RE: In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?
September 16, 2019 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: September 16, 2019 at 7:27 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(September 15, 2019 at 6:24 am)Grandizer Wrote: 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.
The explanation that is most naturalistic, and by an extremely vast distance the most likely to be true, is there were a lot of both liars and fantasists involved from the very beginning, whenever that was. I don't care to flesh out the precise scenario of who lied to whom under what circumstances for what purpose. If I did that for every piece of bullshit, my life would have zero useful time available for anything else.
(September 16, 2019 at 2:07 pm)Acrobat Wrote: The writer of Mark indicated that the resurrected Christ was going before Peter and the Disciples, in verse 8. Indicating that writer acknowledged the disciples encounter with the resurrected Christ. He chose not to narrate this event, and closes with the Man telling the women this, and the women being terrified of reporting this encounter.
A strong enough case for who? It’s a strong enough case for me to believe it, but the fact it’s not a strong enough case for you to believe is not really my problem is it? You probably don’t believe a variety of things I strongly do believe, but that doesn’t change anything for me.
I can only say why I strongly believe something. And unless you have some strong enough basis for me to consider other ways, than I’ll continue to believe what I do.
There’s no spiritualized version of the Miller’s failed end time predication date, that’s a part of the SDA churches beliefs. The SDA church has no official position on anything concerning that failed prophecy date. You won’t find any mention of Miller on their official site either. The may have kept some parts of Miller’s views, via Ellen G White, but the spiritualized version of Oct 22, 1844 isn’t one of them.
Don't know, don't care
