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]

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.

I'm open to either it being based on a real event (a failed messiah) or totally made up, perhaps using memes of the time; rebellion, Sadducee Quislings and crucifixion, which had been going on since the Hasmoneans. I consider the principle of embarrassment to be valid (a lot don't) but when the Messiah ought to have been born in Bethlehem, why have him written as a Galilean and have to invent two stories to correct the story? If it was being made up, why have a crucifixion rather than a stoning and then have to jump through hoops to get Rome off the hook and pass the blame to the Jews? I think because there is an original story the gospels - writers had to reinvent it to make a failed messiah a Greek Pagan god, to be frank.

Now, that said, I am very much aware of the pros and cons. The silence of extra - Biblical sources makes one doubt. But the letters of Paul up to Ephesians at least look like he is real and he talks of real disciples and thus followers of a real person. So while it might all be invented, it works bloody well as a Failed messiah story dressed up to turn Jesus from a Pharisee zealot into an anti pharisee pro gentile preachy Pauline Christian.

Where Gospel critics have gone wrong (in the past at least) is in buying into the assumption that the gospels are basically reliable stories about Jesus. Give or take a miracle. They have in short, been sold the Big Lie and bought into it instead of going back to start and asking 'Just why should I believe the baptism if the Nativities are invented?'

Which is pretty much where you came in

[Avoice]

The oldest gospel is Mark.

And Marks gospel never claimed he resurrected.

The church added on to Marks gospel showing he resurrected. Some gospel truth!
The church is scandalous.

[TRANSPONDER]

The oldest gospel is Mark.

And Marks gospel never claimed he resurrected.

The church added on to Marks gospel showing he resurrected. Some gospel truth!
The church is scandalous.

Yes. I think this is a very significant point. The lack of any resurrection - appearance by Mark was a problem There were various apologetics ranging from the absurd to the ridiculous.

'everybody knew the story so why repeat it?' That's like having a film or story getting to where the Baddie gloats 'Ha Ha! Now I have you in my power and you will die horribly!! " run credits because everyone knows that Quantum - man will triumph. Of course you finish the story off, especially if Mark is supposed to be the earliest and as you point out, the Gospel correction comittee could see it really needed an ending. so they provided a couple. You can pick the ending you want - they are both true and God's word.

The other explanation was 'the end got lost' That is rather a 'lineage of Mary' category apologetic, which is to say, a lie. The women ran away and said nothing to anyone. What more story would there be? Just as both Genealogies end with Joseph, and it is a lie to claim that one is the genealogy of Mary. No, the ending couldn't be lost, not only because the story clearly ends there but, whether scroll or codex, the End is protected. It's going to be the beginning that gets lost if anything does.

The missing Markan resurrection by the way answers the 'empty tomb' apologetic. Particularly the one that says that it must be true because it was women involved and (supposedly) nobody believed anything that women said by Law, so this one must be true. I at first thought that was their best case, but now I can see story construction. I start with the Faith - based assumption that the resurrection was Jesus' messianic spirit leaving him and there was a dead body in the tomb and everyone knew it. Well, that won't be persuasive enough, so the story had to become that in fact the body was gone. Claim an empty tomb. Body gone. What other explanation but it got up and walked? So you need someone to say the tomb was empty; so who would go there and why? The women are the only ones with an excuse to go there because the rites hadn't been attended to. The story building can be seen because they suddenly realise they won't be able to get in. But never mind, the story will have it open anyway, so they carry on. And there it is, wide open. Whodathunkit? They run away and say nothing to anyone (to explain why no-one had ever heard this story). Well plainly we need some exegesis, so an angel is posted there, just in case anyone should come first thing to see whether the tomb was open, with a very handy explanatory message for the disciples.

Gospel fabrication, folks, and it gets even worse. John doesn't have an angelic message. The women simply run to the disciplest to report, which makes perfect sense, but that isn't the original story. They run away and say nothing to anyone. TButbin John there is no angelic message - just the empty tomb and what other explanation could there be? The body got up and walked. "No, no, say ther Jews. 'The disciples took thje body away'. That's the story that Matthew tells us, and it might be true, after all. It might also be true that it is a respose to the Christian empty tomb claim. Even without the suggestion that the 'Jews' might be the Jewish followers of Jesus refuting the Christian empty tomb claim. All possibilities are up for consideration after all,

There another problem with John, too. apparently rites of sorts had been attended to with piles of 'spices' mixed in the bandages (these gosepl -writers were the sharpest knives in the box when it came to Gospel ploy
t -construction) so why would they need to go to the tomb anyway? What does John say? Well no reason is given for the Marys to go to the tomb at all. and it never occurs to them that the tomb will be closed. In the classic slip of 'The writer knows what the detective doesn't' a closed tomb door isn't a problem, There is no angelic message which sorta suggests that the angel was an afterthought to do the exegesis. So Mary runs to simply say the tomb was empty, the bod y was gone and 'we' (the two marys) didn't know where the body was. Without even getting into the various idiocies about gardeners opening tombs to remove corpses or Pilat being asked about a tomb guard when he's washed his hands of the matter already and they run back to the priests anyway, aside that nobody else even mentions them, plot construction to make a walking body credib;leb by clkaiming a tomb with the body gone and open so that somebody can see it. Thi) us the empty tomb looks less like a 'damned fact' that can' t be denied and more loke a plot - invention to try to put a bit of substance on a claim of a risen Jesus.

There's more apologetics to deal with but O spend enough time on that one and I need to go lie down for a bit.

[TRANSPONDER]

The oldest gospel is Mark.

And Marks gospel never claimed he resurrected.

The church added on to Marks gospel showing he resurrected. Some gospel truth!
The church is scandalous.

Yes. I think this is a very significant point. The lack of any resurrection - appearance by Mark was a problem There were various apologetics ranging from the absurd to the ridiculous.

'everybody knew the story so why repeat it?' That's like having a film or story getting to where the Baddie gloats 'Ha Ha! Now I have you in my power and you will die horribly!! " run credits because everyone knows that Quantum - man will triumph. Of course you finish the story off, especially if Mark is supposed to be the earliest and as you point out, the Gospel correction comittee could see it really needed an ending. so they provided a couple. You can pick the ending you want - they are both true and God's word.

The other explanation was 'the end got lost' That is rather a 'lineage of Mary' category apologetic, which is to say, a lie. The women ran away and said nothing to anyone. What more story would there be? Just as both Genealogies end with Joseph, and it is a lie to claim that one is the genealogy of Mary. No, the ending couldn't be lost, not only because the story clearly ends there but, whether scroll or codex, the End is protected. It's going to be the beginning that gets lost if anything does.

The missing Markan resurrection, by the way, answers the 'empty tomb' apologetic. Particularly the one that says that it must be true because it was women involved and (supposedly) nobody believed anything that women said by Law, so this one must be true. I at first thought that was their best case, but now I can see story construction. I start with the Faith - based assumption that the resurrection was Jesus' messianic spirit leaving him and there was a dead body in the tomb and everyone knew it. Well, that won't be persuasive enough, so the story had to become that in fact the body was gone. Claim an empty tomb. Body gone. What other explanation but it got up and walked? So you need someone to say the tomb was empty; so who would go there and why? The women are the only ones with an excuse to go there because the rites hadn't been attended to. The story - building can be seen because they suddenly realise they won't be able to get in. But never mind, the story will have it open anyway, so they carry on. And there it is, wide open. Whodathunkit? They run away and say nothing to anyone (to explain why no-one had ever heard this story). Well, plainly we need some exegesis, so an angel is posted there, just in case anyone should come first thing to see whether the tomb was open, with a very handy explanatory message for the disciples.

Gospel fabrication, folks, and it gets even worse. John doesn't have an angelic message. The women simply run to the disciples to report, which makes perfect sense, but that isn't the original story. They run away and say nothing to anyone. But in John there is no angelic message - just the empty tomb; and what other explanation could there be? The body got up and walked. "No, no", say the Jews. 'The disciples took the body away". That's the story that Matthew tells us, and it might be true, after all. It might also be true that it is just a Jewish response to the Christian 'empty tomb' claim. Even without the suggestion that the 'Jews' might be the Jewish followers of Jesus refuting the Christian empty tomb claim. All possibilities are up for consideration after all,

There's another problem with John, too. apparently rites of sorts had been attended to with piles of 'spices' mixed in the bandages (these gosepel -writers weren't the sharpest knives in the box when it came to Gospel plot -construction) so why would they need to go to the tomb anyway? What does John say? Well no reason is given for the Marys to go to the tomb at all. and it never occurs to them that the tomb will be closed. In the classic slip of 'The writer knows what the detective doesn't' a closed tomb door isn't a problem, There is no angelic message which sorta suggests that the angel was an afterthought to do the exegesis. So Mary runs to simply say the tomb was empty, the body was gone and 'we' (the two Marys) didn't know where the body was. Without even getting into the various idiocies about gardeners opening tombs to remove corpses or Pilate being asked about a tomb guard when he's washed his hands of the matter already and the guards run back to the priests anyway, aside that nobody else even mentions them, we can see plot construction to make a walking body credible by claiming a tomb with the body gone and open so that somebody can see it. Thus the empty tomb looks less like a 'damned fact' that can't be denied and more like a plot - invention to try to put a bit of substance on a claim of a risen Jesus.

There's more apologetics to deal with but I spent enough time on that one and I need to go lie down for a bit.

[William]