Naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus

[Edwardo Piet]

The naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus is: He didn't resurrect.

[KichigaiNeko]

The naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus is: He didn't resurrect.

I am thinking that the correct question should be...

"What can be used to perpetuate the whole 'resurrection' story and bring it from the return of the 'Sun' (summer) to something that we can control and monitor?"

---

Further using the whole observed "cataplexy phenomena" this can benefit the story by giving the plebeians something they can relate to

After all is said and done DvFie if the general population can't "relate" to it; it isn't going to happen.

(eg:- Climate Change)

[DeistPaladin]

A five page thread like this makes me lament that we don't live in a more rational society where topics like this wouldn't need to be discussed any more than "naturalistic explanations for the labors of Hercules".

In a rational society, the Bible will be placed next to the Iliad and Odyssey in the mythology section. Anyone who puts forward this mythology as "historical documentation" would be simply laughed out of the room with no time-wasting discussion required. Speculations about the "historicity of the resurrection of Jesus" would be consigned to the tabloid articles along side Batboy interviews and UFO abduction accounts. Academic assumptions would be in favor of a natural universe that is governed by predictable laws best understood by science and reason, the so-called "bias for naturalism" that theists whine about (also known as a "bias for reality"). Any claims that there ever were any miraculous events would require the massive proportional evidence to even merit consideration (see Carl Sagan's ECREE doctrine). Any discussion of how people could believe in a resurrection or why they would "be willing to die for a lie" would be shrugged off by pointing out how unreliable folklore is and that people once believed all kinds of crazy things.

I'm not saying we're wrong for discussing this topic. I'm saying I lament that we still have to.

[corndog36]

I realize you dont want to debate it, but I cant help to throw this out. For someone like Jesus to be SOOO opinionated, and the stories of him being trained by and even suprising the scholars, there has to be SOMETHING that Jesus himself wrote. The argument is usually for writings ABOUT Jesus during his time, but that is not the point. for someone who wanted the truth to be spread so badly, why did he not write anything? Only that OTHER people wrote ABOUT him and many of those books were burnt. To me this SCREAMS that he was invented, and not a historical figure.

Havent seen anything written by Hercules either.

Haven't seen anything written by Pythagoras either, but I'm pretty sure he existed.

I read a theory a while back about Jesus not dying on the cross, not real compelling, but he he made some interesting arguments. Supposedly the breaking of the legs was to hurry the death along, Jesus legs were not broken. Piercing the side was supposed to confirm death, Corpses don't bleed. Jesus bled.

Personally, I think he died and his followers snatched his corpse, and circulated the rumors of his resurrection. It seems the most plausible scenario given the conflicting accounts of the women at the tomb.