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?

[JLB32168]

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?

Nope, but the title of the thread is “Is the Resurrurredction [sic] really a historical fact, or not?� It’s really a silly question to ask because outside of time travel it cannot be dis/proved and certainly the “supernatural�, if it exists, cannot be verified via natural scientific methods.

I actually think it’s silly of Christians to try and defend those types of arguments.

A more debatable question would be if St. Paul or the earliest Christians actually subscribed to a literal physical resurrection.

And if you consider the "prove that your deity even exists" argument to be unfair . . .

Not unfair – just stupid and unoriginal.

In that case there is not much point in your being here, is there!

Oh yes – I’ve moderated debates before. If one is going to debate a point of theology then one must make allowances that the deity about whom the theology is written at least hypothetically exists. If it becomes clear that one is losing the debate then s/he throws in the red herring “Deities don’t exist� argument.

The debate has then been lost by whomever uses the argument.

[Goose]

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

Yes.

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.

I provided ample external evidence for the authorship of Matthew and John. The evidence for which is just as strong as, if not stronger than, the authorship of other works from antiquity generally not disputed. If you wish to challenge the evidence itself, please make your argument.

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

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

Anyone who has even a basic familiarity with ancient history knows almost every work from ancient history was written quite some time after the events. We determine they are reliable, for instance, the same way we determine the accounts of Caesar’s assassination are reliable despite the fact they were written even later than the gospels.

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?

Again anyone with even an entry level knowledge of ancient history knows most of it comes down to us as hearsay. For instance, almost everything we know about the exploits of one of Rome’s greatest generals – Agricola – comes down to us from a hearsay and biased hearsay at that. Should we throw it all out the window or just the hearsay that comes down to us from Christians?

"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?

Anachronistic fallacy. Before I buy an investment I read the prospectus. Before I buy real estate I go see the property. Before I believe something from history is the case I review the historical evidence and make a determination as to whether I believe the evidence is strong enough.

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

When multiple historical sources are saying the same thing, I consider that to be quite strong evidence.

[tfvespasianus]

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.

Goose,

If, for the sake of argument, I mainly concede the points you have made in this post, I think it still only addresses half of the argument. Thus, even if we grant that our present version of Matthew is a translated work, what is your solution with respect to verbal correspondence across the synoptics?

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

Opinions?

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

RESPONSE:

A person can only "Seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows."

Are you sure we cannot prove or disprove that Jesus was a extraterrestial being?

The same type of reasoning and criteria would apply to both this question as to the Resurrection question.

But keep in mind, if someone makes an assertion, he/she must prove that assertion before any rebuttal is required.

And the conclusion should be supported by evidence, not just opinion.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 41 by JLB32168]

Nope, but the title of the thread is “Is the Resurrurredction [sic] really a historical fact, or not?� It’s really a silly question to ask because outside of time travel it cannot be dis/proved and certainly the “supernatural�, if it exists, cannot be verified via natural scientific methods.

I actually think it’s silly of Christians to try and defend those types of arguments.

A more debatable question would be if St. Paul or the earliest Christians actually subscribed to a literal physical resurrection.

Given the fact that not a single other generally accepted "historical fact" is predicated on a claim that violates all reason, observation, experience and physical law, I believe that whether or not the corpse of Jesus came back to life and subsequently flew away should be considered a valid historical fact is a perfectly reasonable question. Do you personally consider it to be an indisputable fact of history, or do you acknowledge that it is a religious belief and as such a matter of personal belief and NOT within the realm of that which is to be considered a genuine historical fact?

And if you consider the "prove that your deity even exists" argument to be unfair . . .

Not unfair – just stupid and unoriginal.

In that case there is not much point in your being here, is there!

Oh yes – I’ve moderated debates before. If one is going to debate a point of theology then one must make allowances that the deity about whom the theology is written at least hypothetically exists. If it becomes clear that one is losing the debate then s/he throws in the red herring “Deities don’t exist� argument.

I promise not to use the "prove that your deity even exists" argument if you promise not to use the "my God can do anything and therefore anything I claim is plausible" argument. Fair enough? I'm perfectly willing to limit our debate to the question of whether or not the claim that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew off up into the clouds is a realistic and viable one without invoking the "act of God" assertion if you are. Your task will be to establish that the claim IS a viable one, which then leads inevitably to the obvious assertion that God exists.

[polonius]

Jlb posted:

If one is going to debate a point of theology then one must make allowances that the deity about whom the theology is written at least hypothetically exists.

RESPONSE:

Really? Do you apply this principle when studing the theology of Greek and Romans gods and godesses?

Or do you begin by examining the plausibility of the evidence?

[JLB32168]

A person can only "Seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows."

The resurrection either occurred or it did not and certitude has nothing to do something that’s scientifically verifiable if given enough evidence – such as time travel.

Are you sure we cannot prove or disprove that Jesus was a extraterrestial [sic] being?

If someone wishes to positively assert that Christ was from another planet then he should provide proof. As it stands, I’ve not asserted that the resurrection occurred, but only my unverifiable belief that it did.
Are you asserting it did not occur? Are you basing this positive assertion, which would be scientifically verifiable given enough evidence upon non-scientific criteria?

[Goose]

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.

Goose,

If, for the sake of argument, I mainly concede the points you have made in this post, I think it still only addresses half of the argument. Thus, even if we grant that our present version of Matthew is a translated work, what is your solution with respect to verbal correspondence across the synoptics?

Take care,
TFV

I think the issue you've raised here is only relevant for those who hold firmly to Marcan priority. I don't. If one holds to the two-gospel hypothesis (not to be confused with the two-source hypothesis) where Matthew was written before Luke and Luke before Mark this isn't an issue in context to Mathew being first written in Aramaic.

[JLB32168]

Your task will be to establish that the claim IS a viable one, which then leads inevitably to the obvious assertion that God exists.

I don’t debate whether or not supernatural events occurred. I debate things that can possibly be proved – such as whether or not the earliest Christians believed in a literal, physical resurrection of Christ. Some say they only believed in a spiritual resurrection; however, the use of the Greek word anastasis, when used in other secular contexts, clearly indicates the movement of the physical body – such as people emigrating from another province of the Empire.

[Ancient of Years]

Jlb posted:

If one is going to debate a point of theology then one must make allowances that the deity about whom the theology is written at least hypothetically exists.

RESPONSE:

Really? Do you apply this principle when studing the theology of Greek and Romans gods and godesses?

Or do you begin by examining the plausibility of the evidence?

I have never seen any works about Greek or Roman theology that began with examining the plausibility of the evidence. They were always about presenting and examining the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans. Insights into how people of other times and places thought can be valuable. It is not necessary to believe to examine. Beginning a discussion of Greek myths with saying “Prove Zeus existed!� will end that discussion immediately.

Of course if someone else starts off with “Zeus exists and you have to worship him!� that is not a great way to begin a discussion either. My own take on it is to look closely at the beliefs - the actual beliefs, not caricatures of them – and see what they mean and where they came from. I go where evidence and reasoning take me. Not that this approach helps much with being taken seriously. Some people believe what they believe and that is it. But I do love getting informed counter-arguments. Which is why I ended up at this place.