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]

Please cite your specific reference.

I have cited it several times already. The existence of the Books of Enoch, which are Jewish works, have already been cited multiple times as proof that some sects of Judaism taught that the Messiah was not a mere man but a divine being that A) existed before the creation, B) was worshipped and C)will judge the souls of men:

[font=Georgia]Enoch 48:2In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days. 3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations. 4He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him.

Enoch 46:2He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him;and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.
3This Son of man, whom you behold, shall raise up kings and the mighty from their dwelling places, and the powerful from their thrones; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the teeth of sinners.
4He shall hurl kings from their thrones and their dominions; because they will not exalt and praise him, nor humble themselves before him, by whom their kingdoms were granted to them. The countenance likewise of the mighty shall He cast down, filling them with confusion. Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their bed; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits.[/font]

Really? Authority: What was the name of the first Orthodox pope (or central ruling bishop)? When did he reign?

The Orthodox have no pope. No bishop rules over other bishops. That is one of the problems that caused the split between Rome and Constantinople – the Bishop of Rome said that he ruled all other bishops and that the Orthodox must also submit to him. The Orthodox said that Peter ordained the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem; therefore, that he also ordained the bishop of Rome didn’t mean that Rome superseded all the others.

The rest of these points regarding the differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology are not germane to the question of whether or not Jewish belief was varying rather than monolithic and how some Jewish sects taught that the Messiah/SoM was much more than a mere human being.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 100 by JLB32168]

JLB posted >>“Clearly some sects of Judaism taught a messiah that was more than a mere human – having preexistence, being worshipped, judging the nations – aspects that Judaism also taught were God’s purview alone. “<<

RESPONSE:
Please cite your specific reference.

JLB posted: >>“I have cited it several times already. The existence of the Books of Enoch, which are Jewish works, have already been cited multiple times as proof that some sects of Judaism taught that the Messiah was not a mere man but a divine being that A) existed before the creation, B) was worshipped and C)will judge the souls of men�<<

RESPONSE:

You’ve presented no proof that the Jews believed that the messiah was to be divine. Probably because they never did.

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

Mashiach: The Messiah

“Modern scholars suggest that the messianic concept was introduced later in the history of Judaism, during the age of the prophets. They note that the messianic concept is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).�

"The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "mashiach" will be used throughout this page.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Son of Man
“It is employed as a poetical synonym for man, or for the ideal man, e.g. "God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19). "Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2).:

Important Note: “The Son of Man� is never claimed to be divine.

Because of its fictional nature, Book of Enoch was never in the Jewish or Catholic canon.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

ENOCH, BOOKS OF (Ethiopic and Slavonic): By: Richard Gottheil, Enno Littmann
Apocryphal works attributed to Enoch. From Gen. v. 24 ("Enoch walked with God" and "God took him") a cycle of Jewish legends about Enoch was derived, which, together with apocalyptic speculations naturally ascribed to such a man, credited with superhuman knowledge, found their literary expression in the Books of Enoch.

[Ancient of Years]

Please cite your specific reference.

I have cited it several times already. The existence of the Books of Enoch, which are Jewish works, have already been cited multiple times as proof that some sects of Judaism taught that the Messiah was not a mere man but a divine being that A) existed before the creation, B) was worshipped and C)will judge the souls of men:

[font=Georgia]Enoch 48:2In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days. 3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations. 4He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him.

Enoch 46:2He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him;and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.
3This Son of man, whom you behold, shall raise up kings and the mighty from their dwelling places, and the powerful from their thrones; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the teeth of sinners.
4 He shall hurl kings from their thrones and their dominions; because they will not exalt and praise him, nor humble themselves before him, by whom their kingdoms were granted to them. The countenance likewise of the mighty shall He cast down, filling them with confusion. Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their bed; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits.[/font]

The Son of Man theme was introduced by Daniel who merely uses the phrase in passing not as a title in reference to a messianic figure, one who will have an everlasting kingdom and will be worshipped by all. (Daniel 7) In Daniel this figure “looking like a son of man� (human being) comes from heaven and is therefore more than human. Similarities in the language of Enoch to Daniel (e.g., ‘presence of the Ancient of Days’) points to the author of Enoch being familiar with Daniel. Enoch goes beyond Daniel in saying that the Son of Man existed (or at least his name was invoked) before creation.

It is in chapter 48a (two consecutive chapters are numbered 48) that the Son of Man is identified as the judge. The Elect One had in the previous chapter been identified with the Son of Man.

Enoch 48a:1 Wisdom is poured forth like water, and glory fails not before him for ever and ever; for potent is he in all the secrets of righteousness.

Enoch 48a:2 But iniquity passes away like a shadow, and possesses not a fixed station: for the Elect One stands before the Lord of spirits; and his glory is for ever and ever; and his power from generation to generation.

Enoch 48a:3 With him dwells the spirit of intellectual wisdom, the spirit of instruction and of power, and the spirit of those who sleep in righteousness; he shall judge secret things.

Enoch 48a:4 Nor shall any be able to utter a single word before him; for the Elect One is in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, according to his own pleasure.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/eno ... #Enoch_48a

It appears to be that in Enoch that the unrighteousness will be resurrected but annihilated.

Enoch 105:21 …You, who have laboured, shall wait in those days, until the evil doers be consumed, and the power of the guilty be annihilated. Wait, until sin pass away; for their names shall be blotted out of the holy books; their seed shall be destroyed, and their spirits slain. They shall cry out and lament in the invisible waste, and in the bottomless fire shall they burn.

This would appear to be in contrast with…

Enoch 46:4 … Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their bed; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits.

Or it may be that the spirits of the unrighteousness are annihilated without bothering with a resurrection. (But why fire?) Or it may be an eternal punishment after all.

We see a universal resurrection and punishment of the unrighteous in Daniel 12. It is unclear what “everlasting contempt� is supposed to mean.

Paul had linked Jesus as messiah (Christ) and S of God (probably from Philo). He refers to a resurrection at least of the righteous but does not know the Son of Man meme. It is not until Mark that we see messiah, Son of God, Son of Man and universal resurrection (at least of the righteous) combined. Matthew takes all of that and makes it a universal judgment with eternal punishment for the unrighteous.

John combines the Logos of Philo (aka the Son of God) with the idea of pre-existence before creation from Enoch.

There are various other connections from the Gospels back to Enoch but this will suffice for now. It is clear that various NT authors had read both Enoch and Philo.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 102 by Ancient of Years]

Ancient of Years,

This post was an excellent, succinct exposition on the Son of Man/Enoch/Logos. My only quibble would be that to ascribe these ideas solely to one source, be it Philo, the author of Enoch, or any others cited would be diminish the idea that these theological concepts were to varying degrees ambient. That is, while we are lucky to have the large body of work that Philo produced including some seemingly idiosyncratic theological concepts, I personally doubt that Philo himself was sui generis. In the same way that the American Founding Fathers are often venerated as having created something ‘new’ in terms of political thought, further investigation does show that (as one could expect) their ideas were derived from their context and influences (e.g. Blackstone, Locke, Hume, etc.).

In any case, I think it is worth stressing that it is very possible that many of these ideas/concepts where ‘in the air’ so to speak even though we have at best fragmentary attestation of what people at the time thought (generally).

Take care,
TFV

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 102 by Ancient of Years]

Ancient of Years,

This post was an excellent, succinct exposition on the Son of Man/Enoch/Logos. My only quibble would be that to ascribe these ideas solely to one source, be it Philo, the author of Enoch, or any others cited would be diminish the idea that these theological concepts were to varying degrees ambient. That is, while we are lucky to have the large body of work that Philo produced including some seemingly idiosyncratic theological concepts, I personally doubt that Philo himself was sui generis. In the same way that the American Founding Fathers are often venerated as having created something ‘new’ in terms of political thought, further investigation does show that (as one could expect) their ideas were derived from their context and influences (e.g. Blackstone, Locke, Hume, etc.).

In any case, I think it is worth stressing that it is very possible that many of these ideas/concepts where ‘in the air’ so to speak even though we have at best fragmentary attestation of what people at the time thought (generally).

Take care,
TFV

Philo sought to reconcile Middle Platonism (*) with Jewish scriptures. The Logos (which Philo also called 'Son of God') was an extension of the immaterial God into the material world. The Logos both was and was not God – Philo was ambiguous on the point – but not a separate individual. It appears to have been Paul who retrofitted the idea to the human Jesus, something very different from what Philo meant. To Philo the Logos was the way in which an immaterial God could create and sustain a material world. One can easily recognize Plato’s demiurge concept here. Philo strongly criticized those narratives in the Bible that portray God in a material form, saying that these were mere figures of speech. The idea of the Logos being an individual within the world would have been mindboggling to Philo.

So Philo was not sui generis in this respect. But his merging of ideas led to something new. Just as the concept of America was derived from but not identical to the various schools of thought. (**)

(*) In other posts I have erroneously and anachronistically connected Philo with Neo-Platonism, another matter entirely. Getting sloppy in my old age. (Bad AoY! No Biscuit!)

(**) I have an interesting book about various documents related to the creation of the US Constitution. In addition to the more well know documents it has the 1774 Articles of Association and Governor Patrick Henry’s lengthy speech urging the Virginia legislature to not ratify the new Constitution.

1 Enoch is actually at least three different works written at different times that were collected together and redacted. What is original and what derives from earlier sources is a matter of scholarly debate. I already mentioned to debt of one part of Enoch to Daniel. But at heart it is an expression of messianic apocalypticism as it existed in the last two centuries BCE. Or as you put it, in the air. While whatever sources the author of Enoch may have used is unknown, the close similarity of not just ideas but language in the Gospels shows that it influenced their authors.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 84 by Realworldjack]

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.

My explanation is taken entirely from scripture itself and is a perfectly natural explanation... the origins of Christianity can be completely explained as a false rumor spread by the followers of Jesus and no actual supernatural event ever occurred. The Christian explanation is that a corpse came back to life and then subsequent flew away. To assert that the natural explanation that I have offered is somehow at least equal to the totally improbable Christian explanation is very obviously absurd. It is an example of self deception of the highest order. You have every right to believe as you choose, but you cannot make your absurd assertions probable simply through the act of asserting them. To assert that "something extremely extraordinary surely happened 2,000 years ago" begs the question that if this is so, why no one at all left a record of it at the time it was supposed to have occurred? It is also therefore necessary to assert that EVERY religious belief that now exists, or has ever existed, must have been based on the occurrence of "something extremely extraordinary." Yet the overwhelming majority of these religious beliefs, held to the utmost standard of validity by millions for many centuries, are now defunct. And so we know without doubt that they never were true to begin with. They were in fact based on the rumors and stories spread by humans which grew into the various widely held religious beliefs. As were the religions that HAVE survived down through the ages to this day. Your absurd religious claims have no more or less probability for being valid than any other religious claims.

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.

You are asserting that the fact that Christianity survived and prospered and grew to the world's largest religion represents hard evidence for the truth of what Christians claim. If that were true then using the same standard of "hard evidence," when Islam surpasses Christianity and relegates it to the number two spot in terms of sheer numbers, that is "hard evidence" for the truth of Islamic beliefs. Yet these two religions represent two mutually contradictory claims and both cannot be true. Buddhism is 2600 years old. Hinduism is 4,000 years old. And these religious beliefs are still thriving today. Surely this is "hard evidence" for the truth of those beliefs. Because if it IS NOT "hard evidence" for the truth of those beliefs, then it must be considered "hard evidence" that lot's of people can be convinced to believe in total nonsense for thousands of years.

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.

We have examples of the stories that were in circulation as expressed by different individuals. The fact that people believe the impossible occurred does not alter the fact that what they believed, and what they claimed, was impossible. People in ancient times believed in a whole range of mythological and supernatural claims which we today recognize are and never were anything but pure make believe. Many of us today recognize that such things as werewolves, vampires and the undead are pure fiction. Many of us. It's true that there are still those who retain their childlike beliefs in superstition into adulthood.

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.

They are not equal positions. One relies on reason, and the other is entirely unreasonable. That does not in and of itself prove that the unreasonable position is the false position. But it's a really good start.

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.

There are limits to proof. Proof is defined as:

proof
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence:
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

If one takes an extremist position then NOTHING can be proven, not even our very existence. Taking such a position relegates any possible acquisition of knowledge to be an entirely meaningless concept however. We advance the cause of knowledge by the implicit understanding that, within the limits of observation and physical evidence, it IS possible to prove some things true or false. It's certainly possible, within the limits of observation and physical evidence, to prove that a corpse, once fully and completely dead, will not return to life and fly away. Of course it's always fully possible to assume and then assert special conditions by which an obviously impossible claim COULD have actually occurred. For example, Superman was born in a solar system that had a red sun, and living on Earth with it's yellow sun gives him super powers. This makes no scientific sense at all, but it is ASSERTED to be true within the context of the story at hand, and serves to act as the explanation for Superman's extraordinary abilities. It's still pure nonsense however. Assertions cannot change that, even if they happened to be widely accepted as true.

Within the stated limits it's certainly possible to "prove" that a corpse will not come back to life and fly away. If "anything could be true" is to be the standard of proof, then inhabitants of a red sun solar system COULD attain superpowers by living in a yellow sun solar system. That regulates the possible acquisition of knowledge to be a futile effort however, and so far we have really really good reason to suppose that the universe operates within the framework of consistent rules which we can learn and utilize. Just because you do not personally understand these rules or accept them as limiting, does not change that.

My explanation is taken entirely from scripture itself and is a perfectly natural explanation

Okay? The Christian explanation can be taken entirely from Scripture as well, so what is the point? As far as your explanation, "being perfectly natural" I understand that, so the only difference is we have opposing positions on how these things occurred.

the origins of Christianity can be completely explained as a false rumor spread by the followers of Jesus and no actual supernatural event ever occurred.

You are correct, but simply because it can, does not prove that it absolutely is the correct explanation. In the same way, Christianity can be explained by supernatural explanations. The point is, if you want the explanation to be natural, then you can certainly refused to consider the supernatural, and of course vise versa. It is extremely difficult to examine something without bias once you make a firm stand on a particular subject. This is why I continue to at least attempt to listen, and sincerely consider opposing views.

To assert that the natural explanation that I have offered is somehow at least equal to the totally improbable Christian explanation is very obviously absurd.

We are not talking about, "probabilities" here, rather we are talking about what actually took place, therefore the probability of one thing happening as opposesd to the other does not enter the equation. The point is, the only explanation that is worth anything at all is the correct explanation. Can we determine which explanation is correct? Maybe not, but the probabilities have nothing to do with what the truth is. Therefore, to assert that the most natural, probable explanation has to be the correct explanation could be, "an example of self deception of the highest order."

You have every right to believe as you choose, but you cannot make your absurd assertions probable simply through the act of asserting them.

First of all, these are not my assertions, rather they were assertions made some 2000 years ago. Second, I have never said they were probable, because I have no idea what probablities have to do with it?

To assert that "something extremely extraordinary surely happened 2,000 years ago" begs the question that if this is so, why no one at all left a record of it at the time it was supposed to have occurred?

Again first, you have no idea if someone did or not. Simply because we do not have these written accounts does not mean no one wrote any thing at all about it at the time. Next, you are putting your faith in the scholars who tell you when the things we do have were written, and I am here to tell you a lot of what they have to say, does not wash, so you can believe them if you wish. Thirdly, this was 2000 years ago, so it is not like they had access to the media outlets we have today. Let's think about it for a moment.

The Apostles would have been busy spreading the word, and planting churches, and all of this would have been done by word of mouth at the time. This means there would have been no need in witting these things until later on after these churches were established, and there was need to address issues in these churches. The fact that they waited until later tends to add credence to the reports, as opposed to them attempting to write from the start.

It is also therefore necessary to assert that EVERY religious belief that now exists, or has ever existed, must have been based on the occurrence of "something extremely extraordinary."

No, this is not necessarry at all, because that was not my point. My point is, either these things that were reported actually happened 2000 years ago which would certainly have been extraordinary, or your explantion is correct, which means at least some of the Apostles were in on it, or they had nothing to do with it, and it simply fell from the sky into their lap, and they were able to run with it, and be successful to the point that we are still discussing this, hoax, gift from the sky 2000 years later. Either way, it is amazing!

But since you bring up other religions, lets consider Islam which you bring up. Nothing extraordinary happened to found this religion, other than a man named Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God, and reported what he claimed God revealed to him. There were few if any witnesses, and Islam is basically a system of laws on how one is to live their life.

Christianity is not like this at all! Christianity is based on what numerous witnesses claimed to have witnessed. The authors had no idea what they were writing would one day end up in a Book we now call the Bible, rather they were simply living their lives, and writing to friends, peers, groups of people such as Churches etc., and their letters are simply the by product of the lives they were living. In other words, these authors did not have you, and I in mind when they wrote.

The point is, Christianity is far different than any other religion. It is based on what is claimed to be historical events. Numerous people recorded these things, not just one. The authors were simply writing letters to friends, peers, or groups of people as they saw issues that needed to be addressed. They were able to tie these claimed events into what was written thousands of years before, therefore their claim was not that this was something new, rather it was a continuation of what God had been doing over the years. They had no idea of a Book called the Bible, in which their writings would be contained. So no! My assertion does not mean, "EVERY religious belief that now exists, or has ever existed, must have been based on the occurrence of "something extremely extraordinary."

You are asserting that the fact that Christianity survived and prospered and grew to the world's largest religion represents hard evidence for the truth of what Christians claim.

Absolutely not! In fact, lets look at what you are responding too.

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.

First, and far most, I would never assert that something is true simply because it is the most popular, or largest. Numbers have nothing to do with determing truth. Next, I said nothing about, "the truth of christian claims," rather I said it was evidence that something extraordinary occurred, and it was either an extraordinary truth, or an extraordinary lie, hoax, fall from the sky, or what ever you would like. At any rate I said nothing about the truth of christian claims, and how could I after I have said,
"While your explanation may be a plausible one?" If I admit your explantion is plausible, then how can I then go on to claim, "christianity has to be true?"

People in ancient times believed in a whole range of mythological and supernatural claims which we today recognize are and never were anything but pure make believe.

You are correct here, and Paul and Peter both address this issue. When Paul was in Athens, he saw the many different beliefs, and ideas these people held. His stated goal was not to add new ideas, but rather to proclaim the truth to them.

The example from Peter addresses your concerns head on,

2 Peter 1:16
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

As you can clearly see, Peter understands there are "cleverly devised stories" circulating. Knowing this, his aim is to ensure that his readers understand that the claim of the Apostles is not based on this, and what does he appeal too? His appeal is that he, and the other Apostles, were "eyewitnesses!" Was this writter lying? He very well could be, however it is clear his aim is to ensure his readers understand the claim is an historical claim, and not simply based on hearsay. The point is, you can claim this author is a liar, but you cannot say he was simply repeating what he had been told down through the years, and simply accepted what he was told.

They are not equal positions. One relies on reason, and the other is entirely unreasonable. That does not in and of itself prove that the unreasonable position is the false position. But it's a really good start.

Yeah, yeah I know, the only reasonable position is the one you take along with those that agree with you, all those in disagreement are unreasonable right? But could it be the case, that most of the Christians you have been exposed to are unreasonable, and you simply assume from this that all are unreasonable?

It is true that many Christians do not use reason to come to their belief, but this does not mean that it is impossible. You see, I understand we can both use reason, and in fact have very good reasons to believe as we do, and end up on oppossing sides. If we end up on oppossing sides, it does mean at least one of us is in error, but it does not necessarrily mean one of us is unreasonable. Therefore, when I find myself in disagreement with others, I do not simply assume they must be unreasonable, rather I attempt to listen to there reason, to determine if they are in fact reasonable, or unreasonable. Doing this often times allows me to see where my reason may be faulty. But listen, if you have it all figured out, then by all means go right ahead.

Within the stated limits it's certainly possible to "prove" that a corpse will not come back to life and fly away. If "anything could be true" is to be the standard of proof, then inhabitants of a red sun solar system COULD attain superpowers by living in a yellow sun solar system.

Right, and it could be possible as well that, "you are the universe contemplating itself" but what is the probablity of that?

[JLB32168]

You’ve presented no proof that the Jews believed that the messiah was to be divine. Probably because they never did.

That you’re immune to evidence contra your argument is something I can’t fix. Only you can.
I’ve presented a Jewish work. That work teaches a divine Messiah. That means that the Jews who produced this Jewish work believed in a divine Messiah. I’m sorry that you find deductive logic encumbering.

[Goat]

Please cite your specific reference.

I have cited it several times already. The existence of the Books of Enoch, which are Jewish works, have already been cited multiple times as proof that some sects of Judaism taught that the Messiah was not a mere man but a divine being that A) existed before the creation, B) was worshipped and C)will judge the souls of men:

[font=Georgia]Enoch 48:2In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days. 3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations. 4He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him.

Enoch 46:2He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him;and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.
3This Son of man, whom you behold, shall raise up kings and the mighty from their dwelling places, and the powerful from their thrones; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the teeth of sinners.
4He shall hurl kings from their thrones and their dominions; because they will not exalt and praise him, nor humble themselves before him, by whom their kingdoms were granted to them. The countenance likewise of the mighty shall He cast down, filling them with confusion. Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their bed; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits.[/font]

Really? Authority: What was the name of the first Orthodox pope (or central ruling bishop)? When did he reign?

The Orthodox have no pope. No bishop rules over other bishops. That is one of the problems that caused the split between Rome and Constantinople – the Bishop of Rome said that he ruled all other bishops and that the Orthodox must also submit to him. The Orthodox said that Peter ordained the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem; therefore, that he also ordained the bishop of Rome didn’t mean that Rome superseded all the others.

The rest of these points regarding the differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology are not germane to the question of whether or not Jewish belief was varying rather than monolithic and how some Jewish sects taught that the Messiah/SoM was much more than a mere human being.

I do not see where any of those words from the Book of Enoch you are quoting are saying that the Messiah will be 'divine'. Righteous, yes, but that is not divine.
A role model yes, but that is not divine.

[JLB32168]

I do not see where any of those words from the Book of Enoch you are quoting are saying that the Messiah will be 'divine'. Righteous, yes, but that is not divine.

He’s preexistent, that is, he existed before the creation of the world. That is not indicative of a mere man, which many are saying was the ancient teaching of who the messiah was supposed to be – a mere political ruler who happened to be very charismatic.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 105 by Realworldjack]

Okay? The Christian explanation can be taken entirely from Scripture as well, so what is the point? As far as your explanation, "being perfectly natural" I understand that, so
the only difference is we have opposing positions on how these things occurred.

The Flat Earth Society and I hold opposing positions as well. That does not make their claims that the Earth is flat equal to mine in a contest of evidence. We know to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt that the Earth is round, and we know why it is so. We also know for a historical fact that the Jewish population of Jerusalem, the individuals who were in the best position to know what ACTUALLY occurred, never believed in the story of the "risen" Jesus. And why should they? They never saw any risen dead man, and it's a perfectly unbelievable story. The only one's making this claim were his immediate followers. So why didn't the followers produce the "risen" man as proof of their claims? That would have settled the question easily enough. Because, according to his followers, he flew off up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. That's the epitome of a unlikely story. It was unlikely even in an age when people had no real idea of how the universe worked and were inclined to believe in all sorts of supernatural claims. It's an unlikely story today to the point of abject absurdity.

If we attempt to look at the story today objectively and critically (and WHY SHOULDN'T WE be critical of such a story?), we see that the claim centers around an empty grave. But we know from practical experience that an empty grave is FAR MORE LIKELY to be the result of actions taken by the living then it is to be the result of actions TAKEN BY THE CORPSE! In fact, there is no likelihood of ANY actions being taken by a corpse. So our first and most obvious solution to the empty grave and missing corpse is naturally to consider the possibility that LIVING agents were involved. We see from the details of the story that the deceased man had followers, and that in fact his followers WERE THE LAST PERSONS TO BE CLEARLY IN POSSESSION OF THE CORPSE. We also notice from the details of the story that it was believed at the time by the authorities that the followers had the intention of relocating the body and spreading the false rumor that the corpse had risen from the dead. Both of these things subsequently occurred. We see from the details provided by the story at hand that the followers of the dead man had the means, motive and opportunity to have surreptitiously relocated the body, and they clearly WERE responsible for spreading the rumor that the corpse had returned to life, only to then subsequently fly away, off into the clouds. We really need look no further for an explanation for the cause of the missing corpse and empty grave. Because objectively and critically we have a perfectly good natural explanation staring us hard in the face.

Does the least likely UNnatural explanation have as much chance of being true as the natural explanation? Well no, of course not. It's the LEAST likely explanation. So why would anyone choose to accept the least likely to the point of foolishness story that the corpse came back to life and flew away? Certainly this is objectively and critically completely preposterous. But we are confronted by several factors for reaching this conclusion. One is conditioning. A good many people have been trained from their
earliest memory that the story of the flying reanimated corpse is is above and well beyond objective and critical consideration of it. It's all true based on blind unassailable faith, and blind unassailable faith is not only a necessary and desirable condition for religious belief, it is A REQUIRED CONDITION FOR SALVATION. Salvation from what? From eternal death mainly, although we can see quite clearly and without exception that all living things die, and that they DO NOT return to life again. But that represents reality. In make believe it is possible to have everlasting life after death in an invisible place with invisible Beings. And that is the second reason that people choose to believe in the obviously unbelievable. Emotional need. People are afraid of death. And then there is the "better safe than sorry" factor. Wouldn't want to miss out on the possibility of that great cosmic boat ride to Bimini when we die. And we have returned once again to the whole Faith thing.

Your claim that a supernatural explanation is equal to a natural explanation falls flat in a contest of actual evidence for the reason that you actually have no evidence. Only a network of insupportable claims.

You are correct, but simply because it can, does not prove that it absolutely is the correct explanation. In the same way, Christianity can be explained by supernatural
explanations. The point is, if you want the explanation to be natural, then you can certainly refused to consider the supernatural, and of course vise versa. It is extremely
difficult to examine something without bias once you make a firm stand on a particular subject. This is why I continue to at least attempt to listen, and sincerely consider
opposing views.

It's certainly true that Christianity is capable of making up explanations for it's many and various claims. And yet at the end of the day that's what you have; a network of
assertions, assumptions and traditions that objectively defy logic, experience, observation and all critical consideration of those claims, but which in truth are connected to no actual foundation of verifiable fact at all. The whole package is true because you have asserted it to be so. Your assertions cannot change the fact that what you are claiming violates all common experience and logic, and that you cannot offer a shred of undeniable proof for your unrealistic claims whatsoever. Such is the nature of blind insupportable faith.

We are not talking about, "probabilities" here, rather we are talking about what actually took place, therefore the probability of one thing happening as opposesd to the other does not enter the equation. The point is, the only explanation that is worth anything at all is the correct explanation. Can we determine which explanation is correct? Maybe not, but the probabilities have nothing to do with what the truth is. Therefore, to assert that the most natural, probable explanation has to be the correct explanation could be, "an example of self deception of the highest order."

All we have to go on is likelihood. What is the likelihood that the story of the empty grave and risen Christ were the result of actions taken by the living? That is in fact
the first and overwhelmingly obvious conclusion. What is the likelihood that the corpse came back to life and is responsible for it's own empty grave? No likelihood at all. It
is always possible to make up an explanation for how this might have occurred. But a handful of make believe is all that you have to make such a case with.

First of all, these are not my assertions, rather they were assertions made some 2000 years ago. Second, I have never said they were probable, because I have no idea what
probablities have to do with it?

It was asserted for much of human history that the entire universe revolved around the Earth. That served religious dogma well. Yet that assertion and that assumption did not serve to change the true nature of the universe one iota, and we now know to a high level of probability that that conclusion was wrong. Without probabilities there is no hope of reaching valid conclusions or acquiring actual knowledge.

Again first, you have no idea if someone did or not. Simply because we do not have these written accounts does not mean no one wrote any thing at all about it at the time.

Next, you are putting your faith in the scholars who tell you when the things we do have were written, and I am here to tell you a lot of what they have to say, does not wash, so you can believe them if you wish. Thirdly, this was 2000 years ago, so it is not like they had access to the media outlets we have today. Let's think about it for a moment.

This is the old "argument from silence" approach. No one mentioned the most significant event in human history when it was supposed to have occurred. No one mentioned hordes of dead people wandering the streets of Jerusalem at the time it was suppose to have occurred. If these things never actually happened, then the fact that no one mentioned them is perfectly understandable. These ARE the facts, and they are SIGNIFICANT. You believe them because you wish them to be so. Your needs do not change the nature of how unrealistic they are.

The Apostles would have been busy spreading the word, and planting churches, and all of this would have been done by word of mouth at the time. This means there would have been no need in witting these things until later on after these churches were established, and there was need to address issues in these churches. The fact that they waited until later tends to add credence to the reports, as opposed to them attempting to write from the start.

I have no "need" to mention dead corpse coming up out of their graves and wandering about. If it were generally known to have occurred it's pretty likely that I would have
sought to mention it to someone. And "word of mouth" is a kind of a rumor, isn't it!

rumor[roo-mer]
noun
1. a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts.
2. gossip; hearsay.

No, this is not necessarry at all, because that was not my point. My point is, either these things that were reported actually happened 2000 years ago which would certainly have been extraordinary, or your explantion is correct, which means at least some of the Apostles were in on it, or they had nothing to do with it, and it simply fell from the sky into their lap, and they were able to run with it, and be successful to the point that we are still discussing this, hoax, gift from the sky 2000 years later. Either way, it is amazing!

That people are still buying into this story 2,000 years later is certainly amazing, I agree. It's rather depressing too. The evidence though is that this is changing rapidly now, and that large numbers of people are beginning to take a critical view and are now widely finding the stories unbelievable. The non believers on this forum are hardly an aberration.

But since you bring up other religions, lets consider Islam which you bring up. Nothing extraordinary happened to found this religion, other than a man named Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God, and reported what he claimed God revealed to him. There were few if any witnesses, and Islam is basically a system of laws on how one is to live their life.

Well Mohammad did conquer an empire and change the course of history. Some might find that significant. The Muslims see it as an undeniable act of God. I personally am less than convinced. But I am a penultimate skeptic who is not inclined to see the hand of God in the actions of humans.

Christianity is not like this at all! Christianity is based on what numerous witnesses claimed to have witnessed. The authors had no idea what they were writing would one day end up in a Book we now call the Bible, rather they were simply living their lives, and writing to friends, peers, groups of people such as Churches etc., and their letters are simply the by product of the lives they were living. In other words, these authors did not have you, and I in mind when they wrote.

Christianity is based on STORIES of eyewitnesses. The story and the claims are based on five primary sources, the letters of Paul, and the authors of Gospels Matthew, Mark,
Luke (& Acts), and John. All written well after the fact by individuals who either were clearly NOT eyewitnesses, of who cannot be accurately identified. No actual eyewitness
testimonies can be established at all.

The point is, Christianity is far different than any other religion. It is based on what is claimed to be historical events. Numerous people recorded these things, not just one. The authors were simply writing letters to friends, peers, or groups of people as they saw issues that needed to be addressed. They were able to tie these claimed events
into what was written thousands of years before, therefore their claim was not that this was something new, rather it was a continuation of what God had been doing over the years. They had no idea of a Book called the Bible, in which their writings would be contained. So no! My assertion does not mean, "EVERY religious belief that now exists, or has ever existed, must have been based on the occurrence of "something extremely extraordinary."

Each religion has it's differences. Christianity is an amalgamation of the various pagan beliefs that came before it. The living dying resurrected man/god was already a well
established belief long before Jesus was born. What all true religions have in common is some appeal to supernatural origins and supernatural assertions. Christianity certainly has it's share of these.

You are correct here, and Paul and Peter both address this issue. When Paul was in Athens, he saw the many different beliefs, and ideas these people held. His stated goal was not to add new ideas, but rather to proclaim the truth to them.

Virtually everyone of every religious is shocked and dismayed by the "foolishness" of those who do not know and believe the "true" religion.

2 Peter 1:16
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The Authorship of Second Peter
I. Introduction

There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing� in the New Testament. Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.�2 And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.� The result of this debate is that 2 Peter is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature. But the evangelical world rejects the critics’ claims.

Conservatives say this has serious ramifications for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. The critics, on the other hand, claim this was standard procedure and therefore not dishonest. https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

If 2 Peter wasn't actually writen by the apostle Peter, this does not change the fact that it was God inspired, according to Christian fundamentalist scholars.

Who can argue with such "authoritative" logic?

As you can clearly see, Peter understands there are "cleverly devised stories" circulating. Knowing this, his aim is to ensure that his readers understand that the claim of the Apostles is not based on this, and what does he appeal too? His appeal is that he, and the other Apostles, were "eyewitnesses!" Was this writter lying? He very well could be, however it is clear his aim is to ensure his readers understand the claim is an historical claim, and not simply based on hearsay. The point is, you can claim this author is a liar, but you cannot say he was simply repeating what he had been told down through the years, and simply accepted what he was told.

But Peter himself DID NOT say that, someone SAID that he did. Which to you apparently amounts to the same thing.

Yeah, yeah I know, the only reasonable position is the one you take along with those that agree with you, all those in disagreement are unreasonable right? But could it be the case, that most of the Christians you have been exposed to are unreasonable, and you simply assume from this that all are unreasonable?

Your position IS UNREASONABLE. The fact that you and others believe it cannot change that. The only possible ameliorating consideration would be that your beliefs are actually true. But that would take some ACTUAL evidence to establish. "That's what I heard," and "that's what I believe" are your strong suit, not actual evidence.

It is true that many Christians do not use reason to come to their belief, but this does not mean that it is impossible. You see, I understand we can both use reason, and in fact have very good reasons to believe as we do, and end up on oppossing sides. If we end up on oppossing sides, it does mean at least one of us is in error, but it does not necessarrily mean one of us is unreasonable. Therefore, when I find myself in disagreement with others, I do not simply assume they must be unreasonable, rather I attempt to listen to there reason, to determine if they are in fact reasonable, or unreasonable. Doing this often times allows me to see where my reason may be faulty. But listen, if you have it all figured out, then by all means go right ahead.

impossible [im-pos-uh-buh l]
adjective
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.:
an impossible assignment.
3. incapable of being true, as a rumor.

Like it or not, the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away falls well into the category of that which is impossible. As I said, it is always possible to make up a scenario by which the apparent impossible COULD have occurred. If you declare recourse to being able to do anything, for example. If Santa is real and possesses magical powers, that explains how reindeer can fly. Yet at the end of the day you haven't actually produced a single flying reindeer or a single flying reanimated corpse. All you have done is make empty claims that COULD be true with recourse to more empty claims. Notice how your religious beliefs are constructed entirely upon an interconnected network of claims. To authenticate one claim, you simply point to yet another claim which cannot be authenticated. But this entire network of claims is constructed on a foundation of smoke. None of it is connected to solid well known, well established fact. Every bit of it relies on assumptions, empty claims, and plain old make believe. At some point this really should raise alarms in your mind.