RE: In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?
September 18, 2019 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: September 18, 2019 at 11:02 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(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.
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.
