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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 336 by dio9]

I am telling you I fought with a real life, honest-to-God fire breathing dragon last week. This is me telling you something.
Is that believable? Do you believe that I fought a dragon last week? Is what I said credible? Is it evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 324 by rikuoamero]

What else is evidence but believing what we have been told? What you seem to be saying is Paul is lying.

We have no way to determine if Paul/Saul was truthful and accurate in claiming that 500 people saw Jesus after he died. He may have been truthful and accurate OR he may have been mistaken, exaggerating, fabricating, imagining, hallucinating, delusional, etc. The supposed witnesses (if they existed and claimed to have witnessed) may have been mistaken (or worse). We just don't know.

One can truthfully report that hundreds of people have reported seeing Elvis. Does that mean he came back from the dead?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 330 by Danmark]

Many are named by Paul and the Gospel writers. Off hand I can say at least 15 are named there. There are also many apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels we can check out.
Isn't question of this thread is what is real ? Was the resurrection real? I contend spiritual experiences are real , life effecting and life changing. Spiritual experiences have an effect as in a cause and effect relationship, with spiritual being the cause. I can't deny spiritual experiences are real.

Really? I could've sworn the 500 people event was a one off event that Paul was described, where Jesus appeared to a crowd of 500 people all at once.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Where else is this crowd of 500 talked about or mentioned? If you can identify at least some of these people, why have you not already done so?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 336 by dio9]

I am telling you I fought with a real life, honest-to-God fire breathing dragon last week. This is me telling you something.
Is that believable? Do you believe that I fought a dragon last week? Is what I said credible? Is it evidence?

Not only that, but 500 people watched you battle that dragon.
I've got their names right here. Trust me.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The evidence is this, over five hundred people reported meeting the resurrected body of Jesus. Admittedly these people knew and loved Jesus , but this does not diminish the fact that these people and more through the ages have had a real conscious emotional spiritual experience with Christ. As , I believe it was Origin , in res[ponse to Celcus wrote "so real they were willing to die for it"'

"The evidence is this," ONE PERSON, Paul, reported the 500. That's one report, not 500. The 500 reported nothing at all. Was it at least something that Paul had personal knowledge of? NO! Paul was not converted until some years after Jesus was executed, and was not personally present for ANY of the events detailed by the Gospels, including resurrection sightings. Where did Paul come up with this story? Only Paul knows, and he's not talking.

[Danmark]

The evidence is this, over five hundred people reported meeting the resurrected body of Jesus. Admittedly these people knew and loved Jesus , but this does not diminish the fact that these people and more through the ages have had a real conscious emotional spiritual experience with Christ. As , I believe it was Origin , in res[ponse to Celcus wrote "so real they were willing to die for it"'

"The evidence is this," ONE PERSON, Paul, reported the 500. That's one report, not 500. The 500 reported nothing at all. Was it at least something that Paul had personal knowledge of? NO! Paul was not converted until some years after Jesus was executed, and was not personally present for ANY of the events detailed by the Gospels, including resurrection sightings. Where did Paul come up with this story? Only Paul knows, and he's not talking.

[emphasis added]
This is a very important point and it gives us insight into other hearsay claims by "Paul" and other writers. They are merely repeating rumor and gossip. As you point out, this is an example of where we KNOW Paul did not see something he claimed. If he had seen it himself, one would think he would have converted then, not after 3 days without food and drink after his sunstroke/seizure/delerium.

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

In my reading Paul clearly writes ; he was the last of the 500 Christ appeared to , Same Christ. Paul's experience with the resurrected Christ is clearly spiritual, an experience really effecting Paul spiritually intellectually emotionally and physically. IT wa a life changing meeting. Similar to the call of the first disciples. How much more real can it get? Are not thoughts and emotions real?

RESPONSE:

Are you talking about a real historical event or a "vision" or hallucination. For exampe, there are a lot of reports of people who chaim they saw Elvis after his death.

Have any of these been shown to have actually happened?

Do you think it wise to base a belief system on a person's "vision" ?

Did any other person report a vision like Paul's or were these only Paul's claims?

[Ancient of Years]

[Prior posts edited down to size again]

The criminal conspiracy later known as Watergate began in January 1972 and lasted until the resignation of President Nixon in August 1974. Despite intensive investigation by Congress, the Justice Department and the media from mid-1972 on, only three of the (69!) conspirators (Charles Colson, John Dean and Jeb Magruder) admitted guilt. Dean and Magruder were indicted but cooperated with prosecutors in exchange for lenient sentences. Colson was also indicted but ‘copped a plea’ to a lesser charge. The comment by Charles Colson about 12 people not able to keep a secret for three weeks is simply not the case. (Reference)

I take what you say. I'm not really interested in that case. However, the point is that there there were confessions and cooperation because of the desire to have lesser sentences. There were no confessions from the apostles that they were lying even when they were going to be executed.

The Gospel resurrection stories are widely divergent. All they agree on is that the tomb was found empty and someone at the tomb says that Jesus rose from the dead. If this is all that the Apostles were aware of, they would have been happy to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, thereby defeating the Romans after all.

There is no reliable account of any of the alleged witnesses of a risen Jesus being “beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison� for refusing to deny the resurrection of Jesus. Tradition has it that Peter and Paul each went to Rome just in time to get caught up in the Neronian persecutions. According to Tacitus, everyone in Rome who was even accused of being a Christian was killed rather nastily. No one was given a chance to ‘renounce their faith’. We are not even sure what the original followers of Jesus believed about the resurrection. Paul preached it. But Paul also said that there were others preaching different gospels than the one that Jesus personally gave him in a vision. At one point he mentions Peter’s name in this context. At another point he mentions people coming from Jerusalem with different teachings. Paul does not explain what the differences were, just says that they existed.

This is what Tacitus wrote in his Annals Book 15: 44

"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

Because of the persistent rumors that he was responsible for the fire, Nero wanted to shift blame to the Christians (the already hated ‘usual suspects’). Now what exactly was meant by “all who pleaded guilty�? Did some Christians go to the local police station and say “hey, we started the fire, arrest us�? Not likely. More likely that the ‘guilty’ were some people well known to be Christians and therefore officially guilty of starting the fire as per the mandate of Nero. They then proceeded to accuse many other people of being Christians (under torture?), all of whom were executed in particularly nasty ways. Denying the resurrection would have no effect. They were Christians, in reality or merely by accusation, and therefore guilty of starting the fire.

I think the variations of the gospels was not that there were some who didn't believe in the resurrection. The Jews who converted tended to believe Jesus exclusively came for the Jews. Paul preached that Jesus came for both the gentiles and the Jews.

The variations in the Gospels concerning the resurrection are not due to any disbelief in the resurrection. They are due to the divergent agendas of the several Gospel writers, most especially Matthew and Luke, whose post-resurrection narratives are diametrically opposed, exactly in accordance with the agendas exhibited throughout their Gospels.

Another is that the early Christians still hung onto Jewish beliefs:

"Almost all early Christians known to us believed that their ultimate hope was the resurrection of the body. There is no spectrum such as in Judaism. Some in Corinth denied the future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15.12), but Paul put them straight; they were most likely reverting to pagan views, not opting for an over-realized Jewish eschatology. Two named individuals in 2 Timothy 2.18 say the resurrection has already happened, but they stand out by their oddity, and they too bear witness to the fact that mainstream early Christianity did indeed hope for resurrection, even if by the end of the first generation some were using that language in a new way, to refer simply to a new present identity or spiritual experience — marking the road to the gnostic views of, for instance, the Epistle to Rheginos."

So it was not a case of some not believing the resurrection. The contention was what it meant for Christians regarding their resurrection.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

Consider what Paul says.

1 Corinthians 15
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

If they were revert to pagan views why would they be part of the Christian community in Corinth that Paul is addressing. Paul does not say “there are those who say�. He says “some of you say�. Jesus had thousands of followers before he died. Those people had no notion of Jesus dying and being resurrected and what it would mean. There could very well have been a Jesus movement that did not involve any resurrection.

Jewish beliefs of that time covered a wide spectrum, including that the wicked went to Sheol and the righteous went to God immediately upon death. Consider Luke’s story of Lazarus and the rich man. Other variations were that the especially righteous went to God, the especially wicked went to Sheol but would not be resurrected as all the ‘in betweens’ would be at the end of days. Reference

But to explain the unexpected death of Jesus, Paul needed the resurrection as proof of the death being an intentional sacrifice by someone more than an ordinary man. This then allowed connecting to the future resurrection story variants as an imminent reward to have faith in. Paul seems to believe in resurrection only of the righteous, one of the variants, or at least that is all he mentions. By contrast Matthew is fanatical about punishment of the unrighteous.

Matthew tells a very different story from the other Gospels. He has guards on the tomb, an earthquake, an angel dramatically descending from heaven and rolling back the stone, dead people coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem, all of which no one else mentions. It sounds very much like Matthew was disappointed in Mark’s bare bones (and very suspicious sounding) account of the resurrection and decided a much more ‘inspiring’ story was needed.

Some other points about Matthew’s story…

As in all of the Gospels, no one sees the actual resurrection event itself. Matthew’s angel rolls back the stone revealing … an already empty tomb. Despite the many differences in the several Gospel accounts this point was apparently already such a solid tradition none of the authors were willing to change it.

No, because the resurrection happened when Jesus was in the tomb. Nobody could have been in the tomb with Him. It doesn't matter that they found an empty tomb. They saw Him.

Rather than prove to numerous eyewitnesses, including non-believers, that he really rose from the dead by having him come out the tomb alive, Jesus teleports out of the tomb before it is opened. He then appears to various people, all of whom are already Jesus followers. Why should such a suspicious sounding story have been arranged? And why should the various Gospel writers present such very different stories about who went where and did what?

The tombs of many holy people break open and they are raised to life when Jesus dies. But they do not come out of their graves until Jesus is resurrected. Perhaps Matthew was trying to make the death of Jesus more dramatic than Mark’s version, then remembered that Jesus had to be the first one resurrected to be the first fruits Paul talks about. No word processor redos in those days.

I truly believe that the story of the tombs of holy people breaking open and them rising from the dead is fictitious. It is actually more likely that this evolved from something else that happens during rather large earthquakes. Sometimes it is so powerful, that they can actually unearth people buried.

To me it is Matthew making dramatic elaborations on Mark’s minimalist and rather suspicious sounding story. Like the earthquake, the angel descending and scaring the guards and the whole guard story for that matter. The other Gospel writers know nothing of these. More on that below.

The guards Matthew has at the tomb are not Roman soldiers but Temple guards.

Matthew 27

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,� they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.�

65 “Take a guard,� Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.� 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Pilate tells the chief priests and the Pharisees to take a guard. If the guards were Roman soldiers Pilate would have issued the order down the chain of command. Roman soldiers would not leave their current posts and go somewhere because Jews told do something. They would need orders from their superior officer. But it is the priests and Pharisees who post the guard.

Matthew 28

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

Roman soldiers would report to their superiors, not the chief priests. And there is no way Roman soldiers would ever agree to a story that they were sleeping on guard duty. Serious trouble, that! The governor would definitely NOT be satisfied with that story. And if it got noticed that they were buying their buddies more drinks than usual, it would be suspected that they took bribes to look the other way while the body was taken.

And recall that the ones who arrested Jesus were “sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people� (Mt 26:47). The Temple had guards that the priests could trust to follow their orders.

Of course this all assumes that the body was actually in the tomb on the morning following Preparation Day when the priests and Pharisees went to see Pilate.

There were Jewish guards, yes, but I believe there were Roman ones, too.


" ...behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day (Matthew 28:11-15).

What would it be to the governor if Jesus' body was stolen unless a Roman guard was used? Why would the guard be in serious trouble if it was a Jewish guard? Why would the elders have to justify the empty tomb to the governor? It would be the Roman soldiers that would have gotten into trouble. Maybe punishable by death.

Roman soldiers did report to their superiors but the Jews were offering these guards a way out if they went along with them. They were in it together. The only way the soldier could have gotten out of trouble was to say to the governor that Jesus really did rise from the dead and suggest they look for Him as proof. The elders would not have liked that so they bribed him.

It is the resurrection story that the priests did not want the governor to hear about without a counter story ready at hand. If the governor were to be told that the body was stolen under the noses of sleeping Roman soldiers he would have gone ballistic. For Jewish guards to tell the Roman governor they fell asleep and the body was stolen would have been merely embarrassing, and therefore a credible alternative to a resurrection story. For Roman soldiers to admit sleeping on guard duty would have been suicidal.

And of course all of that assumes that Matthew’s unique story, about which no one else knows anything, was not just invented to deal with (a) Mark’s problematic minimalist version and (b) the story going around that the body was simply stolen.

The other gospels mention angels.

Mark 16:4-5—

But when they [the women] looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Angels took the form of men.

Mark’s young man and Luke’s two men merely say that Jesus rose from the dead and went somewhere. John’s two angels say nothing. Only Matthew has an angel of dramatic appearance make a dramatic entrance and do something dramatic – roll back the stone.

Here is an explanation why Mark doesn't mention guards:

"D. Why would the other Gospels omit the Guards?

The question then arises, why did Mark, Luke and John no mention the guards? First, the assumption that because Mark was written first his information is older than Matthew's information, or is the same as Matt's is a false assumption. Matt. uses another source in creation small sayings that is neither form Mark nor used by Luke. This source is called M. So M could be older material than that found in Mark, so just because Matthew was written latter than Mark, it does not necessarily follow that his information is not older. M could contain a different tradition which Mark and Luke and John just chose not to use.

So why would they not mention the guards? Probably because the Jews had stopped making the argument because it didn't fly; the movement had grown and survived anyway. But the Matthew community, or Matthew School as some scholars have it, may have been confronted with a resurgence of that Jewish argument, or it may just be as simple as wanting to include all of the facts."

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrec ... s_res.html

The same argument can be used for your other points.

Matthew and Luke share some material found in Mark. Matthew has much material not found in Mark or Luke. Luke has much material not found in Mark or Matthew. Matthew and Luke share much material not found in Mark. Luke omits considerable material found in both Mark and Matthew. (The Great Omission) Luke has material found in Matthew but radically rearranged. Luke has considerable material that is the exact opposite of material in Matthew but that no one else has. (Genealogies, Nativities, Sermons, Galilee/Jerusalem dichotomy, post-resurrection narratives)

Trying to come up with a set of sources to explain all of the above – sources that no one can find or even find ancient mentions of – is simply not a credible undertaking. A far simpler explanation is:

• Mark wrote using old traditions and Pauline influences for the purpose or reassuring the Christian community that the end of days is coming soon after all, despite the passage of time.
  
  Matthew used Mark, Jewish scriptures and his own imagination to write an expanded Gospel for the purpose of guarding his Jewish Christian community from the new rabbinic Judaism, the competition for the heir to historic Judaism in the post-temple world. The Markan end of days theme is retained, but with disclaimers.
  
  Luke used Mark, Matthew and his own imagination to write a Gospel for his Gentile Christian audience reversing various themes of Matthew that made Christianity sound almost exclusively Jewish and suggested possible connection with the horrible Jewish War. The Markan end of days theme is still retained, but with even more disclaimers.
  
  John used material from the existing Gospels and his own imagination to redirect the story from an imminent end of days, no longer credible at such a late date, into theological territory to support an ongoing church.

All the overlaps, gaps and discrepancies are resolved with no need for missing mystery sources. All the thematic differences are explained. Reasons are even provided for why each of the Gospels was written in the first place.

Mark has the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee. Although he does not explicitly say it, presumably he means that they do so. Matthew has them be told to go to Galilee and reports that they do. Luke of course has them told to stay in Jerusalem and they do. John has it both ways. They see Jesus in Jerusalem then run into him again while fishing in Galilee. But the Galilee incident appears in John 21, which appears to be a lete add on by a different author. Chapter 20 sounds very much like an ending and Chapter 21 refers to the author of the gospel in the third person. It also seems to refer obliquely to his death.

John seems to be the most accurate.

In the case of John 21, just because there is an add on in verse 24 and verse 25, does not mean the author of the Galilee account is the the same person who wrote verse 24 and verse 25. It was probably someone's commentary on the gospel done later.

In what way is John the most accurate? What standard would you use to determine that? And does not the story in John 21 about going fishing in Galilee and running into the resurrected Jesus sound a bit strange? How does that fit into the other post-resurrection stories?

I see the entirety of Chapter 21 as a later add-on. The final verses of John 20 sound like a good ending.

John 20
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The odd fishing story in John 21 sounds like it could be an attempt to link to Matthew’s Galilee-centric post-resurrection narrative. John 20 is Jerusalem-centric like Luke, if not so emphatic. The meeting with Jesus in John 21 also serves as a platform for the reversal of the ‘not taste death’ theme found in the Synoptic Gospels. John has implicitly abandoned the imminent end of days theme and now it is explicitly rejected.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

[Replying to Goose]

I’m not operating under the assumption the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I’m operating under the paradigm the Bible is a fallible collection of writings comprising poetry, ancient biography, letters, and so on no different than any other historical source. What paradigm are you operating under because you seem to be flip flopping back and forth as it suites your argument.

You acknowledge that the Bible is not inerrant. That's very liberal of you. Because it's human nature to peddle tall tales, mythologize, fabricate, spread rumors, be
mistaken or duped, or just plain lie. People do that quite commonly, and it's undeniable that people do that quite commonly. And of course being a sophisticated fully grown adult yourself, a well informed product of the 21st century, you are naturally aware of that fact. Unless of course someone happens to claim to have been told personally by the apostle Peter that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. Because who could possibly have been lied to or duped into making such a claim? And at that point all bets are off. Because that of course is hard undeniable evidence which cannot be questioned, and for you all possible rational skepticism is toast.

I work under the paradigm that things which walk, talk, quack and resemble the very essence of total nonsense in every way, are very likely to be total nonsense in every way. Especially when the "facts" and claims attested to by those who propose the truth of such apparent nonsense invariably dissipate like so much dust in the wind upon further review of them. Run a check on your "facts" sometime just to see how many of them actually prove to be undeniably true. If you do it honestly you might just discover that you are standing there pretty nearly empty handed. Would that prove anything to you? It might if you allowed it to. But ultimately it won't, because you don't want it to.

The story of the empty tomb and the subsequent spreading of the story of the resurrected carpenter can be explained very easily as the perfectly natural result of the actions of human beings. Even with the information at hand, and even though that information itself was intended to be convincing of an entirely different and thoroughly unbelievable and insupportable explanation. But if we are being honest, we know that thoroughly unbelievable and insupportable explanations are not preferable to perfectly natural explanations when such natural explanations are apparent. Even though, admittedly, natural explanations by their very nature often prove to be far more mundane and far less exciting and dramatic then the insupportable explanations. But that's life I am afraid.

In any case, you don’t seem to have a coherent rebuttal to the fact that Luke gives a chronology of events that doesn’t allow your argument to work. Or the alternative where Luke got the chronology wrong but then we have no reason to think he got the three days without water right. All you seem to be able to muster is the Red Herring of an inerrancy debate. I think we’re done here.

I didn't rebutt it because I acknowledged it. Two arrests and one beating over the course of a dozen or more years. Otherwise the apostles traveled about freely preaching. I have pointed it out repeatedly. Christians invariably declare that the apostles underwent viscous persecution and martyrdom for proclaiming the risen Jesus. But what it actually comes down to is two arrests and one beating over the course of a dozen years or more. When one of the apostles WAS eventually "martyred," beheaded by Herod Agrippa circa 44 AD or so, the rest of the apostles took a powder and disappeared from the story, all but Peter. There are no other accounts of any glorious martyrdom for the apostles to be discovered anywhere in scripture. So the whole "martyrdom of the apostles claim," THAT is an actual red herring.

You said you wouldn’t have to make assumptions if we had their testimonies. Since we don’t have their testimonies you have to make assumptions. What am I making up?

You are making up that I made any assumptions of any kind concerning the traveling companions of Paul on the road to Damascus. I made no such assumptions. I only pointed out that they made no testimonies to what they might have seen or heard. That claim was derived from Paul, who happened to be SICK, BLIND AND ESSENTIALLY INCAPACITATED at the time the events in question were supposed to have occurred. In fact, though the magic of cut and paste, here is the actual exchange:

It’s ad hocery at its finest. We’ve been over this horrible argument of yours before anyway. Acts gives a chronology of the experience on the road to Damascus occurring BEFORE he went without food or water.

�As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?� 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?� And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.� 7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.� – Acts 9.

Now if Luke had written, “And Paul was three days without food or water and as he was travelling to Damascus...� you might have an argument. But he didn’t, so you don’t.:

"Was the author of Acts present to witness any of this, and so to get the chronology of events correct? Nope! The story is derived from Paul's later version of events. But Paul was the afflicted man, blind, sick and delirious at the time, remember?"

This can be found in post #298, page 31 of this string if anyone really happens to be all that interested.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... a0f9f2e174

Aristotle didn’t think so. But in any case your argument was that Christians, and specifically church fathers and historians like Clement and Eusebius, believed Hercules’ mythology. You haven’t established this.

Here is what I posted.

Heracles
Christian chronology
In Christian circles a Euhemerist reading of the widespread Heracles cult was attributed to a historical figure who had been offered cult status after his death. Thus Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel (10.12), reported that Clement could offer historical dates for Hercules as a king in Argos: "from the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy."

Eusebius was attempting to establish that that traditions such as Hercules formed later than the Hebrew traditions about God.

"But it is to be observed that whatever especial event is mentioned in the mythology of the Greeks because of its antiquity, is found to be later than Moses, their floods, and conflagrations, their Prometheus, Io, Europa, Sparti, Rape of Persephone, Mysteries, Legislations, exploits of Dionysus, Perseus, labours of Hercules, Argonauts, Centaurs, Minotaur, tale of Troy, return of the Heracleidae, migration of Ionians, and Olympic Festivals." http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/euseb ... book10.htm

CHAPTER XII
[Clement] "The subject has been indeed carefully discussed by Taitian in his Discourse to the Greeks, and by Cassian in the first book of his Exegetics. But nevertheless my commentary demands that I should run over what has already been said upon this topic."

"From the riegn of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules and of Ascelpius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point the deification of Castor and Pollix fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time the capture of Troy." ["The Preparation for the Gospel, by Esuebius,' page 325]

The address for this failed. Reference under "The Preparation for the Gospel, by Esuebius"

The story of Hercules was considered to be fully historical and true 2,000 years ago, which was my point. Even Jews tended to believe it. But we recognize and accept that the story as purely mythological today.

HERCULES
hur'-ku-lez (Herakles): The process of Hellenizing the Jews which began at an earlier date was greatly promoted under Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). Jason, who supplanted his brother Onias in the office of high priest by promising Antiochus an increase of tribute, aided the movement by setting up under the king's authority a Greek palaestra for the training of youth in Greek exercises, and by registering the inhabitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch (2 Maccabees 4:8). Certain of these Antiochians of Jerusalem Jason sent to Tyre, where games were held every five years in honor of Hercules, that is, the national Tyrian deity Melcart, identified with Baal of Old Testament history. According to Josephus (Ant., VII, v, 3) Hiram, king of Tyre in the days of Solomon, built the temple of Hercules and also of Astarte. Jason s deputies carried 300 drachmas of silver for the sacrifice of Hercules, but they were so ashamed of their commission that they "thought it not right to use the money for any sacrifice" and "on account of present circumstances it went to the equipment of the galleys" (2 Maccabees 4:18-20).
http://biblehub.com/topical/h/hercules.htm

The Life and Times of Hercules
Stories about the gods, called myths, were made up thousands of years ago. Was there a real Hercules, a man behind the stories? We will never know. Yet, his story is of a man who was so strong and courageous, whose deeds were so mighty, and who so endured all the hardships that were given to him, that when he died, Hercules was brought up to Mount Olympus to live with the gods.

Hercules was both the most famous hero of ancient times and the most beloved. More stories were told about him than any other hero. Hercules was worshipped in many temples all over Greece and Rome.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html

Hercules was the son of Jupiter/Zeus and a human woman. He was part man, part God. An attempt was made on the life of Hercules as a baby, but he survived it. Hercules accomplished many miraculous things during his lifetime, and when he died he was taken up by by Jupiter/Zeus to live with the gods.

The real question here is, why should we believe the story of Jesus and deny the story of Hercules? And the answer of course is that, while it is possible that the stories of Hercules MIGHT be based on an actual historical person, many of the the stories surrounding his life are simply not believable. As opposed to the stories surrounding Jesus?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

REPLYING TO CLAIRE EVANS

Matthew and Luke share some material found in Mark. Matthew has much material not found in Mark or Luke. Luke has much material not found in Mark or Matthew. Matthew and Luke share much material not found in Mark. Luke omits considerable material found in both Mark and Matthew. (The Great Omission) Luke has material found in Matthew but radically rearranged. Luke has considerable material that is the exact opposite of material in Matthew but that no one else has. (Genealogies, Nativities, Sermons, Galilee/Jerusalem dichotomy, post-resurrection narratives)

This is all true. It fails to address the question of why Mark Luke and John left out so incredibly important a detail as the guard at the tomb however. It's as though they didn't believe it themselves, or knew for a fact that it wasn't true. The same might be said for Matthew's "Resurrection of the saints." Resurrected dead people wandering the streets should have provoked SOME reaction one would think. It's very difficult not to conclude that these stories were pure bull snot, and everyone knew it at the time.
And of course even you have acknowledged that the story of the resurrected saints is probably not true. But in doing so you have established the unreliability of Gospel Matthew. Some of the things detailed in the Gospels ARE PROBABLY NOT TRUE. Give that some thought and see of you can begin to understand which of those things probably are not true.