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?

[JLB32168]

We don't know if they got it wrong. Does that mean that we know if they got it right? NO It means that we don't KNOW if they got it RIGHT.

I never said that we know they got it right. I merely said that to assert “They got it wrong,� is incorrect since we don't know if they got it wrong.

Please address arguments that I actually present. I’m in possession of two college degrees and have taught English and Science in the past. You need not explain the nuances of language to me and it’s not a little insulting to assume that one doesn’t know that “We don’t know if they got it wrong� doesn’t mean we got it right either.

- not that the question has anything to do with Christ's alleged Resurrection.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 794 by Goose]

"The Pope [Clement] said so" is regarded as compelling evidence of truth by some, as weak evidence by others, and as evidence of nothing at all by yet others.

A person promoting a religion may have vested interest in claiming martyrdom for its earlier proponents.

[polonius]

- not that the question has anything to do with Christ's alleged Resurrection.

RESPONSE:

Yes. Let's return to the original question.

When (date) was the first report of Jesus rising from the dead?

What is the source of that report?

Is it credible?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 795 by JLB32168]

We don't know if they got it wrong. Does that mean that we know if they got it right? NO It means that we don't KNOW if they got it RIGHT.

I never said that we know they got it right. I merely said that to assert “They got it wrong,� is incorrect since we don't know if they got it wrong.

Please address arguments that I actually present.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know your intent, I responded to what was written, instead.

I did not say that "You said... I never said that we know they got it right. ". I quoted your exact words, and then gave my opinion about those words, because I thought that something, in this case, the other side of a propositional equation was missing. .

I’m in possession of two college degrees and have taught English and Science in the past.

Congratulations! However, I don't see the relevance of your possessions to what you are objecting to, or to the OP.

You need not explain the nuances of language to me and it’s not a little insulting to assume that one doesn’t know that “We don’t know if they got it wrong� doesn’t mean we got it right either.

You might be assuming that I assumed something. I did not. I still don't. I MIGHT have misunderstood what you said. That happens.

I don't suppose you to be the only person reading the post, either. When you left the other side of the equation out, I thought it was proper to bring it back IN , so that there would be no confusion to OTHERS. You, have two degrees, so you know it, already. Others might not. I thought it was wise to clarify the point.

I don't presume to know what others think. So I write for everyone who cares to read, and not just yourself, as highly educated as you might be.

- not that the question has anything to do with Christ's alleged Resurrection.

If we use faulty logic to arrive at our conclusion, that conclusion will be unreliable. I demonstrate that your post seems to only agree with the ONE side of the equation that it makes. This would be unreasonable, if it were the case, and I explained why. Allow me to do so again:

We can't say reasonably say that X=Y and then say that X≠Y at the same time.

How does that relate to the OP?.. I am pointing out that faulty reasoning doesn't support any conclusion about the OP in a reliable way. And that could possibly include YOUR faulty reasoning, if you have it.
When we aren't completely clear, we might be misunderstood, and a clarification is all that is needed, if that's the case. I hardly see how one's academic achievements relate to the OP, OR any misunderstanding on points of logic.

But I really do believe that we should strive for good logic and clear communication. Since our disagreement IS a digression from the OP, I suggest that we carry this discussion on to PM if it needs to continue.

[Claire Evans]

[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.

Because Pilate heard of the claim that the disciples would claim a resurrection and Pilate wanted to prevent that so he tried to prevent the theft of the body. He wanted the matter to go away. He was already on shaky ground.

[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.

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.

I wasn't clear enough. The gospels existed in oral tradition way before they were written down.

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

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.

Argh, meant Gnostic Gospels.

The Gnostic Gospels is a collection of about 54 ancient texts based upon the teachings of several spiritual leaders, which were written from the 2nd to the 4th century AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

Thanks for the correction.

Paul very much opposed the Gnostic views of the Colossians:

COLOSSIANS 2:4 Now this [touto de] I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. (NKJV)

COLOSSIANS 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe [ta stoicheia tou kosmou], and not according to Christ. (NRSV)

Gnostics believed that Jesus came to impart secret knowledge to his disciples only and that salvation came through knowledge and not by faith. By no means does John advocate that.

The crucifixion is an historical fact.

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

Look up the historian Tacitus on the death of Christ under Pontius Pilate.

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

Yes, but how long after Jesus' life and death did these pagans challenge the gospels? From the second century AD. On what grounds did they think it was fictitious?

[Claire Evans]

[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.

You cannot fully understand Jesus without the Holy Spirit. Christians know Him because of the resurrection that enabled the Holy Spirit to be available to all those who believed. Although the disciples believed Jesus was the son of God, how could they fully understand Him and why He came to this world? Paul appeared to know Jesus better than Peter did and he never meant Jesus.

Yes, the Holy Spirit was given to them to exorcise demons but they didn't quite understand how. I'm not saying that the disciples didn't understand Jesus at all but one cannot fully know Him without the knowledge of the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


This implies that the Holy Spirit sent after Jesus' departure will teach them to make them understand what Jesus had sent to them. Why have the Holy Spirit as the teacher when they knew everything about Jesus in the first place?

[Claire Evans]

[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.

Yes, only the Holy Spirit can provide that proof people seek.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[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.

Because Pilate heard of the claim that the disciples would claim a resurrection and Pilate wanted to prevent that so he tried to prevent the theft of the body. He wanted the matter to go away. He was already on shaky ground.

Notice this Claire:

Matt.27:
[54] Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

The author of Gospel Matthew was perfectly capable of indicating the guard to be a Roman when he meant Roman. In no way and in no manner does he ever indicate that the guard at the tomb was Roman.

[rikuoamero]

[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.

Yes, only the Holy Spirit can provide that proof people seek.

Then the HS is a word beginning with D for never doing so in either my case, Z's or some other people I could name