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?

[dio9]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

My point is, Muslims do really think Allah is the true god even though, for argument's sake, it isn't true. They believe a lie. However, are the apostles going to die for something they know is a lie?

Everyone dies. Please establish for us that scripture indicates the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

[Zzyzx]

.

Everyone dies. Please establish for us that scripture indicates the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

Dear Nonsense , Your posts are leading me to believe you are in a discussion you know nothing about. Scripture and tradition name many who were martyred .

Notice that the request is for scriptural reference to martyrdom for beliefs.

Perhaps someone who knows much about such matters can provide actual reference to scripture for many who were martyred (NOT "tradition" which is even less meaningful).

[marco]

It seems to me that it is logical to conclude that Pilate is fed up and that he would spit out “Take a guard!� to the people who demanded one, Marco. Perhaps it doesn’t necessarily produce that meaning, but certainly allows such a meaning. It is one of other possible logical conclusions that a person could draw and that person wouldn’t be unreasonable for concluding it.

Yes, one can put many constructions on words that were almost certainly not the actual ones uttered. Even if they were, you can still have a few interpretations. I've quite forgotten where that leaves us regarding the resurrection - or whose resurrection we were discussing. Go well.

[Goose]

Please be specific about the hearsay you claim another wrote about what Peter said. Your position appears to be that anything written in the Bible is evidence, without weighing it. Evidence is subject to rules and examination, including evaluation of bias and foundation. One of the things one does in this process is to examine an account for detail. Compare the meticulous detail regarding the crucifiction itself with the the lack of detail and conflict in stories regarding the resurrection.

I’m very happy to pass the evidence through any historical methodology. The more rigorous the better actually. I’m quite confident the evidence will fair just as well as evidence for any other historical event from antiquity. Go ahead and suggest the method you’d like to use and we can get started.

I was not aware the AMA had examined the body, or that examining copies of copies of copies of ancient documents was their forte. In any event, Edwards, Gabel and Hosmer do not represent the AMA.

Are you a qualified medical expert? If not please cite your medical experts who conclude Jesus was not dead when taken down from the cross.

I've never taken the "swoon theory" too seriously.

Then why cut and paste something attempting to argue for it? By the way scholars don’t take it seriously either. Not even the critical ones.

It was uncommon for a crucified healthy adult to die in the time described by the Gospels;

Jesus wasn't "healthy" at the time of his crucifixion. He had just been flogged.

[Goose]

RESPONSE: Acts of the Apostles (c. 80 AD) was not written during Peter's lifetime (d c. 67 AD),

It was written only a few years after his death by a person who was a contempory of Peter and knew people who knew Peter. Do you realize how much data we would lose from antiquity if we only allow evidence which was written during the lifetime of the subject? For example, we would know nothing of the exploits of one of Rome’s greatest generals, Agricola, since his only surviving biography was written after his death.

nor did he personally leave any writing about a Resurrection.

I’ve provided the evidence in 1Peter where he affirms the resurrection and supporting external evidence for authorship. Feel free to try to refute the evidence.

RESPONSE: Precisely what "evidence" did you provide and how did you validate it? It is your assertion to prove. You made it. Rebuttal only has to follow proof of an assertion.

I provided the evidence twice in this thread in my posts 31 and 232.

1. Is there any "external physical evidence to support" Jesus' Resurrection? What exactly?

What exactly would you expect in the way of physical evidence for a resurrection? I’ve asked this question a number of times to various people in this thread and so far no one has answered. Maybe you can?

Why are you asking anyway? Surely you are not suggesting every event from antiquity needs physical evidence to support it.

2. And is the credability of an "anonymous person reporting a "supernatural event" really to be taken seriously? Do you?

Almost every work from antiquity at some point or another speaks of or reports something supernatural. So once again we are throwing away a vast amount of ancient history with this criterion.

[Goose]

Run a check on your "facts" sometime just to see how many of them actually prove to be undeniably true.

No fact from antiquity is undeniably true. What you haven’t done however, despite the walls of text you’ve typed and cut and pasted, is refute the evidence I’ve presented. Neither have you offered a coherent explanation that accounts for all the data and more powerfully than the resurrection.

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.

I can honestly say I’m willing to accept the best explanation of the evidence regardless of whether it a supernatural explanation or a natural one. I don’t a priori prefer one over the other. Which one of our approaches is the more open minded one?

There’s no logical reason to prefer a natural explanation over a supernatural one if the supernatural explanation is superior in power and scope to explain data. That you personally find a given supernatural claim a priori unbelievable is irrelevant.

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.

Yes, you’ve offered your obvious double standard more than once. By the way, I was referring to Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus here not the disciples’ persecution.

Christians invariably declare that the apostles underwent viscous persecution and martyrdom for proclaiming the risen Jesus.

It’s not an unfounded claim. I’ve provided a mountain of evidence to support the persecution and you have ignored that evidence more than once all the while repeating that there was no persecution. It’s a classic case of arguing by assertion.

• A. There is no evidence the disciples were persecuted.
  B. Here is the evidence that suggests they were.
  A. But there is no evidence the disciples were persecuted.
  B. I just gave you the evidence, here it is again.
  A. But there is no evidence the disciples were persecuted.
  B.

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 are knocking down a strawman. I never once argued for the martyrdom of the disciples even though we have one case in scripture with James. I’ve consistently argued for persecution with the threat of death. And I’ve provided a boat load of evidence to support the argument. Evidence which you’ve ignored twice now. Shall I give it again?

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.

Which is itself an assumption. They may have made their testimony to Paul later.

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.

Wrong again. There’s no mention of Paul being ill at the time of his experience. The events happened before Paul went without water. And you are once again assuming Paul was sick.

Assumption after assumption.

The story of Hercules was considered to be fully historical and true 2,000 years ago, which was my point.

Actually your original claim was that...

Even Christians believed in Hercules as an historical individual 2,000 years ago.

Then you quote minded Eusebius as evidence. The sources you are quoting don’t support the argument the early church fathers believed the mythology of Hercules. In fact the evidence you’ve given argues against the notion.

If all you are really arguing is that the mythology of Hercules was considered historical by some folks 2,000 years ago then what of it? It’s just a big Red Herring in the end.

The real question here is, why should we believe the story of Jesus and deny the story of Hercules?

Genre as a starting point. The stories of Jesus come down to us via ancient biography and letters. Genres known to be attempting to report history. The mythology of Hercules comes down to us via Epic Poetry a genre known to be mythology. Read the link I gave to Aristotle’s Poetics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 373 by Goose]

Wrong again. There’s no mention of Paul being ill at the time of his experience. The events happened before Paul went without water. And you are once again assuming Paul was sick.

So what do you call it when someone in the Middle East is blind and incapacitated while not having any water for three days? If you don't think that that's illness, it makes me wonder what you would call someone suffering from the plague. A slight case of the sniffles?
Anyway, we don't know exactly what happened with Paul. However, it is a distinct possibility that Paul had a seizure of some sort and was bed ridden for the three days. During that time, his memory of what caused this situation got muddled. Can you honestly tell me that someone in Paul's condition had a reliable memory? I've been ill before, and had memories get jumbled around.

[Zzyzx]

.

Neither have you offered a coherent explanation that accounts for all the data and more powerfully than the resurrection.

I can honestly say I’m willing to accept the best explanation of the evidence regardless of whether it a supernatural explanation or a natural one. I don’t a priori prefer one over the other. Which one of our approaches is the more open minded one?

What evidence regarding the claimed resurrection exists to be considered?

There are unverified stories in a single anthology prepared by promoters of the religion. There is NO evidence of a tomb, a body in said tomb, guards, rock, angels, missing body, etc outside the stories themselves.

Thus, unless it is assumed that the stories are true, discussion is merely an analysis of the story line to decide if the conclusions in the story fit the descriptions in the story.

That is no different from analyzing any (other?) fictional story to see if the plot makes sense.

There’s no logical reason to prefer a natural explanation over a supernatural one if the supernatural explanation is superior in power and scope to explain data. That you personally find a given supernatural claim a priori unbelievable is irrelevant.

I disagree. We know that water flows downhill unless constrained or restricted. If someone CLAIMS that water ran uphill 1) they have the obligation to show that it actually did, 2) THEN we can explore the possible reasons (cause-and-effect relationships).

If uphill running water can be demonstrated we can either 1) identify the cause / conditions, or 2) acknowledge that we do not know.

If someone proposes that a supernatural agency is involved as an explanation, they have the burden of demonstrating that their proposal is true and accurate.

I’ve provided a mountain of evidence to support the persecution

Is the "mountain of evidence" from multiple disconnected sources – or is it from connected sources and/or an anthology supporting the cause?

Is there actual disconnected, verifiable evidence outside the tales themselves that indicates that multiple disciples were subjected to viscous persecution and martyrdom?

There’s no mention of Paul being ill at the time of his experience. The events happened before Paul went without water. And you are once again assuming Paul was sick.

According to the stories (largely in Acts) was Paul/Saul sick (or delusional, dehydrated, etc) before he told (or wrote?) of his experience?

The stories of Jesus come down to us via ancient biography and letters. Genres known to be attempting to report history.

Kindly identify information source concerning Jesus that is properly considered biography.

Can the letters mentioned be shown to be fiction-free? Or do we assume that whatever is written in letters is "gospel truth?"

[Danmark]

Please be specific about the hearsay you claim another wrote about what Peter said. Your position appears to be that anything written in the Bible is evidence, without weighing it. Evidence is subject to rules and examination, including evaluation of bias and foundation. One of the things one does in this process is to examine an account for detail. Compare the meticulous detail regarding the crucifiction itself with the the lack of detail and conflict in stories regarding the resurrection.

I’m very happy to pass the evidence through any historical methodology. The more rigorous the better actually. I’m quite confident the evidence will fair just as well as evidence for any other historical event from antiquity. Go ahead and suggest the method you’d like to use and we can get started.

I was not aware the AMA had examined the body, or that examining copies of copies of copies of ancient documents was their forte. In any event, Edwards, Gabel and Hosmer do not represent the AMA.

Are you a qualified medical expert? If not please cite your medical experts who conclude Jesus was not dead when taken down from the cross.

I've never taken the "swoon theory" too seriously.

Then why cut and paste something attempting to argue for it? By the way scholars don’t take it seriously either. Not even the critical ones.

It was uncommon for a crucified healthy adult to die in the time described by the Gospels;

Jesus wasn't "healthy" at the time of his crucifixion. He had just been flogged.

Certainly he was healthy at the beginning of the process. He was a rugged, young healthy male who worked as a carpenter and walked a great deal. I'm open minded about the swoon theory so I presented a site that argued both sides. No one knows whether Jesus was dead or not when he was removed from the cross. Contrary to what you falsely claimed, the American Medical Association has never taken a position on it, nor should they, because the facts some Christian doctors relied on in their speculative article are based solely on Biblical accounts and other information not specific to that particular crucifixion. In short, they never examined the body.

I understand your general theme, that the gospel accounts are every bit as reliable as other historical accounts. Your viewpoint is suspect in several areas:
1. The 'New' Testament authors were highly biased and frequently anonymous.
2. All historical evidence on any subject or person is subject to scrutiny and doubt, controversy and criticism.
3. Supernatural events and other impossible sounding claims deserve even higher scrutiny.

[Danmark]

I can honestly say I’m willing to accept the best explanation of the evidence regardless of whether it a supernatural explanation or a natural one.
....
Wrong again. There’s no mention of Paul being ill at the time of his experience. The events happened before Paul went without water. And you are once again assuming Paul was sick.

I challenge your claim that you're "willing to accept the best explanation of the evidence regardless of whether it a supernatural explanation or a natural one."

It is clear you do not because you are unwilling to acknowledge the desperate position someone would be in when he's gone 3 days without food or water. The fact that he collapsed and was blind is also relevant. You not only ignore those facts, but claim those who conclude his health was severely compromised are just "assuming."

Water, or its lack (dehydration), can influence cognition. Mild levels of dehydration can produce disruptions in mood and cognitive functioning. This may be of special concern in the very young, very old, those in hot climates, and those engaging in vigorous exercise. Mild dehydration produces alterations in a number of important aspects of cognitive function such as concentration, alertness and short-term memory in children (10–12 y),32 young adults (18–25y)53–56 and in the oldest adults, 50–82y.57 As with physical functioning, mild to moderate levels of dehydration can impair performance on tasks such as short-term memory, perceptual discrimination, arithmetic ability, visuomotor tracking, and psychomotor skills.53–56
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908954/

When an individual is deprive of BOTH food and water in a hot climate, the effect is even more dramatic than in dehydration studies where only fluids are restricted.

Although the general limit for water deprivation is said to be 3 days, obviously there are extreme cases where people have lived longer; however, we are not talking about death after 72 hours, but cognitive impairment.