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?

[JLB32168]

Stories of flying reanimated corpses are reliable in no sense of the word.

You’re simply making the same argument over and over – the only evidence that the supernatural exists are that writings exist. Of course, that isn’t the only existence that it exists. Spontaneous healings are classified as evidence by those who experience them. Other modern miracles – religious clairvoyants – are another example. Icons that weep chrism – a mixture of olive oil and myrrh.

Pagan statues of Hindu goddesses in India that lactate and some that drink milk.

And from these stories are derived 2,000 years of being DEAD WRONG!

Whether or not they’re dead wrong seems to be an open question. Not a few brilliant scientists are quite convinced that an intelligent entity exists as a creator (e.g. Dr. Richard Errett Smalley, Russell L. Mixter, Ian Barbour – to name a few.)

[Danmark]

Stories of flying reanimated corpses are reliable in no sense of the word.

You’re simply making the same argument over and over – the only evidence that the supernatural exists are that writings exist. Of course, that isn’t the only existence that it exists. Spontaneous healings are classified as evidence by those who experience them. Other modern miracles – religious clairvoyants – are another example. Icons that weep chrism – a mixture of olive oil and myrrh.

Pagan statues of Hindu goddesses in India that lactate and some that drink milk.

And from these stories are derived 2,000 years of being DEAD WRONG!

Whether or not they’re dead wrong seems to be an open question. Not a few brilliant scientists are quite convinced that an intelligent entity exists as a creator (e.g. Dr. Richard Errett Smalley, Russell L. Mixter, Ian Barbour – to name a few.)

This is an example of the 'testimonial', a classic propaganda technique and logical fallacy. But there is another reason a Christian apologist should not go there. By and large scientists do not believe in the resurrection. In a Pew research study,
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/
Tho' 83% of the general public believe in God, only 33% of scientists do. Belief in the resurrection would be lower since not all who believe in God buy the resurrection story.

As for reasons a professional historian does not believe if the resurrection:

It is certainly reasonable to doubt the resurrection of Jesus in the flesh, an event placed some time between 26 and 36 A.D. For this we have only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing, and entirely pro-Christian. Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention the religion, in 110 A.D., but he doesn't mention the resurrection. No non-Christian mentions the resurrection until many decades later--Lucian, a critic of superstition, was the first, writing in the mid-2nd century, and likely getting his information from Christian sources. So the evidence is not what any historian would consider good.[4]

Nevertheless, Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "the highest standards of historical inquiry" and "if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.[5] Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:

First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals and closest of friends. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his earthly resurrection.

Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.

Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which provide evidence for Caesar's march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians.[6] And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.[7]

Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.[8]

It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... cture.html

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

JLB posted: >>I’ve answered the question according to the received definition of what constitutes a fact. <<

QUESTION: What is that "received definition" and whom did you receive it from?

[polonius]

“�Still evidence�???????We have anecdotal “evidence� too regarding the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Except that we know that the Easter Bunny was a creation and no one has ever said otherwise and St. Nicholas is alleged to have existed in Asia Minor so that’s not really comparable.

RESPONSE:

St Nicholas is long since dead, but some believe the anecotal evidence that Santa Claus is alive and well living (off season) at the North Pole. Obviously, this isn't St. Nicholas.

Re: The Easter Bunnybeing a "creation".Might the Resurrection be a similar "creation"? Can you present any clear and convincing evidence that it ever occurred?

So much for claimed "ancedotal evidence"!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

You’re simply making the same argument over and over – the only evidence that the supernatural exists are that writings exist. Of course, that isn’t the only existence that it exists. Spontaneous healings are classified as evidence by those who experience them. Other modern miracles – religious clairvoyants – are another example. Icons that weep chrism – a mixture of olive oil and myrrh.

Pagan statues of Hindu goddesses in India that lactate and some that drink milk.

David Copperfield once made the Statue of Liberty disappear on live television. If you believe that these things are true then there are people who will happily sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. They are conjurers tricks and nothing more. No genuine authenticable medical "miracles," such as the regeneration of a well documented missing limb or a missing eye have ever been shown to be valid in medical history. EVER! GROW SOME SKEPTICISM.

(Peter Popoff P.1)


(Peter Popoff P.2)


(Debunked Weeping Jesus)


(Magic Secrets revealed)




This is not a miracle either.

Whether or not they’re dead wrong seems to be an open question. Not a few brilliant scientists are quite convinced that an intelligent entity exists as a creator (e.g. Dr. Richard Errett Smalley, Russell L. Mixter, Ian Barbour – to name a few.)

After 2,000 years of "The end is near," and "Jesus is returning soon," no ACTUAL end has appeared, and everyone who lived 2,000 years ago IS STILL SECURELY DEAD! Notice that this is factually true, as opposed to 2,000 years of empty Christian claims to the contrary. A record of being dead wrong for 2,000 years should reasonably count for SOMETHING, one would think.

[JLB32168]

Great. So the entirety of your contribution here to whether its a historical fact is ''Maybe. Could be. May not be. We need time travel to know.'' Why not stop there?

I was never interested in convincing most skeptics here. We both know that’s not going to happen since both of us have vested interests in the question – me and other theists because we’re counting on an afterlife (more like ‘a good afterlife’), and the atheist who stands to lose a whole lot if the story of the Gospel is true and s/he has rejected it.

One of the reasons I don’t stop there is because I like exposing fallacious arguments for others who might be more objective. I also like it when believers stop proclaiming their faith as verified fact. It’s okay to believe it’s fact, but it is called “faith� for a reason.

I think a more pertinent question would ask why you desire so much that I leave.

THAT is a howler. "It's an undiscovered fact, so it's a fact" is a contradiction in terms.

It was fact in 753 BC/CCE that the Earth and planets revolved around the sun. That fact wasn’t known until Copernicus and it was scientifically proved until 1727 and to cite Merriam-Webster again, a fact is “something that truly exists or happens� or “something that has actual existence.� There’s nothing about “unless and until it is discovered, it is an unsupported presupposition.� That’s your biased addendum to the proper definition because you’re loath to concede to a theist, even the breadth of a hair, that the resurrection might be a fact. I don't really understand the refusal to yield anything that seems to be the mo of most skeptics on the board.

If it is undiscovered it is not a 'fact,' by definition.

I’ve already explained to poster Inigo Montoya that he doesn’t get to assign his own arbitrary definitions to words when received definitions don’t conform to his preconceived biases and prejudices.

QUESTION: What is that "received definition" and whom did you receive it from?

I’ll direct you do Post 592 on Sun Jan 24, 2016 @ 10:21 am.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 593 by JLB32168]

Except that we know that the Easter Bunny was a creation and no one has ever said otherwise and St. Nicholas is alleged to have existed in Asia Minor so that’s not really comparable.

St. Nicolas MAY have been an actual person, who lived circa the 4th century AD. This does not lead us inexorably to suppose that he actually flies around in a sleigh pulled by a team of flying reindeer though, does it! Jesus MAY have been an actual person who lived circa the 1st century AD. This does not lead us inexorably to suppose that that his corpse actually came back to life and flew away though, does it! Fact and fancy are quite easily melded together you see.

[Inigo Montoya]

JBL:
I was never interested in convincing most skeptics here. We both know that’s not going to happen since both of us have vested interests in the question – me and other theists because we’re counting on an afterlife (more like ‘a good afterlife’), and the atheist who stands to lose a whole lot if the story of the Gospel is true and s/he has rejected it.

Now you've shown an admirable honesty here in the bold.

How much would you say your faith in these stories is derived from counting on a good afterlife? From another angle, if you had no desire to live after your death here, would you find these stories convincing?

[JLB32168]

This is an example of the 'testimonial', a classic propaganda technique and logical fallacy. But there is another reason a Christian apologist should not go there.

Scientists are experts in the field of science. When someone appeals to science, specifically the Laws of Physics, that the supernatural doesn’t exist, then one may present scientists who happen to disagree with that assessment.

For this we have only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing[/b], and entirely pro-Christian.

In other words, few writings of any type exist. Of those that do exist, they are Christian theological stuff that have a vested interest in the question of the resurrection. Since very little of anything else exists and of that paltry amount, none speaks of Christ’s resurrection, we can assume that the resurrection is a fiction. Your argument isn’t as robust as you seem to think it is.

Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals and closest of friends.

Just curious, how do you know that they wrote it – because the work says they wrote it?

Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians.

In other words, when we exclude the Gospels and all other writings that evince Christ’s Resurrection, we’ve no proof of Christ’s Resurrection.

Gotcha.

[JLB32168]

How much would you say your faith in these stories is derived from counting on a good afterlife?

I don’t know really. Suffice it to say that for some unknown reason it strikes me as true. I tend to think it’s God’s Image and Likeness in which I’m created that moves me to accept that the Holy Trinity exists. The skeptic would say that it’s merely a chemical reaction in my brain. They might be correct, but I don’t think they are.

For some reason, that really irritates most of them and I don’t understand why. Some have said it’s because of all of the evils that theists have perpetrated upon mankind but the 20th Century showed everyone with a modicum of intelligence that being an atheist secularist is no guarantor of enlightened behavior.

From another angle, if you had no desire to live after your death here, would you find these stories convincing?

Probably not – but I view that as one who “cares not for the things of God� and cannot view it from an emic perspective as an atheist secularist.