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?

[Justin108]

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.

So if you never read the Bible before in your life, nor have heard about Jesus Christ, would you have had a relationship with the Holy Spirit?

[Claire Evans]

[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 don't think the Oxford Dictionary is referring to a dead person being healed. You know it is referring to a living person being healed. Resurrected is the word you are looking for.

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?

That person may only have been clinically dead thus the word resuscitated and not resurrected.

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.

That's assuming he was in a coma.

Therefore she believed and had faith.

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.

This is my original statement:

"Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracle."

Did I say only the faith of the one being healed?


Matthew 8:5–13 (TNVI)

“When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly." Jesus said to him, "Shall I come and heal him?" The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

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?

If no one had faith, Lazarus would not have been resurrected. The point Jesus was making with His miracles was to show what can be done if one has faith, not to impress anyone.

Imagine Jesus raising everyone from the dead! There are other examples of Jesus having resurrected people. Consult Mark 5: 21-43

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?

Can you give me an instance in the Bible where Jesus didn't heal someone with faith?

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".

Of course we are debating in a hypothetical sense. I can't prove the Lazarus resurrection actually happened.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 873 by liamconnor]

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."

This is a false equivalency. What you forget is that when (certain) people approach the Bible, they take it to be the words/teachings of an inerrant god, who is incapable of making an error. Thus, if one finds even one error, then the volume cannot be trusted anywhere else (where empiricism cannot be used)
Herodotus though, was a human, who never makes a claim of being inerrant or being guided by someone/something else that is. If he makes a mistake in one part...fine. That doesn't immediately rubbish the rest of what Herodotus wrote.

Again, it seems to me that you can't separate historical analysis from theological analysis. No history department examines the Bible and makes a historical analysis that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

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...

Again, historical analysis can only trace the BELIEFS of the people. These people believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

In none of this do I say "Jesus was resurrected". That is one explanation of the above data.

One that isn't supported. The data you lay out above supports the explanation of what these people believed, but NOT whether or not what these people believed actually happened.
There is much data to look at when tracing the beliefs of early Muslims, including the belief that he flew to heaven on a winged horse one night and spoke to previous Abrahamic patriarchs. Notice though that that is where the historical analysis stops - we cannot confirm or deny that such an event actually happened.

[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.

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?

Do you expect Jesus to have done miracles day in and day out? And it is not only through miracles that one can believe. The murderer on the cross believed and repented when He saw Jesus.

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?

It is completely unnecessary. According to the Bible, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, the Teacher. He is all the proof one needs.

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?

No one's faith could then be exercised. The Pharisees took the same approach as you did and Jesus did not take the bait.

Matthew 27:40

and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"

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?

It's not a bad idea. It's just that it is not needed now because the Holy Spirit is available to everyone.

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?

The point I'm trying to make is that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink it.

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?

It depends on the motive. Do the ones who convert after seeing a miracle truly desiring to be a true disciple of Jesus which is to abandon all esteem? All do they follow Jesus because they are convinced He is the son of God yet won't be a true follower of His? Here's an example:

Matthew 19:16 and 21

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?�

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�

The rich man knew Jesus could give eternal life yet he did not want to do what was required of him. That was to abandon one's own esteem.

So the former is the one with the greater faith.

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?

To be honest, Satan has no doubt about Jesus being the son of God. He believes. However, as I mentioned, it is not just believing because they have concrete proof. It is about believing because of faith which is not exercised should you just have witnessed a miracle. Truly knowing God is to seek Him. To listen to His voice without demanding miracles in the sky. To trust when one can't see the way. When you look back in your life and you realize how God has guided, then that is more convincing than miracles.

Thank you for your well wishes.

: ) Thanks for taking the time to respond.

You're welcome! I appreciate your time also.

[Claire Evans]

[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?

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus. It is only after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples finally realized what Jesus had come for. They didn't really understand Him when Jesus was on earth.

[Claire Evans]

[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 ?

No, we should just not ask, "Why me?" when times are hard.

[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?

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus. It is only after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples finally realized what Jesus had come for. They didn't really understand Him when Jesus was on earth.

So...what was the whole point of Jesus being on Earth then, if understanding him while on Earth was essentially impossible? Why not just skip that step and keep Jesus in heaven?
You also didn't answer my question. If the only way to know Jesus is through faith, then do you say about your family that the only way to know them is through faith? If you answer no, then this means you put Jesus in a special category all his own.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 876 by Claire Evans]



"Believe in what I say or no magic."

Hi Claire Evans.

Again, I have lots of questions.
Thanks for answering so far.... this is very interesting to me.

I have three important questions at the end of this... I'd be most grateful if you could respond to those if no others, thanks!

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

I don't think the Oxford Dictionary is referring to a dead person being healed. You know it is referring to a living person being healed. Resurrected is the word you are looking for.

But you didn't answer the question. Do you consider someone DEAD very "healthy"?
I think "death" is an extreme form of unhealthiness, don't you?

The Oxford dictionary has this entry for the word "health" :
"1. The state of being free from illness or injury: he was restored to health"

Do you consider that raising someone from the dead ( if that were truly possible ) would be restoring someone's health in any way?

Aren't we just playing with words here?

That person may only have been clinically dead thus the word resuscitated and not resurrected.

Are you saying that when a doctor brings someone back from clinical death, that's resuscitation, but when Jesus does it, it's resurrection?

Are we going to dispute if people Jesus brought back to life were "really dead" or "clinically dead" now? How would we know that?

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.

That's assuming he was in a coma.

I don't think it matters too much if he was or was not in a coma. I think it's safe to say that someone in a coma OR dead isn't CONSCIOUS and can't display or profess any faith.

Are you saying that someone in a coma or dead can profess faith?

This is my original statement:

"Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracle."

Did I say only the faith of the one being healed?

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware you meant that.
So, are you saying that even if I don't have ANY faith at all ( and I don't, by the way, I'm an atheist ) the faith of OTHERS can "heal" me?

The Matthew 8:5–13 quote seems to indicate that Jesus is acting like a doctor would .. so this "healing" seems to be quite physical. Do I have that correct?

Jesus heals by some kind of god magic and doctors heal by science. Nobody has to believe anything for heart surgery to work at the local Heart Institute, but someone has to believe in .... GOD ..... in order for the Jesus magic to work.. do I have that correct?

Why do we need to believe in order for the Jesus healing to work?

I never understood the requirement of belief for doing what is right. Healing people if you can is a great RESPONSIBILITY.. to NOT heal when we can is morally WRONG in my opinion. Mathew 8:5-13 almost seems to imply that Jesus would NOT have healed the servant if the owner ( I believe the man was a slave owner? ) would not have believed in the right god. Is that correct?

You say that we need to BELIEVE in God in order to be healed by god. Doctors just do it to help people.

Do you see a moral dilemma here with the Jesus way of doing things?
"believe in me or no magic"

I'd say that Doctors Without Borders are WAY more ethical than Jesus in this regard. They go out of their way to help people with NO requirements, other than their great NEED.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

If Jesus requires FAITH in order to heal people, he is threatening to withhold healing unless there is faith. That's the obvious corollary to his faith healing. It sounds like Jesus is doing a GREAT thing.. until we think about it a bit deeper. It seems that the ONLY reason Jesus would ever consider healing someone is DUE to their "faith". For example, I would not be considered worth healing if nobody would step up and proclaim a faith, I'm done. Just me having a great need of healing isn't what's important.

"Believe this or you wont get healed"

Do you understand the moral dilemma faith healing entails?

If no one had faith, Lazarus would not have been resurrected. The point Jesus was making with His miracles was to show what can be done if one has faith, not to impress anyone.

Imagine Jesus raising everyone from the dead! There are other examples of Jesus having resurrected people. Consult Mark 5: 21-43

I can imagine lots of things, even that.

I can imagine that when Jesus rose a person from the dead that it might have impressed someone. I can imagine that the point of a religion is that everyone will be raised from the dead, IF they only believe in the right religion. I can even imagine that resurrection really occurred like it says in the Bible. BUT... I'd like to know how we can tell it really happened?

That's the point of the thread, after all. Were these resurrections facts or fiction? Why should we believe these miraculous tales?

Can you give me an instance in the Bible where Jesus didn't heal someone with faith?

No.

But don't forget that you are talking to an atheist. I can't just believe all of these faith healing stories are true, as there are lots of faith healing claims around today that I don't believe.

When I hear faith healing claims in the Bible, I think that they just might be like the discredited and dishonest faith healers on TV, and that doesn't impress me very much.

How do we know that Jesus actually healed ANYONE? How do we know that Jesus wasn't a faith healing charlatan like the ones on TV? They require faith, too.

( I don't take that kind of thing for granted, so I have to ask )

Of course we are debating in a hypothetical sense. I can't prove the Lazarus resurrection actually happened.

Oh.

Ok then. Neither can I.
I don't believe in any "resurrection" because I don't see how anyone can prove those Bible stories are really true.

Just to be clear as to your position, I would like to ask you three questions concerning resurrection:

1. Do you believe that Lazarus actually came back from the dead?
2. Do you believe that Jesus did?
3. If so... how do you know these stories are true?

[Clownboat]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

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.

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

"Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracle."

Did I say only the faith of the one being healed?

If no one had faith, Lazarus would not have been resurrected. The point Jesus was making with His miracles was to show what can be done if one has faith, not to impress anyone.

Can you give me an instance in the Bible where Jesus didn't heal someone with faith?

Please explain...
Again, you keep harping on faith as if it is a good/needed thing, but you continue to fail to address the fact that faith is required in order to believe in false things/religions.

Faith leads to false beliefs, this we know. Therefore, perhaps you should stop pretending that faith is some virtuous thing to have or put in practice.

Sure your holy book harps on the importance of faith. No surprise though right, since we know faith is needed in order to have false beliefs? Guess what is also needed in order to be a Muslim? Yup... faith. I could also use faith to believe in Zeus, Thor or a flat earth.

IMO, you keep pointing to a weakness in not just your religion, but every religion and then you try to glorify said weakness when it is in your religion as if it is some virtue.

[Clownboat]

[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?

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus. It is only after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples finally realized what Jesus had come for. They didn't really understand Him when Jesus was on earth.

Please explain to us how you acquired this knowledge?
Thank you.