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?

[Kyrani99]

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

...............
........... 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.

I disagree with you. The question of God and religious belief should never rest on historical events having necessarily happened. It is not about debating make believe.

In religious experience (though limited) but with certainty in enlightenment experience (in Greek apotheosis literally "of/from Godliness", Oxford dictionary defn "The elevation of someone to divine status") the evidence is known. It is stronger evidence than the evidence of material existence, which while appearing convincingly concrete is really basically nothingness with intermittent bursts of energy popping into and out of existence.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

...............
........... 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.

I disagree with you. The question of God and religious belief should never rest on historical events having necessarily happened. It is not about debating make believe.

In religious experience (though limited) but with certainty in enlightenment experience (in Greek apotheosis literally "of/from Godliness", Oxford dictionary defn "The elevation of someone to divine status") the evidence is known. It is stronger evidence than the evidence of material existence, which while appearing convincingly concrete is really basically nothingness with intermittent bursts of energy popping into and out of existence.

Can you show how in any way a "religious experience" can be differentiated from an experience which is entirely a product of the imagination? How would an interested observer know the difference?

[Claire Evans]

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.

Yes, they could…

"Finally, we must discuss the common assumption that oral traditions are primarily community, not individually, based. This assumption has fueled the classic form critical view that the Jesus story was largely originated and shaped to address on-going needs in the early Jesus movement. Related to this, it has fueled the view that individual eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life would have played little or no role in originating or regulating oral traditions about Jesus. Here too research into oral traditions and orally dominated communities exposes a classic form critical assumption to be mistaken.

Orality specialists now realize that, while the community plays a significant role in preserving the accuracy of an oral tradition, as we’ve seen, oral communities typically designate an individual tradent to be the bearer of the tradition and the primary one responsible for passing it on. Also, when an individual was an eyewitness to events that became part a community’s oral traditions, they are often designated the oral tradent of that tradition."

The point is strongly reinforced when we recall that early Christianity was a thoroughly Jewish movement, for the Jewish tradition had always put a strong emphasis on the role of eyewitnesses. Only by appealing to credible eyewitnesses could one certify a claim as factual (e.g., Jer 32:10, 12; Ruth 4:9-11; Isaiah 8:2). So too, bearing false witness was considered a major crime. Indeed, it was outlawed in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:16). The law of multiple witnesses also reflects the life-or-death importance of this commandment in ancient Judaism. (Deut 17:6-7; Num 35:30). -
http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- ... mRzO2.dpuf

Lying could be easily challenged.

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."

This "Father" needs to give examples. You can create a new thread on this matter.

[Claire Evans]

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.

I think you are misinterpreting what Clement said. He did say that Paul went to Spain but saying, "...and suffered martyrdom", does not necessarily mean he died in Spain. We know that Rome had prefects thus Paul died in Rome. So Paul returned to Rome after going to Spain[/i]

[Claire Evans]

[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.

I don't think you appreciate just how bad crucifixion is. As you said, nobody threatened your life. You may just have changed your mind if people like ISIS threatened to behead you if you didn't convert to Islam. It is so easy to judge when one is not in a position like Peter was.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 749 by Claire Evans]

Did Peter believe in Jesus, see his miracles, believe Jesus was in some shape or form divine? If yes, why would Peter allow (for lack of a better word) the crucifixion to sway him from that? Peter supposedly studied under Jesus, believed Jesus when Jesus said that those who follow him will go to heaven. If Peter did believe Jesus, then why would the crucifixion change that?
Or maybe...just maybe, Peter didn't believe Jesus. Maybe just maybe arguably one of the most important figures in early Christendom didn't believe Jesus was in some shape or form divine, and allowed earthly materialistic threats to make him deny Jesus three times.
During my childhood, I heard about all sorts of saints and martyrs, people who died rather than renounce their faith, their belief in Jesus. Well...then what about Peter? Why did he deny Jesus?

[marco]

Did Peter believe in Jesus, see his miracles, believe Jesus was in some shape or form divine? If yes, why would Peter allow (for lack of a better word) the crucifixion to sway him from that? Peter supposedly studied under Jesus, believed Jesus when Jesus said that those who follow him will go to heaven. If Peter did believe Jesus, then why would the crucifixion change that?
Or maybe...just maybe, Peter didn't believe Jesus.

I think it's safe enough to regard Peter as a fallible human, afraid when threatened and later inspired to be much braver. On balance it seems Peter gradually acquired a sense that the man they were with was a god. The "miraculous" catch of fish astonished him as did the walking on water. Whatever rational reason existed Peter seems to have been under the spell of divinity, or believed he was. It makes more sense for us to accept Peter (erroneously) thought Jesus was God.

Once people think they are being led by God they can do anything. I believe there are even people today who strap explosives to their chests and blow themselves up in the mistaken belief that they are doing what God wants. It doesn't matter that they are wrong: all that matters is what they believe.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 751 by marco]

That's kind of the point I am making, re: suicide bombers. They have been convinced to blow themselves up, they believe that all sorts of magical wonders await them in the afterlife, and they don't have any actual evidence of this. It's things like rhetoric, scriptural verses and charisma that convinces them to not care about the danger they're placing themselves in.
Yet when it comes to Peter...the situation is entirely different. He (supposedly) has direct first hand experience of actual freakin' miracles. I can understand him being surprised at first but by the time the last supper rolled around, these miracles happened every other day. By the time of the supper, Jesus has been curing the sick, raising the dead, expelling demons and all sorts of wonders on a more or less regular basis.
Yet somehow...Peter is swayed somehow to deny Jesus three times. Do I believe this little tidbit? It doesn't make sense. If I believe it, then Peter is an untrustworthy person. Unlike other people who prove willing to suffer all kinds of pain by not renouncing their beliefs, Peter is not, despite having (supposedly) better evidence than everyone else. If I don't believe the story...then it's yet another reason to call the gospels into question, to raise the flag of their unreliability.

[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.

I think you are misinterpreting what Clement said. He did say that Paul went to Spain but saying, "...and suffered martyrdom", does not necessarily mean he died in Spain. We know that Rome had prefects thus Paul died in Rome. So Paul returned to Rome after going to Spain[/i]

If anyone is guilty of misrepresenting Clement, it is you.
Nowhere does Clement make any reference to Paul returning to Rome. Your assertion, that because there is an apparent reference to "prefects", and as Rome had prefects, Paul must have returned to Rome to be executed by the prefects, is absurd on so many levels as to be ridiculous.

Firstly, Rome was not unique in having prefects. There were prefects stationed throughout the Roman empire. Indeed, Pontius Pilate was a prefect; and there were prefects in the two provinces that comprised Roman Spain. So a reference to prefects does not, of necessity, mean that Paul returned to Rome after going to Spain.

Secondly, Clement does not even refer to "prefects", he simply mentions τῶν ἡγουμένων [t�n ēgoumen�v] "the leaders". This generic term could be applied to any person in a position of authority anywhere throughout the Roman empire. Again, no implication necessitating a return to Rome.

Finally, nowhere does Clement say that Paul "suffered" anything. Clement simply states of Paul, "that witnessing before the leaders thus departed this world".

So, an accurate appraisal of 1 Clement reveals that all that Clement writes is that: Paul travelled to the far West, i.e. Spain, and after bearing witness before the leaders, he departed this world i.e. he died.

Conclusion: no mention of any return to Rome, nor of any execution there.

[marco]

Yet when it comes to Peter...the situation is entirely different. He (supposedly) has direct first hand experience of actual freakin' miracles. I can understand him being surprised at first but by the time the last supper rolled around, these miracles happened every other day. By the time of the supper, Jesus has been curing the sick, raising the dead, expelling demons and all sorts of wonders on a more or less regular basis.
Yet somehow...Peter is swayed somehow to deny Jesus three times. Do I believe this little tidbit? It doesn't make sense. If I believe it, then Peter is an untrustworthy person. Unlike other people who prove willing to suffer all kinds of pain by not renouncing their beliefs, Peter is not, despite having (supposedly) better evidence than everyone else. If I don't believe the story...then it's yet another reason to call the gospels into question, to raise the flag of their unreliability.

I don't see a great problem accepting Peter's temporary fear; it is all too human. He regretted his denial. I suppose we can grow accustomed to going around with a worker of wonders but in the end fear is a permanent guest in our heads. Of greater surprise is Judas who, like Peter, must have witnessed miracles and yet betrayed Christ. Where Peter was filled with remorse Judas, tradition has it, committed suicide.
That Peter did act in this negative way doesn't detract rom the story - for me. In the same way I find one of the saddest features of the crucifixion is "Father, why have you forsaken me?"

No I don't believe but I appreciate a story and that particular line has filled me with pity since I was a boy. Still does.