Could “resurrection” be faked?

[Zzyzx]

.
Could “resurrection” be faked?

1. A supposed death could be an illusion (as is done for stage, movies and television regularly), or it could be in error, or it could be a fabrication.

2. OR, A dead body could be put into a tomb and later secretly removed (for publicity purposes).

3. OR, Supposed witnesses to the “empty tomb” could be unidentified so their reliability and honesty could not be investigated, or they could be mistaken or untruthful, OR their “testimony” could be fictional.

4. OR, An illusionist after faking death and entombment could later appear to witnesses.

5. OR, churchmen writing decades or centuries after the supposed event could have invented the tale in order to promote their interests and their religion.

6. OR, a combination of the above.

7. Harry Houdini could probably have arranged the trick very convincingly.

8. A clever author of fiction could write an emotional story including all the supposed conditions and characters.

9. Clever clerics have convinced people to believe their tales enough to follow instructions to kill innocent people, including children, to impress supposed gods “visible” only to clerics.


Two thousand years after the trick, no evidence is available to verify that the event actually happened as reported, and no witnesses left accounts of what occurred (existing reports are hearsay recorded decades or centuries later).

If told that a hundred years ago a dead body had come back to life, there was no evidence, the supposed witnesses could not be identified, and those who recorded the supposed incident could not be verified, would you believe it had been real?

If the “death” involved a godman for whom “death” was temporary at most, was the “death” and “resurrection” symbolic rather than literal?

Question for debate: Could “resurrection” be faked?

[Easyrider]

Two thousand years after the trick...

No foundation it was a magical trick.

no evidence is available to verify that the event actually happened as reported, and no witnesses left accounts of what occurred (existing reports are hearsay recorded decades or centuries later).

The New Testament refutes you.

Question for debate: Could “resurrection” be faked?

"THE" resurrection? There's simply zero evidence it was faked. Nor can you produce any.

Care to run your discredited "Swoon Theory" around the arena again?

[Fallibleone]

Do we really have to do this 'there's no evidence' thing again? Because that's sort of the point. If evidence existed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, for example, we'd all be breaking our backs trying to out-do each other with good deeds and worship to guarantee our place in a sudden real estate hot spot called Heaven.

There's no evidence that the Bible is the inerrant word of God either, Easyrider. That doesn't stop it being claimed as such daily on this board. The only difference is that those who believe it is the inerrant word of God think it's reasonable to assume that words written by men are much more than what our perfectly good senses tell us....oh I'm boring even myself with this. You know how it goes.

I'm not the most au fait person on this board when it comes to the Bible; I doubt that this is much of a surprise to anyone. On that basis, my guess would be that faking of resurrection is certainly possible, and in the specific case of THE resurrection, there is a definite motive for fakery too.

[Flail]

Of course the resurrection could have been staged....if it even happened...there is no foundation for any of it uless you count legend, story telling and written accounts written after the fact without basis or explanation of how the writer came to know what he is writing about.

What is important about the Bible are the Gospels of Jesus and the fact that Christianity only plays lip service to them while basing their dogma upon the teachings of the OT, Paul and the Church.

Jesus is not a Christian.

[Easyrider]

Do we really have to do this 'there's no evidence' thing again? Because that's sort of the point. If evidence existed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, for example, we'd all be breaking our backs trying to out-do each other with good deeds and worship to guarantee our place in a sudden real estate hot spot called Heaven.

I doubt it. There is evidence for divine inspiration, in fulfilled prophecy, but you don't believe anyway.

There's no evidence that the Bible is the inerrant word of God either, Easyrider. That doesn't stop it being claimed as such daily on this board. The only difference is that those who believe it is the inerrant word of God think it's reasonable to assume that words written by men are much more than what our perfectly good senses tell us....oh I'm boring even myself with this. You know how it goes.

That's your opinion. Mine is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

On that basis, my guess would be that faking of resurrection is certainly possible, and in the specific case of THE resurrection, there is a definite motive for fakery too.

You can drum up all the anti-resurrection hypotheses you want and say "if" and "maybe this" and "maybe that" all day long. But the historical accounts confirm the resurrection. You're going to have to produce some credible evidence that militates against the historical accounts. Just mere supposition in denying it isn't going to make it go away. And if anyone had anything really credible we'd probably have seen it by now.

[acamp1]

That's your opinion. Mine is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Gosh. Did you just admit that this is an OPINION?!

[Goat]

Two thousand years after the trick...

No foundation it was a magical trick.

And your evidence , aside from the unsubstantiated claims of the New Testament is?? There is no foundation that it actually happened.

no evidence is available to verify that the event actually happened as reported, and no witnesses left accounts of what occurred (existing reports are hearsay recorded decades or centuries later).

The New Testament refutes you.

How do we know New Testament is true.. the New Testament says so. This is known as 'circular Logic', and is a logical fallacy.

Question for debate: Could “resurrection” be faked?

"THE" resurrection? There's simply zero evidence it was faked. Nor can you produce any.

Care to run your discredited "Swoon Theory" around the arena again?

You really haven't 'discredited' the "Swoon Theory". You keep on claiming it is.. but no, it isn't.

[r~]

Could resurrection be faked?

There is no need to fake resurrection, it occurs all to often ; even in this day and age.

ItS
Peace
r~

P.S. Thomas killed Jesus.

[Fallibleone]

Do we really have to do this 'there's no evidence' thing again? Because that's sort of the point. If evidence existed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, for example, we'd all be breaking our backs trying to out-do each other with good deeds and worship to guarantee our place in a sudden real estate hot spot called Heaven.

I doubt it. There is evidence for divine inspiration, in fulfilled prophecy, but you don't believe anyway.

Let's not go down the path of what constitutes evidence. Can we assume we've done that already? You call certain things evidence which non-believers do not. Is this right?

There's no evidence that the Bible is the inerrant word of God either, Easyrider. That doesn't stop it being claimed as such daily on this board. The only difference is that those who believe it is the inerrant word of God think it's reasonable to assume that words written by men are much more than what our perfectly good senses tell us....oh I'm boring even myself with this. You know how it goes.

That's your opinion. Mine is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

I'm aware of your opinion, as you are aware of mine. I'm glad to see you describe yours as an opinion.

On that basis, my guess would be that faking of resurrection is certainly possible, and in the specific case of THE resurrection, there is a definite motive for fakery too.

You can drum up all the anti-resurrection hypotheses you want and say "if" and "maybe this" and "maybe that" all day long. But the historical accounts confirm the resurrection. You're going to have to produce some credible evidence that militates against the historical accounts. Just mere supposition in denying it isn't going to make it go away. And if anyone had anything really credible we'd probably have seen it by now.

I am 'drumming up' nothing. I am no authority on resurrection hypotheses, anti- or otherwise. My comments were nothing more than my personal opinion. I am sometimes disappointed that others do not confess that a lot of their comments are the same. You see, when people are not in possession of solid facts, they sometimes say 'I guess', to make it known that that which follows is not fact.

I am not going to have to do anything in the way of providing evidence, because I have made it clear that my statement is a point of view. I do not believe that the resurrection was ever 'there', so I can't be trying to make it 'go away'. Again, that is my opinion. Do I have to say this every time? We know I've got no evidence to prove this particular negative.

You are pulling this thread off-topic, either unintentionally or intentionally, but I'm going to try to stop that from happening. This thread is about whether resurrection could be faked, not whether there is sufficient evidence to prove THE resurrection didn't happen.


I think that it is possible to fake resurrection, and in the case of THE resurrection, there was a definite motive for fakery too.

Do you think that resurrection could be faked?

[Easyrider]

You really haven't 'discredited' the "Swoon Theory". You keep on claiming it is.. but no, it isn't.

Yes, it is:

A Lawyer Examines the Swoon Theory

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/swoon.htm