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?

[Goose]

...Nearly fifty years after Christ's death we are given the most detailed account of the eruption of Vesuvius, witnessed by the teenager Pliny. We have perfect witness of this event. Yet a god rising from the dead gets not a whisper in history...

A few things here.

Firstly, how do you know it was Pliny the Younger who wrote the account of the eruption? Here is the letter. It is, strictly speaking, just as anonymous as the Gospels and even more anonymous than Paul’s letters since Paul at least internally self identifies whereas Pliny’s letter to Tacitus does not. I’d like to hear your methodology for determining it was written by Pliny and then apply that methodology to the Gospels. My suspicion is that we’d find the Gospels are no less anonymous using the same methodology thereby providing us two firsthand accounts and two accounts from people who knew witnesses.

Secondly, Pliny writes his letter about 25 years after the eruption not because he wanted to record the eruption, but because he wanted to provide an account of his uncle’s death to Tacitus.

“Thank you for asking me to send you a description of my uncle's death so that you can leave an accurate account of it for posterity�

In other words, in the 25 years after one of the greatest and most infamous natural disasters in history (certainly in the region and era), witnessed by thousands, no one has thought to intentionally record a firsthand narrative of the event. The only account of the eruption is a few paragraphs incidentally provided by Pliny 25 years later. A writer, no less, who admits that his account is a mixture of what he saw and what he heard.

�I will say no more, except to add that I have described in detail every incident which I either witnessed myself or heard about immediately after the event, when reports were most likely to be accurate.�

If the resurrection "gets not a whisper in history" the eruption receives even less using the same methodology.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 174 by KenRU]

Then I am confused by your point. Do you agree that different interpretations of the bible is the direct cause for the many (but not all) varying sects of Christianity?

Yes I would agree with this and we will get to more on this as we move on. However, when I referred to those who were lazy, I was speaking of individuals, not whole denominations, who take a small portion of Scripture, such as "faith moving mountains" and coming to the conclusion that this means all Christians, should, could, and would, be moving mountains. You seemed to agree with this, so again I am not suggesting all other denominations which I am not a member have been, or are lazy, rather it is mostly individuals, where I can, and have demonstrated their interpretation is the result of laziness in their reading. Hope this is clear now.

-Differences on the Holy Ghost/the Trinity.
-Interpretations of just what Hell is.
-Hell's significance and necessity.
-Good works vs faith.

Shall I go on?

Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for. I am not sure what you mean by the Holy Ghost so I will not comment on that one, but you are right there is a lot of confusion concerning the Trinity. I know the Church I grew up in taught the Trinity, however there were those in the Church who struggled with the teaching, simply because they could not wrap their mind around it. I certainly understand this, but the point is, these people who do not necessarily believe in the Trinity, still believe in Christ as Savior, and the other essentials taught in Scripture. The point is, not believing that God, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, are One and the same, would not constitute someone being completely outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy, and since it is such a hard concept to grasp, it is understandable.

I want to be sure to reiterate, that I have stated "there are some things in the Bible that is difficult to understand, but this does not mean the whole of the Bible is to difficult to understand," and it is my position, that to take such a position would be lazy. In other words, simply because you may run across something that is difficult to understand, and then from this simply take the position that the whole thing is to difficult, is lazy.

Now lets talk about Hell. Again you are correct, and it is a perfect example. The Church I was raised in taught what is called, "conditional immortality," which means only those whom God has saved will be given eternal life. This means those that have not been saved will be destroyed in Hell. Of course most other denomination would disagree with this, and teach that Hell is a place of eternal punishment.

But you see even though we disagree over this, does not mean we consider one another outside the realm of orthodoxy. In fact as I have said many times before, there were women in our Church who were married to men who were members of Baptist Churches, and I can remember as a child, a group of these people gathering around someones kitchen table, as we kids played, and the adults would be discussing their differences. But when all was said and done, they parted peacefully, considering each other, brothers, and sisters, and I will go on to say, this was something they enjoyed doing, because it allowed them to explain their positions.

The main point here is, you are bringing up what are certainly divisions among Christians, but it is not as if these are major divisions. In other words, these divisions do not cause one sect, to accuse the other sect, of being outside the faith. So yes, there are somethings in the Bible, where it may be understandable that there could be more than one way to understand what is said, which may cause division, but it is not as though I would say, (concerning these minor divisions), "if you do not believe as I do, then you are not a Christian."

Now, lets move on to faith, vs. works. Again, I am certainly glad you brought this one up as well, and you are correct, this has brought about serious divisions, while the other two we have discussed not so much. I will also say, it is something I struggled with, over for years, and I was not willing to simply side, on one side or the other, simply because I was expected to.

As far as I know, I am completely outside the box on this issue. In other words, as far as I know, no one else has ever put forth this position. I am not the type of person to simply settle on explanation that does not make sense to my mind.

At any rate if you are interested, I will supply you with a link where I have expounded my position out to another member of this site. This member, must have been a Christian who seemed to be in disagreement with Paul's theology, and believed Paul had hi-jacked Christianity with his own teaching.

Just to let you know up front, I acknowledge there is a contradiction between Paul, and James in the Bible. However, I go on to demonstrate, how I believe this contradiction is rectified, by utilizing what is said throughout numerous passages. My hope is, you will see that I have not twisted any meanings, or attempted to put a spin on anything, unless of course I have overlooked something. If you read it, I would greatly appreciate your input, and if you have heard this argument in the past I would also appreciate you letting me know where. At any rate, if you read it you can start at the second quote, which begins, "As for the apostles embracing Paul" because what is said earlier would not pertain to, "faith vs. works."

ref:Re: The foundations of Christianity

However here again, even though I would side more on the, "faith" side of things, and I believe those who end up on the "work" side of things are in error, I would not consider them to be outside the faith, because I can at least understand where they are coming from.

My main point to all the above is this. There are many who continue to point to the number of different denominations as if this proves that they all are teaching, and believing a completely, and totally different faith, when this is far from the truth. While there are a few sects that would be considered outside the realm of orthodoxy, the overwhelming majority of the divisions are not in any way major, and although there may be certain disagreements, these disagreements would not constitute believing the other sect was outside the faith. The way I see it is, "in the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty."

Now let us begin to talk about Catholicism. We have already discussed the "Reformation," which is when the reformers called out the Catholic Church for it's many abuses. In fact Martin Luther nailed 95 of these things he saw as abuses to the door of the Church in Wittenberg.

Luther, nor any of the other reformers intended to split form the Church, rather their goal was to reform what they saw as abuses. It was not until after a long debate, and struggle with the Church that Luther was excommunicated. If you have not read the book, "Bondage of the Will" it may be good to do so, because it is Luther's response to Erasmus, whom himself believed the Church needed reforming, but believed Luther had taken things to far.

The point is, I am not saying the Catholic Church was lazy, but rather the reformers pointed out abuses of the Church, where the Church was taking on to much power, not only over not only individuals, but also over government as well. The reformers believed there are two Kingdoms, which is the Kingdom of Man, and the Kingdom of God, and the jurisdiction of the Church is over the latter, and not the former, but the reformers also believed there were abuses in the latter.

So then, as I have said, "there are certain sects that would be considered outside the realm of orthodoxy, which means they go against the clear teaching of Scripture, and I believe the Catholic Church would fall into this category.

When human beings are involved, it is common for there to be abuses in power, and I believe this is what happened in the Catholic Church. But lets think about the, "National Association of Evangelicals." This Association began by incorporating many of the different denominations, that are pointed to as completely differing sects. One of the goals was to demonstrate that while there may be divisions over some of the non-essentials, where there is liberty, these Churches were united over the essentials which is the main message of the Christian Faith. This I believe demonstrates that while there may be certain things that may divide, this does not in any way mean, all of these different sects, are totally divided, and are teaching a completely and totally different Faith, and I believe it is certainly dishonest to attempt to make this argument.

However, I do believe there have been abuses of late inside the, NAE. One of these abuses is when certain leaders inside this association attempted to incorporate the Catholic Church, with a document entitled, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." I am convinced this was done simply to increase the numbers in the fight against such things as abortions, gay rights, etc. etc. In other words, these leaders who founded the document, could not believe Catholics, and Evangelicals are united in doctrine, but were rather united in some political views.

At any rate, I am convinced the Scripture is clear, the jurisdiction of the Church is inside the walls of the Church, and if the Church would pay more attention to it's own jurisdiction, there would be less to be concerned about, outside the Church.

As a run down, I am convinced there are certain sects that are clearly outside the clear teachings of Scripture, along with the historic teachings of the Christian Faith, and even if you are not a believer, it is not that difficult to determine this. However, by in large the many different denominations does not in any way entail, they are all teaching and believing a totally different Faith, but exactly the same, and it is either being dishonest, or lazy to continue to point to the many different sects, as if this somehow proves, complete division between the sects. I also believe there are many individuals who are lazy in their interpretations, by taking one passage out of it's context, and believing they can understand what is said simply by doing this.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 210 by Goose]

Goose, if Pliny did not write the letter and someone else wrote in his name would it make any difference?

Does anyone base current life decisions on the account being accurate? Does anyone base a religion (or anything else) on the assumption that the letter is authentic and accurate?

Further, there is indisputable evidence that Vesuvius erupted verifying what was reported.

Compare that to gospel accounts of the divinity of Jesus:

1) for which there is NO supporting evidence
2) which ARE used as a basis for modern life decisions
3) which ARE the basis of a major religion.


Thus, the Pliny account may be accepted as a description of what is known to have occurred – but the account is not important in modern life. Whereas, the gospel stories tell of events that are not known through other evidence to have occurred but which are deemed VERY important by many in modern life.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 210 by Goose]

If the resurrection "gets not a whisper in history" the eruption receives even less using the same methodology.

Huh, didn't know that. Thanks for telling us. I do have to say though, this doesn't give the resurrection claim a bye from the problem of not being recorded sufficiently (if it did happen). Just because a volcano eruption wasn't written about until decades later doesn't mean I can just ignore the problem of the resurrection only being written about decades later itself, and by anonymous gospel authors.
If it turns out that the volcano eruption being talked about here didn't in fact happen, if the evidence isn't enough to warrant a belief that it did, then I will follow the evidence. However, I'm not worried about a specific volcano eruption. I'm concerned with a resurrection claim.

[dio9]

If you read 1Cor. 15:25-58 , Paul clearly writes the resurrected body is a spiritual body. He calls this a heavenly body . The earthly body is a different one. The heavenly body is imperishable. The earthly body is sown perishable . Read it yourself, Paul writes the heavenly body is glorious, powerful, the earthly body is sown , the heavenly body is raised. This is what Paul is teaching. He writes the spirit has it's own embodiment and the earthly body does not have to die but will be changed as well when the last trumpet sounds. Read it for yourself , it's clear, resurrection is the raising up of our heavenly body .

[marco]

Firstly, how do you know it was Pliny the Younger who wrote the account of the eruption?

He's one of the top Roman writers. His account fits with what is reported about his uncle. Tacitus was his friend and would have wanted this information. But all this is irrelevant. We KNOW Vesuvius erupted. We do NOT know there was a resurrection.

I’d like to hear your methodology for determining it was written by Pliny and then apply that methodology to the Gospels.

Respect for the accuracy of Roman sources. The world uses them. Pliny is the best person to have written the account and the mention of the respected Tacitus lends weight. Also, there is no great sense in arguing for someone else - the volcano erupted. I can't apply that methodology to the gospels because they are not respected history. They don't describe events that we know happened; rather they give account of things that are unlikely to have happened. There is a difference between reading Caesar on his own conquest of Gaul and Luke on the Nativity.

In other words, in the 25 years after one of the greatest and most infamous natural disasters in history (certainly in the region and era), witnessed by thousands, no one has thought to intentionally record a firsthand narrative of the event. The only account of the eruption is a few paragraphs incidentally provided by Pliny 25 years later. A writer, no less, who admits that his account is a mixture of what he saw and what he heard.

Pliny SAW across the bay what was happening. His uncle died in the Eruption and Pliny would have been given accounts of this. If you are seriously comparing this with Paul's NOT witnessing a resurrection and Paul's acceptance of people saying they witnessed a miracle, then there is little I can offer you.
As for no one thought - who said so? Pliny supplied the best account, obviously. He saw it.

If the resurrection "gets not a whisper in history" the eruption receives even less using the same methodology.

No - the Vesuvius eruption is well testified. Archaeologists have done extensive work at Pompeii and Herculaneum. History does not give any account of the resurrection. There is total silence. We are here debating the credibility of those who are reported as having witnessed a corpse returned to life. In today's strict standards of legal proof, the evidence would be thrown out.
To summarise: Eruption of Vesuvius - FACT, on what evidence we have.
Resurrection of Christ - myth, on what evidence we have.

As an irrelevant footnote I've translated a lot of Pliny and he can be almost as insufferable as Paul. But one gets the feeling he knows what he's talking about.

[Goose]

He's one of the top Roman writers. His account fits with what is reported about his uncle. Tacitus was his friend and would have wanted this information. But all this is irrelevant. We KNOW Vesuvius erupted. We do NOT know there was a resurrection.

Let me see if I have this right. Your methodology for establishing Pliny as the author of the letter is that he was a top writer, his account fits with others, and a friend wanted the information? I don’t see how this methodology establishes Pliny as the author.

Certainly this rather odd set of criteria would allow me to establish the traditional authorship of the Gospels. They were top Christian writers too, their accounts fit with what was reported about Jesus as well, and certainly there were people that would have wanted the information. I think you may need to go back to the drawing board here and come up with a more rigorous methodology.

Respect for the accuracy of Roman sources. The world uses them. Pliny is the best person to have written the account and the mention of the respected Tacitus lends weight. Also, there is no great sense in arguing for someone else - the volcano erupted. I can't apply that methodology to the gospels because they are not respected history. They don't describe events that we know happened; rather they give account of things that are unlikely to have happened. There is a difference between reading Caesar on his own conquest of Gaul and Luke on the Nativity.

You still aren’t telling us how you know Pliny wrote the letter to Tacitus. The world uses Christian sources to establish facts about Jesus too. So what? If it’s just simply that Pliny was the best person to have written the account surely I can argue Matthew and John were as well. I could also make a case for Mark and Luke using that rather simplistic criterion.

Pliny SAW across the bay what was happening.

Classic Question Begging. How do you know Pliny saw across that bay?

His uncle died in the Eruption and Pliny would have been given accounts of this. If you are seriously comparing this with Paul's NOT witnessing a resurrection and Paul's acceptance of people saying they witnessed a miracle, then there is little I can offer you.

What I’m doing is taking your methodology for determining authorship of an ancient work, since you seem so very sure Pliny wrote the letter to Tacitus, and applying it to the accounts for the resurrection. What I’m doing is demonstrating that your methodology for arriving at the conclusion that the resurrection "gets not a whisper in history" is seriously flawed.

As for no one thought - who said so? Pliny supplied the best account, obviously. He saw it.

There’s that nasty circular reasoning again.

No - the Vesuvius eruption is well testified.

It is? By who? Tell us who testified to the eruption and then let’s compare it to the evidence for the resurrection using the eruption as a baseline. Who knows, we just might find that the resurrection is “well testified� too using your reasoning.

Archaeologists have done extensive work at Pompeii and Herculaneum.

We would expect there to be archaeological evidence for an eruption. What archaeological evidence would we expect for a resurrection?

History does not give any account of the resurrection.

Arguing by assertion. Start with outlining your methodology for how you know with such certainty Pliny wrote the letter to Tacitus and we’ll apply that methodology to the accounts supporting the resurrection. Here’s your chance to move past merely asserting your argument and actually demonstrate that "history does not give an account of the resurrection."

[marco]

[quote="Goose"]

The central point of your argument is that the Evangelists were worthy historians. It really doesn't matter at all how I reached my conclusions about Pliny's authorship. I can just as easily say he may not have written the account - someone else did. The important point is we have modern evidence that the event took place. Pliny's witnesses are not in the same boat as the witnesses to the alleged resurrection. We have evidence that the witnesses were describing something that happened in the case of the volcano but in the second we just have folk who thought a dead body had risen up.

Your talk of methodology for reaching a conclusion would be fine if it concerned reaching a conclusion about the resurrection, not authorship. I am not questioning that the evangelists wrote this or that. We have some religious people who wanted to spread a story that their master had risen from the dead - there is nothing written about this outside of their religious circle. So the resurrection is not a historical fact -it is a claim made by a small group of people.

You may have moved Pliny, irrelevantly, from his place as the famous recorder of the Vesuvius eruption but unfortunately his removal doesn't remove a dead body from a sepulchre. I sympathise with your task - it is not easy to argue on the side of the absurd, and attempt to make it plausible. I admire the red herrings you used in trying.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 216 by Goose]

Goose,

Simple, straight forward questions.

If you didn't belive your god existed, would you maintain the historical method still demonstrated this resurrection occurred?

If you were atheist, what, if anything, suddenly changes about the explanatory scope of your usual defenses?

If the resurrection as you defend it is the most probable explanation of the data you so often cite, surely the resurrection still ocurred in your hypothetically atheist mind in the absence of a god, yes?

Or is it, as I suspect, predicated on this god's existence, even if you're very careful never to say that?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 216 by Goose]

I observe that a common tactic by those who lack evidence to support their position is to attack the other person's "methodology" or to say "you accept his story so you should accept mine" – while ignoring requests for evidence to support their own position.

The OP question is "Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not? – which has nothing to do with methodology or Vesuvius eruption accounts.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, there IS independent evidence of the eruption and NO independent (or any other) evidence that the claimed resurrection occurred.

Additionally: Knowledge of the eruption is NOT dependent upon and cited account. "Knowledge" of the resurrection is TOTALLY dependent upon the cited accounts.

Let's address the OP question Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?