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?

[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?

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.

What you're doing there is completely unfounded speculation. If one is willing to cite science, then one is bound to cite science and only science. You cannot just drop it the instant science says "Nope, doesn't happen".
You've agreed that when it comes to medical science and the resurrection, the claim of a resurrection fails.
For me, that's where I stop. Should I continue to say a resurrection did happen anyway, I'm now being illogical and inventing an explanation where none is justified. You want the resurrection to be true, and so, even if medical science says no, you believe it anyway, and introduce an unscientific supernatural agent with no evidence of its own to 'explain' it.

Imagine if someone else tells you someone trashed their bedroom. Okay, you might think to yourself, someone broke in, probably broke a window or picked a lock. However, this friend says their bedroom is in a house dozens of miles from civilisation, every room in the house has three locks on the door, every lock is was still locked, every window was intact...are you willing to say "I believe you, even though forensic science says no. The intruder must have phased through the walls with magic"?
Notice that
1) you are not given an opportunity to investigate the bedroom
2) all you have to go on is the person's story
3) forensic science states no intruder could have broken in, not with every means of entry intact

[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.

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.

Your reply here reads to me like you take the word 'legend' to mean 'false'.
Far from it.
I myself do not know what happened at Roswell. That was decades before my time, and I haven't looked into it myself.
What I am aware of is that there is a thriving community that believes wholeheartedly that there was indeed an ET spacecraft, one recovered by the US military.
This group maintains their belief despite the work of others. There are books and DVDs detailing how there was a spacecraft, and other books and DVDs detailing how there wasn't.
The group of believers is able to maintain their belief despite it being decades after the fact and despite plenty of work from non-believers, in an era of mass communication.

Since the group of believers are able to do that in what are hostile conditions to their beliefs, I have no reason to suppose it couldn't have happened 2,000 years ago, when conditions were much better for beliefs.

[polonius]

[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.

Your reply here reads to me like you take the word 'legend' to mean 'false'.
Far from it.
I myself do not know what happened at Roswell. That was decades before my time, and I haven't looked into it myself.
What I am aware of is that there is a thriving community that believes wholeheartedly that there was indeed an ET spacecraft, one recovered by the US military.
This group maintains their belief despite the work of others. There are books and DVDs detailing how there was a spacecraft, and other books and DVDs detailing how there wasn't.
The group of believers is able to maintain their belief despite it being decades after the fact and despite plenty of work from non-believers, in an era of mass communication.

Since the group of believers are able to do that in what are hostile conditions to their beliefs, I have no reason to suppose it couldn't have happened 2,000 years ago, when conditions were much better for beliefs.

RESPONSE:

What is Legend
A legend is a popular narrative that is usually perceived to be true, but not validated by evidence. Many legends function within the area of uncertainty, never being entirely believed by the listeners, but also never being resolutely doubted. Legends tend to be plausible because of their historical event or location. However, in spite of this tie, there is no evidence to prove that these events actually took place.


http://pediaa.com/difference-between-hi ... nd-legend/

Since the group of believers are able to do that in what are hostile conditions to their beliefs, I have no reason to suppose it couldn't have happened 2,000 years ago, when conditions were much better for beliefs.

RESPONSE:

I only go by the evidence, not necessarily what people want to believe. And, of course, if there are any contradictions, then one version (or sometimes both) cannot be true.

[Replying to post 1179 by Claire Evans]

Quote:
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.

RESPONSE: "Because it fits medical science"????

That isn't a creditable reason. For example, Elvis still being alive unless the evidence shows that he died.

I believe there is creditable evidence that Jesus was executed as a rebel against Rome under Pilate. (see the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius).

But there is no real historical evidence that Jesus died and was raised from the dead(or all those other people that Matthew claims were raised from the dead too and appeared to the residents of Jerusalem). Just something written 50 years after the supposed events by a non-witness to make converts.

[Claire Evans]

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.

What made you think no one believed the resurrection claim before Paul? Are you suggesting there were no witnesses according to the Bible? Why do people believe the gospel starts with Paul?

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.

And you think this would be acceptable to Pilate? He could have thought one of the disciples had bribed one of the guards. That's a serious crime.

"Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote: "A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it, whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept. (The Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military System, sec. 37)"

You do not put legal seals on tombs that have not been inspected.

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.

There was a reason why it wasn't stopped according to the Bible and that is because they feel asleep. Most likely due to supernatural reasons it is implying because neither of the guards would have dared to have done that. If the tomb was empty all this time then Matthew 28:11-15 would not have made sense:

"11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."

No one said, "We didn't bother to check to see if there was a body or not."

You are suggesting that that the body was taken before the guards were there. They were stationed there on Saturday morning. So the hypothesis is that the body was removed on Friday evening in the dark. Here ares some problems:

1.) The women would not have gone to bring spices for Jesus on Saturday if the tomb was empty.

2.) It would have been forbidden to transport the body to Galilee especially over the Sabbath whereby it is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body.

"It is a Biblical commandment to bury one's deceased immediately after passing, and it is forbidden to leave the deceased unburied overnight unless it is for his honor (i.e. to perform a proper Tahara, obtain shrouds, arrange for a burial plot, gather family, etc.)."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... c-Laws.htm

There is a different set of rules of those who had been crucified:

Time of Burial
The Hebrews buried their dead immediately, no later than a day after the person passed away. According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia," this custom stems from the Mosaic Law, which ordered that any person hung from a "tree" or "cross" as a form of execution, should be taken down and buried within a day after death. And while this law applies directly to the bodies of executed criminals, the Hebrews generally applied it to everyone. Jesus Christ, after he died from execution on a "tree" or "cross," was buried within a day.


http://people.opposingviews.com/burial- ... -3341.html


Deut. 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree (cross): but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."(quoted Ibid.).

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.

So you assume that 500 risen people walking around Jerusalem suddenly destroys the credibility of the resurrection story? That's a logical fallacy. In history today, there are many contradictions and just plain made up things.

I don't believe that really happened. I believe that it is a legend. It happens with some truth at the start and then is embellished later. What most likely happened was that the earthquake was so violent, that it unearthed bodies from the grave.

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.

There is nothing preventing a Roman guard from inspecting the tomb. After all, it was a Roman seal.

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.

Romans put on legal seals. That is why the Jews approached Pilate.



"When the chief priests and Pharisees asked that “…the sepulchre be made sure…,� the Greek word sphragidzo is used. This word described a legal seal that was placed on documents, letters, possessions, or, in this case, a tomb. Its purpose was to authenticate that the sealed item had been properly inspected before sealing and that all the contents were in order. As long as the seal remained unbroken, it guaranteed that the contents inside were safe and sound. In this case, the word sphragidzo is used to signify the sealing of the tomb. In all probability, it was a string that was stretched across the stone at the entrance of the tomb, which was then sealed on both sides by Pilate’s legal authorities."


http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/ ... n-the-tomb

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?

I've looked at the Greek translation and this is what it says:

efh de autoiV o pilatoV ecete koustwdian upagete asfalisasqe wV oidate


http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm

Koustwdian means custodian.

Sentry:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1. (n.) A soldier placed on guard; a sentinel.
2. (n.) Guard; watch, as by a sentinel.

... guard, sentry. Of Latin origin; "custody", ie A Roman sentry -- watch. (koustodian) --

However, the evidence clearly points to the guard being comprised of
detachment of as many as 16 highly trained, fully armed, combat-ready
Roman soldiers. Here’s why we say this:
1. When asked for a guard, Pilate told the Jewish leaders, "You have
a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how."
(Matthew 27:65)

a. The statement of Pilate is actually in the form of the
PRESENT IMPERATIVE in the Greek – which would be more
correctly translated as, "HAVE A GUARD!" In other words,
Pilate is telling them they CAN have a guard, rather than
saying “you already have your OWN guard.�
(1). In fact, a marginal note in the English Revised Version
(1885) says Pilate meant, "TAKE" a guard.
2. Add to this the fact that Pilate used the Greek word "koustoodian"
(translated "Roman sentry"), and which means, (according to
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament), "a guard of
Roman soldiers, not mere temple police."
3. Therefore, the statement of Pilate meant he was granting
permission for a detachment of Roman soldiers to go with the
Jewish authorities and guard the tomb, making it as secure as they
knew how

http://www.searchingthescriptures.net/m ... rt%207.pdf

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.

Everyone who witnessed the crucifixion. And you need to ask why on earth would the disciples have moved the body over night especially since you know it was forbidden to touch bodies over the Sabbath and bury a crucified person immediately.

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.

According to the Bible, they went to Galilee to meet Jesus.

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.

Why make this assumption? Things that happen always start off as oral tradition.
Why would the disciples have made up this story decades later? Who would be convinced?

[Claire Evans]

[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.

You are assuming that the gospel writers had contact with the witnesses so this analogy is wrong.


How many times must I mention oral tradition?


"One of the assumptions that is now being overturned in the discipline of orality studies is the longstanding idea that oral traditions are incapable of transmitting extended narratives. It was commonly assumed that long narratives simply would have been too difficult to remember to be passed on reliably. Unfortunately for this assumption, a large number of fieldwork studies over the last several decades have “brought to light numerous long oral epics in the living traditions of Central Asia, India, Africa, and Oceania, for example.� Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.� (6) In fact, oral narratives lasting up to 25 hours and requiring several days to perform have been documented! (7) Indeed, oral performances — that is, times when the community’s narrator (or “tradent�) passes on oral traditions to the community — almost always presuppose a broader narrative framework even when the narrative itself is not explicitly included in the performance. (8) There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."

We know that Paul was a apostle alongside Peter. Do you think Peter would allow Paul to make up nonsense? In fact, if the resurrection story was made up by Paul, why would Paul be an apostle?

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.

Later writings attempt to refute the resurrection:

From the Toledote Yesh

Yeshu was arrested and beaten with pomegranate staves. He was taken to Tiberias and bound to a synagogue pillar. Vinegar was given to him to drink and a crown of thorns was put on his head. An argument broke out between the elders and Yeshu followers resulting in their escape to Antioch (or Egypt). On the day before the Passover, Yeshu decided to go to the Temple and recover the secret name. He entered Jerusalem riding on an ass, but one of his followers, Judah Iskarioto, told the sages he was in the Temple. On a day before the Passover, they tried to hang him on a tree; using the name he caused it, and any tree they should use, to break. A cabbage stalk, being not a tree, was used successfully to hang him on, and he was buried.

His followers on Sunday told the queen that he was not in his grave, that he ascended to heaven as he had prophesied. As a gardener took him from the grave, they searched it and could not find him. But the gardener confessed he had taken it to prevent his followers from stealing his body and claiming his ascension to heaven. Recovering the body, the sages tied it to horse tail and took it to the queen. Convinced he was a false prophet, she ridiculed his followers and commended the sages.[38]

Diligent search was made and he [Jesus—KB] was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.



The source material for the Toledot can be said to derive from four sources: (1) Jewish rabbinic literature; (2) canonical Christian scriptures; (3) noncanonical Christian writings; (4) pagan anti-Christian writings of the Roman period.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu


https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... rticle=896

However, to eyewitnesses, there was no incentive to even mention the resurrection let alone try and refute it:

"The Pharisees certainly would not be promoting writings on the resurrection of Jesus. The Pharisees went to great lengths to prevent any possibility of fraud in the matter of Jesus resurrection. They had a better knowledge of the promise of resurrection than the disciples themselves did, and they did not want any possibility of fraudulent attempts on the part of the disciples to gain credibility by stealing the body, then claiming it had been raised from the dead.
(Mat 27:62-66 KJV)

They went to great pains after the resurrection of Jesus to try to hush it up, because they knew that if the facts of the matter were broadcast, there would be no controlling the people as they turned towards Jesus, and away from them. As the disciples went to the city to proclaim the joyful news of the resurrected Christ, the men appointed to watch the grave to prevent this very thing went to report to their masters.
(Mat 28:11-15 KJV)

Again, after the resurrection and ascension into heaven, the Jewish rulers still tried to restrain the doctrine that Jesus had arisen from the dead. (Acts 4:1-3 KJV)

If the above is true, it makes logical sense that there would be a lack of evidence."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/resurrection.html

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?

I think Pilate would have been eager to refute the claims of the resurrection. After all, He put Jesus to death and heard about the claims that Jesus would rise from the dead. He was afraid of sedition. He probably thought the claims of the resurrection would gain them followers and be a threat to the Roman Empire.

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

Oral tradition as mentioned above. The core of Christianity never changed. The crucifixion, the resurrection, etc. Today Christians don't even agree on everything. Yet this does not prove the resurrection didn't happen.

[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.

What you're doing there is completely unfounded speculation. If one is willing to cite science, then one is bound to cite science and only science. You cannot just drop it the instant science says "Nope, doesn't happen".

Nonsense. What I'm trying to say is the evidence suggests the possibility of the supernatural which is separate from science.

You've agreed that when it comes to medical science and the resurrection, the claim of a resurrection fails.
For me, that's where I stop. Should I continue to say a resurrection did happen anyway, I'm now being illogical and inventing an explanation where none is justified. You want the resurrection to be true, and so, even if medical science says no, you believe it anyway, and introduce an unscientific supernatural agent with no evidence of its own to 'explain' it.

In this case, I'm not going to say the resurrection did happen for the debate's sake. What I am trying to do is whittle down other explanations so that it is reasonable to assume that the resurrection claim is the most probable.

Imagine if someone else tells you someone trashed their bedroom. Okay, you might think to yourself, someone broke in, probably broke a window or picked a lock. However, this friend says their bedroom is in a house dozens of miles from civilisation, every room in the house has three locks on the door, every lock is was still locked, every window was intact...are you willing to say "I believe you, even though forensic science says no. The intruder must have phased through the walls with magic"?
Notice that
1) you are not given an opportunity to investigate the bedroom
2) all you have to go on is the person's story
3) forensic science states no intruder could have broken in, not with every means of entry intact

That's the thing. I did not believe anyone would have believed the resurrection story unless they saw it themselves. Only Jesus appearing to people would have defied what is logically yet make people believe.

So unless I can see it for myself, I have no reason to distrust forensic science as in your argument. If I saw the intruder passing though walls, then I'd believe it!

Therefore the question should be asked: Why were there so many believers?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1199 by Claire Evans]

You are assuming that the gospel writers had contact with the witnesses so this analogy is wrong.


How many times must I mention oral tradition?

Now you've just weakened your position immensely. So the gospel writers didn't talk to witnesses.

Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.�

Like I argued with JW in another thread...did this actually happen? It's not enough to say that some people told hours long epics. Did the Israelis after 30 AD do that?

There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."

I don't recall anyone here suggesting it was made up by the Gospel authors. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. They talked to some people, who according to you, didn't have to be witnesses themselves, and wrote down what they were told.

We know that Paul was a apostle alongside Peter. Do you think Peter would allow Paul to make up nonsense? In fact, if the resurrection story was made up by Paul, why would Paul be an apostle?

What if Peter didn't think it was nonsense? What if it was perfectly plausible in Peter's mind that long-dead wise teachers could appear in visions to whoever they chose?
Either way, we don't have anything from Peter to indicate what he thought (the authorship of the Petrine epistles is in doubt).
For you to be using a man as a metric as to whether other people made things up, when we don't have ANYTHING that we can be assured is from that man, we don't know how he thought...

Therefore the question should be asked: Why were there so many believers?

Why were there believers in the Heaven's Gate cult?
Why are there believers in Scientology?
Your logic supposes that because there is an initial core group of believers in X, then X must be true.
This leads you to mutually exclusive claims. Islam had an initial core group of believers.

So unless I can see it for myself, I have no reason to distrust forensic science as in your argument. If I saw the intruder passing though walls, then I'd believe it!

Great to hear that you're now dropping Christianity!
Wait...you're confused to as to what I mean?

Let me requote the example I gave.

Imagine if someone else tells you someone trashed their bedroom. Okay, you might think to yourself, someone broke in, probably broke a window or picked a lock. However, this friend says their bedroom is in a house dozens of miles from civilisation, every room in the house has three locks on the door, every lock is was still locked, every window was intact...are you willing to say "I believe you, even though forensic science says no. The intruder must have phased through the walls with magic"?
Notice that
1) you are not given an opportunity to investigate the bedroom
2) all you have to go on is the person's story
3) forensic science states no intruder could have broken in, not with every means of entry intact

1) We do not have the opportunity to examine Jesus's tomb, since we don't know where it is. Even if someone claims this tomb Y is his tomb...how can we verify?
2) We only have the stories of the New Testament to go on, just like you have only the person's story to go on that his bedroom was even ransacked at all.
3) various fields of science state a resurrection cannot happen.

[polonius]

[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.

RESPONSE: The "Resurrection" (along with the Matthew reported resurrection of all those people when Jesus died) is a nice story.

If it had really occurred, at least a few of many of the witnesses and the many more people they told would have written something about it. None did.

And, of course, the Romans would have captured Jesus and executed him again so Roman law would have been carried out.

Are you familiar with the case with the 6000 crucifixions of Spartacus' followers in Rome about 60 years earlier?

Of course, there is nothing about Jesus resurrection written until 25 - 70 years after the supposed event. What does that tell you?

[JLB32168]

RESPONSE:If [the Resurrection] had really occurred, at least a few of many of the witnesses and the many more people they told would have written something about it. None did.

How can you possibly know that to be the case?

And, of course, the Romans would have captured Jesus and executed him again so Roman law would have been carried out.

If Christ truthfully resurrected then a supernatural event occurred that was carried out by an omnipotent deity. Rome would be “haply found even to fight against God.�

Of course, there is nothing about Jesus resurrection written until 25 - 70 years after the supposed event.

You cannot possibly know that either.

[polonius]

RESPONSE:If [the Resurrection] had really occurred, at least a few of many of the witnesses and the many more people they told would have written something about it. None did.

How can you possibly know that to be the case?

RESPONSE: Simple. There are no writings despite of the amazing nature of the claim.

And, of course, the Romans would have captured Jesus and executed him again so Roman law would have been carried out.

If Christ truthfully resurrected then a supernatural event occurred that was carried out by an omnipotent deity. Rome would be “haply found even to fight against God.�

RESPONSE: Neither the Romans or orthodox Jews considered Jesus to be divine.

Of course, there is nothing about Jesus resurrection written until 25 - 70 years after the supposed event.

You cannot possibly know that either.

RESPONSE: Simple. There are no writings despite of the amazing nature of the claim.

Question: How can someone "possibly" know that Jesus isn't flying around the universe in a UFO? Answer: Same way. Since there is no evidence. I stopped playing "let's pretend" years ago.