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?

[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.

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.

Agreed. If one has access to supernatural claims, then virtually anything can be explained. Much in the way that Santa's team of flying reindeer can be explained by declaring that Santa has magic. The stories still fall under the heading of nonsense however. Because at the end of the day no one has yet provided any evidence of a single flying reindeer, or a single flying reanimated corpse. All that remains is the insupportable nonsense claim.

[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.

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.

I hope my humble account didn't suffer from the faults you found in The Passover Plot. I didn't have any historical facts to use for my account so I used the NT.

I think if the resurrection had been fact I'd have heard about it in reading one of the Roman authors. Some were awfully good at reporting things for us. Pliny I recall even has an account of a haunted house - so a resurrected body would have delighted him and his uncle.

[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.

I hope my humble account didn't suffer from the faults you found in The Passover Plot. I didn't have any historical facts to use for my account so I used the NT.

I think if the resurrection had been fact I'd have heard about it in reading one of the Roman authors. Some were awfully good at reporting things for us. Pliny I recall even has an account of a haunted house - so a resurrected body would have delighted him and his uncle.

I was not finding fault with you but with Schonfield. He had some elements similar to your account. But it all fell apart because having Barabbas be 'the Rabbi's son' was an important part of his argument. Also he has Jesus intending to fake dying and be 'resurrected' but actually die instead. Which sort of destroys his whole argument.

[Claire Evans]

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.

What's it to the Romans? Imagine historians writing about a dead man coming back to life. In fact, it was so not believed it was called a mischievous superstition.

The Romans didn't care about Jesus until He started threatening the Roman Empire because of the threat of uprisings. Why should they have believed stories of Lazarus rising from the dead? Would you unless you saw it for yourself?

Anyway, by the off chance the Romans did mention the resurrection, it could have been destroyed in 70 AD when Jerusalem was raised to the ground.

Now why would Jewish sources not mention the resurrection and refute it? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if the Romans did know about the resurrection, they just swept it under the carpet in fear of Christianity spreading.

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.

Paying skekels not to break bones? Who made that arrangement? Anyway, it is not likely that Jesus had no broken bones. The scourging itself would have fractured ribs. Falling could have caused broken arms.

Even if Jesus was crucified, He would have died anyway. His injuries were fatal. Was Pilate surprised Jesus died to fast? I'm not. If Jesus got a more serious beating than usual, it is not surprising He died so fast.

The Romans knew how to make sure a crucified person was dead. They broke the knees to ensure death so that the victim asphyxiated. Sometimes they pierced the victim. Pilate would have wanted concrete proof that Jesus was dead. We had a 2nd century who acknowledged Jesus' death:

Tacitus (c. 56 – c.120) wrote, “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty … at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilate.�[18]

No amount of medicines could have saved Jesus.

Considering your scenario, it does seem more far-fetched. In fact, your scenario should have been used as an explanation to the masses by Jesus' enemies to squash resurrection claims. They didn't because it happened and they couldn't deny it.

[Claire Evans]

[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.

I hate to say this, but it is most likely Jesus was raped when He was wrongly arrested and detained. It's terrible but there is a good chance that it what happened. That is so what the devil would have wanted.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 193 by Claire Evans]

In fact, your scenario should have been used as an explanation to the masses by Jesus' enemies to squash resurrection claims. They didn't because it happened and they couldn't deny it.

Your logic there is extremely poor.
A) Extremely unlikely, to the point of impossibility, event happened, according to you (Jesus was resurrected)
B) No-one at the time this event is said to have happened, refuted the claims
C) Therefore, the impossible event DID happen

How about this?
Two weeks ago, my uncle Charlie fought off a real dragon with a stick. This is an extremely unlikely, to the point of impossibility, event. No-one who was around two weeks ago attempted to refute the claims, therefore my uncle Charlie really did fight off a real dragon.

Is that all it takes to convince you of an extremely unlikely to the point of impossibility event? Simply that no-one attempted to refute it?

[Claire Evans]

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.

The Romans anticipated that is what the disciples planned to do. To steal the body and then claim resurrection. That is why the tomb was guarded by Roman guards. Why would anyone believe Jesus resurrected if there was no body?

I'll quote something quite interesting:

Chuck Colson, implicated in the Watergate scandal during President Nixon’s administration, pointed out the difficulty of several people maintaining a lie for an extended period of time.

“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world – and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.�[31]
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.

In Matthew 28, it says that that the guards reported Jesus' resurrection. The chief priests tried to cover this up by paying off the guards to lie and say the body was stolen by the disciples. It was the only way to explain why Jesus was not in the tomb anymore. It was a cover up:

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

If Jesus' body was stolen, why get the Roman soldiers to lie? I think the soldiers would have gotten into trouble anyway. They failed to do their duty and that was to prevent the theft of Jesus' body by the disciples. This is the reason why there was a widespread accusation by the Jews that the body was stolen. Let us remember, not everyone saw Jesus in person.

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.

The above verses I gave you in Matthew definitely implies that the risen Christ was seen not in the "in crowd". Not sure about the "leaving town right away" bit. I have never read that.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 193 by Claire Evans]

In fact, your scenario should have been used as an explanation to the masses by Jesus' enemies to squash resurrection claims. They didn't because it happened and they couldn't deny it.

Your logic there is extremely poor.
A) Extremely unlikely, to the point of impossibility, event happened, according to you (Jesus was resurrected)
B) No-one at the time this event is said to have happened, refuted the claims
C) Therefore, the impossible event DID happen

How about this?
Two weeks ago, my uncle Charlie fought off a real dragon with a stick. This is an extremely unlikely, to the point of impossibility, event. No-one who was around two weeks ago attempted to refute the claims, therefore my uncle Charlie really did fight off a real dragon.

Is that all it takes to convince you of an extremely unlikely to the point of impossibility event? Simply that no-one attempted to refute it?

Not quite the same circumstances. No one saw the dragon. People witnessed Jesus' crucifixion. Fighting off a real dragon would not have threatened it's enemies and the most powerful empire in the world. Therefore there would be no need to refute claims of dragons.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 197 by Claire Evans]

How do you know anybody saw Jesus and the events you believe happened at his execution? How would a wandering Jewish preacher be able to threaten the, at the time, greatest empire in the world? Remember, according to the Gospels, Pilate found Jesus innocent of any charges. Pilate, the Roman governor. He just handed Jesus over to the Jews to try and placate them.
I could say that people did see the dragon. I could say the dragon represents the US, and how fighting it off means fighting off the US.
You need more than a "no-one at the time refuted it" to support your belief. All sorts of tall tales throughout history didn't have anybody refuting them at the time they were made. but that doesn't mean they were all true.

[Claire Evans]

[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.

What makes you think they never saw Jesus' miracles? Jesus was accused of driving out devils with devils by the Pharisees in Matthew 24:

24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.�

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.

Absolutely not.


Matthew 27:62-66.


"Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch."

They very much cared.

Claims may have existed but did it happen?

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.

Making trouble that threatened Pilate was a big deal. One more form of uprising, and Pilate would have gotten into serious trouble. That is why he'd care.

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 they didn't see him, they'd attempt to refute it by producing the body. In fact, they just made the guards lie about why the tomb was empty.

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.

Did Joseph Smith threaten power empires? Did he have enemies that would freak out if he had vanished into heaven in front of people? Jesus had special circumstances.

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.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus. Jesus must have been important. I think Christianity threatening Judaism would have made him a "somebody".

Do you believe all writings would have been lost to history? It's interesting that in the Talmud, as far as I know, that Jesus' resurrection has never been denied.