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]

.

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).

Ya know , tradition wrote the Gospels .

[Danmark]

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.

This is where you go wrong. You equate special people with Gods. A human who is "exalted" is not a god.

You did not answer the question:
"Was Enoch divine? Was Elijah divine? Moses?"
Was Enoch worshiped as a god? Was Elijah worshiped as a god? Was Moses?

[polonius]

Ancient of Years posted:

>>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.<<

PROBLEM: Only the male (seed or sperma) determines family affiliation. Therefore, if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph (or another father of Davidic descent), Jesus did not fulfil the prophect to have descended from David (and Solomon).

The first chapter of Luke tells us that Mary was a (blood) relative ofElizabeth, (“Syggenēs� Strong�s word G4773 of the same kin, akin to, related by blood)a "daughter of Arron" Thus it is almost certain that she too would be a "daughter of Aaron," not David. Thus it is extremely unlikely that she could claim Davidic descent. In spite of the prophecy in 2 Samual that the messiah would be in the kingship line of David and his son Solomon, Luke's geneology has Jesus descend from Nathan, who was never a king of Israel.

>>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. <<

PROBLEM; Renderin the Hebrew word "almah" as the Greek word "parthanos" is an error in translation. The original Hebrew Is 7:14 uses the term "almah" which is a young unmarried woman, virgin or not. The koine Greek "parthanos" is a correct translation for "betulah " not "almah."

Please see post 451 above:

"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."

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

[polonius]

When involved in a debate, it is necessary to remember that an assertion that something it true is not in itself proof that it is really true.

It is only “an assertion without evidence� (which is a recognized legal objection to such an argument being introduced in a court of law).

No rebuttal need be made until the presenter of the original assertion presents valid evidence that his claim is true.

And this evidence cannot be “in my opinion,� “some people believe…� etc.

For example, the argument that “Some people believe that Elvis is still alive� is clearly no proof that he is.

Some try the argument that “Long ago many people believed that… therefore you have to prove it isn’t true.�

This is, of course, fallacious from the onset. For example, many people once believed that the earth was flat, but that argument is hardly proof to believe that it really is.

So when an assertion is made without evidence, it is best just to ignore it and move on.

[Ancient of Years]

Ancient of Years posted:

>>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.<<

PROBLEM: Only the male (seed or sperma) determines family affiliation. Therefore, if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph (or another father of Davidic descent), Jesus did not fulfil the prophect to have descended from David (and Solomon).

Of course the virgin birth story in Matthew violates the blood line requirement. My post was an explanation of the non-pagan origin of Matthew’s virgin theme and how he manipulates things to present Jesus as being both the son of Joseph and the Son of God.

Philo writes very metaphorically. After all he is trying to reconcile Jewish scripture and Greek philosophy. A literal approach is not going to work well in such an endeavor. But Matthew presents it as literal truth because he needs to tie up all the messianic attributes into a neat bundle before he can identify Jesus as undeniably the Jewish Messiah. Remember this is a writer who has Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys so that it is unquestionably a prophecy fulfillment. Riding on only one donkey is an everyday event. A simple matter of interpreting kai as ‘and’ instead of the alternate meaning of ‘even’ (for emphasis) that would be more appropriate in context.

The first chapter of Luke tells us that Mary was a (blood) relative ofElizabeth, (“Syggenēs� Strong�s word G4773 of the same kin, akin to, related by blood)a "daughter of Arron" Thus it is almost certain that she too would be a "daughter of Aaron," not David. Thus it is extremely unlikely that she could claim Davidic descent. In spite of the prophecy in 2 Samual that the messiah would be in the kingship line of David and his son Solomon, Luke's geneology has Jesus descend from Nathan, who was never a king of Israel.

Luke’s genealogy is intentionally very different from Matthew’s, part of Luke’s program of redirecting Matthew’s material to be more suitable for a Gentile audience. Luke’s genealogy differs from Matthew’s in order, scope, organization, content, linking to Mary, location in the Gospel, attributed importance and above all intent.

Nathan did not need to be a king of Israel to have been part of the genealogy. Much of even Matthew’s genealogy were not kings. What matters is that David must appear in the lineage for Jesus to be the Messiah. But Luke replacing Solomon, the greatest king, with David’s other son Nathan is part of Luke’s agenda of toning down Matthew’s King of the Jews theme.

But all of that could be a thread by itself.

>>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. <<

PROBLEM; Renderin the Hebrew word "almah" as the Greek word "parthanos" is an error in translation. The original Hebrew Is 7:14 uses the term "almah" which is a young unmarried woman, virgin or not. The koine Greek "parthanos" is a correct translation for "betulah " not "almah."

Please see post 451 above:

"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."

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

I already documented that parthenos has more than one fixed meaning. Here is more: Pindar uses it to mean simply an unmarried girl. (Reference) The person who translated the Hebrew into Greek did not necessarily mistranslate. This is a legitimate translation of almah even though the resulting Greek also means virgin. But there is no doubt that Matthew intends it to mean literal virgo intacta virgin because this is what Matthew needs to pull off his magic trick.

[Danmark]

When involved in a debate, it is necessary to remember that an assertion that something it true is not in itself proof that it is really true.

It is only “an assertion without evidence� (which is a recognized legal objection to such an argument being introduced in a court of law).

No rebuttal need be made until the presenter of the original assertion presents valid evidence that his claim is true.

And this evidence cannot be “in my opinion,� “some people believe…� etc.

For example, the argument that “Some people believe that Elvis is still alive� is clearly no proof that he is.

Some try the argument that “Long ago many people believed that… therefore you have to prove it isn’t true.�

This is, of course, fallacious from the onset. For example, many people once believed that the earth was flat, but that argument is hardly proof to believe that it really is.

So when an assertion is made without evidence, it is best just to ignore it and move on.

All participants would be well advised to read:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16903

[Student]

PROBLEM; Renderin the Hebrew word "almah" as the Greek word "parthanos" is an error in translation. The original Hebrew Is 7:14 uses the term "almah" which is a young unmarried woman, virgin or not. The koine Greek "parthanos" is a correct translation for "betulah " not "almah."

[font=Times New Roman]
According to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek (LSJ) the primary meaning of πα�θένος parthenos, in Classical / Homeric Greek is that of a maiden, or girl. (e.g. Iliad, book 22 line 127) i.e. a female of marriageable age without focusing on virginity.

That the focus was not primarily one of virginity is apparent as parthenos could be applied to unmarried women who were not virgins (Iliad volume 2 line 514, also Pindar’s Odes). Furthermore parthenos could be applied (adjectively) when referring to young unmarried men.

In the Septuagint we find parthenos used to describe Dinah after she was defiled by Shechem (Gen. 34:2-3) when clearly she could no longer be described as a virgin.

Gen 34:3 καὶ π�οσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας τῆς θυγατ�ὸς Ιακωβ καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν πα�θένον καὶ �λάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς πα�θένου α�τῇ.

34:3 And he was attached to the soul of Dina the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and he spoke kindly to the damsel.

That was the situation in Classical Greek / early Koinē, however, through the process of semantic shift, the meaning of the word gradually changed so that, at some time prior to the composition of the Gospels, parthenos came to refer to a female of marriageable age with the focus on virginity i.e. "one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, virgin, chaste person". (see Bauer; BDAG p.777)

Now, depending upon exactly when Isaiah was first translated into Greek, the word parthenos might still have retained some or all of its primary meaning as “a young unmarried girl�. If so, it would have been the correct translation of the Hebrew “almah�. (With “almah� there is only an implication that the young lady is, or rather might be, a virgin because of her age and status, but it is not an explicit statement of sexual purity as such.)

Evidently, by the time the author of Matthew came to read Isaiah (in the Greek Septuagint) the meaning of parthenos had shifted sufficiently in favour of “virgin� to give Matthew a verse that prophesised a virgin birth for the Messiah.

However, it is possible that, in more literary circles, the old sense of parthenos as “a young unmarried girl� may have lingered on. Why else did the author of Luke feel it necessary to remove any shadow of doubt regarding Mary's virginity by having her say to the angel at Lk 1:34 "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?".
[/font]

[polonius]

Ancient of Years posted:

>>Of course the virgin birth story in Matthew violates the blood line requirement. My post was an explanation of the non-pagan origin of Matthew’s virgin theme and how he manipulates things to present Jesus as being both the son of Joseph and the Son of God. <<

>>Luke’s genealogy is intentionally very different from Matthew’s, part of Luke’s program of redirecting Matthew’s material to be more suitable for a Gentile audience. Luke’s genealogy differs from Matthew’s in order, scope, organization, content, linking to Mary, location in the Gospel, attributed importance and above all intent. <<

>>Nathan did not need to be a king of Israel to have been part of the genealogy. Much of even Matthew’s genealogy were not kings. What matters is that David must appear in the lineage for Jesus to be the Messiah. But Luke replacing Solomon, the greatest king, with David’s other son Nathan is part of Luke’s agenda of toning down Matthew’s King of the Jews theme.<<

RESPONSE:

Yes. We can draw such obvious conclusions. I guess God’s biblical inspiration got it wrong. Matthew's and Luke's genealogies in supposedly “God breathed� scripture seriously disagree, perhaps much to the chagrin of fundamentalists.

If Joseph (or someone else in the bloodline from David) was not Jesus’ biological father, Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecy as being the Messiah.

And, of course, if Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1), she would not be of Nathan’s lineage.

[Student]

[Replying to Claire Evans]There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the high priest and the governor of Judaea.

The Roman governor appointed the high priest. The high priest was not elected; his appointment was entirely at the discretion of the governor.

If the governor didn't like the high priest he [the governor] could appoint a new high priest e.g. Valerius Gratus appointed, and dismissed four high priests in quick succession, before appointing Caiaphas:

Antiquities of the Jews 18:2:2
"He [Tiberius] was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

The governor also held the priestly vestments and ornaments, effectively controlling the high priest's ability to perform his Temple duties.

So, far from exercising any control over the governor, the high priest held on to his position only while it pleased of the governor. The high priest was therefore the governor's puppet.

The fact that Caiaphas maintained his position under Gratus for eight years, and retained it for a further ten years, under a volatile and obstinate governor such as Pilate, indicates an extraordinary degree of obsequiousness.

Evidently, Caiaphas did nothing to displease the governor or to cause him to suspect his loyalty. It is telling, that when Vitellius removed Pilate, he also removed Caiaphas, suggesting that Caiaphas was seen as Pilate's Quisling. It certainly demonstrates that Caiaphas was entirely dependent upon Pilate for his security of tenure as high priest.

Sure, the chief priests had to please Pilate. I'm assuming that this has to with political matters. However, if the priests had gone along and put guards at Jesus' tomb without Pilate's knowledge, would he care? Jesus' body was no longer Pilate's concern. However, it became Pilate's concern when the priests approached him and said insurrection may occur if Jesus' body was removed. That had everything to do with him.

Consequently, it is highly unlikely that Caiaphas would ever have contemplated, let alone attempted, browbeating Pilate into doing something that he [Pilate] opposed e.g. executing Jesus. Pilate executed Jesus because he [Pilate] considered it to be expedient, and not because of any supposed pressure applied by Caiaphas or Caiaphas' political/religious opponents, the Pharisees.

Caiaphas blackmailed Pilate. Pilate was cornered. Blackmail makes people do what they don't want to do .

That "Caiaphas blackmailed Pilate" is simply your opinion. So far you haven't produced a scrap of evidence in support of your assertion.

If anything the evidence points in completely the opposite direction. One of the means by which the Roman governor exercised authority over the Temple Priesthood was to control access to the Priestly Vestments. If Caiaphas had such a hold over Pilate, that he could coerce Pilate into executing an apparently innocent man, why didn't Caiaphas oblige Pilate to hand over the Priestly Vestments? Why wasn't this done until after Pilate was removed? (See Josephus AJ 15:404)

So, present your proofs, that Caiaphas was blackmailing Pilate, or accept that your statement is unsubstantiated conjecture i.e. wishful thinking.

[polonius]

Ancient of Years posted:

Nathan did not need to be a king of Israel to have been part of the genealogy. Much of even Matthew’s genealogy were not kings. What matters is that David must appear in the lineage for Jesus to be the Messiah. But Luke replacing Solomon, the greatest king, with David’s other son Nathan is part of Luke’s agenda of toning down Matthew’s King of the Jews theme.

RESPONSE:

You are right of course. I’m afraid I didn’t make my point clear.

I posted:

The first chapter of Luke tells us that Mary was a (blood) relative ofElizabeth, (“Syggenēs� Strong�s word G4773 of the same kin, akin to, related by blood)a "daughter of Arron" Thus it is almost certain that she too would be a "daughter of Aaron," not David. Thus it is extremely unlikely that she could claim Davidic descent. In spite of the prophecy in 2 Samual that the messiah would be in the kingship line of David and his son Solomon, Luke's geneology has Jesus descend from Nathan, who was never a king of Israel.

I ran two concepts together. What I meant was that if Mary was “a daughter of Aaron� like Elizabeth, her relative, she would not have been an offspring of Nathan or a member of the kingship line. She would have been in the priestly line. Some apologists make use of this contradiction saying that taken together, it means that Jesus is both king and priest.

It's interesting that Luke didn't realize he was creating a contradiction between his reports about Elizabeth's and Mary's geneology.