In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

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.

Makes no difference here. Even Mark is an explanation of what purportedly happened, unless you believe Mark was made up on the spot ...

And it contradicts it when Mark has Jesus being risen, and you have him being hidden.

Mark has Jesus purportedly risen according to some guy in the tomb. Key word purportedly. According to early Mark, there is no indication anyone saw the risen Jesus.

[The Grand Nudger]

......nothing has to be denied about the story?

It exists.  People believed it, and still believe it, in one form or another for centuries.  It's a theological context.

[GrandizerII]

......nothing has to be denied about the story?

It exists.  People believed it, and still believe it, in one form or another for centuries.  It's a theological context.

I know.

It's called entertaining their argument and going along with it to come up with a different conclusion.

Their, referring to modern Christian apologists.

Note by the way there are quite a number of secular New Testament who have nevertheless done their own reconstructions of the history of the time surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection based on events described in the Gospels, especially Mark. Notable examples include, as you know, Bart Ehrman abd also James Tabor (whose view on this strongly aligns with mine).

Believe me when I say I've done my reading, even if not as elaborate as yours.

[snowtracks]

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.

God’s existence is known by every human being: 1. Creation 2. Christ Jesus - lived, died, resurrected 3. Humans have internal knowledge of God since made-in-image of God which is the spirit component that people have that gives them eternal existence. Plants have only body; Animals, body and exhibit ‘soulish’ behavior.

[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.

God’s existence is known by every human being: 1. Creation 2. Christ Jesus - lived, died, resurrected 3. Humans have internal knowledge of God since made-in-image of God which is the spirit component that people have that gives them eternal existence. Plants have only body; Animals, body and exhibit ‘soulish’ behavior.

If you say so.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

God’s existence is known by every human being: 1. Creation 2. Christ Jesus - lived, died, resurrected 3. Humans have internal knowledge of God since made-in-image of God which is the spirit component that people have that gives them eternal existence. Plants have only body; Animals, body and exhibit ‘soulish’ behavior.

[Jehanne]

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.

Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, and even more importantly, no one claimed that he did, at least until weeks or months "after the fact".  By that time, Jesus' corpse had long been buried in a common grave, or more probably, consumed by ravenous dogs at the site of his execution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Weeks or months, how did you establish that? 300 years is alot of months.....just saying....

Theres this idea that christian history started at 0 ad, and that's when christians began claiming things we would recognize as christian...but that's not the story that the evidence we -do- have tells. Anyone who tries to work out what hilarious sequence of natural™ events must have (or could have) occurred to lead to the story that we have now is working from a centuries long post dated starting point of only the faction that literally killed it's way to being the last man standing for purposes of securing state authority.

[Jehanne]

Weeks or months, how did you establish that?  300 years is alot of months.....just saying....

Theres this idea that christian history started at 0 ad, and that's when christians began claiming things we would recognize as christian...but that's not the story that the evidence we -do- have tells.  Anyone who tries to work out what hilarious sequence of natural™ events must have (or could have) occurred to lead to the story that we have now is working from a centuries long post dated starting point of only the faction that literally killed it's way to being the last man standing for purposes of securing state authority.

It's a reasonable inference.  If something truly "miraculous" had happened during or after Jesus' crucifixion, the Romans and/or Jews would have mentioned it -- Pilate, for instance, would have written to Rome about anything "unusual" going on.  He did not, because, there was nothing for him to say.  Jesus' execution was SOP that day.

That some of Jesus' followers began having "visions" of their now-dead savior is consistent with modern psychology and cult-like behavior even in our day, and, it is consistent with all of the other so-called "wonder" workers throughout history.  The Gospels display embellishment and interpolation, which was no doubt true of Mark's Gospel, whose author, while displaying his ignorance of first-century Palestine geography, also embellished his sources.

[The Grand Nudger]

What execution? Do you not realize that this idea that there was nothing to say about an execution just dangles the fact of an execution out there, ipse dixit....on the basis of an explicitly mythological accounts of a christ?


Why do -you- assume there was a person? Or that this person is the one written about in the myth, if there were? Or...that this person, who was written about in the myth, if he was, was executed?