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?

[JLB32168]

Are you saying that the claimed virgin birth is a motif or a theme rather than a historical fact? We may agree!

I’m claiming that at a minimum, one must conclude that it is highly likely that the writers of the Gospels thought Christ was God. Whether or not He was cannot be proved to I see no point in discussing it. What we can debate is whether or not the idea of a divine Christ is in the synoptics and I maintain that one clarion example of the writers’ belief that Christ was divine was their belief that Christ was born of a virgin – which was a belief held in many places in the empire and for many other deities. Those who would facilely proclaim that there is no way one can pull a divine Christ from the Synoptic Gospels simply don’t wish to confuse the issue with facts.

[JLB32168]

That’s correct. The Septuagint, written in koine Greek, contains that error.

Why should the Hebrew prevail over the Greek – because it’s Hebrew? Why should we assume that the current Hebrew texts accurately represent the ancient autograph? Doesn’t you whole point presuppose that whoever copied the Hebrew text from the older copies copied it correctly? I see no reason to conclude that the LXX copyists got it wrong – especially since the oldest copies of the OT aren’t Hebrew but Greek.

As for the child being a sign that the siege would be lifted – where is it recorded that the child was born? It isn’t. The writer saw fit to record a sign from God but never recorded where the sign was fulfilled?

That makes no sense.

[Danmark]

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.

That appears to be exactly what you are doing. You are taking a phrase [not a word] that literally means "the son of a man" and deciding to use it to mean a god when you want it to. Yes, the phrase has been used in various contexts with meanings that are ambiguous. It's like the word 'Messiah." A Messiah or even THE Messiah, does not refer to a divinity. Even if the phrase is used in reference to a person who died and has come back to life and will return again after a sojourn in Heaven, that does not mean the man is a god, and certainly not THE God.

Was Enoch divine? Was Elijah divine? Moses?

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE:

But can you demonstrate a place where it ever unequivicably refers to God?

If not, your argument is pointless.

And as for someone who existed before the creation, would not all angels and devils qualify?

And does a old holy story automatically become inspired scripture?

[JLB32168]

That appears to be exactly what you are doing. You are taking a phrase [not a word] that literally means "the son of a man" and deciding to use it to mean a god when you want it to. Yes, the phrase has been used in various contexts with meanings that are ambiguous. It's like the word 'Messiah." A Messiah or even THE Messiah, does not refer to a divinity. Even if the phrase is used in reference to a person who died and has come back to life and will return again after a sojourn in Heaven, that does not mean the man is a god, and certainly not THE God.
Was Enoch divine? Was Elijah divine? Moses?

The term doesn’t just refer to a mere human being. It was also used to refer to a pre-existent being that was worshipped – aspects usually reserved for the deity alone. It’s really that simple. I’m not sure why people simply refuse to concede that the term doesn’t refer to a mere human 100% of the time.

[JLB32168]

But can you demonstrate a place where it ever unequivicably refers to God?

No, but I don’t have to do that. All I have to do is demonstrate that the term logically allows for that interpretation and we both know that it does; therefore, the argument isn’t pointless – protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

And as for someone who existed before the creation, would not all angels and devils qualify?

They are created; therefore, they are a part of the creation. That their creation isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Genesis account is irrelevant since the ancient Hebrews held that they were created prior to the material universe but were still a part of creation.

And does a old holy story automatically become inspired scripture?

Start a thread on it. It isn’t germane to this discussion.

[polonius]

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.

That appears to be exactly what you are doing. You are taking a phrase [not a word] that literally means "the son of a man" and deciding to use it to mean a god when you want it to. Yes, the phrase has been used in various contexts with meanings that are ambiguous. It's like the word 'Messiah." A Messiah or even THE Messiah, does not refer to a divinity. Even if the phrase is used in reference to a person who died and has come back to life and will return again after a sojourn in Heaven, that does not mean the man is a god, and certainly not THE God.

Was Enoch divine? Was Elijah divine? Moses?

RESPONSE:

On the contrary. I am using the plain meaning of words without trying to read something into it that isn't there.

If you can PROVE otherwise, please do so.

Vain imaginings and personal beliefs are not historical proof or proof of anything..

[polonius]

But can you demonstrate a place where it ever unequivicably refers to God?

>>No, but I don’t have to do that. <<

RESPONSE: On the contrary, that's exactly what you have to do, if you want your theory taken seriously.

[polonius]

But can you demonstrate a place where it ever unequivicably refers to God?

No, but I don’t have to do that. All I have to do is demonstrate that the term logically allows for that interpretation and we both know that it does; therefore, the argument isn’t pointless – protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

And as for someone who existed before the creation, would not all angels and devils qualify?

They are created; therefore, they are a part of the creation. That their creation isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Genesis account is irrelevant since the ancient Hebrews held that they were created prior to the material universe but were still a part of creation.

And does a old holy story automatically become inspired scripture?

Start a thread on it. It isn’t germane to this discussion.

RESPONSE:

That's exactly what you have done. Do you want to claim that the Epic of Gilgemesh is scripture about the flood and therefore to be considered inspired ?

[Ancient of Years]

Matthew’s use of a virgin birth theme was not inspired by pagan sources. As will be seen it comes from a Jewish source. Matthew’s agenda of establishing Jesus as positively the Jewish Messiah required first resolving the different perceptions of the Messiah. The virgin birth theme was an essential element in this. As with much of Matthew, calculated overstatement is the order of the day.

It would be very surprising if Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospel writers, knew much about the mythologies of the Gentiles. If he did it would have been Greek mythology. Zeus was said to have fathered many children by mortal women but almost all of his paramours were married. In the few cases where they were not, virginity does not seem to have been an important part of the story and not explicitly stated. Linking Matthew’s virgin birth story to pagan mythology is less than convincing.

Matthew wrote his Gospel to shield his community of Jewish Christians from encroachment by the new rabbinic Judaism. With the destruction of the Temple, the heart and soul of Jewish religious life, Judaism was in chaos. A group of Pharisees who managed to leave Jerusalem before its destruction were rebuilding Judaism on a rabbinic model, involving a network of learned teachers who would lead individual communities. Matthews’s program was to identify Christianity, the Jewish flavor anyway, as the legitimate successor to historic Judaism by proving to his community that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. For Matthew to resort to pagan sources in this effort, or for his community to accept that, would be unthinkable.

There were different views of what the Messiah was. To prove anything about Jesus being the Messiah first required resolving the several existing views on what the Messiah was. Jewish had the Messiah be a human descendent of David. Paul had him be the quasi-divine Son of God, who would return to resurrect and judge. Mark added in the Son of Man image. This last was the easiest to handle. All that was needed was to include Mark’s references to Daniel in the Olivet Discourse. This also satisfied the Pauline resurrection/judgment angle, this being part of Daniel.

The big problem was the tension between Jesus as human and as divine. Both were necessary to fit already established traditions. To make it harder Jesus had to be not merely human but a descendent of David by male lineage as per scripture, and born of a woman as per Paul. How could this be reconciled with Jesus being the Son of God? To claim that the Son came down from heaven and inhabited the body of a child otherwise normally conceived would sound not only unsatisfactory but downright suspicious.

Matthew’s solution was to first build an elaborate genealogy showing not only Davidic lineage but emphasizing the solidly Jewish nature of Jesus by going back to Abraham, the first Jewish patriarch. The genealogy was organized into three groups of 14. In Hebrew gematria, the name David works out to 14. The name David appears twice in the lineage. Matthew then slipped in Mary as the spouse of Joseph. Several illustrious spouses had already been mentioned during the genealogy so this does not seem that unusual. What we have is a solidly Jewish genealogy demonstrating Davidic descent.

But what about the Son of God part? After having associated Mary with the line of David as the spouse of Joseph, Matthew then tells the story of Mary conceiving by the Holy Spirit while still a virgin. To emphasize that Joseph is not the biological father, Matthew has Joseph planning to break off the betrothal until an angel tells him what happened. In Matthew Jesus – the human Jesus born of woman – is literally the Son of God in a very real sense.

But what justification does Matthew have for this rather radical solution? He presents it as a fulfillment of a prophecy (as he does so often) by interpreting the Greek Septuagint parthenos as a literal virgin. And this is the primary meaning of the Greek word. But it also has the secondary meaning of a female “beyond puberty but not yet married�. (Reference) This is the equivalent of the Hebrew almah and parthenos was the best word Greek had to offer for translating from the Hebrew. Matthew of course uses the primary meaning since it served his purpose.

But where did Matthew get the idea from? Surely not from a single Greek word that does not properly represent the Hebrew. As it happens there is an excellent candidate that would justify God inspiring the conception of important figures in Jewish scriptures and make note of a very special relationship between God and virgins and even has the offspring be the child of the husband regardless of the true inspiration of the pregnancy.

Enter Philo…

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who sought to reconcile Jewish scriptures with Middle Platonism. His Son of God figure, a sort of extension of God into the world, is likely the source of Paul’s Son of God representation of Jesus. Philo is very obviously the inspiration for the Logos in John 1. Here is Philo

Philo On the Cherubim

XIII. (43) But we must begin our explanation of these mysteries in this way. A husband unites with his wife, and the male human being with the female human being in a union which tends to the generation of children, in strict accordance with and obedience to nature. But it is not lawful for virtues, which are the parents of many perfect things, to associate with a mortal husband. But they, without having received the power of generation from any other being, will never be able by themselves alone to conceive any thing. (44) Who, then, is it who sows good seed in them, except the Father of the universe, the uncreated God, he who is the parent of all things? This, therefore, is the being who sows, and presently he bestows his own offspring, which he himself did sow; for God creates nothing for himself, inasmuch as he is in need of nothing, but he creates every thing for him who is able to take it. (45) And I will bring forward as a competent witness in proof of what I have said, the most holy Moses.{#ge 21:1.} For he introduces Sarah as conceiving a son when God beheld her by himself; but he represents her as bringing forth her son, not to him who beheld her then, but to him who was eager to attain to wisdom, and his name is called Abraham. (46) And he teaches the same lesson more plainly in the case of Leah, where he says that "God opened her Womb."{15}{#ge 29:13.} But to open the womb is the especial business of the husband. And she having conceived, brought forth, not to God, for he alone is sufficient and all-abundant for himself, but to him who underwent labour for the sake of that which is good, namely, for Jacob; so that in this instance virtue received the divine seed from the great Cause of all things, but brought forth her offspring to one of her lovers, who deserved to be preferred to all her other Suitors.{16}{#ge 25:21.}
(47) Again, when the all-wise Isaac addressed his supplications to God, Rebecca, who is perseverance, became pregnant by the agency of him who received the supplication; but Moses, who received Zipporah, {#ex 2:21.} that is to say, winged and sublime virtue, without any supplication or entreaty on his part, found that she conceived by no mortal man.

[…]

XIV. (48) … "Hast thou not called me as thy house, and thy father, and the husband of thy Virginity?"{#jer 3:4.} showing by this expression most manifestly that God is both a house, the incorporeal abode of incorporeal ideas, and the Father of all things, inasmuch as it is he who has created them; and the husband of wisdom, sowing for the race of mankind the seed of happiness in good and virgin soil. For it is fitting for God to converse with an unpolluted and untouched and pure nature, in truth and reality virgin, in a different manner from that in which we converse with such.

God inspiring pregnancies, God ‘conversing’ with virgins, but the husband nonetheless being the father. Just what Matthew needed to have Jesus be the literal Son of God but still a descendant of David.