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?

[Goose]

Do you deny that this is true?

Yep.

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

Nope. Not in the sense you mean it.

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.

Of course he’d have a reason. To prevent himself from being killed.

You're not claiming to know that whoever wrote the gospels were having their lives threatened though are you?

The evidence suggests the early Christians were both persecuted and risked death for their beliefs.

�As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.� – Acts 4:1-4

“But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.� – Acts 5:17-18

�But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.� But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them.� – Acts 5:29-33

�They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.� – Acts 5:40

The Greek word here for “flogged� is derō which is defined by Strong’s as “A primary verb; properly to flay, that is, (by implication) to scourge, or (by analogy) to thrash: - beat, smite.� It’s the same word used for Jesus’ flogging (Luke 22:63).

� Now when they [the Jews and high priest-Acts 7:1] heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at [Stephen]... But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse. When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!� Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!� Having said this, he fell asleep.� – Acts 7:54, 57-60

�Saul was in hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.� – Acts 8:1-3

�Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword. When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.� – Acts 12:1-3

�But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.� - 1 Clement 5.

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.

Hate to burst your bubble here but virtually every work from history was written by someone who had something to gain, motive to lie, and was biased in some way. Yep, even the sources that record the assassination.

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

If you say so. Tell me how this addresses the evidence for the resurrection again?

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.

In other words, you don’t have a coherent argument which rebuts the evidence for the resurrection. Figured as much.

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

The risen Christ claim is contained in the earliest manuscripts.

Here’s how Mark ends.

�And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – 16:6-8

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.

You don’t seem to have a cogent counter argument to the fact that the idea that people saw the risen Christ existed well before Mark’s Gospel. Got it.

I doubt the readers are impressed, but I assume you don't care about them either.

Your doubts are noted but are as irrelevant as you not being impressed.

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.

I can’t speak for JLB but when it comes to my arguments the only things I care about are that the logic behind them is valid and they are backed with evidence. If you can’t rebut either of those things I won't pay much attention. Your personal opinion of my arguments couldn’t be more irrelevant.

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.

The reasoning here for thinking the evidence for the resurrection has been adequately addressed by appealing to Joseph Smith is as horrid as the reasoning used in that botched attempt at an illustration of a contradiction where Jack went up the hill to the mall for lunch.

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?

What you personally find believable or not is irrelevant. Why are so many of your responses about your personal feelings, doubts, beliefs, what you personally find credible, and whether you are impressed? These aren’t counter arguments.

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.

Okay, gladly. You don’t know resurrections are impossible. There.

I'm biologically certain of it, but I'm not magically certain.

Your certainty is noted. Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument?

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

That’s right. I couldn’t give to shakes what you personally find impressive or not.

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.

No, what’s odd is that on a debate website where we are supposed to present arguments and counter arguments one seems to think telling the oppenent they don’t find an argument or evidence impressive is supposed to be some kind of good counter argument.

Why do you keep pointing to unknown people referencing other unknown people that claim to be eyewitnesses?

Because that’s how history comes down to us.

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.

You asserting it’s unreasonable doesn’t make it so.

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.

Once again you aren’t addressing the argument with a cogent counter argument. You asked, “Why should we discuss resurrection claims anymore seriously then claims made about Smurfs?� I gave you a valid reason and you have no coherent rebuttal. Here’s another reason. No one with at least a degree in history seriously argues for Smurf’s. There are numerous people with at least a degree in history that argue for the resurrection of Jesus. That alone is prima facie evidence to discuss the resurrection of Jesus more seriously than Smurf’s.

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

You say it’s reasonable, but you won't say if he was assassinated.

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

If the assassination is so reasonable why the reluctance to say you believe it? Just put it out there man.

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.

Your opinion is noted, but wrong. I bring up Caesar when I need to as a reductio ad absurdum. Whenever you or others try to make some silly argument against the evidence for the resurrection I use the assassination (or other events) to show that your reasoning is wonky. That your reasoning leads to absurd conclusions like Caesar was never assassinated. It’s a very strong counter argument which is why folks like yourself usually spend so much time complaining about it rather being able to muster up any coherent rebuttal.

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

Once again no cogent counter argument. Just an opinion.

Oh dear, I see a trend here.

No explanation was given as to why Biblical resurrection claims are credible while others are not.

No kidding. I would never argue that only Bible claims are credible.

[polonius]

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

Goose posted:

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

RESPONSE: No. That may be the case with Jesus, but not Caesar. The overwhelming bulk of reliable evidence is that Julius Caesar was assassinated. If not, perhaps you will inform us about what happened to him and why, and why following his assassination, a Roman civil war avenged Caesar’s murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberators%27_civil_war

‘The Liberators' civil war was started by the Second Triumvirate to avenge Julius Caesar's murder. The war was fought by the forces of Mark Antony and Octavian (the Second Triumvirate members) against the forces of Caesar's assassins Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus in 42 BC.’

[Goat]

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.

The first thing one must look at, is the claim physically feasible. When it comes to assassinations, and people getting stabbed, there are many examples of that happening, and it has been directly observed. We have a physical model about how and why it can happen.

What is the testable and physical model that will bring someone back from the dead after being buried for 3 days??? What is the way to verify someones decent into hell and back ??

[Zzyzx]

.
No matter how it is sliced, diced and danced around, the ONLY 'evidence' that a long dead body came back to life consists of unverifiable STORIES written by religion promoters who cannot be shown to have witnessed the event.

In fact, no one is even claimed to have witnessed the actual 'resurrection'. There are only stories about people finding an empty tomb and stories about people seeing the deceased reanimated. Empty tombs abound without conclusions that the deceased came back to life and left. Many claim to see deceased people.

Thus, the 'evidence' supporting the 'came back to life' story is questionable to say the least. However, it is defended vigorously by those whose religious beliefs require that the story be true.

Additionally, the same promotional literature claims that other long-dead bodies came back to life and other magical tales. Why should anyone take such stories to be literally true and accurate?

[polonius]

Christ was supposed to have been raised from the dead about 30 A.D.

But the first record of this event is by Paul, not a witness, written 25 years after the event to people 815 miles away from where it was supposed to have happened. It claims 500 witness none of which or the very many others they would have told (including Jews, Gentiles, Romans) left any writings about this amazing happening.

Next Gospels appeared between 70 and 95 AD telling conflicting versions of the same story. Why do you think these stories were written?

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[Goose]

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

]RESPONSE: No. That may be the case with Jesus, but not Caesar. The overwhelming bulk of reliable evidence is that Julius Caesar was assassinated.

Have you actually read the primary accounts?

Okay so let’s be clear here. In your view anonymous, biased, contradictory hearsay written decades after the event is reliable.

Let’s look at some of that evidence.

Nicolas of Damascus wrote his Life of Augustus probably sometime c.14AD which is about 60 years after the assassination. That’s where the first full narrative of the assassination appears. It is strictly speaking just as anonymous as the Gospels as it does not internally self identify. It is biased written by a big fan of Augustus (the adopted son of Caesar). The opening declares...

�To set forth the full power of this man's intelligence and virtue, both in the administration which he exercised at Rome and in the conduct of great wars both domestic and foreign, is a subject for competition in speech and essay, that men may win renown by treating it well. I myself shall relate his achievements, so that all can know the truth.�

Not exactly an impartial source. From the outset we know what follows will be biased. Julius Caesar is spoken of in glowing terms such “great� on several occasions. His exploits are praised along with his virtue. Nicolas paints Caesar as so loved by all the people that there was no one who did not cry at his death.

�Then no one refrained from tears, seeing him who had lately been honored like a god. Much weeping and lamentation accompanied them from either side, from mourners on the roofs, in the streets, and in the vestibules.�

As for his sources Nicolas tells us on numerous occasions he is relaying hearsay. He was not a witness and we have no real idea where he got his information as he does not reveal his sources.

It doesn’t get any better with the later narratives from Plutarch and Suetonius.

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

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

We’ve already been over the numerous contradictions but here’s one for you to chew on.

Plutarch says that at the first blow Caesar cried out, "Accursed Casca, what does thou?"

Suetonius says Caesar “uttered not a word� at the first blow.

Maybe you can explain how it can be the case Caesar spoke and didn’t speak at the first blow. Seems like a memorable thing, the last words of a dying Caesar. They couldn’t even keep their story straight. It must be fiction, right?

If not, perhaps you will inform us about what happened to him and why, and why following his assassination, a Roman civil war avenged Caesar’s murder.

Nicolas himself gives us a reason.

�The soldiers would be hostile toward the murderers because they had been fond of Caesar, and their sympathy would increase when they saw [Octavius/Augutus].�

Caesar dies by natural causes like the rest of us and a scramble for power ensues thus accounting for the civil war. Start a rumor that your political rivals have assassinated Caesar to gain the support of the army and people. It’s brilliant. Add to this we have evidence from Dio that assassinations were staged. Voila. Using the hyper-skeptic’s own reasoning, no assassination.

Do you still believe the evidence is reliable enough to conclude he was assassinated?

[Clownboat]

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

Nope. Not in the sense you mean it.

How would a body that has been decomposing for 3 days come back to life? Do you argue that this is something that can happen naturally, or is there 'magic' or 'supernatural' or something else involved?
Now ask yourself if assassinations can happen naturally, or do they require 'magic' or the 'supernatural'.

<Snipped> all the Bible verses because, let's see if I get this right, "I don't care if you find them impressive or credible". They are just claims made in books and that is not good enough IMO for rational people to conclude that the impossible happened. More is needed for that I would think.

Hate to burst your bubble here but virtually every work from history was written by someone who had something to gain, motive to lie, and was biased in some way. Yep, even the sources that record the assassination.

My bubble is just fine Goose. Why? Well because the majority of history is not made up of impossible claims like so and so rose from the dead after 3 days and ascended up to heaven. That type of 'history' is on a different level when compared to the mundane.

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

If you say so. Tell me how this addresses the evidence for the resurrection again?

This addresses consistency Goose. If claims made in a book is all that is really needed in order to believe seemingly nonsensical claims, then you should be a Mormon. You are not, so therefore I question if claims made in a book really are the mechanism you use to believe that this particular dead body came back to life and ascended up to a heaven. What you call your evidence is just that, claims made in a book, but what's worse is that for much of it we don't even know who wrote the claims nor when.

�And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – 16:6-8

Readers, notice how there are no claims of anyone actually witnessing this risen Christ. Just claims that people will. Claims that people actually did see the risen Christ were a forgery added many years later.

You don’t seem to have a cogent counter argument to the fact that the idea that people saw the risen Christ existed well before Mark’s Gospel. Got it.

The claim that people will eventually see him existed. The claim that people actually did see him is a forgery added many years later. There is a big difference in these claims and you keep glossing over the fact that one is a forgery and you seem immune to the idea that the entire story of the resurrection and ascension could possible be a made up claim like Mohammed and Joseph Smith claims.

I can’t speak for JLB but when it comes to my arguments the only things I care about are that the logic behind them is valid and they are backed with evidence.

Good to hear! Please explain the logic involved in believing that decomposing bodies can come back to life.

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?

<Snipped the dodge>
I must wonder why he is unable to articulate a reason why anyone should find resurrection claims believable. Well, beyond "it was written about in a book" of course. What mechanism would need to be involved for the liquefied organs to come back to life and would such a mechanism be needed in order for Caesar to be assassinated?

I'm biologically certain of it, but I'm not magically certain.

Your certainty is noted. Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument?

Yes Goose. At this point though, all that remains to be pointed out is that you have not offered justification beyond 'claims in a book' to refute what biology tells us about decomposing bodies and the reality that death is not reversible.

No, what’s odd is that on a debate website where we are supposed to present arguments and counter arguments one seems to think telling the oppenent they don’t find an argument or evidence impressive is supposed to be some kind of good counter argument.

I have no idea why you would think that noting that an argument is not impressive would be some kind of counter argument. Seems like a statement that could either be true or not true, which for me anyway, trying to offer good arguments over bad arguments is important.

Why do you keep pointing to unknown people referencing other unknown people that claim to be eyewitnesses?

Because that’s how history comes down to us.

You paint with to broad of a brush here. Either way, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence before being believed. Really, really, really wanting claims to be true is not justification IMO to accept poor evidence (claims made by people claiming that their claims are true) for things that seem impossible.

You asserting it’s unreasonable doesn’t make it so.

Please clarify. You find it reasonable to have a body that has been decomposing for 3 days come back to life?

Here’s another reason. No one with at least a degree in history seriously argues for Smurf’s. There are numerous people with at least a degree in history that argue for the resurrection of Jesus. That alone is prima facie evidence to discuss the resurrection of Jesus more seriously than Smurf’s.

Appeal to authority noted. In the real world, resurrections are just as real as Smurfs.

You say it’s reasonable, but you won't say if he was assassinated. lol

I fail to see what is funny. I don't know if Caesar was assassinated. I note that it is a claim that is reasonable, unlike resurrections and ascensions. I also note that Caesar does not help us to decide if said resurrection and ascension claims are historical fact or not.

If the assassination is so reasonable why the reluctance to say you believe it? Just put it out there man.

I don't know that it happened. The assassination of Caesar is not something I have ever dedicated my life to, unlike the Bible and the god of it. I cannot put it out there Goose and I don't know what it has to do with whether or not these claims about Christ are historical fact or not. I'm not claiming that it is historical fact that Caesar was assassinated. You however are trying to argue just that about these Christ claims.

No explanation was given as to why Biblical resurrection claims are credible while others are not.

No kidding. I would never argue that only Bible claims are credible.

Dodge noted and we need a consistency check again. Do you find the claims about Mohammed ascending to heaven on a flying horse to be credible? How about Joseph Smiths golden plates and magical glasses? Are those claims credible? They are both claims made in books after all, heck, even by people with motive to have others believe these claims are true.

[polonius]

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

]RESPONSE: No. That may be the case with Jesus, but not Caesar. The overwhelming bulk of reliable evidence is that Julius Caesar was assassinated.

Have you actually read the primary accounts?

Okay so let’s be clear here. In your view anonymous, biased, contradictory hearsay written decades after the event is reliable.

RESPONSE: See my previous posts. My "view" is the facts of history that can be firmly established regardless of your claims otherwise.

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassina ... assination

“To combat Brutus and Cassius, who were massing an enormous army in Greece, Antony needed soldiers, the cash from Caesar's war chests, and the legitimacy that Caesar's name would provide for any action he took against them. With passage of the Lex Titia on November 27, 43 BC,[28] the Second Triumvirate was officially formed, composed of Antony, Octavian, and Caesar's Master of the Horse Lepidus.[29] It formally deified Caesar as Divus Iulius in 42 BC, and Caesar Octavian henceforth became Divi filius ("Son of the Divine").[30] Seeing that Caesar's clemency had resulted in his murder, the Second Triumvirate brought back proscription, abandoned since Sulla.[31] It engaged in the legally sanctioned murder of a large number of its opponents in order to fund its forty-five legions in the second civil war against Brutus and Cassius.[32] Antony and Octavian defeated them at Philippi.�

See Osgood, Josiah (2006). Caesar's Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 60

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1412 by polonius.advice]

To sum up your argument p.a.
There are far too many people reacting to the violent death of a major figure, over a widespread region, on different sides of a political spectrum, within a short time of his death, for the assassination to not be true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1411 by Clownboat]

This addresses consistency Goose. If claims made in a book is all that is really needed in order to believe seemingly nonsensical claims, then you should be a Mormon. You are not, so therefore I question if claims made in a book really are the mechanism you use to believe that this particular dead body came back to life and ascended up to a heaven. What you call your evidence is just that, claims made in a book, but what's worse is that for much of it we don't even know who wrote the claims nor when.

The claims of Mormonism are MUCH stronger than the standard Christian claims
1) They are written originally in English, so no translation problems for us English speakers
2) We have signatures from the people attesting to be witnesses, promising that this is what they saw
3) It happened much closer in history (1800s)
4) The founder of the religion wrote the actual books