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?

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

Since you brought up archaeological evidence as evidence to prove a war occurred (contrasts between that and alleged supernatural occurrence still outnumbering comparisons), what sort of archaeological evidence would a supernatural event such as the resurrection leave?

RESPONSE:

Since the coming back to life a a dead peerson would be unique in human history, it would be an amazing and unique event .

I would expect that at least a few of the witnesses and those who they told would have recorded the event in writing.

Of the 500 witnesses described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 seeing the risen Jesus in Jerusalem (especially any Roman soldiers), or some of the many people they would have been expected to tell about it, at least a few would have left written records. None did.

So too all those that saw the risen Jesus during to 40 days before his Ascension.

[tfvespasianus]

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?

Yes, Jesus was human; therefore, he possessed all of the aspects proper to H. sapiens. As to where the second pair of appeared, I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s an important question either. As I said, if a hypothetical entity allegedly created all matter and energy from nothing then it seems conceivable that said entity could also create genes from nothing.

This puzzles me for several reasons, among them is the inconsistency of having an immaterial entity affecting the physical world.

It’s only an inconsistency in that you have ruled out that such an entity exists and have only the hearsay of people who allegedly did speak with or see said entity.

And of course I don’t think you really ask the questions in good faith because you pooh-pooh all answers that are given. I suspect that this sentiment governed your questions from the outset rather than objective interest in what any theist actually had to say.

You continue to claim that unlike normal humans, Jesus had two "PAIRS" of genes. This would mean there had to be two zygotes within one body. But you admit you don't know where this second pair came from. Is there a tradition or any basis whatsoever for claiming Jesus was a
chimera? I ask because you make a claim. It is a fair question to ask the basis of a claim. So far your answers have been "I don't know" and the long form of "God did it," which is another way of saying "I don't know."

Essentially, if there is a god(s) then supplying half the neucleobases for a viable zygote wouldn’t be that big of a challenge if we further posit that this entity can create an entire universe ex nihilo.

If, as I believe but do not bring up when discussing questions of scriptural exegesis or historical evidence, there are no gods then it’s irrelevant to discuss whether or not they are able to do anything as they don’t exist. What is implicit in a question of how did a god do such a thing is the idea that, if only for the sake of argument, there is a god. Moreover, in implicitly conceding this point, being able to not fully understand aspects of said divinity is part of the paradigm.

I think it’s better to leave questions as to the existence of such entities to questions that are explicitly about such propositions rather than every question about history, scripture, and/or philosophy lest we discuss nothing else.

Take care,
TFV

[JLB32168]

You continue to claim that unlike normal humans, Jesus had two "PAIRS" of genes. This would mean there had to be two zygotes within one body.

I’ve been sloppy with my biology, which is odd since I’ve taught biology in the past. Christ possessed all of the aspects proper to a male H. sapiens, that is, he began as a human zygote – a fertilized cell – then blastocyst – then embryo – then fetus – then newborn infant, adolescent, and adult. Possessing all of the typical aspects of a male H. sapiens, including numbers of genes.
As to how God did that – produce a male human being via human parthenogenesis – I’ve already stated that I didn’t know how it was done. I just didn’t think it was an important question. What I did state was, to quote TFV (who I don’t think will mind me stating is an atheist), “f there is a god(s) then supplying half the neucleobases for a viable zygote wouldn’t be that big of a challenge if we further posit that this entity can create an entire universe ex nihilo.�

I also agree with his sentiment that (and I'll be less diplomatic since I prefer a chainsaw over a scalpel in many cases) debating the existence of a deity(ies) should be limited tp explicit questions about it. For every question about history, scripture, and/or philosophy to devolve into a demand that we prove the existence of the Christian deity will leave us with nothing else to discuss; therefore, a demand to answer that when a point is brought to the table, is just stupid.

[Danmark]

You continue to claim that unlike normal humans, Jesus had two "PAIRS" of genes. This would mean there had to be two zygotes within one body.

I’ve been sloppy with my biology....

Hence the question when you made the "two pairs claim."

For every question about history, scripture, and/or philosophy to devolve into a demand that we prove the existence of the Christian deity will leave us with nothing else to discuss; therefore, a demand to answer that when a point is brought to the table, is just stupid.

The questions put to you have been specific and about specific claims you have made.

If you make an unsupported claim, expect a challenge here on a debate site set up for that very purpose. See Presenting Evidence and "Guidelines for the C&A subforum"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

This is what I'm saying. The priests could not be in the presence of a graveyard over the Sabbath and that is why they got the Romans to inspect the tomb. First of all you are saying that the chief priests were there and then say it is scandalous for me to say the priests were there when I actually didn't say they were present. I don't understand what you are saying here.

Cut for brevity.

And you really don't have to buy into what I believe.

I congratulate you on this attempt, and for the effort you have expended. However, we can really boil this discussion down to it's two main and most important points: Gospel Matthew makes no mention of Romans being at the tomb. Nor does it in any way suggest that the tomb was opened and inspected for the body of Jesus when the priests took possession of it on that high holy day. You have to invent the assertion concerning Romans at the tomb and insert it into the narrative, and then entirely contrive an assumption of opening and inspecting the tomb from thin air where no such information exists. And this system of contrivance and unfounded assertions are used as the basis for your claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Do you see how your claims and your assumptions simply do not hold up under scrutiny? Add to this the fact that no one else mentioned any guard at the tomb at all, and we are left with no viable basis for what is after all a totally unbelievable conclusion; that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and subsequently flew away. I realize that you were raised to accept and believe the story without qualification, but that does not change the fact that it is was an unrealistic story all along with no real likelihood for being true. The more you attempt to defend it the more you will discover that the factual basis you have always been led to believe serves to supports the story, simply is not there. And you will be left with little but your deep abiding faith that of course, it must all be true. Because for it to be false would be a monstrous betrayal of so much genuine trust. Which, I must conclude, is exactly the way the believers of those other various "false" beliefs would feel if they were somehow to be made to understand that their entire worldview was based on little more than myth and fabrications. They too would be emotionally devastated. Which is why the overwhelming majority of true believers would never accept the possibility that their belief wasn't true no matter what the evidence showed.

Finally, you can certainly continue to convince yourself that of course it's all true. But you can never provide others with any factual basis for your faith, because careful analysis of the actual facts indicates quite clearly that any genuine physical evidence that a corpse came back to life and flew away simply is not there. The more you attempt to establish for others that your beliefs are based on genuine hard evidence, the more disappointed and disillusioned you will yourself become.

[Inigo Montoya]

50 something pages in now. What have we learned?

Well we've learned that questions about how this god did something were accomplished by...well, magic, basically.

And that as long as you don't immediately discount magic as an explanation for events, you're free to use it to sell an idea. Sprinkle in some Latin and cry about Caesar to divert attention away from the sorcery, mind you.

And that a historical fact from that long ago is basically up to the consensus of ancient historians, who have not been shown to be in agreement the resurrection is, indeed, historically factual. Alongside the 5 billion people on earth who think it's rubbish, too.

No, I think we've learned that despite the claim a resurrection explains the data best, granting we don't deny magic and the presupposing of gods in our explanations (because hey, that's not fair), the truth is that a STORY of a resurrection explains the data equally well and and far more rationally.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

The information for growing a human being is contained as DNA within 23 chromosomal pairs. The pairs themselves are the result of material provided by the parents. One half from the father, and one half from the mother. If Jesus had no biological father, then he was made up of 23 unpaired chromosomes. In which case he was not a human being at all.

[JLB32168]

Hence the question when you made the "two pairs claim."

Even since that is the case, D, the fact that the deity was omnipotent would still have been applicable. An omnipotent entity would be able to do whatever that entity wished assuming said entity could make matter and energy appear ex nihilio.

If Jesus had no biological father, then he was made up of 23 unpaired chromosomes. In which case he was not a human being at all.

Once again, obtaining only half the number of chromosomes from the mother would be of little import for an entity that, having created the universe ex nihilio, would conceivably possess the ability to create the needed twenty-three chromosomes that would otherwise be missing.

[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.

The information for growing a human being is contained as DNA within 23 chromosomal pairs. The pairs themselves are the result of material provided by the parents. One half from the father, and one half from the mother. If Jesus had no biological father, then he was made up of 23 unpaired chromosomes. In which case he was not a human being at all.

"God can do anything" is an answer that satisfies some. He could just had Jesus appear [poof!] fully grown and implanted false memories in his parents and friends re: his youth. "God did it" always works, but never satisfies. "It's a mystery" is another standard. But if we apply the apologists' version of Occam's Razor, we stipulate that God uses supernatural magic as economically as possible. In that regard God would have used Mary's gamete and fertilized it with a gamete he made especially for the event and delivered by an angel. I'm still puzzled about why God sometimes uses natural processes like evolution and why at other times he uses unadulterated magic. One thing that does not puzzle me is that traditions, like fish stories, grow over time. I suppose one inspiration for growth would be a skeptic's question. An answer evolves and is incorporated in a letter until enough letters and books to satisfy the Keepers of the Legends and they get combined into an official canon, and further amendments are barred. From time to time someone unordained will come along and claim there is more. And so it goes.

[JLB32168]

"God can do anything" is an answer that satisfies some. He could just had Jesus appear [poof!] fully grown and implanted false memories in his parents and friends re: his youth.

Yes, one of the perks of being omnipotent is that one could do just that.