(June 20, 2016 at 12:49 am)robvalue Wrote: People making stuff up is not a convoluted scenario. It's incredibly simple. It requires absolutely no assumptions, other than they were prepared to make stuff up. [1] Also, the accounts contain obviously made up stuff already. So we know they were in the habit of doing so. [2] If someone hands you a report containing magical events, I'd have thought you would agree the most likely scenario is they made it up (or hallucinated). [3] At best you'd simply reserve judgement. If you would by default assume the events actually happened, I wouldn't know how to proceed. [4]
I'm not saying for sure that's what happened, but I am saying it's more likely (in my opinion) than a long whinded explanation that accounts for the 50+ year gap and tries to maintain accuracy as well. [5] And even after that, all you have is a preacher spouting off and being executed. No one is arguing that such things went on. [6]
1) I think it is more convoluted that than give credit. Going about inventing a mythology which is more or less consistent within a rigid Jewish context is trickier than I think you give credit. Not only are you assuming that they were prepared to make stuff you, you are also assuming that they actually did. That assumption is what helps you make sense of the data. A more simple and less convoluted assumption would be none. They could have experienced something which they thought was a resurrected Jesus, something they didn't understand, and that they were wrong about the nature of that experience and the interpretation they gave.
2) Yes, the ways ancient Jews recorded events is not exactly like reading a modern history text.
3) See #1. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I would place false interpretation of misunderstood phenomena above hallucination, and hallucination above "made it up" on my differential list of hypotheses.
4) No. Context plays into this as well. In general, if someone tells me they saw an 800 m tall Jesus with pink hair riding a unicorn, my first thought is doubt, but also a "well, maybe they thought they saw an 800 m tall Jesus, but I'm gonna need to know more". I don't immediately assume someone is lying to me, unless of course I can tell from their body language/facial expressions or tone of voice or responses to follow-up questions.
5) Which long winded explanation are you referring to?
6) If that is the case, why go with, "they made it up" over, "they misunderstood what they witnessed"?
