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.

[POI]

You look to have ignored virtually everything I said in post #520. Please address what I have said there...

I feel like I have addressed those points, some in earlier posts, so I didn’t want to repeat myself there. But I’ll share them again.

1. That Paul wrote half of the NT does not mean we have one source because Paul quotes other sources that have an obviously different style, like the tradition in 1 Cor 15. Thus, like I said, we have two sources concerning the claim of the 500 (among others).

2. It doesn’t matter that we don’t know who wrote the Gospels. We know they were Christians passing down Christian claims.

3. Scholars will range on the dates of the Gospels from the 60s through the beginning of the second century. And Paul’s letters are earlier. Regardless of the dates we are talking about a historical core within those accounts, which can be dated even earlier. The empty tomb, claims of post-mortem appearances, and preaching of Jesus resurrected, the historical core my argument is built on, all date back to within a decade of the supposed event.

4. Oral tradition would be a reliable way to pass down the historical core, at the least, in that culture, given their abilities and concern in memorizing sacred traditions accurately, especially within a decade to establish the historical core the argument is built on.

5. That we don’t know who all the 500 were (although it’s safe to say that the earliest leaders would be a part of that) doesn’t mean the authors didn’t. Paul talks about some of them still being alive, so he obviously knew them. And the ones that formed the tradition to pass down would have been some of those and known the others.

1. Since we do not know who this 'second source' is, we have no idea if this 'second source' was a direct witness? And even if this 'second source' was a direct witness, this makes ONE alleged claim of 500 other unnamed witnesses, not two. Why?

A. Paul was not there himself. Hence, he himself does not count as a witness to attest another 500. Hence, his writing here is nothing more than hearsay; especially since it goes into no further details regarding such a claim of 500.

B. Since the actual 'source' of this claim is not named, and we have no direct deposition of this claim of 500, we actually do not know if this 'source' was even there themselves?

C. Even if we were to have access to depose this one source, you now have ONE source, claiming 500 others saw the same thing.

D. Since these alleged 500 people were never deposed themselves, we still remain with a singular claim of 500 unnamed and unquestioned 'eyewitnesses'.

E. Thus, I continue to repeatedly ask a question for which you have not answered... Is it logical to discard the claim of 500 'eyewitnesses'?

2. Of course Christians wrote the Gospels. They were believers. But none of the Gospel writers were there themselves. All claimed direct witnesses were long dead. Hence, these believers obtained their information from oral tradition, or were told what to write by other Christians who believed the same thing. So yes, later Christians, passing along claims is all we have

3. We know Paul's writings were from Paul. We know he was a believer. We know the later Gospel writers were likely believers. But the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to such alleged events. Hence, again, at best, all such claims were passed down from oral tradition alone. And to address your claim that "all date back to within a decade of the supposed event" is merely wishful thinking. But EVEN IF this were true, you do not think legend and lore can develop in 10 years?

4. I already asked you this... And I still do not recall getting an answer...? Were you, or anyone reliable, there to verify if each and every passed along claim was perfectly preserved? And even if you, or someone else, was there to reliably monitor each and every passed forth transmission of such claim(s), does this now mean the original claim is true? It's almost as if, in the case here, you do not think humans are fallible or something

5. Your entire argument here is based upon faith alone, and not fact. A claim of 500 eyewitnesses, without proper deposition of these 500, means this claim can be discarded. Why? The claim is not substantiated.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #549]

'the truth of the resurrection' is really the thread -topic given the title.

No - it is not.

In fact 'should we trust the Bible' is pretty much the common topic in all the threads.

Nor is the thread topic about whether we should trust the bible.

We know apples and cars are matters of fact. Therefore there is no need to apply belief in them.

Since we also know that resurrections are not matters of fact, [re apples and cars] if we chose to believe in them as matters of fact, then we have no choice but to accept them on faith.

I must say a word for the Tanager here. A common Theist apologetic is to equivicate belief and Faith

The thread topic is not concerned with such. It simply asks if belief in the resurrection is fact or faith-based. It is not arguing that faith is the same or a different thing as belief. Nor is it using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing to anything. [equivocating]

What it does do is show that there is no such thing as 'fact-based belief' in an ironic manner, in the sense that with anything which is known to be fact to the individual, [re apples and cars] such a thing does not require the addition of belief. This underscores the absurdity of claiming things as facts, which can only be taken on faith.

Think what you like. If the Mods think the discussion needs to be reined in, they will tell us, until then, you can participate or not. You do not get to tell us what we should discuss or not.

Things such as apples and cars are known to be fact. Thus belief in them does not require the addition of Faith, which in the context I define as a strong or firm belief without adequate evidence for it or indeed with none and even in the face of evidence against (e.g, the Flood). It's what I call Faith -claims.

This shows the logical absurdity of claiming as truths beliefs that are unverified. Whereas understanding of the easy availability of apples and the workings of cars are not Faith - based but belief based on compelling evidence or indeed certainty.

If I get your last line correctly, we would agree that equating trust (a reasonable expectation) that a car will start is Not the same thing as 'belief' in various Faith -claims, such as gods. Thus Belief and Faith are not the same thing, and I take pains to differentiate between the two usages and concepts. The purpose being to stop the semantic wangle of God -apologists pretending that theistic faith claims are equally as valid as trusting in...it has to be said...the verified data of science which has a track record of being correct while religion has a track record of being wrong.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #552]

You do not get to tell us what we should discuss or not.

Nor would I attempt to do so. I can and will point out what the focus of the Thread is about, especially when individuals come along and attempt to argue a different subject and/or offer irrelevant issues which are beside the point.

The OP is not arguing that belief is the same as faith. It is asking whether belief in the resurrection is faith-based, contrary to the claim from some Christians, that the belief is based in fact.

[TRANSPONDER]

Noted. However the discussion will inevitably spread to belief vs. Faith and that in hopes to try to validate Faith by invalidating belief. We are never going to avoid that apologetic and I don't think we should. Unless to Mods say 'no'.

[William]

Noted. However the discussion will inevitably spread to belief vs. Faith and that in hopes to try to validate Faith by invalidating belief. We are never going to avoid that apologetic and I don't think we should. Unless to Mods say 'no'.

The way to avoid it would be not to enable it by getting distracted by it and corresponding with it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Noted. However the discussion will inevitably spread to belief vs. Faith and that in hopes to try to validate Faith by invalidating belief. We are never going to avoid that apologetic and I don't think we should. Unless to Mods say 'no'.

The way to avoid it would be not to enable it by getting distracted by it and corresponding with it.

But I see nothing wrong with it. If you do, that's your decision. Swallow the bullet (to mix metaphors) or opt out. I'm quite happy to let the debate spread -within reason.

[The Tanager]

I'm only referring to your specific historical approach at the moment.

Then, again, I’ll ask you what is different in my historical approach? When I asked you that last time, your answer, it seemed to me, was that I’ve got to prove the supernatural exists before you’ll consider this argument that, if true, shows that the supernatural exists.

[The Tanager]

Ok. We'll do it that way. But you can surely see that it's wording that misleads if not intentionally. It's historical truth that Pilate was a real person (not that we can be 100% sure but it's a reasonably reliable surmise) but that doesn't make the gospel records about him reliable.

Discussions are full of unintentional misleadings because we attach different concepts to the same terms because of our own education and other experiences because of the language used in the circles we’ve engaged in. I’ve tried to draw the distinction, on numerous occasions and in different phrasings, between saying the whole accounts are history versus finding the historical core within accounts.

The historical core, again, contains four elements. One, Jesus existed. This, alone, does not mean the accounts from the gospel writers and Paul about Jesus are reliable on anything else but that Jesus existed. Two, that there was an empty tomb. This does not make what the writers claimed about why the tomb was empty reliable. Three, the earliest disciples experienced post-mortem appearances of Jesus. This does not make what they interpreted from these appearances or other claims they made reliable. Four, the earliest Christians preached a resurrected Jesus as the center of their movement’s message. This does not make it true that Jesus resurrected or the other claims they said about Jesus reliable.

We need to explain these four facts. The reliability of the other claims in these accounts, aren’t being said to be reliable, it’s just about explaining those four facts. There are various theories out there that try to explain these four things. I’ve shared what I think about the various theories.

Semantic tricks, or here, juggling with reasoning, are just playing the old Theist apologetics game of 'can't be 100% sure' to make us think we can't be sure of anything.

That we can’t be sure of anything (outside of pure math, definitions of words, and maybe something else) is simply true. That does not mean that anything goes. I have never moved from “can’t be sure of anything” therefore the resurrection happened. There are degrees of certainty, as you go on to say. Science, history, literature, everything else is about degrees of certainty. I’ve argued that the degree of certainty is in favor of the resurrection, without semantic tricks.

Degrees of certainty based on evaluation of the data make the case clear (as I've argued) that the resurrection accounts are so discrepant that (a) they can't be relied upon (b) they are evidently invented (c) there can't have been an original agreed resurrection -story.

They (a) can be relied upon (along with the other reasonings I’ve given in support) for what they say about an empty tomb, the claims of post-mortem appearances, and the disciples preaching a resurrected Jesus, (b) those key elements aren’t invented even if other details are, and (c) why should there be one agreed resurrection story?

As I recall, my pointing out reasons doubt that Paul's list was anything to do with the events in the gospels got denial and then silence.

No, I agreed that Paul lists things the Gospels don’t cover. I disagreed with you in that I find no problem in that since neither are claiming to make an exhaustive modern-day historical account.

But the point here is that arguing about Bob eating an apple is trying to make us doubt being able to base any reliability on conclusions and leave it to belief -preference. I already showed that the analogy is not 'tight' because your claim that you ate an apple (though perfectly plausible in itself) would Not be plausible if someone else who was there at the time (Matthew, for instance) said you ate a pizza. That is the analogy of discrepant accounts and not trying to make us doubt reasoned conclusions.

I do not think the lack of certainty about Bob eating an apple makes us doubt being able to base any reliability on conclusions and leave it to belief-preference. I’m arguing the opposite. One poster claimed that the existence of apples is support for Bob actually eating an apple. It isn’t. We can’t assume Bob ate an apple simply because that is a natural explanation. Natural explanations still need evidence to support them actually occurring. I’m arguing we need to base our conclusions (whether natural or supernatural) on the evidence instead of leaving it to belief-preference.

Now, if we are talking about whether we should believe Bob or not about eating an apple. There probably isn’t much riding on that claim, so the default should be to believe unless we simply know Bob to be a habitual liar. Even then, I doubt there would be any harm in believing Bob on this example. We can’t just believe the earliest Christians because of their claims, though. I’m not saying otherwise. My argument doesn’t just trust their claims carte blanche.

[The Tanager]

And it would take faith for you to accept that Bob did actually eat the apple.

The existence of stories of resurrections would empirically support the claim that Jesus could have resurrected, but not that he actually did.

Belief that he actually did, requires faith in the stories being fact.

I have already agreed with you, based on what I think you mean by ‘faith’ that the resurrection is faith-based. That is different than how some others here are using ‘faith’. However, my argument, however, is not just built on the existence of stories of resurrections, it is built on a historical core of four facts, one of those being claims of a resurrected Jesus.

The argument for the "truth of the resurrection" has never been the subject of this thread. You should know that.

It actually has. It’s been the subject of this thread for a considerable amount of time. It was never your intent, but these threads always go into tangents, connected or otherwise. In trying to figure out what you meant by 'faith,' I gave an answer that brunumb (and then others) wanted to explore in a way you didn't originally intend but still joined in on. I find no fault in that.

[The Tanager]

A. Paul was not there himself. Hence, he himself does not count as a witness to attest another 500. Hence, his writing here is nothing more than hearsay; especially since it goes into no further details regarding such a claim of 500.

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

B. Since the actual 'source' of this claim is not named, and we have no direct deposition of this claim of 500, we actually do not know if this 'source' was even there themselves?

It is more reasonable to conclude this was the Christian leadership, which would have been part of the 500 than that some random people formed this tradition and then the Christian leadership just tagged along. Not only are they very likely eyewitnesses, like Paul, to people claiming it occurred but very likely part of those it supposedly happened to. The tradition is a written witness to those events being claimed to have happened.

E. Thus, I continue to repeatedly ask a question for which you have not answered... Is it logical to discard the claim of 500 'eyewitnesses'?

I’ve answered it many times. I never argued that we have 500 eyewitnesses, I’ve claimed we have had multiple eyewitnesses to the fact that the earliest disciples were claiming post-mortem appearances, including one appearance to about 500.

2. Of course Christians wrote the Gospels. They were believers. But none of the Gospel writers were there themselves. All claimed direct witnesses were long dead. Hence, these believers obtained their information from oral tradition, or were told what to write by other Christians who believed the same thing. So yes, later Christians, passing along claims is all we have

I never said the gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses. They could have been, but that doesn’t mean they were or should be treated as though they were. They didn’t all claim direct witnesses were long dead. They did obtain information from oral tradition. An oral tradition within a culture that was really good at passing on oral tradition and strong believers in maintaining sacred traditions accurately from those who experienced such events.

And to address your claim that "all date back to within a decade of the supposed event" is merely wishful thinking. But EVEN IF this were true, you do not think legend and lore can develop in 10 years?

It’s not merely wishful thinking. Scholars, Christian and non-Christian, date it back that far for good reasons, as I’ve shared in this thread. A decade is not enough for the legend and lore to overtake what the actual Christians were originally saying, no. Not in the presence of those disciples and those around the disciples knowing what they were originally saying.

4. I already asked you this... And I still do not recall getting an answer...? Were you, or anyone reliable, there to verify if each and every passed along claim was perfectly preserved? And even if you, or someone else, was there to reliably monitor each and every passed forth transmission of such claim(s), does this now mean the original claim is true? It's almost as if, in the case here, you do not think humans are fallible or something.

I never claimed that every claim was faithfully passed down. I never claimed that those being faithfully passed down mean they are true claims. I never claimed humans are infallible. The claims I’m talking about being faithfully passed down are the three facts, not all the minor details. A change to the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and Jesus’ resurrection as the central message, is a big enough change to be squashed if it wasn’t the original claims. That’s the point about the oral tradition.