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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Thank you for the scriptural account.

You're most welcome. If you have any other bible based questions, feel free to ask me, if I have the time I'll be sure to consider answering them.

Now, let's discuss whether the story is a historically accurate account of real / actual / literal events that occurred in the real world rather than in imagination, illusion, delusion and/or fantasy -- and whether interpretations and opinions are accurate.

You are free to discuss that. Enjoy the discussion with whomever takes you up on your invitation.


Have a most excellent weekend,

JW

[polonius]

Returning to the topic of this thread, a basic question must be asked.

Jesus was crucified in the 30-33 AD timeframe. By whom and when was it first written that he had been raised from the dead?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Why are you unwilling to discuss this with Z (or myself)? This is a debate forum. Surely you're not under the impression you're here to assert/preach and then decline all invites to defend your beliefs?

There are better sub forums for those that want that sort of environment.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Why are you unwilling to discuss this with Z (or myself)? This is a debate forum. Surely you're not under the impression you're here to assert/preach and then decline all invites to defend your beliefs?

There are better sub forums for those that want that sort of environment.

If the facts and the evidence lined up in their favor, the Christians on this forum would be falling all over themselves in an effort to brow beat the non believers into intellectual submission with them. In actual practice however what we experience is the opposite occurring. Christian claims can be rather easily answered with perfectly natural explanations, even based on the information contained in Christian literature. Since natural explanations are VASTLY more probable than supernatural explanations, unless Christians can find a way to overcome these objections, their claims will never hold water in a contest of reason, logic and the facts.

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

Jesus was crucified and supposedly was raised from the dead in about 30 AD. But the first report we have was written by Paul, a nonwitness, in 53-55 AD to prople living 817 miles way from Jerusalem where the event is claimed to have occured.

If there were witnesses to Jesus's resurrection (Paul claims 500 people), is it creditable that none of these nor any of the people they would have told wrote anything about it until Paul's writing 25 years or more after the fact?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

This topic is a perfect opportunity for Christians to make their case. They should be all over this. Any moment now. Much in the way Jesus has been about to return any moment now for the last 2,000 years. Why let a 2,000 year unblemished record of futility stand in the way? You have a ready made audience here. If your supernatural explanation for the advent and rise of Christianity makes more sense then a natural explanation, then make your case. And if you can't, or won't, make such a case, then what are we supposed to conclude from that?

[JLB32168]

Opinions?

I'm not sure how one is supposed to prove the Resurrection happened or did not happen.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Opinions?

I'm not sure how one is supposed to prove the Resurrection happened or did not happen.

Does Santa have a team of flying reindeer, or doesn't he? It's kind of like that. If you begin with the unquestioned assumption that Santa not only exists, but has magical powers, then flying reindeer are perfectly explainable. The problem is that, at the end of the day you still cannot actually provide any examples of reindeer that can fly. And you're still stuck with the fact that all observation indicates quite conclusively that reindeer exhibit none of the qualities associated with flight. So a reasonable person might be forgiven for concluding that while stories of preposterous occurrences which defy all reason and observation are a dime a dozen, actual preposterous occurrences which defy all reason and observation are conspicuously hard to come by.

In other words, while no one can ever entirely prove that a thing does NOT exist or has NOT occurred, it is certainly possible to mitigate the likely truth of a claim based on how the nature of the claim compares to reason, logic and observation. Also, experience overwhelmingly indicates that a natural explanation for any particular claim is VASTLY more likely than a supernatural explanation.

So what is the supernatural explanation for Santa's team of flying reindeer? There exists a Jolly fat man who lives at the north pole and who possesses magic. The natural explanation is that people make up stories and no Jolly fat man or team of flying reindeer ever actually existed to begin with. The only thing left to sort out now is the level of each person's own gullibility and the depth of their emotional needs. After all, WHAT HARM COULD IT DO to believe in a jolly fat man with a team of flying reindeer who brings presents at Christmas time? And just think of what you will be missing out on if you are wrong!

[JLB32168]

Does Santa have a team of flying reindeer, or doesn't he? It's kind of like that. If you begin with the unquestioned assumption that Santa not only exists, but has magical powers, then flying reindeer are perfectly explainable. The problem is that, at the end of the day you still cannot actually provide any examples of reindeer that can fly.

If I want to debate whether or not reindeer can fly (e.g. Santa Claus is modeled on St. Nicholas, an Eastern Orthodox bishop. Being a bishop, he would not have partaken in the practice of witchcraft, which is forbidden in Christian praxis; therefore, the idea of magical flying reindeer is incompatible with St. Nick and must be a pagan interpolation,) I can do it w/o giving assent to belief in Santa Claus.
Ultimately, almost every skeptic on this thread resorts to a final argument of “Prove your deity exists� because s/he simply cannot tackle a point and has to resort to the argument that trumps all – that of, “Deities don’t exist.�

[Zzyzx]

.

Ultimately, almost every skeptic on this thread resorts to a final argument of “Prove your deity exists� because s/he simply cannot tackle a point and has to resort to the argument that trumps all – that of, “Deities don’t exist.�

Ultimately every Theist argument rests upon "My favorite deity DOES exist" -- an unproved assumption.

However, this thread asks "Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?" It does NOT ask if deities exist.