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?

[Willum]

[Replying to JLB32168]

I think you are missing the big picture.

No one contests that Caesar existed for any reason.

The reason the resurrection is contested, is, because, well, ii is impossible, a very good reason to contest it.

[polonius]

Yep! That is the clear from the majority of historical evidence. Do you have any credible historical evidence to the contrary?

In other words, contradictions aren't what moves you to reject the Resurrection. It's just a smoke screen. What really moves you to reject the Resurrection is the rejection of the supernatural.

I'm glad we got to establish this.

RESPONSE: No. Many significant contradictions and errors are evidence of the lack of divine authorship.

Unless you want to argue that God makes lots of mistakes.

[JLB32168]

The reason the resurrection is contested, is, because, well, ii is impossible, a very good reason to contest it.

If one presupposes that the supernatural doesn’t exist, then yes, there’s a very good reason to contest the idea of something coming back from the dead after being dead for three days.

Isn’t that a Captain Obvious statement?

[Clownboat]

It is not a straw man that you are comparing magical claims to things we know happen in reality.

Then you contradict yourself right after when you say this:

I see, you got hung up on the word 'claim'. The entire point is that you are comparing magic to things we know happen in reality. The word 'claim' need not be in the sentence in order for the actual point to be relayed. You are just choosing to look past it so you can attempt to avoid addressing this fact that you called a straw man.

I presented my evidence way back on page 4 of this thread. No one seriously engaged and challenged it. Maybe you will?

Perhaps I'll go back to page 4 to review this 'evidence'. Either way, if no one seriously engaged it nor challenged it, perhaps this 'evidence' was not worth the time?
(After a quick review of page 4)
Consider this, would Joseph Smith have provided claims that went against the religion he was creating, or would you expect him to make claims that support the religion he was creating?
Joseph Smith claimed he found golden plates and magic glasses, would we expect him to later claim that this didn't happen?
These claims made by the very same people perpetuating this religion is not reason to believe that resurrections are real anymore than golden plates and magic glasses are.
On top of that, Mark, the earliest gospel, originally didn't mention anyone even seeing the risen Christ. The idea that anyone saw the risen Christ was a forgery added many years later. This 'evidence' is as impressive as the evidence for Mohammad flying up to heaven on a winged horse is.

I assume you are not interested in hearing evidence for Smurfs are you? Would you not first want to know that Smurfs are even a possibility?

Feel free to present your evidence. I don’t mind.

Just as I don't mind if you present evidence of the resurrection which is the topic of this debate. I'm trying to ask you why I should care more about resurrection claims compared to claims made about Smurfs since both seems to be nothing more than human imagination.

You are correct. I do not have knowledge that Smurfs are not real. Neither do you.

Just like you don't have knowledge that resurrections are possible. Yet here we are talking about resurrections that are no less silly than claims made about Smurfs.

You need to do better than argue in a circle if you wish to show a resurrection is impossible or illogical.

If you think that they are possible. Please list your top reason for thinking so.

Here you demonstrate how you misunderstand the argument and misrepresent it. I’m not arguing the resurrection happened because the assassination happened.

At this point, I don't see you even trying to defend the idea that bodies can resurrect after being dead for 3 days. Yet here we are discussing such an idea that seems fully illogical and impossible. I'm trying to figure out why I should give such an idea more credibility than the existence of Smurfs. Are Smurfs and resurrections not both things we have never witnessed on this planet? Why should we discuss resurrection claims anymore seriously then claims made about Smurfs?

What I am arguing is that contradictions do not suggest non-historicity. How many more times must I explain this?

Actually, you were arguing "that the presence of contradictions among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non-historicity."
What I don't get is why you are arguing this? Who here said that contradictions necessarily indicate non-history? If no one, then it would be prudent to drop this argument.

So let’s apply your methodology to Caesar’s assassination as a historical case example.

Here is the short list of the inconsistencies between the accounts of Caesar’s assassination given by Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius:
<Snipped>

No idea, but in the real world, the question is did he get assassinated or not. Contrast that with the resurrection and ascension claim.

One is something that happens in reality, and the other is only mentioned in stories, which all except Biblical ones I would assume you would call myth. I'm just trying to figure out why all resurrection claims are not mythical, you know, like Smurfs. Why are only Biblical resurrection claims credible in your opinion? You being a believer of the Bible isn't the reason is it? That would sure be circular.

[polonius]

The reason the resurrection is contested, is, because, well, ii is impossible, a very good reason to contest it.

If one presupposes that the supernatural doesn’t exist, then yes, there’s a very good reason to contest the idea of something coming back from the dead after being dead for three days.

Isn’t that a Captain Obvious statement?

RESPONSE:

JLB seems to have adopted two principles which are different matters.

1. A supernatural exists.

2. Included in supernatural events is that one man in history was raised from or rose from the dead.

(It isn't clear whether we are supposed to accept that one man was raised from the dead (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts), or one man rose from the dead (John).

In one case the event is "passive," in the other case the event is "active." These are quite different things.

As is considering the same correctness of the two principles.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1397 by JLB32168]

Ignore the supernatural presupposition!
Caesar did amazing things, but no one contests them.

Resurrection is a physical thing that is probably impossible, even for something allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to contest it. Especially when proof of God's omnipotence is resurrection, and resurrection is proof of omnipotence.

[Goose]

Goose posted:

Here is the short list of the inconsistencies between the accounts of Caesar’s assassination given by Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius:

1. Which senators were involved.
2. How many senators were involved (Nicolas says 80!).
3. What Caesar said when Tillius Cimber came at him.
4. Where on Caesar’s body the first blow landed.
5. Whether Caesar spoke at the first blow or not.
6. Who made the first blow.
7. Whether Caesar stood to defend himself.
8. Caesar’s last words.
9. The number of stab wounds, 23 or 35.
10. Which wound actually killed him.
11. Where Caesar finally died.
12. What Caesar said to Brutus.
13. Whether Caesar was stabbed in the groin or thigh by Brutus.
14. What happened to Caesar’s body immediately after his death.
Tell me which accounts are non-history.

RESPONSE: For those who are reality oriented, the historical issue would be was Caesar assassinated or not?

Okay, so despite all the contradictions was he assassinated?

RESPONSE: Yep! That is the clear from the majority of historical evidence.

You mean that historical evidence that consists of anonymous, biased, contradictory hearsay written decades after the fact? You mean that historical evidence?

Do you have any credible historical evidence to the contrary?

I have the same kind of evidence you've been arguing in regards to the resurrection. The assassination accounts have numerous contradictions.

Oh, let me add, it was known that assassinations were fabricated.

Cassius Dio reports the suicide of Vindex gave rise to the false rumour he had been assassinated because post mortem wounds were inflicted on his body.

• â€�As the revolt continued, Vindex slew himself; for he felt exceedingly grieved because of the peril of his soldiers and was vexed at Fate because he had not been able to attain his goal in an undertaking of so great magnitude, namely the overthrow of Nero and the liberation of the Romans. This is the truth of the matter; but many afterwards inflicted wounds on his body, and so gave rise to the false impression that they themselves had killed him.â€�

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/63*.html

Do you still believe Caesar was assassinated?

[Goose]

Yep! That is the clear from the majority of historical evidence. Do you have any credible historical evidence to the contrary?

In other words, contradictions aren't what moves you to reject the Resurrection. It's just a smoke screen. What really moves you to reject the Resurrection is the rejection of the supernatural.

I'm glad we got to establish this.

RESPONSE: No. Many significant contradictions and errors are evidence of the lack of divine authorship.

So all this time all you have really been arguing against is divine authorship

[Goose]

The entire point is that you are comparing magic to things we know happen in reality.

Sigh. I’m done trying to explain how this mischaracterizes my argument. You just keep saying the same thing over and over without trying to understand what is being argued despite my repeated attempts to explain.

Either way, if no one seriously engaged it nor challenged it, perhaps this 'evidence' was not worth the time?

Oh yeah. I’m sure that’s why.

(After a quick review of page 4)
Consider this, would Joseph Smith have provided claims that went against the religion he was creating, or would you expect him to make claims that support the religion he was creating?
Joseph Smith claimed he found golden plates and magic glasses, would we expect him to later claim that this didn't happen?

Perhaps. If he knew it was a lie and his life was threatened.

These claims made by the very same people perpetuating this religion is not reason to believe that resurrections are real anymore than golden plates and magic glasses are.

I’m more than happy to look at the evidence for Mormonism. I don’t reject it a priori.

Is Joseph Smith supposed to be your attempt at rebutting the evidence I gave?

On top of that, Mark, the earliest gospel, originally didn't mention anyone even seeing the risen Christ.

He mentions Jesus will be seen as promised.

The idea that anyone saw the risen Christ was a forgery added many years later.

The idea that people saw the risen Christ existed well before Mark’s Gospel. See 1 Corinthians 15 for example.

This 'evidence' is as impressive as the evidence for Mohammad flying up to heaven on a winged horse is.

Good thing whether or not you are impressed is irrelevant then.

Just as I don't mind if you present evidence of the resurrection which is the topic of this debate.

I did present evidence. You barely attempted to address it.

I'm trying to ask you why I should care more about resurrection claims compared to claims made about Smurfs since both seems to be nothing more than human imagination.

It’s irrelevant to the evidence what you care more about.

Just like you don't have knowledge that resurrections are possible.

Correct again. I do not have knowledge that a resurrection is possible. Just as you do not have knowledge that one is impossible. Are we clear on this yet?

Yet here we are talking about resurrections that are no less silly than claims made about Smurfs.

Well I’ve presented evidence for a resurrection which you’ve yet to directly address in any meaningful way. You are welcome to present evidence for Smurfs.

If you think that they are possible. Please list your top reason for thinking so.

One of the reasons I think they are possible is there is good historical evidence, see here.

At this point, I don't see you even trying to defend the idea that bodies can resurrect after being dead for 3 days.

See here and the following 30-40 or so pages.

Yet here we are discussing such an idea that seems fully illogical and impossible.

What seems illogical and impossible to you is irrelevant.

Are Smurfs and resurrections not both things we have never witnessed on this planet?

I would argue at least one resurrection has been witnessed. See here for the evidence.

Why should we discuss resurrection claims anymore seriously then claims made about Smurfs?

For a start, there are people who have actually claimed to have witnessed a resurrection and were willing to be persecuted and even risk death for that belief. Can we say the same for Smurfs?

Who here said that contradictions necessarily indicate non-history?

You did in your previous post remember? No less than three times.

If a story has two conflicting accounts, then we know for a fact that at least one of the stories cannot be history.

These types of contradictions mean that at least one of these stories is non history.

Two contradictory accounts of the same event is in fact evidence that at least one of the claims is not history.

You tried to back it up with a case example which was shown to be a blatant non-sequitur.

No idea, but in the real world, the question is did he get assassinated or not.

Okay, so did he get assassinated?

Contrast that with the resurrection and ascension claim.

Now who’s comparing claims?

One is something that happens in reality, and the other is only mentioned in stories, which all except Biblical ones I would assume you would call myth.

Actually the assassination of Caesar is only mentioned in stories as well. You don’t know in reality he was assassinated. You just believe he was. Or maybe you don’t?

I'm just trying to figure out why all resurrection claims are not mythical, you know, like Smurfs.

Well I can’t speak for all resurrection claims but for a start the data for Jesus’ resurrection comes to us from the genre of ancient bios and letters whereas the data we have for Smurf’s come to us from the genre of cartoons etc. for children. Hopefully that helps you, you know, figure out the difference.

Why are only Biblical resurrection claims credible in your opinion?

I’m open to reviewing the data for any claim. How could I claim to be open minded if I wasn’t?

[Clownboat]

The entire point is that you are comparing magic to things we know happen in reality.

Sigh. I’m done trying to explain how this mischaracterizes my argument.

Do you deny that this is true? Are you not comparing something that is 'magic' (or whatever word you would prefer to use) to something that requires no 'magic'.

It's reasonable to go bowling, but bowling in the clouds while denying gravity is up there with resurrections. When discussing whether something is historical fact or not, this acknowledgment is important IMO no matter how much you want to gloss over this fact.

Perhaps. If he knew it was a lie and his life was threatened.

And if his life wasn't threatened, then you agree he would have no reason make claims that go against his magic plates and glasses.
You're not claiming to know that whoever wrote the gospels were having their lives threatened though are you?
Bottom line, people purporting a belief have motive to lie or embellish. Your evidence seems to be pointing to unknown people (supposed eyewitnesses) that likely had something to gain. Hard to call that reliable evidence that resurrections can happen in reality. In stories sure, here we are discussing whether or not the resurrection is a historical fact.

These claims made by the very same people perpetuating this religion is not reason to believe that resurrections are real anymore than golden plates and magic glasses are.

I’m more than happy to look at the evidence for Mormonism. I don’t reject it a priori.

Well good news! The evidence for resurrections are right up there with golden plates and magic glasses. Welcome to Mormonism.

Is Joseph Smith supposed to be your attempt at rebutting the evidence I gave?

Nope, just checking for consistency. Trying to see if claims made by those who have the most to gain are truly good enough in order to consider that seemingly impossible things are not impossible.

On top of that, Mark, the earliest gospel, originally didn't mention anyone even seeing the risen Christ.

He mentions Jesus will be seen as promised.

Please don't distract from the point that the risen Christ claims made in Mark are forgeries added much later in history.

The idea that people saw the risen Christ existed well before Mark’s Gospel. See 1 Corinthians 15 for example.

I point to a forgery in Mark and you point to a writing by Paul who never met Christ and reference an idea that people saw a risen Christ. Got it.

Good thing whether or not you are impressed is irrelevant then.

I doubt the readers are impressed, but I assume you don't care about them either. You and JLB have an odd way of debating since whether or not your arguments are found to be impressive or not is not something you guys seem to care about. To each their own I suppose.

I did present evidence. You barely attempted to address it.

Readers, I believe I have addressed the evidence by comparison. Comparing reasons to believe one claim (look what followers of the religions said about the religion) when they are not reasons to believe competing religious claims is not a way to determine if impossible acts are historical. If this is good enough reason, the we all should be Christians, Muslims and Mormons.

I'm trying to ask you why I should care more about resurrection claims compared to claims made about Smurfs since both seems to be nothing more than human imagination.

It’s irrelevant to the evidence what you care more about.

Very mature.
To be clear, you admit that you are not able to articulate a reason that I should find resurrection claims anymore believable then claims made about Smurfs?
Irrelevant my hind quarters.

Just like you don't have knowledge that resurrections are possible.

Correct again. I do not have knowledge that a resurrection is possible. Just as you do not have knowledge that one is impossible. Are we clear on this yet?

Not really. I think you should point out to the readers one more time that your defense is that I don't know that resurrections are not impossible. I'm biologically certain of it, but I'm not magically certain.

Well I’ve presented evidence for a resurrection which you’ve yet to directly address in any meaningful way. You are welcome to present evidence for Smurfs.

I have explained why I don't find it credible. You admit that you don't care as to what impresses me.

What seems illogical and impossible to you is irrelevant.

Yes, you and JLB continue to express that you don't care if your arguments are impressive or not. It's an odd attitude to keep hearing here on a debate website.

I would argue at least one resurrection has been witnessed. See here for the evidence.

Why do you keep pointing to unknown people referencing other unknown people that claim to be eyewitnesses? Oh ya, you don't care if your evidence is impressive, but someone claimed it so, biology be damned and dead bodies coming back to life is reasonable.

Why should we discuss resurrection claims anymore seriously then claims made about Smurfs?

For a start, there are people who have actually claimed to have witnessed a resurrection and were willing to be persecuted and even risk death for that belief. Can we say the same for Smurfs?

No need to click on the link, nothing new is being presented. I guess all that Goose would need in order to believe in Smurfs is for someone unknown person to claim that they saw a Smurf.

No idea, but in the real world, the question is did he get assassinated or not.

Okay, so did he get assassinated?

I don't know, but it is reasonable, unlike dead bodies coming back to life.

Contrast that with the resurrection and ascension claim.

Now who’s comparing claims?

Um, in this instance I clearly am. Do you understand that assassinations are reasonable and that resurrection and ascension claims are not?

Actually the assassination of Caesar is only mentioned in stories as well. You don’t know in reality he was assassinated. You just believe he was. Or maybe you don’t?

Please tell us all what the assassination of Caesar has to do with whether or not the resurrection is an historical fact. IMO, you keep bringing this up to distract from the topic at hand.

Well I can’t speak for all resurrection claims but for a start the data for Jesus’ resurrection comes to us from the genre of ancient bios and letters whereas the data we have for Smurf’s come to us from the genre of cartoons etc. for children. Hopefully that helps you, you know, figure out the difference.

Not really, IMO both claims are for children, one of them just sometimes carries on to adulthood.

Why are only Biblical resurrection claims credible in your opinion?

I’m open to reviewing the data for any claim. How could I claim to be open minded if I wasn’t?

No explanation was given as to why Biblical resurrection claims are credible while others are not. I'll have to assume it comes down to the unknown people claiming that other unknowns saw a risen Christ.