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]

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?

Why does the Resurrection have to be literal? You can read in the Bible how the faith of the Apostles was dramatically charged not long after their Rabbi was arrested and crucified. One could postulate that " the Spirit of Jesus" sprang to life in the lives of the disciples. I don't see how the Resurrection as metaphor should be any less valid, than, say, seeing the Book of Revelation as a metaphorical account of the Christian Church's success in the world. It's just a thought.

QUESTION: Are you content to base your belief on fiction?

[boatsnguitars]

Every day is a time for growth and development. The College of Contract Management is the perfect helping hand for that. This year, CCM introduces new courses in different working fields. Their learning system is online which is convenient for those who are in the workforce or have other commitments aside from learning. Start your journey now!

So lame. Lame Spam. You've just convinced a host of people to avoid your scam.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to polonius in post #1491]
Many have. Every religion is a fiction.

[boatsnguitars]

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?

Did a man rise from the dead? No.
If he did, where is he?

[TRANSPONDER]

We seem to have a number of points.

The resurrection could be metaphorical and in some way saving people (somehow) by what they believe, even if it wasn't true. Or the resurrection might be spiritual and Jesus' body didn't get up and walk. In fact I think that was the way of it and Paul is misunderstood.

It looks like he's saying that if the body of Jesus rising from being dead didn't happen, then Christianity (as it now is) is untrue. And that is valid even though I think Paul referred to the Pharisee belief that the bodies of the dead would reanimate and rise from their graves when Jesus came again, and if Jesus' spirit didn't go back to heaven to come again, then the Pharisee belief in eventual resurrection is untrue. And that works, too.

However if was Paul was right. If the resurrection in either way was not true, Christianity in either the Pauline sense or the modern one (believing - in fact depending - on the Gospel account of the resurrection) fails, and fails with a crash.

So, did the resurrection happen as in the Gospels? How could it be, as they tell three different stories. They look like a record of eyewitness accounts. They are supposed to. But is Matthew's version credible? Can the differences between the three version be ignored or waved away? I won't recite all the differences but just two things - The Nativities are as much proof as any Reasonable person would need to to say 'Didn't happen'. At least one version is false and probably both as neither actually make historical sense.

That is the Touchstone case for Bible unreliability and the resurrections are no 2. Yes, friends, the Resurrections are second as disprovable after the nativities. And, if they were made up separately, there can be no original story, which is why we don't have one in Mark. It was never lost or left out because it wasn't considered necessary to tell it The resurrection belief (I think it was of a spirit, not of a body) when it first became necessary to have it substantial; solid -body, was originally backed up by an empty tomb, and the synoptic version added an angel parked there to explain everything. We don't get that in John.

So the Believers may employ their explanations, inventions and manipulations (I have seen some dillies here, Folks ) but the case remains, there is no case that would convince a Reasonable person that the Resurrection account is factual, at least, not after they have had the problems explained to them.

I'll save that odd phenomenon of thinking the Bible says what they were told, not what is actually in it. But I think people rather like to have lies and scams exposed. That's what I'll keep in hand.