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]

It seems to be logical that the Gospel of Luke and Mark were written before 70 AD:

"The date of the fall of Jerusalem serves to show an early date for the Gospels better, in my opinion, that it shows a later date. This is especially true in the case of Luke. Luke is the only Gospel writer who wrote a sequel to his Gospel, which we call the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke’s Gospel he depicts Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple, but does not make that prediction come true in his sequel. Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome in AD 60-62. Just eight years later the temple would be destroyed and the prediction Jesus made in chapter 21 of his Gospel would have come true. If Luke was writing Acts after the destruction of the temple it seems rather strange that he didn’t continue the story beyond Paul’s imprisonment in Rome and conclude his story with a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy. Especially since continuing the story past Paul’s imprisonment would cause the story to also include Paul’s untimely death in AD 65. Since Luke was Paul’s traveling companion, it would seem highly appropriate for Luke to pay tribute to his fallen comrade if he were writing the book of Acts after his death. As it is, Luke spends the last five chapters of Acts anticipating Paul’s trial before Caesar and ends the book with no mention of it. Clearly, Luke finished the book before Paul had his trial before Caesar and before he was beheaded in AD 65. Since Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it had to have been written before Acts, and since Luke probably used Mark as a source, Mark had to be written before Luke. This means that both Mark and Luke were living at the same time as the eyewitnesses they interviewed for their Gospels. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses themselves and were therefore based their Gospels on their own memory."

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/gospeldates/

So it is very telling that Luke didn't mention the destruction of the Temple in Acts. That would have definitely been mentioned if he wrote Acts after 70 AD. And we know Acts is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke.

If Luke had mentioned the destruction of the Temple in Acts he would have to explain why Jesus did not show up. Luke employed the Olivet Discourse scenario as did Mark and Luke, that being part of the by then standard story. But later it was just too late to put any credibility in it. Instead Luke does an elaborate switch in Acts 1, turning the expected dramatic return of the Son of Man in the clouds into the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This redirected the story from the expectation of an imminent eschaton to the ongoing church. As the angels said when Jesus ascended in Acts 1, stop looking at the clouds.

It is claimed that Jesus would come right away after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD? So why should Luke think He would? There was no a set date when Jesus would return.

The angels says stop looking up at the clouds because Jesus said:

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

So stop looking up at the clouds because no one knows when He will return.

Luke ends his story with Paul still alive to finish on an up note. “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!� (Acts 28:30-31) The whole point of Acts is that the church is alive and will continue. Having Paul get killed would ruin that. And mentioning the destruction of the Temple would definitely ruin everything, reminding people that the ‘prophecy’ was ‘fulfilled’ but still no Jesus in sight.

We know that Paul getting killed did not stop the continuation of the church. Anyway, Acts does tell us that Paul was going to die:

Acts 20: 25

25 “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.

And Luke knew it:

36 When Paul had finished speaking, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. 37 They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. 38 What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.

[Danmark]

It is claimed that Jesus would come right away after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD? So why should Luke think He would? There was no a set date when Jesus would return.

What is 'claimed' and stated by Jesus himself according to the Olivet discourse is that he would return during the lifetimes of at least some of those he spoke to on the Mount of Olives. He did not name the exact time or date, but that it would be before some of those standing there "tasted death;" that it would happen during "this generation." As with many specific prophesies when the time for the event appeared to be passing, causing the young church embarrassment about their key prophecy, they generated 2d epistles to the Corinthians, and from Peter and John allegedly, to soften this clear prophecy. But to attempt to shift this date of the 2d coming from roughly 70-100 CE, to 2015 CE and beyond is ludicrous. This apocalyptic prophecy attributed to Jesus himself has failed, and with it the supernatural claims of Christianity.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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.

Now you are on a very slippery slope indeed. Because in fact Jesus wrote nothing himself. Every word directly ascribed to him was in fact placed into his mouth by anonymous others decades after his death. This is like pulling a thread and watching the whole garment unravel. Once you begin to discredit portions of the various quotes claimed to have been Jesus' own words, you quickly discover there is no basis for declaring ANY of the quotes attributed to Jesus to be genuine. It allows you, and anyone else, to pick and choose what you wnat to hear and want to believe. It allows you to construct the exact Jesus of your choosing. And of course this is EXACTLY what has been occurring for the last 2,000 years. The historical Yeshua, The individual who wrote NOTHING himself, IF he ever actually existed at all, has been entirely lost under 2,000 years worth of layers of Christian assumptions and assertions concerning the "true" nature of the mythical Jesus. A mix and match Jesus mainly constructed by the fledgling Catholic church from various personal assumptions and declarations as required centuries after Jesus died.

Claire wrote"
No, it isn't inerrant. Humans are fallible.

Claire wrote:
Just because the Church thinks it's infallible, doesn't make it so. Nobody was in a trance when they wrote it. Being moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't suddenly make one infallible because they have the Holy Spirit in them.

Now you are beginning to see the light. Ultimately it all boils down to this: Just because someone claimed that a corpse came back to life and flew away doesn't make it so. Christians claim that the story of the resurrected Jesus was an "oral tradition" until it first began to be written down decades after Jesus was dead. Notice that "oral tradition" and "rumor" are basically indistinguishable from each other.

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

Did Jesus ACTUALLY say this? This is contained in Acts 1:7, written by the same individual who wrote Gospel Luke. But this individual has no claim to have ever even met the living Jesus. Traditionally the author of Acts is believed to have been a follower of Paul, who HIMSELF never met the living Jesus. This is an example of you picking and choosing which of the words placed into Jesus' mouth by others you prefer to accept as valid. Employing this "pick and choose" method allows you to fashion exactly the Jesus that pleases you.

We know that Paul getting killed did not stop the continuation of the church. Anyway, Acts does tell us that Paul was going to die:

In truth we know nothing of Paul's death at all. When last we see Paul he was living under house arrest in Rome for two years awaiting trial.

Acts 28:
[30] And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
[31] Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

What was his crime? Not much!

Acts 26:
[31] And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
[32] Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

Living under house arrest in Rome, and basically charged with nothing more than disturbing the peace in Jerusalem, Paul hardly seems like a man facing the death penalty. And in fact one tradition has him being acquitted of the charges and going off to Spain. One unfounded tradition is as good as another it would seem. But in actual fact no one really knows what became of Paul, although it seems safe to say that he passed at some point. And like EVERYONE who lived 2,000 years ago, HE IS STILL DEAD!
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/apostle- ... y-map.html

[Goose]

This is a response to Danmark’s post where he cut and pasted Richard Carrier’s arguments.

Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:

That’s a great idea Richard. Let’s do that.

First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals and closest of friends. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his earthly resurrection.

Carrier royally Begs the Question here. The Civil War is anonymous, written in the third person, and the last three books were completed by an unknown editor. The first external source to directly attribute authorship is Suetonius writing about 170 years later. Suetonius tells us there is some dispute over authorship of the final books. Perhaps the unknown authors of the final books were the ones who wrote the first three books of the Civil War? How can we be sure the Civil War was written by Caesar as Carrier claims? Carrier offers no methodology here, merely a circular assertion.

When we compare the Civil Wars to the Gospels, for example, we have roughly about the same case. The Gospels are anonymous and at least Matthew is written in the third person like the Civil Wars of Caesar. The external evidence for the Gospels is just as close to, if not closer than, the time of the authors as Suetonius is to the Civil Wars. And the external evidence for the Gospels is certainly more abundant and uniform.

How on earth Carrier can say The Civil War was “written by Caesar himself� and then turn around and say in the same sentence “we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his earthly resurrection� is quite beyond me. There’s an obvious double standard at play here.

As a side note I’ll add Caesar never says, “I crossed the Rubicon� in the Civil War. In fact, he never mentions the Rubicon at all. It’s inferred from his writing that Caesar crossed.

Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.

But I could argue Paul was previously an enemy. I could also argue Paul was more of an enemy to Christ and the Church than Cicero was to Caesar since Cicero didn’t participate in the assassination of Caesar whereas Paul was directly involved in the persecution and death of Christians. Cicero was more of political adversary than a true enemy in this respect.

Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which provide evidence for Caesar's march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

Granted, but carrier is reaching here. What we do not have are coins depicting the crossing or inscriptions from Caesar saying he crossed. So we don’t have any physical evidence that establishes the crossing. What we do have is archaeological evidence which supports the crossing in as much as it doesn’t falsify it. Likewise I could argue the Nazareth Inscription “relates� to the resurrection just as much as Caesar’s coins “relates� to the crossing of the Rubicon.

Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians.[6] And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.[7]

The Gospel writers as well have a "measure of proven reliability" since some of their reports have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources too.

But what Carrier fails to mention is that Plutarch was the earliest writing about 120 years after the crossing. Suetonius was writing about 170 years after. Each with their own biases and all well past the time proximity of the Gospels to the resurrection. Carrier also fails to mention Plutarch and Suetonius recorded their respective narratives of the crossing in biographies of Caesar (the same genre as the Gospels), not histories. So to say, “almost every historian of the period� records the event is true in one sense but not in the sense Carrier means it since not all those writers were writing histories. Suetonius for example, does not tell us who his sources are regarding the crossing and is quite openly mixing in hearsay (“others say� and “some think�) when he speculates as to Caesar’s motives for civil war. Not to mention Suetonius, without criticism, attributes the cause of Caesar’s crossing to the appearance of a supernatural apparition.

Appian was writing a history but he wrote over 200 years after the crossing and Dio even later. In light of this, Carrier’s comparison that, “not even a single established historian mentioning the [resurrection] until the 3rd and 4th centuries� seems odd to say the least when the same can be said of Caesar’s crossing.

Let’s look at the actual accounts of the Caesar’s crossing in the authors Carrier appeals to.

He himself spent the day in public, attending and watching the exercises of gladiators; but a little before evening he bathed and dressed and went into the banqueting hall. Here he held brief converse with those who had been invited to supper, and just as it was getting dark and went away, after addressing courteously most of his guests and bidding them await his return. To a few of his friends, however, he had previously given directions to follow him, not all by the same route, but some by one way and some by another. 5 He himself mounted one of his hired carts and drove at first along another road, then turned towards Ariminum. When he came to the river which separates Cisalpine Gaul from the rest of Italy (it is called the Rubicon), and began to reflect, now that he drew nearer to the fearful step and was agitated by the magnitude of his ventures, he checked his speed. 6 Then, halting in his course, he communed with himself a long time in silence as his resolution wavered back and forth, and his purpose then suffered change after change. 7 For a long time, too, he discussed his perplexities with his friends who were present, among whom was Asinius Pollio, estimating the great evils for all mankind which would follow their passage of the river, and the wide fame of it which they would leave to posterity. 8 But finally, with a sort of passion, as if abandoning calculation and casting himself upon the future, and uttering the phrase with which men usually prelude their plunge into desperate and daring fortunes, "Let the die be cast," he hastened to cross the river; and going at full speed now for the rest of the time, before daybreak he dashed into Ariminum and took possession of it.60 9 It is said, moreover, that on the night before he crossed the river he had an unnatural dream; he thought, namely, that he was having incestuous intercourse with his own mother.61

31. 1 Accordingly, when word came that the veto of the tribunes had been set aside and they themselves had left the city, he at once sent on a few cohorts with all secrecy, and then, to disarm suspicion, concealed his purpose by appearing at a public show inspecting the plans of a gladiatorial school which he intended building, and joining as usual in a banquet with a large company. 2 It was not until after sunset that he set out very privily with a small company, taking the mules from a bakeshop hard by and harnessing them to a carriage; and when his lights went out and he lost his way, he was astray for some time, but at last found a guide at dawn and got back to the road on foot by narrow by-paths. Then, overtaking his cohorts at the river Rubicon, which was the boundary of his province, he paused for a while, and realising what a step he was taking, he turned to those about him and said: "Even yet we may draw back; but once cross yon little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword."

32 1 As he stood in doubt, this sign was given him. On a sudden there appeared hard by a being of wondrous stature and beauty, who sat and played upon a reed; and when not only the shepherds flocked to hear him, but many of the soldiers left their posts, and among them some of the trumpeters, the apparition snatched a trumpet from one of them, rushed to the river, and sounding the war-note with mighty blast, strode to the opposite bank. Then Caesar cried: "Take we the course which the signs of the gods and the false dealing of our foes point out. The die is cast," said he.
33. 1 Accordingly, crossing with his army, and welcoming the tribunes of the commons, who had p47come to him after being driven from Rome, he harangued the soldiers with tears, and rending his robe from his breast besought their faithful service.

So many discrepancies between just those two accounts alone. Let's look at the other two.

Accordingly, he sent forward the centurions with a few of their bravest troops in peaceful garb to go inside the walls of Ariminum and take it by surprise. This was the first town in Italy after leaving Cisalpine Gaul. Toward evening Caesar himself rose from a banquet on a plea of indisposition, leaving his friends who were still feasting. He mounted his chariot and drove toward Ariminum, his cavalry following at a short distance. When his course brought him to the river Rubicon, which forms the boundary line of Italy, he stopped and, while gazing at the stream, revolved in his mind the evils that would result, should he cross the river in arms. Recovering himself, he said to those who were present, "My friends, to leave this stream uncrossed will breed manifold distress for me; to cross it, for all mankind." Thereupon, he crossed with a rush like one inspired, uttering the familiar phrase, "The die is cast: so let it be!" Then he resumed his hasty journey and took possession of Ariminum about daybreak, advanced beyond it, stationed guards at the commanding positions, and, either by force or by kindness, mastered all whom he fell in with. As is usual in cases of panic, there was flight and migration from all the country-side in disorder and tears, the people having no exact knowledge, but thinking that Caesar was pushing on with all his might and with an immense army.

When Caesar was informed of this, he came to Ariminum, then for the first time overstepping the confines of his own province, and after assembling his soldiers he ordered Curio and the others who had come with him to relate to them what had been done.

Yep, that’s it. Doesn’t even mention the Rubicon.

Among the four authors Carrier has appealed to there are more discrepancies than one can shake a stick at. No mention of source material whatsoever for the events of the crossing in any of these authors contrary to what Carrier has implied. No critical analysis of the claims, not even the supernatural ones of apparitions, again, contra Carrier.

Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.[8]

Granted but Caesar could have “moved an army into Italy� without ever having crossed the Rubicon himself. He very well could have been sitting in his arm chair at Ariminum the whole time while sending messengers back and forth to his military commanders. Or maybe he had twin brother?

It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. [/i]http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... cture.html

Carrier’s reasons to believe the crossing and not the resurrection seem to revolve primarily around the strength of the evidence here. Yet, when we look at the evidence for the crossing through the same methodological lens Carrier looks at the resurrection we begin to see the evidence isn’t really any stronger for the crossing. In fact, the evidence for the resurrection appears to be just as good if not better using the same methods.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 660 by Goose]

And against all that we have anonymous writers disagreeing with each other as they write religiously motivated 3d hand accounts about supernatural events 40 to 80 years after the alleged events. Earlier writers such as Paul and Peter make no mention of an empty tomb. However both Paul and Peter, as well as Matthew and Mark predict the 2d coming should have happened 2000 years ago.

Please name other historians of the 1st or 2d Centuries who made supernatural claims about other ancient figures and show us how those claims are taken seriously by historians today.

[Student]

I consider a significant reason for doubting the resurrection as an historical event, is what happened, or rather didn't happen next, namely Jesus' subsequent public appearances.

They didn't happen.

He didn't present himself to Pilate, he didn't present himself to the Sanhedrin, he didn't present himself to the High Priest, and he didn't present himself to Herod Antipas. Jesus disappeared completely from public view.

Perhaps if we turn the situation upon it's head and ask the question, what if, just by chance, a normal mortal human had survived crucifixion, and subsequently escaped from interment in a tomb, what might we expect to find?

• the discovery of an empty tomb
• that the man goes into hiding / avoids any contact with the authorities / disappears from public view
• that the fact of his survival is known only to a few close friends
• that inconsistent rumours might eventually circulate regarding his survival.

Exactly what we find in the gospel accounts; no miracles required.

However, while a normal mortal human would have much to fear from being re-captured, what possible reason could a newly resurrected god have for keeping such a low profile?

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 662 by Student]

Is it not doubly odd then that in Acts, our earliest ‘historical account’ of the nascent church, that the subject of the Empty Tomb is not brought up? That is, there is no accusation of grave robbing leveled at the apostles nor are the Romans ever concerned with the idea that people are proclaiming that an individual has escaped Roman ‘justice’. I find it odd that from a Roman point-of-view, if the story is to be believed there is both an empty tomb and a fugitive from justice that hid among his disciples that are now going around ‘boldly proclaiming’ Jesus’ escape from death and no one is apprehended and questioned about all of this in the heart of Roman Jerusalem.

Take care,
TFV

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 663 by tfvespasianus]

It's late for me, going to bed soon, dead tired, so the only counter-point I can think of right now against what you said is that maybe Luke just didn't mention such a Roman response?
Or maybe since Pilate according to the Gospels had exonerated Jesus of the charges brought against him and washed his hands of him, leaving him to the Sanhedrin to do whatever they wanted with him, it doesn't make sense to me that the Romans would even care at all that the tomb was empty. The Romans being concerned would only make sense, in my opinion, if they were the ones who under their laws declared Jesus guilty of sedition and treason or something like that. Sure, Roman soldiers may have helped with the crucifixion (I honestly don't know) but in Pilate's eyes, this execution wouldn't have been a Roman affair. It would have been something purely to do with the Jews, it didn't have anything to do with him or Rome.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 660 by Goose]

And the external evidence for the Gospels is certainly more abundant and uniform.

Woah, hold on a second. What external evidence?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 660 by Goose]

But I could argue Paul was previously an enemy. I could also argue Paul was more of an enemy to Christ and the Church than Cicero was to Caesar since Cicero didn’t participate in the assassination of Caesar whereas Paul was directly involved in the persecution and death of Christians. Cicero was more of political adversary than a true enemy in this respect.

Are Cicero's claims in his writings extraordinary, are Paul's? Cicero writes about his dealings with a mortal man, nothing extraordinary happens, at least nothing that violates the known laws of physics.
To compare what Cicero wrote to what Paul wrote is to attempt to say that Cicero made claims of meeting dead demigods too, or other extraordinary claims. I've never read Cicero, can you tell me if he ever said anything like this in complete seriousness?
If Cicero writes that he was a political enemy of Julius Caesar, what's so strange about that? However...the same cannot be said for Paul, who according only himself, (I'm not aware of any evidence that doesn't come from Paul that actually verifies he persecuted early Christians) met a man who had died some years beforehand and charged him with a mission.

Likewise I could argue the Nazareth Inscription “relates� to the resurrection just as much as Caesar’s coins “relates� to the crossing of the Rubicon.

*winces* Please don't link to Biblearchaeology.org. They're Statement of Faith'ers: they admit to discarding if not outright manipulating of any evidence that contradicts their pre-determined beliefs. If you want to talk about this inscription, I ask you to link it from another source, ones that aren't proud of dismissing evidence they don't like.
(Since you're responding here to Danmark, I'll ask his/her opinion: Danmark, what's your opinion on Faith'ers? Are you like me and just ignore whatever they say outright, or do you allow your debate opponents to use them as support for their arguments?)

The Gospel writers as well have a "measure of proven reliability" since some of their reports have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources too.

You'll want to be precise here. Which "reports" exactly have been confirmed? If you say Josephus for example, he mentions the execution of the leader of a radical religious group. Nothing more. He doesn't mention anything about this leader performing any sorts of magic tricks or anything like that.
Do any of these historians confirm the supernatural claims of/about Jesus, or just the mundane natural claims?