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.

[Overcomer]

I think the OP presents a false dichotomy. It isn't a matter of "either/or", but of "and/and". Belief in the resurrection is both fact-based and calls for faith at the same time.

[William]

I also have made no secret that my position is that it should be defined that way. The OP made it clear that I had encountered Christians who implied it was a fact-based belief, so the thread was created to give Christians who think so, the opportunity to show the evidence, that I have the opportunity to critique said support and change my mind, if the evidence proves to be fact-based.

Then, from my case that it is fact-based (as I understand that term), what is your response?

My response for the time being is that until we are on the same page as to what the actual term means, I have to assume the possibility that Christians such as yourself understand the term the way they do so that they can then claim that the resurrections is fact-based.
From what I have read of you reasons [in posts #32&33] it appears to me that you have not included all the possible variables, but have only focused upon the ones which best give credence to belief.

I think this question could be taken in two different senses and I’m interested in either (or both). First, would be the question of whether I seem to understand ‘fact-based’ as you do. Or, in other words, if the various things I said (or, at least, enough of them) were true, would the Resurrection truly be fact-based or would it still be faith-based? Second, are enough of the things I say true so that the Resurrection truly is fact-based rather than just claiming to be so without enough support?

In post#39 you wrote;

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.

In that, it shows me at least that you do not know. This leads me to conclude that since you do not know, but believe that it is true, then your belief is faith-based.
This is because - even with the list you provide re the variables you mentioned, you are still left with the position of having to say "IF this is true THEN..."
Therefore, the list you provide does not give you a definitive answer, which a list of actual facts should do.

Thus, you are left with the strategy of making a statement along the lines that belief in the resurrection is fact-based as you understand that term.
In that, we are then forced to divert our attention as to whether the way you understand that term, is correct.

If faith-based means the belief includes immaterial beings, then, yes, obviously, my belief is faith-based.

Sounds reasonable. However, is this a stand apart [from immaterial beings] fact-based belief, or does it include immaterial beings?

Or;

We can play the word game another way, [preparing the ground for the BIG reveal] by taking out the example I connected with the definition of faith;

I don’t understand what you are saying here. I think one could say Jesus resurrected without making a claim about whether it was due to some natural being or some immaterial being but I think it more likely that an immaterial being would be included.

That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

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?

First, if those are the definitions, then I don’t see these two terms as necessarily contradictory. I could have complete trust in something because it is fact-based. Second, if this is the definition of “fact,” where you’ve talked about needing 100% certainty, then it eliminates any literary, historical, and scientific claim from being facts. I’m fine with using a different term for historical and scientific claims, though.

So you do not agree with those definitions because they are terms which can be used to say the same thing. Like the word 'belief' and the word 'know'.

Those definitions are standard ones, lifted from a dictionary. If they mean the same thing, then we can agree that the question the OP asks is not able to be truthfully answered because the language we have for our use makes it that way.
In that, we could say that the word "Truth" can be said to be "anything which someone believe in true." and render any at debate pointless for that.

So what? Well my return question to you would be;

"Why did you bring it up as somehow relevant to your argument against position [3]?"

I quote You:

First, I'm not claiming I 'know' my view is true. I believe it is true. I ultimately believe it is true because of the soundness of the historicity of the Resurrection.

Would you agree with me that your bringing that into the argument is a 'so what' moment which had no impact re your argument against position [3]?

Because I don’t think 100% certainty is a worthy standard to hold our views to, unless we are talking about definitions of words, mathematics, and maybe a few other things. The important views, where people really disagree, aren’t 100% certain either way because they involve science, history, literature, philosophy, everything else. Since your claims regarding [3] reach into these things, I think my claim was relevant.

But you never said WHY you think it relevant. My claims regarding [3] were supported - even by sources outside of the bible. I never claimed then or now that there was 100% certainty nor that I believed in any of the positions mentioned to do with what happens in the next phase ["afterlife"].

But to the point, if one were to believe in anything which one cannot be 100% certain, how is that not faith based belief?

[William]

I think the OP presents a false dichotomy. It isn't a matter of "either/or", but of "and/and". Belief in the resurrection is both fact-based and calls for faith at the same time.

IF this is the case, then one is best to say that 'based on what appear to be the facts, one can believe in the resurrection, but the belief is still faith-based.

The thread was created because of a claim by a Christian that belief in the resurrection was based upon fact. If what you say is correct, then the Christians claim has to be false.

This is because, even that the story of the resurrection is told in the manner of being factual, this does not automatically mean that it is.
Therefore, those who chose to believe the story is fact, have to do so on faith, which is what you appear to be saying "and the story is presented in a factual manner and I believe it on faith.

Thus, your answer to the OPQ has to be "The resurrection is believed upon by faith." which is all the OPQ was attempting to find the answer to.

There is no presentation of any 'false dichotomy' in the OP. There are claims that the resurrection is a true event and there is the requirement of faith on the part of the one who believes those claims to be true.

There is no evidence outside of those claims which offer support for the story being true. A story being told as true, is not necessarily a true story.

What I can say re the OP question is that I do not see how there is anything which can be described as "a fact-based belief", and only used that wording as a way of contrasting.

In reality there are only faith based beliefs. This is because facts do not actually require the individuals belief in order for them to be facts.

But since the resurrection does require individual belief, it therefore must be faith-based.

[The Tanager]

Those definitions are standard ones, lifted from a dictionary. If they mean the same thing, then we can agree that the question the OP asks is not able to be truthfully answered because the language we have for our use makes it that way.

We have language available to us to provide two distinct options from which to discuss whether a view falls under A or B. To that end, you are categorizing views into “100% certain/fact-based” and “not 100% certain/faith-based.” That language is understandable but you also need to realize it is not how many people would understand those terms. On that front, thanks for clarifying how you mean the terms. On this categorization, the Resurrection falls into the “not 100% certain”.

Do you think this is a problem? If so, then why?

But you never said WHY you think it relevant. My claims regarding [3] were supported - even by sources outside of the bible. I never claimed then or now that there was 100% certainty nor that I believed in any of the positions mentioned to do with what happens in the next phase ["afterlife"].

I have said why I think it is relevant. If one’s standard is 100% certainty, then one should be an agnostic on the question of [1], [2], or [3] (both concerning which one is true as well as which one actually comes from the Bible). Agnosticism counters your claims about [3].

If one’s standards are something like “this is the best, good explanation we have,” a level of reasonableness rather than certainty, then I think reason shows [3] both doesn’t come from the Biblical literature and isn’t a good explanation of reality, much less the best one.

[Avoice]

Has anyone bothered to compare the resurrection details in the gospels. They all cant be true accounts. Someone is for sure lying. If not all. But one for sure is because other the accounts cantbe reconciled. Not even the age-old excuse about different view points.
Also, the oldest gospel is Mark. And his book ends at the tomb. He spoke of no resurrection. The church added to his story. They admit that. They wanted Marks book to day there was a resurrection. The church never amazes me with their 'truth' ha...sure thats truth. Just write in anything and people will believe it. The church did. And the people believe. Ah geez
There is bi Mark either. The church invented the name. There is no Mathew john or luke either. They were all written anonymously. The church went even further and titled them Saints. They admit it.

[Avoice]

[Replying to William in post #9]

You use the term faith based. To have faith you need a reason. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Christianity isn't based on faith. People just want to believe it because they are scared of dying. They are told to believe in jesus and theyll go to heaven.
If death was not in our immediete future why would anyone want to be a Christian? Its all about being saved. Even worse, they like the idea of God killing himself. They could obey him but naaah...crucify him. And then they display him hanging on a cross bloody and nearly naked. Boy that really shows respect for him. Shame on Christians.

[The Tanager]

Has anyone bothered to compare the resurrection details in the gospels. They all cant be true accounts. Someone is for sure lying. If not all. But one for sure is because other the accounts cantbe reconciled. Not even the age-old excuse about different view points.

Yes, everyone should compare them. Let’s assume there are some contradictions in the accounts. That still doesn’t change anything about the argument that I gave for the historicity of the Resurrection.

Also, the oldest gospel is Mark. And his book ends at the tomb. He spoke of no resurrection. The church added to his story.

The original still has Mark 16:4-6, “And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.”

Plus, most scholars agree that the tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15 is possibly older than the pre-Markan passion narrative used by the author of Mark.

There is bi Mark either. The church invented the name. There is no Mathew john or luke either. They were all written anonymously. The church went even further and titled them Saints. They admit it.

Again, assuming this is true, that says nothing against the case I made on this thread.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #55]

We have language available to us to provide two distinct options from which to discuss whether a view falls under A or B. To that end, you are categorizing views into “100% certain/fact-based” and “not 100% certain/faith-based.” That language is understandable but you also need to realize it is not how many people would understand those terms. On that front, thanks for clarifying how you mean the terms. On this categorization, the Resurrection falls into the “not 100% certain”.

Do you think this is a problem? If so, then why?

I agree. Belief in the resurrection is faith-based. I would only expect new information to be tabled along with the claim that the resurrection is fact because;

1: It would be from another source.
2: It showed 100% that the resurrection is fact.

I myself have no issue with people believing the resurrection is fact, if they agree that their belief is faith-based.

As an Agnostic, I draw the line at indulging faith-based belief. This is reinforced as I observe those who list the facts as they see them, but fail to list all possible explanations for why the facts exist.
When possibilities are excluded from the list, I see no logical reason to accept the facts as presented, as convincing explanation that the resurrection is factual. Excluding all explanations for why the story exists, isn't helpful when trying to discern truth.

[The Tanager]

As an Agnostic, I draw the line at indulging faith-based belief. This is reinforced as I observe those who list the facts as they see them, but fail to list all possible explanations for why the facts exist.
When possibilities are excluded from the list, I see no logical reason to accept the facts as presented, as convincing explanation that the resurrection is factual. Excluding all explanations for why the story exists, isn't helpful when trying to discern truth.

First, I don’t buy this at all. You have a ton of faith-based beliefs. All of your beliefs about this world being a simulation and The Creator transforming into Creation and all of that is faith-based, under your definition here. If not, then prove otherwise.

Second, I offered all explanations for the resurrection that I am aware that have been brought up. I even provided a general naturalistic catch-all theory. And, at the beginning, I stated that I was open to discussion on adding other facts, theories, and analyses of those theories. What explanation do you think I left out?

[William]

As an Agnostic, I draw the line at indulging faith-based belief. This is reinforced as I observe those who list the facts as they see them, but fail to list all possible explanations for why the facts exist.
When possibilities are excluded from the list, I see no logical reason to accept the facts as presented, as convincing explanation that the resurrection is factual. Excluding all explanations for why the story exists, isn't helpful when trying to discern truth.

First, I don’t buy this at all. You have a ton of faith-based beliefs. All of your beliefs about this world being a simulation and The Creator transforming into Creation and all of that is faith-based, under your definition here. If not, then prove otherwise.

Your misunderstanding of my position is noted. I know well enough that you have been informed by me that I do not believe in those things you mentioned. I simply understand them as being information drawn from many "branches" of the information "tree" which altogether point to the likelihood of what the overall tree must look like as well as the ground the tree is growing from.
In that, one can indeed remain in the Agnostic position unimpeded by actual beliefs, because one understands that belief requires faith, and there is no reason I have been shown, that I have to believe that the information which is obtainable, needs to be believed in as "the truth of the matter." - Rather it is to be accepted as data which is open to addition, subtraction and continued evaluation...all done without the requirement of faith.

Second, I offered all explanations for the resurrection that I am aware that have been brought up. I even provided a general naturalistic catch-all theory. And, at the beginning, I stated that I was open to discussion on adding other facts, theories, and analyses of those theories. What explanation do you think I left out?

For now, I see that it doe not seem to matter, because as far as I can tell, you agree that belief in the resurrection is faith-based, so that is all the OP was asking.

That being the case, I do not see how it is my responsibility to inform you of those things you left out, as I don't see how it matters in relation to your Christian faith. In that, if you want to believe that the resurrection is fact, as it pertains to your Christianity, I have no problem, as long as you are agreeing that it is still a faith-based belief and you not trying to convince me that it isn't.