Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 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
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #31

Post by William »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #328]
William wrote:I think part of the realization is that a lot of Christians are claiming faith in [possible/glass half full] 'fact' rather than faith in [possible/glass half empty] 'fiction' by attempting to conflate belief with knowing.

They "know'" it is true/fact because they "believe" it is true/fact, as it sounds-out more convincing when worded that way.

aka; as "to still hold the cake one has eaten".
Realworldjack wrote:Do you mean, kind of like those who doubt the Christian claims to be true?
No.
Realworldjack wrote:In other words, they are not insisting the claims to be false, but are convinced the claims to be false, because they believe the claims to be false? Kind of sounds better worded that way, doesn't it?
I am agnostic, so neither believe nor doubt. I cannot speak for those who are convinced that the claim of the resurrection is false.
Realworldjack wrote:The fact of the matter is, whether one would like to admit it, or not, something incredible occurred some 2000 years ago.
So we hear it said. It is a fact that it is said, not that what is said is fact.

I myself do not insist the claim is false. Rather, I accept that the claim cannot be shown to be true, so the claim is therefore hearsay and - if accepted as true, is done so on faith, rather than fact.

I go further to point out the inconsistencies re the faith in light of the overall storyline, which itself rests in the necessary belief that the Garden of Eden story is literal and true.

For the most part, believers shy away from examining the inconsistencies of their own faith...because they want to hold their cake after having eaten it....because it is magic cake...

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

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

Post #32

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to William in post #31]

I know you don’t like this kind of answer but it depends on what is meant by “fact” and “faith”. I think the resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable historical position to take. I think this is based on a few historical “facts,” where historical “facts” aren’t 100% certain (and neither are scientific “facts,” by the way). I would define faith as something like: “trusting in what you have good reason to think is true.” I trust in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus in that I believe there are good, historical reasons to believe it is true, based off of a few historical facts and sound logic.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #33

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:38 pm I trust in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus in that I believe there are good, historical reasons to believe it is true, based off of a few historical facts and sound logic.
I really, really need to know what those "few historical facts" are that you are using as the basis for your belief in the resurrection. Could you please share.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #34

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:48 pm
The Tanager wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:38 pm I trust in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus in that I believe there are good, historical reasons to believe it is true, based off of a few historical facts and sound logic.
I really, really need to know what those "few historical facts" are that you are using as the basis for your belief in the resurrection. Could you please share.
Yes. So far, no Christian has been able to do so. There seems to be a struggle to admit that the resurrections is something believed in on faith because - for very unclear reasons - it appears important that Christians assume the position that the resurrection is factual.

Clearly Tanager thinks it all depends on how one interprets "facts" and "faith" and as I have mentioned already in this thread, it is the Christian way of wanting to have their cake and eat it.

Magic cake that it is....

I am not sure as to why Christians do this. Surely it is more honest just to admit that belief in the resurrection is faith based.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

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

Post #35

Post by The Tanager »

I propose a four-step approach to this question. First, agreeing upon how to judge between the various answers to this question. Second, assembling the facts to be explained. Third, assessing which hypotheses best explain those facts. Thus, we are doing inference to the best explanation. Fourth, analyzing the fallout from this investigation. Since I am interested in a rational discussion, I will be talking about these one step at a time. If anyone jumps ahead, then I will try to keep track of points addressing later steps and answer those when we have moved on from the previous steps.

So, step 1: how should we judge the proposed answers to this question? I think this is clearly a historical question and, therefore, we should use the criteria historians use in weighing historical hypotheses. I propose the following:

1. Explanatory scope. Which hypothesis explains a wider range of data than the rivals?
2. Explanatory power. Which hypothesis renders the evidence more probable than others?
3. Plausibility. Is the proposed explanation more plausible than others?
4. Ad-hocness. Which hypothesis has to postulate the fewest things for which there is no independent evidence?
5. Disconfirmation. Which hypothesis are disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs?
6. Exceeding alternatives. Does a hypothesis exceed its rivals in meeting the above conditions so that there is little chance the rivals will exceed it in meeting those conditions?

So, do people agree with these? Should some be taken out? Should something be added?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #36

Post by William »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:25 am I propose a four-step approach to this question. First, agreeing upon how to judge between the various answers to this question. Second, assembling the facts to be explained. Third, assessing which hypotheses best explain those facts. Thus, we are doing inference to the best explanation. Fourth, analyzing the fallout from this investigation. Since I am interested in a rational discussion, I will be talking about these one step at a time. If anyone jumps ahead, then I will try to keep track of points addressing later steps and answer those when we have moved on from the previous steps.

So, step 1: how should we judge the proposed answers to this question? I think this is clearly a historical question and, therefore, we should use the criteria historians use in weighing historical hypotheses. I propose the following:

1. Explanatory scope. Which hypothesis explains a wider range of data than the rivals?
2. Explanatory power. Which hypothesis renders the evidence more probable than others?
3. Plausibility. Is the proposed explanation more plausible than others?
4. Ad-hocness. Which hypothesis has to postulate the fewest things for which there is no independent evidence?
5. Disconfirmation. Which hypothesis are disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs?
6. Exceeding alternatives. Does a hypothesis exceed its rivals in meeting the above conditions so that there is little chance the rivals will exceed it in meeting those conditions?

So, do people agree with these? Should some be taken out? Should something be added?
I think that you should just follow those steps and show us your results. That will at least provide us with an example of what it is you are proposing re those steps.

Are these 'hypothesis' [re: 1.] to do with whether belief in the resurrection is faith or fact based? If so, then give your reasons.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

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

Post #37

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:45 pmI think that you should just follow those steps and show us your results. That will at least provide us with an example of what it is you are proposing re those steps.

Are these 'hypothesis' [re: 1.] to do with whether belief in the resurrection is faith or fact based? If so, then give your reasons.

Okay, I can do that. From my best attempt at understanding how you mean those terms, yes, I think this concerns whether the resurrection is faith or fact-based. So, step 1 was laid out. Onto step 2: what are the facts that need to be explained? I think there are three facts to be explained:

a. The tomb was found empty by a group of women followers
b. The post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various people
c. The origin of the Christian faith

2a. The tomb was found empty by a group of women followers

First, the reliability of Jesus’ burial supports this. If the burial is accurate, then the location of Jesus’ tomb would have been known to Jew (Jesus was entombed by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin) and Christian (the women would have followed the burial party to perform their duties). If his burial site was known, then it must have been empty when the disciples began to preach Jesus’ resurrection because neither the disciples nor the possible converts would have believed the Gospel if the corpse was still there. Or, even if some believed, the Jewish authorities would have easily exposed it as a hoax by showing the body in the tomb.

Jesus’ burial in the tomb is multiply attested in early and independent sources: the pre-Markan passion story within Mark (which the German scholar Pesch dates to within 7 years of the cruxificion), the tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15, which many scholars date to within 5 years. Later independent sources (“Q,” John, Acts) and it is unlikely that Christians would have invented Joseph of Arimathea as the one who buried Jesus.

Second, the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is also multiply attested in early and independent sources. The pre-Markan passion source, the tradition in 1 Cor 15, Acts, Matthew, Luke, John.

Third, Mark says Jesus’ resurrection was on “the first day of the week,” If this was a late developing legend, Mark would have most likely used “on the third day” as that had become the widely prominent way to refer to it by then. The phrase itself apparently is awkward in Greek, yet naturally idiomatic if translated back into Aramaic.

Fourth, the story in Mark is simple, lacking signs of legendary development and embellishment. The author doesn’t have witnesses or a description of the resurrection, there isn’t theological reflection about Jesus’ victory over sin or death, Christological titles aren’t used of Jesus, no quotes of fulfilled prophecy, no description of the risen Jesus. It’s nothing like the Gospel of Peter’s account, for instance, where the tomb is surrounded by a Roman guard, the Pharisees, elders, chief priests, a huge crowd, a voice rings out, two men descend on the clouds, the stone rolls away by itself, the two men (whose heads reach up to the clouds) go in and three men come out, with the third man’s head surpassing the clouds, a cross follows them out of the tomb, a voice calls out again asking if one has preached to the dead and the cross answers “yes”.

Fifth, women were said to discover the tomb. Women weren’t regarded as reliable witnesses and treated as second-class citizens. Not even the tradition in 1 Cor 15 mentions women, it lists Jesus appearing to Cephas/Peter first.

Sixth, the earliest polemic we have presupposes the empty tomb. Matthew 28:11-15 is the earliest Christian attempt to refute the Jewish polemic, where it is claimed that the disciples stole the body, a story which Matthew says “has been spread among the Jews to this day.” He is addressing that claim because it is what the Jewish people are saying against the resurrection, not that the tomb wasn’t empty.


2b. The post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various people

First, we have multiple and independent attestation of Jesus’ appearances through the tradition in 1 Cor 15 and all four Gospels,

Second, the appearance to James best explains James’ conversion from thinking Jesus is mad and possibly trying to get him killed (Mark 3, John 7) to being a leader in the Christian movement as well as Paul’s conversion from trying to stamp Christianity out to becoming a sold-out Christian missionary faced with poverty, suffering, and death.


2c. The origin of the Christian faith

The Christian religion had spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia within a generation of the death of Jesus with the message that Jesus had risen from the dead. They pinned their movement on it, even to the point of death. As Jews, they would have had no previous conception of a Messiah who would be shamefully executed as a criminal, yet that is what they taught.

The next post will cover step 3.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

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

Post #38

Post by The Tanager »

Step 3: Assessing the theories

3a. What are the theories?

1. Conspiracy hypothesis - the disciples stole the body and lied about the appearances to fake the resurrection.

2. Apparent death - Jesus wasn’t dead yet when taken down from the cross, revived in the tomb, escaped, and convinced his followers that he resurrected

3. Wrong tomb - the disciples went to the wrong tomb

4. Displaced body - Joseph placed Jesus’ body temporarily in his family tomb and then later moved it to the criminals’ graveyard. The women were unaware of this and wrongly inferred that Jesus rose from the dead.

5. Myth or legend - the disciples made it up, possibly adding the legendary later to earlier true stories

6. Hallucination theory - the disciples hallucinated a risen Jesus

7. Some unknown naturalistic explanation

8. That Jesus actually physically resurrected



3b. How do the theories fare in light of step 1 concerning the facts in step 2?

1. Conspiracy hypothesis

a. It does have explanatory scope, explaining the tomb being empty, the appearances being lies, and the origin of the earliest Christians’ belief (some lied, others believed the lie).

b. It is weaker on explanatory power. If they had stolen the body, then why fabricate a story of women finding the tomb empty, since they are seen as unreliable witnesses by the surrounding culture you are trying to pull the rug over on? A fabricated story (like the later forgery called the Gospel of Peter) would most likely have fulfilled prophecies, more details given. The polemic with Jews isn’t well explained here, either. Matthew’s guard story isn’t in the pre-Markan tradition. Why isn’t the guard placed on Friday rather than Saturday? In Matthew’s story it is possible the body had been stolen Friday night and the guard was guarding an empty tomb. To refute the theft hypothesis you need something more like the Gospel of Peter, where the guard is identified as Roman and placed immediately on Friday.

A fabricator of the appearances would probably describe appearances on the basis of Old Testament theophanies, descriptions of the resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12, where Jesus would appear in dazzling glory, possibly include appearances to Caiaphas and other enemies who mocked and persecuted Jesus and later Christians.

It doesn’t explain the Christian movement powerfully, either. The disciples were prepared to stake their lives on this. One may die for something they think is true but is actually a lie, but people don’t die for what they know is a lie.

c. Plausibility. The conspiracy theory seems anachronistic to me. It seems to come more from a later viewpoint looking back on the Christian movement rather than from seeing it from the perspective of 1st century Jews. The Jews didn’t expect a Messiah being defeated and killed by the Gentiles. Jews thought of resurrection as something that happened at the end of time and wasn’t connected with the Messiah.

d. Ad-hocness. Conspiracy theories are completely ad hoc. They state that everything the evidence points to just appears to be that way when something else is the case. It brings in motives and ideas that there is no evidence for at all. As further objections are raised (appearance to the 500 or women discovering the tomb, for example), the theory becomes more and more ad-hoc to deal with them.

e. Disconfirmation (or accordance with accepted beliefs). Conspiracies are insatiable and tend to unravel over time. This conspiracy theory goes against the usually accepted beliefs that the disciples were sincere people, it goes against the nature of messianic expectations.

f. Exceeding rival theories. One can compare them all at the end, but I think one will easily find that this doesn’t stand up to other theories.


2. Apparent death

a. Explanatory scope. This seems to have good scope. The tomb would be empty if this were true, Jesus would have appeared to the disciples, and explains the disciples’ mistaken belief in the resurrection.

b. Explanatory power. Some versions collapse into the conspiracy theory, where the disciples fake Jesus’ death and play a role in reviving him. Other versions don’t but still show weakness here. Without the help of others how could an almost dead person sealed in a tomb opened it and escaped? How would the appearance of a mostly dead person needing medical help convince the disciples he was the resurrected Lord who conquered death that they describe? They wouldn’t have taught a resurrection but that the Messiah had escaped execution.

c. plausibility. Roman executioners reliably made sure their victims were dead through things like spearing the victim in the side. It goes against what we know about the physical effects of the torture Jesus would have experienced before and during the crucifixion, as well as being sealed inside of a tomb.

d. Ad-hocness. If a conspiracy version, see the above section on ad hoc. Even non-conspiratorial versions have no historical literature to back up their claims, it’s just speculation.

e. Disconfirmation (I should have called this section accordance with accepted beliefs). It’s disconfirmed by medical facts about a person being scourged and crucified. It also goes against the fact that Jesus didn’t continue living among the disciples after his death.

f. Exceeding rivals. Again, compare at the end but I don’t think it’s close.


3. Wrong tomb

a. Explanatory scope. It doesn’t explain the appearances, so you will need to join it with another theory.

b. Explanatory power. Obviously zero power concerning the appearances. It doesn’t give a good explanation of the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. They (or the Jewish leaders) would have eventually looked and found the real tomb and not preached the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, it also has low power on explaining the tomb being empty. It’s a huge jump to say they would contradict the Jewish belief on the resurrection based only on some women visiting a wrong tomb.

c. plausibility. The burial site was known to Jew and Christian. It goes against the empty tomb story being extremely early.

d. Ad-hocness. It’s arbitrary in its treatment of the evidence. It accepts the women’s visit as historical, and their intentions in anointing the body but ignores how they noted the tomb’s location (Mark 15:47, 16:1).

e. Disconfirmation. It goes against the generally accepted belief that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in a tomb, thus knowing its location.

f. Exceeding rivals. It falls far short of even the previous two, for sure.


4. Displaced Body

a. Explanatory scope. It doesn’t explain the appearances.

b. Explanatory power. Obviously zero power concerning the appearances. Very weak explanation of the disciples’ belief in the raised Jesus, as they would have gone to the tomb and, at the least, had their error corrected by Joseph and those who helped him. The earliest Jewish-Christian disputes were concerning an empty tomb, not the tomb being another spot.

c. plausibility. The criminals’ graveyard was close to the site of Jesus’ crucifixion, so there’d be no need for a temporary grave. Jewish practice was to bury criminals on the day of their execution. Joseph’s family tomb would have been defiled by a criminal’s corpse. In my understanding, Jewish law prohibits moving the body later unless it is to a family tomb.

d. Ad-hocness. It ascribes motives to Joseph and activities that have no independent evidence for it. This is less ad-hoc than some of the other theories.

e. Disconfirmation. It goes against known Jewish burial practices.

f. Exceeding rivals. I’d say it’s of the bottom half of those we’ve looked at so far.


5. Myth/Legend

a. Explanatory scope. It denies the empty tomb. Probably appeals to the hallucination theory to explain the appearances.

b. Explanatory power. The origin of belief is attributed to later Christians making up the resurrection. It would also have had to be done within a short few years because of the early testimony we have of the belief in the Resurrection from sources like the pre-Markan passion story and 1 Cor 15.

But even if legend had enough time to arise, where did it come from? It wouldn’t have come from the (supposed) already existing early Christian movement that didn’t believe in the Resurrection. Pagan sources? The Christianity as a copycat religion has fallen apart in the scholarly world, really since early in the 20th century in spite of how often it comes up on the internet forums. Many of the supposed parallels are anything but. For instance, some are about a person’s assumption into heaven, becoming a god like Hercules or Romulus. Some are disappearances, like Apollonius and Empedocles. Some are seasonal symbols of the crop cycle, like Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis. Osiris doesn’t come back to life at all, Osiris exists in the realm of the dead, reigning there. Some are political expressions of emperor worship, like the Caesars. On top of that, these kinds of beliefs were known to Jews and rejected. We have no trace of acceptance of these in Palenstine in the first century.

Would it have come from Jewish influences? It goes against the Jewish conceptions of resurrection, both the Pharisees’ hope of resurrection at the end of time and the Sadduccee rejection of it. It is also to occur for all people, or at least all of the righteous dead, not isolated to one individual.

Perhaps, though, Jesus’ body was stolen by someone else, tricking the disciples into why the tomb was empty? Maybe the disciples then had hallucinations of a risen Jesus. Leaving analysis of the hallucination theory in full to later, let’s just look at how it affects our point here. Could this have been the source of the resurrection idea? No. Hallucinations are projections of our minds and can’t contain new information the mind hasn’t already come into contact with. The disciples would have had hallucinations of Jesus in paradise where the souls of the righteous dead were, awaiting the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

What about things like the son of the widow of Nain in the Old Testament being brought back to life? These are people who are brought back to our kind of human life and eventually die again, it’s not what Jewish people believed about the resurrection of the dead and its different than what is claimed of Jesus’ resurrection.

c. plausibility. It’s plausible that people create myth and legend, but not as quickly as would be needed here.

d. Ad-hocness. It seems to ascribe motives to people we don’t have extra evidence for but isn’t as ad hoc as other theories.

e. Disconfirmation. The simplicity of the earliest accounts also makes myth less plausible.

f. Exceeding rivals. We’ll see.


6. Hallucination theory

a. Explanatory scope. It doesn’t explain the empty tomb, so would have to be combined with another theory to be a full theory.

b. Explanatory power. No power concerning the tomb, obviously. As for the origin of belief in a resurrection, we’ve already talked about how it wouldn’t come from pagan or Jewish influences. The vision would have been of a dead man or one awaiting the resurrection at the end of the world. Concerning the appearances, I think it’s also weak. The appearances are too diverse. Jesus appears multiple times in different locations, under different circumstances, to individuals and groups, believers, unbelievers (James), and even an enemy (Saul/Paul).

c. plausibility. It relies on psychoanalysis of people who lived thousands of years ago, when psychoanalysis of people living today is hard enough and controversial in its ability to ascertain truth.

d. Ad-hocness. You’ve got to assume these disciples were prone to hallucinations, that Paul struggled with the Jewish law and was subconsciously attracted to Christianity, without any evidence to do so.

e. Disconfirmation. It goes against our psychological knowledge of hallucinations. It would go against the empty tomb.

f. Exceeding rivals. This one is more popular among scholars today than the previous 5, so perhaps it exceeds them but we’ve still got more to look at.


7. Some unknown naturalistic explanation

This is basically just a faith position. There must be some naturalistic response because it just can’t be true. Who knows about the explanatory scope and power? It theoretically could have scope. But since it’s completely faith based, it’s explanatory power isn’t good. Sure, it’s plausible since it coheres with our general relationship with the natural world. It’s completely ad hoc, though, and in a extremely vague way.


8. Resurrection theory

a. Explanatory scope. It clearly explains the tomb being empty, the appearances, and the origin of the earliest Christian message. This exceeds the wrong tomb and hallucination theories.

b. Explanatory power. It explains each very well. I don’t see weaknesses. The other theories all have weaknesses here. On the other theories we would expect different results, different facts that just aren’t attested to.

c. plausibility. When considering the context of Jesus’ life and ministry, including claims that he would be resurrected, and the philosophical context of arguments for God’s existence, I think this is plausible. I know many will reject those arguments and distrust most, or all, of the things ascribed to Jesus, though. Many will say it isn’t plausible because miracles are implausible. I don’t think a good case can be made for miracles being implausible but I’ll leave it there for now.

d. Ad-hocness. It requires the belief that God exists, one new supposition, which is less than its rivals. The conspiracy theory requires us to believe the disciples have defective characters, which isn’t implied by our other knowledge concerning them. The apparent death assumes the thrust into Jesus’ side was a slight poke, or must add various historical details to the accounts we have. At the least, it isn’t more ad hoc than the other theories. And, if you are a theist, this isn’t even a new assumption. On top of that, this isn’t just an assumption for me, I think there are numerous good arguments for God’s existence that make that more probable than not. This isn’t a God-of-the-gaps kind of thing, either. It isn’t ad hoc in that sense. This fits with the context of Jesus’ life, teachings, and personal claims.

e. Disconfirmation. Perhaps one would think the belief that dead men don’t rise is a disconfirmation. But do you mean that dead men don’t naturally rise or that dead men don’t supernaturally rise? I agree with the first but that isn’t what this theory claims. God raised Jesus from the dead, according to the theory. We’ve seen the other theories disconfirmed by accepted beliefs, however.

f. Exceeding rivals. I know you will think I’m biased. I welcome your thoughts on where my analysis is wrong or incomplete, due to bias or anything else. From my own study, I think this far outstrips the other possibilities. Most people will opt for something like suggestion 7 to avoid this theory largely based on their belief that the supernatural doesn’t exist and miracles can’t happen, but I think that is usually a faith position, not well reasoned out. What I’ve offered, I can understand people saying is incorrect but it’s not faith-based over fact-based, as I think those terms mean.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

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

Post #39

Post by The Tanager »

Step 4: So what?

If true, I think the resurrection vindicates Jesus’ person, claims about Himself, and His work on the cross on our behalf, making it possible to have a relationship with God today. I won’t go on a big Gospel spiel, unless others want me to, but if this is true, then it changes everything.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #40

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #38]
Okay, I can do that. From my best attempt at understanding how you mean those terms, yes, I think this concerns whether the resurrection is faith or fact-based.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #39]
What I’ve offered, I can understand people saying is incorrect but it’s not faith-based over fact-based, as I think those terms mean.
Meanings:

Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true which can be used as evidence because it is truth about events as opposed to interpretation about supposed [hearsay] events.

Do you agree with those definitions?

Post Reply