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?

[WinePusher]

Yea.... I still don't think you get it, bud. Unable to be challenged. That's what the word means. Consensus on the existence of Jesus (which I think is likely by the way) is not synonymous with indisputable.

Try reading this source, it should help you understand what the word means:

If you dispute something, you question it, such as disputing your friend's claim that he is the faster runner. You might have a race to determine who's right. But if something is indisputable, it is beyond question or doubt, like if your friend also happens to be an Olympic marathoner and you can barely jog a mile. But pay attention — if someone is calling something indisputable that's really a matter of opinion or taste, it's debatable. Indisputable requires facts.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/indisputable

Get it yet? Evolution and the existence of Jesus are indisputable facts, they are beyond question or doubt. Young earth creationists and some atheists who don't understand biology and history may try to challenge these indisputable facts, but their challenges are meaningless and illogical, as this exchange has demonstrated.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 249 by WinePusher]

Please show the existence of Jesus is beyond question or doubt.

Honestly, that one helped me more than you. But I really am tired. You must be too to accidentally rebut yourself like that.

[WinePusher]

Also having a baby in the morning so send your prayers.

Congratulations, hope everything goes well. And here's the post I wrote a while back addressing your questions:

The historical method doesn't confirm any of the supernatural feats attributed to Jesus, but it does lend support to them. I will grant you that the level of support is very weak, and I do not expect any fair minded person who isn't predisposed to Christianity to accept something like the resurrection. If a Mormon engaged in this type of historical argumentation to try to establish the truth of Joseph Smith and his gold plates or whatever, I would be very skeptical and would probably dismiss their arguments so I understand why nonbelievers dismiss the evidence that Christians offer for the resurrection.

Ultimately, if one is going to believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus it's not going to be because of historical evidence. I really doubt anybody has been converted to Christianity based purely upon the evidence. If one is going to convert to Christianity and accept the miracles of Jesus it's going to be due to a personal, internal change of heart that no one can fully understand other than the person going through it.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=120

[marco]

I understand that on the day of the supposed Resurrection Christ showed himself five times.... to Mary Magdalene, to devout women, to Peter, to two disciples on the way to Emmaus and then to the apostles, without Thomas.

Usually, this would be sufficient to confirm some event. But there are several questions, since the conclusion you wish to take is one involving something impossible. The obvious first thing to do would be to examine the witnesses.

Which is an impossible task since the claimed event is said to have occurred 2000 years ago.

I think we all know that. I was moving through the procedure of examining the evidence. I thought the adverb, usually, would suggest I am aware we're not dealing with a normal process of inquiry.

Did they have a vested interest in saying what they saw?

From reading the biblical accounts, prior to the crucifixion of Jesus the apostles fled and were in hiding due to the fear of persecution from the Romans. Peter himself denied Christ 3 times, so none of the circumstantial evidence indicates that the apostles, least of which Peter, had a vested interest in proclaiming that Christ had risen only 3 days after his death on the cross.

That's acceptable. However, the scenario of Christ's predicting Peter's denial also falls into the category of miracle. Is it correct to base the truth of one miracle on the acceptance of another one?

Next we can look for an explanation other than miracle? Can we find any?

Yes, there are several non-miraculous explanations that are improbable when analyzing the story from a purely historical perspective, but that are more probable when analyzing the story from a purely scientific perspective.

That would be sufficient for me to discard the impossible in favour of the "improbable." However, the improbability depends surely on a person's retrospective construction of what happened. There may be better, less improbable, constructions.

Then we have to go back and ask, if Christ DID appear, presumably in possession of the clothes he was stripped of, was his a dead body resurrected or a body that had never died?

Yes, in the literature this is called the 'swoon hypothesis.' Again, from a purely historical perspective this explanation pales in comparison to the resurrection but from a purely scientific perspective any natural explanation automatically trumps a supernatural explanation.

It is not clear to me why the swoon hypothesis pales against the miraculous one "historically". In our reconstructions we are, I think, being faithful to reported details - but simply giving them a rational explanation. I note in passing that Islam, while accepting Jesus, does not accept the resurrection of a god-made-man.

I thought in offering such concessions in your presentation you were attempting to reculer pour mieux sauter but I don't see you leaping anywhere. I take it then that you accept the Resurrection is NOT a historical fact and you rely entirely on Faith. This is a very honest position to take up; not mine, but one I respect. Go well.

[Goose]

I want you to answer whether or not a presupposition in your god's existence is necessary to defend this resurrection occurred, as the two of you do nearly identically.

No I don't think that presupposition is necessary. If you'd like to concede there was a resurrection we can then go ahead and debate what that casual agent of the resurrection was.

If the historical methodology behind your argument is as strong as you think it is, any reasonable non-theists* should support a resurrection from a purely historical framework, yes?

Yes.

Why isn't that the case?

Who knows? You are asking me speculate as to why people think the way they do. Perhaps it has something to do with the inherent implications of the resurrection being a historical fact. Think about it. If the resurrection is true then Christianity is true and that polyamorous life style Richard Carrier has chosen to embrace is a sin.

And since you know the identity of the authors, please explain who authored each, how you know this, and who ''we'' is that seem to know it.

See my post 232. Actually I gave you this same evidence on page 4 in post 31 of this thread and you virtually ignored it then too.

[Goose]

Usually, this would be sufficient to confirm some event. But there are several questions, since the conclusion you wish to take is one involving something impossible.

This is circular. You are starting with the premise resurrections are impossible. And they are impossible because they are resurrections.

The obvious first thing to do would be to examine the witnesses. Did they have a vested interest in saying what they saw?

Of course they did. John and Luke, for instance, tell us they write their accounts so others will believe and know the real story. It’s no different than other ancient accounts. Do you really think, for instance, Pliny’s account of the eruption is unbiased? Did he have a vested interest? Of course he did. He admired his uncle and wanted his uncle’s name to live forever. What better way to do that than make him the hero in a grand natural disaster.

�It is true that he perished in a catastrophe which destroyed the loveliest regions of the earth, a fate shared by whole cities and their people, and one so memorable that is likely to make his name live for ever:�

In short, bias is present in almost everything from antiquity (indeed it's hard to get away from it even today). If that criterion is enough to discount the accounts for the resurrection then it is enough to discount virtually everything else from history as well.

Next we can look for an explanation other than miracle? Can we find any?

It would be far less circular to simply go with the best explanation. The explanation which powerfully explains the largest set of data. Whether it is a supernatural or natural explanation should be irrelevant if one is truly open minded.

Then we have to go back and ask, if Christ DID appear, presumably in possession of the clothes he was stripped of, was his a dead body resurrected or a body that had never died?

Not sure how this matters.

All the references to the gospel accounts must return to these first principles. This would of course not be necessary were they all witness to a battle, a birth, a star - for there would be no need to question what seemed to be reliable people.

(I) I don't know how reliable the witnesses are but I suppose we can accept they did see someone.
(2) A non-miraculous explanation would arise from delusion. There could also have been someone who impersonated Christ? Is this a better explanation than a walking corpse? How do we explain the occurrence at Fatima over 100 years ago? Did Mary actually appear or were the witnesses somehow all deluded?
(3) I am inclined to believe Christ didn't die on the cross. The donation of a tomb, by Joseph of Arimathea, could have been done to provide a place that was already suited for a body to get out.

There are natural explanations to be taken before we move to the miraculous.

The trouble with your alternate explanations here is they not only lack explanatory power but they lack the ability to explain the same amount of data as the resurrection hypothesis. For instance your preferred “swoon� hypothesis doesn’t explain Paul’s conversion or the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, was a skeptic before the alleged resurrection then a leader in the church after having allegedly seen the risen Jesus. You need additional ad hoc hypotheses to account for each of these facts. The resurrection wins on parsimony alone.

Your swoon theory also lacks explanatory power. Imagine a half dead Jesus in desperate need of medical attention emerging from a tomb. Hardly enough to inspire a fearful group of followers to begin preaching a resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of persecution and threat of possible death.

Let us suppose the events took place last Sunday. Would we so readily reach a conclusion that a corpse walked? We would subject everything and everyone to intensive tests. There were no tests done. People are simply asked to believe in an impossible event because some simple folk say they saw a corpse walking about.

Anachronistic fallacy. Of course there were no tests done. If it happened last Sunday we could go investigate just like the disciples did when they first got the news.

The other ridiculous thing is that the physical being appeared and vanished somewhere. Then came back out again, then went away. Truly magical, but beyond belief.

Are you referring to the ascension? If you are, it’s not relevant.

Remember that a few centuries AFTER your authorities made statements about a resurrected body, the church was burning people for attesting the Earth orbited the sun. Is it reasonable to accept the word of such unsophisticated folk regarding a body rising from the grave?

Genetic fallacy.

Regarding Vesuvius, I said it was patently true it erupted. I didn't mention 79AD.

And I’m asking you how you know the eruption Pliny speaks of occurred? In fact, while we are at, how do you know Pliny the Elder died in the eruption attempting to save people? All you have to go on is a single, anonymous, and very biased account.

You will note that one witness to this event, hearing the accounts of those who were rescuing people, is enough for historians. To accept their testimony does NOT involve believing the impossible. Sense and reason are not overturned by believing Pliny; they are by accepting the Resurrection.

And you’ll note that I’ve provided more than one eyewitness account for the resurrection.

Reason therefore concludes there was NO Resurrection. Hence it is NOT a historical fact.

Your reasoning is circular. Any conclusion reached via fallacious reasoning is suspect.

[Goose]

Wow - so John testifies that what he's saying is true because he knows it to be true...and that's good enough for you, Goose? Are you John? No? Then why use that as evidence?

We use it as evidence because it is evidence. And it's evidence which internally claims to be an eyewitness account. Do you have a coherent argument to make here?

And we're supposed to just take this as gospel (stop snickering you in the back!) truth? Eusebius says that there is no dispute, so therefore there is no dispute and there can be no dispute?

Do you have an actual counter argument you’d like to make here?

What is a spiritual gospel, versus a non-spiritual one? Why should I or anyone else believe that this John was 'inspired by the spirit'? Just because this Clement says so? Remember, this is sorta like those histories of pharaohs. We (historians) believe the mundane, secular things about the pharaohs, but we don't believe the claims of their godhood.

If you made a counter argument here against the evidence of Clement I must be missing it.

You mean claims there. Last I had checked, John was dated to about a hundred years after Jesus.

This is close to an argument. The consensus among scholars is John was written c. 90AD. Even at 100AD it’s stretching the boundaries but still within a time frame where it could have been written by John.

Your two quotes there don't say anything at all about Matthew being an eyewitness, just that he wrote in Hebrew.

Matthew was a disciple.

Of course, the mysterious 500. What do we know about this event, these people? Literally nothing. Paul is the only person who mentions this 500 people thing, and it is mentioned nowhere else. We don't have any writings from anyone else, least of all the 500 people themselves.

Paul tells us he spent time with the disciples (Galatians 1&2).

So let me see if I have it right. A one Papias, as written by a second person, Eusebius, is claimed to have said that a third person, Mark, was an interpreter of Peter.
This is what? Fourth hand 'knowledge'? And in Papias's opinion, Mark made no error? Am I supposed to take Papias's opinion as gospel truth?

What you are supposed to do is refute the points and evidence given. Asking a boat load of questions and making puns expressing your reluctance to accept it as the “gospel truth� doesn’t quite cut it I’m afraid.

Tell us why Papias isn’t sufficient to establish authorship when we have less or worse external evidence for other anonymous secular works where authorship is not disputed.

The stratigraphic and magnetic evidence here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_ ... ic_studies
Notice we cannot do the same with the resurrection. There simply is nothing to measure, nothing at all.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this it’s so ridiculous. Of course we can do stratigraphic testing on an eruption cite. How on earth do you propose we do stratigraphic testing on a resurrection? What kind of archaeological evidence should we even expect for a resurrection?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 254 by Goose]

Anachronistic fallacy. Of course there were no tests done. If it happened last Sunday we could go investigate just like the disciples did when they first got the news.

The investigations we would do here now in 2016 would be far more detailed and rigorous than what the disciples did. Remember, they came from a pre-science society.
So it's not correct to try and paint what investigations they did as being on the same level as what we do today.

[marco]

Usually, this would be sufficient to confirm some event. But there are several questions, since the conclusion you wish to take is one involving something impossible.

This is circular. You are starting with the premise resurrections are impossible. And they are impossible because they are resurrections.

I think you've misunderstood the term circular argument. I didn't dismiss the Resurrection on the basis that it is impossible; I dismissed it because there are OTHER non miraculous explanations. If there had been NO other explanation, then I would accept the miraculous.

I wrote:

Next we can look for an explanation other than miracle? Can we find any

You replied:

It would be far less circular to simply go with the best explanation. The explanation which powerfully explains the largest set of data. Whether it is a supernatural or natural explanation should be irrelevant if one is truly open minded.

Again, because you see the word "miracle" you erroneously think there is circularity. It would be less irritating if you'd simply make your points without attaching supposed descriptions to the text you're commenting on.

So, examining the situation for natural explanations, I wrote:

Then we have to go back and ask, if Christ DID appear, presumably in possession of the clothes he was stripped of, was his a dead body resurrected or a body that had never died?

To which you replied:

" Not sure how this matters."

If there were no dead body, there would be no resurrection.
You wrote:

The trouble with your alternate explanations here is they not only lack explanatory power but they lack the ability to explain the same amount of data as the resurrection hypothesis. For instance your preferred “swoon� hypothesis doesn’t explain Paul’s conversion or the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, was a skeptic before the alleged resurrection then a leader in the church after having allegedly seen the risen Jesus. You need additional ad hoc hypotheses to account for each of these facts. The resurrection wins on parsimony alone.

This is amusing. Of course a miraculous explanation is "more powerful" than a natural one. You tell me later that if I was talking about the Ascension (I wasn't, in fact) then it's irrelevant. But Paul's conversion is relevant. Sauce for the Goose..... You don't need additional "ad hoc" hypotheses -you simply need a larger thesis. You are using the brevity of replies here as a measure of weight for arguments against the Resurrection. It is already tedious to trawl through long replies, without turning them into theses.

As for your anachronistic fallacy - I was making the point that investigative methods open to us today were not available then, so conclusions we could reach would have been denied them. What would pass as a miracle 2000 years ago, might be seen as something else now. That's fairly reasonable - and anachronism doesn't come into it.

Your genetic fallacy - thanks for the didactic reference. I argued that we would not expect people who were still dependent on wrong biblical notions for their science to be the most reliable source when we are trying to establish some scientific truth from them. You argue: they told us so it MUST be true. I argue: they told us the Earth moved round the Sun. We are speaking science here, not morals.

You finish with the reminder:

Any conclusion reached via fallacious reasoning is suspect.

That is very true. But again you are saying this because you've set up a necessary correlation between "miracle" and "circular."

The entire debate is a question of whether we should discard reason in favour of miracle. We've given it a good try but there are many other explanations. They don't have to be perfect - we are not infallible detectives. But if they allow us to believe that the supernatural was not operating, then we discard the miraculous. Your readiness to embrace the "powerful explanation" that a corpse rose up defies reason but not faith. Amen.

[Claire Evans]

[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.

We have to ask ourselves, "Why did the apostles find the courage after Jesus' death to witness for Him to the execute they died for Him?" It's one thing to die for a lie one believes is true as is not. It's quite another to die for the truth when one knows the truth.

Jesus became a true threat to the Roman Empire after His death when Christianity started threatening started to take off. When I say Jesus was a threat when He was alive, Pilate thought that there would be a revolt if he didn't sentence Jesus to death. That would have threatened him.

As for your dragon analogy, do you really believe that this could be compared to a historical figure? In Jesus case, there was an opportunity to refute it but is wasn't used. The Jews anticipated that Jesus would have his body stolen by the disciples. Therefore they were on their guard. Their silence means they failed in their duty.

People would want evidence of your claim of dragons. Likewise with Jesus, they'd want proof that He was alive.