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]

The difference between your argument and mine is that you assume ancient people just somehow thought of something without any evidence, whatsoever, like the supernatural, and attributed to weather, etc.

This is what you cannot seem to address. Imaginations are real, the supernatural is not.

You make that assumption.

However, they saw things with their own eyes, like the gods.

Please show that the gods are real. Again, an imagination is all that is required. Actual gods are not.

The gods the ancients knew didn't necessarily have supernatural powers. They could have been extraterrestrials. For example:

http://ancientufo.org/2016/05/cave-pain ... ng-aliens/

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... f020c6.jpg

To explain something they had no clue about had to be compared with these they did understand.

There is not understanding to be had today about the gods, so why do you imagine that the ancients had the gods all figured out?

You know that there are various extraterrestrial claims.

Robert Oppenheimer also had a very vivid imagination.

Just have a look at this from the Mahabharata:

"...a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as the thousand suns Rose in all its splendour… a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds…

Does this sound like nuclear warfare or not? If not, why?

https://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress ... eexamined/

No, this does not sound like nuclear warfare to me. Why, because it sounds like the writings of ancient ignorant man.
For example: "Pottery broke without apparent cause"
No cause they say? So a shock wave traveling near the speed of sound shouldn't brake pottery?
This desire of yours for their to be gods seems to have you seeing gods all over the place.

Did those ancients know about shock waves? No they did not. You certainly do have confirmation bias. Answer me this, if I wrote a short story on nuclear warfare and I wrote that, would you say that sounds nothing like nuclear warfare?

Clownboat, that sites links it to the FBI's own site.

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

And? I went through over half of the pages and didn't see any reference to aliens or the gods.

Page 22!

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?

Wizards are magicians. That is a fact.

So the Lord of the Rings is a true story?

We have claims of people who have seen tokoloshe, dwarf-like water sprites.

So the Lord of the Rings is a true story?

They are associated with witch craft. Very similar in appearances to goblins we picture. It is very possible that the concept of goblins are based on actual sightings.

So the Lord of the Rings is a true story?

No, but fictitious stories can be based on things that are true.

You don't believe spaceships exist? I didn't say it is reason to believe but it is something to keep in mind.

I asked you: "Show me information on space ships".

FBI document page 22

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.

No, the actual FBI site.

Like I said, I believe the FBI would prefer people were talking about UFO's than the U2 spy plane or other top secret technology for example. This seems more reasonable than aliens and spacecrafts which you cannot show exist.

Of my gosh! It was a classified document!

What's Paul's version?

That would need a thread of its own. Paul made Christianity what it is today IMO. Paul's words and Jesus's words all to often contradict each other.

Shall we start one?

Of course the Jews today reject the resurrection claim. It doesn't suit them.

Not just the Jews of today, but also the Jews in Jerusalem that would have been around when the claimed event happened. Yes, those very same Jews that would have witnessed 500 dead bodies walking around Jerusalem.

How do you know that? Were you there?

Anyway, they are far removed from the fact. None of them are eyewitnesses.

And the ones that would have been eyewitnesses also reject your claim about this Jesus person. I dare say they would know better than you whether this Jesus person rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Don' you agree?

Who are these people? Just because it wasn't written down by the people, doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen.

Then let's start a thread on the other resurrection myths.

All resurrection myths need nothing but an imagination to come up with the said claim. This does not need a thread of its own

Cop out.

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.

My goodness, it depends on what is being prayed about.

You asked for the study as if it didn't exist. Well, it does and now you try to muddy the waters.

I didn't dismiss that they could be a study. But what science can refute prayer?

Do not expect God to be a genie.

How do you know a god is not a genie? You believe in all sorts of mythical things, why do you draw the line at genies?

Did Jesus treat God as a genie?

One must not pray for complete healing, but rather for His will to be done and that is not always in sync for with ours.

Doesn't matter. Prayer is ineffective either way it seems.

I'm glad you put the word "it seems".

We all have to die sometime. If I pray for God to be immortal, does that show God didn't answer my prayers when I die?

It would be evidence, but either way you would just be praying to the imaginary while asking for something impossible. So to expect this to work seems a bit ill informed.

You are assuming it is imaginary.

Those scientists cannot possibly know what happens in prayer between and individual and God. It's just total arrogance on the scientists' part.

The results are what they are. Apparently not one Christian was praying 'correctly'. This explanation does not work on me.

Deduce from it what you will.

Absolutely not. However, just because the claims are fantastic, doesn't automatically mean it cannot possibly be true.

Straw man. Who ever said that fantastic claims cannot possibly be true?
What is not a Straw man is that you source all sorts of fantastic claims to justify ancient stories.

Then you agree that the fantastic claims I am making could be true.

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?

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

For some reason, you think it is plausible that Peter, Luke and the early church would just suddenly make up things about Jesus. Peter knew Jesus personally. He'd be the first to attack Paul's lies.

Please don't address me. I asked you to show that Bible scholars are mistaken and that the gospels existed before Paul came to the scene. I see that you cannot do this.

What is the problem? It is logical that if someone makes a claim about someone they didn't know an it is a lie, then the person who did know the person will refute it. What you are espousing doesn't make sense.

How do you know imagination later played a part?

I don't claim to know the unknown. That is for religious people. However, I notice that imaginations are real and they are the only thing required in order to invent claims. Actual resurrections must happen without anyone noticing, or perhaps they don't happen because such a thing (a body decomposing for 3 days coming back to life) is not possible. Therefore, imaginations are the reasonable explanation.

You can't say "the only thing". The other explanation is that the the supernatural was involved. Say you acknowledged God existed. Him being God, would bringing someone back to life be a problem?

Revelation says He will return to everyone. In the meanwhile, we don't need His physical presence to believe. We believe that the Holy Spirit is good enough. If nonbeliever don't think that's good enough then they won't know.

You believe in all sorts of unbelievable claims IMO. Therefore you telling me that there is a Holy Spirit if meaningless because you cannot show that you speak the truth. I must chalk the Holy Spirit claim up there with all your other obsurd claims until you can show that you speak the truth about any of them.

Just telling you what we believe.

Yes, fact according to the Bible, but that doesn't mean automatically it is a fact that it actually happened. If Jesus was thrown in a garbage pit, no resurrection story could have arisen in the first place.

This is false. If Jesus was killed, and I didn't want to give up my position of authority and become a fisherman again, I would use my imagination to imagine a scenario that would allow me to keep my followers and authority. Like, dun, dun, dun.... The body came back to life. All it takes is people that are not skeptical to believe the imagined claim.

Remember doubting Thomas? People aren't that stupid. If I said that someone I knew rose from the dead and I knew people had seen him die, why would they automatically believe it. Would you? Your scenario is a bit of a stretch considering believers died for their beliefs.

How do you know the empty tomb claim only came about after his death?

I don't know when it came about and I don't pretend to know the unknown. I leave that up to religious people. I can imagine such a scenario though.

I think this is the scenario you'd prefer to believe.

And the others just believed it? They didn't need a proof of a body?

You need to accept that these questions are things we cannot know. It is possible that they didn't want to give up their positions of authority though, and thus imagined a scenario like the dead body actually didn't stay dead.

Of course we can know. Make a comparison of an example today. People saw JFK's brains blown up. If someone said to them that JFK is alive and well and rose from the dead, what would the public's reaction be? Yes, they'd want to see JFK appearing on TV to prove it.

The ending of Mark where it is claimed that people saw the risen Christ is a forgery added many many many years later.

That is true but that does not the negate the other gospels. It is apparent that early scribes thought that Mark's gospel was not conventional enough and felt the need to interpret their own ending.

I never said that it negated the other gospels. I expanded on Mark because you asked me: "As I said, elaborate on that." So I elaborated on it for you.

Thank you. However, I think you are implying that the resurrection story is less reliable because of that forgery.

The women at the well story is also a later addition. What needs elaborating?

I cannot find this claim when I google it. Can you give me a link?

Odd. Took me a matter of seconds.
'Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel.'
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

You are mixing the woman at the well story with the woman caught in adultery. I agree that it is a later addition. I had a look at your link.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.
When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.
Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails "to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1-2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of chapter viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest" (Hort, "Notes on Select Readings," pp. 86 f.).
Although the committee [that is, the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament] was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7.52.

In Roswell, they most certainly did not want the public to belief a spacecraft crashed.

I really have no desire to discuss your wackadoo conspiracies. To do so gives them more credit then they deserve IMO.

Confirmation bias but that's up to you.

So? Should there be no metaphors in the Bible?

There can be sure. However, if there is, there needs to be a mechanism in place for us to determine what is true and what is just metaphor.
That you cannot articulate any such mechanism has been observed.

Just use some sense when doing the research. Some people insist on believing it is literal. Fundamentalists do that mostly. The demon possessed pig story is strong evidence of an allegory if one does the research.


If we want to follow Matthew and place the exorcism at Gadara, let us see what happened to the Gadarenes in the Jewish War of Josephus:
“Vespasian sent Placidus with 500 horse and 3000 foot to pursue those who had fled from Gadara,... (5) Placidus, relying on his cavalry and emboldened by his previous success, pursued the Gadarenes, killing all whom he overtook, as far as the Jordan. Having driven the whole multitude up to the river, where they were blocked by the stream, which being swollen by the rain was unfordable, he drew up his troops in line opposite them. Necessity goaded them to battle, flight being impossible... Fifteen thousand perished by the enemy’s hands, while the number of those who were driven to fling themselves into the Jordan was incalculable; about two thousand two hundred were captured. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen (6) This blow was the greatest that had befallen the Jews, and appeared even greater than is was; for not only was the whole countryside through which their flight had lain one scene of carnage, and the Jordan choked with dead, but even the [Dead Sea] was filled with bodies, masses of which were carried down into it by the river.� War 4. 7. 4-6

Pigs are a derogatory name for Jews and a legion, as being claimed by the demon, makes up a Roman army.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Avoiding my post. Typical.
I’ll post this over and over to see how many times will you avoid this.
A little psychological experiment.

So far:
Number of avoidance = 1.

Post 1415:
“It is not outlandish to think that people like Mohammed could have been in spacecrafts. “

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

“No need. Imagination, ignorance and wishful thinking explain the gods just fine.�
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 691#825691



Post 1387:
[i"]So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened." [/i]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=1380

It is not outlandish to think aliens are involved behind the Jesus’s story too.

Let me create a science fiction narrative:

Aliens created all the ancient religions of the world as a psychological experiment. This aliens are responsible for the Jesus story.

Virgin birth of Maria : Some of these aliens impregnated Maria in vitro. Jesus was an genetically modified, more evolved human being capable of Psychokinesis, Telekinesis, Incredible Healing capabilities and so one.
Later the aliens implanted some fake memories in Jesus head that he was the son of God, that he is divine and so on. He started preaching about this.

After crucifixion Jesus was teleported to the mother-ship and healed by the aliens(He could have healed on his own, but they wanted his holes in the hands and legs to remain; so to be convincing)
After 3 days he was teleported back on the Earth.
Jesus when he woke up really believed he was dead and rose from the dead, this fortify his delusion he was the son of God and had a divine nature.

At the end when he ascended in the sky he was just levitated up in the sky by the aliens and after teleported to the mother-ship.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Sir Arthur Charles Clarke


Simply put it technology and magic were the same to the uninitiated, ignorant.

Q: How do you like my imagination?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1456 by alexxcJRO]

God is alien... you didn't change the story at all.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]


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

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


Post 1387:
[i"]So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened." [/i]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=1380


It is not outlandish to think aliens are involved behind the Jesus’s story too.

Let me create a science fiction narrative:

Aliens created all the ancient religions of the world as a psychological experiment. This aliens are responsible for the Jesus story.

Virgin birth of Maria : Some of these aliens impregnated Maria in vitro. Jesus was an genetically modified, more evolved human being capable of Psychokinesis, Telekinesis, Incredible Healing capabilities and so one.
Later the aliens implanted some fake memories in Jesus head that he was the son of God, that he is divine and so on. He started preaching about this.

After crucifixion Jesus was teleported to the mother-ship and healed by the aliens(He could have healed on his own, but they wanted his holes in the hands and legs to remain; so to be convincing)
After 3 days he was teleported back on the Earth.
Jesus when he woke up really believed he was dead and rose from the dead, this fortify his delusion he was the son of God and had a divine nature.

At the end when he ascended in the sky he was just levitated up in the sky by the aliens and after teleported to the mother-ship.

That is not outlandish if one believes in aliens. However, would there not be a hint of that in the gospels if it was true? Like Elijah riding a fiery chariot which can mean a being taken by a space craft? Would there not be witnesses to the mother-ship and the teleportation? Nobody yet has made that claim of yours so I don't think many would find that truthful. I don't think this claim would hold water.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

“19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.� (Mark 16-19)
50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.� Luke 24(50-51)

The mother-ship is not visible. It’s in orbit.


“He was taken into Heaven�,� he left them and was taken up into heaven�; meaning vanished in mid-air and being teleported to the mother-ship.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Sir Arthur Charles Clarke

Simply put it technology and magic were the same to the uninitiated, ignorant.
This was just sufficiently advanced technology, but for them the uninitiated, ignorant aka the apostles this was magic, divine.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1456 by alexxcJRO]

God is alien... you didn't change the story at all.

The supernatural is not interchangeable with aliens.

[marco]

The supernatural is not interchangeable with aliens.

A possible interpretation of the supernatural is alien activity. When Cortez arrived the natives naturally took these alien beings to be gods.

Julius Caesar, seeing a mobile phone in operation, would attribute it to the work of Mercury, perhaps. And people experiencing an empty tomb, or at least a tomb with a strange guy sitting in it, would possibly see the man as an angel and the missing body as a resurrection. We get the picture through the eyes of simple souls but we don't have to accept their miraculous explanation.

[Willum]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

The supernatural is alien. Did they come from this planet? No, and that's for starters.

[Clownboat]

This is what you cannot seem to address. Imaginations are real, the supernatural is not.

You make that assumption.

That is not how it works Claire. Make believe is not true until it is shown to not be make believe. Can you show that this supernatural that you desire to believe in is not make believe? No? Then I don't have to assume anything.

Thank you. However, I think you are implying that the resurrection story is less reliable because of that forgery.

I am not implying that Claire. Dead bodies decomposing for 3 days can not reverse said decomposition and reanimate. Biology tells me this, so I need not imply anything. Therefore, resurrection stories are not reliable because our physical reality does not allow for them.
I am open for you to show me that what we know about our physical reality is not true, but I will need evidence, not some promised pie in the sky or threat of eternal punishment after we die.

Either way, if you claim that the Mohammed story is explained by aliens, then the same can be said for the Jesus story. Imaginations at play seem more sensible than alien explanations IMO. Your mileage may vary.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1456 by alexxcJRO]

God is alien... you didn't change the story at all.

The supernatural is not interchangeable with aliens.

Of course it is, Shermer's Variant of Arthur Clarke's Third Law (Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God). Shermer, Michael (2002-01-01). "Shermer's Last Law". Scientific American.