Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[William]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

In order to find the answer to that question one would have to examine why the belief is said to be necessary.
The general impression I have is that it has something to do with how things pan out in the next level...

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #6]

I don't see the resurrection as a reason for us to be more moral. It's a sign of the power we need so that we can be more moral.

I think perhaps the 2 are aspects of each other?

This ties in with something I was thinking about the other day. "Are there any ancient events where it is recorded that atheism contributed to major shifts in morality?"

I know the question may appear to be sourced in bias against atheism (and thus atheists) but it may be just a functional thing in that theism is the best tool for the job of developing morality...atheism is about lacking belief in theism not morality.

You and I both agree that atheists can and do exhibit moral compass but we also might agree that this is not because of atheism.

This could have us assuming that lack of belief in theism is not contingent upon having understanding, agreement and willingness to support morals and might be traced to using morals to point out how badly religions in general/religious belief performs.

So, rightfully we should not conflate the religious belief in resurrection with morality.

In your case, you use it as motivation (the power) to be "more" moral and that is your belief.

Are there other things in this world which have the same effect?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #41]

While I agree that this is the belief of many, I don't think that is the Biblical message. I believe the resurrection is necessary for humans to live out (not to be motivated, but to actually do it) their calling (from the beginning) to live life and form society in the ways God knows is good for us.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #41]

While I agree that this is the belief of many, I don't think that is the Biblical message.

Well that shows us evidence that the Bible can be believed/thought about in many ways. Your's is one such way...but why is it the best way? And - if it is not the best way, why think your way about it?

I believe the resurrection is necessary for humans to live out (not to be motivated, but to actually do it) their calling (from the beginning) to live life and form society in the ways God knows is good for us.

What motivates you to believe that - which can be properly tied to the belief - that this is the reason for the belief in resurrection?

Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?
An answer: " Because it "somehow" makes me Live Life and form society in the way God knows is good for me without actually motivating me.

But why should I trust that I need not be motivated in order to achieve that result?

My experiences differ so completely from yours that my definition of "the way God knows is good for me" appears to have come through "because I was motivated to find that out"

And what motivated me?

I can be said that my other taking her children to church is what motivated me, which would have included in the data - the story of Jesus.

Perhaps the "differences" between you and I are language-based rather than real...

[POI]

The reason I am silent as to whether the Gospels "are both a) trustworthy and from b) direct corroborated eyewitnesses" is because it does not matter as I have demonstrated. Again, as I have already demonstrated, even the critical scholars who do not believe the material is trustworthy, nor do they believe the material to be authored by direct corroborated eyewitnesses, tell us that we can know from this material that the early followers could not have possibly made the story up, because the evidence we have is overwhelming that these folks (which would include the apostles) were somehow truly convinced they had encountered the risen Jesus after death. With this being a fact, there is no need in anyone even being concerned about whether the accounts are trustworthy, nor whether the authors were direct corroborated eyewitnesses, because if we can know they could not have possibly made the story up, because they were truly convinced, they had seen Jesus alive after death, then neither one of these things matter in the least.

Some scholars also alternatively believe the resurrection story came from later myth. So, yet again, I find it quite convenient you care what some scholars believe HERE, but not in other areas. Heck, some scholars even believe Jesus did not exist. You feel you can refute those scholars, and yet, they are still 'scholars.' Thus, again, you are grasping at straws here.

You also want to continue to argue just how unlikely, and extraordinary a resurrection would be, but the fact of the matter is, there is no other explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not be extremely unlikely, or would not be extremely extraordinary. You are the one who is insisting that any, and everyone who comes to a different conclusion than you have, could not have possibly used reason to arrive to such a conclusion. Therefore, since this is the case, you should be able to use your vast reasoning skills in order to come up with a scenario which would explain the facts and evidence we can know which would eliminate the unlikely along with the extraordinary.

You are basing your position on a false premise. We have no 'facts and evidence'. Why? To use your own rationale directly against you, some scholars believe Jesus was a later mythical story. There! You see how ridiculous your entire argument is now?

And speaking about "facts and evidence", or what we know, the fact of the matter, or what we know, is that rotting bodies do not rise. When the veracity of the claim is lacking, because we also know the Bible is neither trustworthy or substantiated by corroborated eyewitnesses, ANY other natural explanation reigns superior against the said ridiculous claim that a rotting corpse rose.

What I am doing is to get us to the point of things we will have to agree upon and eliminating arguments which only bog the conversation down. By eliminating arguments which do not matter in the least, we can concentrate on the arguments which matter. If you continue to bring up these arguments which do not matter in the least, I will continue to point out that they do not matter in the least and attempt to keep you focused on the arguments which matter.

Virtually no alternative natural argument is completely eliminated. We KNOW rotting bodies don't rise, because it is a very ridiculous claim. "The Bible" is all we have to attest to such a story. And yet, we know it is corrupt. My other thread explains why.

I can assure you this is not my position in the least

Oh, but it most certainly is. 'Stout evidence' does not include (paraphrased), "some secular scholars believe X". I've told you why above and wish not to continue beating the dead horse.

When you were a convinced Christian who did not use reason to be convinced, because you took the word of others, being exposed to extremely reckless theology, you were taught that the Bible was inerrant and that it was impossible for the Bible to contain any error. You took this "hook line and sinker" and therefore, it there was any error to be found, this would have surely shipwrecked your faith. You go on to transpose this reckless theology you were exposed to upon others who hold to the position you once held, and insist that they as well must, and have to hold to the same position, and if they do not, they are "picking and choosing", because you cannot imagine anyone at all who is convinced as you not insisting upon the same thing.

I created an entire thread about this here --> (viewtopic.php?t=41906). In a nutshell, there are some beliefs in where you cannot pick and choose. You either accept it all, or nothing. I also explained how every intelligent person harbors cognitive dissonance for some positions. I see this is absolutely necessary for religion, (some) political positions, or the "moral" atheist/skeptic deciding not to be a vegetarian (me), etc etc etc........

I also pointed out that you are clearly a 'minimal facts' Christian, and I already explained what that means. You can look into it, if you wish.

I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that there are indeed facts, evidence, and reasons surrounding the claims of the resurrection which needs some sort of explanation which would not include the extremely unlikely, and or the extremely extraordinary.

No. You most certainly have not. And I have already explained why, ad nauseum.

It is a fact that a resurrection would be extremely unlikely, and it would be extremely extraordinary. What I am looking for is an explanation of the facts and evidence that would not include the extremely unlikely, or the extremely extraordinary, you have neither, nor do any of the critical scholars.

You sure care about what SOME scholars believe, sometimes. The Bible is neither trustworthy nor is the Bible substantiated by eyewitness attestation. You have offered no rebuttal to this position. Likely because you know it is a losing battle. It's game over. You can keep grasping at straws, if you wish. There is no good reason(s) to believe what the Bible claims about rotting bodies rising.

There is no critical scholars who has come up with any explanation of the facts and evidence we have concerning the facts and evidence we can know, which would be likely in any way, nor would it exclude the extraordinary, and that is a fact, and if it is not, then you should be able to supply us with this explanation.

Wow! This must mean rotting bodies rose! Again, we are starting on a complete house of cards or on a house built on quicksand. Meaning, the starting point is flawed and is the one making the claim. It is a complete non-starter. To not be able to give a specific alternative explanation, one would need to trust the details expressed in the Gospels. This would be, of course, after we decide which account is the right one, being they all express different 'facts' which oppose one another. I've explained this in the other thread for which you ducked out from.

My friend, it is extremely easy to demonstrate that the claims of Jesus being raised from the dead were being made very early on, even to days after the crucifixion. We know this to be the case, because we know with certainty that Paul was alive at the time of the crucifixion, and we know with certainty that he knew and spent a whole lot of time with the original apostles, and Paul would have heard the claims they were making from their own lips, and Paul explains to his audiences at the time (you know, those alive at the time) what the apostles were proclaiming. This is exactly why that even the critical scholars understand that this fact cannot be refuted, because it is not possible to deny this to be a fact, with the facts and evidence we can know. The reason this is relevant is the fact that it eliminates the idea that the authors of the Gospels embellished the reports to include a resurrection decades later, and that is a fact.

See my other thread, in which you ducked out from. The Gospels were embellished, changed, etc.... The Gospels were also not considered a 'thing' until after Paul was dead. We also do not have the original(s) to compare with what we later do have. We see all sorts of corruption, when just comparing Mark to Luke alone. Just think what corruption lies with the parts we will never see? The bottom line is that we can verify what Paul believed, and that is pretty much IT. I do not question Paul's conviction that he had an 'experience' in the desert. The rest, who the hell knows? It's all soiled and dirty, and reeks of corruption.

In conclusion, your argument looks to be... The ones who believe that rotting bodies rose have legit reason(s) to believe this claim. However, it is quite simple. We KNOW rotting bodies do not rise. They remain rotting.

I'll stop here.....

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

In order to find the answer to that question one would have to examine why the belief is said to be necessary.
The general impression I have is that it has something to do with how things pan out in the next level...

Are you suggesting that the storyline gives some hope, in that we do not have to otherwise reconcile our own possible finite mortality?

[William]

Are you suggesting that the storyline gives some hope, in that we do not have to otherwise reconcile our own possible finite mortality?

No. It is not about one or the other. One can do both.

But yes - that is my general impression as to why folk believe in the story - obviously there are exceptions like with Tanager and myself....

[The Tanager]

Well that shows us evidence that the Bible can be believed/thought about in many ways. Your's is one such way...but why is it the best way? And - if it is not the best way, why think your way about it?

If it’s not the best way to read the texts, then one shouldn’t think about it that way. Which specific verses give you the impression that it is about how things pan out in the next level?

I believe the resurrection is necessary for humans to live out (not to be motivated, but to actually do it) their calling (from the beginning) to live life and form society in the ways God knows is good for us.

What motivates you to believe that - which can be properly tied to the belief - that this is the reason for the belief in resurrection?

Perhaps the phrasing is messing me up here, but I’m not saying this is why people believe in the resurrection, but what the resurrection does since Purple Knight seemed to be saying the resurrection is said to do something else and I disagreed.

Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?
An answer: " Because it "somehow" makes me Live Life and form society in the way God knows is good for me without actually motivating me.

But why should I trust that I need not be motivated in order to achieve that result?

That is not my answer in two ways. First, I don’t think one should believe the resurrection is true because it has pragmatic value for them to reach some goal they want in life. Second, I’m not saying the resurrection doesn’t or shouldn’t motivate people; I’m saying the point of the resurrection happening is not to simply motivate people to better follow God’s ways because the message throughout the entire Bible is consistently that we can’t do it on our own power; that it’s about relying on God’s strength.

My experiences differ so completely from yours that my definition of "the way God knows is good for me" appears to have come through "because I was motivated to find that out"

And what motivated me?

I can be said that my other taking her children to church is what motivated me, which would have included in the data - the story of Jesus.

Perhaps the "differences" between you and I are language-based rather than real...

I was motivated to find the truth out here just like everyone who pursues this question. There are many different motivations. I’m not saying the resurrection is the motivation for that search for everyone; it wasn’t for me. I’m saying the resurrection is the way we get to actually living out that way of life should we be motivated to do so.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #6]

I don't see the resurrection as a reason for us to be more moral. It's a sign of the power we need so that we can be more moral.

What would you call it if, in an atheist universe, someone decides to care about others, simply because they should?

I fully admit that atheism can't ground morality and there's not an objective reason to call this fellow's action better than another one's pummeling somebody for yucks. It's better to the person being helped and cared about instead of beaten, but that's definitively subjective, not objective. But we still have to call this something.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #49]

If it's not objectively moral, then the "should" actually doesn't exist. They aren't really doing it because they should, but because of their illusory belief that they should. They are really doing it because of nature, their environment, or their subjective will. They aren't being moral; they are just being themself in exactly the same way the one that doesn't care for the other is being themself. They are on exactly equal (although different) ground.

Does that answer your question or was I missing a different nuance of it?