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?

[polonius]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

I thought that Luke is now recognized as having been a Syrian. When and where did he meet Peter? Which gospel tells us that?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 692 by rikuoamero]

Regarding Clair's claim:

"To try and salvage Luke's credibility, you say that he knew Peter."

FYI


“Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Phlm 24 and 2 Tm 4:11. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Lk 1:2)….�

“Luke’s consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Lk 23:33; Mk 15:22; Lk 18:41; Mk 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mk 7:1–23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Lk 2:30–32; 3:6, 38;4:16–30; 13:28–30; 14:15–24; 17:11–19; 24:47–48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.:

http://wwwmigrate.usccb.org/bible/luke/0

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

I thought that Luke is now recognized as having been a Syrian. When and where did he meet Peter? Which gospel tells us that?

I'm not the one making the claim that Luke knew Peter. Claire Evans did. I was merely responding to her claim that Luke is credible 'because' he knew Peter. I didn't delve into whether Luke actually did know Peter because I didn't want to; I just wanted to point out saying Person X is credible because he knew Person Y is only making one's job a lot harder because now you have to establish that Y is himself credible.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

I'm still learning about the meaning of scriptures. I have looked into why there was an misinterpretation. It may have not been a case of putting words in Jesus' mouth but rather miscontruing His words. Perhaps willingly because that is what they wanted to believe.

Nothing you can do or say changes the fact that Jesus wrote nothing himself and therefore everything attributed to him is actually is derived from what others say about him. The purpose of scripture is to expound the particular point of view of the particular individual who wrote any of the particular works contained in the canonical 27 books of the NT. And you must remember, hundreds of such works, various Gospels, Epistles of, Acts of, were produced during the first three centuries of Christianity. Keep in mind that Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD, sweeping away everything in the process, including the Christian church there. Until the early 4th century THERE WAS NO ESTABLISHED CHURCH! No such "church" was possible. There were instead various Christian communities spread around the Mediterranean region, all practicing their beliefs in secret to avoid persecution.

In AD 313 the emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity throughout the Empire. In between these two events THERE WAS NO FORMAL CHURCH. No physical edifice. No recognized central authority. No official doctrine and no established canon. Only a loose association of Christian congregations spread around the Mediterranean region and practicing in secret. A Christian was whomever declared themselves to be a follower of Christ, including Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists and a whole litany of various Christian sects which the the Catholic church, once that organization came into being, would eventually brand as heretics. During the early apostolic period, the years between the execution of Jesus and the fire in Rome in 64 BCE, the practice of Christianity was not illegal under Roman law and there was no general persecution of Christians by Romans. This began to change quickly after the great fire however and by the beginning of the second century Christians were coming under increasingly widespread persecution by Roman authorities which would continue until the early fourth century and the reign of Constantine. The second and third centuries were the times when those who declared themselves to be Christians were famously being "thrown to the lions." During this period there was NO universally established church, No ruling hierarchy, no official doctrine, and no universally recognized canon since none was possible. And the question of just who was a "TRUE" Christian, would become a real problem for the newly established Catholic church in the fourth century.

"About 187 Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius counted eighty." ("The Story of Civilization Vol. 3 - Caesar And Christ," Pg. 616, by Will Durant.)

After Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in 313 the newly "outed" fell into heavy and deadly fighting over which doctrine was valid, which religious documents were true, and exactly WHO was really a Christian. Constantine, who had expected legalizing Christianity to be a stabilizing force for his empire, was appalled. In in AD 325 Constantine called on the leaders of the various communities into a council known as the Council of Nicea in an attempt to hammer out a unified doctrine, and to settle on and establish a canon of accepted documents. This was the beginning of the Catholic or universal Church. Work on determining which of the hundreds of documents would be declared to be official canon, eventually becoming the current 27 canonical books of the NT, began with the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and would continue until the Second Council of Trullan of 692. That's where the familiar books of the NT in your Bible came from.

Oral tradition is not the same as rumour.

About oral tradition:

"One of the assumptions that is now being overturned in the discipline of orality studies is the longstanding idea that oral traditions are incapable of transmitting extended narratives. It was commonly assumed that long narratives simply would have been too difficult to remember to be passed on reliably. Unfortunately for this assumption, a large number of fieldwork studies over the last several decades have “brought to light numerous long oral epics in the living traditions of Central Asia, India, Africa, and Oceania, for example.� Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.� (6) In fact, oral narratives lasting up to 25 hours and requiring several days to perform have been documented! (7) Indeed, oral performances — that is, times when the community’s narrator (or “tradent�) passes on oral traditions to the community — almost always presuppose a broader narrative framework even when the narrative itself is not explicitly included in the performance. (8) There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."

This is simply the official position of Christians and nothing more. "There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors." There is "no reason to suspect" that the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away" was a fictional creation?" Seriously! Not only is this clearly untrue and entirely self serving, it is a totally absurd assertion. A case MAY be made that the authors of the Gospels were not personally the source of any "fictional creation," in that they believed what they wrote to be true. But there is absolutely no way to distinguish "oral tradition" from "rumors" which were themselves based on stories and tall tales.


“The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.�

Oddly enough however within this amaxing "corpus of written and regularly read works" by the people of Israel there is absolutely no mention of Gospel Matthew's "Massacre of the Innocents" (Matthew 2:16–18), of Gospel Matthew's "Resurrection of the Saints" (Matthew 27:52-53), or of the slightest mention whatsoever of the life, activities of, or even the existence of Jesus at the time he was supposed to have lived. There are only rumors and stories all uniformly derived from stories and rumors which were in circulation decades after Jesus was supposed to have been executed.

Luke knew Peter.

Perhaps this is true. Paul certainly knew Peter. The question therefore becomes, was Peter a reliable source? Well, what do we know about Peter? We know that he a rough fisherman prone to violence. We know this from the incident in which he cut off the ear of Caiaphas' unarmed servant. But then when faced with actual armed soldiers he ran and repeatedly denied that he even knew Jesus. In a word, Peter was a weasel.

But was he still a weasel after Jesus was executed, or was he a profoundly changed man. Let's have a look.

Acts 5:
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

As the extortion/murder of Ananias and Sapphira at the hands of Peter and his band of thugs demonstrates, Peter was not only a weasel, he was a murderous weasel. Is it reasonable to suppose that Peter was perfectly capable of lying and spreading false rumors? Well, what would there have been in it for him?

Acts 4:
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Beats fishing for a living.

I understand this is not the way this stuff is taught in Sunday school. All of these men were "saints" after all, according to Christian lore. All of this is right there in the pages of your Bible however. I'm not making anything up. The purpose of Sunday school of course, and church itself, it to impose a very narrow and restricted view of Christianity onto it's membership that is not supposed to be questioned. And that story was derived for the activities of actual human beings, and human beings invariably have agendas that are designed to satisfy their own interests. You're not SUPPOSED to notice the incriminating stuff of course. And yet, shockingly, there it is right in the pages of your Bible.

Paul was executed under Nero. That is when Christians were being put to death.

What is the historical verification for this claim? Or is it in reality simply another popularly held Christian assumption that falls apart during the process of actual fact checking? Notice when last we have any ACTUAL word of Paul at all, he was in Rome under house arrest awaiting trial. His Christian beliefs were not then illegal under Roman law, and Paul was a Roman citizen.

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 Paul's crime? Basically he was charged with creating unrest. But even the Jewish authorities felt it was a pretty flimsy charge.

Act 26:
[30] And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them:
[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.

Does this seem like a man facing the death penalty? And in fact another tradition has Paul being acquitted and then sailing off to Spain for more evangelizing.

http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/apostle- ... y-map.html

So why have you been sold this bill of goods? And why do you peddle it yourself? Because RUMORS of glorious martyrdom makes for dramatic storytelling!

[polonius]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Yes. I realize that you were not the orignal poster. It was Clare. Perhaps, I didn't set up the opening clearly. Sorry!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Yes. I realize that you were not the orignal poster. It was Clare. Perhaps, I didn't set up the opening clearly. Sorry!

No need for you to apologize, no harm done.

[Kapyong]

Gday Tired of the Nonsense and all,

In in AD 325 Constantine called on the leaders of the various communities into a council known as the Council of Nicea in an attempt to hammer out a unified doctrine, and to settle on and establish a canon of accepted documents. This was the beginning of the Catholic or universal Church. Work on determining which of the hundreds of documents would be declared to be official canon, eventually becoming the current 27 canonical books of the NT, began with the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and would continue until the Second Council of Trullan of 692. That's where the familiar books of the NT in your Bible came from.

Not correct.
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the NT canon at all.

You can read the decisions (also called 'canons') of the council here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Work on determining which of the hundreds of documents would be declared to be official canon, eventually becoming the current 27 canonical books of the NT, began with the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and would continue until the Second Council of Trullan of 692.

This is somewhat misleading.
I see it comes straight from Wikipedia's current article :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developme ... ment_canon

Note this part : 'For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692,'
(I'd guess an Orthodox person has been editing this recently.)

The Wikipedia article is rather confused - the initial summary fails to give a clear picture of when the NT canon crystalised.


Athanasius in 367 AD described our 27 books with the word 'canon'.

Later the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419) all confirmed those 27 books.


The NT canon was fixed 3 centuries before the Quinisext Council of 692 (called 'in trullo' after the dome hall it was held in.)


Kapyong

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Anyone at all would have been a good start. Christians suppose that it was a well known event after all. Some few of Paul's famous phantom 500 for example might have mentioned it, one would think. One would think that a resurrected dead man would have made enough of an impression on SOMEONE to have made some mention of it at the time.

Who says they didn't mention it? Do you think those writings of those 500 should survive? Who would preserve it? Didn't help that Jerusalem burnt to the ground in 70 AD.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Clare Evans post 671
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:


Replying to Claire Evans

I would also like to point out that the guard at the tomb controversy is hardly the only instance where Christians assumptions and Christian assertions do not hold up to a detailed evaluation of them. For example, most Christians conceive of the resurrection of Jesus as a well known event at the time, widely known to have been true, and that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds. Far too many for it to have been a hallucination or a hoax. Nor did anyone even bother to deny it at the time. This last claim is at least is true, although completely misleading. No one denied the at the time. In fact no one even mentioned any of it at the time. The very first historical mention of the resurrection occurs in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, written circa 55 AD, or about a quarter of a century after the time frame established by the Gospels for the execution of Jesus. The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the most glorious and significant moment in human history according to Christians, went entirely unrecorded at all at the time it was supposed to have occurred.

1 Corinthians in fact is the source of the claim that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds. Paul mentions that "above 500" of Jesus' followers saw and communed with the risen Jesus on one particular occasion. This is widely accepted as evidence that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds, entirely overlooking the fact that this is one report, and not hundreds of reports. Paul himself would not become a Christian believer for some years yet after Jesus was executed, and was not himself a witness to ANY of the events portrayed in the Gospels, including the claims of post crucifixion appearances by Jesus. In fact Acts 1:15 places the total number of Jesus' disciples after the supposed "ascension" of Jesus, but just prior to the day of Pentecost, at "about an hundred and twenty." It was from this group that the entire rumor of the risen Jesus was derived. Just as the chief priests had predicted.

This is not the preferred view of the majority of Christians though, is it? It just happens to be a completely accurate view, taken directly from Christian documents themselves. There is a general agreement among Christian and secular scholars that the Gospel According to Luke, and Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person. Almost every other aspect of Christian claims and Christian beliefs fall completely apart during a detailed examination of them however.

Why didn't the chief priests deny that the resurrection took place? Why didn't they produce the body? Why didn't the Romans not produce the body and write about the resurrection hoax?


Claire wrote:

>>Who else should have written about the resurrection?<<

RESPONSE: Perhaps some of the 500 witnesses Paul claimed in his first letter to the Corinthians written about 55 A.D. Of course, his letter was written to people living 817 miles from Jerusalem, so he probably didn’t really expect to have his claim challenged.

None of the supposed 500 wrote anything nor any of the hundreds (perhaps) thousands of other who they would have been expected to tell about this great miracle. Not Christians, Jews, or Romans wrote anything nor do we hear anything more about any “resurrection� until Mark’s Gospel written about 70 A.D.

And Paul mentions nothing about any Ascension because that story hadn’t been created yet!

Do you really think Paul's claim is credible?

You forget that there was a low literacy level to the people Jesus appeared. Oral tradition is the way they passed on events. It was quicker. Also, writing material that could be preserved was expensive back then. To make copies would be laborious.

Paul did mention believe Jesus ascended:

1 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The Pentecost happened after the ascension. That was recorded in Acts by Luke so the ascension story couldn't have been a later invention. Paul also knew of the Pentecost.