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]

Goose, let's cut to the chase (as someone here says).

You aren’t cutting to the chase, Z, because you aren’t demonstrating how I’ve failed to justify my belief. Nor are you rebutting the counter arguments I've given.

What ancient accounts that are generally accepted by historians as truthful and accurate involve supernatural entities, superhuman feats, long-dead bodies reanimating, virgins giving birth, various animals conversing in human language?

How about Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, or Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars, or Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, or Tacitus’ Histories to name just a few? Virtually every classical work makes some reference to the supernatural, deities, omens, and the like at some point. If we follow your reasoning it all goes in the trash can.

Aren't such tales generally regarded as myth, legend, folklore?

If they come to us from a genre known to be mythology, we are justified in a priori dismissing them as such. If they come to us via a genre known to be attempting to record actual history, such ancient biography, they need to be treated more seriously.

Why should the stories from one book be selected as truthful and accurate while other similar tales are regarded as mythical, etc?

Genre, for a start. There are other criteria after this but genre is a prima facie beginning point.

Does it make sense to say "Those other tales may be mythical, but the ones in this book are true"?

Do you have a particular example you'd like to look at?

[polonius]

JLB post # 73 “The books of Enoch are Jewish works. They describe the messiah/Son of Man as being an eternal being that would be worshipped and who would judge the Gentiles – all aspects that Judaism attributes to the deity alone. You’re suggesting a monolithic Judaism of first century Roman Judea that simply didn’t exist.�


JLB Post #87 “How is that relevant to the question of ancient Judaism and whether or not it was monolithic?�

JLB post # 81�The books of Christian Bible were not canonized until AD/CE 364. The Jewish canon wasn’t closed until the mid 2nd Century so that the BoE aren’t a part of Scripture today is irrelevant. The Books of Enoch, being Jewish works, evinced belief in a divine messiah among some Jews prior to Christ’s arrival on the scene and there is no rebuttal to that point.�

RESPONSE:

No rebuttal you say?

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Hurta ... theism.htm

“The nature of first-century Jewish religion is an obviously important question both for the history of Judaism and for Christian Origins. In recent years especially, there has been a lot of attention given to the monotheism of first-century Jewish religion, especially (but not exclusively) among scholars discussing the emergence of "high christology" and the reverence given to Jesus in early Christianity. In my 1988 book, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, I urged that first-century Jewish religious commitment to the uniqueness of God was the crucial context in which to approach early Christian devotion to Christ.�

Perhaps you will cite some evidence supporting your claim that first century Judaism was not exclusively monotheistic.

[JLB32168]

Perhaps you will cite some evidence supporting your claim that first century Judaism was not exclusively monotheistic.

I never said that it wasn’t monotheistic. I said that Enoch painted a picture of a divine messiah – not an ordinary human leader as the phrase “Son of Man, Messiah, Son of God, etc� is sometimes described. If that SoM/Messiah/SoG is worshipped and described as existing before the world, do you deny that this indicates belief that the Messiah is more than a mere human?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 84 by Realworldjack]

The problem is, your explanation of what happened in, and around Jerusalem, some 2000 years ago, is no better than the Christian explanation. One thing is certain, something extremely extraordinary surely happened 2000 years ago, otherwise we would not be having this conversation, concerning these events 2000 years later, and this site would have no need to be in existence.

My explanation is taken entirely from scripture itself and is a perfectly natural explanation... the origins of Christianity can be completely explained as a false rumor spread by the followers of Jesus and no actual supernatural event ever occurred. The Christian explanation is that a corpse came back to life and then subsequent flew away. To assert that the natural explanation that I have offered is somehow at least equal to the totally improbable Christian explanation is very obviously absurd. It is an example of self deception of the highest order. You have every right to believe as you choose, but you cannot make your absurd assertions probable simply through the act of asserting them. To assert that "something extremely extraordinary surely happened 2,000 years ago" begs the question that if this is so, why no one at all left a record of it at the time it was supposed to have occurred? It is also therefore necessary to assert that EVERY religious belief that now exists, or has ever existed, must have been based on the occurrence of "something extremely extraordinary." Yet the overwhelming majority of these religious beliefs, held to the utmost standard of validity by millions for many centuries, are now defunct. And so we know without doubt that they never were true to begin with. They were in fact based on the rumors and stories spread by humans which grew into the various widely held religious beliefs. As were the religions that HAVE survived down through the ages to this day. Your absurd religious claims have no more or less probability for being valid than any other religious claims.

These things above are hard evidence that something extraordinary did in fact occur, so much so, you feel the need to give an explanation. While your explanation may be a plausible one, it does not in any way deter from the Christian explanation, and continuing to point out that, "dead people do not usually come back to life, and it is not the usual experience", is a very weak argument, because for something to be extraordinary, it must go outside the bounds of our normal experience.

You are asserting that the fact that Christianity survived and prospered and grew to the world's largest religion represents hard evidence for the truth of what Christians claim. If that were true then using the same standard of "hard evidence," when Islam surpasses Christianity and relegates it to the number two spot in terms of sheer numbers, that is "hard evidence" for the truth of Islamic beliefs. Yet these two religions represent two mutually contradictory claims and both cannot be true. Buddhism is 2600 years old. Hinduism is 4,000 years old. And these religious beliefs are still thriving today. Surely this is "hard evidence" for the truth of those beliefs. Because if it IS NOT "hard evidence" for the truth of those beliefs, then it must be considered "hard evidence" that lot's of people can be convinced to believe in total nonsense for thousands of years.

The fact of the matter is, we have documentation of these events, some of which are addressed to particular people, and also identify the author. Of course this does not prove these events did in fact happen, however it is at least evidence that must be considered.

We have examples of the stories that were in circulation as expressed by different individuals. The fact that people believe the impossible occurred does not alter the fact that what they believed, and what they claimed, was impossible. People in ancient times believed in a whole range of mythological and supernatural claims which we today recognize are and never were anything but pure make believe. Many of us today recognize that such things as werewolves, vampires and the undead are pure fiction. Many of us. It's true that there are still those who retain their childlike beliefs in superstition into adulthood.

Now you have your explanation concerning this evidence, while I have mine, however neither of us can, or have proved our position. The only difference seems to be, I understand you have used reason, and logic to arrive to your position, and that two people can look at the same exact evidence, using reason and logic, and come to opposing positions, while you seem to believe, anyone who disagrees with your position, is unreasonable.

They are not equal positions. One relies on reason, and the other is entirely unreasonable. That does not in and of itself prove that the unreasonable position is the false position. But it's a really good start.

The bottom line here is, you have not, and cannot prove what it is you believe concerning this evidence, rather all you have done, or can do, is to give the reasons for what it is you believe, and yet you seem to demand from those opposed to you, PROOF.

There are limits to proof. Proof is defined as:

proof
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence:
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

If one takes an extremist position then NOTHING can be proven, not even our very existence. Taking such a position relegates any possible acquisition of knowledge to be an entirely meaningless concept however. We advance the cause of knowledge by the implicit understanding that, within the limits of observation and physical evidence, it IS possible to prove some things true or false. It's certainly possible, within the limits of observation and physical evidence, to prove that a corpse, once fully and completely dead, will not return to life and fly away. Of course it's always fully possible to assume and then assert special conditions by which an obviously impossible claim COULD have actually occurred. For example, Superman was born in a solar system that had a red sun, and living on Earth with it's yellow sun gives him super powers. This makes no scientific sense at all, but it is ASSERTED to be true within the context of the story at hand, and serves to act as the explanation for Superman's extraordinary abilities. It's still pure nonsense however. Assertions cannot change that, even if they happened to be widely accepted as true.

Within the stated limits it's certainly possible to "prove" that a corpse will not come back to life and fly away. If "anything could be true" is to be the standard of proof, then inhabitants of a red sun solar system COULD attain superpowers by living in a yellow sun solar system. That regulates the possible acquisition of knowledge to be a futile effort however, and so far we have really really good reason to suppose that the universe operates within the framework of consistent rules which we can learn and utilize. Just because you do not personally understand these rules or accept them as limiting, does not change that.

[polonius]

polonius.advice wrote:
The Books of Enoch are not part of scripture.

JLB Posted:

>>The books of Christian Bible were not canonized until AD/CE 364. The Jewish canon wasn’t closed until the mid 2nd Century so that the BoE aren’t a part of Scripture today is irrelevant. The Books of Enoch, being Jewish works, evinced belief in a divine messiah among some Jews prior to Christ’s arrival on the scene and there is no rebuttal to that point.<<

RESPONSE:

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regarded as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150. For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 4th century.[1] The Biblical canon was settled upon by the Catholic Church at the Council of Carthage in 397.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

JLB posted that >>The books of Christian Bible were not canonized until AD/CE 364<<

It appears that the Othodox Church did notrecognize a canon until at least the 4th century and not officially until the 7th century. Are you saying that the Catholic Church was first?

And what evidence can you cite as to when the Jewish canon was designated.

And how does this relate to the fictional nature of the Book of Enoch?

[Inigo Montoya]

Your argument is rebutted already.

I fail to see how your assertion that the supernatural is beyond the scope of the historical method rebuts my arguments. Care to explain?

Do you deny miracles are outside the scope of the historical method?

I don't see why they should be. Can you make a logical argument as to why they are?

If you're going to argue historical methodology will grant you a resurrection, set up a head to head.

Let's do it here so others can participate. I have no problem whatsoever running the resurrection through a historical method. I'll even let you pick the method. I've already provided my evidence. You may begin whenever you are ready...

We are talking about a resurrection. An ancient claim of a resurrection. A supernatural claim of a resurrection which is, to us hashing it out now, unrepeatable. Unfalsifiable. Unverifiable.

I won't call ''miracles'' impossible. I could perhaps. If they are events unable to occur in the natural world without supernatural intervention, there's certainly room for the assertion, though. But I won't. Instead I'll ask if you'd agree that, while avoiding calling a ''miracle'' impossible, it would be (kindly put) the least likely possibility?

What license are you granting historians in this regard that they be able to make a judgement on a singular supernatural claim (''miracle'') from a collection of texts you fancy over others? I mean, I presume you're not willing to allow that the same historical method demonstrates other Mediterranean gods were born of virgins, died, and resurrected as well, right? You only want it to support your god/demigod's story, its birth, and its resurrection, yes?

What historical criteria is at our disposal to gauge how gods operate in the physical world? What can the historian employ, reliably, to make a determination on ''God is the only explanation for this one-off event?''

Note that I'm not crying about authorship, alleged eyewitness testimony, hearsay, or the gaps in recordings and resulting contradictions. An argument could easily be made highlighting how generous I'm being even calling these stories ''history.'' I am focused solely on what the historical method can deal with, and showing you why the ''supernatural'' can't be dealt with by its use.

If you want to believe, for whatever reasons you like, that people can walk on water, the sun can stand still, and bodies raise from the dead, so be it. But you don't get to use historical methodology to support it. There's a TON of past events about which we can't actually know what happened. Generally this is not a huge concern, since folk aren't running around proclaiming the knowledge lies in supernatural sources and deeds. You cannot know, with any reasonable certainty, the main character in your preferred religion did any of the things you likely believe he did. Assigning a ridiculously low probability to it (within kissing distance of impossible) from the side of the skeptic is completely justified

Extraordinary evidence is not the stories told by ancient and superstitious peoples, awash in the culture of paganism around every corner and family member, eventually making their way to book form.

When you get right down to it, Goose, you're trying to support the notion that a dead person came back to life and floated off into the clouds from stories written millennia ago. Any sources cited after the alleged events, and particularly from acquaintances of actors in the story, are hearsay at best. For reasons known only to you, you think you have a right to let the historical method do the work for you in demonstrating numerous violations of physics and biology occurred in the same way you'd allow it to demonstrate Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

Here is what you need to propose to make a case for Caesar in the above. Please note the importance of natural precedence for the historian to draw from. Men exist, with precedent, and probably at one time there was one called Julius Caesar. That's at a minimum. Rivers also exist, with precedent, and hey! There's one called the Rubicon. A man, under decent conditions, is certainly physically capable of crossing a river, with precedent. Now whether this happened or not, you may notice no need to appeal to or explain anything supernatural. History can tell us what it will on this point, and we can make a reasoned decision.

However.. as to your story.. and in keeping with how historical methodology works..

We must propose that a person (in this story, Jesus) is capable of resurrecting at least once, and by precedent. We must also propose that a person fly into the sky unaided, and with precedent. And we must finally propose that wherever the flying and resurrected person ended up in the sky, he is able to communicate with those left on terra firma, and with precedent. That's how good history operates.

I can compare the assassination of Caesar to the resurrection using the same method if you like.

Historians (those most familiar with the methodology you're arguing with me about) know it's not their place to to make claims about how nature works that science can't. That's really it in a nutshell. I fear you're so focused on this one story that you fail to notice the utter lack of precedent that could upset my apple cart here. Can you name me a bona fide historian who's made a plausible/accepted case for something supernatural besides your resurrection using the historical method?

[Goose]

We are talking about a resurrection. An ancient claim of a resurrection. A supernatural claim of a resurrection which is, to us hashing it out now, unrepeatable. Unfalsifiable. Unverifiable.

Strictly speaking that’s the case with any event from ancient history. That is, it’s unrepeatable, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable. So I don’t see how your distinction makes any meaningful difference.

I won't call ''miracles'' impossible. I could perhaps. If they are events unable to occur in the natural world without supernatural intervention, there's certainly room for the assertion, though. But I won't. Instead I'll ask if you'd agree that, while avoiding calling a ''miracle'' impossible, it would be (kindly put) the least likely possibility?

That would depend on the case. You see the difference between us is I’m not restricted in my approach. I don’t a priori place the supernatural in a special category of “least likely possibility� on the sole basis it’s the supernatural. If a supernatural explanation is the best explanation then that’s the one I go with. If the best explanation is a natural one then I go with that one. If I didn’t approach history this way I’d be displaying a blatant bias towards one type of explanation and arguing in a circle as I do it.

What license are you granting historians in this regard that they be able to make a judgement on a singular supernatural claim (''miracle'') from a collection of texts you fancy over others? I mean, I presume you're not willing to allow that the same historical method demonstrates other Mediterranean gods were born of virgins, died, and resurrected as well, right? You only want it to support your god/demigod's story, its birth, and its resurrection, yes?

I’m very happy to pass any claim through the historical method. I don’t a priori dismiss claims on the basis they disagree with my world view or experiences. If it turns out other supernatural claims pass and are the best explanation that’s perfectly fine with me. All the better for theism I say. Did you have a specific case you’d like to look at by the way?

What historical criteria is at our disposal to gauge how gods operate in the physical world? What can the historian employ, reliably, to make a determination on ''God is the only explanation for this one-off event?''

Why wouldn’t the historical method itself be enough?

Note that I'm not crying about authorship, alleged eyewitness testimony, hearsay, or the gaps in recordings and resulting contradictions. An argument could easily be made highlighting how generous I'm being even calling these stories ''history.''

That’s good because almost every notable event from history suffers from hearsay, gaps in recording, contradictions between accounts, and so on.

I am focused solely on what the historical method can deal with, and showing you why the ''supernatural'' can't be dealt with by its use.

That’s just it, I don’t see how you’ve shown this at all. You’ve used a lot of words but I fear in the end all you’ve really done is argued merely by assertion in a circular fashion. In fact, I don’t see how you can show it without committing some kind of circular reasoning fallacy.

If you want to believe, for whatever reasons you like, that people can walk on water, the sun can stand still, and bodies raise from the dead, so be it. But you don't get to use historical methodology to support it. There's a TON of past events about which we can't actually know what happened. Generally this is not a huge concern, since folk aren't running around proclaiming the knowledge lies in supernatural sources and deeds. You cannot know, with any reasonable certainty, the main character in your preferred religion did any of the things you likely believe he did. Assigning a ridiculously low probability to it (within kissing distance of impossible) from the side of the skeptic is completely justified

You haven’t provided any good reason here as to why I don’t get to use the historical method. You are merely asserting it with a lot of words.

Extraordinary evidence is not the stories told by ancient and superstitious peoples, awash in the culture of paganism around every corner and family member, eventually making their way to book form.

Maybe you could qualify and quantify what constitutes extraordinary evidence in regards to ancient history because no one seems to be able to. I’ve been asking for years.

When you get right down to it, Goose, you're trying to support the notion that a dead person came back to life and floated off into the clouds from stories written millennia ago. Any sources cited after the alleged events, and particularly from acquaintances of actors in the story, are hearsay at best. For reasons known only to you, you think you have a right to let the historical method do the work for you in demonstrating numerous violations of physics and biology occurred in the same way you'd allow it to demonstrate Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

The reason I have the “right� to use the historical method on supernatural claims is because logic allows me to. I don’t a priori dismiss the supernatural as beyond the scope of the historical method on the sole grounds it is the supernatural. If I did I’d be arguing in a big fat circle. And no one should want to do that.

Here is what you need to propose to make a case for Caesar in the above. Please note the importance of natural precedence for the historian to draw from. Men exist, with precedent, and probably at one time there was one called Julius Caesar. That's at a minimum. Rivers also exist, with precedent, and hey! There's one called the Rubicon. A man, under decent conditions, is certainly physically capable of crossing a river, with precedent. Now whether this happened or not, you may notice no need to appeal to or explain anything supernatural. History can tell us what it will on this point, and we can make a reasoned decision.

However.. as to your story.. and in keeping with how historical methodology works..

We must propose that a person (in this story, Jesus) is capable of resurrecting at least once, and by precedent.

There are plenty of precedents. There have been resurrections throughout history right up to the modern documentation of them known as the Lazarus Syndrome. But if someone holds that resurrections are impossible then of course any precedent for a resurrection is hand waived aside by alternative explanations because resurrections can’t happen and they can’t happen because they are resurrections and resurrections are impossible! Round and around we go...

We must also propose that a person fly into the sky unaided, and with precedent.

No we don’t. The ascension is a different claim.

I can compare the assassination of Caesar to the resurrection using the same method if you like.

Historians (those most familiar with the methodology you're arguing with me about) know it's not their place to to make claims about how nature works that science can't.

And historians don’t need to. What on earth gave you the idea they did?

That's really it in a nutshell. I fear you're so focused on this one story that you fail to notice the utter lack of precedent that could upset my apple cart here. Can you name me a bona fide historian who's made a plausible/accepted case for something supernatural besides your resurrection using the historical method?

Why besides the resurrection? You seem to be tacitly conceding that there are historians who have made a plausible case for the resurrection.

In the end, a lot of words but you haven’t logically made a case for why I can’t use the historical method on the resurrection. It all seems to boil down to an a priori bias toward the supernatural. In light of that, I think I’ll keep on applying the historical method to the resurrection.

I think if you could actually rebut the arguments I’ve given or more importantly show the resurrection fails the historical method you’d be spending your time doing that rather than typing lengthy posts attempting to intellectually strong arm me into abandoning the historical method.

So if you are done with this lengthy rabbit trail can we get down to applying the resurrection to the historical method to see if it passes?

[Inigo Montoya]

So if you are done with this lengthy rabbit trail can we get down to applying the resurrection to the historical method to see if it passes?

Yes, please demonstrate how the historical method demonstrates a miraculous and/or supernatural and/or paranormal resurrection occurred 2000 years ago. Or, if the bar is a tad high, how the most reasonably informed guess we can make in light of mankind's intellectual progress over the intervening millennia is that a dead man came back to life days after he was killed. Please cite the abundance of relevant and comparable resurrections you mention that led up to or comprise the Lazarus Effect as well.

[JLB32168]

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regarded as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation.

I don’t take issue with that. I just don’t see how it’s relevant to my rebuttal of the point that Judaism never taught a divine messiah and that Christianity didn’t until about 85 AD. Clearly some sects of Judaism taught a messiah that was more than a mere human – having preexistence, being worshipped, judging the nations – aspects that Judaism also taught were God’s purview alone.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church was first?

There was no Catholic/Orthodox distinction in the 4th Century AD/CE.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 98 by JLB32168]

JLB posted >>“Clearly some sects of Judaism taught a messiah that was more than a mere human – having preexistence, being worshipped, judging the nations – aspects that Judaism also taught were God’s purview alone. “<<

RESPONSE:
Please cite your specific reference.

JLB posted >>“There was no Catholic/Orthodox distinction in the 4th Century AD/CE.�<<

RESPONSE:

Really? Authority: What was the name of the first Orthodox pope (or central ruling bishop)? When did he reign?

Some theological differences.
1. Catholicism employs human reason in explaining the concept of faith, while Orthodoxy doesn’t reconcile human reason with faith.

2. The Catholic doctrine evolves with change in time, and needs to fit in with prevailing circumstances, while Orthodoxy does not change its doctrine to fit with situational needs.

3. In holy matrimony, for Catholics, divorce is not permitted under any circumstances, while for Orthodox, it may be permitted when adultery is committed.

4. Catholics believe that human reason can prove the existence of God, while the Orthodox believe that God’s knowledge is planted in human nature.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel ... -catholic/