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.
Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Moderator: Moderators
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #61Of course not. It's just that it makes for a better story.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:39 pm Or perhaps they could have just said that Jesus' corpse was simply thrown in any filthy rotten tomb, didn't even have to mention a name...but that wouldn't change the story of Jesus' body coming to life and being seen by folks. Wouldn't stop that at all.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #62I was not using any methodology to establish JoA as a fictitious character. I just presented an interesting fact that would support the notion that he was one. On the other hand you focused on that to avoid the question that aimed at clearing up the issue. Do you have any other credible reference to this Joseph outside of his brief appearance in our unverified biblical story?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:39 pmActually, I asked you a DIRECT question as it relates to the standard (methodology) that you are applying when it comes to establishing fictional/nonfictional characters.
You've yet to answer my question, so it appears that YOU are the one who has NOTHING.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #63Then it goes back to the non sequitur you originally presented, which was basically..
"JoA just appeared out of nowhere and then suddenly disappeared, therefore, he didn't exist".
Sorry, but the conclusion just simply doesn't follow.
Avoid the question?? You are the one who used that fallacious line of reasoning, not me. Your reasoning was "JoA is fictional because he suddenly appeared and then suddenly disappeared"...and I simply asked how long was he supposed to remain a focal point for you to believe him to be a real character in the story.On the other hand you focused on that to avoid the question that aimed at clearing up the issue.
If you dont like the question, then you need not offer such a irrational "refutation" of the empty tomb narrative.
The Bible is my verification. Of course, this is where you say "but I said outside of the Bible".Do you have any other credible reference to this Joseph outside of his brief appearance in our unverified biblical story?
Well, I disagree with the notion that Bible stories need to have validation from outside sources.
Wholeheartedly disagree.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #64"Better" according to who? You? Well guess what, I disagree. I think the better story is the one that was told.
"Better" is subjective, is what I am trying to say.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #65Of course it is. When you've got nothing else, you just have to fall back on letting the Bible verify itself. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #66Richard Carrier also doesn't believe that Jesus existed...and as far as im concerned his credibility is lost and we therefore "cannot rely on him as a good source for historical inquiry".Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:35 pm Paul being a Roman is problematical. He never mentions his being a Roman in his epistles.
We are only told he was Roman in Acts 22 and 23. Some historians like Richard Carrier have concluded that Acts has no historical basis to it, so we cannot rely on it as a source of information about Paul.
Or, he would mention Jesus for both religious AND historical reasons.Even if Paul was in fact Roman, he was a Christian preacher, so obviously he would mention Jesus as part of his religion rather than for historical reasons.
False. He became a Christian because of revelation. He obviously knew about Jesus before his conversion.In fact, he says that he only knew about Jesus from revelation.
Not that Paul being Roman is relevant anyway..But I will be generous and grant that yes, we have one first-century Roman who mentions Jesus.
Yet, here we are discussing this topic on a thread that YOU created.Actually, we have no need to explain any reported sightings of Jesus, or at least I don't. Like millions of other people, I can ignore them as irrelevant.
So much for ignoring.
Yeah but I try not to be too greedy. The mid 50s to mid 60s is more of a modest approach.
That appears to be about right although some apologists date them earlier.
It cant, because the mistaken identity of one man wont get his dead twin brother's corpse out of his tomb.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Whether Jesus' tomb was occupied or not, the reported sightings of Jesus post-execution could still be explained by a case of mistaken identity.
But if you are gonna do that, at least have evidence, and if you are not gonna have evidence, at least admit that you have no evidence.I'm assuming for the sake of argument that there were in fact postmortem sightings of Jesus. My aim is to demonstrate that even if we very generously grant that the gospels get even that much right, then there is still no need to conclude Jesus rose from the dead because there are plausible naturalistic explanations for those sightings.
But there is evidence that the tomb was empty, coming from the same book that allowed you to offer a twin brother theory as an explanation of why the resurrection was believed.There's no evidence that his mother changed his diapers either, but any sensible person would conclude that she did. Many other sensible conclusions can be arrived at about Jesus logically without being told.
If he walked away from his grave, he wasn't dead.So you complain that Jesus having a twin brother is a "cockamamie theory" only to immediately justify the belief that a dead man walked away from his grave.
What do you mean "relate" it? If you see a deceased person in a casket, and the person comes to life again and rises out of the casket and walks away...the casket is now considered "empty", right?I'll be happy to consider the empty-tomb story if you can relate it to the postmortem sightings of Jesus reported in the gospels.
Two sons contradicts "a" son, which is what Mary was told she would have.Luke does not rule out that Jesus had a twin brother. If Mary gave birth to a son, then she could have birthed another son at that time. You are reading into the text.
Nope, failed theory.
Conjure up whatever you want, just piggy backing off of a failed theory..thats all it is.I may have misunderstood your question. I cannot recall confusing a male family friend with one of his brothers, but it's possible. But that's not terribly relevant to my hypothesis. Any Jew living at the time of Jesus' execution except perhaps for those who knew him best may have confused Jesus' brother for Jesus. Those reporting the sightings didn't need to have known Jesus.
True, but the validity of the resurrection is not dependent up whether Jesus had an auntie.
That would be more likely than a resurrection.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #67"When you've got nothing else"; insinuating that something else is needed.
Fatal flaw.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #68From the OP:
So they think em up gods to try to lay blame (not in a bad way, but ya know). They seek something to explain the misery (and elation) that is a pre-internet existence. Their gods are a means to understand a rather careless and unforgiving natural world. Gods explain the whyfors and howcomes to a rather primitive mind, locked in the doldrums of having no real scientific understanding, much less em a method of it.
Only God can't be seen, touched, smelt, nor none of that.
But then someone comes along and calls himself God, and boy howdy, the feathers, and tables set to flying. Here's us God himself, just to speak to little ol us! There's gotta be more comfort having God walking the very dirt paths we do.
But then, as with things human and political, that god gets himself strung up like so many deer come hunting season. Pitiful, just pitiful. Here's God come to earth, but he's done dead as a three day old glass of RC Cola. The discomfort and uncertainty, the internal misery musta weighed folks down like having one of them Bonner twins sit on your lap.
So folks just set to thinking, naw, he didn't die, he was just funning. He's God, silly, and everyone in their right mind knows God don't die, he just hates him this bunch and that bunch, ya know, the same ones we do.
So the story starts to spread like butter melting out on the sidewalks of Jerusalem in the mid summer sun. It spreads by word of mouth, and edge of steel. Because God can't die, he was just funning.
Or, Jesus had him a twin brother.
Y'all's call.
I propose it's far more probable the resurrection is a tale told to comfort the masses. These are desert dwellers living in times of slavery and oppression, of famines and hard times.Paul of Tarsus wrote: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
So they think em up gods to try to lay blame (not in a bad way, but ya know). They seek something to explain the misery (and elation) that is a pre-internet existence. Their gods are a means to understand a rather careless and unforgiving natural world. Gods explain the whyfors and howcomes to a rather primitive mind, locked in the doldrums of having no real scientific understanding, much less em a method of it.
Only God can't be seen, touched, smelt, nor none of that.
But then someone comes along and calls himself God, and boy howdy, the feathers, and tables set to flying. Here's us God himself, just to speak to little ol us! There's gotta be more comfort having God walking the very dirt paths we do.
But then, as with things human and political, that god gets himself strung up like so many deer come hunting season. Pitiful, just pitiful. Here's God come to earth, but he's done dead as a three day old glass of RC Cola. The discomfort and uncertainty, the internal misery musta weighed folks down like having one of them Bonner twins sit on your lap.
So folks just set to thinking, naw, he didn't die, he was just funning. He's God, silly, and everyone in their right mind knows God don't die, he just hates him this bunch and that bunch, ya know, the same ones we do.
So the story starts to spread like butter melting out on the sidewalks of Jerusalem in the mid summer sun. It spreads by word of mouth, and edge of steel. Because God can't die, he was just funning.
Or, Jesus had him a twin brother.
Y'all's call.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #69Nothing fatal on my side. You appear to be the one flailing and tossing around shoddy rebuffs.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:10 am"When you've got nothing else"; insinuating that something else is needed.
Fatal flaw.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
Post #70Why is he wrong about Acts being an unreliable source of historical information? 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? Acts tells us that Paul was struck blind by Jesus in the sky. Would that outlandish story not discredit Acts by your own logic?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:04 amRichard Carrier also doesn't believe that Jesus existed...and as far as im concerned his credibility is lost and we therefore "cannot rely on him as a good source for historical inquiry".
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"!False. He became a Christian because of revelation. He obviously knew about Jesus before his conversion.In fact, he says that he only knew about Jesus from revelation.
Anyway, here's what Paul has to say in Galatians 1:
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.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.
You're misquoting me again. I said that I can ignore the reported sightings of Jesus, not that I am ignore those reports.Yet, here we are discussing this topic on a thread that YOU created.Actually, we have no need to explain any reported sightings of Jesus, or at least I don't. Like millions of other people, I can ignore them as irrelevant.
So much for ignoring.
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.It cant, because the mistaken identity of one man wont get his dead twin brother's corpse out of his tomb.I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Whether Jesus' tomb was occupied or not, the reported sightings of Jesus post-execution could still be explained by a case of mistaken identity.
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.But if you are gonna do that, at least have evidence, and if you are not gonna have evidence, at least admit that you have no evidence.I'm assuming for the sake of argument that there were in fact postmortem sightings of Jesus. My aim is to demonstrate that even if we very generously grant that the gospels get even that much right, then there is still no need to conclude Jesus rose from the dead because there are plausible naturalistic explanations for those sightings.
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. 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.But there is evidence that the tomb was empty, coming from the same book that allowed you to offer a twin brother theory as an explanation of why the resurrection was believed.
How is a man walking away from his grave not cockamamie? 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.If he walked away from his grave, he wasn't dead.So you complain that Jesus having a twin brother is a "cockamamie theory" only to immediately justify the belief that a dead man walked away from his grave.
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.What do you mean "relate" it?I'll be happy to consider the empty-tomb story if you can relate it to the postmortem sightings of Jesus reported in the gospels.
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!If you see a deceased person in a casket, and the person comes to life again and rises out of the casket and walks away...the casket is now considered "empty", right?
Here's an outline of your logic:Two sons contradicts "a" son, which is what Mary was told she would have.
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.