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 853 by Claire Evans]

Jesus was not here to convince us with words that He is the Son of God.

So why bother with anything attributed to him in the gospels? If his words don't have anything to do with his alleged divinity, and thus, they are no better or worse than any random person one could name, why treat his words as though they represent divine wisdom?
There are plenty of people who treat the Sermon on the Mount as if it's the single greatest thing ever said, and they say this because...drum roll please...they believe Jesus is divine (in some way).

Is not what is written in the gospels we have today enough?

No, because at the end of the day, only one gospel is in any way reliable, and that's only by a longshot. Matthew and Luke borrowed much of their content from Mark, and John is dated too far off from Jesus to be worth anything. So that leaves us with only Mark, and what do you know...Mark, in the earliest manuscripts we have, doesn't end with a resurrection.

Is it really necessary now to have His journal?

It would help your case, even if only by a little. I will agree, suddenly having a Gospel of Jesus in front of me wouldn't instantly make me a Christian again. However, it's absence (or should I say, complete non-existence) does raise some very important questions.
Nothing of what you've said here really answers the question of why Jesus wouldn't write such a thing. Even if he knew that some people in future generations wouldn't believe him, that still isn't just cause to have nothing written down himself, if he were divine and had all this knowledge. It wouldn't have hurt.
Instead, what we have here are people like yourself excusing the absence of such a gospel by saying "Well...you wouldn't have believed it anyway!" My belief or lack of belief in what a hypothetical Gospel of Jesus says has NOTHING to do with whether or not it existed, whether or not an all knowing god man would have written it down.

[Claire Evans]

[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.

He could have been accused of being a magician. People won't believe without faith and that is hard to come by.

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 don't believe that a gospel of Jesus would convince you that prophecy He made about dying and resurrecting is true. I think any wisdom a person would think Jesus had would be replaced as being branded a whack job for claiming He is the Son of God. There is no way a gospel of Jesus would ever convince non believers that He is.

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.

What criteria would be needed for you to convince you that it was written by Jesus. Not only that, what would make you believe what He wrote is true? You could think he was a magician, a fraud, an anything but the Son of God.

[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.

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

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles. People saw Jesus' miracles and some believed. Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same. That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

Anyway, Jesus could do miracles to kingdom come yet that didn't make everyone believe or repent:

Matthew 11:20-24:


Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.�

There's a difference between gaining followers because they have seen and gaining followers because they have faith.

Thank you for your well wishes.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 857 by Claire Evans]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Do you imagine that a dead person, say, a Lazarus, can have faith in anything?
Your theory doesn't make sense.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 857 by Claire Evans]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Do you imagine that a dead person, say, a Lazarus, can have faith in anything?
Your theory doesn't make sense.

Lazarus was dead so he couldn't be healed, only resurrected. Let us see this passage in John 11:

21 “Lord,� Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.�

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.�

24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.�

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?�

27 “Yes, Lord,� she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.�

Therefore she believed and had faith. The resurrection cemented the faith of those who witnessed it and always those who just witnessed it.

[Justin108]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles

So you're saying that there hasn't been a single instance of an amputee having enough faith in God?

[Justin108]

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?

In a different post, you said...

As I said, Mark 16:16 is considered suspect.

If the original manuscripts were "in magic coating" then Mark 16:9 - 20 would have been intact. Mark 16:16 would not be "suspect" and there would be no debate on what should and should not be in the Bible.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 859 by Claire Evans]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Do you imagine that a dead person, say, a Lazarus, can have faith in anything?
Your theory doesn't make sense.

Lazarus was dead so he couldn't be healed, only resurrected.

You are playing with the meaning of "healed" and "resurrected".

The Oxford dictionary has this entry for "heal":
"Cause (a wound, injury, or person) to become sound or healthy again"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/heal

Do you consider someone DEAD to be sound or healthy?


I have to WONDER what you mean by "healed". I guess it's nothing physical?
When a doctor resuscitates a technically "dead" person.. that's not healing?

Who is to say that Lazarus was actually dead, by the way?

But in any case, someone in a coma doesn't have a "faith". He might have HAD faith, but being unconscious isn't thinking. And as far as I know, we have to be able to THINK in order to have faith.

Therefore she believed and had faith.

Therefore, by your reasoning, SHE could have been "healed", not Lazarus. You said that only people who have faith can be healed. Jesus didn't heal her. He healed LAZARUS.

The resurrection cemented the faith of those who witnessed it and always those who just witnessed it.

But that's not what your claim was, so it doesn't matter. Lazarus was OBLIVIOUS to all of this lying there dead. He didn't have faith in ANYTHING or ANYONE anymore.

The way you describe it now, Jesus brought him back to life for those others, but NOT for Lazarus himself. Lazarus could have been an evil person, if the point of the exercise was to impress the others with a magic trick.

And I would LIKE to know if raising Lazarus from the dead was such a great thing, why didn't Jesus do that for every dead person? The other sisters didn't believe enough?

AND SINCE we are on the topic of "Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles. " there have been a whole LOT of people who have had faith and weren't healed by miracles. I guess all of their sisters didn't believe enough, either?

None of this makes any sense. And of course, I don't THINK that you have any evidence that your claim is true, do you? I could just as easily say:

"Meh, you're just saying that".

[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

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

It is not a question of who could be healed, but a question of saving more souls from damnation, or, more compassionately put, to live at peace with god in heaven. Something I would think god and Jesus would want more of.

People saw Jesus' miracles and some believed.

Exactly. Why not do more of a proven method?

Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same.

Correct, it would not have the same effect as having seen a miracle. But even one saved soul is a good thing, right?

That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

To me, this is irrelevant. Having seen a miracle, more people are inclined to believe in god and Jesus. This seems un-debatable to me. Think of how many souls and converts Christianity could gain now if a couple of widely publicized miracles would happen on prime time TV, or YouTube?

I'm left to wonder why miracle during the time of the OT and NT was a good thing then, but is a bad idea now. Why would this be the case?

Anyway, Jesus could do miracles to kingdom come yet that didn't make everyone believe or repent:

Matthew 11:20-24:


Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.�

Still, some did repent. Some did convert. Are not those souls worthy?

There's a difference between gaining followers because they have seen and gaining followers because they have faith.

Do those who have witnessed miracles and converted have a weaker Faith? Or stronger?

I can speak for myself, if I saw a miracle and rejoined Christianity, my faith would be stronger than ever, and I would have no doubt whatsoever - BECAUSE of what I saw.

How is that a bad thing?

Thank you for your well wishes.

: ) Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[Clownboat]

He could have been accused of being a magician. People won't believe without faith and that is hard to come by.

You act as if this is a bad thing which strikes me as odd.

You see, faith does not lead to the Christian god, faith is required to believe in any god concept. This makes fakes faith being hard to come by a good thing IMO. I just disagree with the part that it is hard to come by because I know far to many that are capable of having faith and then applying it to one of the many god concepts.

I don't believe that a gospel of Jesus would convince you that prophecy He made about dying and resurrecting is true. I think any wisdom a person would think Jesus had would be replaced as being branded a whack job for claiming He is the Son of God. There is no way a gospel of Jesus would ever convince non believers that He is.

I accept your opinion that Jesus could not have written anything impressive, but I'm no longer saddles with being forced to believe that he is/was divine.

What criteria would be needed for you to convince you that it was written by Jesus. Not only that, what would make you believe what He wrote is true? You could think he was a magician, a fraud, an anything but the Son of God.

I don't know why you struggle with this. Don't you think a god could write in a way that is beyond what us mere humans can do? Wouldn't you expect some divine wisdom to be present in it?

Instead we have stories about a punishing (Adam and Eve, Noah...) genocidal barbaric (keep the virgin girls for yourself) god that does things that are very human in nature.

Can you point to anything in the Bible that we cannot imagine a human coming up with?
An actual divine book written by Jesus is truly needed, otherwise what is special about the current 66? Nothing that I can see.