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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It doesn't matter where or when he occurs in the accounts, he is still a fictitious character. A mere contrivance for the story teller. He appears out of nowhere and then just simply disappears.

So, what is the standard for when a character is to appear in order to determine whether the character is real or fictitious? And how long will the character have to remain a focal point of the story to determine the same thing?

Go ahead, tell me.

Second..

1. He appeared out of nowhere

2. And then he suddenly disappears

3. Therefore, he never existed

Text book non sequitor.

Doesn't look like he even bothered to reclaim his empty tomb.

He was apparently unaware of how much the tomb of the risen Christ would have been worth in the years to come

[We_Are_VENOM]

Never underestimate the power of an effective PR machine. I daresay Muhammad understood that quite well.

Napoleon and Alexander the Great had effective PR machines...they conquered entire nations.

But neither one can hold a candle to Jesus Christ

[brunumb]

It doesn't matter where or when he occurs in the accounts, he is still a fictitious character. A mere contrivance for the story teller. He appears out of nowhere and then just simply disappears.

So, what is the standard for when a character is to appear in order to determine whether the character is real or fictitious? And how long will the character have to remain a focal point of the story to determine the same thing?

Go ahead, tell me.

Second..

1. He appeared out of nowhere

2. And then he suddenly disappears

3. Therefore, he never existed

Text book non sequitor.

Doesn't look like he even bothered to reclaim his empty tomb.

He was apparently unaware of how much the tomb of the risen Christ would have been worth in the years to come

OK, so do you have any other credible reference to this Joseph outside of his brief appearance in our unverified biblical story? The odds favor his non-existence as a real person and merely as a literary device for the emerging religious propaganda.

He didn't need to reclaim his tomb just on the basis of future value. It was the alleged site of a resurrection, but he must not have regarded it as a place of any significance to just abandon it. I guess you feel that tombs were a dime a dozen back then and it was OK to just leave this one for any itinerants to take advantage of and use for themselves.

[brunumb]

Never underestimate the power of an effective PR machine. I daresay Muhammad understood that quite well.

Napoleon and Alexander the Great had effective PR machines...they conquered entire nations.

But neither one can hold a candle to Jesus Christ

They've done alright, but they didn't have the advantage of being the centre of a religion with the attendant promotion of religious zealots.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Actually, the story evidently was hard to sell because the vast majority of the people of first-century Judea, including Romans and Greeks as well as Jews, never mention any empty tombs vacated by Jesus. Heck, with the possible exception of Josephus, they never even mention Jesus at all.

So, the vast majority of first century Judea, including Romans and Greeks as well as Jews never mentioned Jesus, right?

Yes, or at least we know of no records about Jesus or his resurrection that were written by Romans or Greeks in the first century. Like I said, Josephus, a Jew, provides us with the only first-century testimony about Jesus from a non-Christian, but even that evidence is in dispute. Josephus mentions no resurrection.

Yet, Jesus' name and legacy surpassed them ALL in terms of legacy, following, and influence.

The emperor Constantine's legalizing Christianity and his supposed conversion to Christianity was probably a big help in popularizing Christianity. Constantine didn't need a historical resurrection to make good use of Christian beliefs.

I think that this silence regarding the resurrection may be at least possibly explained by a tomb they knew was still occupied by Jesus' body. Those who did come to believe in the resurrection may have found checking the tomb of Jesus to be difficult if not impossible, and in that case an occupied tomb would not dissuade them from believing an empty tomb story.

You are changing the narrative to fit your theory, and that point is obvious.

Sure. If some part of the empty-tomb story can be replaced by a more likely alternative, then doing so is more likely to get at what really happened.

And by the way, I've seen Christians add to Bible stories all the time to try to make those stories seem more plausible. For example, we have contradictory accounts of the death of Judas: One story has Judas hanging himself, and the other story has Judas disemboweled from a head-long fall. To smooth over this discrepancy, some apologists add the story of Judas's noose breaking, and his falling causes his disembowelment. It must have been quite a fall! I wonder how the fall was head-long, though. Did Judas hang himself by his feet?

The narrative in all four Gospels is that Jesus' tomb was discovered empty.

Stick to the narrative.

So your argument to prove the empty tomb story is to believe that story.

I'm not sure what your point is, but if people were mistaking Jesus's twin brother for a resurrected Jesus, then the Christian sect probably would not correct them realizing that the rumors and sightings of the supposedly risen Jesus were very useful to fuel Christian propaganda.

There is no Biblical basis for any belief that Jesus had a twin brother..yet you continue to mention it as if this is the case. Very disingenuous.

Actually, we are told Jesus had brothers one of whom may have been his twin. Even if he had no twin brother, the family resemblance might have caused some people to confuse that brother with Jesus.

Second, not only would this twin brother be mistaken as the risen Jesus, but he would also have had to perform miracles and eventually ascend into heaven before their very eyes...which would be a feat he would have been unable to pull off, but yet his followers would have believed he did.

If people already believed Jesus had magical powers, then they could have mistaken a brother of Jesus for Jesus without miracles.

Third, an alleged twin brother of Jesus still doesn't explain the empty tomb, which is what all four Gospels attest to.

We have no empty tomb to explain, and a brother of Jesus serves to explain the sightings of Jesus rather than explain any empty tomb if there was an empty tomb.

So, there is no hard evidence for the empty tomb story, yet, we need to explain the empty tomb story?

It's fun and illuminating to try to explain a mystery.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, or at least we know of no records about Jesus or his resurrection that were written by Romans or Greeks in the first century. Like I said, Josephus, a Jew, provides us with the only first-century testimony about Jesus from a non-Christian, but even that evidence is in dispute. Josephus mentions no resurrection.

"We have no records about Jesus or his resurrection".

yet..

You are attempting to explain away Jesus' "resurrection" by positing a mistaken-identity case involving his alleged twin brother???

Am I in the twilight zone??

The emperor Constantine's legalizing Christianity and his supposed conversion to Christianity was probably a big help in popularizing Christianity. Constantine didn't need a historical resurrection to make good use of Christian beliefs.

Nonsense. Christianity had already spread throughout Rome by the 50's AD.

Paul was already writing to established churches and Christians were being persecuted heavily by the highest office in the land by the mid 60's.

So spare me the "Constantine" jive. Constantine didn't come on the scene until two centuries later and Christianity was already a metasized cancer.

Sure. If some part of the empty-tomb story can be replaced by a more likely alternative, then doing so is more likely to get at what really happened.

A twin-brother theory (which is all you've offered) is no replacement for the empty tomb story.

And by the way, I've seen Christians add to Bible stories all the time to try to make those stories seem more plausible.

Then I've got beef with them, too.

For example, we have contradictory accounts of the death of Judas: One story has Judas hanging himself, and the other story has Judas disemboweled from a head-long fall. To smooth over this discrepancy, some apologists add the story of Judas's noose breaking, and his falling causes his disembowelment. It must have been quite a fall! I wonder how the fall was head-long, though. Did Judas hang himself by his feet?

Yeah but when folks speculate about the event surrounding Judas' death, they are doing so in light of what was already said...so the speculation does not contradict previous accounts, but complimentary to the account.

You, on the other hand, are offering an unjustifiable theory that not only has no evidence supporting it whatsoever, but does not account for established facts...or "facts" according to the actual narrative.

The theory is just uncalled for and not needed.

So your argument to prove the empty tomb story is to believe that story.

No, because even if I wasn't a Christian and I was just relying on basic reading comprehension, a twin-brother theory just doesn't jive.

Actually, we are told Jesus had brothers one of whom may have been his twin.

His mother wasnt pregnant with twins though..

Even if he had no twin brother, the family resemblance might have caused some people to confuse that brother with Jesus.

Have you ever confused a male family or friend with one of his brothers? LOL

If people already believed Jesus had magical powers, then they could have mistaken a brother of Jesus for Jesus without miracles.

The narrative states that miracles were performed, though.

We have no empty tomb to explain, and a brother of Jesus serves to explain the sightings of Jesus rather than explain any empty tomb if there was an empty tomb.

The narrative states that the tomb was discovered empty.

It's fun and illuminating to try to explain a mystery.

Is that what you call it? "Explaining"?

LOL

[We_Are_VENOM]

They've done alright, but they didn't have the advantage of being the centre of a religion with the attendant promotion of religious zealots.

Hate the game, not the player.

[We_Are_VENOM]

OK, so do you have any other credible reference to this Joseph outside of his brief appearance in our unverified biblical story?

I am asking for "standards", because you are asking for "credible" references...which is subjective.

The odds favor his non-existence as a real person and merely as a literary device for the emerging religious propaganda.

Please articulate why/how the mentioning of JoA helped push the emerging religious propaganda?

Because even if JoA was never mentioned and Jesus' body was just thrown in a filthy rotten tomb..the outcome would have been the same..

"Christ has risen".

He didn't need to reclaim his tomb just on the basis of future value. It was the alleged site of a resurrection, but he must not have regarded it as a place of any significance to just abandon it. I guess you feel that tombs were a dime a dozen back then and it was OK to just leave this one for any itinerants to take advantage of and use for themselves.

And who said he abandoned it? If he abandoned it, he existed, right?

I didnt know nonexistent people could do anything.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Yes, or at least we know of no records about Jesus or his resurrection that were written by Romans or Greeks in the first century. Like I said, Josephus, a Jew, provides us with the only first-century testimony about Jesus from a non-Christian, but even that evidence is in dispute. Josephus mentions no resurrection.

"We have no records about Jesus or his resurrection".

yet..

You are attempting to explain away Jesus' "resurrection" by positing a mistaken-identity case involving his alleged twin brother???

VEN, did you read what I highlighted in bold in the quotation above? You misquoted me.

Am I in the twilight zone??

Maybe. If people in the twilight zone don't take care to quote people properly.

Christianity had already spread throughout Rome by the 50's AD.

Paul was already writing to established churches and Christians were being persecuted heavily by the highest office in the land by the mid 60's.

Can you cite your source for this information?

So spare me the "Constantine" jive. Constantine didn't come on the scene until two centuries later and Christianity was already a metasized cancer.

Sorry. I thought you wanted to debate.

A twin-brother theory (which is all you've offered) is no replacement for the empty tomb story.

I never said that the "twin-brother theory" explained any empty tomb. My twin-brother hypothesis is meant to explain the story of reported sightings of Jesus after he is said to have been executed.

...when folks speculate about the event surrounding Judas' death, they are doing so in light of what was already said...so the speculation does not contradict previous accounts, but complimentary to the account.

You, on the other hand, are offering an unjustifiable theory that not only has no evidence supporting it whatsoever, but does not account for established facts...or "facts" according to the actual narrative.

But I've been justifying my twin-brother hypothesis all along. If it conflicts with anything claimed in the gospels regarding Jesus' alleged resurrection, that's because I'm offering what I think is a more probable explanation for the reported events. After all, I'm disputing what the gospels claim about the resurrection of Jesus, so obviously I'm not going to believe or agree with everything the gospels say.

The theory is just uncalled for and not needed.

Oh, is that how you refute a hypothesis you disagree with?

So your argument to prove the empty tomb story is to believe that story.

No, because even if I wasn't a Christian and I was just relying on basic reading comprehension, a twin-brother theory just doesn't jive.

But you keep telling me not to contradict anything the gospel accounts say about Jesus' resurrection. And it's fine if you don't think the twin-brother hypothesis explains the story, but it's a good idea to come up with some ways to argue against it besides complaining that it's not completely in harmony with the gospel accounts.

Actually, we are told Jesus had brothers one of whom may have been his twin.

His mother wasnt pregnant with twins though..

Actually, the gospels don't tell us that Jesus was not a twin, and now I see that you are adding to the story! I thought you opposed saying anything that's not mentioned in the gospel accounts.

Even if he had no twin brother, the family resemblance might have caused some people to confuse that brother with Jesus.

Have you ever confused a male family or friend with one of his brothers? LOL

Yes. I used to know identical twins, and I did confuse the two of them at least once. I also remember when I was in junior high my brother and I looked so much alike that people sometimes did confuse the two of us, and we aren't twins. It's good evidence that the twin-brother hypothesis, even if it is watered down a bit to just a brother, works well to explain the sightings of a supposedly risen Jesus.

If people already believed Jesus had magical powers, then they could have mistaken a brother of Jesus for Jesus without miracles.

The narrative states that miracles were performed, though.

Again, I don't believe everything in those stories about the risen Christ.

We have no empty tomb to explain, and a brother of Jesus serves to explain the sightings of Jesus rather than explain any empty tomb if there was an empty tomb.

The narrative states that the tomb was discovered empty.

And I'm supposed to just accept that as a fact, correct?

It's fun and illuminating to try to explain a mystery.

Is that what you call it? "Explaining"?

LOL

Sure. I'm explaining the story with no need for any miracles or any risen Jesus. It appears that you can only argue against my hypothesis by complaining that I don't accept everything the gospels claim.

In conclusion I should point out that the twin-brother hypothesis is only necessary if we assume that there were in fact reported sightings of Jesus after his execution, but we don't know if there really were any sightings to explain.

[brunumb]

OK, so do you have any other credible reference to this Joseph outside of his brief appearance in our unverified biblical story?

I am asking for "standards", because you are asking for "credible" references...which is subjective.

Just as I thought. You have nothing.

The odds favor his non-existence as a real person and merely as a literary device for the emerging religious propaganda.

Please articulate why/how the mentioning of JoA helped push the emerging religious propaganda?
Because even if JoA was never mentioned and Jesus' body was just thrown in a filthy rotten tomb..the outcome would have been the same..
"Christ has risen".

Oh dear. It's the resurrection story that is the lynch pin of the propaganda. JoA was an element needed to get the poor itinerant preacher a tomb. It makes for a far better story than having the filthy corpse coming back from a mass grave with no one really paying any attention.

He didn't need to reclaim his tomb just on the basis of future value. It was the alleged site of a resurrection, but he must not have regarded it as a place of any significance to just abandon it. I guess you feel that tombs were a dime a dozen back then and it was OK to just leave this one for any itinerants to take advantage of and use for themselves.

And who said he abandoned it? If he abandoned it, he existed, right?
I didnt know nonexistent people could do anything.

Oh dear, again. You haven't really addressed the point. If he really existed, then why would he just abandon his now empty tomb? If Jesus really was special enough to JoA to warrant being given a tomb, then the tomb of a resurrected Jesus would be pretty special too don't you think? Even now people travel from all over the world to visit the alleged site.