Is the Resurrection a matter of faith?

[Occams Barber]

I'm considering the overall etymology involved in the ongoing historical usage(s) of the term "faith" in successive measures as they are evidence over roughly 2,000 years, which is the proper context in which we should be considering anything at all for the term faith in the relation to Christianity.

So, while I do agree with one of your assertions above that dictionaries 'report' usages of meaning, what I have to say as an addendum to what you've thus far had to say does have something to do with it all.

The word faith did not exist in the English language prior to the 13th century. It's borrowed from a similar (but not the same) word in Old French which in turn came from a Latin word which in turn came from Proto Indo European root.

The issue is not what the word may or may not have meant in some distant past. Today, and since the 14th century, one of the accepted meanings for 'faith' is "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".

The issue here is not even about the word 'faith'. The existence of this meaning for the word simply indicates that the concept of religious belief with minimal evidence has been around for a long time.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

The word faith did not exist in the English language prior to the 13th century. It's borrowed from a similar (but not the same) word in Old French which in turn came from a Latin word which in turn came from Proto Indo European root.

The issue is not what the word may or may not have meant in some distant past. Today, and since the 14th century, one of the accepted meanings for 'faith' is "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".

The issue here is not even about the word 'faith'. The existence of this meaning for the word simply indicates that the concept of religious belief with minimal evidence has been around for a long time.

OB

I agree with hedrick that the etymological discussion in this thread is rather useless, but the root of the usage we are considering is Biblical, and the 14th century is, well, 14 centuries too late to track Biblical usage. Philo's desire to understand the Biblical pistis has nothing to do with the 14th century.

 

[Occams Barber]

My problem isn't etymology, but understanding. Faith can't justify a belief. I think when you say someone takes it on faith, there's something more going on, and there's no real way to talk about it until we know what it is. Two of the most common reasons are probably that the person trusts his church, or believes that the bible is a good source of history. That's probably what is actually going on when they say "I take it on faith." But I think it's a lot easier to talk about if they're explicit about that.

I don't find the concept of believing something in the absence of reasonable evidence as surprising or unusual. Just take a trip to our Conspiracy Theory Forum to see examples. Look at what's happening in the wider world where 5g, anti-vaccination, the AGW Hoax, creationism, compulsory microchipping and the Mark of the Beast have all taken off as unevidenced beliefs. Oily Bibles, alien abduction, bleeding statues - I could go on. Unevidenced belief is as common as dirt. People will believe what they want to believe - evidence or not.

Since there is no serious evidence for the existence of God, Christian belief is a response to some internal need. The Bible, or the opinion of a church may give you a reason to believe but don't constitute evidence in the real sense of the word. If you want to believe - you will. Establish an initial belief and the rest is confirmation bias.

It's not unusual for Christians on this Forum to opine that evidence is unnecessary - belief is all you need.

OB

 

[Jok]

I have two problems with the OP.

1) It's not so clear that it deals with the most likely alternative explanation, that Jesus' followers did experience something, and that the empty tomb was a later elaboration.

Pretty much everyone agrees that Jesus existed, and that he had followers. Forgetting faith, it seems hard to account for the existence of Christianity without something like the resurrection. However the earliest description we have is Paul's. He doesn't mention the empty tomb, and he seems to equate his own experience with that of the other witnesses.

So to me the credible alternative are
* subjective resurrection experiences not based on any reality, with the empty tomb growing out of that later
* the same thing except that the experiences were actually of Jesus
* a quasi-physical resurrection, i.e. the empty tomb. I say quasi-physical because according to Paul, and really also the Gospel acccounts, the resurrected body isn't just the original body brought back to life, but some kind of new or transformed body

The best historical argument for the third alternative is probably from N T Wright. He argues that ghosts and other non-physical presence of the dead was quite well-known during that time period, and that given what we know about their beliefs, the Christian idea of the resurrection can't possibly have arisen without something objective.

2) I'm not happy with this use of faith. Faith isn't a source of information. It's our response to God. The nearest I can come is this: Perhaps people accept the resurrection because they find the Christian life for one reason or another compelling, and the resurrection is an essential part of it, or they accept the witness of the early Christian community. That's not necessarily irrational. There are plenty of things I believe because I trust the scientific community or other groups, and they have investigated. That's not to say that there are no valid objections. The obvious one is to ask what we know about how the early Christian community treated evidence, and whether that is good enough to ground this belief.

I think it could be possible that the empty tomb, as far as it becoming a popular talking point for Christians goes, could have taken longer to get momentum. I just had a question about your post though since you mentioned NT Wright. Unless one were to argue for a non-physical spiritual resurrection an empty tomb would necessarily follow from Paul’s claim that Christ died, that he was buried, and that He was raised. So are you only referring to a person who disagrees with a physical bodily resurrection (and not speaking about yourself)? Because you mentioned NT Wright who does do a good job explaining why the language does not give us a non-bodily resurrection into a purely spiritual realm.

 

[Occams Barber]

I agree with hedrick that the etymological discussion in this thread is rather useless, but the root of the usage we are considering is Biblical, and the 14th century is, well, 14 centuries too late to track Biblical usage. Philo's desire to understand the Biblical pistis has nothing to do with the 14th century.

If you look above to post#41 you'll see I agree apart from Philo's irrelevant wander into Koine translation.

The issue we're really talking about here is not the definition of the word faith. It's whether there is such a thing as Christian belief without serious evidence.

Since the concept of Christian belief without evidence has been embedded in the language for seven centuries as one of the meanings of 'faith', it follows that this concept has been around for a long time.

What meaning may have been attached to some Koine equivalent of the word 'faith' is irrelevant.

OB

 

[hedrick]

Unless one were to argue for a non-physical spiritual resurrection an empty tomb would necessarily follow from Paul’s claim that Christ died, that he was buried, and that He was raised.

I'm looking at what is evidence for what. If you accept Wright's argument, then Paul's witness implies something like a physical resurrection. However it's not specific evidence for it. There are two logical alternatives consistent with what Paul says:

* a purely spiritual resurrection, and Wright is wrong about what 1st Cent people might find credible
* a physicalish resurrection without the empty tomb

I say physicalish because Paul speaks of a resurrection body as being of a different kind than the original body, though presumably still recognizable and tanglble.

If Paul is right that the resurrection body is of a somewhat different kind than our original bodies, God presumably creates it. Paul says that if we are still alive, he changes our bodies. But some people's bodies will no longer exist, in which case one presumes God creates a new one. So Jesus could appear to the witnesses Paul lists, and God might have created a new resurrection body for him, leaving the old one in the tomb. I'm not saying that's what happened. But it's certainly possible, given only Paul's statements. So I don't think Paul's witness is iron-clad evidence for the empty tomb. The Gospels are, obviously.

You have to ask whether anyone would have believed in a physicalish resurrection while Jesus' body was still buried. I think that's a valid point. But I'd still not say that Paul is specific evidence for the empty tomb.

 

[zippy2006]

The existence of this meaning for the word simply indicates that the concept of religious belief with minimal evidence has been around for a long time.

Since the concept of Christian belief without evidence has been embedded in the language for seven centuries as one of the meanings of 'faith', it follows that this concept has been around for a long time.

As much as I enjoy forays into credulous atheist fantasy land, repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it true. There simply is no accepted definition of faith as "absence of evidence," or, "belief with minimal evidence," or, "belief without evidence." That is an atheist fantasy with no grounding in reality. It is one of many things atheists believe without evidence.

 

[hedrick]

I don't find the concept of believing something in the absence of reasonable evidence as surprising or unusual. Just take a trip to our Conspiracy Theory Forum to see examples. Look at what's happening in the wider world where 5g, anti-vaccination, the AGW Hoax, creationism, compulsory microchipping and the Mark of the Beast have all taken off as unevidenced beliefs. Oily Bibles, alien abduction, bleeding statues - I could go on. Unevidenced belief is as common as dirt. People will believe what they want to believe - evidence or not.

Since there is no serious evidence for the existence of God, Christian belief is a response to some internal need. The Bible, or the opinion of a church may give you a reason to believe but don't constitute evidence in the real sense of the word. If you want to believe - you will. Establish an initial belief and the rest is confirmation bias.

It's not unusual for Christians on this Forum to opine that evidence is unnecessary - belief is all you need.

OB

I agree that most of the things you list don't have convincing evidence. But there are still reasons that people believe them. Conspiracy theory may not be credible, but it does supply a reason. I believe when someone says "I take it on faith" they have some reasons, even if it's just trusting their church, even if you wouldn't consider it reasonable evidence. I think it's relevant to know what those reasons are.

 

[Jok]

I'm looking at what is evidence for what. If you accept Wright's argument, then Paul's witness implies something like a physical resurrection. However it's not specific evidence for it. There are two logical alternatives consistent with what Paul says:

* a purely spiritual resurrection, and Wright is wrong about what 1st Cent people might find credible
* a physicalish resurrection without the empty tomb

I say physicalish because Paul speaks of a resurrection body as being of a different kind than the original body, though presumably still recognizable and tanglble.

If Paul is right that the resurrection body is of a somewhat different kind than our original bodies, God presumably creates it. Paul says that if we are still alive, he changes our bodies. But some people's bodies will no longer exist, in which case one presumes God creates a new one. So Jesus could appear to the witnesses Paul lists, and God might have created a new resurrection body for him, leaving the old one in the tomb. I'm not saying that's what happened. But it's certainly possible, given only Paul's statements. So I don't think Paul's witness is iron-clad evidence for the empty tomb. The Gospels are, obviously.

You have to ask whether anyone would have believed in a physicalish resurrection while Jesus' body was still buried. I think that's a valid point. But I'd still not say that Paul is specific evidence for the empty tomb.

Ok I understand. Perhaps their could have also been a delayed popularity of an explicit mentioning of the empty tomb, an elaboration as you said in your first post, such as “How many ways do I need to explain this to you people the resurrection was physical, how else would an empty tomb being left behind make any sense?” And maybe that sort of reply at one point became popular.

Interesting thought on the possibility of a body being left in the tomb yet a 2nd physical one being created. I know that Matthew is later but I am comfortable with a few of the boxes that the burial account checks off as far as not resembling typical made up embellishment. I also think that Jesus’ gravesite would have had a knee jerk gravitational pull to it for being worshipped, unless it was pretty much instantaneously rendered as an inconsequential spot (nothing to see here, it’s empty).

 

[Occams Barber]

I agree that most of the things you list don't have convincing evidence. But there are still reasons that people believe them. Conspiracy theory may not be credible, but it does supply a reason. I believe when someone says "I take it on faith" they have some reasons, even if it's just trusting their church, even if you wouldn't consider it reasonable evidence. I think it's relevant to know what those reasons are.

Its axiomatic that someone who believes something has reason to believe - otherwise they wouldn't believe. If I asked you to accept that I have an invisible green dragon in my garage, your reason to believe might be that I told you. It is however likely that you would be asking for evidence.

Reason to believe and evidence are not necessarily the same thing.

As I said earlier this is not about the word faith. It's not even about the existence of God since the existence of un-evidenced belief in God does not disprove the existence of God.

'Taking it on faith' is a little like saying you accept my story about the green dragon because I told you. It's a reason but it isn't reasonable evidence. It isn't reasonable evidence because the claim I'm making is extraordinary. If I told you I had a car in my garage you would probably accept this as reasonable.

The proposition here is very simple:

The concept of religious belief based on minimal evidence exists, based on the etymological history and current dictionary definition of 'faith'.

This is supported anecdotally by Christian statements which decry the need for evidence (of God/Jesus) in favour of 'faith'.
​

OB

 

[Jok]

Though I too contest that the word 'faith' can be interchanged in multiple ways -- 'hope', trust', 'belief', or even belief without truly sufficient evidence; here's what I find quite odd however...

God decided to have humans place pen to paper, in description of Him and His Word. Wouldn't God be aware that language changes, especially over time? God's goal or plan, was for later humans to contemplate what He truly meant by 'faith'???

Regardless of His intended definition, does it appear logical to impose 'faith' as a viable means of truth? In regards to the resurrection specifically, what was Jesus hoping for here? Did He purposefully set up a scenario, where all later speculation would be based upon belief without sufficient evidence? Seems like this was God's plan, but then also decides to tell His readers - (through a human) "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

I actually have been known to complain about this myself too lol. It does suck how much effort is involved in having to deal with not only historical contexts and intricacies of the literary styles used, but also if you wanted to be really good at understanding the full picture you’d also need a good understanding of the neighboring cultures of ancient Israel as well! It does suck that things can’t be more in reach for us.


The reason I am not a big fan of offering a defense of why the evidence can’t be stronger for the average person (whether I myself personally find it to be strong or not) is because I don’t feel too grounded in my opinion on why that is. There definitely seems to me to be not so much concern from God throughout history for a technical understanding of the finer details. On the other hand it does seem like the basic tenets of Christianity are put forth fairly well throughout history. It seems much more important to God (as I see it) that it be common knowledge that you should be inclined to fall on your knees and pray when troubled, then it being important to straighten out technical trouble spots with great precision. Even some things that I have come across that I found helpful in a technical sense, I still think to myself WHY did it take DECADES for you to give me that simple detail?

Among believers there are 1000 arguments going on in here, yet for certain basic points of Christianity it’s almost universal agreement among believers in here. It’s weird and I can’t fully put my finger on it, it doesn’t seem to be of vital importance to God IMO. It almost seems like God is cool with just a cursory understanding of the details, combined with it being much more important where your heart is at over where your head is at. This does present problems with highly detailed oriented skeptics more so than other personality types. So again even if I find the historical resurrection details to be adequate I still do realize that I am only one personality type, and my mind works differently than other personality types. So I don’t feel too comfortable addressing why something is the way it is if my understanding of it is shaky as well.

 

[Occams Barber]

Among believers there are 1000 arguments going on in here, yet for certain basic points of Christianity it’s almost universal agreement among believers in here. It’s weird and I can’t fully put my finger on it, it doesn’t seem to be of vital importance to God IMO.

If you can't put your finger on it allow me to help.

You've just made a sort of self fulfilling prophecy/circular argument. "All those who agree with certain basic points of Christianity are Christians" Since this eliminates those who don't believe in certain basic points then what's left are Christians who agree with each other. QED

If you were to think in terms of the many, many points of disagreement you might reach a different conclusion.
OB

 

[Jok]

You've just made a sort of self fulfilling prophecy/circular argument. "All those who agree with certain basic points of Christianity are Christians" Since this eliminates those who don't believe in certain basic points then what's left are Christians who agree with each other.

Circular? Your 2nd premise speaks of non-Christians, not a distinction between Christians. The conclusion doesn’t follow, your conclusion should say what’s left are Christians and non-Christians.

 

[Occams Barber]

Circular? Your 2nd premise speaks of non-Christians, not a distinction between Christians. The conclusion doesn’t follow, your conclusion should say what’s left are Christians and non-Christians.

It's the same as saying "all those we define as Christians are Christians"

OB

 

[Jok]

It's the same as saying "all those we define as Christians are Christians"

OB

Those who adhere to a core set of beliefs are Christians, even though those Christians may disagree with points that lie outside of that core set. I’m not seeing how that would form a circular argument. It’s just a definition not an argument.

 

[Jok]

It's the same as saying "all those we define as Christians are Christians"

What is flawed about saying all A is A?

 

[Occams Barber]

What is flawed about saying all A is A?

A is A is a nonsensical statement of the obvious.

I was just surprised at your surprise that those who accepted a core set of beliefs were Christians when they couldn't be Christians without accepting a core set of beliefs.

Isn't it past your bedtime?

OB

 

[zippy2006]

A is A is a nonsensical statement of the obvious.

I was just surprised at your surprise that those who accepted a core set of beliefs were Christians when they couldn't be Christians without accepting a core set of beliefs.

Isn't it past your bedtime?

OB

Jok is right. His point was neither flawed, a self-fulfilling prophecy, nor a circular argument. In this post you put an argument in his mouth that he didn't give, but that argument also isn't problematic. That claim was, "Someone is a Christian if and only if they hold such-and-such core tenets of Christianity." That's not circular, flawed, or a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a perfectly reasonable way to define a Christian, and it's actually the way that CF defines a Christian (via creedal formulations). You could also go by self-identification or baptism, and none of these approaches to defining a Christian are inherently flawed in the way you believe Jok's approach is.

In any case, here's what Jok actually said:

Among believers there are 1000 arguments going on in here, yet for certain basic points of Christianity it’s almost universal agreement among believers in here.

He is saying that on CF you find disagreements but also widespread agreement on fundamental criteria. That's true too, and the data isn't being doctored according to some sort of arbitrary criteria in order to give a false impression of consensus. The fundamental agreement is based on millenia-old creeds, not something Jok made up.

A is A is a nonsensical statement of the obvious.

No, that's a nonsensical statement. If something is nonsensical, it isn't obvious.

"A is A" is the law of identity. It's a standard logical premise.

 

[cvanwey]

I actually have been known to complain about this myself too lol. It does suck how much effort is involved in having to deal with not only historical contexts and intricacies of the literary styles used, but also if you wanted to be really good at understanding the full picture you’d also need a good understanding of the neighboring cultures of ancient Israel as well! It does suck that things can’t be more in reach for us.


The reason I am not a big fan of offering a defense of why the evidence can’t be stronger for the average person (whether I myself personally find it to be strong or not) is because I don’t feel too grounded in my opinion on why that is. There definitely seems to me to be not so much concern from God throughout history for a technical understanding of the finer details. On the other hand it does seem like the basic tenets of Christianity are put forth fairly well throughout history. It seems much more important to God (as I see it) that it be common knowledge that you should be inclined to fall on your knees and pray when troubled, then it being important to straighten out technical trouble spots with great precision. Even some things that I have come across that I found helpful in a technical sense, I still think to myself WHY did it take DECADES for you to give me that simple detail?

Among believers there are 1000 arguments going on in here, yet for certain basic points of Christianity it’s almost universal agreement among believers in here. It’s weird and I can’t fully put my finger on it, it doesn’t seem to be of vital importance to God IMO. It almost seems like God is cool with just a cursory understanding of the details, combined with it being much more important where your heart is at over where your head is at. This does present problems with highly detailed oriented skeptics more so than other personality types. So again even if I find the historical resurrection details to be adequate I still do realize that I am only one personality type, and my mind works differently than other personality types. So I don’t feel too comfortable addressing why something is the way it is if my understanding of it is shaky as well.

So why then do [you] find the resurrection compelling? I trust you are under the blanket of statement, for which 'Paul" presumably said as well --- "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry to pick on you so, but I have never drawn this out explicitly with an atheist:

'Taking it on faith' is a little like saying you accept my story about the green dragon because I told you. It's a reason but it isn't reasonable evidence. It isn't reasonable evidence because the claim I'm making is extraordinary. If I told you I had a car in my garage you would probably accept this as reasonable.

Testimony is a form of evidence, so clearly the hearer has evidence for a green dragon. It may not be sufficient evidence, but it is evidence. If I told you I have a bicycle in my garage you would believe me. You would believe me because you have evidence, namely my testimony.

Whether some particular claim is "extraordinary" is not at all clear, and begins quite the rabbit hole. Nothing is objectively extraordinary. Things are only extraordinary from a particular point of view, be it personal, cultural, scientific, human, etc. Admittedly a man being raised from the dead is extraordinary when weighed against human experience, but how extraordinary? How much evidence is needed to offset the extraordinariness? Supposing the man is the Son of God, would it still be extraordinarily extraordinary? Again, not clear.