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?

[marco]

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. ........

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).

You are as wise as your namesake, Polonius. I bow to your Zoilean exactitude, though I had neither active nor passive rising in mind. The formal dynamics of resurrection are just beyond my intellectual compass. Alas. My best regards

[marco]

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.

In Mark we have one young man sitting specifically on the right side clothed in white. Detail is good for authentication.
In Luke we have TWO men in shining clothes. Detail is good for authentication.

Mark's man doesn't use figurative language. He's risen; go and tell Peter that Jesus is hurrying into Galilee.
Luke's men speak together to the frightened women: Why seek ye the living among the dead? (Which is called a rhetorical, slightly sarcastic, question -unworthy of two angels.)
They then, again in apparent harmony, invite the women to remember something the Son of Man said and they DO remember.

If one accepts that angels come and go and speak either singly or at the same time in pairs then indubitably Christ had not only risen but was hurrying along the road on foot to Galilee. It is easy to imagine.

Let's not ask who the man was or the men were or why they wore clothes that shone. The important extraction is that we have absolute proof, from the unimpeachable tongues of angels, that Christ was running to Galilee.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

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.

Let's go ahead and assume that the Gospel writers fully believed themselves that Jesus arose from the dead. Let's also assume that the Gospel writers fully believed that the Greek hero Hercules was an actual individual who performed all of the incredible "twelve labors" that he was traditionally credited with. Let's further assume that all of the Gospel writers fully believed in the existence of one-eyed giants known as cyclops. That they may well have believed these things to be valid is no great stretch, since these things were widely considered to be valid and true in ancient times. Being familiar with the stories, and fully believing in them themselves, the authors of the Gospels could very easily have written about any of these things, fully believing them to be true. And none of that would change the fact the the stories are pure nonsense. The possibility that the authors of the Gospels, non eyewitnesses themselves and writing decades after the events they are portraying, may well have fully believed the stories themselves, does not make the story of a corpse something back to life and flying away any the more probable. Much in the same way that Paul's claim to have met with and talked with the years dead Jesus has any actual probability for being true. Because you see, and as we can all see from the vast profusion of religious beliefs which exist, and which have existed over time, it is quite common for people to genuinely believe in things that are not true!

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.

Gospel Matthew records that the chief priests AND Pharisees believed that the followers of Jesus intended to move the body of Jesus from the tomb and spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. The priests took possession of a CLOSED TOMB, which they placed seals on, and set a guard. The tomb proved to be empty the next morning, which tells us in no uncertain terms that the body of Jesus was already gone when the priests took possession of it.

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.

This is certainly true. Paul was certainly preaching the story of the risen Jesus prior to 85 AD.

[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]

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.

The purpose of me posting that Clement quote was because someone asked me for a more recent source about Peter and Paul's martyrdom than the later ones he had. He may have been right or he may have been wrong but what he says is not gospel. So I'm going back to neutral here. Which quote are you referring to when you say, "that witnessing before the leaders thus departed this world"? In the previous quote Clement said he was martyred.

I have to be honest and say it cannot be proven that Paul ever went to Spain. I cannot find in other source that said he did. No other source says that Paul was martyred in Spain. I do want at least two sources to corroborate one another.

I seems that Paul was in Rome according to 2 Timothy: 16-17 when he was executed; of one should accept that happened:

16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me.

So I have to try and differentiate between tradition and what really may have happened.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

I have to be honest and say it cannot be proven that Paul ever went to Spain. I cannot find in other source that said he did. No other source says that Paul was martyred in Spain. I do want at least two sources to corroborate one another.

Here is a second source for you, as well on a bit of historical background on the tradition that Paul went to Spain. Understand that I am making no claim myself that Paul went to Spain. But it is a very old and very well established tradition.

http://johnsonspain.tripod.com/id69.html

http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/Spain.pdf

[Student]

The purpose of me posting that Clement quote was because someone asked me for a more recent source about Peter and Paul's martyrdom than the later ones he had. He may have been right or he may have been wrong but what he says is not gospel. So I'm going back to neutral here. Which quote are you referring to when you say, "that witnessing before the leaders thus departed this world"?

The quotation I used was my own literal translation of the Greek text of 1 Clement.

However, if you are dissatisfied with my humble efforts, I refer you to three different translations, namely those by Lightfoot, Hoole, and Staniforth:

J.B. Lightfoot
"having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."

Charles Hoole
"and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience."

M. Staniforth
"He preached in the East and in the West, winning a noble reputation for his faith. He, taught righteousness to all the world; and after reaching the furthest limits' of the West, and bearing his testimony before kings and rulers, he passed out of this world and was received into the holy places. In him we have one of the greatest of all examples of endurance."

No mention of "suffering martyrdom" in any of them.

I have to be honest and say it cannot be proven that Paul ever went to Spain. I cannot find in other source that said he did. No other source says that Paul was martyred in Spain. I do want at least two sources to corroborate one another.

Well, if we are being honest, you will have to admit you haven't provided a single scrap of evidence that Paul was executed in Rome.

Acts is silent on the matter, as is 1 Clement. As for 2 Timothy, assuming it is not pseudopigraphical i.e. a forgery, all it evidences is that at a certain time Paul was apparently in Rome, not that he was executed there.

To claim, as you do, that 2 Timothy is evidence that Paul was executed in Rome, is palpably ludicrous.

And if you require two sources to corroborate any event, then you will be hard pressed to verify any event in the New Testament, and that includes the alleged resurrection. Copying and collusion does not correspond to corroboration.

So I have to try and differentiate between tradition and what really may have happened.

Clearly, you will have to try harder, much harder.

[Goose]

Well, if we are being honest, you will have to admit you haven't provided a single scrap of evidence that Paul was executed in Rome.

And if you and others are being honest, you'll have to admit that Claire has provided, via Clement, relatively early first century data to support the argument that Peter and Paul were persecuted and killed.

[JLB32168]

Let's not ask who the man was or the men were or why they wore clothes that shone. The important extraction is that we have absolute proof, from the unimpeachable tongues of angels, that Christ was running to Galilee.

The assertion was, “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.� If the writer of Mark is writing an apologetics on the bodily resurrection then the statement “that Jesus rose from the dead is not found in the Synoptic Gospels� is patently false.
That I claimed that this testimony is absolute proof of Christ’s resurrection is a straw man argument – your misrepresentation of what I actually claimed. It’s easy to rebut a misrepresentation of someone’s argument because the misrepresentation is usually a weaker version of the person’s actual argument.

Let's go ahead and assume that the Gospel writers fully believed themselves that Jesus arose from the dead. Let's also assume that the Gospel writers fully believed that the Greek hero Hercules was an actual individual who performed all of the incredible "twelve labors" that he was traditionally credited with. [. . .]. And none of that would change the fact the the stories are pure nonsense. The possibility that the authors of the Gospels, non eyewitnesses themselves and writing decades after the events they are portraying, may well have fully believed the stories themselves, does not make the story of a corpse something back to life and flying away any the more probable.

I’ve got an idea. How about we tackle arguments that people actually bring to the table instead of tackling arguments that we wish people had presented. Someone asserted that there was no hint of Christ’s resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels. That assertion doesn’t jibe with the evidence in the Synoptics such as the priests taking possession of a “CLOSED TOMB,� upon which they placed seals and set a guard, but which angels say was futile.

[JLB32168]

No mention of "suffering martyrdom" in any of them.

Paul seems to be under the impression that he will be martyred since he says he’s ready “to be offered.� I suppose that one could argue that being offered doesn’t necessarily entail being martyred but that seems like a hard position to defend. While Clement doesn’t explicitly state martyrdom when he says Paul went West (wherever that was) it doesn’t exclude it and it is reasonable to assume that Clement knew of Paul’s letters to Timothy.

Well, if we are being honest, you will have to admit you haven't provided a single scrap of evidence that Paul was executed in Rome.

Onesiphorus searched for Paul in Rome until he found him. Paul remarks that he was in chains when Onesiphorus found him. Paul gives no indication that he’s gone anywhere between that meeting with Onesiphorus and now – right before he’s supposed to be executed. That sounds like several scraps of evidence. It might not be conclusive but the evidence for Paul’s execution in Rome is much weightier than the alternative of a simple repose somewhere else, which is the one that strikes me as “palpably ludicrous.�

[Danmark]

Pardon my density, but what is the significance of Paul being executed in Rome or elsewhere or not at all? And how does it relate to whether the "Resurrurredction" [would someone PLEASE fix that? ] is historical fact or not? It seems a bit odd to me that Clement would not have specifically mentioned Paul's execution if it occurred, but I don't see how that affects the issue presented in the OP.