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?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1132 by Claire Evans]

I attempted to point out that if someone is intent on seeing dragons, then dragons will be seen. As for:

"I cannot make you see the truth. This is most likely due to cognitive dissonance."
You are selling truth in the wrong package if you seek to persuade me by insulting my intelligence.

The Roman state, like most ancient people, believed in prophecy and in oracles. Today people consult horoscopes. Witchcraft has nothing to do with what the "sacerdos" or "vates" did in his priestly role. I'm not going to glorify staff being serpent with a reply. You can find rubbish on the internet and it is up to you to believe it all, some of it or none of it.

What creature is on the papal crest in the Vatican museum? Can you explain what it is. I do not make up the picture of the Pope holding a serpent staff.

As for insulting your intelligence, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean someone isn't intelligence. Smart people can have it. It's just denial.

In the same way if one insists on accepting the physical resurrection, that is a matter for faith not reason. Clearly, if one is predisposed to accepting a variety of myths and magic then accepting one more is no problem.

However, even if one accepts that people truthfully testified to what they saw, we still don't have a historical fact. We have the interpretation of people whose stories we can no longer check. Were they around today our first reaction would be disbelief until we examined the case. We can't do that with the resurrection, so it can never be a historical fact.

People actually have investigated this case to see if the resurrection is plausibly true. Here are the scenarios:


There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus’ alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament:

1.) Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.
2.) The “resurrection� was a conspiracy.
3.) The disciples were hallucinating.
4.)The account is legendary.
5.) It really happened.

Number one is considered a historical fact. I will just give one example of a pagan historian who attested to Jesus' crucifixion:

Tacitus (c. 56 – c.120) wrote, “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty … at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilate.

"This is a bit like going into the archives and finding that on one spring day in the first century, The Jerusalem Post ran a front-page story saying that Jesus was crucified and dead. Not bad detective work, and fairly conclusive.

In fact, there is no historical account from Christians, Romans, or Jews that disputes either Jesus’ death or his burial. Even skeptical scholars who deny the resurrection agree Jesus was dead. Noted skeptic James Tabor stated, “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.�[19] John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the notoriously skeptical Jesus Seminar, agrees that Jesus really lived and died. He states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.�

Number 1 is fact.

Number 2:

We'd need to consider that the Jewish leaders would have the need to refute the claim of the resurrection because that is what they feared. They knew of Jesus' prophecy of rising from the dead (Matthew 27:62-66). It would not be hard for the Jewish leaders to open up the tomb for them to check for themselves.

The Jewish leaders acknowledged Jesus' body was gone (Matthew 28:13)


Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, similarly stated, “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable … to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered … that would disprove this statement.�[22]

If Jesus’ body was anywhere to be found, his enemies would have quickly exposed the resurrection as a fraud. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this argument:

With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? … The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection.[24]

So, with no body of evidence, and with a known tomb clearly empty, Morison accepted the evidence as solid that Jesus’ body had somehow disappeared from the tomb.

We need to ask ourselves why the disciples would believe Jesus rose from the dead when He really had not. Conspirators who wanted to convince others that Jesus rose from the dead when He actually did not, would try and make their narrative as convincing as possible. To say that women where the first to witness the empty tomb would have been a blunder. Women were considered inferior back then and were considered unreliable witnesses.

http://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/women.html


Here is a quote from Josephus in "The Antiquities of the Jews, 4.219".

21915. But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. But if any one be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness was to have suffered."

Yet people believed even though women were the first to discover Jesus' empty tomb.

Why would the disciples have suffered death for their beliefs? In horrible ways.

As Paul Little wrote, “Men will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie.�[29] Jesus’ disciples behaved in a manner consistent with a genuine belief that their leader was alive.

3. )So could the genuine belief be due to hallucination?

Absolutely not. Hallucinations are exposed by individuals, not groups of people.

4.) Was it just a legend?

"First, legends simply don’t develop while multiple eyewitnesses are alive to refute them. One historian of ancient Rome and Greece, A. N. Sherwin-White, argued that the resurrection news spread too soon and too quickly for it to have been a legend.[35]
Second, legends develop by oral tradition and don’t come with contemporary historical documents that can be verified. Yet the Gospels were written within three decades of the resurrection.[36]
Third, the legend theory doesn’t adequately explain either the fact of the empty tomb or the historically verified conviction of the apostles that Jesus was alive.[37]"

5.) Is it possible that dismissing all the rest, it really did happen? It would have been very believable to alter the course of history in such a small time frame?


http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/6-jesus-rise-dead/

[marco]

There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus’ alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament:

1.) Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.
2.) The “resurrection� was a conspiracy.
3.) The disciples were hallucinating.
4.)The account is legendary.
5.) It really happened.

Mistaken identity? - Jesus appears to have had brothers. Body removed from its special sepulchre?


1. Tacitus mentions that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty. People are crucified and live. To make sure they die of suffocation their legs are broken. They did not break Christ's legs, for some reason. Bribery?

2. It could well have been a conspiracy that did not involve the apostles. The secret arrangements that Christ seems to have made before his trial suggest some sort of collusion. As for people dying for their beliefs - it happens today, but their deaths do not prove that Allah exists.

3. We have a modern example of mass hallucination; namely the Fatima appearances. So it CAN happen, especially in a religious context.

4. It depends when the first tales of resurrection started. There were rumours that Christians ate human flesh, and this was simply a misunderstanding. When people heard that Christ destroyed death they might have taken this to mean he rose from the dead. But this objection has its weaknesses.

5. And this is the weakest of all. We need proof that it happened and we have rumours and conflicting reports on the details in the sepulchre, made more implausible by talk of "angels." What were they there for? To say a few words?
We cannot deduce truth from the ludicrous.

It is then a matter of preference which explanation one takes but there is no onus on anyone to GIVE an explanation of why Jesus didn't rise from the dead; the onus is on people to prove conclusively that he did.

There is no such proof.

[Talishi]

1. Tacitus mentions that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty. People are crucified and live. To make sure they die of suffocation their legs are broken. They did not break Christ's legs, for some reason. Bribery?

If the prepatory scourging so "lovingly" depicted by torture porn devotee Mel Gibson was half true, the man was three-quarters dead before he was nailed up to the cross, no wonder it only lasted six hours.

[marco]

1. Tacitus mentions that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty. People are crucified and live. To make sure they die of suffocation their legs are broken. They did not break Christ's legs, for some reason. Bribery?

If the prepatory scourging so "lovingly" depicted by torture porn devotee Mel Gibson was half true, the man was three-quarters dead before he was nailed up to the cross, no wonder it only lasted six hours.

Hearsay is what many go on. We don't know how much the two thieves beside him suffered but their funeral speeches suggest they were in good health. But then Christ's answers, especially his arcane statement about one of them being with him "today" in paradise, cleverly avoiding the comma as he spoke, would suggest Mel went rather too far. But I did think the film was spectacular in what it sought to do.

[Claire Evans]

There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus’ alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament:

1.) Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.
2.) The “resurrection� was a conspiracy.
3.) The disciples were hallucinating.
4.)The account is legendary.
5.) It really happened.

Mistaken identity? - Jesus appears to have had brothers. Body removed from its special sepulchre?

How is Jesus having brothers relevant to this discussion? Please elaborate.

1. Tacitus mentions that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty. People are crucified and live. To make sure they die of suffocation their legs are broken. They did not break Christ's legs, for some reason. Bribery?

The reason was because the soldiers believed that Jesus was dead already. Only when they are conscious are the crucified's legs broken. To make sure, they pierced his side. Water indicates that the heart is no longer beating.

2. It could well have been a conspiracy that did not involve the apostles. The secret arrangements that Christ seems to have made before his trial suggest some sort of collusion. As for people dying for their beliefs - it happens today, but their deaths do not prove that Allah exists.

What arrangements before the trial? There is a difference between dying for a lie that one believes is true. It's quite a different story to know one has made something up and die for it and not benefit from the lie at all.

3. We have a modern example of mass hallucination; namely the Fatima appearances. So it CAN happen, especially in a religious context.

It was not a mass hallucination. All of those people who witnessed it must have existing circumstances to make them hallucinate if it was true:


"Dr. Gabriella Farkas, a psychiatrist-in-training at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York believes episodes of hallucinations can reveal details about the individual. "In most of the cases it is the interplay of genetic vulnerability, and different stressors (trauma, substance use, stressful life events etc.) that can cause psychotic symptoms. Psychodynamic concepts exist about delusions being specific to an individual or a culture although we see a lot of common themes across different patient populations," Farkas told Medical Daily in an email.

Hallucinations can be seen in patients with the following mental disorders: psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, PTSD, delirium, or dementia. They are commonly reported by up to 75 percent of schizophrenic patients who perceive these hallucinations to be something as very real even though it isn’t real at all.

However, this is not to say hallucinations are limited to people who are mentally or physically ill. Drug-induced hallucinations such as amphetamines, cocaine, hallucinogens (LSD and PCP), steroids, and types of marijuana can lead to spontaneous visual hallucinations. Even those who withdraw from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, or anxiolytics can also experience hallucinations.

The general population is susceptible to hallucinations during sensory, sleep, food, and water deprivation. They may be normal, especially during the bereavement process. For example, hearing the voice of, or seeing a loved one who has passed away can be part of the process."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/inside-mind ... ate-319060

Are we to assume that all of witnesses suffered from drug abuse, dementia, etc. Were they all examined for mental illnesses?

We could even argue that it was the power of suggestion and mass hysteria.

Furthermore:


"It is important to distinguish between hallucinations and illusions or delusions, as the terms are often confused in conversation and popular journalism. A hallucination is a distorted sensory experience that appears to be a perception of something real even though it is not caused by an external stimulus. For example, some elderly people who have been recently bereaved may have hallucinations in which they "see" the dead loved one. An illusion, by contrast, is a mistaken or false interpretation of a real sensory experience, as when a traveler in the desert sees what looks like a pool of water, but in fact is a mirage caused by the refraction of light as it passes through layers of air of different densities. The bluish-colored light is a real sensory stimulus, but mistaking it for water is an illusion."


http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/hallucination.aspx

If the disciples had a mass hallucination, their story would have been refuted in no time.

4. It depends when the first tales of resurrection started. There were rumours that Christians ate human flesh, and this was simply a misunderstanding. When people heard that Christ destroyed death they might have taken this to mean he rose from the dead. But this objection has its weaknesses.

It was not a case of hearing about it. They witnessed it. How many people saw Christians eating human flesh?

5. And this is the weakest of all. We need proof that it happened and we have rumours and conflicting reports on the details in the sepulchre, made more implausible by talk of "angels." What were they there for? To say a few words?
We cannot deduce truth from the ludicrous.

It is then a matter of preference which explanation one takes but there is no onus on anyone to GIVE an explanation of why Jesus didn't rise from the dead; the onus is on people to prove conclusively that he did.

There is no such proof.

It's quote interesting that you think that the NT has absolutely no reliability and cannot at all be considered proof. And conflicting information does not necessary mean it negates the whole event. You will find it in history books.

As for angels...could we not consider that that may be an embellishment? If angels did not appear and it was made up, does it negate the whole story?

How would one go about proving Jesus rose from the dead that would be satisfactory to a non believer?

[Claire Evans]

1. Tacitus mentions that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty. People are crucified and live. To make sure they die of suffocation their legs are broken. They did not break Christ's legs, for some reason. Bribery?

If the prepatory scourging so "lovingly" depicted by torture porn devotee Mel Gibson was half true, the man was three-quarters dead before he was nailed up to the cross, no wonder it only lasted six hours.

Talisha, I think Mel Gibson got it right. Jesus was hated and I believe there would have been more brutal. It must have been severe for Him to die so early.

[marco]

How is Jesus having brothers relevant to this discussion? Please elaborate.

I have two cousins that I cannot tell apart. Jesus had a brother who looked like him OR Jesus rose from the dead.

The reason was because the soldiers believed that Jesus was dead already. Only when they are conscious are the crucified's legs broken. To make sure, they pierced his side. Water indicates that the heart is no longer beating.

Ah, yes, and Roman soldiers famously possessed medical qualifications. A lady believed dead by actual doctors woke up in the mortuary. You think that "soldiers believed he was dead" provides good grounds for accepting the resurrection?

What arrangements before the trial? There is a difference between dying for a lie that one believes is true. It's quite a different story to know one has made something up and die for it and not benefit from the lie at all.

I agree, but I'm not saying the apostles disbelieved. They weren't part of the presumed plot. Jesus gave the disciples instructions on where to find the donkey (to fit in with prophecy) and where to go for the last supper. These are arrangements. There may well have been others.

3. We have a modern example of mass hallucination; namely the Fatima appearances. So it CAN happen, especially in a religious context.

It was not a mass hallucination. All of those people who witnessed it must have existing circumstances to make them hallucinate if it was true:

The general population is susceptible to hallucinations during sensory, sleep, food, and water deprivation. They may be normal, especially during the bereavement process. For example, hearing the voice of, or seeing a loved one who has passed away can be part of the process."

Thank you. So the grieving apostles hallucinated. That is possible.

If the disciples had a mass hallucination, their story would have been refuted in no time.

It's been challenged umpteen times but the witnesses are rather dead. As I said, the Fatima story is similar and hasn't been refuted.

It's quite interesting that you think that the NT has absolutely no reliability and cannot at all be considered proof. And conflicting information does not necessary mean it negates the whole event. You will find it in history books.

For an event of the magnitude of the resurrection stories HAVE to be absolutely consistent and free of any suspicion of being fabricated. Talk of angels DOES diminish the veracity. Discrepancies in who went to the sepulchre and what they saw there quite certainly are important. We cannot accept an ENORMOUS claim when tiny details are seen to be wrong.

How would one go about proving Jesus rose from the dead that would be satisfactory to a non believer?

I have no idea. The best one can do with an extravagant claim, I suppose, is to regard it as unproven. Over thirty years ago here a forestry worker saw what he took to be a large craft in the middle of woods, inaccessible to vehicles. There were no reports of aircraft in that area at the time. The man was sane. He described what he saw. But his testimony is not proof. It is even more the case with a claim that 2000 years ago somebody got up from the dead. The natural conclusion is to say it did NOT occur, unless we have very strong evidence. We don't.

[rikuoamero]

Just chiming in to say that it's interesting that Claire says fatima was not a hallucination and apparently believes herself that it was a genuine miracle...a miracle recognised as such by the Romans Catholic Church...declared as such by popes.

[polonius]

Just chiming in to say that it's interesting that Claire says fatima was not a hallucination and apparently believes herself that it was a genuine miracle...a miracle recognised as such by the Romans Catholic Church...declared as such by popes.

RESPONSE:

Regarding Fatima. Did the Sun actually dance and fall from the sky? Are there other reports from observatories to this effect?

Did the miracle actually occur? Didn't it occur the next day too? And again two weeks later with the local bishop present? Does such a phenomena ever occur in California or New Mexico?

See: "God and the Sun at Fatima" by Fr. Stanley Jaki, a PhD and university instructor in physics, Professor emeritus of Rutgers University.

[marco]

Regarding Fatima. Did the Sun actually dance and fall from the sky? Are there other reports from observatories to this effect?

You've missed the point completely, Polonius. Fatima is being used to show that something mistaken or fake can be credited by witnesses. We are told that people saw the resurrected Christ, and so we are saying that if people can be deceived, as at Fatima 100 years ago, they can be deceived in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago.

It was presented as a refutation of one of the arguments supporting the risen Christ.