Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #1

Post by 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.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #771

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:04 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmYou present nothing but unprovable claims by unprovable people regarding unprovable events.

While stating that “proof” was neither what I was doing, nor what is reasonable to pursue in the large majority of our important beliefs. Obviously, that doesn't mean pursuing what is unreasonable or what most of you seem to mean by "faith".
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmWhat field of study do you propose would be best at determining facts regarding dead bodies hopping up and strolling to town?

History and philosophy.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmYou've taken on faith the following...

1. God exists
2. Mary exists
3. God impregnated Mary in contradiction to his own edict about sexing up someone's wife
3. Which brings us to Mary being married
4. A god and human can create viable offspring
5. That offspring was Jesus
6. Jesus was dead in a tomb
7. Jesus hopped up and left that tomb after three days of dead

Where've you put fact to even one the above faith claims?

You wanna keep fussing about how the resurrection should be accepted as fact, but you do absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.

Your faith in this story is the one fact we do have.

Yes, (1) is given ad hoc, as I’ve clearly stated on this thread numerous times, for the sake of this discussion, even though I don’t think it actually is ad hoc. That discussion is very multi-layered and I didn’t want to go down that route because I wanted to stick with what I felt was a natural way to take the original question of this thread due to questions directly asked of me. I’ve still addressed this in the comparison of the different theories and shared why I think it doesn’t deal the death blow to an actual resurrection being the best explanation of the data.

(2) Jesus’ existence, which was argued for, assumes a mother. That her name was Mary or had the qualities ascribed to her in the Gospels is irrelevant to this discussion.

(3) How Jesus was conceived is a question worth asking, but irrelevant to the argument being discussed. Assume God didn’t impregnate Mary and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

(3) Assume whatever you want about Mary’s marital status and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

(4) Assume whatever you want about a god and human being able to create viable offspring and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

(5) This is a continued irrelevancy from the previous ones.

(6) This was argued for.

(7) This was argued for.

(...) That the Bible has other tales included, which you can assume any interpretation you want of those, and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

So, we have a bunch of irrelevant points and points that I argued for, rather than doing “absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.” I can understand someone not agreeing with the argument, but to say there is no argument and that it is just “faith” is such a complete misunderstanding of things, in my opinion. Everyone has the posts before them to make up their own mind on that.
O:) I'll certainly agree that, ignore or argue about any of the other points and it comes down to - did the resurrection really happen or, given what the Bible says, is resurrection the best explanation?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #772

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:05 pm
brunumb wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:30 pmThe historical facts do not tell us that a dead body came back to life after a couple of days. That is merely speculation and not subject to an explanation.

No, the historical facts point to a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. That is the argument. Not speculation but an argument.
No. I argue that the historical facts do not argue a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. If one takes the resurrection -story as at all reliable, it points to a rescue plan to save Jesus from death, it taken together with the crucifixion which has more going for it as a reliable record, but my argument is that the story is so contradictory that it can't be taken as reliable and so the conclusion is that Jesus stayed dead, which is what I've been arguing all this time. Of course, I know the believers aren't going to accept that but the point is, that it is a made up tale and Jesus was dead and stayed dead is still a better explanation than a resurrection from death.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #773

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmMaybe if you'd define faith as you see it, you'd dissuade folks from thinking that's all you got.

However I define faith, you still have your concept attached to “faith” and think I’m doing that. If I attach a different term to your concept of "faith" the discussion will be the same, so I don't think this would be a productive way to take this discussion.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmSo a history professor, or a professor of philosophy are better suited to consider what happens to dead bodies?

No. A historian is (ideally) better suited to consider what has happened in the past and a philosopher is (ideally) better suited applying reasoning to those historical conclusions, while also considering scientific facts, literary facts, etc. to come up with the best explanation of all the data. Whether that concerns physical (which is why we have much needed philosophers of science) or metaphysical issues.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmI'm aware many Christians prefer to gloss over, or entirely avoid arguments that contradict their faith.

Any rational person will ignore irrelevant elements to an argument. We are talking about an argument in this thread, not the Christian faith. Those irrelevancies you bring up are relevant to the Christian faith, but not to this specific argument.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #774

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:21 pmNo. I argue that the historical facts do not argue a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. If one takes the resurrection -story as at all reliable, it points to a rescue plan to save Jesus from death, it taken together with the crucifixion which has more going for it as a reliable record, but my argument is that the story is so contradictory that it can't be taken as reliable and so the conclusion is that Jesus stayed dead, which is what I've been arguing all this time. Of course, I know the believers aren't going to accept that but the point is, that it is a made up tale and Jesus was dead and stayed dead is still a better explanation than a resurrection from death.

Yes, you have argued that. You have stayed on topic with your critiques this whole thread. I’m not sure any of your critiques have been irrelevant. I really do thank you for that. Of course I disagree with them and have shared why. Even assuming contradictions in the account doesn’t defeat the argument. One can assume those contradictions and the argument still goes through because it picks out details from the accounts that are reliable even if other details are not.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #775

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:45 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmMaybe if you'd define faith as you see it, you'd dissuade folks from thinking that's all you got.
However I define faith, you still have your concept attached to “faith” and think I’m doing that. If I attach a different term to your concept of "faith" the discussion will be the same, so I don't think this would be a productive way to take this discussion.
Then I'll conclude you having nothing but faith regarding resurrection claims.

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmSo a history professor, or a professor of philosophy are better suited to consider what happens to dead bodies?
No. A historian is (ideally) better suited to consider what has happened in the past and a philosopher is (ideally) better suited applying reasoning to those historical conclusions, while also considering scientific facts, literary facts, etc. to come up with the best explanation of all the data. Whether that concerns physical (which is why we have much needed philosophers of science) or metaphysical issues.
Who's best to consult regarding dead bodies, and the coming back to life?

Historian?
Philosopher?
Doctor?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmI'm aware many Christians prefer to gloss over, or entirely avoid arguments that contradict their faith.
Any rational person will ignore irrelevant elements to an argument. We are talking about an argument in this thread, not the Christian faith. Those irrelevancies you bring up are relevant to the Christian faith, but not to this specific argument.
And many folks'll ignore anything that contradicts their faith based beliefs.

Let's play your game of ignoring Christian belief in the whole Jesus died and got resurrected for our sins deal, and just concentrate on the Christian bible's claims regarding Jesus Christ...

I ask again...

Who's best to consult regarding dead bodies coming back to life...

Historian?
Philosopher?
Doctor?


We're still relying on faith regarding the following associated claims...

1. God exists
2. Mary exists / existed
3. God and Mary had sex, contrary to God's no sexing up someone's wife rule
4. Human-god hybrids are possible
5. Jesus existed
6. As a human-god hybrid
7. Jesus died
8. Jesus rose after being dead for three days

Not one of the above has ever, ever, EVER been shown to be fact.

Nope, every dang bit of it's been taken on faith, to the point some folks think they're irrelevant when it comes to faith in the resurrection claim.


If we're to consider the resurrection as fact, we might as well consider Alice in Wonderland a documentary.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #776

Post by nobspeople »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:30 am
The Tanager wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:45 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmMaybe if you'd define faith as you see it, you'd dissuade folks from thinking that's all you got.
However I define faith, you still have your concept attached to “faith” and think I’m doing that. If I attach a different term to your concept of "faith" the discussion will be the same, so I don't think this would be a productive way to take this discussion.
Then I'll conclude you having nothing but faith regarding resurrection claims.

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmSo a history professor, or a professor of philosophy are better suited to consider what happens to dead bodies?
No. A historian is (ideally) better suited to consider what has happened in the past and a philosopher is (ideally) better suited applying reasoning to those historical conclusions, while also considering scientific facts, literary facts, etc. to come up with the best explanation of all the data. Whether that concerns physical (which is why we have much needed philosophers of science) or metaphysical issues.
Who's best to consult regarding dead bodies, and the coming back to life?

Historian?
Philosopher?
Doctor?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:54 pmI'm aware many Christians prefer to gloss over, or entirely avoid arguments that contradict their faith.
Any rational person will ignore irrelevant elements to an argument. We are talking about an argument in this thread, not the Christian faith. Those irrelevancies you bring up are relevant to the Christian faith, but not to this specific argument.
And many folks'll ignore anything that contradicts their faith based beliefs.

Let's play your game of ignoring Christian belief in the whole Jesus died and got resurrected for our sins deal, and just concentrate on the Christian bible's claims regarding Jesus Christ...

I ask again...

Who's best to consult regarding dead bodies coming back to life...

Historian?
Philosopher?
Doctor?


We're still relying on faith regarding the following associated claims...

1. God exists
2. Mary exists / existed
3. God and Mary had sex, contrary to God's no sexing up someone's wife rule
4. Human-god hybrids are possible
5. Jesus existed
6. As a human-god hybrid
7. Jesus died
8. Jesus rose after being dead for three days

Not one of the above has ever, ever, EVER been shown to be fact.

Nope, every dang bit of it's been taken on faith, to the point some folks think they're irrelevant when it comes to faith in the resurrection claim.


If we're to consider the resurrection as fact, we might as well consider Alice in Wonderland a documentary.
Alice in Wonderland was a book so yes, everything in it was real because I believe it so. You can't show it's not, so my faith is justified! - Joe Christian
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #777

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:46 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:21 pmNo. I argue that the historical facts do not argue a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. If one takes the resurrection -story as at all reliable, it points to a rescue plan to save Jesus from death, it taken together with the crucifixion which has more going for it as a reliable record, but my argument is that the story is so contradictory that it can't be taken as reliable and so the conclusion is that Jesus stayed dead, which is what I've been arguing all this time. Of course, I know the believers aren't going to accept that but the point is, that it is a made up tale and Jesus was dead and stayed dead is still a better explanation than a resurrection from death.

Yes, you have argued that. You have stayed on topic with your critiques this whole thread. I’m not sure any of your critiques have been irrelevant. I really do thank you for that. Of course I disagree with them and have shared why. Even assuming contradictions in the account doesn’t defeat the argument. One can assume those contradictions and the argument still goes through because it picks out details from the accounts that are reliable even if other details are not.

Thank you for that. :hug:
I of course DO think that the resurrection second only to the nativities (which are demonstrably uncreditworthy) are rendered unsafe testimony by their mutually destructive contradictions. I don't expect the Believers to accept that and will just have to leave others to make up their own minds and, hopefully, remember the point. Because if I achieve nothing else (he wailed despairingly) I want to see these apologetics (which seemed to have escaped the mainstream) will become part of the atheist apologetics armoury, because I think they are pretty good and indeed, true.i

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #778

Post by TRANSPONDER »

A Clean Hands Bump

Despite this sinking as swiftly as the Bible -apologists would have wished, I have been prompted to add a comment after the 'Inerrancy' exchange where I mentioned the effect of the nativities (q.v) on the resurrection accounts.

It's really about the amount of sympathetic consideration to give to the differences in the accounts, shall we say. And I have heard most of the excuses. One book I read set up a sort of keystone cops farce with various Sunday characters rushing backwards and forwards without crashing into each other on the way, because the apologetic here was not arguing an apologetic of the same event differently remembered but similar events at different times. :D I may be prejudiced but two conflicting apologetics don't seem to me to do conflicting accounts much good.

What of course did for it was that it was all in the wrong place. It assumed characters rushing back and forth between the 'upper room' house in the city and the tomb(s) outside the Hasmonean city north wall; the present location of the Sepulchre and the (alternative) Garden tomb and the supposed site of Golgotha. Of course all this is wrong because in Jesus' time the burials were being relocated to the mount of Olives, as the site of the tombs was suburbs and inhabited and could not have Arimathea's 'New' tomb situated there. Also IF one credits the Gospel account, the things that the soldiers saw in the Temple could only be seen from the mount of Olives overlooking the Temple. And that is of course where Arimathea's tomb would be.

So in fact it's simple. Jesus never went through the city, either on an ass or dragging a cross. It was Bethany across the bridge into the Temple and from wherever Jesus was measured and fitted for his cross (almost certainly the Antonia fortress) he'd be taken up to Golgotha Almost certainly on the mount of Olives, and not fart from Bethany, Gethsemane and Joseph's tomb, which when you think of it, would have been the one Lazarus was stuck into - If you credit the accounts.

So the back and forth is simple and the complications won't wash. Not (as in that apologetic I can't get out of my head O:) ) the Marys taking different routes back to wherever the disciples were. Which I doubt they could even if one supposes the disciples were in the upper room in the city, paying rent when surely they'd be dossing and having free meals at Bethany. So I'm saying the 'different but similar events' excuse won't work here and we are surely going to opt for the 'same events, but described differently', apologetic.

And now you -all must excuse me for the nonce as I've posted enough for one stint and probably more than enough for the browsers :P .

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #779

Post by brunumb »

For those still interested in this topic.
Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate



Matt Dillahunty reviews the debate in the clip above

George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #780

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:46 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:21 pmNo. I argue that the historical facts do not argue a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. If one takes the resurrection -story as at all reliable, it points to a rescue plan to save Jesus from death, it taken together with the crucifixion which has more going for it as a reliable record, but my argument is that the story is so contradictory that it can't be taken as reliable and so the conclusion is that Jesus stayed dead, which is what I've been arguing all this time. Of course, I know the believers aren't going to accept that but the point is, that it is a made up tale and Jesus was dead and stayed dead is still a better explanation than a resurrection from death.

Yes, you have argued that. You have stayed on topic with your critiques this whole thread. I’m not sure any of your critiques have been irrelevant. I really do thank you for that. Of course I disagree with them and have shared why. Even assuming contradictions in the account doesn’t defeat the argument. One can assume those contradictions and the argument still goes through because it picks out details from the accounts that are reliable even if other details are not.
Thank you for a cordial reply. Yes,we have to agree to differ. Readers must decide whether the contradictory nature of the Resurrection -accounts does imply that they are invented (as if not, there would be a hardcore basis as in the crucifixion, once the contradictions are removed). But even if one takes the empty tomb, the women, the angels and the appearance of the resurrected Jesus as a 'basis',it still fits the facts better (as is the case with a crediting of the crucifixion account) if the idea was to get Jesus off the cross alive. That is taking an even view of the events rather than having Faith that there actually was a resurrection.
In short, whether one takes it as based on fact or agree with me that it is totally invented, neither really supports a resurrection.

Post Reply