Can the resurrection of Christ be explained as a case of mistaken identity?

[Elixir]

Pro tip for UnSo: Hey Diddle Diddle is a children's song, not a documentary.

Therefore, resurrections are impossible?

I don't see any need to deem anything impossible - I think that's presumptuous. Some things, e.g. moon made of cheese, are of negligible likelihood. Resurrection has many meanings. I mean, look at Keith Richard. I suppose it's marginally possible that someone could be perforated and hung up until non-medical Roman soldier deemed them dead, then left in a cave for three days, and then recovered with the strength to bust himself out and party for a while ... who cares, and so what? I think it's orders of magnitude more likely that the whole Bible fable was made up from memory and whole cloth, revised, translated, re-re edited and re-revised, recompiled etc. until it became so fubar that it acquired a power: nobody can agree about what it says. But for some reason nobody seems to question why it matters.
It's a book. It is not magical. Resurrections happen in novels all the time.

Then what is exactly did you mean by "Pro tip for UnSo: Hey Diddle Diddle is a children's song, not a documentary"?

Cows on the moon: necessary for that much cheese, right?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think it is very unlikely that the moon is made of cheese, but I don't know why it would be logically impossible. If I did say that it's impossible for the moon to be made of cheese, then I have the burden to prove it

You don't think that doing so would be a pointless reiteration of existing proof that has been well established?

That's an obviously loaded question. There is no proof that cheese moons or resurrections are impossible that I know of.

We did the Apollo program. It's not necessary to repeat it because some fools still claim that the Moon is Stilton.

As far as I know the Apollo moon missions never proved that cheese moons are impossible.

We did the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and tested it with the LHC; And now people who neither understand nor accept the findings are repeating their daft claims that their gods are non-fiction.

The first sentence appears to have little to do with the second. How does the second sentence relate to the first?

We need not entertain those claims. Not for an instant.

What claims?

The philosophical position that this non-controversy isn't 'proven' is irrelevant, and the misapplication of philosophy to suggest that there is doubt where none exists is just stupid.

What are you talking about?

You do NOT have the burden to prove something that has already been proven...

Actually, you do have the burden to furnish the proof if those you wish to convince are unaware of that proof.

...just because your interlocutors are ignorant of, or dismissive of, the proof.

Regardless of the response from your interlocutors, you still have the burden of proof if you claim that resurrections are impossible.

It is not reasonable to sustain genuine doubt about whether the Moon is made of cheese.

Sure, but to say it's impossible for the moon to be made of cheese requires eliminating all doubt--not just "genuine" doubt.

Regardless of philosophical pedantry to the contrary.

It was you who brought up the supposed impossibility of cheese moons or resurrections. Philosophy and in particular logic are disciplines in which questions of impossibility are examined. If you don't want your claims to be scrutinized for logical consistency, then don't make claims.

The same applies to the existence of any gods.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that no Gods exist, but there simply is no valid logic that proves they cannot exist that I'm aware of.

In conclusion, it appears that you are confusing what is very improbable with what is impossible. The former has a low probability, and the latter has zero probability. If you make mistakes like that when debating the historicity of the resurrection, then Bill Craig would have a field day with you. You'd be much better off taking care to make logically defensible arguments.

 

[bilby]

to say it's impossible for the moon to be made of cheese requires eliminating all doubt--not just "genuine" doubt.

...and that's why modern epistemology is ridiculed by all intelligent people as the domain of crackpots who try to apply mathematical logic to a reality it can never describe.

"Philosophy is crap" - E. Boddington

 

[Unknown Soldier]

to say it's impossible for the moon to be made of cheese requires eliminating all doubt--not just "genuine" doubt.

...and that's why modern epistemology is ridiculed by all intelligent people

Epistemology isn't ridiculed by all intelligent people. I don't ridicule it, for example. We need a theory of knowledge to distinguish between knowledge and ignorance.

...as the domain of crackpots who try to apply mathematical logic to a reality it can never describe.

Math can be applied to reality, of course, and is applied to nature by engineers, scientists, government workers and business people. Generally, the results are very useful and informative.

"Philosophy is crap" - E. Boddington

Well, that's Boddington's opinion! He should stick to painting.

Anyway, I see you eschew philosophy, logic and math to conclude that resurrections are impossible. I don't think you're going to convince many people that way that you are right.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But then it isn't necessary to invent . . .

Wrong. It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

. . . isn't necessary to invent a look-alike to explain the myth. It is a retelling of resurrection myths that most religions have for their god figures. Egyptians had Osiris, Greeks had Adonis, Romans had Attis, Phoenicians had Melqart, etc, etc. all died and were resurrected.

No. Not only were none resurrected alive after dying, there is no legend in the writings claiming any of these died and rose and lived again, such as we have written accounts of the time reporting that Jesus died and then was raised from death and lived again. You can give a listing of ancient gods or heroes who were worshipped centuries after they lived (assuming they had once been real living persons), but you cannot quote any ancient pre-Christian writings which say they resurrected after having died. And whatever miracle legends were recorded originate from many centuries later as a result of centuries of storytelling and mythologizing, rather than from anything near the time of the reported event, such as the recorded miracles of Jesus are dated 20-70 years from when the events reportedly happened, which is a normal time span (or shorter than normal) between the events and the written accounts of them, for ancient history events.

The idea that any of the above pagan characters resurrected comes only from later philosophers or scholars, including modern Jesus debunker crusaders, who try to draw an analogy between them and the Jesus resurrection, by interpreting the ancient legends according to later theories, not in the earlier writings, but only their post-Christian ideology which demands that the Christ miracles must have evolved from the already-existing culture despite the evidence that they did not.

There is plenty of evidence that later religious symbols do evolve from earlier ones, including some Christian symbols evolving from earlier pagan symbols. These are clear to see. E.g., a jarring example is the fish-and-loaves story which appears to be copied from a similar story of the prophet Elisha (II Kings 4:42-44). You can show some such borrowing from the earlier religious culture. But there is nothing in the earlier culture, pagan or Jewish, explaining where the resurrection or miracle healing acts of Jesus came from. These pop up suddenly in the early 1st century AD without any precedent to explain them, with no pattern of earlier reported cases. Religious rituals and symbols existed which were similar to that of later Christian rituals, but no reported cases of a living person who died and then came back to life, seen by many witnesses.

A death and resurrection story of the culture's god was pretty much a requirement of any religion at the time.

No, not required according to any of the writings of that time (prior to Christianity), but only in the post-Christian interpretations of theorists promoting their ideology that the Jesus miracles cannot have been unique and that they must be rooted in the earlier culture even though there is no evidence of it in anything earlier.

The Jesus healing miracles are compared to the Asclepius healing cult, in which worshipers attended the Asclepius temples to practice the prescribed ancient healing rituals, as most religions have some prescribed rituals for treating physical ailments. Asclepius rituals, administered by the priests at those temples, are recorded in dozens of inscriptions on the walls, and a small percent of them appear as weird "miracle" healings -- though half of these are actually post-Christian, after 100 AD -- but the vast majority of the inscriptions only describe a ritual with prescriptions for treating an illness, with no report of any unusual "miracle" healing, just as most worshipers today who pray for healing or receive a religious ritual experience nothing other than normal recovery from their illness, just as happens normally without the help of prayer or religious ritual.

So it is necessary today to invent some explanation for the reported Resurrection of Jesus and miracle healing acts, which cannot be explained by anything in the earlier culture leading up to this unusual event of about 30 AD. And so far no one has come up with any explanation that makes sense, except that these unique "miracle" events actually did happen, whatever the cause.

 

[bilby]

Wrong. It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

Sure it has.

"It's a made up story" is a complete and comprehensive explanation.

It is the only explanation that fits all of the facts, including both the fact of the existence of the gospels, and the facts we currently have regarding how things work in reality.

And it has the huge benefit of not being in any way unlikely or unusual. It's incredibly commonplace to encounter made up stories, they're practically the defining feature of H. Sapiens.

All other explanations require the introduction of highly controversial claims, which contradict things we know to be true.

"It's a made up story" is unquestionably the right answer; Though I prophesy that you will respond, probably with a huge wall of text, questioning it in a blustering and completely unconvincing way.

 

[skepticalbip]

Wrong. It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

Indeed it was necessary to invent a resurrection story if they wanted to start a religion. All other religions in the area had a resurrected god so a resurrected god story was pretty much a requirement if they wanted to attract converts.

It must be something in the human psyche since many religions around the world have resurrected god stories.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

reply to Bilby, 3/6/2022 #66

It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

Sure it has.
"It's a made up story" is a complete and comprehensive explanation.

No, just saying it's "made up" doesn't explain why we have only one such Resurrection claim reported by multiple writers of the time and no other such cases. Whatever would cause such a belief to get started and be reported in multiple sources in this case would happen in other cases also, driven by the same impulses which inspired this case.

I.e., there were plenty of other heroes or martyrs just as recognized as Jesus and who also could have been "made up" into a resurrected miracle-worker, if such a thing was likely to happen. So the explanation has to include an answer to why it happened only this once.

It is the only explanation that fits all of the facts, . . .

No, the actual happening of the miracle acts and the Resurrection better explains all the facts. The multiple reports that this happened has to be explained. That this simply was "made up" fails to explain why such a reported Resurrection occurs only once rather than several times -- i.e., why the result is not several recorded miracle "gospel" cults instead of only one, i.e., many "gospels" of alleged Messiahs or Prophets or Teachers who also reportedly did the same. I.e., the explanation needs to answer why no one else -- John the Baptist or James the Just or any of a dozen others were not also "made up" into miracle-workers like this one was.

So, why did so many different writers converge on this one person only, to make up this one Jesus miracle-worker resurrection story and yet writers recorded no others than this one?

. . . fits all of the facts, including both the fact of the existence of the gospels, . . .

No, it doesn't explain the "gospels" unless it claims all or many similar cults would do the same by producing their own "made up" miracle Resurrection accounts similar to this one, being driven to do the same as the Jesus crusaders did, for the same reasons, driven by the same psychological forces that drove these ones. So that whatever produced "the existence of the gospels" in this case would also produce others as well, for other alleged miracle-workers, or claims about them, also caused by forces-at-work similar to those in this one case.

. . . facts of the existence of the gospels and the facts we currently have regarding how things work in reality.

How they work is that people witness events and some write them down if the events witnessed have some importance.

And it has the huge benefit of not being in any way unlikely or unusual.

No, something in this is "unlikely or unusual," which is that this would be virtually the only case of rejecting all the evidence we have about an event, attested to in 4 (5) sources and not contradicted by any source. Unlike other miracle claims, in this case there is evidence, from the time it happened, in multiple sources. All the evidence, written accounts reporting it, say the miracle healings and the Resurrection happened. It is very unusual for all the sources, dated near to the time of the event, to be rejected in favor of a dogma which says the event reported could not have happened. How many other cases are there of this?

An honest answer would be to admit that in this one case we do have evidence of superhuman events, or acts, which is very unusual, and yet we cannot accept this evidence, and we must assume there is an explanation, though we don't know what it is. This would just be an admission that the evidence does exist in this case, and we have to assume something is wrong about the evidence in this case, and we don't know what it is, or what the explanation is.

But also, unusual events can happen, and reports of them are credible if there's more than only one source. If it's very unusual we need extra sources for it, maybe even 2 or 3. An explanation which totally rules out unusual events is not required. It's OK to say we need extra evidence for something unusual, but it's not OK to rule out anything unusual regardless of evidence which says it happened. If there are the extra sources, then the credibility increases, even though the reported event is something unusual.

It's incredibly commonplace to encounter made up stories, they're practically the defining feature of H. Sapiens.

No, if "made up" resurrection stories were "commonplace," then there'd be other examples of them. And yet there are not. Of course it may be that in the 21st century there are some cases, with the Internet and YouTube and the vast publishing media. But no real examples are given even of the modern cases. No one ever provides the quotes, or the recordings of such claims being made. Of course there are weird claims, but no one takes them seriously enough to provide the quotes or the recordings. For the "incredibly commonplace" rhetoric to mean anything, you have to give an example, and yet no one ever does. This doesn't just mean giving a name of some alleged case, but providing the quotes which tell of the witnesses and what they saw or claim to have witnessed.

One name tossed out in modern times is Sai Baba. Of course there are some claims about him, but unless the quotes are provided, or the recordings, it is not legitimate evidence. And to any such claims we must add others which say he was a fraud. All the references to the case have to be quoted, both those attesting to the miracle claims and those which debunk them. Until this is done, it's not a legitimate example of a "made up" story comparable to the reported case of the Jesus Resurrection, for which we can cite the particular text saying what he did, or what witnesses saw.

There were 1st- and 2nd-century writings which debunked some miracle claims, or reported charlatans or cases of fraud. If there were any such writings about the Jesus miracles, that would also be evidence. ALL the evidence or reports of a case have to be considered, and when they are, most/all other miracle claims end up getting debunked (frauds, charlatans), or rather, evidence obviously is lacking because the claims only evolved through mythologizing over many centuries -- Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, Asclepius, Prometheus, etc.

All other explanations [e.g., Jesus really did the miracle acts] require the introduction of highly controversial claims, . . .

What matters is whether the claims have evidence for them. The explanation that the miracle event actually happened cannot be ruled out only because of doubts or something "controversial" about it. Of course it's legitimate to doubt any miracle claim, but if there's evidence that it happened, then it becomes more credible. The (at least) five 1st-century sources we have for the Jesus Resurrection are evidence that it happened, though they are not proof. It's reasonable to believe this evidence, just as we believe reports of other historical events, even though there's still doubt. 5 sources near the time of the alleged event are good evidence. That's very good evidence, for an event 2000 years ago.

. . . controversial claims, which contradict things we know to be true.

No, nothing we know to be true is contradicted by the reported miracle acts/Resurrection of Jesus. Rather, these could be real events which did happen and are consistent with the truths we know, even though they could require a reassessment of someone's "natural law" ideas. What is scientifically possible might not be exactly in accord with someone's theories. These theories could be revised, as needed, to fit the evidence/reports that these "miracle" events did happen. The natural law theories are not necessarily perfect. And there is not total agreement among scientists on exactly what the "natural laws" are, or what is or is not contradicted by these laws.

What "we know to be true" is not that a miracle event cannot ever happen, but rather that such an event is rare. And thus we need extra evidence in order for it to be credible.

The natural laws known are subject to revision if contrary data requires it. The science has to be based on the known observations, including reports of what happened. Or, there can be unanswered questions about the natural laws, and we can suspend judgment until there is further information. We don't have to automatically condemn every claim which leaves unanswered questions about what is scientifically possible. We can leave the questions unanswered, or we can revise the "possibility" theories, or in other ways accommodate to any conflicting data reporting that something happened. That something was reported in several sources and is not contradicted by other sources gives us reason to believe what is reported, even if also we are left with doubts. It's reasonable to believe it, or retain it as a reasonable possibility or hope, while at the same time having doubts about it.

"It's a made up story" is unquestionably the right answer;

You can claim it's not an unreasonable answer, but not that it's unquestionably "the" right answer -- it could be incorrect, as the "story" or report of the miracle acts might be true. There are questions, or doubts, leaving open the possibility that it really did happen, because of the multiple sources claiming it happened and not contradicted by any other 1st-century evidence.

Though I prophesy that you will respond, probably with a huge wall of text, questioning it in a blustering and completely unconvincing way.

But not as blustering and unconvincing as
"Aaaaaaaaa, people just made up shit!"

This outburst, which is all that is offered so far, does not explain the reported miracles and Resurrection of Jesus. It's necessary to offer some facts from a 1st-century source which contradicts this, other than just the dogma that no miracle event, or even anything unusual, can ever happen regardless of the evidence.

 

[atrib]

Wrong. It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

The existence of the story has a simple explanation that has been pointed out to you in multiple older threads; you are just not willing to accept the explanation because of your bias.

The best explanation for the existence of the Jesus resurrection story is that it is made up. It is MANY, MANY, MANY orders of magnitude more likely to be the right explanation than any explanation that involves the intervention of a supernatural entity from outside the universe for which no evidence exists. One doesn't need to do a formal Bayesian analysis to reach this conclusion. There are mountains of evidence to demonstrate that people make up stories about supernatural entities and events that allegedly break the laws of nature all the fucking time, and zero evidence that dead people can rise up as zombies and fly off into space under their own power. Case closed.

 

[bilby]

reply to Bilby, 3/6/2022 #66

It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

Sure it has.
"It's a made up story" is a complete and comprehensive explanation.

No, just saying it's "made up" doesn't explain why we have only one such Resurrection claim reported by multiple writers of the time and no other such cases. Whatever would cause such a belief to get started and be reported in multiple sources in this case would happen in other cases also, driven by the same impulses which inspired this case.

I.e., there were plenty of other heroes or martyrs just as recognized as Jesus and who also could have been "made up" into a resurrected miracle-worker, if such a thing was likely to happen. So the explanation has to include an answer to why it happened only this once.

It is the only explanation that fits all of the facts, . . .

No, the actual happening of the miracle acts and the Resurrection better explains all the facts. The multiple reports that this happened has to be explained. That this simply was "made up" fails to explain why such a reported Resurrection occurs only once rather than several times -- i.e., why the result is not several recorded miracle "gospel" cults instead of only one, i.e., many "gospels" of alleged Messiahs or Prophets or Teachers who also reportedly did the same. I.e., the explanation needs to answer why no one else -- John the Baptist or James the Just or any of a dozen others were not also "made up" into miracle-workers like this one was.

So, why did so many different writers converge on this one person only, to make up this one Jesus miracle-worker resurrection story and yet writers recorded no others than this one?

. . . fits all of the facts, including both the fact of the existence of the gospels, . . .

No, it doesn't explain the "gospels" unless it claims all or many similar cults would do the same by producing their own "made up" miracle Resurrection accounts similar to this one, being driven to do the same as the Jesus crusaders did, for the same reasons, driven by the same psychological forces that drove these ones. So that whatever produced "the existence of the gospels" in this case would also produce others as well, for other alleged miracle-workers, or claims about them, also caused by forces-at-work similar to those in this one case.

. . . facts of the existence of the gospels and the facts we currently have regarding how things work in reality.

How they work is that people witness events and some write them down if the events witnessed have some importance.

And it has the huge benefit of not being in any way unlikely or unusual.

No, something in this is "unlikely or unusual," which is that this would be virtually the only case of rejecting all the evidence we have about an event, attested to in 4 (5) sources and not contradicted by any source. Unlike other miracle claims, in this case there is evidence, from the time it happened, in multiple sources. All the evidence, written accounts reporting it, say the miracle healings and the Resurrection happened. It is very unusual for all the sources, dated near to the time of the event, to be rejected in favor of a dogma which says the event reported could not have happened. How many other cases are there of this?

An honest answer would be to admit that in this one case we do have evidence of superhuman events, or acts, which is very unusual, and yet we cannot accept this evidence, and we must assume there is an explanation, though we don't know what it is. This would just be an admission that the evidence does exist in this case, and we have to assume something is wrong about the evidence in this case, and we don't know what it is, or what the explanation is.

But also, unusual events can happen, and reports of them are credible if there's more than only one source. If it's very unusual we need extra sources for it, maybe even 2 or 3. An explanation which totally rules out unusual events is not required. It's OK to say we need extra evidence for something unusual, but it's not OK to rule out anything unusual regardless of evidence which says it happened. If there are the extra sources, then the credibility increases, even though the reported event is something unusual.

It's incredibly commonplace to encounter made up stories, they're practically the defining feature of H. Sapiens.

No, if "made up" resurrection stories were "commonplace," then there'd be other examples of them. And yet there are not. Of course it may be that in the 21st century there are some cases, with the Internet and YouTube and the vast publishing media. But no real examples are given even of the modern cases. No one ever provides the quotes, or the recordings of such claims being made. Of course there are weird claims, but no one takes them seriously enough to provide the quotes or the recordings. For the "incredibly commonplace" rhetoric to mean anything, you have to give an example, and yet no one ever does. This doesn't just mean giving a name of some alleged case, but providing the quotes which tell of the witnesses and what they saw or claim to have witnessed.

One name tossed out in modern times is Sai Baba. Of course there are some claims about him, but unless the quotes are provided, or the recordings, it is not legitimate evidence. And to any such claims we must add others which say he was a fraud. All the references to the case have to be quoted, both those attesting to the miracle claims and those which debunk them. Until this is done, it's not a legitimate example of a "made up" story comparable to the reported case of the Jesus Resurrection, for which we can cite the particular text saying what he did, or what witnesses saw.

There were 1st- and 2nd-century writings which debunked some miracle claims, or reported charlatans or cases of fraud. If there were any such writings about the Jesus miracles, that would also be evidence. ALL the evidence or reports of a case have to be considered, and when they are, most/all other miracle claims end up getting debunked (frauds, charlatans), or rather, evidence obviously is lacking because the claims only evolved through mythologizing over many centuries -- Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, Asclepius, Prometheus, etc.

All other explanations [e.g., Jesus really did the miracle acts] require the introduction of highly controversial claims, . . .

What matters is whether the claims have evidence for them. The explanation that the miracle event actually happened cannot be ruled out only because of doubts or something "controversial" about it. Of course it's legitimate to doubt any miracle claim, but if there's evidence that it happened, then it becomes more credible. The (at least) five 1st-century sources we have for the Jesus Resurrection are evidence that it happened, though they are not proof. It's reasonable to believe this evidence, just as we believe reports of other historical events, even though there's still doubt. 5 sources near the time of the alleged event are good evidence. That's very good evidence, for an event 2000 years ago.

. . . controversial claims, which contradict things we know to be true.

No, nothing we know to be true is contradicted by the reported miracle acts/Resurrection of Jesus. Rather, these could be real events which did happen and are consistent with the truths we know, even though they could require a reassessment of someone's "natural law" ideas. What is scientifically possible might not be exactly in accord with someone's theories. These theories could be revised, as needed, to fit the evidence/reports that these "miracle" events did happen. The natural law theories are not necessarily perfect. And there is not total agreement among scientists on exactly what the "natural laws" are, or what is or is not contradicted by these laws.

What "we know to be true" is not that a miracle event cannot ever happen, but rather that such an event is rare. And thus we need extra evidence in order for it to be credible.

The natural laws known are subject to revision if contrary data requires it. The science has to be based on the known observations, including reports of what happened. Or, there can be unanswered questions about the natural laws, and we can suspend judgment until there is further information. We don't have to automatically condemn every claim which leaves unanswered questions about what is scientifically possible. We can leave the questions unanswered, or we can revise the "possibility" theories, or in other ways accommodate to any conflicting data reporting that something happened. That something was reported in several sources and is not contradicted by other sources gives us reason to believe what is reported, even if also we are left with doubts. It's reasonable to believe it, or retain it as a reasonable possibility or hope, while at the same time having doubts about it.

"It's a made up story" is unquestionably the right answer;

You can claim it's not an unreasonable answer, but not that it's unquestionably "the" right answer -- it could be incorrect, as the "story" or report of the miracle acts might be true. There are questions, or doubts, leaving open the possibility that it really did happen, because of the multiple sources claiming it happened and not contradicted by any other 1st-century evidence.

Though I prophesy that you will respond, probably with a huge wall of text, questioning it in a blustering and completely unconvincing way.

But not as blustering and unconvincing as
"Aaaaaaaaa, people just made up shit!"

This outburst, which is all that is offered so far, does not explain the reported miracles and Resurrection of Jesus. It's necessary to offer some facts from a 1st-century source which contradicts this, other than just the dogma that no miracle event, or even anything unusual, can ever happen regardless of the evidence.

...as it was foretold in the prophecy.

 

[skepticalbip]

But not as blustering and unconvincing as
"Aaaaaaaaa, people just made up shit!"

This outburst, which is all that is offered so far, does not explain the reported miracles and Resurrection of Jesus. It's necessary to offer some facts from a 1st-century source which contradicts this, other than just the dogma that no miracle event, or even anything unusual, can ever happen regardless of the evidence.

How else could anyone respond to claims that are clearly "just made up shit"?

It is as reasonable a response to Christian claims as it is to claims that Xenu was a leader of a galactic federation that was overpopulated. To solve the problem he froze billions of the people and brought them to Earth, dumped them in a volcano, then blew them up with hydrogen bombs. The 'spirits' of some survived and inhabit all humans' bodies. There are tens of thousands of Scientologists around the world and an estimated 25,000 in the U.S. that believe it because their religion tells them it is true.

Would you tell a scientologists that it was "just made up shit" or would you try to explain where all the Thetans came from?

 

[Elixir]

But then it isn't necessary to invent . . .

Wrong. It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

. . . isn't necessary to invent a look-alike to explain the myth. It is a retelling of resurrection myths that most religions have for their god figures. Egyptians had Osiris, Greeks had Adonis, Romans had Attis, Phoenicians had Melqart, etc, etc. all died and were resurrected.

No. Not only were none resurrected alive after dying, there is no legend in the writings claiming any of these died and rose and lived again, such as we have written accounts of the time reporting that Jesus died and then was raised from death and lived again. You can give a listing of ancient gods or heroes who were worshipped centuries after they lived (assuming they had once been real living persons), but you cannot quote any ancient pre-Christian writings which say they resurrected after having died. And whatever miracle legends were recorded originate from many centuries later as a result of centuries of storytelling and mythologizing, rather than from anything near the time of the reported event, such as the recorded miracles of Jesus are dated 20-70 years from when the events reportedly happened, which is a normal time span (or shorter than normal) between the events and the written accounts of them, for ancient history events.

The idea that any of the above pagan characters resurrected comes only from later philosophers or scholars, including modern Jesus debunker crusaders, who try to draw an analogy between them and the Jesus resurrection, by interpreting the ancient legends according to later theories, not in the earlier writings, but only their post-Christian ideology which demands that the Christ miracles must have evolved from the already-existing culture despite the evidence that they did not.

There is plenty of evidence that later religious symbols do evolve from earlier ones, including some Christian symbols evolving from earlier pagan symbols. These are clear to see. E.g., a jarring example is the fish-and-loaves story which appears to be copied from a similar story of the prophet Elisha (II Kings 4:42-44). You can show some such borrowing from the earlier religious culture. But there is nothing in the earlier culture, pagan or Jewish, explaining where the resurrection or miracle healing acts of Jesus came from. These pop up suddenly in the early 1st century AD without any precedent to explain them, with no pattern of earlier reported cases. Religious rituals and symbols existed which were similar to that of later Christian rituals, but no reported cases of a living person who died and then came back to life, seen by many witnesses.

A death and resurrection story of the culture's god was pretty much a requirement of any religion at the time.

No, not required according to any of the writings of that time (prior to Christianity), but only in the post-Christian interpretations of theorists promoting their ideology that the Jesus miracles cannot have been unique and that they must be rooted in the earlier culture even though there is no evidence of it in anything earlier.

The Jesus healing miracles are compared to the Asclepius healing cult, in which worshipers attended the Asclepius temples to practice the prescribed ancient healing rituals, as most religions have some prescribed rituals for treating physical ailments. Asclepius rituals, administered by the priests at those temples, are recorded in dozens of inscriptions on the walls, and a small percent of them appear as weird "miracle" healings -- though half of these are actually post-Christian, after 100 AD -- but the vast majority of the inscriptions only describe a ritual with prescriptions for treating an illness, with no report of any unusual "miracle" healing, just as most worshipers today who pray for healing or receive a religious ritual experience nothing other than normal recovery from their illness, just as happens normally without the help of prayer or religious ritual.

So it is necessary today to invent some explanation for the reported Resurrection of Jesus and miracle healing acts, which cannot be explained by anything in the earlier culture leading up to this unusual event of about 30 AD. And so far no one has come up with any explanation that makes sense, except that these unique "miracle" events actually did happen, whatever the cause.

I’d rather try to explain the gardens of the Menehune. At least there something there to explain besides a widespread belief.
There is no necessity to do the dirty work of any religion.

 

[DBT]

reply to Bilby, 3/6/2022 #66

It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

Sure it has.
"It's a made up story" is a complete and comprehensive explanation.

No, just saying it's "made up" doesn't explain why we have only one such Resurrection claim reported by multiple writers of the time and no other such cases. Whatever would cause such a belief to get started and be reported in multiple sources in this case would happen in other cases also, driven by the same impulses which inspired this case.

I.e., there were plenty of other heroes or martyrs just as recognized as Jesus and who also could have been "made up" into a resurrected miracle-worker, if such a thing was likely to happen. So the explanation has to include an answer to why it happened only this once.

It is the only explanation that fits all of the facts, . . .

No, the actual happening of the miracle acts and the Resurrection better explains all the facts. The multiple reports that this happened has to be explained. That this simply was "made up" fails to explain why such a reported Resurrection occurs only once rather than several times -- i.e., why the result is not several recorded miracle "gospel" cults instead of only one, i.e., many "gospels" of alleged Messiahs or Prophets or Teachers who also reportedly did the same. I.e., the explanation needs to answer why no one else -- John the Baptist or James the Just or any of a dozen others were not also "made up" into miracle-workers like this one was.

So, why did so many different writers converge on this one person only, to make up this one Jesus miracle-worker resurrection story and yet writers recorded no others than this one?

. . . fits all of the facts, including both the fact of the existence of the gospels, . . .

No, it doesn't explain the "gospels" unless it claims all or many similar cults would do the same by producing their own "made up" miracle Resurrection accounts similar to this one, being driven to do the same as the Jesus crusaders did, for the same reasons, driven by the same psychological forces that drove these ones. So that whatever produced "the existence of the gospels" in this case would also produce others as well, for other alleged miracle-workers, or claims about them, also caused by forces-at-work similar to those in this one case.

. . . facts of the existence of the gospels and the facts we currently have regarding how things work in reality.

How they work is that people witness events and some write them down if the events witnessed have some importance.

And it has the huge benefit of not being in any way unlikely or unusual.

No, something in this is "unlikely or unusual," which is that this would be virtually the only case of rejecting all the evidence we have about an event, attested to in 4 (5) sources and not contradicted by any source. Unlike other miracle claims, in this case there is evidence, from the time it happened, in multiple sources. All the evidence, written accounts reporting it, say the miracle healings and the Resurrection happened. It is very unusual for all the sources, dated near to the time of the event, to be rejected in favor of a dogma which says the event reported could not have happened. How many other cases are there of this?

An honest answer would be to admit that in this one case we do have evidence of superhuman events, or acts, which is very unusual, and yet we cannot accept this evidence, and we must assume there is an explanation, though we don't know what it is. This would just be an admission that the evidence does exist in this case, and we have to assume something is wrong about the evidence in this case, and we don't know what it is, or what the explanation is.

But also, unusual events can happen, and reports of them are credible if there's more than only one source. If it's very unusual we need extra sources for it, maybe even 2 or 3. An explanation which totally rules out unusual events is not required. It's OK to say we need extra evidence for something unusual, but it's not OK to rule out anything unusual regardless of evidence which says it happened. If there are the extra sources, then the credibility increases, even though the reported event is something unusual.

It's incredibly commonplace to encounter made up stories, they're practically the defining feature of H. Sapiens.

No, if "made up" resurrection stories were "commonplace," then there'd be other examples of them. And yet there are not. Of course it may be that in the 21st century there are some cases, with the Internet and YouTube and the vast publishing media. But no real examples are given even of the modern cases. No one ever provides the quotes, or the recordings of such claims being made. Of course there are weird claims, but no one takes them seriously enough to provide the quotes or the recordings. For the "incredibly commonplace" rhetoric to mean anything, you have to give an example, and yet no one ever does. This doesn't just mean giving a name of some alleged case, but providing the quotes which tell of the witnesses and what they saw or claim to have witnessed.

One name tossed out in modern times is Sai Baba. Of course there are some claims about him, but unless the quotes are provided, or the recordings, it is not legitimate evidence. And to any such claims we must add others which say he was a fraud. All the references to the case have to be quoted, both those attesting to the miracle claims and those which debunk them. Until this is done, it's not a legitimate example of a "made up" story comparable to the reported case of the Jesus Resurrection, for which we can cite the particular text saying what he did, or what witnesses saw.

There were 1st- and 2nd-century writings which debunked some miracle claims, or reported charlatans or cases of fraud. If there were any such writings about the Jesus miracles, that would also be evidence. ALL the evidence or reports of a case have to be considered, and when they are, most/all other miracle claims end up getting debunked (frauds, charlatans), or rather, evidence obviously is lacking because the claims only evolved through mythologizing over many centuries -- Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, Asclepius, Prometheus, etc.

All other explanations [e.g., Jesus really did the miracle acts] require the introduction of highly controversial claims, . . .

What matters is whether the claims have evidence for them. The explanation that the miracle event actually happened cannot be ruled out only because of doubts or something "controversial" about it. Of course it's legitimate to doubt any miracle claim, but if there's evidence that it happened, then it becomes more credible. The (at least) five 1st-century sources we have for the Jesus Resurrection are evidence that it happened, though they are not proof. It's reasonable to believe this evidence, just as we believe reports of other historical events, even though there's still doubt. 5 sources near the time of the alleged event are good evidence. That's very good evidence, for an event 2000 years ago.

. . . controversial claims, which contradict things we know to be true.

No, nothing we know to be true is contradicted by the reported miracle acts/Resurrection of Jesus. Rather, these could be real events which did happen and are consistent with the truths we know, even though they could require a reassessment of someone's "natural law" ideas. What is scientifically possible might not be exactly in accord with someone's theories. These theories could be revised, as needed, to fit the evidence/reports that these "miracle" events did happen. The natural law theories are not necessarily perfect. And there is not total agreement among scientists on exactly what the "natural laws" are, or what is or is not contradicted by these laws.

What "we know to be true" is not that a miracle event cannot ever happen, but rather that such an event is rare. And thus we need extra evidence in order for it to be credible.

The natural laws known are subject to revision if contrary data requires it. The science has to be based on the known observations, including reports of what happened. Or, there can be unanswered questions about the natural laws, and we can suspend judgment until there is further information. We don't have to automatically condemn every claim which leaves unanswered questions about what is scientifically possible. We can leave the questions unanswered, or we can revise the "possibility" theories, or in other ways accommodate to any conflicting data reporting that something happened. That something was reported in several sources and is not contradicted by other sources gives us reason to believe what is reported, even if also we are left with doubts. It's reasonable to believe it, or retain it as a reasonable possibility or hope, while at the same time having doubts about it.

"It's a made up story" is unquestionably the right answer;

You can claim it's not an unreasonable answer, but not that it's unquestionably "the" right answer -- it could be incorrect, as the "story" or report of the miracle acts might be true. There are questions, or doubts, leaving open the possibility that it really did happen, because of the multiple sources claiming it happened and not contradicted by any other 1st-century evidence.

Though I prophesy that you will respond, probably with a huge wall of text, questioning it in a blustering and completely unconvincing way.

But not as blustering and unconvincing as
"Aaaaaaaaa, people just made up shit!"

This outburst, which is all that is offered so far, does not explain the reported miracles and Resurrection of Jesus. It's necessary to offer some facts from a 1st-century source which contradicts this, other than just the dogma that no miracle event, or even anything unusual, can ever happen regardless of the evidence.

What is written in an old scroll is not evidence for the claims made in that old scroll.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

reply to skepticalbip, #67

Indeed it was necessary to invent a resurrection story if they wanted to start a religion.

No, you can't name an example of a religion someone started and which contained a resurrection story .

They started Islam without inventing a resurrection story.

The Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Qumran, etc.) and other religions started by someone needed no resurrection story. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no resurrection story. Resurrection stories are virtually nonexistent in any of the Jewish and pagan beliefs. There are a few obscure cases of a victim being resuscitated -- stories which are unknown without doing a search to find them, because they are insignificant scenarios playing a very minor role in any of the religious traditions and far overshadowed by much more important stories of heroism and struggle and religiosity.

All other religions in the area had a resurrected god . . .

No they didn't. A few have been misinterpreted that way, but there are no written accounts reporting someone who died and then rose back to life. You can't provide any ancient text saying this, but can only cite some modern theorists who give this misinterpretation of the ancient legends. No one making these claims ever provides the ancient text telling of any such resurrection. Your failure to provide such a text is further evidence that there is no example of it: if any such ancient written account existed, you and others claiming this would have quoted from it, to make your case.

. . . so a resurrected god story was pretty much a requirement if they wanted to attract converts.

Repeating this falsehood does not make it true. There is no case of it which you can demonstrate from any ancient written account. Your repeated failure to provide any ancient text shows clearly that there is none. The norm is to produce some modern text, from a modern theorist, presenting these misinterpretations, and these theorists never provide the ancient pre-Christian text telling of someone who died and then rose back to life.

There are cases of ancient legends being revived, to inspire people centuries later, who then pay homage to the earlier revered hero, like Romulus, and this is somehow interpreted as a "resurrection" of the ancient hero or god. (Also like Frederick Barbarossa was revived as a national symbol in Germany.) But that has no similarity to the Resurrection of Jesus, reported in written accounts of the time when it happened, who was seen alive by many witnesses earlier, then also seen killed and buried, and then later seen alive by those same witnesses. There are no other such resurrection stories in any of the ancient religious traditions as we know them from the ancient writings, despite your repeating these falsehoods you read from modern theorists who cannot quote any ancient text to support this interpretation.

It must be something in the human psyche since . . .

What seems to be in the psyche of many humans is an obsession to claim that there's nothing unique about the Jesus resurrection and that there were many other similar claims. They rattle off names like Osiris and Hercules and Orpheus and others. And yet they never quote from any ancient text saying that these died and then came back to life, seen by witnesses.

Even when asked to quote an ancient source for their ancient resurrected deity, they never do, but only fall back on their modern Jesus-debunker guru making such claims and also not quoting from any ancient source for it. This belief in the ancient pre-Christian resurrection stories is itself a faith, without evidence, not based on any facts, but only on preaching of Jesus-debunkers on a crusade to prove that miracles can't happen even if there's evidence that they did, and that there must have been earlier pagan resurrection and miracle-worker stories similar to Jesus in the Gospels.

What is it in the human psyche that drives people to make these false claims and misinterpretations of the ancient pagan legends? Are they offended that we have only this one case of a miracle-worker documented in the ancient writings? Do they think it's unfair that this is the only reported case, based on the ancient writings? Are they demanding some kind of "affirmative action" remedy to this, by claiming there had to be others also, out of fairness, so that the other religious traditions are also able to get their fair share of the miracle-worker stories and be made equal to the Jesus "Gospel" or good news from Galilee-Judea in the early 1st century?

"It's only fair" that there would be other miracle-workers than this one, others who also resurrected, so all are made equal and no religious believers feel left out.

. . . since many religions around the world have resurrected god stories.

If that were true, those who keep repeating this would give examples, citing the texts which tell those stories. Why do they just keep repeating that the "stories" exist but can't ever provide them or quote from them?

This itself is an indication that the Jesus miracle healing acts and Resurrection probably did happen. Because we see such an amazing obsession, driving millions of crusaders, to keep repeating that the other "resurrected god stories" are out there, or must be out there somewhere, and yet they never can provide them. They are like George W. Bush and his wmds in Iraq, insisting that they are there but never able to produce anything for impartial observers.

It's not good enough to just list names, like Osiris, etc. A names list means nothing. That's like Donald Rumsfeld running off a list of wmd locations -- "We know where they are -- they're in . . ." followed by his list of names, but when they were inspected there was nothing there, same as the list of resurrected gods/heroes. When each one is inspected, there's no case of anyone dying and then rising back to life. Where is the resurrection story, in the ancient literature, saying that the god or hero died one day and then rose back to life a few days later? Running off a meaningless list of names of ancient gods/heroes does not answer this.

 

[bilby]

It's a made up story.

Five words.

But as some seem to have a bizarre belief that an argument is more persuasive if written as thousands of words nobody will ever bother to read:

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story. It's a made up story. It is made up. It is a story. It. Is. A. Made. Up. Story. It's fictional fiction, made up by a person or persons who made up a story. It's entirely made up, as a story, because it's a made up story.

It's made up.

 

[skepticalbip]

reply to skepticalbip, #67

Indeed it was necessary to invent a resurrection story if they wanted to start a religion.

No, you can't name an example of a religion someone started and which contained a resurrection story .

I named several. You ignored them. Your ignorance of other religions around at the time is your problem. Ignorance can be overcome but it takes a willingness and desire on the part of the ignorant to overcome it.

You are believing a made up story like Scientologists believe a made up story because it is the story told by your religions. You will not critically examine your beliefs and Scientologists will not critically examine their beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, you can't name an example of a religion someone started and which contained a resurrection story .

I named several. You ignored them.

You just have to keep at it. He takes a while to process this sort of thing.
First it's "No one else has ever _____."
You list examples.
He repeats, "NO one has EVER!"
You list examples.
After a few cycles of this, he'll work it into his narrative or marginalize it.

Like, NO one else ever has performed healing miralces, Just Christ!
Joseph Smith.
NO ONE!
Still Joseph Smith, here are the testimonials.
Oh, well, you know he did those in Christ's name, so it's still JUST CHRIST.
At the same time, those testimonials don't count because they're not objective. Unlke the accounts of the apostles of CHRIST.

So, you know, rinse, repeat, wait for him to figure out why the facts are not against him...rinse, repeat...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

reply to atrib, #69

It IS NECESSARY to invent some explanation for the Jesus Resurrection, which so far has not been explained.

The existence of the story has a simple explanation that has been pointed out to you in multiple older threads; you are just not willing to accept the explanation because of your bias.

My "bias" is that a legitimate explanation has to be based on facts, not on prejudice which ignores facts about the reported event, or story, and falls back on a dogmatic premise that no unusual event can ever happen regardless of the evidence. We have written accounts which say this happened, just as we have written accounts about other reported events in history. An "explanation" which requires us to dismiss all historical events we don't like (it's "made up"), and all the evidence and facts about it, does not explain anything.

The best explanation for the existence of the Jesus resurrection story is that it is made up.

That's all? That can also explain the unusual moon-landing story, which also might not really have happened if you ignore all the evidence and insist that nothing unusual can ever happen, because prior to 1969 all moon-landing stories were "made up." You have to go beyond just saying the story was "made up" -- you have to distinguish this story you say is "made up" from others which were not "made up." There are many dubious and "fantastic" stories, and yet some of them are not "made up."

What about the story of Herodotus that a man thrown overboard into the sea was rescued by a dolphin which carried him to dry land? or the story that a horse gave birth to a rabbit? Both of these might be true stories as well as fiction. (There are documented cases of dolphin rescues, and the rabbit story might really be a case of a deformed offspring having the appearance of a rabbit.) Not every unusual reported event was necessarily "made up." You can't dismiss every unusual story with the simplistic outburst "Aaaaaaa, they just made up shit!"

It is MANY, MANY, MANY orders of magnitude more likely to be the right explanation than any explanation that involves the intervention of a supernatural entity from outside the universe for which no evidence exists.

There's also "no evidence" that it does not exist, also no evidence about what is or is not "outside the universe" or if anything "supernatural" does or does not exist.

A "supernatural entity from outside the universe" is not in the written accounts of the Jesus Resurrection -- such interpretations are not a basic part of the events described in the accounts.

That the reported event was "made up" is less likely than the explanation that the event did happen, as reported, regardless whether it was "supernatural" or "outside the universe" and regardless what caused it, or how. It's perfectly reasonable, and common, that something happens which is not explained. That sources near to the event say it happened, and no other sources contradict this, is evidence that it happened. Especially if there are 5 such sources. If there were only 2 such sources, it would be less credible. And yet having even 2 sources adds to the credibility, in comparison to the many cases of only one source.

(Though there is some quoting from Mark by Mt and Lk, these are not dependent on Mark for their report that the resurrection happened, because this event was something they derived from many sources, not only one. So our number of written sources for the Resurrection is 5 (or more), not any less.)

One doesn't need to do a formal Bayesian analysis to reach this conclusion. There are mountains of evidence to demonstrate that people make up stories about supernatural entities and . . .

But they "make up" far more stories about natural entities. So does that mean all stories about natural entities are "made up"?

. . . and events that allegedly break the laws of nature all the fucking time, and . . .

Yes, but much more often about events which do NOT break the laws of nature. So then should we conclude that ALL stories of events which do not break the laws of nature are "made up" stories, since most "made up" stories are about events which do NOT "break the laws of nature"?

Just because some stories about this or that are "made up" does not mean ALL stories about this or that are "made up." You have to take each story that is told and examine it to judge if it's "made up" or not. You can't just condemn all stories as "made up" simply because you know some are "made up." Just because someone lied somewhere doesn't mean everyone everywhere is lying all the time.

Tell us what you know about the events in the 1st century to indicate that this particular reported event must have been "made up." Not ALL reported 1st-century events are "made up" stories. How do you distinguish the "made up" events from the ones not "made up"? It's not with your metaphysical "supernatural entities" and "laws of nature" theories.

For a very unusual reported event we're entitled to be more skeptical, which means we look closer at the evidence -- not just dismiss it with a thoughtless "they just made up shit!" retort. So we consider how many sources there are and whether they fit any pattern. So, how many sources are there in this case, and what is being claimed which fits a pattern of other stories which we know to be "made up"? Give us those facts, in order to make your case that these stories must be "made up," similar to others which were debunked. But to only say the story is unusual does not make the case that it was "made up."

These accounts reporting the Jesus resurrection or the miracle healing acts don't use "break the laws of nature" or "supernatural entities" language. This language is someone's interpretation and is not in those accounts. Or, in some cases the account uses language which obviously reflects the mindset of those reporting it, or of the witnesses -- these interpretations might reflect their superstitions rather than a straightforward description of what happened. That doesn't mean they "made up" the story. Rather, it means we distinguish between what actually happened or was observed vs. the interpretation of it by the observers or those reporting it. So, instead of getting hung up on someone's interpretation, we need to consider what they actually saw.

That certain odd stories are "made up" is not evidence that EVERY unusual story must have been "made up." Even if some are, others are not. Or some are partly "made up" but also partly factual, as a report of something real which did happen but to which something further was added.

E.g., in the case of the exorcism claims, in the Gospels, something real probably did happen, but something superstitious was added. There was no pattern in the ancient world of creating exorcism healing stories. Rather, there were rituals prescribed for casting out devils but no accounts reporting someone being treated and recovering, or being cured from demon-possession (or rather, from their mental illness). In fact there are almost no other reported cases of someone being healed (especially not in the period of 300 BC up to Jesus in the Gospels), to show any pattern of healing miracles which can explain how the Jesus miracles were "made up."

There is no explanation how the jarring exorcism stories would have been "made up" by someone and reported by different writers, in a culture where there was no precedent for such stories. It's more likely that something actually happened -- the best explanation is that mentally deranged persons had an experience of recovering from their condition (or seeming to recover). And there is no reason to insist that such an observed event had to be "supernatural" or would necessarily "break the laws of nature." Rather, it's just something that was witnessed by observers, whatever caused it -- one might suppose various explanations. They are reported in 3 separate accounts (or 4, if we include the so-called Q Source, which reports one such case) and there are no other ancient stories anywhere describing such events, so there was no pattern of such stories being invented by storytellers in the ancient culture. There are possible explanations, but that nothing at all happened is less likely than the explanation that something unusual did actually happen and was reported by observers.

. . . and zero evidence that dead people can rise up as zombies and . . .

No, actually there are documented cases of dead persons who rose back to life, or rather, apparently dead people who later revived somehow. And it's only conjecture that they were never really dead at all -- the evidence does not confirm this conjecture in all cases. It is not determined scientifically where the line is drawn between real death and only apparent death from which the subject later revives. Revival of "dead" persons (or seemingly dead) is documented in several cases, in different forms, and no scientific explanation is generally agreed to by the experts or scientists.

So it's not true that there is "zero evidence." There are different reported cases, and we have evidence that in this one case -- Jesus in about 30 AD -- a man was killed and then returned to life a few days later. Maybe only 2 days or "the third day" or 3 days, etc. And in addition there are reported cases of someone reviving or being resuscitated after several hours (in not only the ancient literature, but also modern reliable sources), maybe even a full day after the reported death. So the evidence is that events like this have happened but are very rare, not that they can't ever happen.

There's nothing about science which says there can't be such unusual events which go contrary to the norm -- even singular cases. It depends on the evidence, not on your impulsive dogma that no such thing can ever happen. Maybe you can explain an exceptional case in some way -- i.e., that "dead" guy wasn't really dead but only appeared to be dead. But this doesn't explain every case. All we know is that there are cases of an apparently dead person who revived or rose back to life, and no explanation is scientifically established.

So you can't argue that a dead person can never return to life. This is not proved by science or by experience. What we know is that such a thing can happen, but it's very rare. Rare events can happen.

. . . and fly off into space under their own power.

The bodily ascension of Jesus into the sky is more doubtful, because there's basically only one source for this. It isn't necessary to make this part of the Jesus resurrection. Maybe it did happen or maybe not. This story may have been added later, after it had become widely recognized that Jesus did the healing miracles and came back from death. From that starting point it's easy to explain how further stories got added, once his reputation as a miracle-worker had been established. But it's impossible to explain how only he became mythologized into a miracle-worker and yet no one else was -- i.e., others like John the Baptist or James the Just and many others who were just as popular as Jesus and had as many followers.

The best explanation is that he did in fact perform healing miracle acts and returned to life after being killed, while none of the others did this. That answers why only Jesus became recognized as a miracle-worker. I.e., he's the only one who reportedly did such acts attested to in multiple written accounts.

Why do we have such a stream of miracles attributed to him, and only to him and to no one else? This cannot be explained without there being a major difference between him and the many other heroes and prophets and martyrs. And so far no one has explained what this major difference was, if it was not that he did in fact demonstrate miracle power which the others did not.

Case closed.

translation: shut your mind to the facts; ignore all the facts about any such reported events, and exclude every possibility other than the dogma that no such events can ever happen regardless of the evidence.

Yes, that's the best argument against the Jesus Resurrection. Ignore all the facts, of this and other reported individual cases, and just blurt out your "Aaaaaaaaaaa, people just made up shit!" ideology with no consideration of any evidence such as we do consider for other reported historical events -- i.e., our reliance on the written accounts of the time which report to us the events and we make a reasonable guess what happened.

You're right that simplistic dogmas like "they just made up shit!" are easier to package in small bite-size morsels for popular consumption, requiring no facts other than just rote memorization of the sloganistic dogma. "They just made up shit!" = Your one-step handy-dandy historical fact refuter, for any possible reported event you want not to have happened.

 

[steve_bank]

There are ongoing reports of Bigfoot and one I had not hear of, Mothman.

Mothman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In West Virginia folklore, the Mothman is a humanoid creature reportedly seen in the Point Pleasant area from November 15, 1966, to December 15, 1967. The first newspaper report was published in the Point Pleasant Register, dated November 16, 1966, titled "Couples See Man-Sized Bird ... Creature ... Something".[1] The national press soon picked up the reports and helped spread the story across the United States.

The Mothman was introduced to a wider audience by Gray Barker in 1970,[2][3] and was later popularized by John Keel in his 1975 book The Mothman Prophecies,[4] claiming that there were supernatural events related to the sightings, and a connection to the collapse of the Silver Bridge. The book was later adapted into a 2002 film, starring Richard Gere.[5]

An annual festival in Point Pleasant is devoted to the Mothman legend.[6]

To understand the gospel 'resorting' you only have to lookat reporting today. Political narratives biased, interpretation of events, and fake news.

This in a time of mass required primary education. 2000 years ago superstition ruled and there was no science.

The resurrection story could have been entirely a fabrication to serve a theo-polical agenda.

I coud have sworn I saw Elvis yesterday, but then it could have een one of those Elvis impersoanators.

 

[steve_bank]

BTW, Jesus has left the building. He is out joyrisng with Elvis in his pink Caddy.