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]

This is an evasion. You must acknowledge that people who knew Jesus well would know His voice and see that it differs from His brother's. Anyway, we have to assume that all the witnesses actually met Jesus and I don't think that is likely.

Claire, when I start to be evasive (perish the thought) I will knock on a church door. I have not the slightest reason to evade anything you say.

I am methodically going through EACH item you said had been refuted and I am illustrating possibilities. We know little or nothing about Christ's family and for all the apostles knew (remember he appeared out of the blue) he COULD have had a twin brother. And I told you it is easy to confuse twins - for I do so. This is not as improbable as a resurrection, therefore worth consideration. There may have been a bigger reason, such as a planned insurrection, behind Jesus.

Wouldn't it have been in the Bible if Jesus had a twin brother? I think that would have been very important to mention. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that there was any planned insurrection. They didn't have to wait until Jesus' death to have an insurrection. They could have done it while He was still alive. The disciples showed no propensity for violence. What would it have achieved? They would probably face execution from the Romans for sedition.

The medical facts you give are not facts at all. You blithely say: "His bladder wasn't pierced. The water wasn't urine." How on earth do you know this? Are you suffering from that awful confirmation bias virus you passed on to me?

If His bladder was pierced, urine would have come out of it in a trickle because He was seriously dehydrated. Agreed? They would be no gushing out of water. The Romans knew where to pierce.

Are you saying pleural effusions from trauma is not a medical fact?

Are you going to break the legs of someone who is dead or at least unconscious? They didn't break legs for fun. It was to kill a person within minutes. The whole point of a crucifixion was to let them hang there for days.

Well I am not personally going to break anybody's legs but the Roman soldiers or mercenaries posted there would have certainly been capable of breaking legs just for the fun of it. They already, according to Mel, were over-enthusiastic in their scourging. The crucifix often had a foot support so that the victim could push up. When legs were broken he was incapable of doing this and his body weight would make it eventually impossible to breathe and he would die of asphyxiation. It didn't happen to Christ because a 21st century doctor declared him dead, depriving the soldiers of some further fun.

Thanks for acknowledging that breaking of the legs was meant to kill quickly. Crucifixion was meant to last for days as a deterrent to the public. So why kill the other criminals so quickly? In fact, that would have killed the fun.

How would the Essenes have benefited from a made up resurrection story? I think that rumours of a resurrection would certainly have gotten the attention of the disciples.

I take it you mean "rumours of an insurrection". So nothing would have evaded the cleverness of the disciples? Hmmm. The politics of the time would have given rise to plots and perhaps the appearance of a sacrificial figure would have served a purpose. Speculation- yes - but better than rising corpses.

Let us ask ourselves: why have an insurrection? What would motivate them? They went into hiding when Jesus was crucified. Why? I ask you again. How would the Essenes have benefited from a made up resurrection story? They didn't become apostles.

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

I did not say that the Fatima story was based on a hallucination. Post 1149:


rikuoamero wrote:

"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."

Claire wrote:


"It needs to be proven that it was a hallucination by doctors. I rule that out. However, mass hysteria is a possibility. Plain lying is also. Or they really had visions of the sun stopping in the middle of the sky and believed it really happened. In one believes in the supernatural, it is very possible for spirits to make people see what really isn't there."

Mass hallucinations are not possible unless all witnesses have something medically wrong with them at the same time which I see no case of.


Please don't evade this question. What other medical explanation is there that would account for the water coming out of Jesus' side when pierced?

[Claire Evans]

Marco replied to Claire Evans thus:

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

.

RESPONSE: Wait a minute. Who were the “so many� who witnessed the Resurrection?

If Jesus was on earth for many weeks, there would have been a lot of people who would have saw Him.

[marco]

Wouldn't it have been in the Bible if Jesus had a twin brother?

No. We know next to nothing about Christ's family.

If His bladder was pierced, urine would have come out of it in a trickle because He was seriously dehydrated. Agreed?

There is no verse that says: And lo! he was seriously dehydrated.

The Romans knew where to pierce.

"The Romans" as you put it were rough, tough men pressed into service in that region. They were not conducting a medical diagnosis.

Let us ask ourselves: why have an insurrection? What would motivate them?

Claire - my proposal is NOT that the daft apostles were going to rebel but people in the background, with Jesus as their central character, were perhaps planning something that would rouse multitudes against Rome. It happened a few years later, and ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. It is merely speculation, of course, but it provides possible background to why somebody offered his rich tomb and how the body vanished. It's at least more plausible than resurrection.

We'll ignore the Fatima digression. The point of it was to show that MANY people claim a miracle but they may not be believed or there may be other explanations. Same with the resurrection. I'm not interested in psychological theories about hallucinations.

What other medical explanation is there that would account for the water coming out of Jesus' side when pierced?

Water dripping from the sponge he was supplied with; sweat; urine; bad reporting; using what happened to some other crucified body and referring it to Christ, for after all the report is years out of date.

Without a body there is NO medical diagnosis, only speculation, presumably assisted by the report that the man was flogged and died later. If you are going to use the disputed details to prove the details are true, then what on earth do you gain?

[rikuoamero]

Marco replied to Claire Evans thus:

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

.

RESPONSE: Wait a minute. Who were the “so many� who witnessed the Resurrection?

If Jesus was on earth for many weeks, there would have been a lot of people who would have saw Him.

The resurrection, according to the Gospel stories, happened in Joseph's tomb, where Jesus's body was alone (there were supposedly guards standing outside).
No-one saw this event itself take place.

What I'm pointing out is sloppy logic. If I had an operation in a hospital to remove a cancerous tumour (that will kill me if left alone), where it was myself and two surgeons in the operating theatre, and three weeks later I'm walking around talking to my extended family, it is NOT correct to say my extended family 'witnessed' my operation, because now they're talking to me.
Yes, my talking to family outside the hospital weeks later is a result of the operation, it can only happen because of it but my communicating with family is not the operation itself.

Even if I were to don a Christian hat and believe Christianity again, it doesn't make sense to say people 'witnessed the Resurrection' because so many people saw Jesus afterward. They did not. The Resurrection took place in a tomb where no-one saw it happen.

[Claire Evans]

And your cousins have the exact same voices?

They don't have the same head, certainly and I can manage to count to two. I think you've lost track of what we are arguing about and why.

This is an evasion. You must acknowledge that people who knew Jesus well would know His voice and see that it differs from His brother's. Anyway, we have to assume that all the witnesses actually met Jesus and I don't think that is likely.

Oh my goodness...

Based on what gospel accounts say, water coming out from a pleural effusion is fitting. It is caused from trauma. Do you think the gospel writers knew why water would come out? So why would they make that up? If someone today had water coming out of them being pierced, we would come to the same conclusion. Is it impossible to say how someone died 1000's of years ago because we weren't there?

One must examine a body to see if water came from a pleural effusion or from the drink he was given or from some other cause; and yes, there would be people who had seen many crucifixions and would know what to expect; the reported details may have come from seeing another crucifixion. If someone today had water coming from them on being pierced then I guess there would be a variety of explanations. The doctor in question already knew the accepted explanation and, without being able to examine the body, simply concurred. That's fine.

It is impossible to be certain in the present case but in the case of John the Baptist we can be reasonably sure of what killed him.

What are you inferring by the water He drank? He wasn't given a drink and even if He did, the bladder wasn't pierced and it would have been urine, anyway.

What other medical explanation can you come with that would cause water to come out of the side of a pierced dead body?

Are you going to break the legs of someone who is dead or at least unconscious? They didn't break legs for fun. It was to kill a person within minutes. The whole point of a crucifixion was to let them hang there for days.

Sorry, I thought the Roman soldiers in that area might have been rough. You know, the sort that would beat Christ to a pulp, for fun. I didn't know they were humanitarians.

I don't know if you are willfully ignoring what I'm saying. Breaking legs was only done when the Romans wanted the person to die within minutes. The storm and the quake, etc, as reported in the Bible, would explain why they wanted to kill the other crucified by breaking their legs because they wanted to go as soon as possible.

Why would anyone but the disciples want Jesus' body to make up a resurrection story? They weren't the first to herald the news. When one wants a likely explanation, one must always ask, "Who benefits?"

This was the conspiracy bit of the argument . Perhaps the Essenes or some other group that Christ did his secret dealings with (you remember the arrangements he made for the Last Supper) had an interest. The indication that another group was involved would be if some influential person stepped in and offered a handy sepulchre.

How would the Essenes have benefited from a made up resurrection story? I think that rumours of a resurrection would certainly have gotten the attention of the disciples.

You see, I think the problem with you is that you believe you cannot be wrong.

Sadly, we can all be wrong in matters of speculation. I am not being definitive, as you are. I am pointing out that there ARE other possible explanations. Before we raise corpses to life we should be certain that ordinary factors are not in play. We've spent some time dealing with lots of alternative explanations and sometimes your refutation is no more than: "My goodness!" As for my ignoring the hallucination argument, I pointed out that saying many people witnessed the event (and so were not hallucinating) could be applied to Fatima, an event you choose NOT to believe in. You are therefore applying double standards. Your thesis on what constitutes hallucination and who might be susceptible is an irrelevance.



It is wise to keep posts succinct and so it's unnecessary to comment on every comma.
This post is itself over-long but I am resisting the charge of avoidance.

I have been addressing the other possibilities but they don't pan out. I suppose you could call it a process of elimination.

The reason why I deviate regarding Fatima is that what their claimed could not be corroborated. In other words, it was refuted unlike the resurrection.

Polonius wrote in post 1150

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

Observatories could not corroborate what they said:

"However, it was proven that there were no such thing as meteorological occurrences all sun anomalies as claimed:

"Mass hysteria and optical distortion alone would account for such reports but one might also offer local meteorological conditions as a possible (though hardly necessary) additional explanation. Needless to say, astronomical observatories saw nothing unusual in the sun's behavior that day."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lo ... cle-fatima

Now, we should expect those who heard about the resurrection to refute it, too. There was just silence. The silence means that the resurrection could not be refuted because people in Jerusalem saw Him.

You are leaving out the possibility that no one found the resurrection story as believable from the time when it took place.

It would not have been believable if there were no witnesses. The resurrection story was a big deal. It had to have originated after Jesus' death. Why no refutation of the resurrection? I'm sure Pontius Pilate would have been very interested since, according to the Bible, that is exactly what He wanted to prevent the body from being removed.

What I see is that it gained credibility many decades later in areas where the event didn't take place by people that were not there to witness the event themselves.

How would it have gained credibility later on? Why then and not at the time?

It seems more likely to me that a guard was set at an already empty tomb. Come Sunday when the tomb was verified to be empty, no one was surprised. Then decades of oral story telling took place and some ignorant men believed it. Not really their fault, resurrection claims were not all that uncommon back in ancient times before men knew any better.

You are telling me that guards would guard an already empty tomb? The tomb had a Roman seal on it. Seals indicated that something has been verified as authentic. Therefore before putting the seal on the tomb, the Romans were required to inspect the tomb first to verify the existence of the body in the tomb. Then they sealed it to prevent vandalism.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=otw ... ns&f=false

You are assuming that everyone would have been aware that that the body was already gone. In fact, you are assuming that everyone knew what happened to Jesus' body after He was crucified. Usually the body was dumped to be eaten by animals.

Why was there no opposition to this made up story of the resurrection? Legends take hundreds of years to evolve.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1169 by Claire Evans]

Why was there no opposition to this made up story of the resurrection? Legends take hundreds of years to evolve.

Evidence please that legends take hundreds of years. I am in fact aware of several legends that spread quite rapidly. I am aware of legends of Muhammed that he flew to heaven on a winged horse. I am aware of a Jewish rabbi who died in the 1990s and who was believed quite soon after his death to still be present, sitting on his favourite chair.

[Claire Evans]

Wouldn't it have been in the Bible if Jesus had a twin brother?

No. We know next to nothing about Christ's family.

The Bible mentions His siblings yet there is no mention of a twin brother which would have been very significant. Let's ask ourselves again: How would the brother have benefited?

If His bladder was pierced, urine would have come out of it in a trickle because He was seriously dehydrated. Agreed?

There is no verse that says: And lo! he was seriously dehydrated.

Come on!

John 19:28

Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty."

Medical causes:

Causes may include:

A recent salty or spicy meal

Bleeding enough to cause a large decrease in blood volume

Diabetes

Diabetes insipidus

Medicines such as anticholinergics, demeclocycline, diuretics, phenothiazines
Loss of body fluids from the bloodstream into the tissues due to conditions such as severe infections (sepsis) or burns, or heart, liver, or kidney failure
A mental disorder called psychogenic polydipsia

http://coordinatedhealth.com/condition/ ... excessive/


Can you not fully appreciate the medical ramifications from crucifixions?

The Romans knew where to pierce.

"The Romans" as you put it were rough, tough men pressed into service in that region. They were not conducting a medical diagnosis.

It was obviously something they had seen happen before. They didn't have to have medical knowledge. They were just taught how to pierce.

It was a common practice to spear a crucified person to verify death.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14750495

Let us ask ourselves: why have an insurrection? What would motivate them?

Claire - my proposal is NOT that the daft apostles were going to rebel but people in the background, with Jesus as their central character, were perhaps planning something that would rouse multitudes against Rome. It happened a few years later, and ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. It is merely speculation, of course, but it provides possible background to why somebody offered his rich tomb and how the body vanished. It's at least more plausible than resurrection.

Those other people would have to prove the resurrection to even get enough supporters needed for an insurrection. Trust me, there would have to had a lot of people for a insurrection. It would have had to be a massive conspiracy and that is not easy to orchestrate. The disciples would definitely have challenged that story and so would the Romans! It is because of the fear of an uprising that Pilate wanted to prevent the theft of the body. Any made up story of Jesus' resurrection would have made Pilate order the verification of the body being removed.

The destruction of Rome had nothing to do with the belief in Jesus' resurrection. So they didn't need a resurrection story to have an insurrection.

We'll ignore the Fatima digression. The point of it was to show that MANY people claim a miracle but they may not be believed or there may be other explanations. Same with the resurrection. I'm not interested in psychological theories about hallucinations.

Of course you are not interested in psychological theories about hallucinations. It's because it will weaken your argument. I wasn't disputing that when people claim miracles, they aren't always believed or there are other explanations. I made that very clear in previous comments. I was disputing mass hallucinations backed up by science.

What other medical explanation is there that would account for the water coming out of Jesus' side when pierced?

Water dripping from the sponge he was supplied with; sweat; urine; bad reporting; using what happened to some other crucified body and referring it to Christ, for after all the report is years out of date.

Without a body there is NO medical diagnosis, only speculation, presumably assisted by the report that the man was flogged and died later. If you are going to use the disputed details to prove the details are true, then what on earth do you gain?

Are you are saying the water dripping from the sponge suddenly caused it to come out of Jesus side? I am asking you for medical proof. Sweat, urine? Did you think the Romans were stupid?

We don't need a body. It is a medical fact that trauma can cause pleural effusion which causes water to come out if the chest cavity outside the lung is pierced. If someone in the ancient world had gangrene, people today would believe, because of medical knowledge today, that there was no blood supply to someone's limb, for example. It is not that hard to understand.

It is not a disputed detail that Jesus was crucified. Hence there is a solid basis to surmise how He died due to what we know today what causes the death of the crucified.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1171 by Claire Evans]

It is a medical fact...

If you are going to cite and rely on the corpus of medical knowledge to support your arguments, are you going to cite the well known fact in medical circles that bodies quite simply do not resurrect?

We don't need a body.

We don't? So this gives one leave to make up any story they want about any figure from history. I declare that Julius Caesar was a sufferer of AIDS. I can say that he had AIDS even though we do not have his body to examine.

I am asking you for medical proof.

Which can only be done with a body to examine. Sure, doctors can give opinions on descriptions of bodies told to them by relying on what they know, but opinions are not the same as an examination of an actual body.

If someone in the ancient world had gangrene, people today would believe, because of medical knowledge today, that there was no blood supply to someone's limb, for example.

If someone in the ancient world was said to have resurrected multiple days after dying, people today would believe, because of medical knowledge today, that that simply doesn't happen.

Are you are saying the water dripping from the sponge suddenly caused it to come out of Jesus side?

There's a logical fallacy here, but I can't recall the name of it. You say that water came out of Jesus's side, instead of blood, as would usually happen, and you believe the claim of water because later on, Jesus resurrected, thus proving his divinity.
Later 'proofs' of divinity cannot retroactively prove claims of magical water being secreted; you're trying to claim that Jesus secreted water instead of blood because he was divine...but his supposed divinity is itself a claim that you are trying to convince us of!

[polonius]

Claire Evans wrote:

What other medical explanation is there that would account for the water coming out of Jesus' side when pierced?

Rikuoamero posted:

There's a logical fallacy here, but I can't recall the name of it. You say that water came out of Jesus's side, instead of blood, as would usually happen, and you believe the claim of water because later on, Jesus resurrected, thus proving his divinity.

Later 'proofs' of divinity cannot retroactively prove claims of magical water being secreted; you're trying to claim that Jesus secreted water instead of blood because he was divine...but his supposed divinity is itself a claim that you are trying to convince us of!

RESPONSE: As we used to say in Latin: “Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc,� Latin for “After this, therefore, because of this.� But this may be a mistake that has to be avoided in both history and science.

Example: He threw a rock through the window and broke the glass. (Certainly true). Example: A jet flew overhead and the window broke. (There is no evidence that the noise of the jet broke the window).

John 19:34 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.

The immobilization of the arms lead to pulmonary edema and pleural effusion, with perhaps pericardial effusion which is largely water with a small amount of blood mixed. So a spear to the heart or lungs will bring forth blood and water. Thus a dead crucified person or a nearly dead crucified person would be expected to have these.

[Claire Evans]

Marco replied to Claire Evans thus:

You say that Fatima was based on hallucination. That was one of the theories you discarded about the Resurrection, since SO MANY witnessed it and they could not all be hallucinating. But of course Catholics are especially prone to hallucinations, but not the disciples and their friends! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dismiss X and you must also dismiss Y lest we start accepting the miraculous rather than an earthly explanation.

.

RESPONSE: Wait a minute. Who were the “so many� who witnessed the Resurrection?

If Jesus was on earth for many weeks, there would have been a lot of people who would have saw Him.

The resurrection, according to the Gospel stories, happened in Joseph's tomb, where Jesus's body was alone (there were supposedly guards standing outside).
No-one saw this event itself take place.

What I'm pointing out is sloppy logic. If I had an operation in a hospital to remove a cancerous tumour (that will kill me if left alone), where it was myself and two surgeons in the operating theatre, and three weeks later I'm walking around talking to my extended family, it is NOT correct to say my extended family 'witnessed' my operation, because now they're talking to me.
Yes, my talking to family outside the hospital weeks later is a result of the operation, it can only happen because of it but my communicating with family is not the operation itself.


Even if I were to don a Christian hat and believe Christianity again, it doesn't make sense to say people 'witnessed the Resurrection' because so many people saw Jesus afterward. They did not. The Resurrection took place in a tomb where no-one saw it happen.

Semantics. If you want to be particular, then fine. People saw the resurrected Christ.