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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 926 by Claire Evans]

Why do you only mention preaching now? You asked me what I believed and I told you. You KNOW the Holy Spirit cannot be proven yet you make a new thread about the Holy Spirit.

I mention it now because you started to preach now.

I'm asking for reasoning, not just WHAT you happen to believe. If you simply tell us what you believe with no justification, you are simply PREACHING. If you wont or can't PROVE that what you claim is true, take back the claim. That's how it works when you can't back up your claims.

You've made two important claims, Claire, and I challenged you about them. That's how a debate works. You said that :

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus.

And :

There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

So, I was wondering if you could please answer these :

1. HOW do you know that a) You truly know Jesus and that b) There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.?
2. Please explain to us how you acquired this knowledge?
3. Can you prove that the HS exists, and also, the devil?
4. How does praying to banish devils demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit?
5. How is only knowing the horror of evil the only way to appreciate God?
6. How have you always known that God exists? Did you know it as a baby? Didn't you learn religion from your caregivers like the rest of us?
7. How is it that you knew God since always, and that the only way to really know God is by knowing devils but you didn't know devils since always? How does that make any sense?
8. How do you know that "One has to invite the Holy Spirit in one's life to make His presence known."? Where did you get that info from?
9. How do you know that there are no such thing as coincidences?
10. Do you ever QUESTION the truth of your beliefs?

Your answers to those questions would go a long way towards clarifying what you meant by your two statements. But of course, a lot of Christians come in here and don't want to PROVE that any of their beliefs are true.. they just want to come in here and preach what they believe, instead.

Up to you.

[Claire Evans]

People saw Jesus' miracles and some believed.

Exactly. Why not do more of a proven method?

Do you expect Jesus to have done miracles day in and day out? And it is not only through miracles that one can believe. The murderer on the cross believed and repented when He saw Jesus.

I expect a benevolent god to do whatever he could to prevent every soul from ending up in hell (or to assist it in ending up in heaven).

Why don’t you?

As I said, not all miracles made people believe He is the Son of God. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink it.

Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same.

Correct, it would not have the same effect as having seen a miracle. But even one saved soul is a good thing, right?

It is completely unnecessary.

All souls should be saved. By any means necessary. Isn’t that the point of this?

I'm going to ask you, do you really believe that magically preserved documents would lead atheists to Jesus?

According to the Bible, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, the Teacher. He is all the proof one needs.

And how does one find or welcome this Holy Spirit?

Be prepared to sacrifice one's own esteem for Christ's. Do not have earthly ambitions which promotes oneself.

Matthew 16:24New International Version (NIV)

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

This is a big problem for many people because, by default, we all want to promote oneself. The idea of submitting to God and doing His will is not appealing to most. It can mean the world will shun you.

That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

To me, this is irrelevant. Having seen a miracle, more people are inclined to believe in god and Jesus. This seems un-debatable to me. Think of how many souls and converts Christianity could gain now if a couple of widely publicized miracles would happen on prime time TV, or YouTube?

No one's faith could then be exercised. The Pharisees took the same approach as you did and Jesus did not take the bait.

Well then, you have a dilemma. I was a believer and lost my faith. But I can guarantee you that I would not have left the faith had I seen a miracle.



Was my soul not worthy of a little help from the Holy Spirit? Or a miracle? It was not like a light switch, suddenly switched off. It was a gradual decline in faith. Any time, along that path of disbelief could have come a visit from the holy spirit, or having witnessed a divine action, I could have been swayed back into the flock, so to speak.

But you have a self of entitlement then. How many other being have remained in the faith who have not seen miracles?

John 20:28-29

…28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!� 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.�

It is more precious to persist in one's faith even when one cannot see. We cannot always understand what God is doing. Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

I'm left to wonder why miracle during the time of the OT and NT was a good thing then, but is a bad idea now. Why would this be the case?

It's not a bad idea. It's just that it is not needed now because the Holy Spirit is available to everyone.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is not enough though. Christianity is, after all, on the decline. Especially in the US. So, maybe a few miracles are in order than?

You assume miracles would do the trick. After all, people aren't witnessing miracles by Jesus now. Christianity is on the decline because of a global agenda. Christianity is an enemy to those who control the world and it needs to be exterminated. Read this:

https://janegaffin.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... istianity/

Anyway, Jesus could do miracles to kingdom come yet that didn't make everyone believe or repent:

Matthew 11:20-24:


Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.�

Still, some did repent. Some did convert. Are not those souls worthy?

The point I'm trying to make is that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink it.

You dodged my point. If just one person could be swayed from losing faith (as I have) by the appearance of a miracle or divine help, I would think a benevolent god would not hesitate to save that soul from eternal hell.

But that is my opinion of a benevolent god.

Then Jesus would be obliged to give miracles to all of us, not just you or one other person. It seems as if you don't want to make any effort to know Jesus by changing one's life. Instead you want easy answers by demanding miracles.

There's a difference between gaining followers because they have seen and gaining followers because they have faith.

Do those who have witnessed miracles and converted have a weaker Faith? Or stronger?

It depends on the motive. Do the ones who convert after seeing a miracle truly desiring to be a true disciple of Jesus which is to abandon all esteem? All do they follow Jesus because they are convinced He is the son of God yet won't be a true follower of His? Here's an example:

Matthew 19:16 and 21

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?�

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�

The rich man knew Jesus could give eternal life yet he did not want to do what was required of him. That was to abandon one's own esteem.

So the former is the one with the greater faith.

This is a blanket generalization. And by no means can be expected to account for every person whose faith might need a little boost, especially in today’s clime.

Again, if every soul is of worth, than a benevolent (and omnipotent) god would know that some might just need a little more information in order to be saved.

You actually sound like this:

Luke 23:8

"And learning that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself was in Jerusalem at that time. 8When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased. He had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had heard about Him and was hoping to see Him perform a miracle. 9Herod questioned Jesus at great length, but He gave no answer.…"

I can speak for myself, if I saw a miracle and rejoined Christianity, my faith would be stronger than ever, and I would have no doubt whatsoever - BECAUSE of what I saw.

How is that a bad thing?

To be honest, Satan has no doubt about Jesus being the son of God. He believes. However, as I mentioned, it is not just believing because they have concrete proof. It is about believing because of faith which is not exercised should you just have witnessed a miracle. Truly knowing God is to seek Him. To listen to His voice without demanding miracles in the sky. To trust when one can't see the way. When you look back in your life and you realize how God has guided, then that is more convincing than miracles.

So, I’m sensing a contradiction here. Does god (in your opinion) perform miracles at all today? Curing cancer? Saving a life here or there? If so, and he is active today, then your point is invalidated.

-all the best

I really don't know. I have never come across a case where cancer has been cured by God. I know I would just have chemotherapy. There have been people who refuse to get medical treatment and would rather pray and then they die. That's asinine.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 930 by Claire Evans]

How could my ego be the problem when I prayed to God to do whatever he wanted with me? That sounds to me to be as anti ego as one can get!

That is because you expected some sort of special sign like miracles in the sky. Do you recall that? You think because Paul had them then you should have them, too.

I'd expect at least a "Hey, I am actually here after all". Ya know, some indication that the entity I'd been praying to for years was actually there.
But no. That's arrogant or something, in your logic. Asking God to do with me what he wants, asking for advice and orders, being a faithful little follower...nope, that's egotistical!

I honestly have to ask here just what, in your eyes, and in your god's eyes, is good enough? I've told you, I dedicated my life to God. I asked for guidance. I prayed, often, in tears. I strove as hard as I could to be faithful.
Wow. Just wow. No wonder I left. If your god actually does exist, he's a real piece of work, and not in a good way.

It's not arrogant to ask God to remind you He's there. It's just that you think it should take the form of a miracle. That is not so. That is your big stumbling block.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 937 by Claire Evans]

It's just that you think it should take the form of a miracle.

It would have to, by default, so that I would be able to differentiate it from a hallucination, sudden onset of madness, or my imagination.
Or are you saying that when God 'communicates', us humans are just not to differentiate it from those three things?

[Clownboat]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Firstly, miracles have not been shown to be real and secondly, faith is needed to believe in all the false god concepts out there. Sure, you can feel like you just so happen to be applying your faith to an actual god concept, but that makes you no different than any other believer of any other religion.

We are talking about miracles according to the Bible. You'd need to know everyone who has ever claimed to have experienced a miracle and debunk it to say for a fact that miracles aren't real. Blind faith, as in just believing without evidence, is needed for some people to be part of a religion. Faith as in trusting the Lord knowing He exists is different. That is the part of the Christian faith I subscribe to.

That's not how this works.
You claim miracles are real. Can you show that you speak the truth or not. Please show me that you are not some fool who is willing to lie for their religion. Something I also know happens, unlike miracles.
My point is, I am only aware of people lying about miracles. I have witnessed said lies personally.

People saw Jesus' miracles and some believed. Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same. That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

You don't give enough credit to god concepts if you think they can create universes, but can't write a book that is anymore special that what a human can write.

Well, Revelation has been written yet no one claims Jesus wrote it. You don't seem to understand that a book by Jesus is not required to have faith. I said the Holy Spirit is more effective than a book.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that you claim your god inspired a book that is no more special than what a mere human can do.

Please show that you speak the truth in regards to there being a Holy Spirit. Provide the mechanism that the Holy Spirit uses to provide you with faith. I can still speak in tongues myself by the way.
Bottom line, can you show that you have not been duped to believe in such a being, or at least show that you are not a lair for religion?

Anyway, Jesus could do miracles to kingdom come yet that didn't make everyone believe or repent:

Quite the claim. Before you evidence such a thing, can you point to anything outside your religious promotional material that would suggest that Jesus was real? I'm just curious. Not that I don't think he was, but I would like to illustrate that this claim has you putting the cart in front of the horse.

I don't think there is any serious historian that disputes the existence of Jesus. What is in contention is His claims of being the Son of God and resurrecting from the dead.

"CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

The historian acknowledged Jesus' existence but scoffed His divinity as superstition.

Great, so you at least provided a possible reason for there being an actual Christus that might have been Jesus, but you are not yet justified to say these words: "Jesus could do miracles"

Blind faith leads to false religions and some Christians have blind faith also.

Please address what I said. Faith leads to false religious beliefs. Therefore, why do you continue to talk about faith as if it were a positive quality to have?

It's a deeply personal thing but you were asking what Christians believe faith is.

Born again, spirit filled Christian for 20 years here! I have no need to ask a Christian as to what faith is.

I've always wondered if the average Muslim actually believes they have a two way relationship with Allah.

Sure they do. And they use the same made up mechanism that you do for your Holy Spirit. Faith.

There are some who believe that if things go their way, it is from Allah. If it is not, then it is not from him. It is not necessarily the case with the Christian God.

This is not a competition about who thinks who's religion is better. I'm just pointing out that both require faith and that means that faith leads to false beliefs.

And we need to ask, "Who is Allah?"

I see no need. I have my answer, but we both know that those who believe on faith will have a totally different answer. You know, like Christians do for their god concept.

[Clownboat]

However, if they receive the peace that Jesus gives that makes the bitterness go away, the cancer won't return because they have been healed emotionally.

Please show that you speak the truth and that you really have a cure for cancer.

I have some Christian friends that lost loved ones to cancer that would love to know how this cure should have worked. Two young daughters specifically that would love to know why their mommy died from cancer. The whole church was praying for crying out loud. Her healing was being claimed for months before these girls lost their mother.

Should I tell them that according to you, their mother was just never healed emotionally?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 869 by Claire Evans]

There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

Then explain the apostles, and the other people who knew Jesus. The people who walked and talked with Jesus, just like you walk and talk with your family/friends/loved ones. Do you say about your family that you only know through faith?

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus. It is only after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples finally realized what Jesus had come for. They didn't really understand Him when Jesus was on earth.

Please explain to us how you acquired this knowledge?
Thank you.

Please don't ask me to prove this. This is not part of the debate. This is you asking about my experience.

It has taken many years. One of the ways to know the Holy Spirit really exists is to know the existence of the devil. I was introduced to evil spirits at age 12. Praying to banish them demonstrated the power of the Holy Spirit. To me, only knowing the horror of evil can one appreciate God. I have always known God exists. I didn't know the devil always. One has to invite the Holy Spirit in one's life to make His presence known. However, many stop seeking because they didn't like the answer they received from Him. They think it is because He doesn't exist. Yet when one assumes that it is not a refusal, you begin to see a pattern in one's life which can only be appreciated in retrospect. There are no such thing as coincidences in my opinion. It is a deeply personal thing. I am by no means unique.

Thanks for the detailed explanation about how you were indoctrinated. It's interesting, but something I am familiar with.

I had hoped you could show how you came about such information like, 'the disciples didn't understand Jesus when he was on earth'.

This gets me to thinking though. If the disciples didn't understand Jesus, and they didn't write the gospels, how is it reasonable to think that the unknown authors of the gospels understood Jesus any better than his very own disciples?

If you think you can just use the Holy Spirit scapegoat, I will have to ask you to once again describe the mechanism he/she/it uses before such a statement can even be considered.

[Clownboat]

Obviously we need the Bible to tell us who Jesus is and what He did

And in order for us to believe what the Bible tells us about who he is and what he did, the Bible cannot be suspect. If you suspect some parts of the Bible to be untrue, how can you be sure the whole story about Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren't untrue as well?

Because the Holy Spirit is not dependent on the Bible. The details don't have to be flawless from start to finish. You are speaking from the stance that someone doesn't know the Holy Spirit and is being skeptical because suspect things are there and they don't know what else to believe. That is actually understandable. Yet it is the Holy Spirit that is the Teacher, not the Bible. Else they are just words. I say know the Holy Spirit first then study the Bible.

Since the Holy Spirit is a character in a specific book, how would any person get to know the said character without reading the book itself?

It's like asking someone to know Harry Potter, but without the books/movies. How can such a thing be done?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 942 by Clownboat]

Since the Holy Spirit is a character in a specific book, how would any person get to know the said character without reading the book itself?

It's like asking someone to know Harry Potter, but without the books/movies. How can such a thing be done?

Could you shush?
Harry is trying to tell me something right now telepathically, and you keep interrupting.

[Clownboat]

It matters not where you apply your faith, because faith is needed in order to believe in false things. That is the point. How is a mechanism that leads to false beliefs a good thing?

So you can't differentiate between the context of the two faiths?

How did you arrive at this? I clearly stated, "How is a mechanism that leads to false beliefs a good thing?"

You seem to think that it is only possible to have faith if you start off not being sure He exists in the first place.

False. I happen to know that you, myself, and all others are born atheists.

In my case it was not brainwashing because I was never forced to believe.

You're describing coercion, not brainwashing. Brainwashing is subtle and works best on those whom are unaware or convinced that what they are being brainwashed to believe is needed (to be happy, or to see their loved ones again, or to have some eternal bliss after death).

A lot of people stay with a religion because they are frightened of the repercussions of leaving it so they just convince themselves that their God exists.

This is true, but I'm not sure what the point is.

You are also assuming that all beliefs are false.

False. I am only aware of false religions, but I am open to being shown that any are true. You yourself I'm sure could come up with hundreds if not thousands of false religions, and yet yours is chosen to believe, and the mechanism you use to believe is the very mechanism needed in order to believe in the false religions you and I both know exist.

I do not see the point of worshiping a god one is not sure exists unless they are obliged to.

Here is the thing, you don't 'know' any gods exist. You only have 'faith' (something used to believe in false things) that your chosen god is real.

There were fallible people who wrote the Bible. You could argue, why did God make a perfect world? As I said, since when does knowledge beyond human understanding at the time automatically would be accredited to Jesus? Or inspired by God? That knowledge could be from the occult which many of the Pharisees practiced.

There is a lot more logical conclusion you are avoiding. You and I both know that man has invented religious ideas, (not yours though, that just happens to be the one example that a god was really behind), so rather than inventing ghosts, demons, the occult, we could just admit that man invented religions and accept the fact that it is logical that man also invented the one you prefer.

That's Yahweh you are talking about, not the Father.

Do you not serve the god of Israel? If not, who is Yahweh when compared to this 'Father'. When I was a Christian, I was taught to pray to my 'Father god', the god of Israel. Thus my confusion.

No, I don't.

What? You don't worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The Old Testament being just a re-write of Canaanite god concepts is known to me, but now I struggle to understand which god concept is going to provide you with eternal bliss after you die. I don't care what you name you choose to use as most Christians cannot agree on that, so can you just clarify if you serve the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or not? Call it El for all I care.

In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name should be pronounced "Yahweh."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... or-jehovah

When you truly research who Yahweh is, you see that he is a physical being, a Canaanite God, the son of El, who was approached by Moses by joining the Midianite tribe and was originally the god of the Kenites. So Yahweh adopted Israel.

You just described ancient, nomadic, human god beliefs to justify saying that one of them was true and adopted the nation of Israel. Did I get your reasoning right?

I bet you that you didn't know this.

You don't give me enough credit. I have been a part of many debates that show how the Old Testament god came about from Canaanite beliefs. It's no secret where Abraham was from after all.

Can you point to anything in the Bible that we cannot imagine a human coming up with?
An actual divine book written by Jesus is truly needed, otherwise what is special about the current 66? Nothing that I can see.

Why would that be needed?

I'll take that as you saying, "no, I cannot come up with anything in the Bible that a normal human being could have come up with".
As for why, I'll leave that up to the readers to decide.

Why!? Simple, you believe that there is a god concept behind the scriptures. The scriptures themselves betray you. That is why it is needed.

Does the betrayal of the OT dent my faith in the slightest? Absolutely not. I do not base my faith on the scriptures. You do understand my belief that once one knows the Teacher, whatever is written in the scriptures is not that important. If you are looking for perfection in the scriptures to have any sort of faith, you are wasting your time.

I agree that the scriptures can be a waste of time (though there is some good).
Now kindly show us that your claim is true that you know the Teacher.
Is he all knowing? Can he tell you what I have written on my desk, or let me guess, your god is just another god that cannot be tested? All false god concepts that I'm aware of don't like to be tested it seems.

There are many prophetic things in Revelation that indicate the supernatural. I'm going to bring your attention to Revelation 13: 17-18

You should start a thread on Revelations if you would truly desire to argue for it being supernatural. Here I'm trying to deal with your claims about faith and this 'knowing the teacher' business you claim.

Now watch this:

Now read this:
Apophenia: The experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

Does that Revelation passage seem more plausible now?

No, it contradicts 1 Corinthians anyways. Can't have you cake and eat it too.

So there are signs.

Again, see Apophenia.