How Much Faith Does the Resurrection Demand?

[Bubba_Switzler]

In another thread, jkiernan responded to a post and asked:

Can you provide for me some names of theologians and historians that do not consider the resurrection of Christ to be historically significant?

To which I responded by citing the Jesus Seminar:

allaboutreligion.org/jesus-seminar.htm

Now let me be perfectly clear that I am not endorsing the Jesus Seminar or their anti-miracle view of the Bible. I was simply answering the question that, yes, there are those who present themselves as Christian theologians and historians who deny the reality of the resurrection.

jkiernan responded with claims about the historiocity of Jesus:

Lets get real …

How do you know … that you know … that you know … what you know … ? Huh???

Lets get real and at the starting point … Either Jesus Christ the human being EXISTED in history or He did NOT EXIST in history. Either that is TRUE or NOT TRUE. Irrespective of what I believe - there is OBJECTIVE TRUTH and FACT. I can say that gravity doesn’t exist because I don’t believe in it … that does not change reality. I can say that Socrates did not exist, but that does not change reality. I can say that Jesus Christ did not exist as a human being on earth, but that does not change reality. It doesn’t take FAITH to ascertain from history that a particular person existed in time and space. The existence of the historical Christ is a FACT.

“The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to various religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.”

“With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Only an irrational person would deny the reality of the historical Jesus of Nazereth … most likely to discredit that there is any validity to its claims. Like the scene in Monty Pithon where the guard had his arms and legs chopped off …

Jesus in History is just as real as I am right now in History … but how do I know that I really exist … but how do I know that I know … that i know … that i know … ??? good grief …

Bubba, I am not trying to take this thread off the tracks. This thread is about Opinion and Faith. While I acknowledge the importance of disquinguishing between the two, it is even more important to note that the Christian Faith rests on the historical event of the resurrection.

Is it possible to discuss Faith and particularly Christian Faith if the person you are trying to have a discussion with denies the historical Jesus? The existence of Jesus is not an object of Faith. Who Jesus is and His Resurrection are a matter of Faith.

I know that the Rocky Mountains or the Grand Canyon exist even though I have not visted there or seen it firsthand. I acknowledge it on the testimony and reliability of others who have witnessed and reported on it.

The irrationality of a person denying the fact of the historical Jesus reminds me of the non-sense of those who deny the reality of the Holocaust - iranholocaustdenial.com/

The number of people who deny the existence of Jesus as a real person in history is probably much less than the number who deny the historiocity of the resurrection. I’m not sure any Christian theologian would deny that Jesus was a real historical person, not even the Jesus Seminar.

Mostly, skeptics turn Jesus into a wise man who said wise things.

But this begs an interesting question: how much faith do we need to believe in the Resurrection? Obviously more than some are willing to grant but not, I think, as much as they seem to think is required.

 

[fhansen]

Christian faith is only possible because God exists and has chosen to enable it. No God=no faith, nothing more than superstition or human-enabled belief at best.

 

[DavidFilmer]

But this begs an interesting question: how much faith do we need to believe in the Resurrection? Obviously more than some are willing to grant but not, I think, as much as they seem to think is required.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that if someone believes that Jesus actually existed then they believe an essential aspect of Faith, so they don’t have “far to go” to accept it all.

Of course, no rational person doubts that Jesus actually lived. That would be like doubting that Mohammad or Buddha or Joseph Smith actually lived - which would be silly.

But I don’t believe that Mohammad was a true prophet.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that if someone believes that Jesus actually existed then they believe an essential aspect of Faith, so they don’t have “far to go” to accept it all. Of course, no rational person doubts that Jesus actually lived. That would be like doubting that Mohammad or Buddha or Joseph Smith actually lived - which would be silly.
But I don’t believe that Mohammad was a true prophet.

I think I’m saying pretty much what you’re saying plus some.

There isn’t any serious debate that Jesus actually existed as a historical figure like Buddha, Smith, and Mohamed. (Though there are always those who like to argue.)

So it’s no accomplishment to say “I believe Jesus walked the earth in 0-30AD.” (Or whatever.)

But the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, which many otherwise reasonable people do deny, is not merely a matter of faith. In fact, were it not for the miraculous nature of that event, it would probably not even be disputed, so great is the testimony to it. Few events in history in that age are as well document or have had such an unmistakable effect. And nowhere do you find any historical sources making contradictory claims, not even in the Talmud.

Only if you believe, like Hume, that miraculous events require miraculous proof, does the evidence fall short.