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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

Non Believer: That is contrary to all logic and observable fact.

believer: God has magic. I believe it, and that settles it.

Which is fine. But don't then try to contend that the facts support your claims. Because you have already opted out of using facts as evidence to support your unfounded assumptions when you choose to proclaim that anything you claim is true because you claim that God can do anything.

[JLB32168]

Believer: That is contrary to all logic and observable fact. Non believer: God has magic. I believe it, and that settles it.

It is quite logical to conclude that if an omnipotent entity that possesses the ability to create matter and energy ex nihilio is also able to create twenty-three chromosomes ex nihilio.

Now, if you wish to address the question of whether or not an omnipotent entity exists, that question falls outside the purview of this thread or at least the current specific question which actually addresses the topic of human parthenogenesis with the added challenge of producing a human that was male (all of which are somewhat off-topic on this thread).

But don't then try to contend that the facts support your claims.

Exactly what claims have I made, according to you – that God exists? I’ve not claimed that. I claimed that an omnipotent god – assuming one exists for the sake of argument – is quite capable of temporarily voiding any alleged law of nature if said god finds those laws to be encumbering for the moment.

Because you have already opted out of using facts as evidence to support your unfounded assumptions . . .

What “Facts� have been produced here? I don’t dispute the fact that a human requires forty-six chromosomes. I think what you’re getting at is the “fact� that the supernatural and by extension God or gods don’t exist, which we both know is only a belief – yours in this case.

Lots of people seem to play fast and loose with the word “facts� on this board – atheist and theist alike.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

Here are some "facts" for you. Dispute them if you wish.

Matt.27:
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.


1. The body of Jesus was given to Joseph and Nicodemus by Pilate on the Friday before Passover. Joseph and Nicodemus were followers of Jesus.

2. Joseph took the body of Jesus to his new personal sepulchre to wash and prepare it because the sepulchre was conveniently near to the place where Jesus was crucified.

3. The followers of Jesus were the last ones that can be shown to have been in direct possession of his body.

4. The next day the chief priests took possession of a closed tomb.

5. There is no indication given that anyone opened the tomb and exposed a body on a high holy day.

6. The following day the tomb was discovered to be empty.

7. What the priests predicted would occur is exactly what DID occur. The tomb proved to be empty, and the followers of Jesus spread the rumor of his resurrection.

Now, to dispute these facts you will need to discredit both Gospel's Matthew and John. Be my guest.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Believer: That is contrary to all logic and observable fact. Non believer: God has magic. I believe it, and that settles it.

I accidentally originally reversed Believer and Non Believer. I hope that was obvious. This is what I intended to say.



Non Believer: That is contrary to all logic and observable fact.

Believer: God has magic. I believe it, and that settles it.

[Claire Evans]

Clair Evans asked:

>>So why did the Pharisees think Jesus was being blasphemous? Because He claimed to be more than just a son of god in the context of having a "special relationship" with God. They knew that. <<

RESPONSE:

From the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Mathew 26:64 Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so.* But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’�

65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed!* What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy;66

(1) NAB Footnote: [26:65] Blasphemed: the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (see Lv 24:10–16). According to the Mishnah, to be guilty of blasphemy one had to pronounce “the Name itself,� i.e., Yahweh; cf. Sanhedrin 7, 4.5. Those who judge the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial by the later Mishnah standards point out that Jesus uses the surrogate “the Power,� and hence no Jewish court would have regarded him as guilty of blasphemy; others hold that the Mishnah’s narrow understanding of blasphemy was a later development.

Yes, it was but the chief priests and the Pharisees could not impose that death penalty. That is why they went to Pilate to get Jesus executed. Jesus mentioned clearly in the past that He was the one sent by God as said by the prophecies. They even wanted to throw him off a cliff. So we need to ask, why did the Pharisees arrest him?

(2) Note that the evangelist we call Matthew wrote his gospel 50 years after the condemnation of Jesus and he was not a witness, But he had to come up with a religious reason for Jesus' execution rather than admit that Jesus had been simply crucified as an insurrectionist by the Romans.

Do you believe that Matthew could not have met those who did witness the condemnation of Jesus? Oral tradition was very much an important why of relaying events. In order for you to be right, the whole gospel regarding this must be wrong and made up because Pilate found no guilty in Jesus.
(3) If you read the four Gospels you will find that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus is regarded as the Messiah but not said to be divine. It began to be thought that Jesus was God in about 85 AD about the time we know that Christians became to be considered "minim" or apostates from Judaism. They were excluded from the Jewish synagogues (see John).

So you only find such references to Jesus supposed divinity in John’s Gospel written about 95 AD.[/quote]


This is not true. Matthew 16:16 says:

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.�

The Son of the living God implicates divinity.

(4) Also note that Matthew 26:64 contains one of the failed second coming prophecies of Jesus. The high priest never saw Jesus’ return “coming on the clouds of heaven.�

Matthew 24:33-34King James Version (KJV)

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


But is this really want Jesus meant or even said?

Let's examine Matthew 24: 3 which He said would have to happen before He returned.

This is Matthew 24:3 in Greek.

αθημένου δὲ α�τοῦ �πὶ τοῦ ὄ�ους τῶν �λαιῶν π�οσῆλθον α�τῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατ’ ἰδίαν λέγοντες· εἶπον ἧμιν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς πα�ουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος;

Now αἰῶνος is ai�nos That means:

aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, �
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time
Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.

There is another example besides Matthew 23:4 where Jesus speaks of an age in the context of a cycle of time. That is Matthew 13:39:

39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.


� δὲ �χθ�ὸς � σπεί�ας α�τά �στιν � διάβολος, � δὲ θε�ισμὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνος �στιν. οἱ δὲ θε�ισταὶ ἄγγελοι εἰσιν.

Here we have αἰῶνος again which is age.

"39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]; and the reapers are angels. 40 So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end [sunteleia] of the [time, or age] [aion, aiwnov]

http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php ... ng-forever

Here is an example of end in the context of generation and example of end as in end of the age.

"... they were written for our instruction, upon whom the end [telos] of the [times, or ages] [aion, aiwnwn] have come." 1 Corinthians 10:11

Because aion is finished off with telos it means the end of the current generation. Like when we say, "in this day and age…"

Closing the term with sunteleia means an age yet to come; that is a future age.

Here is an example of which age in the context of generation and of a future age are used in the same scriptures:

"27 Now there came to Him some of the Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection), ... 33 'In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her.' 34 Jesus said to them, 'The sons of this [toutou] age [aion, aiwnov] marry and are given in marriage. 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that [ekeinou] age [aion, aiwnov] and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:27, 33-35

Toutou means "of this age". Ekeinou means "that age".

I’m not sure if you are familiar with the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek translation compilation of the Old Testament? Koine Greek was used here and was used from 300 BC to 300 AD. It had differences to the
Byzantine Greek which was used from the 4th century onwards. Here is a quote from the Septuagint (LXX):

"but of the tree for knowing good and evil, of it you shall not eat; but on the day that you eat of it, you shall die by death [apoyaneisye] ... Then God said, 'see, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now perhaps he might reach out his hand and take of the tree of life and eat, and he will live forever [aion, aiwna]'" Genesis 2:17 with 3:22

So aiwna is forever in Greek.

We have one in Chronicles, too:

"34 Give thanks to the Lord, for it is good, for his mercy is for ever [aion, aiwna]. ... 36 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting [aion, aiwnov] and to everlasting [aion, aiwnov]: ... 41 ... his mercy endures for ever [aion, aiwna]." 1 Chronicles 16:34, 36, 41

I assume this must be Koine Greek as this was written before 300 AD.

http://www.bridgewaybible.com/index.php ... ng-forever

So it is very clear here that Jesus meant at the end of the age and not the generation. So why the contradiction? There are some who believe that it an insertion that Jesus never said. People wanted to believe Jesus would come again in their life-time and so the gospel writers accommodated them. Jesus couldn't have had two prophecies that contradicted each other.

[JLB32168]

Here are some "facts" for you. Dispute them if you wish.

The things you’ve listed only might be facts.

I didn’t assert that they were definitive facts – only that I believed they were true. Please address arguments that I actually make and not falsely attributed misrepresentations.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Here are some "facts" for you. Dispute them if you wish.

The things you’ve listed only might be facts.

I didn’t assert that they were definitive facts – only that I believed they were true. Please address arguments that I actually make and not falsely attributed misrepresentations.

It's hard to disagree here, because I have said this many times myself. "The portions of the NT which could be true, might be true." In other words, those portions which do not violate the known laws of physics and are at least physically plausible, might be true. Or they might be a collection of stories derived from pure story telling and nothing more. There is no real way to tell. We can't really even establish that Jesus actually existed. If he was an actual historical person, he made absolutely no impact on the historical record while he was alive. Everything that has been written about him came after he was supposed to have been executed.

Here is the most important thing to consider about the NT. "Those portions of the NT that violate all known laws of physics, those things which are totally physically implausible, we have every reason to dismiss with cause." The alleged missing corpse and story of the "risen" Jesus are easily explained as actions taken by his followers after Jesus was executed. The details are right there in Acts and the Gospels themselves, make perfect sense, and have the advantage of being entirely natural in origin. Since no genuine undeniable supernatural act has EVER OCCURRED which is considered to be an authentic fact of history, we have every reason to accept a natural explanation over a supernatural explanation. Anyone can choose to believe whatever it suits them to believe. But no one can ever make totally implausible stories of corpses returning to life and then flying away plausible or realistically true. Especially when your own religious documents provide us with a perfectly natural explanation.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Does Paul's commentary above (1 Cor 15: 51-52; 1 Thess 4:13) indicate he believed that first century Christians would not die before christ's return?

No. It is important to note that in the above discussion Paul, addressing the topic of the future resurrection, is using a collective "we" to refer to anoited spirit begotten Christians AS A GROUP and NOT to those exclusively living in the first century; this is not at all unusual and is fairly common in the Christian Greek scriptures.

WOW you seem to get a LOT of information out of the little word "we". But he also talks about "we who are still alive" , and not just "we".. as in "we the believers, or "we the preachers".

The "we who are still alive" is a bit longer and a bit more descriptive than just the little itsy bitsy "we" all alone by itself. Sounds to me that when Paul uses the "we" all alone he is using the royal "we".. or illegitimately trying to include the people who he is preaching to into HIS group.

The interpretation you proposed about the "we" is a WEE bit thin, in my opinion.

[JLB32168]

In other words, those portions which do not violate the known laws of physics and are at least physically plausible, might be true.

I believe the question here is whether or not the known laws of physics can be violated or if they’re absolute. It sounds as if you think your opinion/belief has been proved to be fact. I do agree with your assessment that they might be “a collection of stories derived from pure storytelling and nothing more�. Of course, I’d not be an Eastern Orthodox Christian if I thought they were pure storytelling and nothing more.

If he was an actual historical person, he made absolutely no impact on the historical record while he was alive.

How much historical record survives from the period when he is alleged to have lived? As I understand it, from the 1st Century we have the Book of Han which is a product of China and which wouldn’t have anything about Christ. We also have Josephus’ The Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews, and Against Apion. There’s also Tacitus: Germania, Ovid: Metamorphoses, Pliny the Elder: Natural History, Petronius: Satyricon, Seneca the Younger: Phaedra and Dialogues Besides that, we have the books of the NT. We’d be foolish to assume that these were the only authors who wrote during the period and most of them address specific topics – not theology. It would seem that most works from the period have perished.

Certainly Diocletian’s active legislation of the destruction of all Christian texts did a number on religious texts – of Irenaeus of Lyon’s voluminous writings only one survived Diocletian’s purge and Irenaeus was writing in the South of Gaul/France.

The alleged missing corpse and story of the "risen" Jesus are easily explained as actions taken by his followers after Jesus was executed.

Yes, but it’s also easily explained as the actions of a supernatural entity – for those who don’t dismiss the existence of the supernatural given the testimonies of people who claim to have knowledge of it. Of course, one can always argue that every single solitary soul who has ever claimed to have had a revelation of the supernatural was actually suffering some temporary mental defect, but I’m not willing to consign such a large and eclectic group of people to the loony bin.

Since no genuine undeniable supernatural act has EVER OCCURRED which is considered to be an authentic fact of history . . .

I think this is your presupposition.

[Student]

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

[font=Times New Roman]
Having strayed way off topic, I wasn't intending to reply to your post. However, as I see that hasn't deterred others, and you have accused me of bias, I thought I might as well post rebuttals to the errors contained in your post.

According to you, there is only one instance, in the Septuagint, where πα�θένος [parthenos] does not refer to a virgin [i.e. Genesis 34:3]; according to you, every other example of the word parthenos is translated as virgin. Is that so?

Evidently, according to your claim, either Genesis 24:14 and 24:55 are not in the Septuagint or they do not contain the word parthenos.

Unfortunately for you, you are wrong on both counts. The word parthenos occurs in both verses; in neither verse is parthenos translated as "virgin".

Gen 24:14 καὶ ἔσται ἡ πα�θένος, ᾗ ἂν �γὼ εἴπω, �πίκλινον τὴν ὑδ�ίαν σου, ἵνα πίω, καὶ εἴπῃ μοι, πίε σύ, καὶ τὰς καμήλους σου ποτιῶ, ἕως ἂν παύσωνται πίνουσαι, ταύτην ἡτοίμασας τῷ παιδί σου τῷ ᾿Ισαάκ, καὶ �ν τούτῳ γνώσομαι ὅτι �ποίησας ἔλεος μετὰ τοῦ κυ�ίου μου ῾Αβ�αάμ.

AV Gn 24:14 And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: [let the same be] she [that] thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.

Gen 24:55 εἶπαν δὲ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ α�τῆς καὶ ἡ μήτη�· μεινάτω ἡ πα�θένος μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἡμέ�ας ὡσεὶ δέκα, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀπελεύσεται.

AV Gn 24:55 And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us [a few] days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.

I could go on, however one example [in addition to Ge 34:3] would be sufficient to prove that your assertion "In every other case in the LXX, however, the term parthenos refers to a virgin as we commonly define the term" is untrue; the two examples I have provided would appear to be overkill.

You claimed:[/font]

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.

[font=Times New Roman]If this is meant to be a joke, you're doing very well. Let's examine the errors in your pseudo-Koinē translation:

The Greek word for "virginity" is not πα�θένου [parthenou];
parthenou is simply the genitive case of parthenos, meaning "of [the] maid" as anyone who stumbled accross an elementary Greek grammar would discover.

The noun πα�ϑενία [parthenia] is sometimes used to denote "virginity" or, in the LXX as "signs of virginity" [De22:15]. (As with any interpretation context has to be our guide).

However, the word parthenia, is not to be found in Judith 9:2, so that's two errors in your translation. You're not doing very well, are you.

The word μίτ�α [mitra] is a noun, not a verb so it cannot mean "opened". The noun mitra actually means "snood or turban as a head-covering". Unfortunately, the noun mitra, or its accusative form μίτ�αν [mitran], doesn't occur in Judith 9:2, so that's another three errors, in your translation, right there. I think an "F" would be over generous.

Perhaps you misread mitran for μήτ�αν [mētran], the accusative case of mētra meaning "womb"? Anyway, what we actually find contained within Judith 9:2 is:

οἳ [[hoi] who] ἔλυσαν [lu� verb: to loose; [elusan they loosened] μήτ�αν [[mētran] womb] πα�θένου [[parthenou] of [the] maid] εἰς [[eis] into] μίασμα [[miasma] crime of defilement]. Evidently an euphemistic reference to the rape of a young girl; the text is silent as to her condition prior to the rape, although if she were to have been a virgin it would certainly amplify the sense of horror.

Enough of the lesson in Greek, I'm certain most folk are bored senseless. I think it's evident, given that your command of Greek might be termed Homeric only as in reference to Homer Simpson, any assertion you make, regarding the interpretation of Greek words, should be taken with a peck of salt and not accepted on the strength of your say so alone.[/font]