Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 8557
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 245 times
Been thanked: 686 times
Contact:

Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #1

Post by William »

Q: Is belief in The Resurrection based on fact or based on faith?

From a discussion in another thread;
______________________________


[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]
Let us recall that it was you who stated,
that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.
This is what I stated;

"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."

I also stated;
I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.

Are you saying, NONE of it aligns?
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors.
Apparently there are biblical scholars who accept that in those cases, copying may have occurred.
So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here.
Yes - that it was unnecessary to have four exact copies of the same data.
If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.
Yes.
However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.
Which still wouldn't do away with the idea that the stories were concocted by the priesthood...such would be intelligent enough to realize that to sell the story there needs to be more than one version, especially since there are no coinciding stories circulating outside of the religion.
For example - some believe that [historical] Jesus had scribes, but there is no evidence that anyone was recording his words and nothing of the sort has been found so far.
In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?
I am looking for evidence to the claim that Jesus died. [and was thus resurrected.]
Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?
Based upon the stories regarding Jesus, I would expect that Jesus didn't really die.
First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,
"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".
So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,
"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

Firstly they must have seen him as 'someone else' for them to recognize that 'someone else' had entered into their company.
But what we do not know [and thus cannot assume] is what the writer meant in the use of the words.
Does it mean that their minds were being played with in some unknown manner or does it mean that it was something else about the stranger suddenly in their company which lead them to conclude they were in the presence of someone who was so just like the Jesus they knew, that it must have been him, or was Jesus' body was capable of 'shape-shifting' [changing it's appearance.]

However, in relation to the story of the stranger in the company, we see that the story unfolds over the course of a whole day, with the stranger telling them all sorts of things so that the dots connected [starting out by calling them 'fools' for not being able to do this for themselves] and by the end of the day, we are informed that they had no choice but to accept the evidence that the stranger [who they did not recognize as Jesus because it was a different body] was the same person that they had followed all those previous months.

As soon as they came to that conclusion, the stranger then vanished. [became invisible to them/appeared to no longer be in their company.]
Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener".
Why would Mary know what the gardener looked like? Clearly she assumes a stranger there with the two other strangers is the caretaker and clearly she is confused and distressed.
But most importantly, she does not recognize the stranger until he calls her by her name...so it must have been how the stranger had done this which convinced Mary that it was Jesus.
Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.
So we have hearsay [the stories] and within that, we have incidences which align and form an image of someone who has a distinctly different body than the normal Human form as it appears to be able to do things which normal human forms are not seen to be capable of doing.

But overall, there is nothing about the story of the resurrection [The Subject] which can be pointed to as factual [rather than hearsay] and thus, to believe in said story - one has to do so on faith.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1732
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #441

Post by bluegreenearth »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:09 pm Why do you think truth is only found through direct observation or making unique testable predictions?
Do you think "truth" is reliably demonstrated through apologetic arguments and a faith-based epistemology? I've noticed that the definition of apologetics is "the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse" but is never described as a reliable methodology for demonstrating truth. Presumably, this is because its practitioners have a faith-based obligation to deliberately, consistently, and rigorously encourage their target audience to believe and maintain a particular theological perspective at the expense of doxastic openness. I've also noticed that confirmation bias is defined as "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that seems to confirm or support one's prior beliefs or values." The readers are welcome to decide for themselves if a correlation exists there or not.

Actually, it is my understanding that the only truth I can know with absolute certainty is the existence of my own conscious awareness because it is impossible for me to know if anything else in my perception of reality exists independently or only exists as a vivid and persistent hallucination. However, regardless of whether all the other things in my perception of reality only exist as hallucinations or have their own independent existence, I am able to distinguish between the things which I perceive to exist in that reality and the things which I perceive to exist in my imagination. So, even though I can't know with absolutely certainty if "real" things exist apart from my perception of them existing in reality, I pragmatically and colloquially use the term "truth" in reference to those "real" things because their existence has been reliably and consistently demonstrated to extend outside my imagination.

Now, my epistemological criteria for reliably demonstrating a thing's existence in reality includes making direct observations and making unique testable predictions but does not necessarily assert that those are the only two justifiable mechanisms for distinguishing a "real" thing from an imaginary thing. Accordingly, I've evaluated the apologetic arguments you and other theists have offered me thus far as alternative mechanisms but they consistently fail to reliably demonstrate that the supernatural things your lot are fond of imagining also exist in reality. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility of there being other mechanisms for determining if an imagined thing also exists in reality and will evaluate the reliability of any new ones you or anyone else might have to offer for my consideration.

POI
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #442

Post by POI »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
POI wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:29 amI asked for multiple corroborated eyewitness accounts

How are these not multiple, independent accounts that all corroborate that “disciples claimed post-mortem appearances of Jesus”? This was five independent accounts.
No, they are not. I said eyewitnesses. Paul was not an witness to a resurrection claim. He had a later vision, like many claim to have even now. And the other alleged accounts are definitely written by someone, or more... But we have no clue who the author(s) even were; and what they even witnessed themselves?
The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
POI wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:29 am1. This given example is hearsay, not corroborated eyewitnesses.

It was created by the eyewitnesses and passed on.
Sorry, no. Your provided Verse(s) are hearsay from Paul. None of these said 'eyewitnesses' were deposed/corroborated. Hence, they are dismissed; as they are not eyewitnesses.
The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
POI wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:29 am2. Who exactly, and what exactly did they see? Again, hearsay...

What the appearances consisted of is irrelevant. The fact we are trying to determine is simply whether the disciples claimed to have experienced appearances. As to hearsay, Paul knew Peter, James, and the others, so he would have known if this wasn’t what the disciples were claiming.
Your provided Verse(s) state there was 500 eyewitnesses. It's logical to dismiss this claim outright, right? We do not have 500 verified eyewitnesses. We have one single secondhand account of hearsay by Paul.
The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
POI wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:29 amAnd in regards to himself, millions proclaim speaking to Jesus themselves in the passed and present. These are personal individual experiences, which are not corroborated. Millions also claim to speak to opposing/differing external agents.

We do have corroboration of Jesus’ appearance to Paul recorded in Luke.
Who wrote 'Luke", and what did this author directly see? Again, if we are to speak about a one time miraculous event, seems as though corroborated eyewitness attestation is necessary? And yet, seems as though "Luke" was written no sooner than around ~80 C.E. -- (around 50 years after this alleged event)? Being that the average life expectancy, during this era, was around this long, it's quite possible whoever wrote this Gospel either was not there themselves, or too young to know themselves. Hence, you are placing your faith upon 'oral tradition' for the single most miraculous claim in human history.
The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
POI wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:29 am3. Do we really know who wrote "Mark"?

We know it was an early Christian that wrote it, passing his own eyewitness testimony on or the eyewitness testimony that had been orally passed down. The eyewitnesses and their communities would still have been around and available to correct mistakes.
This looks like nothing but faith, and not fact. The fact is, we do not know who wrote Mark, and what they saw, verses what they heard. Again, the emphasis is on corroborated eyewitness testimony. Thu far, we do not have any?
The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
POI wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:29 amFurthermore, Mark 16:9-20 is acknowledged as a later addition; which directly conflicts with the prior ending at 16:8. Which would mean we have at least two authors to "Mark", at minimum?

The later ending does not contradict the original ending. Verse 7 points to a future appearance(s) and the later ending has later appearances. I didn’t include the later ending in my list, though.
Again, how many authors do we have for Mark? Was it one, or more? Who even wrote Mark? Christians have to acknowledge the following:

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

Why would the earliest manuscripts leave this information out? Was it not important to write about in the originals? Mark was written no sooner than decades after the alleged event(s).

TRANSPONDER
Scholar
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #443

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:45 pmLike electrons, we don't know exactly what resurrection is or how it works. We can only infer what it does from the resultant effect. Which in the case of Jesus was being seen up and about after he'd died. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted.

No, the issues are (1) what in those records can be trusted and (2) what can make the best sense of that which can be trusted.
Well, that's saying the same thing, isn't it, if the 'records of the effect' is what we observe the electrons doing and what is written in the Bible? (1).
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amJesus (his doings and sayings) in the gospels as distinct from a possible real Jesus who may have existed. The two arguments are different ones and shouldn't get mixed up.
Not that you did, but eliminating possible confusion before we start).

Many critiques are mixing this very thing up, including your own. My argument isn’t for “Gospel-Jesus” in all he supposedly said and did. It is a more basic Jesus that existed, was buried, whose tomb was found empty, whose disciples claimed to have post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and created a movement centered on claiming Jesus resurrected.[/quote]

That is gospel Jesus in that it is what the gospels tell us. I want to keep out a complicating possible (very different) historical Jesus that could muddy the waters. (2) as well as, of course symbolic stuff (3).
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amYes, they all agree the empty tomb. Just don't get the idea that the only possible explanation is that Jesus rose supernaturally from being dead.
That’s not the only explanation of the empty tomb considered by itself. But we have other facts to explain as well. I’ve explained in some detail the pluses and minuses I saw in all the theories.


The empty tomb is not to be considered 'by itself' but in context. 'Other facts' are, for instance, if the contradictory resurrection -stories are evidence that there wasn't one resurrection -story they all knew, then whatever the reason for the empty tomb is, Solid -Body resurrection from death isn't one of them.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amI don't follow your point about post mortem appearances to the disciples. If the ones mentioned by Paul (often cited as justification for the gospel resurrection) are not the same then we have a problem. Paul says the first appearance was to Simon. Well, it wasn't. Quite apart from the women, the first (Gospel) appearance was to all the 12, either in Jerusalem or Galilee, take your pick.
Paul is quoting a very early tradition handed down to him soon after he converted that succinctly speaks of the disciples claims to have experienced post-mortem appearances in a form that would be easily remembered and shared with others. It makes sense for that kind of thing to list Peter first, both because of his leadership role as well as the view of women as being inadmissible witnesses in that culture.
Yes, it makes sense that Peter, (whose importance in the Jesus party Paul suggests, not that Paul didn't (as he says) contested with him right in his face) would be first to get this 'revelation' that Jesus' spirit had gone to heaven.
And it's odd, isn't it that if the testimony of women is inadmissible, their finding the tomb open is the last thing the gospels broadly agree on? I think that's just an excuse - their legal standing as witnesses - to explain why Luke says they didn't see Jesus when Matthew says they did (4). Their testimony for the 'most Jewish' of the writers is good enough for him. Don't you see a lot of 'ad hoc' excuses being fished out to get over serious problems with the story?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amLuke is aware of the problem as he tries to fiddle in an appearance to Simon which he can't describe and nobody else knows about. But Luke knows about Paul's letters, which is why he fiddles the stories to have an appearance to Simon in there and alters the angel's message so they aren't told to go to Galilee.
This is speculation. Luke could have other reasons for the stories he chooses to share, the details he gives and doesn’t give. I’m not saying your speculation is obviously wrong, but it’s no stronger than other explanations that could make sense of these things.
Indeed? Let's hear an explanation of yours that that is 'stronger' than mine (that covers all the points in the story) as to why Luke says (as per Cor I) that Jesus appeared to Simon first but does not describe this, nor any of the others. Nor indeed, does the gospel of Peter, which borrows a lot from Matthew and Luke.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amPaul's indication is also that the appearances he mentions were visionary and nothing at all to do with the resurrections in the gospels. Since
(a) Mark doesn't have a walking Jesus after death
(b) the stories all contradict pretty much totally
The internal evidence is that there was never a resurrection -story and the writers had to invent their own. These are tall tales intended to make a faith -claim sound convincing.
Why do you think these are visionary? The context of 1 Cor 15 is all about Jesus’ actual, bodily resurrection to combat those who believed that they would not experience a bodily resurrection. You later seem to note this but still say it is a spiritual resurrection. Why? If it’s the later natural/spiritual distinction Paul makes, then why interpret that as body/spirit rather than an orientation of the body towards one’s own desires versus the desires God says are good?
You seem a little confused. Paul, the Pharisees and I believe, Jesus' followers, all believed in a bodily resurrection at the coming of the Messiah and Last Days. That is what the gospels mostly talk about. I suppose they saw the spirit as asleep in the bodies until roused by the last Trump. But Peter gets the idea that Jesus' spirit has risen to go back to heaven (from whence it came - Paul gives a few hits in Romans that it is a spirit that came from heaven to correct its' original disobedience by obedience to death). The story that Paul was opposed to the disciples until he 'converted' shows that the appearance of Jesus to him was not of the solid -body Jesus of the Gospels but the spirit Jesus that he talked to in the 3rd heaven (I'd bet my butterfly - collection that he's talking about his own experience) which, note, is the impression Luke gives in Acts - and, given that the order of appearance, is quite different from that in the gospels, visions much later than shortly after the crucifixion is what they are talking about.

That I suggest is an explanation that fits all the facts (what the NT actually says) better than equating them with the resurrection -stories in the Gospels. I suggest that your attempt to make Paul's 'natural/spiritual' distinction about 'human/Godly desires' and any attempt to make Paul's 'this is so and so it this' explanations anything but symbolic/metaphorical, as trying to get over problems by removing them from practical examination.
Tanager saith.. without a narrated walking Jesus, Mark’s original ending has an announcement that Jesus is risen (16:6) and will appear to them (16:7). There were also predictions of his resurrection. It’s clear that Mark believes in a resurrected Jesus. Ending an account on the women not saying anything because they were afraid could serve the purpose of challenging the reader with what they would do with their belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Will they tell others? The women obviously did or the Gospel doesn’t get written at all.
Well, it obviously didn't get written, did it? If it had, there would be no need for the writers to later on invent three solid -body resurrections that contradict in almost all respects, eh? The original synoptic ending certainly added an angel explaining everything. But John has never heard of that. Again, I trust that you won't resort to the 'John didn't think it important' apologetic as you see it as important as I do.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amCertainly one would expect Philo to have mentioned something about Jesus, if the fellow had really existed; he mentions Pilate's doings.
Why should we expect that? Why is mentioning Jesus a necessary fit for Philo’s philosophical agenda in his writings?
Unless my memory is playing me false, Philo does write some history about Pilate and what he got up to. It is surprising that he doesn't at least mention that celebrated teacher and healer Jesus who got crucified at the time.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amTo make it quite clear, what I suggest and is a better and more credible hypothesis than Jesus walking is this….
And I’ve responded to some of this already. Your theory involves a lot of speculation to fill in the blanks of the theory. It is high in the ad-hoc (or whatever term you want to use) department. If not to fit your conclusion, there is no reason to believe these parts of your theory. We have no evidence of Simon having a vision, that he inspired the disciples to wait, that a mission to the Gentiles was a new thing. Matthew’s Great Commission passage talks of this. That there were Christians in Rome that didn’t believe in a resurrected Jesusgod has no evidence behind it. While the gospels present different emphases, there isn’t an evolution of their view of Jesus. They all present Jesus as divine. None present the view of a risen spirit.
You have written some attempts to dismiss my explanation(s) which are conclusions based on problems in the gospel accounts, which you have attempted to explain but I think not very successfully. If my explanations are 'ad hoc', yours are even more so. I am consistently inviting you to come up with better explanations than mine what is in the gospels.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amI know this is radically different from the 'accepted view' of the gospels even for non -believers. By and large they tend to accept that the gospels are more or less valid records of Jesus' doings and sayings. But I say they are not and provably are not. I know the case has to be made. You are helping me to make it.
A case for which particular details are valid is another conversation. Important to have for one concerned in figuring that out but not important to my argument here. So, no need for you to make that case here. I'll grant you that there are some contradictions.
As I say, my argument is hypothetical and nobody else has this hypothesis that I know of. But what I know is that it
(a) explains everything. All the contradictions. All the puzzles broadly. It picks up a LOT of contradictions and puzzles that all the 'authorities' seem to overlook or ignore.
(b) makes predictions which in all previous discussions have panned out.

I am not falling for your attempt to pretend that this bit of my argument or that doesn't belong here or is a different argument.
Foopnotes; :D
(1) I am familiar with the apologetics trick of saying the same thing in different words and pretending it's a different argument. I won't be falling easily for that one, either.
(2) I am also familiar with the apologetics slip of using more plausible arguments that don't prove the Bible as though they did. For example Cosmic origins do not validate the Bible/Christianity even if it did prove a Creator. Neither does a possible historical Jesus unlike Gospel Jesus help the Gospel/Christian claim.
(3) 'symbolically true' means not true at all.
(4) bad habit of my old age, footnotes ;) like the '2nd census' excuse, I've seen that one - womens' testimony didn't count' before

and...p.s O:) I grant you that there are some puzzles, like the empty tomb. I can come up with some speculations, but nothing more than that - yet.
And let's hope I have the quotes right before I hit the Button.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3054
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #444

Post by The Tanager »

Diagoras wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:52 pm
The later ending does not contradict the original ending. Verse 7 points to a future appearance(s) and the later ending has later appearances. I didn’t include the later ending in my list, though.

I'd submit that the later ending does in fact contradict the original intent of Mark 16:8, as it attempts to remove or 'solve' the ambiguity that existed.

I agree that the additional ending could be contradicting the original intent which you spoke of, if that was the original author’s intent in crafting his story. As of now, I think it was most probably the author’s intent. So, to clarify my point above, I meant simply that the original and later endings in Mark didn’t contradict each other concerning the fact that the disciples claimed to have had post-mortem experiences of Jesus.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3054
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #445

Post by The Tanager »

bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:57 pmDo you think "truth" is reliably demonstrated through apologetic arguments and a faith-based epistemology?

Yes and no. No, I don’t think a faith-based epistemology (if I understand correctly what you mean by ‘faith-based’) gives us truth. Yes, I think truth is reliably demonstrated through apologetic arguments because all that means to me is that one takes good science, history, literary studies, etc. and applies good philosophy to them. I think what happens in “apologetics” is something done by any worldview in dialogue with other worldviews. I wouldn’t define it as a religious discipline. The danger in doing so is a semantical trick (I’m not saying it is intentional) that calls the same process by two different names as though the same process wasn’t being attempted. Those of the “other” worldview could be rejected simply because they do “apologetics” while “my” side uses logic and reason. No, there are good and bad defenses of one’s worldview, no matter the worldview.
bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:57 pm
Specific critique: A supernatural resurrection has not been reliably demonstrated to be anything more than imaginary because it is neither directly observable nor successful at making any unique testable predictions we can verify.

Why do you think truth is only found through direct observation or making unique testable predictions?

Now, my epistemological criteria for reliably demonstrating a thing's existence in reality includes making direct observations and making unique testable predictions but does not necessarily assert that those are the only two justifiable mechanisms for distinguishing a "real" thing from an imaginary thing. Accordingly, I've evaluated the apologetic arguments you and other theists have offered me thus far as alternative mechanisms but they consistently fail to reliably demonstrate that the supernatural things your lot are fond of imagining also exist in reality. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility of there being other mechanisms for determining if an imagined thing also exists in reality and will evaluate the reliability of any new ones you or anyone else might have to offer for my consideration.

Then why isn’t the historical approach I offered part of that which you consider being reliably demonstrated to extend outside your imagination?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3054
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #446

Post by The Tanager »

POI wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:12 amNo, they are not. I said eyewitnesses. Paul was not an witness to a resurrection claim. He had a later vision, like many claim to have even now. And the other alleged accounts are definitely written by someone, or more... But we have no clue who the author(s) even were; and what they even witnessed themselves?

The early saying passed down to Paul was made by the original disciples who were eyewitnesses. Paul was an eyewitness to that fact and an eyewitness to his own post-mortem appearance which he equates to theirs. Paul distinguished between these appearances and later visions. The disciples accepted Paul as one of them. He speaks of being an apostle because he saw Jesus. He claims there was light and a voice that affected other people.

Mark, Matthew, and John each either record their own eyewitness (probably not), or someone else’s eyewitness testimony that had been passed down and within the lifetimes of those eyewitnesses so that any errors would have been corrected. From this we should believe the eyewitnesses claimed appearances.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3054
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #447

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 am
The issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted.

No, the issues are (1) what in those records can be trusted and (2) what can make the best sense of that which can be trusted.

Well, that's saying the same thing, isn't it, if the 'records of the effect' is what we observe the electrons doing and what is written in the Bible? (1).

Perhaps it is the same. But it doesn’t seem the same to me. So, I’m not performing a trick of saying the same thing in different words in pretending it’s a different argument. You have been focusing on how if details differ, then the records (Gospels, Paul) can’t be trusted and, therefore, can’t be logically used in an argument for the Resurrection, right? I’m saying we need to see what in the records (Gospels, Paul) can be trusted and that what can be trusted is available for one to use in an argument for the Resurrection.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 am
Many critiques are mixing this very thing up, including your own. My argument isn’t for “Gospel-Jesus” in all he supposedly said and did. It is a more basic Jesus that existed, was buried, whose tomb was found empty, whose disciples claimed to have post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and created a movement centered on claiming Jesus resurrected.

That is gospel Jesus in that it is what the gospels tell us. I want to keep out a complicating possible (very different) historical Jesus that could muddy the waters.[/quote]

It is a historical core of Jesus that the gospel Jesus shares but goes way beyond. Other views of what Jesus probably did, didn’t do, taught, didn’t teach (should) share that historical core but definitely go beyond that historical core. My argument focuses on that historical core Jesus, not the other stuff, whether Gospel Jesus, Apocalyptic Jesus, etc.

There is no trick here either because I’m not arguing for the Gospel/Christian claim in its entirety. We are only talking about a resurrection or not with the two-step argument that has been our focus. Nor am I saying anything about those other details being symbolic or not.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amThe empty tomb is not to be considered 'by itself' but in context. 'Other facts' are, for instance, if the contradictory resurrection -stories are evidence that there wasn't one resurrection -story they all knew, then whatever the reason for the empty tomb is, Solid -Body resurrection from death isn't one of them.

Perhaps I’m not catching your point. Which resurrection stories point to a non-bodily resurrection or a resurrection without an empty tomb?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amYes, it makes sense that Peter, (whose importance in the Jesus party Paul suggests, not that Paul didn't (as he says) contested with him right in his face) would be first to get this 'revelation' that Jesus' spirit had gone to heaven.

The tradition doesn’t say Peter’s revelation was the first one experienced, it’s just the first mentioned in the list. It says “and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5)”.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amAnd it's odd, isn't it that if the testimony of women is inadmissible, their finding the tomb open is the last thing the gospels broadly agree on? I think that's just an excuse - their legal standing as witnesses - to explain why Luke says they didn't see Jesus when Matthew says they did (4). Their testimony for the 'most Jewish' of the writers is good enough for him. Don't you see a lot of 'ad hoc' excuses being fished out to get over serious problems with the story?

That oddity is why it probably happened. It makes more sense that one would choose to edit that out than that other people later added it back in. They could have had different material available to them. Luke traveled with Paul and learned the tradition that left the women out. He could have thought his audience wouldn’t care. At the very least it isn’t more ad hoc than your rendering.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amYou seem a little confused. Paul, the Pharisees and I believe, Jesus' followers, all believed in a bodily resurrection at the coming of the Messiah and Last Days. That is what the gospels mostly talk about. I suppose they saw the spirit as asleep in the bodies until roused by the last Trump.

The Pharisees did. Jesus is presented as claiming to be the Messiah and teaching his own resurrection before the Last Days. Paul teaches Jesus as the firstfruit of bodily resurrection, which will happen for others at the end. This was the earliest Christian belief.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amBut Peter gets the idea that Jesus' spirit has risen to go back to heaven (from whence it came - Paul gives a few hits in Romans that it is a spirit that came from heaven to correct its' original disobedience by obedience to death).

You are saying Paul gives a few hints that Peter got the idea that Jesus’ spirit has risen to go back to heaven? What verses hint that?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amThe story that Paul was opposed to the disciples until he 'converted' shows that the appearance of Jesus to him was not of the solid -body Jesus of the Gospels but the spirit Jesus that he talked to in the 3rd heaven (I'd bet my butterfly - collection that he's talking about his own experience) which, note, is the impression Luke gives in Acts -

Yes, it was after Jesus’ supposed ascension, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an appearance and only a vision. Acts speaks of a light flashing (9:3, 22:6, 26:13) and a voice speaking (9:4-6, 22:6-10, 26:14-18) in Aramaic or Hebrew (26:14) that Paul and others heard (9:7, 22:6), while the others didn’t understand the voice (22:9). That has bodily elements and is connected by Paul to the appearances in the tradition passed down to him by the earliest Christians (1 Cor 15:8). Paul’s ‘third heaven man’ heard “inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell (2 Cor 12:4)” while Paul definitely talks about his conversion experience.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amand, given that the order of appearance, is quite different from that in the gospels, visions much later than shortly after the crucifixion is what they are talking about.

Neither the gospels nor the tradition passed down to Paul is attempting an exhaustive, chronological list of appearances.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amI suggest that your attempt to make Paul's 'natural/spiritual' distinction about 'human/Godly desires' and any attempt to make Paul's 'this is so and so it this' explanations anything but symbolic/metaphorical, as trying to get over problems by removing them from practical examination.

I’m not sure what “attempts to make Paul’s ‘this is so and so it this’ explanations anything but symbolic/metaphorical” means. Could you reword your critique? But I’m not removing them from the examination at all. I’m all for examining that distinction in the text itself if you interpret that text differently.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 am
without a narrated walking Jesus, Mark’s original ending has an announcement that Jesus is risen (16:6) and will appear to them (16:7). There were also predictions of his resurrection. It’s clear that Mark believes in a resurrected Jesus. Ending an account on the women not saying anything because they were afraid could serve the purpose of challenging the reader with what they would do with their belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Will they tell others? The women obviously did or the Gospel doesn’t get written at all.

Well, it obviously didn't get written, did it? If it had, there would be no need for the writers to later on invent three solid -body resurrections that contradict in almost all respects, eh?

I wasn’t talking about the additional ending. I was saying that Mark’s gospel (with the original ending) would not have gotten written if someone didn’t tell the others. Christianity would not have spread and, thus, no material for Mark to write. Thus, it’s obvious that Mark’s gospel teaches a resurrected Jesus.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amThe original synoptic ending certainly added an angel explaining everything. But John has never heard of that. Again, I trust that you won't resort to the 'John didn't think it important' apologetic as you see it as important as I do.

This looks like an attempt to “argue” for your position without having to argue for your position. The author of John mentions Mary telling Peter and John, which puts us after that part in the Synoptics. Why couldn’t John have chosen to leave that out? Why is it important to his intentions to have the angel scene? Perhaps he knew everyone was aware of it. Perhaps it came from sources not his own.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amUnless my memory is playing me false, Philo does write some history about Pilate and what he got up to. It is surprising that he doesn't at least mention that celebrated teacher and healer Jesus who got crucified at the time.

Why is that surprising? Jesus wasn’t celebrated or vilified everywhere. Plenty of places took no notice. Why should Philo, specifically, care enough to devote time to talking about Jesus? What is it about his philosophical agenda that begs for a mention about Jesus?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 amYou have written some attempts to dismiss my explanation(s) which are conclusions based on problems in the gospel accounts, which you have attempted to explain but I think not very successfully. If my explanations are 'ad hoc', yours are even more so. I am consistently inviting you to come up with better explanations than mine what is in the gospels.

Yes, I think mine are better; you think yours are. The important reason is why. We’ve shared our reasonings for each other (and others) to consider and challenge. I’ve responded to every specific point I could see. You have been responding to every point I’ve made to you as well.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:53 am
A case for which particular details are valid is another conversation. Important to have for one concerned in figuring that out but not important to my argument here. So, no need for you to make that case here. I'll grant you that there are some contradictions.

I am not falling for your attempt to pretend that this bit of my argument or that doesn't belong here or is a different argument.

I’m not doing that. I gave an argument. One of your critiques seems to be “but if the Gospel accounts disagree on details surrounding the empty tomb or the Resurrection, then the Resurrection should be rejected.” I’m questioning that critique. I’m saying I’ll grant you that the accounts disagree on details surrounding the empty tomb or the Resurrection. My argument isn’t changed one bit (because it never relied on every detail of every account being true in the first place).

Online
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 17633
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 450 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #448

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Previously in this thread The Tanager's claimed there's "eyewitnesses" to this ressurrection. "Documents" even.

Where's The Tanager produced any confirmable eyewitnesses or documents to support these claims?

It's like taking a ugly chick home from the bar.
You're proud to say ya took a chick home.
You're just shamed to think someone mighta seen ya do it.

I propose we'll not never see these "eyewitnesses", nor these "documents", because our claimant has nothing but faith to support this whole ressurrection claim.

He's got him a ugly chick, and he's shamed to admit it!
Some say it came from Memphis down in Tennessee
Or it drifted in from Georgia about 1953
Just as long as it's greasy, as long as it's fast
As long as it's pumpin' honey, it's gonna last

It's the hillbilly rock, beat it with a drum
Playin' them guitars like shootin' from a gun
Keepin' up the rhythm, steady as a clock
Doin' a little thing called the hillbilly rock
- Marty Stuart

User avatar
Diagoras
Sage
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #449

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #444]

Thanks for the response and clarification. I'm happy to 'meet in the middle' for now on the fact that the intentions of both 'early' and 'late' authors are things that we can only speculate on - so basing any claim on such is more a matter of opinion.


From your reply to POI:
The Tanager wrote:Mark, Matthew, and John each either record their own eyewitness (probably not), or someone else’s eyewitness testimony that had been passed down and within the lifetimes of those eyewitnesses so that any errors would have been corrected. From this we should believe the eyewitnesses claimed appearances.
<bolding mine>

I don't see how what I bolded above necessarily follows, nor how any deliberate or unintentional changes (exaggeration, political expediency, literacy levels, etc.) can be equally confidently ruled out.

POI
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #450

Post by POI »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:43 pm The early saying passed down to Paul was made by the original disciples who were eyewitnesses.
This is a pure faith claim. Why? Again, one of his cited Verse(s) lists a claimed "500" witnesses. If we do not have the names of these folks, along with their official individual independent depositions, on record, then you surely do not have "500" witnesses... You instead have a single unfounded/unverified claim. --- A single claim to '500' others, without sufficient follow through, is classic hearsay; and nothing more. Sorry. You are relying upon faith, and faith alone.

I cannot stress this enough... We are speaking about the single claimed greatest event in human history. Without eyewitness attestation, you are relying upon hearsay. Such a miraculous claim needs quite a bit more than pure hearsay.
The Tanager wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:43 pmMark, Matthew, and John each either record their own eyewitness (probably not), or someone else’s eyewitness testimony that had been passed down and within the lifetimes of those eyewitnesses so that any errors would have been corrected. From this we should believe the eyewitnesses claimed appearances.
This response, again, demonstrates nothing short of faith alone. Since we do not know who wrote the Gospels, and when, we have absolutely no idea what motivation(s) were guiding such writings? I mean, was there church bias at work? Was this just another instance of legendary tales told? Other? We do not know, because we do not even know who the author's were? It's also highly likely the writers of the Gospels were not direct witnesses themselves. The Gospels were written, a minimum of decades after the claimed event. This means they could not have been there themselves. Which means neither the writer nor the source was alive during the claimed event. Which means, none were eyewitnesses -- (by definition).

At best, it would seem such writings were taken from decades of already circulating oral tradition, prior to having anything written to paper. I trust we do not need to get into how oral tradition works?
Last edited by POI on Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply