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]

TFV posted:

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV

RESPONSE. It is always a joy to read your posts and follow your reasoning!

I quoted historians in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing.

Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it is common sense that it wasn't by Paul.

It’s not an interpolation. It’s Paul working with a previously existing source. The website you offered states “This evidence of prose has led many theologians to postulate that this passage may in fact be the words of a very early Christian hymn, poem, confession or creed “ We surmise that is Paul working with a source because the language preceding Philippians 2:6 that introduces the hymn is recognized as Pauline. Your ‘theory’ is that someone wrote a Pauline introduction to a non-Pauline interpolation for no given reason. That is less likely than the majority view and it contrary even to the view of the web page you cite.

In fact, it strikes me as the ad hoc rationale of someone that doesn’t want to concede a point. It is the creation of a fanciful theory that is unattested by manuscript evidence (something you chastise people for elsewhere) and is rejected by credible scholarship.

RESPONSE: TFV posted

"It’s Paul working with a previously existing source."

Really? "It’s Paul working with a previously existing source."

Then please provide the name of source and give us its citation. Or is this an assertion without evidence?

(I find that a certain number of posters don't provide citations for what they insist are valid sources.

What would be the conclusion we would logically form?)

[tfvespasianus]

Really? "It’s Paul working with a previously existing source."

Then please provide the name of source and give us its citation. Or is this an assertion without evidence?

Again, this is simplistic to the point of being inane. I did not say that we have a name of an author at a specific date. I stated various reasons (none of which are addressed with any substance) that this is the view of both scholarship and the website you linked to. Your lame quip doesn’t address any specific argument I have made and moreover, doesn’t address that the one source you sought as evidence of your claim states the opposite of your claim. You are not discussing anything in good faith.

[JLB32168]

TFV, please forgive me for butting into this dialogue.

RESPONSE: TFV posted "It’s Paul working with a previously existing source." Really? "It’s Paul working with a previously existing source." Then please provide the name of source and give us its citation.

If I’m reading correctly, TFV is referring to experts in the area – including your own source. Why would you demand he cite your source? Did you not read your own source? I did a search on Philippians 2:16 being Paul’s citation of a pre-Pauline hymn. Even Bart Ehrman’s Blog mentions it and he’s completely inimical to Christianity. Other sources that addressed the same thing were Gordon College Faculty and Crandall University. I stopped after the first page – leaving the other 32K websites for others to check for themselves.

Might we have your academic credentials so that we can compare them with some of these other people who presume to call themselves experts in the field?

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1297 by JLB32168]

Jlb,

It’s no bother at all, in fact the opposite. That’s because I am growing fatigued of this because it’s not a controversial claim. As you have stated it’s the view of both Christian and secular scholars on this passage. What we have is an unsupported, ad hoc thesis of interpolation without any theory as to why. Interpolations in other parts of the bible are supported with a rationale for their being such (e.g. a demonstrable break in continuity, purported agenda of a redactor, manuscript evidence, etc.). No such rationale is being supplied here. It saddens me because, as a secular person, I do hold that interpolations do exist, but you just can’t simply shout ‘interpolation!’ and be done with it. And to reiterate, I don’t know of anyone that holds that this passage from Philippians is a late interpolation. What is being done is sort of funhouse mirror of criticism. I have a suspicion that the idea that there are pre-Pauline sources in the Pauline corpus (again, a mundane, widely-held position) was unknown to the poster and has provoked an incoherent ad hoc response.

take care,
TFV

[Clownboat]

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.

How did god concepts came into being in the first place?

Imagination, ignorance and wishful thinking.
Example, what is that loud booming in the sky during this terrible storm? An ignorant person could imagine a god concept to explain the boom and while they are at it they could provide a way for eternal life and seeing your dead loved ones.

Something observed maybe? Let's take Zeus for example. Early Greeks believed that Zeus had lightning as a weapon. Here is a possibility why they would believe it:

No need. Imagination, ignorance and wishful thinking explain the gods just fine.

So is it possible that Zeus was an extra terrestrial with advanced technology?

Just as possible that Zeus was an angry unicorn I suppose. Again, if imagination is all that is required, then why suggest aliens? There are thousands upon thousands of god concepts. Aliens cannot explain them all, but guess what can? Yup, human imagination.

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.

Or maybe just dismiss it altogether. There were no Roman witnesses. I also asked, "How would it benefit it?"

Like I said above, claim it was their god that did it. The benefit would be crediting such an impossible act to their god compared to another.

You do realize that pagans were forced to convert to Christianity by the Catholic Church, not because they really believed?

I'm no longer a Christian, so you cannot lay that black eye on me.

Why not if they were so susceptible to resurrection concepts?

I would imagine that the claim was not believable for them. Perhaps they did not have this great need like some others do where they need to know why they are here and will they ever get to see their loved ones again after death.

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.

The guards got orders from Pilate. It didn't matter what they believed. Pilate didn't expect a resurrection. He was afraid of the claims of a resurrection that would have been made should the disciples have stolen Jesus body. Therefore it doesn't matter the motive for guarding, if they didn't do their duty, they would face death or severe punishment. Not easy overtime.

It doesn't appear that Pilate had anything to fear then unless you think he was fearful of claims being made many decades later hundreds of miles away. In Jerusalem, the resurrection claims were not found to be credible. Ask yourself 'why'.

What oral traditions from people outside of the Bible are you suggesting?

That's my point. You employ oral tradition for the Bible stories, but when it comes to non biblical stories, no oral tradition was told. This inconsistency if very convenient.

I believe that the 500 dead bodies rising from the dead was meant to be symbolic by Matthew to foretell the resurrection of Jesus and how all saints will be risen from the dead.

Up to you to reject what is written in the Bible. I reject much of it myself. However, your rejection does not make the claim in the Bible go away, it just shows your willingness to do what it takes to maintain your belief. I went through it myself. Losing what you thought was your purpose here on earth and losing your place to spend eternity is not a pleasant thing when you have truly been indoctrinated to believe in such things.

Show verses please.

Luke 24:51 (After leading them to Bethany) While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.
Other verses claim he was here for 40 days (or 10 days before pentecost).

- Did 500 dead bodies get up and walk Jerusalem?

No, as mentioned above

You have no scripture to support your view. I suggest you reject it because it is nonsensical, but the words are in the Bible whether you like it or not.

-

What were the last words of Jesus?

Verses please that show contradictions.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

- How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?

It actually depends on the writer.

My point exactly.

- Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb?

According to Matthew, yes.

Nothing definitive of course, but this is only mentioned in Matthew.

And don't assume that there are just one angel present.

I don't believe angels are real.

- Was the tomb already open when they got there?
For more, visit here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexami ... account-3/

Yes:

Matthew says no; the other three say yes.

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.

Why do you think it is not detectable?

Because we have not detected any of the gods. For example, prayer has been shown to be ineffective and the gods don't seem to help certain sports teams win nor lose. If they affected our physical reality, these effects would be detectable.

What about paranormal investigators?

I'm not aware of any real paranormal investigators. I hope you are not talking about frauds or TV shows.

You keep harping on about it not being written decades after the fact.

Correct, but I'm open to being shown otherwise if you are up to the task.

We extraordinarily dismiss oral tradition.

I don't. Oral tradition is one way for a rumor about a man being resurrected to get spread.

Can you prove that the gospels did not exist first in oral tradition

No more than you can prove that I don't have an invisible dragon in my backyard. However, if the words were important and papyrus is available, why rely on oral tradition only?

"That is how the earliest oral tradition arose. It was a collection of Aramaic, memorised texts in which Jesus’ teaching was remembered and passed on.

We can prove that Biblical writings were manipulated and in some cases invented, and you want me to be confident that some oral tradition we know nothing about was told truthfully. I'm just not that gullible.

The existence of this oldest, Aramaic, layer has already been demonstrated in the previous chapter when we discussed the `measure’ and `salt’ passages. What I did not point out at the time was the fact that the peculiar mix of differences and samenesses in many synoptic passages cannot be solely due to the pen of the evangelists but requires an underlying oral tradition.

We have verses about the lying pens of the scribes, and you want me to believe in some oral tradition that was not lied about. Did you think that one through?

To the rest, I agree that a book is not a good delivery system for a god that has a message for everyone. It is better than oral tradition though.

Problem 1:

The disciples were in hiding according to the gospels. Peter even denied Jesus.

This does not take away from the fact that they had control of the body, placed 100lbs of spice on it and then soon after traveled to the logical place to bury the body.

Problem 2

They found it necessary to set off in the dark which would have been really problematic especially for the animal used to pull a cart, whatever, with Jesus' body. They didn't have night vision.

Night vision is not required to travel at night. You don't really believe that ancient man didn't travel at night do you?

Problem 3:

The woman came back to the tomb to anoint Jesus. That means that they believed He obviously was there.

Who says the women knew if the body was taken? Great time to start a rumor. Let the women go and discover the tomb we made empty.

Problem 4:

You assume that non of the Roman guards found it necessary to inspect the contents of the tomb before sealing it which is against protocol. If there was one guard, maybe, but all of them?

I assume nothing. I acknowledge that if a guard was placed, they wouldn't be worried about a resurrection.

How did Christianity start if not based on the claim of the resurrection? Surely it would have had to begin with the Jews?

IMO, Paul created the religion.

Do you know what oral history is? Word of mouth.

Yup, and if I can't trust the lying pens of the scribes, I certainly cannot trust oral tradition.

Why do you automatically dismiss this? Don't you know the FBI concede these type of things actually do happen?

Do go on about how Joseph Smith had an alien encounter.

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.

Why do you assume this is not what really happened?

I'm skeptical and not gullible. People like to feel in control. Not know what happened in a situation can make people feel uncomfortable. Therefore, accepting an explanation, even a wrong one is often preferable to no knowing.

A condemned crucified person must be buried that same day. No question about it.

Really? What would have happened to the disciple or Jesus had he not been buried that same day. Please enlighten me.

You are assuming that Joseph could not have acquired a new tomb afterwards. He could have had another tomb to bury his family.

Sure, and Joseph Smith could have been visited by aliens and Zeus just had alien technology. Sorry, these explanations are wanting.

And they would find it fortuitous to face an angry crowd who had wanted the death of Jesus?

No silly, they would have avoided any angry crowds.

Would Nicodemus and Joseph know the way to Galilee to give the body back to Jesus' family? The exact location, I mean?

I don't know, but I'm sure there would be those in Galilee that would. Maybe they were in contact with aliens that knew where to bury the body?

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

I tend to lean more towards symbolism rather than the unearthing of graves.

So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Is more alien tech involved with this claim?

[Clownboat]

TFV posted:

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV

RESPONSE. It is always a joy to read your posts and follow your reasoning!

I quoted historians in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing.

Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it is common sense that it wasn't by Paul.

It’s not an interpolation. It’s Paul working with a previously existing source. The website you offered states “This evidence of prose has led many theologians to postulate that this passage may in fact be the words of a very early Christian hymn, poem, confession or creed “ We surmise that is Paul working with a source because the language preceding Philippians 2:6 that introduces the hymn is recognized as Pauline. Your ‘theory’ is that someone wrote a Pauline introduction to a non-Pauline interpolation for no given reason. That is less likely than the majority view and it contrary even to the view of the web page you cite.

In fact, it strikes me as the ad hoc rationale of someone that doesn’t want to concede a point. It is the creation of a fanciful theory that is unattested by manuscript evidence (something you chastise people for elsewhere) and is rejected by credible scholarship.

Is it reasonable to assume that the hymn might have been a later addition to Paul's letters?

[tfvespasianus]

Is it reasonable to assume that the hymn might have been a later addition to Paul's letters?

Again, it doesn’t seem viable because if one reads chapter two the hymn follows in context. The hymn is identified as non-Pauline do to variance in vocabulary and slight divergence in theological emphasis along with its chiastic structure. So, for one to propose interpolation of the hymn they would be positing that someone made a very good Paul ‘impression’ in the part that introduces it to copy his style and then insert the hymn. We would need at least a hypothetical reason for this. The opposite (i.e. standard, accepted view) is that Paul is working with traditional material that his readers would be somewhat acquainted with to make a homiletic point. There more to this, but I think given what else I have written on this should suffice for anyone truly interested.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

RESPONSE: I quoted others in pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that Paul posted any such thing. Just when this interpolation was added is unknown. but it wasn't by Paul;

The passage quoted does not say that it was an interpolation. That source says that Paul is incorporating an extant source which is in keeping with the scholarly consensus. Contrary to this consensus, you are saying that it is an interpolation at a later date .The first step in demonstrating this would to be to produce manuscript evidence for an interpolation as is the case with 'longer Mark' and other examples. However, you will find no manuscript examples that the passage in question is a late interpolation. That is, as some people say a 'fact of history'.

So, you have no manuscript evidence. You have not posited a raison d'etre for this being an interpolation. In short, I don't think you are familiar with this passage and you are addressing all claims ad hoc. You are lacking when it comes to making a coherent argument on this point.

take care,
TFV

RESPONSE:

Once again, please provide your citation, not your theories.

Yours is only a theory which is disputed by the writing I posted.

One last time. Do you have a citation or not? If not, as they say in courts, your statement can be rejected as an assertion without evidence.

But lets take this type of argument a bit further. How many of the 14 Pauline epistles are forgeries, that i,s not written by Paul at all? And even contradicting Paul?

[polonius]

There are 13 Epistles that have been claimed to have been written by Paul. The 14th, Hebrews, does not even bear his name. It is now thought the Paul really only wrote7 epistles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles. The seven are the earliest Christian writings dating from around 50 to 64 AD the year of Paul’s death. But taken as a group they are frequently contradictory, and are at odds with some of Christ’s teaching found in the Gospels.

Lets first look at Paul's first Epistle, het earliest Pauline epistle, 1 Thessalonians, and contract it with 2 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.�

Or are we to believe 2 Thessalonians instead, that 1 Thessalonians is counterfeit? Or is 2 Thessalonians itself counterfeit? Both can't be true. (But they both can be false)!

2 Thessalonians 2 “As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.�

So 2 Thessalonians contradicts 1 Thessalonians and claims that Paul’s first letter isn’t telling the truth and Paul didn’t really write it.

Next we find tha Paul admits misrepresenting himself to win converts.

1 Corinthians 9: 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.�

So Paul admits to deceiving people. What about 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul claims that:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me�

How credible are the writing written by Paul or perhaps in Paul's name?

[Claire Evans]

[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.

But should we assume it was relevant to mention Bob? In order for omission to be considered a lie, it would have to be deliberate and intended to mislead. Some writers think some parts are more relevant than others. It doesn't mean they are all wrong.

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.

Here's the explanation of the symbolism. As we know, Matthew was concerned about OT prophecies which the others did not place importance on:

"1. Isaiah 26:19 is part of a prophecy of the restoration of Jerusalem and of Judah, when the impious and the strong cities are brought down, and the humble and godly are lifted up. The people suffer a “small affliction� of God’s “chastening�, like a woman who cries out in labour, before giving birth to salvation (26:17-18 LXX). Then we have a statement about the dead being raised from their tombs (only in LXX) as part of the healing of Israel:

The dead shall rise (anastēsontai), and those in the tombs (mnēmeiois) shall be raised (egerthēsontai), and those in the earth shall rejoice; for the dew from you is healing to them, but the land of the impious will fall. (Is. 26:19 LXX)

and

Therefore, prophesy, and say, This is what the Lord says: Behold, I am opening your tombs and will bring you up out of your tombs and bring you into the land of Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves so that I might bring my people up out of their graves. And I will give my spirit into you, and you shall live, and I will place you upon your own land, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will act, says the Lord. (Ezek. 37:12-14 NETS)

Final note:

"Finally, I would suggest that Matthew intends his readers to understand that the death and resurrection of Jesus was like—was congruent with—the death and resurrection of those who would be raised from their tombs during a time of crisis, when God would judge and restore his people. The resurrection of the saints certainly points to a final victory over death, but in context its significance is historically constrained: it means, in effect, that Israel will not be defeated by the death and destruction of the coming period of wrath; on the contrary, through this crisis YHWH will establish his people in newness of life. That is the theological frame in which the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be understood."

http://www.postost.net/commentary/resur ... heir-tombs

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?

Why would Jesus ride two donkeys at the same time? What would have been the point?

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.

As mentioned above. The faith of the saints coming out of the tomb is not what Christianity is based on. We could argue that without a resurrection, there would be no Christianity in the first place. If we saw Hilary Clinton, for example, being assassinated live on television and a few days later I claimed she was still alive, wouldn't you want evidence of that?