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?

[polonius]

[Replying to mms20102]

The point is if you have a source that Jesus was crucified that source for sure ??? would tell if he was raised alive very simple

RESPONSE: Not at all. The events are separate. 6000 of Spartacus's followers were crucified along the road to Rome. There is no claim that any of them were raised alive.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1015 by polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: Not at all. The events are separate. 6000 of Spartacus's followers were crucified along the road to Rome. There is no claim that any of them were raised alive.

Then non-was and we can apply the same rule

[Clownboat]

As I said many times, through prayer. It is the only way to connect to the Holy Spirit.

Cool! That's how I did it too!

Do I still have the Holy Spirit, or does the more logical scenario ring true that there is not some Holy Spirit to have?

Devils can make people speak in tongues, too.

Please do not lay your superstitions on me. Show that Devils are real before you make claims about what they can or can't do. You are basically charging me with being demon possessed. I reject such a charge for something more logical and likely.

Were you indoctrinated to believe that your conscience, or still small voice if you want to call it that is some spirit entity?

Then, my goodness, my life is just a bunch of coincidences then and just happen to be for my benefit in the long run.

Perhaps. However, I asked if you were indoctrinated to believe that your conscience, or still small voice if you want to call it that is some spirit entity? I was, were you?

If spirits can interact with our physical reality, we could detect these interactions. Why don't we?

People have claimed to. I have experiences, so have other family members. We have seances and the like that are claimed to be true.

I have some ocean front property available for sale in Arizona. You interested?
You seem to fail to acknowledge all the claims and experineces from crazy people and people of other religions. Why are claims good enough when they are made about your preferred religion, but not good enough to believe other religious claims, nor claims about aliens, Bigfoot and Nelly?

This is actually not directed at you. Clownboat made the claim that he can speak in tongues and I said that is called glossolalia. In the Bible, speaking in tongues referred to speaking in languages not understood by the speaker.

And I still can, praise god! Woops, that one slipped.
Believe me when I tell you that I'm speaking in another language that I cannot understand, but the Holy Spirit and god can. (If we are to believe my pastors).

Okay, so how do you think you are able to speak in tongues? Maybe devils are responsible for that. And what exactly do your pastors claim?

It was a gift I received from the Holy Spirit. That is what we are told anyways, right?
I reject the claim that I have demons in me controlling my speech when I speak in tongues. Demons, spirits and what have you. Why such a propensity to believe such claims. Are you not skeptical at all?

Either I'm making the noises, or a demon is controlling me, AND YOU GO WITH THE DEMON IDEA!?!?!?!?!?!?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1013 by marco]

The point is if you have a source that Jesus was crucified that source for sure would tell if he was raised alive very simple

Tacitus is not interested in Christ's resurrection for he almost certainly didn't accept it. He had access to state documents and was especially involved with overseeing different religious sects, such as Christians and Jews. Islam hadn't been invented otherwise Tacitus would have supervised that as well. He wrote a biography of Agricola, his father-in-law. He is well regarded, so his mention that Christ was executed is credible. Perhaps you are too willing to believe this or that story that seems to debunk Christian history. This is odd because you place faith in the supernatural, yet question the fact that a man was crucified.

[Clownboat]

Says you! Can you provide me with an example for when faith leads to true religious beliefs, and if so, please provide the evidence that shows the belief to be true.
I ask, because I am only aware of faith leading to seemingly false religious beliefs, but I'm open to being shown to be incorrect.

I'm a little confused at your position. You said, "Thank God" in your next comment. Is that God you are talking about something you are not sure about?

"Thank God" is nothing more than a figure of speech. Please stay on topic.

You cannot prove the Holy Spirit.

Me? No one can that I am aware of, yet here you are talking as if we should consider it some real thing. Why?

You say that faith leads to seemingly false religious beliefs. What made you come to the conclusion that religious beliefs are false?

They can't all be true. Therefore, they are all likely false.
Do you believe in the Hindu gods? How about Allah? Do you believe in ancestral worship? I could go on and on and on and I would assume you will disbelieve in all of them, except for the one you have decided to apply faith to.

Obviously. Babies can't believe in anything. They don't have the ability to appreciate the concept of God.

I take it you retract the claim where you said I "seem to think that it is only possible to have faith if you start off not being sure He exists in the first place."
Thank you.

And when one gets to the age where they can be sure? I have always believed. There was never a case where I wasn't sure. I have questioned things in the Bible but never the existence of God.

This does not come as a surprise in any way, shape or form. Again, you pick a god (or had one picked for you) and apply faith. Can you show that any common sense is used?

I can recall me saying it is not possible to have faith not sure He exists in the first place? Didn't I say there are two different types of faiths?

You say lots of things, however, you have not shown that faith leads to true religious claims while I have demonstrated that they do in fact lead to false religious beliefs.

I'm saying this is the type of thing that leads to false beliefs.

This doesn't mean much coming from a person that cannot show that their beliefs are true in the first place.
Consider this, if Christianity is truly man made, then all Christians are equally wrong in their belief. This would make not just faith, but also Christianity as a mechanism that leads to false beliefs.

Can we be sure it is man made?

Can we be sure? I cannot be sure that the barbaric, ignorant, punishing god of the Old Testament is not real. I sure hope he is not real though, for the sake of our virgin girls.

Please provide some evidence that you know, or have a relationship with an all knowing entity that can create universes with words. Telling me what the note on my desk says would be a great place to start. Something a universe creator could surely do.

You know, I am asked for my personal beliefs and I give it. Would there be any atheists if all those thing you want actually happened?

Nice dodge. I acknowledge that you apply faith to a god concept that you have no evidence for. You even claim to have a relationship with this god, but when asked to demonstrate this claim, you can do nothing but dodge it.

That's beside the point. The Canaanite God, Yahweh, is described as being the God of Israel thus the logical conclusion is that they are one and the same.

Trust me, I do not doubt that Abraham, from Er, come up with a god concept that was just a remake of the god from whence he originated.

Then why else, if we believe this to be true, would Jesus need to change the beliefs that the Jews had about Yahweh? Surely they would know God already?

No idea. I find claims that people reject gods concepts that they know are real to be illogical. Concepts they think are real, or that they have faith are real or different of course.

I think it is possible that Mohammed could have had contact with extra-terrestrials.

Why am I not surprised to read this?

I'm not saying that those people just have beliefs that those gods existed. They interacted with them.

To this day, we still have people that claim that they interact with the gods. This is nothing special.
Please show that you speak the truth when you claim that ancient Bible writers interacted with the gods.

I don't know about the writers but the characters in the Bible sure did. I mentioned Exodus 33.

The Bible is a recording of things people believed. Yes, people once believed that gods did all sorts of things. Like causing thunder.
You have not shown that people interacted with gods.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine a Greek person that was struck by lightning and survived. Can you imagine them thinking that it happened because Zeus was angry with them? Imagine if they wrote about this story in a holy book, would that make Zeus real, or should we apply common sense and acknowledge that lightning strikes things all the time without the need of a god?

I think Exodus makes it very clear that there were interactions with gods. Numbers 33:4 says this:

Again, if the Greek guy that attributed his lightning strike to Zeus wrote this belief down, would that make Zeus real?
I acknowledge that all sorts of ancient people believed that they interacted with gods. Can we blame them? They were ignorant after all.

who were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them; for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods.

I have no issue believing that ancient ignorant man BELIEVED many things to be true that were not. Like Zeus.

Unless these gods were real beings, this doesn't make sense. You can't judge an idol.

I sure can judge an idol.
Either way, when it comes to gods, sourcing ignorant men that also believed that Zeus causes lightning is not a very good way to arrive at the truth IMO.
Why do you think we should trust ignorant men to be accurate about the gods? Note, only your preferred ignorant men. We are to ignore the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, American Indians and Africans when it comes to their ignorant men. This does not sit with me.

But you are assuming that this is suspect? You asked me what they believed in and it surely wasn't a spiritual god.

And I showed that you are wrong according to Catholics. Either way, we would not be discussing god concepts today if it were not for ignorant men of the past. Men that assigned gods to thunder and lightning (and such).

Why do you feel justified to base your beliefs off of ignorant men and faith? Would you judge (not literally judge) an atheists soul deserves hell based off of your religious beliefs which seem to be nothing more than the writings of ancient men about things they thought were real?

First of all, Paul believed all the stories in the OT. He didn't know any better. This was said to explain why God would favour the Jews over others. Why would God show mercy to the Jews but not to the Egyptians?

How could I know? Why does your god not allow assembly if a mans testicles are crushed? Perhaps because ancient ignorant men believed this and eventually their beliefs were written down.

Apparently in Exodus, God's face was glowing at that time, which seen, would cause radioactive burns to Moses so he could not look at Yahweh.

Is this actually true, or are you basing this off of things that ignorant ancient men use to believe? Why would you put so much stock in the beliefs of ancient men that thought Zeus causes thunder and lightning?

Whether you are a believer or not, you must see there is an inconsistency between Yahweh and Jesus. Why?

There are inconsistencies throughout the entire book, why do you want me to try to explain this one? Heck, Christians cannot even agree. Many believe that Jesus was just the angel Michael, others the literal son of a god and yet others one in the same as the god.

Although at the time of the events of the early scriptures were pagan based, it evolved into monotheism. Therefore the Jews at during Jesus' time did not believe in pagan gods and thus would not have entertained any claims of Him being the Son of God if Judaism had still been pagan.

Thank you for admitting that we are discussing what ancient ignorant men believed.

I think Mohammed could have been sent by Allah but not Allah incarnate. I think Allah was an extra-terrestrial being using Allah as an agent.

I think our discussion is coming to an end. This kind of make believe is of no interest to me and you clearly cannot show that you speak the truth.

Please show that you know a teacher. Provide some sort of evidence that you don't suffer from religious paranoia or that you are just an outright fraud.

You must find out for yourself.

I believe I already have, which is why I ask you to show me to be incorrect. Show me please that you don't suffer from religious paranoia.

I don't believe God created the universe with words. Why do you think I should go about proving God over the Internet?

Because you made this claim: " Jesus will come again and prove He is the Son of God.".

The Christian god both takes accounts of evil and doesn't take accounts of evil too. However, contradictions in the Bible are not something there is a shortage of.

Completely different contexts. Revelation is the judgment of people according to how they lived their lives. The evil will show no repentance and thus have condemned themselves. When Corinthians states, "...taken not account of evil", it means not to hold grudges. Once a person repents and is forgiven, their sin must not be mentioned again.

Why would a god not have his scribes write what he really meant? It seems odd that he would use inaccurate words knowing that thousands of years later you would be here to provide what he really meant to say.

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1018 by marco]

Tacitus is not interested in Christ's resurrection for he almost certainly didn't accept it. He had access to state documents and was especially involved with overseeing different religious sects, such as Christians and Jews. Islam hadn't been invented otherwise Tacitus would have supervised that as well. He wrote a biography of Agricola, his father-in-law. He is well regarded, so his mention that Christ was executed is credible. Perhaps you are too willing to believe this or that story that seems to debunk Christian history. This is odd because you place faith in the supernatural, yet question the fact that a man was crucified.

Supernatural was mentioned in history yet you guys ignore it just because its illogical nowadays.

yet I have no interest on the fact he rejected it or not I don't need his rejection to know he wasn't killed I have Quran to tell me what happened

[Clownboat]

Some people are just more skeptical than others. Just because they have a harder time then you when listening to the claims of a preacher, shaman, Imam, etc... does not mean they deserve to burn in a hell forever I wouldn't think.

Being gullible is not exactly having a relationship with God. Why would God favour a gullible person over a skeptic?

I don't think a true god would favor gullible people. Another strike against your god concept.

That is not why people burn in hell. It is the rejection of God that is known to a person that condemns a person to hell.

You don't know your god is real though. You have faith in ancient ignorant men, you call this knowing apparently, but I will not be fooled.
Either way, a just, loving all knowing god would not torture people for infinity for finite crimes. This would be like spanking your child for life because they took a cookie from the cookie jar. Asinine when we think about a parent doing it, but the gods, they get away with all sorts of absurdities being claimed about them.

Especially if they are willing to believe, but just can't find god claims to date to be credible. For these people, at least being shown that there is a supernatural realm would go a long way. For many, it would change the hypothetical destination for their soul.

And when Jesus showed supernatural natural powers, did it make all who witnessed it believers?

No, but you also cannot show that any supernatural claims made in the Bible ever happened. You can't even point to the supernatural in this day and age where most people are carrying a camera.

Having a love of God is what makes people believe in Him.

There are reasons you're leaving out:
- Fear of eternal torture in hell.
- Indoctrination.
I find the idea absurd that you must love something before you can believe in it.

People who want supernatural things demonstrated to them want short cuts.

Shame on you! Demonstrate that these kind of people are not just being skeptical. You know, examining things carefully in order to hold on to that which is good.
Person A hears about a god claim. They don't dare be skeptical, because Claire will accuse them of just wanting a short cut.

They don't want to set out on a journey which takes a long time to refine their faith.

The opposite is true from what I see.
Take the origins of man for example. You can pick a religion, just about any religion and have your answer as to how and why we are here.
Or... dun dun dun. You can study different theories as to how man got here. This will require lots of time and effort, potentially even classroom time.
Religions are the easy route. No time or study needed, just faith in ignorant men and what they wrote down about things they believed.

Unfortunately, we know fraud after fraud is done in the name of religions. All knowing gods would know that some people will be faced with deciding if claims made my pastors, shamans and Imams are just more of the same.

Perhaps 'faith' is still the problem. I don't have the faith that you must have in order to believe the claims made by pastors, shamans nor Imams. However, being shown that there is a supernatural realm would go a long way.

Pastors can claim things all they like but it is not what they say that makes me a believer. They quote OT nonsense but that doesn't make me believe.

So.... again, being shown that there is a supernatural realm would in fact go a long way. I don't have the faith that you must have in order to believe the claims made by pastors, shamans nor Imams. And now we need to add demons and aliens to the mix.

I, unlike others will require more than a pastors, shamans or Imams word that a holy book is true.

And you can get that. Start off by praying.

It is silly to think that a born again, spirit filled, street evangelizing, drunk in the holy ghost Christian that wanted nothing more than to maintain his beliefs did not pray. I had many tear filled prayers to god before losing my beliefs.

Prayer is a good way to self brainwash is the conclusion I arrived at after 2 decades of it.

[marco]

yet I have no interest on the fact he rejected it or not I don't need his rejection to know he wasn't killed I have Quran to tell me what happened

Unfortunately the Koran was written many centuries AFTER Christ by Muhammad, who claimed divine inspiration, as did the Bible writers. The Koran contains the stories Muhammad heard from Jews or Christians at the time, and sometimes his memory let him down when he was trying to recall bits he had heard. The story of the birth of Jesus is rather amusing, as Muhammad tells it. And I particularly like Allah saying "Allah forbid that Allah should have a son." He hasn't heard of metaphor.

But if you think a god wrote the book then who am I to disillusion you?

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1022 by marco]

Again like always you just go farther with no references ... I have seen nothing

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1018 by marco]

Tacitus is not interested in Christ's resurrection for he almost certainly didn't accept it. He had access to state documents and was especially involved with overseeing different religious sects, such as Christians and Jews. Islam hadn't been invented otherwise Tacitus would have supervised that as well. He wrote a biography of Agricola, his father-in-law. He is well regarded, so his mention that Christ was executed is credible. Perhaps you are too willing to believe this or that story that seems to debunk Christian history. This is odd because you place faith in the supernatural, yet question the fact that a man was crucified.

Supernatural was mentioned in history yet you guys ignore it just because its illogical nowadays.

yet I have no interest on the fact he rejected it or not I don't need his rejection to know he wasn't killed I have Quran to tell me what happened

Don't take it personally.
Not everyone believes in the un-evidenced supernatural realm that many religious people love to claim is there, nor do many of us find the ramblings of ancient ignorant men about gods to be convincing as being anything more than the collection of their beliefs.

If just one religious person could supply evidence of the supernatural or their god.
Oh well.