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?

[polonius]

Jesus was crucified around 30 AD. The first written report we have is that of Paul (1 Cor 15) written in about 55 AD or 25 years after the fact and written to Corinth about 815 miles from Jerusalem far from where the Resurrection was claimed to have occurred.

The next account we have was written by Mark (thought to be written in Syria) in about 70 AD.

What is very significant is that neither Paul's nor Mark's accounts, the earlier scriptures, mention anything about an Ascension.

Early in the 2nd century, someone added this story to Mark's Gospel and it became known as "the Longer Ending to Mark." (Mark 16:9-19). There are several additional later endings to Mark.

Thus Matthew's, Luke's, and John's versions, all written 50 years of more after the supposed event.

Still, some would like us to believe that all these amazing events were well know, but witnesses (or those hearing the amazing story) wrote nothing or the writings were lost, so it remained an "oral tradition."

An interesting question is why was it necessary to develop the Ascension story. (Again, we are told by some that while many knew all about these amazing events, written records of the stories did not appear until much later)!

Why do you think an Ascension story was necessary but not contained in Paul and Mark?

[polonius]

Rome regularly fought against gods and to those worshipping them they would have been as real as Yahweh is to you.

That really doesn’t address anything I said, Marco.

PA said that if Christ was resurrected then Rome would capture him again and execute him a second time. I countered that if a deity resurrected Christ and intended him to preach the Gospel then Rome should shriek like banshees under the window sill until they turned blue in the face. They still wouldn’t be able to frustrate the designs of an omnipotent deity.

RESPONSE: If Roman soldiers successfully crucified Jesus once, they could do it twice. Unless someone wants to maintain a "miracle" story.

[JLB32168]

Jesus was crucified around 30 AD. The first written report we have is that of Paul (1 Cor 15) written in about 55 AD or 25 years after the fact and written to Corinth about 815 miles from Jerusalem far from where the Resurrection was claimed to have occurred.

Have you confirmed that nothing was written until Paul wrote his letters? Since that seems to be the case, might I borrow your time machine to see how Christ spent his youth?

What is very significant is that neither Paul's nor Mark's accounts, the earlier scriptures, mention anything about an Ascension.

Paul doesn’t mention Christ being born either. Shall we infer that Paul thought Christ sprang from the underside of a cabbage leaf?

If Roman soldiers successfully crucified Jesus once, they could do it twice. Unless someone wants to maintain a "miracle" story.

If an all-powerful deity doesn’t wish for X to happen then it won’t.

Do you disagree with the conclusion that if an all-powerful deity exists, and wishes for X to happen (such as going to people and sending a message) that X will happen, even if Rome raises the entire imperial army in attempts to stop X from occurring?

[Zzyzx]

.

If an all-powerful deity doesn’t wish for X to happen then it won’t.

In these debates we do NOT assume that an all-powerful deity exists.

[tfvespasianus]

.

If an all-powerful deity doesn’t wish for X to happen then it won’t.

In these debates we do NOT assume that an all-powerful deity exists.

It seems that if a theist cannot introduce the possibility of the agency of their god, even for the sake of argument, then they are at an inherent, serious disadvantage in most discussions involving religion.

[polonius]

Jesus was crucified around 30 AD. The first written report we have is that of Paul (1 Cor 15) written in about 55 AD or 25 years after the fact and written to Corinth about 815 miles from Jerusalem far from where the Resurrection was claimed to have occurred

Have you confirmed that nothing was written until Paul wrote his letters? Since that seems to be the case, might I borrow your time machine to see how Christ spent his youth?

RESPONSE:

Most persons follow the common sense advice of Aristotle and "seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows."

This means no reasonable doubt.

“The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyonds dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. ….No Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.�

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... able+doubt

What is very significant is that neither Paul's nor Mark's accounts, the earlier scriptures, mention anything about an Ascension.

Paul doesn’t mention Christ being born either. Shall we infer that Paul thought Christ sprang from the underside of a cabbage leaf?

RESPONSE:

Actually, if you have read Galatians 4, Paul does report the natural birth of Christ the same as all men's births.

Galatians 4: 4 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.

Both would be natural births.

If Roman soldiers successfully crucified Jesus once, they could do it twice. Unless someone wants to maintain a "miracle" story.

If an all-powerful deity doesn’t wish for X to happen then it won’t.

Do you disagree with the conclusion that if an all-powerful deity exists, and wishes for X to happen (such as going to people and sending a message) that X will happen, even if Rome raises the entire imperial army in attempts to stop X from occurring?

RESPONSE:
I disagree with your conclusion clearly not supported by any evidence.

[marco]

Rome regularly fought against gods and to those worshipping them they would have been as real as Yahweh is to you.

That really doesn’t address anything I said, Marco.

PA said that if Christ was resurrected then Rome would capture him again and execute him a second time. I countered that if a deity resurrected Christ and intended him to preach the Gospel then Rome should shriek like banshees under the window sill until they turned blue in the face. They still wouldn’t be able to frustrate the designs of an omnipotent deity.

We're driving different cars, JLB.

I said Rome attacked deities and won. You are endowing your deity with omnipotence, so that Rome would not -in theory - win. I agree. If God played at Wimbledon then he would easily defeat Djokovic or Murray or Federer.

Game, set and match to God.

[JLB32168]

In these debates we do NOT assume that an all-powerful deity exists.

You don’t have to assume one exists; however, why debate any theological anything if we don’t allow if only for the sake of debating a theological question that a deity hypothetically exists?

Just say, “All theological questions are stupid since you can’t prove a theos even exists� then you guys will cease to have anyone to debate. There, I’ve solved the problem.

[tfvespasianus]

If God played at Wimbledon then he would easily defeat Djokovic or Murray or Federer.

Game, set and match to God.

If such was his wont, but he could lose on purpose. However, he would be fined for throwing the match.

Nonetheless, I guess the point stands that we are allowing that his will could not be thwarted.

[JLB32168]

Most persons follow the common sense advice of Aristotle and "seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows."

Okay – so you have not confirmed that nothing was written until Paul wrote his letters. In fact, someone might have written something that no longer survives prior to Paul’s writing. After all, where did Paul get his information if not from something he read?

Actually, if you have read Galatians 4, Paul does report the natural birth of Christ the same as all men's births.

Paul reports that Christ was born. Paul’s description doesn’t exclude the traditional Christian interpretation. Few skeptic sites I’ve searched point out this alleged problem. It seems your interpretation of Galatians is unique to you.

I disagree with your conclusion clearly not supported by any evidence.

My conclusion is that an omnipotent deity, should it exist, would have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army. Are you perhaps addressing an argument that you wish I had made? In any case, your disagreement with the aforementioned conclusion makes no sense to me, but okay.