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?

[Claire Evans]

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

No, but it does prove silence which is most suspicious. Silence doesn't mean rebuttal.

[Claire Evans]

[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?"

It wasn't necessary to preserve those writings. It was needless. Even when Jesus did miracles in front of people, some didn't believe.

[Claire Evans]

.

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?

It had to start somewhere. Now look how widespread the gospels are. There were only so may places Jesus could go to. Did you expect Him to sail the world or something?

What agenda of the "priests"? What was in it for them?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 831 by Claire Evans]

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.

Let's look at the real world shall we? And the Bible?
Right now, there are about 2 billion Christians in this world. That is to say, 2 billion people that, on some level, accept what the Bible says about Jesus. How many people believe that Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, companions of Jesus? How many people around the world believe that all documents in the Bible with Paul 's or Peter's name on them were written by Paul or Peter?
So I take this point of yours (that people wouldn't believe Jesus's magically preserved gospel) to be false. They would (correctly or incorrectly). There would be plenty of people who would believe that Document X WAS Jesus's magically preserved documents. Why, I know a member of this forum who believes weeping statues are a sure sign of God!

[rikuoamero]

.

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?

It had to start somewhere. Now look how widespread the gospels are. There were only so may places Jesus could go to. Did you expect Him to sail the world or something?

What agenda of the "priests"? What was in it for them?

If he was a completely mortal man, with a standard mortal lifespan, then yes, there are only so many places he could have gone to. But surely a magical, divine Jesus would have abilities similar to Santa Claus, who on Christmas Eve night supposedly visits every household on the planet and delivers gifts.
Even as a mortal, he still could have travelled. Marco Polo supposedly travelled from Europe to China. Vasco de Gama was the first European to reach India by sea. Christopher Columbus was the first European to discover the Americas.
Again, I don't follow your line of reasoning here, why Jesus doesn't do X, as if he were simply an ordinary mortal man, and not even up to par with famous explorers like de Gama or Columbus.
I'd expect utter failures of people to not be able to do anything noteworthy, to not go anywhere. But Jesus isn't supposed to be a failure, he's not supposed to be ordinary. He's supposed to be divine in some respect, to have done great and wondrous things!

[Bust Nak]

It wasn't necessary to preserve those writings. It was needless. Even when Jesus did miracles in front of people, some didn't believe.

But surely more people believed due to witnessing miracles then otherwise had Jesus didn't do any miracles in front of people.

Are those people would only believe after seeing miracles first hand, not worth saving?

[polonius]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Clair Evens posted:

It wasn't necessary to preserve those writings. It was needless. Even when Jesus did miracles in front of people, some didn't believe.

Did he really? How many years after the event were these first reported. And were these reports by witnesses?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 835 by Claire Evans]

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

No, but it does prove silence which is most suspicious. Silence doesn't mean rebuttal.

We agree.

Silence pretty much means NOTHING one way or the other. Amount of evidence for either side? : Big Fat 0.
So, we seem to be at a bit of an impasse here, aren't we? You think that silence is suspicious how?

[marco]

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.

Amusing. The traveller Jesus wasn't able to carry writing materials or record things because he had no fixed abode. Some think this travelling salesman was a god. He managed to expel dangerous demons, make deaf people hear, raise corpses and multiply fishes but he couldn't write. Nor could he anticipate the confusion his illiteracy would cause. Muhammad at least got others to write his thoughts down thereby overcoming his illiteracy. It would have been nice to have a book authored by Mister Jesus Christ. Miracles from the horse's mouth, as it were.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 831 by Claire Evans]

To try and say He could supernaturally do it is not reasonable. It just wouldn't serve a purpose.

So let me get this straight. You, on some level, believe that Jesus was/is divine (I forget your exact beliefs, can I get a refresher please?). Jesus had divine powers that to us humans, look like magic. He resurrected the dead, cast out demons, healed the sick, etc.
However, when it comes to some other Action X he could have done, you say "To try and say He could supernaturally do it is not reasonable". Why do you say that? Why is invoking the supernatural in this instance "not reasonable" but for any random story of Jesus from the Bible I point to (such as raising Lazarus from the dead), it is reasonable to say he did it cuz supernatural?
Basically, I'm asking for why the inconsistency?