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.

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?

A "religious experience" can be differentiated from imagination because it leaves the person in a state of supreme wellness, with high clarity of thinking and peaceful. No imagination can have this after effect. However an enlightenment experience is self evident and in this experience the personal self, which is the agency of the imagination is absent.

It cannot be possible for any independent/ interested observer to know the experiences, let alone know the difference. You cannot do any scientific experiment to show to an interest observer that you have a subjective experience or even consciousness. This does not disprove your subjective experience or your consciousness. The reality is that not all areas are open to investigation by science.

[Danmark]

A "religious experience" can be differentiated from imagination because it leaves the person in a state of supreme wellness, with high clarity of thinking and peaceful. No imagination can have this after effect. However an enlightenment experience is self evident and in this experience the personal self, which is the agency of the imagination is absent.

It cannot be possible for any independent/ interested observer to know the experiences, let alone know the difference. You cannot do any scientific experiment to show to an interest observer that you have a subjective experience or even consciousness. This does not disprove your subjective experience or your consciousness. The reality is that not all areas are open to investigation by science.

What is the basis for this claim, that "it leaves the person in a state of supreme wellness, with high clarity of thinking and peaceful?"
People have this same result after non religious experiences. I get that kind of a feeling while I'm giving a good closing argument and when the jury says "Not guilty." I suggest everyone, or at least millions of people have had the same experience you describe, but do not attribute them to religion.

You're making an unfalsifiable claim and you admit you have; that no one besides yourself can fully experience your wholly subjective experience. Essentially, yours is an argument you cannot support. All you can say is "This is what I believe. This is what I have experienced."

For reference:
Religious ecstasy is a type of altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness, frequently accompanied by visions and emotional (and sometimes physical) euphoria.
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ecstasy

Ecstasy (from Ancient Greek ἔκστασις ékstasis) is a subjective experience of total involvement of the subject, with an object of his or her awareness. Total involvement with an object of interest is not an ordinary experience because of being aware of other objects, thus ecstasy is an example of an altered state of consciousness characterized by diminished awareness of other objects or the total lack of the awareness of surroundings and everything around the object. The word is also used to refer to any heightened state of consciousness or intensely pleasant experience. It is also used more specifically to denote states of awareness of non-ordinary mental spaces, which may be perceived as spiritual (the latter type of ecstasy often takes the form of religious ecstasy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(emotion)

[polonius]

Student posted:

>>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, he departed this world i.e. he died under the Romans.



RESPONSE:

You've overlooked the central issue. Of prime concern is the fate of Peter. No where does Clement say that Peter was ever in the West (ie Rome) or that he was executed by the Romans.

In fact, one historian claims that Rome didn't even have a bishop until late in the second century which supports what we know from early Roman records.

If Peter was in Rome, it's strange that there is no mention of it in Acts or any first century material.

[Claire Evans]

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

I was actually referring to when the gospels were new; just after Jesus died. Not when Acts and the lot were written. Paul did correct those who didn't believe in the resurrection of people after death (1 Corinthians 15:12-19) . Gnosticism had crept in the second century and had absolutely no biblical base to it. The crucifixion is an historical fact.

And, really, it is not surprising that pagans would attack the Gospels. Christianity threatened paganism.

[Claire Evans]

[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.

So you expect me to somehow find writings to prove to you? It is logical to come to the conclusion that writings didn't survive. That is what happens in history. I had no reason to doubt that there were Roman guards. That is the point of a debate. To challenge one's views. You appear to think that your argument is tight. However, it is not. Carrying Jesus' body over the Sabbath where you know people would attempt to destroy the body is unreasonable. It was not allowed.

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.

That is because no one challenged their views. It's interesting that when someone starts exposing cult leaders' lies, people tend to break away. Some don't, of course, but the point is that when someone's idea is challenged, there is doubt.

Also, the cult leader has to take time to reprogram a mind. Cults are normally small and did no not spread to the masses. In order for people to truly believe in the resurrection to the extent they would die for Jesus, they'd have to be brainwashed over a long period of time. Brain washing a person also requires the cult to isolate the person from anyone that can challenge the cult including family.

Most importantly, cults need a cult leader and they are the ones doing the brainwashing.

So we need to ask ourselves, "What convinced anyone just after the resurrection that Jesus had risen from the dead?" There was no time for brainwashing.

Also, many the disciples spoke in tongues to preach the gospel and performed miracles. Therefore people will exposed to the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit.

"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."

Well, first of all, the early Church never recanted the gospels. People who are brainwashed will believe anything if others say it is false.

This is true in the early days. If those who knew Jesus and other early Christians admitted things were false, Christianity would have died a quiet death. Paul would never have preached the gospels far and wide and he was pivotal to the survival of the Christian church.

Having said that, there are brainwashed Christians today. Some will refuse to believe the Bible is fallible. They were taught otherwise and that is that. That doesn't mean the whole religion is false. There are various reasons why someone becomes brainwashed. Mostly due to their parents and what others would think of them.



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.

True that I mustn't state it is a fact. I should have said, "It is surmised..." However, I will tell you why it is a reasonable 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.

You are not talking about the final trial. He was released from prison in about 61-62 AD. He then was said to have plans to travel to Spain. That is what he would have done after his release or at least attempted to.


Travelling would have taken several years. 1 Timothy was written. Then Paul was arrested either in Spain or Corinth and taken back to Rome to be imprisoned. 2 Timothy was written during his last imprisonment. We can say that Paul was back in prison around 67 AD. It is logical to assume that Paul would have been put to death just before Nero's death. The next emperor, Vaspasian, did not persecute Christians. So if Paul was put to death, for argument's sake, then it had to be under Nero. I just believe that there would have been more epistles from Paul if he had lived longer than 68 AD.

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?

Well, I hope my comment above makes more since to you.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 759 by Claire Evans]

History was actually pretty good back then-if you couldn't find the incident, you could find the policy. The policy of Romans guarding bodies. After all, when, in the US we execute someone, for example, we post two marines to guard that criminal's body right?
****
Except, why would Romans WANT to guard the body of a dissent?
If you knew Rome at the time, they were more likely to cut a criminal's head off and use it as a soccer ball.


So, there are some things we know about back then that your research into the subject could clarify.

[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.

I was actually referring to when the gospels were new; just after Jesus died.

Actually, the Gospels are typically dated from G.Mark c.70 to G.John c.100. Long after the death of any alleged Jesus.

Furthermore, the Gospels do not become widely known outside the four Gospel communities until c.150 with Justin Martyr, as I discuss here :
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=29450

The details can be seen in my chart here (no spam, no ads, just plain text) :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/Table.html

The Gospels didn't generally become known until c.150 - so how could anyone disagree BEFORE then ?

But when they DID become known, both Christians and pagans criticised them often, as I showed above.

Gnosticism had crept in the second century and had absolutely no biblical base to it.

Actually, Gnosticism appears very early - Paul had some proto-Gnostic ideas, Colossians and Ephesians also have some non historical views, so too Hebrews. 1 John appears to be a spiritual experience. Taking a wide view of what 'gnostic' means allows quite a few early gnostics.

The crucifixion is an historical fact.

I understand that is your belief.
I don't share it.

And, really, it is not surprising that pagans would attack the Gospels. Christianity threatened paganism.

So, the criticisms of rivals are not valid ?
Well -
consider pagan's beliefs.
Christianity is threatened by their rival pagans.
Therefore Christian criticism of paganism is invalid.
Therefore paganism is correct.
Does that sound like a good argument to you ?


Kapyong

[Kyrani99]

A "religious experience" can be differentiated from imagination because it leaves the person in a state of supreme wellness, with high clarity of thinking and peaceful. No imagination can have this after effect. However an enlightenment experience is self evident and in this experience the personal self, which is the agency of the imagination is absent.

It cannot be possible for any independent/ interested observer to know the experiences, let alone know the difference. You cannot do any scientific experiment to show to an interest observer that you have a subjective experience or even consciousness. This does not disprove your subjective experience or your consciousness. The reality is that not all areas are open to investigation by science.

What is the basis for this claim, that "it leaves the person in a state of supreme wellness, with high clarity of thinking and peaceful?"
People have this same result after non religious experiences. I get that kind of a feeling while I'm giving a good closing argument and when the jury says "Not guilty." I suggest everyone, or at least millions of people have had the same experience you describe, but do not attribute them to religion.

It may be that there are other times when a person may feel supreme wellness, clarity of thought and peaceful because this is really the state of joy. But we are talking about Paul/Saul and his claim that he was blinded and feeling badly after a religious experience. It is not only my experience but countless others who report the same elation, joy and not physical inability and discomfort.

You're making an unfalsifiable claim and you admit you have; that no one besides yourself can fully experience your wholly subjective experience. Essentially, yours is an argument you cannot support. All you can say is "This is what I believe. This is what I have experienced."

You bet it is not falsifiable. You seem to think that if it is not science or if it doesn't fit into the mold of science then it is not valid. I support my argument by my testimony. In a legal case do you throw out all people's testimony on the grounds that it is subjective, that they cannot give evidence to others that they saw or heard what they saw or heard? No, an eyewitness account is in fact strong evidence. I cannot give any other evidence because it is subjective. However here again it echoes all others who have had religious experience. Accounts of distress and physical disability stand out like a sore thumb. They signal that something is wrong.

For reference:
Religious ecstasy is a type of altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness, frequently accompanied by visions and emotional (and sometimes physical) euphoria.
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ecstasy

Ecstasy (from Ancient Greek ἔκστασις ékstasis) is a subjective experience of total involvement of the subject, with an object of his or her awareness. Total involvement with an object of interest is not an ordinary experience because of being aware of other objects, thus ecstasy is an example of an altered state of consciousness characterized by diminished awareness of other objects or the total lack of the awareness of surroundings and everything around the object. The word is also used to refer to any heightened state of consciousness or intensely pleasant experience. It is also used more specifically to denote states of awareness of non-ordinary mental spaces, which may be perceived as spiritual (the latter type of ecstasy often takes the form of religious ecstasy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(emotion)

I'm not talking about the experience itself because this can vary greatly. A person doesn't lose consciousness so much as more focused on the experience than on their surrounding but it sometimes feels like not conscious of your surroundings during the experience. This is a whole different matter. The acid test is AFTER the experience how does the person feel, not only in the immediate time after, but very commonly for days and even weeks or months later.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

For those who never click on links like my table :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/Table.html

Here is a look at what it shows up to Justin c.150 -

Running chronologically down the page are the early Christians writings, dated and named on the left. The table shows textual references to various Christian words and phrases showing how mentions grew over time.

I have highlighted two areas on this screen -

Firstly - the orange column on the left shows mentions of words like 'resurrection', shown with symbol 'r' (or later 'R' for a specific historical cite). We can see that the resurrection, a known early belief, is mentioned in about 50% of the earliest ~40 writings - a rough benchmark for how often a popular belief is mentioned.

Secondly - on the right, I have highlighted in red the mentions of the Empty Tomb with symbol 'T'. We can see that no Christian (outside the Gospel communities) writer of the earliest 39 books mentions the Empty Tomb.

Yes, the Gospel are missing from this chart - it's specifically an aid to dating those Gospels. This evidence shows that the Gospels, and their stories such as the Empty Tomb, were not widely known until c.150.

The Gospels were initially known to just four Christian communities for which we have essentially no hard evidence, just a few guesses - Rome, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi ?

By contrast, the first ~40 earliest Christian writings show little or no knowledge or the Gospels and their stories until c.150. With a few arguable exceptions e.g. Papias, Barnabas, Didakhe.


Next, here is a look at my table from Justin onwards :

Above I have highlighted in orange from Irenaus c.185 to Hippolytus c.220. It's obvious that these writers (and following) had copies of the Gospels, or access to them.


Conclusion -
for decades after the original creation of G.Mark c.70 the Gospels were limited to a small group of four Christian communities. Most Christians didn't even get to HEAR of the Gospel stories until mid 2nd century. Finally, by late 2nd century everyone knew the Gospels.


Kapyong

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 762 by Kyrani99]

In a legal case do you throw out all people's testimony on the grounds that it is subjective, that they cannot give evidence to others that they saw or heard what they saw or heard?

If this were a court case, it would never have proceeded to trial, because, to use the analogy of a murder case, we're not even sure a murder was even committed!
Besides, how do you, the third party, know that it actually IS eyewitness testimony? If someone else has an illness and reports to you that the cause of their temporary blindness was because they saw Jesus, do you believe them or do you look for some other explanation, like maybe drugs or a disease?