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 724 by Claire Evans]

We have something from Paul's and Peter's contemporary, Clement 1, one of the first apostolic fathers.

"Working closely with Saints Peter and Paul, the two founding fathers of the Christian church who preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion in 33 A.D., he was likely a follower of the apostle Paul and was schooled by Paul in Rome. Accepting the Christian faith as a young man and working as a missionary preaching the word of the crucified Jesus, Clement I was eventually ordained a bishop by the apostle Peter and served a leadership role in the Roman church before being exiled to the Crimea, where he died in 101 A.D."

Paul "preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion?" Paul Never even MET the living Jesus, and was present for NONE of the events detailed in the Gospels. When first we meet Paul, some few years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul is an ADAMANT OPPONENT of Christianity, which he considered a vile heresy. The shockingly poor and misleading statement you posted above is nothing more then an example of appallingly poor scholarship and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the NT actually says. It is totally, in a word, BOGUS.

I made a mistake. That was not a quote from Clement but rather from some commentator. Tried to corroborate that with another source but couldn't. Sorry about that. I thought it was a strange passage but thought he really did write it. I was trying to get a source that was fairly early as requested by another person I originally was posting this to.

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

No one knows what became of Paul and THAT is an irrefutable fact. What IS known is that Rome was nearly destroyed by a fire in 64 AD. In their anguish the Roman population came to believe that the fire was a judgement on them by their gods for allowing the worship of so many "false gods" by the "pagan's" in their midst. As a result they fell on non Roman believers and slaughtered them. Jew were particularly despised as haters of humankind. If Peter and Paul were in Rome during the time of the great fire, and escaped the conflagration, they could easily have been murdered by the crowds. But you see, know one really knows BECAUSE NO ONE RECORDED THEIR DEATHS.

It is true that Paul's death wasn't recorded and no secular sources corroborate it. However, what is recorded is that Paul was in Rome 67 AD in jail. The first persecution of the Christian Church took place that same year. It is logical to deduce that Paul, being very active with the Church, would have been executed under Nero.

[polonius]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

If you read Clement's First Leter to the Corinthians, section V) you will find that Clement is telling us the Peter remained in the East and died there. Only Paul is said to have preached in the West an died under the Roman authorities. Not Peter.

[polonius]

Clement’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter V.

Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Note that Clement does not have Peter preaching in the West or dying under the Roman prefects there.

“The complete silence as to St. Peter is most easily explained by supposing that he was then absent from Rome. Paul may well have been aware of this fact, for the community was not entirely foreign to him. An epistle like the present would hardly have been sent while the Prince of the Apostles was in Rome and the reference to the ruler (xii, 8) would then be difficult to explain. Paul probably supposes that during the months between the composition and the arrival of the Epistle, the community would be more or less thrown on its own resources.(Merk A. Transcribed by W.G. Kofron. Epistle to the Romans. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century� (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

[PghPanther]

This subject is a mess............

Resurrection as a historical fact?

Wait a minute...........is it reasonable to assume that without any great advancement in technology as we understand today that once a person is dead that within minutes to hours they decompose and begin to rote within a couple of days?

And we are to expect this didn't happened in the 1st century not only to a guy called Christ but to other and many saints as well (Matt Ch 25 graves opening up) and they became alive in physical bodies again?

BTW......when those graves opened up and they all praised God what did the saint that were dead for years....decades or longer look like?......

Has it occurred to anyone that the supernatural claim is a struggle to define let alone has ever occurred or been documented in our time yet 2,000 years ago was a common occurrence?

What is more feasible?...............that the supernatural occurred all the time long ago but not now?..................Or that prescientific cultures of zealous believers told stories about wanting others to believe and strengthen their own beliefs ended up innocently embellishing everything to the point of the supernatural before it was documented in writing?

Do you not understand that if natural laws can be altered/suspended by a so called Personal God's will and his granting of that will toward believers in prayer that the scientific method as a process of consistent and predictable models in reality wouldn't work!!!!

Now since the discovery of the scientific method in dealing with reality some 500 years ago what has been the result of that process?............Applied technology......planes that fly, flushing sewage systems, medicine, digital information on and on and on.............

What application of reality as faith in supernatural events resulted in over the past 500 years???.........anyone???

Nothing that is what..........

Tell me.........who do you know can change the molecular construct of water to alter it into wine..........is there one person that can walk on liquid water without any trick or technology today?...............can anyone take a loaf of bread and a fish or two and feed 5,000 people and have lots of left overs?

Resurrection a historical fact?????

Are we nuts???

Its a joke.....................a story by ignorant cultures wanting something to be true....especially those whose lives where in misery where it took off like wildfire in belief of a hope they will never find on earth.

In the end its better to deal and face reality for what it is not what we want it to be no matter how comforting......

No the resurrection never happened........its an embellished story just like UFO believers tell each other until its all bend out of shape and nobody knows what really happened if anything happened at all........

[JLB32168]

I’ve been out of town for a week so it seems that the skeptic’s point is that A)the resurrection of a dead body would require a supernatural occurrence but B)the supernatural doesn’t exist; therefore, C) the resurrection wasn’t a historical event and silly believers are deluded for thinking otherwise.

I would ask why anyone bothered to debate the question at all since the premise “B� cannot be proved true or false either way and that makes the conclusion equally impossible to debate. I would suggest we stick to that which can be debated – such as whether or not the nascent Church believed that the resurrection was a physical, bodily occurrence or if they only felt it was spiritual in nature.

[PghPanther]

I’ve been out of town for a week so it seems that the skeptic’s point is that A)the resurrection of a dead body would require a supernatural occurrence but B)the supernatural doesn’t exist; therefore, C) the resurrection wasn’t a historical event and silly believers are deluded for thinking otherwise.

I would ask why anyone bothered to debate the question at all since the premise “B� cannot be proved true or false either way and that makes the conclusion equally impossible to debate. I would suggest we stick to that which can be debated – such as whether or not the nascent Church believed that the resurrection was a physical, bodily occurrence or if they only felt it was spiritual in nature.

hmm.........in that case the debate becomes one of theological differences not one that necessarily is seated in reality.............kind of like debating which kryptonite is worse for Superman yellow, green or red.

That's fine to debate as long as one realizes they are debating make believe

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to PghPanther]

Rather than discussing ‘make-believe’ we are discussing the historical record with respect to an alleged event. I think the state of the evidence is poor. Thus, what we have is a situation where something cannot be asserted as a ‘fact’. However, that doesn’t mean that we can further assert that the event didn’t happen as a ‘fact’. There are a great many things that fall into this broad category and I don’t think such ambiguity should trouble us. That’s because we can do is make a case for how like/unlikely something is. History is in part about creating a plausible, cohesive, cogent, and illuminating narrative about the past. However, in the end, it is just that, a narrative. Whatever the ‘real’ thing or event was passes from us as it recedes in time.

Take care,
TFV

[JLB32168]

That's fine to debate as long as one realizes they are debating make believe

The two aren’t analogous because all parties would agree that Kryptonite and Superman are comic book creations from the 30s. We have conclusive, definitive proof of that. That isn’t the case with the supernatural for which conclusive, definitive proof doesn’t exist either way.
That’s why I think it’s pointless to debate such questions and only results in one party mocking another.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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 favor, either. You have to admit what I say is a good explanation.

Do you at least notice how you simply fill in the blanks as needed? It's not just you of course. This is Christianity in action. It's all a process of what I earlier alluded to as "Christian mythology." Decide that it is true, declare that it is true, then gather enough mutual support and a made up idea becomes established fact. Did it ever once occur to you that the guards at the tomb were not intended to represent Roman guards in Gospel Matthew before I brought it up? Prior to our dispute you simply considered it to be common knowledge and beyond question because it was mutually agreed that the guards were Roman. Virtually every part of your belief system is like that however. Upon further review, every bit of it falls apart under scrutiny.

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.

Only the barest tiniest fraction of all the Christians who have ever lived even had a CLAIM to have witnessed the risen Jesus. One wouldn't think the story would have gotten very far at all. And yet it did. I agree, it's hard to fathom. Many of the men involved with the Heaven's Gate cult underwent castration for their beliefs. I find that pretty hard to fathom as well. Such religious zeal makes no sense to me at all, and yet we see it over and over in history.

"When, about 190, the Roman proconsul Antonius persecuted Christianity in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most of them he dismissed with the words: "Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?" The Church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." ("The story of Civilization," vol 3,"Caesar and Christ," by Will Durant, Chapt 23, Page 605).

Montanism was the teaching of the "New Prophesy" of Montanus. And these were HERETICS, not "true" Christians at all. Montanism was declared heretical by the Catholic church and it's member excommunicated. That didn't stop the "true believers" though. They kept right on with their "true belief."

"A sect called "Montanist" existed in the 8th century; the Emperor Leo III ordered the conversion and baptism of its members. These Montanists refused, locked themselves in their houses of worship, set the buildings on fire and perished." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

The Montanists were eventually eradicated by the followers of the real"one true" belief. Beliefs sometime take on a life of their own, for reasons known only to the "true believers."

Let's take a look at the "Mormon witnesses." In 1829 the Mormon Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer signed a statement of verification that they together had not only personally seen the famous Mormon golden tablets that the angel Moroni had caused Joseph Smith to find, but that God's voice had personally told them that the tablets had been translated by divine power. Cowdery later denounced Mormonism and was excommunicated. Harris later admitted that he never actually saw the plates physically, but only spiritually. Whitmer continued to affirm that he had seen the golden plates, but also that there had been brass plates, which no one else had reported. Whitmer was eventually excommunicated from the Mormon church as well. Despite this, their testimonies are still included in the book of Mormon. The testimony of a second group of witnesses to the golden tablets, known as the Eight Witnesses, was first published at the end of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. These witnesses included Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith. The four members of the Whitmer family were subsequently excommunicated from the Mormon church. Has any of this served to shake the faith of the true believers? Nope! Today there are some 15 million shiny faced Mormons, all perfectly certain that the golden plates were real, and that the Mormon religion is the one true religion. Once a true believer has been thoroughly indoctrinated into the belief system, including being thoroughly inoculated against listening to the "lies" of others, he/she will not be dissuaded by contradictory evidence no matter how compelling. Even if a story had circulated that one or more of the early disciples admitted that the claim was based on a hoax, what true believer would believe that such a story was anything other then lies made up by enemies of God and the church? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

It is true that Paul's death wasn't recorded and no secular sources corroborate it. However, what is recorded is that Paul was in Rome 67 AD in jail. The first persecution of the Christian Church took place that same year. It is logical to deduce that Paul, being very active with the Church, would have been executed under Nero.

Do you see how you just made all of this up? There is no indication anywhere in the final chapters of Acts of the date. Wikipedia puts the time of Paul's trial in Israel at about the year 59. we are then told that Paul waited for trial two years in Rome, putting the date at around 61 AD when Acts ends.

Wikipedia
In 55, the Emperor Nero added to his realm the cities of Tiberias and Taricheae in Galilee, and Livias (Iulias), with fourteen villages near it, in Peraea.

It was before him and his sister Berenice that, according to the New Testament, Paul the Apostle pleaded his case at Caesarea Maritima, possibly in 59.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa_II

Even this date is quite circumspect. Paul was being held for very minor charges. To claim that "Paul, being very active with the Church, would have been executed under Nero," is rather like me claiming that Paul was knifed to death in a bar fight. It COULD be true, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And to be honest, I just made it up off of the top of my head. Much as you have done.

Do you at least begin to notice how everything you have always considered to be well established fact just never seems to hold up under actual scrutiny?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 724 by Claire Evans]

We have something from Paul's and Peter's contemporary, Clement 1, one of the first apostolic fathers.

"Working closely with Saints Peter and Paul, the two founding fathers of the Christian church who preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion in 33 A.D., he was likely a follower of the apostle Paul and was schooled by Paul in Rome. Accepting the Christian faith as a young man and working as a missionary preaching the word of the crucified Jesus, Clement I was eventually ordained a bishop by the apostle Peter and served a leadership role in the Roman church before being exiled to the Crimea, where he died in 101 A.D."

Paul "preached alongside Jesus prior to Christ's crucifixion?" Paul Never even MET the living Jesus, and was present for NONE of the events detailed in the Gospels. When first we meet Paul, some few years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul is an ADAMANT OPPONENT of Christianity, which he considered a vile heresy. The shockingly poor and misleading statement you posted above is nothing more then an example of appallingly poor scholarship and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the NT actually says. It is totally, in a word, BOGUS.

I made a mistake. That was not a quote from Clement but rather from some commentator. Tried to corroborate that with another source but couldn't. Sorry about that. I thought it was a strange passage but thought he really did write it. I was trying to get a source that was fairly early as requested by another person I originally was posting this to.

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

No one knows what became of Paul and THAT is an irrefutable fact. What IS known is that Rome was nearly destroyed by a fire in 64 AD. In their anguish the Roman population came to believe that the fire was a judgement on them by their gods for allowing the worship of so many "false gods" by the "pagan's" in their midst. As a result they fell on non Roman believers and slaughtered them. Jew were particularly despised as haters of humankind. If Peter and Paul were in Rome during the time of the great fire, and escaped the conflagration, they could easily have been murdered by the crowds. But you see, know one really knows BECAUSE NO ONE RECORDED THEIR DEATHS.

It is true that Paul's death wasn't recorded and no secular sources corroborate it. However, what is recorded is that Paul was in Rome 67 AD in jail. The first persecution of the Christian Church took place that same year. It is logical to deduce that Paul, being very active with the Church, would have been executed under Nero.

RESPONSE:

I posted this earlier today but it didn't take Perhaps we are still having computer poblems,

Clement’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter V.

Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Note that Clement does not have Peter preaching in the West or dying under the Roman prefects there.

“The complete silence as to St. Peter is most easily explained by supposing that he was then absent from Rome. Paul may well have been aware of this fact, for the community was not entirely foreign to him. An epistle like the present would hardly have been sent while the Prince of the Apostles was in Rome and the reference to the ruler (xii, 8) would then be difficult to explain. Paul probably supposes that during the months between the composition and the arrival of the Epistle, the community would be more or less thrown on its own resources.

(Merk A. Transcribed by W.G. Kofron. Epistle to the Romans. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century� (Sullivan F.A.S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
oblems. I'll try again. Let's hope the computer problem has been resolved.

Evidently, it has been!!!