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.

[POI]

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.

I already addressed this....

I cannot 'prove' he was not handed over. Just like you cannot prove that he was. It's 50/50, at best... Except that if I'm wrong, we still have a LONG ways to go to get to a man rising from the grave. Where-as, if you are wrong, game over. There would be just as much reason to conclude His body was later chucked into an unmarked ditch, for the reasons I already gave prior:

1. One can logically assume Jews did not always follow all 613+ laws.
2. All followers scattered, and any Jews who remained were afraid to ask for the body; for fear of their own life - (being associated with a blasphemer).
3. If the Romans really wanted Him dead, and thought He was a false god, maybe they wanted Him to hang there for all to see; for an extended period of time, as an example of what not to try.
4. Maybe there were no Jews there to observe this law; at this time and day.

[POI]

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.

Well, I do not trust the Bible's account. The Bible lists many things, for which I see in error. And this is all you admittedly have... If Jesus was such an influence, seems as though more would have been written about Him, and everything He was seen to do. Seems as though more, or at least even some, independent journalism would take place. I mean, it was said He was born of a virgin!, He healed the sick!, He raised the dead!, etc., sometimes in front of many. No one thought to journal His life? No one thought to journal His last days? Especially when many thought He was coming back?

I guess it's a darn good thing He did all of this in the age of antiquity. Where virtually all were illiterate, and must rely upon unfettered and unfiltered oral tradition. This way, we can play the speculation game forever, and ultimately rely upon 'faith' and 'faith' alone to conclude that a "man rose from a grave"

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.

Investigative reporting... If Jesus was known to many, believers and unbelievers alike, reporters might still gather to account for what happened during his days of capture. The fact we have none, means that maybe their really wasn't anything special, until after the legend took hold, much later.

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.

But this account does not demonstrate 500+ actual eyewitnesses, by definition. Paul merely regurgitated what was given to him, via oral tradition.

It was large enough to face persecution from Jewish and Roman sources.

Blasphemy was punishable by death. Jesus was killed for blasphemy. Just like others. People were also killed for being witches too. Does this mean they were really witched?

[TRANSPONDER]

The Tanager

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:04 pm
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.

If I get your point correctly, then you appear to be relying on the Gospel text for information on how the Sanhedrin felt. Pardon me, the Gospels are not friendly towards the Sanhedrin and I would not trust their claims about the Sanhedrin and how they felt. Specifically, IF we can credit there was a trial and crucifixion at all ... From all I read in history (Josephus) the Romans were not in the habit of trying people they crucified... then the gospels are dubious in their claim that the Sanhedrin tried Jesus and foisted a charge on him, that they really coerced Pilate into crucifying Jesus when he thought he was innocent or that they felt in any way responsible for burying him.

It strikes me that even if they had said (at some time or other) 'We got him executed - we'll have to see to the burial' and they accepted Arimathea's offer to do it, we are still in the same position; Arimathea could put into operation a plan to save Jesus and first thing go to Pilate to put it to him and Pilate (regretting that he was bullied into executing Jesus) will agree and his soldiers will co - operate.

Saying that it was the business of the Sanhedrin (rather than the women) to see to the burial doesn't solve your problem, quite apart from Arimathea being quite content to let the women do it and so remain undefiled for the Sabbath. Unless he knew Jesus wasn't dead.

Your point gets you nowhere. It still leaves you with a scene that makes sense if the idea is to save Jesus alive. I repeat that I can't at all be sure that the Gospel account is reliable. It isn't trustworthy on very much else. But if one credits the crucifixion, two 'robbers', Arimathea, the wine on a stick and the last thing they all agree on being an empty tomb and the women finding it empty, that (as Matthew says 'the disciples came by night and stole him' - the story he says Jews were telling in his day) is the explanation that best fits the facts. And that the solid -body resurrections are so conflicting that they shout being fabricated testimony, the texual evidence argues for a plan to save Jesus rather than a miracle.

This, I have to say is looking at the whole thing, not just (as I recall JW called it) 'ad hoc' (cherry -picking) concentrating on one aspect of the 6 historical conditions that were spoken of (sorry, I can't recall whether it was JW or yourself, without checking back).

[bluegreenearth]

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?”

Correction: You have NOT demonstrated that a supernatural resurrection can occur in reality. You have merely attempted to argue that a supernatural resurrection is logically possible.

I have not claimed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Extraordinary claims and ordinary claims must be falsifiable and consistently pass all tests designed to acquire the necessary evidence to determine if they are false. Even then, they are only colloquially and tentatively labeled as true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Tanager


(I'm taking points from a couple of different posts of ours)

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?
Because of this business of leaving out something that is important. It is easy for the synoptic version (which is just One source, after all) to turn the slapping about in the High Priests' palace into a formal hearing before the Sanhedrin with a Blasphemy charge foisted on Jesus. It is harder (or it should be) to explain why John left out the formal Sanhedrin hearing. This discrepant story - telling crops up again and again in the gospels and (I argue) what's left out (if it is important) in one gospel should be considered to be added in the other. This is why no mention of the spear -thrust (as well as no wound in the side) says that John added this, and it is not credible that the others do not mention that rather important spear -thrust intended to prove that Jesus was really dead. Which is surely why John added it.

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?

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:10 pm
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. 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 would have agreed with you at one time. I thought that Mark must have described Jesus walking, but the end Got Lost (in fact it is the beginnings of scrolls that get lost, not the ends, protected inside). It was realising that Matthew, Luke and John are so totally contradictory after the empty tomb and women seeing that it was empty that showed me that they had all made their stories up to fulfill a feed for a solid - body resurrection when all they had was a claim that Jesus had risen (and you point out the Gospels had Jesus predicting this) and an empty tomb (true or not) as the evidence. It really isn't enough is it? So Matthew. Luke and John all wrote their inventions and (later on) Christian editors cobbled Matthew and Luke together to provide a couple of 'endings' for Mark.

Your mention of the women running away isn't really relevant, but is interesting. It is the first contradiction of many and may represent the original unsatisfactory ending. You have to invent an alternative yourself and deny what it actually says. They DID say something to others though Mark says they didn't. Not surprising that Matthew, Luke and John thought they had to add different endings as well.

As to the blasphemy charge, You have to compare Mark and the similar Matthew with Luke. He does not say that the 'Son of Man' will come on clouds with power. He does not say that they will see him seated at the right hand of God, but only that he will be seated there. This suggests that the Mark/Matthew material added detail they thought firmed up the blasphemy charge. Even that is not really Blasphemy. They might consider it a false claim. Jesus is not God's Messiah and he will not be snatched up to heaven, but a favoured man being taken up to heaven would not (from all I have read) be blasphemy. Remember that Elijah was supposed to come again and from where other than heaven? And that wasn't blasphemy apparently.

It is only blasphemy in the sense that God had begotten a son and he is a divine being (even if not actually God). But that is a Christian doctrine and not known to the Jews - yet. I may say (again) that we find the same thing in Matthew's nativity where the Magi going to Herod about the 'King of the Jews' is interpreted as messiah and moreover predicted in scripture, rather than some royal or noble pretender that Herod had to worry about. Matthew was bringing Christian ideas to a Jewish scenario right from the start.

But there's more. Look at John's account - don't ad hoc or cherry -pick, look at the whole Gospel text, as I do. John has No Sanhedrin trial and no blasphemy charge. What need have we of further witnesses? Isn't it clear that Christian writers added a Sanhedrin trial so as to pretend that the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus to death and that - though Pilate did a Roman - style execution - somehow it was actually Jewish?

[thomasdixon]

Though it's a bit remote from the Resurrection, it's a nice point..,.,.,.,.

I look at the term “Resurrection” as a metaphor
Definition of metaphor
1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)
broadly : figurative language

This is of course my own personal point of view

[TRANSPONDER]

Though it's a bit remote from the Resurrection, it's a nice point..,.,.,.,.

I look at the term “Resurrection” as a metaphor
Definition of metaphor
1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)
broadly : figurative language

This is of course my own personal point of view

Metaphor? I have to ask, a metaphor of what, exactly?

[JoeyKnothead]

Correction: You have NOT demonstrated that a supernatural resurrection can occur in reality. You have merely attempted to argue that a supernatural resurrection is logically possible.

I have not claimed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Extraordinary claims must be falsifiable and consistently pass all tests designed to acquire the necessary evidence to determine if they are false.

I ain't ever much for the "extraordinary evidence" angle either. If for only me, once a claim is proven true, or false, well there we go.

[TRANSPONDER]

Correction: You have NOT demonstrated that a supernatural resurrection can occur in reality. You have merely attempted to argue that a supernatural resurrection is logically possible.

I have not claimed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Extraordinary claims must be falsifiable and consistently pass all tests designed to acquire the necessary evidence to determine if they are false.

I ain't ever much for the "extraordinary evidence" angle either. If for only me, once a claim is proven true, or false, well there we go.

Yes. I think that is valid. Prove a claim true and it doesn't matter how extraordinary it was. That's why I don't use 'miracles don't happen' as an argument against them.

[The Tanager]

Step A: What kind of belief is this?

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


2. Is history able to reach this standard?


3. How do we decide what is historically reliable?

Correction: You have NOT demonstrated that a supernatural resurrection can occur in reality. You have merely attempted to argue that a supernatural resurrection is logically possible.

I have not attempted to argue that a supernatural resurrection is logically possible. It should be obvious that such a thing is logically possible. My argument is an attempt to show that a supernatural resurrection most probably occurred in reality. Your critique was that it was unfalsifiable. I responded with how it was falsifiable.

I have not claimed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You are correct. I mistakenly lumped POI’s comment there with you. I’m sorry for my confusion there.