not understand they made up answers for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like, were responsible for the things that occurred. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "Make it up and declare it to be true" method of gathering knowledge. It really had no practical value, other than to seemingly provide answers. Answers which had absolutely nothing to do with what was actually going on. Many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The empirical method has led us to conclude that the Earth is not flat, nor is it the center of the universe. It has NOT led us to discover a 24 hour period of missing time however, despite assertions to the contrary by true believers.

You continue to claim that I make assertions when I am not making any assertions at all, rather I am examining assertions made by others, along with the evidence. You see, whether you like it or not, we do have evidence of the claims made, one of which is the Biblical writings themselves. Now of course you attempt to explain these writings away, and you must. The reason why you must is because these writings are evidence. If the Biblical writings were not evidence, then there would be no need in attempting to explain them away.

You assert the claim that there exists an invisible Being who dwells in an invisible realm, that this invisible Being has total omnipotent powers which has allowed Him to be the creator of all things, and that this invisible Being will take an invisible part of us to live with Him in His invisible realm forever and ever when we die. Is it not true that everything else you believe is an outgrowth of your implicit assertion that this Being exists? If you are NOT asserting these things, then say so.

As we look at the Biblical evidence, it has to be admitted that the writers, whom ever they were, had no knowledge of the Book we now call the Bible, which means they were not writing material for inclusion into the canonical Bible. A great example of this would be the two letters attributed to Luke. This author is clearly writing to a friend, he gives his reason for writing, and also the way in which he attained his information, one of which was "careful investigation." There is also very good internal evidence in the second letter, when compared to the writings attributed to Paul, that this author was in fact along with Paul during Paul's missionary journeys all the way up until Paul's house arrest, which means this author claims to have been an eyewitness to extraordinary events. The point is, the Biblical writers did not collude together in order to write things that would one day end up in the book we now call the Bible, rather they were simply living their lives, and these letters are the by product of their lives. These letters happened to be saved, and it was not until much later that they were included into what we now know as the New Testament.

From the "evidence" found in the Odyssey we discover that there is an island named Ogygia that is the home of the goddess Calypso, daughter of the god Atlas, and that Odysseus was held captive on this island for a time by Calypso. Odysseus managed to escape on a raft however, but the raft is wrecked by Poseidon, and Odysseus finds himself shipwrecked on the island of Scherie. The Odyssey also has an account of how Odysseus blinded the one eyed cyclops giant Polyphemus. In fact the Odyssey is chock full of such "evidence," although we generally recognize that this "evidence" as mythology today. How do we know this? Because such accounts defy logic, common sense, and all experience and observation.

Another mistake you make, is that you seem to assume that I do not understand the improbability of a corpse coming back to life. But you see, I not only understand the improbabilities, I also understand that it is impossible! This impossibility is what makes these claims extraordinary. It is beyond argument that at least Paul made extraordinary claims within his lifetime. As I have also mentioned, the evidence is over whelming that Luke was indeed the author of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts. This means Luke would have wrote his letters during his lifetime.

I agree that the author of Gospel Luke almost certainly wrote Acts of the Apostles. And it's clear from Acts that the author was a follower of Paul. I suspect you mean that Paul wrote his letters sometime during the author of Gospel Luke's lifetime. That may well be true also. However you seem to feel that extraordinary claims somehow strengthens the likelihood that they are true. And I am sorry, but that simply is nonsense. The claim that the stories are too improbable NOT to be true is self serving, insupportable and frankly ridiculous. To conclude that the impossible occurred, you are forced to make up an agent that can accomplish the impossible. You call that agent "God," which then allows to you justify any further claims you make. This leads to a whole network of interconnected but ultimately insupportable assumptions and assertions. But the bottom line is, you have no actual physical foundation of fact to rest your case on. The "evidence" in Acts suggests that the early followers of Jesus were responsible for spreading the story of the risen Jesus. And it's very likely that the author of Acts and his mentor Paul personally believed these stories to be true themselves. That does not change the fact that the stories are unlikely to the point of absurdity however. We can somewhat forgive individuals living in an age steeped in supernatural beliefs and superstition for believing in supernatural claims and superstition. We should be rightly less forgiving of modern people for subscribing in such foolishness and nonsense however.

All of the above is evidence, and we have not even gotten into how these men were able to tie the death, and Resurrection of Jesus into the Old Testament, which of course was written hundreds, and even thousands of years before.

And yet the Jews themselves have never seen a correlation between Christian claims and their own religious works at all. These undeniable ties do not really seem to be quite as obvious and undeniable as you claim they are. So it's not just atheists that aren't buying it.

The point to all of this is, I understand you and others who may take your view, have used reason, and that you have reasons for your beliefs. However, for you to suggest that it is not possible for someone to use reason to come to believe the Christian message, is beyond an unreasonable position.

My "beliefs" are actually lack of belief that the impossible occurred. Your position IS an unreasonable one. The only possible saving grace would be some modicum, at least, of actual evidence that your claims are valid and not simply the rumor and hearsay that they appear to be. But you have none.

As far as the authorship of 2 Peter, that is really not the point. This may be my fault because I am usually careful to qualify by saying something like, "the author of 2 Peter," which I did not do in this case, but my point was to address your concerns about these reports being, myths, fables, etc. No matter who the author was, it is clearly his concern in the passage I cited, to ensure his readers, the events he is speaking of were not "cleverly invented stories" like some of the other religious beliefs at the time, but rather they were based on eyewitness testimony. No matter who the author, he was either reporting the truth, or lying! It cannot be said, "he was simply reporting what he had been told."

Sure it can! Just as you are reporting what you have been told. In my opinion what you believe is foolishness; clearly insupportable nonsense. But I am in no way suggesting that you are not sincere.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 124 by Realworldjack]

If you believe the flat earth society and the Christian message can be compared, then I really do not know how to help you out, because it does not compare.

Really? Is says in your book of revealed truths that the sun once stopped it's movement through the sky for about a 24 hour period at a command from Joshua. And you DON'T find that in any way comparable to believing that the Earth is flat? Of course perhaps you don't believe that the sun actually stopped dead in the sky yourself, despite the fact that it is clearly stated in the Book of Joshua to have done so. If you DON'T believe this story yourself, please say so.

You continue to talk about the most, "natural and probable explanation" as if this means the "most probable, and natural explanation" wins out. However, the flat earth society position actually works against you!

Works against me HOW? By establishing that the world has it's share of total idiots? I am all too aware. I have never been certain that the Flat Earth Society folk are not simply having a laugh at everyone else's expense however. And if they are, that still leaves me plenty of reason to conclude that the world has way more than it's fair share of total idiots. I have encountered individuals who are completely certain that NASA has has found that 24 hours is missing from time(23 hours and 58 minutes in fact), and that the government is withholding this information from us. It worries me that these people might attempt to walk and chew gum at the same time, only to sadly discover that NOT walking into oncoming traffic is simply one thing to many for them to handle. Nixon referred to this group as "The Silent Majority." Generally, people who found it too taxing to form an opinion on their own. Now though they seem to be generally known as Trump supporters.

You see, before we had all the knowledge we have today, the most "probable and natural explanation" to the naked eye was that the earth was flat. To the naked eye, the sun certainly seems to be revolving around the earth. Therefore most people at the time, worked from the most, "probable and natural" position. But as we now know, the most, "probable and natural" explanation was in error. What this actually means is the most, "natural and probable" explanation could blind those who believe in it, to what reality actually is.

Those who worked from the position the earth was flat, failed to consider there may be other factors involved they could not see, which means they were blind to the reality. This is why we should all, no matter what position we take, keep in mind the possibility of our error. If we do not, we could make the same errors, as the flat earthers.

Mainly true. The intelligent among us figured out that the Earth was round thousands of years ago however. A Greek scholar named Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) was the first person to fairly accurately calculate the circumference of the Earth. He used a empirical observation of the length of shadows cast by sticks to do the job. We use the empirical method today for gathering accurate information and call it science. By in large however what ancient peoples did not understand they made up answers for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like, were responsible for the things that occurred. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "Make it up and declare it to be true" method of gathering knowledge. It really had no practical value, other than to seemingly provide answers. Answers which had absolutely nothing to do with what was actually going on. Many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The empirical method has led us to conclude that the Earth is not flat, nor is it the center of the universe. It has NOT led us to discover a 24 hour period of missing time however, despite assertions to the contrary by true believers.

You continue to claim that I make assertions when I am not making any assertions at all, rather I am examining assertions made by others, along with the evidence. You see, whether you like it or not, we do have evidence of the claims made, one of which is the Biblical writings themselves. Now of course you attempt to explain these writings away, and you must. The reason why you must is because these writings are evidence. If the Biblical writings were not evidence, then there would be no need in attempting to explain them away.

You assert the claim that there exists an invisible Being who dwells in an invisible realm, that this invisible Being has total omnipotent powers which has allowed Him to be the creator of all things, and that this invisible Being will take an invisible part of us to live with Him in His invisible realm forever and ever when we die. Is it not true that everything else you believe is an outgrowth of your implicit assertion that this Being exists? If you are NOT asserting these things, then say so.

As we look at the Biblical evidence, it has to be admitted that the writers, whom ever they were, had no knowledge of the Book we now call the Bible, which means they were not writing material for inclusion into the canonical Bible. A great example of this would be the two letters attributed to Luke. This author is clearly writing to a friend, he gives his reason for writing, and also the way in which he attained his information, one of which was "careful investigation." There is also very good internal evidence in the second letter, when compared to the writings attributed to Paul, that this author was in fact along with Paul during Paul's missionary journeys all the way up until Paul's house arrest, which means this author claims to have been an eyewitness to extraordinary events. The point is, the Biblical writers did not collude together in order to write things that would one day end up in the book we now call the Bible, rather they were simply living their lives, and these letters are the by product of their lives. These letters happened to be saved, and it was not until much later that they were included into what we now know as the New Testament.

From the "evidence" found in the Odyssey we discover that there is an island named Ogygia that is the home of the goddess Calypso, daughter of the god Atlas, and that Odysseus was held captive on this island for a time by Calypso. Odysseus managed to escape on a raft however, but the raft is wrecked by Poseidon, and Odysseus finds himself shipwrecked on the island of Scherie. The Odyssey also has an account of how Odysseus blinded the one eyed cyclops giant Polyphemus. In fact the Odyssey is chock full of such "evidence," although we generally recognize that this "evidence" as mythology today. How do we know this? Because such accounts defy logic, common sense, and all experience and observation.

Another mistake you make, is that you seem to assume that I do not understand the improbability of a corpse coming back to life. But you see, I not only understand the improbabilities, I also understand that it is impossible! This impossibility is what makes these claims extraordinary. It is beyond argument that at least Paul made extraordinary claims within his lifetime. As I have also mentioned, the evidence is over whelming that Luke was indeed the author of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts. This means Luke would have wrote his letters during his lifetime.

I agree that the author of Gospel Luke almost certainly wrote Acts of the Apostles. And it's clear from Acts that the author was a follower of Paul. I suspect you mean that Paul wrote his letters sometime during the author of Gospel Luke's lifetime. That may well be true also. However you seem to feel that extraordinary claims somehow strengthens the likelihood that they are true. And I am sorry, but that simply is nonsense. The claim that the stories are too improbable NOT to be true is self serving, insupportable and frankly ridiculous. To conclude that the impossible occurred, you are forced to make up an agent that can accomplish the impossible. You call that agent "God," which then allows to you justify any further claims you make. This leads to a whole network of interconnected but ultimately insupportable assumptions and assertions. But the bottom line is, you have no actual physical foundation of fact to rest your case on. The "evidence" in Acts suggests that the early followers of Jesus were responsible for spreading the story of the risen Jesus. And it's very likely that the author of Acts and his mentor Paul personally believed these stories to be true themselves. That does not change the fact that the stories are unlikely to the point of absurdity however. We can somewhat forgive individuals living in an age steeped in supernatural beliefs and superstition for believing in supernatural claims and superstition. We should be rightly less forgiving of modern people for subscribing in such foolishness and nonsense however.

All of the above is evidence, and we have not even gotten into how these men were able to tie the death, and Resurrection of Jesus into the Old Testament, which of course was written hundreds, and even thousands of years before.

And yet the Jews themselves have never seen a correlation between Christian claims and their own religious works at all. These undeniable ties do not really seem to be quite as obvious and undeniable as you claim they are. So it's not just atheists that aren't buying it.

The point to all of this is, I understand you and others who may take your view, have used reason, and that you have reasons for your beliefs. However, for you to suggest that it is not possible for someone to use reason to come to believe the Christian message, is beyond an unreasonable position.

My "beliefs" are actually lack of belief that the impossible occurred. Your position IS an unreasonable one. The only possible saving grace would be some modicum, at least, of actual evidence that your claims are valid and not simply the rumor and hearsay that they appear to be. But you have none.

As far as the authorship of 2 Peter, that is really not the point. This may be my fault because I am usually careful to qualify by saying something like, "the author of 2 Peter," which I did not do in this case, but my point was to address your concerns about these reports being, myths, fables, etc. No matter who the author was, it is clearly his concern in the passage I cited, to ensure his readers, the events he is speaking of were not "cleverly invented stories" like some of the other religious beliefs at the time, but rather they were based on eyewitness testimony. No matter who the author, he was either reporting the truth, or lying! It cannot be said, "he was simply reporting what he had been told."

Sure it can! Just as you are reporting what you have been told. In my opinion what you believe is foolishness; clearly insupportable nonsense. But I am in no way suggesting that you are not sincere.

Really? Is says in your book of revealed truths that the sun once stopped it's movement through the sky for about a 24 hour period at a command from Joshua. And you DON'T find that in any way comparable to believing that the Earth is flat? Of course perhaps you don't believe that the sun actually stopped dead in the sky yourself, despite the fact that it is clearly stated in the Book of Joshua to have done so.

You are right, and before I went to bed last night the weather man reported that the sun would RISE at 6:30 am this morning. And you DON'T find that in any way comparable to believing that the Earth is flat? I suppose you do not, but since the Bible describes the sun stopping in the sky you find fault, but as I say, the weather man tells us every night, the sun will rise, when we all know the sun never moves, so what's up with that?

Works against me HOW?

After this, you then go on to talk about all the idiots, NASA and a 24 hour missing period of time, which is beyond me to understand what any of it has to do with our conversation. You then quote me where I explain how it works against you, and your response was,

Mainly true.

You then go on to explain how we came to understand the earth is not flat, which again has nothing to do with our conversation. My point was, you continue to talk about how the most, "natural and probable" explanation should win the day, but as I pointed out, this is what the flat earthers did at the time. In other words, the most natural, and probable explanation was the sun revolved around the earth, but we now know, the most probable, and natural explanation, was wrong. This is how the argument works against you.

You assert the claim that there exists an invisible Being who dwells in an invisible realm, that this invisible Being has total omnipotent powers which has allowed Him to be the creator of all things, and that this invisible Being will take an invisible part of us to live with Him in His invisible realm forever and ever when we die.

No! I do not assert these things at all. Rather the assertions were made by others. I have examined the assertions, along with the evidence, and believe the assertions are true, and have explained in detail why I believe as I do, over, and over on this site.

Believing the assertions of others, is a far cry from making assertions, and I do not even assert that the assertions must be true. Now, I have made some assertions, but not the ones you claim I have made. I have asserted that, we have the written documents included in the Bible. I have asserted, these documents are evidence. I have asserted, there is overwhelming evidence that Luke is the author of both, "The Gospel of Luke," and "The Actions of The Apostles." I have asserted that Paul was undeniably a missionary for the Christian Faith, and that Luke was with him on Paul's missionary journeys. I have asserted that both the writings of Paul, along with the writings of Luke would have been written in their lifetime. The point is, I do not assert things I cannot demonstrate, you are the one who makes assertions that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the "evidence" found in the Odyssey

This is where the conversation derails for me, and I see no need in continuing it. Odyssey, is a poem, that was never intended to convey truth. The New Testament writers, were authors of letters among each other, and made historical claims. This means these authors can be accused of lying, but they cannot be compared to fiction writers. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is sad to see how far some will go.

I agree that the author of Gospel Luke almost certainly wrote Acts of the Apostles. And it's clear from Acts that the author was a follower of Paul. I suspect you mean that Paul wrote his letters sometime during the author of Gospel Luke's lifetime.That may well be true also.

Well, it is good to see we can agree on something, and I will point out that you can now say, "this is something that I assert."

However you seem to feel that extraordinary claims somehow strengthens the likelihood that they are true.

This is where you go way off the reservation again, because I do not in any way believe "extraordinary claims somehow strengthens the likelihood that they are true." Rather, it is my point that they do make extraordinary claims! The point is, the argument is made that there are no recorded extraordinary claims made in the lifetime of those who would have witnessed such claims, and Paul, and the author of Luke demonstrate differently. This means, these authors would have to be said to be lying, deceived, gullible, etc., it cannot be said these things were written decades, or generations later. This is my sole point! Which goes on to demonstrate that the rest of what you have to say on this point is null, and void.

And yet the Jews themselves have never seen a correlation between Christian claims and their own religious works at all.

This is not entirely correct, because there certainly had to be a good number of the Jews who believe the message from the beginning, which was predicted in the Old Testament when God said, "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number."

Oh, and by the way, the Old Testament also predicted there would be rejection of the Messiah among the Jews.

Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary (for the Elect) ; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isa 8:15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Sure it can! Just as you are reporting what you have been told.

No, I am not reporting what I have been told, rather I am reporting what has been reported. But again, this is not the point. The author of 2 Peter cannot be accused of simply passing on what he had been told, because he actually claims to have been an eyewitness. Let me attempt to explain to you how this works.

If I have been told about a car accident, and sincerely believed it happened, and I report the accident just as it was told to me, and it is later discovered there was no accident at all, then it would not be fair to accuse me of lying. However, if I claim to have been an eyewitness to the accident, and it is later discovered, there was no accident, then what does that make me out to be?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Mainly true.

You then go on to explain how we came to understand the earth is not flat, which again has nothing to do with our conversation. My point was, you continue to talk about how the most, "natural and probable" explanation should win the day, but as I pointed out, this is what the flat earthers did at the time. In other words, the most natural, and probable explanation was the sun revolved around the earth, but we now know, the most probable, and natural explanation, was wrong. This is how the argument works against you.

it's mainly true that most people in ancient times thought that the world was flat. They weren't all idiots, just ignorant.

You assert the claim that there exists an invisible Being who dwells in an invisible realm, that this invisible Being has total omnipotent powers which has allowed Him to be the creator of all things, and that this invisible Being will take an invisible part of us to live with Him in His invisible realm forever and ever when we die.

No! I do not assert these things at all. Rather the assertions were made by others. I have examined the assertions, along with the evidence, and believe the assertions are true, and have explained in detail why I believe as I do, over, and over on this site.

Believing the assertions of others, is a far cry from making assertions, and I do not even assert that the assertions must be true. Now, I have made some assertions, but not the ones you claim I have made. I have asserted that, we have the written documents included in the Bible. I have asserted, these documents are evidence. I have asserted, there is overwhelming evidence that Luke is the author of both, "The Gospel of Luke," and "The Actions of The Apostles." I have asserted that Paul was undeniably a missionary for the Christian Faith, and that Luke was with him on Paul's missionary journeys. I have asserted that both the writings of Paul, along with the writings of Luke would have been written in their lifetime. The point is, I do not assert things I cannot demonstrate, you are the one who makes assertions that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let's get this clear. You do NOT assert the existence of God?

From the "evidence" found in the Odyssey.

This is where the conversation derails for me, and I see no need in continuing it. Odyssey, is a poem, that was never intended to convey truth. The New Testament writers, were authors of letters among each other, and made historical claims. This means these authors can be accused of lying, but they cannot be compared to fiction writers. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is sad to see how far some will go.

The Psalms are written in poetic style too, and were actually meant to be sung. Is it your contention that they were not true and never meant to convey the truth since they were poems? Both the Iliad and the Odyssey were written by Homer in poetic style. The Iliad it turns out contains much historical fact in it. There really existed a city called Troy in about the location that Homer wrote about and it was destroyed during just about the time that Homer suggested it fell to the Greeks. The sight has been under more or less constant excavation since the late 19th century when it was discovered. Does this obvious fact that the Iliad is based upon solid historical events require us to believe that the Greek hero Achilles was invulnerable, all but his heel, as a result of having been dipped into the river Styx by his mother as a child? Or can you conceive of the possibility that ancient stories are perfectly capable of containing a mixture of fact AND fiction?

The one-eyed giants known as the cyclopes were "known" to actually exist in ancient times. They were considered perfect real and extent beings. In fact, ironically we have five sources that testify to the existence of such creatures. Homer, Hesiod, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil, all wrote of a race of one eyed giants who were believed to be contained on a distant island. The Greek hero Hercules, or Heracles, the son of Zeus and a mortal virgin (God's DO have a taste for virgins) was fully believed in ancient times to have been a genuine, extant, living breathing individual. He MIGHT even have actually existed. Such is the nature of myth that it is often times constructed upon actual individuals and a semblance, at least, of actual events which were then glorified all out of proportion to reality. Because reality is seldom as interesting or exciting as make believe. But as I have stated over and over, those things which physically COULD be true, MIGHT be true. It's those things that defy reason, logic and all experience and observation that we have every right to discount.

So did Hercules/Heracles ACTUALLY exist? The early Christians believed that he did.

Wikipedia
Heracles
Christian chronology
In Christian circles a Euhemerist reading of the widespread Heracles cult was attributed to a historical figure who had been offered cult status after his death. Thus Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel (10.12), reported that Clement could offer historical dates for Hercules as a king in Argos: "from the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy."

A heroic figure raised to cult status and deified after his death by his adoring followers. Imagine that!

Here is a list of some of Hercules main accomplishments:.

Slay the Nemean Lion.
Slay the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra.
Capture the Golden Hind of Artemis.
Capture the Erymanthian Boar.
Clean the Augean stables in a single day.
Slay the Stymphalian Birds.
Capture the Cretan Bull.
Steal the Mares of Diomedes.
Obtain the girdle of Hippolyta, Queen of the Amazons.
Obtain the cattle of the monster Geryon.
Steal the apples of the Hesperides.
Capture and bring back Cerberus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules

However you seem to feel that extraordinary claims somehow strengthens the likelihood that they are true.

This is where you go way off the reservation again, because I do not in any way believe "extraordinary claims somehow strengthens the likelihood that they are true." Rather, it is my point that they do make extraordinary claims! The point is, the argument is made that there are no recorded extraordinary claims made in the lifetime of those who would have witnessed such claims, and Paul, and the author of Luke demonstrate differently. This means, these authors would have to be said to be lying, deceived, gullible, etc., it cannot be said these things were written decades, or generations later. This is my sole point! Which goes on to demonstrate that the rest of what you have to say on this point is null, and void.

Lying? Not necessarily. Lying is a willful act and only they knew if they were lying or not. I am not accusing them of lying. "Deceived and gullible?" Well, yes. In fact during the time of Paul and the author of Gospel Luke there were very few Christians in the world. The rest of the world had other beliefs, which leads us to conclude that virtually the entire world was "deceived and gullible," in that they subscribed to total nonsense. There is a good deal of that going on until this day as a matter of fact.

And yet the Jews themselves have never seen a correlation between Christian claims and their own religious works at all.

This is not entirely correct, because there certainly had to be a good number of the Jews who believe the message from the beginning, which was predicted in the Old Testament when God said, "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number."

The Jews believed at the time that the story was a hoax perpetrated by the disciples of Jesus, and continue to deny the story "until this day." It says so right in scripture. But don't take my word for it. Pick a Jew and ask them. Goat is a Jew. Ask him.

No, I am not reporting what I have been told, rather I am reporting what has been reported. But again, this is not the point. The author of 2 Peter cannot be accused of simply passing on what he had been told, because he actually claims to have been an eyewitness. Let me attempt to explain to you how this works.

And you acquired this knowledge how, by osmosis?

If I have been told about a car accident, and sincerely believed it happened, and I report the accident just as it was told to me, and it is later discovered there was no accident at all, then it would not be fair to accuse me of lying. However, if I claim to have been an eyewitness to the accident, and it is later discovered, there was no accident, then what does that make me out to be?

"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica; "Biblical Literature" p.813).

[polonius]

Realworldjack wrote:

No, I am not reporting what I have been told, rather I am reporting what has been reported. But again, this is not the point. The author of 2 Peter cannot be accused of simply passing on what he had been told, because he actually claims to have been an eyewitness. Let me attempt to explain to you how this works.

RESPONSE:
If 2 Peter wasn’t written by Peter because he was dead by the time when it was written, it is reasonable that the report is untrue.

“Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]�
Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14

“The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture" — the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way — implying that it postdates them by some time.[7]�

Dale Martin 2009 (lecture). "24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation" on YouTube. Yale University. Accessed July 22, 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

[Realworldjack]

Realworldjack wrote:

No, I am not reporting what I have been told, rather I am reporting what has been reported. But again, this is not the point. The author of 2 Peter cannot be accused of simply passing on what he had been told, because he actually claims to have been an eyewitness. Let me attempt to explain to you how this works.

RESPONSE:
If 2 Peter wasn’t written by Peter because he was dead by the time when it was written, it is reasonable that the report is untrue.

“Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]�
Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14

“The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture" — the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way — implying that it postdates them by some time.[7]�

Dale Martin 2009 (lecture). "24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation" on YouTube. Yale University. Accessed July 22, 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Okay, you certainly seem to be taking the word of the scholars, as if it is the Gospel. But let me ask you, how is this any different from a Christian claiming to believe, simply because the Bible says it? Everything you cite above is solely based on opinion, without any factual statements to back it up. So again, you are putting your faith in what the scholars have to say.

At any rate, I have had this conversation before with another member of this site who championed the Biblical scholars who challenged the traditional view of authorship. Therefore, I randomly chose a Biblical scholar, cited his work and refuted in my own words, without citing or help from outside sources.

My point is, I am far from any sort of scholar. I cite his whole article, and pick out one of his points to critique. So, if you are interested read it, and then decide if you would continue to put your faith in these scholars, and their reasoning.

ref:Re: Why no straight answers?