In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[Abaddon_ire]

What is more likely? Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spook

OR

Mary, being already betrothed to Joe, was actively canoodling with Joe, if not outright kayaking, and failed to count correctly?

In that case, Mary would know stoning was her fate and would manufacture any damn thing to avoid such a bloody death. Who wouldn't?

[The Grand Nudger]

Trouble with that one is that even though we might like these little morality plays - when a person tries to use them as an example of something that actually happened to them - we balk. Juries full of christians arent all that warm to the "god made me do it" defense.

In the rendition above, Joe is complicit, but we could paint a more tender picture. A man who would not want a young girl stoned, and chose to go along with the story. Or we could imagine Mary as a girl who got what she wanted and strung a bunch of credulous dupes along for the ride. Each is an exercise in character building, but neither ever happened. When we begin with a convoluted premise, any explanation that follows from it only multiplies the problems - it doesn't resolve anything. There was no virgin birth. Nada. It isn't "Based on a true story" even in the loosest sense of a made for tv movie. It's a way to wash a demi-god of it's human stain.

[Abaddon_ire]

Trouble with that one is that even though we might like these little morality plays - when a person tries to use them as an example of something that actually happened to them - we balk.  Juries full of christians arent all that warm to the "god made me do it" defense.  

And isn't that just a bit odd.

In the rendition above, Joe is complicit, but we could paint a more tender picture.  A man who would not want a young girl stoned, and chose to go along with the story.  

Not a problem. In such a scenario, one could easily imagine an enamoured Joe going with the invented story. If anything, it makes the scenario more likely.

Or we could imagine Mary as a girl who got what she wanted and strung a bunch of credulous dupes along for the ride.

Sure. She could have been that much of a wee jewish minx of the era. It was a common trope of the time. See Salome or Lot's daughters for examples of those ebil scheming women luring men. Even Eve is one of those.

Each is an exercise in character building, but neither ever happened.

True of all of the bible. And?

 When we begin with a convoluted premise, any explanation that follows from it only multiplies the problems - it doesn't resolve anything.

Parsimony rules this one. Was Mary a divine receptacle? Or actually a bit of a slut?

 There was no virgin birth.  Nada.  It isn't "Based on a true story" even in the loosest sense of a made for tv movie.  It's a way to wash a demi-god of it's human stain.

That is, to me, more of an end point. The starting point might have been abject panic at an unexpected pregnancy.

Now, there is no way, at this remove to actually "know" this for a fact. But which is more likely? Perfect virgin with a god-baby? Or jewish minx who got caught out by failing to count?

[The Grand Nudger]

I actually don't think it's weird that, on some level, the faithful fail to have faith. It would be weirder if they had absolutely no rational faculties whatsoever.

What I was pointing out, is that so many secular explanations for these stories are no different than the creative storytelling exercise that is magic book. They fail for the same reason that so many theological explanations fail. Notice that each side of your questions as to which is more likely have a silent shared premise. Those two options aren't the only options, and at a fundamental level, they're the same option due to that shared premise. That some event like this, that the story is about, happened.

You mentioned tropes, lots daughters are a favorite. There was no daddy fucking in a cave. That story was included as a way to tell people to do what god said, to tell wives to do what they were told, and explain the existence of the subhumans that lots daughters gave birth to from incest. Neighboring tribes. Enemies.

In exactly the same way, Paul Bunyan wasn't a man. He was a stereotype of a french logger. Nothing he did in the legends is some bastardized version of a "true event" - but a stylistic representation of a set of truly felt social mores and frontier experiences.

[Vicki Q]

This isn't a good tangent to get lost on, but...the virgin birth thing is independent of the parthenos issue. Luke has a virgin birth without using that passage and anyway what Matthew is saying is, “This passage in Isaiah 7 has now come true”, rather than inserting any virgin reference which no-one at any stage saw anyway. He's retrospectively pointing to a highly apocalyptic section of the OT. Which links nicely to...

Also, the passage in question is so ambiguous that of course you could apply it to any important Jewish individual who ended up dying if you really wanted to interpret it in that way...Because then, anyone could go back to the Old Testament and reinterpret its passages in any way they see fit in accordance with their own current beliefs that they already hold.

I think we're at some sort of consensus. The gist of what I'm saying is that the disciples were able to go back to the passage and identify post-event what it was about, while remaining very firmly within reasonable interpretative limits.

None of these passages straightforwardly talk about a Messiah that is meant to die for our sins and then be risen from the dead by the power of God.

I meant prophecy of the general resurrection, not Messainic. The Messianic came as a massive surprise to the disciples, as the Gospels are at pains to point out.
To be clear, I'm not using miraculous fulfilment of prophecy as evidence of truth. Other Xians do, I know.

Different situational factors will contribute to differences in outcomes

The key important situational factor was exactly the same for all the failed movements. Failed Messiah= fake Messiah. It's a basic definition that can't be got around.

Doesn't this remind you of how the cult that was researched by Festinger justified their failed prophecies?

No, because the cult were trying to explain something that didn't happen. The disciples were banging on loudly and clearly about something that did happen. They were celebrating success, not failure.

They had to change things around to get their faith going. The Messiah failed to deliver from the Romans, so the belief of deliverance had to change to be more spiritual, and the belief that the Messiah has risen served as a positive trigger to do so.

But why would they want to do that? He's failed. Time to go home. If all Jesus did was wander round saying he was the Messiah, with absolutely no evidence of that, and then died, what is there left to believe in?


Look, if the Resurrection were a normal historical event, we wouldn't be having any discussion about whether it happened. The historical evidence is utterly overwhelming, and the alternatives needing to be so desperately contrived, that anyone proposing them would be laughed off the stage.

But it can't have happened, because dead humans don't come back to life. End of. Theory and evidence are clear on that. So the Resurrection didn't happen.

Thing is, we're not talking about a human exactly. Can God take on human form? I don't see why not. Could this 'human-God' die, and what next? Good evidence, as we have, says “yes”, and death isn't the end for him.

If one starts by slamming the door on the existence of God, then that will also be the inevitable conclusion. But if the door is left open a little, then the arguments against vanish, and we're left with some very, very solid History.

[The Valkyrie]

But if you leave the door open, the flies get in.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the hammer finally falls. There's no argument from history or what might be more likely than the other thing. Vicki is a nutter.

That's her argument.

[GrandizerII]

I think we're at some sort of consensus. The gist of what I'm saying is that the disciples were able to go back to the passage and identify post-event what it was about, while remaining very firmly within reasonable interpretative limits.

"Limits" that allowed for a lot of flexibility when it comes to reinterpreting these passages in light of later purported events. Hardly interpretive limits when you think about it.

I meant prophecy of the general resurrection, not Messainic. The Messianic came as a massive surprise to the disciples, as the Gospels are at pains to point out.
To be clear, I'm not using miraculous fulfilment of prophecy as evidence of truth. Other Xians do, I know.

If the Messianic Resurrection is not in the OT, then perhaps what you should be pondering is whether this should count as evidence against the case of the Messianic Resurrection rather than for.

General resurrection is a non-issue here as it isn't about the Messiah resurrecting from the dead.

Doesn't this remind you of how the cult that was researched by Festinger justified their failed prophecies?

No, because the cult were trying to explain something that didn't happen. The disciples were banging on loudly and clearly about something that did happen. They were celebrating success, not failure.

My understanding is that what Tim and other scholars are saying is that what actually happened with Yeshua was a disappointment for the disciples - in other words, a failure, not a success - but that, as with the cultists in Festinger's research, the disciples found a sudden hope by reinterpreting what happened.

Whether there were visions associated with these reinterpretations, the point remains that it was failure that was perceived at the start, not success. Visions, if they did happen, would have helped with amplifying a hope renewed by these reinterpretations.

They had to change things around to get their faith going. The Messiah failed to deliver from the Romans, so the belief of deliverance had to change to be more spiritual, and the belief that the Messiah has risen served as a positive trigger to do so.

But why would they want to do that? He's failed. Time to go home. If all Jesus did was wander round saying he was the Messiah, with absolutely no evidence of that, and then died, what is there left to believe in?

Obviously we can't know exactly why, but here's a potential answer:

Hope that they weren't entirely wrong about their belief. Hope that the Messiah, somehow, would miraculously save them in some way despite his death.

And in response to the rest, look, you don't have to let go of your belief that the Jesus is risen. All I'm arguing is that if you're going to base your belief in the Resurrection on what happened purportedly in history past, in accordance with the documents we do have, the basis itself is very weak. Too weak to count for evidence, especially when easily countered by other more reasonable attempts to explain the observations that we do make (i.e., the theologically biased Christian documents that we have and a good number of real-life analogies to the Resurrection in which [secular] psychological analyses do seem to make for the best explanations).

Best to base it all on pure faith.

[Vicki Q]

If the Messianic Resurrection is not in the OT, then perhaps what you should be pondering is whether this should count as evidence against the case of the Messianic Resurrection rather than for.

Actually, I would count it as good evidence for the Resurrection. The best explanation for the massive change in direction for the disciples belief, and the necessary startling, unexpected and original interpretation, is that they were forced that way by events.

But in any case, the Messianic-Resurrection statements were there in the retrospect the early Xians now had. If the nation can be represented by the Messiah, then the earlier mentioned passages referring to the national resurrection can also be applied to the nation's representative- the Messiah. Not at all obvious beforehand, but became visible when the Resurrection happened.

My understanding is that what Tim and other scholars are saying is that what actually happened with Yeshua was a disappointment for the disciples - in other words, a failure, not a success - but that, as with the cultists in Festinger's research, the disciples found a sudden hope by reinterpreting what happened.

Let's contrast the two.

If you asked Festinger's cult, once things had settled, whether the prophesied thing had happened, they would say “no, it was cancelled”. If you asked the disciples, they would say “yes, in fact beyond what we had hoped”. The cult only made minor adjustments to their beliefs (the general reaction for this sort of CD situation) whereas the disciples completely changed their belief set. Long term, the cult gave up and went home. The disciples kept going to their often painful deaths.

The contrast is stark between the two. You cannot use Festinger's experiment as a template for how Xianity developed. In fact it's 180 degrees the other way. The contradictory differences show that this wasn't cognitive dissonance.

But it can't have been cognitive dissonance anyway. For that to occur, as Festinger concluded, the belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief. And such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The cult's belief about the end of the world was refuted, and it stayed that way. However the disciples belief was confirmed, not refuted, so it's not CD at that point.

Whether there were visions associated with these reinterpretations, the point remains that it was failure that was perceived at the start, not success. Visions, if they did happen, would have helped with amplifying a hope renewed by these reinterpretations.

But this is critical. What is your theory?  Do you mean the disciples knew the whole Resurrection thing was a lie, but went with it anyway (I thought earlier we'd agreed this made no sense). Or, (completely different) the disciples had  unreal visions (in which case there would have been no cognitive dissonance because their theories were being confirmed rather than denied); or something else?

Why did they think Jesus was the Messiah at all at any stage? Unlike the other claimants, he didn't go waving swords around, so how was he going to do the Messiah thing? Saying he would do it by dying on a cross would hardly distinguish him from other messianic claimants, since that's what tended to happen to them anyway.

Hope that they weren't entirely wrong about their belief. Hope that the Messiah, somehow, would miraculously save them in some way despite his death.

Can we get some precision for your alternative? I'm still waiting for how to get from failed Messiah to Lord of the universe. Just one clear and viable route.

And in response to the rest, look, you don't have to let go of your belief that the Jesus is risen...Best to base it all on pure faith.

Absolutely not. I'm going with the evidence.

[GrandizerII]

Actually, I would count it as good evidence for the Resurrection. The best explanation for the massive change in direction for the disciples belief, and the necessary startling, unexpected and original interpretation, is that they were forced that way by events.

By events that can be explained by a good study of human psychology.

And no, you can't just say it counts as good evidence for X when the same evidence corresponds better to an alternative position that negates X and when much better evidence could've existed for X but doesn't.

Let's not be perverse in our Bayesian thinking just because we want to stick with the conclusion we're already comfortable with.

But in any case, the Messianic-Resurrection statements were there in the retrospect the early Xians now had. If the nation can be represented by the Messiah, then the earlier mentioned passages referring to the national resurrection can also be applied to the nation's representative- the Messiah. Not at all obvious beforehand, but became visible when the Resurrection happened.

Read that last statement one more time. The OT could have clearly stated that, before the general resurrection, the Messiah himself would die and be resurrected.

But it doesn't ...

I'm pretty sure an honest Bayesian analysis would count this as some sort of evidence against the Messianic Resurrection, not for. Especially that, according to Christianity, the Messianic Resurrection is not meant to be a logical extension of the general resurrection but rather a prefigurement. So why did the OT not ever mention this special case of resurrection at all? Perhaps because there wasn't supposed to be a Messianic Resurrection.

If you asked Festinger's cult, once things had settled, whether the prophesied thing had happened, they would say “no, it was cancelled”. If you asked the disciples, they would say “yes, in fact beyond what we had hoped”. The cult only made minor adjustments to their beliefs (the general reaction for this sort of CD situation) whereas the disciples completely changed their belief set.

You're missing the bigger point here. The Christian cult also had to cope with a failed prophecy. You're focusing on the wrong aspects here, and arguing that because the Christian cult had to radically adjust their prophecy rather than cancel it altogether, that the prophecy must be likely true. That's not how logic works.

Long term, the cult gave up and went home. The disciples kept going to their often painful deaths.

Some cults fail long term and others succeed (such as Mormonism), so long term success isn't a good indicator of the truth of a cult/religion.

And it's not clear if the earliest disciples in general "kept going to their often painful deaths". Asserting traditions doesn't make these traditions true.

But it can't have been cognitive dissonance anyway. For that to occur, as Festinger concluded, the belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief. And such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The cult's belief about the end of the world was refuted, and it stayed that way. However the disciples belief was confirmed, not refuted, so it's not CD at that point.

You're narrowing your focus on one aspect that suits your position and ignoring the fact that the early Christians also likely had to cope with a clearly failed expectation. Sure, they may have coped with the failure differently from the cult studied by Festinger, but that's besides the point. The prophecy that the Messiah would save the Jewish people from Roman occupation was a failure and led to major disappointment among the disciples.

But this is critical. What is your theory?  Do you mean the disciples knew the whole Resurrection thing was a lie, but went with it anyway (I thought earlier we'd agreed this made no sense). Or, (completely different) the disciples had  unreal visions (in which case there would have been no cognitive dissonance because their theories were being confirmed rather than denied); or something else?

I don't think they necessarily had to have visions, but somewhere along the way, they came to believe that Jesus must've been resurrected and that salvation were to be spiritual rather than physical.

Why did they think Jesus was the Messiah at all at any stage? Unlike the other claimants, he didn't go waving swords around, so how was he going to do the Messiah thing?

According to the apocalyptic Jesus position, he heralded the coming of a kingdom that would usurp the current Roman rule. In a sense, that would count as "waving swords around".

Hope that they weren't entirely wrong about their belief. Hope that the Messiah, somehow, would miraculously save them in some way despite his death.

Can we get some precision for your alternative? I'm still waiting for how to get from failed Messiah to Lord of the universe. Just one clear and viable route.

What was unclear about what I suggested? They had to deal with a failed prophecy. They had two options basically: go back home and forget the whole Jesus-Messiah thing ever was a thing, or (like the cult studied by Festinger) make adjustments to their beliefs. Now why would they end up doing the latter rather than the former? Who knows exactly, but again, Festinger had explanations for that.

Absolutely not. I'm going with the evidence.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.