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?

[marco]

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.

Well you saying conflicting things here. I appreciate that you believe the Resurrection happened, as a tenet of your faith but you accept that we would need huge evidence to support such a huge event.
Time travel isn't our normal way of making conclusions about past events. We have a good idea of what happened in years before and after Christ. You ask me to name Roman authors -you've done that yourself. Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars. Tacitus had access through Agricola to documentation. On the war in Gaul and the Civil War we have Julius Caesar himself writing for us.......

The value of debating the question is that a vast percentage of the world has been told to believe it, and that surely concerns us, if it is a fiction. One may also say that there is no value in debating whether the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad and gave him God's word in the Koran. People are dying today because they do not believe this story.

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.

Well, each one argues according to what he/she sees relevant. If the presentation of scientific evidence is spurious, it should be no trouble to dismiss it. For my own part I can accept that in the future science will have found a way to clone human beings or to assemble humans from their dead remains. We can make a diamond from the carbon ashes of the dead, and this would have been a miracle in the past. But this is in the future; in the past we weren't as advanced.

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.

Well you know that isn't quite true. When judges are asked to decide on the reliability of evidence they can do it pretty well. A man's guilt doesn't depend on your vanilla-type test.

[marco]

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.

Literary devices are great if the reader can recognise them. Is the crucifixion a literary device - for in Christ's suffering we can see ourselves. And surely if all we are being asked to do is see Christ in our friends then what's it got to do with a resurrection? Literary devices don't need resurrections, do they?

I'm afraid there are quite a lot of people that I see who don't seem terribly nice. I wonder how this entering people works. Is it by invitation? I would definitely say that Christ hasn't entered the bodies of jihadists. I suspect he's only gone into people who are already good. It would have helped the world a lot if he'd left them alone and concentrated on the baddies before they mugged me.

[polonius]

JLB posted:
>>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. <<

RESPONSE:

“�Still evidence�???????We have anecdotal “evidence� too regarding the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Do you really equate anecdotal with historical evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
1. “Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases [p. 75 of Psychology: Themes and Variations by Wayne Weiten and p. 25 in Research in Psychology: Methods and Design, by C. James Goodwin.]
2. “In all forms of anecdotal evidence, its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.�

[Inigo Montoya]

JLB32168: 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.

THEREFORE IT IS NOT A HISTORICAL FACT.

That is the OP. Thank you for playing.

The rest of your objections and opinions are noted and appreciated.

58 pages... has anyone come outright to defend this as historical fact? Or is it "these are the reasons I'm persuaded?"

That isn't the OP. Tell me what a historical fact is, and how the resurrection is included as one. No one has. No one can.

Why not? Because if you appeal to the magic of presupposed gods, you are miles from what is HISTORICALLY FACTUAL.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 580 by polonius.advice]

I agree. As I believe I have mentioned before "anecdotal evidence" is a contradiction in terms. This is particularly true when the anecdote is related as having come from an anonymous source. Saul of Tarsus appears to be the most well known of the various writers whose works were included in the NT. Yet we know several disturbing things about works attributed to him. Several are disputed as having come from him at all. Everything he wrote, he wrote as 'Paul' after a near death experience experience that left him blind and without food or water for 3 days. After that he changed his name to Paul, completely reversed his belief system, and claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision.
He never even claims to have witnessed anything Jesus ever said or did, his post trauma vision excepted.

And from this paltry, anonymous, 3d hand record we are expected to accept miraculous, supernatural, impossible events?

[dio9]

[Replying to Danmark]

Paul is not the originator of the testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. You write as if Paul started the story. The beloved disciples of Jesus did. The resurrection was not what you seem to think it was. I don't think it was ether. The resurrection is a spiritual phenomena. And as such is real. It was the cause and Christianity was the effect. What we have here is a cause and effect relationship with According to the laws of physics , the spiritual effecting the physical. As I understand physics , an effect requires a cause. The fact that Christianity exists in it's very existence , is proof that Christ resurrected irrelevantly in some form or other , otherwise there would be no Christianity.

[Inigo Montoya]

Dio9: Paul is not the originator of the testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. You write as if Paul started the story. The beloved disciples of Jesus did.

So you assert, but cannot demonstrate.

The resurrection was not what you seem to think it was. I don't think it was ether. The resurrection is a spiritual phenomena. And as such is real.

So you assert, but cannot demonstrate.

It was the cause and Christianity was the effect. What we have here is a cause and effect relationship with According to the laws of physics , the spiritual effecting the physical. As I understand physics , an effect requires a cause. The fact that Christianity exists in it's very existence , is proof that Christ resurrected irrelevantly in some form or other , otherwise there would be no Christianity.

Christianity existing is proof only that the story exists and people choose to believe it.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

Paul is not the originator of the testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. You write as if Paul started the story.

Paul wrote his letters before any of the Gospels were written. Even conservative evangelical sites agree. For example:
James - 50 A.D.
First Thessalonians - 52-53.
Second Thessalonians - 52-53.
Galatians - 55.
First Corinthians - 57.
Second Corinthians - 57.
Romans - 57-58.
Philippians - 62-63.
Colossians - 62-63.
Philemon - 62-63.
Ephesians - 62-63.
Luke - 63.
Acts - 64.
First Timothy - 65.
Titus - 65.
Second Timothy - 66.
Mark - 66.
Matthew - 67.
Hebrews - 67.
First Peter - 67-68.
Second Peter - 68.
Jude - 68.
Apocalypse - 68.
John - c. 85.
Epistles of John - 90-95.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/resource ... ament.html
The dates are disputed, as well as the authors, but no one claims the Gospels were written before Paul's genuine epistles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testa ... omposition

[Danmark]

As I understand physics , an effect requires a cause. The fact that Christianity exists in it's very existence , is proof that Christ resurrected irrelevantly in some form or other , otherwise there would be no Christianity.

According to your logic the fact that Islam exists proves Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse and that since astrology and phrenology exist, they are valid scientific disciplines.

That a rock exists, proves it was formed.
That an idea or a claim exists, proves only that the idea or claim was formed in a brain, nothing else.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the high priest and the governor of Judaea.

The Roman governor appointed the high priest. The high priest was not elected; his appointment was entirely at the discretion of the governor.

If the governor didn't like the high priest he [the governor] could appoint a new high priest e.g. Valerius Gratus appointed, and dismissed four high priests in quick succession, before appointing Caiaphas:

Antiquities of the Jews 18:2:2
"He [Tiberius] was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

The governor also held the priestly vestments and ornaments, effectively controlling the high priest's ability to perform his Temple duties.

So, far from exercising any control over the governor, the high priest held on to his position only while it pleased of the governor. The high priest was therefore the governor's puppet.

The fact that Caiaphas maintained his position under Gratus for eight years, and retained it for a further ten years, under a volatile and obstinate governor such as Pilate, indicates an extraordinary degree of obsequiousness.

Evidently, Caiaphas did nothing to displease the governor or to cause him to suspect his loyalty. It is telling, that when Vitellius removed Pilate, he also removed Caiaphas, suggesting that Caiaphas was seen as Pilate's Quisling. It certainly demonstrates that Caiaphas was entirely dependent upon Pilate for his security of tenure as high priest.

Sure, the chief priests had to please Pilate. I'm assuming that this has to with political matters. However, if the priests had gone along and put guards at Jesus' tomb without Pilate's knowledge, would he care? Jesus' body was no longer Pilate's concern. However, it became Pilate's concern when the priests approached him and said insurrection may occur if Jesus' body was removed. That had everything to do with him.

Consequently, it is highly unlikely that Caiaphas would ever have contemplated, let alone attempted, browbeating Pilate into doing something that he [Pilate] opposed e.g. executing Jesus. Pilate executed Jesus because he [Pilate] considered it to be expedient, and not because of any supposed pressure applied by Caiaphas or Caiaphas' political/religious opponents, the Pharisees.

Caiaphas blackmailed Pilate. Pilate was cornered. Blackmail makes people do what they don't want to do .

That "Caiaphas blackmailed Pilate" is simply your opinion. So far you haven't produced a scrap of evidence in support of your assertion.

If anything the evidence points in completely the opposite direction. One of the means by which the Roman governor exercised authority over the Temple Priesthood was to control access to the Priestly Vestments. If Caiaphas had such a hold over Pilate, that he could coerce Pilate into executing an apparently innocent man, why didn't Caiaphas oblige Pilate to hand over the Priestly Vestments? Why wasn't this done until after Pilate was removed? (See Josephus AJ 15:404)

So, present your proofs, that Caiaphas was blackmailing Pilate, or accept that your statement is unsubstantiated conjecture i.e. wishful thinking.

Caiaphas would not ordinarily have such power over Pilate but this was a very different scenario when it came to Jesus. Remember, we aren't just talking about Caiaphas. Pilate was scared of the public. His position as governor was very precarious because of the volatility of the Jews over the Passover. He was scared of the consequences of an insurrection that Caesar would punish him.

The gospels say that Pilate found no fault in Jesus. He did not believe that Jesus wanted to overthrow the Roman Empire. Now what would make him change his mind?

The blackmail part is noted in this scripture:

John 19:12

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

They hit Pilate's sore spot. He was afraid of what Caesar would do to him if there was a huge rebellion. I just don't see why Pilate would dilly dally and not just make an instant decision to put Jesus' to death. I find it unlikely that Pilate had not heard of Jesus before. Why say Herod must deal with Jesus? Why try and release another prisoner in an attempt to save Jesus?

So we must ask ourselves, why did Pilate give in? It is because the chief priests managed to convince Pilate that there would be a huge rebellion if Jesus wasn't executed. So Caiaphas succeeded in convincing Pilate that it would be in his best interest to dispose of Jesus with a veiled threat.