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]

[Replying to Danmark]

You miss the point the resurrected Christ is in everyone.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

You miss the point the resurrected Christ is in everyone.

No, I don't "miss" the point. I understand and disagree with your "point."

You wrote that Jesus beloved disciples and Mary did not recognize him. And from that you concluded:

"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."

That is a very straight forward, easy to understand interpretation. It's also, perhaps, a comforting and pleasant thought. From this thought one could conclude Jesus was never resurrected "in the flesh," in a body, but rather he dwells within each of us as a spirit or just as an idea. Very nice.

I get it. The gardener, the stranger, the traveller, were not Jesus at all, ever, except in the sense Jesus now lives in each of us. But this is very different from, and fails to address the claim that Jesus was actually resurrected in his own body as orthodoxy claims.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 489 by Danmark]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 489 by Danmark]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

What I personally believe is neither relevant nor does it affect the argument about those closest to Jesus not recognizing him. It does not interfere with naturalism to accept that Jesus dwells within us just as Socrates does if we have spent much time reading Plato. Nothing of the supernatural need be invoked for one to believe the spirit of his father dwells within him.

[Student]

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.

[font=Times New Roman]
I have to admit that I find the contents of your post confusing and your arguments confused. You say [of Dinah] "To be fair, it describes a woman who was raped".Well, to be fair, that's what defiled means. Are you suggesting that because she was raped she was somehow still a virgin after intercourse? Because she is most certainly described as being parthenos before, and after she is raped.

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.

πα�θένον, [parthenon] the accusative form of parthenos
πα�θένου, [parthenou] the genitive form of parthenos

As for the girl mentioned in Judith 9:2, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Perhaps you can explain.

So far, you have failed to provide anything that contradicts my evidence, that, at the time the Old Testament was translated into the Koinē, the word parthenos still retained the meaning of a female of marriageable age without focusing on virginity.
[/font]

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE:

Unless you have clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, this remains only your opinion.

[otseng]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

Moderator Comment

This would be considered a one-liner response that does not add value to the debate.

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]

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.>>

RESPONSE:

You have quoted nothing as proof and therefore proven nothing. And you are assuming this is an inspired writing but provided no evidence that it is.

[polonius]

JLB claimed:

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.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. That would rarely be the case. Note that there were a number of prostitutes.

If they got stoned, that was only from drinking too much wine.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

Probably the more reasonable question to consider here is, "Should the story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead be considered to be historical?" The claim is clearly religious in nature however. Since not a single other event in commonly accepted secular history is based on the claim of an actual metaphysical occurrence, the answer is NO!