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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 824 by Claire Evans]

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

Wouldn't be a problem for a man with magical divine powers.

It always amuses me to see responses like this from theists, that try to explain away why Jesus didn't do X, as if Jesus were nothing more than a human, with no magical powers or special knowledge of any kind.

[Kyrani99]

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.

martially efficient,
"Corinth, the chief city of the Achaean league, was captured; the art treasures, pictures and statues, the splendid products of Greek genius, were sent to Rome. The inhabitants were sold as slaves. And by the cruel command of the senate, the city itself was reduced to ashes. This was a barbarous act of war, such an act as no civilized nation has ever approved."
Actually somewhere else I read that they killed all the men after the defeat of Corinth and sold all the woman and children into slavery.

And this was fairly typical. http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey17.html you can see how they treated others as well.

And don't think that the lands to the East like Greece, Persia etc., didn't have laws. They were far superior to the Romans in culture, science, philosophy, religion, government and laws. The Greeks had democracy, while the Romans served tyrants as gods.

The Roman used Greek because Greek was the language of learning in the Ancient World. But when you look at what they took and how they interpreted you find their understanding wanting.

There are no original writings by Jesus nor the disciples about Jesus. All we have is copies of copies written much later by unknown authors and they all favoured the Romans. In the absence of evidence you cannot talk about "doodling in dust" and "no talent for writing". I would say, given that the words put into the mouth of Jesus by Roman puppets, who didn't even have the decency of signing their works, that if Jesus did leave any writings they would have been destroyed by the Romans.

[Blastcat]

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.

And that lack of evidence is not a reason to believe the resurrection really happened

[Kyrani99]

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?

I had seen it when I was researching the Hellenization of the Jews. It claimed that until Antiochus IV (if I remember correctly) the Greeks treated the Jews extremely well with low taxes and education etc. And gave a comparison with the Romans. I have looked but I haven't found it you. But I will continue to look because I want the link myself. I will post it when I find it.

[Kyrani99]

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.

There are many things written in the Bible that I can't accept. Partly because there are very few records that are outside of the Bible that make record of Jesus. There is Josephus that only mentions him in two places. One is a paragraph and the other is one sentence in mentioning he was the brother of James. There are records in Tacitus but not much there either. And there are a few other sources but they are much later, 2nd and 3rd century.

Another reason is that there is too much that favours the Romans. Jesus was not a Hellenized Jew, which means he did not serve the Romans as their puppets, so why say so much to favour the Romans? It doesn't make sense. And this is also the theme of Paul's work.

There are no Jewish records that record the resurrection. The only ones are in the Bible and Paul's letters.

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.

I believe that Jesus did say these words. They are indicative of someone who has had a profound mystical experience (enlightenment). I explained it in answering your post here in this threadhttp://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30244&start=80 I don't think these words could have been made up because the Romans and those who worked with them did not understand the meaning of the words.

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?

You have to consider Paul's character. Consider this: could you mind people's coats and watch with satisfaction or even just watch while the people, whose coats you are minding, stone someone to death? I couldn't. Paul had to have been a psychopath. I don't think any decent person can possibly do that, even if they had serious religious differences from the other person. A humane person will defend themselves if attacked but they won't kill someone unprovoked and for some difference in belief.

Then it also that Paul was Jewish and a Roman citizen and a Pharisee, who had an extreme dislike to Hellenized Jews.. He would have had no sympathy for Greeks. As for his own end we have no records what happened to him. He was supposedly under house arrest in Rome but was able to receive whatever guests he wanted, continue to write letters and continue to preach. Doesn't sound like the sort of treatment a Jew or a Christian would receive from the Romans.

Constantine was a lot later. Paul would not have known anything about him because Constantine was not even born in Paul's time. I strongly believe he was a Roman agent to corrupt the Greeks. They wanted to crush the Jews but they were afraid they could lose the Eastern Roman Empire for two reasons.

1. The Jews in Judea area were only about 10% of the total Jewish population in the various parts of the Roman empire. They could have faced rebellion in other areas.

2. They knew that when there was a revolt much earlier (165 BC? about) it was about identity. Too many Jews were becoming Hellenized and greatly influence by Greek culture. In that revolt King Antiochus, who was using the Hellenized Jews as client leaders, became involved and the revolt or civil war became a war with the Greeks because they came in on the Hellenized Jews side.

The Greeks lost the war because Antiochus had underestimated the problem. But just the same the Romans would have considered that if the Greeks helped the Hellenized Jews before, they may help them again. To avoid this, the Romans moved to condition the Greeks, some of whom had become followers of Jesus. They wanted the Greeks disabled. So ideas of "love the enemy" etc., etc., were seeded in their minds as part of what Jesus was about.

I will answer the last part (Can you give me an example of some of the teaching of Jesus that support orthodoxy?) tomorrow as I want to look up Thomas's Gospel in detail first.

[marco]

"Corinth, the chief city of the Achaean league, was captured; the art treasures, pictures and statues, the splendid products of Greek genius, were sent to Rome. The inhabitants were sold as slaves. And by the cruel command of the senate, the city itself was reduced to ashes.

Yes, Rome in the middle of the second century BC was building her Empire and establishing control. Corinth rebelled and an example was made of her. After Zama in 202BC the same example was made of Carthage. When Empires are built, such as the British or the Spanish, they don't use flower power. By the time of Christ Rome had established its Pax Romana and ruled in the same manner as Britain did over her colonies - not perfectly but with reasonable justice. I agree Greece was the land of philosophers and learning; it also gave us the brutality of Sparta, which from time to time slaughtered the slave population of Helots, just to keep their numbers down.

There are no original writings by Jesus nor the disciples about Jesus. All we have is copies of copies written much later by unknown authors and they all favoured the Romans. In the absence of evidence you cannot talk about "doodling in dust" and "no talent for writing". I would say, given that the words put into the mouth of Jesus by Roman puppets, who didn't even have the decency of signing their works, that if Jesus did leave any writings they would have been destroyed by the Romans.

Rome was too big to bother about Jesus. She destroyed Jerusalem because there was an idiotic revolt that couldn't possibly gain anything. Perhaps the temperatures were high. I have more admiration for Rome's contribution to civilisation than for Christ's.
In the absence of evidence you cannot reach the biased conclusions you have reached.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 824 by Claire Evans]

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

Wouldn't be a problem for a man with magical divine powers.

It always amuses me to see responses like this from theists, that try to explain away why Jesus didn't do X, as if Jesus were nothing more than a human, with no magical powers or special knowledge of any kind.

Even if Jesus did magically preserve His Gospel, would that mean people automatically would believe the authenticity of it? How can you prove Jesus wrote it? Jesus was a traveler. He didn't carry papyrus around with Him that could magically be preserved. Where would He store it? To try and say He could supernaturally do it is not reasonable. It just wouldn't serve a purpose.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 831 by Claire Evans]

Proving Jesus had supernatural powers would be a pretty big deal, won't it? Why wouldn't convincing people who would otherwise reject Christianity be considered "a purpose?"

[Zzyzx]

.

Proving Jesus had supernatural powers would be a pretty big deal, won't it? Why wouldn't convincing people who would otherwise reject Christianity be considered "a purpose?"

Supposedly Jesus "performed miracles" (including "resurrection") to demonstrate something to humanity about "God" (of which he was claimed to be part).

This is claimed, in religious tales, to have been done for a tiny group of people in an obscure, backwater part of the Roman empire.

This does not strike me as a rational plan by an all-wise "God" -- but rather as wishful thinking and imagination by "priests" in the obscure group.

[Zzyzx]

.

Even if Jesus did magically preserve His Gospel, would that mean people automatically would believe the authenticity of it? How can you prove Jesus wrote it? Jesus was a traveler. He didn't carry papyrus around with Him that could magically be preserved. Where would He store it? To try and say He could supernaturally do it is not reasonable. It just wouldn't serve a purpose.

Claire, if “God� or Jesus (or whatever) wished to send a convincing message to humans worldwide, it makes no sense to propose that a supposedly all-wise entity would communicate and/or visit only a tiny group of people in a backwater area of the Roman empire – then depend upon believers to transmit the message.

Doesn't that seem more likely to be a story made up by “priests� in that backwater group for their own benefit / agenda?