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

[Unknown Soldier]

There are many reasons why I think it definitely was mistaken identity. As you will see in Jesus' time the person didn't need to look the same as the other person - so an identical twin isn't required.

BTW Bishop Spong and the minister Martin Luther King Jr didn't believe in a physical resurrection....

Can you question the Resurrection and still be a Christian?

The Resurrection is interpreted is the source of some of the deepest rifts in Christianity -- and a stumbling block for some Christians and more than a few skeptics.

www.ncronline.org

Mark 6:14-16
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

Others said, “He is Elijah.”

And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”

But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

Obviously John the Baptist would look different to Jesus yet King Herod was convinced that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead!

Luke 9:18-19
Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”

Remember that sightings of Jesus after his death were always short - maybe a couple of hours at the most. If he really did rise he wouldn't be disappearing a short while later every single time.

The gardener and on the road to Emmaus could be mistaken identity because they didn't originally recognise "Jesus". The walking through walls happened in John which means it is less likely to be based on real events. In the story Jesus kind of breaks the fourth wall: "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". I think it was just a story rather than all of the disciples having the same vision.

There is also this event where 6000 people believed they saw Jesus:

V: Jesus in Nairobi, Kenya, 1988

________________________________________________________________________ Compare the photos of Jesus and me to see the resemblance! My previous self, Jesus, was briefly sent to Earth in 1988 &#8211…

stigdragholm.wordpress.com

It doesn't look like Jesus in the photos but for the 500 witnesses there is no photo so we don't know whether it looked like Jesus either.

Thanks for this information. You've made some good points regarding the people of Jesus' day mistaking Jesus for somebody else or not recognizing the supposedly risen Christ.

Note I'm not aware of anyone else ever using any of the arguments I've given about mistaken identity.

If you're the original, then you get the credit!

 

[excreationist]

Note I'm not aware of anyone else ever using any of the arguments I've given about mistaken identity.

If you're the original, then you get the credit!

Thanks. BTW I messaged Bart Ehrman about some of my points a few years ago and he thought it sounded possible. I'm planning on emailing him in a couple of days about this.... though apparently he gets hundreds of emails a day.....

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Note I'm not aware of anyone else ever using any of the arguments I've given about mistaken identity.

If you're the original, then you get the credit!

Thanks. BTW I messaged Bart Ehrman about some of my points a few years ago and he thought it sounded possible. I'm planning on emailing him in a couple of days about this.... though apparently he gets hundreds of emails a day.....

I can't say I'm a fan of Ehrman's. I read Did Jesus Exist, and that was enough for me. I don't know why people respect his work. But, to each his own!

 

[bilby]

Resurrection stories are fiction.

I don't know of any that are factual.

That's because it's by definition impossible for any to be factual.

I wouldn't say that resurrections are impossible by defining them to be impossible. To do so is a tautology. Can you make a case that resurrections are impossible?

If someone appears to be dead, but is later found to be alive, then we know with certainty that they were not dead. Because the difference between 'dead' and 'comatose' is that the former is irreversible.

Again, asserting that resurrections are impossible is not good logic. Anything can be asserted whether it's right or wrong.

In fiction, anything the writers can imagine is possible.

I think you mean possible in the story.

Yes. Hence the phrase "In fiction...".

Thanks for the clarification.

I can imagine traveling faster than light, but I don't think it's possible to actually travel faster than light.

The OP describes a debate between fanfic aficionados over what is or is not canon;

No, the debate I cited in the OP was over the historicity of Christ's resurrection.

Which is as I said, a debate amongst fanfic aficionados over what is or is not canon.

What do you mean by "canon"? Are you referring to the canon of the New Testament or some general rule?

There's no possibility that anyone has ever been resurrected, so all discussions of resurrection are necessarily discussions about fiction.

As the original authors are long dead, such debates can never be resolved, and are just a lot of hot air.

But hot air can sway a lot of people.

Sure. But those people are idiots for being swayed by it.

A person can be very bright and yet be swayed by rhetoric if that person is desperate or vulnerable for some reason or has some other reason(s) to be convinced. You are swayed by arguments against the resurrection, but you are not an idiot. So why be so uncharitable toward those who disagree with you?

That at least one party doesn't even accept that the stories are fiction is embarrassingly dim, particularly as they describe events that are known to be impossible.

I don't know if resurrections are impossible, but if they do happen, I'm unaware of them.

I do, and they are. I explained why above.

You didn't explain why resurrections are impossible.

It comes down to the simple fact that 'alive' and 'dead' are arbitrary linguistic categories with only a passing relevance to reality.

In reality, there's a lot of grey area between 'alive' and 'dead' for any definition of these words; One of the few things that people do agree on, though, is that 'dead' is permanent.

In some ways, yes, it may be difficult to discern between what is alive and what isn't alive. In other cases, it's not so obvious. In any event, people do not always agree that death is permanent. If they did agree that death is permanent, then nobody would be debating the issue!

WLC is like an adult who is convinced that his Hogwarts letter will definitely arrive by the next owl. It's pointless to engage with him; The options are ridicule or pity, depending on how charitable you feel like being.

I would love to debate Craig in particular over his claim that he objectively knows right and wrong. I would point out that while I'm free to repudiate all genocides, and I do repudiate all genocides, his morality does not allow him to repudiate God's genocides as described in the Bible. So how then can his objective morality be superior to my admittedly subjective morality when his morality results in a lot more people being killed? I think he would respond by saying that God's killing people wasn't genocide or that God can kill anybody he wants to because he gave them life.

I would consider it uncharitable to engage in a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent. And you can't change his mind - which coincidentally is why he is so wrong about so many things.

With all due respect, you've demonstrated yourself wrong at least once in this post. I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, but just arbitrarily saying he couldn't have is no better than a Christian out of blind faith saying he did rise.

In exactly the same way that saying the moon isn't made of cheese is no better than someone out of blind faith saying it is.

Do you think that the moon might possibly be made of cheese?

Do you think that discussion of this idea, or comparison of the quality of the rhetoric presented by those discussing it, are a guide to how plausible the claim is?

We know stuff because we science the shit out of it, not because demagogues are able to persuade us of it.

Biology tells us the answer to the question "did Jesus rise from the dead?". And the answer is no less uncertain than the answer to the equally scientific question "is the moon made of cheese?".

So discussing either question as though the answer might be 'yes', is just literary criticism of competing fictions.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheist 'theology' and prophets. I takled to my atheist prophet, and he blessed me.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In exactly the same way that saying the moon isn't made of cheese is no better than someone out of blind faith saying it is.

I suppose you are correct here. Any conclusion reached without without good reason, whether affirmative or negative, can easily be wrong.

Do you think that the moon might possibly be made of cheese?

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. In the same way your claim that a resurrection is impossible needs to be proved.

Do you think that discussion of this idea, or comparison of the quality of the rhetoric presented by those discussing it, are a guide to how plausible the claim is?

If the rhetoric involves valid reasoning and the citation of supporting evidence, then yes, that rhetoric can indicate plausibility.

We know stuff because we science the shit out of it...

I'm not sure what you mean here, but science is useful in acquiring knowledge, of course.

...not because demagogues are able to persuade us of it.

We should always take what demagogues say with a grain of salt!

Biology tells us the answer to the question "did Jesus rise from the dead?". And the answer is no less uncertain than the answer to the equally scientific question "is the moon made of cheese?".

What biology are you referring to? I know of nothing in biology that proves that death is irreversible.

So discussing either question as though the answer might be 'yes', is just literary criticism of competing fictions.

I'd say considering the possibility of a resurrection is open-mindedness and has nothing directly to do with literary criticism.

Anyway, it appears to me that you have no sound case that a resurrection is impossible. All you've done is say that a resurrection is improbable.

 

[Elixir]

In exactly the same way that saying the moon isn't made of cheese is no better than someone out of blind faith saying it is.

I suppose you are correct here. Any conclusion reached without without good reason, whether affirmative or negative, can easily be wrong.

Do you think that the moon might possibly be made of cheese?

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.

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

 

[steve_bank]

Every post resurrects Jesus....

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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

Therefore, resurrections are impossible?

 

[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.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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"?

 

[Thomas II]

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.

Is the resurrection necessary? Why after three days exactly?

Is it necessary for Jesus' mother to be a virgin (before ,during, and after giving birth)?

And the "ascension" , is it necessary?

 

[Elixir]

Is the resurrection necessary? Why after three days exactly?

Is it necessary for Jesus' mother to be a virgin (before ,during, and after giving birth)?

And the "ascension" , is it necessary?

Absolutely ridiculous questions …
FOOD is necessary.

 

[Thomas II]

Is the resurrection necessary? Why after three days exactly?

Is it necessary for Jesus' mother to be a virgin (before ,during, and after giving birth)?

And the "ascension" , is it necessary?

Absolutely ridiculous questions …
FOOD is necessary.

Some people believe those things...and they consider them necessary for some purpose...The question is, why?

 

[DBT]

Every believer keeps the myth alive by placing their faith in it, which is justified by their own authority, declaring it to be truth.

 

[Thomas II]

Every believer keeps the myth alive by placing their faith in it, which is justified by their own authority, declaring it to be truth

Yes, that is the answer. Because those things are elements of faith.

 

[Tharmas]

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.

Is the resurrection necessary? Why after three days exactly?

Is it necessary for Jesus' mother to be a virgin (before ,during, and after giving birth)?

And the "ascension" , is it necessary?

There’s actually sort of a reason. At that time in history Jewish scholars were combing the Bible for prophetic hints about their present and future times, a practice called Midrash.

The technique was borrowed by the early Christians. Those things mentioned, birth from a virgin and many others, such as entering Jerusalem on an ass, palm leaves, etc., are based on phrases from the scriptures that were interpreted by the Gospel writers as prophetic predictions about the messiah. That’s why the Gospels are full of descriptions of Jesus’ actions, followed by some phrase like “as foretold by the prophets.”

It's a method of legitimizing their boy. See, it says right here that the messiah would be born of a virgin, and what do you know, our man Jesus was born of a virgin. Can’t be mere coincidence!

“Bible studies” sponsored by many churches still today consist of reading select passages of the Old Testament and claiming that they are prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. You’ll find many believers claiming that it’s “all the prophecies” that prove Jesus was the messiah.

 

[Thomas II]

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.

Is the resurrection necessary? Why after three days exactly?

Is it necessary for Jesus' mother to be a virgin (before ,during, and after giving birth)?

And the "ascension" , is it necessary?

There’s actually sort of a reason. At that time in history Jewish scholars were combing the Bible for prophetic hints about their present and future times, a practice called Midrash.

The technique was borrowed by the early Christians. Those things mentioned, birth from a virgin and many others, such as entering Jerusalem on an ass, palm leaves, etc., are based on phrases from the scriptures that were interpreted by the Gospel writers as prophetic predictions about the messiah. That’s why the Gospels are full of descriptions of Jesus’ actions, followed by some phrase like “as foretold by the prophets.”

It's a method of legitimizing their boy. See, it says right here that the messiah would be born of a virgin, and what do you know, our man Jesus was born of a virgin. Can’t be mere coincidence!

“Bible studies” sponsored by many churches still today consist of reading select passages of the Old Testament and claiming that they are prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. You’ll find many believers claiming that it’s “all the prophecies” that prove Jesus was the messiah.

Thank you, Tharmas! Good answer!

 

[bilby]

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?

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

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.

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

You do NOT have the burden to prove something that has already been proven, just because your interlocutors are ignorant of, or dismissive of, the proof.

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

The same applies to the existence of any gods.