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?

[polonius]

I already have.

No – you didn’t. The question asked if an omnipotent deity existed would s/he/it have been quite able to frustrate the plans of Imperial Rome’s army in crucifying someone if s/he/it didn’t wish said crucifixion to occur. Your response was “You presented no actual evidence supporting such a view did or could have happened.� That doesn’t address the question, but is an avoidance of it.

Here’s the gist of my point. If an omnipotent deity existed and wished for a man to preach the Gospel, it wouldn’t matter if the entire imperial army wished to kill that man since the deity wouldn’t allow it to occur. Omnipotence has its perks.
Your intense aversion to conceding a point to someone – to allow that he might be right even if only in a hypothetical sense – overrides all and doesn’t speak well of your ability to defend a point.

Are you still still avoiding addressing the reality of the topic at hand: “Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?�

I’ve addressed it already. It can’t be proved. Your assertions that men started writing about the resurrection decades after the event allegedly occurred are founded upon absence of evidence. Indeed, Paul had to have heard about the resurrection from someone. Do you have evidence that he heard it from what people said rather than from what he had seen written?

No you don’t.

Therefore, your assertion “Nothing was written about the resurrection until decades later� is empty and illogical. [smile]

RESPONSE:

Also factual as demonstrated by the lack of written evidence. Unless you have proof otherwise.

Paul wrote in about 55 AD that a crowd of 500 had seen the risen Christ. These and any others they told would have been residing in Jerusalem where the event occurred. Despite such an amazing event, none (including Romans residing in Jerusalem) wrote anything about.

[Clownboat]

And you think that the Romans would think that it would be fortuitous to report that a resurrection did happen?

Oh yes Claire, I certainly do.
If you saw a man that had been dead for 3 days get up and walk around, along with 500 other dead bodies, would you not think to mention it?

What I understand is that if such a thing were to happen, it would be big news. Such a thing would cause the greatest of atheists to give pause as to why.

Heck, they would at least mention it even if not crediting a god concept. Where is that mention outside of the Bible?

You know where it is? It's in the same bin as claims that
- Dionysus
- Persephone
- Osiris
- Odin
- Ganesha
- Lemminkainen
- Tammuz
- Krishna
- Quetzalcoatl
and
- Attis
rose from the dead.

Why assume that that "false gods" weren't representation of actual beings in the past?

As far as I am aware, all gods are false. Even those gods that have believers that really, really, really want to believe that they are real.
People believe all sorts of things, so if you want to believe that 'false gods' are actual beings, that is on you. I don't see any reason to infer that they are real beings since all it takes is some imagination. No actual beings are truly needed for imagined beliefs.

It is not easy to convince someone, like a pagan Roman, to suddenly believe in another god especially if Rome was against it. What good can come from then believing a story that doesn't benefit them?

Claim it was their god as the explanation for the 500 walking dead bodies. That is a more logical approach when compared to just hoping that no one will notice or report about the zombie invasion.

How are on earth would the rumour start? If Paul had heard of rumours, then clearly he didn't make the whole thing up. He would have had a belief system based on a prior belief.

Well, first of all you would have to start such a rumor in an area that was already prone to believing such nonsense. Gods and demi-gods being resurrected were common themes held in the day. I agree that in this day and age, to believe such a claim seems quite nonsensical.

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

So you say that the Romans just in the case of Jesus didn't follow protocol and not inspect the tomb before sealing it?

Right. To them, Jesus was a nobody compared to their gods. Why would they actually suspect an actual resurrection? They would have probably scoffed at the notion. What I imagine is soldiers being offered some easy overtime.

Why do you take oral tradition out of the equation? Here is an example of how we know something is written from oral tradition:

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Show me some oral tradition outside of the Bible that mentions the 500 dead bodies that got up and walked Jerusalem.

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.

The gospels are too detailed to be based on claims only.

The gospel stories have conflicting statements. To say they are too detailed is your opinion.
- How many days did Jesus teach after his resurrection?
- Did 500 dead bodies get up and walk Jerusalem?
- What were the last words of Jesus?
- How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?
- Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb?
- Who did the women see at the tomb? One or two?
- Was the tomb already open when they got there?
For more, visit here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexami ... account-3/

If no resurrection had taken place, then Pilate would easily refute the claims of the resurrection. For the sake of the debate, I'm trying to convince you that the resurrection is a possibility, not that it is so.

Bodies dead for 3 days are on their way to being liquefied internally. Therefore, there is no coming back available. I'm sorry, but for this reason, I don't see how 3 day resurrections at least are possible.
On the other hand, resurrection stories were fairly common back in those days.

It is true that scientifically, dead bodies, especially for days, is not possible. However, in order to dismiss the resurrection, we have to be 100% sure that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

I am open to it, but what you need to remember is that if any of the gods interact with our physical reality, such interactions would be detectable.

And so you assume that the guards would just not follow protocols just in Jesus' case.

I would assume that the guard was not worried, not even a little bit about a resurrection. Why would you think a Roman guard would be worried about such a thing? They had their own gods like you have yours. Tell me, if a Muslim claimed that Mohammed was going to come back to life, would you be worried in the slightest that such a thing was going to happen? I wouldn't. And if I was asked to guard the place where he was to return, I would consider it easy overtime.

What??? And incur the wrath of the law?

Here is the the punishment for lazy Temple guards:

All the more reason not to assume that an actual resurrection took place. The resurrection stories were not written down until many decades after the event was suppose to have occurred any ways. We can't know for sure if any guard was set if we want to be honest with ourselves.

So now that it has been established that it was Roman guards, Roman seals would have been used. And why did the Jews approach Pilate for guards if they could have their own?

Good point. All the more reason to call such a claim into question.

Then the guards weren't aware why Pilate wanted them on duty in the first place.

Matthew 27:


The Guard at the Tomb
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,� they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.�

Ding ding ding! Who had control of the body on Friday? Yup, the disciples.
Who placed 100 lbs of spices on the body? Yup, the disciples.
Who then traveled to Galilee, the logical place to bury Jesus's body? Yup, the disciples.
Now, come Monday, if the tomb was empty, they would have known that they were guarding an already empty tomb.

Now even if, for argument's sake, that they were guarding an empty tomb. That would not not be believed by Pilate. He'd assume a derelict of duty or a bribe.

First you argue about the severe punishments if they failed their duty, and now you want to argue that they failed their duty?

Matthew 28:

…12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole His body while we were asleep. 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.�…

Can you show that this actually happened what, 60 years or so before Matthew was written? If so, I'm very interested. 60 years after the event took place... not enough to convince a rational person that a dead body came back to life IMO.

Nowhere does it suggested that the guards should say there was never a body there in the first place.

That's because you are using words written in the distant future.
I'm placing myself as a Roman guard, guarding the tomb of a man I fully expect to remain dead.
Either way, the resurrection of Jesus aside, I expect some oral tradition to have eventually gotten written down outside the Bible about the 500 dead bodies that got up and walked Jerusalem.

So you can prove that the seal and guard story never existed in oral tradition?

You would have to show me some oral history before anyone, yourself included could speculate on it. What I know of are the gospels and the writings of Paul. The gospels were written decades after the event by unknown authors and Paul never met Jesus nor did he witness the resurrection.

As for Joseph Smith, there may be truth in it but an angel should be replaced by aliens. I believe he was an alien contactee.

I believe I'm fairing well enough in this debate, no need to help me, but thank you.

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 doesn't mean they intended to take Jesus' body on the Friday night.

I never said it did. I'm just pointing to the fact that they had the ability to if they wanted. Say it with me Claire. The disciples had control of Jesus's body on Friday night and 'could have taken the body of Jesus with them to Galilee'.

In order for the stories to not be close to the original story, it must have been a legend and we know legends take at least a century to be established.

False.
There are still people today who believe that in 1947 an alien craft crashed and was recovered, along with alien bodies, by the United States government, and that this was subsequently covered up and kept secret.

Do you think the crucified person would have that honour and right to be buried in their homeland?

Better that than to be thrown in a garbage heap for the dogs to eat don't you agree?

It was even against Jewish law to not bury the crucified immediately. That means wherever this is a suitable place to bury someone.

The suitable place was in Galilee. 3 days journey which would require the stench of the body to be covered up.

Another thing, why would Joseph of Arimethea given the tomb to Jesus? Once a tomb has had a body in it, it cannot be used again.

I don't believe this is true. Joseph's tomb would have been a family tomb for him and his family. NOT for a Jesus character. In those day, people buried the dead initially in a shroud, but once the flesh had rotted away, they took the remaining bones put them in an ossuary. Many ossuaries would be place in a single tomb.

Who would you suggest transported Jesus' body? It wasn't the disciples. They were in hiding.

How can any of us know? I would suspect Nicodemus and Joseph though as primary suspects.

So when Tacitus, a Roman historian, said Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, he was just citing a fictitious story?

I find it very likely that a Jesus existed that was executed by Pontius Pilate. It's all the magical claims that got made about this said Jesus many decades after the events took place in an area where the claims didn't take place that has my doubt.

Obviously 500 resurrections are possible if one believes in the resurrection of Jesus but is there another explanation. Yes, I do and that is the earthquake unearthing the bodies. I have to ask what the resurrected saints did in Jerusalem.

According to the story, first they were raised, then they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

What was the purpose? There families could be dead and then what are they to do? Preach about Jesus who they never even knew?

The claim is absurd, you're not going to get me to argue for it. It's from your holy book after all.

It is possible that it is symbolic. Perhaps the story illustrates that the saints today, now true believers of Jesus, will be raised from the dead with Him. We are considered to be resurrected with Christ.

"they went into the holy city and appeared to many people".
Don't get me wrong, I understand your motive for trying to make this go away.

What's wrong with the web source?

Confirmation bias.

I think we covered everything. Thanks. Enjoy the weekend.

I did, thank you. Hopefully yours was enjoyable as well!

[polonius]

For a review, lets begin with the following question.

Aside from the New Testament, what historical documents refer to the Crucifixion of Jesus?

1. The writings of the Roman historian Tacitus.
2. The letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan.
3. The writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian in his Jewish Antiquities.

[Claire Evans]

In an overly long post, Claire Evans claimed:

The gospels are too detailed to be based on claims only.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that in describing the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the four Gospels are vastly conflicted proving that they all can't be historically accurate claims.


(1) Did Jesus ride one or two animals (of different size) when entering Jerusalem?

We know Matthew says two, the others one. However, we cannot assume that the other gospels only meant that there was only one colt. We can say they only mentioned one colt.

Example:

"The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.

Consider the other parts of the story that have been supplemented by one or more of the synoptic writers.

Whereas Matthew mentioned how Jesus and His disciples went to Bethphage, Mark and Luke mentioned both Bethphage and Bethany.

Mark and Luke indicated that the colt they acquired for Christ never had been ridden. Matthew omitted this piece of information.

Matthew was the only gospel writer to include Zechariah’s prophecy.

Mark and Luke included the question that the owners of the colt asked the disciples when they went to get the donkey for Jesus. Matthew excluded this information in his account."

These are gospels being supplemented indication different authors. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and thus could recall that there were 2 unlike the others.

Another example:

Since Matthew 21:7 states, “They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them� (NKJV), some have concluded that Matthew intended for his reader to understand Jesus as being some kind of stunt rider—proceeding to Jerusalem as more of a clown than a king. Such reasoning is preposterous. Matthew could have meant that Jesus rode the colt while the other donkey walked along with them. Instead of saying, “He rode one donkey and brought the other with Him,� the writer simply wrote that He rode “them� into Jerusalem. If a horse-owner came home to his wife and informed her that he had just ridden the horses home a few minutes ago from a nearby town, no one would accuse him of literally riding both horses at once. He merely was indicating to his wife that he literally rode one horse home, while the other one trotted alongside or behind him."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=773

(2) Was Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, or the Passover itself?

Actually, both are correct.

"When we compare Numbers 28 with Exodus 12, we learn further that the first Passover meal occurs on the evening of the fourteenth, and this first meal is also supposed to be eaten with unleavened bread. Thus the fourteenth is sometimes referred to as the first day of unleavened bread. Exodus 12:19 also tells us that, during the seven days of feasting beginning on the fifteenth of Nisan, the Jews were not only to eat unleavened bread, but they were also to have no leaven anywhere in their homes. Thus the seven days of feasting beginning on the fifteenth are sometimes referred to as the days of unleavened bread. The fact that the Jews were not allowed to have leaven in their houses during the week of feast days also explains why the fourteenth was referred to as the day of preparation. The evening of the fourteenth was spent in celebration of the Passover proper with a meal of lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread while the following day of the fourteenth was spent removing all leaven from the home in preparation for the Passover week.

Now when we return to the accounts in John and Mark, we can see that both accounts are accurate. Jesus was crucified at 9:00 AM on Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan. The Passover meal would have been eaten during the evening of the fourteenth which, according to the Jewish method of counting time was the night before Jesus was crucified. The night following the crucifixion was the evening of the fifteenth of Nisan which was the first day of the seven days of feasting which made up the Passover week."

http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/ ... e-passover

(3) Did many others rise from the dead (and were seen by many in Jerusalem) just before Jesus was resurrected?

I think this is a symbolic story by Matthew. Matthew's gospel emphasized the fulfillment of OT prophecies while the other did not.

In the dead saints rising argument, I believe it could be a symbolic fulfillment of the resurrection of the dead.

"Psalm 16:8-11
Simon Peter starts out on the day of Pentecost explaining that Jesus the Messiah had risen from the dead, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it," (Acts 2:24). Peter then pulled from the Psalms to prove the truth of his testimony.

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." -Act 2:24-32"

http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1765/

(4) Was Jesus raised from the dead (passive) or did he rise from the dead by his own power?

Are there any claims that Jesus rose from the dead from His own power? He always attributed any power He had to God.

(5) Did Jesus and the Apostles go to Galilee (a three day journey from Jerusalem), or remain in Jerusalem until the Ascension?

I don't see why Jesus and the apostles could not have been in both places but at different times.

"On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection."

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... rticle=730

(6) Did the Ascension occur on the same day as the Resurrection or 40 days later?

etc., etc....

40 days later.

[Claire Evans]

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

Roman military forces occupied Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. In fact, they crucified him.

Yet no Roman records describe Jesus' Resurrection or the resurrection of the many dead who appeared to the residents of Jerusalem (according to Matthew's version of the story).

Apparently, even Pilate didn't know the story which Paul (25 years later) claimed to have occurred (with 500 witnesses none of which left any written records nor did any of the many people they would have told [including Romans] ).

According to the gospels, Pilate sent the guards to guard Jesus' tomb to avoid claims of a resurrection. Now you think Pilate would want to perpetuate that belief by saying it happened? Especially when the Jewish authorities had so much influence over Pilate?

As for the resurrection of the dead appearing in Jerusalem, I mentioned in the previous comment that it was most likely symbolic.

[Claire Evans]

Why do you take oral tradition out of the equation?

RESPONSE: Because the story ( or "oral tradition") wasn't developed until much later.

What? What proof do you have that oral tradition was developed much later? Oral tradition always preceded writings.

[Claire Evans]

My aim is to not substantiate but open the door to the possibility that Jesus did rise from the dead. We cannot dismiss something as impossible therefore rule it out.

RESPONSE: Some people claim and it cannot be proven otherwise that Jesus was actually an extraterrestrial from an advanced civilization who traveled to earth in a UFO. Should we "open the door to this possibility."

Or at some point should we accept plain reality?

Was that claim made when the Bible was written?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1244 by Claire Evans]

Matthew 28:

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.

Therefore the chief priests knew that the Romans guards weren't being lax but bribed them to say they were.

I'm wondering why this section exists at all. Why did you reply this to me? I'm the one arguing that the guards were probably lax (or bribed or suborned in some way), prior to that paragraph, you were against the claim...then here you quoting Matthew and saying that the guards were in fact bribed!

You're being incredibly inconsistent.

They weren't bribed to guard an empty tomb or let the body be taken away. They were bribed afterwards to say they were lax when they really weren't. The point is, they weren't being lax like you claim.

[Claire Evans]

Clair Evans wrote:

In regards to why some scriptures appear in some gospels, but not in others demands a lot on the audience. Matthew wrote about the fulfillment of OT prophecies. In the dead saints rising argument, I believe it could be a symbolic fulfillment of the resurrection of the dead.

QUESTION: How about a simple fiction to make believers and maintain control over them?

I believe is there was no resurrection, no believers could be made in the first place. Especially if one witnessed someone died and had to proof they rose from the dead. Would you be a believer?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1258 by Claire Evans]

If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not.

Yes you would. It's called a lie of omission. Imagine that I talk to my coworker about how much fun Joe and I had watching the big game and knocking back drinks. Well, in that conversation, my coworker believes that it was only myself and Joe. He has no inkling whatsoever that Bob was there.
His understanding of what happened is skewed because I deliberately left something out.

Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.

Let us not forget that Matthew "supplements" his gospel by stating that a bunch of dead people rose from their graves and walked to the temple.
It looks to me like Matthew is fond of adding in details that are not necessarily accurate.

some have concluded that Matthew intended for his reader to understand Jesus as being some kind of stunt rider—proceeding to Jerusalem as more of a clown than a king. Such reasoning is preposterous.

So its preposterous that Jesus rode on two animals at once...but not preposterous that he walked on water or conjured up loaves and fish?

I think this is a symbolic story by Matthew. Matthew's gospel emphasized the fulfillment of OT prophecies while the other did not.

In the dead saints rising argument, I believe it could be a symbolic fulfillment of the resurrection of the dead.

Why is it you don't take this story literally? You're being wildly inconsistent. The story says
"The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
This is part of a story detailing how a man named Jesus is crucified and resurrected three days later. So I'm wondering why with Matthew's holy people, you don't believe it actually happened...while believing Jesus did resurrect.