Belief in the Resurrection is possible without belief in the Gospel accounts

[The Unassumed]

I consider that the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, can still be affirmed, even if the Gospel accounts are not.

That is, it is quite possible to hold that the 'empty tomb' stories and 'appearance' stories have no basis in reality, and still affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Or, in other words, belief in the resurrection of Christ to the right hand of God is not necessarily dependent on belief in the particular accounts of resurrection recorded in the canonical Gospels.

[Mountain Man]

I consider that the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, can still be affirmed, even if the Gospel accounts are not.

That is, it is quite possible to hold that the 'empty tomb' stories and 'appearance' stories have no basis in reality, and still affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Or, in other words, belief in the resurrection of Christ to the right hand of God is not necessarily dependent on belief in the particular accounts of resurrection recorded in the canonical Gospels.

So...are you going to elaborate, or are you waiting for somebody to ask first?

[Soyeong]

We have enough trouble believing that resurrection was true with the canonical Gospels. On what basis do you hold the resurrection to be true without them?

[Lost]

I consider that the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, can still be affirmed, even if the Gospel accounts are not.

That is, it is quite possible to hold that the 'empty tomb' stories and 'appearance' stories have no basis in reality, and still affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Or, in other words, belief in the resurrection of Christ to the right hand of God is not necessarily dependent on belief in the particular accounts of resurrection recorded in the canonical Gospels.

It is possible, but it requires a little help from God, which I believe He is more than willing to supply in the right circumstances.

[The Unassumed]

So...are you going to elaborate, or are you waiting for somebody to ask first?

I'd be happy to elaborate on anything that you want to discuss. But, I don't quite know what aspects of this issue you find interesting, debatable, disagreeable or agreeable. So, asking a question would be a good way to go forward...

[The Unassumed]

We have enough trouble believing that resurrection was true with the canonical Gospels.

You do? How so?

On what basis do you hold the resurrection to be true without them?

I'm not suggesting we exclude the Gospel accounts from the basis of Christian faith. Christian faith still depends on the creeds, the chain of tradition, the scriptures (of which, the Gospels are a part), and personal inspiration of the Spirit. However, I am quite prepared to concede, for example, that the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and of the post-resurrection appearances are non-objective visions. Does this undermine the Gospels' role as a part of the basis for Christian faith? I don't think so. I think it does undermine a particular view of the resurrection, for example, the view that there was in reality an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, but it does not undermine faith in the resurrection per se.

[The Unassumed]

It is possible, but it requires a little help from God, which I believe He is more than willing to supply in the right circumstances.

That is definitely one requirement.

[Soyeong]

You do? How so?

I think every Christian should struggle to overcome doubts so that their faith can grow stronger. I know I’m far from the only Christian who, after concluding that the Resurrection account was true, had to struggle with the realization that someone was actually historically raised from the dead. It’s one thing to think that the Bible is true and quite another to have enough faith to believe what that implies.

I'm not suggesting we exclude the Gospel accounts from the basis of Christian faith. Christian faith still depends on the creeds, the chain of tradition, the scriptures (of which, the Gospels are a part), and personal inspiration of the Spirit. However, I am quite prepared to concede, for example, that the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and of the post-resurrection appearances are non-objective visions. Does this undermine the Gospels' role as a part of the basis for Christian faith? I don't think so. I think it does undermine a particular view of the resurrection, for example, the view that there was in reality an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, but it does not undermine faith in the resurrection per se.

What it does undermine is the Gospel’s authority as the Word of God. If Jesus didn’t really appear to Mary Magdalene, then what else in the Bible didn’t “really” happen? Then you can pick and choose what you want to believe and that is a very slippery slope.

[Mountain Man]

I'd be happy to elaborate on anything that you want to discuss. But, I don't quite know what aspects of this issue you find interesting, debatable, disagreeable or agreeable. So, asking a question would be a good way to go forward...

Well then, let's start with "How can the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, be affirmed even if the Gospel accounts are not?"

You didn't really go into any detail in your OP, so all we have at this point is an unsupported premise.

[Tladatsi]

I will go you several steps further, Jesus had thousands of followers accross the Roman world who believed that Jesus had died and risenlong before the Gospels were even written. Paul, James, Peter, and Jude all wrote letters to followers (and potential followers) without even mentioning any particular detail the Jesus' arrest, trial, crucificion, death, or resurrection. In other early Christian documents (e.g. Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) no mention of any element of the traditional passion narrative hinted at, other than the key element that Jesus' death was a sacrifice to save us from our sins. The entire church was built on belief in the resurrection of Jesus with the four cannonical gospels for quite some time.

I consider that the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, can still be affirmed, even if the Gospel accounts are not.

That is, it is quite possible to hold that the 'empty tomb' stories and 'appearance' stories have no basis in reality, and still affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Or, in other words, belief in the resurrection of Christ to the right hand of God is not necessarily dependent on belief in the particular accounts of resurrection recorded in the canonical Gospels.

[The Unassumed]

I am quite prepared to concede, for example, that the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and of the post-resurrection appearances are non-objective visions. Does this undermine the Gospels' role as a part of the basis for Christian faith? I don't think so. I think it does undermine a particular view of the resurrection, for example, the view that there was in reality an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, but it does not undermine faith in the resurrection per se.

What it does undermine is the Gospel’s authority as the Word of God. If Jesus didn’t really appear to Mary Magdalene, then what else in the Bible didn’t “really” happen? Then you can pick and choose what you want to believe and that is a very slippery slope.

I don't consider that the Bible's reporting of any non-incident as a real incident undermines its authority as the Word of God. It may well undermine people's perception of it as the Word of God, particularly if their notion of "Word of God" is bound up with a notion that the Word of God must be infallible to be the Word of God. But, I am yet to be presented with any reason why this must be so.

I also do not consider that this is a matter of merely "picking and choosing." If, as I believe is correct, the Bible contains both the truth and errors, then this is simply a fact about its composition. It is in the very nature of the Bible. So, in order to interpret the Bible correctly, we must therefore pay attention to this fact. It may be difficult to discern what the Bible teaches us, and what we should disregard. But, such a choice is made necessary by the very constitution and nature of the Bible itself. Some discernment will be better than others. But to reduce this (inevitable, given the nature of the Bible) problem to "picking and choosing" is just as false as treating the Bible as wholly correct in every aspect. The proper answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[The Unassumed]

Well then, let's start with "How can the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, be affirmed even if the Gospel accounts are not?"

Although I may assess the story of the empty tomb as being a non-objective vision (that is, a vision to, say, Mary Magdalene that did not correspond at all to anything in reality), I may affirm that Jesus was given eternal life by God the Father, and sits at his right hand.

[The Unassumed]

I will go you several steps further, Jesus had thousands of followers accross the Roman world who believed that Jesus had died and risenlong before the Gospels were even written. Paul, James, Peter, and Jude all wrote letters to followers (and potential followers) without even mentioning any particular detail the Jesus' arrest, trial, crucificion, death, or resurrection. In other early Christian documents (e.g. Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) no mention of any element of the traditional passion narrative hinted at, other than the key element that Jesus' death was a sacrifice to save us from our sins. The entire church was built on belief in the resurrection of Jesus with the four cannonical gospels for quite some time.

Paul's letters were most probably earlier than the Gospels. However, I don't know if the communities he wrote to were aware of the empty tomb tradition or not. The best evidence we have is silence (e.g. 1 Cor 15). So, there isn't a great basis for suggesting that the bare tradition of resurrection came earlier or later than the empty tomb tradition. In any case, you clearly agree with my point that belief in the resurrection of Christ is logically independent of the tradition of the empty tomb. There may well have been a chronological independence as well, but I am not sure.

The Gospel of Thomas and Shepherd of Hermas were written after the canonical Gospels, at least in the form we have today. The Didache is hard to date, but may either be contemporaneous or later. Again, the problem is that one has to make an argument from silence here.

[Tladatsi]

I do not understand your reply. You are in essence asking for the argumentum ex silencio. In the absence of Gospel account can one belief in the resurrection. Well, there was a growing dynamic church before the Gospels were written. The documents availabe to us make no reference to any details found in the Gospel accounts. Based on the available evidence, which is all we can ever do, the early Christian church believed in the resurrection of Jesus without the Gospel accounts.

As a methodological aside, many people say rather casually, "Oh, you are making the argument from silence" as if that dismissed the argument. I always point out that the argumentum ex silencio is a perfectly legitimate form of inductive reasoning, if used correctly. In this case, the argument is that there is no evidence - i.e. silence - from any documents of the early church indicating awareness of (or even interest in) the details of the passion, merely it's occurance.

Paul's letters were most probably earlier than the Gospels. However, I don't know if the communities he wrote to were aware of the empty tomb tradition or not. The best evidence we have is silence (e.g. 1 Cor 15). So, there isn't a great basis for suggesting that the bare tradition of resurrection came earlier or later than the empty tomb tradition. In any case, you clearly agree with my point that belief in the resurrection of Christ is logically independent of the tradition of the empty tomb. There may well have been a chronological independence as well, but I am not sure.

The Gospel of Thomas and Shepherd of Hermas were written after the canonical Gospels, at least in the form we have today. The Didache is hard to date, but may either be contemporaneous or later. Again, the problem is that one has to make an argument from silence here.

[Simeon]

I consider that the truth of the resurrection, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead into the glory of God, can still be affirmed, even if the Gospel accounts are not.

That is, it is quite possible to hold that the 'empty tomb' stories and 'appearance' stories have no basis in reality, and still affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Or, in other words, belief in the resurrection of Christ to the right hand of God is not necessarily dependent on belief in the particular accounts of resurrection recorded in the canonical Gospels.

Silly statement of a kind of illogical strawman?

Historical account conflict with your opening post. (e.g. Jewish leaders or Temple leaders, Sanhedrin, etc, did not dispute the resurrection of Jesus Christ. - See Acts 5)