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?

[Goose]

RESPONSE: Perhaps because you are refusing to accept the clear meaning of what Luke and Mark wrote and trying to maintain that Jesus is only said to have ascended 40 days after his Resurrection.

Jesus IS only said to have ascended forty days after! Luke never makes any other specific claim to a time line. We can make the text say anything we want if just simply add words like “then� where we want to.

Observe that Luke 24:50 is a continuation of Luke 24:49.

Observe that at new paragraph commences at Luke 24:50 where the ascension narrative begins. Observe that Luke 24:50 does not begin with το�τε.

See also:

1. Mark 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.

2. Acts 1:9 When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.

We’ll set aside for the moment that Mark 16:19 probably wasn’t in the original text.

More importantly you are making the same mistake here as with Luke 24. Actually your mistaken approach to interpretation is only highlighted here by arguing that Luke contradicted himself not just between his Gospel and Acts but he was careless enough to contradicted himself in Acts within the span of just a few sentences. That he flip-flopped back and forth from a same day ascension (Luke 24) to a forty day later ascension (Acts 1:3) back to a single day ascension (Acts 1:9).

Luke 24:50 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them.

Luke 24:50 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
50 Then he led them [out] as far as Bethany, raised his hands, and blessed them.

Dude, you are just citing the same translation over and over without dealing with the Greek text. Providing quotes from English versions known to take creative license doesn’t help you. In the original language (Greek) there is no το�τε (“then�) at the beginning of the text in Luke 24:50. End of story.

However, it is certainly understandable if a legend (rather than history) is written by non-witnesses 40 to 50 years after the event it is claiming occurred that there will be major differences!

The same can be counter argued for the assassination of Caesar. Accounts written many years after – Nicolaus of Damascus c. 60 years after, Plutarch c. 110 years after, Suetonius c. 160 years after – all with major differences. Yet you wouldn’t try to argue his assassination was a legend based on that would you?

I didn't think so.

What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament?

Hey you know what else is missing from the Codex Sinaiticus? That’s right folks, το�τε at the beginning of Luke 24:50.

“One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51.

If Luke 24:51 was not in the original text then there is no longer a contradiction to argue.

[PghPanther]

.

Doesn't a careful comparison of the contradictions among Resurrection stories in the New Testament suggest that these are more likely fictional (or some apologists may say "symbolic") rather than a recording of actual historical events (those that actually happened)?

No more than the numerous contradictions between the narratives of Caesar’s assassination suggest that event was fictional.

Okay. I have no problem accepting that reports of Caesar's assassination and reports of Jesus' resurrection are equally fictional.

BTW, are claims that Caesar was 'divine' any more or less fictional than similar claims for Jesus? Based on what?

It is amazing how some biblical fundamentalists simply ignore what is plainly written in these accounts and instead involve themselves in disagreements on non-essentials!

This coming from the person who completely ignores my post here where I refuted his argument over Luke’s use of τοτε (“then�) and just simply re-posts the very same arguments here that had just been refuted.

The irony.

Irony seems to apply to detailed discussion of exact wording in stories written 2000 years ago by people whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians – then hand copied for centuries and translated into or through different languages.

With all that inexactitude, how the heck can anyone think they know exactly what was meant by the writer (whoever he may have been)?

Even if exact intended meaning could be determined, what assurance have we that the writer was truthful and accurate?

Not only that........what is written comes from a line of decades of believer's gossip...er I mean oral tradition that I'm sure preservers the accurate accounts of what happened historically.....especially that supernatural stuff. I'm sure the enthusiasm hope and passion of believers didn't get in the way of embellishing any of this before someone decided to take what they heard and write it down.......

UFO convention anyone?

[Goose]

Okay. I have no problem accepting that reports of Caesar's assassination and reports of Jesus' resurrection are equally fictional.

It's difficult, to say the least, to take seriously one who accepts the reports of the assassination of Caesar were fictional.

[Willum]

[Replying to PghPanther]

Not only that........what is written comes from a line of decades of believer's gossip...er I mean oral tradition that I'm sure preservers the accurate accounts of what happened historically.....especially that supernatural stuff. I'm sure the enthusiasm hope and passion of believers didn't get in the way of embellishing any of this before someone decided to take what they heard and write it down...

...especially when followers have not engaged in overzealous embellishment, today, nor have they engaged in any deception in the last 1,940 years.

[Goose]

I think I am going to have to disagree on Caesar’s assassination matter. Do you have evidence that this is fictional?

Oh, oh, pick me, pick me. There are numerous contradictions between the narratives of the assassination. Ring any bells?

[Zzyzx]

.

Okay. I have no problem accepting that reports of Caesar's assassination and reports of Jesus' resurrection are equally fictional.

It's difficult, to say the least, to take seriously one who accepts the reports of the assassination of Caesar were fictional.

Likewise, it is difficult to take seriously one who accepts reports that a long dead body came back to life and flew off into the sky.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1370 by Zzyzx]


Zzyzx wrote:

I am attempting to reduce my participation in debate threads – while still posting topics. Some comments will be posted in Member Notes http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28836. Recent updates will be noted in signature.

RESPONSE:

I’m glad that we are not losing you entirely. I like your work.
Best of luck for the future!

Polonius

[Goose]

.

Okay. I have no problem accepting that reports of Caesar's assassination and reports of Jesus' resurrection are equally fictional.

It's difficult, to say the least, to take seriously one who accepts the reports of the assassination of Caesar were fictional.

Likewise, it is difficult to take seriously one who accepts reports that a long dead body came back to life and flew off into the sky.

So you accept the position that the assassination of Caesar was fictional then?

[Zzyzx]

.

Likewise, it is difficult to take seriously one who accepts reports that a long dead body came back to life and flew off into the sky.

So you accept the position that the assassination of Caesar was fictional then?

I don't care one way or the other about Caesar's assassination. If reports are fictional that is fine with me. However, no one seems to be developing a worship industry in Caesar's name, or building palaces of worship for him, or using resources and energy that could be devoted to more beneficial purposes.

I DO care if fictional reports are taken as true and used as a basis for decisions affecting a society in which I live.

Further, Caesar assassination has nothing to do with the claimed 'resurrection' but is being used as a diversionary tactic away from the OP topic. If you (generic term) can't defend the resurrection tale, try to talk about something else instead.

[Goose]

.

Likewise, it is difficult to take seriously one who accepts reports that a long dead body came back to life and flew off into the sky.

So you accept the position that the assassination of Caesar was fictional then?

I don't care one way or the other about Caesar's assassination. If reports are fictional that is fine with me.

I didn't ask if you care. I asked if you accept the position that the assassination was fiction. You said you have "no problem" accepting that reports of Caesar's assassination are fictional. And I've given you a reason to think they are. It's the same reason polonius.advice argues the resurrection is fictional - that is, there are numerous contradictions between the accounts. So why are you so reluctant to go on record as stating you accept the assassination was fiction? Why won't you put that out there and wear it loud and proud?

I think we all know why.

Further, Caesar assassination has nothing to do with the claimed 'resurrection' but is being used as a diversionary tactic away from the OP topic. If you (generic term) can't defend the resurrection tale, try to talk about something else instead.

It's not a diversion. It's a counter argument in the form of a reductio ad absurdum. Specifically in regards to inferring non-historicity from contradictions among narratives. It's a perfectly valid form of argumentation.