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]

My aim is to not substantiate but open the door to the possibility that Jesus did rise from the dead. We cannot dismiss something as impossible therefore rule it out.

RESPONSE: Some people claim and it cannot be proven otherwise that Jesus was actually an extraterrestrial from an advanced civilization who traveled to earth in a UFO. Should we "open the door to this possibility."

Or at some point should we accept plain reality?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1244 by Claire Evans]

Matthew 28:

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Therefore the chief priests knew that the Romans guards weren't being lax but bribed them to say they were.

I'm wondering why this section exists at all. Why did you reply this to me? I'm the one arguing that the guards were probably lax (or bribed or suborned in some way), prior to that paragraph, you were against the claim...then here you quoting Matthew and saying that the guards were in fact bribed!

You're being incredibly inconsistent.

[polonius]

Clair Evans wrote:

In regards to why some scriptures appear in some gospels, but not in others demands a lot on the audience. Matthew wrote about the fulfillment of OT prophecies. In the dead saints rising argument, I believe it could be a symbolic fulfillment of the resurrection of the dead.

QUESTION: How about a simple fiction to make believers and maintain control over them?

[Claire Evans]

Claire Evens posted:

(I)t must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

RESPONSE: Certainly untrue! Legends commonly develop in 25 years or less.

“Legends, some believe, are stories that have to be at least 20 years old or more (recent past) and are based on a real individual that can be proven to have once lived. Although the legend may not be truly accurate, the fact that the person existed is true.

A good example of a famous legend is Davy Crockett. Although he has a reputation for being "King of the Wild Frontier" due to television, movies and cartoons, well... historical documents state differently.�

https://www.brownielocks.com/folklore.html

Actually Davy Crockett encouraged myths about him for political reasons. He began to mytholize himself.

http://classroom.synonym.com/did-myths- ... 10147.html

"What are legends?

A legend is usually based on a true event in the past. However, the story may have changed over time to take on some special 'mythical' features.
Legends usually have a real hero at the centre of the story and they are often set in fantastic places. The story will have been passed on from person to person, sometimes over a very long period of time. The fact that so many people have taken the trouble to keep the story alive, usually tells you that it has some very important meaning for the culture or region in which the story was first told."

Legends of someone do not occur within the lifetime of a person the legend revolves around. It evolves over time and the myth of Crockett didn't.

The legend of Colonel Travis drawing the line in the sand at the Alamo.

Mythologizing The Alamo by Richard G. Santos

In 1873, a full 37 years after the battle, Zuber published his account of Travis drawing the line and the escape of Moses Rose. The reaction was so swift to his ludicrous account that Zuber admitted he had made up part of the story. Although, he never clarified which part he made up, there is no evidence pointing to the existence of any man named Moses Rose.

Note: This was hardly 100 years after the event.

There was, however, a man named Stephen, alias Louis Rose, living in Nacogdoches in the 1840s who was known as a drunkard, liar and person of ill-repute. He apparently was engaged in fraudulent land claims and kept using different first names.
He claimed to have been at the Alamo before the final assault. Unfortunately for him, some of his Nacogdoches neighbors also attested that he had never left the town and was well-known for his wild claims and exaggerations.

https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewit ... antos.html

As mentioned, legends a really long time to evolve. In the case of Zuber, as you mentioned, the story was in print 37 years after the battle.

"The great myths and legends were not authored by individuals the way stories are today but were evolved naturally and instinctively by unconscious processes in oral traditions. Even if they started out as made-up or true stories, revelations or dreams, they still ended up for long periods of time in oral traditions and that became the principal dynamic behind their creation."

We know the myth of Colonel Travis did not evolve. It had one version. Legends are told by word of mouth and passed down. So the story of Colonel started off as a myth, clearly. However, today it has become a legend.

Zuber probably had this idea he had a write to poetic licence.

Ancient historians also recorded historical events yet embellished them with fiction to make the account more compelling.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=uZb ... em&f=false

The Resurrection story. (1 Cor 15)

Jesus was crucified between 30 and 33 AD. The first record we have is Paul’s 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, a story written about 55 AD.

Note: This was hardly 100 years after the event.

Absolutely.

[JLB32168]

I'm addressing the argument you attempted.

You addressed your fabrication of what you wish I had said. Then you mocked your fabrication.

Let’s see if you’ll address my actual argument. I don’t really think you will since it pretty much means you’d have to concede something to me, but one can always hope.

You said, “Rome crucified Jesus once. Obviously, they could do it twice, if it had been necessary. It wasn't.�

If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur.

I'm sorry if that "makes no sense to you."

What makes no sense to me is why you simply can’t address the point being made, but must address a point that you wish I had made (and how you think anyone is fooled by this.)

[polonius]

I'm addressing the argument you attempted.

You addressed your fabrication of what you wish I had said. Then you mocked your fabrication.

Let’s see if you’ll address my actual argument. I don’t really think you will since it pretty much means you’d have to concede something to me, but one can always hope.

You said, “Rome crucified Jesus once. Obviously, they could do it twice, if it had been necessary. It wasn't.�

If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur.

I'm sorry if that "makes no sense to you."

What makes no sense to me is why you simply can’t address the point being made, but must address a point that you wish I had made (and how you think anyone is fooled by this.)

RESPONSE:

Let me reprint jlb's argument.

If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur.

NOTE: There is no question mark.

RESPONSE:

My response was

“Rome crucified Jesus once. Obviously, they could do it twice, if it had been necessary. It wasn't.�

What part of my response are you attempting to dispute?


(1) Please note that this is a "If" argument.

If an omnipotent deity existed

.So it remains hypothetical, although you seem to be presenting it (without evidence) as a fact.

(2) And therefore

"would it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur.

.

(3) You presented no actual evidence supporting such a view did or could have happened. Scripture reports Jesus died as the result of his (first) crucifixion.

So such an attempted rebuttal is both unproven and therefore irrelevant.

[JLB32168]

Let me reprint jlb's argument: “If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur.

PA: There is no question mark.

Okay – so I missed a point of punctuation and placed a period instead of a question mark. I’ll restate it.
If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur?

No that the earth shattering point of punctuation has been corrected, do you plan on answering it?

[That an omnipotent deity existed] remains hypothetical, although you seem to be presenting it (without evidence) as a fact.

I’ve used the “If� and said, “should it exist�; furthermore, you cited that exact phrase twice. That clearly isn’t a statement of fact. You’re debating grammar and it suggest desperation.

You presented no actual evidence supporting such a view did or could have happened.

I wasn’t attempting to present actual evidence. Perhaps you wished I had done that, but I didn’t. I presented a hypothetical omnipotent deity and asked if Rome’s desire would frustrate the plans of said deity if s/he/it wished for X to occur.

You’ve avoided answering that question on numerous occasions. The most likely reason is that you don’t wish to concede that omnipotence would pretty much trump any mere human army’s intentions. I’m rather amazed that you can’t even concede a hypothetical. Of course, that seems to be a common skeptic MO on this website.

[Clownboat]

How about Seneca the Younger too? He was a Roman Stoic philosopher that lived during the time of Jesus. We have much of his work. No mention of a resurrection or the 500 corpses walking around.

There is much speculation about Seneca, even that he was converted to Christianity, which seems unlikely.

In answer to the question: “ What would it take to make men believe in immortality? Seneca replied: " that a man had risen from the dead. �

I'm certainly not surprised.
Such themes were not uncommon back when man was ignorant (compared to now).

10 Resurrected Religious Figures
http://listverse.com/2013/03/30/10-resu ... s-figures/

There was a time when resurrection themes certainly did cause men to believe in immortality.

[polonius]

polonius.advice wrote:

Let me reprint jlb's argument: “If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur.

PA: There is no question mark.
JLB has now replied:

Okay – so I missed a point of punctuation and placed a period instead of a question mark. I’ll restate it.
If an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur?

No that the earth shattering point of punctuation has been corrected, do you plan on answering it?

RESPONSE: I already have. I’ll let you continue to play the “If� game and I’ll move on to more substantial questions regarding the alleged dogma of the Resurrection.

I wasn’t attempting to present actual evidence. Perhaps you wished I had done that, but I didn’t. I presented a hypothetical omnipotent deity and asked if Rome’s desire would frustrate the plans of said deity if s/he/it wished for X to occur.

Are you still still avoiding addressing the reality of the topic at hand:

“ Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?�

Jlb posted

You’ve avoided answering that question on numerous occasions. The most likely reason is that you don’t wish to concede that omnipotence would pretty much trump any mere human army’s intentions. I’m rather amazed that you can’t even concede a hypothetical. Of course, that seems to be a common skeptic MO on this website.

RESPONSE: The "most likely reason" is because I see no purpose of dealing with an endless series of “hypotheticals� and deal with the realities and the facts of history.

You are, of course, free to post what you want. But I'm not wasting more time playing "What if...?

[JLB32168]

I already have.

No – you didn’t. The question asked if an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur. Your response was “You presented no actual evidence supporting such a view did or could have happened.� That doesn’t address the question, but is an avoidance of it.

Here’s the gist of my point. If an omnipotent deity existed and wished for a man to preach the Gospel, it wouldn’t matter if the entire imperial army wished to kill that man since the deity wouldn’t allow it to occur. Omnipotence has its perks.
Your intense aversion to conceding a point to someone – to allow that he might be right even if only in a hypothetical sense – overrides all and doesn’t speak well of your ability to defend a point.

Are you still still avoiding addressing the reality of the topic at hand: “Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?�

I’ve addressed it already. It can’t be proved. Your assertions that men started writing about the resurrection decades after the event allegedly occurred are founded upon absence of evidence. Indeed, Paul had to have heard about the resurrection from someone. Do you have evidence that he heard it from what people said rather than from what he had seen written?

No you don’t.

Therefore, your assertion “Nothing was written about the resurrection until decades later� is empty and illogical. [smile]