Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10483
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1129 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
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18676
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

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

Post #751

Post by JoeyKnothead »

brunumb wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:17 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pm The central theme here is a dead body suddenly becoming reanimated. The medical science is our greatest* tool in analyzing this ludicrous, goofy resurrection claim.

*I corrected "greasy" to "greatest". My auto correct got the best of me. I'll leave the original be so folks don't think I'm up to something untoward.
I agree that the claim is ludicrous, but I don't think we can dismiss it on the basis of the fact that dead bodies don't reanimate. It is, after all, supposed to be a miracle.
I was pointing strictly to the medical aspects of dead folks staying dead. It's yet to be shown this was a religious miracle, only claimed as such.
I feel we are justified in dismissing it on the basis that there is no credible evidence for the existence of a resurrected Jesus.
Yep. It starts with a fail and ends with anothern.
There is no 'unbroken chain of evidence' involving a Jesus character from before the crucifixion event to the alleged sighting of a resurrected body.
For sure.
There is no credible evidence for any of the events described in the biblical account. It all requires faith that the accounts are genuine and true.
Very much.

This thread is a testament to how one confuses their faith with fact.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1840 times
Been thanked: 1362 times

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

Post #752

Post by Difflugia »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmThe central theme here is a dead body suddenly becoming reanimated. The medical science is our greatest* tool in analyzing this ludicrous, goofy resurrection claim.

*I corrected "greasy" to "greatest". My auto correct got the best of me. I'll leave the original be so folks don't think I'm up to something untoward.
Maybe it's "anointed."
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3204
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

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

Post #753

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmYou're not the only one who reads theses posts, so keep in mind sometimes we say stuff so others can better understand.

Of course. I was only doing the same. Why are we still pointing this out?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmWho better to consider issues of if something is alive or dead, than a medical professional?

I’m not sure there is any better. I’m not talking about that issue, however. The issue I addressed was whether a resurrection is the best explanation given the historical facts present. A medical professional qua medical professional is not the best one for that issue.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmBut we do have medical. evidence in this case...

Dead folks stay dead

That you consider this conclusion of the medical establishment irrational is, I contend, sound support for the rational conclusion your faith is all you have to defend your irrational conclusion that some ancient preacher hopped up after a three day dead.

That you think I consider that general conclusion irrational shows how poorly you are following the argument.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 265 times
Been thanked: 948 times

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

Post #754

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:21 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:08 pm (Presents an alternate way to lookt at claims)
As always, I preciate your schooling, and you do a fine bunch of it. While, I can't rightly refute your argument under its premises, I'll still hold to my methodology.

While we have differing approaches to these biblical claims, the end result is two different refutations, so it's all good.

Again, thanks for the schooling.
:D We will just have to 'agree to differ'.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18676
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

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

Post #755

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:25 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmYou're not the only one who reads theses posts, so keep in mind sometimes we say stuff so others can better understand.
Of course. I was only doing the same. Why are we still pointing this out?
Lol Hoisted by my own petard.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmWho better to consider issues of if something is alive or dead, than a medical professional?
I’m not sure there is any better. I’m not talking about that issue, however. The issue I addressed was whether a resurrection is the best explanation given the historical facts present. A medical professional qua medical professional is not the best one for that issue.
Yet you've failed miserably to show these "historical facts" are facts.

You present nothing but unprovable claims by unprovable people regarding unprovable events.

What field of study do you propose would be best at determining facts regarding dead bodies hopping up and strolling to town?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:31 pmBut we do have medical. evidence in this case...

Dead folks stay dead

That you consider this conclusion of the medical establishment irrational is, I contend, sound support for the rational conclusion your faith is all you have to defend your irrational conclusion that some ancient preacher hopped up after a three day dead.

That you think I consider that general conclusion irrational shows how poorly you are following the argument.
Indeed, it's hard to follow when magic and illogic are the best tools you've got.

You've taken on faith the following...

1. God exists
2. Mary exists
3. God impregnated Mary in contradiction to his own edict about sexing up someone's wife
3. Which brings us to Mary being married
4. A god and human can create viable offspring
5. That offspring was Jesus
6. Jesus was dead in a tomb
7. Jesus hopped up and left that tomb after three days of dead

Where've you put fact to even one the above faith claims?

You wanna keep fussing about how the resurrection should be accepted as fact, but you do absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.

Your faith in this story is the one fact we do have.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

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

Post #756

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:25 pm The issue I addressed was whether a resurrection is the best explanation given the historical facts present.
The historical facts do not tell us that a dead body came back to life after a couple of days. That is merely speculation and not subject to an explanation.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

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

Post #757

Post by brunumb »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pm Yet you've failed miserably to show these "historical facts" are facts.
Precisely! That is the part that keeps getting lost in the discussion.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18676
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

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

Post #758

Post by JoeyKnothead »

brunumb wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pm Yet you've failed miserably to show these "historical facts" are facts.
Precisely! That is the part that keeps getting lost in the discussion.
While it's important we (I) stay on topic, we can also consider this in terms of the whole book, and the faith required to accept the resurrection as fact.

In a tale of talking bushes and global floods, of water walking and other carryings on, it's just not rational to consider any of it a factual representation of reality.

But here we are, being told doctors ain't the ones to ask about the dead hopping up. We're expected to trust "historical" claims on the basis of a bunch of folks believing em.

In other words, forget what the medical authorities have to allow, an argumentum ad populum is the way to establish fact in this case
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

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

Post #759

Post by brunumb »

The clip below is concerned with the top 5 contradictions in the Bible according to Dan Barker, co-president of the FFRF. It begins about half way through the whole program at the fifth one which concerns the resurrection. He claims that he has found 17 contradictions in the resurrection story. Barker then describes his 'Easter Challenge' in relation to this which requires one to take the four gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, about 150 verses, plus the accounts in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians, and put them all together in one single coherent narrative leaving nothing out as a simple story of exactly what happened between the resurrection and the ascension. According to Barker no one has been able to do that, including Christian apologists.



https://youtu.be/r7kOEkv1fp8?t=2008
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Online
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1272 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

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

Post #760

Post by Tcg »

brunumb wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:25 am The clip below is concerned with the top 5 contradictions in the Bible according to Dan Barker, co-president of the FFRF. It begins about half way through the whole program at the fifth one which concerns the resurrection. He claims that he has found 17 contradictions in the resurrection story. Barker then describes his 'Easter Challenge' in relation to this which requires one to take the four gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, about 150 verses, plus the accounts in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians, and put them all together in one single coherent narrative leaving nothing out as a simple story of exactly what happened between the resurrection and the ascension. According to Barker no one has been able to do that, including Christian apologists.



https://youtu.be/r7kOEkv1fp8?t=2008
I think it is worth noting that Dan Barker was a Christian preacher and composer for 19 years. What we have is one who knows Christianity from the inside out. If I recall correctly, it was the contradictions found in the Bible that led to his deconversion. In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Post Reply