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?

[marco]

If God played at Wimbledon then he would easily defeat Djokovic or Murray or Federer.

Game, set and match to God.

If such was his wont, but he could lose on purpose. However, he would be fined for throwing the match.

Nonetheless, I guess the point stands that we are allowing that his will could not be thwarted.

That brings up an interesting point, Vespasian. Given God's impressive ability to do anything, if he wanted to convince people by allowing Christ to rise from the dead there are a thousand ways, surely, that he could have done a better job! Our very discussion in a way shows not that God was inefficient, but that no resurrection took place.

[JLB32168]

I said Rome attacked deities and won. You are endowing your deity with omnipotence, so that Rome would not -in theory - win.

Well . . . yes – an omnipotent deity is somewhat powerful – so I’m told. That being the case, I’m not sure how Imperial Rome would be able to throw a wrench into that deity’s plans unless said deity wanted it done – but I see that TFV has already addressed that point.

I agree. If God played at Wimbledon then he would easily defeat Djokovic or Murray or Federer. Game, set and match to God.

See – wasn’t that painless? And you didn’t even have to admit that God existed. Would that many others of like position as you could grasp this concept.

[marco]

See – wasn’t that painless? And you didn’t even have to admit that God existed. Would that many others of like position as you could grasp this concept.

Thank you for your generous praise, JLB. It will please you to know that God has accepted an invitation to tea (but not tennis) next Wednesday and of course I will mention you.

Expect some blessing to follow.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1225 by marco]

Yes, it has always struck me as something of a Rube Goldberg machine coupled with a ‘just-so story’. There are many examples of these kind of stories that seem an oddly circuitous way of doing thing granting the ‘tools’ at the disposal of the prime mover. Then again, as I have said before I am not a religious man.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

Most persons follow the common sense advice of Aristotle and "seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows."

Okay – so you have not confirmed that nothing was written until Paul wrote his letters. In fact, someone might have written something that no longer survives prior to Paul’s writing. After all, where did Paul get his information if not from something he read?

RESPONSE: One can always pretend and not have to supply any evidence. How exactly would one "confirm" what doesn't exist?

Actually, if you have read Galatians 4, Paul does report the natural birth of Christ the same as all men's births.

Paul reports that Christ was born. Paul’s description doesn’t exclude the traditional Christian interpretation. Few skeptic sites I’ve searched point out this alleged problem. It seems your interpretation of Galatians is unique to you."

RESPONSE: Paul reports the obvious. He is comparing all Jewish births with Jesus' birth. . Nothing remarkable as Paul is saying. Matthew's "virgin birth" story didn't get written for the next 25 years about the same time as Matthew's Ascension story. or Matthew's multiple resurrection story.

I disagree with your conclusion clearly not supported by any evidence.

My conclusion is that an omnipotent deity, should it exist, would have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army. Are you perhaps addressing an argument that you wish I had made? In any case, your disagreement with the aforementioned conclusion makes no sense to me, but okay.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you would enjoy this article on Paul's account of Jesus' birth as compared with what you term the "traditional Christian interpretation."

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/jesusbornunderthelaw.html

Having no evidence to support your "what if" rebuttal feel free to fall back on the old "God could have, God should have, so God must have" argument. (Its the same one used to argue that Mary's Assumption really occurred).

Some of us will stick with the facts and prefer not to play the "What if?" game.

[Clownboat]

Okay, which source do you believe should have recorded the resurrection outside of the Bible?

Any and every source that knew the claim to be true, but the Romans specifically since they recorded tax records, records of land ownership, public decrees and many other types of documents.
Face it, the Romans were gullible enough to believe in their false gods, knowing that a true god (or son of a god) and 500 other dead bodies resurrected should convince especially the gullible that there actually is a true god out there.
How about Seneca the Younger too? He was a Roman Stoic philosopher that lived during the time of Jesus. We have much of his work. No mention of a resurrection or the 500 corpses walking around.

It started with the eyewitnesses, of course! If there was no claim of a resurrection after Jesus was crucified, how would Paul have known about the resurrection claim?

Perhaps some people moved his body secretly. This would mean that there would be followers that might honestly believe that the corpse came back to life.
There is also the possibility that he made the whole thing up and just embellished upon rumors that began after a few decades.
Both of these options are possible in the reality that we share. Resurrections, not so much.

Can you show that Pilate was worried about the guard, whether is was a temple guard or a Roman guard being bribed? Perhaps he was worried that aliens were going to take the body too? We can speculate all we want, but acts that defy reality deserve more than just speculation IMO.
Why wouldn't Pilate become a follower of Christ if he actually resurrected? Why wouldn't he become a follower after witnessing 500 dead bodies coming out of their graves and walking the streets?

Why would Pilate be worried? Because the body was the property of Rome when the tomb was sealed.

Not if there was no body in the tomb when it was sealed.

He deliberately didn't want claims of a resurrection so you believe he wouldn't be unhappy if one of the guards got bribed and showed him up?

The gospels, written many decades after the fact by unknown authors make these claims. For all we know, no guard was even set. It's possible that the story was written down based off of claims only, like Joseph Smith and his golden plates, only worse because so many decades passed. Joseph Smith claims were at least contemporary.

Pilate put himself first. He didn't want to lose his position as governor of Judea. Imagine if he went against the Jewish authorities who were employed by the Romans. Sedition, outrage!

Now imagine if no resurrection happened. Pilate wouldn't even worry about such things. Your confirmation bias has your starting point being that a resurrection happened. I cannot begin as such a starting point because I'm skeptical and bodies have NEVER been dead for days and come back to life that I'm aware of. The internals are darn near liquefied at that point.

This is significant because this is the penalty of someone who is derelict on duty. Do you believe a guard would dare let the body be stolen?

No, I don't believe a guard would have let the body be stolen. So, if there was a guard, the body would have been taken on Friday evening before a guard was set.

Do you believe a guard would dare be so lazy or incompetent as to not examine a tomb to authenticate that the body was there in the first place?

Yes, especially if the guard was a temple guard.

Come on. You know what I meant. Romans in general.

And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone (Matthew 27:66)
How do you know Romans placed this seal (assuming the gospels even have this claim correct)?

Doesn't need to be said. It was a high holy day, entering a tomb would have been considered unclean.

And a Roman guard couldn't have done that?

I suppose a Roman guard could have, but if they didn't expect a resurrection and only worried about the body being taken, then all they would have cared about was that the tomb was in the same condition as it was when they arrived. It being empty on Sunday, they would have gone home content that they had guarded an empty tomb.

A Jewish temple guard however would not have entered the tomb, but the same scenario would apply to them as well.

It's only the gospels, written decades later that claim there was a seal and a guard. You have to keep that in mind.
Tell me, do you believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel and given golden plates and magic glasses? If you are skeptical of this, perhaps some skeptisism is in order over when the gospels were written because they are not contemporary sources like Joseph Smiths claims.

It doesn't make any sense to think they would have taken Jesus' body overnight. The Bible says they only went to Galilee when Jesus rose from the dead.

100 lbs of spices and they went to a logical place to permanently bury the body. Did they leave on Friday night or Sunday morning? Who knows.

This is not a hypothesis. It is a fact according to the story that the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted.

It's a fact? So you know for a fact that the disciples took Jesus' body over night?

No, it is a fact that according to the Bible, the disciples had control of the body and time to do with it what they wanted. It's also a fact that when these stories were written down that it's possible that they were not recorded even close to how things happened.

Having control over the body does not automatically assume that it would be mean they would take the body overnight.

Agreed, but they did put 100 lbs of spices on it and then traveled to a logical place to bury the body.

We know that a crucified person has to be buried immediately.

No, a crucified person is supposed to be buried immediately, but if the persons homeland was a 3 day journey away, it would be impossible to bury the body immediately.

I do not believe even spices can prevent the decomposition of a body in the hot sun.

Correct, but they would help to mask the smell. I have no doubt that the body was in very poor condition after being dead for 3 days.

He is another thing to consider:

"Delaying a prompt burial for any reason other than ensuring a proper, kosher burial is considered a disgrace to the deceased. One should be aware that the soul is in turmoil and does not find rest until the body is properly buried."

"Bury me with my fathers," Jacob's request (Gen. 49:29), was the wish of every ancient Israelite. Now where would Jesus wish to be burried. Yup, Galilee.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... urial.html

"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.)."

And? Does this make it impossible for them to take a 100 lb spiced body to Galilee with them? If so, explain.

What makes you think there is no historicity in the Bible?

The Bible is not a history book. Spider Man takes place in New York, so it has history in it, but it is not a history book itself.

Well, this is the reason why I'm debating using the process of elimination method. I see no other explanation. There is another explanation how the saints resurrection story came about. It is another story when it comes to the resurrection. There was no refutation by the highest authorities which most certainly would have found it in the best interest to do so.

I don't understand. If 500 resurrections are impossible, why isn't 1 also?

You didn't read by "kustodia" argument, did you?

I did, but I also am considering your web site source. Perhaps some confirmation bias is happening?

My time got cut short, so if there is something I missed that you would like me to respond to, please let me know.

Have a good weekend!

[marco]

How about Seneca the Younger too? He was a Roman Stoic philosopher that lived during the time of Jesus. We have much of his work. No mention of a resurrection or the 500 corpses walking around.

There is much speculation about Seneca, even that he was converted to Christianity, which seems unlikely.

In answer to the question: “ What would it take to make men believe in immortality? Seneca replied: " that a man had risen from the dead. �

[polonius]

jlb posted:

My conclusion is that an omnipotent deity, should it exist, would have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army. Are you perhaps addressing an argument that you wish I had made? In any case, your disagreement with the aforementioned conclusion makes no sense to me, but okay.

RESPONSE:

I'm addressing the argument you attempted.

"My conclusion is that an omnipotent deity, should it exist, would have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army.

Rome crucified Jesus once. Obviously, they could do it twice, if it had been necessary. It wasn't.


I'm sorry if that "makes no sense to you."

[Claire Evans]

So you don't believe oral tradition existed back then? Why did Paul and the apostles convince people Jesus rose from the dead if it didn't happen? What would make people believe? Especially in places like Greece and beyond! What you are suggesting is that Paul made up the resurrection. What would he have achieved by doing that?

RESPONSE: "oral tradition" existed as long as storytelling. And many such "traditions" were just stories.

What would he have achieved? Personal power and control. One likes to feel important. On the other hand, many of the "oral traditions" seem to indicate Paul was unbalanced and frequently saw visions.

However, you don't know oral traditions worked with the Jews then? It's not broken telephone. It's not considered myths.

Paul was constantly persecuted according to the Bible. He was imprisoned and ultimately put to death. How did he manage to convince people who didn't even know about Jesus that He really did rise from the dead?

Visions doesn't automatically make one imbalanced. Shamans have visions.

[rikuoamero]

So you don't believe oral tradition existed back then? Why did Paul and the apostles convince people Jesus rose from the dead if it didn't happen? What would make people believe? Especially in places like Greece and beyond! What you are suggesting is that Paul made up the resurrection. What would he have achieved by doing that?

RESPONSE: "oral tradition" existed as long as storytelling. And many such "traditions" were just stories.

What would he have achieved? Personal power and control. One likes to feel important. On the other hand, many of the "oral traditions" seem to indicate Paul was unbalanced and frequently saw visions.

However, you don't know oral traditions worked with the Jews then? It's not broken telephone. It's not considered myths.

Paul was constantly persecuted according to the Bible. He was imprisoned and ultimately put to death. How did he manage to convince people who didn't even know about Jesus that He really did rise from the dead?

Visions doesn't automatically make one imbalanced. Shamans have visions.

Your reply here implies that the 'telephone' effect didn't happen with Jews, but you give us no reason to accept this.
Also, in trying to convince us of what the Bible says with regards to the resurrection, you refer to Paul being persecuted according to...you guessed it, the Bible! Sorry, but the Bible is the thing you are trying to convince us of. You can't use it as evidence to support itself.
You ask the question of how he managed to convince people, implying that he could only do so if the thing he's claiming were in fact true. I can dismiss this quite easily because throughout history, people have been convinced of lots of things. Hitler convinced the Germans the Jews were sub-human. Lenin convinced the Russians that collectivist communism was the way forward, so on and so forth.
In my eyes, Paul convincing people 2,000 years ago that Jesus rose from the dead is not remarkable.