Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10811
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 1193 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.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1465 times
Been thanked: 554 times

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

Post #2

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to William in post #1]

I just want to address this bit for now:
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.
It's not because the information is "closely aligned" it's because some of the text is verbatim copying. Something one would NOT expect in different accounts from different people.
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, it's called plagiarism. There's a vast difference between reporting on the same events with the same details and outright copying text verbatim.

Example:

Suspicious (it seems author #2 has a theological issue with blue water and white sand, author #3 has issues with white horses):

1) I saw a white horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of blue water and white sand.

2) I saw a white horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of green water and brown sand.

3) I saw a grey horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of blue water and white sand.

What we might expect from separate people not copying each other.

1) I saw a white horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of blue water and white sand.

2) I saw a white horse galloping across the field. It stopped when it got to the waters edge on the beach.

3) There was a horse galloping towards the beach. It stopped when it got to the water and took a drink.

The second set has similar details and you can tell it's the same story, but not copied word for word. The first set is pretty obvious we have plagiarism and people trying to 'improve' something they are copying.

If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.
Exactly. The reports should align with each other, perhaps filling in missing details from other accounts. What they shouldn't be doing is outright copy and pasting text from each other and making clear changes for theological or other personal reasons.
However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.
Yes, from multiple people successively copying from each other, and trying to 'improve' or correct the theology.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18862
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1882 times
Been thanked: 1234 times

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

Post #3

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From the OP:

I just wanna get at this bit...
...
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.
Some of the text is verbatim copying. Something one would not expect in different accounts from different people.
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.
It's plagiarism, even if ya change it up a bit. There's a vast difference between reporting on the same events with the same details and outright copying text verbatim.


I can't help but remember "cdesign proponentsists".
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

Rational Atheist
Student
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

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

Post #4

Post by Rational Atheist »

Without a doubt any Christian who believes in the resurrection is lowering their usual standard of evidence that it would take for them to believe an equally unlikely and ridiculous claim. The "evidence" for the resurrection is basically the same as the "evidence" for Scientology or any other supernatural claim of any other religion, which Christians and atheists both dismiss as nonsense.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 155 times

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

Post #5

Post by bjs1 »

William wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:09 pm 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.
Everything that happened before your birth, and everything that has happened in the world which you were not personally present for, is a subject which you know by hearsay. That does not mean that that everything you have not personally witnessed is not factual. To suggest that there is a dichotomy between “factual rather than hearsay” is not remotely reasonable.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 57 times

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

Post #6

Post by Bradskii »

bjs1 wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:18 pm
William wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:09 pm 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.
Everything that happened before your birth, and everything that has happened in the world which you were not personally present for, is a subject which you know by hearsay. That does not mean that that everything you have not personally witnessed is not factual. To suggest that there is a dichotomy between “factual rather than hearsay” is not remotely reasonable.
But there's no requirement to believe most aspects of what might have happened in our lives. It's not going to affect us in any way.

I would say that most Christians are born into Christianity. And are told some reasonable, and some extraordinarily unreasonable, facts about the religion as they learn more about it. If you're from an area where fundamentalism is prevalent then you might believe in a global flood or a young earth. Or you may discount that as a bad interpretation of scripture.

BUT...you cannot, as a Christian, reject the resurrection. Even if there was zero evidence for it and scripture only referred to it obliquely. It is the very essence of Christianity. It is almost the very definition of Christianity. So it's not remotely possible to agree to any argument that suggests that it didn't happen. But what one can do - but so infrequently sees, is a Christian readily agreeing that the evidence is not something that they would normally accept should it not be the case rejecting it would question their very definition of themselves as a Christian.

There may be a story in the bible that describes Jesus as being kind to animals. And one version mentions a sick pet that he had that he nursed back to health. One version says it was a dog. One says a black cat. In another it's two grey cats. So did He actually have a pet? Was it actually a cat? And was it black? Who knows? More to the point, who cares? It's a story meant to illustrate something. That doesn't mean anything in how you see yourself. So nobody in their right mind would spend time defending the fact that He had a pet or not. It would be like arguing about the type of fish that He used to feed the multitude. It really wouldn't matter. Just like most of what happens in the world that doesn't affect us.

So yeah. It's a faith based position. And entirely reasonable for that. In fact, it's impossible to call that unreasonable. But if you only believe it just on the evidence...then you bring into question all matters within the bible that are stated as facts, with perhaps more evidence than the resurrection, but which you reject. Which then makes one sound unreasonable.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10811
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 1193 times
Contact:

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

Post #7

Post by William »

Why this thread was created was because some Christians claim that they believe in the story of the resurrection because of facts, rather than because of faith.
The thread is not about critiquing those who believe in the story through faith, as the OP acknowledges that it is a faith-based belief.

Rather, the thread is an opportunity for those who claim that the resurrection is factual, to table their evidence in order that the evidence can be critiqued.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

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

Post #8

Post by Realworldjack »

William wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:48 am Why this thread was created was because some Christians claim that they believe in the story of the resurrection because of facts, rather than because of faith.
The thread is not about critiquing those who believe in the story through faith, as the OP acknowledges that it is a faith-based belief.

Rather, the thread is an opportunity for those who claim that the resurrection is factual, to table their evidence in order that the evidence can be critiqued.

The thing is, we were having this discussion on a different thread. So then, why open this thread in order to have this same discussion? Well, it may be because, on the other thread, you made the claim, that you could "debunk" (expose the falseness) of the reports we have in the NT. When you made this claim, I conceded that if you could hold up your end of the bargain, I would be done with Christianity. However, instead of you holding up your end of the bargain, you go on to make other claims, which I demonstrate you cannot defend. You then go on to describe a scenario in which it may be possible for some priests to have wrote out what we have in the NT as fiction, which would be an extremely extraordinary, incredible tale, it sort of demonstrates one who is willing to accept anything at all, no matter how incredible, as long as it does not involve the reports of the resurrection being true. In other words, instead of holding up your end of the bargain, we end up discussing these other possibilities you bring up, and never get to the part where you "debunk" (expose the falseness) of the reports we have in the NT.

Therefore, the only reason I can imagine you left the other thread where we were having this very same discussion, in order to open this thread to have the same discussion, is because you realize your arguments were not holding up very well, and therefore hoped to be able to enlist support from others, since you were struggling by yourself.

Well, good luck with this thread, but I am not willing to stretch myself between two different threads, discussing the same thing, on top of the fact you still have not held up your end of the bargain.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10811
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 1193 times
Contact:

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

Post #9

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #8]
The thing is, we were having this discussion on a different thread. So then, why open this thread in order to have this same discussion?
In that interaction with you, I explained that should you table anything to do with The Subject, I would be more than happy to critique that and would create another thread to do so, giving my reasons;
1: It would not interfere with the topic of the other thread.
2: It would allow for keeping things tidy for easier access in the future.

Post#207 Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:11 pm [one week ago]
I would suggest that if you seriously want to continue this conversation, we do so in the Head to Head in order not to mix it in with the main topic of this thread, and also, so that it is kept in a place which can be easily referred to in the future.
[I decided to create an open thread rather than Head To Head as it seemed more appropriate, given the circumstances. Now that we have witnessed your response, the decision to do so turned out to be the best one to have made.]
Well, it may be because, on the other thread, you made the claim, that you could "debunk" (expose the falseness) of the reports we have in the NT.
I stand by that.

The rest of your post is unsupported hogwash. You have tabled nothing in the way of evidence to support your claim that The Subject is fact-based rather than faith based, and your lame excuse for not wanting to follow through in supporting your claim - no less - in a thread designed for that purpose, is telling re your character.

Other Christians have had no problem with admitting [in this thread] that belief in the resurrection is faith-based. You appear to be on your own in claiming that it is fact-based and now The Subject is out in the open [in its own thread] instead of mixed in with another topic and easily overlooked, you come here and throw your Ad hominem grenade and run away.

And here I am, not the least bit surprised by such tactic...

In my defense [of your Ad hominem] the link to my post which outlines the course of our interaction in the other thread; [LINK]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10811
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 1193 times
Contact:

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

Post #10

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #262]
The bottom line is, you have ask me to give you reasons for the belief I have, and I have supplied the fact that we have the reports of a resurrection.
The fact that stories exist does not in itself mean that the stories are fact. For you or I to believe the stories are fact, we have no choice but to accept them on faith.

You have given the clear impression that you have evidence which supports the stories are indeed facts. You have not tabled the alleged evidence so until you do so, the fact remains, that belief in the resurrection is faith based - not fact based.

I have given some critique in the OP which is based upon the overall story of the biblical Jesus, and therein have established that it is unlikely such a person [as presented] could have died.

Thus, without a death, there can be no 'resurrection'.

This [of course] is not to say that something didn't happen which implied a resurrection.

All in all, the story of the biblical Jesus debunks itself.

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #272]
You asked for the evidence. I cite the fact that we have the reports of the resurrection.
Your citing that does not show us that your claim the belief is fact-based is a true claim. Why not just end it by admitting that the belief is faith-based?

Or else present the evidence that - not only I [an Agnostic Theist] but also non-theists and even Christians who believe the story of faith - may learn of the facts that we can place faith aside - if indeed we have faith in the story.

Post Reply