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?

[Inigo Montoya]

JLB32168 The issue here is that scientific testing of the supernatural cannot be currently take place. Everyone knows this; therefore, to ask people to prove that which cannot be proved simply isn’t good faith debate. The question is silly, so why ask it?

Can't be proved. Can't currently take place. If those are both true, you admit your position must therefore be entirely faith based, yes? If so, you're right in that there's nothing for you to debate.

[Inigo Montoya]

Do you get as tired of writing this as I get of reading it, Goose?

No. I love this stuff. I love history. But I'm sorry to hear you have grown tired of reading my posts. You are certainly under no obligation to read them or to respond. Have you considered the ignore feature?

Since this is a debate forum, instead of complaining about the arguments, why not attempt to actually rebut them? But I suppose if one can't rebut the arguments then one is relegated to ranting.

The OP asks if the resurrection is a historical fact or not.

Love him or hate him, Ehrman says ''history can tell us what probably happened, not what actually happened.''

Are you prepared to say, using the historical method, a resurrected body ascended into the sky and vanished?

I have justified my belief that Jesus resurrected and you have yet to seriously challenge it. We can use the historical method to look at the resurrection if you wish. I'll even let you outline the details of the method you'd like to use. I'll take the affirmative you the negative. What do you say?

Your argument is rebutted already. Do you deny miracles are outside the scope of the historical method?

You're entitled to your beliefs, and as such have given reasons why you have this particular one. If you're going to argue historical methodology will grant you a resurrection, set up a head to head.

[JLB32168]

The topic of this thread: "Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?" It is not a discussion of what ancients might have believed.

I understand what the thread is, that is, it’s a demand that objective evidence exists that the resurrection occurred. Such evidence doesn’t exist. You cannot possibly be oblivious to this; therefore, one has to wonder why anyone would ask for evidence they know doesn’t exist.

It’s a silly debate equivalent to a discussion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If (since) no evidence of actual occurrence has been presented, a claim that it did is invalid and anything more than opinion.

That's the case with any claim that it didn’t occur so why discuss it?

That is my point. Debate things that are actually debatable. Anything less than that is bad faith debate and doesn’t speak well for one’s ability to cover a multitude of topics since “deities don’t exist� seems to be the default argument for everything.

[JLB32168]

Can't be proved. Can't currently take place. If those are both true, you admit your position must therefore be entirely faith based, yes?

Yes and that is the opinion I have consistently presented – that debating if a supernatural event took place is silly debate since neither side can prove it either way.

If so, you're right in that there's nothing for you to debate.

I agree; furthermore, there’s nothing for you to debate either. That’s why we should debate things that can actually be debated.

[Inigo Montoya]

Can't be proved. Can't currently take place. If those are both true, you admit your position must therefore be entirely faith based, yes?

Yes and that is the opinion I have consistently presented – that debating if a supernatural event took place is silly debate since neither side can prove it either way.

If so, you're right in that there's nothing for you to debate.

I agree; furthermore, there’s nothing for you to debate either. That’s why we should debate things that can actually be debated.

I applaud your honesty.

Genuinely curious now. If you agree to the above, why do you believe these stories are true?

Also, in agreement with the above, what are you here to debate?

[JLB32168]

I applaud your honesty. Genuinely curious now. If you agree to the above, why do you believe these stories are true?

Having been a science teacher and subscribing to the evolution of species, I still have never bought the strictly atheist interpretation of Evolution, that is, that four billion years of pure chance produced our current species H. sapiens. I see no evolutionary benefit for religion and evolution says that if it serves no purpose that it won’t appear or if it does randomly appear but has no benefit then natural selection will select it out of existence.

There’s no biological benefit for a religion; therefore, why did it ever come into being? If it doesn’t aid in the survival and propagation of species, why does it have so much traction and keep existing? That says to me that there is something behind it.

There is also the numbers of miracles ascribed to various and sundry religions throughout the world. IMO, all of these cannot be explained away; furthermore, to write all of them off as mere coincidence and/or hoax simply seems untenable. I have seen icons weep olive oil scented with myrrh for which I simply cannot find a way to hoax (e.g. watching oil/myrrh well up out of the hand of the saint painted on an icon, which isn’t a stationary icon, but has been brought into the building – mobile.) The appearance of something like a hologram over a Church in Egypt during a time of great persecution of the Coptic Christians by the Muslim government, but in a time (i.e. 1968) when holograms weren’t even possible in 1st World countries, much less those that were 2nd/emerging world powers.

Also, in agreement with the above, what are you here to debate?

Like I said – things that can actually be debated – how early did belief in the Physical Resurrection develop? Did Paul believe in a literal resurrection? Was it a part of the nascent church? Is Messiah/Messias supposed to be anything other than a regular Joe Blow H. sapiens? Is this what ancient Judaism taught or is it a Christian invention? Those are the kinds of questions that one can debate. Whether or not a supernatural event occurred isn’t that kind of question so it’s stupid to ask people to prove one did occur. It’s equally stupid for a theist to say s/he can prove one did.

[Inigo Montoya]

One more real quick before I head to the museum with the kiddo.

In line with your previous answers, why do you accept a resurrection occurred?

Or is the answer to that because there's no evolutionary/biological benefit to religion?

[JLB32168]

In line with your previous answers, why do you accept a resurrection occurred?

Hmmm . . . I suppose that it just seems correct. We have the moral agency described by the theology of the Bible. We have people who have had performed miracles – at least that’s the case with the Eastern Orthodox. I’m sure it’s the same with other Christian faiths. It simply feels correct to assume that a supernatural transcendent being created everything and meant for us to know about it.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 63 by JLB32168]

JLB posted:

>>I understand what the thread is, that is, it’s a demand that objective evidence exists that the resurrection occurred. Such evidence doesn’t exist. You cannot possibly be oblivious to this; therefore, one has to wonder why anyone would ask for evidence they know doesn’t exist. <<

RESPONSE:

Thank you.

Then that would be prima facie evidence that no resurrection occurred.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 66 by JLB32168]

>>Like I said – things that can actually be debated – how early did belief in the Physical Resurrection develop? Did Paul believe in a literal resurrection?<<

RESPONSE:

The Resurrection was supposed to have occurred three days after the crucifixion. And th Ascension on the same day or 40 days later. That would have been c33 AD. But nobody recorded it.

When Jesus, a well respected religious teacher, was put to death as a insurrectionist, his followers were understandably disheartened.

In about 56 AD, Paul wrote a story in which Jesus had (like a number of pagan gods well know to Paul and among the other people of Tarsus) rose from the dead. Of course, Paul wasn't a witness and the 500 people who he reported as witnesses and all the others they would have told the story to failed to record it either.

Paul never mentioned n empty tomb, women reporting the event, or any Ascension, but his legend may have been the inspiration for Mark's non-witness account written in about 70 AD. Mark didn't have an ascencion either, and it had to be added to his gospel in the second century.

Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. John's account came later but had Jesus crucified a day earlier therefore missing the Passover meal (and institution of a eucharist).

>> Was it a part of the nascent church? Is Messiah/Messias supposed to be anything other than a regular Joe Blow H. sapiens?<<

RESPONSE: Actually it was believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but not himself divine until about 85 AD.

>>Is this what ancient Judaism taught or is it a Christian invention? <<

RESPONSE: Since the Jews never taught this, the Christian invention theory is tenable.

>>Those are the kinds of questions that one can debate.<<

>> Whether or not a supernatural event occurred isn’t that kind of question so it’s stupid to ask people to prove one did occur. It’s equally stupid for a theist to say s/he can prove one did.<<

RESPONSE: On the contrary. the world's present largest religion is based on this story. But if there is little credible evidence for the alleged miraculous nature of the legend, one can still reach such certitude as the nature of the thing allows regarding accepting it.