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?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don’t debate whether or not supernatural events occurred. I debate things that can possibly be proved – such as whether or not the earliest Christians believed in a literal, physical resurrection of Christ.

The topic of this thread: "Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?" It is not a discussion of what ancients might have believed.

If (since) no evidence of actual occurrence has been presented, a claim that it did is invalid and anything more than opinion.

[JLB32168]

If (since) no evidence of actual occurrence has been presented, a claim that it did is invalid and anything more than opinion.

I don't believe that anyone stated that faith-based statements are anything other than proven fact so I don't know why you cited my post to rebut.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Your task will be to establish that the claim IS a viable one, which then leads inevitably to the obvious assertion that God exists.

I don’t debate whether or not supernatural events occurred. I debate things that can possibly be proved – such as whether or not the earliest Christians believed in a literal, physical resurrection of Christ. Some say they only believed in a spiritual resurrection; however, the use of the Greek word anastasis, when used in other secular contexts, clearly indicates the movement of the physical body – such as people emigrating from another province of the Empire.

If you can't first establish some modicum of reason to suppose that the resurrection of Jesus even occurred then the argument over whether it involved a spiritual or a physical manifestation is both moot and meaningless. Wouldn't you agree?

[Inigo Montoya]

Exactly what about the "resurrection" did Peter witness? Does he claim to have witnessed the actual "resurrection"?

Yes.

The identities of the writers of "John" and "Matthew" are unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians
Those writers (whoever they were) cannot be shown to have been actual eyewitnesses.

I provided ample external evidence for the authorship of Matthew and John. The evidence for which is just as strong as, if not stronger than, the authorship of other works from antiquity generally not disputed. If you wish to challenge the evidence itself, please make your argument.

The gospel tales were written decades or generations after the claimed events.

How can it be determined if they are truthful and accurate?

Anyone who has even a basic familiarity with ancient history knows almost every work from ancient history was written quite some time after the events. We determine they are reliable, for instance, the same way we determine the accounts of Caesar’s assassination are reliable despite the fact they were written even later than the gospels.

Even if those people gave testimonials about having learned about the "resurrection" from witnesses, that is only hearsay (that heard from others).

Shall we accept testimonials and hearsay as a basis for making important decisions – or just when it fits some preferred religious dogma and literature?

Again anyone with even an entry level knowledge of ancient history knows most of it comes down to us as hearsay. For instance, almost everything we know about the exploits of one of Rome’s greatest generals – Agricola – comes down to us from a hearsay and biased hearsay at that. Should we throw it all out the window or just the hearsay that comes down to us from Christians?

"Take my word for it (or his or this book)" isn't convincing to many who are more interested in truth than dogma. Apparently, however, it is adequate for many or most Apologists.

Would you (generic term) base important real life decisions such as making a major investment or buying expensive real estate based upon the word of some anonymous person quoting other anonymous people?

Anachronistic fallacy. Before I buy an investment I read the prospectus. Before I buy real estate I go see the property. Before I believe something from history is the case I review the historical evidence and make a determination as to whether I believe the evidence is strong enough.

If hearsay is written in a letter it must be true and/or it must be reliable evidence. Right?

When multiple historical sources are saying the same thing, I consider that to be quite strong evidence.

Do you get as tired of writing this as I get of reading it, Goose?

Hearsay. Testimonials. He said, she said, some folks wrote this and some folks wrote that, and I knew a guy once that was alive at the time and also said some stuff.

Oh, but if we don't lend the resurrection stories the same weight as historical documentation of Caesar's assassination, we may as well throw out all of recorded history with it!

As though the dead coming back to life and flitting about as a spirit/zombie is even remotely related to a battlefield story or assassination regarding plausibility and evidentiary requirement..

For the nineteenth time...

''Miracles'', the ''supernatural,'' are outside the scope of historical methodology. Historically, all that may be said is that claims were made and stories were written. Here they are... That's it.

If you want to throw out all of history whilst complaining the weights are unbalanced in the viewing, fine. Throw it all out. That hurts your side more than the non-theist's.

All of your writing on this topic always amounts to the same. We have claims, alleged eyewitnesses, a chain of telephone conversations, and some razzle-dazzle ideas about who wrote what and when.

So what? How does that help you where the rubber meets the road? How do you get to proceed with the historical method to establish a reanimated corpse floated off into the clouds?

So some folks either believed this or wrote stories about it. Or both. Is that unique? I can give you all kinds of wacky stories written long ago people either believed and/or wrote. You and others' on here waste so much energy trying to make a historical case for something the historical method has no jurisdiction over.

The OP asks if the resurrection is a historical fact or not.

Love him or hate him, Ehrman says ''history can tell us what probably happened, not what actually happened.''

Are you prepared to say, using the historical method, a resurrected body ascended into the sky and vanished?

[Ancient of Years]

[…]
Was his [Paul’s] 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?
[…]
Opinions?

My opinion is that Paul embellished a story that was already making the rounds. While the Gospels show clear signs of being influenced by Paul’s writings, none of them use his story of over five hundred witnesses of a risen Jesus. They each tell a different version of the post-resurrection events with almost no agreement. But each one of them has a common core narrative: the women find an empty tomb and a stranger(s) tells them that Jesus rose from the dead and went someplace. Even Matthew who makes the stranger into an angel of very dramatic appearance that comes down from heaven and scares the heck out of the guards. The angel rolls back the stone revealing … an already empty tomb!

Despite all those Easter Card pictures no one sees Jesus come out of the tomb. If this represents an actual event – women, empty tomb, stranger telling his story – it is not surprising that, as Matthew tells us, there were stories going around about a stolen body. If there were such stories (and why else would Matthew need to counter them) they are likely of early origin. If the empty tomb narrative appeared much later, the whole story would have been denied, not just one aspect of it. That the Gospels all agree on that core portion of the story also suggests that it is of early origin and therefore a strong tradition. It sounds like the ‘women, empty tomb, stranger story’ could have been a real event.

But the suspicious nature of the story (body gone but nobody saw the resurrection itself) combined with the near total absence of agreement on post-resurrection events in the several scriptures, are strongly suggestive of the original event being no more than women finding an empty tomb and being told Jesus rose from the dead and went someplace. Since a genuinely dead body coming to life days later is a truly extraordinary event, truly extraordinary evidence would be called for. However the evidence presented is of a highly unconvincing nature while strongly convincing evidence could easily have been provided. Jesus could have arranged to have loads of witnesses to a dramatic resurrection, including Romans, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. After all, this is supposed to be the proof that Jesus was the real thing and not just another messiah wannabee who got killed by the Romans. As it is that is exactly what it sounds like.

[Zzyzx]

.
If you (yes you) came across an empty grave / tomb would you assume the dead body had come back to life and gone away?

If somebody said that was what happened, would you believe them?

If you lived 2000 years ago you probably would believe the dead body arose and left because that sort of mystical / magical thinking was common in the era. However, with the increase in information and education in modern times it is unlikely that you would believe that today.

Why do many still maintain that it happened once upon a time in a land far away?

[polonius]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

RESPONSE:

Because it says so in the Bible. And how do we know that everything in the Bible is true? Because the Bible says that too.

Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.


You get to pick the one you like best. But using reason and factual analysis requires some effort that not everyone is willing to make.

[Goose]

Do you get as tired of writing this as I get of reading it, Goose?

No. I love this stuff. I love history. But I'm sorry to hear you have grown tired of reading my posts. You are certainly under no obligation to read them or to respond. Have you considered the ignore feature?

Since this is a debate forum, instead of complaining about the arguments, why not attempt to actually rebut them? But I suppose if one can't rebut the arguments then one is relegated to ranting.

The OP asks if the resurrection is a historical fact or not.

Love him or hate him, Ehrman says ''history can tell us what probably happened, not what actually happened.''

Are you prepared to say, using the historical method, a resurrected body ascended into the sky and vanished?

I have justified my belief that Jesus resurrected and you have yet to seriously challenge it. We can use the historical method to look at the resurrection if you wish. I'll even let you outline the details of the method you'd like to use. I'll take the affirmative you the negative. What do you say?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

RESPONSE:

Because it says so in the Bible. And how do we know that everything in the Bible is true? Because the Bible says that too.

Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.


You get to pick the one you like best. But using reason and factual analysis requires some effort that not everyone is willing to make.

Or capable of making, especially when they've been warned from the pulpit to avoid the pitfalls of 'reason'.

In the final analysis people have a right to believe whatever they want to, but some folks are genuinely trapped by their indoctrination, so when they choose to explore outside the bounds of their faith, the consequences just aren't worth it.

I'm skeptical by nature, but getting out from beneath the implanted fears I obtained from that fundamentalist church I went to took years, probably because I was young when I attended it.

[JLB32168]

If you can't first establish some modicum of reason to suppose that the resurrection of Jesus even occurred then the argument over whether it involved a spiritual or a physical manifestation is both moot and meaningless.

I’ve stated a reason – the presupposition that the supernatural exists. If it doesn’t then all bets are off.

The issue here is that scientific testing of the supernatural cannot be currently take place. Everyone knows this; therefore, to ask people to prove that which cannot be proved simply isn’t good faith debate. The question is silly, so why ask it?