Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

[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.

[The Tanager]

It's been quite recent to have people questioning some of it, like 'That's not Pilate', 'There was no release custom', 'the nativity can't be historical'; and the questions mount up until the whole thing is open to question. Dickering about 100% true or 5% doubt or whether it's history or not is just a distraction.

What’s “history or not”? The Bible? The resurrection? Something else?

Yes, Well, I see that while you wave a hand to 'does not prove it's true',

Does not prove what’s true?

you take four common or core or reliable (but not all three) elements: Jesus tomb, resurrection appearances, resurrection belief and line them to look like a logical sequence of persuasive evidence. But there has been increasing doubt and I reckon there's more to come. You've already had the answers, or somebody has.

I’m not sure why, but I’m having a hard time following your last post so far. What do you mean by I take four but not all three? What do you mean line them to look like a logical sequence? Make an argument? Something else? Is the “increasing doubt” a comment on those critiquing my argument in this thread, that they have increasing doubt? Or the trend within historical studies of Jesus? Something else? I (or someone else) have already had what answers?

A historical Jesus - but nothing like the Pauline Gospel Jesus

The conclusion of my argument here is not for the fuller “Pauline Jesus,” so this comment is not relevant.

An empty tomb - but even if true, the explanation that the evidence supports is Jesus carried out by the disciples, dead or alive. Never mind the Believers don't like it.

I don't see why it supports that. I’ve responded why I don’t think so. There is nothing new for me to respond to on that front.

Resurrection appearances. Given the evidence (which I've argued at length) that the gospel account is concocted, whatever Paul was referring to, it isn't that. I've argued that the only account Paul hints at is a heavenly visit (not anything on the way to Damascus) and I'd say visionary and is what he equates with the 12 and 500 altogether. Imaginary appearances long after the crucifixion.

And I’ve critiqued and responded to your points at length. There is nothing new for me to respond to on that front.

Christianity based on the resurrection -belief and that spirit resurrection having to be fleshed out with a walking Jesus still with holes in - which is a red flag in addition to the bunch of red flags waving discrepantly. That this and early Christianity had appeal does not make it true.

I never argued that it having appeal made it true.

I know you wave at 'possibly not true' but leave the heavy hint of 'probably true' with your core four. But I say that the serious doubts about the story and the way Christianity presents Paul raise too many doubts for us to take any such probability for granted. Whatever you want to call it, semantic, conceptual, the efforts to push the Jesus-Tomb-resurrection -Christianity sequence as somehow probably validating something is a trick to sideline doubt and question, and no doubt faith -based. I say the doubt and questions - to seriously calling out gospel credibility, can't be waved away so easily.

While one certainly could use semantics and other tricks, I have not done so. You saying I have done so doesn’t make it so. I’ll let my posts stand for themselves on that front.

I don’t sideline doubts and questions. I answer everyone I see and seek them out. I am who I am today because I struggled (and still do) with various doubts and questions, reading all the sides I can on the issue. It has been a huge part of my life. I’ll say it is undervalued in many Christian circles and pushed under the rug, unfortunately, but I have not done that here. Doubts are just that: doubts. Doubts can lead away or lead deeper into a worldview when explored. I’m not waving away any doubts. I am trying to keep the focus on the actual argument and, in doing so, will call out irrelevant critiques with the reasons I think they are irrelevant.

The existence of apples IS support for Bob actually eating one. The doubt about existence of dragons is support for doubt about Bob riding one (1). The crucifixion is the apple, the resurrection is the dragon. The consistency of the crucifixion pushes credibility (given the additions such as the penitent thief or Pilate's surprise or the spear -thrust) but the mutual self -destruction of the conflicting resurection -accounts demolishes credibility.

The existence of apples is not rational support for Bob actually eating one. It is rational support for Bob possibly eating one.

Yes, doubting resurrections occur is reason to doubt Jesus resurrected, unless other evidence comes along to overcome the initial, general doubt, which I think has, as I’ve shared.

I’ve shared why I (a) think you are wrong about the “mutual self-destruction” of the resurrection accounts and (b) why, assuming some contradiction, it is a wrong approach to take anyway. There is nothing new for me to respond to there.

You say you can only ask others to look at the discussion. I agree. So, unless you have new information to add, let’s stop just restating our conclusions.

[The Tanager]

He isn’t a witness that the appearance actually happened. He is an eyewitness to the actual people claiming it happened to them, which is what I have been arguing.

Who are these "actual people claiming it happened to them" and how were their claims verified?

The people would almost certainly be the disciples and early Church leadership. The tradition doesn’t get formulated in that way and passed down outside of them.

[The Tanager]

I'll charitably presume that a misinterpretation of my previous answer was what prompted you to construct an unintentional strawman. My answer was far more nuanced than the inaccurate characterization you've posted above. I did not ask you to prove the supernatural existed before I'd consider your argument that, if true, would demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. My objection is that your argument, if true, would not demonstrate a supernatural resurrection occurred in reality as anything other than an imagined event because your approach isn't comprehensive enough to reliably distinguish real things from imaginary things.

I certainly don’t intend to strawman you. Does the existence of apples move Bob’s claim of eating an apple from being imaginary to being real? I think the answer is clearly "no". Bob's claim hasn't been ruled out as true, but there isn't support for it being real rather than "imaginary". What do you think and why?

According to your reasoning, any argument, if true, should be accepted as showing that the imagined thing it is describing also exists in reality. The example of the "luminiferous aether" argument conclusively exposes such reasoning as logically fallacious. Again, it seems to be a bit disingenuous for an apologist to perceive this objection as unreasonable when it would otherwise be accepted as reasonable in any other context.

If an argument is true, yes. By definition a true argument is an argument that gives us truth about reality. What’s wrong with that? The aether argument was not true, thus it isn’t shown to exist in reality.

[brunumb]

He isn’t a witness that the appearance actually happened. He is an eyewitness to the actual people claiming it happened to them, which is what I have been arguing.

Who are these "actual people claiming it happened to them" and how were their claims verified?

The people would almost certainly be the disciples and early Church leadership. The tradition doesn’t get formulated in that way and passed down outside of them.

So, no actual people who can be specifically identified with their verified claims. Just almost certainly a bunch of people. Faith it is then.

[bluegreenearth]

I certainly don’t intend to strawman you. Does the existence of apples move Bob’s claim of eating an apple from being imaginary to being real? I think the answer is clearly "no". Bob's claim hasn't been ruled out as true, but there isn't support for it being real rather than "imaginary". What do you think and why?

Bob's claim of eating an apple imagines a type of thing and and a type of event. It imagines a type of thing labeled as "apple" and a type of event labeled as "eating". Is the type of event labeled as "eating" imagined in Bob's claim demonstrable in reality? Yes, we can observe people eating in reality. Is the type of thing labeled as "apple" imagined in Bob's claim demonstrable in reality? Yes, we can observe the existence of apples in reality. Does this mean Bob actually ate an apple in reality? No, but since apples and eating are a demonstrable in reality, these facts make it justifiable to infer that "eating an apple" is the best explanation for Bob's claim. Was it this inference to the best explanation that functioned to demonstrate the existence of eating and apples in reality? No. The existence of eating and apples in reality needed to have already been demonstrated for the inference to be justifiable.

If an argument is true, yes. By definition a true argument is an argument that gives us truth about reality. What’s wrong with that? The aether argument was not true, thus it isn’t shown to exist in reality.

You seem to be equivocating true with valid. For an argument to be valid, its conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises, even if one of the premises is false. Therefore, a valid argument does not necessarily produce a conclusion that is demonstrably true in reality. The luminiferous aether argument was valid even though one of its premises was false:

• Premise 1 = All waves propagate through a medium.

• Premise 2 = Light is a wave.

• Conclusion = Light propagates through a medium (i.e. luminiferous aether).

The argument above is valid because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. The fact that premise 1 is false makes the argument not sound, but it is nonetheless valid.

[JoeyKnothead]

Snippagings occurred...

...
My argument is that an actual resurrection makes the most sense out of there being an empty tomb, post-mortem appearances to the earliest disciples, and the rise of the Christian movement with a message centered on a resurrected Jesus.

The problem here is that we must rely on these claims being truthful / accurate / or whatever. Acceptance of these accounts or claims is bound entirely in faith.

A "rise of the Christian movement" is not probative regarding a resurrection, it's just merely an argument from numbers. Belief is not immediately fact.

Paul brings it up to remind Corinthian Christians to hold fast to the gospel he and they originally believed and then to talk about the resurrection of the dead, which Paul felt they were misunderstanding. Why should he have written it down sooner?

By mentioning it sooner, it becomes more contemporaneous, which some historians hold proud.

For me, It doesn't matter when an unprovable, unproven assertion is told, it's all anprovably and unprovenly all the same.

Why is that a problem? That in a formulaic gospel spiel meant to be short to not include the various names?

It's like saying my girlfriend lives in Canada, and I can't remember her name right now.

It goes to credibility:

"Ol' Bob there, the goat wrangler, he swears it up and down he done saw him some dead dude come astrolling by, and don't it beat all, it was Jesus himself!"

"Hey Bob, leave that goat be a minute, d'you really say all that?"

"Naw, I said I took me a mouthful of mushrooms, and I'm here to tell it, it was the fanciest trip I ever been on!"

We simply have no means of confirming if these "eyewitness" testimonies were even accurately recorded, much less to reflect reality.

...
...

This isn’t just Paul saying these things, he’s quoting an obviously well known formula that he got passed down to him when he converted. The context of 1 Cor 15 shows that the Corinthians already knew this story as well. Paul is reminding them. These details are obviously well known throughout the Christian community.

Now we've got the problem of trying to corroborate this tale with all that bunch right there.

You're just piling up claimants we can't question, regarding facts we can't test, regarding stuff you can't support.

Which of these Corinthians is alive today, that we might confirm they knew this story? (I figure they did, but the fact remains - we can't actually confirm it)

Again, a belief, or story, within a community is not immediate evidence that belief or story is true and factual.

Eventually, yes the eyewitnesses all pass away, but there is still a continuity within the Christian community that provides checks on information getting changed, at least on the big fronts I'm talking about.

The story of Huck Finn has been reliably recorded and passed down through several generations now. That don't mean Huck's real.

Your response here is contradictory...
The “appearance to about 500” (let’s call that X) is one of the various supposed “claims of post-mortem appearances” (let’s call that Y). I have never argued we have 500 eyewitnesses to Y. We have multiple eyewitnesses to Y (which includes an X). No contradiction.

The contradiction comes in your inability to present any of these "eyewitnesses" for cross examination.

You accept their claims on faith, and faith alone.

Let me rephrase my answer. We have multiple attestation (the Jewish formula Paul quotes and Paul) to an appearance to about 500. More to the point, we have good reasons (including multiple attestation) to believe the disciples claimed to have experienced post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

I can claim to've bedded down Scarlett Johansson in front of five hundred folks, that don't mean I did.

You accept these unsupportable claims on faith.

Faith.

It's what's for dinner.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I don’t sideline doubts and questions. I answer everyone I see and seek them out. I am who I am today because I struggled (and still do) with various doubts and questions, reading all the sides I can on the issue. It has been a huge part of my life. I’ll say it is undervalued in many Christian circles and pushed under the rug, unfortunately, but I have not done that here. Doubts are just that: doubts. Doubts can lead away or lead deeper into a worldview when explored. I’m not waving away any doubts. I am trying to keep the focus on the actual argument and, in doing so, will call out irrelevant critiques with the reasons I think they are irrelevant.
...

For what it's worth, I consider The Tanager to debate in as honest a manner as anyone. I see nothing in this thread, or others, that'd suggest The Tanager'd kinda try to side-step, or dance around an issue.

We might, possibly, maybe think The Tanager subconsciously avoids stuff... that's really for a professional to fret... but for danged sure, The Tanager never seems to shy from an argument, or contradictory data that I've ever seen. Maybe not reply to a given post, but heck, who here can reply to em all?

Wronger'n all get out, but as honest a debater as you'll ever meet.

I just wanna tell that, in case the observer wants to gnaw on it.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #576]

Anyone that says "My argument is that an actual resurrection makes the most sense out of there being an empty tomb, post-mortem appearances to the earliest disciples, and the rise of the Christian movement with a message centered on a resurrected Jesus." isn't thinking correctly IMO. What makes the most sense? It's made-up. The reason? To fulfill a need; entertainment; mis-understanding of actual happenings. Literally, the very last 'reason' is that 'it's real'.
It's all about faith, not facts. This thread has went on and on and on with certain people pontificating wishful thinking and hope as 'facts' when it's not. It's faith.
Centuries of time to prove it was factual and all we have is people saying other people said? And they consider that fact?!? Really? That's frightening!
Just accept it is faith and not factual and move on.
Trying in vain to justify something when it's not possible is a waste of time. Unless, of course, 'first world problems' are all some people have to spend time on, I suppose.

[Hawkins]

The contradiction comes in your inability to present any of these "eyewitnesses" for cross examination.

You accept their claims on faith, and faith alone.

Apparently you are brainwashed just like any other atheists. Maybe to your surprise, humans in majority don't rely on evidence to get to a truth. You are thus arguing from a wrong premise but without your own awareness (how surprising).

Did you even have any eggs before the age of two? Such a a piece of past/historical fact to most humans is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. This is basically the nature of what history itself is, especially in regards to individual activities. The only way under most circumstance is, your own mom (as an legit eyewitness) told her story for others to believe or reject with faith. This remains the only way for such a truth to convey to other humans while they don't examine any evidence as historical evidence of individual activities is next to zero in this very reality!

As another example, in Chinese history Confucius had 3000 apprentice. This is the piece of info recorded in a Chinese history book. Are there any evidence showing that the number is more "factual" and reliable? It's none. This again is the very nature of human testimony itself. This is about what history is.

When it is claimed the US had a covid death doll of 30,000 on a particular day, do you have the evidence before you (or anyone) took it as a fact? How do you know that it's not 25,000 or 33,000? Again, info is conveyed not by evidence but by faith to the majority. This is about a daily occurence conveyed to the mass of humans in majority.

Now do you know that black hole exist? Do you have the evidence? 99.99% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist don't actually have the evidence. This piece of scientific fact is not conveyed to human individuals by evidence. This is about a science.


You religious believe in evidence while that's not how this reality operates. You simply live in your own fantasy world to think that humans need evidence to get to a truth while they don't. They rely on something else to determine a fact/truth. Figure it out!

So your arguments are just a fallacious leverage on the the fact that historical individual activities by their very nature are mostly unsupported by evidence. It's like saying that your mom's testimony is not true unless she can provide the evidence of the eggs you ate before the age of two, while in reality her tesimony remains the only possibly way for any other humans to get to this piece of fact! That's all you can equivocally leverage!

[William]

[Replying to Hawkins in post #579]

Maybe to your surprise, humans in majority don't rely on evidence to get to a truth.

Even if that were true, the [original] point of the OP was to point out that belief in the resurrection is based in faith.
Some Christians were claiming it was fact based belief, which was why I started this thread, in the hope that they could show the evidence.

Your post simply shows that - yet again - some believers in the resurrection are muddled on that point.
"Atheists" are not arguing that there is no historical information which need to be taken on faith.

The argument re the resurrection is exactly about that. Christians who claim that it 'changes everything' because 'it is truth' are like anyone else. They have to present the evidence which shows this to being the case.

Did you even have any eggs before the age of two?

Joey isn't claiming his mom feed him eggs. If he was, and it was somehow relevant to Joey's position, then yes - it would a related analogy.

But in this circumstance it is a pathetic strawman, which has nothing to do with the OP subject.