Flagg

I do not post here as much as I should, but I plan on changing that soon. Although I have lurked extensively on these boards, I have not been here regularly in many months, so if this post breaks the rules or general spirit of this forum, I apologize in advance.

Recently, I have started study on the debate of the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Today, I had a brainstorming of a different approach to the argument, based on the doctrine of faith.

I am in no way claiming this to be original. In fact, the idea started from something my stepfather, a (non-Apologist) Catholic, stated to me: "we can't prove the resurrection. If we could, faith would be useless." I wanted to develop this thought and see if the following approach can be taken. If it has, I would like to read material (from either side of the debate) discussing such a position; if it is not valid, I would like to know why.

Suppose the following principles are supported by logic and evidence (note that I do not have enough facts to support any of these statements, so I am not stating them as my own personal convictions, but merely for the sake of argument):

1. Presupposing that miracles are not impossible a priori, the position that Christ raised from the dead fits all currently known historical knowledge.

2. However, these facts are not enough to conclusively prove that Christ resurrected from the dead.

3. Furthermore, according to Biblical principles, one must have faith that Christ died, was buried, and was raised to leave an empty tomb approximately three days later, so that absolute proof defeats the Biblical necessity for faith.

4. Therefore, the question of the Resurrection, although the central tenant of belief for Christianity, is irrelevant to the debate over the veracity of Christianity.

Of course I must show (or concede, if I am debating a Christian Apologist) that miracles are not in fact impossible a priori, and that the evidence in play lays an inconclusive but non-contradictory foundation in Christ's Resurrection. Furthermore, I must show that a Christian's requirements for faith in #3 is Biblically supported (some believe, for instance, that Christ's Resurrection is conclusive in history, and that faith is equivalent to obedience).

If such an argument as I presented above is conclusive, it must be the duty of Christianity to maintain itself as a whole beyond that point - i.e. a Christian Apologist must establish that his specific sect of Christianity is one which follows the Bible and independent facts without contradiction, etc.

For a nonbeliever, the job regarding the historicity of the Resurrection thus becomes an impossible route in disproving Christianity. Instead, the nonbeliever must take the path of showing that other tenants of Christian faith are contradictory, and by implication undermine the historicity of the Resurrection.

Any comments are appreciated. :grin:

joedad

I guess this article speaks to the OP. Or perhaps it deserves its own thread.

Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

[mod note: see this thread: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=247522 ]

Diogenes the Cynic

Welcome, Flagg.
This is actually false. Even presupposing the possibility of miracles, the alleged resurrection of Jesus still does not comport with known historical fact.
Your predicate in point 1 was not a fact, but supposing it were, this point would be true.
This is a theological question, not particularly relevant to the historical one. It may be a conundrum for some believers, but it is of no consequence to historians or non-believers.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "veracity." If the veracity of Christianity relies on the resurrection being a literal, historical event, then it's obviously of paramount importance. The ability to prove it is not of critical importance to the believer, but that's a different issue than objective, historical "veracity."
That's kind of the rub, isn't it?
This part is demonstrably not true. A literal resurrection is at odds with the historical evidence.
Why can't a non-believer (or even a believer) disprove the historicity of the resurrection?

aChristian

I would agree largely with the 'some' that you referenced. I think that you need to show that the resurrection really is true and Christianity really is true. Why believe something that isn't true? Biblical faith is just trusting God to save you rather than trying to do it on your own. (You can't do it yourself. This is not obedience, but trust in God's work for us to obtain our salvation.) That faith does not have to be blind faith, in fact the Bible encourages us to worship God with our minds and blind faith hardly does that. In fact, I believe anyone, who doesn't believe in Christianity has blind faith in their position because it is faith in something that is not true and thus must be blind.

Summarizing my thoughts on your final points, I think it is obvious that you cannot prove apriori that miracles do not exist. I think the evidence for miracles is in fact incontrovertible. I think the Christian needs to show that Christianity is really true and those who want to show it is not true would succeed in this if they could show that its claims, such as the resurrection, are false. Just blindly believing something does not honor God nor do I believe is it convincing to others. As Paul said, "if Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith is meaningless." (I Cor. 15:12-17) If it is not true, we are wasting our time trying to convince others of it.

Deus Ex

My emphasis.

I await your incontrovertible proof of miracles.

aChristian

We have many people who are recognized as being sober and honest who have recorded them occurring in the past and in the present day. Try looking at the Jesus Film website or Gospel for Asia's website as a starter. The pastor of a church I attend has witnessed them. You can say he was fooled or is lying, but I know him well enough to know that you are wrong. Miracles don't happen frequently, but there are so many documented cases that you have to stick your head in the sand in order to deny them.

Deus Ex

You are giving me yet another example of anecdotal evidence, and not incontrovertible proof. I asked for your proof.

Let us examine the documented miracles that you are asserting.

If I tell you that I have been abducted by aliens, will you take my word for it? What if my neighbor vouches for my honesty? Will you still not believe? Would you require proof?

French Prometheus

Do you believe that the splitting of the moon by Prophet Muhammad was a miracle?
What about the milk miracle of the Hindu god Ganesh?
Or Buddhist miracles?

Why are there similar miraculous claims in other religions? Does God reveal himself equally to pagan Greeks praying to Asclepios, Christians praying to Jesus, Muslims praying to Allah, Hindus praying to Ganesh, Western children writing to Santa Claus, etc?

aChristian

I gave you a couple of names to check out their websites. You can start there in your search. If you are honest and want to know the truth you can look them up.
As far as your alien claim, I don't know you or your neighbor. I do have reason to trust the pastor I referred to as well as other examples I have encountered.

aChristian

I don't believe there are any reliable witnesses to Muhammed's moon split. I also doubt many of the other miracles, however, Satan has been given power and demons do bring supernatural events to pass at his command. Just as you have to stick your head in the sand to not believe in miracles by the true God, you have to stick your head in the sand to not believe in miracles done by Satan and his minions.