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.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

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

Post #11

Post by bjs1 »

William wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:48 am Why this thread was created was because some Christians claim that they believe in the story of the resurrection because of facts, rather than because of faith.
The thread is not about critiquing those who believe in the story through faith, as the OP acknowledges that it is a faith-based belief.

Rather, the thread is an opportunity for those who claim that the resurrection is factual, to table their evidence in order that the evidence can be critiqued.
That’s fine, but to do that you need a coherent standard of what it means to believe something “because of facts.” “Not hearsay” is clearly not it.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

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:

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

Post #12

Post by William »

bjs1 wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:25 pm
William wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:48 am Why this thread was created was because some Christians claim that they believe in the story of the resurrection because of facts, rather than because of faith.
The thread is not about critiquing those who believe in the story through faith, as the OP acknowledges that it is a faith-based belief.

Rather, the thread is an opportunity for those who claim that the resurrection is factual, to table their evidence in order that the evidence can be critiqued.
That’s fine, but to do that you need a coherent standard of what it means to believe something “because of facts.” “Not hearsay” is clearly not it.
Well it is up to those who believe that the hearsay is fact, to show why this is the case.

Otherwise, - since the hearsay is not able to be shown as factual, to believe in the hearsay [stories] one has to do so in faith.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

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

Post #13

Post by bjs1 »

William wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:00 pm
bjs1 wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:25 pm
William wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:48 am Why this thread was created was because some Christians claim that they believe in the story of the resurrection because of facts, rather than because of faith.
The thread is not about critiquing those who believe in the story through faith, as the OP acknowledges that it is a faith-based belief.

Rather, the thread is an opportunity for those who claim that the resurrection is factual, to table their evidence in order that the evidence can be critiqued.
That’s fine, but to do that you need a coherent standard of what it means to believe something “because of facts.” “Not hearsay” is clearly not it.
Well it is up to those who believe that the hearsay is fact, to show why this is the case.

Otherwise, - since the hearsay is not able to be shown as factual, to believe in the hearsay [stories] one has to do so in faith.
That brings us back to my original objection. If hearsay cannot be considered factual then everything that you have not personally witnessed is not factual. No rational person would use that as standard for what is or is not factual.

There seems little point in attempting to show that the resurrection is factual since you have already established that you will use a standard by which virtually nothing can be shown to be factual.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

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:

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

Post #14

Post by William »

[Replying to bjs1 in post #14]
That brings us back to my original objection. If hearsay cannot be considered factual then everything that you have not personally witnessed is not factual. No rational person would use that as standard for what is or is not factual.
On the contrary. I am not arguing that one cannot take things on hearsay as being factual. I am arguing that doing so is an act of faith. In that, my argument is rational. I am being rational.
There seems little point in attempting to show that the resurrection is factual since you have already established that you will use a standard by which virtually nothing can be shown to be factual.
On the contrary. There is little point in attempting to show that the resurrection is factual since it is a faith-based belief which comes from hearsay.
Unless - of course - one has actual evidence that it was indeed fact.

The story we have of Jesus, suggests to me that his body wasn't human, even if it appeared to be human. I wrote more on this in a prior post. You are welcome to engage me in relation to that observation.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

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

Post #15

Post by brunumb »

I noticed a reference to this article elsewhere and wondered how it might affect the debate around this subject here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/worl ... .html?_r=0
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.
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.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2289
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1959 times
Been thanked: 739 times

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

Post #16

Post by benchwarmer »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2021 9:15 pm I noticed a reference to this article elsewhere and wondered how it might affect the debate around this subject here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/worl ... .html?_r=0
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.
Here is another link from 2013:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem ... ew-tablet/

And a page with a number of other links to various articles (not all of which are accessible without various subscriptions):

https://lyingpen.com/2020/07/13/the-gab ... liography/

From a glance, it seems there is controversy over whether the artifact is a forgery.

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 #17

Post by JoeyKnothead »

bjs1 wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:08 pm That brings us back to my original objection. If hearsay cannot be considered factual then everything that you have not personally witnessed is not factual. No rational person would use that as standard for what is or is not factual.
This is kinda the problem with examining claims. Can I prove as factual that folks have walked on the moon? Not really, as factual as I think it is. All I can really do is appeal to how rational it is to conclude it's a fact. I can presnt video and other evidence, all of which could be dismissed for various reasons. In supporting something as fact, the claimant, rightly, has em a tough row to hoe.
There seems little point in attempting to show that the resurrection is factual since you have already established that you will use a standard by which virtually nothing can be shown to be factual.
Such are the burdens of the claimant.

Here then, were I to attempt to support it as fact, the best I can do is to propose it as more likely, or more rational to believe, or some such similar notion.

Facts are hard.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

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

Post #18

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:06 pm
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.
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:06 pm Yes, it's called plagiarism. There's a vast difference between reporting on the same events with the same details and outright copying text verbatim.

Example:

Suspicious (it seems author #2 has a theological issue with blue water and white sand, author #3 has issues with white horses):

1) I saw a white horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of blue water and white sand.

2) I saw a white horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of green water and brown sand.

3) I saw a grey horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of blue water and white sand.

What we might expect from separate people not copying each other.

1) I saw a white horse gallop triumphantly across the fresh cut grass and stop just at the stark line of blue water and white sand.

2) I saw a white horse galloping across the field. It stopped when it got to the waters edge on the beach.

3) There was a horse galloping towards the beach. It stopped when it got to the water and took a drink.

The second set has similar details and you can tell it's the same story, but not copied word for word. The first set is pretty obvious we have plagiarism and people trying to 'improve' something they are copying.
Ahhh, yes. Skepticism at its finest.

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

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.

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!!

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.

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.

It goes on and on and on. It is the differences that makes each account independent.
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:06 pm 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.

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?

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.
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:06 pm 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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

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:

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

Post #19

Post by William »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #19]

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

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

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

Post #20

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

William wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:48 am the thread is an opportunity for those who claim that the resurrection is factual, to table their evidence in order that the evidence can be critiqued.
Then the thread should be titled "Present Your Evidence for the Resurrection" which implies that whomever presents such evidence, believes it to be fact based.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply