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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 503 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The resurrection is a spiritual reality.

Moderator Comment Please do not state this as undisputed, established fact. To do so here is considered preaching.

This post would be considered to not comply with the guidelines on preaching. Please read through the guidelines and abide by them.


______________

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.

[JLB32168]

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'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?

God is an immaterial entity. He doesn’t have genes to pass to offspring. He simply retains the immaterial part that we all have – a soul. As for where he did get the 2nd pair of genes, I’m not sure why this is a problem for an omnipotent being who allegedly created matter and energy from nothing.

[Danmark]

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'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?

God is an immaterial entity. He doesn’t have genes to pass to offspring. He simply retains the immaterial part that we all have – a soul. As for where he did get the 2nd pair of genes, I’m not sure why this is a problem for an omnipotent being who allegedly created matter and energy from nothing.

Now you're just making stuff up. Are you saying Jesus had two pairs of genes?
My question was where did he get the genes that composed the other half of the zygote if he got half from Mary and Joseph did not contribute the other half? If God is immaterial than he does not exist. It always surprises me when people still talk of a soul when we know consciousness emerges from the matter and energy of brain tissue, 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections. The archaic term "soul" came from when we could not imagine consciousness could come from "mere" matter. Why would we need a brain at all if we have "souls?" Maybe the brain is just a pumpkin like mass to keep the skull from caving in.

But you're right, a god who can create a universe in a nano second by willing it into existence can do anything by magical thinking. Logic, reason, and facts are not needed. Still, I wonder where the other gamete came from.

[JLB32168]

My question was where did he get the genes that composed the other half of the zygote if he got half from Mary and Joseph did not contribute the other half?

God manufactured them from bubblegum.

I don’t know where Christ got them but I don’t thing the question is of much import since God allegedly created a man out of dirt and presumably can do the same thing with DNA.

If God is immaterial than he does not exist. It always surprises me when people still talk of a soul when we know consciousness emerges from the matter and energy of brain tissue, 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections.

So when you ask a theological question and request an answer, you’re really not asking the question in good faith and we know that from the fact that you repair to the failsafe “gods and souls don’t exist� argument when an answer is given that you can't rebut.

To quote a moderator, "Moderator Clarification: We have thousands of threads in C&A. It is unreasonable to turn every thread into debating the existence of God. Please only discuss what is in the OP. "

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 521 by JLB32168]

I was trying to think of something along the lines of ‘every time you X, a Y gets its wings’, but didn’t come up with anything good.

In any case, the question of the historicity of the Virgin Birth is a different one from the historicity of the Resurrection.

Has everyone moved on?

[JLB32168]

[Replying to post 522 by tfvespasianus]I agree with your point it's just that I'm not exactly sure how one is supposed to debate the historicity of the Resurrection. If it occurred it can't be observed until they invent time travel which most physicists I've read say is impossible even from a theoretical standpoint. The debate eventually devolves into one of debating the existence of the supernatural.

That strikes me as kinda pointless.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 523 by JLB32168]

Many things that we do and enjoy are pointless from a certain perspective. I do enjoy speculation on occasion.

And I think that is what it does boils down to. It should be conceded that when we talk about the past, some things are more likely than others, but just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean that it is impossible. Those are two different things (i.e. ‘unlikely’ and ‘impossible’).

When this conversation started I do think an attempts were being made to present this unlikely event (the Resurrection) as more likely than the baseline via presenting arguments about the reliability of the what evidence that we do have. And, of course, we had some back and forth about the problems with the evidence. And now somehow fifty or so pages later we are at a different place.

Take care,
TFV

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 503 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The resurrection is a spiritual reality.

Instead of just preaching it, how about backing this statement up with either some evidence or logical support? After all this is a debating site, not a soap box.

How can we consider this statement anything more than just religious fantasy?

[Danmark]

My question was where did he get the genes that composed the other half of the zygote if he got half from Mary and Joseph did not contribute the other half?

God manufactured them from bubblegum.

I don’t know where Christ got them but I don’t thing [SIC] the question is of much import since God allegedly created a man out of dirt and presumably can do the same thing with DNA.

If God is immaterial than he does not exist. It always surprises me when people still talk of a soul when we know consciousness emerges from the matter and energy of brain tissue, 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections.

So when you ask a theological question and request an answer, you’re really not asking the question in good faith and we know that from the fact that you repair to the failsafe “gods and souls don’t exist� argument when an answer is given that you can't rebut.

You said Jesus had two PAIRS of genes. This would indicate he had TWO zygotes. I just wondered what you based that on. If he was generated from a single zygote, do you think God supplied the DNA for both gametes or just the one that was not Mary's?

I never asked about God being "immaterial" or about the "soul." You volunteered these religious terms in answer to a question about DNA. I take it you don't really have an answer except "God did it by Holy Magic."

The nature of Jesus and his DNA or lack thereof is pertinent to the question of the resurrection, since the claim is that Jesus was both entirely man, and thus had a unique genetic code that came from two parents; AND that he was fully God, and thus "immaterial" according to your claim. This puzzles me for several reasons, among them is the inconsistency of having an immaterial entity affecting the physical world. This inconsistency would appear to be the same as that of the cartoon world where ghosts can walk thru walls as if they are not made of matter, yet that can pick up a material object with their hands as if they ARE made of matter. Thus the "Holy" Ghost appears to have the same nature as Casper the Friendly Ghost, which makes sense since they are both fictional characters.

[polonius]

JLB posted,

I agree with your point it's just that I'm not exactly sure how one is supposed to debate the historicity of the Resurrection. If it occurred it can't be observed until they invent time travel which most physicists I've read say is impossible even from a theoretical standpoint. The debate eventually devolves into one of debating the existence of the supernatural.

RESPONSE:

1. How do you know there was a second world war unless there is time tavel?

2. How do you know there was a first world war unless there is time travel?

3. How do you know there was a Cival War unless there is time travel?

4. How do you know there was a Revoluntionaly way unless there is time travel?

5. Can you even believe yesterday really existed unless there is time travel?

What bizarre thinking!


Does one have to "observe" all the events of history to determine that something really occurred? Or can one use the historical evidnce that supports the facts.

That's what hsitory is all about.