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]

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

We'll aside for the moment that this is a non-sequitur. Any formal effort by the Roman's to seek out and condemn Caesar's alleged murderers may have been the result of a grand conspiracy attempting to pin the death of Caesar on political rivals.

But since your belief here hinges on the existence of "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders" go ahead and prove it. Cite your primary evidence. This will be helpful since it will give us your methodology for proving an historical fact. Something you conveniently left out of your OP. Once we have that, and if it is I'll run the evidence for the resurrection through your method to see if it can also be said to be a historical fact.

RESPONSE:

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/argonauts ... lex-titia/

Les Titia

By this law a board of three men was given complete control over the Roman state. The lex Titia turned Rome into a de facto dictatorship, and one might argue that this date represents the end of the Roman Republic.
In 44 BC Caesar had declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). The result of this decision was his assassination by a group of senators on 15th March (the Ides), 44 BC. Two men sought to fill the position thus vacated by Caesar. One was Marc Antony, Caesar’s co-consul in 44 BC, and a loyal ally and lieutenant of the dead dictator. The other was the nineteen year-old Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew whom he had adopted in his will

Certainly I and the readership are happy to learn that you'll " ... see if your method is logically valid" !!!!

The Lex Titia was the legalization of the Second Triumvirate not "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders." Care to try again?

RESPONSE:

Why was it necessary to form a second government?

Perhaps the library history section of the University of Nottingham which published the article I posted would be willing to explain it to you and comment on your interesting interpretation.

If you send them your argument, please post their response.

library-helpline@nottingham.ac.uk

It is always interesting to follow your arguments, however
please recall the topic of this thread is a discussion of the historicity of the Resurrection, not if Caesar was assassinated or not. We'll leave you and the University of Nottingham to resolve your off-topic claims about Caesar's death.

[Claire Evans]

Clownboat wrote:

This time you failed to address: So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people?
How do bodies symbolically do this?

You mentioned the alien tech in a condescending way. Admit it.

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

RESPONSE: Then isn't it also possible that Jesus' Resurrection is a metaphor too?

Absolutely not. No one would have believed it. There would have been no Christianity. Imagine the disciples claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and it was just symbolic. Ultimate fail.

And isn't it strange that none of the other writers of the New Testament mention any mass resurrection at Jesus' death?

Yes, because it didn't happen. Matthew was concerned about the fulfillment of OT prophecies which the other writers didn't place as much importance.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Well of course the Dark Ages didn't destroy Christian works.

All of the Titus and Josephus' etc., are questionable. Sad, sad fact, Chrestos. Or Chystos.

Questionable doesn't mean devoid of fact.

That's one to look up: There were a people calling themselves "Golden People," Chrystos," who ascribed to the Golden Rule after 300 BC. Is this a coincidence?

"Medieval Christians read Virgil's poem as a prophecy of the coming of Christ. The Augustan Age, although pre-Christian, was viewed as a golden age preparing the world for the coming of Christ. The great poets of this age were viewed as a source of revelation and light upon the Christian mysteries to come."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum

I believe this is not a prophecy of Christ but rather the Anti-Christ.

References to gold is occultic.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Latin: Ordo Hermeticus Aurorae Aureae; or, more commonly, The Golden Dawn (Aurora Aurea)) was an organization devoted to the study and practice of the occult, metaphysics, and paranormal activities during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Golden Age refers to the New World Order and that is not a nice thing at all. Complete slavery.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Why does no one seem to understand, that if 90% of your arguments are because of faulty translations, that the subject matter is bunk.

And WHY, do modern folks, with no understanding of Hebrew, Greek or Latin, seem to think that their versions of those languages are better than people who spoke them?

Believe it or not, you can't translate word for word, and people who do know this, know that you need to use different words to get the proper meaning across.

Brilliant to save the religion, terrible in the face of religion.

It's not a case of faulty translation. People make the mistake of thinking that the scriptures always have to be in chronological order. Also look at the context of things. Directly interpreting Greek to English does not always give the correct context. For example, Luke 14:26:

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

So people go, "Whoa" and then Jesus said we must hate. Yet this due to a direct translation from Greek. In the Greek context, it means "love less".

Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate� (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,� but means “to love less.� E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate� in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me� (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.� He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning� of the word “hate� in this verse is “love less� (n.d., p. 575).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=781

It's not faulty translation per se but rather translation taken out of context.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1427 by Claire Evans]

Questionable doesn't mean devoid of fact.

No, it means forgery.

I think you need to go back and read the rest of my stuff in context. Because you are all over the board.

V/R

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1427 by Claire Evans]

Questionable doesn't mean devoid of fact.

No, it means forgery.

I think you need to go back and read the rest of my stuff in context. Because you are all over the board.

V/R

Here is an example.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, [strike]if indeed one ought to call him a man[/strike]. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [strike]He was the Messiah[/strike]. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. [strike]He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.[/strike]
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

This is considered questionable yet it was written in the style of what Josephus would write. It is considered interpolation in the passage. In other words, some Christians inserted words that weren't there original to make it more "Christian". So look at the passage above. I have made a strike through the text that is most likely what Josephus didn't write.

So it is not devoid of fact but details have been inserted which shouldn't have been there.
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

[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

RESPONSE:


Of course, the Greek translation being used was not identified.

"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament."



(Re: Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.
(Re https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Are there any Greek texts that include "tote"?

Lets use common sense. "When" or "then" matched up with the sequence of events given in Luke 24 is the next thing happening. In this case the Ascension. Not the 40 day wait.

But I realize some fundamentalists try to avoid the obvious contradiction between the same day events in Jerusalem and the 40 day later events involving the 7 day round trip to Galilee.. But by all means, pick the story you like best!

"When" does not automatically mean "the next thing happening". There is a break in the text when Luke 24:50 appears after a heading, "The Ascension". It's like beginning a new chapter in a book with a heading. It does not mean the new chapter's events are a continuation of the previous one.

I am not a fundamentalist thank you very much!

[polonius]

"When" does not automatically mean "the next thing happening". There is a break in the text when Luke 24:50 appears after a heading, "The Ascension". It's like beginning a new chapter in a book with a heading. It does not mean the new chapter's events are a continuation of the previous one.

I am not a fundamentalist thank you very much!

RESPONSE: Luke 24 is his gospel's last chapter and tells the events of the last day in Christ's earthly life. That day begins with his Resurrection and ends with his Ascension.

Luke 24 doesn't add one sentence of a new chapter and then say nothing more. If Luke would have wanted to, he would have written chapter 25. He didn't. Are you really arguing that Luke just added something that supposedly occurred 40 days later as an afterthought?

However, biblical fundamentalists have to explain away what Luke says in Luke 24, and what Luke(?) contradicts in Acts, so at the very least they have to claim a 40 day delay between the last two sentences in chapter 24. That's very imaginative, but hardly makes any sense, does it?

[polonius]

And, of course, the earlies writing by Paul around 55 AD (1 Cor 15) doesn't have any Ascension account. The gospel of Mark written around 70 AD doesn't have any Ascension either.

But the "longer ending" was added to Mark's gospel in the early second century so Mark doesn't appear to be contradicting Matthew. Luke, and John all of whom wrote later versions of the story.

Why do you think it was essential to have Jesus leave the world by ascending into heaven?

[Clownboat]

How beliefs in gods came about can be explained by ancient people observing superior beings who identified themselves as gods. The things these gods do can be described by comparing it to what ancients already know of and that is natural phenomena. Say a god detonated a bomb. The ancients believed it sounded like thunder and a destructive storm that destroyed things. Therefore they can attribute these gods as the god of thunder and destruction.

Claire, thank you so much for evidencing that an imagination is all that is required in order to come up with gods/alien or what have you scenarios when trying to make sense of things we don't understand.
This is what I have been saying all along and what my psychology today article claimed that humans do.

I don't 'need' gods to be real. Therefore I'm not going to use my imagination in order to justify the gods as being real. Now, show me a god or an alien and then I will believe.

Let's put aside the supernatural part. Do you believe the FBI has a vivid imagination. From a declassified FBI report about aliens:

This thread is about the resurrection being a real historical fact or not. I would hate for people to think your alien claims were credible by discussing them here. I am quite frankly embarrassed for you.

To recap, my point is that imaginations are all that are required in order to invent god concepts, alien concepts and just about anything that your mind wants to assign agency to.

For more stories from Claires seemingly preferred method of gathering info see this story:
Secret Space Program Whistleblower claims Humans are on Mars since 70s
http://www.ancient-code.com/?s=mission+statement

So perhaps these ancient people observed what has been described above and that is how a belief in gods started.

No need to add this unrealistic explanation when imaginations are all that is needed. I know it doesn't fit in with your desired conspiracies but they are unneeded just the same.

But who says that only imagination is required?

Myself and Psychology Today.

You are just assuming that. This is confirmation bias.

False. Your imagination allows you to imagine aliens dropping bombs which gave rise to the idea that aliens/gods are behind thunder and lightning and let's be honest, who knows what else you would be willing to point to aliens for.
Your very explanation in fact doesn't have any data to support it. What it has it seems is people imagining things to be real to explain gods/aliens that have not been shown to be real in the first place.

Not according to the FBI. And I don't make this stuff up to attempt to explain anything. Sometimes just putting two and two together will suffice.

The FBI is not hear to debate. Claire, you need to realize that not everything you read on the internet is true. Let's examine your source shall we:
Ancient Code is a website containing a host of articles which are mostly pseudoarchelogical and pseduohistorical hoaxes. The site seems to be registered in Croatia.[1] One Ivan Petricevic is presented as editor-in-chief[2], where he says he also writes for EWAO, Share Knowledge, Svemir Online and Ancient Origins. It is unclear whether he actually believes in the stuff he writes, or if the site is purely an advertising revenue generator.

I'm posed with two scenarios.
1) People imagined the claim that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a horse.
2) Muhammad had alien technology at his disposal.
Which of these 2 do we know for a fact is a possible explanation?

Number 2 is far more likely:

Let it go on record that Claire seems to agree that alien encounters are more likely an explanation for Mohammad's flight to heaven then people imagining the story.

What seems more likely here Claire, that Tolkien imagined the Lord of the Rings stories, or that they were inspired by actual orcs, goblins, wizards and hobbits?

However, the Americans are planning to return to the Moon, this time to invade Allah’s own mosque.�

So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened.

http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2014/07/is ... om-easton/

And a claim on a blog is all that Claire seems to need in order to take these odd stories as plausible. A mosque on the moon!

It is not outlandish to think that people like Mohammed could have been in spacecrafts.

No? Really? Show me information on space ships. You imagining space ships is not a reason for anyone to believe Mohammed ascended up to heaven nor that he has a mosque on the moon.

We already know the FBI admits there are spacecraft with crews.

Right, because you like to visit conspiracy theorists blog sites to gather your info.

How do you know the resurrection claims were not to be found credible in Jerusalem?

The Jews to this day still reject that it happened.

But of course they do. They don't want to admit anything that challenges their faith.

Pot, meet kettle.

That is what Jews believe. They resurrect but they don't need Jesus to do so. So why tell ancient Jews need Jesus to resurrect when they had a resurrection belief prior to Jesus' resurrection?

Christianity (especially Paul's version) was for the gentiles it seems. The Jews in Jerusalem from 2,000 years ago and still the Jews of today reject that the resurrection happened. The chosen people of the claimed god in the actual city where these claims are said to have happened did not find them credible. This should mean something to you IMO.

What mechanism to you employ when reading the Bible that determines what is metaphor and what is not? Please be specific so I can start applying this said mechanism.

Do the research then come up up with your own conclusion.

This is a complete and utter fail on your part for telling us the specifics in the mechanism for knowing what is metaphor and what is not in the Bible. Therefore, you cannot be trusted to inform us humans as to what is metaphor and what is not.

The claim of the resurrection would not have survived as a metaphor. People needed proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

If you think that this is true, it explains why you are forced to imagine reasons as to why people believed that Zeus was behind thunder and why Mohammed had access to alien space ships.
I of course disagree with you and would point to the numerous resurrection myths out there and point to nothing more than an imagination is needed in order for them to survive as stories.

No. Scientific studies have shown prayer to the Christian god anyways to be ineffective. For all I know, prayers to Vishnu help, but I will doubt it until shown otherwise.

What? Show these studies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

In other words, you can't close the possibility that they are telling the truth.

That's just not how this world works Claire. If people want to be credible, they need to show that they are credible. Please tell me you don't believe every claim you hear. Even if it's from a blog site!

Put your money where your mouth is Claire. Make me aware of the paranormal!

Do the research yourself. Get in contact with paranormal investigators or something.

So you can't show that you speak the truth and you expect me to waste time myself trying to prove the paranormal? I'm content with you believing in whatever absurdity you choose as long as you are not harming others.

I don't understand what you are asking me. I'm pointing out that oral tradition is one way for rumors to start. Is oral tradition immune to starting rumors in your opinion?

No, oral tradition is not devoid of rumours but as I have mentioned, oral tradition was meticulously moderated by the Jews. A whole story of Jesus was never considered rumour.

And the Jews of Jerusalem did not and still don't find this resurrection story to be an historical fact.

Because the gospels were already established before Paul came onto the scene as I mentioned about the early Church.

Please show that Biblical scholars are mistaken and that the gospels existed before Paul came to the scene.

Because they were stored that way. I don't think the followers of Jesus could do that. Jesus, while one earth, was not that significant to write about. There were other miracle workers. It was only when Christianity took off that Jesus became very significant.

Or.... dun, dun, dun. Imagination was at play later on when the gospels finally got penned. This casts doubt on whether the res story is historical fact.

Why do you choose to forget the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story? These are New Testament forgeries Claire

.

Tell me more.

They are forgeries, what more needs to be told?

This is a false statement if being made about an all powerful god.

Okay, tell me how God would that done it?

OK. First let me put my imagination to work...
Done. He could appear to each and every person so that they know him to be not just real, but the realist of all the gods out there. Like for really real.

You said it is a fact that they had control of the body.

Claire, according to the story, it is a fact they had control of the body. For all I know the body was thrown into a garbage pit for the dogs to eat like was common in the day.

First you say the disciples having the body is a fact and then you say it can't be trusted.

I don't know why you struggle with this so much.
A claim in the Spiderman comic book could be a factual claim found in the said comic, but we don't therefore trust everything in the Spiderman comic book series.

Where is your proof that all Jews rejected Jesus in Jerusalem?

Like I have already pointed out to you, they still to this day reject the claim as being a historical fact.

It is not disputed that the tomb was empty. Would that have not been a problem for Pilate?

If the empty tomb claim didn't take place until after the death of Pilate, I don't see how it could have been a problem for him.

How would they have thought a resurrection took place if they were the ones to take Jesus' body to Galilee?

Use your imagination Claire. I can imagine a scenario where only a couple disciples were in on the hoax.

It is you that ignores the additions to the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story, not I.

As I said, elaborate on that.

The ending of Mark where it is claimed that people saw the risen Christ is a forgery added many many many years later.
The women at the well story is also a later addition. What needs elaborating?

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

What I believe is that if they were testing the U2 spy plane and lets imagine one crashed, they would prefer people to have invented alien claims rather than accurate top secret claims. I can just imagine FBI higher ups thanking ignorant conspiracy theorists for providing alien encounters for the general public to focus on.

I must show you what happened at Roswell? What? I'm just going to ask you a question, yes or no: Do you believe it is possible that it was a cover-up?

Yes, a cover up for the U2 spy plane that was being designed to spy on the Russians as well as other top secret projects.
FBI: Well gee guys, should we correct the reporting public about these crazy alien claims, or admit to our top secret research. Let's just let them go with aliens huh boys?

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

It's in the Bible. Sorry Claire.