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]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary.

1. Jesus was a real historical figure who lived between approximately 4 BC and 33 AD (The dates vary with the accounts).

2. He was crucified by the Romans evidently on a charge of sedition against Rome.

3. The first report of his claimed Resurrection is found in Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 which dates from about 55 AD. (Paul was not a witness himself but wrote to a community 815 miles from Jerusalem claiming that 500 people had seen the risen Jesus. He also described appearances (or visions) by himself and a few followers of Jesus) There is no claim that Paul ever saw Christ in the flesh. Paul does not report any Ascension. He claimed that the death of Christ was a sacrifice for man's sins.

4. The gospel of Mark c. 70 A.D.(thought to have been written by a Syrian seemingly unfamiliar with Judea's geography), reports a Resurrection but not any Ascension. However, in the early second century, an Ascension account was added to Mark's gospel ("The Longer Ending." Still later a third ending was added but subsequently dropped).

5. Using Mark as a source document. Matthew and Luke in about 80 AD wrote Resurrection accounts. Matthew's account included also a mass resurrection and appearance account to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. There was an Ascension but conflicting dates as to place and time.

6. John's account written about 95 AD (or later) has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, the day before the Passover rather than Mark's, Matthew's, and Luke's account.

7. Jesus' followers began to accept the Resurrection account, and, starting about 85 AD began to claim that Jesus was divine himself in addition to being the Messiah.

8. Subsequently, the followers of Jesus (formerly considered a Jewish sect (" The Way" or the "Nazoreans") were labeled as apostates ("minim") by the Jews and excluded from the Jewish synagogues). Their expulsion was recorded in John's gospel (written about 95 AD).

Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

[JLB32168]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

[polonius]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

QUESTION. Please provide some names and citations evidencing your assertion of "other Christian writings that antedated Paul's" 1 Corinthians. Did any Church Fathers cite any of these?

[polonius]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

QUESTION. Please provide the evidence of your "fact" by some names and citations for your assertion of "other Christian writings that antedated Paul's" 1 Corinthians. Did any Church Fathers cite any of these?

Or is this just another assertion without evidence?

[tfvespasianus]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

This is true as far as the scholarly consensus goes. That is, patristic witnesses are not the only factors in determining sources. The main candidates for material that pre-dates Paul is kerygmatic/doxological material relayed in a particular form. It is supposed that this is material that Paul is quoting (hence it predates him, duh). One example of this is Philippians 2:6-11. This is one of the primary examples because the passage contains a cadence in Greek (i.e. it is a work of literary composition) that is interrupted by an appositive phrase in verse 8 which break the rhythm hence this is seen to be an interpolation by Paul. So, yes, many people posit creedal statements/hymns/prayers may have existed prior to Paul, but their authorship and exact provenance are lost to us.

Of course, one has to have humility in all of this (a quality lacking in some of these posts) in that we are reconstructing a picture of what might be without asserting what was because we are at a loss for a definitive answer on the latter.

Take care,
TFV

[JLB32168]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

This is true as far as the scholarly consensus goes. That is, patristic witnesses are not the only factors in determining sources. The main candidates for material that pre-dates Paul is kerygmatic/doxological material relayed in a particular form. It is supposed that this is material that Paul is quoting (hence it predates him, duh). One example of this is Philippians 2:6-11. This is one of the primary examples because the passage contains a cadence in Greek (i.e. it is a work of literary composition) that is interrupted by an appositive phrase in verse 8 which break the rhythm hence this is seen to be an interpolation by Paul. So, yes, many people posit creedal statements/hymns/prayers may have existed prior to Paul, but their authorship and exact provenance are lost to us.

Of course, one has to have humility in all of this (a quality lacking in some of these posts) in that we are reconstructing a picture of what might be without asserting what was because we are at a loss for a definitive answer on the latter.

Take care,
TFV

I'll defer to TFV, Mr. Polonius.advice

[polonius]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

This is true as far as the scholarly consensus goes. That is, patristic witnesses are not the only factors in determining sources. The main candidates for material that pre-dates Paul is kerygmatic/doxological material relayed in a particular form. It is supposed that this is material that Paul is quoting (hence it predates him, duh). One example of this is Philippians 2:6-11. This is one of the primary examples because the passage contains a cadence in Greek (i.e. it is a work of literary composition) that is interrupted by an appositive phrase in verse 8 which break the rhythm hence this is seen to be an interpolation by Paul. So, yes, many people posit creedal statements/hymns/prayers may have existed prior to Paul, but their authorship and exact provenance are lost to us.

Of course, one has to have humility in all of this (a quality lacking in some of these posts) in that we are reconstructing a picture of what might be without asserting what was because we are at a loss for a definitive answer on the latter.

Take care,
TFV

RESPONSE: But you can't cite any actual evidence, right? So your remarks are an assertion not supported by any facts. Anyone can make such a claim without evidence. Such can be safely discounted.

[polonius]

We've reviewed what records exist about Jesus' death, and purported Resurrection and Ascension, and the following is a summary. [. . .]. Is there any dispute as to these facts? And, if so, what evidence supports such a dispute?

Let’s add one fact. Several scholars on no mean credentials have posited that there were other Christian writings that antedated Paul, but which have not survived.

This is true as far as the scholarly consensus goes. That is, patristic witnesses are not the only factors in determining sources. The main candidates for material that pre-dates Paul is kerygmatic/doxological material relayed in a particular form. It is supposed that this is material that Paul is quoting (hence it predates him, duh). One example of this is Philippians 2:6-11. This is one of the primary examples because the passage contains a cadence in Greek (i.e. it is a work of literary composition) that is interrupted by an appositive phrase in verse 8 which break the rhythm hence this is seen to be an interpolation by Paul. So, yes, many people posit creedal statements/hymns/prayers may have existed prior to Paul, but their authorship and exact provenance are lost to us.

Of course, one has to have humility in all of this (a quality lacking in some of these posts) in that we are reconstructing a picture of what might be without asserting what was because we are at a loss for a definitive answer on the latter.

Take care,
TFV

I'll defer to TFV, Mr. Polonius.advice

RESPONSE: But you can't cite any actual evidence, right? So your remarks are an assertion not supported by any facts. Anyone can make a claim without evidence. But such claims are safely discounted.

And, of course, it is prudent for a wise person to do so, and to insist upon actual facts of history and not just speculation.

Otherwise, one evidences serious gullibility.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1282 by polonius.advice]

This is a facile response to a difficult question. One does not possess ‘facts’ when it comes to ancient history, we assert probabilities and likelihood based upon our interpretation of available evidence. You seem to be asserting that Paul was sine qua non with respect to written Christian documents based upon the documents that exist. You are asserting that no one wrote anything prior to Paul because of a lack of manuscript evidence. Such an approach isn’t the one taken by the majority of scholarship because it is deficient. You are welcome to employ this tactic, but very few people are persuaded by the thesis. You did not address the kenosis hymn that I cited perhaps because you are unfamiliar with the arguments about its composition, but it is cited as the preeminent example of extra-Pauline material due to small variance in vocabulary are theological emphasis than Paul’s other material alongside other arguments from form. Given these, it is posited that Paul is relying on a hymn that he himself did not compose. The counter proposition (yours) is that all of these don’t matter based upon… pure assertion and dismissal of the internal evidence based upon… assertion, not argument. You argument is that despite the appearance that Paul did not compose this portion of the epistle, he did because (assertion).

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

TFV posted:

The main candidates for material that pre-dates Paul is kerygmatic/doxological material relayed in a particular form. It is supposed that this is material that Paul is quoting’

RESPONSE: One can use one’s imagination to “suppose� all types of claims. But it is important to separate fact from fiction.
In the cases of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, these are actual named historians who would have been expected to have knowledge of Jesus’ Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension if all three were historical events. But they only know of the Crucifixion.

Paul (55 AD) writes only of the Crucifixion and Resurrection and reports nothing of an Ascension. Mark (70 AD) similarly doesn’t report any Ascension but had that story added to his gospel in the second century so it would match those written by Matthew and Luke (80 AD) and John (95 AD).

Of course, one has to have humility in all of this (a quality lacking in some of these posts) in that we are reconstructing a picture of what might be without asserting what was because we are at a loss for a definitive answer on the latter.

RESPONSE: Actually, one has to have gullibility for “reconstructing� when the historical writings already provide the facts.

TFV then posted:

2. This is a facile response to a difficult question. One does not possess ‘facts’ when it comes to ancient history, we assert probabilities and likelihood based upon our interpretation of available evidence.

RESPONSE: On the contrary. One has the “facts� when one possesses the pertinent documents rather than “supposing� what one is trying to prove.

TFV stated:

You seem to be asserting that Paul was sine qua non with respect to written Christian documents based upon the documents that exist.

RESPONSE: Paul wanted to be a recognized religious leader and wrote of his “visions� and stories accordingly. So he says 500 people saw, and all the others that they would have told, witnessed, a risen Jesus but nobody wrote it down except Paul??? And the Romans in Jerusalem overlooked it? Are you telling us that is credible (but the Gospel writers didn’t think to mention it?)

TFV says

You are asserting that no one wrote anything prior to Paul because of a lack of manuscript evidence. Such an approach isn’t the one taken by the majority of scholarship because it is deficient.

RESPONSE: Did you count them? Can you name any of these scholars? If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it. Not just what you want us to believe without any evidence!


TFV posted:

You are welcome to employ this tactic, but very few people are persuaded by the thesis. You did not address the kenosis hymn that I cited perhaps because you are unfamiliar with the arguments about its composition, but it is cited as the preeminent example of extra-Pauline material due to small variance (?????) in vocabulary are theological emphasis than Paul’s other material alongside other arguments from form. Given these, it is posited that Paul is relying on a hymn that he himself did not compose. The counter proposition (yours) is that all of these don’t matter based upon… pure assertion and dismissal of the internal evidence based upon… assertion, not argument. You argument is that despite the appearance that Paul did not compose this portion of the epistle, he did because (assertion).

RESPONSE:

First of all, where do you see any mention of an Ascension in the kenosis theory?

Secondly,where do you see any claim or proof that there were many witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.? Thirdly, if so, when such occur?

2. http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology ... ippians-2/

“Authorship
This passage in Philippians uses uncommon words, and words used differently to the way Paul generally used them in his epistles. This seems to indicate that Paul was not the original author of this creed-hymn. The fact that there is no mention of salvation or the resurrection in this hymn further suggests that it is not Paul’s composition, as salvation, justification and Christ’s resurrection were subjects of vital importance to Paul (2 Corinthians 15:1ff). However it is important to point out that the purpose of this creed-hymn was not to show what Christ’s work means for us in regards to salvation, but to show what it meant for Christ himself in regards to his ultimate exaltation.�

TFV posted:

“…he did because (assertion).....

RESPONSE: Again, Please present your evidence for this new assertion.