Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?

[RubySera_Martin]

The following grew out of two distinct sources:

1. It's the summary of an insight I acquired a few years ago when researching a paper on the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions.
   
2. I posted it on another board as an outgrowth of a conversation with a fundamentalist.

Interestingly enough, even though I addressed it to her specifically and she posted freely on the thread about anything and everything else under the sun, she refused to address the actual topic of the thread. In my opinion that speaks for itself. All the same, I would enjoy discussion of the idea I am presenting here. It had a profound impact on me regarding truth.

Matt. 27:50-53 says:

50 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.r 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

This fundamentalist Christian, who has a doctorate in biblical languages and literature, said this passage belongs to the genre of fantastic literature and is an embellishment that did not happen. However, she claims that the bodily resurrection of Jesus did happen. I think the bodily resurrection of Jesus also belongs to the genre of fantastic literature. We have other stories written about the same time that are very similar to it, one of which is The Passing of Peregrinus .

I will post a brief summary here as I posted it on that other board. Due to the level of education of the general membership, I had to use very simple and somewhat inaccurate language. You may want to read it for yourself to get a more accurate picture.

Peregrinus was a philosopher of a certain school and he sacrificed himself in a way his people believed was sacred. Lucian of Samosata is skeptical of the whole thing but tells the story of how it went in all its gory details. Here is what he says about how he tells it:

In that business I assure you, my friend, I had no end of trouble, telling the story to all while they asked questions and sought exact information. Whenever I noticed a man of taste, I would tell him the facts without embellishment, as I have to you, but for the benefit of the dullards, agog to listen, I would thicken the plot a bit on my own account, saying that when the pyre was kindled and Proteus flung himself bodily in, a great earthquake first took place, accompanied by a bellowing of the ground, and then a vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off to Heaven,34 saying, in human speech, with a loud voice:
“I am through with the earth; to Olympus I fare.”

I highlighted two parts. "Man of taste" would be someone who had education. To such people, he "would tell him the facts without embellishment"; in other words, he would tell the facts straight like a fact-event. ("Fact-event" is the term this educated miss used to refer to something that could have been recorded by a webcam.) "Dullards, agog to listen" would be gullible illiterate people. He says when speaking to such people he "would thicken the plot" and add fantastic details like an earthquake and an eagle speaking with a human voice. He also says that some people claimed to have seen the resurrected Peregrinus walking in white robes. Lucian tells us that according to the actual time-line, this could not possibly have been a fact-event. I use the term "fantastic" for the parts Lucian called "embellishment."

This raises the question for me: Can we extend this style of writing to apply to the biblical literature? If so, what are the implications for Christianity?

I do not for one moment believe that the biblical writers were intentionally deceiving anyone. I believe that if we don't have a scientific mindset then the line between fact and fantasy is so thin that it can be crossed without problem.

What are your thoughts?

[Dor]

Of course it is a fact.

Well in my pretty unliberal thoughts at least.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Dor

Of course it is a fact.

Well in my pretty unliberal thoughts at least.

So I guess in your thoughts it is also a fact that Peregrinus resurrected or rose from the dead?

[Dor]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

So I guess in your thoughts it is also a fact that Peregrinus resurrected or rose from the dead?

Nope sorry. Only 2 people have been Lazarus(sp) and Jesus.

[jiii]

I feel like this begs to be expanded a bit.

You are asking if Jesus' ressurection is factual event. I suppose there are acctually two different questions that this could possibly imply:

1) Do you believe that Jesus' resurrection was a factual event? Do you think that Jesus was literally was resurrected?

2) Is there a way of proving whether or not Jesus' resurrection was literally real?

Queston #1 is bound to get a lot of different insights, but I don't think that's where you were going with this (correct me if I'm wrong ).

Question #2, however, is pretty cut and dry. The fact of the matter is this:
Since we haven't observed anyone being resurrected in our era, we simply can't say based upon what we know. We can devise all manner of speculation, but as it stands, we simply aren't familiar enough with resurrection to say so. To many people, this means that Jesus was not resurrected. They reason, if it hasn't happened again in two-thousand years, it's probably not true. From a purely unbiased logical perspective, however, there isn't enough evidence to say for sure either way.

As far as Question #1, I do not believe that Jesus' resurrection literally occurred. I think that Jesus' resurrection is a metaphorical way of describing the spiritual transformation.

-jiii

[China Cat Sunflower]

If Jesus and Lazarus and a couple others can be raised from the dead anybody can be so raised. I think the question here is: can people be resurrected? One of the important details in the Lazarus story is that he had been dead for three days. He wasn't just dead, he was good and stinkin' dead.

Now ask yourself if you really think it's possible to reverse the decay process after someone is well on their way to becoming a carcass. To say Yes, it's possible, is to go entirely on belief unless, like Ruby is suggesting, you also allow at least the possibility that all those other dudes in other mythologies were also resurrected. Maybe avatars, heroes, and even commoners have indeed been routinely resurrected at various times.


Chris

[Dor]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

If Jesus and Lazarus and a couple others can be raised from the dead anybody can be so raised. I think the question here is: can people be resurrected? One of the important details in the Lazarus story is that he had been dead for three days. He wasn't just dead, he was good and stinkin' dead.

Now ask yourself if you really think it's possible to reverse the decay process after someone is well on their way to becoming a carcass. To say Yes, it's possible, is to go entirely on belief unless, like Ruby is suggesting, you also allow at least the possibility that all those other dudes in other mythologies were also resurrected. Maybe avatars, heroes, and even commoners have indeed been routinely resurrected at various times.


Chris

Yes Chris in my radical fundamentalist mind.

I do believe anyone can be raised from the dead. I also believe if Jesus wanted to reverse 3 days of decay he can sure do that. If he can create everything he can damn sure reverse 3 days of decay.

Yes Chris I will not limit God in anything and you show me where he says he resurrected those other dudes, avatars, heroes and commoners and I will believe it. Actually we all know from the bible we will all have resurrected bodies.

Just my bible beliving opinions.

[InLove]

I may regret posting here again, but I come in peace anyway. Don't worry--it is probably going to be a short visit.

Each year, scientists, archeologists, and historians uncover more and more evidence that coincides with not only the Biblical account of the life of Jesus, but many other events as well, including some as far back as the Exodus and beyond. Sometimes their discoveries topple time-honored traditions, such as specific dates or the exact route Jesus took on the way to his meeting with Pontius Pilate. But they don't negate the account of events. There is such a growing preponderance of evidence which supports these Biblical records, that one might wonder if they are about to prove the Christian resurrection.

That would be great--or maybe not. If there is nothing to doubt, then there can be no faith. That's a scientific fact.

InPeace,
InLove

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

1) Do you believe that Jesus' resurrection was a factual event? Do you think that Jesus was literally was resurrected?

I need more evidence than you provided to say one way or another.

2) Is there a way of proving whether or not Jesus' resurrection was literally real?

No, this is not cut and dried. There's a way of proving how people were in the habit of writing and telling stories at that time. Maybe you don't know it but each culture has its own way of telling stories, unspoken rules that can never be broken, unspoken agreements about what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively.

Since Lucian of Somasota was freely embellishing fact-events to entertain his audience, what is there to make us think that the biblical writers wrote any differently?

[jiii]

Originally posted by China Cat Sunflower
Now ask yourself if you really think it's possible to reverse the decay process after someone is well on their way to becoming a carcass. To say Yes, it's possible, is to go entirely on belief unless, like Ruby is suggesting, you also allow at least the possibility that all those other dudes in other mythologies were also resurrected. Maybe avatars, heroes, and even commoners have indeed been routinely resurrected at various times.

Well, I understand what you're saying. It is my personal belief that people cannot be resurrected, as I believe that all references to it occurring are metaphorical...not literal. I have many reasons for not believing it. But, I know that some people do believe it, also. Frankly, I've found that when one who believes that Christ was not literally resurrected questions someone who believes Christ was literally resurrected, you always come back to the same stalemate. You can express every reason in the world why they shouldn't believe, because the odds would seem to be stacked against them. But, arguing that "Jesus was not literally reincarnated" will always come down to the literal interpreter saying: "You don't know that." And the questioner will return: "Neither do you." This is usually what it boils down to in the purely abstract argumentation, and this is what each side would say if they were both hot-tempered with each other and not held back by inhibition. This is the bottom line, really. We literally haven't observed resurrection in this era of history, so we can't say either way...

Originally posted by RubySera Martin
Since Lucian of Somasota was freely embellishing fact-events to entertain his audience, what is there to make us think that the biblical writers wrote any differently?

There isn't, necessarily. However, what you are ignoring, RubySera, is that unlike a relatively random idea like "The Universe is actually a jelly donut", MANY people do happen to believe that "Jesus was literally reincarnated". Remember, I honestly don't believe Christ was literally resurrected (I'm not a Christian either), but I'm going to explain why I don't move automatically to say that it didn't happen.

Now, science is usually the prime argument used by those that do not believe that Jesus' resurrection literally occurred. The funny thing about science, though, is that everyone tends to think they're a scientist. People think that "science" is a cognate for "thinking properly". This is most unfortunate, as "science" is a principle and an inheritance of research based on the scientific method. The only people that should be limiting themselves to thinking of things in a scientific way are scientists...people that have to think of things scientifically to get their paycheck (and they really only have to do it at work).

That being said, science is a standpoint based upon the scientific method. The peculiarity of science is that it is much like America law. American law begins with the standpoint that the charge against you is a false declaration until it is proven true with evidence. Likewise, science begins from the standpoint that all hypotheses are untrue until proven true by objective experimentation. That is how philosophy and science diverged. All things scientific were, at one point, philosophy. In the strict sense of the word, science denies the correctness of philosophy until it proven to be true. Yet, paradoxically, all scientific findings were once the very work of philosophy that they are used to deny.

What I'm trying to say here is that many people that believe science is the "correct way of thinking" will say that "Science has proven it untrue." This isn't true, though. A true scientist would know to say," Science has not yet determined whether or not resurrection is possible. Preliminary research suggests it's not very likely. We can't say for sure though because we haven't actually tested it yet. We don't know how to recreate the necessary environment or circumstances. Any help would be appreciated."

Again, let me restate that I am quite convinced that resurrection does not literally occur. But, I also know that many people believe it does, and I can understand that, at least on a certain level. They are talking about that long-shot possiblity that I'm okay with ignoring. That amazingly small chance that resurrection just hasn't occured since the creation of organzied science is an outlandish possibility to some. But, People that say it didn't happen, including myself, are really just "deducing that it is impossible." We don't actually know fact by observation...or, direct experience. We know it by figuring.

-jiii

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by =jiii

We don't actually know fact by observation...or, direct experience. We know it by figuring.

Yes, that's well said. And I concur with what you said about the fruitlessness of argueing with believers. They just believe and I don't. I can't disprove the notion of literal resurrection any more than they can satisfactorily prove it. You just believe or you don't. Personally, though, I can't just go around in good conscience subscribing to notions of the miraculous which are unprovable. I mean, if anything is possible then we're hopelessly adrift with no rudder, oars, or sail. What won't we just believe?

Ruby said: There's a way of proving how people were in the habit of writing and telling stories at that time. Maybe you don't know it but each culture has its own way of telling stories, unspoken rules that can never be broken, unspoken agreements about what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively.

In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke you can find two different genealogies of Jesus. The two authors disagree on who Jesus' grandpa was. Now, in all the time that's elapsed since the publication of these two manuscripts, and with all the redacting, erasing, and massaging that's been done to the material, why is the discrepancy still there? I'd suggest that it's because everyone understands that it doesn't matter because it's a story about Jesus, not an actual, historical account. It doesn't matter to the plot-line who his grandpa was except that it brings a subtle shading to the story to emphasize the (psuedo) historical character of Joseph (Matthew) versus Eli (Luke). Either one works.

Chris

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Yes, that's well said. And I concur with what you said about the fruitlessness of argueing with believers. They just believe and I don't. I can't disprove the notion of literal resurrection any more than they can satisfactorily prove it. You just believe or you don't. Personally, though, I can't just go around in good conscience subscribing to notions of the miraculous which are unprovable. I mean, if anything is possible then we're hopelessly adrift with no rudder, oars, or sail. What won't we just believe?

Excellent point, Chris. I am so glad to see at least one person thinking rationally about reality. Science is about factual reality. If I am asked to believe something, I DON'T think about how many people believe it or who said it. I ask whether it is factually possible. It goes without saying that "factually possible" means "according to the normal observable laws of nature.

Fundamentalist Christianity demands that one "accept on faith" that Jesus literally rose from the dead. It states that one's eternal security depends on this belief. Has anyone proven it? No. It is unprovable. What IS provable is what you just said, Chris, that if we just believe anything we are cast about on a sea of information without goal or aim or rudder; we have nothing to guide us and we can never hope to arrive at truth of any kind.

This was so clearly demonstrated by the fundamentalist I mention in the opening post. With all her education she still chooses arbitrarily what she will and will not believe. She discounts rational thought. She chooses not only to believe but to state uncompromisingly that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. When asked for a basis for her belief she only analyzes the original biblical text in great detail.

She chooses to believe that Matt. 27:50-53 is fantasy. She gives no reason for this. She also chooses to believe that the account of Jesus' bodily resurrection is a fact event. She provides no basis for these arbitrary choices. Thus, like you say Chris, and like the Bible says, such people are blown here and there and everywhere because they have no rudder, no guide for identifying truth.

Ruby said: There's a way of proving how people were in the habit of writing and telling stories at that time. Maybe you don't know it but each culture has its own way of telling stories, unspoken rules that can never be broken, unspoken agreements about what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively.

In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke you can find two different genealogies of Jesus. The two authors disagree on who Jesus' grandpa was. Now, in all the time that's elapsed since the publication of these two manuscripts, and with all the redacting, erasing, and massaging that's been done to the material, why is the discrepancy still there? I'd suggest that it's because everyone understands that it doesn't matter because it's a story about Jesus, not an actual, historical account. It doesn't matter to the plot-line who his grandpa was except that it brings a subtle shading to the story to emphasize the (psuedo) historical character of Joseph (Matthew) versus Eli (Luke). Either one works.

Chris

My point exactly. Common sense is a rudder and it forbids that we open ourselves up to accepting anything and everything in the name of liberal Christianity. That is not what liberal Christianity is about. Liberal Christianity is about finding truth via common sense and ethics.

Ruby

[InLove]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke you can find two different genealogies of Jesus. The two authors disagree on who Jesus' grandpa was. Now, in all the time that's elapsed since the publication of these two manuscripts, and with all the redacting, erasing, and massaging that's been done to the material, why is the discrepancy still there? I'd suggest that it's because everyone understands that it doesn't matter because it's a story about Jesus, not an actual, historical account. It doesn't matter to the plot-line who his grandpa was except that it brings a subtle shading to the story to emphasize the (psuedo) historical character of Joseph (Matthew) versus Eli (Luke). Either one works.

Hi China Cat. Even in a strictly metaphorical interpretation of Biblical accounts, I would posture that geneology might still matter. After all, geneology is an integral part of most of the myths and legends that have been discussed here. Why not the “story” of Christ? Certainly for a literal or probably even a hybrid interpretation, it matters.

Most of the commentaries I have read concerning the differences between the geneology accounts in Matthew and Luke state that the most likely reason for them is that Matthew emphasizes the legal progression to the throne of Israel (Joseph's--Mary's husband's--side of the family), and then only the legal heirs from Egyptian rule to David), while Luke submits a more complete record of Mary's side of the family during the same time period, which emphasizes the blood relationship, rather than the legal one. I figure you know all this.

But I have a question. In your reference above to Joseph and Eli: when you say “Eli”, are you referring to God? I am thinking that you must be, because if you are making the distinction from the time of the Egyptian rule over the Hebrews, then the comparison would have to be between Joseph (the son of Jacob) and his brother Judah. As for “grandpas”, are you referring to “ancestors”? In Matthew, the literal grandfather is listed as Jacob (another one), and Luke records “Heli”.

But as you say, it works both ways…

InPeace,
InLove

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

Well, I understand what you're saying. It is my personal belief that people cannot be resurrected, as I believe that all references to it occurring are metaphorical...not literal. I have many reasons for not believing it. But, I know that some people do believe it, also. Frankly, I've found that when one who believes that Christ was not literally resurrected questions someone who believes Christ was literally resurrected, you always come back to the same stalemate. You can express every reason in the world why they shouldn't believe, because the odds would seem to be stacked against them.

This is what we have to overcome. It is unrealistic to talk about "why they shouldn't believe." We are talking about reality. We don't have a choice in what is real and what isn't.

But, arguing that "Jesus was not literally reincarnated" will always come down to the literal interpreter saying: "You don't know that." And the questioner will return: "Neither do you." This is usually what it boils down to in the purely abstract argumentation, and this is what each side would say if they were both hot-tempered with each other and not held back by inhibition.

This is what we have to move beyond. Just putting out propositions won't get us anywhere. We have to deal with reality. Reality is that:

This is the bottom line, really. We literally haven't observed resurrection in this era of history, so we can't say either way...

For this reason, we need to look beyond spouting propositions. We need to look at a criteria by which we can establish reality. Reason and science are two such criteria. This allows us to move beyond spouting both sides saying things like: You don't know that.

However, what you are ignoring, RubySera, is that unlike a relatively random idea like "The Universe is actually a jelly donut", MANY people do happen to believe that "Jesus was literally reincarnated".

No, jiii, I am not ignoring that by a long shot. If I were, I would not have come up with the question. It appears that you do not understand the question I am asking and that you don't understand science and law. Science is about reality, the scientific method is about cause and effect. The law is about being fair to individuals while at the same time protecting society.

Ruby

[jiii]

RubySera-

Okay, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question. I, of course, meant no harm. But give me one minute here:

jiii:
You can express every reason in the world why they shouldn't believe, because the odds would seem to be stacked against them.

ruby:
This is what we have to move beyond. Just putting out propositions won't get us anywhere.

jiii:
But, arguing that "Jesus was not literally reincarnated" will always come down to the literal interpreter saying: "You don't know that." And the questioner will return: "Neither do you."

ruby:
This is what we have to move beyond. Just putting out propositions won't get us anywhere.

jiii:
This is the bottom line, really. We literally haven't observed resurrection in this era of history, so we can't say either way...

ruby:
For this reason, we need to look beyond spouting propositions.

Ruby, with all due respect then, what exactly are you asking? As I said to you before, I believe entirely that resurrection is not a realistic physical reality. I believe it metaphorically describes psychological processes. I don't think that I have ever heard of a single piece of objective proof that anything like resurrection should be thought to exist. I would not teach my children that resurrection is a reality (though, admittedly, I don't have any children). It would seem that in this respect, our viewpoints on this issue are very similar.

All I was doing was making an effort to introduce the fundmental gap between those that believe there is enough proof to disbelieve resurrection and those that don't. I did not mean to bring the discussion to a close or anything, and I'm sorry if I didn't address the question in the sense you asked it... but, based upon a second review of what you posted, I really don't think I was too out of line in my comments...it was pertinent to the discussion. Otherwise, what does this mean?

This raises the question for me: Can we extend this style of writing to apply to the biblical literature? If so, what are the implications for Christianity?

I am confused because you ask if we can apply the knowledge that many tales are exaggerations or metaphors to biblical literature. In a post where I did nothing but express the "unmoveable barrier" of belief, you denied my sentiment as being inappropriate to the question.

I just don't really know what to say, because your response to me seems to presuppose what we should accept as reality, whereas your original question seems much more open-ended, especially when the title of your post is taken into account.

I mean, in light of the non-existant physical proof and the incredible wealth of science mankind now has, the only argument that believers in resurrection have to offer is that it may just not have happened since science came to be. If you're going to call that irrational, then I would whole-heartedly agree. But, if you're going to dismiss that because it is irrational, then you are leaving no other avenue of debate here so far as the title "Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?" Did you mean to call this post "On Jesus' Resurrection Not Being a Fact-Event"?

Really, I'm not trying to pester you or anything. I was really just adding a good deal of thoughts, which is what I do here at Comparative-Religion. Now, I'm just plain confused.

-jiii