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.

[brunumb]

An interesting take on how some Christians believe how the information of who they once were, is stored by a God and retrieved at a later date. Downloads and uploads.

I wonder which version of a person they think will get retrieved. In a lifetime there are countless versions of each person, changing on a daily basis. Who we are now can be significantly different from who we were five years ago, ten years ago, and so on. I wonder what versions of themselves and their current family and their ancestors and everyone else, people believing in a resurrection are expecting. The logistics of it all just boggles the mind.

[William]

An interesting take on how some Christians believe how the information of who they once were, is stored by a God and retrieved at a later date. Downloads and uploads.

I wonder which version of a person they think will get retrieved. In a lifetime there are countless versions of each person, changing on a daily basis. Who we are now can be significantly different from who we were five years ago, ten years ago, and so on. I wonder what versions of themselves and their current family and their ancestors and everyone else, people believing in a resurrection are expecting. The logistics of it all just boggles the mind.

I think when it comes to versions, most would agree to like the idea of when they were in their prime, since human vanity is a thing.

Perhaps it will be a matter of all versions, and if you feel like being a baby about something, then you transform into a baby for the duration...


...or if you don't feel like going for a hike, you can transform into an elderly version and put your feet up.



Maybe you could download the life of Jesus from the God-Storage Facility and get to experience first-hand what he did?

Come to think of it, why all this fuss about judging and condemning when you could just implant "The Jesus Story" into any individual and have them go through the same experience, and earn your "right of passage" that way?

Vastly economic, especially if you could hook up millions of souls at a time and put them all through the Jesus program simultaneously...

[TRANSPONDER]

That is flawlessly logical, but there is a problem. It is a logical default to say that if your car keys or wallet go missing, you misplaced or dropped them or - less likely but possible (as we know such things happen) - somebody stole them. What is not a valid claim let alone not logical is that a leprechaun turned them into chocolate prawns.

I will propose, for the sake of the discussion, that the leprechaun turning keys into chocolate prawns explanation does not describe a logical impossibility despite it being highly implausible. However, it is an explanation which describes a type of thing that is strictly imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. If someone were to demonstrate the existence of a leprechaun who turns keys into chocolate prawns, then this type of logical possibility would be accepted as a demonstrable possibility for it to justifiably serve as a candidate explanation.

So on the face of it 'miracles don't happen' and thus a miraculous resurrection is not a valid possibility.

Again, for the sake of the discussion, a proposed miraculous event is not necessarily a logical impossibility unless it describes a logical impossibility (e.g. God creates a square circle). However, a proposed logically possible miracle is a strictly imaginary one until demonstrated otherwise.

But that doesn't work with the Jesus claim because his resurrection was a one -off and because such things don't normally happen, his resurrection was proof of his divinity. So the logic is not so much that it couldn't happen (because resurrections don't) but it didn't happen, because there is no good reason to believe it really happened.

It seems we are almost on the same page here. However, I stop short of defending the conclusion that it didn't happen because the claim of a miraculous resurrection is unfalsifiable at present. Furthermore, what qualifies a reason as "good" is often a matter of someone's subjective opinion. Therefore, it seems to be more objective to withhold belief in the unfalsifiable claim of a miraculous resurrection until that type of event can be demonstrated to occur in reality.

But the believer will say with some merit that this singular and uncommon event DID happen because four separate persons at the time recorded i,t and if you believe the historical accounts of Lincoln or Washington, you have to believe Jesus and the reported accounts of the resurrection.

The difference between the gospel accounts of Jesus and the accounts of Lincoln or Washington is that the accounts of Lincoln or Washington do not describe any types of things or events which have not also been demonstrated to exist or occur in reality. While it is not currently possible to travel back in time to directly observe George Washington cross the Delaware River in a boat with several other American soldiers, for instance, we can justifiably infer the event plausibly occurred because the ability of men to construct boats and use them to cross the Delaware River is demonstrable in reality. Had the account described Washington and his soldiers flying on brooms across the Delaware River, it would not be justifiable to infer the event had plausibly occurred until someone succeeds in demonstrating it is possible to fly across a river on a broom.

That is why the debate has been about the reliability of the resurrection - claim and it comes down to:

(a) can we believe that the stories are eyewitness reports and reliable?

If the types of things and events being described cannot be demonstrated to exist or occur in reality, then those aspects of the accounts are not reliable even if everything else they describe are determined to be 100% reliable. Consider a scenario where four doctors who graduated at the top of their classes from the most prestigious medical schools are working at the same hospital and each write a paper describing their experience treating the same cancer patient who fully recovered. In addition to explaining how a variety of demonstrable treatment methods functioned to help this patient recover, the four papers independently attest that the recovery process immediately began after they observed an extra-terrestrial spaceship hovering in the sky above the hospital one evening. Now, despite the credibility of the doctors, the only demonstrably possible explanation for their patient's recovery is the treatment methods they described because the extra-terrestrial spaceship claim has yet to be demonstrated as a viable treatment option for cancer patients outside anyone's imagination. So, while everything else in the accounts is highly reliable, the part about the spaceship is highly unreliable.

Yes, but we are in the (hypothetical position of four doitors dealing with a patient who had lost an arm. One says that aliens in a spaceship can regrow his arm and the arm is recorded by all four as duly regrowing.

Do we believe the claim because it is sworn to by all the doctors or rejected on the grounds that arms don't regrow, so it couldn't have happened, no matter who reports that it did? There is a case for treating the claim seriously (though the alien regrowing could be repeated - the analogy isn't perfect).

But if all four doctors told a different story about the arm growing back - we'd be justified in doubting it. That's my point. The Act (miracle or not) can't be dismissed on that grounds (or those) but could be on the basis of unsafe witness testimony.

[The Tanager]

Step A: What kind of belief is this?

1. What is the standard with which we judge the belief?

Yes you have shifted the burden. You have asserted that the body was placed into a grave, or a tomb. I'm asking how you know? Or, is your speculation the same as mine? Please remember how this can go....

If you are RIGHT, and the body was handed over, then you still have much more to go.... If the Body was never handed over, then GAME OVER.

Your argument is that Jews always followed such laws, while at the same time, also admitting I'm right; that Romans did indeed hang rotting bodies to make an example of them. Thus, what documentation do we have, to confirm that Jesus' body was indeed removed from the cross, and placed into an empty tomb that night?

Please remember, your believed upon {extraordinary story line} depends on this 'fact', prior to moving on to the next claim. Can you prove it?

The only way you should think that I’ve shifted the burden is if you think the standard we should judge our beliefs by is 100% certainty and you think I think the standard should be the same. If this is the case, then you are mistaken because I don’t think 100% certainty is the standard we should use as rational human beings.

If you agree that the standard is not certainty but what is most reasonable, then I have not shifted the burden. I have given the reasons I think Jesus’ burial is the most reasonable position to take here. I have not simply asserted this is true unless someone else can prove otherwise. If you could prove Jesus’ body was handed over, then, of course, that would be game over but you can’t and I’m not asking you to. I’m asking you to show that Jesus’ body not being handed over is the most reasonable position to take. I will pick this back up in the next section/post.


2. Is history able to reach this standard?



3. How do we decide what is historically reliable?

Are you asking how we decide what is reliable from antiquity alone, or from more modern history as well?

Since the claim is from antiquity, if there are different methods, then we should use the ones that speak to analyzing ancient history.

You have misunderstood the explanation. My default position is that a proposed logical possibility is strictly imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. If a logically possible thing or event is proposed as an explanation for something, then demonstrating this type of logically possible thing or event can exist or occur in reality rather than only in my imagination will falsify the default position that the proposed logical possibility is strictly imaginary. A proposed logical possibility that is not demonstrable has no value as a candidate explanation for me to know it could be anything more than an imagined logical possibility.

So, my default position regarding the proposed supernatural resurrection of Jesus as a logically possible candidate explanation for the NT accounts is that this type of event is strictly imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. A demonstration of a supernatural resurrection would falsify my default position and compel me to consider this type of event as a demonstrably possible candidate explanation for the NT accounts.

That makes sense. I have proposed a demonstration that, if true, would lead to it most reasonably having existed in reality rather than in imagination. The type of demonstration I’ve proposed is falsifiable in the ways I gave.

The demonstration I gave is the attempt to respond to your “until demonstrated otherwise”. And you seem to be saying that you aren’t asking me to prove a supernatural resurrection occurred prior to me proving Jesus’ particular supernatural resurrection occurred, so I don’t see what the problem, in general approach, is here.


Also, do you have the reasoning to back up the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?”

[The Tanager]

Step B: What are the historical facts?

(1) Why isn’t the specific evidence I shared enough to convince you that Jesus existed?


(2) Or why do you not think Jesus’ tomb was empty?

Okay, so we are back to what I stated prior; for which you seemed to skip right over. Your argument is that Jews followed these laws. In the OT alone, we have 613 Commandments. How many of these rules did all Jews follow, all the time? I bet it is under 100% of the time, right? Assuming you agree, then again, HOW do you know the Jews followed this specific law, this specific time? If you are over 50%, then I would like to know WHY you think so? Thus far, your only argument, is that war was not in place. For which I could just as easily as counter... Maybe the Romans refused to hand over Jesus' body, to make a spectacle of him; about what not to do. Blasphemy is/was a crime worthy of death. The ones claiming blasphemy are not going to apply respect to the now dead 'blasphemer'.

X: Why is it NOT reasonable to instead assume that the Romans would not allow Jesus' body to be handed over to the Jews?

Y: Or, that the Jews ignored this law because they were either a) afraid of retaliation themselves, b) no longer thought he was the real deal after he died, c) all his followers fled the scene, for which all to remain were indifferent bystanders, d) other?

The Jewish leaders believed God told them to bury their dead, even criminals. The Roman law books that speak of allowing the local Jews to follow their laws in times of peace. Pilate was feeling political pressure to keep the peace with the Jews following his previous actions with them that resulted in near rebellions.

The Romans had no reason, especially with the Passover feast and tons of Jews in the city, to try to go against the Jewish laws and keep the body of a man that the crowd there was against, Jesus’ disciples having largely fled. I don’t see what kind of retaliation the Jews would have to fear here. The ones calling for Jesus’ death didn’t think Jesus was the real deal. His followers did flee the scene, and some bystanders were probably indifferent.

If you admit it would strengthen the claim, that "Jesus' body was given back to the Jews", why is it not necessary that we have external sources?

What reason would non-Christian sources have to record the handing over of the specific body of Jesus? It makes sense to have general accounts of the process if the law was important to Jews and allowing the Jewish people to follow some of their own laws was important to Rome and we have sources for both of these.

I reiterate that realising that Mark's gospel ended with the empty tomb explained why the resurrection accounts differed so much - there had never been anything other than the empty tomb, and that wasn't good enough so they each one fabricated contradictory tales which would not, I bet my pension, stand up in court but would see the evangelic witnesses thrown into the street with a perjury charge each.

Mark’s gospel clearly views Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, of being divine, it has Jesus predicting his death and resurrection as one of the central themes (with its repetition), ties his death to being a “ransom for many” (10:45), and has a man say Jesus was risen. I don’t see how it makes any sense to think the author was saying there was nothing other than the empty tomb. The account ends with the women being told to tell others but being afraid but, obviously, they told someone because this gospel was written after the Christian sect had already took off. It makes more sense the author is trying to face his audience with the question of whether they will tell others or not in spite of their fear or some message like that. On top of that, we have the early tradition Paul quotes that already speaks of appearances of a risen Jesus.


(3) Or why do you think the disciples didn’t claim to have post-mortem appearances of Jesus?

What about 1 Corinthians 15 appears credible/reasonable, in the attestation of claimed eyewitnesses to a post-mortem Jesus?

Remember the fact here is that Jesus’ disciples claimed to have post-mortem appearances. This passage is a tradition handed down to Paul when he converted to Christianity, which causes scholars to usually date it to within 2-5 years of Jesus’ crucifixion. This tradition directly claims post-mortem appearances of Jesus to Peter/Cephas, the twelve, then 500, then James, then all the apostles. It seems pretty straightforward to me.


(4) Or what do you see as the origin of the Christian movement

Then you need to rephrase your question. You asked me what was the origin of the "Christian movement." Prior to Constantine, it was nothing more than a secret underground belief, with few followers; just like many others passed and present. The movement came after Constantine. This is when the religion took off.

I cannot foresee what everyone else understands certain terms to mean. Neither can you be expected to know what I mean or be expected to act the right questions that I will then understand to mean we have two different concepts in mind with a term. All I ask is that we remain open to clarifying ourselves to each other.

But regardless, I have to ask, is how fast and how many people believe, what makes something true? If so, then maybe Islam is more correct? It started 700 years later,spread quickly, and already has almost as many followers as Christianty. Many of whom are willing to die for their beliefs.

Do we even need to feed this line of argumentation anymore???

That is not my line of argumentation. Remember that the fact here is that the earliest Christians preached a risen Jesus; they claimed Jesus resurrected. Not that Jesus resurrected but they claimed he did. All of the earliest evidence we have presents this as the original Christian claim. It has nothing to do with how fast the belief spread and how many people believed it. It was large enough to face persecution from Jewish and Roman sources.

The part about being willing to die for their beliefs also seems misunderstood here. It’s not about being willing to die for a belief one has, that is common enough, but about being willing to die for something one knows to be a lie. This affects the conspiracy theories that posit the disciples lied about the resurrection and then were willing to die for lies they told. Other theories (there was an actual resurrection but also the disciples were tricked by others or hallucinated things, etc.) can make sense of this.

[The Tanager]

Step C: What is the best, good explanation of these facts?

1. There was a conspiracy to make it appear Jesus resurrected, when he really didn’t.


2. Jesus didn’t really die, appearing to the disciples later having never died or resurrected.

So, your claim that Jesus was using another body rests on one of the appearances. The rest do not show that same confusion.

"The rest" are versions of a similar storyline. That there is notable difference is all the more reason to include the possibility that Jesus had a new body.

They aren’t versions of a similar storyline. The appearances occur to different people and have different things going on. Only one of them has people not recognizing Jesus will calmly interacting with him. The others don’t speak of the body being a reason to not recognize Jesus and that it’s still the same body with the same scars is a part of some.

No they do not inform us of that at all. What information do we have which shows us that the Eternal Spirit dies when the body it was using, dies?

I wasn’t saying the eternal spirit dies. I meant that Jesus was tied to a fleshly body and the texts say Jesus died and was bodily resurrected.

So the God in the Garden story implied [did X] that eating the forbidden fruit would kill Adam and Eve, but as we read further, we see that it was not that which killed them. It was them being prevented from eating the fruit of life which made them "surely die", eventually.

That is too wooden of a reading. It ignores that death could have been referring to spiritual death instead of or as well as the loss of immortality. It also allows no poetic aspect to writing a story. There is no reason to think that God couldn’t have meant that their rebellion would have to have a natural consequence of cutting them off from the tree of life out of love for creation as a whole. The text doesn’t have to just list the facts to be true, something like: “If you eat this fruit, you will die because I’ll have to cut you off from the tree of life.” Them eating the fruit did lead to death, which was later spoken of through cutting off their access from the tree of life.

The question then becomes something along the lines of "When a God withholds pertinent information about the truth of something, [thus lying according to your standard] is the God doing anything sinful?"

I don’t think you’ve established that any pertinent information was withheld there. It wouldn’t make sense that the author was trying to say that.

Jesus' mission was to infiltrate the Human Experience working with common Human beliefs, in order to seed more desirable Human-based creations into The Spirit [immaterial] World than the ones which Humans were by and large creating for themselves to experience in the next phase of their existence.

Yet Jesus, in the texts, goes against common beliefs of the humans of his day on numerous occasions, so why confront in those areas but allow these disciples to believe the lie of a resurrection?

According to you, you believe the Bible teaches a creation of spiritual beings distinct from God and prior to humans. You believe the Biblical teaching to be correct because of the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the Biblical documents concerning Jesus’ teachings, and His teachings being that the Bible speaks truth.
You think one who believes in the existence of Angels and Demons prior to the Material Universe, is more reasonable because they are taught in the Bible, which you trust because of what you call "Jesus’ view of the Bible".

Are you therefore saying that you could be wrong about that. Are you saying that Satan might be something of an historical fiction?

Of course it’s a possibility. This argument here does not rely on an “all-or-nothing” approach to the Bible, to the historical sources we are looking at. If you disagree with me on those things, it doesn’t matter for this argument.

Jesus [in the text] clearly does inform us that he is an Eternal Spirit who incarnated into a Human form.

That text informs us that he spoke often of his prior existence. That information has to be the focus - something not to be laid to one side and not included as part of your four points. Everything Jesus said and did has to be traced back to that source information he gave us re his prior existence.

I never said Jesus didn’t claim to be eternal. He did. What I am questioning is what you seem to mean by calling it a human “form,” given the beliefs you’ve shared with me there.

3. Jesus’ disciples simply went to the wrong tomb and jumped to the conclusion that he resurrected.


4. Jesus’ body lay in a temporary tomb, then was moved, the disciples visited the empty temporary tomb and jumped to the conclusion that he was resurrected.


5. Later Christians made up the resurrection, empty tomb, and appearances.


6.The disciples had hallucinations that they interpreted to mean Jesus was resurrected.


7. There is some unknown naturalistic explanation for these facts.


8. Jesus supernaturally resurrected.


9. Joseph and Pilate conspired together to save Jesus from death and then his disciples found the tomb empty and, together with hallucinations of Jesus, interpreted this as Jesus being resurrected. James and Paul later also experienced hallucinations of Jesus and joined the movement.

To repeat what I have already said; the empty tomb is the last thing they agree on. The women visit, sure, but John has no angelic message. That's a serious discrepancy and never mind whether there was one angel or two or which were inside and which out….

I have said that I’m not making my case on all of those details being true or the gospels being completely accurate. The third fact is that various disciples, a non-believer, and an enemy of the movement claimed to experience post-mortem appearances of Jesus. Whether people got the details wrong, knew about the other claims of appearances, etc. doesn’t matter. What you say doesn’t contradict this as a fact.

The fourth fact is that the earliest Christians preached a risen Jesus. All of the Gospels, Paul, the tradition Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15 handed down to him, and non-Christian sources that speak about Christianity affirm they preached a risen Jesus. Whether people got the details wrong, knew about the other claims of appearances, etc. doesn’t matter. What you say doesn’t contradict this as a fact.

I think it does. John not mentioning the feet is easily explained - it is one of those things that John didn't think important. Jesus can lift up his hands and then direct attention to the wound in his side. The feet hardly matter.

Like other conspiracy theories, yours is picking and choosing details to accept and details to reject based solely on fitting it into the theory, which is ad hoc.

I have seen Christian apologists invent more complex conspiracies in postulating spies and informants to explain how the gospel -writers knew private details of Pharisee or Sadducee discussions.

I haven’t said that, though, so this is irrelevant to our discussion.

It is far from ad hoc. And even if it was, that wouldn't of itself make the suggestion invalid,

...

What do you mean by 'six categories'? Where did I say that you wanted to focus on just one?

I was responding to your comment that something being ad hoc “wouldn’t of itself make the suggestion invalid”. I agree that something being ad hoc alone doesn’t negate it from being a part of the best explanation. But as an ad hoc addition, it weakens the overall theory. The six categories refers to how historians judge historical claims: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad-hocness, disconfirmation, and exceeding alternatives.

And ad hoc does mean made up at that moment Which is not what I do. What you say I do (I don't - I look at the entire text, though of course I can't explain the whole thing in one go) is cherry -picking. A different Fallacy. Get your terms right.

Ad hoc literally means “to/for this,” where there isn’t much independent reason to believe something is true, instead it seems concocted simply because it fits the conclusion one is arguing for. For example, if one doesn’t have arguments behind God’s existence, then the existence of God is ad-hoc for the resurrection theory.

Cherry picking texts seems to be one way to make a theory more ad hoc. In cherry-picking, you have decided to offer some details in support of your theory simply because they fit your theory not because of other independent reasons. You argue against the reliability of the texts except for in those cases where the text supports your theory; those you seem to just go ahead and accept as true.

I'd be interested to see your support for the Sanhedrin personally burying a corpse with their own hands, especially just before the Sabbath, even if they had condemned Jesus. That it was a Roman crucifixion, carried out by Romans, is hardly to be doubted. But if the Sanhedrin felt responsible, all they had to do is stand with Arimathea and let the women put the bod into the tomb. They would remain undefiled. Remember that Arimathea hadn't consented to the condemnation (Luke 23.50), so you'd have have him taking on the responsibility of a condemnation he didn't agree with, defiling himself for the convenience of the Sanhedrin. Who was talking about complicated conspiracy -theories?.

I didn’t say it had to be by their own hands. It is clear from their texts that they felt they were responsible for it, however they accomplished it.

Gladly. I have touched on this before. For one thing John has no Sanhedrin trial. Jesus was taken to the house of Caiaphas (over on the west wall) where his father in Law Annas questioned him. There is no formal condemnation and no trial (which would be in the stone camber of the Temple precinct on the other side of the city) but he is taken by Caiaphas straight to Pilate and the charge is claiming to be King of the Jews.

Why do you think we should take John’s account over the others?

The blasphemy charge is purely in the synoptics and makes no sense. Claiming to be a messiah is not blasphemy to Jews, even if they think the claim nonsense. It would only look like it to a Christian who equates 'messiah' with a divine being and begotten son of God. which is Blasphemy to Jews. I have already said that the Romans did this execution and Roman it clearly was, even if Matthew (with the hand -washing) tried to make Pilate pass the responsibility onto the Jews. An episode that (of course) we see no -where else. Do you wish to talk about this further?

The synoptics don’t say the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy simply because he claims to be the messiah. Mark 14:61-64 reads:

“But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.”

Jesus says he is the “Son of the Blessed” and speaks of sitting at God’s right hand.

I don't think you get my point. I agree that the gospels misrepresent Pilate so their agenda works. Pilate (representing Rome) didn't Really kill Jesus. He was pushed into it by the Sanhedrin (representing the Jews) therefore (the gospel message is) is was the Jews, not Rome who really killed Jesus. And yes, they had to make Pilate a weak man so that would work. I think we agree here. And it not really unfalsifiable; it has evidence to support what the gospel - writers are doing. It is more the best explanation that fits the facts.

What evidence? You admit the texts say something else, so it isn’t textual evidence. It seems to be based on speculation about what may be the truth behind the evidence we have.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll try to deal with all points, but let's sort this ad hoc thing.

Definition of ad hoc (Entry 1 of 2)
: for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application
The decisions were made ad hoc. (Merriam - Webster)

I'd always taken the term as meaning made up on the spur of the moment, without much previous thought. That is not the case with how or what I argue.

But I suppose one could apply it to meaning a focus on one aspect without wider consideration. Rather like what I called 'Cherry - picking'. Very well, but I don't do that either. I ignore irrelevancies like what early Christians are supposed to have believed about the resurrection. I have already given evidence that the record of these (Paul's) does not match the gospels and evidently refers to visionary appearances, that is, imaginary. They do not refer to the solid - body resurrection stories which, as I have argued, contradict so badly, that they do not stand up as a reliable record.

Would you agree that the ad hoc accusation is not a valid or fair one?

[TRANSPONDER]

William
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:04 pm
I don't think you get my point. I agree that the gospels misrepresent Pilate so their agenda works. Pilate (representing Rome) didn't Really kill Jesus. He was pushed into it by the Sanhedrin (representing the Jews) therefore (the gospel message is) is was the Jews, not Rome who really killed Jesus. And yes, they had to make Pilate a weak man so that would work. I think we agree here. And it not really unfalsifiable; it has evidence to support what the gospel - writers are doing. It is more the best explanation that fits the facts.

What evidence? You admit the texts say something else, so it isn’t textual evidence. It seems to be based on speculation about what may be the truth behind the evidence we have.

The evidence of history that shows that Pilate was not the weak appeaser that the gospels represent him to be. Why do the gospels do this? Now you may say that it is speculative, but you should not do either ad hoc or cherry -picking. You have to consider the wider material, such as the textual evidence that it was a Roman crucifixion and the Gospels make efforts to shift the blame to the Jews, Matthew even having Pilate washing his hands and telling the Jews to see to the execution themselves. Which they don't. It is Romans doing it and Matthew has the Jews going to Pilate to ask for a tomb -guard.

This is textual evidence that (taken with evidence of Josephus and Philo (I think it was Philo) that the gospel -writers have an agenda here - to shift the blame from Rome to the Jews and misrepresenting Pilate is part of the evidence.
Now, I have previously seen a ploy of dismissing my evidence while asking for some and calling it my belief, or as you say, speculation. But can you explain why Pilate is made to look like a weak man when the histories show this not to be the case? Especially when the efforts to lame Jewry for a Roman execution are so plain?

I have explained it, though it is, I agree a hypothesis. But it explains the evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

What are the historical facts?

Scant.

Why isn’t the specific evidence I shared enough to convince you that Jesus existed?

You fail to establish Jesus was the product of a union between a woman and a god, how such a union may work (sexually or otherwise), and that gods can hybridize with humans.

Until such can be shown to be true and factual, Jesus' existence can't be shown to be anything other'n the ponderous ponderings of a ponderer.

[TRANSPONDER]

Tanager (sorry, it wasn't William's post but Tanager)
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:04 pm
To repeat what I have already said; the empty tomb is the last thing they agree on. The women visit, sure, but John has no angelic message. That's a serious discrepancy and never mind whether there was one angel or two or which were inside and which out….

I have said that I’m not making my case on all of those details being true or the gospels being completely accurate. The third fact is that various disciples, a non-believer, and an enemy of the movement claimed to experience post-mortem appearances of Jesus. Whether people got the details wrong, knew about the other claims of appearances, etc. doesn’t matter. What you say doesn’t contradict this as a fact.

The fourth fact is that the earliest Christians preached a risen Jesus. All of the Gospels, Paul, the tradition Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15 handed down to him, and non-Christian sources that speak about Christianity affirm they preached a risen Jesus. Whether people got the details wrong, knew about the other claims of appearances, etc. doesn’t matter. What you say doesn’t contradict this as a fact.

What I argued about the Resurrection appearances is that they are so contradictory that they cannot be trusted as a reliable report of what happened. I already commented that Paul's listing of the resurrection appearances are demonstrably NOT the ones we read in the Gospels. And Paul equates those with his own vision.

The Christians after that of course preached a resurrection based on what had been written into the gospels and non - Christian sources will repeat that. That in no way attests to the accuracy of those beliefs. For that we must go to the basis material - the resurrection stories and Paul on resurrection appearances. And I argue that they don't support a solid -body resurrection -claim. Paul because it is visionary and the Gospels because they are utterly contradictory.