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]

Clair Evans wrote:

In regards to why some scriptures appear in some gospels, but not in others demands a lot on the audience. Matthew wrote about the fulfillment of OT prophecies. In the dead saints rising argument, I believe it could be a symbolic fulfillment of the resurrection of the dead.

QUESTION: How about a simple fiction to make believers and maintain control over them?

I believe is there was no resurrection, no believers could be made in the first place. Especially if one witnessed someone died and had to proof they rose from the dead. Would you be a believer?

RESPONSE: No proof has been provided that someone died and rose (or was raised from the dead - there's a major difference and the writers of the NT don't agree on this point).

I will not be a "believer" until such "proof" is provided. And I tend not to be very gullible!

So you say no one in history had proof of the resurrection just because it cannot be demonstrated today? Even if the Romans produced material that admitted Jesus rose from the dead, you wouldn't believe it. You'd think it was a forgery. Are there NT writers that don't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

But the point is, if someone claimed a resurrection took place, and it didn't really happen, wouldn't you find it rather easy to refute it? Why would you believe it if you didn't see that person resurrected? What would convince people?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1305 by Claire Evans]

Great little point. Who destroyed history? and what allowed it to survive?

The Christian Dark Ages. However they destroyed evidence contrary to the Bible. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume any real evidence would survive in multitudes about the resurrection.

Alas, only the Bible and a few historic works, which many claim are forgeries/insertions.

Not a great pedigree, one a reasonable person would dismiss out of hand.

[polonius]

Clair Evans posted:

So you say no one in history had proof of the resurrection just because it cannot be demonstrated today? Even if the Romans produced material that admitted Jesus rose from the dead, you wouldn't believe it. You'd think it was a forgery. Are there NT writers that don't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

But the point is, if someone claimed a resurrection took place, and it didn't really happen, wouldn't you find it rather easy to refute it? Why would you believe it if you didn't see that person resurrected? What would convince people?

RESPONSE: It has been refuted by the lack of evidence. There is no historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus (or of the many others that Matthew claims rose at the time of the crucifixion). That's the proof!

[Talishi]

RESPONSE: It has been refuted by the lack of evidence. There is no historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus (or of the many others that Matthew claims rose at the time of the crucifixion). That's the proof!

Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Therefore I rely on the major contradictions between the gospels to demonstrate that it did not happen, as any defense attorney would do in an armed robbery case.

[polonius]

An example of a later addition in the first gospel, Chapter 1, sentence 1 probably added for doctrinal reasons.

Mark 1 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
1:1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Footnote: NRSV “Other ancient authorities lack "the Son of God"

“Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants in either manuscripts or printed books. Ancient scribes made alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1]Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic might seek to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate versions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a scholarly curated text.

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

See: (1964). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration (1st ed.). Bruce Metzger Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) was an American biblical scholar and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.[1][2]

[polonius]

Is it reasonable to assume that the hymn might have been a later addition to Paul's letters?

Again, it doesn’t seem viable because if one reads chapter two the hymn follows in context. The hymn is identified as non-Pauline do to variance in vocabulary and slight divergence in theological emphasis along with its chiastic structure. So, for one to propose interpolation of the hymn they would be positing that someone made a very good Paul ‘impression’ in the part that introduces it to copy his style and then insert the hymn. We would need at least a hypothetical reason for this. The opposite (i.e. standard, accepted view) is that Paul is working with traditional material that his readers would be somewhat acquainted with to make a homiletic point. There more to this, but I think given what else I have written on this should suffice for anyone truly interested.

Take care,
TFV

RESPONSE:

"We would need at least a hypothetical reason for this"

That should be obvious. To add some credibility to Paul's claim of the appearance of the risen Jesus to 500 people, none of whom recorded any such thing. Nor did any of the writers of the Gospels.

[JLB32168]

It has been refuted by the lack of evidence.

You cannot be oblivious to the fallacious nature of your assertion, specifically, argumentum ad silentio - asserting a conclusion is true based on the absence of statements in historical documents or upon the absence of said documents.

Evidence that such documents most likely existed have been cited – one by your favorite “Jesus Seminar� source. Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont (Ingolf U. Dalferth w/four Ph.D.s; Cynthia Eller, the late PhD, University of Southern California, the late James M. Robinson, Arthur J. Letts Professor of Religion, Director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity and the head of the Gospel of Q project), has posited that a literary analysis of Matthew, Luke, and Thomas suggest that a Q Gospel existed at one time but was lost.
You didn’t even address the point on how many skeptics believe that the Epistles of 2nd Corinthians is actually a combination of two letters, one of which is a lost 3 Corinthians.

Even another of your favorites – Dr. Bart Ehrman says in his book that “Unfortunately, nearly all the other early Christian writings have been lost or destroyed.�

You also cite Wikipedia quite often and even there is says that 2nd Corinthians might be a combo of two letters and that it cites two other letters that most scholars think are no longer extant.

Your interpreted your own source to say that there’s an atypical verse in Paul’s letter to the Philippians and is an interpolation. Your source doesn’t say that it is an interpolation. Indeed I have cited scholars who say that Philippians is authentically Paul’s and point out that this verse is Paul’s citation of something that antedates him. A rudimentary search of the internet would confirm that this is the case w/the Lion’s share of scholars.

There is no historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus (or of the many others that Matthew claims rose at the time of the crucifixion). That's the proof!

You play fast easy with the word “proof.�

[polonius]

It has been refuted by the lack of evidence.

You cannot be oblivious to the fallacious nature of your assertion, specifically, argumentum ad silentio - asserting a conclusion is true based on the absence of statements in historical documents or upon the absence of said documents.

Evidence that such documents most likely existed have been cited – one by your favorite “Jesus Seminar� source. Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont (Ingolf U. Dalferth w/four Ph.D.s; Cynthia Eller, the late PhD, University of Southern California, the late James M. Robinson, Arthur J. Letts Professor of Religion, Director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity and the head of the Gospel of Q project), has posited that a literary analysis of Matthew, Luke, and Thomas suggest that a Q Gospel existed at one time but was lost.
You didn’t even address the point on how many skeptics believe that the Epistles of 2nd Corinthians is actually a combination of two letters, one of which is a lost 3 Corinthians.

Even another of your favorites – Dr. Bart Ehrman says in his book that “Unfortunately, nearly all the other early Christian writings have been lost or destroyed.�

You also cite Wikipedia quite often and even there is says that 2nd Corinthians might be a combo of two letters and that it cites two other letters that most scholars think are no longer extant.

Your interpreted your own source to say that there’s an atypical verse in Paul’s letter to the Philippians and is an interpolation. Your source doesn’t say that it is an interpolation. Indeed I have cited scholars who say that Philippians is authentically Paul’s and point out that this verse is Paul’s citation of something that antedates him. A rudimentary search of the internet would confirm that this is the case w/the Lion’s share of scholars.

There is no historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus (or of the many others that Matthew claims rose at the time of the crucifixion). That's the proof!

You play fast easy with the word “proof.�

RESPONSE: Yes. I deal in the real world insisting on common sense.

So I go by the MW dictionary definition of the term "proof." What do you use?

“Simple Definition of proof : something which shows that something else is true or correct. : “an act or process of showing that something is true.�

Let’s review the evidence and proof for the Resurrection once again.

1. We have scriptures and Roman writings that Jesus was executed around 30 AD. But the Roman and Jewish reports contain no report of a Resurrection.

2.Matthew’s gospel contains the story of many of the dead being raised when Jesus died and being seen by many people in Jerusalem (presumably Jews and Gentiles). None, nor any people they would be expected to have told the story left any written reports.

3.Next we are told by Paul (a non-witness) writing to people in Corinth 813 miles from where the event was supposed to have occurred in Jerusalem 25 years after the supposed event that 500 people saw the risen Jesus. But again none of them nor the many other people they would be expected to tell, nor any Roman witnesses wrote anything about it.

4.Next we have the Gospels written 40 to 65 years after the fact which tell us that Jesus was raised or rose from the dead (there would be a major difference ), but have vastly different descriptions of the events. For example, did Jesus and his followers remain in Jerusalem or travel on a three and a half day journey to Galilee.? Did Jesus then ascend to heaven on the evening of the Resurrection day or 40 days later?

5. Which brings to mind the story of my friend Ralph who some claim could flap his arms and fly. Having heard the story, are there any common sense reasons for believing that it’s not true?
It’s true that no one has written that Ralph did not fly, but is it still reasonable to believe that he did?

Would common sense require that we believe both stories?

[tfvespasianus]

Is it reasonable to assume that the hymn might have been a later addition to Paul's letters?

Again, it doesn’t seem viable because if one reads chapter two the hymn follows in context. The hymn is identified as non-Pauline do to variance in vocabulary and slight divergence in theological emphasis along with its chiastic structure. So, for one to propose interpolation of the hymn they would be positing that someone made a very good Paul ‘impression’ in the part that introduces it to copy his style and then insert the hymn. We would need at least a hypothetical reason for this. The opposite (i.e. standard, accepted view) is that Paul is working with traditional material that his readers would be somewhat acquainted with to make a homiletic point. There more to this, but I think given what else I have written on this should suffice for anyone truly interested.

Take care,
TFV

RESPONSE:

"We would need at least a hypothetical reason for this"

That should be obvious. To add some credibility to Paul's claim of the appearance of the risen Jesus to 500 people, none of whom recorded any such thing. Nor did any of the writers of the Gospels.

It is no way 'obvious' that the kenosis hymn of Philippians 2.6-11 is an interpolation used to bolster that passage in Corinthians. Once again, this is an idiosyncratic, ad hoc speculation.

If we consult the Oxford Companion to the Bible regarding the Hymn in question it states "Philippians 2.6-11 is an exquisite example of an early Christian hymn, used and probably modified buy Paul for his purposes here' (pgs 590-591)

Have fun writing Bruce Metzger about his (and the scholarly consesus' opinion) mistake on this matter. with your bizarre and totally original opinion.

[tfvespasianus]

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states:

"From the time of Lohmeyer it has commonly been held that the verses originally existed as a hymn, and that Paul has incorporated them with some changes" (p.1277)

Contact the editors there too and inform them that the Polonius Advice theory of interpolation is now the dominant paradigm in scholarship.

Crank