Does the resurrection of Jesus belong as a factual account in a history book?

[Helm]

The book on world history I'm reading atm just seems to describe the event as a full blown historical fact ("He didn't return as a ghost but in a mysterious physical form") rather than saying "Christians believe" just make it clear that it's a religious belief. As far as I know not even Muslims believe in the resurrection ever happened seeing as far as they are concerned he was never put to death in the first place. This kind of thing gets my goat.

Also the Ark of the Covenant is described as a real artifact with divine powers, I don't really think that should be historicised either, even it was somewhat cool in Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark, better than that alien spaceship in the Kingdom of Crystal Skull.

[Plant]

Funny, I was reading a book on world history a long time ago and it described Jesus in one line as something upon the terms of "AD 4; Jesus, an influential spirtual leader was born".

[LegionnaireX]

Funny, I was reading a book on world history a long time ago and it described Jesus in one line as something upon the terms of "AD 4; Jesus, an influential spirtual leader was born".

Thats just irresponsible scholarship. Regardless of whether one believes in the divinity of Christ, he was the most important man to ever live, bar none. To mention him in passing like that is ridiculous.

[Asgath]

Thats just irresponsible scholarship. Regardless of whether one believes in the divinity of Christ, he was the most important man to ever live, bar none. To mention him in passing like that is ridiculous.

I dunno man...Hendrix did some pretty neat

[Manco]

Thats just irresponsible scholarship. Regardless of whether one believes in the divinity of Christ, he was the most important man to ever live, bar none. To mention him in passing like that is ridiculous.

Confucius, Mohammed and Sidharta Gautama would like a word.

[Vizsla]

I’m reading a history book that mentions Jesus and the resurrection thing too. Coincidence?!

If I was writing a history book I’d also write the resurrection as historical fact. Not because I believe it but for an easy life. You won’t get angry letters from offended atheists. You will get angry letters from offended religious people.

Being an out and out atheist I took issue with the history book in question even describing Jesus as an historical figure. But then I reasoned he has to be mentioned because even if his historical influence didn’t begin until 200 years after his supposed death, he’s still had an important impact on history. It's OK so long as you mention the complete lack of any sort of evidence for his existence.

[Plant]

Thats just irresponsible scholarship. Regardless of whether one believes in the divinity of Christ, he was the most important man to ever live, bar none. To mention him in passing like that is ridiculous.

I found the title of the book now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tim..._World_History
It was detailing the entire history of the world. In 360 pages. Complete with maps. One man, one sentence.
Influence and philosophy of Christianity had substantially more.

[boofhead]

Thats just irresponsible scholarship. Regardless of whether one believes in the divinity of Christ, he was the most important man to ever live, bar none. To mention him in passing like that is ridiculous.

Besides, it was more like 4 B.C.

[Thanatos]

Thats just irresponsible scholarship. Regardless of whether one believes in the divinity of Christ, he was the most important man to ever live, bar none.

No he wasn't. If Jesus didn't exist and had Christianity not existed, all the people back then would simply have latched onto something else to justify their bigotry and hatred during that time period.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Yeah, once I swear I remember reading a book about the history of like mankind, for like 4000BC to now, and Jesus had like a whole set of chapters, like describing what he did without the stuff like "christians believe" either.

I think its been a bit popular. Some people, huh?

[Asgath]

Without evidence, it certainly doesn't. It should be contained in history books in terms of teaching the stories of the bible however, simply as the myths of a particular cult.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I think he should certainly be featured in history books, and it should be noted what the religion is all about (after all, Jesus did influence history as we know it more than any man in history) but that's it. It is not for certain whether or not he actually was resurrected. That's what faiths all about, after all.

[Squiggle]

I think he should certainly be featured in history books, and it should be noted what the religion is all about (after all, Jesus did influence history as we know it more than any man in history) but that's it. It is not for certain whether or not he actually was resurrected. That's what faiths all about, after all.

Hardly anything historically is certain. The question is weather the lack of certainty over his resurrection is justifiably greater than the average fact put in history books. I say it isnt, and thus should be in there.

edit: ooo boofhead's back.

[Historian101]

I think he should certainly be featured in history books, and it should be noted what the religion is all about (after all, Jesus did influence history as we know it more than any man in history) but that's it. It is not for certain whether or not he actually was resurrected. That's what faiths all about, after all.

You seem to respect history so I appeal to that in you. But what is this faith (trust, clinging to, & relying upon) in? Is it faith in historical facts about Jesus as the Christ of God or merely a wish-fulfillment feel-good hope of religions?
Perhaps, you should check out the book of Luke 1:1-4 where Luke claims to be a second-hand source for the historicity of the account of Jesus's life & resurrection.
One of his first hand account sources, Paul, a devout rabbinical student, who because of his ignorant zeal for God became a persecutor of the early Christians, claimed in his account to Luke recorded in his book, Acts 9:1-30 that the Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, appeared to him on the road to Damascus while on a mission to imprison & kill Christians & that the Lord Jesus changed him & gave him a mission as His apostle to spread the message of the good news to all, even to the Gentile world.
Paul in his letter, 1 Cor. 15:1:1-19, states that this faith is in the Person of Jesus Christ, in his predicted coming & work, in his death & resurrection. Then in verses 5 to 8 he lists the eye witnesses of His resurrection, Peter or Cephas, Jesus' half brother, James, to the all the apostles, & to more five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom (at the time of this account) were still alive (implying if someone wanted to that they can verify what I'm saying). Then he logically stresses the importance of the resurrection being a fact saying in verse 14-15, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
You can read the rest of his logical reasons down to verse 19.
Peter also claimed in 2 Pet 1:16-18 that he along with John & James were "eyewitnesses of his Majesty" in reference to His transfiguration recorded by Matthew in Matt 17:1-7.
Now most of these eyewitnesses died rather than deny their faith in Christ. As a former atheist, & Oxford Don, C.S. Lewis logically challenged:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)

[Pontifex Maximus]

Is this a serious question?

Burn your "history book" this instant.

[Lord Rahl]

What book are you reading, exactly? A history book shouldn't be using Jesus' resurrection as historical fact.

[JNS]

History books should give a little info on what did jesus form and how christianity formed around him, but it shouldn't state some of the mythos around jesus as historical fact, since most of it can't be proven.

[conon394]

The book on world history I'm reading atm just seems to describe the event as a full blown historical fact ("He didn't return as a ghost but in a mysterious physical form") rather than saying "Christians believe" just make it clear that it's a religious belief. As far as I know not even Muslims believe in the resurrection ever happened seeing as far as they are concerned he was never put to death in the first place. This kind of thing gets my goat.

Also the Ark of the Covenant is described as a real artifact with divine powers, I don't really think that should be historicised either, even it was somewhat cool in Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark, better than that alien spaceship in the Kingdom of Crystal Skull.

As a real person who was responsible for founding Christianity - yes certainly, the rest well that a bit iffy in a historical context. Historians do tend to note that Athenians thought they saw there ancestral heroes at Marathon...

[justicar5]

As a real person who was responsible for founding Christianity - yes certainly, the rest well that a bit iffy in a historical context. Historians do tend to note that Athenians thought they saw there ancestral heroes at Marathon...

the 'real person' part is a bit iffy as well.

[Tiberius Tosi]

the 'real person' part is a bit iffy as well.

There is too much evidence to support that he did exist and too little to support that he didn't say it is iffy rather or not he was real. There is little doubt there was a figure known as Yeshua (God damn Greeks don't know how to translate when they have no letters for Hebrew sounds so poof we get Iesous which turns into English sounding Jesus lol) that was around during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius. The idea that Christianity was just made up (especially by the Romans which is just absolutely laughable considering mos maiorum is absolutely opposed to Christianity more than any other religion in existence at that time) is just ridiculous.

But even as a Catholic, hell no the resurrection of Jesus should not be stated as fact. It should probably be stated as "Christians believe..." just as many of the Islamic stuff is "Muslims believe...".