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]

The Books of Enoch are not part of scripture.

The books of Christian Bible were not canonized until AD/CE 364. The Jewish canon wasn’t closed until the mid 2nd Century so that the BoE aren’t a part of Scripture today is irrelevant. The Books of Enoch, being Jewish works, evinced belief in a divine messiah among some Jews prior to Christ’s arrival on the scene and there is no rebuttal to that point.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 66 by JLB32168]

[..]

>> 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.

Paul refers to Jesus as having a divine nature as early as 50 CE.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 …to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Paul does not explain the meaning of the phrase, indicating that it was already known to his readers. Paul mentions in this letter that he had previously lived among them and delivered his message to them. Presumably he introduced them to the idea.

He repeats this idea in 53 CE

Galatians 1:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The phrase ‘Son of God’ was previously used by Philo in his efforts to reconcile New-Platonist philosophy with Jewish scriptures. The Son of God, also called the Logos (as in John), is an extension of God into the world the “first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father�. To Philo the Son of God is God but also not God the Father.

Makes his view of Jesus clearer round 55 CE.

Philippians 2

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Your 85 AD reference sounds like perhaps the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew took the idea of ‘Son of God’ and made it literal in the real world sense. It could be argued that Matthew’s inspiration for the virgin birth came from Philo, who also talked about conception of some prominent people in Jewish history as having been inspired by God and his related discussion of God and virgins. Matthew liked to make things literal.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 42 by Goose]

Goose, let's cut to the chase (as someone here says).

What ancient accounts that are generally accepted by historians as truthful and accurate involve supernatural entities, superhuman feats, long-dead bodies reanimating, virgins giving birth, various animals conversing in human language?

Aren't such tales generally regarded as myth, legend, folklore?

Why should the stories from one book be selected as truthful and accurate while other similar tales are regarded as mythical, etc?

Does it make sense to say "Those other tales may be mythical, but the ones in this book are true"?

[Realworldjack]

[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.

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.

The problem is, your explanation of what happened in, and around Jerusalem, some 2000 years ago, is no better than the Christian explanation. One thing is certain, something extremely extraordinary surely happened 2000 years ago, otherwise we would not be having this conversation, concerning these events 2000 years later, and this site would have no need to be in existence.

These things above are hard evidence that something extraordinary did in fact occur, so much so, you feel the need to give an explanation. While your explanation may be a plausible one, it does not in any way deter from the Christian explanation, and continuing to point out that, "dead people do not usually come back to life, and it is not the usual experience", is a very weak argument, because for something to be extraordinary, it must go outside the bounds of our normal experience.

The fact of the matter is, we have documentation of these events, some of which are addressed to particular people, and also identify the author. Of course this does not prove these events did in fact happen, however it is at least evidence that must be considered.

Now you have your explanation concerning this evidence, while I have mine, however neither of us can, or have proved our position. The only difference seems to be, I understand you have used reason, and logic to arrive to your position, and that two people can look at the same exact evidence, using reason and logic, and come to opposing positions, while you seem to believe, anyone who disagrees with your position, is unreasonable.

The bottom line here is, you have not, and cannot prove what it is you believe concerning this evidence, rather all you have done, or can do, is to give the reasons for what it is you believe, and yet you seem to demand from those opposed to you, PROOF.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 81 by JLB32168]

________________________________________
polonius.advice wrote: "The Books of Enoch are not part of scripture."

JLB replied: >>The books of Christian Bible were not canonized until AD/CE 364. The Jewish canon wasn’t closed until the mid 2nd Century so that the BoE aren’t a part of Scripture today is irrelevant. The Books of Enoch, being Jewish works, evinced belief in a divine messiah among some Jews prior to Christ’s arrival on the scene and there is no rebuttal to that point.<<

RESPONSE: It’s quite relevant since the Book of Enoch can be easily shown to be fictional.

The Book of Enoch R.H. Charles

“The Book of Enoch, written during the second century B.C.E., is one of the most important non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian, particularly Gnostic, beliefs. Filled with hallucinatory visions of heaven and hell, angels and devils, Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah, Resurrection, a Final Judgement, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Interspersed with this material are quasi-scientific digressions on calendrical systems, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and meteorology.�

From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/

For example, Chapter 6, 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' 4. ……And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens.


Do you find any such angels named as these in the Bible, and wasn’t Lucifer (not an angel named Semiazaz) their leader?

Perhaps you would want to actually read and compare Enoch and the Bible and become aware of Enoch’s fictional nature.

[polonius]

polonius.advice wrote:

The Books of Enoch are not part of scripture.

JLB replied: >>The books of Christian Bible were not canonized until AD/CE 364. The Jewish canon wasn’t closed until the mid 2nd Century so that the BoE aren’t a part of Scripture today is irrelevant. The Books of Enoch, being Jewish works, evinced belief in a divine messiah among some Jews prior to Christ’s arrival on the scene and there is no rebuttal to that point.<<

RESPONSE: It’s quite relevant since the Book of Enoch can be easily shown to be fictional.

The Book of Enoch R.H. Charles

“The Book of Enoch, written during the second century B.C.E., is one of the most important non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian, particularly Gnostic, beliefs. Filled with hallucinatory visions of heaven and hell, angels and devils, Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah, Resurrection, a Final Judgement, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Interspersed with this material are quasi-scientific digressions on calendrical systems, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and meteorology.�
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/

For example, Chapter 6, 2." And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' 4. ……And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens."


Do you find any such angels named as these in the Bible, and wasn’t Lucifer (not an angel named Semiazaz) the leader of the "fallen" angels?

Perhaps you would want to actually read and compare Enoch and the Bible and become aware of Enoch’s fictional nature.

[polonius]

Jlb post 72 claimed
“I also mentioned the appearance of something like a hologram of a woman – said to be the BVM – who appeared 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 and after the government of the city of Zeitun cut the power an entire quadrant of the city where the Church was in efforts to expose the supposed hoax.�

RESPONSE: Is this the type of thing you claim to be miraculous? Perhaps you can provide a report on the "something like a hologram" miracle you seem to want to claim as a Coptic miracle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Warraq

"Our Lady of Warraq is believed, by some, to be a mass apparition of the Virgin Mary that occurred at the Coptic Orthodox Virgin Mary and Archangel Michael church, in Warraq al-Hadar, Giza, Egypt, in the early hours (1:00 AM – 4:00 AM) of Friday 11 December 2009.[1] Others, however, point out after an examination of the footage made that night, comparing it with other images of the church building, that the "apparition" is probably the illuminated tower (also called minaret) behind the church's domes as seen from different angles, and is an instance of pareidolia"

"Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern of something where none actually exists."

[JLB32168]

It’s quite relevant since the Book of Enoch can be easily shown to be fictional.

How is that relevant to the question of ancient Judaism and whether or not it was monolithic? Some ancient Greek myths say that Athena was created one way but other versions show her being created a different way. Athena's existence is irrelevant to the point that these diverging beliefs demonstrate that the beliefs surrounding the ancient Greek gods weren’t monolithic but that groups of people believed different things about them.

You asserted that Judaism didn’t teach a divine messiah. That presupposes that there weren’t divergent beliefs w/in Judaism. It describes a religion that is monolithic in nature – that every Jew in the ancient world believed the same thing and that thing was that the messiah couldn’t be divine. By extension, Christ being messiah and also divine is a Christian invention foreign to Judaism.

Clearly some Jews thought that the messiah possessed divine attributes as evidenced by things written in Jewish works such as the Books of Enoch. That those books might or might not be fictional is irrelevant. It shows what Jews believed and clearly some believed in a divine messiah; therefore, the belief in a divine messiah is NOT a Christian interpolation but has Jewish roots.

Do you find any such angels named as these in the Bible, and wasn’t Lucifer (not an angel named Semiazaz) the leader of the "fallen" angels?

No and why is that important? The OT has we have it now wasn’t the OT as they had it then.

Perhaps you would want to actually read and compare Enoch and the Bible and become aware of Enoch’s fictional nature.

Whether or not it is fiction is irrelevant to my point. Please debate my arguments as I present them and not straw-man misinterpretations or misrepresentations of those arguments.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

"WE" WILL NOT SLEEP

QUESTION: Does Paul's commentary above (1 Cor 15: 51-52; 1 Thess 4:13) indicate he believed that first century Christians would not die before christ's return?

No. It is important to note that in the above discussion Paul, addressing the topic of the future resurrection, is using a collective "we" to refer to anoited spirit begotten Christians AS A GROUP and NOT to those exclusively living in the first century; this is not at all unusual and is fairly common in the Christian Greek scriptures.

And it's even MORE important to not try to gloss over the fact that whoever wrote the passage went out of their way to use the phrase "We who are still alive". The word "future" wasn't used, for example. If we read just the words themselves, and not try to spin it to resemble some particular theological bias, the "WE" is about those who are still alive.

You may INTERPRET "still alive" to mean those who are still alive in the FUTURE... but that meaning isn't made clear, so that it is open to interpretation and invention. The authors of Paul might have been referring simply to those believers who are still alive at the time of the writing. Jesus is reputed to have said that people can expect a second coming in their own life time, so that fits the Bible, too.

And there is a lively debate about what Jesus was supposed to have meant by THAT.

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (NAS, Luke 21:32-33)

I wonder why the words "THIS GENERATION" can possibly be taken to mean "THAT FUTURE GENERATION".

Because in my world, THIS does not mean THAT. I can't help it if the Bible authors have Jesus talking so vaguely about such important issues. It's almost as if they really didn't WANT clarity. Oh well, I merely speculate.. and we know that speculation is... inconclusive.

So when Paul speaks about the "WE" who are still " alive and ... left" at the time of the resurrection there is no reason to limit the application exclusively to century christians rather than spirit anointed christians of later eras.

The word "we" is indeed, very vague.

Who are the "we"? ... completely open to interpretation, as you have demonstrated. I would think that whoever wrote Paul and used the phrase "we who are still alive", the WE here is those who were still alive at the time that Paul was written. The term "future" isn't used. I think that the authors of Paul knew the word very well, and that's why they avoided it.

And the authors of Paul also say nothing to indicate that these events were to take place after they were all still living at the time the passages were written, but precisely WHILE they were all still living. It seems that the authors of Paul went out of their WAY to make the point that you want to dispute.

I think it's great for the apologists with all kinds of different biases to confirm that the Bible is so very very vague. It means that more kinds of theologies can be created to fit whatever the believers desire. If the Bible was a bit more clear, we wouldn't have thousands of different opinions on what it means.

Thanks for your particular interpretation, it's interesting. It may also be right. It may not be, and that's my criticism. It just may not be even though you offer a great argument. And that's because we do not have what I would like to call:

A TIME MACHINE

But as your particular interpretation is based on opinion and confirmation bias, we will have to put it on the stack with all the other particular interpretations that people insist is the "truth". The stack is very high, and bewildering in scope and variety.

It would be nice if we could go back in time, talk to the Bible authors and ask them point blank all of these questions we argue about. But... alas, no time machine. So, we can and do speculate, and that's fair.

We all have opinions. But we should always remember that our SPECULATIONS .. aren't facts. You make a very good case, but it's speculation. We really do not know what the "we" actually DOES mean.

[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

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.

This is cogent only to the extent that you are allowing for an editorial process that goes against the traditional paradigm. That is, Mark being a disciple of Peter rather than a redactor of Matthew. The same would follow for the traditional attribution of Luke as a companion of Paul. I understand that one could claim that these things are not mutually exclusive, but I think the traditional narrative isn’t one of redaction/interpolation from a common source (i.e. Matthew’s gospel in translation), so this hybrid hypothesis seems ad hoc to me.

Take care,
TFV