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]

I suppose the claim that Paul was beheaded by Nero isn't an irrefutable fact.

Even your own evidence proves that "the claim that Paul was beheaded by Nero" is not an irrefutable fact.

"After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects".

In Roman times, the "extreme limits of the west" were the Pillars of Hercules (i.e. the Straits of Gibraltar). So, according to Clement, Paul's hopes of visiting Spain must have been fulfilled, where "bearing testimony before kings and rulers, he passed out of this world and was received into the holy places".

If, as recorded by your witness, Clement, Paul died in Spain, he could not have been beheaded during the persecution of Nero, which was confined to Rome.

[polonius]

Claire Evens wrote in post 723

"So you really think that the early Christians would not have exposed people lying about the gospel? The gospels from the start were fixed by oral tradition. "

RESPONSE:

They couldn't have since printing did not exist and it was many years until copies could be made and circulated.

Obviously there is much misinformation in the Gospels. Shall I run a thread that documents some?

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 723 by Claire Evans]

So because Peter denied Jesus out of fear suddenly that makes him an unreliable witness?

Yes, because it shows that not even one of Jesus's closest companions and disciples was willing to praise him as the Messiah. Surely Peter would have known about Jesus being God or god-like? Why would one of Jesus's companions be afraid of dying, if he was convinced that he would get into heaven and serve at Jesus's right hand?
I mean think about it - I hear Christians left right and centre saying that the miracles are what 'proved' Jesus to be the Son of God...and yet apparently Peter denies it? Why would someone who supposedly saw these miracles first hand and up close, someone who STUDIED under Jesus and believed in his divinity deny him?
Back when I was a Christian, I strongly believed. No-one could get me to shut up about Jesus. I praised his name and boldly declared that I believed, that I had faith, I didn't let the people who mocked me get to me. Of course, no-one actually threatened my life, but hopefully you get the idea.

[Kapyong]

Gday Claire Evans and all

So you really think that the early Christians would not have exposed people lying about the gospel?

Some Christians did EXACTLY that !

2 John warns of those who don't "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".
Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary .
Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh.
Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified and physically resurrected.
Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical.
Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations :
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods)"
Caius claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century.


And some pagans also attacked the Gospels as fiction :

Celsus wrote a whole book late 2nd C. attacking the Gospels - the Christians destroyed it, although we have some quotes remaining.

Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians�

Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was
“convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. �


In short -
after the Gospels became widely known in 2nd century - their stories were criticised as false by both Christians and pagans.


Kapyong

[Claire Evans]

[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??????

No, I'm talking about the writings that were made in Jerusalem and remained there. Paul had a specific purpose to write those letters to the Corinthians and anyone writing must have felt it very important. Paul must have used either papyrus or parchment to write his letters. There must be great care in preserving papyrus. It was fragile and subject to decay especially due to humidity. It had to be preserved in wooden cylinders. Parchments were way to expensive and were used rarely.

http://www.archivosgenbriand.com/preser ... glish.html

Now those 500 would have preserved the news through word of mouth. Paul wrote to the Corinthians about it because they were gentiles. It's not like paper today when no one spares a thought about scrunching up a piece of paper.

I said nothing about the copies of the letters to Corinthians all being destroyed in Corinth. How could it? There was no fire in Greece. We also know that Paul wrote Corinthians from Euphesus and not Jerusalem.

I get the impression that you believe it was very easy to preserve writings. That just isn't true. In fact, it is astonishing just how much material we have of the gospels in light of this fact.

[Claire Evans]

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!

They anticipated that claim:

Matthew 27:62-66

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Now they would certainly go out of their way to refute it when the claims started arising. Jesus went to Jerusalem and it is obvious that the chief priests would have heard about the claims or maybe have seen Him themselves.

And, yes, after the Ascension, they could go back concentrating on their own faith after probably convincing a lot of people that it was the Resurrection was a hoax.

Matthew 28: 12-14

…12And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.' 14"And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble."…

It is true that crucified criminals did not get burials. The Christian martyrs of Lyon were just left on the cross for six days to rot. However , there were exceptions to the rules. Some did get special permission to buried crucified people.

Philo wrote:

"I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations, in order to receive the honours of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are due to the dead; for it used to be considered, that even the dead ought to derive some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred character of the festival ought to be regarded."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... ccum*.html


Crucified bodies could have been released to the family through bribery. Pilate was not above bribery. Joseph of Arimethea was a member of the Sanhedrin so he would have had access to Jesus. Also, the Jews did not want crucified bodies hanging on the cross over the Sabbath. Pilate may have obliged because of the volatile situation. I think in other circumstances, Jesus would have just been left there to rot.

[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.

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.

The claim of the resurrection did not originate with Paul obviously. The claims came from the disciples. In fact, the chief priest and Pilate were anticipating that claim of a resurrection (Matthew 28: 12-14)

The Ascension is another issue altogether.

[Claire Evans]

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.

I don't believe in Jesus just levitating into the sky. The Ascension means Jesus returning to the Kingdom of Heaven. Sky in above Hebrew and Greek is also synonymous with heaven. He could just have de-materialized into thin air in front of people.

[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.

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

I don't have to prove it. I'm just saying they could have mentioned it even though no writings were preserved. It was kind of hard to preserve papyrus and the destruction of Jerusalem was not in their favour, either. You have to admit what I say is a good explanation.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

So because Peter denied Jesus out of fear suddenly that makes him an unreliable witness?

Even in scripture we can see that Peter WAS NOT A NICE MAN. THAT makes him an unreliable witness.

That's a logical fallacy. The Pharisees were not nice people but did they never say true things?

Peter would never have been allowed to get away with making things up.

Do you believe that the Bible is true and accurate? Then you are stuck with "The Day The Earth Stood Still" tall tale in Joshua, and Matthew's "Night of the Living Dead" fantasy. Not to mention, yet again, the fact that you fully embrace the story of the corpse of Jesus coming back to life and flying away. And on top of all of this you claim that "Peter would never have been allowed to get away with making things up?" Convincing true believers that their true beliefs are not true is next to impossible, no matter HOW ridiculous their claims appear to be to others.

I believe the gist of it is true. How did the disciples and other witnesses become true believers in the first place? If there were no witnesses, then the disciples would not have gotten very far with resurrection claims.