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.

[TRANSPONDER]

1. Jesus existed
- Christian and non-Christian documents speaking to his existence

Nope. Christian sources count for nothing as evidence. They are the claim. There is really no good persuasive extra biblical evidence for Gospel -Jesus.

As a matter of fact I think are some clues in the gospels that may support a real Jesus, but the fact that Jesus is in the Gosplels is not in itself, evidence.

What do you mean “Gospel-Jesus” as opposed to Jesus?

The empty tomb is the last thing the accounts agree on. So I could assign plausibility to the crucifixion, Arimathea and the tomb and the women finding it empty. But thereafter there is almost total contradiction. That bespeaks separate stories being made up because there originally wasn't one. Which is what we find in Mark. Yes, for a long time I allowed Christian apologetics to persuade me that the ending 'Got Lost' until it was explained to me that there never was one.

They may disagree in details surrounding the claim of an empty tomb. Fact #2 is that the tomb was empty. They all agree on that.

What the appearances of Jesus to Peter, the 12, a bunch of followers and last to James with Paul's vision coming after tells us is that these were visions and are not related to the Gospel appearances. The order is wrong, too. Christian apololgists have understandably assumed that Paul is referring t the gospel appearances, but he isn't.

I haven’t assumed they are the same as the gospel appearances. There may be some overlap but I agree they don’t all match up. Fact #3 isn’t a list of particular appearances, it’s about various disciples claiming to have experienced post-mortem appearances.

Yes and no. Josephus is accepted to be partly a forgery. There are clues that it is a total forgery.

That’s why I said a possible non-Christian source. I was summarizing, not making the full argument since people are divided there.

Tacitus is the next best extra -biblical support but the clues there suggest that he is repeating the claims of Christianity, not saying anything that he knows himself.

While what the “pernicious superstition” is in Tacitus’ mind isn’t directly stated, it makes sense to think it refers to the Resurrection. If you think it does, then that he is repeating the claims of Christianity directly supports fact #4: that the earliest Christians claimed Jesus resurrected. Tacitus reporting what the Christians were preaching.

And note, Philo (who mentions Pilate) says nothing of Jesus.

Is there a critique built off of this?

The resurrection theory works better If Jesus had been removed from the tomb as Matthew says was the story in his day. Plainly, that won't do, so they drop it at the empty tomb and tell everyone Jesus rose. Just to make the point, the original synoptic version had an angel explaining everything, which John contradicts. I trust you won't say: 'Oh he knew about the angelic message, he just didn't think it worth mentioning'.

What do you mean here? Could you rephrase the critique?

It is in fact less explanatory, plausible, confirmatory and less godd than at least the removal of the body theory, which in fact has a lot of internal textual support in the crucifixion account.

The removal of the body theory alone does not explain the appearances and is weak in explaining the disciples preaching a risen Jesus. Coupled with other theories, as your proposal did, suffers in plausibility, is less confirmatory, more ad hoc for the reasons I’ve already shared. I have nothing new to add for one’s reflection on those points.

Taking your responses in order:
Jesus (his doings and sayings) in the gospels as distinct from a possible real Jesus who may have existed. The two arguments are different ones and shouldn't get mixed up.
Not that you did, but eliminating possible confusion before we start).
Yes, they all agree the empty tomb. Just don't get the idea that the only possible explanation is that Jesus rose supernaturally from being dead.
I don't follow your point about post mortem appearances to the disciples. If the ones mentioned by Paul (often cited as justification for the gospel resurrection) are not the same then we have a problem. Paul says the first appearance was to Simon. Well, it wasn't. Quite apart from the women, the first (Gospel) appearance was to all the 12, either in Jerusalem or Galilee, take your pick.
Luke is aware of the problem as he tries to fiddle in an appearance to Simon which he can't describe and nobody else knows about. But Luke knows about Paul's letters, which is why he fiddles the stories to have an appearance to Simon in there and alters the angel's message so they aren't told to go to Galilee.

Paul's indication is also that the appearances he mentions were visionary and nothing at all to do with the resurrections in the gospels. Since
(a) Mark doesn't have a walking Jesus after death
(b) the stories all contradict pretty much totally
The internal evidence is that there was never a resurrection -story and the writers had to invent their own. These are tall tales intended to make a faith -claim sound convincing.

Look, I'm willing to consider any evidence put forward for Jesus. I'm considering Josephus (Flavian testament) on its' merits. You don't have to go into defence mode 'I wasn't saying this or that about it'.

I don't doubt that the resurrection - claim is part of the 'pernicious superstition' that Tacitus was referring to. Paul also makes it clear that the belief or creed that he got from Jesus' followers was that Jesus resurrected. But it is clear from what he wrote that this is a belief in a spiritual resurrection, and not a solid - body one (even if the Pharisee belief that he appeals to as support involves bodies coming to life) and thus the 'superstition' of the Christians that Tacitus refers to no more supports or validates those gospel resurrection reports than does Corinthians 1.

Certainly one would expect Philo to have mentioned something about Jesus, if the fellow had really existed; he mentions Pilate's doings.

To make it quite clear, what I suggest and is a better and more credible hypothesis than Jesus walking is this.

Jesus was dead. The disciples were depressed. The mission had failed. Luke even hints at this (24.21.. (1) footnote

Simon got a vision of Jesus in heaven saying he'd come again, and that inspired the disciples to 'wait'. Not missionize to 'all nations' as Matthew supposes but to stay faithful and wait the last Days. The mission to the gentiles was entirely Paul's own idea.

Clearly there was some kind of Christian group in Rome but Paul had to argue his own ideas to them. They were not 'Pauline' Christians, even, let alone the Jesusgod -believers that the gospel -writers were.

It is detectable that the gospel view of Jesus evolved from Mark to John. The man controlled by the Spirit to the god in person of John. Similarly, the original belief in a risen spirit wasn't enough. The empty tomb takes some explaining, but what it does not do is validate those contradictory and thus (I argue) separately invented (and far from the only example of that - the gospels are full of them) stories. Invented, not witnessed.


So I say that this explanation better fits the textual evidence of the gospels, and is thus more confirmatory, is stronger in explaining what the disciples were preaching if one considers the evidence rather than ignoring it and arguing that Jesus followers and the 'Christians' in Rome were believing Jesus getting up in a solid body after crucifixion. It is more plausible than a resurrected dead body but still with crucifixion marks and is (quite obviously) not 'ad hoc' and quite clearly a lot of consideration has gone into it. Of course you may be using the term 'ad hoc' in some particular meaning of your own.

I know this is radically different from the 'accepted view' of the gospels even for non -believers. By and large they tend to accept that the gospels are more or less valid records of Jesus' doings and sayings. But I say they are not and provably are not. I know the case has to be made. You are helping me to make it.

(1)I have the odd idea that he knew a lot more about Jesus' doings from some history - source, now lost just as he knew (from Paul's letters) more about the disciples than Matthew did, and so wrote Acts to show them setting up the Jesus party in Jerusalem.

[POI]

We can already start here alone. Do we really have true multiple corroborated eyewitness accounts of seeing a post-mortem Jesus? If so, please give me some? Please remember, we are investigating the single most amazing claimed event in human history.

1. The tradition told to Paul (1 Cor 15:3-7).
2. Paul, personally acquainted with the earliest Christians, corroborates this and speaks of his own experience (1 Cor 9:1, 1 Cor 15:8).
3. Mark’s account points to an appearance, although it doesn’t narrate it (Mark 16:7).
4. Matthew’s independent material (28:9-10; 28:16-17)
5. John’s independent material (20:11-17; 20:19-20; 21)

I asked for multiple corroborated eyewitness accounts

1. This given example is hearsay, not corroborated eyewitnesses.
2. Who exactly, and what exactly did they see? Again, hearsay... And in regards to himself, millions proclaim speaking to Jesus themselves in the passed and present. These are personal individual experiences, which are not corroborated. Millions also claim to speak to opposing/differing external agents.
3. Do we really know who wrote "Mark"? Furthermore, Mark 16:9-20 is acknowledged as a later addition; which directly conflicts with the prior ending at 16:8. Which would mean we have at least two authors to "Mark", at minimum?

I'll stop here, as this is more than enough to get us started. I cannot stress this enough... We are speaking about the single most miraculous claim in human history. Thus far, your conclusion looks to be faith based, and not fact based; as defined prior.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's time I thanked someone for a post. Yes. The resurrection is a huge miracle. In human thought and legend, there have been many, many stories and myths about the fact of death and miraculous (or super science fantasy) stories about beating death. But Christianity is more than a take it or leave it claim. It is basic to being Christian.

'Jesus rose from the dead, and if you believe it, so will you.'

Somehow, the eventual Jewish -Pharisee - derived opening of graves and last trump and global judgement by God's messiah (in Christianity, Jesus returning) has morphed into everyone going for judgement immediately upon death. It was probably inevitable, since Jewish messianism was handed over to the Greco -Romans, but it's always amused me that two incompatible Judgement scenarios co -exist in Christian thought.

Whatever happened to cognitive dissonance?

[JoeyKnothead]

It's time I thanked someone for a post. Yes. The resurrection is a huge miracle. In human thought and legend, there have been many, many stories and myths about the fact of death and miraculous (or super science fantasy) stories about beating death. But Christianity is more than a take it or leave it claim. It is basic to being Christian.

'Jesus rose from the dead, and if you believe it, so will you.'

Somehow, the eventual Jewish -Pharisee - derived opening of graves and last trump and global judgement by God's messiah (in Christianity, Jesus returning) has morphed into everyone going for judgement immediately upon death. It was probably inevitable, since Jewish messianism was handed over to the Greco -Romans, but it's always amused me that two incompatible Judgement scenarios co -exist in Christian thought.

Whatever happened to cognitive dissonance?

Very much.

There's a reason it's called the Christian faith, and not the Christian fact.

[The Tanager]

Do you have the honor to retract claims you can't support?

I feel I have given reasoning and support for every claim I’ve made. You disagree. Everyone who has read our posts have what they need to come to their own conclusion on this front.

[The Tanager]

Specific critique: A supernatural resurrection has not been reliably demonstrated to be anything more than imaginary because it is neither directly observable nor successful at making any unique testable predictions we can verify.

Why do you think truth is only found through direct observation or making unique testable predictions?

[The Tanager]

Like electrons, we don't know exactly what resurrection is or how it works. We can only infer what it does from the resultant effect. Which in the case of Jesus was being seen up and about after he'd died. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the records of the effect are to be trusted.

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

Jesus (his doings and sayings) in the gospels as distinct from a possible real Jesus who may have existed. The two arguments are different ones and shouldn't get mixed up.
Not that you did, but eliminating possible confusion before we start).

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

Yes, they all agree the empty tomb. Just don't get the idea that the only possible explanation is that Jesus rose supernaturally from being dead.

That’s not the only explanation of the empty tomb considered by itself. But we have other facts to explain as well. I’ve explained in some detail the pluses and minuses I saw in all the theories.

I don't follow your point about post mortem appearances to the disciples. If the ones mentioned by Paul (often cited as justification for the gospel resurrection) are not the same then we have a problem. Paul says the first appearance was to Simon. Well, it wasn't. Quite apart from the women, the first (Gospel) appearance was to all the 12, either in Jerusalem or Galilee, take your pick.

Paul is quoting a very early tradition handed down to him soon after he converted that succinctly speaks of the disciples claims to have experienced post-mortem appearances in a form that would be easily remembered and shared with others. It makes sense for that kind of thing to list Peter first, both because of his leadership role as well as the view of women as being inadmissible witnesses in that culture.

Luke is aware of the problem as he tries to fiddle in an appearance to Simon which he can't describe and nobody else knows about. But Luke knows about Paul's letters, which is why he fiddles the stories to have an appearance to Simon in there and alters the angel's message so they aren't told to go to Galilee.

This is speculation. Luke could have other reasons for the stories he chooses to share, the details he gives and doesn’t give. I’m not saying your speculation is obviously wrong, but it’s no stronger than other explanations that could make sense of these things.

Paul's indication is also that the appearances he mentions were visionary and nothing at all to do with the resurrections in the gospels. Since
(a) Mark doesn't have a walking Jesus after death
(b) the stories all contradict pretty much totally
The internal evidence is that there was never a resurrection -story and the writers had to invent their own. These are tall tales intended to make a faith -claim sound convincing.

Why do you think these are visionary? The context of 1 Cor 15 is all about Jesus’ actual, bodily resurrection to combat those who believed that they would not experience a bodily resurrection. You later seem to note this but still say it is a spiritual resurrection. Why? If it’s the later natural/spiritual distinction Paul makes, then why interpret that as body/spirit rather than an orientation of the body towards one’s own desires versus the desires God says are good?

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

Certainly one would expect Philo to have mentioned something about Jesus, if the fellow had really existed; he mentions Pilate's doings.

Why should we expect that? Why is mentioning Jesus a necessary fit for Philo’s philosophical agenda in his writings?

To make it quite clear, what I suggest and is a better and more credible hypothesis than Jesus walking is this….

And I’ve responded to some of this already. Your theory involves a lot of speculation to fill in the blanks of the theory. It is high in the ad-hoc (or whatever term you want to use) department. If not to fit your conclusion, there is no reason to believe these parts of your theory. We have no evidence of Simon having a vision, that he inspired the disciples to wait, that a mission to the Gentiles was a new thing. Matthew’s Great Commission passage talks of this. That there were Christians in Rome that didn’t believe in a resurrected Jesusgod has no evidence behind it. While the gospels present different emphases, there isn’t an evolution of their view of Jesus. They all present Jesus as divine. None present the view of a risen spirit.

I know this is radically different from the 'accepted view' of the gospels even for non -believers. By and large they tend to accept that the gospels are more or less valid records of Jesus' doings and sayings. But I say they are not and provably are not. I know the case has to be made. You are helping me to make it.

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

[The Tanager]

I asked for multiple corroborated eyewitness accounts

How are these not multiple, independent accounts that all corroborate that “disciples claimed post-mortem appearances of Jesus”? This was five independent accounts.

1. This given example is hearsay, not corroborated eyewitnesses.

It was created by the eyewitnesses and passed on.

2. Who exactly, and what exactly did they see? Again, hearsay...

What the appearances consisted of is irrelevant. The fact we are trying to determine is simply whether the disciples claimed to have experienced appearances. As to hearsay, Paul knew Peter, James, and the others, so he would have known if this wasn’t what the disciples were claiming.

And in regards to himself, millions proclaim speaking to Jesus themselves in the passed and present. These are personal individual experiences, which are not corroborated. Millions also claim to speak to opposing/differing external agents.

We do have corroboration of Jesus’ appearance to Paul recorded in Luke.

3. Do we really know who wrote "Mark"?

We know it was an early Christian that wrote it, passing his own eyewitness testimony on or the eyewitness testimony that had been orally passed down. The eyewitnesses and their communities would still have been around and available to correct mistakes.

Furthermore, Mark 16:9-20 is acknowledged as a later addition; which directly conflicts with the prior ending at 16:8. Which would mean we have at least two authors to "Mark", at minimum?

The later ending does not contradict the original ending. Verse 7 points to a future appearance(s) and the later ending has later appearances. I didn’t include the later ending in my list, though.

[JoeyKnothead]

Do you have the honor to retract claims you can't support?

I feel I have given reasoning and support for every claim I’ve made. You disagree. Everyone who has read our posts have what they need to come to their own conclusion on this front.

As I suspected.

"There's eyewitnesses!"
"There's documents!"

"Please present em for analysis."

" I feel I've slipped the noose of responsibility for my claims."


This is what gets me about those incapable of showing they speak truth - their refusal, absolute refusal to take responsibility for their claims.

Where are these "eyewitnesses"?

Where are these "documents"?

The liar lies and the preacher preaches!


I dare say, if our charla... claimant could actually produce evidence of their speaking truth, they'da been right quick to do it.

[Diagoras]

Furthermore, Mark 16:9-20 is acknowledged as a later addition; which directly conflicts with the prior ending at 16:8. Which would mean we have at least two authors to "Mark", at minimum?

The later ending does not contradict the original ending. Verse 7 points to a future appearance(s) and the later ending has later appearances. I didn’t include the later ending in my list, though.

I'm not going to claim that I've read the whole thread, but this above exchange caught my attention due to having recently watched this YouTube video on textual variants. The section on Mark 16: 9-20 starts at approximately 7.10 with the evidence for those verses being added, but - relevant to the point made by The Tanager above - at around 12.43 it debates the meaning of a more 'cliffhanger' ending and how that's more in keeping with the themes ('obedience') presented in Mark's earlier chapters.

As stated by the video's narrator, "the reader is left to ask: if the women didn't say anything to anyone <..> how did the disciples ever learn of the resurrection?"

I'd submit that the later ending does in fact contradict the original intent of Mark 16:8, as it attempts to remove or 'solve' the ambiguity that existed.

As an aside, the rest of the video (and Part 1 which precedes it) I found very interesting - there are plenty of examples of 'motivated changes' made to the Bible over the centuries to better fit with the prevailing political or geographical views of the time. A similar example (the addition of Luke 23:34, missing from earlier manuscripts) is discussed in Part 1: Jesus forgives the Romans and Jews who crucified him. This would be more palatable to a Roman audience.