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.

[benchwarmer]

It's not because the information is "closely aligned" it's because some of the text is verbatim copying. Something one would NOT expect in different accounts from different people.

Keyword: "Some".

What about the rest?

Matthew: 28 chapters
Mark: 16 chapters
Luke: 24 chapters

So again, what about the rest?

Answer: Different accounts from different people.

I think I was pretty clear about "the rest". It's additional material added to what they were likely copying, sometimes verbatim. Just because someone can add 2 thousand extra chapters to a book, if they plagiarized the first chapter, it's still a serious problem for the "disconnected accounts" theory. I assume that is what you think they are. Textual analysis done by many scholars calls that into question. Google "the synoptic problem" and see where that leads.

In fact, I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say that the copied material is all coincidence? They just happened to write down, word for word, in the same structure, some pieces of the text? Holy spirit whispering in their ear or something maybe?

[snipped my example of what plagiarism looks like]
Ahhh, yes. Skepticism at its finest.

Focus is placed on the similarities, while zero focus is placed the differences.

"Similarities"? I'm talking about outright copying. i.e. plagiarism. When we see that in the gospels, we get suspicious. Or at least we should. There's a vast difference between similarities and "exactly the same". It seems you didn't actually understand my example.

Just like the "evil God" tirades that unbelievers go on...focus is always placed on God's judgment and discipline, with zero focus on God's blessings, grace/mercy, and rewards.

SMH.

You sure do love to tell us how much your head shakes. Not sure how it advances the debate.

What 'evil God' tirades are you referring to? What has that got to do with the synoptic problem and the OP. Or even the post you responded to? I was talking about authors copying material and you're in the weeds complaining about 'evil God' tirades.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, back to the Gospels; so above I outlined the chapter count for the synoptics.

Legend has it that Luke and Matthew "borrowed" from Mark (Mark is supposedly the earliest Gospel), yet Mark has the least amount of chapters of Matthew and Luke!!

Legend? I think you mean Biblical scholarship and people simply reading the text.

You seem to think you've made a point about book length, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of plagiarism. If the source material is 1 chapter and 2 other people go on to write hundreds of chapters that INCLUDE the 1 original chapter, you cannot conclude there was no copying. That's just silly. If book length is your measuring stick, I guess you would have no problem handing in copied assignments from other students as long as yours is longer? I mean, that's your argument. Yours would be longer, so it must be fine. Focus on the other stuff.

Matthew has double the chapters of Mark, and Luke has almost double the chapters of Mark...so they borrowed a little from Mark, piggy-backing on some of the stuff Mark said...but the rest of their books are entirely independent.

Wait, are you now admitting the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark? I can't seem to follow where you are going other than you've noticed Mathew and Luke are longer.

For example, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:3-12), guess what? This is not recorded in Mark. The faith of the centurion (Matt 8:5-13), guess what? It is not recorded in Mark.

Again, you seem to think you are making a point. No idea what it is other than you've noticed as well that the author of Matthew has added to Mark. I think that was my point too wasn't it?

It goes on and on and on. It is the differences that makes each account independent.

How does adding text (which you just admitted above) make it independent? Are you somehow thinking we are arguing all the accounts were written by the same person?

I think we all agree that the 4 synoptic gospels were written by different authors. Their dependence on each other is the copying of text from one to another verbatim. Adding some new information or changing some details does not make the work independent.

Exactly. The reports should align with each other, perhaps filling in missing details from other accounts. What they shouldn't be doing is outright copy and pasting text from each other and making clear changes for theological or other personal reasons.

Well, from your point of view (unbelieving), since none of it is true anyway, then they shouldn't be out there spreading falsehoods, PERIOD.

If it is all false, then a falsehood for the better or worse would make the entire thing even more of a dead issue.

It's only a dead issue if one doesn't care. I happen to be interested in the topic both for the history and the use of this information to point out to people making various apologetic arguments. Many Christians have no clue upon reading the gospels what others have discovered about these literary works. Upon learning this information we see 3 main reactions. Deny, attempt to 'apologize' for what we see, or perhaps start looking more critically at all the rest of the Bible. The last one was part of my deconversion journey. It's been said many times, a thorough and critical reading of the Bible has created many atheists.

If someone is giving a false report, and they change the story (for whatever reasons), yet the story remains false, then the change doesn't really matter, do it?

It matters if some people are presenting the material as God's word. Surely God fearing gospel writers shouldn't be plagiarizing each other's work?

I don't care if some Christians want to continue believing upon discovering this, that's their choice. I DO care that some Christians may never be presented with this information. I never heard it from the pulpit or in Christian run Bible studies. I wonder why?

That would be similar to me, a person who doesn't believe in a literal Santa Claus, going on a Santa Claus forum and griping about how the original story was that Santa Claus was from the North Pole, being a chubby man in a red coat....but how a group of "Skinny Santa Claus" believers changed the story (for whatever reason) about how Santa Claus is actually skinny and from the South Pole.

If I believe the entire story is false, what do I care about the change in the story?

Makes no sense.

You're right, it makes no sense to compare a character who gives toys to children to a character that will send you to eternal torture if you don't believe. When I stopped believing in Santa, there were no threats of damnation and fear for my soul. You bringing up this analogy seems to ignore the vastly different issues.

People are free to make up whatever stories they like. However, when they start telling other people to believe or lose their eternal souls, we have an issue. I happen to care enough to engage with people in debate so that if some reader finds this site and they have questions about their Bible, maybe they will at least see there are disagreements and maybe they should go do some research on their own. If that is all that comes from this, it's been worth it.

Yes, from multiple people successively copying from each other, and trying to 'improve' or correct the theology.

You may be able to say that about the Gospel of John, but not about the synoptics.

Well, that's your opinion. Scholars and people who just go read the text carefully disagree with you. Hopefully readers will take the time to go figure out for themselves what's happening if they have questions about it. They certainly shouldn't just take my or your word for it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #19]

Yes... all said and done, how is this answering the OPQ?

You ask me that question, yet you don't ask the same question of the person whom I responded to.

Smh.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #19]

Yes... all said and done, how is this answering the OPQ?

You ask me that question, yet you don't ask the same question of the person whom I responded to.

Smh.

I agree that it takes two people to engage in a thread argument which together moves away from the thread topic, but I also agree that one only need ask one of the two to take the argument elsewhere, in order for that to [potentially] cease.
Perhaps I asked the wrong person? Otherwise, what does it matter as long as it ceases happening in this thread. Create another thread, or show how the argument ties into this thread.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I think I was pretty clear about "the rest". It's additional material added to what they were likely copying, sometimes verbatim. Just because someone can add 2 thousand extra chapters to a book, if they plagiarized the first chapter, it's still a serious problem for the "disconnected accounts" theory.

Not a problem for me.

I assume that is what you think they are. Textual analysis done by many scholars calls that into question. Google "the synoptic problem" and see where that leads.

Depends on which scholar you talk to.

In fact, I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say that the copied material is all coincidence? They just happened to write down, word for word, in the same structure, some pieces of the text? Holy spirit whispering in their ear or something maybe?

Um, no. My point is; you can't logically throw the baby out the bathwater because of the copied material.

Again, lets take the book of Matthew, for instance; twice as many chapters as Mark.

So even if we say half of Matthew's chapters were copied from Mark, what does that say about the other 14 chapters that aren't?

Fine, take all of the copied material from Matthew and Luke, and you STILL have a vivid picture of Jesus, his works, his sayings, and ultimately his death and resurrection.

So we are fine either way.

"Similarities"? I'm talking about outright copying. i.e. plagiarism. When we see that in the gospels, we get suspicious. Or at least we should. There's a vast difference between similarities and "exactly the same". It seems you didn't actually understand my example.

Ok, exactly the same. Lets omit all of the plagiarized material from Matthew and Luke, and we STILL have Jesus of Nazareth.

Now obviously, we (believers) would find ourselves in a bit of trouble if every single word of Matthew and Luke mirrored that of Mark.

But that is not what we have, is it? We have much more than that.

And the fact that I can grant your point and STILL have my point stand, goes to show how poor your point is (respectfully).

You sure do love to tell us how much your head shakes. Not sure how it advances the debate.

It is not meant to advance the debate, it is meant to express how I feel as I read some of the stuff being said here.

What 'evil God' tirades are you referring to? What has that got to do with the synoptic problem and the OP. Or even the post you responded to? I was talking about authors copying material and you're in the weeds complaining about 'evil God' tirades.

Never mind. Went over your head.

Legend? I think you mean Biblical scholarship and people simply reading the text.

Ok, Biblical scholarship

You seem to think you've made a point about book length, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of plagiarism. If the source material is 1 chapter and 2 other people go on to write hundreds of chapters that INCLUDE the 1 original chapter, you cannot conclude there was no copying. That's just silly.

Again, I am granting the "copying" part. But that does not negate the parts that weren't copied from Mark. Still some valuable stuff in there.

If book length is your measuring stick, I guess you would have no problem handing in copied assignments from other students as long as yours is longer? I mean, that's your argument. Yours would be longer, so it must be fine. Focus on the other stuff.

In academia, you cite your source material. The authors of Matthew and Luke weren't operating under 2,000 years later rules of academia.

Wait, are you now admitting the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark?

This is kind of a known fact in Biblical scholarship, although depending on the day some say that Matthew is the earliest Gospel.

And I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you. If me and you were tasked to write a biography on Malcolm X, after we completed our assignment and compared notes, we are almost guaranteed to have covered the same material.

Now granted, it won't be word-for-word, but it will be the same stuff in my own words, and vice versa for you.

But that doesn't matter, because even if you and I say the same thing in a different way, the core message is still there, and the reader will get to the same place.

I can't seem to follow where you are going other than you've noticed Mathew and Luke are longer.

Anyone who has stuck their nose in the new testament once or twice, will know that Matthew and Luke is longer than Mark.

This isn't some ground-breaking news that I just figured out.

Again, you seem to think you are making a point. No idea what it is other than you've noticed as well that the author of Matthew has added to Mark. I think that was my point too wasn't it?

First off, it doesn't matter if the book was "added to", as long as what was added is true. No harm in expanding on the truth, is there?

Second, your point was that the added stuff was added for "theological and personal" reasons, which is, in my opinion, blatantly false.

How does adding text (which you just admitted above) make it independent?

Because when you expand/expound on a story with new information, it becomes your story.

Are you somehow thinking we are arguing all the accounts were written by the same person?

No, don't know where you got that from.

I think we all agree that the 4 synoptic gospels were written by different authors. Their dependence on each other is the copying of text from one to another verbatim. Adding some new information or changing some details does not make the work independent.

Then adding new material also doesn't make it plagiarized, does it? It can't be plagiarized if the source of whom they allegedly borrowed/copied from doesn't have the said material.

Again, I granted your point that they borrowed from Mark's material and added to their own, independent gospel's.

No problems there. If they found Mark to be a valuable source of information which truthfully covered Jesus' life, then by all means, take the material.

It's only a dead issue if one doesn't care. I happen to be interested in the topic both for the history and the use of this information to point out to people making various apologetic arguments. Many Christians have no clue upon reading the gospels what others have discovered about these literary works. Upon learning this information we see 3 main reactions. Deny, attempt to 'apologize' for what we see, or perhaps start looking more critically at all the rest of the Bible. The last one was part of my deconversion journey. It's been said many times, a thorough and critical reading of the Bible has created many atheists.

Gotcha.

It matters if some people are presenting the material as God's word. Surely God fearing gospel writers shouldn't be plagiarizing each other's work?

Again, do a biography of Malcolm X, and since you don't know the brotha, you will find yourself relying on material that has already been written/said about the man, won't you?

I don't know how many different ways you can say "Jesus walked on the water", but even if you say "Jesus took numerous steps on the water"...it is still translated as "Jesus walked on the water", which is the same thing someone else would have already said if they had previously described the same event.

And, in my opinion, when you use the word "plagiarized", it can be misleading...as if something was stolen and the thief presented it as if it was his own.

I don't think that is the case here...because in the preface of Luke, he details the fact that he did his due diligence (his research), and that the material that he would be writing about isn't his own.

I am compelled to conclude Matthew in that, as well.

I don't care if some Christians want to continue believing upon discovering this, that's their choice. I DO care that some Christians may never be presented with this information. I never heard it from the pulpit or in Christian run Bible studies. I wonder why?

I agree, Christian apologetics should be covered in churches.

You're right, it makes no sense to compare a character who gives toys to children to a character that will send you to eternal torture if you don't believe. When I stopped believing in Santa, there were no threats of damnation and fear for my soul. You bringing up this analogy seems to ignore the vastly different issues.

Well, according to the false story, if you are a naughty child, then you won't be receiving any toys.

To a kid, that is up there with a threat of damnation.

People are free to make up whatever stories they like. However, when they start telling other people to believe or lose their eternal souls, we have an issue. I happen to care enough to engage with people in debate so that if some reader finds this site and they have questions about their Bible, maybe they will at least see there are disagreements and maybe they should go do some research on their own. If that is all that comes from this, it's been worth it.

Gotcha. I can sense your honesty and sincerity...just too bad it is all for naught. Bring that over to the winning side of the coin.

I also feel the same way, but for my side of things. If I can save one soul, I've done well for the kingdom.

Well, that's your opinion. Scholars and people who just go read the text carefully disagree with you. Hopefully readers will take the time to go figure out for themselves what's happening if they have questions about it. They certainly shouldn't just take my or your word for it.

I have scholars and people who just read the text carefully on my side, too. I am tempted to make a thread on the book of John.

Hmm.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I agree that it takes two people to engage in a thread argument which together moves away from the thread topic, but I also agree that one only need ask one of the two to take the argument elsewhere, in order for that to [potentially] cease.
Perhaps I asked the wrong person? Otherwise, what does it matter as long as it ceases happening in this thread. Create another thread, or show how the argument ties into this thread.

Mr. William, my old username is "For_the_Kingdom".

You and I never talked much. However, I think we've conversed enough for you to draw the conclusion that I am a Christian.

If I was a betting man, I would put my money on the fact that you know this. That being said, it would be obvious what my view is on Jesus' resurrection.

In light of that information, I am engaging the naysayers of my position..on this thread.

If that is ok with you?

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #26]

Are you arguing that belief in the resurrection is fact-based? Faith based?

What I am saying is that I am okay with your posting in this thread if what you are posting can be tied into the topic...and the topic isn't what you believe or another doesn't believe about the resurrection.

So - can you tell us? Are your beliefs in the resurrection faith-based or fact-based?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Are you arguing that belief in the resurrection is fact-based? Faith based?

What if one has faith that belief in the resurrection is a fact?

Then what?

As mentioned previously, I am of the opinion that the question posed is the wrong question to be asked.

I have reasonable faith that Christianity is true, in contrast to those who operate on blind faith that Christianity is true.

What I am saying is that I am okay with your posting in this thread if what you are posting can be tied into the topic...and the topic isn't what you believe or another doesn't believe about the resurrection.

So - can you tell us? Are your beliefs in the resurrection faith-based or fact-based?

I answered that question. The conversation that me and benchwarmer are having is tied into the topic...because whether or not the gospels are reliable is tied into whether or not one should view the resurrection as reasonably trustworthy.

The thread topic is about the resurrection, and you make it seem as if we are talking about the NBA finals or something.

Ease up, man.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #28]

What if one has faith that belief in the resurrection is a fact?

Then the belief is faith-based.

I have reasonable faith that Christianity is true, in contrast to those who operate on blind faith that Christianity is true.

Regardless of how you want to word it, the belief is faith-based.

The conversation that me and benchwarmer are having is tied into the topic...because whether or not the gospels are reliable is tied into whether or not one should view the resurrection as reasonably trustworthy.

Faith-based then. "Reasonably trustworthy" is still based in faith, not fact.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Then the belief is faith-based.

That, and so is everything else that we believe in history.

If you believe it (anything in history), you are operating on faith that the historical evidence presented is reliable...but still, it is far from a fact.

So again, the question is the wrong question to be asked.

The question or thread title should be simply "Evidence for/against the Resurrection" or something like that.

But there are no "facts" here.

Regardless of how you want to word it, the belief is faith-based.

And regardless of how strongly you believe in ANYTHING before year the 1900 (and certainly in antiquity), the belief is faith based.

So the resurrection is no different (as far as faith is concerned) than anything in history.

I am not sure why you feel the need to make this grand distinction as it pertains to the resurrection, when the same thing applies equally to everything in history.

Faith-based then. "Reasonably trustworthy" is still based in faith, not fact.

*Jon Bon Jovi's voice*

"Its all the same...only the name has changed"

[William]

Then the belief is faith-based.

That, and so is everything else that we believe in history.

Certainly.

If you believe it (anything in history), you are operating on faith that the historical evidence presented is reliable...but still, it is far from a fact.

Exactly.

So again, the question is the wrong question to be asked.

The question or thread title should be simply "Evidence for/against the Resurrection" or something like that.

Not necessary as it is simply a question of whether belief is fact or faith based. If there is evidence FOR the resurrection which can be shown to be fact, then those who have it will table it.

But there are no "facts" here.

There are equally no 'fictions' here.
What you ask for might be how Christians want there cake and to eat it too, but it is not necessary to indulge them in that regard. The thread is simply asking a simple question.

It is not about whether Christians faith based beliefs should be believed or not. Any fact based beliefs can be examined, but faith based beliefs are simply that...and no need to examine them...at east not in this thread...

Regardless of how you want to word it, the belief is faith-based.

And regardless of how strongly you believe in ANYTHING before year the 1900 (and certainly in antiquity), the belief is faith based.

So the resurrection is no different (as far as faith is concerned) than anything in history.

It doesn't matter as the OP is not claiming otherwise. No one has argued otherwise.

I am not sure why you feel the need to make this grand distinction as it pertains to the resurrection, when the same thing applies equally to everything in history.

To point out that - regardless of implied claims to the contrary, there is no actual factual evidence which can be examined about those things, and if there is, then they can be tabled. The focus is on The Subject of The Resurrection and gives opportunity for those who imply [or otherwise claim] they believe in the resurrection on fact, rather than faith - to table their evidence accordingly.

Faith-based then. "Reasonably trustworthy" is still based in faith, not fact.

*Jon Bon Jovi's voice*

"Its all the same...only the name has changed"

Bon Jovi's voice is fact. We can agree on that.