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?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1305 by Claire Evans]

Great little point. Who destroyed history? and what allowed it to survive?

The Christian Dark Ages. However they destroyed evidence contrary to the Bible. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume any real evidence would survive in multitudes about the resurrection.

Destroyed everything? We have the considered heretic Gnostic gospel and Aprochrya books.

Alas, only the Bible and a few historic works, which many claim are forgeries/insertions.

Like what?

[Claire Evans]

Clair Evans posted:

So you say no one in history had proof of the resurrection just because it cannot be demonstrated today? Even if the Romans produced material that admitted Jesus rose from the dead, you wouldn't believe it. You'd think it was a forgery. Are there NT writers that don't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

But the point is, if someone claimed a resurrection took place, and it didn't really happen, wouldn't you find it rather easy to refute it? Why would you believe it if you didn't see that person resurrected? What would convince people?

RESPONSE: It has been refuted by the lack of evidence. There is no historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus (or of the many others that Matthew claims rose at the time of the crucifixion). That's the proof!

This is not an answer to my question. Just say yes or no.

[Claire Evans]

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?

You think I believe God wrote the stories? How? Through automatic writing? Absolutely not. They were written by human beings inspired and not by God.

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�?

Read the comments again.

[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?

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.

He did not exist at all in human form according to the Bible. We believe God and Jesus were one as the Holy Spirit right from the start.

And extraterrestrial is a physical being coming to this earth. Not the definition of Jesus.

[Goose]

RESPONSE: I interpret the word "then" by it's plain meaning and in the sense that Luke's gospel uses it.

I’m guessing you’ve never read this passage in Greek. If you had you know that τοτε (“Then�) only occurs once in the three places you think it does. Most importantly it does not occur in the opening to verse 50 where the ascension sequence begins.

See chapter 24: 24-44 Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’

Luke 24: 44 – Εἶπε δὲ αὐτοῖς· οὗτοι οἱ λο�γοι οὓς ἐλα�λησα π�ὸς ὑμᾶς ἔτι ὢν σὺν ὑμῖν, ὅτι δεῖ πλη�ωθῆναι πα�ντα τὰ γεγ�αμμε�να ἐν τῷ νο�μῳ Μωϋσε�ως καὶ τοῖς π�οφη�ταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς πε�ὶ ἐμοῦ.

Nope. No “then� there in verse 44.

45Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah* is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses* of these things. 49And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.’

Luke 24:45 – τότε διήνοιξεν α�τῶν τὸν νοῦν τοῦ συνιέναι τὰς γ�αφάς

There’s the single occurrence of τότε (“then�) in the passages you cite. Notice τότε occurs here in connection to completing the single fluid thought concerning Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophets.

50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.* 52And they worshipped him, and* returned to Jerusalem with great joy; 53and they were continually in the temple blessing God.*

Luke 24:50 – ᾿Εξη�γαγε δὲ αὐτοὺς ἔξω ἕως εἰς Βηθανι�αν, καὶ ἐπα��ας τὰς χεῖ�ας αὐτοῦ εὐλο�γησεν αὐτου�ς.

Nope. No τότε there either.

All one needs to do is take the time to read what specifically this gospel of Luke mens by the word "then' by how he uses it. Not somewhere else in the bible.

All one needs to do is read it in the original language.

Now you should understand how the word "then" is used by Luke in Luke 24.

And you should now understand that “then� isn’t used by Luke where you think it is.

Note especially that the word "then" does not mean 40 days later

Of course it doesn’t. The point you have yet to refute is that Luke makes no specific claim to the time frame in his Gospel between the resurrection and ascension. He simply states the events as having occurred.

[JLB32168]

Yes. I deal in the real world insisting on common sense.

In other words, your personal speculation trumps the combined scholarly opinion on whether or not any Christian writings ante-dated Paul. I’m still waiting on your academic credentials so that we may weigh them against the lion’s share of scholarship on the subject.

I just wanted to establish for everyone that you are immune to evidence and cannot be encumbered by it.

[polonius]

Claire Evans asked:

"You think I believe God wrote the stories? How? Through automatic writing? Absolutely not. They were written by human beings inspired and not by God.

RESPONSE: The correct conclusion is much simpler. Biblical stories are human "stories" written by men using their imagination. One can form that conclusion by noting the many errors and contradictions.

Luke's Gospel is a good example. It claims Jesus' "Ascension" took place on Easter evening from Jerusalem. Hence any other "Gospels' claiming that Jesus and his Apostles traveled to Galilee and that the Ascension took place 40 days later would be in error.


God, an omniscient and "perfect" being, would never "inspire" such errors or contradictions. The "inspired" human writers made errors.

Thus, it is noteworthy that you are now in effect admitting that not everything in the Bible is actually true.

That leaves you with the task of separating biblical fact from biblical fiction.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 1340 by JLB32168]

Well, good on you jlb, but I think this is simply a variant of argumentum ad lapidem at play here. Our interlocutor isn’t concerned as much with learning what others (e.g. a collection of dons and professors under the auspices of Oxford, secular critics, scholarship in general) have to say on the matter. To entrench one’s self in a position that is really somewhat tangential to the matter at hand shows that larger questions are even further out or reach. It shows that any discussion will not be undertaken in good faith. So, as I said, absent some epiphany that others may know something about a particular topic and that it’d behoove one’s argument to be able to concede a point when it’s indefensible, I don’t know what to be gained in dialogue.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

In the Gospel of Mark 16:14, after the resurrection, Jesus "was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; ...". At the meal, Jesus said to them, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15) Following this the Ascension is described in Mark 16:19 as follows:

"after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God."

However, based on strong textual and literary evidences, biblical scholars no longer accept Mark 16:9-20 as original to the book.[12] Rather, this section appears to have been compiled based on other gospel accounts and appended at a much later time. As such, the writer of Luke-Acts is the only original author in the New Testament to have referred to the ascension of Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension ... k_and_Luke

However, the New American Bible cuts this to only one.

Footnote: to Luke chapter 24 [24:50–53] Luke brings his story about the time of Jesus to a close with the report of the ascension. He will also begin the story of the time of the church with a recounting of the ascension. In the gospel, Luke recounts the ascension of Jesus on Easter Sunday night, thereby closely associating it with the resurrection.

[polonius]

Luke 24: 13 Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, ….

Luke 24: So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem….

Luke 24:35 Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way…

Luke 24:36 While they were still speaking about this….

Luke 24: 38 Then he said to them, …

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds…

Luke 24: Then he led them [out] as far as Bethany,
(NB Bethany is 1.5 miles east of Jerusalem on slope of the Mount of Olives.)

Luke 23: 51 As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.

NOTES:
1. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Simple Definition of THEN
“ at that time : at the time mentioned�

2. Note especially that the word "then" does not mean 40 days later

3. And regarding the report is some other Gospels that Jesus and the Apostles traveled 3.5 days to Galilee:

Luke 24:39 And [behold] I am sending the promise of my Father* upon you; but stay in the city (NB Jerusalem) until you are clothed with power from on high.�