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]

...defend your beliefs...

Here is the evidence that justifies my belief the resurrection occurred.


1. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness.

�Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…� – 1Peter 1:3-4

1 Peter internally self identifies and its authenticity is undisputed in the early church. If you wish to overturn this you’ll need something much weightier than simply implying the possibility of pseudonymity combined with easily overturned stylistic arguments around such things as the good Greek. The latter of which is easily overturned by an appeal to the letter itself at 5:12 where Peter is likely telling his readers he has used an amanuensis.

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death…� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:22-24

�The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.� – Peter, as recorded by Luke in Acts 3:13-15.


2. An eyewitness account in John.

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

Not that we even need it after Irenaeus' testimony, but here is more external evidence for John.

�But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.� – Eusebius, Church History 3.24.17

�But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.� – Clement, as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.7

�Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.� – Origen, as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7

Additionally, even if we cannot reasonably establish the Gospel of John’s authorship, which I believe we can, the gospel itself internally claims to be written by a witness.

�And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.� - John 1:14

� And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.� – John 19:35

The epilogue confirmed the text was written by a disciple.

�This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.� - John 21:24


3. An eyewitness account in Matthew

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.�- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.� - Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with our Greek one because in their mind they were the same work. For instance see Eusebius’ CH 3.24.6-9.


4. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met witnesses

�He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.� – Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:4-8

Even if we do not grant Paul’s experience as being on par with the disciples, at the very least, Paul is a former enemy and contemporary who also met witnesses (Galatians ch. 1&2)


5. The account of Luke who met witnesses.

�Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.� – Luke 1:1-4

Luke was also a companion of Paul so there’s no good reason to think Luke wasn’t alive at the same time as witnesses and in a position to speak to them.


6. The account of Mark who met witnesses.

�Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.� – Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, CH 3.39.15


7. The first letter of Clement who met witnesses.

Firstly, Paul knew Clement…

�Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.� – Philippians 4.3

Clement met the apostles including Peter…

“[Clement], as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…� – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3.

�For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records…the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.� – Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 32


8.The Letters of Polycarp who met witnesses

�But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.� – Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4

�For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John...� – Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 32

Now, Polycarp’s words…

�[O]ur Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave� - Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 1.

�Wherefore, girding up your loins, serve the Lord in fear and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory, and a throne at His right hand.� - Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 2.


9. The letters of Ignatius who met witnesses.

�When Trajan, not long since, succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle…� – The Martyrdom of Ignatius.

�At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first…At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.� – Eusebius, CH, 3.22-3.23.1

Now, Ignatius’ words…

�I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.� – Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 4.

�under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection� - Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.

�For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.� - Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 3.[/quote]

[JLB32168]

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

I've made no such assertion. Please address arguments I actually present rather.

Every debate I have had on this board with skeptics has ultimately ended with charges that I prove the deity exist - after initial allowances that the hypothetical deity might exist were made, if only to further discussion of a theological question.

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

If it occurred, how does one prove it - provide photographs? These types of questions are just silly. One might ask if the writers of the Gospels believed a physical resurrection occurred or if Paul thought the resurrection was a literal physical one or if the word anastasis - Greek for "resurrection" meant literal, physical resurrection or some spiritual, metaphysical type, but to actually ask for proof of the physical resurrection is a pointless question since every party knows that conclusive evidence doesn't exist.

[tfvespasianus]

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with our Greek one because in their mind they were the same work. For instance see Eusebius’ CH 3.24.6-9.

Although there are a great many things to address in this post, this passage is interesting to me. And this is because I know of no known copy of a ‘Hebrew’ (Aramaic?) Gospel of Matthew. No early Church Father quotes from it or claims to have seen a copy of it and even Eusebius writing in the fourth century claims to have a copy in his possession not quotes from the same. Additionally, Matthew’s gospel share many passages with a high degree of verbal correspondence with the other synoptics. It is almost never posited that Mark or Luke were written in a language other than Greek. Thus, for our copy of Matthew to share multiple instances verbal correspondence after translation from another language with two other works composed in a different language is not tenable.

To me, these challenges are fairly insurmountable: we have no contemporary reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew other than unsupported assertion and the linguistic/compositional evidence that we do have argues against Matthew being a translated work (i.e. verbal correspondence with the other synoptics and lack of ‘normalization’ from translation).

Take care,
TFV

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.�

Obviously the flying reindeer example I provided was intended as an analogy to the story of the corpse of Jesus returning to life and subsequently flying away, off up into the clouds. If you can establish that this supernatural claim is in any way reasonable and likely to be the cause of the rise of Christian belief, then please proceed to make your case. It is my firm view that this claim can be easily undermined through appeal to information contained in Christianity own religious documents themselves, which is after all the only information which we have to work with, and that a perfectly fine and completely natural explanation for the origin Christianity and and subsequent spread of the rumor of the "risen" Christ can be discerned right from the pages of the NT. If you believe that reason, logic and the facts are actually on the side of Christian claims, then please proceed to establish why. If you cannot then one must reasonably conclude that your beliefs are based more on emotional needs and upbringing then on any actual desire to subscribe to what is true.

The modern myth of Santa Claus is based on elements of the historical Saint Nicholas, the Dutch Sinterklaas, the English Father Christmas, the German Christkindl, all coated with an over sized dollop of Clement Moore's "The Night Before Christmas." Nikolaos of Myra (Saint Nickolas) was credited with performing many miracles:

Was St. Nicholas A Real Person?
Some say St. Nicholas existed only in legend, without any reliable historical record. Legends usually do grow out of real, actual events, though they may be embellished to make more interesting stories. Many of the St. Nicholas stories seem to be truth interwoven with imagination. However, the following facts of the life of St. Nicholas could contain some part of historical truth. They provide a clear sense of his personal characteristics which are further elaborated in other narratives. http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/real-person/

[JLB32168]

Obviously the flying reindeer example I provided was intended as an analogy to the story of the corpse of Jesus returning to life and subsequently flying away, off up into the clouds.

I’m well aware of that. I was merely emphasizing the fact that one can debate theological questions w/o the requisite belief in the Theos being debated and that asking questions of theology, while intending the whole time to retreat to the kill-all argument of “Prove your deity exists� is bad faith debate.

If you can establish that this supernatural claim is in any way reasonable and likely to be the cause of the rise of Christian belief, then please proceed to make your case.

I’m not trying to convince anyone that God exists. I’m interested in honing debate skills with people who at least make allowances that I a hypothetical deity/ies exist.
I’m also interested in exposing bad faith debate for what it is – that is, asking questions about theology under pretense of actually wanting a reasoned explanation of the theology but that once misconceptions are clarified, the “Deities don’t even exist� card will be brandished like a weapon.

If you cannot then one must reasonably conclude that your beliefs are based more on emotional needs and upbringing then on any actual desire to subscribe to what is true.

We can conclude whatever we wish. I considered atheism while in college. I found them to be no less intolerant and narrow-minded than the fundamentalists they so soundly condemned. I felt that truth should enlighten and elevate and saw no such forward thinking among them so I concluded they couldn’t be right.
Yeah – I know that’s not very logical thinking but it worked for me at the time.
I don't have much patience for rot

[Inigo Montoya]

...defend your beliefs...

Here is the evidence that justifies my belief the resurrection occurred.

You have met the challenge JW has not, in at least going on record with what you perceive supports your beliefs. Certainly your beliefs are your own, and you have every right to them. As you have been honest in saying they are beliefs, and not that the resurrection itself can be demonstrated to have occurred as historical fact, I salute you and can't think of anything to add.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

If you can establish that this supernatural claim is in any way reasonable and likely to be the cause of the rise of Christian belief, then please proceed to make your case.

I’m not trying to convince anyone that God exists. I’m interested in honing debate skills with people who at least make allowances that I a hypothetical deity/ies exist.
I’m also interested in exposing bad faith debate for what it is – that is, asking questions about theology under pretense of actually wanting a reasoned explanation of the theology but that once misconceptions are clarified, the “Deities don’t even exist� card will be brandished like a weapon.

Excellent! Can you establish for us some reasonable level of expectation that the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus story has even some minimum level of plausibility? Or that a perfectly natural explanation, one based entirely on Christianity's own religious documents, is in any way less plausible then the flying reanimated corpse story? And if you consider the "prove that your deity even exists" argument to be unfair, do you see that simply declaring that your unproven deity can do anything is therefore an unfair assertion as well? Even if such a deity exists, how does that establish that a corpse actually came back to life and flew away in this instance? I will be perfectly happy to address the nature of the existence of God later, but first let's stay with the subject of flying corpses.

I considered atheism while in college. I found them to be no less intolerant and narrow-minded than the fundamentalists they so soundly condemned. I felt that truth should enlighten and elevate and saw no such forward thinking among them so I concluded they couldn’t be right.
Yeah – I know that’s not very logical thinking but it worked for me at the time.

Fine. You have a much wider audience on this forum then any you might have had in college. I am happy to debate you and I am more than willing to let such a debate play out in a widely observed public arena.

I don't have much patience for rot

In that case there is not much point in your being here, is there! Please don't be one of those, "I'm a Christian and I have nothing to prove nor time for this sort of nonsense" type of Christian. We have witnessed far to many of those flit briefly through this forum already. It does a disservice to other Christians by making them look bad. Nor does seeming to purposely choose to get oneself banned from the forum serve to make anyone look persecuted. The owner, operator and supreme head deity of this forum is a Christian himself, after all. Not that I am charging you with any of this, but you are after all a newbie here.

[Goose]

Although there are a great many things to address in this post, this passage is interesting to me. And this is because I know of no known copy of a ‘Hebrew’ (Aramaic?) Gospel of Matthew. No early Church Father quotes from it or claims to have seen a copy of it and even Eusebius writing in the fourth century claims to have a copy in his possession not quotes from the same. Additionally, Matthew’s gospel share many passages with a high degree of verbal correspondence with the other synoptics. It is almost never posited that Mark or Luke were written in a language other than Greek. Thus, for our copy of Matthew to share multiple instances verbal correspondence after translation from another language with two other works composed in a different language is not tenable.

To me, these challenges are fairly insurmountable: we have no contemporary reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew other than unsupported assertion and the linguistic/compositional evidence that we do have argues against Matthew being a translated work (i.e. verbal correspondence with the other synoptics and lack of ‘normalization’ from translation).

The fact we don't have a copy of an Aramaic Matthew and the Greek Matthew we do have doesn't strongly betray a translation from Aramaic is problematic to be sure. But I wouldn't agree it is insurmountable. There is a solution and a precedent for a similar case with Josephus we can look to.


Irenaeus

Irenaeus speaks of passages from the “Gospels� and quotes Matthew 11:25-27 (Against Heresies, 1.20.3). Irenaeus goes on to quote from our Greek Matthew multiple times and attribute it to Matthew…

• â€�Matthew again says, and Luke likewise, “For this is he that was spoken of from the Lord by the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.â€�[ Matthew 3:3 ]…Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep.â€� [Matthew 1:20] Of what Lord he does himself interpret: “That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son.â€� [Matthew 2:15] “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.â€� [Matthew 1:23] …But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed “For we have seen His star in the east, and have come to worship Himâ€� [Matthew 2:2]…And then, [speaking of His] baptism, Matthew says, “The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.â€� [Matthew 3:16] …Such, then, [is the witness] of Matthew.â€� – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.9.1-3

Eusebius

Eusebius says, �For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.�- CH 3.24.6

Then, just a few sentences later Eusebius picks up on Matthew again, quotes from our canonical Matthew 4:12, and attributes it to Matthew,

�For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.�� - CH 3.24.9

You see, to Eusebius, the Greek Matthew WAS the Hebrew Matthew. The early church’s understanding was these were the same work. In Eusebius’ mind it was not the case there was a Hebrew Matthew and then some other Matthew.

Eusebius and the early church knew it was not unprecedented for educated Jews to write a work in Hebrew and then later translate it to Greek. Only a few sentences earlier Eusebius makes the following comment about Josephus.

�He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books. He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself into his native tongue.� - Eusebius CH 3.9.3

As a cross reference here are Josephus’ own words where he states he wrote the work first in his native language (Hebrew) and then translated it to Greek.

�I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country� - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 1.

The Hebrew version of Josephus’ War of the Jews is lost to us. But apparently Josephus was able to make this translation from Hebrew to Greek without showing any discernible signs of translation. Sound familiar?

[Ancient of Years]

As a cross reference here are Josephus’ own words where he states he wrote the work first in his native language (Hebrew) and then translated it to Greek.

�I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country� - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 1.

This is often referenced and always with the wrong citation. It is not in Book I of the War of the Jews as indicated, but in the Preface. It is in 1.(1), the last sentence before 1.(2).

It is perhaps a reflection on modern 'scholarship' that the exact wording referencing the incorrect citation appears over and over again.

His first work in Rome was an account of the Jewish War, addressed to certain "upper barbarians"—usually thought to be the Jewish community in Mesopotamia—in his "paternal tongue" (War I.3)

http://tinyurl.com/qbbt8fy

[Zzyzx]

.

1. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness.

Exactly what about the "resurrection" did Peter witness? Does he claim to have witnessed the actual "resurrection"?

2. An eyewitness account in John.
3. An eyewitness account in Matthew

The identities of the writers of "John" and "Matthew" are unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians

Those writers (whoever they were) cannot be shown to have been actual eyewitnesses.

The gospel tales were written decades or generations after the claimed events.

How can it be determined if they are truthful and accurate?

4. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met witnesses
5. The account of Luke who met witnesses.
6. The account of Mark who met witnesses.

Even if those people gave testimonials about having learned about the "resurrection" from witnesses, that is only hearsay (that heard from others).

Shall we accept testimonials and hearsay as a basis for making important decisions – or just when it fits some preferred religious dogma and literature?

"Take my word for it (or his or this book)" isn't convincing to many who are more interested in truth than dogma. Apparently, however, it is adequate for many or most Apologists.

Would you (generic term) base important real life decisions such as making a major investment or buying expensive real estate based upon the word of some anonymous person quoting other anonymous people?

7. The first letter of Clement who met witnesses.
8.The Letters of Polycarp who met witnesses
9. The letters of Ignatius who met witnesses.

If hearsay is written in a letter it must be true and/or it must be reliable evidence. Right?