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?

[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.

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 am being asked to state a position on a matter which is of no concern to me. Why should I be expected (or asked) to take a position on such matters?

I think we all know why.

I state why – not of concern

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.

Contradictions in accounts by themselves do not invalidate a story; however, they may cast doubt on its veracity. If a witness in court makes contradictory statements in an account that may be taken as indication the person is not being truthful.

[Goose]

I am being asked to state a position on a matter which is of no concern to me.

You say it’s of no concern to you yet you took the time and felt it necessary to type up and weigh in with a rebuttal argument.

Why should I be expected (or asked) to take a position on such matters?

I don't think it's an unreasonable request considering you weighed in at that juncture of the argument. You asserted you have “no problem� accepting the position the assassination was fictional. Now, when pressed, you seem very reluctant to actually take that position even though I've given you reason to think that via the same argument p.a. has given regarding contradictions. That speaks volumes.

Contradictions in accounts by themselves do not invalidate a story; however, they may cast doubt on its veracity.

So you doubt the veracity of the assassination of Caesar on the grounds of contradictions in the accounts?

If a witness in court makes contradictory statements in an account that may be taken as indication the person is not being truthful.

Were not in court but sure if the same witness made contradictory statements we might think there was something fishy. However, we would expect there to be some discrepancies between different witnesses otherwise we might think there was collusion between them. After all, isn’t often argued there was collusion between Mark, Matthew, and Luke on the grounds there are verbatim passages between them?

[Clownboat]

I did not argue that the contradictions/discrepancies among accounts necessarily indicates non-history.

I did not say you did.

I know. What you said was:
" The point being, contradictions/discrepancies among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non–historicity."
See the part in bold? Why were you going out of your way to make this point then?

Should contradictions and discrepancies among an historic account give us pause as to if the claimed event happened though?

There are good reasons to question history.

The point you are not addressing though is how justifying some claim about a magical unicorn for example should require more questioning when compared to claims that happen on a regular basis. It seems to me that you are pretending that human resurrection claims are not illogical, when they are. What's worse though is how you think it is an analogy to compare it to something we know happens.

I don't think the mere presence of contradictions between accounts themselves is sufficient grounds to question an event though.

I believe you and acknowledge that this is probably part of the reason why you find as of yet, nonsensical resurrection claims to be believable.

If that were the case we'd be "pausing" over virtually every event from antiquity where there exists more than one account since in almost every case there exists contradictions of some kind.

Why is this a bad thing? Should we not be skeptical before believing claims? Especially nonsensical ancient claims about things that as far as we know are not physically possible?

I would argue yes.

You'll be pausing over almost every event in history where there exists more than one account then.

Examine everything carefully, hold on to that which is good. What is wrong with doing this especially since you just said that there are more than one account, so therefore, not all of the accounts can be true. It doesn't make sense to me to just pick one of them and choose to believe it.

You seem to only bring it up in the case of Caesar, so your inconsistency is noted.

I brought it up in the case of Caesar as reductio ad absurdum.

Please explain how an assassination story is comparable to a story that goes against everything we understand about our physical reality. It is absurd to believe impossible things because your unsure about something that is possible.

Your feelings aren't relevant.

They kind of are. Like I asked you: "Do you understand why a person might feel silly for questioning something we know has happened plenty of times in our history when compared to magical resurrection claims that have never been verified to have ever happened in the history of our planet?"

What do they have to do with the counter argument I made regarding Caesar and contradictions among accounts?

I want to know if you understand why I feel silly comparing something impossible with something that is possible. Whether you do or don't has implication with our discussion.

Perhaps you would care to help me understand why you believe he came back to life, or did you just want to note your belief?

If you must know, I believe the resurrection because the historical evidence is strong. And I believe it is the best explanation of all the data.

This did not help me in any way shape or form to understand why you believe he came back to life. You allude to historical evidence being so strong, so I'm left to wonder if you think that the Bible is a history book, or if there is another source for info on the claimed resurrection or if you are just using hyperbole to say that the evidence is strong. Without knowing this, it is hard to take your claim seriously that it is the best explanation of all the data. My fear is that much of this data that so impresses you is just words written by unknown authors many decades after the event in places where the event itself didn't take place. I guess I'm trying to figure out how easily impressed you are.

Great! Can you explain to me why I should question whether or not Caesar was assassinated? You did have a point for bringing it up didn't you?

Yes, as a reductio ad absurdum.

So you cannot explain to me why I should question whether or not Caesar was assassinated? Should I question that he was assassinated? The claim seems mundane enough to be true without having to invoke make believe, unlike resurrection claims.

I believe you should question the resurrection claim of Jesus, and Caesar has nothing to do with it. Only the fact that after 3 days resurrections are not possible, yet here you are finding to be the best explanation. I wish you could articulate why I should find it to be such a great explanation too.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1374 by Goose]

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.

Not going to look for what polonius said on this, but pretending that you had been talking to me all this while, I'd add something in there. I'd change it to say
"It's the same reason rikuoamero argues the resurrection is not substantiated - that is, there are numerous contradictions between the accounts...
AND that the very idea of a resurrection is physically impossible, completely implausible, goes against quite literally everything we understand about biology and the finality of death."

So in my case (and hopefully in polonius's as well), it's not just that there are contradictions between the accounts. It's that the very thing being claimed is impossible, implausible.

[Goose]

" The point being, contradictions/discrepancies among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non–historicity."
See the part in bold? Why were you going out of your way to make this point then?

Because that is my salient point. I know, crazy I should clarify that, huh.

The point you are not addressing though is how justifying some claim about a magical unicorn for example should require more questioning when compared to claims that happen on a regular basis.

I’m not addressing this point because it has nothing to do the counter argument I presented. Your personal disbelief in the supernatural is irrelevant to my argument.

It seems to me that you are pretending that human resurrection claims are not illogical, when they are.

Explain, using a valid logical argument, how a resurrection is illogical.

What's worse though is how you think it is an analogy to compare it to something we know happens.

Why? Either contradictions are necessarily indicative of non-historicity or they aren't. The analogy is a counter argument to inferring non-historicity from contradictions among accounts.

Why is this a bad thing? Should we not be skeptical before believing claims? Especially nonsensical ancient claims about things that as far as we know are not physically possible?

I’m not suggesting every claim must be accepted uncritically. What I am arguing is that the presence of contradictions among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non-historicity. Since you don’t seem to be disputing that I’ll leave it there. Most of the rest of your post is a rabbit trail off this point.

[Clownboat]

Because that is my salient point. I know, crazy I should clarify that, huh.

Go right on ahead and make your point that no one here so far disagrees with. Not sure what you hope to accomplish though.

The point you are not addressing though is how justifying some claim about a magical unicorn for example should require more questioning when compared to claims that happen on a regular basis.

I’m not addressing this point because it has nothing to do the counter argument I presented. Your personal disbelief in the supernatural is irrelevant to my argument.

Readers, notice how he has nothing to say when it is pointed out that he is comparing magical claims to things we know happen in reality.
Goose, I don't blame you. If I were in your shoes, I would be tempted to stick my head in the ground about this and ignore it as well.

It seems to me that you are pretending that human resurrection claims are not illogical, when they are.

Explain, using a valid logical argument, how a resurrection is illogical.

Liquefied, decomposing internal organs cannot reanimate. Therefore resurrections on bodies that have been decomposing for 3 days are not possible.

Will you still pretend that your resurrection story is logical? Don't get me wrong, you of course are free to believe in illogical things, but not free in debate IMO to pretend that they are not illogical.

What's worse though is how you think it is an analogy to compare it to something we know happens.

Why? Either contradictions are necessarily indicative of non-historicity or they aren't.

Your analogy fails because you are comparing what is possible to what is not possible. The contradictions are just further evidence that the impossible is less likely to have actually occurred. They are not reasons in themselves to find something to be impossible. For this reason, I understand why you would like to change the focus to contradictions rather than the fact that you are arguing for something that is impossible. Unless I'm mistaken of course and you can show how decomposing bodies can come back to life.

The analogy is a counter argument to inferring non-historicity from contradictions among accounts.

Again, I find this irrelevant since you are comparing the possible to the impossible. What do contradictions have to do with this? You don't think people reject the resurrection claims solely due to the contradictions in the account do you? You argue as if you do.

Why is this a bad thing? Should we not be skeptical before believing claims? Especially nonsensical ancient claims about things that as far as we know are not physically possible?

I’m not suggesting every claim must be accepted uncritically. What I am arguing is that the presence of contradictions among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non-historicity. Since you don’t seem to be disputing that I’ll leave it there. Most of the rest of your post is a rabbit trail off this point.

To the bold. Why do you keep bringing this up? No one here ever said anything contrary to this that I'm aware of. You might as well be harping on the statement that the sun is hot.
I'm guessing you are just trying to evade the fact that you seem to be arguing for what is impossible by pointing to a claim that no one here is making about contradictions.
Yes, there are contradictions in the account. These contradictions are not necessary to argue that the event didn't happen though.

[Goose]

Go right on ahead and make your point that no one here so far disagrees with.

Okay so you agree that contradictions in accounts are not indicative of non-historicity.

Readers, notice how he has nothing to say when it is pointed out that he is comparing magical claims to things we know happen in reality.
Goose, I don't blame you. If I were in your shoes, I would be tempted to stick my head in the ground about this and ignore it as well.

I have nothing to say here because you are knocking down a strawman. I don’t need to defend an argument I’ve not made. I’m not comparing the claims themselves. What I’m doing is comparing the evidence. There’s a difference. And I hope you can finally understand that.

Liquefied, decomposing internal organs cannot reanimate. Therefore resurrections on bodies that have been decomposing for 3 days are not possible.

That’s an argument for why you believe resurrections are not probable. That doesn’t itself establish a resurrection as illogical. The fact is, logically speaking, there is nothing illogical about a resurrection. It’s not like a resurrection is contradiction in terms. You can't logically argue a resurrection is impossible because your knowledge is finite. At most you can argue a resurrection is very unlikely.

Your analogy fails because you are comparing what is possible to what is not possible.

You misunderstand the argument.

The contradictions are just further evidence that the impossible is less likely to have actually occurred.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said you agree that contradictions are not necessarily indicative of non-historicity. Yet here you seem to be arguing that contradictions are evidence that an event is unlikely to have occurred. Either contradictions between accounts are evidence of non-historicity or they are not. You can’t argue for both so which is it?

You don't think people reject the resurrection claims solely due to the contradictions in the account do you?

Others in this thread have argued this way. Go back and read the posts from p.a. in particular. I'm also guessing you aren't familiar with Dan Barker's Easter Challenge to Christians.

What I am arguing is that the presence of contradictions among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non-historicity.

To the bold. Why do you keep bringing this up? No one here ever said anything contrary to this that I'm aware of.

Er, you just did above.

[Willum]

[Replying to Goose]

That’s an argument for why you believe resurrections are not probable. That doesn’t itself establish a resurrection as illogical. The fact is, logically speaking, there is nothing illogical about a resurrection. It’s not like a resurrection is contradiction in terms. You can't logically argue a resurrection is impossible because your knowledge is finite. At most you can argue a resurrection is very unlikely.

So, I am going to have to go with the counter argument; that for the immense amount of power, and knowledge required to resurrect a 3 day old corpse, there are many many many more effective magic tricks that would remove all doubt, that would be easier, and, again, be more effective in inspiring belief.

A corpse showing itself only to followers, guarded by infidels is hardly the mechanism of a being of infinite wisdom...

Sorry.

[Claire Evans]

[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?

Again, does this make sense to you?

Since Matthew 21:7 states, “They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them� (NKJV), 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. Matthew could have meant that Jesus rode the colt while the other donkey walked along with them. Instead of saying, “He rode one donkey and brought the other with Him,� the writer simply wrote that He rode “them� into Jerusalem. If a horse-owner came home to his wife and informed her that he had just ridden the horses home a few minutes ago from a nearby town, no one would accuse him of literally riding both horses at once. He merely was indicating to his wife that he literally rode one horse home, while the other one trotted alongside or behind him."
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=773

[Claire Evans]

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.�

In my version, verse 50 doesn't include the word "then". It said "when".

As Goose brilliantly suggested, look at the Greek translation. There is no tote, which is "then" in English. It starts off with Ἐξήγαγε, which means lead away.

http://biblehub.com/goc/luke/24.htm