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?

[H.sapiens]

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

[Claire Evans]

[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.

Legends form by being in oral tradition form for hundreds of years:

"The great myths and legends were not authored by individuals the way stories are today but were evolved naturally and instinctively by unconscious processes in oral traditions. Even if they started out as made-up or true stories, revelations or dreams, they still ended up for long periods of time in oral traditions and that became the principal dynamic behind their creation.

The process went something like this: it began with a real or imagined incident or event that was worth repeating, something so intriguing that we were compelled to repeat it. It was passed along by word of mouth, from person to person and from generation to generation until it had been told and retold millions of times and existed in a hundred different versions around the world."

"The real Trojan War, then, was the incident worth repeating, and Achilles was the greatest warrior fighting on the Greek side. It is controversial whether someone named Homer, the accredited author of The Iliad and The Odyssey, the famous legendary accounts of this war, actually existed, but assuming he did, the true story of the Trojan War had already spent four hundred years in the oral tradition before he put his poetic stamp on it, and another three or four hundred years in the oral tradition after his contribution before it was actually written down. In that time it had evolved from the real incidents worth repeating into a truly miraculous tale in which the swift-footed Achilles has become the nearly immortal and invincible son of Thetis, a sea goddess. All of the other gods, including Zeus, have taken sides and are playing active roles in the war and all manner of miraculous things are occurring. These immortal characters and miraculous occurrences have a psychological significance which goes far beyond anything a factual account of the real incidents could ever have conveyed. They do, in fact, reveal an excellent picture of the human psyche in transformation. And, more specifically, the consequences of anger on that transformation. All things we would have difficulty finding in a real account of that war."

The earliest manuscript of the Quran is 200 years after Mohammed's death.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-k ... cripts.htm

As for the Jewish rabbi, a legend would have to be widely spread and believed. Just being gullible doesn't make a legend.

[Claire Evans]

[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?

I'm using medical knowledge to support the crucifixion. The reason why Jesus died is medically proven. However, when it came to the resurrection, I am using the process of elimination. We now are open to the possibility that the supernatural exists. Jesus didn't die of any supernatural means.

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'm sure you are aware that AIDS did not exist during the time of Julius Caesar. What we do know is that trauma to the chest can cause pleural effusions. We have no other medical explanation.

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.

Therefore I can't be sure that gangrene caused a loss of a limb because of a lack of blood circulation. Even if I was told an ancient person had it, it cannot be believed because no one today examined the body.

Therefore you need to give me other medical explanations why water came out of Jesus' side.

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.

I'm not talking about the resurrection. I'm talking about the crucifixion.

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!

Water coming out of the side is not a magical thing. It's a medical thing. 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. Jesus was not the first person to have a spear pierced through Him to check for death.

[Claire Evans]

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

In the Bible, of course.

[Claire Evans]

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).

It is true that there could be other possibilities as in your argument. However, what other medical explanation is there for the water coming out of Jesus' side? We need to know other explanations to deduce which one is true.

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.

This is what I've been arguing all along. This is why we can be certain this is what happened because it fits medical science.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1176 by Claire Evans]

There are people today who are convinced that an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947, just slightly over 69 years ago. Go into any bookstore, and you will find books about it, about how it happened. Go to any video store, you will find DVDs on it. Go onto Youtube or do a search for it, you will find plenty of people who talk about it and believe it.
That has happened in 69 years, in modern times, with people using the scientific method to check the ground at Roswell, with people doing fact-checking...and despite all of that, the legend of Roswell lives on.
There are people who are convinced there was a second JFK shooter...again decades after the fact, again despite plenty of conversation and rebuttals.
In my mind, if legends like those can form and survive despite conditions like that, there is no reason for me to suspect legends surrounding Jesus couldn't also have formed and survived, in much easier conditions.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1179 by Claire Evans]

This is what I've been arguing all along. This is why we can be certain this is what happened because it fits medical science.

I will repeat what I said before. You are too quick to point to and cite medical knowledge here...but when it comes to the actual resurrection, you will discard medical knowledge.
Are you going to be consistent on what you cite?

[polonius]

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

In the Bible, of course.

You aren't by chance referring to Paul's 1 Cor 15 "seen by 500 people" are you?

[polonius]

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

RESPONSE: Obviously because there was no story until 55 AD when Paul (a non-witness) wrote one. Can you cite an earlier one?

And if you look up history, legend, and folklore, you will find that legends usually develop in about 20 years, e.g Travis' famous line in the sand at the Alamo, George Washington's throwing a dollar across the Potomac and chopping down the cherry tree , and Elvis sightings, etc.

[Goat]

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

That is the claim. None of the gospels are first hand accounts, but are only claims about others.

Can you show any writing from a first hand person who didn't claim it was a vision?