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]

Pardon my density, but what is the significance of Paul being executed in Rome or elsewhere or not at all?

As to its relevance to the Resurrection, I don’t see how it’s related either. It was brought up a few pages ago by several people but I agree that the site of Paul’s execution – whether or not the tradition is believable – is a separate topic and has little to do with the historicity or lack thereof of the Resurrection.

[Kyrani99]

Pardon my density, but what is the significance of Paul being executed in Rome or elsewhere or not at all?

As to its relevance to the Resurrection, I don’t see how it’s related either. It was brought up a few pages ago by several people but I agree that the site of Paul’s execution – whether or not the tradition is believable – is a separate topic and has little to do with the historicity or lack thereof of the Resurrection.

IF Paul invented Christianity and turned a mortal prophet into the Son of God, then Paul has used the Resurrection (given that a crucifixion or Resurrection ever took place) to create "the Son of God".

There is one video here

Video title: History Of Christianity - How Christianity Was Invented

that claims that Christianity was invented in total by the Emperor Titus, with the help of Josephus and others, having secured all the Jewish scriptures and destroyed those they didn't like. They then back dated the story 40 years. It certainly explain how accurately "Jesus predicted" the war with the Romans, the wall around Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

If this is the case then somehow Paul had to have been involved and possibly became involved somewhere around the time of that incredible "conversion". I haven't found enough evidence yet but I strongly believe that Paul, a Jewish Zealot with Roman citizenship, was an agent of the Romans. I had originally thought that it was to brain wash the Greeks but I am now thinking that maybe it was the Hellenes in total, which takes in more than the Greeks.

I thought that maybe the Greeks may have become embolden if there was an earlier attack by the Roman on the Jews. It is feasible that they may have become involved to free their own territories. Now I am thinking that this may be true on a much broader scale, taking in Syria and Egypt and other places as well. So Paul didn't just brain wash the Greeks with this "love your enemies" and "do good to those that harm you" commandments that were aimed to protect the Romans, but the Gentiles, which means all Hellenic peoples.

This explains why Nero had Paul prisoner at the palace or some nobleman's home and Paul freely preached while in Rome as a supposed prisoner. Then he was let free by Nero. I would say far from any execution, Paul was given a bag of gold and sent on a holiday to where ever he wished to go, as a thanks you muchly, job well done.

[Danmark]

Pardon my density, but what is the significance of Paul being executed in Rome or elsewhere or not at all?

As to its relevance to the Resurrection, I don’t see how it’s related either. It was brought up a few pages ago by several people but I agree that the site of Paul’s execution – whether or not the tradition is believable – is a separate topic and has little to do with the historicity or lack thereof of the Resurrection.

IF Paul invented Christianity and turned a mortal prophet into the Son of God, then Paul has used the Resurrection (given that a crucifixion or Resurrection ever took place) to create "the Son of God".

There is one video here

WOW! There's a video of the resurrection?!

that claims that Christianity was invented in total by the Emperor Titus, with the help of Josephus and others, having secured all the Jewish scriptures and destroyed those they didn't like.

I suppose someone somewhere may claim that, but I'm not aware of anyone on this forum who makes such a wild claim.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 785:

As to its relevance to the Resurrection, I don’t see how it’s related either. It was brought up a few pages ago by several people but I agree that the site of Paul’s execution – whether or not the tradition is believable – is a separate topic and has little to do with the historicity or lack thereof of the Resurrection.

It concerns the reliability of the text in question. If they got that'n wrong, it's reasonable to set to frettin' what else it is they got wrong, up to and including all that resurrectin'.

[JLB32168]

IF Paul invented Christianity and turned a mortal prophet into the Son of God, then Paul has used the Resurrection (given that a crucifixion or Resurrection ever took place) to create "the Son of God".

But what’s being discussed is where Paul was executed and that has nothing to do with him turning a mortal prophet into the Son of God and neither of those speaks to the historicity of the Resurrection (which of course cannot be proved either way.)

[JLB32168]

It concerns the reliability of the text in question. If they got that'n wrong, it's reasonable to set to frettin' what else it is they got wrong, up to and including all that resurrectin'.

So . . . they got Paul’s execution place wrong. The only problem with that is that in order to get that information wrong, the writers of the Gospels would have had to put the wrong place down. They didn’t put any place down. The belief of Paul’s execution in Rome is articulated by later people who didn’t write the Gospels. If they got it wrong then how is that relevant to the Gospels, which they didn’t write? Of course, for them to get Paul’s execution wrong we would have to know that Paul was executed elsewhere. We don’t know where it occurred.

So it would seem that “they got that’n [Paul’s execution place] wrong� is founded upon . . . nothing . . . since we don't know if “they� got it wrong.

[Kyrani99]

IF Paul invented Christianity and turned a mortal prophet into the Son of God, then Paul has used the Resurrection (given that a crucifixion or Resurrection ever took place) to create "the Son of God".

But what’s being discussed is where Paul was executed and that has nothing to do with him turning a mortal prophet into the Son of God and neither of those speaks to the historicity of the Resurrection (which of course cannot be proved either way.)

There is no evidence that Paul was executed.

[JLB32168]

There is no evidence that Paul was executed.

There is no conclusive evidence that Paul was executed. That Paul says he’s ready to be poured out like a drink offering suggests he thinks he’s about to be sacrified/executed. Paul says someone found him in Rome and that he was “in chains� indicating he was imprisoned. Ignatius writes about Paul’s death only decades after it would have occurred, “Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred,� where Ignatius was also martyred.

Conclusive evidence is not the only kind of evidence there is. And to bring this back to the issue of the historicity of the Resurrection, where Paul died isn't relevant to that question.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 790 by JLB32168]

...If they got it wrong then how is that relevant to the Gospels, which they didn’t write? Of course, for them to get Paul’s execution wrong we would have to know that Paul was executed elsewhere. We don’t know where it occurred.

So it would seem that “they got that’n [Paul’s execution place] wrong� is founded upon . . . nothing . . . since we don't know if “they� got it wrong.

We don't know if they got it wrong. Does that mean that we know if they got it right? NO
It means that we don't KNOW if they got it RIGHT.

When we say something like "WE DON'T KNOW if they got it wrong" it also means, at the very same time, surprising as it may be, that we are saying "WE DON'T KNOW if they got it right."

I may start a new thread about this seemingly big problem for some people. It comes up all the time. They say that X might be true.. and then they can't seem to understand that it means the opposite, too. That if we don't know if X is true, we also don't know if X is false.

When we say we don't KNOW that X is false or not, it MEANS that we don't know the truth value of X, or in other words.. we don't KNOW if X is true. So, if we are asked if X is true, we would have to say .. that we don't know if X is true. Saying we don't know if X is FALSE is saying the same thing. We don't know the truth value of X.

[Goose]

There is no evidence that Paul was executed.

�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. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.� – 1 Clement 5 (c. 95AD)