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]

[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?

if it was a murder case then surely you wouldn't even go to trial if there was no body. But the fact is that eyewitness testimonies are taken. Certainly more than one eyewitness is stronger evidence but sometimes even one eyewitness, who stands up to cross examination, would be considered evidence.

IMO anyone saying that they got blinded seeing Jesus or any other prophet, should be treated as highly suspect because I know, not only from my own experiences, but also those of many other down through the ages, in various traditions, that a religious experience won't make you blind or sick in any way.

You could be considering disease or drugs, but given the circumstances, I would be more likely to say massive fraud.

[Danmark]

[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?

if it was a murder case then surely you wouldn't even go to trial if there was no body. But the fact is that eyewitness testimonies are taken. Certainly more than one eyewitness is stronger evidence but sometimes even one eyewitness, who stands up to cross examination, would be considered evidence.

You are compounding your error when you refer to the analogy of a murder case. The 3rd hand written hearsay of anonymous witnesses like 'John', written nearly 100 years after the event would not be admitted into evidence at all.
You are also incorrect about no case without a body. Many people make this error in assuming that a murder case cannot be prosecuted unless the dead body is found. Many have not only been prosecuted they have been convicted of murder without a body, including about 40 from the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... out_a_body

What is needed in any criminal prosecution is a corpus delicti; that is, the "body of the crime", referring to the principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. Without a corpus delicti, even a confession is insufficient for prosecution.

[Danmark]

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.

Eyewitness testimony is admitted into evidence when the person who actually witnessed the events is talking about what he claims to have seen. Unless there is a specific, valid exception to the hearsay rule, he cannot testify about the substance of what another has said. NONE of the "testimony" related to the resurrection from any of the Gospels would be admitted into evidence in a court of law in the United States, for the purpose of asserting the truth of the resurrection.

BTW, 'eyewitness' testimony is not always strong, even if it is admitted into evidence. Eyewitnesses are notorious for being wrong when it comes to identifying suspects.
Mistaken Identifications are the Leading Factor In Wrongful Convictions

Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 72% of the more than 300 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-in ... AvMXv.dpuf
http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-in ... ion-reform

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Kyrani99]

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.

Here is an excellent example concerning the nature and efficacy of "eyewitness testimony." 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? Because how does one differentiate between an "oral tradition" and mere rumors and propaganda? Generally it is done by subjecting the stories to some test of reasonable believably.

[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.

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!!!

My personal opinion is that it is unlikely that Paul and Peter were executed together. It's a Catholic story. There's just not enough evidence, also, that Peter was in Rome.

I think that's true that there was no 1st century Bishop.

[Claire Evans]

[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?

I say, don't judge. The reason why other saints and martyrs died for Jesus is because they received the gift of the Holy Spirit that became a gift since the Pentecost. Peter didn't have that. People today with the Holy Spirit know who Jesus truly is better than the disciples. I don't think they truly understood Him until the resurrection.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 770 by Claire Evans]

What you're telling me runs counter to everything I understand. You're telling me that people who lived centuries after Jesus understood him better than a compatriot of his, someone who actually travelled and studied under Jesus, knew him first hand.
Besides, I seem to recall more than a few verses suggesting that the apostles had the HS. Luke 9:1-5 seems to me to be describing what I'd imagine to be being given the HS: they (the apostles) are given the power to expel demons, to heal. Mark 6:7 says the same.

[marco]

[Replying to post 770 by Claire Evans]

There are many things regarded as articles of faith that have no basis in historical fact. Catholics believe that at some point in history Mary was assumed into heaven. Christians believe that Jesus was killed and having resigned himself to lying in a tomb for some days, released himself, folded up his clothes neatly and made his way round the countryside appearing randomly to random people, for no apparent reason. Were his resurrection supposed to be a verification that he would destroy the Temple and in thyree days rebuild it, then he has left us with insufficient proof, since we've spent pages here debating: did he or did he not?

We can accord Christ a place in history; we can allow that he was executed. But such concessions cannot be extended to supernatural events without a mass of incontrovertible evidence. There is none such.

[polonius]

Marco wrote:
[Replying to post 770 by Claire Evans]

There are many things regarded as articles of faith that have no basis in historical fact. Catholics believe that at some point in history Mary was assumed into heaven. Christians believe that Jesus was killed and having resigned himself to lying in a tomb for some days, released himself, folded up his clothes neatly and made his way round the countryside appearing randomly to random people, for no apparent reason. Were his resurrection supposed to be a verification that he would destroy the Temple and in three days rebuild it, then he has left us with insufficient proof, since we've spent pages here debating: did he or did he not?

We can accord Christ a place in history; we can allow that he was executed. But such concessions cannot be extended to supernatural events without a mass of incontrovertible evidence. There is none such.

RESPONSE:

I’m going to have to disagree on one small point (only) in Marco’s response. That Jesus rose from the dead is not found in the synoptic gospels or even in the Acts of the Apostles. It appears in John’s gospel written after 95. Belief in Jesus' messiahship, but not his divinity was the norm until about 85 AD.

Acts 2: 22- 24 “You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know—23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death,[c]because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.� (NRSV)

Thus Jesus' resurrection was passive not active until we get to John's gospel written after 95 AD. John's later gospel speaks of Jeus rising from the dead (his own power), not being raised from the dead (God's power).

[JLB32168]

That Jesus rose from the dead is not found in the synoptic gospels or even in the Acts of the Apostles.

Luke’s Gospel reads, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen!� The same message but different working appears in Mark – the oldest Gospel. I’m not sure how one is supposed to interpret these two if not that the writers think that Jesus rose from the dead in body.

Matthew’s Gospel, also a synoptic Gospel, records the Pharisees saying that they wanted a guard posted because Christ said he’d rise from the dead after three days and the Pharisees wanted to make sure it was secure so that no one could steal the body and claim resurrection.

If the writer in Matthew is already writing apologetics for how Christ’s resurrection involved him leaving the tomb bodily, then belief in Jesus rising from the dead antedates AD 85.

It appears in John’s gospel written after 95. Belief in Jesus' messiahship, but not his divinity was the norm until about 85 AD.

Matthew and Luke’s Gospel have Christ being born of a virgin. This is a motif that is common for religions of the time – gods being born of virgins. They evidence belief in a divine Christ. This has been pointed out to you several times. Is there any particular reason that you exclude this evidence contra your argument from consideration?