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?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 552 by Claire Evans]
If we look a Matthew 24:3 we see that the fact that αἰῶνος means age is irrelevant because it is the end of the age being dicussed

Matthew 24:3 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,� they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?�

But when Jesus says that “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened� (Matthew. 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32) he does not say ‘age’.
In the Olivet Discourse in all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus uses the word γενεά (genea) which is translated as ‘generation’. Here are all the other places the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus uses that word. Can you find any place where it does not mean generation in the ordinary sense of a human generation?

Matthew 11
16 “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17 “‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’

Matthew 12
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.�

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.

43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.�

Matthew 16
1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2 He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ 3 and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.� Jesus then left them and went away.

Matthew 17
17 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,� Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.� 18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.

Matthew 23
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

Mark 8
11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.�

Mark 8
38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�

Mark 9:19 “You unbelieving generation,� Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.�

Luke 7:31 Jesus went on to say, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?

Luke 9:41 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,� Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? Bring your son here.�

Luke 11
29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Luke 11
47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Luke 17
24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

When Jesus said “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened�, he really meant the generation alive at that time will certainly not have passed away until all these things happened. The things mentioned, all centered around the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE reiterated by the image of the fig tree that wraps up the prophecies, did happen. (In fact they had already happened when the Gospels were written.) But the Son of Man never showed up.

Yes, I'm a aware that age and generation are not inter-changeable in Matthew 24: 3 and Luke 17. What I’m trying to say is that Jesus can't have two prophecies that contradict each other. In Matthew 24: 1-2
It says:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?� he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�

We know this prophecy came true. Therefor the credibility of what Jesus said would come at the end of the age is better than in Luke 17. So which one are we to believe?

I believe it is a case of wishful thinking. It was a widespread belief, and wish, that Jesus would return within their generation. We have the same thinking today. I believe the gospel writers misunderstood Jesus and possibility inserted the Luke 17:25 themselves which Jesus didn't say.

The Matthew 24 scriptures must have been written before 70 AD because then the scriptures would have mentioned that this prophecy came to pass. Not even Acts mentions the destruction of the Temple.

[Claire Evans]

Claire Evans wrote:

I did not invent the insertion that there were Roman guards. That is a widely held belief.

RESPONSE:

So is belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

Are you seriously arguing that because a belief is widely held, it must therefore be true?

We are arguing based on the premises of the Bible.

[polonius]

Claire Evans wrote:

I did not invent the insertion that there were Roman guards. That is a widely held belief.

RESPONSE:

So is belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

Are you seriously arguing that because a belief is widely held, it must therefore be true?

We are arguing based on the premises of the Bible.

RESPONSE:

Unless the Bible is historically accurate, that's sort of a waste of time isn't it?

[polonius]

Clair Evens posted:

>>Matthew 24:3 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,� they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?�

>>But when Jesus says that “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened� (Matthew. 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32) he does not say ‘age’.

>>In the Olivet Discourse in all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus uses the word γενεά (genea) which is translated as ‘generation’. Here are all the other places the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus uses that word. Can you find any place where it does not mean generation in the ordinary sense of a human generation?


>>Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?� he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�

>>We know this prophecy came true. Therefor the credibility of what Jesus said would come at the end of the age is better than in Luke 17. So which one are we to believe?

RESPONSE: Since Matthew wasn't written until ten years AFTER the destruction of the Temple, Matthew knew what had happened before he wrote the prophecy.

>>I believe it is a case of wishful thinking. It was a widespread belief, and wish, that Jesus would return within their generation. We have the same thinking today. I believe the gospel writers misunderstood Jesus and possibility inserted the Luke 17:25 themselves which Jesus didn't say.



RESPONSE: Scripture is supposed to be "God breahted" and therefore inspired and inerrant. But now you say that scripture contains errors and thus is not always inspired.[/b]

>>The Matthew 24 scriptures must have been written before 70 AD because then the scriptures would have mentioned that this prophecy came to pass. Not even Acts mentions the destruction of the Temple.[/quote]<<

RESPONSE: No. Matthew was written about 80 AD largely copying from Mark written in 70 AD. Please note that John was written sometime after 95 AD and he says nothing about the destruction of the Temple either.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Matthew 16:28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 10:23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

Jesus repeatedly prophecized that his return would occur during his generation. but, of course, it didn't. Thus he is shown to be lacking in divine knowledge.

[JLB32168]

And I won't attempt to prevent Christians from suffering through long, lingering, debilitating, painful and undignified deaths if that is their choice.

Why is death undignified for the Christian – because they don’t think it is the end? I’m interested in your answer.

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

Hmm – one has to wonder if that statement was meant as a compliment or an insult.

Science figured this out however, and completely revised our view on the cosmos in the process.

Yes, but I already knew that. My comment was more to address the assertion that something wasn’t a fact unless we knew about it. As I can see, no one who made the assertion has come to concede s/he misspoke.

[Danmark]

We are arguing based on the premises of the Bible.

Dead wrong. Read Guidelines for the C&A subforum We are not assuming the Bible is accurate or that its 'premises' are valid. On this subforum, it has no more authority than any other book.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

And I won't attempt to prevent Christians from suffering through long, lingering, debilitating, painful and undignified deaths if that is their choice.

Why is death undignified for the Christian – because they don’t think it is the end? I’m interested in your answer.

Any death that is long, lingering and debilitating is inherently undignified because it sometimes involves pain and suffering, and it invariably involves loss of bladder and bowel control along with the ability to take care of one's self. Christians believe that ending their own lives when they get to this point is an affront to their God and force themselves to endure it all right to the bitter end. And that is their right if that is what they want. I would not personally consider finding myself in such a condition at the end of my life to be some kind of a final test which had to be stoically endured just to prove something to my invisible friend, you see. Those of us who do not share in such foolish beliefs should be allowed to end our own lives on our own terms in a quiet and dignified manner, and not be forced to undergo such undignified ends to our lives just because the Christian majority happens to believe in nonsense. That was what I meant.

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

Hmm – one has to wonder if that statement was meant as a compliment or an insult.

Yes.

Science figured this out however, and completely revised our view on the cosmos in the process.

Yes, but I already knew that. My comment was more to address the assertion that something wasn’t a fact unless we knew about it. As I can see, no one who made the assertion has come to concede s/he misspoke.

The truth is whatever it is, and it is waiting for us to discover it. That raises the dual questions of by what method can we discover the truth, and how do we known it when we find it? The answer to the first question seems to be that the empirical method for discovering the truth has shown itself to be remarkably effective. The empirical method involves much observation and experimentation in an attempt to achieve the same results without fail. This allows us to understand the way the universe works. It also requires that when a truth is discovered, that truth needs to be accepted at face value, even if it means discarding thousands of years of popularly established assumptions. Because we have determined that the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method for attaining "truth" invariably produces entirely bogus results. Worse, not only did it lead us astray for thousands of years, the "make it up and declare it to be true" method actually immersed us in a morass of misconceptions and superstitious assumptions concerning the operation of the universe from which we have yet to fully emerge. That is because religion is dogmatic about declaring what is true unequivocally, even to the point, historically, of eliminating dissent by killing the dissenters. As opposed to science which works on the premise that change is not only desirable, but is both inherent and necessary to the process of acquiring knowledge.

How do we know that the empirical method for attaining the truth is superior? That computer you are sitting at answers that question unequivocally all on it's own. But you can also add in all of the other working technology that we have produced in this modern age. Whether one approves of technology or not, it cannot be denied that it works. And it works because the science that produced it is valid. And the science that produced it is derived from the use of the empirical method for understanding what is and is not possible. As opposed to the "make it up and declare it to be true method" which has produced, for example, the assertion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old because a 4 billion year old Earth conflicts with ancient "make it up and declare it to be true" superstitious assumptions.

[JLB32168]

Those of us who do not share in such foolish beliefs should be allowed to end our own lives on our own terms in a quiet and dignified manner, and not be forced to undergo such undignified ends to our lives just because the Christian majority happens to believe in nonsense. That was what I meant.

I read, “My definition of what constitutes a dignified end is the only real definition and others are substandard.�

Oh well

[Ancient of Years]

Yes, I'm aware that age and generation are not inter-changeable in Matthew 24: 3 and Luke 17. What I’m trying to say is that Jesus can't have two prophecies that contradict each other. In Matthew 24: 1-2
It says:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?� he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�

We know this prophecy came true. Therefor the credibility of what Jesus said would come at the end of the age is better than in Luke 17. So which one are we to believe?

I believe it is a case of wishful thinking. It was a widespread belief, and wish, that Jesus would return within their generation. We have the same thinking today. I believe the gospel writers misunderstood Jesus and possibility inserted the Luke 17:25 themselves which Jesus didn't say.

The Matthew 24 scriptures must have been written before 70 AD because then the scriptures would have mentioned that this prophecy came to pass. Not even Acts mentions the destruction of the Temple.

All three Synoptic Gospels open the Olivet Discourse with a reference to the destruction of the Temple and continue with a very similar set of signs. The main difference in Luke is that he omits the odd ‘abomination’ reference and replaces it with the siege of Jerusalem, something better known to his Gentile readers.

The section in Luke 17 referring to the end of days also appears in Matthew. (It does not appear in Mark.)

Luke 17

26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.�

Matthew 24

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There is no contradiction. Luke places the passage in a different place than Matthew. It is not hard to see why. Matthew has it at the end of the Olivet Discourse. As you noted this appears to contradict the immediately preceding passage where definite signs are given. Then Matthew says that it will come without warning. Luke liked the passage but moved it elsewhere to avoid the too obvious contradiction.

My take on things:

Mark wrote to revive a fading faith in a quick return of Jesus as Paul indicated would happen. He used the then recent destruction of the Temple as a sign of that, creating a prophecy that he has Jesus speak. The ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ passages were intended to connect with that, making the expected time frame for Jesus to appear any day now.

Matthew based his story on Mark and added a great deal of his own material for his purposes – justifying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Matthew retained Mark’s Olivet Discourse but threw in disclaimers to explain away the additional delay in time. This included the elaborate ‘Noah’ passage quoted above.

Luke based his story on Mark and Matthew, reversing many of Matthew’s themes to make it more palatable to and understandable by a Gentile audience. Luke also used the Olivet Discourse passage but threw in even more disclaimers here and there in his Gospel.

The reason no one references that the Temple was actually destroyed is that all their stories are set before that event. A ‘prophecy’ supposedly made in the past of something that had already happened when the story is being read lends power to the story when the reader recognizes the ‘prophesied’ event.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 519 by JLB32168]

God is an immaterial entity.

WHAT, exactly is an "immaterial entity" and HOW does it differ from an imaginary entity?

Notice that proposed "immaterial entities" include angels, devils, demons, seraphim, souls and other "entities" from Bible tales cannot be shown to be anything other than constructs of human mental processes (imagination).

Fairies, sea monsters (and under-the-bed monsters), zombies, etc populate different genre of storytelling – and are also imaginary. However, most who are beyond childhood recognize the implausibility of such characters being real – and belief is set aside with the development of discernment, judgment and real world experience.

If thoroughly enough ingrained in the indoctrinated and reinforced by repeated storytelling, beliefs can be retained for a lifetime.

He doesn’t have genes to pass to offspring.

It would seem as though a proposed omnipotent entity would have whatever it wanted.

He simply retains the immaterial part that we all have – a soul.

When telling stories about a hypothetical "omnipotent being" or other "immaterial entity" one can imagine it / them to have whatever characteristics the imagination can produce. There is no limit set by reality and no need to show that the descriptions or characteristics are literally true.

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 operating term is "allegedly" – indicating that all "knowledge" of such things is CLAIMED – and may be speculation, opinion, guesswork, imagination (ancient or modern).

If Jesus was fully human (as claimed in Christendom) he HAD to have 23 pairs of chromosomes.

If Jesus was MALE human he HAD to have the "Y" chromosome – which comes from a MALE parent. Which male parent was that?

It is understandable that ancient storytellers were unaware of such things, but it is inexcusable that modern people with access to education and information choose to remain ignorant of them or deny them.

Maybe Joseph and gospel writers were convinced by claims of virginity and immaculate conception but if my fiance became pregnant without us having intercourse I would have been less inclined to believe her – even if I was young and stupid.