Why is the Resurrection Version of Events Plausible?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

4/3/17
"AS I said before, I ant to stay n the OP and discuss God and evil. The points you raise are interesting. However, I am not going to respond to them, except to say they are important to address, but belong in another OP. Let's get back to discussing God and evil. As I said before, I would be happy continuing the discussion, so why don't you set up an OP for these issues?" - hoghead1

I have time to address this question now. According to all four Gospels the body of Jesus disappeared from Joseph's private tomb, and several weeks later the disciples of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. Just as the Jewish priests had predicted (Matt.27:63-64). Christians believe that Jesus returned to life and that the newly reanimated Jesus left the tomb of his own volition,and then subsequently flew off up into the sky and disappeared. What is it that you find about this particular tale that makes it even marginally plausible? More specifically, what is there about this claim that you feel that everyone else should should find perfectly plausible?

[marco]

[Replying to post 89 by marco]

This of course takes no note of Christ's famous 3-day prediction.

Assuming we can trust that he did indeed say it. Remember, all we have is, legally speaking, hearsay.

Well I don't particularly trust what was reported but we are discussing the Resurrection scenario and the details offered to us. Obviously we can simply say it's all rubbish and start reading War and Peace. But the point I was making is that the explanation that some random person came along and moved the body doesn't happily fit the reported details, for Christ would then have predicted by coincidence. For me, the best explanation is some sort of collusion. And fabrications added to fit Scripture!

[Danmark]

A more common sense and logical conclusion, that does not "add meanings" is that a grave robber seeking to deceive, unwound the cloths, leaving them in the tomb and then hid the body to create a phony "miracle."[/size]

This of course takes no note of Christ's famous 3-day prediction. Planning rather than randomness seems to be involved. The Essenes were secretive and capable of carrying out something startling. The unusual offer of Joseph's sepulchre is suspicious, but of course this detail might have been added to comply with Scripture, that Christ would die with the rich. The crucifixion scenario is laced with instances of fulfilment of prophecy, even to the extent that Christ's blood-stained garments were sought by the soldiers and his bones were "numbered." Given the enormity of the event, there should have been astounding accuracy in reported details, rather than vagueness, inconsistencies and angelic mysteries. God would surely have directed the writings with a steadier hand.

Agreed!

this detail might have been added to comply with Scripture

This important point needs special emphasis. The NT authors, decades after the 'events,' wrote "TO" those scriptures. My favorite analogy is that of painting a bullseye around the arrow after it lands on the broadside of a barn.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 89 by marco]

This of course takes no note of Christ's famous 3-day prediction.

Assuming we can trust that he did indeed say it. Remember, all we have is, legally speaking, hearsay.

Well I don't particularly trust what was reported but we are discussing the Resurrection scenario and the details offered to us. Obviously we can simply say it's all rubbish and start reading War and Peace. But the point I was making is that the explanation that some random person came along and moved the body doesn't happily fit the reported details, for Christ would then have predicted by coincidence. For me, the best explanation is some sort of collusion. And fabrications added to fit Scripture!

The disciples had legal possession of the body of Jesus right from the start, and the Jewish priests believed that the disciples intended to move the body from Joseph's tomb to another location and then proclaim that Jesus had arisen from the dead. The Joseph's tomb did indeed prove to be empty, and six weeks later the disciples began to spread the rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead. This doesn't even count as supposition. These are details contained in the Gospels.

Christians have maintained for the last 2,000 years that the evidence at hand (scripture) leaves no doubt that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only possible way to reconcile the "facts" provided by Christian scripture. For the majority of the last 2,000 years Christians have had the power to burn, flay, boil in oil, draw and quarter, and do various and sundry other unpleasant things to anyone who dared to suggest that the Christian version of events was not necessary the ONLY possible version of event. But those days are gone. And when we actually DO look at the details provided by scripture what do we find? We can see that it is pathetically easy to explain the sequence of events WITHOUT resorting to the assumption that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. So it is also pathetically easy to see that Christian claims that their declaration that no other answer but the resurrection is possible has been untrue for the last 2,000 years. So where does that leave their core claim, that the corpse of Jesus actually returned to life and subsequently flew away? Right where it has always been of course. On the pile of ridiculous and insupportable things that people have claimed over the centuries. Except now the veil of misdirection disguising the claim as the nonsense it has always been has been pulled back.

The cat is out of the bag I am afraid Christians. Modern people are becoming too sophisticated to mindlessly subscribe to obvious nonsense, so putting the cat back may well turn out to be impossible.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 93 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I'm surprised you adhere to the Gospel stories at all.

Even opposing scholars acknowledge the resurrection narratives as complete fiction:

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 93 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I'm surprised you adhere to the Gospel stories at all.

Even opposing scholars acknowledge the resurrection narratives as complete fiction:

The portions of the Bible which could be true, might be true. It is the portions that contradict all common experience, common observation and common sense which we can confidently exclude.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 93 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I'm surprised you adhere to the Gospel stories at all.

Even opposing scholars acknowledge the resurrection narratives as complete fiction:

The portions of the Bible which could be true, might be true. It is the portions that contradict all common experience, common observation and common sense which we can confidently exclude.

Click on the Youtube link. There is no aspect of the resurrection narratives which is true.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 93 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I'm surprised you adhere to the Gospel stories at all.

Even opposing scholars acknowledge the resurrection narratives as complete fiction:

The portions of the Bible which could be true, might be true. It is the portions that contradict all common experience, common observation and common sense which we can confidently exclude.

Click on the Youtube link. There is no aspect of the resurrection narratives which is true.

I am not inclined to buy the story of the resurrection either. The empty tomb story on the other hand may or may not have any basis in fact. An empty tomb requires no supernatural explanation to account for it, and could be true. Just as the account in Acts of the disciples beginning to spread the rumor that Jesus had risen is perfectly plausible. If you exclude those portions of the story which are clearly unrealistic, what is left over MAY have some actual relationship to actual events. It's impossible to know for certain.

[alwayson]

If you exclude those portions of the story which are clearly unrealistic, what is left over MAY have some actual relationship to actual events. It's impossible to know for certain.

But scholars do know for certain.

Mark borrows the language of Psalm 22-24 for the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9.

Jesus Barabbas and Jesus are the 2 goats from the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

Scholars know where every aspect of the Gospels comes from.

Watch this youtube video:

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If you exclude those portions of the story which are clearly unrealistic, what is left over MAY have some actual relationship to actual events. It's impossible to know for certain.

But scholars do know for certain.

Mark borrows the language of Psalm 22-24 for the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9.

Jesus Barabbas and Jesus are the 2 goats from the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

Scholars know where every aspect of the Gospels comes from.

Watch this youtube video:

I will leave you to argue this line of reasoning out with the Christians.

[marco]

The NT authors, decades after the 'events,' wrote "TO" those scriptures. My favorite analogy is that of painting a bullseye around the arrow after it lands on the broadside of a barn.

I am in complete agreement with you, Danmark. Another trick is to dig out some words somebody in the OT has uttered and find predictive sense in them. The more confusing and silly the quotation, the more useful it can prove to be. It was wise of the seers not to depart from oracular circumlocution. The Delphic Oracle was adept at offering ambiguous advice.