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]

Claire Evans wrote:

Dismissing something as a hoax and knowing it is a hoax can be two different things. Unlike you, they chose to believe that Jesus' body had been stolen. What make them think that? Also, if they had no seen Jesus, then it would be understandable why people would think it was a hoax.

RESPONSE: Because Jesus family or friends may have moved it the day following his execution for reburial in the family plot. Jesus had to buried before sundown so they were using a borrowed gravesite.

It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

So we know that the body was left in the tomb overnight. The next day they would not have been able to have access to the body because of the forbidding of the contact of the dead. So the next time they could see Jesus' body would have been the Sunday. So when did Jesus' family and friends get the chance to take his body?


It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

So we know that the body was left in the tomb overnight. The next day they would not have been able to have access to the body because of the forbidding of the contact of the dead. So the next time they could see Jesus' body would have been the Sunday. So when did Jesus' family and friends get the chance to take his body?

Claire Evans wrote:

Absolutely not. It was blasphemy for anyone to call themselves the son of God. He was not their messiah. They didn't like Him. Many wanted Him dead. God forbid Jesus' prophecy came true! You assume that that they'd believe it was an act of God. They accused him of witch craft.

RESPONSE: No. The expression “Son of God� was not blasphemy and was commonly used as can be seen in the Old Testament.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
“The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and ofIsrael, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

That is true. Jesus said, "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?" referring to:

Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

That was a clever retort to the Pharisees having a problem with Jesus calling Himself the Son of God.

However, the context of which I'm referring to is very clear:

"I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God," (John 10:30-33).

Jesus was obviously referring to Himself as the Son and being God as well.

Another verse clearly illustrates that the Jews knew Jesus was referring to Himself as the Son of God in a divine manner:

Mark 14:55-63

55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.' " 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 63 The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64 "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

Jesus was executed by the Romans for insurrection along with two other insurrectionists. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah was indirectly claiming to be king of the Jews. The Roman penalty for claiming to be a king of the Jews was death. (Review the charge sheet attached to Christ’s cross). The New Testament states this clearly,

Luke 23:3

…2And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." 3So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." 4Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no guilt in this man."…

Jesus did not admit it. That is because He actually was not. Because of the lack of admission, Pilate could find no fault in Him.

The writing, "King of the Jews" on the charge sheet was most likely just a mockery.

[polonius]

Clair Evan’s posted:

It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

So we know that the body was left in the tomb overnight. The next day they would not have been able to have access to the body because of the forbidding of the contact of the dead. So the next time they could see Jesus' body would have been the Sunday. So when did Jesus' family and friends get the chance to take his body?

It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

So we know that the body was left in the tomb overnight. The next day they would not have been able to have access to the body because of the forbidding of the contact of the dead. So the next time they could see Jesus' body would have been the Sunday. So when did Jesus' family and friends get the chance to take his body?

RESPONSE:

Perhaps before posting you should have acquainted yourself with the facts regarding moving the Jewish dead.

http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm
“ People who have been in the presence of a body wash their hands before entering a home. This is done to symbolically remove spiritual impurity, not physical uncleanness: it applies regardless of whether you have physically touched the body.�

“The body must not be cremated. It must be buried in the earth. Coffins are not required, but if they are used, they must have holes drilled in them so the body comes in contact with the earth.�

NOTE: Jesus’s body was placed in a tomb, not buried in the earth.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... -Grave.htm

“Reinterment may be permitted, after consultation with a rabbi, in the following instances: (1) The removal of the remains from an individual plot to a family plot where other immediate members of the family are already buried…

(2)If the grave was considered temporary, and expressly so stipulated when the deceased was originally interred.�

[polonius]

polonius.advice wrote:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
“The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and ofIsrael, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

The expression “Son of God� was not blasphemy and was commonly used as can be seen in the Old Testament.


Clair Evans responded :

“Absolutely not. It was blasphemy for anyone to call themselves the son of God. He was not their messiah. They didn't like Him. Many wanted Him dead. God forbid Jesus' prophecy came true! You assume that that they'd believe it was an act of God. They accused him of witch craft. “

RESPONSE:

Many others in the Old Testament are referred to as “sons of God.� Such clearly was not blasphemy:

Gen 6 “When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair�

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them.

Job 1:6 “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?� (English Revised Version
Ps 89.7 “Who is there above the clouds to rival the Lord; where is the Lord’s like among all the sons of God?�

Ex 4:22 “ and then thou shalt give him this message: Israel, says the Lord, is my first-born son

1 Chron 22:10 [Spoken of Solomon] “He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my Son, and I will be his Father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever.'

QUESTIONS:

Where precisely in scripture do you find Jesus claiming to be divine?

John 14:28 “The Father is greater than I"

Where in the Old Testament does it state positively that the Messiah would be divine?

[polonius]

Catholic Encyclopedia - Son of Man

“The employment of the expression in the Gospels is very remarkable. It is used to designate Jesus Christ no fewer than eighty-one times — thirty times in St. Matthew, fourteen times in St. Mark, twenty-five times in St. Luke, and twelve times in St. John.�

“ But the most remarkable thing connected with "the Son of Man" is that it is found only in the mouth of Christ. It is never employed by the disciples or Evangelists, nor by the early Christian writers,�

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

“Son of Man� is a human title.

Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke report Jesus ever saying his was divine. That concept was developed later.

About 85 AD, the Jewish Christians were expelled from the Temple as “minim� or apostates. Only in John’s gospel written about 95-100 AD do we find an inkling that Jesus considered himself to be divine.

[JLB32168]

“Son of Man� is a human title.

You’re not considering the use of the concept in other literature of the time. The SoM/Messias is spoken of in the Books of Enoch, which are Jewish works that antedate Christianity and which were well known in Christ’s time. It should be pointed out that there was no set Hebrew canon at the time. The SoM/Messias is hardly described as a mere human in that book.

Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke report Jesus ever saying his was divine. That concept was developed later.

The motif of a virgin mother conceiving a deity is hardly exclusive to Christianity where it is specifically mentioned in Matthew and Luke. At a minimum one is forced to concede that the writers’ use of this motif suggests that the belief in a divine Christ arose much earlier than the writing of John’s Gospel.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 422 by JLB32168]

And, of course there’s Daniel 7 to consider and a similar figure described in 2 Esdras. I hope to get back to this in a bit, but it suffices to say that ‘son of Man/Adam’ had several uses and was not understood in a uniformly mundane sense.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

“Son of Man� is a human title.

You’re not considering the use of the concept in other literature of the time. The SoM/Messias is spoken of in the Books of Enoch, which are Jewish works that antedate Christianity and which were well known in Christ’s time. It should be pointed out that there was no set Hebrew canon at the time. The SoM/Messias is hardly described as a mere human in that book.

RESPONSE:

The canonical nature of the Book of Enoch has is rejected both by Judaism and Roman Catholicism. Does the EOC accept it as canonical?

The term Son of Man is used in several places in the Old Testament but it always refers to a non-divine being.

>> The SoM/Messias is hardly described as a mere human in that book.<<

What evidence do you claim?

Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke report Jesus ever saying his was divine. That concept was developed later.

>>The motif of a virgin mother conceiving a deity is hardly exclusive to Christianity where it is specifically mentioned in Matthew and Luke. At a minimum one is forced to concede that the writers’ use of this motif suggests that the belief in a divine Christ arose much earlier than the writing of John’s Gospel.

<<

RESPONSE: Not at all. Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 mentioning a virgin birth. But there is no claim that Emmanual was divine.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

The body was not "buried" in Joseph's tomb. No burial cerimonies were performed. The tomb was simply a conveinent place to wash and prepare the body. The body was never intended to stay there perminently.

3.1 Time of Funeral/Burial - Jewish law requires that burial take place as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours of death. Burial may be delayed for legal reasons; to transport the deceased; if close relatives must travel long distances to be present at the funeral/burial; or to avoid burial on Shabbat or another holy day. It should not be delayed longer than necessary.
http://www.uscj.org/JewishLivingandLear ... ctice.aspx

Would the disciples of Jesus have violated Jewish Sabbath laws?

Mark 2:
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body. Once the body has been buried, you don't "unbury" it.

The chief priests were forbidden to be in contact or even in the pressence of a body. Someone must wash and prepare the body however, and not only was that not forbidden that was required.

4.4 Taharah (Ritual cleansing) - Jewish law requires that the deceased be cleansed according to prescribed ritual as an expression of respect. A group of specially trained persons called a Hevra Kadisha (holy society) or a Jewish funeral director should perform the mitzvah.
http://www.uscj.org/JewishLivingandLear ... ctice.aspx

[Ancient of Years]

Perhaps before posting you should have acquainted yourself with the facts regarding moving the Jewish dead.

http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm

“ People who have been in the presence of a body wash their hands before entering a home. This is done to symbolically remove spiritual impurity, not physical uncleanness: it applies regardless of whether you have physically touched the body.�

“The body must not be cremated. It must be buried in the earth. Coffins are not required, but if they are used, they must have holes drilled in them so the body comes in contact with the earth.�

NOTE: Jesus’s body was placed in a tomb, not buried in the earth.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... -Grave.htm

“Reinterment may be permitted, after consultation with a rabbi, in the following instances: (1) The removal of the remains from an individual plot to a family plot where other immediate members of the family are already buried…

(2)If the grave was considered temporary, and expressly so stipulated when the deceased was originally interred.�

These are rules from the Talmud, developed well after the Second Temple era. When the Talmud was put together social hierarchies among Jews had become virtually non-existent. At the time of Jesus, tombs cut out of rock were quite popular with those who could afford it.

Hundreds of rock-cut tombs were constructed in Israel in ancient times. They were cut into the rock, sometimes with elaborate facades and multiple burial chambers. Some are free-standing, but most are caves. Each tomb typically belonged to a single, wealthy family. Bodies were laid out on stone benches. After a generation, the bones were moved to a bone chamber or, later, into ossuaries and the benches used for new burials. Rock tombs were the province of the wealthy; the common people were buried in the ground.
[…]
During the Second Temple period, rock-cut tombs were built outside the walls of the city of Jerusalem in every direction. The tombs extend as far as 7 km from the city walls, with the more prestigious tombs located close to the city.
[…]
The elaborate Tombs of the Sanhedrin lie to the north of the city. They were so called by later generations because the largest of them contains 70 chambers with burial benches, and the Sanhedrin had seventy members. Each of the three tombs would actually have contained the burials of a single, multi-generational, wealthy family. They were constructed between the reign of Herod and the year 70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-cut_ ... ent_Israel

[oldbadger]

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.

Luke copied from many sources, and added his own spins such as the nativity, drawn from basic facts but spun into myth.

And as for his account of the crucifixion and resurrection, he spins Peter into the tomb, but forgets to add his Mother Mary as John did....!! Where did he draw from for his crucifixion/resurrection reports?......... He was not there himself, and wrote about it over a generation later on.,........

I don't take much account of Luke's reports.