Resurrection Contradictions

[WinePusher]

In this thread we will be evaluating the alternative explanations for the events surrounding the Resurrection to see if they hold any validity.

Swoon Hypothesis: The Swoon Hypothesis refers to a number of theories that aim to explain the resurrection of Jesus, proposing that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but merely fell unconscious ("swooned"), and was later revived in the tomb in the same mortal body

Source

Vision Hypothesis: The vision hypothesis is a term used to cover a range of theories that question the physical resurrection of Jesus, and suggest that sightings of a risen Jesus were visionary experiences.

Source

Stolen Body Hypothesis: The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

Source

Question: Do these theories better explain the events surrounding the resurrection then the explanation that Jesus rose from the dead? Please explain and support with detail.

[Zzyzx]

.

But then the resurrection is possible too if anything logically possible is possible. Your personal opinion regarding what you believe to be more likely is noted. But the bottom line here is that to argue the Swoon Theory you’ll need to argue against JAMA.

Yes, the resurrection is not impossible, however it's far from the most likely explanation, and that's not really personal opinion, given it hasn't been proven that a resurrection in such conditions is even medically possible,…

Surely you see how you contradict yourself here. The resurrection is not impossible but it is impossible because it hasn’t been shown to be possible. If it is possible as you concede there is no logical reason for me to prove it possible in order to show it is at least possible.

I see no contradiction between:

1) “resurrection is not impossible�
2) “resurrection has not been shown to be possible�

Anyone, such as Luke, making an enquiry could talk to witnesses and so on. If it had all been a hoax there are good odds that eventually someone would say something.

Somebody would say something like what?

Like one of the disciples saying it was hoax.

According to the tales, some close associates of Jesus did not believe he had come back to life or did not recognize him as the person they had known – but had to be convinced.

If people who supposedly knew Jesus well did not believe or did not recognize him in his “risen form� without being presented with evidence, why should people thousands of years later accept the tale without evidence of truth (aside from the tale itself that makes the claim)?

Maybe. But then you must argue they were liars then to support your position. This will need substantial positive proof to establish.

People lie. It can't be proven that the disciples were liars, much like it can't be proven that Jesus was resurrected, so I don't know about you, but I'm going to go with what's more likely until proven wrong.

That’s fine. I think the resurrection is more likely.

Is it more likely to believe that a dead body came back to life than to believe that the story was a myth or legend (similar to myths and legends that credit other “gods� with coming back to life)? No one need be “lying� – just embellishing a good story a little when it is retold – over and over. That is a way for myths and legends to progress from fact to fantasy.

The “resurrection� tale was not recorded until decades or generations after the supposed event – by writers promoting religion -- who have not been shown to have had direct personal knowledge of Jesus or his actions.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Still does not explain how/why he (Saul/Paul) could have come to believe in a resurrected Jesus after being one of early Christianity's biggest persecutors. Not only did he come to believe in it, he claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus himself. Thus, turning himself from one of the most loved and feared persecutors of Christians into one of the most hated and persecuted persons for the Christian message. This fact can not simply be ignored or swept under the rug as appears to be the case so far in this thread by more than one participant.

According to Acts, while on the road to Damascus Paul became sick and disoriented and had to be carried into the city by his companions who then left him at the home of a Christian man to be cared for. Sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that he had experienced a vision of Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier. His experience during his illness proved to be life changing for Paul and after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. So we are either left to conclude either that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually MET WITH AND TALKED WITH A DEAD MAN. I have a pretty good idea which of these two possibilities appeals to you. The question is however, which of these two possibilities is the more likely? Try to be objective in your response.

1) How and why would Paul and other skeptics come to believe in a resurrected Jesus? Note that it was not the empty tomb that converted these people but their claim to have actually seen the resurrected Jesus. Do you actually think Saul and some of the Pharisees would have been convinced of only an empty tomb? As you state above, this theory is not new and they would have known this possibility better than anyone else.

I have just covered Paul. Now ask yourself this question; how did YOU come to believe in the resurrected Jesus? It is after all a totally absurd claim. And yet you believe it implicitly. I obviously don't know your personal history, but the answer to that question for the overwhelming majority of Christians is that they were BORN INTO THE BELIEF. You have almost certainly been indoctrinated from your earliest memory to believe in and accept the story of the resurrected Jesus without question, just as your parents were before you. Just as the children of Hindu parents or Muslim parents have indoctrinated their own children to be good observing Hindu's and Muslim's. All religions had a beginning, and are totally accepted as completely valid and true by the informed faithful. Even the false religions. Which according to you would be every religious which does not conform to YOUR informed religious beliefs, unless I miss my guess.

Here is another important point. The earliest recorded mention of the resurrected Jesus EVER occurs in 1 Corinthians which was written circa 55 AD (54 to 57 is the range commonly given). According to the time frame established by the Gospels Jesus was executed circa 30 AD. In other words for the first quarter of a century, a full generation or so after the execution of Jesus, there is no record of large numbers of "other skeptics" coming to believe in the resurrected Jesus at all. Only silence. In fact there is absolutely no indication that anything especially interesting or unusual occurred in Jerusalem circa 30 AD, stemming from the time the claimed events are supposed to have occurred. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, claimed that "above 500" of Jesus' disciples witnessed the risen Jesus on one particular occasion. None of the other Gospels mention this particular event however, and it was an "event" which Paul was not HIMSELF present to witness. We have a story of 500 witnesses, but no actual testimonies from the supposed witnesses, no identification as to just who these witnesses were, and no corroboration from any other source. Only a story of witnesses. A story with a preposterous claim provided by an individual who was not himself present at the time.

2) The stolen body theory is a discredited theory, even by most critical scholars in part due to the fact that a)there is no hint in the historic records that the early disciples where in the frame of mind to do such a thing. They were fearful and we see nothing but them wanting to distance themselves from Jesus while he was on trial and being crucified and b) even if it could be shown that they did do such a thing, this does not explain the fact they willingly were alienated, persecuted, and even put to death for a lie that they knew about. For these 2 reasons and others most critical scholars has discounted this theory.

Admittedly Christians do discredit the "stolen body theory," and agree amongst themselves that it couldn't possibly be true. They consider it to be an affront to all common opinion and the known facts, unworthy of serious consideration, and therefore to be discredited. And these are not the droids we are looking for. They can go. Unfortunately the Jedi mind trick does not work on everyone. As I have already pointed out, the most obvious explanation for a missing corpse is that someone moved it. What is unworthy of consideration is the claim that "they" were generally to discombobulated to have moved the corpse, and so the only possible answer is that the corpse came back to life and left under it's own power. Which "THEY" are you speaking of, anyway? The apostles? Where were "they" exactly, and what were "they" doing. And what of the various disciples? Joseph and Nicodemus were not to fearful to act, were they? Joseph and Nicodemus in fact acted immediately by acquiring the body of Jesus and moving it to Joseph's new rock tomb. What did they do next?

"[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19).

The body of Jesus was coated with 100 pounds of aromatic spices and heavily wrapped. Not an act which would have served to appreciably delay the decaying process, and the Jews never practiced the preservation of their dead anyway. 100 pounds of aromatic spices would have served rather effectively to mask the scent of corruption for a few days however, something which would be useful if one intended to transport a corpse on a journey of several days. So where would one normally transport a body and why? To take it home for burial obviously. Which in Jesus' case would have been Galilee.

"[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." (Matthew 28).

So where did the disciples go after the crucifixion? THEY JOURNEYED TO GALILEE! Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is specifically reported to have been at the crucifixion.

"[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." (John 19).

But she is nowhere listed as being among the various Mary's mentioned at the empty tomb on Sunday. Where do we pick her up again?

"[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1).

There is Mary the mother of Jesus with the disciples, NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM. And now they began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus.

Strawman, "most skeptical/critical scholars" discredit this theory; not just those scholars who are Christians who believe that Jesus was physically resurrected.

Most CHRISTIAN scholars absolutely affirm the truth of Christian claims for the resurrection and discredit all other possibilities. Secular scholars however tend to consider the claim to be metaphysical and therefore beyond the realm of historical investigation. It's a belief and not an established fact. Jesus can not even be established to have existed historically, outside of the NT, and the Apocrypha. I do not personally deny that the person of Jesus existed. That does not mean however that all of the elements of the story of Jesus that has come down to us should be given equal credibility.

In his monumental eleven volumn life's work "The Story of Civilization, historian Will Durant has this to say about Christianity in general: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shinning in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (History of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595). Christian claims are only undeniable when exchanged between Christians.

And of course Muslim scholars deny the truth of the resurrection of Jesus outright, as Murad has noted all over this board.

[horiturk]

well it has been observed that when someone dies they remain dead.it is unlikely that one man defied this fact of life,it has never been observed to actually have happened since civilization mostly came out of superstition.

[Goose]

Surely you see how you contradict yourself here. The resurrection is not impossible but it is impossible because it hasn’t been shown to be possible. If it is possible as you concede there is no logical reason for me to prove it possible in order to show it is at least possible.

I see no contradiction between:

1) “resurrection is not impossible�
2) “resurrection has not been shown to be possible�

Well that’s not surprising. Remember this thread? The Zzyzx Contradiction

If one concedes something is possible it then becomes self contradictory to demand that same thing be shown to be possible to show it is possible. But please, by all means, continue to argue that this not self contradictory.

Like one of the disciples saying it was hoax.

According to the tales, some close associates of Jesus did not believe he had come back to life or did not recognize him as the person they had known – but had to be convinced.

Needing a little convincing is not the same as confessing it was all a hoax. Surely you can see the difference.

If people who supposedly knew Jesus well did not believe or did not recognize him in his “risen form� without being presented with evidence, why should people thousands of years later accept the tale without evidence of truth (aside from the tale itself that makes the claim)?

You must have me confused with someone that is concerned about whether you accept it.

Is it more likely to believe that a dead body came back to life than to believe that the story was a myth or legend (similar to myths and legends that credit other “gods� with coming back to life)? No one need be “lying� – just embellishing a good story a little when it is retold – over and over. That is a way for myths and legends to progress from fact to fantasy.

Your opinion is noted.

The “resurrection� tale was not recorded until decades or generations after the supposed event – by writers promoting religion

This part is at least correct.

-- who have not been shown to have had direct personal knowledge of Jesus or his actions.

This part is false. Gospel of John: Genuine eyewitness? where an atheist argues for John being an eyewitness account. Why did you leave that thread?

-------

well it has been observed that when someone dies they remain dead...it has never been observed to actually have happened..

False. Lazarus Phenomena. My prediction is that you’ll raise the bar now to “when someone dies they remain dead, unless there is medical intervention.�

[Lux]

Surely you see how you contradict yourself here. The resurrection is not impossible but it is impossible because it hasn’t been shown to be possible. If it is possible as you concede there is no logical reason for me to prove it possible in order to show it is at least possible.

I don't see the contradiction, but sure, I'll make myself plainer: It's not impossible that someone could come back from the dead, as much as nothing can be proved to be impossible. However, it has not been shown that it is possible for a dead person to resurrect spontaneously, therefore even though it can't be shown to be impossible it is not by any means the most likely explanation, which is what this threads deals with, per the OP question.

JAMA seems to disagree.

Can JAMA offer us any cases of people coming back to life without receiving modern medical care first? If so, please do show, and if not, JAMA disagrees with the resurrection hypothesis as much as it disagrees with the Swoon hypothesis if not more.

If he just managed to revive he would look nearly dead, recently beaten and crucified. Picture the scenario of Jesus emerging from the tomb and dragging himself around the streets of Jerusalem till he found his disciples. Then saying, “Hey, guys, pay no attention to all the blood, I’m the Risen Lord! Now go preach it in the streets that I have risen!... Uh, by the way does anyone have a first aid kit handy?� Would that impress you enough to risk death for it? I think it more likely the disciples would be sympathetic to Jesus’ state and try to help him. But it would hardly be enough to get them to preach his resurrection in the face of possible death. Certainly not enough to convert Paul an enemy of the church or James a sceptic.

I know that was a rhetorical question but honestly... yes it would impress me It would actually scare me half to death, but once I recovered from that I'd be extremely impressed. The guy was "dead" and there he is, walking around. Who cares how he looks? It clearly would have looked like a miracle. And imagine it almost two thousand years ago, where there was no possible non-miraculous explanation for such a thing. "Oh, I suppose he suffered from Lazarus syndrome, who performed CPR on Jesus and forgot to mention it!?" "Hm, I guess Jesus was buried prematurely, we should have gotten a death certificate! Whoops".

Like one of the disciples saying it was hoax.

And they would know this how? If they were not in on the thing they could doubt Jesus had returned, but all that it would take to hand-wave that away would be saying that they simply had not seen resurrected Jesus, which of course doesn't discredit the story at all.

The only accounts of resurrection appearances are from the Gospels, most of them included in the Bible. Obviously the authors got to choose what to include and what not to include, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of people saying they hadn't seen Jesus after his death. People trying to show that Jesus indeed resurrected are not likely to include a list of all those who did not see resurrected Jesus.

The only other source is the Book of Mormon, which was written in the 1800s by christians.

Red Herring. This is a diversion off the point and you are now just hand waiving aside evidence. Whether or not Joseph was actually given Jesus’ corpse is irrelevant because the point remains that Joseph didn’t just take the body. He knew there would be repercussions if he did. He asked permission first.

It wasn't an attempt at diverting, it was an honest question.

Because by your own admission you don’t know if they were lying. It is a serious accusation and the burden of proof falls on you.

I can't know when they lied or didn't lie. As I think I made plain enough, I'm saying lying as more plausible than a dead person resurrecting all on their own.

No, no. You need to prove they were lying. Insinuation isn’t enough. And it has been shown people can come to life on their own, more argument by assertion.

No, all that has been shown is that a few bloggers believe that a man in Nigeria resurrected.

Even if they were trying gain something, though you haven’t quite told us what that would be, this doesn’t give enough motive to risk death.

Why not? And what about if they truly believed Jesus (which does seem more likely) but were worried about how Jesus dying affected their story?

They didn’t need to risk death by stealing Jesus’ body, then make up a big whopper about him coming back from the dead just to spread his message. Occam’s Razor seems to shave that away.

What message could they have spread otherwise? "We knew a great guy, the Son of God himself. Too bad he's dead"? That sounds unconvincing to me.

Funny that you should mention Occam's Razor when you're arguing for a dead man coming back to life. Since we're trying to find out what the most likely explanation for what happened to Jesus is, how could he have possibly come back to life? You've criticized my arguments but you haven't given even one possible explanation as to how a guy with very severe wounds, all alone and 2,000 years ago could have come back to life.

Well in the case Jesus rose from the dead they didn’t have Jesus with them per se either while they preached so this seems to be a moot point.

That's true, but they had a far more impressive story than "He was the messiah, he died".

Several years of experience and good teaching under a rabbi. Why wouldn’t they just go back to what they were doing before and wait for the next Messianic claimant? Why steal a dead body, making up lies, and risk death? I would just go home and chalk it up to experience, wouldn’t you?

Not if I really believed Jesus was the Son of God, and not if I had already lost whatever I had at home.

That’s fine. I think the resurrection is more likely.

That's also fine. If you didn't believe in a god capable of resurrecting him, would you still believe that?

You conceded earlier that anything that isn’t logically impossible is possible. Therefore, the supernatural (and God’s existence for that matter) is possible as they are not logically impossible. If Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation that combines scope and explanatory power and the supernatural is at least possible, on what grounds would you reject the resurrection hypothesis?

I've never denied that the existence of god and the supernatural is possible. It is not, however, the most likely explanation if you take into account that neither can be proven or evidenced.

I reject the resurrection hypothesis on grounds of probability, at this point. No one seems to have an explanation for how Jesus would have resurrected other than "God did it", and of course that only works if you already believe in that god, or if they offer proof to show it's existence.

Of course it’s evidence. You can dispute if you wish and not believe it. But asserting it isn’t proven isn’t evidence that it isn’t proven.

There’s a little more than that. But what you personally find credible is irrelevant to the point which is that your assertion has been shown false by evidence.

What evidence? A couple of blog posts and a video of himself talking about his death and resurrection is hardly evidence of anything. You presented Daniel Ekechukwu as if he conclusively proves that resurrecting is possible, when in reality his resurrection hasn't been shown to be real in the first place.

Well you are welcome to assume whatever you’d like. But there’s no mention of medical care at all. He arrived at the hospital already dead.

He arrived at the second hospital already dead, if we are to assume that bloggers are telling the truth. Honestly, I don't see why we're talking about him. His resurrection is very poorly supported.

[horiturk]

i said when someone actually dies,not just appears to be dead

[Goose]

Surely you see how you contradict yourself here. The resurrection is not impossible but it is impossible because it hasn’t been shown to be possible. If it is possible as you concede there is no logical reason for me to prove it possible in order to show it is at least possible.

I don't see the contradiction, but sure, I'll make myself plainer: It's not impossible that someone could come back from the dead, as much as nothing can be proved to be impossible. However, it has not been shown that it is possible for a dead person to resurrect spontaneously, therefore even though it can't be shown to be impossible it is not by any means the most likely explanation, which is what this threads deals with, per the OP question.

Firstly it is false to say “nothing can be proved to be impossible.� It is impossible for there to exist a married bachelor as they are a contradiction in terms. Your clarification still leaves a contradictory position though. Fundamentally you have argued that a resurrection is both not impossible AND not possible at the same time. This is contradictory. If you can’t see this basic and fundamental error in your reasoning I’m not sure there is much point continuing with you here on the remaining issues until you do.

JAMA seems to disagree.

Can JAMA offer us any cases of people coming back to life without receiving modern medical care first? If so, please do show, and if not, JAMA disagrees with the resurrection hypothesis as much as it disagrees with the Swoon hypothesis if not more.

Three logical fallacies one statement! Red Herring by diverting away from the issue that JAMA confirms Jesus’ death. And an Argument from Silence by drawing inferences from what we don’t find with JAMA. And a non-sequitur by concluding that JAMA disagrees with resurrection hypothesis more than the Swoon Theory because it hasn’t written an article documenting cases of people coming back to life.

I know that was a rhetorical question but honestly... yes it would impress me It would actually scare me half to death, but once I recovered from that I'd be extremely impressed. The guy was "dead" and there he is, walking around. Who cares how he looks? It clearly would have looked like a miracle. And imagine it almost two thousand years ago, where there was no possible non-miraculous explanation for such a thing. "Oh, I suppose he suffered from Lazarus syndrome, who performed CPR on Jesus and forgot to mention it!?" "Hm, I guess Jesus was buried prematurely, we should have gotten a death certificate! Whoops".

I agree it would be impressive to survive. But if he looked like he just got mangled in a train wreck, was nearly dead, and in desperate need of medical attention I probably wouldn’t risk my life to follow him as the risen Lord. Would you?

Like one of the disciples saying it was hoax.

And they would know this how? If they were not in on the thing they could doubt Jesus had returned, but all that it would take to hand-wave that away would be saying that they simply had not seen resurrected Jesus, which of course doesn't discredit the story at all.

You are trying to tell me if you had direct evidence from one of the disciples confessing it was all a big hoax you would just hand-wave that aside and that wouldn’t discredit the story at all? Are you serious?

It wasn't an attempt at diverting, it was an honest question.

Fair enough. But it was still a diversion.

Because by your own admission you don’t know if they were lying. It is a serious accusation and the burden of proof falls on you.

I can't know when they lied or didn't lie.

Then there doesn’t really seem to be any point in hypothesizing they did, especially if you can’t prove they were lying. Unless, of course you are just trying to find a reason to dislodge belief.

As I think I made plain enough, I'm saying lying as more plausible than a dead person resurrecting all on their own.

Thank you for your opinion.

No, no. You need to prove they were lying. Insinuation isn’t enough. And it has been shown people can come to life on their own, more argument by assertion.

No, all that has been shown is that a few bloggers believe that a man in Nigeria resurrected.

Not quite. I encourage you to review the case more closely.

Even if they were trying gain something, though you haven’t quite told us what that would be, this doesn’t give enough motive to risk death.

Why not?

Why would it?

And what about if they truly believed Jesus (which does seem more likely) but were worried about how Jesus dying affected their story?

They had plenty to draw on other than the resurrection to help solidify the message if that was what they needed. They didn’t need to steal a dead body, risking capital punishment, and then make up lies about Jesus returning to life just to spread the message.

They didn’t need to risk death by stealing Jesus’ body, then make up a big whopper about him coming back from the dead just to spread his message. Occam’s Razor seems to shave that away.

What message could they have spread otherwise? "We knew a great guy, the Son of God himself. Too bad he's dead"?

Something like that. They could also reference his fulfillment of prophecy or other miracles. They need not steal a body and then make up lies about a resurrection just to get the message across.

Funny that you should mention Occam's Razor when you're arguing for a dead man coming back to life. Since we're trying to find out what the most likely explanation for what happened to Jesus is, how could he have possibly come back to life? You've criticized my arguments but you haven't given even one possible explanation as to how a guy with very severe wounds, all alone and 2,000 years ago could have come back to life.

The best explanation is the most likely. Occams razor shaves away all the other hypothesis as they are very ad hoc.

Well in the case Jesus rose from the dead they didn’t have Jesus with them per se either while they preached so this seems to be a moot point.

That's true, but they had a far more impressive story than "He was the messiah, he died".

That depends. Some people might actually be inclined to discredit the whole message once claims of resurrections start popping up. This forum is evidence enough of that.

Several years of experience and good teaching under a rabbi. Why wouldn’t they just go back to what they were doing before and wait for the next Messianic claimant? Why steal a dead body, making up lies, and risk death? I would just go home and chalk it up to experience, wouldn’t you?

Not if I really believed Jesus was the Son of God, and not if I had already lost whatever I had at home.

Okay, but people could believe Jesus was the Son of God without a resurrection couldn’t they? Of course they could, hence there was no need to steal a dead body or manufacture a grand conspiracy.

That’s fine. I think the resurrection is more likely.

That's also fine. If you didn't believe in a god capable of resurrecting him, would you still believe that?

Actually, I see Jesus’ resurrection as evidence that the Christian God exists.

You conceded earlier that anything that isn’t logically impossible is possible. Therefore, the supernatural (and God’s existence for that matter) is possible as they are not logically impossible. If Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation that combines scope and explanatory power and the supernatural is at least possible, on what grounds would you reject the resurrection hypothesis?

I've never denied that the existence of god and the supernatural is possible. It is not, however, the most likely explanation if you take into account that neither can be proven or evidenced

I reject the resurrection hypothesis on grounds of probability, at this point. No one seems to have an explanation for how Jesus would have resurrected other than "God did it", and of course that only works if you already believe in that god, or if they offer proof to show it's existence. .

I’m not asking you what you think is most likely or probable. That is a precarious way to determine the truth of history as we know there are extremely improbable events that are historical. I’m asking you if Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation that combines scope and explanatory power and the supernatural is at least possible, on what grounds would you reject the resurrection hypothesis? Can you answer this question?

What evidence? A couple of blog posts and a video of himself talking about his death and resurrection is hardly evidence of anything. You presented Daniel Ekechukwu as if he conclusively proves that resurrecting is possible, when in reality his resurrection hasn't been shown to be real in the first place.

Have you got that link I gave you working yet?

Well you are welcome to assume whatever you’d like. But there’s no mention of medical care at all. He arrived at the hospital already dead.

He arrived at the second hospital already dead, if we are to assume that bloggers are telling the truth. Honestly, I don't see why we're talking about him. His resurrection is very poorly supported.

But you concede he arrived at the hospital already dead and his resurrection is at least supported.

[flitzerbiest]

...

Gospel of John: Genuine eyewitness? where an atheist argues for John being an eyewitness account.

When someone zealously argues the positions of a Christian apologist in the manner of a Christian apologist, I personally don't take a usergroup designation of "atheism" all that seriously, but YMMV.

[Goose]

i said when someone actually dies,not just appears to be dead

They were all pronounced dead. If a dead person comes back to life they were not really dead in the first place because, well, dead people always stay dead - circular.

[d.thomas]

.

You left out the Author Narrative Hypothesis which posits the most likely scenario that someone made it all up.

.


Yes, a curious avoidance of the obvious.


.