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?

[Clownboat]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Firstly, miracles have not been shown to be real and secondly, faith is needed to believe in all the false god concepts out there. Sure, you can feel like you just so happen to be applying your faith to an actual god concept, but that makes you no different than any other believer of any other religion.

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.

You don't give enough credit to god concepts if you think they can create universes, but can't write a book that is anymore special that what a human can write.

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

Quite the claim. Before you evidence such a thing, can you point to anything outside your religious promotional material that would suggest that Jesus was real? I'm just curious. Not that I don't think he was, but I would like to illustrate that this claim has you putting the cart in front of the horse.

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

Faith leads to false religions (except in your case right?). Stop pretending it is some admirable trait to have.
You might as well be arguing that ignorance or a lack of common sense are good traits.

Again, faith is needed in order for a person to have a false belief. Need proof? Ask a Muslim.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 864 by 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.

You have a very odd criteria for what is good, IMO.
Just because something is rare or hard to come by, like... say... an Ebola outbreak.. doesn't mean it's good in MY books.

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 thought you just said above that faith was hard to come by.. and therefore good. Now.. you seem to say the exact opposite. Faith ISN'T that hard to come by. So you have me confused. Is it hard to come by or isn't it hard to come by?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 864 by 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.

You have a very odd criteria for what is good, IMO.
Just because something is rare or hard to come by, like... say... an Ebola outbreak.. doesn't mean it's good in MY books.

Please quote where I said that if something is rare or hard to come by, it is then good.

I find faith, being hard to come by (which is Claire's claim and not mine, because I don't think faith is hard to come by) to be a good thing. I approve of less faith, not more of it. I even explained why, which is because faith leads to false god concepts.

Ebola outbreaks being rare is good, because like faith, I find Ebola to be bad. Them being rare or not does not affect whether faith or Ebola is good or not.

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 thought you just said above that faith was hard to come by.. and therefore good. Now.. you seem to say the exact opposite. Faith ISN'T that hard to come by. So you have me confused. Is it hard to come by or isn't it hard to come by?

Post 864:
Claire's words: "People won't believe without faith and that is hard to come by."
Claire says it is hard to come by.
Clownboat's words: "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."
Clownboat believes that faith is not hard to come by.

I was responding to Claire's claim about it being hard to come by, not agreeing with her claim. Sorry for the confusion.

[Claire Evans]

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?

God is not a genie. I have clinical depression but I don't expect God to get me off my medication. I am blessed to have them. Likewise, an amputee can have a full life with prosthesis. It is through suffering that we can become better people. Why stop at praying for limbs growing back? If this happened left, right and centre, people who don't have faith would be attracted to Christianity for the wrong reasons. The motive would be to get something out of God rather than a wish to serve God.

[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?

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.

And why is faith taken out of the equation? "Magic coating" would not prove that Jesus did it. There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

[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?

God is not a genie. I have clinical depression but I don't expect God to get me off my medication. I am blessed to have them. Likewise, an amputee can have a full life with prosthesis. It is through suffering that we can become better people. Why stop at praying for limbs growing back? If this happened left, right and centre, people who don't have faith would be attracted to Christianity for the wrong reasons. The motive would be to get something out of God rather than a wish to serve God.

My point is that every single prayer that God has ever supposedly answer can be explained through non-divine means. The only exception would be limb regeneration as limb regeneration is absolutely impossible. Coincidentally, limb regeneration just happens to be an ailment that God has never bothered curing. Doesn't this coincidence strike you as rather odd? Especially considering Matthew 21:22 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.". Does limb regeneration fall outside of "whatever you ask for"?

If this happened left, right and centre, people who don't have faith would be attracted to Christianity for the wrong reasons.

So selfish gain is "the wrong reason" to become Christians? Why then does the Bible promise eternal life for being a Christian? If God wanted people to join him for non-selfish reasons, why did he promise something that would attract selfish people?

And why is faith taken out of the equation?

It doesn't. Many people still have faith in Mark 16:9 - 20. If Mark 16:9 - 20 doesn't belong in the Bible, then they are placing their faith in words that were spoken by Jesus. Why would God allow people to mistakenly have faith in Mark 16:9 - 20?

"Magic coating" would not prove that Jesus did it.

No, but those who have faith in Jesus would not mistakenly believe that Jesus said what was written in Mark 16:9 - 20

There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

Yes and many who have faith in Jesus believe a lie as they have no way of knowing Mark 16:9 - 20 is suspect

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 869 by Claire Evans]

There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

Then explain the apostles, and the other people who knew Jesus. The people who walked and talked with Jesus, just like you walk and talk with your family/friends/loved ones. Do you say about your family that you only know through faith?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 868 by Claire Evans]

It is through suffering that we can become better people.

Are you saying that in order to become better people we should desire MORE suffering ?

[liamconnor]

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?

This kind of tactic I think will be ineffective except on fundamentalist Christians. Those who approach Scripture from a literary/historical perspective will be as baffled by this tactic as an historian of antiquity would be baffled at the supposition that "because Herodotus was wrong on his topography in one passage, he must be wrong on everything else he wrote."

I should point out that a few things on the Thesalonian passage:

1) It was an occasional letter--that is, written to address concerns of that Church. In this case, some of the church members were worried about being separated from loved ones who had died before the parousia. Paul is writing to assure them that eventually they will all be united. The purpose was not to give a prediction pin-pointing the date of the parousia.

2) It is true that early in Paul's ministry he believed he would live to see the parousia; but when you read all his letters, you see, as he got older, he became less and less certain (2nd Cor and Phil). But in no way did that shake his fundamental beliefs. Belief in an immediate return was never a core belief of the earliest Christians.

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?

I would suggest that people announce their metaphysics; for if a person already believes miracles are impossible prior to historical inquiry, what is the point? This kind of debate only works between people who allow historical inquiry to inform their metaphysics. (and I recognize that if one is a biblical inerrantist, he/she will also be biased before examining the historicity of the Resurrection).

I am not an inerrantist. From a literary/historical approach, I follow many scholars in considering the following propositions to stand on very solid grounds:

1) Jesus existed
2) Jesus was baptized by John
3) Jesus was REGARDED by the populace as a healer and exorcist
4) Jesus believed that through his own ministry, the promises of the prophets was being realized.
5) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate
6) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimethea in a fresh tomb.
7) a couple days later, women arrived and found the tomb empty.
8)Within a short time of this discovery, a sizeable number of Jesus' disciples BELIEVED they had encountered and discoursed with, privately and corporately, the risen Jesus.
9) Paul was a Pharisee who persecuted the Jesus movement early in its developing stages
10) Paul had an experience on his way to Damascus in which he BELIEVED he had encountered the risen Jesus.
11) Because of this experience, he embraced the movement which he set out to destroy.

The caps are intentional, alerting us to the subjective dimension.

In none of this do I say "Jesus was resurrected". That is one explanation of the above data. Perhaps there are others: if one is a metaphysical naturalist, he of course will seek out a non-supernatural theory that synthesizes that data.

[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?

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.

What does it matter? It is not by reading the scriptures that one knows Jesus. It is through a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter what is suspect or not. It cannot change the core of Christianity.