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?

[marco]

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?

The resurrection of Christ was decreed a fact by Paul, whose words are not usually taken as the stuff of history. Historians refer sketchily to the business of early Christians, and they have nothing to say about resurrections. If one is a believer, no historical reference is required to authenticate belief but in considering the factuality of a resurrected Christ, perhaps an examination of Paul's words is relevant.

He supplies the text for later creeds: Christ died for our sins. He was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures. And then he cites various witnesses.

He next goes into a curious series of conditions on faith.

"If there was no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen."
This is a non sequitur. If a god specifically turned into a man for some purpose of reconciliation returned to his divine state, mission accomplished, it is not an indication that hoi polloi can do likewise, hoi polloi not having godhead in them.

"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain."
Faith in God can happily exist, and does, without accepting resurrection of the dead. Of course the particular faith that Paul wanted them to have was faith in him and his preaching, which is another matter.

It is probably true that Paul believed God spoke to him and if he accepted one miracle, two would be no problem. So his conviction would be sincerely held. However, instead of semantic pleading, he could have offered evidence that would have been accepted in a court of law. He could have taken some of the incidental witnesses, still not asleep, and got them to write down independent accounts. We have nothing but affirmations, which no court would uphold as certainties. One stumbling block would be the manner in which witnesses identified the now living Christ.

Given zero reliable evidence the resurrection is certainly not a historical fact and there is absolutely nothing to suppose it is a fact of any sort.

[polonius]

[quote="marco"]
[quote="polonius.advice"

Marco posted:

"The resurrection of Christ was decreed a fact by Paul, whose words are not usually taken as the stuff of history."

"Given zero reliable evidence the resurrection is certainly not a historical fact and there is absolutely nothing to suppose it is a fact of any sort."

These two sentences taken from the beginning and end of Marco's post provide the best answer (in my opinion) to the question asked on this thread! Very well done!

[dio9]

[Replying to post 489 by Danmark]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

The point is , the physical resurrection of Jesus does not determine our own restoration . It is the spirit of God in Man which counts , it is the resurrected spirit of Christ in people which lives on , no matter whether a fellow traveler, gardener , fisherman , butcher , baker or candle stick maker. We find Christ among us. This resurrection is really a historical fact.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 489 by Danmark]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

The point is , the physical resurrection of Jesus does not determine our own restoration . It is the spirit of God in Man which counts , it is the resurrected spirit of Christ in people which lives on , no matter whether a fellow traveler, gardener , fisherman , butcher , baker or candle stick maker. We find Christ among us. This resurrection is really a historical fact.

RESPONSE:

>>This resurrection is really a historical fact.<<

A "resurrected spirit"??? But not any actual bodily resurrection, right? Just a story.

If you claim otherwise please provide credible evidence, or we can dismiss your claim.

[marco]

The point is , the physical resurrection of Jesus does not determine our own restoration . It is the spirit of God in Man which counts , it is the resurrected spirit of Christ in people which lives on , no matter whether a fellow traveler, gardener , fisherman , butcher , baker or candle stick maker. We find Christ among us.

Does this resurrected spirit enter people selectively? Presumably, at birth? Why then did it omit to enter Hitler or Stalin, when by doing so it could have worked wonders? Are we saying that the ordinary niceness of some people is explained by the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, while the incomparable evil of others has just no explanation - man being man?

It is poetic to attribute Christ to a friendly gardener or a jovial candlestick maker but one is asking a lot of human credibility to have us believe that a god became man, got tortured and crucified simply to put a smile on a gardener's face. Or is there more to it?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 489 by Danmark]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

The point is , the physical resurrection of Jesus does not determine our own restoration . It is the spirit of God in Man which counts , it is the resurrected spirit of Christ in people which lives on , no matter whether a fellow traveler, gardener , fisherman , butcher , baker or candle stick maker. We find Christ among us. This resurrection is really a historical fact.

So what you are saying is that it doesn't really matter whether or not Jesus was actually resurrected, or if in actually the story was really nothing but false rumors and make believe in action to begin with. What really matters is how the make believe that is the resurrection connects to the rest of your faith derived assumptions to make the entire package of your system of make believe complete.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 489 by Danmark]

Yes but you don't believe that do you?

The point is , the physical resurrection of Jesus does not determine our own restoration . It is the spirit of God in Man which counts , it is the resurrected spirit of Christ in people which lives on , no matter whether a fellow traveler, gardener , fisherman , butcher , baker or candle stick maker. We find Christ among us. This resurrection is really a historical fact.

No. It is not a "historical fact." That is merely your claim, and a claim without foundation. The very point of this subtopic has been to demonstrate all the reasons why your claim is NOT 'historical fact. You gave one good reason yourself; that those who were most likely to recognize the resurrected Jesus, failed to do so. The most logical explanation? It wasn't him. He was dead, and still is, just like everyone else who has died.

[JLB32168]

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.

I read my post later and yes, it does seem confusing. What I’m saying is that we have one case where a woman is referred to as a virgin while clearly not still being a virgin.
In every other case in the LXX, however, the term parthenos refers to a virgin as we commonly define the term and that is evidenced by the fact that Judith refers to a parthenos whom strangers violated and who polluted her virginity parthenou because they “opened�mitran her. I’m at a loss for how one can infer that this use of partenos deviates from the use inferred by the writer of Luke.

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.

I think you’re basing your opinion upon an exception to the exclusion of other LXX passages that clearly suggest the typical understanding of the word parthenos and that indicates a bias rather than an objective consideration of all evidence. Certainly the humungous cult image of Athens, Athena Parthenos (c. 453 BC/BCE) in the Parthenon wasn’t named for Athena the Young Woman of Marriageable Age since she was (aside from being goddess of wisdom) the enforcer of rules of sexual modesty and purity.

[Danmark]

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.

I read my post later and yes, it does seem confusing. What I’m saying is that we have one case where a woman is referred to as a virgin while clearly not still being a virgin.

Of greater significance is the fact that miraculous births are a common element in historical literature and religious texts. There are several from the Bible and dozens more from other religions and myths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

This literary device of the virgin or other miraculous birth served an important function; to transform a man into a god or demigod. Surely a being who only appeared to be a man, must have been born in a manner unlike other men. This device was necessary to attempt to transform a mere mortal into a god. Rather than accomplish that mission, however, the very commonness of the motif reveals the fraud.

[JLB32168]

JLB: 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.

polonius.advice: 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.

The relevant passages in the Books of Enoch that speak of the Son of Man and attributes A) and B) mentioned above have been posted numerous times as early as Dec. 8th on this very thread – once by an atheist who agreed that some posters are attempting to artificially restrict the meaning of the concept. That those posters don’t wish to confuse the issue with facts contra their argument is something with which I simply cannot be bothered.