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?

[Kyrani99]

"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.

Reasonable Justice. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thi ... 29106.html

The Spartan didn't kill slaves to keep the numbers down. What do you think, they were multiplying by binary fission?
They killed slaves from time to time as a military practice, to train in stealth killing.

You are underestimating Judea. It is located on the road out of Egypt, the bread basket of the Roman wold. It is a major issue if you have a trade route blocked.

And what great things the Romans went on to do in the following centuries. They set up Inquisitions all over Europe for 700 years and millions upon millions died, either of persecution killings or famine or pestilence, eg the Black Plague. You will find that people living in fear over a long period of time will have a permanently declined immune system. They will catch any disease and die of it. And yet that has also been rationed away, either blamed on Jews or rats that came from China. Load of rubbish. The rats were coming from China for hundreds of years.

[Claire Evans]

[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!

I was talking about non believers. If they don't believe in the gospels, why should they believe a gospel about Jesus?

[Claire Evans]

[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?

This is my point exactly! You think these reports are dubious so why should a gospel by Jesus be more credible? This is why I said it is needless. There will always be people out there that would claim it is a forgery, etc.

[Claire Evans]

[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?

The silence is suspicious because, according to the gospels, Jesus was to rise from the dead, which the Jews took much care of avoiding that claim. As we know, there were claims that Jesus rose from the dead, yet no Jewish source refutes it. It could have been recorded that the body was shown to refute the resurrection.

[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.

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.

Why is it needless because no one would have believed without faith. I say to you, if a claim was made that a gospel of Jesus was found would you believe the contents in the writings? Even if it was determined Jesus really did write it? I think the answer is no and that is why I said it is needless.

[rikuoamero]

[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?

This is my point exactly! You think these reports are dubious so why should a gospel by Jesus be more credible? This is why I said it is needless. There will always be people out there that would claim it is a forgery, etc.

Claire, you are a demon and a witch. You slaughtered my entire family and drank their blood, and performed all sorts of dark rituals to commune with your master in hell.

What's that? Evidence? A gospel, if you will, from Claire saying that she did do these things?
We don't need them. It doesn't matter that some people will dis-believe me. It doesn't matter that some people will say I made the whole thing up. I don't need to provide evidence. I just need to make the claim. That's all that's needed.
------
Now Claire, going by your logic, how can you rebut what I said about you up above? If I were to seriously try to convince people you are a witch and did all sorts of magic, why wouldn't I want something you wrote yourself?

[Claire Evans]

[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?

I suppose Jesus could have wrapped the writings in magic coating to preserve it and make it float around after him so he could journal everyday, but what would be the point of it? It would have to be crucial to the survival of Christianity to warrant preserving it. Obviously it was not. As I said, if one doesn't want to believe, one won't believe. If you have to read a gospel that was proven to be from Jesus, would you believe what was written in it? Of course not. So why make it a priority to preserve it?

My view on Jesus like mainstream Christianity.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 851 by Claire Evans]

I suppose Jesus could have wrapped the writings in magic coating to preserve it and make it float around after him so he could journal everyday, but what would be the point of it?

To show future generations who didn't witness him firsthand that hey, there are these writings that show literally no sign of ageing compared to all these other documents.

If you have to read a gospel that was proven to be from Jesus, would you believe what was written in it?

Not automatically. It depends on what was written in it. You see Claire, there's more to the problem than just "It was written by Jesus!" We also have to consider the contents of the writing. Does this hypothetical Gospel of Jesus display wisdom beyond any man, knowledge that people of his time quite simply could not have known? Perhaps a drawing of the Starship Enterprise, or of the Taj Mahal or something well after his time that he simply could not have known if he were a mortal man like myself. Perhaps spoilers for Game of Thrones.
You're trying to cast us skeptics as being completely unreasonable, and that is not the case.
I prefer to use the term cautious.
Yes, I wouldn't believe a gospel from Jesus, even if it was proven to be from him. Not right off the bat, not sight unseen, not if someone just hands it to me and says "Yes, this is straight from Jesus himself". I would have to examine it first.

[Claire Evans]

[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?

This is my point exactly! You think these reports are dubious so why should a gospel by Jesus be more credible? This is why I said it is needless. There will always be people out there that would claim it is a forgery, etc.

Claire, you are a demon and a witch. You slaughtered my entire family and drank their blood, and performed all sorts of dark rituals to commune with your master in hell.

What's that? Evidence? A gospel, if you will, from Claire saying that she did do these things?
We don't need them. It doesn't matter that some people will dis-believe me. It doesn't matter that some people will say I made the whole thing up. I don't need to provide evidence. I just need to make the claim. That's all that's needed.
------




Now Claire, going by your logic, how can you rebut what I said about you up above? If I were to seriously try to convince people you are a witch and did all sorts of magic, why wouldn't I want something you wrote yourself?

So why should Jesus write a gospel? It would only be deemed a claim now.


Jesus was not here to defend Himself. He was called all sorts of things but didn't feel the need to refute it. Jesus was not here to convince us with words that He is the Son of God. Without faith, words are meaningless. How does one refute faith? Is not what is written in the gospels we have today enough? Is it really necessary now to have His journal?

[KenRU]

[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?

I suppose Jesus could have wrapped the writings in magic coating to preserve it and make it float around after him so he could journal everyday, but what would be the point of it? It would have to be crucial to the survival of Christianity to warrant preserving it. Obviously it was not. As I said, if one doesn't want to believe, one won't believe. If you have to read a gospel that was proven to be from Jesus, would you believe what was written in it? Of course not. So why make it a priority to preserve it?

My view on Jesus like mainstream Christianity.

Then I have to wonder, why do any miracles at all, if not to gain some additional followers?

Seems logical to me that if Jesus knew performing miracles would convince some, and he thought this a good thing, why not create more miracles to bring more good (read converts) into the world?

There is a difference (I assume you would agree) between being skeptical and rebuking or rejecting, correct? Surely Jesus and god know this. So, one must ask, why not try to gain more converts by a proven practice? Surely the Gentile or Muslim of the time period might suddenly get a bit skeptical of their own belief system upon seeing a miracle or two?

-all the best