Is the Resurrection a matter of faith?

[FireDragon76]

Infallible: "incapable of error" ... if it's not incapable of error, then it surely cannot be the highest goal.

Inerrant is a different concept from infallible.

 

[FireDragon76]

From my Buddhist perspective, the most infallible "thing" that 1. exists, is 2. observable, and 3. can be seen as a kind of communication are the laws governing the fabric of reality itself - for example, the law of cause and effect, which we call Kamma.

Be careful here because causality was critiqued by the Scottish philosopher David Hume.

Also, numerous Buddhist philosophers have pointed out that the doctrine of karma is not unproblematic. It is not necessarily self-evidently true.

 

[ananda]

Inerrant is a different concept from infallible.

Of course.

 

[ananda]

Be careful here because causality was critiqued by the Scottish philosopher David Hume.

Also, numerous Buddhist philosophers have pointed out that the doctrine of karma is not unproblematic. It is not necessarily self-evidently true.

I was speaking of causality as a concept itself (X -> Y/Z/A/B/etc.), not about Hume's ideas about uniformity (X always -> Y).

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course.

My point: depending on ones expectations, a given conception of Deity may or may not be "infallible", since failure is going to be relative to those expectations. It's not something that is necessarily subject to an objective standard.

 

[ananda]

My point: depending on ones expectations, a given conception of Deity may or may not be "infallible", since failure is going to be relative to those expectations. It's not something that is necessarily subject to an objective standard.

The conclusion being: there is ultimately no objective standard, because everything must be understood subjectively.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"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.

I agree...these are matters 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.

Well...

I don't know that there would necessarily be evidence to prove it. There's lots of astonishing historical claims....and no evidence of them.

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.

That's a big ask...I gotta read an entire book to answer your question?

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.

There's a lot of assumption there....but ok....

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.

Again, there's a lot of assumptions there.

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.

This point seems like a distraction from the first.

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! 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.

Let's just start with the first point....that their lives as christians would have been easier had they retracted the "lie" that Christ was resurrected.

My question would be "What lives as Christians?"

It's hard to sell a story about the son of God being your teacher when that story ends with "...and then the Roman's killed him." If the Romans are able to kill him, people won't be inclined to believe he was the son of God...and your new religion is dead in the water. I'd say that it seems like the motive for making up the resurrection story is rather obvious. It's a story that's absolutely essential if you intend to spread Christ's teachings....without it, he's just another dead guy claiming to be the Jewish messiah. The fact is, there were multiple men claiming to be the Jewish messiah around the time of Jesus....some led bloody rebellions against the Romans. The apostles must have been aware of the fate of the teachings of messiahs who die by Roman hands.

Does that make sense so far? Obviously it doesn't prove they were lying....but it does explain a very good possible motive for lying.

 

[FireDragon76]

The conclusion being: there is ultimately no objective standard, because everything must be understood subjectively.

Perhaps no ultimate, objective standard. But I do believe approximations of objectivity are possible. Which is exactly what abstract reasoning is about in the first place.

Of course, without a subject, how can there be understanding?