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.

[Realworldjack]

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.

What is striking, and telling to me here is the idea, that one understands, and recognizes, the fact that something did indeed occur which must, and has to have some sort of explanation. In other words, if there were not good evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then there would be no reason for any sort of alternative explanation. However, since there is good evidence in support of the resurrection, those opposed understand, they must, and have to come up with some other alternative.

[benchwarmer]

What is striking, and telling to me here is the idea, that one understands, and recognizes, the fact that something did indeed occur which must, and has to have some sort of explanation. In other words, if there were not good evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then there would be no reason for any sort of alternative explanation. However, since there is good evidence in support of the resurrection, those opposed understand, they must, and have to come up with some other alternative.

The only thing we know for sure actually happened is that someone wrote down an account of someone supposedly rising from the dead. That's it.

We have no physical evidence (no Jesus currently wandering around showing himself, no verifiable location of the tomb in question, etc) and no corroborating accounts from disconnected sources.

There is no 'good' evidence if 'good' means convincing to anyone other than people who already believe. One of the reasons people who don't believe bandy about other more plausible ideas is likely because we are trying to at least give some benefit of doubt to the authors. In other words, we don't need to completely write off their accounts as pure fantasy, we can entertain that perhaps there has just been some mistakes made about what actually happened. i.e. maybe someone was crucified after enraging the temple priests and some people believed they saw the same guy wandering around later. Who knows. We don't really have much to go on when you get down to it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #43]

The only thing we know for sure actually happened is that someone wrote down an account of someone supposedly rising from the dead. That's it.

My friend, if that were all we had, then all one would have to do is to suggest that it would be nonsense. I am pointing out the fact that for one to actually attempt to come up with some sort of alternative explanation points out the fact that they must understand there is good evidence. Otherwise, why bother?

no corroborating accounts from disconnected sources.

Could you please demonstrate to us how the accounts we have would be connected?

There is no 'good' evidence if 'good' means convincing to anyone other than people who already believe.

My friend, there are numerous well educated, and intelligent folks I can point to, who were not only unbelievers, but were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were attempting to disprove it, who came to believe, based upon the actual study they were preforming to oppose it. Of course, this does not in any way demonstrate Christianity is true. However, it does demonstrate your comment above concerning, the evidence being good enough for only those "who already believe", to be false.

In other words, we don't need to completely write off their accounts as pure fantasy, we can entertain that perhaps there has just been some mistakes made about what actually happened.

I am all for this! So, what evidence do we have which may suggest they were mistaken? You see, you seem to be acknowledging that there were indeed folks who claim to have seen Jesus after death. So, what evidence do we have which would suggest they were mistaken?

Who knows. We don't really have much to go on when you get down to it.

Okay? So, you suggest "We don't really have much to go on", and yet you seem confident the accounts must be false? The bottom line here is, I have studied the evidence, and have become convinced by this evidence, the reports of the resurrection are true. You seem to believe the reports to be false. I have no problem with your conclusions. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is no reason to come up with alternative explanations for an event we have no evidence to support.

[Paul of Tarsus]

What is striking, and telling to me here is the idea, that one understands, and recognizes, the fact that something did indeed occur which must, and has to have some sort of explanation. In other words, if there were not good evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then there would be no reason for any sort of alternative explanation. However, since there is good evidence in support of the resurrection, those opposed understand, they must, and have to come up with some other alternative.

So we skeptics just don't want to believe in the resurrection and out of sheer desperation to disbelieve it come up with anything we can think of--no matter how outlandish--to insulate ourselves from that amazing truth cherished by Christians at the heart of their faith: Jesus was raised from the dead! We could make it so much easier for everybody involved if we would just admit we are "kicking against the goads" and that we are logically outclassed by astute Christian apologists like William Lane Craig who have the goods to demonstrate that Christ is risen.

I can't justifiably speak for all those who are skeptical of the claim that Christ was raised from the dead, but to me there are explanations for the sightings of the risen Christ reported in the gospels that don't involve God actually raising Jesus from the dead. That's why I started this thread. You seem to think that such alternative explanations are only necessary if the evidence for the resurrection is good, but to me alternative explanations result more from the claim of the resurrection rather than the quality of the evidence for that claim. If somebody makes a claim that I'm aware of, no matter how good or bad the evidence for that claim might be, I think it's a good idea to consider explanations for that claim that might serve to let us know if the claim need be true.

Anyway, can the resurrection of Christ be explained as a case of mistaken identity?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #45]

So we skeptics just don't want to believe in the resurrection and out of sheer desperation to disbelieve it come up with anything we can think of--no matter how outlandish--to insulate ourselves from that amazing truth cherished by Christians at the heart of their faith: Jesus was raised from the dead!

I do not believe this is what I said? I am simply pointing out that for one to attempt to come up with an alternative explanation, sort of demonstrates, there must be evidence for the claim. That's it! Not to many folks are spending time on a web site attempting to give alternative explanations for "Elvis sightings". Can you imagine why? However, there are indeed many folks, even including scholars, who understand the evidence is strong enough that they cannot simply dismiss it, but rather must, and have to come up with some other alternative.

We could make it so much easier for everybody involved if we would just admit we are "kicking against the goads" and that we are logically outclassed by astute Christian apologists like William Lane Craig who have the goods to demonstrate that Christ is risen.

I do not believe that Craig, nor anyone else has, "demonstrated that Christ is risen". Rather, many have demonstrated that there is good reasons to believe this to be the case, based upon the evidence.

I can't justifiably speak for all those who are skeptical of the claim that Christ was raised from the dead, but to me there are explanations for the sightings of the risen Christ reported in the gospels that don't involve God actually raising Jesus from the dead.

I agree with you. However, the ones I have considered seem to be just as incredible as the resurrection itself when you go on to think through all that would have to be involved in order for that scenario to be true. Maybe you can help me out by giving me one which I have never heard. However, I do not believe the "Twin" will get it done!

You seem to think that such alternative explanations are only necessary if the evidence for the resurrection is good, but to me alternative explanations result more from the claim of the resurrection rather than the quality of the evidence for that claim.

Again, there are many claims in the world, but I cannot think of any claim at all, which has received the debate the Christian claims have. This debate has been raging for 2000 years, including the scholars, and I cannot imagine this much time, and energy being exerted over something which lacked good evidence. And again, I do not see many folks debating "Elvis sightings"? Wonder why?

If somebody makes a claim that I'm aware of, no matter how good or bad the evidence for that claim might be, I think it's a good idea to consider explanations for that claim that might serve to let us know if the claim need be true.

Okay? Well, there are the "Elvis sightings". So, honestly, how much time, and effort have you put into the claim? My guess would be, none at all. But somehow, and for some reason, the claim of the resurrection is worth debating, so much so, you spend your time on this web site.

Anyway, can the resurrection of Christ be explained as a case of mistaken identity?

Absolutely! So..........? What would be the facts, and evidence to support such an idea, and what all would have to be involved in order for this scenario to be true, which would not be just as incredible as the resurrection?

[brunumb]

This debate has been raging for 2000 years, including the scholars, and I cannot imagine this much time, and energy being exerted over something which lacked good evidence.

The debate has been raging for 2000 years precisely because there is no good evidence for the alleged resurrection.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #43]

The only thing we know for sure actually happened is that someone wrote down an account of someone supposedly rising from the dead. That's it.

My friend, if that were all we had, then all one would have to do is to suggest that it would be nonsense.

It could certainly be nonsense, given that IS all we have. It may NOT be nonsense, but when all we have are obviously connected sources which can't even be internally consistent it's hard to call what little we do have 'good'.

I am pointing out the fact that for one to actually attempt to come up with some sort of alternative explanation points out the fact that they must understand there is good evidence. Otherwise, why bother?

Some of us bother because people claiming there is good evidence are busy trying to convert people to their religion using what many of us consider 'bad' evidence and promises of an afterlife. These religions have often tried (and succeeded) in inserting themselves into government, education, etc. That is not acceptable IMO.

no corroborating accounts from disconnected sources.

Could you please demonstrate to us how the accounts we have would be connected?

I'm pretty sure you and I have been around this very merry-go-round before. Are you unaware of the scholarship that points to some of the gospel text appearing practically verbatim in other gospels? I don't mean the story is the same, I mean the text is the same. Please google the Synoptic Problem if you really haven't heard about this before.

For contrast, go ask three of your friends to write down a short paragraph about a shared experience. If you find the same text among those three accounts, would you be suspicious they couldn't bother to write their own versions or would you blissfully assume they managed a pretty miraculous feat? There are plagiarism detectors online that teachers can use to detect this kind of stuff.

There is no 'good' evidence if 'good' means convincing to anyone other than people who already believe.

My friend, there are numerous well educated, and intelligent folks I can point to, who were not only unbelievers, but were very much opposed to Christianity, so much so, they were attempting to disprove it, who came to believe, based upon the actual study they were preforming to oppose it. Of course, this does not in any way demonstrate Christianity is true. However, it does demonstrate your comment above concerning, the evidence being good enough for only those "who already believe", to be false.

Did they really come to believe based on 'good' evidence or were they just convinced by bad logic and poor reasoning? I'm not afraid to admit I was once an unbeliever, became a believer based on what I thought at the time was 'good' reasoning (mostly the shared experiences of people I trusted and some study) and later discovered my original 'study' was not very thorough. I had no clue at the time there was so little actual evidence for Jesus. I just assumed it was everywhere in historical documents, artifacts, etc. Well, when I really started looking and examining, you can guess what happened. Really reading and studying the Bible along with going outside the church for information is what led to my eventual deconversion. I tried to become a better Christian and ended up an atheist. My story is not unique.

In other words, we don't need to completely write off their accounts as pure fantasy, we can entertain that perhaps there has just been some mistakes made about what actually happened.

I am all for this! So, what evidence do we have which may suggest they were mistaken? You see, you seem to be acknowledging that there were indeed folks who claim to have seen Jesus after death. So, what evidence do we have which would suggest they were mistaken?

It may seem like I'm acknowledging something, but clearly I'm not. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

I have only acknowledged that someone wrote an account of other people claiming to see Jesus. See the difference? I have no clue if anyone ACTUALLY claimed to see Jesus or not. I only know someone wrote about that.

Who knows. We don't really have much to go on when you get down to it.

Okay? So, you suggest "We don't really have much to go on", and yet you seem confident the accounts must be false?

There you go again. Where did I say that? Quote?

The only thing I'm confident about is that we have written accounts. I'm also confident that I've never seen dead people rise up after a number of days. The accounts MAY be true, but I have no way to verify them and the utter lack of corroborating evidence tells me that I'm pretty safe to put them beside all other religious claims of other faiths which I'm sure you likewise don't give much credence to.

Am I confident they are false? No. Am I confident there is something fishy about these clearly connected sources (copying amongst themselves)? Yes.

I am confident that until such time I am presented some actual 'good' (to me) evidence, I need not worry about disbelieving those accounts and all the fear mongering that some Christians try to tie to these stories (like burning in hell, etc).

The bottom line here is, I have studied the evidence, and have become convinced by this evidence, the reports of the resurrection are true. You seem to believe the reports to be false. I have no problem with your conclusions. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is no reason to come up with alternative explanations for an event we have no evidence to support.

One reason to come up with alternatives is to point out that maybe the evidence really isn't that 'good' when someone else is trying to convince you that it is.

Person A: The evidence for a risen Jesus is good!
Person B: Ok, show me.
Person A: Read this
Person B: Umm, is that it? What if this is just an account of mistaken identity? Or an account to promote a religion? Or the person didn't really die, but it was a great jumping off story to try and convert people from being Jewish to their new favorite religion? In other words, all we have are some clearly connected accounts. What else have you got? ..... Nothing? No accounts from outsiders talking about similar occurrences? No other contemporary accounts talking about this Jesus character and his feats? Sorry, the evidence is not 'good'. It's something, but hardly 'good'.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I am simply pointing out that for one to attempt to come up with an alternative explanation, sort of demonstrates, there must be evidence for the claim.

I can come up with alternative explanations for any claim regardless of the evidence for that claim.

Not to many folks are spending time on a web site attempting to give alternative explanations for "Elvis sightings". Can you imagine why? However, there are indeed many folks, even including scholars, who understand the evidence is strong enough that they cannot simply dismiss it, but rather must, and have to come up with some other alternative.

The evidence is strong enough for what? The resurrection? The reason the resurrection is debated more than Elvis sightings is because the resurrection is a much older and persistent belief in the popular imagination.

I can't justifiably speak for all those who are skeptical of the claim that Christ was raised from the dead, but to me there are explanations for the sightings of the risen Christ reported in the gospels that don't involve God actually raising Jesus from the dead.

I agree with you. However, the ones I have considered seem to be just as incredible as the resurrection itself when you go on to think through all that would have to be involved in order for that scenario to be true. Maybe you can help me out by giving me one which I have never heard. However, I do not believe the "Twin" will get it done!

So cases of mistaken identity are as hard to believe for you as a dead man being raised to life.

Again, there are many claims in the world, but I cannot think of any claim at all, which has received the debate the Christian claims have.

I think that is correct.

This debate has been raging for 2000 years, including the scholars, and I cannot imagine this much time, and energy being exerted over something which lacked good evidence.

I can't speak for others, but I don't debate any claim I think has good evidence for it. I don't debate the assassination of John Kennedy, for example, because the evidence appears to be very good that there was no conspiracy to assassinate him.

...I do not see many folks debating "Elvis sightings"? Wonder why?

I'd say that most people don't debate Elvis sightings because those sightings were probably cases of mistaken identity, and very few people disagree that those sightings were sightings of a man who looks like Elvis.

If we go with your logic, then Elvis probably did return from the dead which to you is less incredible than concluding that people mistook another man for Elvis.

If somebody makes a claim that I'm aware of, no matter how good or bad the evidence for that claim might be, I think it's a good idea to consider explanations for that claim that might serve to let us know if the claim need be true.

Okay? Well, there are the "Elvis sightings". So, honestly, how much time, and effort have you put into the claim?

I did watch some television coverage about the Elvis sightings, but I soon concluded that it was either a mistake or a hoax.

My guess would be, none at all.

You're close.

But somehow, and for some reason, the claim of the resurrection is worth debating, so much so, you spend your time on this web site.

Again, I debate the resurrection not because of the evidence for it but because I see it as a very popular and persistent myth. If the evidence was good, then I would not challenge the claim.

Anyway, can the resurrection of Christ be explained as a case of mistaken identity?

Absolutely! So..........? What would be the facts, and evidence to support such an idea, and what all would have to be involved in order for this scenario to be true, which would not be just as incredible as the resurrection?

The relevant facts are that people mistake the identity of others often enough, and people have brothers that look like them. Is that as incredible as a resurrection?

And if a resurrection is so less incredible than mistaken identity, then why didn't God do something truly incredible to wow us? Why didn't he just have people mistake Jesus' brother for the risen Jesus? Only an all-mighty God could perform such a wonder!

[Paul of Tarsus]

This debate has been raging for 2000 years, including the scholars, and I cannot imagine this much time, and energy being exerted over something which lacked good evidence.

The debate has been raging for 2000 years precisely because there is no good evidence for the alleged resurrection.

Likewise, people don't debate the existence of gorillas but do debate the existence of Bigfoot. The existence of gorillas has been proved, but Bigfoot's existence is not so well founded. We can see an inverse correlation between the strength of evidence for a claim and the amount of debate about the claim. In other words, as the evidence wanes the debate waxes.

[Realworldjack]

This debate has been raging for 2000 years, including the scholars, and I cannot imagine this much time, and energy being exerted over something which lacked good evidence.

The debate has been raging for 2000 years precisely because there is no good evidence for the alleged resurrection.

Okay? So, you are attempting to tell us, there are numerous scholars who have spent their whole life, studying, and debating against something for which there would be no good evidence to support? Does that even make sense to you?