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]

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.

The idea of Jesus as the Son of God already appeared in Paul and Mark. Matthew was not making Jesus into a god. That was already part of the story. Matthew did not invent it, he made it literal as part of his reconciling the several views of a Messiah. To be the Son of God in the unique sense that Paul uses the phrase, there could not be a human biological father or there would always be doubt about the Son of God claim.

What Matthew introduces into the story is the virgin birth, which removes doubt about Jesus really being the Son of God in the sense Paul meant, i.e., a quasi-divine being. Gods fathering children is a very common theme in Greek mythology, the only type Matthew would likely be familiar with, if any. But the paramours of Zeus, the big time Lothario, were almost never virgins.

In short: Matthew did not get the divine parentage theme from pagan sources. He got it from earlier writers on Jesus. Neither did he get the virgin birth theme from any pagan sources he is likely to have known where it is only barely present and never emphasized as such.

I previously documented at great length a far more likely inspiration for the virgin birth idea - Philo. The relevant portions of On the Cherubim fit perfectly with Matthew 1, resolving the problematic issue of Jesus as the for real Son of God, but the Messiah being a human descendant of David.

[Danmark]

The idea of Jesus as the Son of God already appeared in Paul and Mark. Matthew was not making Jesus into a god. That was already part of the story. Matthew did not invent it, he made it literal as part of his reconciling the several views of a Messiah. To be the Son of God in the unique sense that Paul uses the phrase, there could not be a human biological father or there would always be doubt about the Son of God claim.

What Matthew introduces into the story is the virgin birth, which removes doubt about Jesus really being the Son of God in the sense Paul meant, i.e., a quasi-divine being. Gods fathering children is a very common theme in Greek mythology, the only type Matthew would likely be familiar with, if any. But the paramours of Zeus, the big time Lothario, were almost never virgins.

In short: Matthew did not get the divine parentage theme from pagan sources. He got it from earlier writers on Jesus. Neither did he get the virgin birth theme from any pagan sources he is likely to have known where it is only barely present and never emphasized as such.

I previously documented at great length a far more likely inspiration for the virgin birth idea - Philo. The relevant portions of On the Cherubim fit perfectly with Matthew 1, resolving the problematic issue of Jesus as the for real Son of God, but the Messiah being a human descendant of David.

I've always been curious about how this miraculous birth was supposed to work. If half of the genes came from God and half from Mary, how can Jesus be a God?
I have no basis to dispute your assessment that the idea of a virgin birth came from Philo. He seems to represent a synthesis of Jewish and Greek thought. I believe the concept of 'the Logos' also originates with him and influenced the Gospel of John.
But the idea of a quasi- or demigod via a virgin or otherwise miraculous birth predates Philo. A special birth is a logical necessity as an explanation for the origin of a superman, whether from a virgin birth or the planet Krypton.

[Ancient of Years]

The idea of Jesus as the Son of God already appeared in Paul and Mark. Matthew was not making Jesus into a god. That was already part of the story. Matthew did not invent it, he made it literal as part of his reconciling the several views of a Messiah. To be the Son of God in the unique sense that Paul uses the phrase, there could not be a human biological father or there would always be doubt about the Son of God claim.

What Matthew introduces into the story is the virgin birth, which removes doubt about Jesus really being the Son of God in the sense Paul meant, i.e., a quasi-divine being. Gods fathering children is a very common theme in Greek mythology, the only type Matthew would likely be familiar with, if any. But the paramours of Zeus, the big time Lothario, were almost never virgins.

In short: Matthew did not get the divine parentage theme from pagan sources. He got it from earlier writers on Jesus. Neither did he get the virgin birth theme from any pagan sources he is likely to have known where it is only barely present and never emphasized as such.

I previously documented at great length a far more likely inspiration for the virgin birth idea - Philo. The relevant portions of On the Cherubim fit perfectly with Matthew 1, resolving the problematic issue of Jesus as the for real Son of God, but the Messiah being a human descendant of David.

I've always been curious about how this miraculous birth was supposed to work. If half of the genes came from God and half from Mary, how can Jesus be a God?
I have no basis to dispute your assessment that the idea of a virgin birth came from Philo. He seems to represent a synthesis of Jewish and Greek thought. I believe the concept of 'the Logos' also originates with him and influenced the Gospel of John.
But the idea of a quasi- or demigod via a virgin or otherwise miraculous birth predates Philo. A special birth is a logical necessity as an explanation for the origin of a superman, whether from a virgin birth or the planet Krypton.

Of course the birth must be special to satisfy the already entrenched Son of God meme. My point was that of the divine parentage stories that Matthew would be most likely to have been exposed to (Greek mythology) only a very small number involved virgins and that was never a key element in even those stories.

Catholic thinking is that the physical form of Jesus came entirely from Mary with the minor exception of a little 'miraculous' DNA manipulation to make a male child. The soul that entered this physical form was the pre-existing Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

Of course Matthew was not concerned with fine details like that. He was spinning a tale that was intended to establish Jesus as absolutely the Jewish Messiah. This would make Christianity the legitimate successor to historic Judaism in the chaotic post-Temple era. The Pharisees who left Jerusalem before the end were busily constructing rabbinic Judaism and laying claim to that same title. To make Jesus the undeniable Messiah, Matthew had to first reconcile the different views of what the Messiah was supposed to be and connect them to Jesus. Matthew chapter 1 is how he performs that task.

[dio9]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

Paul for one claimed Christ dwelled in him, that would be the spirit.

[dio9]

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?

did you really have to play the Hitler card?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 503 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The resurrection is a spiritual reality.

[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.

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.

the verse you started this thread with from Thessalonians has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus .Yet you use it to say Jesus didn't resurrect. Paul was talking about the resurrection of dead Thessalonians . If you are gonna talk about Jesus' resurrection at least use the Gospel accounts.

[Zzyzx]

.

the verse you started this thread with from Thessalonians has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus .Yet you use it to say Jesus didn't resurrect. Paul was talking about the resurrection of dead Thessalonians . If you are gonna talk about Jesus' resurrection at least use the Gospel accounts.

Perhaps this quote from Paul/Saul clarifies

1 Corinthians 15:13…But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.…

BTW, Danmark did not start this thread. It was started by Polonius.advice

Are you attempting to argue that the resurrection tale is NOT of a dead body coming back to life but of some sort of "spiritual reality" (whatever that may mean)?

If so, what happened to the body?

Kindly explain what is meant by "spiritual reality" and explain how differs from real world reality.

[Danmark]

the verse you started this thread with from Thessalonians has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus .Yet you use it to say Jesus didn't resurrect. Paul was talking about the resurrection of dead Thessalonians . If you are gonna talk about Jesus' resurrection at least use the Gospel accounts.

A. I didn't start this thread and did not write what you claim.
B. Why didn't his closest friends and associates recognize this person later claimed to be a dead person resurrected?
C. What reasons are there to make a single exception to what we have observed for thousands of years: When people actually die, they do not rise again and walk around.
D. Paul does not even pretend to be a witness to any of this or to have ever seen Jesus in the flesh.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 503 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The resurrection is a spiritual reality.

In other words the resurrection is not physically true at. It's spiritually true. It's make believe, but it's make believe that you choose to believe in.