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?

[Ancient of Years]

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.

I imagine Luke knew what he was doing. Luke gives what is essentially lip service to Davidic descent, not a big hot button for his audience. When he gives the genealogy of Jesus, he starts off implying that the descent angle is not very important. Jesus "was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). Luke underscores that Joseph is not the biological father. Matthew had made this connection with historic Judaism of utmost importance. Luke reverses Matthew in this respect. Luke's genealogy emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus. Sub-text: Gentiles can be Christians without obeying Jewish Law, especially (ouch!) that one.

[dio9]

When Jesus resurrected his beloved disciples didn't recognize him. Mary thought he was the gardener when she saw him.

On the shore of lake Tiberias Peter and the sons of Zebedee first saw him , but didn't recognize him when he called out to them , saying what you , I , anybody would say " have you caught anything?" .

On the road to Emmaus Cleopas and his companion met Jesus walking , but didn't recognize him when he asked, what are you talking about?

Well the resurrected Jesus can be interpreted here to be every , any , person we meet, gardener, stranger, traveler anyone and everyone.

The lesson I take from these accounts of resurrection is Christ is resurrected alive in our friends and strangers . The resurrected Christ is to be found in humanity .

Jesus defines his own future resurrection as such where at the last judgement , (Mt. 25:35) he says "I was a stranger and you made me welcome".

[Danmark]

When Jesus resurrected his beloved disciples didn't recognize him. Mary thought he was the gardener when she saw him.

On the shore of lake Tiberias Peter and the sons of Zebedee first saw him , but didn't recognize him when he called out to them , saying what you , I , anybody would say " have you caught anything?" .

On the road to Emmaus Cleopas and his companion met Jesus walking , but didn't recognize him when he asked, what are you talking about?

Well the resurrected Jesus can be interpreted here to be every , any , person we meet, gardener, stranger, traveler anyone and everyone.

The lesson I take from these accounts of resurrection is Christ is resurrected alive in our friends and strangers . The resurrected Christ is to be found in humanity .

The lesson I take from these accounts is one anybody would, that Jesus was dead and a completely different person was now pretending to be Jesus. It is not credible that so many who knew him so well, including Mary Magdalene would all fail to recognize him. He looked like another man, a human, not some angelic being with light radiating from him.

I imagine these accounts were written to support the claim he really and truly died on the cross, so even seeing Jesus who they knew as well as they knew their own faces was unbelievable to them. But that dog won't hunt. This was supposed to be an actual account of real life, not scenes from a Shakespeare play where the characters can successfully pull off an impersonation. That only works in fiction.

[polonius]

When Jesus resurrected his beloved disciples didn't recognize him. Mary thought he was the gardener when she saw him.

On the shore of lake Tiberias Peter and the sons of Zebedee first saw him , but didn't recognize him when he called out to them , saying what you , I , anybody would say " have you caught anything?" .

On the road to Emmaus Cleopas and his companion met Jesus walking , but didn't recognize him when he asked, what are you talking about?

Well the resurrected Jesus can be interpreted here to be every , any , person we meet, gardener, stranger, traveler anyone and everyone.

The lesson I take from these accounts of resurrection is Christ is resurrected alive in our friends and strangers . The resurrected Christ is to be found in humanity .

The lesson I take from these accounts is one anybody would, that Jesus was dead and a completely different person was now pretending to be Jesus. It is not credible that so many who knew him so well, including Mary Magdalene would all fail to recognize him. He looked like another man, a human, not some angelic being with light radiating from him.

I imagine these accounts were written to support the claim he really and truly died on the cross, so even seeing Jesus who they knew as well as they knew their own faces was unbelievable to them. But that dog won't hunt. This was supposed to be an actual account of real life, not scenes from a Shakespeare play where the characters can successfully pull off an impersonation. That only works in fiction.

RESPONSE:

Someone offered this idea especially regarding Paul's "appearance to 500 people"

If you recall, Jesus' brothers did not believe he was the messiah. However, after Jesus' death, his brother James joined (and later became leader) of the Jerusalem Christian community. So there was a new face among the apostles. Due to a family resemblance, could James have been mistaken for Jesus?

[Danmark]

If you recall, Jesus' brothers did not believe he was the messiah. However, after Jesus' death, his brother James joined (and later became leader) of the Jerusalem Christian community. So there was a new face among the apostles. Due to a family resemblance, could James have been mistaken for Jesus?

Makes sense to me. According to the story it was his voice they recognized. Voices, especially of brothers, are easier to imitate than faces. Ask Kevin Pollak.

[JLB32168]

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

The term “Son of Man� had other meanings in exclusively Jewish works – the Books of Enoch, for example. At a minimum, one is forced to admit that this work describes a quasi-divine being who A) existed before the creation of the world and B) received worship, which the Decalogue forbad unless that worship was directed towards the deity proper. I have proved that and I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by refusing to concede that you cannot support your argument that SoM can only be a mere human being.

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

It isn’t a vain imagination when I say that Jewish text describes the SoM/Messiah as being much more than a mere human. Perhaps you’re changing the argument to one of “prove the SoM/Messiah existed and/or was divine� but that’s your affair. That’s a faith-based argument that can’t be dis/proved and I’ve little desire to debate the non-debatable.

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

My theory is that the term “Son of Man� isn’t limited to the concept of a mere human. I’ve proved that theory. That you don’t wish to take conclusive proof seriously is your affair.

[JLB32168]

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

I’ve argued that the term “Son of Man� didn’t refer to a mere man. I’ve successfully shown that some Jews believed that the Son of Man/Messiah was a preexistent person. I’ve also shown that they took no issue with that person being worshipped – an action which is forbidden by the Decalogue unless that worship is rendered to the deity.

I’ve proved my argument that the term “Son of Man� clearly is not limited to a mere human being but can refer to humans that apparently have aspects that are normally proper to deity alone. It would help if people addressed my arguments as I presented them rather than add to them.

Now if one wishes to say that a human with pre-existance, and who is also worshipped, is just an “exalted human� then I suppose s/he can but I don’t think they’re fully appreciating the significance of those two attributes, which are reserved for God alone. It sounds to me as if one doesn’t wish to confuse the issue with facts.

[Danmark]

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

I’ve argued that the term “Son of Man� didn’t refer to a mere man. I’ve successfully shown that some Jews believed that the Son of Man/Messiah was a preexistent person. I’ve also shown that they took no issue with that person being worshipped – an action which is forbidden by the Decalogue unless that worship is rendered to the deity.

I’ve proved my argument that the term “Son of Man� clearly is not limited to a mere human being but can refer to humans that apparently have aspects that are normally proper to deity alone. It would help if people addressed my arguments as I presented them rather than add to them.

Now if one wishes to say that a human with pre-existance, and who is also worshipped, is just an “exalted human� then I suppose s/he can but I don’t think they’re fully appreciating the significance of those two attributes, which are reserved for God alone. It sounds to me as if one doesn’t wish to confuse the issue with facts.

There's a vast difference between what you have claimed and what you've proved. However, I grant that you've made a case for the Bible teaching polytheism, demigods, and god-human hybrids. This mythology you're promoting reminds me of Greco-Roman mythology . . .
. . . and the DC/Marvel comics universe.

[JLB32168]

Matthew’s use of a virgin birth theme was not inspired by pagan sources.

Of course I agree with you AoY. I believe that Christ was born of the Virgin. I’m merely using an objective skeptic’s argument when faced with the assertion by another skeptic that there’s no indication in the Synoptics that the writers thought Christ was God. An objective skeptic must be forced to admit that Luke or the writer or writers of Luke – most likely a Greek, Gentile converts and – wished to appeal to a Greek Gentile audience. The best way to do this would be to borrow a common motif of the time – virgins bearing deities – to describe Christ’s birth. To say that there’s no way to infer from the Synoptics that the writers thought Christ was at a minimum a god is to simply a case of “Let’s not confuse the issue with evidence�.

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.

To be fair, it describes a woman who was raped. The book of Judith also describes a girl who was raped – calling her a parthenos and condemns men for “polluting� her virginity, that is, they “opened� (Gk. mitran) her. We know that by the time the LXX was translated that Classical Greek was no longer the lingua franca but had been replaced with koine; furthermore, the above usage of term parthenos and the fact that it is associated with a woman's “opening� strongly suggests that the word parthenos meant “virgin� as we commonly define it in modern times.

And I also think that it needs to be pointed out that it was expected that an almah would be a virgin or she'd be stoned as a fornicator.

[JLB32168]

There's a vast difference between what you have claimed and what you've proved.

What have I claimed – other than the term “Son of Man� isn’t limited to the understanding of a mere male H. sapiens, as has been alleged?