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.

[JoeyKnothead]

No, they are not. I said eyewitnesses. Paul was not an witness to a resurrection claim. He had a later vision, like many claim to have even now. And the other alleged accounts are definitely written by someone, or more... But we have no clue who the author(s) even were; and what they even witnessed themselves?

The early saying passed down to Paul was made by the original disciples who were eyewitnesses. Paul was an eyewitness to that fact and an eyewitness to his own post-mortem appearance which he equates to theirs. Paul distinguished between these appearances and later visions. The disciples accepted Paul as one of them. He speaks of being an apostle because he saw Jesus. He claims there was light and a voice that affected other people.

Again I say, we do not have Paul here to question.

You accept his claims on faith.

Face it, you suffer so much faithbelieve you couldn't tell a fact from a frog, if the frog was him aribbiting when ya tried.

You've accepted biblical tales on faith.

Not on fact.

You've not put you one bit of confirmable, undeniable fact to any of this ressurrection business.

[bluegreenearth]

Then why isn’t the historical approach I offered part of that which you consider being reliably demonstrated to extend outside your imagination?

I can imagine the occurrence of a supernatural resurrection as a cause for the NT claims and can imagine fallible people sincerely but mistakenly believing a supernatural resurrection occurred as a cause for the NT claims. Both imagined causes are logically possible and have explanatory power. However, any explanatory power the imagined supernatural resurrection might have as a cause is rendered inaccessible by the fact that the "historical approach" you've offered fails to include any criteria requiring such an imagined cause to be reliably demonstrable in reality. When this criteria is included, only the explanatory power of the mistaken belief hypothesis is accessible because it is demonstrable as a cause which occurs in reality. In fact, there are an embarrassing number of documented instances where people acquired sincere but mistaken supernatural beliefs and no examples of people reliably demonstrating that their imagined supernatural beliefs correspond with reality. As such, the explanatory power of the mistaken belief hypothesis is accessible where the explanatory power of the supernatural resurrection hypothesis is not.

[brunumb]

All this talk about an empty tomb. I'm still waiting for some evidence that there ever was a tomb in the first place. Same for the mysterious Joseph of Arimathea who just seems to have suddenly materialised at a convenient moment and disappeared just as quickly. Didn't even bother to reclaim his tomb that was apparently now empty. To me, both of these are nothing more than inventions to get the dead Jesus out of a pit of rotting corpses in order to concoct a resurrection event.

[TRANSPONDER]

The issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted.

No, the issues are (1) what in those records can be trusted and (2) what can make the best sense of that which can be trusted.

Well, that's saying the same thing, isn't it, if the 'records of the effect' is what we observe the electrons doing and what is written in the Bible? (1).

Perhaps it is the same. But it doesn’t seem the same to me. So, I’m not performing a trick of saying the same thing in different words in pretending it’s a different argument. You have been focusing on how if details differ, then the records (Gospels, Paul) can’t be trusted and, therefore, can’t be logically used in an argument for the Resurrection, right? I’m saying we need to see what in the records (Gospels, Paul) can be trusted and that what can be trusted is available for one to use in an argument for the Resurrection.

That is the same thing, isn't it? Didn't I say that the four agreeing on the empty tomb means that the doubts about gospel contradiction don;t apply? Though that John doesn't mention the angelic message does raise doubts - or should.

Many critiques are mixing this very thing up, including your own. My argument isn’t for “Gospel-Jesus” in all he supposedly said and did. It is a more basic Jesus that existed, was buried, whose tomb was found empty, whose disciples claimed to have post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and created a movement centered on claiming Jesus resurrected.

That is gospel Jesus in that it is what the gospels tell us. I want to keep out a complicating possible (very different) historical Jesus that could muddy the waters.

It is a historical core of Jesus that the gospel Jesus shares but goes way beyond. Other views of what Jesus probably did, didn’t do, taught, didn’t teach (should) share that historical core but definitely go beyond that historical core. My argument focuses on that historical core Jesus, not the other stuff, whether Gospel Jesus, Apocalyptic Jesus, etc.

Really? To me it looks like question of a historical Jesus is not the same as a Jesus as depicted in the gospels. Of coure the bulk of authorities in the past have assumed that an actual Jesus had to have done (and perhaps said) what is in the gospels, based on what they are prepared to credit. After all, some might like the denunciations of a corrupt priesthood but not walking on the water. My argument of course is that nothing should be taken for granted, when so much is contradictory.

There is no trick here either because I’m not arguing for the Gospel/Christian claim in its entirety. We are only talking about a resurrection or not with the two-step argument that has been our focus. Nor am I saying anything about those other details being symbolic or not.

My two step argument may not be the same as yours.
Step 1. The crucifixion is broadly coherent
step 2 The resurrection -accounts are broadly not.

The empty tomb is not to be considered 'by itself' but in context. 'Other facts' are, for instance, if the contradictory resurrection -stories are evidence that there wasn't one resurrection -story they all knew, then whatever the reason for the empty tomb is, Solid -Body resurrection from death isn't one of them.

Perhaps I’m not catching your point. Which resurrection stories point to a non-bodily resurrection or a resurrection without an empty tomb?

That isn't my point. The point is that the resurrection -stories by their mutually destructive contradictions, point to a lack of a common resurrection -story which required three different ones to be invented.

Yes, it makes sense that Peter, (whose importance in the Jesus party Paul suggests, not that Paul didn't (as he says) contested with him right in his face) would be first to get this 'revelation' that Jesus' spirit had gone to heaven.

The tradition doesn’t say Peter’s revelation was the first one experienced, it’s just the first mentioned in the list. It says “and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5)”.

Appearance to Peter, then to the twelve implies that Peter was the first to see it. I also pointed out that Luke (whose access to Paul's letters occasioned Acts) wangled in an appearance to Peter first, of the 'twelve' though Luke says 11 disciples (Thomas Not being absent, as John claims). That alone contradicts the other gospel accounts. Apart from the women, none of the disciples saw Jesus before he appeared to all of them (give or take Thomas).

And it's odd, isn't it that if the testimony of women is inadmissible, their finding the tomb open is the last thing the gospels broadly agree on? I think that's just an excuse - their legal standing as witnesses - to explain why Luke says they didn't see Jesus when Matthew says they did (4). Their testimony for the 'most Jewish' of the writers is good enough for him. Don't you see a lot of 'ad hoc' excuses being fished out to get over serious problems with the story?

That oddity is why it probably happened. It makes more sense that one would choose to edit that out than that other people later added it back in. They could have had different material available to them. Luke traveled with Paul and learned the tradition that left the women out. He could have thought his audience wouldn’t care. At the very least it isn’t more ad hoc than your rendering.

It isn't ad hoc - it is an old excuse. Aside from postulating people leaving out stunning events like women running into Jesus, how do you account for all of them relating their claim of the angelic message but not that of seeing Jesus? Remember this is very far from being the only case of significant events hat other writers don't seem to know about. Luke didn't need to travel with Paul. The gospel original itself would have no appearance to the women, as well as Paul's letters. Your explanation that Luke simply never heard it from Paul when the point is that Luke never heard of it sounds as ad hoc as anything you have come up with - as though you plucked the excuse out of thin air without even thinking it through.

You seem a little confused. Paul, the Pharisees and I believe, Jesus' followers, all believed in a bodily resurrection at the coming of the Messiah and Last Days. That is what the gospels mostly talk about. I suppose they saw the spirit as asleep in the bodies until roused by the last Trump.

The Pharisees did. Jesus is presented as claiming to be the Messiah and teaching his own resurrection before the Last Days. Paul teaches Jesus as the firstfruit of bodily resurrection, which will happen for others at the end. This was the earliest Christian belief.

That's what I said - the Pharisees had that belief in a bodily resurrection - at the last days. Could you direct me to where Paul depicts the rising of Jesus as a bodily one? If you can, I may have to rethink. You can't do it, I might say, by pointing to the Pharisee belief of the dead waking up and animating their bodies as proving that Paul thought Jesus resurrected in bodily form.

But Peter gets the idea that Jesus' spirit has risen to go back to heaven (from whence it came - Paul gives a few hits in Romans that it is a spirit that came from heaven to correct its' original disobedience by obedience to death).

You are saying Paul gives a few hints that Peter got the idea that Jesus’ spirit has risen to go back to heaven? What verses hint that?

Now you put me on the spot. I'd have to go through Romans and pick out some pointers to Paul's belief. I'll try to get back to you on that. Mainly my argument is derived from first maintaining that the contradictions eliminate the Gospel accounts as credible. Thus, whatever became of Jesus, it wasn't something that suited the needs of the writers. That leaves me with a non -resurrection with a resurrection in Cor. I. How to reconcile them? That the latter was a raising of Jesus' spirit but that wasn't good enough for the writers supplies the answer. It is hypothetical, even speculative, but it does fit the facts - such as the lists of people who saw it don't match and you have to explain the evidence away: he women didn't count, Luke 'left it out' Paul didn't mention someone who saw it before Peter, which, as I say, makes no difference to the problem anyway.

The story that Paul was opposed to the disciples until he 'converted' shows that the appearance of Jesus to him was not of the solid -body Jesus of the Gospels but the spirit Jesus that he talked to in the 3rd heaven (I'd bet my butterfly - collection that he's talking about his own experience) which, note, is the impression Luke gives in Acts -

Yes, it was after Jesus’ supposed ascension, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an appearance and only a vision. Acts speaks of a light flashing (9:3, 22:6, 26:13) and a voice speaking (9:4-6, 22:6-10, 26:14-18) in Aramaic or Hebrew (26:14) that Paul and others heard (9:7, 22:6), while the others didn’t understand the voice (22:9). That has bodily elements and is connected by Paul to the appearances in the tradition passed down to him by the earliest Christians (1 Cor 15:8). Paul’s ‘third heaven man’ heard “inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell (2 Cor 12:4)” while Paul definitely talks about his conversion experience.

Unfortunately, I don't credit Luke in his gospels (he fiddles far too much) and Acts even less. It's just curious that he doesn't have a bodily Jesus but flashing lights and a voice, which others heard (though I recall that he later says that nobody else did..I may be misremembering there). It's only that Paul says nothing about this that makes me wonder whether the Pauline trip to the 3rd heaven was the same as the 'appearance' to Paul in Cor I.

and, given that the order of appearance, is quite different from that in the gospels, visions much later than shortly after the crucifixion is what they are talking about.

Neither the gospels nor the tradition passed down to Paul is attempting an exhaustive, chronological list of appearances.

Nobody asks witnesses in court to recite a historia or give an exhaustive chronology; they do expect them not to contradict each other if they expect to be believed.

I suggest that your attempt to make Paul's 'natural/spiritual' distinction about 'human/Godly desires' and any attempt to make Paul's 'this is so and so it this' explanations anything but symbolic/metaphorical, as trying to get over problems by removing them from practical examination.

I’m not sure what “attempts to make Paul’s ‘this is so and so it this’ explanations anything but symbolic/metaphorical” means. Could you reword your critique? But I’m not removing them from the examination at all. I’m all for examining that distinction in the text itself if you interpret that text differently.

I'm not sure myself until you try to do it. If you don't try to explain away Paul talking of what he thinks is fact (or anyone else as writing something 'spiritual' -which I say means symbolic/metaphorical rather than factual) then I won't have to contest that.

without a narrated walking Jesus, Mark’s original ending has an announcement that Jesus is risen (16:6) and will appear to them (16:7). There were also predictions of his resurrection. It’s clear that Mark believes in a resurrected Jesus. Ending an account on the women not saying anything because they were afraid could serve the purpose of challenging the reader with what they would do with their belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Will they tell others? The women obviously did or the Gospel doesn’t get written at all.

Well, it obviously didn't get written, did it? If it had, there would be no need for the writers to later on invent three solid -body resurrections that contradict in almost all respects, eh?

I wasn’t talking about the additional ending. I was saying that Mark’s gospel (with the original ending) would not have gotten written if someone didn’t tell the others. Christianity would not have spread and, thus, no material for Mark to write. Thus, it’s obvious that Mark’s gospel teaches a resurrected Jesus.

I wasn't talking about the 'additional ending' (Freer logion) either, other than someone other than Mark felt the need for an ending that Mark didn't have. Obviously someone told him (or rather he had an original gospel that the other Synoptics used) and it did not have an ending beyond the angelic message and the women running away, at least, which had to be changed to running to tell the disciples, of course. That there was no more than that is shown by the resurrection stories conflicting. If they had an original common ending, that wouldn't be the case. They might have differing details of course, but there would be a common core more than just Jesus' body - still with crucifixion marks - got up and walked.
Yes, the original story preached a resurrected Jesus, but was it a solid body one? If so, where is it? It isn't in the gospels ,because they contradict each other, fatally.

The original synoptic ending certainly added an angel explaining everything. But John has never heard of that. Again, I trust that you won't resort to the 'John didn't think it important' apologetic as you see it as important as I do.

This looks like an attempt to “argue” for your position without having to argue for your position. The author of John mentions Mary telling Peter and John, which puts us after that part in the Synoptics. Why couldn’t John have chosen to leave that out? Why is it important to his intentions to have the angel scene? Perhaps he knew everyone was aware of it. Perhaps it came from sources not his own.

That sounds like you using dismissal of negative evidence to sidestep a problem. Sorry John not having an angelic message means there originally wasn't one and 'it got left out/hadn't heard it/didn't think it important' is wearing very thin as an excuse even if it had any credibility originally. Of course he might have left it out because he didn't want Jesus going to Galilee and the disciples following him there. But that, if it might be a good explanation, it is one that doesn't do him much credit.

Unless my memory is playing me false, Philo does write some history about Pilate and what he got up to. It is surprising that he doesn't at least mention that celebrated teacher and healer Jesus who got crucified at the time.

Why is that surprising? Jesus wasn’t celebrated or vilified everywhere. Plenty of places took no notice. Why should Philo, specifically, care enough to devote time to talking about Jesus? What is it about his philosophical agenda that begs for a mention about Jesus?

Because Philo mentions Pilate - in some detail. Jesus had to have slipped under the radar as a teacher let alone miracle worker for Philo to have ignored the fact that Pilate executed a celebrated Rabbi. But then, I don't think he mentioned the Baptist either, though Josephus does, so you could have a good explanation there.

You have written some attempts to dismiss my explanation(s) which are conclusions based on problems in the gospel accounts, which you have attempted to explain but I think not very successfully. If my explanations are 'ad hoc', yours are even more so. I am consistently inviting you to come up with better explanations than mine what is in the gospels.

Yes, I think mine are better; you think yours are. The important reason is why. We’ve shared our reasonings for each other (and others) to consider and challenge. I’ve responded to every specific point I could see. You have been responding to every point I’ve made to you as well.

Indeed and an excellent job you did. I think you are explaining away evidence and I'm trying to make speculations look like solid evidence but people will have to decide. What I DO think is solid evidence is the unreliability of the gospels based on contradiction. That's evidence. Others will have to decide.

A case for which particular details are valid is another conversation. Important to have for one concerned in figuring that out but not important to my argument here. So, no need for you to make that case here. I'll grant you that there are some contradictions.

I am not falling for your attempt to pretend that this bit of my argument or that doesn't belong here or is a different argument.

I’m not doing that. I gave an argument. One of your critiques seems to be “but if the Gospel accounts disagree on details surrounding the empty tomb or the Resurrection, then the Resurrection should be rejected.” I’m questioning that critique. I’m saying I’ll grant you that the accounts disagree on details surrounding the empty tomb or the Resurrection. My argument isn’t changed one bit (because it never relied on every detail of every account being true in the first place).

That's watering down my case too much and I have made the point before - minor or easily explained contradictions don't matter. Even bigger ones can be excused if there aren't too many, but there are really bad contradictions all through the gospels. I have mentioned a few. And the resurrection accounts are really the worst. The fact is that a crook who says he (or she) forgot this bit of cash or some figures, there, one might excuse them once or twice, but after a dozen times,they can't expect to be excused.

[The Tanager]

Mark, Matthew, and John each either record their own eyewitness (probably not), or someone else’s eyewitness testimony that had been passed down and within the lifetimes of those eyewitnesses so that any errors would have been corrected. From this we should believe the eyewitnesses claimed appearances.

I don't see how what I bolded above necessarily follows, nor how any deliberate or unintentional changes (exaggeration, political expediency, literacy levels, etc.) can be equally confidently ruled out.

The details could be changed but we’re talking about the main facts: the empty tomb, the earliest Christian claims of experiencing post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and the earliest message being centered on Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

[The Tanager]

This is a pure faith claim. Why? Again, one of his cited Verse(s) lists a claimed "500" witnesses. If we do not have the names of these folks, along with their official individual independent depositions, on record, then you surely do not have "500" witnesses... You instead have a single unfounded/unverified claim. --- A single claim to '500' others, without sufficient follow through, is classic hearsay; and nothing more. Sorry. You are relying upon faith, and faith alone.

This tradition, which speaks about more than just the 500, would not have been formed, codified, and passed on without corroboration from the leaders of the Christian movement, who are part of those in the list. It is the testimony of, at the least, some of those who claim to have had the experiences. Yes, we get this quoted in Paul’s writings but it takes more faith to think this tradition goes against what the eyewitnesses were claiming.

This response, again, demonstrates nothing short of faith alone. Since we do not know who wrote the Gospels, and when, we have absolutely no idea what motivation(s) were guiding such writings? I mean, was there church bias at work? Was this just another instance of legendary tales told? Other? We do not know, because we do not even know who the author's were? It's also highly likely the writers of the Gospels were not direct witnesses themselves. The Gospels were written, a minimum of decades after the claimed event. This means they could not have been there themselves. Which means neither the writer nor the source was alive during the claimed event. Which means, none were eyewitnesses -- (by definition).

At best, it would seem such writings were taken from decades of already circulating oral tradition, prior to having anything written to paper. I trust we do not need to get into how oral tradition works?

We know the Gospels were written by those connected to the earliest disciples and that they wrote within the lifetime of some of the eyewitnesses, even if they weren’t the eyewitnesses themselves. We know they were motivated to spread their message about Jesus. There is bias in everything written; that doesn’t mean the claims are false. We know there wasn’t enough time and that the accounts lack the typical embellishment, for the main details at the least, to have been legends. Being written 30-60 years later does not rule out that the writers themselves were eyewitnesses. Even if they weren’t, eyewitnesses would have still been around and the nature of Jewish culture with their emphasis on faithfully passing down felt-sacred tradition provides even more checks on the claims the disciples were making.

[The Tanager]

However, any explanatory power the imagined supernatural resurrection might have as a cause is rendered inaccessible by the fact that the "historical approach" you've offered fails to include any criteria requiring such an imagined cause to be reliably demonstrable in reality. When this criteria is included, only the explanatory power of the mistaken belief hypothesis is accessible because it is demonstrable as a cause which occurs in reality.

What do you mean “reliably demonstrable in reality”?

[The Tanager]

Perhaps it is the same. But it doesn’t seem the same to me. So, I’m not performing a trick of saying the same thing in different words in pretending it’s a different argument. You have been focusing on how if details differ, then the records (Gospels, Paul) can’t be trusted and, therefore, can’t be logically used in an argument for the Resurrection, right? I’m saying we need to see what in the records (Gospels, Paul) can be trusted and that what can be trusted is available for one to use in an argument for the Resurrection.

That is the same thing, isn't it? Didn't I say that the four agreeing on the empty tomb means that the doubts about gospel contradiction don;t apply? Though that John doesn't mention the angelic message does raise doubts - or should.

So, you agree that the Gospels contradicting in specific details does not counter that Jesus existed, his tomb was found empty, the disciples claimed post-mortem appearances, or the disciples claimed Jesus was bodily resurrected?

There is no trick here either because I’m not arguing for the Gospel/Christian claim in its entirety. We are only talking about a resurrection or not with the two-step argument that has been our focus. Nor am I saying anything about those other details being symbolic or not.

My two step argument may not be the same as yours.
Step 1. The crucifixion is broadly coherent
step 2 The resurrection -accounts are broadly not.

It’s not the same at all. I’m talking here about the form or reasoning of the arguments, not our conclusions (although those obviously contradict each other).

You look at the Gospel accounts and seem here to be saying that if they are broadly coherent on X, then X probably happened. Thus, you conclude that the crucifixion probably happened but the resurrection probably didn’t? I would say that even if the resurrection accounts met your standards of broadly coherent, that this would be a bad reason to believe the resurrection actually occurred.

I don’t argue that since the resurrection accounts are broadly coherent, then we have reason to believe the resurrection happened. My approach is to focus on the historical nuggets which can be gleaned even from non-broadly coherent accounts (step 1) and then form a theory that best accounts for all of the historical nuggets (step 2).

This is why I’m not sure your “the issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted” is the same as my “(1) what in those records can be trusted and (2) what can make the best sense of that which can be trusted.” Your argument seems to be that the Resurrection theory rests on whether the Gospels can be trusted as reliable on their Resurrection accounts. My argument is that, assuming they can’t be trusted in every detail, what historical nuggets can still be gleamed and then how do these effects point to the Resurrection theory over alternatives.

That isn't my point. The point is that the resurrection -stories by their mutually destructive contradictions, point to a lack of a common resurrection -story which required three different ones to be invented.

Assuming that were true, this would still be an agreement by the earliest Christians that Jesus resurrected, thus seemingly supporting the fourth fact that the earliest disciples claimed a risen Jesus.

That's what I said - the Pharisees had that belief in a bodily resurrection - at the last days. Could you direct me to where Paul depicts the rising of Jesus as a bodily one? If you can, I may have to rethink. You can't do it, I might say, by pointing to the Pharisee belief of the dead waking up and animating their bodies as proving that Paul thought Jesus resurrected in bodily form.

In Colossians 2:9 Paul says that in Jesus the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. In 1 Cor 9:1, Paul uses the normal term for speaking of normal sight when saying he saw Jesus. In 1 Cor 15 Paul uses the formula that says Jesus was buried, raised, and appeared, with the implication being what was buried was raised and appeared. Paul seems to make a distinction between appearances and visions because he calls his appearance “last of all,” and presenting his case to the Corinthians assumes that appearances have stopped. When speaking of a later, different experience (2 Cor 12) he calls it a vision. And the reason Paul shares the formula in 1 Cor 15 is in response to Christians in Corinth questioning the resurrection of the dead. Starting in verse 35 Paul addresses what kind of body it will be. In 36 he speaks of that which comes to life is that which dies. He talks about different bodies for humans and other animals (39). He speaks of the body sown as the one that is raised (43-44).

Now you put me on the spot. I'd have to go through Romans and pick out some pointers to Paul's belief. I'll try to get back to you on that.

No problem.

Unfortunately, I don't credit Luke in his gospels (he fiddles far too much) and Acts even less. It's just curious that he doesn't have a bodily Jesus but flashing lights and a voice, which others heard (though I recall that he later says that nobody else did..I may be misremembering there). It's only that Paul says nothing about this that makes me wonder whether the Pauline trip to the 3rd heaven was the same as the 'appearance' to Paul in Cor I.

You can look at Acts 9, 22, 26 to compare what all Luke says about the event. I think it is unreasonable to build one’s case on an assumption that Luke would completely misrepresent Paul’s view of his own experience here. It is made more unreasonable by how Paul does speak about being appeared to, of Jesus being bodily, as I’ve shared above. The timing scholars give us would be off as well. Most date Paul’s conversion to what, 36 AD at the latest, and 2 Corinthians to 55/56, where Paul writes that the third heaven experience happened “14 years ago” (12:2), putting that at 41/42.

Nobody asks witnesses in court to recite a historia or give an exhaustive chronology; they do expect them not to contradict each other if they expect to be believed.

But disbelieving them on details that aren’t agreed upon is different then disbelieving that the said event itself happened. Many sources agree the earliest Christians experienced appearances of a post-mortem Jesus whether or not they disagree on some specific details of some specific appearances or their chronological relationship.

I'm not sure myself until you try to do it. If you don't try to explain away Paul talking of what he thinks is fact (or anyone else as writing something 'spiritual' -which I say means symbolic/metaphorical rather than factual) then I won't have to contest that.

‘Spiritual’ in 1 Corinthians is pneumatikos and is contrasted against psychikos, from psyche, meaning “soul” and often translated as ‘natural’. Paul is contrasting the soul-ish body that humans have (like but different from animals, plants, stars, moons, etc.) to the spiritual body of the resurrection. Spiritual here is a contrast of orientation. Look at earlier in this same letter, 1 Cor 2:14-16:

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

Paul, in 1 Cor 15, is teaching about a real resurrection body that will, factually, be spiritual/pneumatikos rather than natural/psychikos.

Yes, the original story preached a resurrected Jesus, but was it a solid body one? If so, where is it? It isn't in the gospels ,because they contradict each other, fatally.

Which verses in the gospel accounts teach a non-bodily resurrection?

This looks like an attempt to “argue” for your position without having to argue for your position. The author of John mentions Mary telling Peter and John, which puts us after that part in the Synoptics. Why couldn’t John have chosen to leave that out? Why is it important to his intentions to have the angel scene? Perhaps he knew everyone was aware of it. Perhaps it came from sources not his own.

That sounds like you using dismissal of negative evidence to sidestep a problem. Sorry John not having an angelic message means there originally wasn't one and 'it got left out/hadn't heard it/didn't think it important' is wearing very thin as an excuse even if it had any credibility originally. Of course he might have left it out because he didn't want Jesus going to Galilee and the disciples following him there. But that, if it might be a good explanation, it is one that doesn't do him much credit.

Have you just defeated your own claim that John not having an angelic message means it wasn’t originally there by saying “of course he might have left it out because…”? If so, then drop it and then support why your “because” is any better than the other options I’ve offered.

If not, then perhaps you just mean you think the best conclusion is that it wasn’t originally there. If so, then we’ve had a say on that and this isn’t adding anything new for consideration, so we should just let our previous posts stand there as to why you believe what you do and I believe what I do.

Because Philo mentions Pilate - in some detail. Jesus had to have slipped under the radar as a teacher let alone miracle worker for Philo to have ignored the fact that Pilate executed a celebrated Rabbi. But then, I don't think he mentioned the Baptist either, though Josephus does, so you could have a good explanation there.

Okay, so I think we agree here?

[nobspeople]

No, they are not. I said eyewitnesses. Paul was not an witness to a resurrection claim. He had a later vision, like many claim to have even now. And the other alleged accounts are definitely written by someone, or more... But we have no clue who the author(s) even were; and what they even witnessed themselves?

The early saying passed down to Paul was made by the original disciples who were eyewitnesses. Paul was an eyewitness to that fact and an eyewitness to his own post-mortem appearance which he equates to theirs. Paul distinguished between these appearances and later visions. The disciples accepted Paul as one of them. He speaks of being an apostle because he saw Jesus. He claims there was light and a voice that affected other people.

Again I say, we do not have Paul here to question.

You accept his claims on faith.

Face it, you suffer so much faithbelieve you couldn't tell a fact from a frog, if the frog was him aribbiting when ya tried.

You've accepted biblical tales on faith.

Not on fact.

You've not put you one bit of confirmable, undeniable fact to any of this ressurrection business.

I wonder why some believers are so adamant to find and or construct 'facts' on things when a simple belief would suffice? No one can take away one's belief without the believer allowing it. And while one can ignore facts (or lack of), this would still show them, deep down, they're wrong.
So just believe.
Don't try to fabricate facts; don't try to contort things into facts; don't try to convince others (unsuccessfully it seems). Just take it on faith. That's what christianity is supported by: faith.

The more one argues something that's based on faith is factual, it makes me wonder how strong their faith actually is. Which, to me, is a good thing: the more weak faithful we have, the quicker others will see their belief is likely bunk.

[bluegreenearth]

What do you mean “reliably demonstrable in reality”?

Objectively distinguishable from the strictly imaginary or conceptual.