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]

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states:

"From the time of Lohmeyer it has commonly been held that the verses originally existed as a hymn, and that Paul has incorporated them with some changes" (p.1277)

Contact the editors there too and inform them that the Polonius Advice theory of interpolation is now the dominant paradigm in scholarship.

Crank

RESPONSE: So this isn't divine inspiration that Paul had himself, right? He just may have used something that sounded good.

Does the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church explain why?

Isn't the bottom line that there is no claim that Jesus ascended into heaven in 1 Cor 15.

Why is that if it had in fact occurred?

"...it has commonly been held "? By whom?

Why do you think that part of the resurrection story was omitted? And only added after 80 AD, or 50 years after the event?

[polonius]

tfv posted: [quote] "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states:

"From the time of Lohmeyer it has commonly been held that the verses originally existed as a hymn, and that Paul has incorporated them with some changes" (p.1277)

FURTHER QUESTION:

If you have this reference, perhaps you can then tell us about when this reference claims "it has commonly been held" that the Ascension was a fact of history and who commonly held this claim? And, of course, what evidence it's opinion is based on.

[polonius]

tfv posted: [quote] "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states:

"From the time of Lohmeyer it has commonly been held that the verses originally existed as a hymn, and that Paul has incorporated them with some changes" (p.1277)

RESPONSE: And finally, the obvious question. Can you provide a citation for or a copy of this hymn?

Or are we dealing with unfounded speculation?

[polonius]

[Replying to tfvespasianus]

polonius.advice wrote:



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;


tfv posted:

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:
1. Interpolations usually don’t state that they are interpolations. For example see, John’s chapter 7 story of the woman taken in adultery. There is no labeling that this is an interpolation. And, perhaps more importantly, as in this case, there is no similar story elsewhere.

2. However, it can be clearly shown by the oldest codices that the story of the woman taken in adultery was not in John's gosepl before the 4th century.

3. Certainly one doesn’t need earlier “manuscript evidence� or “positing a raison d’etre� to understand that this passage is just a simple fiction added to John’s gospel.

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE:

Of course. Did Jesus just spring into existence when the bible was written, or did he exist somewhere else before creation occurred. If so, where exactly.

So Jesus must have been by definition an extraterrestrial since the earth did not yet exist! Unless of course, Jesus did not yet exist.

[polonius]

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

You have not factually demonstrated that there was no written evidence prior to Paul’s writings (what you alleged is the first mention of the Resurrection.) Your “facts� are founded in an absence of evidence; therefore, your conclusion is illogical.

It is logical to conclude that you think the scene from Acts – where Paul allegedly had a vision of Christ speaking from a light – is a fabrication. You also say that he wrote that 500 had seen Christ. What was the source of Paul’s information about Christ if he didn’t get from Christ?

Despite such an amazing event, none (including Romans residing in Jerusalem) wrote anything about.

You don’t know that. All you know is that if anything was written it did not survive. Have you ever speculated on an original source that the author of Mark used – the alleged Q gospel? I hope you haven’t because it no longer survives. I know that others much more learned than either of us speculate that it existed but is now lost. The same skeptics have stated that Paul wrote other epistles that haven’t survived. Second Corinthians is alleged by them to actually be two letters that were pieced together from two previous letters – a 3rd Corinthians being one of the two.

RESPONSE: Really? And the first question, who claimed that Mark (and not just Matthew and Luke) used the Q document? What evidence do you have that it ever existed?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1304 by Claire Evans]

Claire Evans posted:

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

RESPONSE: Matthew liked to claim that Jesus fulfilled all OT prophecies. This is an example of an
Old Testament Prophecy that Matthew claimed Jesus “fulfilled:�

Zechariah 9:9

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.

Mathew 21:1-7

" Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage,[a] at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.�
4 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’�

But the problem here is that Matthew didn’t understand Zechariah’s prophecy. There was only one animal meant. Matthew did understand the OT idiom, so we have Jesus riding two animals of different sizes at the same time, a remarkable feat!

Divinely inspired scripture, was it?

[polonius]

I can’t find the post, but I think someone asked about the New Testament contradiction of Jesus meeting with the Apostles in Galilee rather than Jerusalem.

The question ask why couldn’t it have been both places.
Here’s why.

Let’s use Luke’s gospel because only one chapter is involved. And recognize that Galilee is about a three day journey away from Jerusalem, so a round trip by foot would take about 6 days.
Now let’s observe the timeline in Luke’s gospel.

Luke 24
1. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, (Resurrection)
2. Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus
3. As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over." So he went in to stay with them.
4. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.
5. While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you.
6. Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.
So Jesus ascended to heaven on the same day he was resurrected according to Luke’s gospel.

But traveling to Galilee was a three day journey one way. The round trip from Jerusalem to Galilee and return would have taken six days to the site of the Ascension in Bethany (Mt. Tabor).

But Act 1-3 claims that:

“In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning 2 until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.�

QUESTION: Did Jesus ascend to heaven the same day he was raised from the dead (Luke’s gospel) or 40 days after he was raised from the dead (Acts of the Apostles).

Are we to believe that both scriptures are divinely inspired, God breathed, and hence free from any error?

Or are these just different stories?

[Claire Evans]

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.

Why would a person who had no idea what a god could be in the first place attribute that to something supernatural? How would they know what the supernatural was in the first place? When we imagine, it's due to things that have been observed before.

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.

Oh, so you just dismiss other possibilities because it is convenient for you.

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.

But who says that only imagination is required? You are just assuming that. This is confirmation bias. Let's say we had this lightning bolt technology and we went to another planet and primitive people were there. They had never seen our technology. If we discharged this lightning bolt, could they just not assume we are some sort of god who causes lightning like Zeus? And remember the gods weren't supernatural beings to the ancients. They were observed beings, like aliens, who were considered superior because of the technology. They weren't spirits in the sky.

In fact, it is said the technology we had today is from aliens.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/681334- ... echnology/

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.

Except that didn't happen. Why? Because it was already established before they even heard of the gospels. Their gods supposedly did impossible acts in their own right. Romans needn't have made up others stories from other beliefs.

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.

What is this supposed to mean? That's not answering my question. The only beneficial thing for a pagan to accept Christianity was to avoid death, not glamorize their own gods.

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.

So the claim wasn't believable to them but you suggest they could have stolen the resurrection story of the saints coming out of the tomb for their own?

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'.

How do you know the resurrection claims were not to be found credible in Jerusalem? How on earth did the resurrection claim survive?

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.

Of course there was oral tradition outside of the Bible!


I thought you meant that other cultures should have the saints-coming-out-of-their-tombs in their oral tradition.

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.

So you can't see the link between the saint story and the OT prophecies? I didn't make that up. It's most likely a metaphor. Like I believe the demon possessed story was a metaphor for the Jewish Wars.

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).

Luke 24 is not necessarily saying Jesus ascended the same day. We see that Luke 24: 36-39 is under the heading "Jesus appears to the disciples". Then the next heading is "The Ascension". We cannot assume that this is intended to mean the Bethany scene is an immediate follow up of the previous verses. It is describing a new situation. Some time could have passed between the appearance to the disciples and the ascension.

It is also prudent to note that even though the Bible says 40 days, it is actually not meant to be taken literally. It means a relatively long time. We have the theme of Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days, Moses fasting for 40 days and Noah being at sea for 40 days. It's symbolic.

- 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.

I can't help it if you dismiss my very rational answer.

-

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.

Why couldn't all words in the different scriptures have been said? For example in Matthew 27:46-50

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Jesus because He cried again, does not mean He repeated asking God why He had forsaken Him.

As for the other two chapters, different people remember different things. I could remember one thing someone said and another person will remember that person saying another thing. It does not mean both things weren't said.

- How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?

It actually depends on the writer.

My point exactly.

Yet you dismiss the rest of my comment which gives the context. Why?

- 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.

So? Just because Matthew mentions it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

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

I don't believe angels are real.

That's not the point. You are pointing out allegedly contradictions. We aren't discussing if angels exist or not.

- 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.

So again you just choose to disregard my rebuttal.

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.

You mean, you haven't detected any gods. To you
, prayer is ineffective. To you, you think gods should help a team win. What makes this so? Do you know every person on this planet who have claimed to know spirits, and have refuted them?

What about paranormal investigators?

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

I am not talking about TV shows. I tend to be skeptical about paranormal investigators on TV. You see, if you are not aware of something, you somehow think it is not credible or doesn't exist.

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.

So what does putting the gospel in writing decades later somehow negate the gospels? Paul didn't make up the gospels. You'd think the early Church would have had a problem with made up things.

We extraordinarily dismiss oral tradition.

I don't.

Oral tradition is one way for a rumor about a man being resurrected to get spread.

So now you don't? Do you dismiss how they are transmitted? It's not a case of people whispering stories in other people's ears.

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?

Okay, so you don't dismiss it then. Great. Therefore stop being so sure the gospels only existed decades later.


There must be great care in preserving papyrus. It was fragile and subject to decay especially due to humidity. It had to be preserved in wooden cylinders. Parchments were way to expensive and were used rarely.

http://www.archivosgenbriand.com/preser ... glish.html

So we need to ask, who would have been in possession of any writings and how did they preserve it?

"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.

I am not talking about whether what they are saying is truthful or not. I am saying how to detect when writings have been made based on oral tradition.

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?

Those lying pens of the scribes were in the OT.

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.

A book is the only way to spread the gospel worldwide. Oral tradition couldn't be sustained around the world.

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.

Wait, are you saying it's a fact? So know you suddenly believe the gospels aren't made up? You think there may have been no guards because of a fabrication, no?

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?

Yes, true. However, why? We need to understand that, in the Bible, Jesus' burial was not complete on the Friday evening (Matthew 16:1). If Jesus was not meant to be buried in the tomb, why on earth was He there in the first place? Couldn't they have embalmed in somewhere else?

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.

They wouldn't have come with spices if they knew Jesus had been ready for burial. So even if that was true. Women were not deemed credible.

Women were considered inferior back then and were considered unreliable witnesses.
http://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/women.html


Here is a quote from Josephus in "The Antiquities of the Jews, 4.219".

21915. But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. But if any one be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness was to have suffered."

It would be asinine to think woman spreading a rumour would stick.

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.

And they would not be worried about punishment from Pilate? Pilate didn't believe a resurrection would take place, but was afraid of the claim.

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.

And just lured in gullible people, including the disciples who knew Jesus had died.

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.

So you think that because a specific scribes with lying pens in the OT, suddenly makes NT liars? That's a bit of a stretch.

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.

Don't dodge what I said. Do you believe the FBI is making up claims of aliens?

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.

Therefore, according to your logic, it just could not have happened. It doesn't matter that it may have been a cover up, it's just not true to you.

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.

They respected the scriptures. Anyone, carrying around a corpse in public with angry people would have been scary enough.

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.

Your answer is not suitable for a debate. When you don't want to concede I may have a point, you just bring aliens in.

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.

How???

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?

Again, when your feel your answer is lacking, you revert to aliens.

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?

If you are not going to behave in a mature manner, then what is the point of debating?

[polonius]

Claire Evans posted

As for the other two chapters, different people remember different things. I could remember one thing someone said and another person will remember that person saying another thing. It does not mean both things weren't said.

RESPONSE: it means that only one version, if even that, is true. Aren’t the gospels supposed to be “God breathed�? Does God just make up different stories?

Claire Evens posted:

If you are not going to behave in a mature manner, then what is the point of debating?

RESPONSE: Or if people are not going to believe contradictions and fictions, “then what is the point of debating�?