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?

[Clownboat]

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.

That is my point. This claim was not believable until decades after the event took place by a man that never even saw Jesus.

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.

Also my point. If Pontius Pilate knew a guard was set and that the tomb was empty on Sunday, then he would have known that a guard was set at an empty tomb. No big deal. If the guard was not set at an empty tomb, then the guards could have stopped the body from being taken. The fact of the matter is that a guard was set later in the timeline which gave ample opportunity for the disciples to place hundreds of pounds of spices on the body before moving it to Galilee.

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?

If the event really happened and if 500 people got out of their graves and walked Jerusalem, then IMO it would have gained credibility right away. The dead rising from their graves by the hundreds goes without being recorded in Roman history like it never happened.

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?

They believed that they became unclean if they entered a tomb. That weekend being a high holy day would have prevented the guard from entering. That would be why, come Sunday they discovered that they had been guarding an empty tomb.

The tomb had a Roman seal on it.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Tombs were often sealed with cork shaped rocks back in those days.

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.

Wait a minute, how can you know that these were Roman guards and not Jewish temple guards?

You are assuming that everyone would have been aware that that the body was already gone.

Everyone? That is not necessary. It would only require that Joseph of Arimathaea (who was a disciple of Jesus) knew. I would imagine others new as well, but again, this story did not become known until many decades later. Joseph and any others in on burying the body in Galilee may have been long dead.

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.

According to the Bible itself, the body was coated in 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes. This sure would have kept the smell of the body down if they intended to travel with it.
Now where did they go after? That's right, they journeyed to the dead man's home region of Galilee. Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites.

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

Once again, my point. The story wouldn't require any opposition if no one believed it until many decades later in an area of the world where the claimed resurrection didn't even take place.

[H.sapiens]

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

In the Bible, of course.

Therein lies the issue, the Bible can not be used as "documentation" it contains too many clear and obvious errors and has highly questionable provenance.

[Zzyzx]

.

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

In the Bible, of course.

Therein lies the issue, the Bible can not be used as "documentation" it contains too many clear and obvious errors and has highly questionable provenance.

Additionally, attempting to use the Bible to 'document' Bible stories is just a WEE BIT irrational.

"The Bible story must be true because it is in the Bible" . . . .

[Claire Evans]

[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.

You are assuming these are legends?? Have you heard of cover ups? Do you believe that the US government doesn't know about extra-terrestrials who are physical? Here it is:

Pay particular attention to page 22:


https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

http://www.roswellfiles.com/gummint.htm

Regarding JFK:

http://garyrevel.com/News/press_release_11.html

There is a difference between legends and conspiracies.

[Claire Evans]

.

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

In the Bible, of course.

Therein lies the issue, the Bible can not be used as "documentation" it contains too many clear and obvious errors and has highly questionable provenance.

Additionally, attempting to use the Bible to 'document' Bible stories is just a WEE BIT irrational.

"The Bible story must be true because it is in the Bible" . . . .

To many errors? So every ancient document in history is devoid of errors? What errors do you speak of?

You are automatically dismissing the reliability of the NT.

Anyway, I am arguing from the premise of the Bible based on the non disputed premise of the crucifixion. I have said previously, nonsense claims which would have had an undesirable effect to some people would have soon have been debunked. Yet no ancient Jewish sources deny it happened.

[Claire Evans]

People saw the resurrected Christ.

That is documented where?

In the Bible, of course.

Therein lies the issue, the Bible can not be used as "documentation" it contains too many clear and obvious errors and has highly questionable provenance.

Like?

[Claire Evans]

[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?

Did you not read what I said? I never said it was a medical fact that Jesus rose from the dead. I was saying it was a medical fact that water coming out of a body is a sign of a pleural effusion yet it is denied by some here.

As for the resurrection, I am using the process of elimination.

If I tried to prove that the resurrection occurred to what is medically possible, I would fail. Yet we need to consider the possibility of the supernatural which can defy death.

[Claire Evans]

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?

Not really. In the Bible it is recorded that He went to Jerusalem and Galilee which means there must have been plenty of witnesses.

[Claire Evans]

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.

Yet there were witnesses which were alive when the gospels were written down.

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

As you should now, there were no writings from first hand persons. The gospels existed in oral tradition until at least 50 AD.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1193 by Claire Evans]

Yet there were witnesses which were alive when the gospels were written down.

Again...who? Of the documents/books in the Bible, NONE were written by those eyewitnesses.
Paul by his own account wasn't around.
And that's it.
If you want to introduce the Gospels...who were the people who talked to the Gospel authors?
We don't know.
If a news reporter today wants to introduce something as an eyewitness account, they will at least give a name as to who they talked to.
If you want to say something like "they would have refuted it"...this is shifting the burden of proof and also ignoring the fact that we quite simply don't have all documents from that time period. It is entirely possible that there were such documents but that they quite simply have been lost.
You'd also be ignoring the fact that
1) no-one would have cared to refute the claims of a resurrection. The earliest groups of Christians numbered less than a thousand...why would any authority bother with a group that small?
2) the actual specific claims as to what happened to Jesus can be dated at their earliest to decades after the event, and even then, we don't know exactly what the people believed. There was infighting amongst the earliest Christians as to whether Jesus even resurrected at all, or was part man and part god, or fully human and fully god, or one or the other