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

[Paul of Tarsus]

Can the resurrection of Christ be explained as a case of mistaken identity? Apologist William Lane Craig finds this notion to be absurd. He has explained that he debated a skeptic who, out of desperation to save face in his debate over the resurrection with Craig, argued that Jesus could have had an identical-twin brother who was mistaken for Jesus after Jesus was executed.

I'm not so sure if the idea of Jesus having an identical twin brother is so absurd. No doubt there are cases in which an identical twin is misidentified as his or her deceased twin, and some people, especially those who are unaware that the deceased twin had an identical twin brother or sister, could think the deceased twin has come back from the dead!

But a case of misidentifying Jesus need not involve a twin or even a sibling. Any man who resembled Jesus may have been mistaken for Jesus. In those days there were no cameras, and exactly what Jesus looked like may have been unknown to most people who had heard of him. Consequently, it would not have been hard for them to believe that the man they were seeing was the risen Christ.

[historia]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #61]

Three weeks into this thread, it's still not clear to me what overarching point, if any, you are trying to make here.

If you're simply pointing out that some hypotheses have a higher prior probability than others, then that is certainly true. But, as Goose and others have already pointed out, historians don't draw conclusions based on prior probabilities alone. So simply noting prior probabilities is like making half an argument.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #58]

I am not at this time going to attempt to respond to the things you say here since it gets away from the topic at hand. It is a fact that we have evidence in support of the Christian claims. It is a fact that there are critics, (including scholars) who understand this, and feel the need to give some alternative explanation to explain the facts we have. As an example from the OP, we have one who seems to understand clearly that we do indeed have evidence to support the reports that there were folks who claim to have seen Jesus alive after death. With this being the case, they come up with the idea that Jesus may have had a twin brother, in order to explain away the evidence we have which support the idea that Jesus may have been alive after death.

But, this is not an isolated case in the least! You see, there are scholars who would have us believe that the reports we have of the resurrection would have been written by those decades later, who would not have been eyewitnesses, and may not have even been alive at the time, but were simply writing what had been past on to them, through the decades.

The problem these scholars have, is the letters of Paul. Because you see, we can be sure Paul was a historical figure, because we know that he traveled the world planting Churches, and wrote letters to these Churches. We can also be certain, that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. Of course, these scholars want to suggest that Paul would not have been the author of all the letters attributed to him, but this does not eliminate the fact that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and that Paul did in fact author letters which would fit into this time frame.

But the evidence continues. You see, we have two long, and detailed letters, addressed to one by the name Theophilus. In the second letter, this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" to describe the events of Paul's travels, as if he is there the witness the events he records. Moreover, we know that in some of the letters of Paul, he mentions certain folks who are with him on his travels. Well, it just so happens Paul mentions someone by the name of Luke being with him on these travels. In fact, in one of the letters which has Pau's name, would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, in that letter, Paul tells his audience, "only Luke is with me"? Now, can you imagine where the author of the second letter to Theophilus ends this letter? Well, that would be with Paul being under arrest.

However, we have even more evidence that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. You see, this author begins his second letter, describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, but when Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys, for some reason we only hear of what Paul is doing, and nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem are doing, until, or unless, Paul comes in contact with them again. Can you imagine why? Sure you can! You see, if this author would have traveled with Paul, as the evidence suggest, he could not possibly report on what the Apostles in Jerusalem were doing, and could have only reported on what Paul may have been doing, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them.

On top of all of this, the author of the letters to Theophilus, tells Theophilus, that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", and was writing these things out to him, in order for Theophilus to "know the exact truth", as if he were alive at the time to actually investigate all these things from the beginning.

Well, we are just beginning here, and have only scratched the surface, but none of what I have said above has escaped the attention of the scholars, and because they understand that what I have said would be very good evidence that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been alive at the time of the events, they understand they must, and have to come up with alternative explanation, in order to explain away all these facts, and evidence which supports the idea this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus.

Therefore, these authors claim that there is evidence to suggest that the author may have used a literary device when using the words, "we", and "us", and did not intend to be understood as being there to witness the events. Moreover, it just so happens, that it is the letters attributed to Paul which mention the name of Luke, which these authors just so happen to decide, may not have been authored by Paul. Knowing the two letters addressed to Theophilus, certainly seem to be addressed to one individual, these scholars suggest that the author may have been using the meaning of the name of Theophilus to address a wider audience, because these scholars need, and want to believe that this author would have intended to spread this message to the masses, instead of just one individual.

Again, I could continue on, and on, but all of this sort of demonstrates the scholars understand, and recognize, there is very good evidence to support these things above, and they also understand, and recognize, they must, and have to give some sort of alternative.

With all the above being said, if there are those who would like to believe what the scholars have to say, I have no problem with this in the least, and do not, and will not insist there is no reason, nor logic involved. However, if there are those who want to insist there is very good reason, evidence, and logic in support of what the scholars have to say, and go on to insist there is no reason, evidence, nor logic, involved in believing this author would have been addressing one individual, would have traveled with Paul, which would mean he would have been alive at the time of Jesus, then all I can think is we have those who have a bias toward what they would rather believe.

Notice again, I am not insisting there would be no reason, logic, or evidence in support of what the scholars have to say. Rather, I am saying, if there are those who want to insist there would be no reason, logic, or evidence to support the idea that this author was indeed addressing one individual, that he traveled with Paul, which would mean he would have been alive at the time of Jesus, then I believe we have clear evidence of one who has a clear bias toward what they would rather believe.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #71]

You quote Galatians Chapter 1 Verse 11 which reads,

11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[a] that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

From here you go on to say,

So contrary to what you say, if what Paul is saying here is true, Paul knew nothing about Jesus prior to his conversion.

Could you explain how it would necessarily follow that Paul, proclaiming that he did not receive the "gospel through human origin" necessarily translates into, "Paul knew nothing about Jesus prior to his conversion"?

My point is, isn't it absolutely possible, Paul could have known exactly who Jesus was, that Jesus was crucified, and there were those who were spreading the massage that this same Jesus rose from the dead, and had no idea how these claimed events were tied to what is called "the gospel" (good news)?

In other words, if Paul would have said, "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that Jesus who was proclaimed by me is not of human origin", then you would have an extreme legitimate point. However, I am not sure how one can translate Paul claiming to know nothing of the gospel, into Paul "knew nothing about Jesus prior to his conversion"?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Why is he wrong about Acts being an unreliable source of historical information?

Why is he wrong? Why is he right??? I have my reasons why I think he is wrong, and vice versa.

If you dismiss Richard Carrier because you find his hypothesis about the historicity of Jesus hard to believe, then why not apply that same logic to Acts as well as the rest of the Bible?

Why would I apply my rejection of Richard Carrier and what he has to say about the historicity of Jesus, and apply that same dismissiveness/logic to Acts and the rest of the Bible?

Makes no sense. The dismissal of one does not carry over to the other.

Acts tells us that Paul was struck blind by Jesus in the sky. Would that outlandish story not discredit Acts by your own logic?

No, it wouldn't.

By your own reasoning we cannot justifiably conclude that Paul knew about Jesus before his conversion. There isn't a shred of evidence for it in the "record"!

Anyway, here's what Paul has to say in Galatians 1:

"11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[a] that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

So contrary to what you say, if what Paul is saying here is true, Paul knew nothing about Jesus prior to his conversion. By your logic we cannot deduce that Paul knew about Jesus before he saw Jesus in the sky.

Yeah, but if you would have read further, you would have read when Paul stated..

"For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it".

And what is "church", according to wikipedia..

"A building for Christian religious activities." As you will see in the link below, everything involving religion and "church" pertains to Christianity, thus, Jesus Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church

So Paul was persecuting already established Churches in Rome, so it is complete nonsense to say that Paul did not know about Christ before his revelation.

And not only that, but what Paul said there in Gal 1:13 about how he once persecuted the Church harmonizes with what we read in Acts, where Paul was committed to persecuting the Church....which, in essence, makes the book of Acts credible.

You're misquoting me again. I said that I can ignore the reported sightings of Jesus, not that I am ignore those reports.

If you can, but aren't, then the mere mentioning of what you can do is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is so irrelevant to the discussion that I assumed you meant that you can, and you are...because you can, but aren't has absolutely no relevance to the discussion...because we are not talking about what you aren't doing, but what you are doing.

I didn't say that mistaken identity got Jesus out of a tomb. I said that cases of mistaken identity could have fueled rumors that Jesus was alive after his execution.

Sure, that is what you said. The problem is, the hypothesis fails in light of other facts (according to the narrative), in particular, the empty tomb.

You can't logically just gloss over the empty tomb narrative (which is embedded in the entire account) just because it gives your hypothesis no validity whatsoever.

The onus is on you to come up with a better hypothesis, one that stands in light of all of the other facts according to the narrative of the story.

So basically, you have to dismiss the entire empty tomb narrative, despite the fact that it is embedded in all four Gospels, and then conjure up this crazy, cockamanie story about Jesus being mistaken for a twin brother, despite that NO Gospel, epistle, or any Christian document in antiquity attest to this.

This is madness, I tell ya. Madness.

The kind of evidence you demand begs the question regarding the resurrection. If you disallow any hypothesis that involves ideas not explicitly stated in the gospels, then we can only go by what we read in the gospels which assures that belief in an actual resurrection is the only allowable hypothesis.

Well, then the question becomes; are the Gospels reliable accounts of Christian antiquity...which is an entirely separate question although I have reasons to believe that the answer lies in the affirmative.

Sure, if we assume that the gospels are historically credible, then yes, there was a tomb vacated by Jesus. We can also conclude that Jesus was raised from the dead because the gospels say so.

So then why not question whether or not Jesus was even crucified and was believed to rise and be seen in the first place? If you are that gung-ho about why we shouldn't conclude it because the gospels said so, then why are you so gung-ho about providing an explanation for why Jesus resurrection was believed, because that tad bit of information is also in the Gospels.

Makes no sense...unless you are rejecting one part because it doesn't mesh well with your hypothesis.

The information is coming from the exact same book, for crying out loud.

Yet, you are dismissive towards one of the most un-superstitious (lack of a better term) part of the story (empty tomb)..you reject that part, but you finely accept the resurrection belief part...when all of the information is coming from the exact same book.

Again, this is the taxi cab fallacy at its finest.

You can go ahead and assume what you're trying to prove, that the gospel writers tell us the truth about Jesus raised from the dead, but I don't make that assumption. By contrast, I do not assume that the reported sightings of Jesus must have been false but know that they can be mistaken by considering the fact that people can mistake one person for another. In other words I base my conclusion on a proven premise while you base your conclusion on what you conclude.

Empty tomb.

How is a man walking away from his grave not cockamamie?

The resurrection of Jesus is believed, based on the background information and reasons we have to conclude that there is a supernatural God that exists, and that this God created life, and the universe.

And if this God exists, and he decides to raise someone from the dead, then that is his business.

How is such a claim more likely than mistaken identity? If you argue against a twin-brother as implausible, then your own conclusion is not acceptable because it is even more implausible.

First, it would be nice to have some evidence for your theory, and ensure that this evidence is not in spite of other facts that we have, according to the narrative.

Successfully do this, and you have yourself a theory. Until then, cockamamie.

What does an empty-tomb claim have to do with reported sightings of a risen Christ? As I see it, rumors about a risen Jesus could have spread regardless of the condition of Jesus' tomb.

This question is asked despite the analogies and breakdowns I presented.

Sure--if I see it. Now may I see Jesus rising from his tomb or at the very least his empty tomb? Your empty-tomb hypothesis lacks a key piece of evidence: no empty tomb we can check!

That is why we have the written testimony of those who DID see it. Now, if you want to contend that you have to see it in order to believe it, then you are throwing the entire genre of historical methodology out of the window, so you may want to be careful there.

Here's an outline of your logic:

The birth of man A is reported.
No twin brother of A is reported.
Conclusion: Man A didn't have a twin brother!

You are making an argument from silence here.

Point conceded.

Me: We have no reasons to conclude that Jesus had a twin brother.

You: True, but we have no reasons to conclude that Jesus didn't have a twin brother, either.

Me: Be as it may, whether or not Jesus had a twin brother is irrelevant to my point about the empty tomb, because an alleged twin brother it still doesn't explain why Jesus' tomb was discovered empty.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Why is he wrong about Acts being an unreliable source of historical information?

Why is he wrong? Why is he right??? I have my reasons why I think he is wrong, and vice versa.

There's nothing like a straight answer from an apologist.

If you dismiss Richard Carrier because you find his hypothesis about the historicity of Jesus hard to believe, then why not apply that same logic to Acts as well as the rest of the Bible?

Why would I apply my rejection of Richard Carrier and what he has to say about the historicity of Jesus, and apply that same dismissiveness/logic to Acts and the rest of the Bible?

Makes no sense. The dismissal of one does not carry over to the other.

It's best to apply your logic consistently. If Richard Carrier is wrong for committing errors x, y, and z, then anybody else is wrong too if they make the same errors.

Acts tells us that Paul was struck blind by Jesus in the sky. Would that outlandish story not discredit Acts by your own logic?

No, it wouldn't.

So you cannot accept that Jesus had a twin brother, but the story of Jesus appearing as a ghost in the sky magically striking Saul blind is quite credible to you.

So Paul was persecuting already established Churches in Rome, so it is complete nonsense to say that Paul did not know about Christ before his revelation.

You'll need to take that up with Paul. He's the guy who claimed he received the whole gospel from revelation and no person. Maybe Paul wasn't aware of what was said about him in Acts.

And not only that, but what Paul said there in Gal 1:13 about how he once persecuted the Church harmonizes with what we read in Acts, where Paul was committed to persecuting the Church....which, in essence, makes the book of Acts credible.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't go into much detail about how he persecuted the nascent church, but his avowed persecution of the church is one of the few consistent details between his story in his epistles and the story in Acts. For example, in Galatians 1:17 he mentions his traveling to Arabia, something Acts does not mention.

You're misquoting me again. I said that I can ignore the reported sightings of Jesus, not that I am ignore those reports.

If you can, but aren't, then the mere mentioning of what you can do is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is so irrelevant to the discussion that I assumed you meant that you can, and you are...because you can, but aren't has absolutely no relevance to the discussion...because we are not talking about what you aren't doing, but what you are doing.

Actually, we at least were discussing the risen-Jesus sightings, and you injected a comment about my motives in discussing that topic. My motives are irrelevant.

The onus is on you to come up with a better hypothesis, one that stands in light of all of the other facts according to the narrative of the story.

It's illogical to assume facts in the empty-tomb story when you are arguing that the story is factual.

...are the Gospels reliable accounts of Christian antiquity...which is an entirely separate question although I have reasons to believe that the answer lies in the affirmative.

How can you argue for the accuracy of the empty-tomb story without credible gospels?

So then why not question whether or not Jesus was even crucified and was believed to rise and be seen in the first place?

Normally I do question the historicity of any part of the gospels, but as I have already explained, I'm assuming the historicity of Jesus' execution to demonstrate that even if we accept some parts of the gospels as historical, the resurrection is still questionable.

How is a man walking away from his grave not cockamamie?

The resurrection of Jesus is believed, based on the background information and reasons we have to conclude that there is a supernatural God that exists, and that this God created life, and the universe.

And if this God exists, and he decides to raise someone from the dead, then that is his business.

But if God exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that he raises people from the dead or that he even can do so. Your belief in the resurrection is downright blasphemous reducing God to a mischievous teenager who wants to impress people with a crazy stunt.

Sure--if I see it. Now may I see Jesus rising from his tomb or at the very least his empty tomb? Your empty-tomb hypothesis lacks a key piece of evidence: no empty tomb we can check!

That is why we have the written testimony of those who DID see it.

May I see it too? If it was important for people to see the empty tomb in the first century, then it's important to see it in the twenty-first century too. I do understand your arguing that seeing the tomb is unimportant, however.

Now, if you want to contend that you have to see it in order to believe it, then you are throwing the entire genre of historical methodology out of the window, so you may want to be careful there.

Actually, historicity is a weakness of Christianity rather than a strength. Historical studies are often very iffy and provisional. If you want to base your faith in the resurrection on history, then your faith has a very shaky basis. Besides, historians generally don't accept miracles as historical events.

This is madness, I tell ya. Madness.

Discussing your faith must be very upsetting for you.

[We_Are_VENOM]

There's nothing like a straight answer from an apologist.

Huh? You asked me why is Richard Carrier wrong about Acts being a reliable historical source.

And I asked you why is he right?

It's best to apply your logic consistently. If Richard Carrier is wrong for committing errors x, y, and z, then anybody else is wrong too if they make the same errors.

And?

So you cannot accept that Jesus had a twin brother, but the story of Jesus appearing as a ghost in the sky magically striking Saul blind is quite credible to you.

I go where the evidence takes me.

You'll need to take that up with Paul. He's the guy who claimed he received the whole gospel from revelation and no person. Maybe Paul wasn't aware of what was said about him in Acts.

Take what up with Paul? You completely missed the point. Paul himself stated that he was a persecutor of the church of God, as I shared with you in Gal 1:13.

The point was; You claimed that Paul didn't know about Jesus before his conversion and I shared Gal 1:13 with you to point out the fact that Paul would obviously have to know about Jesus if lived a life of persecuting Christian churches before his conversion.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't go into much detail about how he persecuted the nascent church, but his avowed persecution of the church is one of the few consistent details between his story in his epistles and the story in Acts. For example, in Galatians 1:17 he mentions his traveling to Arabia, something Acts does not mention.

Lol now who is the one committing the argument from silence?

Actually, we at least were discussing the risen-Jesus sightings, and you injected a comment about my motives in discussing that topic. My motives are irrelevant.

Your motives are just the cherry on top of an already flawed hypothesis.

It's illogical to assume facts in the empty-tomb story when you are arguing that the story is factual.

About as illogical as you assuming facts surrounding the risen Jesus and his post mortem appearances.

How can you argue for the accuracy of the empty-tomb story without credible gospels?

As a Bible believing Christian, I obviously view the Gospels as credible.

Normally I do question the historicity of any part of the gospels, but as I have already explained, I'm assuming the historicity of Jesus' execution to demonstrate that even if we accept some parts of the gospels as historical, the resurrection is still questionable.

So basically you are saying, "I willfully reject any part of the Gospel which contradicts my hypothesis that Jesus had a twin brother".

Thats what I got out of it.

But if God exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that he raises people from the dead or that he even can do so.

That is why arguments are presented and conclusions are drawn that not only he can raise people from the dead, but that he did.

Your belief in the resurrection is downright blasphemous reducing God to a mischievous teenager who wants to impress people with a crazy stunt.

Mischievous teenager LOL.

May I see it too? If it was important for people to see the empty tomb in the first century, then it's important to see it in the twenty-first century too. I do understand your arguing that seeing the tomb is unimportant, however.

"You have seen, therefore you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believe".

John 20:28-29.

Enough said.

Actually, historicity is a weakness of Christianity rather than a strength. Historical studies are often very iffy and provisional. If you want to base your faith in the resurrection on history, then your faith has a very shaky basis. Besides, historians generally don't accept miracles as historical events.

Christian historians do.

[brunumb]

There's nothing like a straight answer from an apologist.

Huh? You asked me why is Richard Carrier wrong about Acts being a reliable historical source.

And I asked you why is he right?

And with that you instantly reinforced the point that Paul of Tarsus was making. I suppose when you've got nothing avoidance is the best strategy. The great fall back in the apologists tool box.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And with that you instantly reinforced the point that Paul of Tarsus was making. I suppose when you've got nothing avoidance is the best strategy. The great fall back in the apologists tool box.

Nonsense. He is the one appealing to Richard Carrier, so the he should be able to explain why RC is correct on his assessment on the historicity of Acts.

[historia]

And with that you instantly reinforced the point that Paul of Tarsus was making. I suppose when you've got nothing avoidance is the best strategy. The great fall back in the apologists tool box.

Nonsense. He is the one appealing to Richard Carrier, so the he should be able to explain why RC is correct on his assessment on the historicity of Acts.

Indeed, clearly the burden lies with Paul to substantiate his point, as he is the one making the appeal to authority. That is especially true in this case, since Carrier is not a recognized expert on this topic and holds no academic positions.

[Paul of Tarsus]

You'll need to take that up with Paul. He's the guy who claimed he received the whole gospel from revelation and no person. Maybe Paul wasn't aware of what was said about him in Acts.

Take what up with Paul? You completely missed the point. Paul himself stated that he was a persecutor of the church of God, as I shared with you in Gal 1:13.

Yes, Paul said he persecuted the church, and he also said that no man told him anything about the Gospel. I actually agree that Paul must have known about Jesus prior to his supposed revelation of the Gospel if he persecuted the church at that time. So as I hope you can see, Paul isn't getting his story straight. He's offering us conflicting details.

By the way, the story of Paul persecuting the church is very questionable. At the time of his alleged persecution there weren't any Christians in the modern sense but only Jews and gentiles that held some Christian beliefs. Paul would have had a tough time singling them out. But even more telling, the Romans in all probability would not have allowed a gang of armed thugs to go around abducting people.

So take up these points with Paul.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't go into much detail about how he persecuted the nascent church, but his avowed persecution of the church is one of the few consistent details between his story in his epistles and the story in Acts. For example, in Galatians 1:17 he mentions his traveling to Arabia, something Acts does not mention.

Lol now who is the one committing the argument from silence?

The problem is more than silence. Paul's account of his travels and the story in Acts are contradictory.

So basically you are saying, "I willfully reject any part of the Gospel which contradicts my hypothesis that Jesus had a twin brother".

Yes. What's wrong with my not believing some parts of the Gospel story?

That is why arguments are presented and conclusions are drawn that not only he can raise people from the dead, but that he did.

If you wish to posit a God who can raise people from the dead, then you'll need to substantiate that claim.

"You have seen, therefore you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believe".

John 20:28-29.

Enough said.

That's a strange citation from a person who insists on seeing evidence for a twin brother. As Jesus says here, if you believe Jesus had a twin brother without seeing that twin brother, then you are blessed.

...historians generally don't accept miracles as historical events.

Christian historians do.

I think you're right here. History is written by the victors and anybody else who wants to tell us what really happened.

I go where the evidence takes me.

I do too!