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?

[Ancient of Years]

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.

You are correct that 1 Enoch presents a Messiah figure that is more than human, of heavenly origin in fact and above even the angels. However the term ‘divine’ could be misleading. Judaism was and is strictly monotheistic. At the time Enoch was written (in stages in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE) there was not yet a sense of anything like a multi--person deity. The Trinity took time to develop. Not until 325 CE was there an ‘official’ position on it and it got ‘clarified’ for centuries.

The Son of Man / Elect One was intended as a much more than human figure with heavenly credentials. But not yet actually divine.

[JLB32168]

You are correct that 1 Enoch presents a Messiah figure that is more than human, of heavenly origin in fact and above even the angels. However the term ‘divine’ could be misleading.

When I use “divine� in the case of Enoch, I’m using it in the context that it entails one who possesses aspects proper to God alone. In the case of Enoch, the SoM/Messiah hass preexistence, which is an aspect proper to God – not a creature. He is also worshiped – something which the Decalogue forbids to any entity other than the deity. It says he will judge the nations – again, that’s an aspect proper to the deity alone in Judaism. Of course, this would produce a cognitive dissonance with some Jews since it is at odds with what we describe as normative Judaism today, but it clearly makes room at least for a Bi-unity of persons – one that would aid in the articulation of the later Tri-unity (which is actually more correct than the Latin word “Trinity�.)

[Goat]

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.

That is a claim. However, there is difference between making a claim, and showing that claim to be true. Now, I don't even see any scripture that says 'He's preexistent', nor, for that matter, even if there was, that there is any objective and tangible evidence he was. You do realize there is a difference between a religious claim from the bible,and evidence to support that claim, don't you.

What actual objective and tangible evidence do you have that 'He's pre existent' ?
What scriptural claim says that?

[tfvespasianus]

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.

That is a claim. However, there is difference between making a claim, and showing that claim to be true. Now, I don't even see any scripture that says 'He's preexistent', nor, for that matter, even if there was, that there is any objective and tangible evidence he was. You do realize there is a difference between a religious claim from the bible,and evidence to support that claim, don't you.

What actual objective and tangible evidence do you have that 'He's pre existent' ?
What scriptural claim says that?

Enoch was transfigured into the Son of Man. There are several references both to Enoch’s transfiguration (whether into the Son of Man, Metatron, or the related ‘lesser Yahweh’), but here’s a salient portion from the 61st chapter of 1 Enoch:

61:10 Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify him who has dominion over all things, him who was concealed; for from the beginning the Son of man existed in secret, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, and revealed to the elect.

61:11 He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect; and all the elect shall stand before him in that day.

61:12 All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule over all the earth, shall fall down on their faces before him, and shall worship him.

61:13 They shall fix their hopes on this Son of man, shall pray to him, and petition him for mercy.

Take care,
TFV

[Ancient of Years]

You are correct that 1 Enoch presents a Messiah figure that is more than human, of heavenly origin in fact and above even the angels. However the term ‘divine’ could be misleading.

When I use “divine� in the case of Enoch, I’m using it in the context that it entails one who possesses aspects proper to God alone. In the case of Enoch, the SoM/Messiah hass preexistence, which is an aspect proper to God – not a creature. He is also worshiped – something which the Decalogue forbids to any entity other than the deity. It says he will judge the nations – again, that’s an aspect proper to the deity alone in Judaism. Of course, this would produce a cognitive dissonance with some Jews since it is at odds with what we describe as normative Judaism today, but it clearly makes room at least for a Bi-unity of persons – one that would aid in the articulation of the later Tri-unity (which is actually more correct than the Latin word “Trinity�.)

The passages in 1 Enoch concerning worship are difficult to understand. To begin with it is uncertain what worship means. It could be as simple as bowing down in respect, as David does to Saul. Or it could be the kind of worship one gives to a deity. Since the only non-fragmental 1 Enoch is in Ge’ez (!) it is unclear what word was originally used.

There is no doubt that in Enoch the Son of man (aka Elect One, aka Concealed One, aka Messiah) existed before anything was created. But in Enoch 48, it is not always clear what the pronouns refer to. In the passage quoted below, pronouns clearly referring to the Son of man are underlined. Pronouns clearly referring to the Lord of spirits (God) are bolded. Pronouns whose reference might be uncertain are italicized.

Enoch 48:2 In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days.

Enoch 48:3 Before 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.

Enoch 48:4 He 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, and sing praises to the name of the Lord of spirits.

Enoch 48:5 Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and for ever.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_48

The pronouns between the two marked instances of the Lord of spirits could be taken as referring to the Lord of spirits (God) rather than the Son of man. That the section ends with praise being sung to the Lord of spirits in the same sentence as ‘worship’, ‘bless’ and ’ glorify’, terms typically applied to God, is rather suggestive. That the next pronoun used is definitely God is also suggestive.

Also note that the attributes assigned to ‘him’ are echoes of those assigned to God in Jewish scriptures.

Isaiah 51
4 “Listen to me, my people;
hear me, my nation:
Instruction will go out from me;
my justice will become a light to the nations.

2 Samuel 2
19 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
but the Lord was my support.

Psalm 9
18 But God will never forget the needy;
the hope of the afflicted will never perish.

It is not at all clear that the Son of Man is the object of worship in 1 Enoch.

[JLB32168]

[Replying to post 114 by Ancient of Years]I would invite you to see TFV's citations from the sixty-first chapter of Enoch. [edit for spelling error]

[Goat]

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.

That is a claim. However, there is difference between making a claim, and showing that claim to be true. Now, I don't even see any scripture that says 'He's preexistent', nor, for that matter, even if there was, that there is any objective and tangible evidence he was. You do realize there is a difference between a religious claim from the bible,and evidence to support that claim, don't you.

What actual objective and tangible evidence do you have that 'He's pre existent' ?
What scriptural claim says that?

Enoch was transfigured into the Son of Man. There are several references both to Enoch’s transfiguration (whether into the Son of Man, Metatron, or the related ‘lesser Yahweh’), but here’s a salient portion from the 61st chapter of 1 Enoch:

61:10 Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify him who has dominion over all things, him who was concealed; for from the beginning the Son of man existed in secret, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, and revealed to the elect.

61:11 He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect; and all the elect shall stand before him in that day.

61:12 All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule over all the earth, shall fall down on their faces before him, and shall worship him.

61:13 They shall fix their hopes on this Son of man, shall pray to him, and petition him for mercy.

Take care,
TFV

Well, that is one interpretation of Enoch.. however, it is fill with symbolgy , and therefor seems more mythic that historical. How does that show the resurrection to be historical?

[JLB32168]

Well, that is one interpretation of Enoch.. however, it is fill with symbolgy , and therefor seems more mythic that historical. How does that show the resurrection to be historical?

It doesn’t, but it rebuts the assertion that Judaism was monolithic in belief and that the Messiah/Son of Man was no more than a mere political leader.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 116 by Goat]

I actually don’t know how the questions regarding Enoch fit into the question of the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Resurrection. It’s just a topic that I enjoy discussing and the opportunity presented itself.

It interests me because common interpretations of the ‘inter-testamental’ period often lack balance and nuance (in my opinion). That is, many would have Judaism in this period basically as nascent Rabbinic Judaism which I think overlooks the diversity of thought at the time and, moreover, posits something anachronistic. Also problematic is that some Christian commentators tend to look for the NT as definitive in describing the state of first century Judaism which, when taken too far, leads to misrepresentation or worse.

In any case, perhaps these questions arose because something like ‘people could not have envisioned [a figure like Jesus] because [these kind of theological ideas didn’t exist at the time]’ which I’ve seen bandied about before. I guess I could look, but I am fairly lazy.

Take care,
TFV

[Goat]

Well, that is one interpretation of Enoch.. however, it is fill with symbolgy , and therefor seems more mythic that historical. How does that show the resurrection to be historical?

It doesn’t, but it rebuts the assertion that Judaism was monolithic in belief and that the Messiah/Son of Man was no more than a mere political leader.

Uh, well, no one ever said that Judaism was monolithic, and it does not show that the Messiah/Son of man was anything more than an extraordinary man , who was righteous