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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

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

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
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 #61

Post by brunumb »

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.
Of course not. It's just that it makes for a better story.
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.

User avatar
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 #62

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:39 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:02 pm
Just as I thought. You have nothing.
Actually, 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.
I 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?
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.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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 #63

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:21 pm I 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.
Then 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.
On the other hand you focused on that to avoid the question that aimed at clearing up the issue.
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.

If you dont like the question, then you need not offer such a irrational "refutation" of the empty tomb narrative.
Do you have any other credible reference to this Joseph outside of his brief appearance in our unverified biblical story?
The Bible is my verification. Of course, this is where you say "but I said outside of the Bible".

Well, I disagree with the notion that Bible stories need to have validation from outside sources.

Wholeheartedly disagree.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:12 pm
Of course not. It's just that it makes for a better story.
"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!!

User avatar
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 #65

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:02 pm The Bible is my verification.
Of 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.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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 #66

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

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.
Richard 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".
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.
Or, he would mention Jesus for both religious AND historical reasons.
In fact, he says that he only knew about Jesus from revelation.
False. He became a Christian because of revelation. He obviously knew about Jesus before his conversion.
But I will be generous and grant that yes, we have one first-century Roman who mentions Jesus.
Not that Paul being Roman is relevant anyway..
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.
Yet, here we are discussing this topic on a thread that YOU created.

So much for ignoring.

That appears to be about right although some apologists date them earlier.
Yeah but I try not to be too greedy. The mid 50s to mid 60s is more of a modest approach.

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.
It cant, because the mistaken identity of one man wont get his dead twin brother's corpse out of his tomb.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
If he walked away from his grave, he wasn't dead.
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.
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?
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.
Two sons contradicts "a" son, which is what Mary was told she would have.

Nope, failed theory.
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.
Conjure up whatever you want, just piggy backing off of a failed theory..thats all it is.

That would be more likely than a resurrection.
True, but the validity of the resurrection is not dependent up whether Jesus had an auntie.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:56 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:02 pm The Bible is my verification.
Of 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.
"When you've got nothing else"; insinuating that something else is needed.

Fatal flaw.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #68

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From the OP:
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Can the resurrection be explained as a case of mistaken identity?
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.

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

User avatar
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 #69

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:10 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:56 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:02 pm The Bible is my verification.
Of 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.
"When you've got nothing else"; insinuating that something else is needed.

Fatal flaw.
Nothing fatal on my side. You appear to be the one flailing and tossing around shoddy rebuffs.
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.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
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 #70

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

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".
Why 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?
In fact, he says that he only knew about Jesus from revelation.
False. He became a Christian because of revelation. He obviously knew about Jesus before his conversion.
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.
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.
Yet, here we are discussing this topic on a thread that YOU created.

So much for ignoring.
You're misquoting me again. I said that I can ignore the reported sightings of Jesus, not that I am ignore those reports.
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.
It cant, because the mistaken identity of one man wont get his dead twin brother's corpse out of his tomb.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
If he walked away from his grave, he wasn't dead.
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.
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.
What do you mean "relate" it?
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.
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?
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!
Two sons contradicts "a" son, which is what Mary was told she would have.
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.

Post Reply