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 Tired of the Nonsense]

Well, you must admit, Jesus seemed particularly interested in the Jews paying Rome it's tax, and having them obey Rome.

This is an odd conflict, because, Caesar Tiberius was the son of the God Augustus. So Jesus rendering tax and tribute to the son of a god who was in tern sponsored by Jove seems problematical.

As to the Jews and their religion, Rome would supplant the Sadducee with the Pharisee, who split into Christians and Jews. That's a pretty successful manipulation, if you ask me. Sadducee were anti-Roman.

So, the Jews weren't/aren't so zealous as legend would have you believe.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Well, you must admit, Jesus seemed particularly interested in the Jews paying Rome it's tax, and having them obey Rome.

Willum, this is untrue and I don't know why you go on about it. I'm not a Christian and have no interest in defending Christian orthodoxy. But criticism of Christianity does not require strawmen to take it down.

You completely misunderstand the 'render unto Caesar' passages. Jesus was obviously just avoiding a trap laid by the Pharisees. The thrust of his reply was to tell the spiritually minded that they should not concern themselves with secular affairs and material wealth. This is clear from the body of the words attributed to him and his overall theme about the Kingdom of God.

[Willum]

[Replying to Danmark]

I go on about it because in hindsight it just looks like another apologetic argument covered in the dust of history. I do understand it, I understood it long before I challenged it. I understood it EXACTLY as you understand it now.

Now I challenge it.

In any case, I am just quoting Romans 13, where the Bible says to obey the divine monarchy of Rome;
--Are you claiming the Bible writer didn't know Rome was a divine monarchy, and that to obey it is blaspheme, that it would be better to cut his hand off and go to heaven, then to pay the tax and go to hell?
--Are you claiming that the people didn't know Rome was a divine monarchy?

and to Matthew, where Jesus states quite plainly-I looked up the original text-he does not invoke Yahweh, he invokes Theos, or Dzeos. That's plot-whoops material. Yes, Theos can mean god or God in Greek, but only Yahweh means Yahwey in Greek. They could spell out Apollo, they could spell out Yahwey.
--Are you claiming Jesus didn't know that the offerings to Tiberius did not proclaim him as the son of the God Augustus?
--Are you claiming he did not know that the God Augustus provided Palestine with water, grain and winter vegetables, and in return for those blessings, required tithes?

There is no apologetic "cleverness" of Jesus in "avoiding" a Pharisee trap, because, unless someone can demonstrate differently; he knew the environment in which he spoke, and that is an infinitely more likely explanation of why they killed him. Besides that, remember, he didn't avoid the trap-in the story, they killed him.

So until someone can show me how Jesus was avoiding blaspheme, without just arbitrarily claiming it means something else, I'll keep banging on about it. After all, the challenge; proving that dust covered assumption.

Scripture would be sufficient in this case.

[tam]

In any case, I am just quoting Romans 13, where Jesus says to obey the divine monarchy of Rome;

Willum, [Jesus] doesn't say anything at Romans 13.




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Willum]

[Replying to post 291 by tam]

Corrected. Thank you. Fortunately it didn't change the intent or meaning.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

I go on about it because in hindsight it just looks like another apologetic argument covered in the dust of history. I do understand it, I understood it long before I challenged it. I understood it EXACTLY as you understand it now.

Now I challenge it.

In any case, I am just quoting Romans 13, where the Bible says to obey the divine monarchy of Rome;
--Are you claiming the Bible writer didn't know Rome was a divine monarchy, and that to obey it is blaspheme, that it would be better to cut his hand off and go to heaven, then to pay the tax and go to hell?
--Are you claiming that the people didn't know Rome was a divine monarchy?....

I don't claim any of these things. I think perhaps you may be persuaded by Christian orthodoxy that all of the books of the Bible constitute the 'Word of God' and are somehow coordinated. They are not. Each author brings his own perspective and claim. Mark and Matthew are writing something completely different than the author of Romans. You keep trying to link these passages. Paul and the words attributed to Jesus are completely different. These issues do not come down to a popular vote, but do you have any authority or reference, other than your own claim, that Jesus' reference has the same meaning as Paul's admonition to bow to secular authority; that secular authority has been instituted by God? I think Paul is a million miles off base with this exhortation and Jesus is saying something completely unrelated.

I understand that this is just your own opinion and shared by no scholar. Please advise if I am wrong in this understanding.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Willum]

I suspect that these might be the quotes you are thinking of Willum.

Matt.22:21 Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Luke 20:25 Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 196 by Claire Evans]

Have you ever wondered why there are no Jewish sources that denied the resurrection of Christ back then? They anticipated that the disciples would try and steal the body to make out that Jesus resurrected in accordance with His prophecy.
Here's an example:

"To give an analogy, did you know that after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, there was actually a plot to steal his body as it was being transported by train back to Illinois? Now the historian will obviously want to know whether this plot was foiled or not. Was Lincoln’s body missing from the train? Was it successfully interred in the tomb in Springfield? Did his closest associates like Secretary of War Stanton or Vice-President Johnson claim to have seen appearances of Lincoln alive after his death, and so on? These are questions any historian can investigate."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there ... surrection...

The Pharisees, the Romans, the Sanhedrin would all want the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be thoroughly investigated. So they must have yet did deny Jesus' resurrection. They didn't even say His body was stolen. If the body had been produced, the disciples would have been exposed as frauds and that is where the story would have ended. The Pharisees must have seen Jesus if Jesus was on earth for a while after His death.

]

TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ACTS AND THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES, HERE IS A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE EMPTY TOMB WHICH PROVIDES A COMPLETELY NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS. NO FLYING REANIMATED CORPSES ARE REQUIRED.


***

John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

When was Jesus executed? ON THE DAY OF PREPARATION. In other words, on Friday, the day before the Sabbath which was also the time of the main Passover services.

Matthew 27:
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[47] Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
[48] And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
[49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

What time did Jesus die? Sometime in the NINTH HOUR, on the day of preparation. Nine hours after sunrise. Approximately 3:00 PM.

Yes, Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation but the Sabbath was the next day and the Jews did not want Him hanging on the cross still the next day. The Romans often left criminals to hang on the cross indefinitely to be feasted upon by birds.

John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.(John 19:42)

And so who now has possession of the body of Jesus? HIS DISCIPLES! After receiving permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus the disciples took the body to Joseph's brand new tomb, because it was "nigh at hand," as a convenient out-of-sight place to prepare the body in accordance with the requirement that all bodies had to be out of sight on the holy day. And they prepared it well, according to John 19:39-40. Joseph's personal tomb was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient place to take the body to wash and prepare it.

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

When did the priests go to Pilate and request a guard at the tomb? Sometime THE NEXT DAY. That would be on Saturday, the holy day. And what does Pilate say to them?

"YOU have a guard. Go ahead and make it as secure as you can." Pilate gave them permission to guard the tomb using their own men. Who "set the guard." The priests set the guard. They used their own men. "You have a guard," Pilate pointed out to them. They used members of their personal body guard who would have already been there, right at hand. No mention of Romans guards is given at all.

It is true that there is no mention of the Roman guards here but that does not mean that there were no Roman guards. We have a clue that there were in this verse:

" ...behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day (Matthew 28:11-15).

What would it be to the governor if Jesus' body was stolen unless a Roman guard was used? Why would the guard be in serious trouble if it was a Jewish guard? Why would the elders have to justify the empty tomb to the governor?

Tired of the Nonsense[/url]"And so the priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it with seals consisting of cords and wax or clay embossed with an official seal, and then set a guard of their own men. But they did not open it to inspect it for the body of Jesus, due to the nature of the day and the prohibition of their own laws. Their actions according to Matthew 27:66 tell us SPECIFICALLY that they were uncertain if the body was still inside. If the priests had known for a certainty that the body was still in the tomb, no seals would have been needed. Posting the guard would have been enough. Being unsure if the body was inside necessitated the placement of official seals, to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priests could come back and inspect the tomb for the body. And the earliest that could be accomplished would be the next morning... SUNDAY MORNING. Placing seals on the tomb insured against the possibility of the guards taking a bribe and allowing the body to be taken, since the priests had no way of knowing if the body had even been inside in the first place. Since the priests DID set seals, then clearly they were unsure if the body was inside. And since the tomb proved to be empty the next morning, then OBVIOUSLY the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday, as they were afraid it might be. Concluding that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own is pretty FAR FROM OBVIOUS!

Do you really believe that the Romans would guard a tomb that they don't even know someone is inside? They knew the claims that the disciples would steal the body. Therefore they would suspect they may have done so already.

The thing is, if the body of Jesus had been stolen or not even been put in the tomb at all, no one would be visiting the tomb to bring spices for anointment. The whole of Friday after His death people were there at the tomb preparing Jesus for burial. On the Sabbath, no one would have been visiting the tomb. That is when the guards were recruited to guard the tomb in anticipation of the disciples stealing the body on the Sunday morning, the third day that the prophecy said the resurrection would happen.

The tomb proved to be empty the next morning, which tells us specifically without need of speculation THAT THE PRIESTS AND GUARDS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB. This is known as closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.

So who was ACTUALLY in possession of the body of Jesus? Well, WHO WERE THE LAST ONES WITH IT?

This is the process of a legal seal:

"Its purpose was to authenticate that the sealed item had been properly inspected before sealing and that all the contents were in order.

Before sealing the tomb, however, these authorities were first required to inspect the inside of the tomb to see that the body of Jesus was in its place. After guaranteeing that the corpse was where it was supposed to be, they rolled the stone back in place and then sealed it with the official seal of the governor of Rome."

The guards were the last to see Jesus' body.

JOHN 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

And the answer would be that HIS DISCIPLES got PERMISSION FROM THE ROMAN GOVERNOR to take possession of the body of Jesus and were therefore the last ones to be clearly in control of it. And the body was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit! We last read of the body of Jesus, in the tomb, being prepared by his followers. Heavily wrapped with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. If they had been intending to take the body on a journey of many days, they could hardly have prepared it any better.

As I said, once a Roman seal is put on, it means the tomb has been inspected to verify the state it was in before the seal was put on. Once broken, it means the contents have been disturbed.

Matthew27:
[59] And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Since the tomb proved later to be empty, if only fair to consider that the body of Jesus, now clean and heavily prepared, began it journey to it's final resting place at this point. And where would that be? As a manner of common practice of that age, Jews traditionally buried their dead with other deceased family members. So, where is the obvious place one would transport a corpse for burial? And that would be HOME. And where was Jesus from? That would be GALILEE!

So why make plans to be bury Jesus in the Arithmea's tomb? Why make that arrangement with him?

And where DID the followers of Jesus journey following his execution?

Matthew 28:
[16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."

They went to the dead man's home region, Galilee. A week's journey on foot of some 80-90 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. Presumably the mountain in question would be 1886 foot high Mt. Tabor, which dominates the southern plain of Galilee, and is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt_Tabor

Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites. And we know that the apostles, at least, journeyed back to the dead man's home region right after his death. The dead man's mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick her up? WITH THE DISCIPLES SOME SIX WEEKS LATER, NEWLY RETURNED FROM GALILEE. (Acts 1:12-14).

Mary, the mother, may have had plans to visit the tomb. However, the other Mary and Mary Magdalene came there at dawn. The disciples went to Galliee after the resurrection on the Sunday, not Friday. Many of the disciples were in hiding after the crucifixion. Jesus commanded them to go to Galilee.

So what conclusion can be reached from these facts? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They took the body back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place.

As I said, it is not possible to secure an empty tomb because it was inspected beforehand. You are leaving out this crucial fact.

Keep in mind that on that Passover weekend Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims for the celebration of the holy day. One million, according to Josephus. That number is almost certainly a vast overestimate, but even a quarter of that number would have been a huge amount of people, moving around inside and outside of the city. With the body of Jesus loaded into an animal drawn cart, and how ELSE would it have been transported, once the group traveling with the body had mixed in with the throngs of people, they were essentially gone. When Joseph and Nicodemus, along with the remaining apostles and some few other of the followers of Jesus who might have been secretly involved, had finished prepping the body they simply packed up and left, loading the heavily wrapped body into what was probably the same cart they would have used to transport the body to the tomb from Calvary in the first place, and disappeared out into the throngs of pilgrims, closing the tomb behind them to keep out the unwanted. By Sunday they were just one group moving towards Galilee out of thousands of groups undertaking the return trip home after the celebration. No great trick or slight or hand involved, but no flying reanimated corpse either.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five sources which provide any information concerning the "risen" Jesus: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke (who also write Acts of the Apostles), and John, as well as information taken from Paul's letters. There is also mention in passing of the resurrection in 1 Peter, but no details are given. This is the basis for the claim that Jesus arose from the dead. Not taken from hundreds of eyewitness accounts at all, but from five individuals in accounts written decades after the event in question was supposed to have occurred, taken from five sources which either cannot be accurately identified (Matthew and John) or who very clearly were not personally present to witness what they claim occurred (Mark, Luke, and Paul). What do they claim occurred? A corpse came back to life and flew away. Is that a credible claim? In no way is that a credible claim.

Who would you have expected to have written about the resurrection?

Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however, and no accounts by the "above 500" themselves exist, or have ever been known to exist. Nor are there any other accounts which would serve to support Paul's claim of the "above 500." Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels.

As I have mentioned, any claims of Jesus' resurrection would have been refuted quite easily. We never have any claims from the Jews that they didn't realize the tomb was empty. They obviously couldn't use that excuse because of the seal. They knew it was impossible for the body to have been stolen as it had been guarded. So what else could they say but to say it was stolen?

Now why would Jewish sources not mention the resurrection and refute it? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if the Romans did know about the resurrection, they just swept it under the carpet in fear of Christianity spreading.

You are right, no one refuted it at the time. The problem here of course is that no one mentioned ANY OF THIS at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The most significant event in human history, at least according to Christians, went entirely unrecorded at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The very first mention of the resurrected Jesus ever does not occur until Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, written about a quarter of a century (55 AD) after the time frame established even later by the Gospels for the execution of Jesus, by a man, Paul, who was clearly not personally present TO WITNESS ANY OF IT!

Again, who should have recorded this? The Jews? No, they don't want anyone to believe a resurrection occurred. And who says it wasn't reported on? Should we have all records from that time?

Matt.27:64
lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

And this is EXACTLY what occurred. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty, and forty days later the disciples returned from Galilee and began spreading the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. Who saw the "risen" Jesus? The disciples and only the disciples. And where was the risen man NOW? He bodily lifted off from the ground, flew up into the sky, and disappeared into the clouds. And who saw this amazing thing occur? The disciples and only the disciples. Undeniably true? HARDLY! In fact it was a ridiculous story then, largely dismissed by the very people in the best position to have known what actually occurred, the Jewish population of Jerusalem. And it's still a ridiculous story today.

So if no one had seen the risen Christ, then how could there have been converts?

[Willum]

[Replying to Danmark]

No absolutely it is not my opinion.

There are the Books of the Bible, Matthew, Luke and Romans which say what they say, -Render and Obey.
And then there is History where there are the coins of Rome; copper coins proclaiming Tiberius is the Son of the God Augustus. Gold declaring the divinity of Augustus. (By the way the obverse has Livia carrying a cross.)
Then Roman temples being constructed in Palestine to Jove, and Augustus would have been Jove's gatekeeper, with a statue and name and everything. That's where occupying Greek and Roman's would go to worship.
We know that Rome's authority comes from All-Mighty Jove.
We know Jesus, had he existed, knew about foreign temples and gods.
We know Jesus was pretty specific about using correct titles and names.
Therefore, should Jesus endorse Rome or Caesar he is committing blaspheme, and paraphrasing himself, he should have cut his own arm off rather than pay the tax, rip out his tongue rather than endorse it.


So, no, it is not my opinion. Not even my interpretation.

Now, if a single person can produce non-anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Anecdotal is of the form "that is not what it means..." you'll note people discuss the meaning of passages ALL the time... please post it on that thread, come to think of it, we're poisoning this one. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=29233

[Goose]

You are wonderfully persistent.

Persistently pounding your arguments into oblivion with evidence, reason, and logic ever since you appealed to Pliny. At least you aren’t arguing the resurrection doesn’t get even a “whisper� in the historical record anymore.

Impossible - that which cannot be done by any means
Resurrection - the return of a corpse to life.

Using today's knowledge, there is no way a corpse can be returned to life. What might be possible in 5000 years is out of the scope of our definition. It is sufficient to say that it cannot be done at all and so it is impossible.
We are not discussing what might be the case in years to come - we can't. But when we discuss something from 2000 years ago our pronouncement holds all the more.

Thus it was impossible then and it is still impossible now.

I have employed a definition. Argument is not necessary, circular or anything else.
Further semantic considerations move us into sophistry.

Our knowledge is vastly incomplete. Just because we don’t understand how a resurrection can happen and it cannot be repeated with our current knowledge it does not follow from there that resurrections are impossible. There have been documented cases of spontaneous return to life after death even though the medical community can’t offer an adequate explanation. It’s known as the Lazarus phenomenon. And since a return to life after death meets the definition of a resurrection and since you’ve appealed to definitions as your proof you cannot now rightly argue resurrections are impossible without circularity.

So back to my original point. If a resurrection is possible and the resurrection is the best explanation on what logical grounds can it be rejected?

My proposal is not intended to cover every eventuality -it is offered to show there CAN be other explanations.

Your "swoon" proposal doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks. So says the American Medical Association.