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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 567 by JLB32168]

I’ll simply repeat what I said earlier. Whether or not the Laws of Physics are actually Laws is the reason this entire website exists. One cannot simply proclaim unilaterally that his or her atheist position is facts show that an atheistic secularist viewpoint on the origin of all things is the only true one.

Atheists might from time to time say that kind of thing but it's BECAUSE of our reaction to the ORIGINAL unfounded claims that the theists make. Atheism is a REACTION to theism.. it's an OPPOSING view... it's based on not agreeing with the THEISTIC views that came BEFORE the atheistic views.

So, at times we propose a CONTRARY position. But atheists do not have to make any truth claims about the "origins of all things"... we QUESTION the claims that the theists make about the "origins of all things". Atheists don't need an answer to that question.. the origin question. Atheists by and large, if they bother to look it up can understand how humans simply do not KNOW anything about the origins of all things.

How did the universe begin, WHY did it?... MOST thinking atheists would simply say the truth.. WE DO NOT KNOW.. so to accuse atheists of PROCLAIMING that they do know leaves me scratching my head.

Just WHO are these atheists who are proclaiming that they KNOW the origins of the universe? As far as I can tell, we have a Big Bang Theory.. but no facts or observations of it. Only evidence for it.. and nothing else. NO DATA before the Big Bang, I'm afraid. That goes for ATHEISTS and it also goes for the THEISTS.

When a theist proclaims that their GOD was somehow at the origin of the universe, we all know that they don't have a shred of evidence other than what it says in a BOOK written long before cosmology was a science. Long before TELESCOPES. No, these authors were just making things up.

That may be true but it doesn’t address the question before us – whether or not Christ left any mark on history. We have very few historical records from the 1st Century AD/CE that are extant and of those that are extant Biblical manuscripts far outnumber any other ones so to say that Christ left very little mark on history cannot be accurately judged since few documents from Christ’s time – outside of NT fragments – exist.

We aren't talking about how many copies of the Bible there are... that's not what is meant by historical records. There might be a million COPIES .. that means nothing. It just means that they copied a lot of the same books. Over and over again.. but these weren't HISTORICAL to the events.

They were copied a long time AFTER the events. And yes, many COPIES were made of these scant original documents. Nothing that we could use to conclude that the original texts weren't fictions, or part fictions.

That may be the case but it doesn’t really address the question of whether or not the Resurrection occurred.

Well, it's not at all surprising that superstitious people would believe in magic. But we have no evidence or reason to believe that MAGIC is a real occurrence. We do, however, have TONS of evidence that people really do like MAGIC STORIES. The resurrection story is wildly popular.. but as far as we can tell, it's just another magic story. Nothing special about that except that the cult of those who believe this story is HUGE.

What we have is TONS of copies of stories about magic events from a long time ago. The phenomenon we call "Christianity" is that people believe that the stories are true, while all other magic stories are not true.

I don't believe in magic at all.. so I don't believe ANY magic story is true. Theists agree with atheists on ALL OTHER MAGIC STORIES but the ones that they grew up with. They believe THOSE stories, but not the magic stories of any other religion.

I think some bias is going on.

But I would ask the theists.. why believe in magic in the first place? We don't have any reason to believe that magic can happen, or that magicians exist?

Surely, these are fairy tales for grownups.. like Star Wars?

I don't understand why people hold on SO tight to what seems obviously fictional to all atheists.

This is the kind of thing that Richard Dawkins labeled "The God Delusion". We have intelligent, perfectly normal humans who believe in fairy tales. In every other way, they are perfectly normal. But sometimes their beliefs AREN'T just benign.. as they can lead to some pretty nasty ACTIONS.

9/11 is what made me wake up to the dangers of mistaking fiction for fact. It's obvious as anything else can be that the terrorists were at least IN PART

1. Religiously motivated
2. VERY devout.. willing to DIE and to KILL
3. EVIL
4. At the very LEAST mistaken..or worse actually DELUSIONAL
5. Probably indoctrinated.

I'm not saying that theists are all terrorists, but some of them are. I'm not saying that theists are all delusional, but alas.. some are. I think that FAITH is used to denote a VIRTUE when apologists use the term when it's an actual VICE.

Believing something on faith is an epistemic failure... it's a vice.

Unfortunately, we now know or should know that false beliefs result in very wrong actions at times. False beliefs result in irrational actions of all kinds.

Magical thinking of any kind leads to a cognitive failure, and in some cases these failures have tragic results. Not just 9/11... but all kinds of tragedies result from irrational thinking.

There are more kinds of irrational thinking than just religious thinking. but religiosity IS based on the irrational, and does lead to irrational ACTIONS. Some of those are horrible.

9/11 was a huge wake up call to the world that religious thinking can be very dangerous.

You’ve ruled out the possibility that those documents were used to compile the Gospels – the earliest of which is often dated from AD/CE 66 at the earliest. Paul’s earliest letters date from the AD/CE 55. Where did he get his information about Christ? Clearly he drew upon information that was already in existence at the time but which has since been lost.

Oh, almost ANYTHING is merely possible. Santa Clause is merely possible. Let's not rule out ANY claim as IMPOSSIBLE.. but are all claims PROBABLE?.. no. Not all claims have the same probability of being true.

Some claims are more probably true that others. IF we start off with the idea that MAGIC can happen.. that literally ANYTHING can happen, even what we would say is impossible can happen... then we have abandoned rational thought altogether.

And the irrational belief will have a lower probability of being true than a rational one. But if a theist believes that MAGIC itself is rational AND actually happens.. then.. we aren't thinking the same way at all.

Magic claims have an extremely LOW probability of being true, due to the overwhelming LACK of any evidence that magic happens or ever happened. Now, that's not to say that some evidence for magic being true WONT ever be found, but it is saying that it's never BEEN found to be true.

Something that has NEVER been found to be true has a very low probability of being true. That's how we establish probabilities.

IF the only "evidence" we have that magic is true comes from a book that we can't verify at all.. then that's not a whole lot of evidence. I'd say zero, actually.

I have to wonder how many acts of magic the apologist will say are established as facts.

So, when we ask for the evidence, Some theist point to something that isn't there, like an EMPTY tomb, or some hypothetical text. Well... I can't see what isn't there if it's been LOST. When we DO find it we'll actually BE able to look at it. Some apologists seem to think that a LACK of evidence for something is actually EVIDENCE for something.

"Wow!".. says the Christian apologist "Wont you LOOK at the story about that empty room! That total lack of evidence of anything in some story about a tomb PROVES that Jesus rose from the dead!" "AND".. he is quick to add " That's the BEST evidence that Christians HAVE for all of their beliefs !!!"

The apologist might also say that if Jesus DIDN'T raise up from the dead.. then their whole belief system comes crashing down. I hear it often. No bias THERE for it being true.. ???

I'd say the GREATEST bias IMAGINABLE... and we know how biases lead us astray. BIAS seems to be a virtue for apologists, not to people outside the faith. Bias is a VICE to be eradicated when it comes to knowing if something VERY IMPORTANT is true or not.

Apologetics indulges in the WORST kind of thinking possible, and they pretend that what they do is VIRTUOUS thinking. But discussions with theists do give us a window into the human condition. We aren't BORN good thinkers and we can be easily manipulated to believe all kinds of nonsense.

But.. there's hope. We can also learn to think BETTER.

That total lack of evidence as evidence wouldn't work too well in most courts. "Your honor, the evidence that I don't have PROVES that the defendant is guilty".

Right.. case dismissed.

We know Superman is a fiction because the men who created him told us so and the company that published the first said the same thing and never intended for the audience to conclude he was real.

So all it takes for some theists to BELIEVE something is true is if

1. Someone writes something.
2. Says that it's true.

It seems that for some Christians, the only criteria they use to know if a claim is true is if the people MAKING the claim say it's true.

Very odd.

[JLB32168]

Atheists might from time to time say that kind of thing but it's BECAUSE of our reaction to the ORIGINAL unfounded claims that the theists make.

Okay – but I’ve not made such a claim so your point isn’t really revelant to any discussion in which I’ve participated.

It just means that they copied a lot of the same books. Over and over again.. but these weren't HISTORICAL to the events.

The assertion said, “[Jesus] 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.� One cannot accurately say that Jesus made no impact on the historical record since the historical record is sparse on anybody from the time.

Well, it's not at all surprising that superstitious people would believe in magic. But we have no evidence or reason to believe that MAGIC is a real occurrence.

No one is really contributing anything new to this thread. The discussion essentially comes down to one of “We’ve no evidence that the supernatural exists�. Of course, that’s not accurate. We do have evidence – anecdotal though it may be but that’s still evidence.

I think some bias is going on.

Of course there’s bias. Both sides have it. I think that the problem here is that not everyone is willing to admit it.

In every other way, they are perfectly normal. But sometimes their beliefs AREN'T just benign.. as they can lead to some pretty nasty ACTIONS.

And we have already shown that atheist secularism can also contribute to pretty nasty actions. The Soviets excelled at it. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion and blinkers - just like anybody else.

[Danmark]

No one is really contributing anything new to this thread. The discussion essentially comes down to one of “We’ve no evidence that the supernatural exists�. Of course, that’s not accurate. We do have evidence – anecdotal though it may be but that’s still evidence.

In this single short paragraph you've made two unsupported claims. They are mere assertions. 1st, several people in this thread have contributed arguments, supported by facts. That you devalue them is your personal claim and nothing else. There may be nothing new under the sun, but the point of debate is to marshal cogent, relevant arguments supported by solid evidence.

2d, you are falsely equating inadmissible or unreliable and weak evidence with solid, verifiable, substantial and competent evidence. "Anecdotal evidence" is a contradiction in terms.

Your generalizations about the debate are of no value. What would be of assistance to the discussion would be specific answers to the questions put to you, supported by evidence. Instead, you've offered generalities attacking the questions or the questioner. For example, I don't think you have addressed the question about no one who knew him very well recognized the alleged new 'Jesus', or the fact that Paul and other NT writers believed and wrote that Jesus would return within their lifetimes, nearly 2000 years ago.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

I’ll simply repeat what I said earlier. Whether or not the Laws of Physics are actually Laws is the reason this entire website exists. One cannot simply proclaim unilaterally that his or her atheist position is facts show that an atheistic secularist viewpoint on the origin of all things is the only true one.

The laws of physics represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technological marvels of our rapidly changing technological world. If the laws of physics are NOT inviolate as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!

Ancient people worked on a different theory of how the universe works. Since they did not yet possess enough technology to acquire the information needed to explain the natural phenomenon going on around them, lightning, thunder, earthquakes and the like, they made up answers. They presupposed solutions for which they otherwise had no means to answer. Do you notice no difference between careful observation and experimentation which leads directly to working technology, and presupposing solutions based entirely on assumptions AT ALL?

Presupposition is simply another word for make believe, is it not? You presuppose that humans, and the universe we exist in must have been created by an infinitely powerful Being whom you not only presuppose exists, but whom you presuppose exists without the need for such a creation Himself. And you made it all up, which is, as I have just pointed out, what presupposition is all about. There is another way of looking at the universe however. It's called the empirical method, and it involves investigating the physical evidence for what the physical evidence has to tell us. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The general term for this deeper understanding of the basis for how the physical universe operates is called quantum mechanics. Does the empirical method have credibility? Well, does that computer you are sitting at actually work? Do we have operating smart phones and all of the other modern technological marvels of this modern technological age? They are all based on an working understanding of quantum mechanics. They were NOT rendered extant by make believe.

So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or a billion years ago for that matter. However, by in large the ancients used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method. They presupposed! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to seemingly provide answers. Answers which had absolutely nothing to do with what was actually going on. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity. I simply see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers where no such Being is obvious. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will contradicts everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between make believe and knowledge you see. Which do you suppose will win out over time?

With the legal authority of Rome now in hand, Christians began to systematically destroy anything not deemed representative of Christian beliefs.

That may be true but it doesn’t address the question before us – whether or not Christ left any mark on history. We have very few historical records from the 1st Century AD/CE that are extant and of those that are extant Biblical manuscripts far outnumber any other ones so to say that Christ left very little mark on history cannot be accurately judged since few documents from Christ’s time – outside of NT fragments – exist.

You are making my case for me. You acknowledge that there is no historical evidence to be derived from the time when Jesus was alive which would serve as evidence for any of what you claim, and believe, to be true. And yet you would also maintain that the evidence such as there is, is more than sufficient to sustain your belief and your assertion that of course the corpse of Jesus came back to life and subsequently flew away. May I also throw in Gospel Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" (Matt.27:52-53) tail into this mix as well, a claimed occurrence which somehow provoked NO MENTION from anyone else, EVER?

The best that can be said is that Jesus' followers managed to leave a mark on history with their stories and their claims. The actual events, whatever they were, seem to have made little impression on anyone at all when they were supposed to have actually occurred. And that's very telling. It certainly leaves us no reason to suppose that corpses were acting in anyway different then, then they always have done.

Did Jesus leave a mark on history? The mythological Jesus certainly did. The actual presumably historical Yeshua has been entirely lost to history however, covered in layers of centuries of myth.

No such documents have even been found, nor have ever been known to exist.

You’ve ruled out the possibility that those documents were used to compile the Gospels – the earliest of which is often dated from AD/CE 66 at the earliest. Paul’s earliest letters date from the AD/CE 55. Where did he get his information about Christ? Clearly he drew upon information that was already in existence at the time but which has since been lost.

Great quantities of material about the life, times and the verious exploits of Jesus was written, and a great deal of it still exists to this day. It is generally known as the apocrypha, and even the most ardent Christian scholars are forced to acknowledge that these works are nothing more than fiction and fantasy. Here are a few quotes from Jesus taken from the Gospel of Thomas. Words of wisdom to be sure.

Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live."
***

Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

***
Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

***
Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

***
Jesus said, "There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

***
Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Paul got his details of the story from the likes of Peter, and other of the apostles and early followers of Jesus. Acts tells is specifically that these individuals were spreading the story of the risen Jesus. Gospel Matthew also tells us that the chief priests suspected that the followers of Jesus were planning to do that very thing. None of this makes the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away any more believable though, does it!

We know Superman is a fiction because the men who created him told us so and the company that published the first said the same thing and never intended for the audience to conclude he was real.

If Jerry Siegel had strenuously maintained from the beginning that the story of Superman true, would that then make the story undeniably true? Would it even begin to seem plausible? Would you be a candidate to be a true believer in Superman? Does that seem far fetched to you? Then consider all of the people who have come to believe in the whole Scientology thing. Is scientology true? Because if it is not, and as hard as it may be to understand, there are millions of incredibly gullible sheep out there currently in the process of being sheered. They believe in their foolishness with all of their hearts though. Don't tell THEM that it's not true. They KNOW better.

[Danmark]

We know Superman is a fiction because the men who created him told us so and the company that published the first said the same thing and never intended for the audience to conclude he was real.

Some authors and publishers are more honest and candid than others. Some even put their own names on their fiction. Those are two important distinctions between the Holy Bible and Action Comics.

[marco]

[Replying to post 569 by JLB32168]

JLB, the bigger the claim, the stronger must be the evidence to support it. You argue as though claiming resurrection from the dead is a perfectly reasonable claim to make and you put those who make it on an equal footing with those who oppose it. In most discussions it would be fair to have everyone on a level playing field - but in this discussion a momentous claim is being made.

I have not seen ANY reliable evidence to justify the claim. The eye witnesses cannot be cross-examined and a counter-claim of mistaken identity is more reasonable than a risen corpse. This is a fair way of going about things. If, however, extraordinary evidence came to light we would have to make the extraordinary decision to accept the claim that a corpse rose from the dead.

But all this is beside the point, since we are asked to decide on whether the resurrection is a HISTORICAL event. It is clearly contentious - some would say exceedingly doubtful, and so it is out of the question to accord it a place in history.

Incidentally you keep saying that there was very little history recorded about the period - but we have a sufficiency, enough for example to give us a mass of detail about the Emperors of Rome.

[JLB32168]

JLB, the bigger the claim, the stronger must be the evidence to support it.

I agree. That’s why I don’t make unequivocable assertions that the Resurrection happened. I merely say that I believe it happened and if anyone asks me to elaborate I say that it is a faith-based statement. We cannot know if it really happened w/o time travel.

I really don’t see the value of debating such questions since one cannot for certain today.

What I do take issue with is the backdoor assertions that it is proven scientific fact that the Resurrection is a hopeless fiction, the laws of physics are in fact inviolable laws given that it is fact that a deity or deities are mere figments of men’s imaginations, which seems to be how each and every thread on this board devolves.

I have not seen ANY reliable evidence to justify the claim.

What’s reliable or unreliable is a subjective value judgment that’s as provable as the assertion that vanilla is the best flavor there is since no on the board has drawn up a list of objective criteria that everyone agrees constitutes “reliable� so I don’t see much use in debating either.

Incidentally you keep saying that there was very little history recorded about the period - but we have a sufficiency, enough for example to give us a mass of detail about the Emperors of Rome.

What are the names of these works and when were they written – after Christ is alleged to have walked the earth? If they were written after then they were written when Christ had been written about extensively and it would be absurd to say that the historical record shows no record of him.

[dio9]

the record of appearances in the Gospels where Jesus is not initially recognized, is a literary device by which the authors are saying Christ has risen and living in good men and women . Sort of an exhortation to look for Christ in friends and strangers.

In the resurrection Christ means God is with us, Emmanuel , God is with Mankind , divinity is to be discovered in humanity , in thirsty , hungry, naked humanity , prisoner and freeman, regardless of race, or gender, Jew or gentile , Christ is liberated in the resurrection to be found everywhere potentially in every man woman and child. This is the meaning and purpose of the resurrection.

Just sayen! For this purpose he said go and make all Men believers.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 574 by JLB32168]

What’s reliable or unreliable is a subjective value judgment that’s as provable as the assertion that vanilla is the best flavor there is since no on the board has drawn up a list of objective criteria that everyone agrees constitutes “reliable� so I don’t see much use in debating either.

The laws of physics are reliable evidence. They are based on years of research, observation and experimentation. And from them are derived very real and very practical results. Results we call technology. Stories of flying reanimated corpses are reliable in no sense of the word. They are simply "Well that's what I was told, so that's what I believe, " being repeated over and over. And from these stories are derived 2,000 years of being DEAD WRONG!

[Danmark]

the record of appearances in the Gospels where Jesus is not initially recognized, is a literary device by which the authors are saying Christ has risen and living in good men and women . Sort of an exhortation to look for Christ in friends and strangers.

You may be correct that it is a 'literary device.' But that may be said for many statements in the NT that otherwise appear to be attempts at factual reporting. But this raises an enormous problem. Of the passages that purport to factual, ALL of them may have been written for didactic purposes, rather than as accurate representations of facts. This puts the entire NT in issue regarding their use as a document of value in proving historical events.