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?

[marco]

Have you ever wondered why there are no Jewish sources that denied the resurrection of Christ back then? They anticipated that the disciples would try and steal the body to make out that Jesus resurrected in accordance with His prophecy.
Here's an example:

The Pharisees, the Romans, the Sanhedrin would all want the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be thoroughly investigated. .

The Roman world of the time was remarkably silent on this astounding event. The raising of Lazarus, never mind the Resurrection itself, would have caused fear, panic, widespread reporting. But apparently the revivified Lazarus went on with his life and, unreported and unmourned, went back to his eternal rest.

Let's look at what may have happened. I have to confess that I wasn't present but then those who have given us reports weren't present either.

The clever sect to which Christ belonged set up the crucifixion scene. People have themselves crucified in the Philippines today, to "celebrate" Easter, so it's no divine deal. Distribution of a few shekels or sesterces would persuade a soldier not to break bones - and so keep within Biblical prophecy, as well as not fatally injuring the victim. But how to get that death-simulating drug to the man's mouth? On a sponge of course. Pilate was surprised he died so fast. For a young God it was doubly surprising. He wasn't really dead. But where to put the "corpse"? Enter Joseph of Arimathea, who'd never been heard of till then, offering a grandiose tomb, fit for a god. It was so grandiose that it had a clever compartment in it . They begged for the body and got it. They administed the required medicines and hey presto! A nice touch, that shows the conspirators had a lovely sense of humour, is to have the Lord Jesus carefully fold up his shroud and facecloth. If he'd left in that state he'd have been arrested for indecent exposure -but of course we know he was off having a well-earned meal, and getting new clothes. The rest, as they say, is history.

Far fetched? Wrong? Yes, maybe. But NOT as far fetched as the orthodox alternative.

[Ancient of Years]

Have you ever wondered why there are no Jewish sources that denied the resurrection of Christ back then? They anticipated that the disciples would try and steal the body to make out that Jesus resurrected in accordance with His prophecy.
Here's an example:

The Pharisees, the Romans, the Sanhedrin would all want the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be thoroughly investigated. .

The Roman world of the time was remarkably silent on this astounding event. The raising of Lazarus, never mind the Resurrection itself, would have caused fear, panic, widespread reporting. But apparently the revivified Lazarus went on with his life and, unreported and unmourned, went back to his eternal rest.

Let's look at what may have happened. I have to confess that I wasn't present but then those who have given us reports weren't present either.

The clever sect to which Christ belonged set up the crucifixion scene. People have themselves crucified in the Philippines today, to "celebrate" Easter, so it's no divine deal. Distribution of a few shekels or sesterces would persuade a soldier not to break bones - and so keep within Biblical prophecy, as well as not fatally injuring the victim. But how to get that death-simulating drug to the man's mouth? On a sponge of course. Pilate was surprised he died so fast. For a young God it was doubly surprising. He wasn't really dead. But where to put the "corpse"? Enter Joseph of Arimathea, who'd never been heard of till then, offering a grandiose tomb, fit for a god. It was so grandiose that it had a clever compartment in it . They begged for the body and got it. They administed the required medicines and hey presto! A nice touch, that shows the conspirators had a lovely sense of humour, is to have the Lord Jesus carefully fold up his shroud and facecloth. If he'd left in that state he'd have been arrested for indecent exposure -but of course we know he was off having a well-earned meal, and getting new clothes. The rest, as they say, is history.

Far fetched? Wrong? Yes, maybe. But NOT as far fetched as the orthodox alternative.

IMO an even less far-fetched explanation is that most of the details in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and resurrection were invented by the several authors. The actual story (we may hypothesize): Jesus got crucified, died, was buried, the body was ‘disappeared’ and someone planted at the tomb said he rose from the dead and went someplace. This fits all the common elements of the Gospel accounts, leaving the disparate story elements as purposeful invention. The origin of the resurrection story is explained without the need for the supernatural or convoluted explanations.

Concerning the supposed absence of Jewish sources denying the resurrection, we may note two things. First, Matthew sees the need to offer a counter-story to the apparently widespread accusation among Jews that the body was stolen. Second, there is no mention in any of the Gospels of anyone not in the ‘in-crowd’ knowing anything about it in the immediate post-resurrection time-frame. Mark and Matthew even have everyone leave town right away.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 181 by Ancient of Years]


Do you mean someone was literally planted at the tomb or written into the story at the tomb?

Just curious. I agree with the rest as being both more rational and a better explanation of the movement.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 177 by Claire Evans]

He knows what it is like to be subjected to all evil

Just curious - does this mean Jesus was raped? Rape is an evil, you won't get an argument from me on that one.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 179 by Claire Evans]

The Pharisees, the Romans, the Sanhedrin would all want the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be thoroughly investigated.

You're presuming here that the Pharisees, the Romans and the Sanhedrin would have cared at all about Jesus after he died. As far as they were concerned, he was NOT the Son of God (or any link to God). He was just a rabble-rouser in their eyes, someone who blasphemed against their god. In their eyes, he never did anything miraculous or proved he was divine.
Once he was dead, they would have forgotten all about him. His death would have confirmed in their eyes that he wasn't anything special - they would have thought that if he was anything special he would have avoided the execution.
Also, Jesus wasn't the only person in those days to be claimed to be a resurrected messiah. There were plenty of others.

As for the Romans, why would they care about Jesus? They certainly didn't keep records of what Jesus supposedly did while he was alive. No Roman military officer reported that there was a Jewish man able to conjure up food to feed thousands.

The Pharisees must have seen Jesus if Jesus was on earth for a while after His death.

Evidence, other than this being a supposition on your part?

If the body had been produced, the disciples would have been exposed as frauds

Technically yes, but you don't need the body in order to call such people liars. The tablets that Joseph Smith translated to write as the Book of Mormon supposedly vanished back into heaven or something, yet that doesn't stop me from thinking of Smith as a fraud.

Have you ever wondered why there are no Jewish sources that denied the resurrection of Christ back then?

Could very well be that there never was a singular Jesus Christ, or that if there was, he was no-body important enough for Jewish scholars to write about. Or it could be if there were such writings, they have been lost to history.

[marco]

[Replying to post 181 by Ancient of Years]

Yes if you accept Christ died and was just an ordinary person there are 2469 explanations . I was creatively using the reported details of the crucifixion and resurrection, then applying Occam's razor - for amusement.

[Saint_of_Me]

[Replying to post 176 by marco]

Oh, I totally agree that the biblical version of JC's Passion and Resurrection is far more powerful and visually impacting than is a simple Spiritual Awakening by His disciples.

So I don't begrudge anybody who believes it actually went down that way. It get it. totally. And who knows? Perhaps it did. We will most likely never know. At least not before this life ends, anyway.

The idea of a Spiritual Awakening among JC's Followers is my personal opinion. (Well, many other biblical revisionists and liberal Christian Theologians also harbor this idea. Including my favorite present-day guy, the Bishop John Shelby Spong.)

I just personally always had trouble following the logic of the whole "God sacrificed His only Son for us" John 3:14 thing. I could never wrap my mind around it, totally. Something in it was missing. As I remarked in an earlier post.
I always wondered why it was all necessary. That is to ask, if God wanted to forgive us and "bury the hatchet" why not simply do so? With some sort of cool and powerful simple Imagery to signify the New Covenant? Like He did post-Flood with the Rainbow?

I also don't wear a Crucifix. I am with the LDS on this. I find it in poor taste. Almost barbaric. A callous reminder of one of history's crueler moments. Why exhibit proudly the tool with which Jesus was slowly and painfully killed?

It's like the old comedian Lenny Bruce asked, "If they had the electric chair when Jesus was killed would Christians wear tiny little replicas of those around their necks?"

LOL.

I wear a Mustard Seed. Again, like the LDS guys do. I find the message and imagery far more satisfying and not as depressing.

GodBless.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 181 by Ancient of Years]

Yes if you accept Christ died and was just an ordinary person there are 2469 explanations . I was creatively using the reported details of the crucifixion and resurrection, then applying Occam's razor - for amusement.

It sounded rather like Schonfield's The Passover Plot. I read that when it came out in 1968. In addition to not justifying his story very well, the author got various details wrong, even thinking that Barabbas meant the Rabbi's son.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Saint_of_Me]

So I don't begrudge anybody who believes it actually went down that way. It get it. totally. And who knows? Perhaps it did. We will most likely never know.

Maintaining that we can never really know whether the corpse of Jesus actually came back to life and subsequently flew away is very much like maintaining that we can never actually know whether or not Santa has a team of flying reindeer. On the one hand that is true. There is no way to ultimately prove either of these things to be true or false absolutely. Humans do not have access to that sort of absolute knowledge. On the other hand there is a category of those things we refer to as "nonsense," i.e. stories which defy all common sense and common experience, and both of these stories do fit rather neatly into that category.

The story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is not a credible story. Does that indicate that it is not true? Yes, it probably does. Choosing to suppose that it is even vaguely plausible speaks more of an emotional need then of rational decision making.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to Saint_of_Me]

So I don't begrudge anybody who believes it actually went down that way. It get it. totally. And who knows? Perhaps it did. We will most likely never know.

Maintaining that we can never really know whether the corpse of Jesus actually came back to life and subsequently flew away is very much like maintaining that we can never actually know whether or not Santa has a team of flying reindeer. On the one hand that is true. There is no way to ultimately prove either of these things to be true or false absolutely. Humans do not have access to that sort of absolute knowledge. On the other hand there is a category of those things we refer to as "nonsense," i.e. stories which defy all common sense and common experience, and both of these stories do fit rather neatly into that category.

The story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is not a credible story. Does that indicate that it is not true? Yes, it probably does. Choosing to suppose that it is even vaguely plausible speaks more of an emotional need then of rational decision making.

Ruling out the possibility of 'flying reanimated corpses' would of course be missing the point. It is supposed to be extraordinary to prove divine sanction on the whole ball of wax. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence offered in the Gospels is far less than extraordinary. That the contradictory nature of the various versions just happen to align with the clear and differing agendas of the several authors is a strong indicator that these are inventions.