Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold

[POI]

After a recent exchange with a Christian, this Christian claimed a positive belief in the resurrection is the best position to hold after critical thought. Reference post 49 of (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5#p1130835)

Below are the following positions one could take, baring one has performed their due diligence, regarding full investigation for this very large and "extraordinary" claim:

a) believe it did happen
b) believe it did not happen
c) remain 'agnostic', or not convinced, or undecided, doubtful, unbelieving, other...

***********************

For debate:

It is the Christian's burden to support why a positive belief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. --- option (a).

I guess that means it is also the gnostic atheist's position to support why disbelief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. -- option (b).

Option (c) carries no real burden, as one is merely unresolved or undecided on either (a) or (b).

Thus, 'Christians' and 'hard atheists', let the games begin! What is the best position to hold and why --- after sufficient critical thinking; a, b, or c?

[AchillesHeel]

The burden of proof is always on the one to demonstrate a miracle occurred. It's not on the one who doubts it. The miracle in question, a Resurrection, could only be verified through veridical sightings of the resurrected person. Any appeal to an empty tomb, persecution or prophecy fulfillment is insufficient to demonstrate a resurrection actually took place.

Since the relevant evidence is actually "seeing" the Resurrected Jesus, Paul only speaks of seeing/experiencing Jesus in 1 Cor 9:1, Gal. 1:16, and 1 Cor 15:8. Now the verb used in 1 Cor 15:5-8 is ophthe which was the same verb used in the Septuagint for when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs in non-physical ways - making the term ambiguous. 1 Cor 9:1 is just a form of horao but he doesn't describe what he saw and so it's ambiguous. Gal. 1:16 refers to a revelatory experience so that's ambiguous as well. So I will argue on the basis of the earliest and most reliable evidence, Paul's testimony is ambiguous and precludes any apologist from claiming it is more probable that Paul was referring to normal sensory experiences.

1. The testimony of 1 Cor 9:1, Gal. 1:16, and 1 Cor 15:5-8 is either evidence of really seeing Jesus or it isn't.

2. In order to be considered evidence of really seeing Jesus, the testimony of 1 Cor 9:1, Gal. 1:16, and 1 Cor 15:5-8 cannot be ambiguous.

3. The testimony of 1 Cor 9:1, Gal. 1:16, and 1 Cor 15:5-8 is ambiguous.

4. Therefore, the testimony of 1 Cor 9:1, Gal. 1:16 and 1 Cor 15:5-8 is not evidence of really seeing Jesus.

Since the burden of proof is on the one claiming it is more probable these were veridical sightings of a resurrected person, but the evidence from the earliest and only firsthand testimony is ambiguous, then the case for the resurrection fails to be convincing to a neutral/objective observer. Any attempt to read in the later gospel narratives is a tacit admission that the earliest source is ambiguous/insufficient. Appealing to the gospels only works if you already believe the historicity of those stories, which has never been demonstrated.

[bjs1]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

My only comment is that option (c) seems like a cop-out; a means of avoiding intellectual integrity. No matter what words people use, they will live as if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead (and all the implications that come with it), or they will live as if they believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead (and all the implications that come with that). The only value of not taking a position is that it frees a person from the intellectually honesty that is required when saying something meaningful.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

My only comment is that option (c) seems like a cop-out; a means of avoiding intellectual integrity. No matter what words people use, they will live as if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead (and all the implications that come with it), or they will live as if they believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead (and all the implications that come with that). The only value of not taking a position is that it frees a person from the intellectually honesty that is required when saying something meaningful.

Kool. Does this mean option a) holds the best position, after ample critical thought? If so, why?

[historia]

The miracle in question, a Resurrection, could only be verified through veridical sightings of the resurrected person.

Appealing to the gospels only works if you already believe the historicity of those stories, which has never been demonstrated.

These two assertions rest on a dubious methodology, in my opinion.

The way historians generally carry out their work is to survey all the available evidence (or "data" if that helps you to think of this in more neutral terms). They then devise various hypotheses to determine which hypothesis best explains all the available data/evidence.

What you've done here is to essentially rule certain pieces of data/evidence 'out of bounds', as it were, which cannot help but prejudice your analysis. Moreover, historians simply cannot "verify" what happened in the past, so framing the issue in that way is inappropriate.

Now the verb used in 1 Cor 15:5-8 is ophthe which was the same verb used in the Septuagint for when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs in non-physical ways - making the term ambiguous.

The problem here is that almost any word relating to sight -- in both English and Greek -- can be used metaphorically, and so can always be ruled "ambiguous" in this kind of analysis.

But, let's say, hypothetically, that Paul had described his encounter with the risen Christ in such a way as to leave no doubt that it involved ordinary sight. Would you then conclude that Jesus had actually been raised from the dead?

[AchillesHeel]

The way historians generally carry out their work is to survey all the available evidence (or "data" if that helps you to think of this in more neutral terms). They then devise various hypotheses to determine which hypothesis best explains all the available data/evidence.

Uh-huh. And what do historians have to say about the testimony in the gospels? Is it verified eyewitness testimony or do most critical scholars doubt that? I appealed to Paul because he is the earliest and only verified/undisputed firsthand account in the entire New Testament by someone who claims Jesus "appeared" to him. He is also the only verified account from someone who claims to have met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Historians prefer early testimony because there is less time for legends to accrue and prefer firsthand accounts whenever available for obvious reasons.

I could include a comparative analysis of the gospel data but it would make the case for the Resurrection worse, not better. Each resurrection narrative looks like a growing legend when read in chronological order according to how most scholars date them - Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. But given that the authorship and reliability of these texts is disputed, that's not necessary. Needless to say, when you look at the obvious growth in the story, a growing legend is the best explanation of the data. With reliable eyewitness testimony we expect more consistency.

Moreover, historians simply cannot "verify" what happened in the past, so framing the issue in that way is inappropriate.

I was talking about the people who were actual witnesses to a resurrection appearance. That would require the appearance be veridical. Any sort of vision, dream or heavenly appearance is not sufficient.

The problem here is that almost any word relating to sight -- in both English and Greek -- can be used metaphorically, and so can always be ruled "ambiguous" in this kind of analysis.

The real problem is that Paul places a vision in the list and uses the same exact verb for all the other appearances! So calling it "ambiguous" is actually being really generous!

But let's say, hypothetically, that Paul had described his encounter with the risen Christ in such a way as to leave no doubt that it involved ordinary sight. Would you then conclude that Jesus had actually been raised from the dead?

Nope, but at least we'd have an idea of how he thought they took place and have something that corroborated the gospel accounts.

[The Nice Centurion]

The burden of proof is always on the one to demonstrate a miracle occurred. It's not on the one who doubts it. The miracle in question, a Resurrection, could only be verified through veridical sightings of the resurrected person. Any appeal to an empty tomb, persecution or prophecy fulfillment is insufficient to demonstrate a resurrection actually took place.

Sightings of a person can be mistaken. Furthermore Jesus was not even recognized by neither Tombgirls, Emmausgang nor Thomas who had to finger first Jesus wounds.

Therefore better yet were eyewitnesses for the actual resurrection. They could easily have been provided by teleportation from a supposedly almighty Jehovah

I mean really (for the umpteenth time); The allegedly most important Miracle and Happening in history and no one peeped ?

And to counter the debate question; Is belief in the flat earth and the Chupachabra also the best position to hold?
(Chupachabra has numerous eyewitnesses, some of them can be interviewed even today. Flat earth is supported by scripture and I am sure some ancient seatravellers documented to have seen earths end.)

[AchillesHeel]

Sightings of a person can be mistaken.

That's the entire point of my argument. In fact, I would argue they were mistaken given that Paul's experience was a "vision" and he has no trouble placing his experience alongside the others. Once we're in the realm of visionary claims, it's no longer worth taking seriously as evidence.

[The Nice Centurion]

Why does no one find it worth to mention that Paul not even visioned a person that could have been the Jesus he never saw before, but saw only a light that could have been everything! Even the sun shoning on his poor head

[JehovahsWitness]

Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold

I agee with this statement. Disbelief would not be good as it displays a lack of faith and without faith it is, according to scripture, it is impossible to please God well.

JOHN 20:29 - NWT
Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, have you believed? Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

RELATED POSTS

Was "doubting Thomas" being reasonable?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 69#p904969

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE CONDITION OF THE DEAD, THE RESURRECTION and ... THE 144,000