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?

[Student]

[Replying to Claire Evans]
[font=Times New Roman]I agree with Marco; you are reading far too much into the Greek text. You are contriving to apply inappropriate meanings to words using tools which are inadequate for the task.

κουστωδία [koust�dia] is a Latin loan word meaning "a group of soldiers doing guard duty, a guard composed of soldiers." [BDAG p.563]

Although the word is a Latin loan word it does not specifically refer to a Roman detachment, but to any group of soldiers, of any nationality, doing guard duty.

The evidence, such as it is, indicates that Pontius Pilate did not have any Roman Legionary troops at his disposal. The nearest Legionary forces were in Syria. Pilate probably commanded several cohorts of auxiliaries [locally recruited forces], so if he were to have provided a guard, it may well have been composed of troops recruited from Samaria or Caesarea, something that would hardly be met with unalloyed joy, approval or trust by the Jewish officials. Caiaphas would most certainly been aware of the disposition and composition of Pilates forces. The author of Matthew, apparently not.

As for στ�ατηγὸς [stratēgos], in its primary sense, stratēgos refers to "the highest official in a Greek-Roman city, praetor, chief magistrate"

When used in the expression: � στ�ατηγὸς τοῦ ἱε�οῦ [ho stratēgos tou ierou], it refers to: the"commander responsible for the temple in Jerusalem, captain of the temple" [BDAG p.947 -948]

Clearly then stratēgos does not refer to any old officer of the Temple guard, i.e. a lowly guardsman or soldier.[/font]

[oldbadger]

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Paul didn't know much about Jesus (Yeshua).
Paul did seem to know a lot about Christ. That's different to the living Yeshua that lived........

There is a problem surrounding the resurrection.
1. 2 persons, one Yeshua son on man, the other Yeshua son of God, both Galileans, took part in either riot or demonstration during the time before the Feast of unleavened bread. (Mark)
2. Both were arrested, tried, convicted and condemned. (G-Mark)
3. One was pardoned and released, the other executed.
4. One appeared soon after in Galilea and was recognised by friends. He may have been taken down from the cross alive and saved. This had happened before (Josephus saved a friend from the cross).
5. One may even have traveled to Kasmir! Yes!
6. The executed was watched by some faithful followers, all females, who (if he did in fact die) went with his body to a tomb, but all left it and did not return until two (possibly one?) morning later. The tomb was empty and trhe body had gone.

There's more...........

So there is no certainty that Jesus came back to life, but I don't disrespect those who have such faith....... it's just faith.

[polonius]

Clair Evans posted this statement.

"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles."


The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

[Ancient of Years]

Clair Evans posted this statement.

"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles."


The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

Luke wrote Acts years later. In his Gospel Luke retained the 'not taste death' and Olivet Discourse passages first introduced by Mark that pointed to an imminent return of the Son of Man and the end of days in 'this generation', i.e., the generation living when Jesus spoke. This was already becoming questionable when Luke first wrote and he threw in various disclaimers as Matthew did before him.

As time went on, the idea of an imminent eschaton in 'this generation' was no longer credible. Acts 1 is a very clever tour en l'air switching the story from Jesus coming back soon to the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost. Jesus will come back but not all that soon. In the meantime keep on with the business of the church.

[oldbadger]

The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

...............sure.
Or a compilation of writings.
Much of what Luke wrote was copied, let's face that fact. He also borrowed from G-Mark, 'Quelle', one other main source et al.
And he took recent history and 'spun' it for his nativity.
Some, but not much, of Luke's books is worthwhile.e

[Ancient of Years]

The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

...............sure.
Or a compilation of writings.
Much of what Luke wrote was copied, let's face that fact. He also borrowed from G-Mark, 'Quelle', one other main source et al.
And he took recent history and 'spun' it for his nativity.
Some, but not much, of Luke's books is worthwhile.e

Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew and wrote much original material to support his agenda of redirecting Matthew's very Jewish orientation for Luke's Gentle audience. Material that appears only in Luke that is related to but slanted opposite from material that appears only in Matthew include: Genealogy, Nativity, Sermon on the Mount/Plain, post-resurrection departure of Jesus.

[polonius]

Clair Evans posted this statement.

"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles."


The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

Luke wrote Acts years later. In his Gospel Luke retained the 'not taste death' and Olivet Discourse passages first introduced by Mark that pointed to an imminent return of the Son of Man and the end of days in 'this generation', i.e., the generation living when Jesus spoke. This was already becoming questionable when Luke first wrote and he threw in various disclaimers as Matthew did before him.

As time went on, the idea of an imminent eschaton in 'this generation' was no longer credible. Acts 1 is a very clever tour en l'air switching the story from Jesus coming back soon to the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost. Jesus will come back but not all that soon. In the meantime keep on with the business of the church.

RESPONSE: Actually, I understand that both Luke and Acts were written in the same decade (the 80s 'AD). Acts was written right after Luke.

But much of your reply is credible. It's the New Testament that is sometimes contains contradictions.

[polonius]

Clair Evans posted this statement.

"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles."


The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

Luke wrote Acts years later. In his Gospel Luke retained the 'not taste death' and Olivet Discourse passages first introduced by Mark that pointed to an imminent return of the Son of Man and the end of days in 'this generation', i.e., the generation living when Jesus spoke. This was already becoming questionable when Luke first wrote and he threw in various disclaimers as Matthew did before him.

As time went on, the idea of an imminent eschaton in 'this generation' was no longer credible. Acts 1 is a very clever tour en l'air switching the story from Jesus coming back soon to the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost. Jesus will come back but not all that soon. In the meantime keep on with the business of the church.

RESPONSE: Actually, I understand that both Luke and Acts were written in the same decade (the 80s 'AD). Acts was written right after Luke.

But much of your reply is credible. It's the New Testament that is sometimes contains contradictions.

[Ancient of Years]

Clair Evans posted this statement.

"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles."


The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke has Jesus ascending in the evening on the day of the Resurrection,

And yet the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles has Jesus ascending 40 days after his Resurection.

Might his suggest different writer or at least a writer unsure of the evidence?

Luke wrote Acts years later. In his Gospel Luke retained the 'not taste death' and Olivet Discourse passages first introduced by Mark that pointed to an imminent return of the Son of Man and the end of days in 'this generation', i.e., the generation living when Jesus spoke. This was already becoming questionable when Luke first wrote and he threw in various disclaimers as Matthew did before him.

As time went on, the idea of an imminent eschaton in 'this generation' was no longer credible. Acts 1 is a very clever tour en l'air switching the story from Jesus coming back soon to the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost. Jesus will come back but not all that soon. In the meantime keep on with the business of the church.

RESPONSE: Actually, I understand that both Luke and Acts were written in the same decade (the 80s 'AD). Acts was written right after Luke.

But much of your reply is credible. It's the New Testament that is sometimes contains contradictions.

I see Acts being written some number of years after Luke, else there would be no need to change horses in Acts 1. If Luke had intended to immediately make such a change from the Olivet tradition present in Mark and Matthew he would have done so in his Gospel. He had no problem with elsewhere changing or even dropping material he received.For example there is the Great Omission, a section that appears in Mark and Matthew which Luke would have had good reason for leaving out. But he sprinkles clever references to its content here and there in his Gospel, letting the reader know that he knows all about Matthew and is intentionally changing the story.

[YahWhat]

Someone ask Goose how he feels about Paul equating his personal "heavenly vision" of Jesus with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. If these were originally spiritual visionary encounters then the later Gospels are false in that the present the Risen Jesus as a fully resuscitated corpse that leaves an empty tomb behind, eats fish, is able to be touched, etc.