• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Is the Resurrection a matter of faith?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Unofficial Reverand Alex, Aug 6, 2020.

Tags:
  1. Unofficial Reverand Alex

    Unofficial Reverand Alex Look up Jason Evert on YouTube; he changed my life Angels Team Supporter

    +2,519
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." --1 Corinthians 15
    Recently, I started a thread that was just asking for non-Christian perspectives on the Crucifixion. The responses were interesting, and among them was multiple mentions of the Resurrection. So, here we go!:)

    The first Christian doctrine is the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. For the last 2,000 years, this has been a source of controversy, from the doubting Apostles to many of our fellow forum-users here. Many Christian beliefs really come down to a matter of faith; explanations may be offered for the Trinity, for Christ's dual God-Man nature, for the souls in Purgatory (and for the notion of a soul at all!), yet they ultimately come down to a matter of faith.

    The Resurrection is different. If this man they called Jesus truly did rise from the dead, that would be an astonishing historical fact. As such, there would be evidence to prove it.

    J. Warner Wallace is an excellent author, a cold-case detective, and a self-described angry atheist who would constantly ridicule his Christian co-workers for their beliefs. This all changed when he began to view Christianity like the cold cases he worked on for so many years; something happened a long time ago, none of the original witnesses or documents are available, yet there still are pieces of evidence. He follows a very logical & methodical process, which resulted in the fantastic book Cold Case Christianity. I challenge anyone, from the curious skeptic to the anti-religion people, to read this book & tell me what is more rational & factual: Belief in the Christian God, or unbelief? The passage on the Resurrection from this book will form the basis of my post.

    Generally speaking, people tend to doubt whether Jesus rose from the dead, or if was just a lie the Apostles made up. In that case, there has to be some motive for making the lie. Certainly, the Church was powerful in the Middle Ages, and at various points the Pope has had an immense amount of power. None of this was true at the time of the Apostles. It is a well-known historical fact that Christianity was viciously persecuted for the first few centuries of its existence, and there are no records that disprove the idea that 11 of the Apostles (and countless other original followers) were martyred, far apart from each other. Death & despair was all that faced the first apostles; hardly a reason to make something up! Retracting the lie would've been far more effective in the lives of the first Christians.

    Or, people may believe that Jesus never actually died, and the Apostles only thought He rose from the dead. Yet the Romans were very brutal with their prisoners, as well as the executioners; anyone who let their death-sentenced prisoner go alive was put to death. Non-Christian, non-Jewish executioners would not take any chances letting this "Messiah" guy go alive. There are various bodily features that show death over unconsciousness; for example, some skin turns purple from blood pooling (no more heartbeat means no more blood pressure). If their job was to kill, they would be pretty good at telling when someone was dead! Furthermore, someone who lay comatose for 3 days in a cave would be hardly "glorified", as the Resurrected Jesus is said to be. Barely able to crawl out of a cave (somehow moving a stone that blocked it off?), no one would believe with a death-defying conviction that this was divine intervention; human incompetence rarely inspires much more than memes & political cartoons.^_^

    I do not intend for this post to be an exhaustive list of the reasons;
    there are far more thorough descriptions available. Looking up "historical reliability of the resurrection" can bring up a variety of good sources. This is simply something I want to start a train of thought; it can be taken for granted that all religious beliefs are a matter of faith in old books or weird sayings, but the Resurrection can be seen through the lens of rational historical analysis. And if Jesus truly did rise Himself from the dead, what greater miracle can show that He truly was divine?

    If you're not sure of the Resurrection, that's okay, history takes time to learn. A slower analysis can be more reliable than just accepting it because some guy named Alex made a post on the Internet!:D It just gets terribly frustrating when people call Christianity as little more than a highly influential fairy tale. Even if this post doesn't convince anyone of anything, I still want an intelligent discussion on the topic. Expressing disbelief without evidence is hardly any better than expressing belief without evidence, so please try to make a good case if you disagree, lest you too fall into the trap of faith over reason.

    [​IMG]
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +2,004
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    This is a pretty complicated subject, but it may be worthwhile to begin by defining "Faith." How would you define faith such that belief in the resurrection is not a matter of faith?

    (Oops, I didn't realize this was posted in Christian Apologetics. Maybe my question will still be pertinent.)
     
  3. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +3,374
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    You addressed your Crucifixion thread directly to non-believers asking for their perspective on the Crucifixion. There were 12 replies. Of these 12 replies only two, from the same poster, mentioned the Resurrection in passing. There were no "multiple mentions of the Resurrection".

    It seems to me you were a little caught out by the replies you received. I note that you didn't reply to any of the posts. You have now adopted a different tack by changing the subject to the Resurrection.

    I'm sorry you're frustrated but you will need to learn to deal with it. While 'fairy tale' is a little harsh you can't expect someone who sees no evidence for ANY god to consider your particular version as anything other than one of the many religious myths. This is not intended as an insult. You can't make someone believe simply because you want them to.

    Atheists rarely claim that your God does not exist. The claim is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of ANY god (including yours). It is obviously irrational to accept the existence of something as exotic as a god without a reasonable level of corroborating evidence. Part of the problem is a disagreement on what amounts to reasonable corroborating evidence.

    I'm sure your heart's in the right place Alex but your evangelical approach, while well meant, needs a little more substance. You might also consider that most of those who replied to you are not new to the topic. Most of us have been looking at and discussing god-belief, often in depth, for many years.
    OB
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  4. com7fy8

    com7fy8 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,434
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Jesus does say the one who has not seen but believes is blessed. So, I see this can mean He means a person is blessed even if he or she does not see by means of logic or evidence.

    While I was not sure, I considered reasoning which nonbelievers claimed and which certain believers said. None of the scholarly or logical stuff worked for me. But things in the Bible have been used a lot, I would say, in different ways; but I was not clear what God really wanted with me; I just was not sure.

    So, I decided to simply trust God to have me know whatever He pleases to have me know and trust.

    Because, going by things of the scriptures, it was clear to me that if God exists, He knows if He raised Jesus from the dead. And the Holy Spirit in us can bear witness that He raised Christ from the dead. And my experience is that God has so communicated with me and others.

    I have developed some theologic about what the Bible can mean by faith, if you wish to get into this with me > to keep it simple, I see how faith can mean simple belief of ideas, but faith also can mean spiritual connection with God so God is effecting us to become like Jesus and love like Jesus and do all He means about whatever He tells us.

    Now, if you wish to get more into this . . . below is a little more detail > or you can skip to your quote, below, where I share more of my actual experience.

    Our Apostle Paul says "you stand" in the gospel > 1 Corinthians 15:1. So, I see he means we do not only believe in the gospel, but we stand in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. How? By means of living in Jesus Christ's love which has us loving the way He did, on Calvary (Ephesians 5:2), and living in almighty power of His resurrection, in us, now. This almighty power of God's love in us makes us able to stand, especially within us against any and all sorts of cruel and chaotic sorts of thinking and feelings and emotions and ways of reacting badly > "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (in Philippians 4:6-7)

    This is how God proves Himself and the gospel . . . in us . . . by means of "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) > the almighty resurrection power of Christ's love in us (Galatians 2:20) changes our character so we personally shares with God in His way of loving in His power almighty so we succeed in loving the way His word means. Faith with His result, I consider, is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" > in Hebrews 11:1 > maybe we could say faith is our connection spiritual with God proving Himself in us . . . as much as each of us is "one spirit with Him." (in 1 Corinthians 6:17)

    So, I now consider, that "faith" meant by Galatians 2:20 and Galatians 5:6 and Hebrews 11:1 is our actual union with God, versus being separate from God > this our actual connection is our evidence and substance, so we are effected in our character so we live the way His love has us living.

    Well, having faith in my ability to reason might not be a good idea. While I was not sure . . . another item :) > I knew how I had been such a failure and I could so fool myself and not even know it. So, in my case, I understood clearly how I did not dare to trust myself, at all. So, I understood I was at God's mercy, to do with me whatsoever He pleased, as my Potter > Romans 9:21.

    So, yeah, I did have some reason, but I was seeing what God actually would do with me. And then I was brought to trust in Jesus on the cross, and understand He is able to do what He really knows He wants with me. And God in us "works" in our willing and doing, to accomplish all He really knows His word means >

    "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

    And what really has helped me is to be with people who are examples. I could not really get with God, by myself; because our Father is about family. So, may be we could say belief and faith is not an individual and isolated self-dictating thing, in any case. But in sharing and caring as His body, we discover :) with God and one another.
     
  5. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +3,374
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    I thought you might like to see how the case for the Resurrection stacks up from the other side of the fence. Lee Strobel is a well known author and Atheist-turned- Christian who wrote:

    The Case for Christ: What’s the evidence for the resurrection?
    This article from the The Conversation takes a look at Strobel's arguments. The article is short, readable and to the point. The author is a Lecturer in Religious Studies from the University of Texas at Austin.

    I'm not interested in (or qualified for) a debate on the reality of the resurrection, however you should be aware that it is a debatable reality.
    OB
     
  6. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,971
    Private
    What if someone requires something more than mere "evidence"? "Evidence" can point to any number of conclusions, so it can hardly prove a particular conclusion definitively. "Rational historical analysis" is a method of reconstructing evidence to point to conclusion(s), but its use on this subject demonstrates its inherent fatal flaw, imo: it uses fallible methodology to point to a supposedly infallible deity. Why would an infallible deity use fallible (aka questionable) methods to communicate?
     
  7. Caliban

    Caliban Well-Known Member

    +1,006
    United States
    Skeptic
    Married
    If more people properly understood skepticism and learned to apply critical thinking tools (these are specific things) credulity would be less of a problem. I do not think any evidence for the resurrection is compelling. There are no eyewitnesses in the NT, no corroboration from contemporary sources, and no evidence the supernatural actually exists. I think the concept of faith is well understood--that's why people believe in the resurrection--not because there is evidence for it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  8. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Oh no! Not another ... interlocutor !!! Supporter

    +6,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    The concept of faith should not be said to be "understood" if the concluding definition comes only by way of some conceptual preference rather than emerging from the collective assertions and insinuations which are presented throughout the whole of the Bible.

    One thing that seems to be happening is that folks talk like they think they know exactly what faith is, but when they often do so, they do it while refusing to vet out the entire bible for a collective consideration of all that "faith in Jesus/God" can be or could be.

    This is why I think it's bogus to assert and define Christian faith as "Belief without evidence." Because to do so is question begging, in more than one way, even.
     
  9. Caliban

    Caliban Well-Known Member

    +1,006
    United States
    Skeptic
    Married
    Most People know what each other mean when we use the tern faith in a colloquial sense. We all know the basic meaning of the word--if we didn't we couldn't communicate. I don't need to know the extensive etymology of the word or how every faith tradition understands it theologically for it to has a basic communicable vale in conversation. We know what faith is.

    When people use this definition, they do so partly to agitate those who value faith without understanding the epistemological problem inherent in it. Faith cannot lead one to truth. A Hitchens simply put it--what could a person not believe on faith? Thats cuts to the issue. People believe all sorts of things on faith--it is a poor way to apprehend truth and fact. When someone says I have faith God is real, they are relating the fact that they hold a sincere belief in God, and they are not claiming to be able to prove it. Faith is belief without concrete evidence. Jesus' encounter with Thomas after the resurrection indicate that those who believe on faith have arrived at the conclusion that Jesus is the messiah in a more edifying way than if they had proof. Thomas had to see the marks on Jesus to verify the claim--he wanted, and received, evidence. Faith is not evidence.
     
  10. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Oh no! Not another ... interlocutor !!! Supporter

    +6,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Personally, I'm not overly concerned to incorporate what any post apostolic "faith tradition" had to say about the conceptions of Christian faith which were contemporary to its own respective time, whether that time was the 3rd, the 13th or the 20th century. Existentially, we're all in an epistemic journey now to understand what it is that the biblical writers were attempting (however limited that may be for us) to convey about the nature of Christian Faith.

    So, no, I don't think it's easy to simply say "we all know what faith is." If that were the case, then there wouldn't be atheists attempting to proffer a particular, disjointed and incomplete view of Christian faith on the one hand, and those like hyper-Charismatic Christians schmoozing various folks with something that equates just shy of delusion on the other hand.

    How nice of them to do so.

    That depends. Sometimes it might. Of course, to understand this would require that we understand faith to be more than just 'belief' but an orientation toward God/Jesus that enables one to remain open to new avenues of exploration rather than remain closed off from those avenues.

    I cannot believe on faith that Christianity is a Nazi social construct, can I? I cannot believe the Sun rises in the West, can I? I cannot believe that you're just an unliving bot on the other side of the computer screen on 'faith', can I?

    I don't find Hitchens overly compelling. Of course, at the end of his life, it's a question as to what Hitchens felt was still as compelling as he previously did.

    It almost sounds like faith is counterpart (and parcel) to "delusion."

    Care to give a specific example of a certain someone [Christian preferably] who says this?

    ... well, that's a step or two away from the more reductionistic view of faith as being "belief with evidence," isn't it? Lack of concrete evidence isn't necessarily to have no evidence whatsoever.

    And what is that "edifying way"? I may actually agree with you, but you'll have to spell this out so I can see that what you mean by edifying is the same thing I'd think it is.

    Yes, Thomas said he needed that. Unfortunately, Jesus apparently gave Thomas a response beyond that, insinuating that faith isn't something God intends to always make available via empirical means. Which isn't to say that faith wouldn't still be at least partially a rational thing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  11. Caliban

    Caliban Well-Known Member

    +1,006
    United States
    Skeptic
    Married
    I don't mean that a person cannot hold beliefs that are true while having faith; What I mean is that faith is not a reliable way to arrive at the truth. Faith is bad epistemology--always. People believe wild things all the time on faith. People have faith in crystals, Muhammed, aliens, homeopathic remedies etc. When you simple some up with a bunch of things that you would not use faith with, you have not addressed my point. Maybe you wouldn't take on faith thing that "Christianity is a Nazi social construct;" but you might take it on faith that a god exists. Or maybe you think prayer is efficacious on faith--that's what I mean.

    It depends on how you are referring to delusion. When I was a Christian, I was not mentally unstable and I did not have a mental disorder--I was just wrong. I did not suddenly get smarter either--I just changed my mind based on new information. But I do think I was deluded in my thinking in the sense that I did not have all necessary critical thinking tools to think through my opinions effectively. I do think some cultural and self delusion is involved.


    You are asking me to provide an example of when a person makes a sincere belief in god without being able to prove it. That's so simple I'm surprised you even asked. This is almost every believer I've ever met. I have started threads on this forum which you have engaged in where people state you can't prove god and that they believe on faith. How about the example of Jesus: he said blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.

    Thanks for demonstrating my point--you write, "...faith isn't something God intends to always make available via empirical means." I agree fully.
     
  12. Jok

    Jok Well-Known Member

    686
    +567
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    The way that the word faith is used today to refer to the Biblical God is almost certainly wrong. I do wish I was more familiar with the etymology of the word, however it doesn’t take much to see the inconsistencies of the word’s use in our society. When the subject is God, on the one hand the word faith is commonly considered to be synonymous with trust, yet on the other hand faith is commonly considered to be inversely related to evidence; “I don’t have evidence so therefore I have strong faith.” None of this makes sense. If trust is a synonym for faith it can not mean lack of evidence.

    First of all, WHAT good evidence is is irrelevant for this point, different people value different evidence, the point is “Do you have strong faith because IN YOUR VIEW you have good evidence, or do you have strong faith because you admit that there is no evidence IN YOUR VIEW?” Never mind that you might laugh at what a certain person considers to be strong evidence. The second description makes no sense, to claim that due to absence of evidence you have loads of faith is strangely compartmentalized in our society to only mean that when referring to God. The word certainly isn’t used that way elsewhere.

    Most people have implied thoughts/words after saying “I have faith in God” but they simply don’t have confidence in how to articulate why they have it, and why they might pin God to being the Biblical concept of God, so they pretty much say something like “I just do”, so it becomes easy for people to start associating lack of articulation with admission of having no reasons. This is only if they are being honest however. Because on the other hand some people are just lying to themselves, they claim that they have faith because they don’t know what else to say, but they actually are not impressed at all by anything that they would consider to be evidence, therefore it’s simply false when they say that they have faith. But they say it anyway, which doesn’t help to put an end to the misuse of the word.

    I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have a ton of faith that the sun will come up every day. So to claim that strong evidence that the sun will come up every day has negated us all from having faith that the sun will come up every day doesn’t make any sense. Who cares if we replace faith with the word trust, it still wouldn’t make sense. Why do you have more faith/trust in a Volvo during a head on collision than you would have for a high sitting Jeep? Because of your lack of evidence that Volvos are much safer? That explanation would makes no sense. But strangely these explanations magically make sense for people if the subject is God.

    Who trusts their lover more, a person who has years worth of evidence that they always remained loyal to them in many tempting situations, or a person who just met and started dating someone 3 days ago? How would it make any sense to say that the second person has stronger faith/trust in their lover’s loyalty than the first person? Now remember, the point here is “What is faith?”, it is strengthened by what a person believes to be evidence; so even if the person is dead wrong and their lover had been cheating on them for years their faith is still real, and their faith still corresponds to what they consider to be good evidence of their lover’s fidelity (but they are just mistaken). Do you trust or have faith in gravity when you walk into an open field? It wouldn’t make sense to say that faith in gravity needs to be inversely stronger based on a certain person’s lack of confidence for the evidence of gravity. Furthermore it would be the scientist with the most knowledge of a certain phenomenon that would also have the most faith in that phenomenon.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  13. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Oh no! Not another ... interlocutor !!! Supporter

    +6,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Well, if we wrongly conceptualize the nature of faith as "belief without evidence," then I agree with you. Which is partly my point in my "remonstrance" here with all that's being analyzed and turned over.

    Of course 'faith' is a bad epistemology. That's why for me, faith is an END RESULT, not an initial starting point. For me, and by the way that I approach and apply hermeneutics to the bible, I understand faith to be something that a person does in response after working with: 1) Rational consideration, and 2) God's spiritual assistance (i.e. via the Holy Spirit).

    Right. And I understand your point, and I agree with you that that kind of conceptualization of faith, that denotation if you will, is deficient.


    That's great. So, we're in the same boat together as far as not being mentally unstable or in having a mental disorder. I never thought you did.

    On the other hand, this isn't to say that the Christian faith you thought you had long ago was completely wrong; maybe, just maybe, it wasn't your Christianity that was wrong, but your specifically REFORMED version of it that was....not wholly consistent with what the Bible actually teaches? [A question mark imputed since I neither repudiate nor subscribe to any one particular denominational view.....]

    Well.............................maybe you didn't get smarter. But maybe you became more educated, just like I began to do WHEN I became a Christian.

    Sure. But I'm pretty sure that in my case now, I'm not suffering from cultural or self-delusional frames of mind ...

    Of course examples of this kind of things are a dime a dozen, but I'm asking you to provide the examples of this kind of thing that most readily come to mind? Why? Because those examples may have little to do with or any direct connection to my own point of view.

    Right. This is partially what he said. Jesus said blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe. But in Cartesian Rationality, this wouldn't prevent part of the overall process and development of faith to preclude ... hearing and critical thinking.

    That's not actually all I said, though, is it? You've truncated some of what I said. I also said that it could be at least partly a 'rational thing.' And by 'rational thing,' I MEAN ever so EXACTLY to infer to the kind of rationalism of a Rene Descartes or to the Existentially laced critical thinking of a Pascal (or to an existentially coifed quasi-Socratic thinker like Kierkegaard ....... ).

    However, I'll have none of the semantic slight of hand that goes into taking the concept of Cartesian Rationalism and misconstruing and/or equivocating it with some form of illiteracy involved in the happenstance idea of just "rationalizing something away," this last concept being just a cheap knock-off of the better processes of "being rational."
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  14. Caliban

    Caliban Well-Known Member

    +1,006
    United States
    Skeptic
    Married
    That's the only point I am making. Of course, I don't think it is improved by adding a supernatural component--that seems to just make it worse. Every other theistic religion does that too; they arrive at different conclusions using a similar faith methodology. As far as the critical thinking part of faith is considered, the fact that faith is an unreliable methodology for apprehending truth, any use or reason past that point will have been contaminated by the unreliable input. Although I am not a scientist, I appreciate the scientifically minded person and the brilliance of methodological naturalism as a vector for discovery. If all of human knowledge was wiped out overnight (including all the books) the re-discovery of the scientific method would lead us right back to our understanding of reality. Faith however, would not and although people may believe in a god or gods, it would not be the same ones we have today.
     
  15. Caliban

    Caliban Well-Known Member

    +1,006
    United States
    Skeptic
    Married
    But trust isn't a synonym for faith. When I was a believer I was taught that faith and trust were similar when the preacher used a chair analogy. He compared his trust in the ability of the chair to hold him up was akin to faith. But this breaks down real fast. I know what a chair does--I can see it--test it. When I asked to consider supernatural claims, I have nothing like a chair to analyze.

    Another analogy is the trust of a spouse. When my wife goes out of town for business do I trust her to not cheat on me? Is it fair to say I have faith in her? Aren't they the same thing after all? No. I know my wife, I have evidence of her commitment to our marriage--to me. We have a documented history that I can trust. Maybe I could call it faith, but then I would need another word for what people mean when they say that they believe in things without empirical evidence. What is the best word for that? It has to be faith.

    Clearly we use the word faith differently in different contexts. Maybe we tend to use it colloquially; maybe we use it theologically--there are many ways to use the word. As an atheist, I can say my wife is faithful to me without being a hypocrite because I am not using it in the same way I might when considering supernatural claims.

    If faith means trust--just say trust.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +610
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I will highlight the points, I see, of interest :)

    I find it bazaar that we have some professed Christians, even here in this arena, whom seem to argue that the 'resurrection' was nothing more than metaphorical, or anything other than a physical claimed event. The Bible goes out of it's way to make a case that many saw this event. Moving forward....

    And yes, if the resurrection did not happen, then Christians, sorry. Your current beliefs are likely then kaput.



    How about legend? Maybe Jesus was a real, alive, and breathing charismatic Jewish rabbi. Maybe He wondered the plains preaching. Maybe He was really executed for heresy? Maybe the stories, as told from repeated oral tradition, over and over and over again, ultimately led to the stories later written, via the pages of the Gospels - (as written by anonymous authors decades/centuries later).

    What were these authors motives? What were their sources? It's likely the actual authors were not direct eyewitnesses to such claimed miracles. Maybe these authors did write/report exactly what was told to them. But the fundamental question becomes, were these sources also merely repeating what they heard, and those prior people reported what they also heard, and on, and on, and on?



    Believers will state most of the disciples were killed for their beliefs, and that the disciples would not die for a lie. Hence, the resurrection believer will assert that this is strong evidence in support of a resurrection. Since they were all martyred, dying for claimed truth in a resurrection, this further validates and supports the position that a resurrection took place.


    First and foremost, no skeptic, obtaining any knowledge about this subject matter, would most likely suggest that the disciples were lying. If the disciples did exist, which surrounded a claimed Jesus, it's safe to conclude they believed. Which would be the defining reason why they were labeled disciples to begin with.


    However, people die for beliefs all the time; regardless of fact or fiction to the claimed belief.


    Below are some primary counter observations, as to why the believer should no longer use the 'martyr defense' for claimed truth in attempting to support a resurrection claim:


    (1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few.


    (2) How do you know the claimed martyred victim did not recant the second they were captured, but were still killed anyways, because during this time period, claims or professed belief in 'false gods' was often punishable by death? Many preached, or voiced their beliefs publicly, or even did not preach publicly at all, but were still harvested for punishment if others were somehow aware of their differing religious position. The claimed disciples would have been blacklisted, as they were already identified as Jesus followers. But who's to say they did not attempt to retract their internal beliefs verbally, to save their skin, but it was already too late, because the law was to kill all non conformists?


    Even the Bible condemns belief in competing gods, as passages suggest death for alternate god claims. Ironically, these moral prescriptions are sighted in the Old Testament. The same text the Orthodox Jews address today, which deny Jesus as a messiah. For all intents and purposes, civilization was simply adhering to Old Testament law, as the new Testament was not written yet. At the time, differing belief to mainstream and accepted worship in the 'wrong god' may result in execution. No reliable documentation for any claims to these individual's death exist regardless, in any true capacity.


    (3) No reliable source even discloses 'how' any of the said disciples died; not really much even in the Bible itself. Non-partisan sources, like National Geographic, even states the following, due to the underwhelming and scarce available claimed sources (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/) - Note this has since been removed, due to age of the article?. But luckily, I saved a copy.:


    'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'


    a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.


    b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary


    c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.


    D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. In this case, faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  17. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Oh no! Not another ... interlocutor !!! Supporter

    +6,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Well.................this is what the writers of the bible do, so whether you and I like it our not, this is what is being asserted by biblical writers (like Paul).

    I beg to differ with that. When I studied the other World Philosophies / Religions, I did NOT find epistemic structures there that are perfectly parallel, let alone identical, to those in the Bible. So, let's not make it out that they do this. They don't. They may make over-confident, even vacuous claims in the same way that SOME Christians do, but this in and of itself does not place them in the same epistemic basket.

    ...... and I don't subscribe to the idea that faith comes before the PRAXIS of critical thinking is established. So, I guess you and I don't have any qualms with each other in this area of Epistemology then.

    That's good to hear. I'm glad you don't place yourself along the likes of Dawkins and Coyne who don't subscribe to methodological Naturalism in any full sense of the word.

    And I never said that Christian Faith is some mode by which to explore the world as a whole; no, all I've ever asserted is that faith is a response to those things pertaining to God and Christ. We don't use faith to land on the moon, and God Help Us if anyone would ever try such a thing. No one uses a spoon when pliers are needed, or at least they shouldn't think to do so.

    p.s. .... Maybe you already know this, but there really is no singular, forever inviolable method for science. There isn't really any idea around in exacting and perfect terms that provides us something called "THE" scientific method.
     
  18. Caliban

    Caliban Well-Known Member

    +1,006
    United States
    Skeptic
    Married
    I wasn't aware that those guys were not methodological naturalists--that is surprising.

    True..in fact, there is an interesting exchange between Eric Weinstein and Joe Rogan, where Weinstein laments contemporary peer review journals and discussed how the submission process used to be. That's not a conversation about the scientific method, but more a point that mirrors your about the variety of approached in the scientific community.
     
  19. Jok

    Jok Well-Known Member

    686
    +567
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    I did read something that went into the difference between faith and trust, but I kind of felt not satisfied with the distinction at the end, so I still feel iffy on their difference. The author was making the point that replacing the word faith with trust leads to an incomplete thought;
    “I have trust” is an incomplete thought, you have trust in what? He was saying that an object or an action needs to be applied to saying I have trust, and he pointed out that it is obvious when you read that statement. However;
    “I have faith” is commonly acceptable to people. The reason I wasn’t satisfied is because I always felt like for both words there are just IMPLIED endings that could easily be inserted at the end of both statements. And I always felt like they could match up one for one.

    He went on to explain that faith is a three part ingredient, part one is knowledge, like having a specific proposition to analyze that you know to be a claimed piece of knowledge about an object. Step two is assent, to agree with such a proposition, to accept the proposition as being true. And step three he actually called trust, the willingness to act on a piece of knowledge that you accept as being true knowledge (I thought of me knowing that a clear glass bridge was built to rigorous standards that went across the Grand Canyon, even though I give the nod of approval to the knowledge claim that it is built to rigorous standards, will I still “Trust” crossing the scary looking bridge?).

    Idk, I still felt like I could compact all three of those things into the term trust as well, my mind scanned a bunch of scenarios where me trusting someone would automatically including all three.

    But like you say there could be many ways to use the word. So I guess it’s just best to ask someone if they could explain how they are using the word, in each conversation that you find yourself in.
     
  20. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +3,374
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    There are two basic definitions of the word "faith". The first is used in the generic sense and does not exclude the possibility that 'trust or confidence' is based on some form of evidence:

    1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’

    The second definition is specific to religious conviction and excludes proof:

    2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
    ‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’
    Oxford Dictionary definition of Faith

    Christians will typically say that they believe "on faith" in this second, unevidenced sense. They will then typically proceed to point out that I also have 'faith' since I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

    This bit of verbal bait & switchery conflates the two meanings. My 'faith' in tomorrow's sunrise uses the first definition and is based on evidence from precedent - it's happened every other day so expecting a sunrise tomorrow is a reasonable assumption.

    In my experience the practice of conflating the two meanings is common but usually based on lack of knowledge (of the different meanings) rather than dishonesty.

    In practical terms when talking with Christians I try to avoid words like 'faith', 'belief', 'morality' or 'sin' since they carry generic meaning and a more specific Christian interpretation. Many Christians appear to conflate both meanings.

    OB
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
Loading...