Naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus

[reverendjeremiah]

I do not want to have a debate on wither Jesus of Nazareth existed. My opinion along with biblical scholars (even sceptical ones such as Bart D Ehrman) that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

I realize you dont want to debate it, but I cant help to throw this out. For someone like Jesus to be SOOO opinionated, and the stories of him being trained by and even suprising the scholars, there has to be SOMETHING that Jesus himself wrote. The argument is usually for writings ABOUT Jesus during his time, but that is not the point. for someone who wanted the truth to be spread so badly, why did he not write anything? Only that OTHER people wrote ABOUT him and many of those books were burnt. To me this SCREAMS that he was invented, and not a historical figure.

Havent seen anything written by Hercules either.

Besides, I find it strange that you want to put forward a naturalistic explanation for Jesus, yet dont want to discuss wether he existed or not. Existence or not, to me, would fit the criteria of "natural explanation". Wouldnt you agree?

---

How about something even simpler?

Assuming Jesus existed and he was crucified, it's still not improbable that stories of his resurrection surfaced among the faithful. How many Elvis fans in the 20th century believed that he was still alive? These people lived in a primitive and superstitious time, when people thought that demons caused illnesses.

As for the "witnesses" to those who saw him fly up into the sky, I give that every bit the credibility of the Elvis sightings.

Agreed!

---

If the resurrection is not true, then which is more likely:

(1) the witnesses were deceived, (2) the witnesses were lying, or (3) the witnesses are made up only.

#3 - the witnesses were fictional. People also witnessed the great feats of Hercules as well? Were they made up? Yup.

[Justtristo]

I do not want to have a debate on wither Jesus of Nazareth existed. My opinion along with biblical scholars (even sceptical ones such as Bart D Ehrman) that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

I realize you dont want to debate it, but I cant help to throw this out. For someone like Jesus to be SOOO opinionated, and the stories of him being trained by and even suprising the scholars, there has to be SOMETHING that Jesus himself wrote. The argument is usually for writings ABOUT Jesus during his time, but that is not the point. for someone who wanted the truth to be spread so badly, why did he not write anything? Only that OTHER people wrote ABOUT him and many of those books were burnt. To me this SCREAMS that he was invented, and not a historical figure.

Havent seen anything written by Hercules either.

Besides, I find it strange that you want to put forward a naturalistic explanation for Jesus, yet dont want to discuss wether he existed or not. Existence or not, to me, would fit the criteria of "natural explanation". Wouldnt you agree?

My apologies on not making this clearer from the outset.

However, I had intended this thread to be not a discussion about wither or not there was a historical Jesus. Rather if he had existed, how can we explain by naturalistic means the resurrection story. Anyway I clearly stated my opinion on the historicity of Jesus, which I am pretty confident of you given the extensive scholarship which has been done in this field in the last 200 years.

By contrast the studies into the historical Muhammad have barely started and I doubt studies into the historical Buddha will ever be done. If say Jesus of Nazareth never existed, could it be also true that the Buddha or Muhammad never existed and were totally invented characters.

[Minimalist]

there has to be SOMETHING that Jesus himself wrote.

"Jesus" could have been illiterate. The vast majority of people were.

However, I would settle for a comment from an early first-century Greco-Roman writer about how there was a popular superstition about some executed criminal coming back from the dead who was being worshiped. They don't even have that.

They have nada.

[reverendjeremiah]

By contrast the studies into the historical Muhammad have barely started and I doubt studies into the historical Buddha will ever be done. If say Jesus of Nazareth never existed, could it be also true that the Buddha or Muhammad never existed and were totally invented characters.

In a situation of mythology and religion being involved, I would find it was best to start with an assumption that it is all fictional, and then from there look at the evidence. Was anything ever written BY these people, or just about them? thats a good question. How about contemporary writings, and not just passing ones. Something from a trustworthy source who also doesnt invent thigs in order to get more people to read his/her stuff. Government records would be a great evidence, and lack of govt record, although not being proof of lack of evidence, would not look good regardless. Historical innacuracies of places and events in the story itself also help, and I do believe many things in the 4 gospels were historically and temporally wrong or skewed. So, plane and simple, Jesus was made up.

---

I mean assume it is fictional if they have the characters doing fantastical things such as walking on water and raising the dead. Would you not agree that we should approach Spiderman from an assumption that he was fictional until good evidence was presented to prove otherwise? The writtings themselves, being fantastical, are a good sign that they are fictional..so you start from that point.

[Minimalist]

If say Jesus of Nazareth never existed, could it be also true that the Buddha or Muhammad never existed and were totally invented characters.

Was there a historical Osiris? Or Zeus? Or Marduk? Or Quetzalcoatl? Ishtar? Shiva? Thor? Gitche Manitou? Ahura Mazda? Asshur? Yahweh?

It's all shit.

[KichigaiNeko]

However I may propose a hypothesis for a naturalistic explanation for the belief, that the he followers of Jesus had that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. There is a well documented psychological phenomena which is called bereavement hallucinations. Bereavement hallucinations are hallucinations which loved ones of a recent deceased person experience of that deceased person. These hallucinations are so vivid that they often report seeing or hearing the departed person in some familiar environment, being visited in their dreams, or having conversations with them while being completely awake.

There is also the phenomenon that "persons believed dead rise again" ....Cataplexy?

http://www.fubartrivia.net/trivias/prono...alive.html

http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction.../cataplexy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataplexy

Is this what you are after ziggy??? And of course it would be snapped up by an uneducated populace as 'truth' because of someone hearing of someone who knew someone who's relative suffered from this problem??

Medicine was not well understood (by todays standards) by the practitioners let alone the superstitous populace in that time period and even now we get stories like this...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775873/n...ay_people/

So who's to say

[Justtristo]

There is also the phenomenon that "persons believed dead rise again" ....Cataplexy?

http://www.fubartrivia.net/trivias/prono...alive.html

http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction.../cataplexy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataplexy

Is this what you are after ziggy??? And of course it would be snapped up by an uneducated populace as 'truth' because of someone hearing of someone who knew someone who's relative suffered from this problem??

Medicine was not well understood (by todays standards) by the practitioners let alone the superstitous populace in that time period and even now we get stories like this...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775873/n...ay_people/

So who's to say

That is the sort of information I was looking for, thank you

[KichigaiNeko]

You are most welcome

[reverendjeremiah]

You are most welcome

I would then say that this would not be the case. They write about Jesus being very active, even fasting in the desert for FORTY DAYS and FORTY NIGHTS and surviving, which is a bit extreme to put it lightly. Why would a god need to fast? Anyways. I never bought into the "naturalistic" reasons for Jesus. I even saw a video where they described a drug that could make you seem like you were dead for about 2 days, and they were trying to say Jesus did that. Honestly... when will the historians stop trying to get on the good side of the religionists and be very honest...that they have given the Jesus story WAY more leniency than they would other stories..say like Hercules or Thor. This is all about popularity and grants. Not about honest research. If Jesus had plenty of evidence to support his historicity, it would be ALL OVER THE NET. But sadly, there is only a small few 2nd and 3rd person writtings about him, most of which after he was dead.

HERE..let me give you a BIG clue that this Jesus story is utter bullshit:

Matthew 27:50-53

50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

You would think MANY a historian would have written about the dead Jews and Hebrews digging themselves out of tombs and walking the streets for christs sake! Another thing that SCREAMS "THIS IS JUST MADE UP SHIT!" is that was all that was written about this happening. "and appeared to many" yet not a single other writting of something of this magnitude from ANYONE during that time period. Merely 5 sentences in the bible. Dont you think the Greeks and Romans would have noticed? Dont you think the Jewish scholars would have scribbled SOMETHING down about it? Even apologists skim over this like "The fact is that once their function as witnesses was fulfilled, they were of no interest to the apostle Matthew. Let us remember that their resurrection was due to Jesus. It was all about Jesus, not about the resurrected saints. " Yeah..because seeing dad and grandad walking the street after being dead for 40 years or more wasnt about them, but about Jebus. I have heard some apologists say that the jews would dig up their ancestors and tell them good news that Jesus was the messiah...honestly.

Jebus story screams FAKE.

[KichigaiNeko]

Certainly it does Jerry.

That wasn't my point to lend any more credence to the fairy tale. But there are 'natural phenomena' (for want of a better label) for the whole "Was dead...Came back to life" medical scenario. We all already know the the jebus story is just a fairy tale for kids.

As with my refutation in the Mawlid thread no one person could fast for 40 days (24hr periods) in a desert situation and live.

As to your very valid point "Why would a god need to fast?".. Why indeed and it would make a mockery of the religious edict of 'Fasting' for the faithful.