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.

[brunumb]

What exactly is T=0?

Timelessness

If E=0 and c=0 then isn't the equation still valid for any value of m?

That's exactly my point, in the absence of time, nothing exists. And if you want to talk about reality, you first need to demonstrate how real time is.

You said "Zero E means m=0 and so nothing", but m does not have to equal zero, so not nothing.

[JoeyKnothead]

If time started, then it's stoppage is not far fetched.

IF! You have no case if time didn't start. All you have is fanciful speculation. We can trace the evolution of our universe almost back to what we refer to as t=0, but that is just the possible beginning of this iteration of space-time and not necessarily the beginning of time. We don't know exactly what existed or what happened in that infinitesimally small period of time that we can't reach back past.

I'm reminded of a guy who used to post here a good bunch, and a sig he used...

"Has there ever been a time when there wasn't a now?"

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Faith is an irrational, invalid and unjustified belief by definition, or the one I use which is a belief held without adequate evidence or reason.

Or, it is rational, valid and justified belief.
For instance, hope is faith based yet hope can be justified, rational and valid.

Even if there is another 'reality' underlying Our Reality (which I think is real, even if human perception is semi -subjective (1), there is no reason that I can see to suppose that it makes the life after death claim any more than a wishful supposition. It seems to me to be no more than 'if we can make some kind of Woo -ish supernatural claim look plausible, then another supernatural claim (not so Woo) will look more plausible".

And i'm here to dispute what you are calling reality. Whatever you call real is not.

Why should my house disppear when time stops? Show me that time is real.
To me, the underlying reality is the only real thing.

I see...sorta. What does it have to do with the resurrection or anything in the gospels? Is this a variant of the 'we can know nothing for sure' card? Evidence is dismissed as a human delusion, science and logic mere human opinion and Faith is as valid as evidence. Close? Cigar?

Well, I'm convinced that repeatable reliability in physics is what counts, not disputing the reality of what we humans call 'solid'. I see no reason to connect some supposed underlying reality (quantum, and then indeterminacy, was often wagged about in the old days as a reason to think that science really knew nothing) with an afterlife, as I recall you suggested. And even if time stops and your house disappears, so what? It's as irrelevant as saying 'If time looped back on itself, everything would never have happened'. Well, quite, but so what?

So I see it as just more Science Skepticism.

[The Tanager]

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

Okay, if you require 100% certainty, then have fun with math and definitions and not believing anything else about the world. If you aren’t requiring 100% certainty, then “almost certainly” should be good enough.

[The Tanager]

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.

Those facts do not make it rational to infer eating an apple is the best explanation. Lying is also demonstrable in reality. It’s more prevalent than the actual eating of apples. It’s probably justifiable to assume Bob is telling the truth because there is likely no benefit for him and his friends to be lying about him eating an apple (unless other information comes to light changing that).

This is an inference to the best explanation that doesn’t prove the existence of apples but, rather, is helped by those previous demonstrations of those elements of the situation. Yet, that doesn’t mean all inferences must be supported by previous demonstrations of the existence of all elements of the situation. Many inferences are why we believe X exists at all.

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.

You said ‘true’ not valid, so I talked about truth not validity. That’s not me equivocating. I have not said or implied that any valid argument should be accepted as showing that the imagined thing it is describing also exists in reality. I agree that the argument must be valid and all premises be true.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #578]

Thank you for your kind words. I’m here trying to make sense of life along with others trying to do the same. I appreciate being able to do that here with you and many others. I thank you for your questions and doubts and sharing your thoughts on how to make sense of this all and allowing me to do the same.

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.

I have never said or meant it as an argument from numbers. I have never said or meant belief is immediately fact (and have stated such previously in this thread). The point about the rise of the Christian movement pointing to an actual resurrection basically concerns how they wouldn’t have made that up as their central message and stuck with it unless they really thought it occurred. Them thinking it occurred is not proof that it occurred. That isn’t the argument. The argument is that it actually occurred makes the best sense of this fact coupled with an empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances.

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.

We aren’t talking about one name here. Cephas is named for his. The 12 is clear who that all refers to. The original audience would have known some of the 500, could have been told who if they asked further. Naming all 500 is silly for a short tradition to pass down or a letter written to people who have already heard about the 500.

Even if we had the 500 names, we wouldn’t have writings from many, if any. It wouldn’t solve anything. It’s not a matter of credibility. I don’t see any reason to think the lack of names or the lack of being able to cross examine would solve anything. Even if we could cross examine them and they gave us the same information, that still wouldn’t prove the resurrection. I don’t see the relevance of this critique to my argument or this issue.

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

If I was arguing that because the claim of a resurrection was reliably recorded and passed down meant that it was real, then you’d have a good critique here. But that’s not my argument at all.

[The Tanager]

This is the validation of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and is why anecdotal miracle - claims can't be accepted at face value.

I never said to accept them at face value.

The resurrection is an extraordinary claim. The only reason to logically credit it (aside from being spoonfed faith from infancy) is because it is supposedly attested by multiple witnesses. That is why it requires serious attention.

The argument rests on an empty tomb, multiple supposed witnesses to post-mortem appearances, and multiple witnesses to what the early Christians did next.

I believe I already dealt with the believer claim to have been persuaded by the evidence. Anyone who claims to be open to evidence should now consider the evidence that is never raised by Christian apologists, even if they know it. I have never seen the equating of Paul's 'first to Simon' with Jesus' appearance to Simon in Luke (unknown to any other gospel) nor ever Luke changing the angelic message so the disciples are not told they would see Jesus in Galilee, nor in fact, the rejection at Nazareth at the start of the mission in Luke, with all the other stuff attached, never mind trying to account for it, and many many other examples, like Luke's sermon material half given near (if not on) the Mount, but the rest strewn along the route to Peraea. All the rest of the the sermon can be found further along, including the Lord's prayer taught for the first time, before they set out for Jerusalem. But they'd already hears it in the sermon on the mount. Has nobody ever noticed this in over 100 years of Bible scholarship? Can you wonder I don't place much weight on the opinions of Authorities.

Scholars absolutely address these things. And I have addressed the thoughts you’ve raised concerning them in this thread. On things like stretching material out, these are ancient biographies, which don’t have strict chronological designs. Nothing ad hoc (in either your sense or mine) here.

I was just thinking that a fair bit of the Bible apologist argument appears to be trying to make it seem that we can't come to any reliable conclusions at all. Which is odd when you think of how the religion is based on the Evidence of the resurrection.

Oddly, you'd think that not being able to come to any conclusion on the evidence (such as it is) and reasoning would scupper religion as there is no reason then to believe any of it. But I think the idea is to base it on Faith and find a way of pointing to the evidence, so long as it supports the resurrection, but then explain it away as 'nobody knows for sure' with stuff about claims about eggs and apples in order to sideline the evidence when it questions the religion -claims.

But we really knew that was what they were doing, didn't we?

I never said or implied that we can’t come to any reliable conclusions at all. And it is perfectly rational to use analogies to try to help understand the reasoning and the principles people are using to explore the evidence. That’s not sidelining it. Listen, you’ve made your case. I’ve made mine. I’m not into editorializing beyond that.

[The Tanager]

- Most could not read. Hence, would never know this claim was in circulation.
- When Paul wrote this document, it probably took quite a while for it to become known in circulation. It's not like an all points bulletin was placed for all to be aware that Paul wrote this attestation, as soon as he wrote it....
- Since at least 2 decades had passed, many of these so-called '500' are now either dead, have moved away, or other.... If there indeed was 500 to begin with?
- None of these folks would have likely been questioned.
- Hence, now remains an unfalsifiable claim for you, and all believers, to reference

These letters were read at Christian gatherings. The way he writes this assumes his audience is already familiar with the formula. Any one that had wanted to investigate these claims would have had the time and knowledge to do so. That Paul could have been pulling one over on them, them knowing that the 500+ wasn’t true is not credible. What this leaves the modern reader is evidence that the earliest Christians believed this was true. That is what the argument is built upon.

Nice try It's a problem because you and I have already agreed to the definition of the term eyewitness. If we do not have 500 individual/independent first hand accounts, then we do not have 500 eyewitnesses. We instead have an instance of documented hearsay

Once again, I’ve never claimed 500 eyewitnesses in my argument. We have eyewitnesses to the early Christians claiming post-mortem appearances, including one to about 500+.

If you are trying to validate the '500', which you clearly are, then you are in direct contradiction, when you also make statements such as: "I never argued that we have 500 eyewitnesses". So unless you agree that the reader of 1 Corinthians 15:6 can logically reject this claim outright, then you are instead arguing for it's validity.

There are three choices. It’s true, it’s not true, and agnosticism. Ruling out one would mean I still have two options. My argument is not built on the claim of 500+ being fact but the claim of post-mortem appearances being fact. I’ve given the reasons I think that claim is true on multiple occasions. If the 500+ is rejected (and the lack of written statements by all and not being able to cross examine the 500+ is not rational reason to do this for the reasons I’ve already stated), then the claim my argument is built on still stands, making this point irrelevant.

[POI]

Please remember this thread deals with (faith or fact)... Now to your responses....

- Most could not read. Hence, would never know this claim was in circulation.
- When Paul wrote this document, it probably took quite a while for it to become known in circulation. It's not like an all points bulletin was placed for all to be aware that Paul wrote this attestation, as soon as he wrote it....
- Since at least 2 decades had passed, many of these so-called '500' are now either dead, have moved away, or other.... If there indeed was 500 to begin with?
- None of these folks would have likely been questioned.
- Hence, now remains an unfalsifiable claim for you, and all believers, to reference

These letters were read at Christian gatherings.

It's fair to say that any portion of the Bible, past or present, is predominantly read at Christian gatherings. So?

The way he writes this assumes his audience is already familiar with the formula.

Right, that all such recipients accept the claim upon faith

Any one that had wanted to investigate these claims would have had the time and knowledge to do so.

I doubt this would be possible. AGAIN, by the time such letters were discovered to be in circulation, many/most/all of these '500' are either dead, remain unidentified, or far away.

That Paul could have been pulling one over on them, them knowing that the 500+ wasn’t true is not credible. What this leaves the modern reader is evidence that the earliest Christians believed this was true. That is what the argument is built upon.

You are missing my point here... We already know Paul was not there himself. He obtained his 'information' from another, or made it up. If we are to have faith in the former, (that someone else told him), WHO told him? And as for the person who told him, was that person there? And if that person was there, could this person identify the actual '500'? And if so, were these '500' accessible to question?

Since none of this can be substantiated, and since we have no record of any of this, it's safe for the reader of this claim to logically discard this claim entirely, right??? Which leaves a scant number of remaining claimed eyewitness attestation(s) to a resurrection, right?

Nice try It's a problem because you and I have already agreed to the definition of the term eyewitness. If we do not have 500 individual/independent first hand accounts, then we do not have 500 eyewitnesses. We instead have an instance of documented hearsay

Once again, I’ve never claimed 500 eyewitnesses in my argument. We have eyewitnesses to the early Christians claiming post-mortem appearances, including one to about 500+.

Once again, the reader can logically ignore this particular claim outright. Why? This claim to '500' has no basis to investigate. And yet, you bother to mention it? Which means you are attempting to make an argument for it's validity somehow.

If you are trying to validate the '500', which you clearly are, then you are in direct contradiction, when you also make statements such as: "I never argued that we have 500 eyewitnesses". So unless you agree that the reader of 1 Corinthians 15:6 can logically reject this claim outright, then you are instead arguing for it's validity.

There are three choices. It’s true, it’s not true, and agnosticism. Ruling out one would mean I still have two options. My argument is not built on the claim of 500+ being fact but the claim of post-mortem appearances being fact. I’ve given the reasons I think that claim is true on multiple occasions. If the 500+ is rejected (and the lack of written statements by all and not being able to cross examine the 500+ is not rational reason to do this for the reasons I’ve already stated), then the claim my argument is built on still stands, making this point irrelevant.

If we throw out this claim of '500' all together, how many actual 'eyewitness' accounts do we have?

[TRANSPONDER]

This is the validation of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and is why anecdotal miracle - claims can't be accepted at face value.

"The Tanager" I never said to accept them at face value.

Right let's try these damn' nested quotes again.. I never said that you did. It was an aside to many claims pf personal experience miracles.

The resurrection is an extraordinary claim. The only reason to logically credit it (aside from being spoonfed faith from infancy) is because it is supposedly attested by multiple witnesses. That is why it requires serious attention.

"The Tanager" argument rests on an empty tomb, multiple supposed witnesses to post-mortem appearances, and multiple witnesses to what the early Christians did next.

The empty tomb is probably the best case, the multiple witnesses an also ran because they are two different things. The appearances related by Paul do not match the resurrection accounts in the gospels and the resurrection accounts in the gospels contradict each other, so I do not regard the gospel accounts as reliable or the appearances to 500 at once as anything but visions, that is to say, imaginary as was the belated appearance to Paul who doesn't relate any vision other than the an who ascended to the Third heaven which we can take as Paul talking about himself.

I believe I already dealt with the believer claim to have been persuaded by the evidence. Anyone who claims to be open to evidence should now consider the evidence that is never raised by Christian apologists, even if they know it. I have never seen the equating of Paul's 'first to Simon' with Jesus' appearance to Simon in Luke (unknown to any other gospel) nor ever Luke changing the angelic message so the disciples are not told they would see Jesus in Galilee, nor in fact, the rejection at Nazareth at the start of the mission in Luke, with all the other stuff attached, never mind trying to account for it, and many many other examples, like Luke's sermon material half given near (if not on) the Mount, but the rest strewn along the route to Peraea. All the rest of the the sermon can be found further along, including the Lord's prayer taught for the first time, before they set out for Jerusalem. But they'd already hears it in the sermon on the mount. Has nobody ever noticed this in over 100 years of Bible scholarship? Can you wonder I don't place much weight on the opinions of Authorities.

"The Tanager" absolutely address these things. And I have addressed the thoughts you’ve raised concerning them in this thread. On things like stretching material out, these are ancient biographies, which don’t have strict chronological designs. Nothing ad hoc (in either your sense or mine) here.

Not that I've seen. You are welcome to serve up any scholar that deals with the lack of a Transfiguration in John other than with the usual dismissal 'Oh he forgot or didn't think it important'. And you have addressed them as above - referring to things that I've already explained as not good evidence.

I was just thinking that a fair bit of the Bible apologist argument appears to be trying to make it seem that we can't come to any reliable conclusions at all. Which is odd when you think of how the religion is based on the Evidence of the resurrection.

Oddly, you'd think that not being able to come to any conclusion on the evidence (such as it is) and reasoning would scupper religion as there is no reason then to believe any of it. But I think the idea is to base it on Faith and find a way of pointing to the evidence, so long as it supports the resurrection, but then explain it away as 'nobody knows for sure' with stuff about claims about eggs and apples in order to sideline the evidence when it questions the religion -claims.

But we really knew that was what they were doing, didn't we?

"The Tanager"I never said or implied that we can’t come to any reliable conclusions at all. And it is perfectly rational to use analogies to try to help understand the reasoning and the principles people are using to explore the evidence. That’s not sidelining it. Listen, you’ve made your case. I’ve made mine. I’m not into editorializing beyond that.

Good. Then you should at least accept that the serious contradiction in the resurrections leads to the conclusion that they were making up their own stories, just as is the case in the nativities which I regard the test case for the principle of serious contradiction leading to a conclusion of fabricated stories.

Analogies are perfectly fine. I use them myself, but ...and I call this 'sponder's fallacy (nobody else does)... the use of analogies as evidence is a misuse, but theist apologists use it all the time. So we have to look out for that. I am in agreement that we have made our cases, and I at least will continue to make it and editorialize on the back of that. I accept that I probably can't sway (with reasoned argument or inescapable conclusions, those who don't want to know, but it is the onlookers (all power to them and I hope they enjoy the Houston Grand prix) that I hope to persuade.

Now, let's see how that looks.

terrible. But at least it's clear who said what.