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.

[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?

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.

Evidence for the virgin birth is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus’ existence. One could exist without having experienced a virgin birth. It is also irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. If one could resurrect supernaturally, then there is no reason to think they would have to have experienced a virgin birth in order to do so. If anything, the flow of reasoning would go the other way around. If one believes in the historicity of the resurrection and Jesus’ claims to divinity and incarnation, then this would add support to the historicity of the virgin birth.


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

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.

I don’t think it’s 50/50, for the reasons I already shared. I offered textual data of what Jewish and Roman sources said they would legally do. Your textual data concerns active rebellions and the other reasons are purely speculative on what could have happened.

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...

No, that’s not all I had. Yes, the Tanakh first mentions the law for Jews, but I pointed to later texts from non-Christian Jews and a non-Christian Roman source.

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?

Those that did were Christians. Others didn’t believe in him, thought that Christians were crazy. Opponents/Non-believers aren't concerned with chronicling all the details of people they disagree with most of the time. The non-believers that wrote histories do mention Jesus but, of course, they aren’t going to believe all the various stories. If they did, then they would be accused of Christian bias.

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"

It isn’t easy in this modern age to tell truth from fiction a lot of the time with all the talking heads and ease with which information can be faked either. Still, the oral tradition would have had safeguards with the eyewitnesses around and in a culture that prized memory skills and getting the teachings/traditions correct. Jewish people were trained in this from childhood.

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.

The text was from the Talmud, the Mishnah Sanhedrin, not the Gospel text.If you accept there was some kind of trial by the Jewish leaders with the council declaring Jesus guilty (I know you don't but that conversation is elsewhere in our posts), then their own laws say they take responsibility for making sure the criminal is buried the same day not for the sake of the criminal but to keep from defiling the land. Whether Joseph was a Christian, becoming a Christian, became one in the future, or didn't, he could have easily played a role in that.


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

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.

This case isn’t built on trusting all of the details of the resurrection appearances. Assuming contradictions, why would this mean that various people didn’t claim to have appearances?

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.

I did miss responding to this point earlier. I’m sorry for overlooking that. I’m not claiming the tradition Paul uses here matches up perfectly with the appearances used in the Gospels. Writers don’t need to share every appearance they are aware of; they share certain ones in trying to get their message across and from the sources they are working with. And, yes, the nature of Paul’s experience is different from the others but this doesn’t mean he interprets them to have had the same kind of experience he has had. He is passing on a tradition that he received from others (v. 3) and then seems to add himself on at the end, having an experience he believes was of Jesus himself, and in that way like the apostles' experiences, within the context of how his gospel was the same as the apostles (v. 11).

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

The point is that various people claimed to have experienced the appearances to the point where this formulaic saying was produced and passed around, thus supporting the fact that the disciples claimed to have these appearances.


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

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.

The earliest Christians preached it, as attested by the early tradition Paul uses. The Christian movement spread before the gospels were written and non-Christian sources eventually took notice and said this is what Christians were preaching.

Paul immediately talks about the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection in 1 Cor 15, after sharing the tradition and putting himself in with that tradition, saying that without Jesus being raised Christianity is futile. He talks about Jesus bodily undergoing death on a cross in Phil 2:8. The other appearance accounts do not contradict each other on teaching Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

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?

Of course not. I never used such reasoning. I said it helped to support the fact that the earliest Christians claimed Jesus resurrected. That’s all, for this specific point.

[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.


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.

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.

This is pure conspiracy theory speculation, though. We have no textual or historical reasons to think Joseph and Pilate concocted a scheme to save Jesus and then Jesus never returned to his beloved disciples, or lied to them, or went in on a scheme to fool everyone else. It is a view created to avoid the conclusion of the texts.

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).

I said your theory was ad hoc but not because you focused on 1 of the 6 historical conditions. Ad-hocness simply is one of the 6 historical categories used to compare competing theories. The less ad-hoc the better, but the other categories must also be considered.

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?

I think what really matters is that we talk about the same concepts, whatever terms are used to convey them. Most terms have multiple meanings and nuances. I view ad hoc as a more general idea under which many different kinds of things can occur. I definitely don’t think you are making things up on the spur of the moment and I do think you have and are putting thought into your points. We can call my critique of your theory cherry-picking or being a double standard where you argue against the reliability of the Gospels, saying they are basically historically useless, but then will pick out details that support your theory and use those as historically sound.

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 Synoptics, as a whole, are not just one source, if that is what you mean. The synoptic gospels used various sources, some of them shared and some not. As to the point of your critique, you are assuming that everyone would add every detail that they know of and this is simply not how history has ever been written. His purposes aren’t about the Sanhedrin. The other gospel writers could have not thought the spear thrust important to determine Jesus being dead. Even if details such as these were changes, they don’t discredit the four facts my argument is built upon. Neither do some wrong details support your theory over alternative theories, including that the resurrection actually happened.

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.

The blasphemy charge is clear in Luke (22-23) as well. They ask Jesus if he is the Son of God and they interpret Jesus’ answer as admitting that. The rest of Luke’s text also has the Jewish leaders mad at Jesus’ claims to divinity such as at 5:21.

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.

Just because the beliefs are new doesn’t mean later people invented them. What’s the benefit of thinking they were created new at a later date rather than at this date? If there was no Jewish start to Christianity, then why would the Christians invent a Jewish origin story for their beliefs?

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. Well the first problem is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You give any number of possible option - but leave out the ones that the evidence best suggests:

If the accounts of the death and entombment are reliable (the resurrection accounts are not, so forget them as evidence of anything) then Arimathea working a wangle to get Jesus off the tree alive has evidence to support it, and Pilate's soldiers co -operating wouldn't hurt. Or the story might be a fairy tale altogether.

That means that the other options you give don't really come into it.

You do have reasons to suppose that Arimathea's actions were intended to get Jesus off the cross alive and to get him into the tomb double quick without the women twigging anything. That Pilate wanted to release Jesus, Arimathea went to talk to him and the soldiers acted like nothing was amiss, is evidence that you have to dismiss and ignore in order to suggest there wasn't collusion. What happened after the tomb was found empty is demonstrably fabricated and so counts for nothing. If Jesus returned to Galilee dead or alive, the disciples would know about it, but of course the Christians wouldn't want to, which is why the gospels end abruptly with the empty tomb and let people jump to the (pump -primed) conclusion that Jesus rose and walked.

That you dismiss this merely means that you will reject anything other than what you want to believe.

I am at a loss to know what argument you are trying to make with 'ad- hocdness'. If you have an argument, state it and I'll consider it. You won't of course consider the cheat of 'Oh..you don't understand the terms of historicity - method, therefore I win..' You are better than that.

You missed my two options. I remind you - I once used to think that the gospels were roughly reliable regarding the crucifixion and at least Jesus appearing after that, though clearly the resurrection - appearance stories contradicted badly. It is still possible that some of the details of the crucifixion are true, the nails, the wine on a stick, Arimathea's intervention, the early collapse. On the other hand, it could all be invented, in which case we have to look elsewhere for an explanation. I trust that you now see that I am not contradicting myself - either explanation is possible - and more likely than any of the options you put in your initial point.

The synoptics clearly share one original source. The blocks of common wording shows that there was an original 'synoptic gospel' which they all use. However, equally clearly, they have all added to it - including Mark, which is Not the original synoptic version.

I doubt that any Reasonable person would see your desperate attempt to wave away the omission of the spear -thrust as 'not important' as no more than the frantic efforts of a Believer to avoid the conclusion that the spear thrust was an invention of John's unknown to Mark, Matthew and Luke, and is there presumably to squash any suggestions that Jesus might not actually have been dead.

You miss (or evade) my point about Luke's Sanhedrin trial. Of course he says it is enough to condemn, but
(a) he does not mention coming on clouds or the Sanhedrin seeing this, contradicting Mark and Matthew, but

(b) it is even less a blasphemy charge than in Mark and Matthew, only Christians (knowing that Jesus is supposed to be divine) would understand it as blasphemous in Judaism And of course, John has no such trial.

To give your next point in full -
Just because the beliefs are new doesn’t mean later people invented them. What’s the benefit of thinking they were created new at a later date rather than at this date? If there was no Jewish start to Christianity, then why would the Christians invent a Jewish origin story for their beliefs?

This looks like wild flailing about.

Nobody is suggesting that Mark, Matthew and Luke or even the writer of the Synoptic original invented the Greek Christian offspring of God, but somebody had to, and after Paul who surely thought Jesus a man and not a demi -god. The Synoptics merely copied that idea and late enough that they'd forgotten that a Messiah was not blasphemy to Jews, That suggests that a later date is what we have. No - one is suggesting a benefit as though a conspiracy is being suggested. Your 'Jewish start to Christianity' is of no use to your argument. Sure, the Messiah, Crucifixion and indeed a Pharisee -Resurrection -belief was what Paul got from the followers of Jesus. But he did not believe that Jesus was divine, let alone God in nature. It took Greek Christians to take that step.

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 7:35 am
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.
(you wrote:)
I did miss responding to this point earlier. I’m sorry for overlooking that. I’m not claiming the tradition Paul uses here matches up perfectly with the appearances used in the Gospels. Writers don’t need to share every appearance they are aware of; they share certain ones in trying to get their message across and from the sources they are working with. And, yes, the nature of Paul’s experience is different from the others but this doesn’t mean he interprets them to have had the same kind of experience he has had. He is passing on a tradition that he received from others (v. 3) and then seems to add himself on at the end, having an experience he believes was of Jesus himself, and in that way like the apostles' experiences, within the context of how his gospel was the same as the apostles (v. 11).

I seem to have missed yours. You are attempting to gloss over specific discrepancies between Paul's 'appearances' and the ones in the gospels. The appearance 'first to Simon' is significant. There was evidently no such thing in the early resurrection -claim. Luke twigs this clearly and tries to smuggle in an 'appearance' to Simon (Luke 24.34) when Cleophas returns to Jerusalem.

Now, you may argue that Paul's equating what the disciples saw with his vision was not correct, but equally, it could be. After all, when he learned about it, wouldn't he have heard they weren't the same thing if they weren't? Add to that that they don't match the gospel accounts and it is you who has to explain away the evidence to try to make I Corinthians the Gospel - resurrections.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

Please refer to the post in which you describe how the supernatural resurrection claim could be falsified because I must have missed it.

Correction: I found it.

The claim would be false if:

1. We knew a body could not supernaturally be resurrected. We don’t know this.
2. If we could prove Jesus didn’t exist. We can’t show this and all the evidence points otherwise.
3. If we could show the tomb wasn’t empty, it was the wrong tomb, etc.. We can’t prove this and I’ve already offered why I think such theories are flawed.
4. If we could prove the disciples lied or hallucinated about Jesus’ post-mortem appearances. Same as previous.
5. If we found evidence of the earliest Christians not preaching a risen Jesus. There is none.

Your own commentary explains how the claim is unfalsifiable.

1. Because we don't know if a body can be supernaturally resurrected or not, the claim is unfalsifiable.
2. Because we can't demonstrate the non-existence of Jesus, the claim is unfalsifiable.
3. Because the "empty tomb" claim refers to the absence of a body which cannot be investigated, the claim is unfalsifiable.
4. Because the disciples are not available to be cross-examined, the claim is unfalsifiable.
5. The earliest Christians were illiterate and relied upon an oral tradition to communicate their beliefs. As such, we would not expect to find written evidence from the earliest Christians. Therefore, the claim is unfalsifiable.


Addendum: A proposed thing or event either occurs in reality or it is imaginary. There is no pragmatic value in proposing a thing or event most probably occurred in reality because it would still be nothing more than imaginary regardless of its probability. Once a proposed thing or event has been demonstrated to occur in reality, the debate on whether the same type of thing or event most probably occurred in a previous reality can begin. Until then, the proposed thing or event is nothing more than imaginary.

[POI]

Looks like we are stalemated a bit...

At the end of this argument, EVEN IF, Jesus was crucified, died on the cross, taken off by Jews and placed in a special grave and guarded, and the body was later missing; which looks to require quite a bit of faith in and of itself up to that point - we must ultimately ask ourselves....

What is more likely? Yes, it boils down to a dichotomy of natural causes vs unnatural causes.

Which conclusion is more likely; natural vs unnatural? Is it 50/50 here?

[nobspeople]

Looks like we are stalemated a bit...

At the end of this argument, EVEN IF, Jesus was crucified, died on the cross, taken off by Jews and placed in a special grave and guarded, and the body was later missing; which looks to require quite a bit of faith in and of itself up to that point - we must ultimately ask ourselves....

What is more likely? Yes, it boils down to a dichotomy of natural causes vs unnatural causes.

Which conclusion is more likely; natural vs unnatural? Is it 50/50 here?

When it comes to christians, it's ALWAYS unnatural, unless the natural way proves their point more.
How many times have we seen christians on this very site shun 'scientific proof' then, days later, ask for scientific proof from someone else for another matter.
Pickin-n-chosin hypocrisy is all it is.
Christianity is all about belief and faith. Logic, common sense, data, facts... non need matter when faith's involved.

[bluegreenearth]

Looks like we are stalemated a bit...

At the end of this argument, EVEN IF, Jesus was crucified, died on the cross, taken off by Jews and placed in a special grave and guarded, and the body was later missing; which looks to require quite a bit of faith in and of itself up to that point - we must ultimately ask ourselves....

What is more likely? Yes, it boils down to a dichotomy of natural causes vs unnatural causes.

Which conclusion is more likely; natural vs unnatural? Is it 50/50 here?

Would it be a fallacy to infer that the more likely cause is also the most justifiable cause? For instance, if the Christian God exists, it would be more likely that he was the cause behind the resurrection accounts. However, how does anyone justify the proposal that the Christian God was the cause behind the resurrection accounts when such a deity has never been reliably demonstrated to exist in reality to function in this capacity? Instead, would it be more objective to first ask which proposed causes can be reliably demonstrated to occur in reality, and then proceed to debate which of those demonstrable causes was most likely behind the resurrection accounts?

[POI]

Looks like we are stalemated a bit...

At the end of this argument, EVEN IF, Jesus was crucified, died on the cross, taken off by Jews and placed in a special grave and guarded, and the body was later missing; which looks to require quite a bit of faith in and of itself up to that point - we must ultimately ask ourselves....

What is more likely? Yes, it boils down to a dichotomy of natural causes vs unnatural causes.

Which conclusion is more likely; natural vs unnatural? Is it 50/50 here?

Would it be a fallacy to infer that the more likely cause is also the most justifiable cause?

Great question! Here's where my position lies, at present.... When a claim is set forth, any claim, the least of the outcomes, for which I will consider, is an unnatural one. Does this mean the unnatural one is truly less justifiable? Not necessarily. But then I would have to again point out "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." I would consider "a man rising from the grave" extraordinary, wouldn't you? Is 'extraordinary' a subjective term? Heck yes it is But people are not rising from their graves on a regular basis these days. Maybe it was more mundane, back in the day; via Matthew 27:53?

For instance, if the Christian God exists, it would be more likely that he was the cause behind the resurrection accounts. However, how does anyone justify the proposal that the Christian God was the cause behind the resurrection accounts when such a deity has never been reliably demonstrated to exist in reality to function in this capacity? Instead, would it be more objective to first ask which proposed causes can be reliably demonstrated to occur in reality, and then proceed to debate which of those demonstrable causes was most likely behind the resurrection accounts?

Sure, and I'm quite confident this position has already been debated ad nauseam. And yet, here we are, 2,000 years later, with no definitive answer. Which begs to re-ask the OP title question... Is belief in a resurrection 'fact' or 'faith' based?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think that the Christians can argue a fact based case - as we have seen. Based on the claim that the resurrection -accounts are reliable.

The skeptic response has rather been denialist and perhaps not logical 'Such things can't happen, therefore it didn't' and there have been various arguments to try to debunk the testimony of the witnesses.

Yes, I can see how it looks like that. But the alternative natural explanations can't be ignored. Such things don't happen...so is it Possible this one didn't, but was written to look like it did? Then we get the apologetics like 'the disciples were scattered...they couldn't have removed the body'. But then the disciples that put him there certainly could have taken him out. And one gets the creepy feeling..why didn't the Bible -experts think of that?

The swoon theory is a bit strained, but add the puggled wine and you have a much stronger case. Conspiracy theory? Yes, but evidence fits a conspiracy better than a miracle.

If you credit the gospels. The salient fact here - or so I'd argue - is that the resurrection accounts would not stand up in court. The crucifixion might pass muster, shorn of obvious fabrications like the penitent thief, but the resurrections won't.

That tells me that there was no actual account of a Jesus walking and talking. They only claimed that (whatever happened to him) the spirit had risen and that is what Paul thought he saw, and claimed that the 12 and the other 500 saw it, too.

The person pondering the matter must make up their own minds.

[thomasdixon]

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

Resurrection can mean a return to moral values, in my view of things
(:-