Three simple explanations for how Jesus "rose from the dead"

[sthack99]

Christians' #1 proof for God is Jesus' resurrection. Although there lacks any good proof that it actually occurred, they are determined to stand by the biblical account, claiming that it's the best explanation for what little evidence we actually do have. So I would like to propose 3 simple, unmiraculous explanations for how Jesus "rose from the dead":

#1) When Jesus died, his body was given over to Joseph, who was a disciple of Jesus. Joseph then apparently wrapped him in linen and placed him in the tomb. How does anyone know for certain Joseph put the body in the tomb? Maybe he just put a bunch of rolled up rags. Or nothing at all. Then, of course, when Mary and the other(s) came to see him, his body was gone, or should I say, missing. Which leads me to my second point...


#2) The tomb wasn't sealed until the FOLLOWING day. So his disciples had an entire night to remove his body from the tomb (if it had even been placed there to begin with). How does anyone know for certain his body wasn't removed prior to the guards standing watch? And finally...


#3) The last explanation I'd like to throw out there is this: How does anyone know Jesus actually died on the cross? Perhaps they were mistaken, and ended up allowing for one of his disciples to take him down from the cross while he was still alive. This would explain why people claim they saw him walking around after he "died".


The point I am trying to make here is this: For every unnatural explanation, there are natural ones that make a lot more sense. Not one of us has ever been witness to an unnatural occurrence, so why would we think they ever occur? All throughout human history, humans have always tried to explain things they didn't understand by assuming it was supernatural, and in almost every instance it was later debunked. Unfortunately, in this instance, we would need a time machine to know for sure what events took place during that time. But knowing how the natural world works, why would you assume this is any more than a legend? If you read the books and look at the time line in which each book was written, the events became more and more miraculous the later the story was told, which is exactly how legends work. So can anyone tell me why any of my explanations would not explain the controversial death and "reawakening" of Jesus Christ?

[Questatement]

If you read the books and look at the time line in which each book was written, the events became more and more miraculous the later the story was told, which is exactly how legends work. So can anyone tell me why any of my explanations would not explain the controversial death and "reawakening" of Jesus Christ?

May I presume you're speaking of the four Gospels? If so, what evidence do you have for this 'more and more miraculous' over time claim?

[Jack]

I've already posted my take on this here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post844997

[sthack99]

May I presume you're speaking of the four Gospels? If so, what evidence do you have for this 'more and more miraculous' over time claim?

I'm sure I don't have to point out the miracles in Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark, although most scholars agree that Mark was written around 10 years earlier than Matthew. Hell, even John contains some that aren't in any of the other three. Also, looking at the resurrection stories (which none seem to be very consistant with the others), 1st you have one angel, then in later tellings you have two angels. Examples like this can be found throughout.

[sthack99]

I've already posted my take on this here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post844997

So we seem to be in agreement. Just because Jesus looked dead doesn't mean he was.

[sthack99]

I've already posted my take on this here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post844997

So we seem to be in agreement. Just because Jesus looked dead doesn't mean he was.

[sthack99]

*sigh* Why is Volconvo double posting my responses?

[Questatement]

I'm sure I don't have to point out the miracles in Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark, although most scholars agree that Mark was written around 10 years earlier than Matthew. Hell, even John contains some that aren't in any of the other three.

Do you have an example where we would not presume different writers may have different purposes and/or perspectives writing about the same historical event? IOW, contradictions along your line of reasoning?

Also, looking at the resurrection stories (which none seem to be very consistant with the others), 1st you have one angel, then in later tellings you have two angels. Examples like this can be found throughout.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty, I would request that you post your references. Thanks.

[Jack]

I would request that you post your references.

In Matthew, one angel in white appears to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28). In Mark, one “young man” in white “amazed” the two Marys and Simone (Mark 16). In Luke, two men in “dazzling garments” appeared to the two Marys and Joanna (Luke 24). In John, two angels in white appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20).

[ozzie666]

For every unnatural explanation, there are natural ones that make a lot more sense.

for example; some in criminology believe that the concept of the "werewolf" and other ferocious monsters, renowned for the typical extreme violence of the attack, can be easily attributed to early psychopaths and homicidal maniacs. looking at one example, a photo, of one Mary Kelly, a victim of Jack the Ripper, i'd say i'd have to agree.

[sthack99]

Do you have an example where we would not presume different writers may have different purposes and/or perspectives writing about the same historical event? IOW, contradictions along your line of reasoning?




If you want to get into the nitty gritty, I would request that you post your references. Thanks.

The multiple resurrection stories are a great example of this. None seem to match (especially Peter's, now THAT one is comical!)

Jack posted the references, so I won't double post. However, I would swap Mark and Matthew, since that was the correct order according to scholars, and by doing that you can clearly see the evolutionary change from one man to two angels.

[sthack99]

And btw Quest, you seem to be avoiding the main point of my argument. Is there any way to know that one of those three suggestions couldn't have actually occurred, or isn't a logical explanation? Christians are quick to dismiss other claims in other religions as being false, even though they are just as believable. So why not this one? What is so unique about this one story that it deserves a supernatural explanation?