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.

[The Tanager]

That you're willing to hold faith in testimonies from folks we can't cross examine is just that - a display of faith. I trust those observing our exchanges consider my position an effective "counter example" to "They're trustworthy, why heck they died holding their beliefs. We simply have no way to confirm their claims.

Without supporting your claim (“we simply can’t know the reliability of testimony we can’t question”), then you are holding that we accept it as true on faith. Some of your counter to my argument (which clearly goes beyond “they’re trustworthy, why heck they died holding their beliefs”) is built on the above claim. I would hope those observing our exchanges, if they go against my ultimate conclusion, would do so on other counters than this one from you.

So then, the Jews don't proclaim the ressurrection as fact.

Their burial practices also don't support the ressurrection as fact.

Again, to clarify the flow of the argument for those that may be confused. The Jewish burial practices support a burial in a tomb, coupled with other evidence, supporting an empty tomb, which coupled with the other facts (supported for their own reasons given), which (all together) must be explained and is explained best by an actual resurrection for the various reasons I gave in analyzing every theory.

[The Tanager]

We can already start here alone. Do we really have true multiple corroborated eyewitness accounts of seeing a post-mortem Jesus? If so, please give me some? Please remember, we are investigating the single most amazing claimed event in human history.

1. The tradition told to Paul (1 Cor 15:3-7).
2. Paul, personally acquainted with the earliest Christians, corroborates this and speaks of his own experience (1 Cor 9:1, 1 Cor 15:8).
3. Mark’s account points to an appearance, although it doesn’t narrate it (Mark 16:7).
4. Matthew’s independent material (28:9-10; 28:16-17)
5. John’s independent material (20:11-17; 20:19-20; 21)

[The Tanager]

Alright, but I've already acknowledged the possibility for a Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Jesus to have historically existed. When you've demonstrated a supernatural resurrection is more than just an imaginary event and that it can occur in reality, I'll take the claim more seriously.

I’ve been giving the reasoning. For me to provide further responses I need specific critiques.

Direct observation is not the only reliable mechanism for demonstrating a proposed thing or event isn't just imaginary. For instance, when hypotheses (such as the one proposing the existence of electrons) accurately make unique testable predictions, it is justifiable to infer that they are describing things or events which are more than just imaginary.

That is still looking at effects and reasoning to the existence of electrons.

[JoeyKnothead]

Without supporting your claim (“we simply can’t know the reliability of testimony we can’t question”), then you are holding that we accept it as true on faith.

You got a lot of dang gall to complain about someone not doing the claim supporting

Where are your "witnesses"? You claim they exist. But you fail to offer any reason to conclude you speak truth in this regard. None, nada, zilch. Why should we hold faith in your own claims, that you have repeatedly and doggedly refused to support beyond swearing up and down about em?

Why should we hold faith in your claims?

Do you have the honor to retract a claim you can't support, or do you wanna just keep playing faithbelieve?

You've yet to provide these alleged documents. Where are these documents?

Do you have the honor to retract a claim you can't support, or do you wanna just keep playing faithbelieve?


Ya wouldn't be lying, would ya?

Why should we hold faith in your claims?

Do you have the honor to retract claims you can't support?


But yeah accuse others of not supporting their claims. A claim clearly presented on the logic behind being able to question a claimant.

Some of your counter to my argument (which clearly goes beyond “they’re trustworthy, why heck they died holding their beliefs”) is built on the above claim. I would hope those observing our exchanges, if they go against my ultimate conclusion, would do so on other counters than this one from you.

I submit that there's no need to "counter" a claimant who can't show they speak truth.

Where are these witnesses? Where are these documents?

Do you have the honor to retract claims you can't support?

Or do you prefer to play faithbelieve?

Again, to clarify the flow of the argument for those that may be confused. The Jewish burial practices support a burial in a tomb, coupled with other evidence, supporting an empty tomb, which coupled with the other facts (supported for their own reasons given), which (all together) must be explained and is explained best by an actual resurrection for the various reasons I gave in analyzing every theory.

To clarify the facts of the argument for those confused...

1. The Tanager has claimed there are "eyewitnesses" to this ressurrection deal, while not presenting the first one for cross examination.

2. The Tanager has claimed there's documents that relate to this ressurrection, and has not provided the first document for analysis.

3. Dead folks stay dead.

4. The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.


Ressurrection as fact is as goofy a claim as saying gods can cross breed with humans and make water walking, dead hopping up from demigods.

[bluegreenearth]

I’ve been giving the reasoning. For me to provide further responses I need specific critiques.

Specific critique: A supernatural resurrection has not been reliably demonstrated to be anything more than imaginary because it is neither directly observable nor successful at making any unique testable predictions we can verify.

Direct observation is not the only reliable mechanism for demonstrating a proposed thing or event isn't just imaginary. For instance, when hypotheses (such as the one proposing the existence of electrons) accurately make unique testable predictions, it is justifiable to infer that they are describing things or events which are more than just imaginary.

That is still looking at effects and reasoning to the existence of electrons.

As previously explained, direct observation is not the only mechanism for demonstrating a hypothesized thing or event isn't just imaginary. If the effects were accurately predicted by the proposed hypothesis, then it is justifiable to reason that the types of things or events it describes are more than imaginary. Otherwise, if the hypothesis was only describing imaginary things or events, it would fail to consistently and accurately predict the observed effects. Therefore, your objection is not applicable in this case. My epistemological criteria does not require the rejection of electrons as imaginary regardless of their inability to be directly observed because unique testable predictions about their effects can be consistently demonstrated as precisely accurate. To my knowledge, the supernatural resurrection hypothesis fails to provide an equivalent justification.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suspect what our friend is getting at is that the resurrection account is somewhat like the background radiation that (with other trace evidence) leads us (science) to posit a big bang origin of the universe, the gospel accounts are post hoc evidence of the occurrence of the resurrection.

Electrons (and other particles) is a bit different as we can observe them today and infer their nature and actions from their effect.

If so the problem would be that the observable evidence for the BB is what exists in nature and the only question is whether we observe and analyse it correctly.

The gospel accounts are different; they are the secondhand observations of others relating to us an occurrence and the issue would be whether we can take those writings as reliable.

Like electrons, we don't know exactly what resurrection is or how it works. We can only infer what it does from the resultant effect. Which in the case of Jesus was being seen up and about after he'd died. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #426]

Electrons (and other particles) is a bit different as we can observe them today and infer their nature and actions from their effect.

Indeed. There is hardly anything in our technological world today that doesn't outright depend on electrons existing and behaving as physics understands them to. All electronic devices that plug into the wall or other power source, or run from batteries, fall into this category, and we could not generate the massive amount of electricity we do and design the infrastructure for that, as well as its distribution, without a very good understanding how electrons behave, even if describing exactly "what" they are isn't crystal clear. The most precise agreement of theory and measurement involves the electron (the magnetic moment of the electron):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous ... ole_moment

"The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures, making the magnetic moment of the electron the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics."

https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1134

Use of the word "particle" to describe things like electrons and products of collider experiments is still widely used and suggests that these entities are tiny, physical "things", but modern quantum field theories describe particles as fluctuations in quantum fields rather than tiny pieces of physical matter. At the incredibly small dimensions involved, analogies to everyday items are often wrong. Electrons may not exist as isolated, extremely tiny, negatively charged balls of matter, but whatever the physical or theoretical description, we'd be in really bad shape in modern times without them.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #426]

Electrons (and other particles) is a bit different as we can observe them today and infer their nature and actions from their effect.

Indeed. There is hardly anything in our technological world today that doesn't outright depend on electrons existing and behaving as physics understands them to. All electronic devices that plug into the wall or other power source, or run from batteries, fall into this category, and we could not generate the massive amount of electricity we do and design the infrastructure for that, as well as its distribution, without a very good understanding how electrons behave, even if describing exactly "what" they are isn't crystal clear. The most precise agreement of theory and measurement involves the electron (the magnetic moment of the electron):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous ... ole_moment

"The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures, making the magnetic moment of the electron the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics."

https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1134

Use of the word "particle" to describe things like electrons and products of collider experiments is still widely used and suggests that these entities are tiny, physical "things", but modern quantum field theories describe particles as fluctuations in quantum fields rather than tiny pieces of physical matter. At the incredibly small dimensions involved, analogies to everyday items are often wrong. Electrons may not exist as isolated, extremely tiny, negatively charged balls of matter, but whatever the physical or theoretical description, we'd be in really bad shape in modern times without them.

But let's scrap all that. Say to heck with it. It's wrong, and we'll mean mouth folks behind their back who think it. We'll shun em like they're antivaxers. We'll deny em entry into our kitchens, and whisper disparaging comments about their mom n em. We'll draw mustaches on their pictures.

How does that get us to the ressurrection as fact?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #426]

Electrons (and other particles) is a bit different as we can observe them today and infer their nature and actions from their effect.

Indeed. There is hardly anything in our technological world today that doesn't outright depend on electrons existing and behaving as physics understands them to. All electronic devices that plug into the wall or other power source, or run from batteries, fall into this category, and we could not generate the massive amount of electricity we do and design the infrastructure for that, as well as its distribution, without a very good understanding how electrons behave, even if describing exactly "what" they are isn't crystal clear. The most precise agreement of theory and measurement involves the electron (the magnetic moment of the electron):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous ... ole_moment

"The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures, making the magnetic moment of the electron the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics."

https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1134

Use of the word "particle" to describe things like electrons and products of collider experiments is still widely used and suggests that these entities are tiny, physical "things", but modern quantum field theories describe particles as fluctuations in quantum fields rather than tiny pieces of physical matter. At the incredibly small dimensions involved, analogies to everyday items are often wrong. Electrons may not exist as isolated, extremely tiny, negatively charged balls of matter, but whatever the physical or theoretical description, we'd be in really bad shape in modern times without them.

But let's scrap all that. Say to heck with it. It's wrong, and we'll mean mouth folks behind their back who think it. We'll shun em like they're antivaxers. We'll deny em entry into our kitchens, and whisper disparaging comments about their mom n em. We'll draw mustaches on their pictures.

How does that get us to the ressurrection as fact?

[benchwarmer]

Like electrons, we don't know exactly what resurrection is or how it works. We can only infer what it does from the resultant effect. Which in the case of Jesus was being seen up and about after he'd died. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted

Agreed 100% on the part I bolded above. This is really the core issue because all we have are the Biblical writings and those are so suspect it's hard to take them seriously at this point.

See viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38625 (On the Bible being inerrant)

The evidence we have is so full of contradictory information, it's pretty hard to trust anything they say. To me, it appears we have exactly ONE source for the resurrection and a small number of authors who took that and modified it to their theological purposes. The blatant copying from one to another in the synoptic gospels and the changing of details to try and force previous prophesies to have come true is clear if one bothers to dig a little.

I don't see multiple accounts that support each other and give some nice historical evidence. What I see is one story evolve over time as authors try to mold the theology to their own interpretations. That is the theory that best fits the evidence we have IMHO. I'm open to being wrong, but if I am, all we are left with then are lazy authors who cut and pasted and/or edited badly and made all manner of errors while doing so. What's left is a confusing tatter that is practically useless for determining a historical resurrection. However, I do find it quite useful to determine how religions evolve.