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?

[Claire Evans]

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.

I can imagine it readily. Livy happily described in his "Puero dormienti..." account of Servius Tullius the miracle of the sleeping boy's encirclement with fire. Yes, the Romans did think the Jesus tale was a mischievous superstition but you seem to quote the notable historian Tacitus as supporting what you believe. He didn't.

Tacitus was an historian who did not report on hearsay. The Romans would not have mentioned the resurrection if it had not had an impact on the Roman Empire. That is why the Romans were silent until Christianity became a threat.

The Romans didn't care about Jesus until He started threatening the Roman Empire because of the threat of uprisings.

We have detailed histories of Rome's enemies - wonderful accounts of the hated Hannibal so Roman writers did not suppress stories about those who threatened them. It is impossible to back up the statement you've made, other than through supposition.

No, the Romans didn't suppress accounts of enemies. That is why people like Tacitus mentioned Christianity as a threat. When Jesus was alive, He wasn't an enemy of Rome. Yes, He threatened instability but that was not enough to be an enemy.

Why should they have believed stories of Lazarus rising from the dead? Would you unless you saw it for yourself?

You miss my point. If corpse did walk, people would talk. It's nothing to do with believing or not believing. Do you think that a stinking dead body, revivified, and wandering around would simply be a wonder for a few hours? It did not happen - that is the most reasonable explanation. And the sane one.

Yes, but Lazarus wasn't a figure known to the Romans.

"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."

The razing of Jerusalem would not have meant Rome destroyed her own records. By being mentioned we mean it came into general circulation, and like other events of the time, would have been reported. 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. To most folk that means no god and no resurrection.

The eruption of Vesuvius was witnessed by the writer and could be verified. Have you ever wondered that maybe the Romans wanted to suppress any references to Jesus writing from the dead? After all, they mustn't encourage the spread of Christianity.

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.

Well that's a point of view, I suppose. The carpet would have to have been pretty big.

Yes, that carpet sure wasn't good enough.

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.

I don't know who made the arrangement. It's not important. I was talking about the soldiers not performing the customary speeding up of death by breaking the legs. You are drawing conclusions from your assumptions as to what exactly happened in the scourging.

Jesus was motionless on the cross. They weren't trying to speed up death but to make sure He was dead.

No amount of medicines could have saved Jesus.

I am happy to accept your medical opinion on this.

This is true. The Romans would not have allowed any chance of survival.

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.

My scenario couldn't have been used in 1st century AD because I was born much later. And you think my scenario is far-fetched but a god nailed to a cross, getting buried, folding up his clothes neatly and walking out of the tomb is pretty run-of-the mill? Faith can certainly move mountains and lift corpses from tombs.

Your scenario would have been thought of back then. Is not silence a strong suspicion that the resurrection did happen especially since this is what the Jews and Romans did not want to come to light because of a body disappearing. If I can easily refute what you say, I'd refute it immediately. If I am silent, it means I cannot refute you.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 199 by Claire Evans]

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir...

How could anyone from Jesus's following have reported on this conversation between the priests and Pilate? It's extremely suspicious that this conversation is there at all.

Joseph of Arimathea could have heard that. He was a member of the Sanhedrin.

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.

Which is why Pilate executed him under his own authority as a Roman governor, for threatening him...wait, no, that's not what happened, is it? As I said before, Pilate found Jesus innocent.

It was an indirect threat. Jesus Himself wasn't a problem to Pilate but he was afraid that if he didn't give into those who wanted Jesus, there would be an uprising.

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.

You have no evidence that the Pharisees in particular saw Jesus after his death. You suppose that the fact they didn't produce his body means that they did see him. Except this is you jumpting to conclusions. It is far more likely that Jesus's followers were the ones to steal the body. Since you raise the possibility of the guards being suborned in some way, so too do I. I hypothesize that Jesus's followers bribed the guards (a possibility), and made off with the body.
This follows Occam's Razor, since my explanation doesn't depend on the supernatural being true. Your explanation does.

If they had not seen Him, they'd would have heard about it and have produced the body so that everyone could shut up. So why didn't they? They very much anticipated claims of Jesus' resurrection. Those guards would have had a lot of explaining to do if they said the body had been stolen. The punishment was death.
So the guards did not know what to do but they were approached by the Pharisees to say Jesus body was stolen and they would have his back. They would somehow get him out of trouble. No Roman soldier would dare to allow the theft of the body.

Did Joseph Smith threaten power empires?

Why is this a requirement, in your eyes?

In other words, there is no incentive to refute claims of Smith vanishing into heaven. With Jesus, there was.

Did he have enemies that would freak out if he had vanished into heaven in front of people?

I'm not an expert on Mormon history (ask dianad) but I'm pretty sure he did have enemies (he did die in a shootout if I recall correctly)

In the case of Jesus, the Romans tried to make damn sure Jesus' body was stolen. That would have reflected very badly on them. There were great fears of uprisings.

The point I'm making is that throughout history, lots of people and objects have been claimed to be holy or divine, and then later on gone to heaven. Muhammed supposedly flew to heaven on a winged horse. Joseph Smith's golden tablets went back to heaven. I'm suspicious of all these claims, in the same way I'm suspicious if I'm shooting at tin cans and the owner of the stall doesn't allow me to look closely at them. I don't immediately jump to the "well, the body/object isn't here, therefore it MUST be true, that it's in heaven (or whatever the specific claim is)"

Yes, but I don't think it was so important to refute claims of Mohammed and Smith ascending into heaven. In your case, if you had not see the body then obviously you could not refute it. The Romans did see Jesus body and thus would have proof He didn't die if they could produce the body. If one is in a position to refute something, refute it.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus. Jesus must have been important.

What Josephus 'wrote' about Jesus cannot be attributed to him. Most scholars think that what appeared in the Testimonium Flavianum was invented by someone else and attributed to Josephus. We can never know for sure since we have no original manuscripts of that document, only copies of translations.

Since when? I have never heard of this. Can you give me sources?

[marco]

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.

I can imagine it readily. Livy happily described in his "Puero dormienti..." account of Servius Tullius the miracle of the sleeping boy's encirclement with fire. Yes, the Romans did think the Jesus tale was a mischievous superstition but you seem to quote the notable historian Tacitus as supporting what you believe. He didn't.

Tacitus was an historian who did not report on hearsay. The Romans would not have mentioned the resurrection if it had not had an impact on the Roman Empire. That is why the Romans were silent until Christianity became a threat.

Tacitus was a great historian who wrote about his father-in-law, Agricola, the famous general, and in that account we have the speech of the native Briton, Calgacus, into whose mouth Tacitus puts the words: solitudinem faciunt , pacem appellant (they make a desert and call it peace). Eloquent as it is, the speech is hearsay. Suetonius, who gives us The Twelve Caesars, delighted in gossip.

No, the Romans didn't suppress accounts of enemies. That is why people like Tacitus mentioned Christianity as a threat. When Jesus was alive, He wasn't an enemy of Rome. Yes, He threatened instability but that was not enough to be an enemy.

Sorry, Tacitus regarded the ragbag of Christians at Rome as a social nuisance. You've made up this scenario.

Yes, but Lazarus wasn't a figure known to the Romans.

Which is my point. A walking corpse should have been.

Jesus was motionless on the cross. They weren't trying to speed up death but to make sure He was dead. No amount of medicines could have saved Jesus.
The Romans would not have allowed any chance of survival.

You've conjured up a description and a diagnosis of your own. From that you can draw whatever conclusion you want. I suggested to you that the whole thing was a fabrication.

You go on to argue that Rome was silent about Jesus because she feared him. Well, that is a possibility, if he had weapons, ships and armies. Rome ignored him because he was nothing; the Jews went on with their faith, unchanged, because they regarded the claims as rubbish. And they were around to make a judgment. We've painted them all as wicked to rule out their view of Christ's claims.

Christianity has spread not through resurrections of corpses, but through Roman and Spanish steel. Islam has wiped out Christ's eternal message in vast areas, again with steel.

[marco]

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.

You seem to be saying that the Apostles would not have offered their lives for something that was false. Therefore what they believed was true.

I should imagine that you do not subscribe to the truth of Islamic beliefs. Today people offer their lives believing in Allah. Is Allah therefore true?

For people to act fanatically it is sufficient that THEY believe what they are doing is right.

[Goose]

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.

Here’s the bottom line. If the resurrection isn’t impossible, as you seem to be now conceding, then it is at least possible. If the resurrection is possible and the resurrection is the best overall explanation which accounts for the most data and provides the strongest explanatory power outstripping all other explanations then there is no logical reason to reject it. Simply arguing that you personally prefer natural explanations over supernatural ones only reveals a bias towards the supernatural and doesn’t give you the logical grounds to declare the resurrection non historical.

If there were no dead body, there would be no resurrection.

Jesus was dead.

�Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.� - Journal of the American Medical Association

This why the “swoon� hypothesis has been virtually abandoned by modern scholarship.

[polonius]

[Replying to marco]

Marco posted:

>>You seem to be saying that the Apostles would not have offered their lives for something that was false. Therefore what they believed was true. <<

First of all, their martyrdom was not voluntary. Secondly, what they believed was true was not necessarily true. As in the case of suicide bombers!

[Zzyzx]

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.

Here’s the bottom line. If the resurrection isn’t impossible, as you seem to be now conceding, then it is at least possible. If the resurrection is possible and the resurrection is the best overall explanation which accounts for the most data and provides the strongest explanatory power outstripping all other explanations then there is no logical reason to reject it. Simply arguing that you personally prefer natural explanations over supernatural ones only reveals a bias towards the supernatural and doesn’t give you the logical grounds to declare the resurrection non historical.

If there were no dead body, there would be no resurrection.

Jesus was dead.

�Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.� - Journal of the American Medical Association

This why the “swoon� hypothesis has been virtually abandoned by modern scholarship.

[Goose]

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.

You seem to be saying that the Apostles would not have offered their lives for something that was false. Therefore what they believed was true.

I should imagine that you do not subscribe to the truth of Islamic beliefs. Today people offer their lives believing in Allah. Is Allah therefore true?

For people to act fanatically it is sufficient that THEY believe what they are doing is right.

The difference being modern day Islamic terrorists weren't in a position to know the truth about Mohammed. The disciples were about Jesus. People don't generally die for something they know to be lie.

[Zzyzx]

.

Here’s the bottom line. If the resurrection isn’t impossible, as you seem to be now conceding, then it is at least possible.

Of course the "resurrection" is possible – anything is "possible" – as can be claimed by anyone attempting to support an argument.

Is it POSSIBLE that there is another explanation? I am NOT asking about any specific alternative, but asking if an alternative is POSSIBLE.

If the resurrection is possible and the resurrection is the best overall explanation

Notice the word in bold red. "The best overall explanation" has NOT been established. That is an OPINION.

which accounts for the most data and provides the strongest explanatory power outstripping all other explanations then there is no logical reason to reject it.

This is a classic example of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance)

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1.true
2.false
3.unknown between true or false
4.being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Simply arguing that you personally prefer natural explanations over supernatural ones only reveals a bias towards the supernatural and doesn’t give you the logical grounds to declare the resurrection non historical.

Many of us have a bias toward natural / real world explanations. Others may prefer to explain things as "supernatural" – (such as diseases are caused by curses or demons, floods and storms are caused by angry gods, etc). We all have biases, so what?

If there were no dead body, there would be no resurrection.

Jesus was dead.

Was the dead body placed in a tomb? There are unverified tales to that effect. Is there assurance that the tales are true and accurate?

�Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.� - Journal of the American Medical Association

Agreed. Jesus died. People die. So what? What happened after Jesus died? And, how is that known?

This why the “swoon� hypothesis has been virtually abandoned by modern scholarship.

Apologists often like to argue against the "swoon theory" as though that was the only or primary argument against the claims / stories of "resurrection".

This overlooks that there is no assurance what happened to the body.

The argument is that tales of it being placed in a tomb and that the tomb was later found empty are true. It also assumes that the "empty tomb" means that the dead body came back to life and left.

This overlooks or ignores that an empty tomb does NOT indicate that the deceased came back to life and left. That "explanation" is not applied to the thousands of empty tombs which have been found.

Additionally, claims to have seen people after they died are not uncommon – and are not taken seriously.

[Goose]

Perhaps either Goose or WP would like to take a crack at it.

Actually I have cracked your arguments long ago in other threads but you continue posting the same arguments over and over despite them having been so easily demolished. Frankly, your arguments are so easily destroyed it’s barely worth the time to type a response. But since you are asking me demolished them once again, here goes...

So what conclusion can be reached from these facts? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They took the body back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place.

You’ve typed a lot words but this seems to be the crux.

So a disbanded fear filled group of disciples organized a grand conspiracy in the few hours after the crucifixion to take the body of Jesus to Galilee. But the disciples must have then returned to Jerusalem at some point shortly after because they began to preach Jesus was resurrected which of course they would have known to be a lie. They did this despite persecution and the threat of death.

Or perhaps you would argue that someone else had started the rumour Jesus retuned from dead and the disciples picked up the rumour and ran with it. But of course we would expect the disciples, upon hearing the news their master had returned from dead, to go back to the grave site in Galilee just like they did at the tomb when they first heard about the empty tomb and find Jesus still dead in Galilee. Or perhaps there was yet another grand conspiracy at the Galilean grave site to move the body for a second time?

Not only does your explanation come with it’s on set of inherent improbabilities but more importantly it lacks explanatory power and scope. It lack explanatory power because people aren’t usually willing to risk death for something they know to be a lie. This becomes especially acute when we consider the evidence that suggests a key disciple was willing to deny even having an association with Jesus prior to his death. Further, your explanation lacks scope because it doesn’t account for the conversion of the enemy Paul or the skeptic James, brother of Jesus, whereas the resurrection does.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five sources which provide any information concerning the "risen" Jesus: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke (who also write Acts of the Apostles), and John, as well as information taken from Paul's letters. There is also mention in passing of the resurrection in 1 Peter, but no details are given. This is the basis for the claim that Jesus arose from the dead. Not taken from hundreds of eyewitness accounts at all, but from five individuals in accounts written decades after the event in question was supposed to have occurred, taken from five sources which either cannot be accurately identified (Matthew and John) or who very clearly were not personally present to witness what they claim occurred (Mark, Luke, and Paul). What do they claim occurred? A corpse came back to life and flew away. Is that a credible claim? In no way is that a credible claim.

You write all this as though five sources, some of which were eyewitness accounts, is a paltry amount of sources. To have five sources (by the way there were more than five sources) attesting to an event within the lifetime of witnesses is actually a substantial amount of good evidence for an event from antiquity. You and I have been over this error in your logic before. There are many noteworthy events from antiquity which occurred in view of hundreds of witnesses and yet we have fewer eyewitness accounts or early attestation than we do for the resurrection. The eruption of Vesuvius (which we’ve looked at in this thread with Marco), the assassination of Julius Caesar, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD to name but three.