Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

[William]

Q: Is belief in The Resurrection based on fact or based on faith?

From a discussion in another thread;
______________________________


[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]

Let us recall that it was you who stated,

that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.

This is what I stated;

"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."

I also stated;
I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.

Are you saying, NONE of it aligns?

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors.

Apparently there are biblical scholars who accept that in those cases, copying may have occurred.

So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here.

Yes - that it was unnecessary to have four exact copies of the same data.

If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.

Yes.

However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.

Which still wouldn't do away with the idea that the stories were concocted by the priesthood...such would be intelligent enough to realize that to sell the story there needs to be more than one version, especially since there are no coinciding stories circulating outside of the religion.
For example - some believe that [historical] Jesus had scribes, but there is no evidence that anyone was recording his words and nothing of the sort has been found so far.

In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?

I am looking for evidence to the claim that Jesus died. [and was thus resurrected.]

Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?

Based upon the stories regarding Jesus, I would expect that Jesus didn't really die.

First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,

"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".

So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,

"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

Firstly they must have seen him as 'someone else' for them to recognize that 'someone else' had entered into their company.
But what we do not know [and thus cannot assume] is what the writer meant in the use of the words.
Does it mean that their minds were being played with in some unknown manner or does it mean that it was something else about the stranger suddenly in their company which lead them to conclude they were in the presence of someone who was so just like the Jesus they knew, that it must have been him, or was Jesus' body was capable of 'shape-shifting' [changing it's appearance.]

However, in relation to the story of the stranger in the company, we see that the story unfolds over the course of a whole day, with the stranger telling them all sorts of things so that the dots connected [starting out by calling them 'fools' for not being able to do this for themselves] and by the end of the day, we are informed that they had no choice but to accept the evidence that the stranger [who they did not recognize as Jesus because it was a different body] was the same person that they had followed all those previous months.

As soon as they came to that conclusion, the stranger then vanished. [became invisible to them/appeared to no longer be in their company.]

Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener".

Why would Mary know what the gardener looked like? Clearly she assumes a stranger there with the two other strangers is the caretaker and clearly she is confused and distressed.
But most importantly, she does not recognize the stranger until he calls her by her name...so it must have been how the stranger had done this which convinced Mary that it was Jesus.

Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.

So we have hearsay [the stories] and within that, we have incidences which align and form an image of someone who has a distinctly different body than the normal Human form as it appears to be able to do things which normal human forms are not seen to be capable of doing.

But overall, there is nothing about the story of the resurrection [The Subject] which can be pointed to as factual [rather than hearsay] and thus, to believe in said story - one has to do so on faith.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

For once, we might well be in agreeances here. My son was born seven months premature.

However, without establishing that Jesus, claimed to be borne of a virgin birth, was of course borne of a virgin birth, you can't establish his existence.

One could exist without having experienced a virgin birth.

The biblical claim was his birth was all virginy.

It is also irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.

I've come to expect the Christian will declare anything that goes against their sacred, unsupportable beliefs "irrelevant".

The fact remains, you will forever be incapable of showing Jesus ever existed, forever incapable of showing his "father god" existed (or exists), and forever incapable of showing crossbreeding gods and wimmins produces it anything other'n the fantasies of theists.

If one could resurrect supernaturally,...

If I could out rassle the pretty thing, I wouldn't hafta take me a bath every night. Alas, it seems I prefer me cleanliness and smooshingness, to bruisedness and frustratedness.

"If" is so speculative, speculators read that and slap themselves in the forehead.

then there is no reason to think they would have to have experienced a virgin birth in order to do so.

It's the not finding a reason to do you no thinking that's got you into this mess.

If anything,...

If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

"If" is the last bastion of those incapable of showing they speak truth.

the flow of reasoning would go the other way around. If...

You're either a computer programer, or so hopeful any rational argument is beyond your grasp.

If..then statements are void if we can't put truth to em.

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.

Belief does not create fact.

If we all believed Halle Berry was ugly, would she up the sudden quit her abeing so caramely delicious? Would her teeth fall out, and one of her legs go all crooked? One of her eyes falls out and just dangles there, astaring at us, daring us to say something about it?

Snippelate arguments presented to others.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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

It can of course be regarded as a metaphor for a great number of things, but then any book can be taken as a metaphor for something or other, if one is mentally ingenious enough.

And that's fine. Go for it. But of course it is quite remote from a consideration of the resurrection story, gospels or indeed the Bible as factually reliable in any way.

Which is what the Christians are trying to sell us, not as a book of metaphor and symbolism.

[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?

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.

No, it explains some of the ways the claim is falsifiable and explains how they haven’t been falsified. There could, logically, be arguments against the supernatural. Many people think there are good arguments that bear that burden. You seem to disagree with them but this shows the claim could, conceivably, be falsified. This is true of the other numbers as well.

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.

Once again, this sounds like one must prove a supernatural miracle has occurred before proving a supernatural miracle has occurred. That’s logically impossible. We shouldn't expect logically impossible things of others. Even if one could prove other supernatural events, this would not strengthen any one individual supernatural event.

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.

Again, what support do you have for the validity of extraordinary claims demanding extraordinary evidence? Even two non-Christians on this thread have appeared to disagree with its validity.

[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?

If..then statements are void if we can't put truth to em.

If...then statements are used in different ways. You made a claim that the virgin birth is necessary to establish the historical fact of Jesus’ existence. It isn’t. Not all that Christians say of Jesus existing, but Jesus, the person, existing. That's the fact being discussed. The virgin birth has nothing to do with whether the tomb was empty or not. It has nothing to do with the claims of appearances. It has nothing to do with claims of resurrection. It stands or falls on its own. Using the “if...then” was one way to express that. I just did another.

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.

Belief does not create fact.

I agree. I never said or implied otherwise. What I did say was that sometimes beliefs one holds end up supporting other beliefs. When it’s reasonable (I know you think it never is but stick with me for this specific point) to believe Jesus resurrected and that Jesus claimed to be divine and one is wondering about how such a thing could happen, normal births don’t make as much sense as something like a virgin birth. Virgin birth, as reasonable or not, may be strengthened by the argument we are discussing or it could be accepted/rejected on other, separate considerations, but is irrelevant to our discussion.


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


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


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

[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.

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?

“More likely” has to be on the evidence in the specific situation, general prior probability comes into effect but is not the most important piece and is not sufficient for a reasonable position on a specific question. This view is just a faith position. It could have scope, although we must take that on faith because there is no actual explanation given. It doesn’t have strong explanatory power because it’s simply accepted on faith. It’s definitely plausible but completely ad hoc, created for the sole purpose of having a non-supernatural answer to this question.

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.

While SOME Christians certainly act like this (as do people in every single worldview that exists), what is relevant here is whether my argument has or not. If you think it does, then point out the specifics.


8. Jesus supernaturally resurrected.

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.

Which hasn’t been what I’ve done, if I understand you correctly here. I don’t base it on a claim that the resurrection accounts in the Gospels are reliable. It’s in picking out four facts from within those accounts (and that reach outside of those accounts) for the various reasons I've mentioned and supported.


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.

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 evidence shows Joseph of Arimathea intended to get Jesus off the cross alive? The texts have Joseph asking Pilate for the body after Jesus’ death. Mark even has Pilate getting confirmation from the centurion that Jesus was actually dead before handing the body over. To read that Joseph was trying to get Jesus down before his death is complete speculation.

You do have textual evidence of Pilate wanting to release Jesus. You don’t have evidence of Pilate wanting to secretly release Jesus though. If Pilate wanted Jesus to be free all he had to do was free him. To think that he would go along with the Jews and then come up with a plan to free Jesus secretly makes little sense of the information we know about him.

We do have evidence of previous rebellions that Pilate harshly dealt with, of Rome not wanting to provoke rebellions from the people groups they conquered if it could be avoided, how Pilate’s position could be on the line. Those are reasons to give in to the Jewish leaders, especially on Passover (lots of rebellious minds all gathered together), even though Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charges they brought. We have evidence that Pilate had no respect for Jewish individuals, so what if an innocent Jew had to die to keep the peace and his position? Why not allow the body to be buried, in accordance with Jewish desires as well? It’s politically expedient.

On top of this, your theory speculates as to Pilate trusting a member of the Sanhedrin to help save Jesus and not let such information get back to the leaders, the people he regularly talked with, when these were the people calling for Jesus’ death.

Your theory rests on one textual detail as written, other textual details twisted or wholesale invented to cover-up the real intentions (a major problem with conspiracy theories) of a conspiracy theory that doesn’t really make sense for the people supposedly involved in it.

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.

The disciples are the Christians. They taught a risen Jesus immediately. There wouldn’t be enough time in between the sources and the events to where legend could develop and completely overtake everyone’s memory. So, why would Jesus allow the disciples to teach his resurrection when he is still walking around Galilee? Or why would the disciples go against Jesus and do so? Or why would enough people convert to start a movement when people would be pointing out that Jesus escaped death? The Christian movement would have never got started for there to be later Christians to invent things, even though there wasn't enough time to invent them anyway.

This is not dismissing things simply because I want to believe X. I’ve given the reasoning.

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.

And you are better than poisoning the well. I don’t think I’ve shown any reason you should think I would pull such a move. I realize you have come across many theists who have and do and will continue to do so, so I don’t fault your initial suspicion of such a move but I ask that you show the principle of charity and go off of my actions.

By “ad-hoc-ness” I mean the degree to which the theory is sort of contrived or concocted. That is, a criterion that has to do with the number of independent hypotheses or aspects that are required by the explanation yet they aren’t independently supported.

For instance, the resurrection theory requires the existence of God, an independent aspect of the theory that if not independently supported through other evidence or argument, is ad hoc. For this discussion I have kept it ad hoc to avoid the tons of conversation that would be taken up by arguments for God’s existence, although I think many of them are also good arguments. Even assuming one thinks those are bad arguments and realizing that weakens my case a little, I still think the case for the historicity of the Resurrection outweighs the alternative theories because the alternatives are also ad hoc in this way and then also comparing the other 5 historical criteria of judgment.

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.

But there are different ways to add to it. One could be inventing stuff or could be using different sources that were equal to or even earlier than the material they all share.

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.

We have given arguments for and against that, equating “reasonable” with “agreeing with me” is empty rhetoric; let our reasonings stand on their own.

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.

I did address these. (a) Leaving something out is not the same as contradicting it. (b) The text clearly records blasphemy as the reason. You made a point that Luke’s account didn’t have blasphemy, when Luke clearly saw it as portraying blasphemy.

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.

Can we please leave empty rhetoric behind and stick to a reasonable sharing of our points and counterpoints? Just share why you think something is false so people can consider your view against mine.

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.

The message of resurrection is dated by scholars to within 2-5 years because of the tradition taught to and shared by Paul in 1 Cor 15. While I think you are wrong on Paul’s view of Jesus’ divinity and the necessity of Greek Christians to get there, it is irrelevant to my argument. The facts are Jesus existed, there was an empty tomb, the earliest Christians claimed to have experienced post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and the earliest Christians preached a risen Jesus. Paul believes all of those things as well.

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.

I haven’t glossed over it; I’ve directly responded to it. The specific possible discrepancies don’t matter when considering the fact of whether the disciples claimed to have had appearances. All that such discrepancies would show is that some accounts differ on some specific details not on the claims of various people having appearances.

The “first to Simon” (actually it’s Cephas, not in Greek, adding to this being a formulaic creed passed down by the earliest Jewish Christians). And in that setting it makes perfect sense for the women to be omitted since their testimony wasn’t accepted, much less as the primary witnesses. Cephas/Peter was the early leader of the movement, so it would make sense to put his experience appearance first.

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.

It’s clear that other traditions of the appearances were being passed down or we wouldn’t have had them show up in the Gospels. So, Paul had to be aware of them. He would have wondered about the details and asked Peter and the rest. He would have known the differences and yet he still equated his with theirs.

They don’t match the gospel accounts because the tradition is more formulaic, creedal and for that creed they picked out what they did, while the Gospel writers are writing biographies of Jesus and including the stories they do for the reasons they have, sharing more details because of the genre.

[TRANSPONDER]

Step B: What are the historical facts?

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

If..then statements are void if we can't put truth to em.

If...then statements are used in different ways. You made a claim that the virgin birth is necessary to establish the historical fact of Jesus’ existence. It isn’t. Not all that Christians say of Jesus existing, but Jesus, the person, existing. That's the fact being discussed. The virgin birth has nothing to do with whether the tomb was empty or not. It has nothing to do with the claims of appearances. It has nothing to do with claims of resurrection. It stands or falls on its own. Using the “if...then” was one way to express that. I just did another.

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.

Belief does not create fact.

I agree. I never said or implied otherwise. What I did say was that sometimes beliefs one holds end up supporting other beliefs. When it’s reasonable (I know you think it never is but stick with me for this specific point) to believe Jesus resurrected and that Jesus claimed to be divine and one is wondering about how such a thing could happen, normal births don’t make as much sense as something like a virgin birth. Virgin birth, as reasonable or not, may be strengthened by the argument we are discussing or it could be accepted/rejected on other, separate considerations, but is irrelevant to our discussion.


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


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


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

I'll hold off commenting on this - particularly the last three questions - until Joey K has had his say.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #266]

While SOME Christians certainly act like this (as do people in every single worldview that exists), what is relevant here is whether my argument has or not. If you think it does, then point out the specifics.

I'm not sure what conversation you pulled my comment. If you can direct me to it As all the italics on your response has crossed my eyes, I'll be happy to look and see what I can do for you.
Have a non-God-blessed but good weekend!

[bluegreenearth]

No, it explains some of the ways the claim is falsifiable and explains how they haven’t been falsified. There could, logically, be arguments against the supernatural. Many people think there are good arguments that bear that burden. You seem to disagree with them but this shows the claim could, conceivably, be falsified. This is true of the other numbers as well.

Every claim is conceivably falsifiable since every claim must be either true or false. Therefore, conceivably falsifiable doesn't make the claim falsifiable.

Once again, this sounds like one must prove a supernatural miracle has occurred before proving a supernatural miracle has occurred. That’s logically impossible. We shouldn't expect logically impossible things of others. Even if one could prove other supernatural events, this would not strengthen any one individual supernatural event.

You must demonstrate a proposed thing or event can be the cause of something in reality before arguing such a thing or event was the most probable cause of something in the past. This is how experimental archaeology operates. For example, archaeologists weren't sure how ancient people in Britain moved the "Blue Stones" to Stonehenge from a quarry located in Wales. One hypothesis was that the stones could have been dragged on a wooden sled. So, they built a wooden sled and assembled a team of people to test if they could pull a 2 ton stone on it up a gradual incline. Surprisingly, they succeeded in pulling the large stone on the wooden sled which demonstrated it would have been possible for ancient people to have performed the identical operation. Meanwhile, there is an ancient account that describes Merlin the Wizard using his magical powers to move the stones. When someone demonstrates the ability to move a 2 ton stone with nothing but magical powers, we can then justifiably infer that it would have been possible for Merlin to have accomplished the same task in the past. Now, please explain to me how experimental archaeology is logically impossible.

[JoeyKnothead]

If...then statements are used in different ways. You made a claim that the virgin birth is necessary to establish the historical fact of Jesus’ existence. It isn’t.

I place the claims in a more logical order. Remember, I don't believe in gods sexing up young, married virgins.

Not all that Christians say of Jesus existing, but Jesus, the person, existing.

I don't understand what this means. Please rephrase.

That's the fact being discussed. The virgin birth has nothing to do with whether the tomb was empty or not. It has nothing to do with the claims of appearances.

I propose that, in accordance with biblical claims, establishing a God's existence, and establishing he had sexy times with Mary would go a long way in establishing Jesus' existence, that would then start to get at his ressurrectioning.

It has nothing to do with claims of resurrection. It stands or falls on its own. Using the “if...then” was one way to express that. I just did another.

I'll do me one then...

If someone can establish Jesus' existence, then they're off down the road towards establishing his ressurrection.

Belief does not create fact.

I agree. I never said or implied otherwise. What I did say was that sometimes beliefs one holds end up supporting other beliefs.

I didn't catch that last bit, I guess. I'm still not quite with that program though. If one has faulty beliefs that shore up other beliefs, well there we go.

When it’s reasonable (I know you think it never is but stick with me for this specific point) to believe Jesus resurrected...

I see no reason to play along here. It can not be established this ressurrection occurred beyond the claims of folks long dead and so unavailable for cross examination. The medical establishment is quite clear on the fact that dead folks don't hop up and run about.

...and that Jesus claimed to be divine and one is wondering about how such a thing could happen, normal births don’t make as much sense as something like a virgin birth.

Two goofy, unsupported, unsupportable claims don't make fact.

Virgin birth, as reasonable or not, may be strengthened by the argument we are discussing or it could be accepted/rejected on other, separate considerations, but is irrelevant to our discussion.

I do see where my considering implied claims can kinda bog down the discussion as relates solely to the resurrection of Jesus.

My point is that should such implied claims be shown to be true, I might set me apraying with the lot of ya.

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

I make no claims regarding his tomb. I don't even know it's location.

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

They didn't see him after he died strikes me as the most logical reason.

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

Religious groups've been splitting off from one another for as long as there's been religion.

A famous, and true, example here is the Dewberry Baptist Church twixt Lula and Clermont, here in Georgia. One bunch of em said God knows everything, and one bunch of em said nah-ah. So then it was, they was apicnicing one day, and the argument came up, and one of em flung a piece of chicken at another'n, and asked if God knew that was gonna happen.

So they split up there for a good while, with the Dewberry #1, and the Dewberry #2, until, I've heard tell, such time as the years mellowed their minds, and softened their hearts, and they're all back together now, in what I presume is one great big chicken flinging congregation. True story, look it up. I used to ride by there when I was fetching off up to go trout fishing when I'd be off the road a spell.

The following link goes to the site of the original church, what'd be Dewberry #1...
http://www.dewberrybaptistclarksbridge.com/

The following Facebook page seems to be the good folks of Dewberry #2...
https://m.facebook.com/Dewberry-Baptist ... 141456592/

Maybe they're still aflinging chicken at one another? I heard they'd done made up.

Anyway, that's the song of my people, the citizens of the greatest state in the union, Georgia, the chicken flingingest folks ya ever did wanna meet.

[Zerilos]

Q:

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.

I believe that these verses in Luke were a form of inter-gospel apologetics; probably, in response to the fact that there were reports of nobody being able to recalled having seen the risen Jesus. Mark deals with this by claim that the "women" were to afraid to tell anyone. Luke suggests that one could have seen Jesus without having recognizing him. Matthew has Jesus going strait to Galilee without entering Jerusalem. John has Mary unable to recognize him.