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]

That feeds into the discussion. 'clean hands' as they say in legal circles. The more times a witness is found to not be telling the truth, the less credibility they have. This obviously is a major factor in the Bible debate - is reliable or not. And you are quite right that 'it could be possible' does not translate into 'it is probably true'. That is based on a priori assumption of validity before any discussion. Faith-based thinking.

Very much.

But the thing about 'supernatural' claims is that the odd one or two might turn out to be correct.

Again, I reject the assertion / implication. All that which happens within the universe is the product of nature.

To propose there's something outside of nature, outside the universe, gets us right back to the god belief that's shown to be nothing more'n wishful thinking.

The claims need to be considered and not taken on trust, but not rejected out of hand because they are 'supernatural'.

They can, and should be dismissed out of hand, because there ain't the first fact to em we can put in our hand.

The thing is that they might turn out to be not what the Believers claimed.

They've turned out to not be the truth, yes.

NDE's, Yeti, perhaps (was DNA showing it might be an unknown species of Himalayan bear?) Giant squid. Ball lightning. And, just perhaps, the Jesus story, but not the one Christianity thought it was.

I have me an NDE every time pretty thing catches me wiping my nose on my sleeve. "Near" is a subjective term, and suffers it the inexactness of it.

Yetis've never been shown to exist. Nor gods.

"Giant" is a subjective term and doesn't reflect the reality that we already knew squids existed. It's merely a noting that we found us a big one of em.

Lightning's been known since folks had eyes, so the fact some of it might be ball shaped ain't so special.

"Perhaps" is only as useful as one wishes to propose something that can't be shown to be true and factual.

There's not one single bit of data available that puts fact to the various Jesus claims, othern if ya go down to Mexico, ya can meet ya a whole bunch of em.

But we play along. We debate, and fuss back and forth, but we ain't no closer to God, the resurrection, or Jesus than when this thread first got put up. Why? Cause some folks just can't accept they got em some goofy ideas about dead folks, and gods, and supernatural claims.

Cause some folks hold em to these goofy notions, and they vote. They're out there in public, speaking and acarrying on, and they're doing real and permanent damage to fact, to reason, to logic, to science. And far too often to the health and livelihood, freedoms and whatnot, of folks who's only crime is to've been born into this age of religious dooficity.

All because in the mass psychological comfort of religious belief, we as a society've had to "play along to get along".

If one man has a god, he's delusional. If a dozen have a god, they're a cult. If a million of em have one, they get tax breaks.

Tis rejection (out of hand) of the 'Supernatural' is problematic because it comes down to rejecting events that we can't explain just because somebody fell to their knees beating their breast when it happened. The right thing to do is investigate it and find out what. It's been observed (much to theistic annoyance) that is a Supernatural thing is validated, explained and described, it stops being Supernatural and becomes Science. At one time 'God' was science until the gaps closed so much it became 'physics' (apart from a few Unexplaineds.

Ball lightning was very much in the Supernatural camp (part of the UFO phenomena with some slopping over into the Ghost area. But it has been validated to at least become accepted as real data and studies are still going on.

A Study I did some time ago on my Previous Board was into the Fatima thing - one of the best attested miracles (or UFO events, pick which you like) there were. Of course the UFO bods had the edge because clearly the 'dancing sun' was local and nothing to do with the actual sun doing anything. However the study showed me that it was rather a fake -up in three phases (local, political and religious, according to which Authority had their hands on it at the time) and nothing happened but an optical illusion, which was repeated at Knock Castle (q.v) and seen by me looking at sunspots through a darkened glass.

[JoeyKnothead]

TRANSPONDER, I ain't here so much to tell ya you're wrong, but to say I see it different...

Tis rejection (out of hand) of the 'Supernatural' is problematic because it comes down to rejecting events that we can't explain just because somebody fell to their knees beating their breast when it happened.

When we realize the god concept is built upon an emotional / psychological need to make sense of the unknowable, the unexplainable, we can dismiss supernatural claims for nigh on the exact same reasons.

The theist loves this argument - "Ya can't prove it ain't" specifically because it provides em that mental comfort.

All that which occurs in nature is, by definition, natural. Now, if folks wanna say dead folks hopping up after a three day dead binge is natural, well then, there we go.

But we oughtn feed into the fantasy that the Easter Bunny hides him all them eggs cause some dead dude hopped up after being him three days of it.

Look at this thread. We got one dude incapable of providing any evidence for the resurrection, afussing him all up and down how it's the most rational way to think.

A dead. Hopping. After three days of it. And we're in the unfortunate position that we gotta counter this illogical, goofy notion, on account of someone might bumble em into this thread and think he's the one that's got it right.

DEAD FOLKS STAY DEAD. By definition.

If Jesus was sleeping him off a hangover, I have a mountain of personal experience to indicate yep.

We hafta suffer this "well it might be" dooficity because some guy on the internet can't come to grips with the facts - DEAD FOLKS STAY DEAD.

And God forbid that'n there sets in on a stolen election.

The right thing to do is investigate it and find out what.

Monkey biscuits.

The investigation's been a two thousand danged year old process, and the closest we've come to Jesus getting resurrected is some dude aswearing up and he did.

It's been observed (much to theistic annoyance) that is a Supernatural thing is >if< validated, explained and described, it stops being Supernatural and becomes Science. At one time 'God' was science until the gaps closed so much it became 'physics' (apart from a few Unexplaineds.

If.

Dadgummit y'all, we can't if our way into the truth. We can't if our way into denying the fact that once a dead folk is, is he is.

Of course we're all here to debate all this, I'm mostly fussing about how goofy is it, we need to do it.

Ball lightning was very much in the Supernatural camp (part of the UFO phenomena with some slopping over into the Ghost area. But it has been validated to at least become accepted as real data and studies are still going on.

I hear ya.

"Ball lightning's been found not to be it a supernatural thing."

"But we need to keep us exploring this idea that dead folks rise."

At some point you're just drowning worms to feed the fish.

DEAD FOLKS'RE REAL PROUD TO BE IT.

A Study I did some time ago on my Previous Board was into the Fatima thing - one of the best attested miracles (or UFO events, pick which you like) there were. Of course the UFO bods had the edge because clearly the 'dancing sun' was local and nothing to do with the actual sun doing anything. However the study showed me that it was rather a fake -up in three phases (local, political and religious, according to which Authority had their hands on it at the time) and nothing happened but an optical illusion, which was repeated at Knock Castle (q.v) and seen by me looking at sunspots through a darkened glass.

I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #738]

I have me an NDE every time pretty thing catches me wiping my nose on my sleeve. "Near" is a subjective term, and suffers it the inexactness of it.

Man - even me mom didn't exert than kind of fear in me - though she sure did threaten it on occasion! That girl pretty thing needs supervision!

[I'm feeling for you bro.]

But seriously?

It's that I love her so much, to think I let her down is a pain I can't explain. She found me in my darkest days, and had a flashlight.

Makes me wanna keep me own OOBEs to meself - but I haveta ask first...are you lumping my OOBEs in with all that?
I mean - granted - OOBEs are not 'near death' in any other way than to show the one doing the experiencing, that something of such-sort might be what occurs when death does finally come a-knocking...

I clump no other clods onto my own. I respect folks have their perspective.

Folks might well learn em something new if ya did tell it.

[The Tanager]

I want to thank everyone for their part in this discussion, where we can put our ideas out for each other to consider. I only have two more comments to make and they are directed at everyone, not just bge.

Well, then this absence of sufficient evidence prohibits me from justifiably inferring the occurrence of a supernatural resurrection in realty. Of course, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I'm not claiming a supernatural resurrection didn't or couldn't occur reality.

Why must “sufficient” include medical evidence? That’s what I don’t see support for in this thread. It seems to be an assumption..

Seriously, I get it. I get where you are coming from. I REALLY get it.

To all who have read along, I hope that one’s assessment of these issues will be based on the rationality of something, not this kind of psychologizing. Even if everything bge thinks of me were true, that would do nothing against the arguments presented.

[JoeyKnothead]

Why must “sufficient” include medical evidence? That’s what I don’t see support for in this thread. It seems to be an assumption..

In considering the condition of a dead body, it's reasonable to consider medical aspects. Surely we wouldn't be counting on a goat rustler over a medical professional in this matter.

To all who have read along, I hope that one’s assessment of these issues will be based on the rationality of something, not this kind of psychologizing. Even if everything bge thinks of me were true, that would do nothing against the arguments presented.

Without particulars, I think it fair to consider psychology in analyzing a person's claims. Even with multiple meds, I suffer auditory hallucinations (and on rare occasions visual). I kinda make it a point to let folks know so they have a fuller set of data when considering my claims and arguments.

Of course, "Ol Joey there, he's a nut", shouldn't be used as a blanket dismissal, but it's just one more thing to consider.

So, medical, psychological, physical, logical, there's all manner of fields of study that can be thrown at claims.

And I'm here to tell it, the fact you even had to ask what medical evidence has to do with the resurrection might have folks thinking, well, pecans.

[TRANSPONDER]

TRANSPONDER, I ain't here so much to tell ya you're wrong, but to say I see it different...

Tis rejection (out of hand) of the 'Supernatural' is problematic because it comes down to rejecting events that we can't explain just because somebody fell to their knees beating their breast when it happened.

When we realize the god concept is built upon an emotional / psychological need to make sense of the unknowable, the unexplainable, we can dismiss supernatural claims for nigh on the exact same reasons.

The theist loves this argument - "Ya can't prove it ain't" specifically because it provides em that mental comfort.

All that which occurs in nature is, by definition, natural. Now, if folks wanna say dead folks hopping up after a three day dead binge is natural, well then, there we go.

But we oughtn feed into the fantasy that the Easter Bunny hides him all them eggs cause some dead dude hopped up after being him three days of it.

Look at this thread. We got one dude incapable of providing any evidence for the resurrection, afussing him all up and down how it's the most rational way to think.

A dead. Hopping. After three days of it. And we're in the unfortunate position that we gotta counter this illogical, goofy notion, on account of someone might bumble em into this thread and think he's the one that's got it right.

DEAD FOLKS STAY DEAD. By definition.

If Jesus was sleeping him off a hangover, I have a mountain of personal experience to indicate yep.

We hafta suffer this "well it might be" dooficity because some guy on the internet can't come to grips with the facts - DEAD FOLKS STAY DEAD.

And God forbid that'n there sets in on a stolen election.

The right thing to do is investigate it and find out what.

Monkey biscuits.

The investigation's been a two thousand danged year old process, and the closest we've come to Jesus getting resurrected is some dude aswearing up and he did.

It's been observed (much to theistic annoyance) that is a Supernatural thing is >if< validated, explained and described, it stops being Supernatural and becomes Science. At one time 'God' was science until the gaps closed so much it became 'physics' (apart from a few Unexplaineds.

If.

Dadgummit y'all, we can't if our way into the truth. We can't if our way into denying the fact that once a dead folk is, is he is.

Of course we're all here to debate all this, I'm mostly fussing about how goofy is it, we need to do it.

Ball lightning was very much in the Supernatural camp (part of the UFO phenomena with some slopping over into the Ghost area. But it has been validated to at least become accepted as real data and studies are still going on.

I hear ya.

"Ball lightning's been found not to be it a supernatural thing."

"But we need to keep us exploring this idea that dead folks rise."

At some point you're just drowning worms to feed the fish.

DEAD FOLKS'RE REAL PROUD TO BE IT.

A Study I did some time ago on my Previous Board was into the Fatima thing - one of the best attested miracles (or UFO events, pick which you like) there were. Of course the UFO bods had the edge because clearly the 'dancing sun' was local and nothing to do with the actual sun doing anything. However the study showed me that it was rather a fake -up in three phases (local, political and religious, according to which Authority had their hands on it at the time) and nothing happened but an optical illusion, which was repeated at Knock Castle (q.v) and seen by me looking at sunspots through a darkened glass.

I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

I don't think we see things different, but I see a flaw in the logic. It's rather like an atheist can say No God and one is saying because Gods are supernatural and thertefore don't exist and the other (all of the ones conforming to logic) say we don't know for sure there are no gods but the evidence presented for it is not enough.

Thus the logic behind the resurrection as per Gospels is not 'The dead don't rise' but (given the basic that they don't usually rise, so the claim requires extraordinary evidence) 'That this one event (aside the son of Nain, the Daughter of Jairus, perhaps and Lazarus, nobody ever rose from the dead) is reliably recorded is reason to consider this, not dismiss it on the grounds 'this doesn't happen'. Fact is, ol mate, for a long time it's been doubted on various grounds, the 'swoon theory' being quite popular, the disciples stole the body and a twin posed as Jesus and even the devil faked it all. Which given the religion it produced would make some sense. But so far as I know, that there was no resurrection story originally and Mark never had one, not 'it got lost' and the contradictions prove it was made up, was never one of the popular alternatives to 'it really happened'.

I know it was questioned but more on the grounds that everyone was mistaken, not that it never happened at all. Like the Trial. Nobody doubts there was one even though people have long said it didn't look true. That there was some kind of Nativity, not that it is a total fabrication, or that there was a sermon on the mount, wrangles with Pharisees, a walking on the water (oh come on) a transfiguration, never mind those parables in the synoptics but not in John and those boring sermons in John and not in the synoptics. People have sorta accepted these things happened...sorta. But I never saw anyone say flatly 'have to be made up, because of contradictions and omissions.

Fatima? Love it. Quick overview. Portuguese peasant girl (Lucia) claimed a vision of a personage her brother Jacinta and a girl were with her. I recall it was the BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary as the UFO bods called it...oh yes, they had a series of case histories of Flying saucer pilots dressing up as the queen of heaven) but dressed as peasant in a short skirt, headscarf and ear bangle, and not a celestial crown in sight. Local churchman questioned her about it and reported it up. Other sightings followed and various Messages were given including implied threats against the boy. Because he was saying he'd actually t seen anything? In time this became a press battle between the Church and the authorities at Fatima who were seen as allied with the Bolsheviks. A newspaper carries a report of Lucia being arrested by the authorities and jailed to make her recant but she refused and converted all the inmates with her piety and got out somehow.. The point is initially this claim to a sighting by this little attention -seeker had become a political football. Some other sightings were set up and from what I can see nothing happened. On the last occasion Lucia shouted something aout looking at the sun and seeing the holy family which nobody else did. But they did get this 'dancing sun' which is actually a rainbow rotaing circle. I've seen it myself looking at the sun through dark glass and at Knock casle Ireland some years ago the same effect was seen while observers saw that nothing actually happened to the sun.

Much was made of drying overcoats but it sees from my check that there was just a little drizzle and nobody actually got wet and the photo of people with umbrellas in a downpour was from an earlier gathering and I can't recall whether anything was seen.

Anyhoo, the Vatican got involved with the pope swearing he'd seen the sun dance, which it hadn't, using the sightings (used to warn against the Communists) to publicise the Immaculate Conception Dogma, whipped Lucia into the nunnery and issue a book by her now suddenly able to write like a professional, and the whole thing turned into a cult.
So whether you agree or not, Fatima, the biggest and best miracle (or UFO sighting)) ever has nothing (for me) but a kid looking to gain attention and a lot of opportunistic exploitation by some with axes to grind.

[JoeyKnothead]

(Presents an alternate way to lookt at claims)

As always, I preciate your schooling, and you do a fine bunch of it. While, I can't rightly refute your argument under its premises, I'll still hold to my methodology.

While we have differing approaches to these biblical claims, the end result is two different refutations, so it's all good.

Again, thanks for the schooling.

[The Tanager]

In considering the condition of a dead body, it's reasonable to consider medical aspects. Surely we wouldn't be counting on a goat rustler over a medical professional in this matter.

I didn’t say it isn’t reasonable to consider medical aspects. I didn’t say we should count on a goat rustler over a medical professional in the matter of the condition of a dead body. What I am questioning is the necessity of medical evidence to hold the resurrection as the best explanation of these events.

Without particulars, I think it fair to consider psychology in analyzing a person's claims. Even with multiple meds, I suffer auditory hallucinations (and on rare occasions visual). I kinda make it a point to let folks know so they have a fuller set of data when considering my claims and arguments.

Of course, "Ol Joey there, he's a nut", shouldn't be used as a blanket dismissal, but it's just one more thing to consider.

So, medical, psychological, physical, logical, there's all manner of fields of study that can be thrown at claims.

And I'm here to tell it, the fact you even had to ask what medical evidence has to do with the resurrection might have folks thinking, well, pecans.

Of course I didn’t ask what medical evidence has to do with the resurrection. Ideally, yes; it would be great to have it. We simply don’t have it in this case but that's fine because it’s not necessary to come to a rational conclusion.

Yes, those fields come in very handy with many claims and even aspects of this argument. But the whole argument lives or dies on its own merit, not the psychological states of those who make it. To think it does is fallacious reasoning. Why you or me or bluegreenearth come to the conclusions we do will be informed by accurate psychology, but an assessment of the argument itself will not.

[JoeyKnothead]

In considering the condition of a dead body, it's reasonable to consider medical aspects. Surely we wouldn't be counting on a goat rustler over a medical professional in this matter.

I didn’t say it isn’t reasonable to consider medical aspects. I didn’t say we should count on a goat rustler over a medical professional in the matter of the condition of a dead body.

Which exactly why I didn't quote you as having said it.

You're not the only one who reads theses posts, so keep in mind sometimes we say stuff so others can better understand.

What I am questioning is the necessity of medical evidence to hold the resurrection as the best explanation of these events.

Who better to consider issues of if something is alive or dead, than a medical professional?

Of course I didn’t ask what medical evidence has to do with the resurrection.

Do try to understand, not every post in this thread is about you alone. Beyond that, sometimes it is ideas spur other ideas.
Where you ask about medical issues and the resurrection - now stay with me here - it spawns other ideas therefrom.

I'm not here to point out you alone how medical science can offer information regarding sense assaulting, illogical claims the preachers on this site'd just love to have everyone think are "facts".

Ideally, yes; it would be great to have it. We simply don’t have it in this case but that's fine because it’s not necessary to come to a rational conclusion.

But we do have medical. evidence in this case...

Dead folks stay dead

That you consider this conclusion of the medical establishment irrational is, I contend, sound support for the rational conclusion your faith is all you have to defend your irrational conclusion that some ancient preacher hopped up after a three day dead.

Yes, those fields come in very handy with many claims and even aspects of this argument.

Aspects?

The central theme here is a dead body suddenly becoming reanimated. The medical science is our greasy tool in analyzing this ludicrous, goofy resurrection claim.

But the whole argument lives or dies on its own merit, not the psychological states of those who make it.

But, where we see one whose psychology has em refusing to accept their argument is one of faith, of fantasy, well there we go.

To think it does is fallacious reasoning.

When you can see the fallsacious reasoning in 'My faith, my fact', then you might get somewhere with that argument.

Why you or me or bluegreenearth come to the conclusions we do will be informed by accurate psychology, but an assessment of the argument itself will not.

Yes.

However, we can still consider one's psychology when they refuse to accept that no amount of faith'll ever get dead folks walking out their tombs.

So then, we look at that psychology every time the claimant tries to come up with another argument for why dead folks can hop back alive, and shake our heads in sorrow at such a poor, misguided... argument.

[brunumb]

The central theme here is a dead body suddenly becoming reanimated. The medical science is our greasy tool in analyzing this ludicrous, goofy resurrection claim.

I agree that the claim is ludicrous, but I don't think we can dismiss it on the basis of the fact that dead bodies don't reanimate. It is, after all, supposed to be a miracle. I feel we are justified in dismissing it on the basis that there is no credible evidence for the existence of a resurrected Jesus. There is no 'unbroken chain of evidence' involving a Jesus character from before the crucifixion event to the alleged sighting of a resurrected body. There is no credible evidence for any of the events described in the biblical account. It all requires faith that the accounts are genuine and true.