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?

[Student]

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

If we are going to be super critical, it should be noted that the councils of Hippo (393CE) and Carthage (397CE, 419CE) were regional councils and had a bearing on the determination of the canon in the Latin West only.

And it would be a mistake to say that the canon was finally settled in all Western Christian communities by the beginning of the 5th century. Manuscripts still turned up including the epistle to the Laodiceans (e.g. Fuldensis, 546CE) or lacking Hebrews (e.g. Boernerianus, 9th century).

The council of Trullan (Constantinople 691 - 692CE), was an attempt at closing the canon in the Eastern church. Its success (or lack of) might be measured by the fact that, according to Wescott (The Bible in The Church; p.227), in the 10th century there were no fewer than six different lists of the canonical books.

Finally, despite what those of the Roman persuasion might assert, the council of Rome 382 had nothing at all to do with the determination of the canon.

[McCulloch]

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?

The chief priests did not deny that a resurrection took place because they never heard about a claimed resurrection. In spite of the subsequent claims of the Christians, Jesus and his few followers were of little or no importance to them. They were busy in the process of redefining their faith in the face of their lost sovereignty and subjugation by Rome. In all likelihood, the story of Jesus' entombment is entirely fictional. Bodies of crusified criminals and revolutionaries were not normally allowed to be properly buried. They were usually disposed of on a dung heap. Produce a body to deny the resurrection claim, not likely!

[polonius]

[Replying to post 705 by Claire Evans]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
[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.

Claire Evans responded:

>>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.<<

RESPONSE: ER, the Corinthians to whom 1 Corinthians 15 was written by Paul lived 817 miles from Jerusalem. Corinth is located in Greece, not Israel. It was never burned.

“A brighter period returned to the city when Julius Caesar founded his colony at the site in 44 BCE and organised the agricultural land into organised plots (centuriation) for distribution to Roman settlers. The city was once more flourishing by the 1st century CE and became an important administrative and trade centre. In addition, following St. Paul’s visit between 51 and 52 CE, Corinth became the centre of early Christianity in Greece. In a public hearing, the saint had to defend himself against accusations from the city’s Hebrews that his preaching undermined the Mosiac Law. The pro-consul Lucius Julius Gallio judged that Paul had not broken any Roman Law and so was permitted to continue his teachings. “http://www.ancient.eu/corinth/

Lets see. Paul says that 500 people saw the risen Christ. Of course, Paul was not one of them. In 55 AD, or about 25 years after the Resurrection Paul wrote to people 817 miles away from Jerusalem.

“Paul’s first letter to the church of Corinth provides us with a fuller insight into the life of an early Christian community of the first generation than any other book of the New Testament. Through it we can glimpse both the strengths and the weaknesses of this small group in a great city of the ancient world, men and women who had accepted the good news of Christ and were now trying to realize in their lives the implications of their baptism.�
http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/0

Are you seriously arguing that Paul’s letter to the Corinthins and all copies in Corinth and Jerusalem were destroyed?

And are you now claiming that none of the 500 witnesses to the Resurrection in Jerusalem (keep in mind with would include Roman soldiers , Jews, non-Jews, Greeks, etc.) would have said nothing to perhaps thousands of their acquaintances about this great miracle and, if they had, none of these people hearing the story ever wrote it down and brought copies to their own countries? But all such copies would have been destroyed in the Jerusalem fire??????

[polonius]

[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.

Claire then asked:

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?


RESPONSE:

You question evidences the point. Why would the chief priests or the Romans deny what never took place to begin with? They wouldn't have heard Paul's yarn. It didn't exist either!

Remember, Paul didn't write any Resurrection story until 25 years later and then only addressed to to the people of Corinth located in Greece about 817 miles from Jerusalem who wouldn't be expected to know the facts.

[marco]

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.

Timothy, I understand, is of doubtful authenticity but no matter. You think the simple phrase: "received up into glory" means actual physical ascension. Surely we have moved beyond thinking that Christ's arms and legs moved into the air towards what people THEN regarded as the abode of God. I suppose the danger is that when one accepts one impossibility, accepting ten others becomes fairly simple.

It seems weird to talk in terms of clocks measuring the distance between a body lifted into the sky and another figure descending from the air on a group of men.
But fable has it that the Holy Ghost waited ten human days after Christ was safely in the sky before descending on the apostles.

[polonius]

According to Paul's story, Jesus "appeared' to Peter, James, and the Apostles. But never to the Romans or Jewish clergy, or any others.

Why might that be the case? Jesus claimed that he came to minister to the Jews in general. Why didn't the risen Christ appear Jews who were not Christians?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

The council of Nicaea was the beginning of the organization of what would become the Catholic church. One of Constantine's primary orders for this group was to establish a an agreed upon canon of documents for all Christians to subscribe to. This eventually evolved into the current canon of the 27 book of the NT. It was a long and drawn out process however, filled with much rancor.

Also notice that the great schism that would eventually divide the Catholic west from the Orthodox east, occurred in 1054. The question here is not so much who it was that were considered orthodox by the church during the first thousand years of Christianity, as it was exactly who was NOT considered orthodox. And the answer was, whomever the Catholic church deemed to be heretical.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[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.

If you have any evidence to provide, please provide it.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

The council of Nicaea was the beginning of the organization of what would become the Catholic church. One of Constantine's primary orders for this group was to establish a an agreed upon canon of documents for all Christians to subscribe to. This eventually evolved into the current canon of the 27 book of the NT. It was a long and drawn out process however, filled with much rancor.

No it wasn't.
The Council of Nicea did NOT even discuss the NT canon.

The decisions of the council can be read here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

There is no mention of the NT canon at all.


Kapyong

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 706 by Claire Evans]

“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."

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.

You seem to be attempting to have your cake and eat it too.