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]

For those still interested in this topic.
Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate



Matt Dillahunty reviews the debate in the clip above

I'll watch the whole thing but I note the stock apologetics for the resurrection. 'Miracles don't happen' is not a valid objection. I agree. I think atheists are wrong in using that. Trying to dismiss the account won't work because apologists can claim that histories often have no more written origin than medieval copies or what not. And the dot -linking of the resurrection to P{aul and praising Luke as 'Realiable'.


So I don't know what Matt will do but I think that showing that the Resurrection account is concocted and even if it was coherent, 'stealing the body' as Matthew himself says, is a better explanation of both the trial and crucifixion and after than a resurrection. Also there is no reason to credit the 'Jesus Acts Paul' sequence when there is textual reason (though few Bible critics seem to use that) to argue, Disciples (spiritual resurrection) Paul (visionary resurrection) Gospels (invented solid body resurrection) but I'll see how how Matt plays it. I hope it won't be arguing Philosophy of credibility claims but I doubt he'll be arguing textual contradiction.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's interesting that he refers to Marie Celeste (in fact the 'Natural' cause of the event is explained or perhaps known),and he dismisses God or aliens because there is no explanation but the resurrection is different because there is an account. But there are various 'stories' about the Marie Celeste. Put four contradictory 'stories' (of alien abductions) together and you have the resurrection accounts. That's why I think showing undeniable invention is what undermines the resurrection claim. Or like the Marie Celeste the evidence indicates a stolen body rather than a resurrection just as the evidence indicated an insurance scam not alien abduction) But we'll see what Matt says.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, Matt does deal with the the philosophy of Epistemology and very well. (I think we can skip the Theist GishGallop effort to validate God as uncaused cause) and though Matt does touch on 'witness testimony that would not stand up in court' he doesn't much get into the more reasonable hypothesis of the story IF it was accepted as credible even if not courtroom -reliable.

I'd certainly put up an alternative hypothesis that better fits the accounts and doesn't require a miracle.

Jesus messianic effort fails (Cleophas says 'we hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel'. Luke often seems to know more than he says..

Jesus is crucified. Dead, done. Disciples are disappointed. Peter gets an idea that Messianic Jesus'spirit (I argue that Paul attests to this) went back to heaven and would come again in their lifetimes (claim reported in all gospels). This was a vision/imagination. Other disciples had the vision and '500 all together' as Paul reports. Significantly James, Jesus' brother and leader after Jesus, belatedly accepts this claim. Hardly through conviction, one suspects.

Meanwhile, the Nazorenes, being a Pharisee zealot messianic group are opposed to the Romans and their cronies the Sadducees. Paul being a Roman as well as a Jew works for them persecuting the church, as he puts it. But I think he has a revelation. He believes in the Jewish last days and that will destroy his fellow citizens. He wants the Romans to accept God and be saved. But they will never do that because of The Jewish rites (I suspect he isn't too observant himself). So he works out a way of gentiles becoming God's people without the Law. This is explained in Romans, which I consider his Thesis.

At some time Paul has a vision which he is a bit obscure about but I think he talks about his spirit rising to heaven ('a man' is himself) where Jesus endorses everything he has reasoned out. This is his 'belated' vision of Jesus and did not happen on the road to Damascus, and Acts is a Biographical novel, not a reliable record.

Paul start preaching his Gentilized Judaism and eventually is summoned to the Apostles who had cautiously accepted his 'conversion'. It is not a formal hearing as per Acts but a private deal with James (he wrangles with Peter as he says in Galatians) but he carries on his own way and gets ever more opposition from the 'super apostles' as he sneeringly calls them. This is Interpreting a lot with a few clues, but it does explain why the resurrection sightings in Corinthians I do not match those in the gospels.

Because long after the Greeks had totally Paganized Paul's Judaism without rites and a Messianic spirit, as anti Judaism and a demi god Jesus. The gospels were invented stories loosely based on a real failed messiah - story. There is no resurrection other than the dead body and rising spirit. That won't do, so solid body resurrections are invented and they totally contradict. That is why I would argue that the resurrection - accounts are not credible.

I know discrepancies can be woven together or explained away but (using the undoubtedly invented Nativities as a test case) invention is the more credible explanation here, even if Faith enables people to dismiss where the evidence Really points.

But this is a personal hypothesis and nobody else uses it and I don't see Matt going anywhere near it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'll watch the whole thing but I note the stock apologetics for the resurrection. 'Miracles don't happen' is not a valid objection. I agree.

I propse then to hush the atheists up, the miracle hollerers'd do well to show the following to be true and factual...

1. God exists
2. He did him some miracle doing

I think atheists are wrong in using that. Trying to dismiss the account won't work because apologists can claim that histories often have no more written origin than medieval copies or what not. And the dot -linking of the resurrection to P{aul and praising Luke as 'Realiable'.

One need not dismiss an account that can't be shown to be true and factual.

They simply reject belief until confirmatory data becomes available.

So I don't know what Matt will do but I think that showing that the Resurrection account is concocted and even if it was coherent, 'stealing the body' as Matthew himself says, is a better explanation of both the trial and crucifixion and after than a resurrection. Also there is no reason to credit the 'Jesus Acts Paul' sequence when there is textual reason (though few Bible critics seem to use that) to argue, Disciples (spiritual resurrection) Paul (visionary resurrection) Gospels (invented solid body resurrection) but I'll see how how Matt plays it. I hope it won't be arguing Philosophy of credibility claims but I doubt he'll be arguing textual contradiction.

I can't tell what all that means, but I'll say this...

There's no reliable data to suggest a god that can't be shown to exist empregnated a lady that can't be shown to exist to have em a half god, half human hybrid that be shown to exist, to've suffered him a resurrection it can't be shown he did.

At some point it's fair to roll one's eyes and scoff at those who can't show their claims are truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll watch the whole thing but I note the stock apologetics for the resurrection. 'Miracles don't happen' is not a valid objection. I agree.

I propse then to hush the atheists up, the miracle hollerers'd do well to show the following to be true and factual...

1. God exists
2. He did him some miracle doing

I think atheists are wrong in using that. Trying to dismiss the account won't work because apologists can claim that histories often have no more written origin than medieval copies or what not. And the dot -linking of the resurrection to P{aul and praising Luke as 'Realiable'.

One need not dismiss an account that can't be shown to be true and factual.

They simply reject belief until confirmatory data becomes available.

So I don't know what Matt will do but I think that showing that the Resurrection account is concocted and even if it was coherent, 'stealing the body' as Matthew himself says, is a better explanation of both the trial and crucifixion and after than a resurrection. Also there is no reason to credit the 'Jesus Acts Paul' sequence when there is textual reason (though few Bible critics seem to use that) to argue, Disciples (spiritual resurrection) Paul (visionary resurrection) Gospels (invented solid body resurrection) but I'll see how how Matt plays it. I hope it won't be arguing Philosophy of credibility claims but I doubt he'll be arguing textual contradiction.

I can't tell what all that means, but I'll say this...

There's no reliable data to suggest a god that can't be shown to exist empregnated a lady that can't be shown to exist to have em a half god, half human hybrid that be shown to exist, to've suffered him a resurrection it can't be shown he did.

At some point it's fair to roll one's eyes and scoff at those who can't show their claims are truth.

Sorry. I meant that the severe contradictions of thew resurrection accounts (plus Mark not having one) means that it is likely all invented. But

Even if it wasn't and was credibly based on a real event (like the crucifixion arguably is) the better theory that fits the evidence is 'the disciples stole the body' which is what Matthew says.

That said, while I argue that dismissing an extraordinary event on the grounds that the extraordinary doesn't ordinarily happen it is also valid to say that extraordinary events require extraordinary validation. Now you may dismiss the virgin birth nonsense but that doesn't in itself invalidate the resurrection IF four separate gospels attest to it. On the face of it, extraordinary or not, the apparent eyewitness account makes a solid case for the resurrection.

But my argument is that (despite the apologetic we sometimes hear) these testimonies would not stand up in a court of Law.

But do they stand up as a record of events, even if we shrug off the mobile star and the shekel - eating fish? I argue that they don't, but it needs to be argued.

I also argue that the attempts to identify the resurrection -sightings of the gospels with those in 1 Corinthians. Nor do I think the appeal to 'the disciples would not die for a lie' argument is valid. Not much but church traditions say they died for anything in particular, ad I thin there is a case that whatever they believed it wasn't that Jesus' body got up and walked, still exhibiting the holes in what I always thought was supposed to be a new incorruptible body. Oh.. I get it. This has New Incorruptible wound -marks on just for identification purposes.

"Och Weel" says Braveheart "I hope I don't have ta resurrect wi' ma innards hanging aboot ma knees just so everyone knaws it's mesel'"

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll watch the whole thing but I note the stock apologetics for the resurrection. 'Miracles don't happen' is not a valid objection. I agree.

I propse then to hush the atheists up, the miracle hollerers'd do well to show the following to be true and factual...

1. God exists
2. He did him some miracle doing

I think atheists are wrong in using that. Trying to dismiss the account won't work because apologists can claim that histories often have no more written origin than medieval copies or what not. And the dot -linking of the resurrection to P{aul and praising Luke as 'Realiable'.

One need not dismiss an account that can't be shown to be true and factual.

They simply reject belief until confirmatory data becomes available.

So I don't know what Matt will do but I think that showing that the Resurrection account is concocted and even if it was coherent, 'stealing the body' as Matthew himself says, is a better explanation of both the trial and crucifixion and after than a resurrection. Also there is no reason to credit the 'Jesus Acts Paul' sequence when there is textual reason (though few Bible critics seem to use that) to argue, Disciples (spiritual resurrection) Paul (visionary resurrection) Gospels (invented solid body resurrection) but I'll see how how Matt plays it. I hope it won't be arguing Philosophy of credibility claims but I doubt he'll be arguing textual contradiction.

I can't tell what all that means, but I'll say this...

There's no reliable data to suggest a god that can't be shown to exist empregnated a lady that can't be shown to exist to have em a half god, half human hybrid that be shown to exist, to've suffered him a resurrection it can't be shown he did.

At some point it's fair to roll one's eyes and scoff at those who can't show their claims are truth.

Sorry. I meant that the severe contradictions of thew resurrection accounts (plus Mark not having one) means that it is likely all invented. But

Even if it wasn't and was credibly based on a real event (like the crucifixion arguably is) the better theory that fits the evidence is 'the disciples stole the body' which is what Matthew says.

That said, while I argue that dismissing an extraordinary event on the grounds that the extraordinary doesn't ordinarily happen is not reasonable, it is also valid to say that extraordinary events require extraordinary validation. Now you may dismiss the virgin birth nonsense but that doesn't in itself invalidate the resurrection IF four separate gospels attest to it. On the face of it, extraordinary or not, the apparent eyewitness account makes a solid case for the resurrection.

But my argument is that (despite the apologetic we sometimes hear) these testimonies would not stand up in a court of Law.

But do they stand up as a record of events, even if we shrug off the mobile star and the shekel - eating fish? I argue that they don't, but it needs to be argued.

I also argue that the attempts to identify the resurrection -sightings of the gospels with those in 1 Corinthians. Nor do I think the appeal to 'the disciples would not die for a lie' argument is valid. Not much but church traditions say they died for anything in particular, ad I thin there is a case that whatever they believed it wasn't that Jesus' body got up and walked, still exhibiting the holes in what I always thought was supposed to be a new incorruptible body. Oh.. I get it. This has New Incorruptible wound -marks on just for identification purposes.

"Och Weel" says Braveheart "I hope I don't have ta resurrect wi' ma innards hanging aboot ma knees just so everyone knaws it's mesel'"

[JoeyKnothead]

...
. .Now you may dismiss the virgin birth nonsense but that doesn't in itself invalidate the resurrection IF four separate gospels attest to it.

Those four gospels attest to the live birth of a god / human hybrid.

When the grandgirl tells me she don't know how them cookies got in her pockets, I don't then trust her when she says she brushed her teeth.

I think it goes to how much we're willing to play along.

On the face of it, extraordinary or not, the apparent eyewitness account makes a solid case for the resurrection.

Kinda like how Chrichton makes a solid case for mixing dinosaur and frog dna.

You do good work here, and I'd sure struggle to argue against you based on accepting bits and pieces of biblical tales.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, you are quite right on clean hands. That's why I argue that the Nativities undermine credibility of Resurrection account and Judas' death and others even though some Explanation could be produced. The more someone's story look dubious the less credit we are going to give.

But if a story that we might credit giving all the leeway is still not the story they want to tell, then they are in a bit of a fix. I know they dismiss the 'disciples stole the body' but their reasoning is way off. They say the disciples were demoralised and scattered. Sure, but not the disciples that took Jesus out - the one that put him in. And I recall a discussion on the empty tomb. As I recall, the point about the women is that there needed to be a pretext for witnesses going there at all. The clumsy plot is shown by them getting up at dawn, gathering their pot of gunk and setting out in the dark.

"Oh crap!"

"What"

"The rock door is too heavy for us."

"Don't worry. Someone will open the door for us."

"What makes you so sure?"

"Plot requirement."

The point is that the empty tomb might be explained s the first step in putting flesh on the impalpable spirit resurrection that was all that the disciples (and Paul) claimed (or that's my theory). The tomb was empty. It was open
though it wasn't expected to be open but the plot needed for it to be open. A handy angel is waiting for them to turn up as he has to explain that Jesus got up and went back to Galilee. Just to tie up loose ends. And the women run away and don't say a word which is why nobody ever heard anything about it.

So an empty tomb doesn't work as sound evidence for a risen Jesus. Even if is that was all there ever was originally. Elaborations with descending angels Jesus appearing in various places and turning up in the evening for a fish supper just show invention. And the contradictions are telling. Luke makes it quite clear that Thomas was there. He was not absent, even without no mention of his turning up later with his doubts. This pulls over Matthew's appearance known to nobody else, John's appearance to Mary afterwards and Luke's appearance to Simon which nobody describes. They all pull each other down the credibility chute.

But even if a really good apologist made a case for the empty tomb being true, the better explanation is that Arimathea removed Jesus hours before a tomb guard could be posted, even if one believes that story. Given that all the other puzzling clues fall into place. Arimathea doing a deal with Pilate. Jesus being fed drugged wine, the casual indifference, not to say co -operation of the Romans. An actual resurrection comes in third place as regards probability.

"It is easy to withstand Socrates; it is the truth that you cannot withstand."

There's not anything brilliant about me, but I have seen a lot of discussions and I am familiar with a lot of the stunts the Theist side pull and I've seen the rebuttals. That makes it a lot easier.

[brunumb]

But even if a really good apologist made a case for the empty tomb being true, the better explanation is that Arimathea removed Jesus hours before a tomb guard could be posted, even if one believes that story.

I'm one who doesn't believe the story. Joseph of Arimathea conveniently just appears out of nowhere in the narrative and has all the appearance of a plot contrivance to me. The body of the crucified Jesus was most likely unceremoniously dumped in a mass grave and that would make a later resurrection rather awkward. What was really needed was a tomb, but only a wealthy person would have had one. Hey presto! Wealthy benefactor suddenly appears on the scene and provides the necessary burial spot. He even sees to the burial and rolls the stone in place himself. Now, unless he was a first century bodybuilder, the stone could not have been all that heavy requiring magical assistance to move it away later. All the to-ing and fro-ing that ensued with women and angels and whatever sounds very much like elaborate fiction designed to enhance the status of Jesus as a resurrected god-man.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
The clumsy plot is shown by them getting up at dawn, gathering their pot of gunk and setting out in the dark.

"Oh crap!"

"What"

"The rock door is too heavy for us."

"Don't worry. Someone will open the door for us."

"What makes you so sure?"

"Plot requirement."

Lomfpoc

Funny analysis is best analysis.