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?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 970 by H.sapiens]

historical facts can be obtained from the scriptures just like any historical book more over taking facts from the bible would be more reliable since the bible is actually the stories written about Jesus himself otherwise what book of history could say more about it better than the bible ?

You first have to make a case for the scriptures being an "historical book" something that can not be successfully done, all the bible does is record and freeze in time (at the second or third century) the myths that were circulating.

[Replying to post 971 by polonius.advice]

If asked "How do you know the Bible is divinely inspired," some readers might argue "Because it says it is."

How you know that historians tell the truth ? how you know that any one say the truth ?

If you reject the whole bible then you need to reject every historian and if you accept the whole bible then you will accept contradictions so its fair to treat the bible like any historic book and debate its contents

But there is no evidence that it is anything but a collection of myths.

Consider this post and the thread that follows it:

.
How was the Bible constructed?

What I have learned from Christian literature:

A couple or three centuries after Jesus is said to have lived and died, Roman emperors convened “counsels� (committees) of Christian church officials with the intention of deciding upon what would be “approved/official� church doctrine and literature -- and become the approved state religion of the empire.

Church representatives from various places in the empire evidently sorted through literature circulating in churches of the era and selected (by vote) which ones to include and which to exclude.

The criteria used for selection is not known with certainty but it is known that there were strong differences of opinion. The most popular views prevailed. Some sections of Jewish scriptures were adopted (made official church doctrine) as were writings of Paul/Saul and “gospels� (which later were assigned names of famous people).

Was this process assured to present what was known or thought about Jesus? Hardly. There were conflicting ideas, “gospels� / literature circulating at the time. What was selected represented the views of a majority and/or the most popular among church hierarchy (AND/OR the most likely to be acceptable to Roman officials).

Thus, the “Word of God� was decreed by committees -- hundreds of miles from where Jesus is said to have lived and taught -- and after Judaism had been defeated / destroyed by Roman armies.

Does anyone care to dispute the above – or to put a more “holy� spin on it?

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 974 by polonius.advice]

Why?

Simply because like any historian the writers of the bible told the story from their point of view

Is God responsible for these contradictions?

I did speak about god or that the bible is totally divine and directly from god

Does your conclusion logically follow from your premises?

My conclusion is historians took what Jesus have been preaching and wrote it down and it was badly translated just like any historian write down a story, in a simple way the bible is a book and not a divine creature, rejecting it must be built on scientific and historic facts and not random rejection .

Any historian can type any event like the way he wants and the way he saw the story from his side, so having a bible as source of information is not going so far from history, but debating those facts and compare it to other writers is best we can do
[/quote]

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 974 by polonius.advice]

Why?

Simply because like any historian the writers of the bible told the story from their point of view

You are ASSUMING that all historians are the same.

Is God responsible for these contradictions?

I did speak about god or that the bible is totally divine and directly from god

Does your conclusion logically follow from your premises?

My conclusion is historians took what Jesus have been preaching and wrote it down and it was badly translated just like any historian write down a story, in a simple way the bible is a book and not a divine creature, rejecting it must be built on scientific and historic facts and not random rejection .

Any historian can type any event like the way he wants and the way he saw the story from his side, so having a bible as source of information is not going so far from history, but debating those facts and compare it to other writers is best we can do

You are ASSUMING that there was a Jesus, that he preached, that someone wrote it down, that the Bible is, at root, a accurate source of information.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 976:

...
...bible is a book and not a divine creature, rejecting it must be built on scientific and historic facts and not random rejection .
...

Where claims are made that are not supported, we can't blame science or history for the claimant's failures.

If the theist wishes to propose rejection is "random", that's their issue, not the issue of folks who don't believe tales just 'cause they get told.

[mms20102]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

History : past events that relate to a particular subject, place, organization, etc

Historian : a person who studies or writes about history

the bible : It is a collection of scriptures written at different times by different authors in different locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Textual_history

The oldest extant copy of a complete Bible is an early 4th-century parchment book preserved in the Vatican Library, and known as the Codex Vaticanus. The oldest copy of the Tanakh in Hebrew and Aramaic dates to the 10th century CE. The oldest copy of a complete Latin (Vulgate) Bible is the Codex Amiatinus, dating from the 8th century

Now concerning historians

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.

Ibn khaldun THE MUQADDIMAH 1377

The Messiah (Jesus) brought (the Jews) his religion, as is known. Heabolished some of the laws of the Torah. He performed marvelous wonders, such ashealing the insane
418 and reviving the dead. Many people joined him and believedin him. The largest group among his following were his companions, the Apostles.There were twelve of them. He sent some of them as messengers (Apostles) to allparts of the world. They made propaganda for his religious group. That was in thedays of Augustus, the first of the Roman emperors, and during the time of Herod,the king of the Jews, who had taken away royal authority from the Hasmoneans, hisrelatives by marriage. The Jews envied (Jesus) and declared him a liar. Their king,Herod, wrote to the Roman Emperor, Augustus, and incited him against (Jesus). TheRoman Emperor gave (the Jews) permission to kill him, and the story of Jesus asrecited in the Qur'an


the text is very large and I don't want to make it big post but it spoke about who wrote the bible making and said it in detail
According to all historians the bible is actually the collection of stories and sayings made by Jesus so regarding this we should cross-examine the bible and not reject it as a book of history

Just one last note I wanted to say I didn't speak about god

[marco]

How you know that historians tell the truth ? how you know that any one say the truth ?

The right approach is to be suspicious, especially if information comes from the friends of the subject. People reporting on Jesus would present a good picture just as Muhammad's friends would play down any bad he did or at least excuse it.

Historians - good ones - try to distance themselves from all bias but this can be hard. Unless you believe that God was watching over the writers of the Bible and Koran, then you must take what is said there with a pinch of salt.

[polonius]

[Replying to mms20102]

Any historian can type any event like the way he wants and the way he saw the story from his side, so having a bible as source of information is not going so far from
history, but debating those facts and compare it to other writers is best we can do

OR

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

In short, not everything in the Gospels is historically factual.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 980 by marco]

I didn't say the bible is the ultimate truth but I don't accept to reject it as a source of historical information about Jesus .

Just like have given examples of historians above speaking about the bible and Jesus Ibn Khaldun which Is one of the best historians and philosophers in the middle ages he spoke about Jesus and the disciples

In contrast taking the sayings of the disciples is not fault but as I said we should cross-examine what they said

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 981 by polonius.advice]

Great we have reached to point that the bible is not fully true and it has historical writings being factual or not is something that can be tested .

taking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_Estes as an example like yours I guess you would recommend all Christians to convert into Islam

[marco]

In contrast taking the sayings of the disciples is not fault but as I said we should cross-examine what they said

I agree with you. I am also saying that we should examine the sayings attributed to Muhammad. Friends have a odd way of seeing only good.

If you regard the Bible or the Koran as the word of God, you then have a problem. Do you challenge God? Those who believe in the Resurrection are not going by history; they are relying on faith just as some people think that Muhammad actually travelled on a winged horse. The two claims are similar, but perhaps the second is less likely. History has nothing to do with it.