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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

That really puts the finger on it. Are we going on Faith or on the best evidence? Our pal Jehoey says that Faith is better as it pleases God. Aside from whether any God who gave us brains so we could please him by not using it properly is worthy of worship, it will not persuade any who have twigged that 'Faith is a virtue' is a Lie.

So in any Reasoned discussion, supportive evidence and a persuasive argument is needed. And, while the existence of a written record gives the claim a basis, historians know that old histories can be questioned. Especially when they make miracle claims.

BUT - I have always said that while the extraordinary claim of the resurrection requires more than casually accepting everyday events, the resurrection as a unique miracle can't be dismissed on that basis. It depends on whether the record of the event can be accepted as what is presented - eyewitness records, at least reliably reported by others, or not.

Cue the 'law court scenario'. The claim is that the accounts would stand up in a court of Law. Mine is that any half - decent lawyer would rip the accounts to shreds. Which can only be excused by appeals to 'permissible eyewitness error' and anyone appealin to Faith should be debarred from practising.

Apart from eyewitnesses disagreeing so much that such evidence would be dismissed as 'unsafe' (and never mind dickering about the correct legal term, as one apologist tried), the attempts to force acceptance based on claims such as I Corinthians or 'the disciples would not die for a Lie' actually fail as I Cor disagrees with the gospels and there is no really reliable record of anyone dying rather than denying they saw the resurrection about the time it happened.

I am or was in discussion about 'the disciples were persecuted'. So Paul says, and I believe it, but efforts to show it was because they would not say that they did not see the risen Jesus walking about as a solid body, do not work. The lack of backup for this in Paul makes it seem that was NOT what the persecutions were about rather than 'silence gives assent'. The problem of Paul saying almost nothing about Jesus' life and mission, won't go away, despite apologists trying to wave it goodbye. But the record of the visions of Jesus not matching the gospels is telling not least because the apologists ave never drawn attention to it, never mind Nobody ever (so far as I know) ever mentioned that Luke amends the gospel account to get it to agree with Paul.

Friends, I say unto you, these people have been lying to themselves about the credibility of the resurrection -account for 2,000 years. It is time they were called out for lying to us.

[POI]

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.

You might want to clarify a bit here....? "Belief" and "faith" may be two differing animals (i.e.):

"Belief" can be acquired after being convinced, which is not necessarily chosen.

"Faith" can instead be synonymous with hope or trust, which you can chose to do despite a belief.

[historia]

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 that admission would seem to undercut the force of your argument. You framed your analysis of Paul's comments in post #2 with the assertion that a genuine sighting would somehow "verify" the resurrection. But it seems that now you're saying that that is not the case.

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!

By "vision" here I assume you mean an internal, subjective experience. But, based on the methodology you employed in your original analysis, why do you think Paul is describing a vision?

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?

What do you mean by "verified"?

To be sure, most critical New Testament scholars don't think the gospels were composed by eyewitnesses. But I think most critical scholars would say that the gospels contain at least some eyewitness testimony.

In that way, even if Paul provides a more direct eyewitness account, I don't think too many scholars would simply set aside the gospels entirely from their analysis in the way that you seem to want to do here.

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.

I disagree on both counts . First, I think it's "necessary" to include the gospels, and Acts, in any analysis, since we have to account for all the data. The "reliability" of almost all ancient texts can be "disputed."

But, second, even if we accept your analysis that there is some legendary accretion going on in the (especially later) gospel resurrection narratives, legends often accrue around actual people and events, and there are a couple of basic, fixed elements here.

There is the empty tomb (Paul mentions a burial), there are appearances of the risen Christ, and the simple fact that all early Christian authors refer to Jesus being "resurrected," which in Second Temple Judaism would have invariably meant a return to physical, bodily life. These are, I contend, data that any historical hypothesis has to account for.

[The Nice Centurion]

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

Belief in the Method of Circular Reasoning is the Best Position to Hold for Jehovahs Witnesses

[The Nice Centurion]

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

Belief in the Method of Circular Reasoning is the Best Position to Hold for Jehovahs Witnesses

[AchillesHeel]

But that admission would seem to undercut the force of your argument. You framed your analysis of Paul's comments in post #2 with the assertion that a genuine sighting would somehow "verify" the resurrection. But it seems that now you're saying that that is not the case.

Yes, as far as I'm aware, the only way for a person in the first century to verify a genuine resurrection occurred would be to:

1. Confirm the person was, in fact, dead. (Granting for the sake of argument)

and

2. Actually see the person in physical reality and preferably, the same thing be witnessed by other present bystanders.

That would be the only way for them to verify an actual Resurrection occurred.

The point is the earliest and only firsthand source regarding the Resurrection does not even meet this necessary condition.

As for what it would take for a modern person who cares about evidence to be justified in believing a resurrection in the first century occurred, clearly speaking of physical encounters with the person would help but would not be sufficient I don't think. For instance, there are many reports of people seeing Asclepius. Maximus of Tyre (Or. 9.7) even makes sure to clarify his sighting of Asclepius "was not in a dream." He saw Hercules "in waking reality." Do you believe that though? You should, because that's a much clearer claim than Paul just saying Jesus "appeared" to people especially when the same word for "appeared" (ophthe) was used in the Septuagint for when God appeared in visions and dreams to people.

By "vision" here I assume you mean an internal, subjective experience.

Yes because that's what visions are and what we normally mean by the word "vision." It's an experience outside the normal mode of sense perception.

But, based on the methodology you employed in your original analysis, why do you think Paul is describing a vision?

Because of Gal. 1:16. When people claim to have a "revelation" from God, they normally mean a private spiritual experience, not physically interacting with a revived corpse. The same verb for Paul's "vision" in 1 Cor 15:8 is used for all the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7 and so there is no evidential based reason to regard them as any different in nature.

What do you mean by "verified"?

Unanimously agreed upon by all scholars such as is the case with Paul.

To be sure, most critical New Testament scholars don't think the gospels were composed by eyewitnesses. But I think most critical scholars would say that the gospels contain at least some eyewitness testimony.

And what about when it comes to the Resurrection narratives?

There is the empty tomb (Paul mentions a burial),

Paul mentions no details regarding the burial or empty tomb narrative from the gospels though...

Moreover, the empty tomb story fits the "missing body" trope which was in fictional literature of the time. The story would be equally expected under the fictional creation hypothesis and, so, is not sufficient to serve as evidence for its own historicity (especially given there is no independent attestation of it since all the other gospel authors seem to have been aware of or copied from Mark).

there are appearances of the risen Christ

Which all grow in the telling and have different witnesses. No gospel matches Paul's appearance chronology.

The story evolves like this:

1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7.

2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection narrative existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8.

3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17.

4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven!

5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story.

The last two accounts have clearly stated apologetic motives for invention. This growth in the story is much more expected under the legendary growth hypothesis than it is under the reliable eyewitness testimony hypothesis.

and the simple fact that all early Christian authors refer to Jesus being "resurrected," which in Second Temple Judaism would have invariably meant a return to physical, bodily life.

But in Paul's letters, it's unclear if Jesus' "return to physical, bodily life" involved an earthly sojourn vs just going straight to heaven - Rom. 8:34, Phil. 2:8-9, Eph. 1:20. It's also unclear whether or not Paul understood any of the "appearances" happened before the ascension. If they were all understood as occurring afterwards, it would be quite difficult to verify this "return to physical, bodily life" wouldn't it?

These are, I contend, data that any historical hypothesis has to account for.

Mistaken spiritual experiences and legendary growth accounts for all that. We can even explain the origin of belief without a resurrection ever taking place. viewtopic.php?t=41011&start=20#p1130931

[fredonly]

[Replying to POI in post #1]
"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?"

Everyone has the burden of justifying their belief, whether they believe Jesus rose from the dead, of that he didn't. Even an agnostic should justify his belief that the evidence/reasoning is inconclusive.

I happen to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead, and I can justify this belief. I haven't encountered a Christian who could justify their belief. Typically, they treat elements in a narrative as historical facts, and draw conclusions on that flawed basis.

[POI]

I happen to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead, and I can justify this belief. I haven't encountered a Christian who could justify their belief.

We have a peacock in the house. I love it. Let the games begin! Can you please justify your position then? I'd love to read it.

[fredonly]

I happen to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead, and I can justify this belief. I haven't encountered a Christian who could justify their belief.

We have a peacock in the house. I love it. Let the games begin! Can you please justify your position then? I'd love to read it.

1. I don't believe there exists a God who intervenes in the world.(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)
2. Resurrection is physically impossible: Death is irreversible after the brain has begun to decompose (generally, less than 10 minutes after it stops receiving oxygenated blood).
3. The world operates consistently with laws of nature (supported by the success of science). Ergo, the physically impossible is also metaphysically impossible (a miracle=an actual event that is physically impossible).
4. The historical evidence supports the existence of Jesus, that he had devoted followers, and he was executed under Roman law.
5. However, the alleged evidence for Jesus rising from the dead is epistemically weak; far too weak to defeat my belief that a physically impossible event is metaphysically possible. (I even think the evidence is too epistemically weak to support it even if one accepts the metaphysical possibility of a miracle).

[JehovahsWitness]

1. I don't believe there exists a God who intervenes in the world.(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)

If a God exists, and IF up until present He has chosen not to intervene in human affairs (an unproven supposition) it is not necessarily an indication he never will. That is like saying in the 18th century, if space travel has not been invented up to this point in human history, its impossible (or unlikely) that it ever will.




JW



FURTHER READING The resurrection of Jesus: Did it really happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/


RELATED POSTS

Why is belief in the resurrection the best position to hold?
viewtopic.php?p=1131085#p1131085

Is it true God will never intervene in mankind's affairs? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1131396#p1131396

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

How to acsertain if a miracle really happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p878409

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

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