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?

[Inigo Montoya]

How much would you say your faith in these stories is derived from counting on a good afterlife?

I don’t know really. Suffice it to say that for some unknown reason it strikes me as true. I tend to think it’s God’s Image and Likeness in which I’m created that moves me to accept that the Holy Trinity exists. The skeptic would say that it’s merely a chemical reaction in my brain. They might be correct, but I don’t think they are.

For some reason, that really irritates most of them and I don’t understand why. Some have said it’s because of all of the evils that theists have perpetrated upon mankind but the 20th Century showed everyone with a modicum of intelligence that being an atheist secularist is no guarantor of enlightened behavior.

From another angle, if you had no desire to live after your death here, would you find these stories convincing?

Probably not – but I view that as one who “cares not for the things of God� and cannot view it from an emic perspective as an atheist secularist.

Good on you. I would delight that more theists here answer that as honestly as you just did.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 603 by JLB32168]

I was never interested in convincing most skeptics here. We both know that’s not going to happen since both of us have vested interests in the question – me and other theists because we’re counting on an afterlife (more like ‘a good afterlife’), and the atheist who stands to lose a whole lot if the story of the Gospel is true and s/he has rejected it.

Yes, like most believers you are afraid of death. I'm 67 and I suspect that I am far closer to attaining that particular milestone than you are, all things being equal. Yet death does not scare me at all. For about 14 billion years (at least) I didn't exist. I was not frightened for the same reason that I was in no hurry to be born. I didn't yet exist. Emotional responses such as fear and anticipation are reserved for the living only. Once I die I will no longer exist. And I WON'T CARE, because I will no longer be capable of caring. I do admit to some trepidation concerning the process of my death. But everyone has to go through the process of dying, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack of religious belief. I do wish that Christians would mind their own business concerning my own personal choices on when I might decide that the time has come to end my own life, however. And I won't attempt to prevent Christians from suffering through long, lingering, debilitating, painful and undignified deaths if that is their choice.

I think a more pertinent question would ask why you desire so much that I leave.

Why would we want you to leave? You are much too entertaining.

It was fact in 753 BC/CCE that the Earth and planets revolved around the sun. That fact wasn’t known until Copernicus and it was scientifically proved until 1727 and to cite Merriam-Webster again, a fact is “something that truly exists or happens� or “something that has actual existence.� There’s nothing about “unless and until it is discovered, it is an unsupported presupposition.� That’s your biased addendum to the proper definition because you’re loath to concede to a theist, even the breadth of a hair, that the resurrection might be a fact. I don't really understand the refusal to yield anything that seems to be the mo of most skeptics on the board.

Science figured this out however, and completely revised our view on the cosmos in the process. That's why science works. It's really, and I mean this, REALLY, only interested in discovering the truth. As opposed to religion, which DECLARES a thing to be true, and then seeks dogmatically for thousands of years to maintain that declaration at all costs.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 606 by JLB32168]

Perfect example of quote mining of Carrier's work at:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... cture.html

You've also attributed these quotes you've taken out of context, which I provided, to me. They're from Richard Carrier's lecture which I cited.

As for the "Fire Insurance" argument, it essentially admits one's integrity can be purchased by the promise, however absurd, of an afterlife.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 607 by JLB32168]

I don’t know really. Suffice it to say that for some unknown reason it strikes me as true. I tend to think it’s God’s Image and Likeness in which I’m created that moves me to accept that the Holy Trinity exists. The skeptic would say that it’s merely a chemical reaction in my brain. They might be correct, but I don’t think they are.

You believe in your heart that it is all true. And that is your absolute right. Do you see though that it's not really much of an argument, and that it puts you exactly on the same level as Scientologists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and, well pretty much everyone who believe in their heart that their particular belief is true. It doesn't put you on the same level as atheists though, much to your relief I am sure. Because atheists are all about NOT believing things that are imagined to be true. Atheists highly prize hard facts and physical evidence.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 607 by JLB32168]

I don’t know really. Suffice it to say that for some unknown reason it strikes me as true. I tend to think it’s God’s Image and Likeness in which I’m created that moves me to accept that the Holy Trinity exists. The skeptic would say that it’s merely a chemical reaction in my brain. They might be correct, but I don’t think they are.

You believe in your heart that it is all true. And that is your absolute right. Do you see though that it's not really much of an argument, and that it puts you exactly on the same level as Scientologists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and, well pretty much everyone who believe in their heart that their particular belief is true. It doesn't put you on the same level as atheists though, much to your relief I am sure. Because atheists are all about NOT believing things that are imagined to be true. Atheists highly prize hard facts and physical evidence.

Have to disagree with you there, mate. I've met many an atheist who loathes hard facts and physical evidence. Atheist does not automatically equal skeptic, or rationalist skeptic. Most Buddhists are atheists who believe in reincarnation, for example, despite the lack of hard facts and physical evidence for that.

[marco]

Suffice it to say that for some unknown reason it strikes me as true. I tend to think it’s God’s Image and Likeness in which I’m created that moves me to accept that the Holy Trinity exists. The skeptic would say that it’s merely a chemical reaction in my brain. They might be correct, but I don’t think they are.

I doubt if that's what the skeptic would say, JLB. The skeptic might be less kind. I think people are good regardless of religious choice and modestly attach their inherent qualities to whatever religion they have become attached to. In my discussions with people of various religions, the good people think in the same way, but always defer to the source of their inspiration. It is as though religion is their battery, and it seems to be their strength.

I miss the wonderful innocence and trust in something external that I had as a child. Discarding faith was no triumph. One wanders past lit windows as an outsider. Some draw comfort from the delusion that there is intellectual superiority in discarding fictions.
You might say then all you do is jump aboard. That would not be truth, merely pretense.

No atom of my being believes in Christ's resurrection; I can turn pages and examine, honestly seeking a reason for belief, and there is none. Instead I see an ancient people who would never dream that an enormous piece of metal would carry hundreds through the sky across oceans or a device would let me transmit messages from my remote valley to a distant city. I then ask why on earth would I believe anything they said about a greater miracle. It is even worse when I turn to the OT, for then I have to hear barbarous nomads.

[Danmark]

I've met many an atheist who loathes hard facts and physical evidence.

It doesn't matter whether one is arguing for or against Christianity or atheism, the statement "I've met many X who..." means nothing about X as a group. It's also nothing but a personal, unsupported anecdote.

[dio9]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

If I can but in here. I am looking for a better world here and now. This is the place I hope religion will have a good effect upon.
It is not afterlife but here that I hope his will may be done on earth as in heaven.

[rikuoamero]

I've met many an atheist who loathes hard facts and physical evidence.

It doesn't matter whether one is arguing for or against Christianity or atheism, the statement "I've met many X who..." means nothing about X as a group. It's also nothing but a personal, unsupported anecdote.

Yes it was an anecdote. It is just as logically fallacious as Tired of the Nonsense's claim that atheists love facts and evidence. That description can be made about skeptics but atheists are not automatically members of that group. Many of them are, but not all.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I've met many an atheist who loathes hard facts and physical evidence.

It doesn't matter whether one is arguing for or against Christianity or atheism, the statement "I've met many X who..." means nothing about X as a group. It's also nothing but a personal, unsupported anecdote.

Yes it was an anecdote. It is just as logically fallacious as Tired of the Nonsense's claim that atheists love facts and evidence. That description can be made about skeptics but atheists are not automatically members of that group. Many of them are, but not all.

I don't consider anyone who holds supernatural beliefs of any sort to be a genuine atheist. I suppose that might be compared to so many Christians that disparage others who claim be Christian's as not "true" Christians. Yet anyone who believes in the existence of the supernatural is a theist in waiting and not really an atheist in my book. But my statement was that atheists prize hard facts and physical evidence and I stand by that.