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]

The central point of your argument is that the Evangelists were worthy historians.

Wrong. The central point of my argument is that your methodology is flawed. I thought I made that clear.

It really doesn't matter at all how I reached my conclusions about Pliny's authorship.

Yes it does. And I’ve explained why it matters in context to your claim regarding the historical record supporting the resurrection.

I can just as easily say he may not have written the account - someone else did.

Oh sure you can say that now. But you seemed pretty darn sure Pliny wrote the letter before you backed yourself in the corner of having to probably concede the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

The important point is we have modern evidence that the event took place.

That would be a relevant point if you had originally argued that we have modern evidence for the eruption whereas we do not for the resurrection. But that’s not what you had originally claimed. You originally claimed the resurrection “gets not a whisper� in the historical record.

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.

Wow. More circular reasoning.

Your talk of methodology for reaching a conclusion would be fine if it concerned reaching a conclusion about the resurrection, not authorship.

But we are looking at authorship. You made the claim “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.� If that doesn't directly pertains to authorship then I don't know what does.

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.

That doesn’t make the resurrection non historical. There’s virtually nothing written about the exploits of one of Rome’s greatest generals – Agricola – outside the biased biography of his son-in-law. Using your reasoning everything Agricola did in Britain is non-historical. There goes Agricola’s exploits out the window along with Pliny’s account of the eruption. This just keeps getting worse and worse. Your methodology is need of a serious overhaul.

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.

The astute observer will notice I haven’t moved anything. In fact it is you that appears to have moved from virtual certainty that Pliny wrote the letter to Tacitus and observed the eruption to now arguing Pliny didn’t write the letter to Tacitus. I suspect you’ve now moved there now because you know where this going if you don’t.

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.

Uh, you first introduced the eruption of Vesuvius as some type of argument against the historical record supporting the resurrection. I just used it against your argument to show how ridiculous your methodology really is. So I don’t see how you can cry Red Herring here.

[Zzyzx]

.

The central point of my argument is that your methodology is flawed. I thought I made that clear.

Criticizing someone's methodology regarding a different incident does NOTHING to address the OP question: "Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?"

Instead, it seems to be an attempt to derail the thread -- perhaps to disguise the LACK of evidence to support tales of "resurrection?"

Let's consider whether the "resurrection" actually occurred. Is there any verifiable evidence beyond the tales that make that claim? Any non-biblical accounts even?

A MOST significant event in Christendom (or perhaps in world history) -- and no one seems to have noticed or made mention other than a few promoters decades or generations later. How odd.

[Inigo Montoya]

To add to the above,

The historical methodology employed to make the case for the resurrection disappears the moment this god's existence isn't presupposed.

If the historical method were sufficient on its own, non-Christians would have no trouble coming to the same conclusion a resurrection occurred. But they don't. Peculiar, isn't it? I mean, since the historical method is strong enough, apparently, to make the case without the "god" assumption on its own.

From a purely historical standpoint, since the evidence is so strong, people left and right with no god beliefs should be in agreement on this event having occurred.

[WinePusher]

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.

But your personal observations have NO worth in a debate. You see, anybody can make personal observations. I observe that a common tactic by those who lack debating skills is to just ask questions, rather than arguing and defending a position. Would you like to continue exchanging personal observations or would you like to actually debate the topic?

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

WRONG. In fact, this is DEAD WRONG. Historical events are established using historical methodology, plain and simple. Everybody who has read a high school history book knows this. Will you retract this demonstrably false claim or will you try to defend it?

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

Hard to say. The resurrection has many metaphysical implications that put it outside the realm of history. As a purely historical matter, the resurrection is the best explanation for many of the anomalies historians. As a scientific/philosophical matter the resurrection is the least likely explanation due to the fact that science tells us dead people can't come back to life.

Oh, and btw if you want to reply to my post please try posting actual arguments. I'm not going to respond to an endless series of questions. I'm not here to answer questions that can be easily answered by reading a high school history book, I'm here to debate using arguments.

[Inigo Montoya]

WP, same questions to you I asked Goose above, if you please. In the second to last post of mine, that is.

[WinePusher]

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

Huh, didn't know that.

Doesn't surprise me.

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).

This is only a problem in the minds of people who are unfamiliar with how history works. What you need to understand is that historical documents and historical evidence is scant, and that historians and archaeologists are lucky if even only ONE parchment or manuscript survives. The volcano that destroyed pompeii was recorded only by ONE source, that being Pliny the younger. But as you already admitted, you didn't know this.

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.

Again, this is only a problem in the minds of people who are unfamiliar with how history works. Did you know that everything we know about Alexander the Great comes to us from documents written centuries later? Centuries are longer than decades. So the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events is actually a fact that strengthens their authenticity.

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.

It doesn't matter what you're worried about. This is how comparative historical research works. If we want to determine whether the resurrection is a historical fact, one way to do so is to take other events that occurred around that same time period (a volcanic eruption in the first century) compare the two events using the same methodology. The only thing that may impede this process is the fact that the resurrection violates the laws of nature and a volcanic eruption doesn't.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 225 by WinePusher]

So the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events is actually a fact that strengthens their authenticity.

No, it doesn't, in my opinion. In a comparative sense, maybe, but not in an absolute sense. Remember, the resurrection is claimed by believers to be the single most important event in the history of the universe - Vesuvius erupting isn't. If it turns out Vesuvius never erupted at all, nothing changes in my life. However, if the resurrection did happen, against everything that I know and understand about reality? Then things do change in my life.
If I write a newspaper article about the assassination of JFK today, and unknown to you, I write it purely from memory, does that mean that I have a strong article?
Last I checked, just comparing the Gospels to Pliny doesn't reveal who the Gospel authors were (if that has happened, can you show it?). Nor does comparing to Pliny show that there is corroborative evidence outside the Gospels for the events discussed in them.

This is only a problem in the minds of people who are unfamiliar with how history works.

I'm an amateur history buff, I think I understand how history works, thank you very much.

Did you know that everything we know about Alexander the Great comes to us from documents written centuries later?

Yes, and I'm prepared to change my belief on whether or not he existed, if it turns out that him not existing somehow changes things in the real world. Anyway, the case for Alexander's existence is too strong to refute - there's the fact that there's evidence showing a rapid expansion of Macedonian and Greek culture in a short time during Alex's conquests, etc.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

But your personal observations are has NO worth in a debate. You see, anybody can make personal observations. I observe that a common tactic by those who lack debating skills is to just ask questions, rather than arguing and defending a position.

Remarkable. Mention "no worth" then do exactly the same.

Would you like to continue exchanging personal observations or would you like to actually debate the topic?

Any time you (generic term) feel froggy

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

WRONG. In fact, this is DEAD WRONG. Historical events are established using historical methodology, plain and simple. Everybody who has read a high school history book knows this. Will you retract this demonstrably false claim or will you try to defend it?

CORRECTION: Whether the "resurrection" occurred or not is INDEPENDENT of methodology.

Historical methodologies are simply the means by which historians attempt to learn about past events. Typically this involves consulting a wide variety of sources AND archeological evidence. http://www.beyondintractability.org/ess ... ical-facts

Those who maintain that historical methodology is used to determine that the "resurrection" occurred are welcome to provide 1) accounts from a wide variety of sources, and 2) archeological evidence.

Lacking both, the tale is supported ONLY by a single anthology of writings by promoters of the theme.

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

Hard to say.

Exactly.

Since it is "hard to say" whether the "resurrection" occurred or not, one cannot legitimately claim that it DID occur.

However, that event is fundamental to Christianity. As Paul/Saul said: 1 Corinthians 15:16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Of course, Paul/Saul did not have the inconvenience of dealing with what is now current biological / medical information – and religionists for many centuries had few opposition voices compared to present times.

The resurrection has many metaphysical implications that put it outside the realm of history.

Exactly. ". . . put it outside the realm of history" – thus, NOT a historical fact (regardless of one's claimed methodology).

Metaphysical implications are not regarded as historical facts.

As a purely historical matter, the resurrection is the best explanation for many of the anomalies historians.

That appears to be an opinion stated as though it was a fact.

Many tombs are found to be empty – without claims that the deceased came back to life, left the area and later flew away. Some people, however, propose that as the "best explanation" for the TALE about an empty tomb.

As a scientific/philosophical matter the resurrection is the least likely explanation due to the fact that science tells us dead people can't come back to life.

Yes, science tells us that dead people do not come back to life. However, many religionists maintain that such thing did occur "once upon a time in a land far away". Perhaps we should ignore what is known through modern science and accept religious folklore, myth, legends, fabrications (or whatever).

Oh, and btw if you want to reply to my post please try posting actual arguments. I'm not going to respond to an endless series of questions.

Feel free to respond or not respond as you choose or feel capable or inclined.

I am quite well aware that questions that cannot be answered openly and honestly without admitting flaws in one's position are irritating. However, they are useful to demonstrate failure of arguments presented by those who claim knowledge that they cannot support. It must be frustrating to be unable to answer basic questions about one's professed beliefs and the literature upon which they are based.

I'm not here to answer questions that can be easily answered by reading a high school history book,

Kindly identify high school history books than provide truthful and accurate information about the "resurrection".

I'm here to debate using arguments.

Okay. Present arguments that address the OP question: Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not? If you think that the answer is affirmative, present the arguments and cite the evidence.

[WinePusher]

So the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events is actually a fact that strengthens their authenticity.

No, it doesn't, in my opinion. In a comparative sense, maybe, but not in an absolute sense.

When it comes to evaluating the authenticity of ancient historical documents, having been written only decades after the event doesn't in any way, shape or form diminish the documents authenticity. You may disagree, but then that puts you at odds with every single historian who accepts the biographies of Alexander the Great which were written centuries after the events.

Remember, the resurrection is claimed by believers to be the single most important event in the history of the universe - Vesuvius erupting isn't. If it turns out Vesuvius never erupted at all, nothing changes in my life. However, if the resurrection did happen, against everything that I know and understand about reality? Then things do change in my life.

You do realize that this is a giant non sequitor, right? The fact that the resurrection of Jesus is the most important event in history for Christians has NO relevance to whether or not it actually happened.

If I write a newspaper article about the assassination of JFK today, and unknown to you, I write it purely from memory, does that mean that I have a strong article?

That depends on several things. Are you writing based off of memories from what you saw on the news? Are you writing as a first hand eye witness who was actually present as JFK drove down the street? What is the purpose of your article? To convince JFK truthers that JFK was actually assassinated? You will have to be more specific.

And remember, as I said historians are often lucky if they find only ONE surviving manuscript. This is why it's difficult to establish events from 2000 years ago, because most of the evidence has not survived throughout the ages, especially since back then video tapes and audio books did not exist. So if 2000 years from now someone finds your article about the assassination of JFK and your article is the ONLY piece of evidence to have survived then they would have to take it seriously.

Last I checked, just comparing the Gospels to Pliny doesn't reveal who the Gospel authors were (if that has happened, can you show it?). Nor does comparing to Pliny show that there is corroborative evidence outside the Gospels for the events discussed in them.

The exact identity of the Gospel writers is disputable. However, the identity of the Gospel writers is not a relevant factor when determining which events described in the Gospels actually happened. The baptism of Jesus has been established with a high degree of certainty, even though the authors of the synoptic Gospels haven't been established.

This is only a problem in the minds of people who are unfamiliar with how history works.

I'm an amateur history buff, I think I understand how history works, thank you very much.

The fact that the Gospels were written decades after the events they describe is NOT a strike against their authenticity. To believe such a demonstrably false idea puts you at odds with historians.

Did you know that everything we know about Alexander the Great comes to us from documents written centuries later?

Yes, and I'm prepared to change my belief on whether or not he existed, if it turns out that him not existing somehow changes things in the real world.

So in other words, what you believe about history depends on how your life is impacted. You can believe whatever you want, but just know that this isn't how history works. Whether or not your life or my life is impacted by a historical event as no relevance to whether the event actually happened.

Anyway, the case for Alexander's existence is too strong to refute - there's the fact that there's evidence showing a rapid expansion of Macedonian and Greek culture in a short time during Alex's conquests, etc.

Well now you're delving off into an entirely different issue. We aren't talking about the existence of Alexander the Great, nor are we talking about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is indisputable, although some try to post intellectually weak arguments against his existence just as creationists post intellectually weak arguments against evolutionary theory. I will grant that the resurrection is, on the other hand, far from being established.

[marco]

The central point of your argument is that the Evangelists were worthy historians.

Wrong. The central point of my argument is that your methodology is flawed. I thought I made that clear.

Instead of "wrong" you mean you disagree.
It is irrelevant how I make decisions about Pliny's account of an event I KNOW happened BECAUSE the event still happened regardless of who wrote about it. You have chosen to work the entire argument around that detail. You are comparing authorial integrity, Pliny with evangelist. I've never questioned evangelical authorship. That's not the issue. You are barking up the wrong tree.

The astute observer will notice I haven’t moved anything. In fact it is you that appears to have moved from virtual certainty that Pliny wrote the letter to Tacitus and observed the eruption to now arguing Pliny didn’t write the letter to Tacitus. I suspect you’ve now moved there now because you know where this going if you don’t.

You know perfectly well that isn't the case. I conceded that Pliny may not have been the author for the sake of argument, since it doesn't matter. I AM still virtually certain Pliny wrote the letter. Your suspicion, like your line of debate, is wrong.

You first introduced the eruption of Vesuvius as some type of argument against the historical record supporting the resurrection. I just used it against your argument to show how ridiculous your methodology really is. So I don’t see how you can cry Red Herring here.

The astute observer whom you called on earlier will see that you haven't in all this argumentation over my individual approach to accepting a piece of history advanced one sentence in defence of the proposition we are debating. You required me to say why I believe in Pliny. You have not shown how any reply to this can relate to the FACT of a resurrection.

A better question would be: Why do you so willingly accept the account of the Eruption of Vesuvius yet fail to accept accounts of the Resurrection? That is solidly in the question area. And the answer - as you well know - is simple. One actually happened, the other is incredibly unlikely to have happened if we use human reasoning. You will say that some people at the time thought that Christ rose; others thought that he did no such thing. Where is the fact?

Can you drop the smoke screen and address the proper question now? You may persuade the astute observer.

. Opinion is not fact.