In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

To continue on a categorically appropriate Natural Explanation™ for resurrection beliefs, we can turn to Heb 2:14, and John 12:27.

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

“Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.

It get's more explicit in Heb 2:17-18

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

He -had- to have a body, and be a man.  Not because a body went missing, but because these beliefs (not the totality of historic christian or proto christian beliefs), which became the orthodoxy......said so.  This was the purpose, this was the work, this was how it worked.  These things had to be true for their religion to be true.

The explanation for these beliefs, their deconstruction, is not in an event or in human psychology (specifically)...or even in myth.  It's in the assumptions required for a piece of sympathetic magic to work under a specific view of supernatural mechanics.

---

A fun example of why this is important, for people unfamiliar with sympathetic magic works.  

Imagine that you're at a witches cauldron, and the spell calls for a blue footed booby's leg.  Well, none of those lying around.  So you substitute a chicken leg.  

Will the spell perform as advertised?  Not in the sympathetic view, which is defined by ritual or sacrificial objects/acts/events correspondence, imitation.  Their sympathetic substance as a mechanism for supernatural effectiveness.  As above, the man sacrifice had to be a man, not a blue footed booby or a chicken, or it wouldn't be man-effective.  I mean, sure, maybe you could trade a chicken leg for one toddlers sins, however small that list was, but you're not going to cover -my- debt with that.

It's a reasonable explanation. I can't know if this is the correct way of looking at this, but nevertheless it's a good case against that which modern Christian apologists defend. Unfortunately, I suspect that they'll just brush such explanations off as not in line with the nebulous "scholarly consensus" and so won't even think this is worthy of being addressed. Also, because it's not the type of explanation that today's Westerns tend to have much familiarity with.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think the belief in a risen Jesus is better explained by potential naturalistic explanations than by a potential supernatural one, and you don't even need to argue the Gospels are complete myths to come up with a naturalistic explanation that's more compelling than a miracle case. One example: Joseph of Arimathea ended up moving Jesus' body to a private place during the night, in the hope that it would make things easier for the Messiah to come back to life and fulfill the expectations that he was supposed to meet. When that didn't happen, Jesus' body nevertheless stayed there and was never moved back to the original tomb. Joseph also decided not to let anyone know about this, so when rumors spread that Jesus had risen, he chose not to say anything about it.

Or it may be he decided to lie to the other disciples and have them believe Jesus rose from the dead (he or one of his men could have been the "angel" in the empty tomb when the women came to visit Jesus' body). Perhaps to spark some strong faith-based rebellion against the Romans.

Too many necessary information withheld from us so that one cannot really make any confident case for what triggered the Christ faith, but the point is the case for the Resurrection is just damn weak.

I find it interesting that your alternative explanations seem to have less support than the original myth or story, yet you say they are better. It seems to me the only reason you say this is solely on the basis that they are at least "naturalistic" explanations, and therefore better by default (even if wrong). Personally, the idea of resurrection doesn't seem impossible; we may be able to do them ourselves with our own technology in the future. And even if we can't the idea itself doesn't seem illogical. 

So I guess my question for you is, is the resurrection really what's the issue here, or the claim that God is the one that did it?

P.S. When I say the originals have more support I mean they at least stand on their own merit, as having witnessed or spoken to those who witnessed the events. Your account goes beyond what the claims actually are, and reaches for information out in the darkness.

[The Grand Nudger]

You do have a way of knowing.  I've given you -their- evolving rationale for the belief, as they argued at the councils that decided what was accurate belief...which they recorded, which caused further recorded schisms and discord both within the western church and between the western and eastern churches. That's why -they- say these things are heresies. Things like there only being the appearance of a body, or no body. Different ideas about christology that form the list of recorded anathema.

....but I'd just refer christian apologists back to their own magic book, with "paul" himself laying it out in no uncertain terms, as I did at the start.  

This time in full.

4 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

-For John,

Whatever merit "the originals" stand on, it isn't witness testimony. We know that they aren't witness testimony, or based on witness testimony.

[GrandizerII]

I think the belief in a risen Jesus is better explained by potential naturalistic explanations than by a potential supernatural one, and you don't even need to argue the Gospels are complete myths to come up with a naturalistic explanation that's more compelling than a miracle case. One example: Joseph of Arimathea ended up moving Jesus' body to a private place during the night, in the hope that it would make things easier for the Messiah to come back to life and fulfill the expectations that he was supposed to meet. When that didn't happen, Jesus' body nevertheless stayed there and was never moved back to the original tomb. Joseph also decided not to let anyone know about this, so when rumors spread that Jesus had risen, he chose not to say anything about it.

Or it may be he decided to lie to the other disciples and have them believe Jesus rose from the dead (he or one of his men could have been the "angel" in the empty tomb when the women came to visit Jesus' body). Perhaps to spark some strong faith-based rebellion against the Romans.

Too many necessary information withheld from us so that one cannot really make any confident case for what triggered the Christ faith, but the point is the case for the Resurrection is just damn weak.

I find it interesting that your alternative explanations seem to have less support than the original myth or story, yet you say they are better. It seems to me the only reason you say this is solely on the basis that they are at least "naturalistic" explanations, and therefore better by default (even if wrong). Personally, the idea of resurrection doesn't seem impossible; we may be able to do them ourselves with our own technology in the future. And even if we can't the idea itself doesn't seem illogical. 

So I guess my question for you is, is the resurrection really what's the issue here, or the claim that God is the one that did it?

P.S. When I say the originals have more support I mean they at least stand on their own merit, as having witnessed or spoken to those who witnessed the events. Your account goes beyond what the claims actually are, and reaches for information out in the darkness.

What do you mean by the originals exactly? Are you including Matthew, Luke, and John as well? Because I could argue that these three also reached for information out in the darkness.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What do you mean by the originals exactly? Are you including Matthew, Luke, and John as well? Because I could argue that these three also reached for information out in the darkness.

Yes, the Gospels; for example, we are told that an angel appeared to Mary telling her Jesus had resurrected, and then she went and told the disciples "Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them" (ESV, Luke 24:10). In another gospel we are told that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples later on "Afterwards [Jesus] appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen." (ESV, Mark 16:14). And in the gospel of John the book concludes, after recounting that Jesus appeared to the disciples that "[url=http://biblehub.com/john/21-24.htm][/url]This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (ESV, John 21:24).

None of these gospels appear to be reaching out into the darkness for information. Whether they are telling the truth or not, they are grounding their claims on testimony.

In contrast, does your explanation that Joseph of Arimethea moved Jesus' body in the night have any corroboration of the sort? No, it couldn't have, since by your own account Joseph decided to keep quiet and not tell anyone. Meaning that even if he did do it there is no way for anyone, even you, to know. The gospels can base their claim on hearsay at the very least.

[GrandizerII]

What do you mean by the originals exactly? Are you including Matthew, Luke, and John as well? Because I could argue that these three also reached for information out in the darkness.

None of these gospels appear to be reaching out into the darkness for information. Whether they are telling the truth or not, they are grounding their claims on testimony.

Except it isn't established that the claims are grounded in testimony. Even the later Mark 16 addition is really just commentary on the original Mark story.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Except it isn't established that the claims are grounded in testimony. Even the later Mark 16 addition is really just commentary on the original Mark story.

Even a commentary based on the original is better grounded than what you're offering. Not to mention whatever weaknesses you claim the gospels have, only serves to make your position worse, since your explanation is in reference to the gospels.

[GrandizerII]

Except it isn't established that the claims are grounded in testimony. Even the later Mark 16 addition is really just commentary on the original Mark story.

Even a commentary based on the original is better grounded than what you're offering. Not to mention whatever weaknesses you claim the gospels have, only serves to make your position worse, since your explanation is in reference to the gospels.

What I'm offering is a commentary on the original Mark story. You'll note it doesn't contradict it actually.

Next objection.

[The Grand Nudger]

John has a point that I think you may be overlooking.  

However inaccurate the gospels are, your explanation based upon those inaccuracies could only multiply the problems you seek to resolve by offering that additional complication.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What I'm offering is a commentary on the original Mark story. You'll note it doesn't contradict it actually.

Next objection.

You offered an explanation not a commentary. And it contradicts it when Mark has Jesus being risen, and you have him being hidden.

EDIT: I just saw Gae's comment. In essence yes; I think it's better to deny the whole story, than to partially agree with it and offer alternatives to portions you don't.