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?

[Goose]

I did not misunderstand what you wrote; you might claim that what you wrote is not what you intended, but that is your error, not mine. I responded to what you wrote, no more, no less. Simply acknowledging your error would have sufficed. Now however, from my perspective, all I see is prevarication.

What error? If you mean an error in how I worded it so that certain folks wouldn’t have reading comprehension fail, then I already acknowledged the poor wording on my part. But if you mean to imply I made an error as to the later first century dating of 1 Clement then, no, I made no error. I’ve known of the late first century dating of 1 Clement for years. As evidence of that here is a quote from me in debate with Zzyzx from March of 2008.

Clement wrote his first epistle around the same time as the Gospel of John (some place it earlier than John).

Various scholars attribute different dates [and authors] to 1 Clement. I indicated the range of dates that have been proposed without endorsing any particular one.

And I’ve provided a quote from a respected critical scholar who affirms, �[1 Clement] is generally recognized as having been written near the end of the �rst century, possibly around 95 CE...� If you’d like to argue for a later date feel free to present your case.

The "furthest limits of the west" meaning the Pillars of Hercules, is not my inference. Eratosthenes and Strabo, both defined the "Pillars of Hercules" as the westernmost boundary of the inhabited world. See also Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings; The Apostolic Fathers; p. 25, n6. Also Kümmel says "from the standpoint of the Romans, τὸ τέ�μα τῆς δυσεως can only be Spain."[Introduction to the New Testament; p266]

Sure it’s not your inference per se. But you obviously agree with it.

As for your counter proposal, that we might infer from 1 Clement that both Peter and Paul were martyred, I can only repeat that 1 Clement is silent on the precise nature of their deaths e.g. regarding Paul, "when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place". Hardly the graphic description of a violent death.

But Clement is silent on the precise location of their deaths too. He says nothing about Spain specifically. So evidently it would seem on the one hand you readily accept inferences, this one drawn from a metaphor no less, when it suites you.

�But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. 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. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.� 1 Clement 5.

But when we read the above we can’t infer Peter and Paul’s martyrdom? Even though Clement tells us they were “put to death.� Surely you realize how ridiculous that is if it is in fact what you are suggesting.

Consequently I decline your invitation to exchange inferences.

That’s not surprising in the least.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]
Claire, I agree that there are questions regarding the veracity of 1 Clement, however I did not introduce it as evidence, you did here.

I simply pointed out that 1 Clement did not support what you claimed it did i.e. that Paul was executed in Rome.

If you now wish to withdraw 1 Clement as evidence (that Paul was executed in Rome), I have no objection.

With regard to the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus), there are also numerous objections to their veracity which, in my opinion, strongly suggest that they are second century forgeries. However debating the authenticity of the Pastorals is well outside the topic of this thread.

Although I did believe it was authentic at first, the original request was that I provide a relatively early source. It is considered a source albeit, in my opinion, unreliable.

Would you like to start another forum thread on Timothy, etc?

[polonius]

[Replying to tfvespasianus]

>>‘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.’ <<

Please provide your reference that "Paul was in Rome 67 AD in jail."

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 817 by polonius.advice]

That's poster claire evans' claim. I was quoting it.

It is taken verbatim from earlier in this thread. Hence the quotation marks.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 818 by tfvespasianus]

Moderator Clarification

Much confusion about who said what where can be eliminated by using the Forum's "quote function" properly. Doing so provides a link to the original statement -- and copies accurately word-for-word.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Kyrani99]

I reject the resurrection mainly because it is absurd to accept that a material being is needed to ascend to what is really a spiritual plane.

I think it is important to look at the political events of the time. And to consider too who Jesus was, what he said and what his followers believed and did.

The Romans were tyrants (for instance they didn't only crucify people that didn't pay their taxes, they flogged and then crucified people for not being able to pay their taxes because they had no livelihood or had suffered losses. This is excessive beyond any decency) and they expected that the people's they conquered had to adhere to their rules. Part of those rules were to worship the emperor. Some people claim that the first part of the 1st century was quiet times but in reality it only needed a trigger to set the place on fire. There were riots as it was, with Zealotry.

Jesus, despite what has been put into his mouth since, must have contradicted the Roman rule. He also challenged the Priesthood, many of who were Hellenized Jews and client leaders and kings of the Romans. He went into the temple, challenged them for their trade, over turned their tables and whipped them. It is not surprising that they were begging Pilate to crucify him. And he must have been called the Messiah, which means the anointed one. The anointed ones were Kings. That is why Pilate asked Jesus are you the king of the Jews? Jesus was challenging the system.

In crucifying Jesus, the Romans and the High Priests, many of whom were Hellenized Jews and didn't believe in any resurrection or after life, were basically saying "we killed your Messiah, your king". So the response by Jesus's followers was subversion. By proclaiming that they saw Jesus resurrected they further challenged the Romans and the Roman-installed High Priests.

A few decades later Paul re-invented the story, claiming Jesus was God and that he was resurrected. Then Constantine made more changes to suit his political agenda. He has a problem in the East where he chose to build his city because his subject were now Greeks and not Romans as he was used to in Rome. Greeks were philosophers and thinkers. They took an idea and ran with it. And they debated fervently. Thus Constantine had to call in the army to separate the fighting faction in the churches. And furthermore the Greeks were democratic and not given to worshiping emperors, and certainly not as gods.

So Constantine took steps to make up what was appropriate to make himself God's rep on earth and thus demand the loyalty at least, if not worship, of the Greeks. He made himself an apostle with the help of some hand picked bishops and by exiling or jailing those that objected. And consider he didn't actually become a Christian until he was on his death bed. The reasoning being that he basically accepted Christ as God with his last breath so assure himself a place in heaven because he no time left to do any sinning.

So the whole basis of Christianity, as it stands today, is based on fiction. If you study the teachings of Jesus, especially those in the Gospel of Thomas, you will understand something far different to what is claimed as Christian doctrine. At least in Orthodoxy we are heretical in that we are not dictated to with cannons like the Pope hands down to his followers. We have the right to examine and find our own understanding. The Patriarch in Constantinople or what is today called Istanbul, has no more right to an opinion about scripture than anyone else. Believe but inquire, search and find the real meaning when you look within.

[marco]

The Romans were tyrants (for instance they didn't only crucify people that didn't pay their taxes, they flogged and then crucified people for not being able to pay their taxes because they had no livelihood or had suffered losses. This is excessive beyond any decency)

The Romans introduced laws, roads and civilisation to much of the barbarian world. True they were martially efficient, and had to be. But read Cicero's trial of Verres the Governor and you will find that high Roman officials who abused their power were brought to justice.

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus opposed Roman authority; quite the opposite in fact. By the time Rome rose to greatness under Augustus Greeks were used as tutors and the Greek language was employed and respected by educated Romans. Roman authors often intersperse Greek in their writings. Some of the greatest literature comes from Rome - Virgil's Aeneid, for instance, or the Metamorphoses of Ovid or the Odes of Horace. In contrast, the people that Jesus associated with lacked accomplishment. Jesus himself, apart from doodling in the dust, left no writings on which he could be judged. We can take this to indicate he had no talent for writing. His abilities are built on rumour.

[polonius]

Kyrani99 posted:

The Romans were tyrants (for instance they didn't only crucify people that didn't pay their taxes, they flogged and then crucified people for not being able to pay their taxes because they had no livelihood or had suffered losses.

Question: Would you cite your reference for your claim?

[Claire Evans]

I reject the resurrection mainly because it is absurd to accept that a material being is needed to ascend to what is really a spiritual plane.

I think it is important to look at the political events of the time. And to consider too who Jesus was, what he said and what his followers believed and did.

The Romans were tyrants (for instance they didn't only crucify people that didn't pay their taxes, they flogged and then crucified people for not being able to pay their taxes because they had no livelihood or had suffered losses. This is excessive beyond any decency) and they expected that the people's they conquered had to adhere to their rules. Part of those rules were to worship the emperor. Some people claim that the first part of the 1st century was quiet times but in reality it only needed a trigger to set the place on fire. There were riots as it was, with Zealotry.

Jesus, despite what has been put into his mouth since, must have contradicted the Roman rule. He also challenged the Priesthood, many of who were Hellenized Jews and client leaders and kings of the Romans. He went into the temple, challenged them for their trade, over turned their tables and whipped them. It is not surprising that they were begging Pilate to crucify him. And he must have been called the Messiah, which means the anointed one. The anointed ones were Kings. That is why Pilate asked Jesus are you the king of the Jews? Jesus was challenging the system.

In crucifying Jesus, the Romans and the High Priests, many of whom were Hellenized Jews and didn't believe in any resurrection or after life, were basically saying "we killed your Messiah, your king". So the response by Jesus's followers was subversion. By proclaiming that they saw Jesus resurrected they further challenged the Romans and the Roman-installed High Priests.

If you don't believe that Jesus resurrected as reported in the Bible, then what makes you think others things written about Him are true? There are no Jewish sources that deny Jesus resurrected.

A few decades later Paul re-invented the story, claiming Jesus was God and that he was resurrected. Then Constantine made more changes to suit his political agenda. He has a problem in the East where he chose to build his city because his subject were now Greeks and not Romans as he was used to in Rome. Greeks were philosophers and thinkers. They took an idea and ran with it. And they debated fervently. Thus Constantine had to call in the army to separate the fighting faction in the churches. And furthermore the Greeks were democratic and not given to worshiping emperors, and certainly not as gods.

Therefore the part where Jesus said, "The Father and I are one", is made up? Paul did not make up the resurrection. The Church Fathers would have made very sure that He would not claim such a thing happened if they didn't believe it was true.

So Constantine took steps to make up what was appropriate to make himself God's rep on earth and thus demand the loyalty at least, if not worship, of the Greeks. He made himself an apostle with the help of some hand picked bishops and by exiling or jailing those that objected. And consider he didn't actually become a Christian until he was on his death bed. The reasoning being that he basically accepted Christ as God with his last breath so assure himself a place in heaven because he no time left to do any sinning.

I don't think it was fortuitous for Paul to make up the resurrection when it resulted in the persecution of Christians and ultimately his own death if that is to be believed. How was he to know what Constantine would do?

So the whole basis of Christianity, as it stands today, is based on fiction. If you study the teachings of Jesus, especially those in the Gospel of Thomas, you will understand something far different to what is claimed as Christian doctrine. At least in Orthodoxy we are heretical in that we are not dictated to with cannons like the Pope hands down to his followers. We have the right to examine and find our own understanding. The Patriarch in Constantinople or what is today called Istanbul, has no more right to an opinion about scripture than anyone else. Believe but inquire, search and find the real meaning when you look within.

Can you give me an example of some of the teaching of Jesus that support orthodoxy?

[Claire Evans]

The Romans were tyrants (for instance they didn't only crucify people that didn't pay their taxes, they flogged and then crucified people for not being able to pay their taxes because they had no livelihood or had suffered losses. This is excessive beyond any decency)

The Romans introduced laws, roads and civilisation to much of the barbarian world. True they were martially efficient, and had to be. But read Cicero's trial of Verres the Governor and you will find that high Roman officials who abused their power were brought to justice.

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus opposed Roman authority; quite the opposite in fact. By the time Rome rose to greatness under Augustus Greeks were used as tutors and the Greek language was employed and respected by educated Romans. Roman authors often intersperse Greek in their writings. Some of the greatest literature comes from Rome - Virgil's Aeneid, for instance, or the Metamorphoses of Ovid or the Odes of Horace. In contrast, the people that Jesus associated with lacked accomplishment. Jesus himself, apart from doodling in the dust, left no writings on which he could be judged. We can take this to indicate he had no talent for writing. His abilities are built on rumour.

How do you suppose those writings would survive? Papyrus was subject to decay.
It had to be preserved in wooden cylinders. Parchment was too expensive. So it's fallacious to assume that just because there were no writings from Jesus Himself that it must mean He was illiterate or inarticulate.