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?

[polonius]

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13913-son-of-man

In Contrast to Deity.
The rendering for the Hebrew "ben adam," applied to mankind in general, as opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship; expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity.

In Ezekiel the term occurs in Yhwh's communications as the prevailing form of address to the prophet (ii. 1; iii. 1, 4, 10, 17; iv. 1 et al.; in all about 90 times.

[polonius]

JLB (#443) posted

polonius.advice wrote:

Paul commented that Jesus was born according to the law.

>>And what does this mean, according to you?<<


RESPONSE:

Pretty much what it meant to Paul

Between 49 and 55 CE, he recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, he writes:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of momentous importance. He would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous.

{Important to note) This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.

In about 57 CE, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes:

"I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph.

The phrase "according to the flesh" seems to imply a natural, normal conception and birth.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

[Peppered Moth]

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?

Resurrection isn't related to Paul.

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?

If his story was not correct that does not refute whether the resurrection was a fact or not. That is why you know that all stories are merely stories. Neither true nor false, unless they wish to be. That is the best way to let them prove themselves true, or false. Incorrect or Correct.

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.

Let's examine the Proof. If there is no proof, then there is no evidence. If there is no evidence there is nothing to examine. Not like Belief is Proof.

Opinions?

My opinion is that the resurrection isn't a 9 letter word but it is more of a 16 letter word. If you count the thread subject, that is proof that the words are merely opinions. And that is why I know resurrection is Paul's opinion. Not merely the latest opinion column. Opinion column where folks like Paul write about their take on the resurrection. Being the opinion that is. That's all it is, in fact.

[polonius]

JLB 443

polonius.advice wrote:

I would have difficulty dismissing at least the claim that virgins can have children. The issue is when did these virgins stop being virgin.

>>>No – you’re trying to change the argument. You implied that almah cannot mean “virgin�.

RESPONSE: Please show precisely where I “implied� that or are you making it up?

The term “almah� means a young unmarried woman.
Isaiah 7:14 reports a young woman who has conceived for the first time. There is nothing miraculous about that. It happens every day.

>>The Greek version of the OT, which was prepared by Jews, used the word parthenos, which can only mean “virgin�. <<

RESPONSE: That’s correct. The Septuagint, written in koine Greek, contains that error. It was probably that error that resulted in Matthew's virgin birth legend in his nativity narrative. The Hebrew word betulah or physically intact virgin would be correctly translated as the Greek "parthanos."

But getting back to the IS 7:14 story we have:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b5.htm

“The birth being discussed in Isaiah 7:14 appears to be unrelated to Jesus. It describes the Syro-Ephraimite invasion of Judah and the siege of Jerusalem by the combined armies of the Northern Kingdom and Syria circa 735 BCE. The child that was born to the young woman at that time was a sign from God that the siege would be lifted and that Jerusalem would continue to florish as it had in before the attack. The prophecy was presumably completely fulfilled about 730 years before the birth of Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות, in Arabic Amah آمه which means unspecified women or a women passed teen age aside of her sexual status) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be (but does not have to be) an unmarried virgin or a married young woman. It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether that woman is a virgin or not. The term occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman� does not indicate sexual purity, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words almah and virgin. On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. The word alma only conveys age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin, he would have used the word betulah(בְּתוּלָה) not almah. The word betulah appears frequently in the Jewish Scriptures, and is the only word – in both biblical and modern Hebrew – that conveys sexual purity.

[Claire Evans]

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.'

Jesus had that argument in John 10: 33-35

…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." 34Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '? 35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),…

It is from Psalms 82:

6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.�1
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!

So why did the Pharisees think Jesus was being blasphemous? Because He claimed to be more than just a son of god in the context of having a "special relationship" with God. They knew that.

As for the Old Testament, go to my thread, "Is Yahweh the Father of Jesus" to illustrate to you just who the sons of gods were.

QUESTIONS:

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

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

John 14:9

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Matthew 24: 30-31

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

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

It doesn't. That is why Jewish was not the messiah and thus was rejected.

[Elijah John]

I’m constantly mystified by the obdurate narrow-mindedness of skeptics on this entire board.

Moderator Comment Skepticism is a fact of life here, not unexpected on a debating site. Your comment " obdurate narrow-mindeness" is not helpful.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[polonius]

Clair Evans asked:

>>So why did the Pharisees think Jesus was being blasphemous? Because He claimed to be more than just a son of god in the context of having a "special relationship" with God. They knew that. <<

RESPONSE:

From the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Mathew 26:64 Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so.* But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’�

65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed!* What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy;66

(1) NAB Footnote: [26:65] Blasphemed: the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (see Lv 24:10–16). According to the Mishnah, to be guilty of blasphemy one had to pronounce “the Name itself,� i.e., Yahweh; cf. Sanhedrin 7, 4.5. Those who judge the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial by the later Mishnah standards point out that Jesus uses the surrogate “the Power,� and hence no Jewish court would have regarded him as guilty of blasphemy; others hold that the Mishnah’s narrow understanding of blasphemy was a later development.

(2) Note that the evangelist we call Matthew wrote his gospel 50 years after the condemnation of Jesus and he was not a witness, But he had to come up with a religious reason for Jesus' execution rather than admit that Jesus had been simply crucified as an insurrectionist by the Romans.

(3) If you read the four Gospels you will find that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus is regarded as the Messiah but not said to be divine. It began to be thought that Jesus was God in about 85 AD about the time we know that Christians became to be considered "minim" or apostates from Judaism. They were excluded from the Jewish synagogues (see John).

So you only find such references to Jesus supposed divinity in John’s Gospel written about 95 AD.

(4) Also note that Matthew 26:64 contains one of the failed second coming prophecies of Jesus. The high priest never saw Jesus’ return “coming on the clouds of heaven.�

[otseng]

suggests you’re immune to evidence contra your point and cannot countenance yielding even the division of the twentieth part of the breadth of a hair to your opponent.

I’m constantly mystified by the obdurate narrow-mindedness of skeptics on this entire board.

Moderator Comment

Please leave out the personal comments about other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[polonius]

I hope that I will not be misunderstood. I am not claiming that the entire New Testament nor all of the writings attributed to the Early Church Fathers are spurious. But, as a history buff who has done a lot of reading, I have found that interpolations (additions), mistranslations, etc. are rather common and hence, scriptures and writings have to be carefully evaluated.

For example: From the Catholic Encyclopedia, we have this admission:

(Regarding the writings of Pope Clement I c. 96 AD) “The Collection of Isidore falls under three headings: (1) A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries..."


I think the best description of the role of the historian can be found in the Eye of the Needle, an excellent novel about WWII written by Ken Follett. (I think there is a movie too.)

Description of the historian character Godliman:

“He liked the unraveling of mysteries, the discovery of faint clues, the resolution of contradictions, the unmasking of lies and propaganda and myth.�

[JLB32168]

The Jewish phrase: "son of man" clearly does not denote a deity and certainly not the Hebrew God.

The Jewish phrase “Son of Man� has a multitude of meanings as demonstrated by its reference to a mere man in some places in the OT contrasted against other apocryphal citations where the phrase denotes a person who existed before the creation and to whom worship is given.

The attempts to impose a strict, limited definition upon the term only show that people don’t wish to confuse their preconceived biases and prejudices with evidence contra their opinion.