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?

[4insight]

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?

In the scriptures that it mentioned that the Righteous has raised from their graves. But not all Righteous has left with Jesus. Like Paul was left behind to help gather in the rest of the flock that is from the New covenant. The ones of the old has been taken up in the first coming. Eventhough that Paul is dead, but his spirit is still in the world. Or else we will not be having this discussion about Him if he is dead. And so his memories lives on in the world helping to gather in the flock that wasn't of the first sheep pen.


John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.

Acts 10:45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1475 by 4insight]

Or else we will not be having this discussion about Him if he is dead.

What exactly do you mean by this sentence? Do you mean that people today only talk about historical figures if those figures are still alive? Well the obvious answer is no, we've had talk about Alexander the Great and Caesar on this forum and no-one thinks they're still alive.
Also...why capitalise Him? You're talking about Paul. Christians typically capitalise pronouns only when referring to Jesus or God.

[Clownboat]

John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Now this is what Jesus is said to have said.
Let's contrast this with what Paul is claimed to have said.

Ephesian 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors (shepherds) and teachers.

It seems clear to me that Paul is starting a church based off of this Jesus guy because Paul clearly is referring to the many shepherds while Jesus claimed that there is but one shepherd.

Is Paul or Jesus trustworthy here?

[rickmeist]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

No. It is important to note that in the above discussion Paul, addressing the topic of the future resurrection, is using a collective "we" to refer to anoited spirit begotten Christians AS A GROUP and NOT to those exclusively living in the first century; this is not at all unusual and is fairly common in the Christian Greek scriptures.

I think you have overlooked the 'We who are STILL ALIVE' bit.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

Perhaps this might help Goose............about what happens among those with a vested interest in the actions of hearsay oral story transmissions.....

Back when I was very active as a Christian we heard of a story that happened locally that spread far and wide among Christians and even was told from the pulpit in some churches as a validate miracle in the power of God.

The story was this..............a Christian was at one of the local churches during a weeknight Bible study.....it was in a rough area of town and as the believer left the Bible study to go to his car in the parking lot he encountered a person who pulled a gun on him and told him to give him his wallet.......the Christian person handed over his wallet and then proceeded in an attempt to witness to this person holding him up.

The story goes that this person hated Christians and told this guy to deny Christ on the spot or the robber will shoot him dead right there.............the Christian would not deny Christ and the robber shot him point blank......

.....but..

The bullets fell miraculous to the ground right in front of the Christian and he looked up at heaven and praised God while the robber in complete shock ran away and was never found.

That was the story that made the rounds everywhere throughout the local county area in the state where I lived at the time to the point that ministers and youth groups were all telling it............

What happened to this story is that the Christian who this happened to told his story the next day to some friends at school and it started circulating and then after a few days the story came back to the Christian and he couldn't believe what it turned into and explained he was the person who told the story because it happened to him and nobody would believe him anymore because they believed the hearsay rather than the actually story from the person it happened to........

So what really happened to this Christian?

The Christian left the Bible study and was threaten by a person to hand over the wallet to them or else they would 'beat them up".....no gun no knife on this robber just a physical threat..........so the Christian handed over the wallet and proceeded to tell the robber about the Gospel and the guy laughed in his face and took off with the wallet.........

That's it......no guns, no firing, no bullets and no miraculous falling bullets to the ground......

....and all the embellishment of the gun threat and supernatural intervention of the bullets happened in short order by nothing more than oral misunderstandings and embellishments with hours and days of him telling it to someone else in school who told it to others....

....the story took on a life of its own and there you have it.......

.....believers wanting it to be true and believing it to be true even when the person it actually happened to could not convince them it was an exaggeration of what happened to him.

Hey did you hear what happened to brother (guys name)?.......No what?........he was saved by God with a miracle when he was threatened with a knife by a robber after Bible study and the blade fell right out of the knife when the robber tried to stab him!!!...............really, I heard it was a knife but a gun and the bullets fell in front of him after they were fired..................yeah and I heard it was point blank too!!.....................

Don't you see how even the most sincere people will mess this stuff up?

and that my friend is the Biblical gospels in a nutshell................and this happened in real life where I lived back in the 70's.

So Goose do you see how a weather balloon crash in Roswell, NM can turn into aliens found alive from a flying saucer crash and kept in area 51 where we learned to back engineer antigravity machines from them......in as little as a few years of story and gossiping among UFOlogists?

and the Bible didn't even get their stories down in writing until decades after all the believers zealous story telling and gossiping occurred............

Goose your faith has its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event......

Okay, so you tell this story of yours, of how a simple story of a man leaving a Bible study becomes embellished, and you compare this story to the Biblical accounts, and come away with the conclusion that, "the Christian faith has its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event?"

You know, on another thread I was accused of making "reaches and jumps" and that "I go beyond what information we have and ignore perfectly rational alternative conclusions." However, this was not the case and my response was to ask, "what reaches and jumps I had made", and went on to demonstrate how I had considered the other alternatives, and even spoke of what would have had to occur, for these other alternatives to be true.

I then went on to explain that, "this street runs both ways." In other words, making "reaches and jumps" is not simply confined to the Christian, because unbelievers can make "reaches and jumps" as well, and your post here certainly seems to demonstrate this. In other words, you seem to be saying that "since this story of the Christian man leaving the Bible study, became so embellished, this demonstrates that "the foundation of the Christian Faith must be based upon the same thing." Otherwise, you would not say, "the Christian Faith HAS its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event", but would rather say something like, "this demonstrates that the Christian Faith COULD have its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event." If I am correct, your post here is a classic example of jumping to conclusions.

I went on to explain in the other post that, there is a lot to analyze when considering things such as Christianity, and it takes a considerable amount of time, effort, and energy, that must be exerted, and it is not wise to assume anything at all.

So then, it is foolish for Christians to simply assume that what they have been taught is true, without actually analyzing what they have been taught to determine if this teaching can hold up to scrutiny. However, I also believe it is unwise for those who reject Christianity to do so based upon, certain experiences they may have had, such as the one you describe above, or simply based upon what they believe to be to extraordinary to believe, etc.

At any rate, it may be best for you to read a response I gave a few days ago, on a thread entitled, "Telling Stories" which deals with exactly what you are saying here, and my response here would be the same as there. Here is that link ref:Re: Telling stories

I certainly hope you read this, and would love to hear your response. However, if you wish not to read it, allow me to quote my last paragraph here.

After all is said and done, you and I may come to completely different conclusions, and I have no problem with this at all. In fact, I have studied these things so intently, that I can understand unbelief, and I can understand the reasons some folks give for their unbelief. What I cannot possibly understand, or except, is when someone tells me that I have no reason to believe! I do, or I would not!

I appreciate your reply but you summary misses the point............a Christian can have lots of reasons to believe but are the credible reasons?.........there is a difference in reasoning here.......most claims that you don't have a reason to believe mean you do not have reasons that meet the critical thinking of the person stating that so for them you have no reason.

For instance there is nothing in reality that we can document that the supernatural exists or that it is manipulated by another supernatural personal being.......we can't demonstrate this let alone ever see consistency in it.......that is an object reason for being critical of whatever makes you believe the supernatural exists in a personal manner that is claimed by Christians who "walk with the Lord".....

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

Perhaps this might help Goose............about what happens among those with a vested interest in the actions of hearsay oral story transmissions.....

Back when I was very active as a Christian we heard of a story that happened locally that spread far and wide among Christians and even was told from the pulpit in some churches as a validate miracle in the power of God.

The story was this..............a Christian was at one of the local churches during a weeknight Bible study.....it was in a rough area of town and as the believer left the Bible study to go to his car in the parking lot he encountered a person who pulled a gun on him and told him to give him his wallet.......the Christian person handed over his wallet and then proceeded in an attempt to witness to this person holding him up.

The story goes that this person hated Christians and told this guy to deny Christ on the spot or the robber will shoot him dead right there.............the Christian would not deny Christ and the robber shot him point blank......

.....but..

The bullets fell miraculous to the ground right in front of the Christian and he looked up at heaven and praised God while the robber in complete shock ran away and was never found.

That was the story that made the rounds everywhere throughout the local county area in the state where I lived at the time to the point that ministers and youth groups were all telling it............

What happened to this story is that the Christian who this happened to told his story the next day to some friends at school and it started circulating and then after a few days the story came back to the Christian and he couldn't believe what it turned into and explained he was the person who told the story because it happened to him and nobody would believe him anymore because they believed the hearsay rather than the actually story from the person it happened to........

So what really happened to this Christian?

The Christian left the Bible study and was threaten by a person to hand over the wallet to them or else they would 'beat them up".....no gun no knife on this robber just a physical threat..........so the Christian handed over the wallet and proceeded to tell the robber about the Gospel and the guy laughed in his face and took off with the wallet.........

That's it......no guns, no firing, no bullets and no miraculous falling bullets to the ground......

....and all the embellishment of the gun threat and supernatural intervention of the bullets happened in short order by nothing more than oral misunderstandings and embellishments with hours and days of him telling it to someone else in school who told it to others....

....the story took on a life of its own and there you have it.......

.....believers wanting it to be true and believing it to be true even when the person it actually happened to could not convince them it was an exaggeration of what happened to him.

Hey did you hear what happened to brother (guys name)?.......No what?........he was saved by God with a miracle when he was threatened with a knife by a robber after Bible study and the blade fell right out of the knife when the robber tried to stab him!!!...............really, I heard it was a knife but a gun and the bullets fell in front of him after they were fired..................yeah and I heard it was point blank too!!.....................

Don't you see how even the most sincere people will mess this stuff up?

and that my friend is the Biblical gospels in a nutshell................and this happened in real life where I lived back in the 70's.

So Goose do you see how a weather balloon crash in Roswell, NM can turn into aliens found alive from a flying saucer crash and kept in area 51 where we learned to back engineer antigravity machines from them......in as little as a few years of story and gossiping among UFOlogists?

and the Bible didn't even get their stories down in writing until decades after all the believers zealous story telling and gossiping occurred............

Goose your faith has its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event......

Okay, so you tell this story of yours, of how a simple story of a man leaving a Bible study becomes embellished, and you compare this story to the Biblical accounts, and come away with the conclusion that, "the Christian faith has its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event?"

You know, on another thread I was accused of making "reaches and jumps" and that "I go beyond what information we have and ignore perfectly rational alternative conclusions." However, this was not the case and my response was to ask, "what reaches and jumps I had made", and went on to demonstrate how I had considered the other alternatives, and even spoke of what would have had to occur, for these other alternatives to be true.

I then went on to explain that, "this street runs both ways." In other words, making "reaches and jumps" is not simply confined to the Christian, because unbelievers can make "reaches and jumps" as well, and your post here certainly seems to demonstrate this. In other words, you seem to be saying that "since this story of the Christian man leaving the Bible study, became so embellished, this demonstrates that "the foundation of the Christian Faith must be based upon the same thing." Otherwise, you would not say, "the Christian Faith HAS its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event", but would rather say something like, "this demonstrates that the Christian Faith COULD have its foundation in story telling not an actual historical event." If I am correct, your post here is a classic example of jumping to conclusions.

I went on to explain in the other post that, there is a lot to analyze when considering things such as Christianity, and it takes a considerable amount of time, effort, and energy, that must be exerted, and it is not wise to assume anything at all.

So then, it is foolish for Christians to simply assume that what they have been taught is true, without actually analyzing what they have been taught to determine if this teaching can hold up to scrutiny. However, I also believe it is unwise for those who reject Christianity to do so based upon, certain experiences they may have had, such as the one you describe above, or simply based upon what they believe to be to extraordinary to believe, etc.

At any rate, it may be best for you to read a response I gave a few days ago, on a thread entitled, "Telling Stories" which deals with exactly what you are saying here, and my response here would be the same as there. Here is that link ref:Re: Telling stories

I certainly hope you read this, and would love to hear your response. However, if you wish not to read it, allow me to quote my last paragraph here.

After all is said and done, you and I may come to completely different conclusions, and I have no problem with this at all. In fact, I have studied these things so intently, that I can understand unbelief, and I can understand the reasons some folks give for their unbelief. What I cannot possibly understand, or except, is when someone tells me that I have no reason to believe! I do, or I would not!

The point I was making with my story is that this is very possible to happen with claims of the supernatural that we can't document in reality..........it does not mean this is what happened to the stories in the Bible but it offers a real world possibility of how they could have ended up with such claims..........

On the other hand.........what demonstrable example would you have that the supernatural actually happens to exist along with a personal God guiding it which would make it a part of reality and justify the Biblical claims of that?

I offer a possibility of how this process can lead to such claims without claiming the supernatural exists when there is no evidence for it. The verbal process I saw first hand among believers simply embellished the facts into fantasy.

In the absence of any supernatural actions as part of reality today or anytime my explanation is at least possible of happening since I can document that ..........but what does the believer have in documenting supernatural activity as part of reality to offer a better explanation than what I just gave?

[Freethinker43]

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.

[rikuoamero]

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.

If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain said Paul (at least I think it's Paul). So yeah...even they knew the problems of a metaphorical resurrection

[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.

If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain said Paul (at least I think it's Paul). So yeah...even they knew the problems of a metaphorical resurrection

RESPONSE:

You can read in the Bible how the faith of the Apostles was dramatically charged not long after their Rabbi was arrested and crucified.

Not really, the earliest gospel was written 40 years after Christ's death, plenty of time for a legend to be born.

[polonius]

Freethinker asked,

"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."

RESPONSE: If the Resurrection what fictional, so is Christianity, isn't it?

(Are you really telling us that you think the Book of Revelation is factual.)?