Alternative "theories" on how the Resurrection was a fake

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve gotten a kick out of hearing some recent theories about what really happened at the Resurrection from Mark Brumley’s recent CAL appearance.

Here are some of the theories I found while researching. Most of this is taken verbatum from this site, with edit on my part for brevity:

**Stolen Body Theory:
**Some early opponents of Christianity claimed that the followers of Jesus secretly stole his body from the tomb and then invented the whole story of the resurrection.

Missing Body Theory:
someone else took the body from the tomb without Jesus’ followers knowing about it.

Swoon Theory:
The basic assertion of the Swoon Theory is that Jesus wasn’t completely dead when he was removed from the cross. In fact many people have been mistakenly pronounced dead, even by modern doctors. In some cases breathing becomes so shallow and heartbeat so faint that both are very difficult to detect. Then when He comes out of the tomb, He seems to have “resurrected”!

Drugged-Body Theory:
This is similar to the Swoon Theory, except that the apparent death on the cross is induced by a drug.

Twin Theory:
These are getting good. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif There are two main versions of this theory, both based on the idea that Jesus had a twin brother. In one version the twin dies on the cross instead of Jesus, and in the other version the twin appears as an impostor after Jesus dies.

Vision Theory:
The basic idea of this theory is that the earliest belief in the resurrection was based on illusory visions of a ghostlike apparition of Jesus.

Hypnosis Theory:
Some people have suggested that visions of a risen Jesus could have been caused by post-hypnotic suggestion. :hypno:

Spiritual Resurrection Theory:
Some modern Christians, and even a few theologians, believe in a spiritual (rather than bodily) resurrection of Jesus. According to this view, his human body either vanished or was removed by God, and he reappeared in his eternal spiritual form.

My favorite has to be either the “Twin” theory, or the “Swoon” theory where Jesus, bloody and all is misdiagnosed and survives for 3 days in a cave after crucifixion, only to strut out unscratched.

 

[VociMike]

**Stolen Body Theory:
**Some early opponents of Christianity claimed that the followers of Jesus secretly stole his body from the tomb and then invented the whole story of the resurrection.

And then let themselves be brutally murdered for their little joke.

Missing Body Theory:
someone else took the body from the tomb without Jesus’ followers knowing about it.

So they made up the 40 days and the Ascension. And then let themselves be brutally murdered for their little joke.

Swoon Theory:
The basic assertion of the Swoon Theory is that Jesus wasn’t completely dead when he was removed from the cross. In fact many people have been mistakenly pronounced dead, even by modern doctors. In some cases breathing becomes so shallow and heartbeat so faint that both are very difficult to detect. Then when He comes out of the tomb, He seems to have “resurrected”!

Drugged-Body Theory:
This is similar to the Swoon Theory, except that the apparent death on the cross is induced by a drug.

Yeah, those Romans wouldn’t know a dead prisoner when they saw one. And then his followers made up the story of the Ascension. And then let themselves be brutally murdered for their little joke. Not to mention that the Romans and Jews would have made sure the job was finished the second time around.

Twin Theory:
These are getting good. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif There are two main versions of this theory, both based on the idea that Jesus had a twin brother. In one version the twin dies on the cross instead of Jesus, and in the other version the twin appears as an impostor after Jesus dies.

So the gospel writers lied about Jesus’ family. And then let themselves be brutally murdered for their little lie. And the Romans and Jews would probably have killed the brother too for causing all that commotion.

Vision Theory:
The basic idea of this theory is that the earliest belief in the resurrection was based on illusory visions of a ghostlike apparition of Jesus.

And then let themselves be brutally murdered for their little dream. All the while the Romans and Jews were exhibiting the body to prove the followers to be idiots.

Hypnosis Theory:
Some people have suggested that visions of a risen Jesus could have been caused by post-hypnotic suggestion. :hypno:

Not to mention all those other dead people who rose at the same time. Sign that hypnotist up! And all the while the Romans and Jews were exhibiting the body to prove the followers to be idiots.

Spiritual Resurrection Theory:
Some modern Christians, and even a few theologians, believe in a spiritual (rather than bodily) resurrection of Jesus. According to this view, his human body either vanished or was removed by God, and he reappeared in his eternal spiritual form.

Yet another denial of the reality of the Incarnation. Jesus-in-a-man-suit.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Twin Theory:

Maybe this could be the sequel to Double Impact. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/4.gif

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Twin Theory: These are getting good. There are two main versions of this theory, both based on the idea that Jesus had a twin brother. In one version the twin dies on the cross instead of Jesus, and in the other version the twin appears as an impostor after Jesus dies. >>

I have a debate on this one. (Robert) Greg Cavin vs. William Lane Craig from 1995. Cavin actually wrote his doctoral dissertation defending the thesis that “Jesus had a twin.” Kind of a boring debate though because most of it centered around “probability” arguments based on the "historical method" and criteria set out in a book by McCullagh Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge, 1984). But Craig did a good job dismantling the “twin theory.”

Cavin admitted his “twin theory” was improbable, but he argued it was better than and more probable than any supernatural explanation, including the resurrection. Craig of course argued the superiority of the resurrection explanation, and I think he won easily. The debate got sidetracked on “probability” discussion. I have it on old videotape and might grab the audio and put on my audio page. If I do, you can check here in a few days:

Craig vs. Cavin “twin Jesus” debate (MP3, check in a day or 2)

Phil P

 

[Mersenne]

most likely, it’s just myth. A pretty simple and the most obvious explination.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mers << most likely, it’s just myth. A pretty simple and the most obvious explination. >>

That’s probably the majority skeptical explanation, taken by John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, among liberal Christian scholars, and by most non-religious historians, skeptics/atheists/agnostics.

What the other non-myth explanations assume are the three main historical points that William Lane Craig argues for: (1) the empty tomb, (2) the appearances of Jesus alive after his death, (3) the origin and spread of the Christian faith. Now introducing, an explanation that does try to explain these three facts:

The “Dave Theory” of the Resurrection

bringyou.to/DaveMovie.jpg

William Lane Craig vs. (Robert) Greg Cavin (MP3)

Phil P

 

[mlchance]

most likely, it’s just myth. A pretty simple and the most obvious explination.

That doesn’t hold water. If the Resurrection is a myth, it rose and spread across the Roman Empire within the lives of people who witnessed Jesus’ death, could’ve produced the body to refute the story, et cetera.

There is not a single incident of a layer of myth being added to a person’s life under such circumstances. Every single figure you examine (Mohammed, the Buddha, et cetera) had myths added to their life stories generations after their deaths.

The Resurrection is the only plausible explanation left after honestly addressing the evidence (and honestly addressing the evidence means putting aside a priori assumptions about the possibility of miracles or the existence of God).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I like the “swoon” theory. Not only was this man beaten nearly to death with massive blood loss probably from both internal and external hemmorhage, he also had a large hole in his pericardium from someone sticking a spear into his side and somehow, after a few day’s rest his body healed itself and he got up and walked around and even had someone stick his hand into that side wound. Right. Makes sense to me.

 

[swariffin]

Swoon Theory:
The basic assertion of the Swoon Theory is that Jesus wasn’t completely dead when he was removed from the cross. In fact many people have been mistakenly pronounced dead, even by modern doctors. In some cases breathing becomes so shallow and heartbeat so faint that both are very difficult to detect. Then when He comes out of the tomb, He seems to have “resurrected”!

Dear all,

I think this theory close or match what Paarsurrey believe.

 

[VociMike]

most likely, it’s just myth. A pretty simple and the most obvious explination.

And they let themselves be brutally murdered for their little myth.

 

[patg]

And they let themselves be brutally murdered for their little myth.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they were killed for their belief in the resurrection. They preached the teachings of Jesus which was radical enough in itself to get a person killed, just as it did Him.

Belief in the resurrection is purely a matter of faith as there is no historical evidence for it.

 

[VociMike]

There is no evidence whatsoever that they were killed for their belief in the resurrection. They preached the teachings of Jesus which was radical enough in itself to get a person killed, just as it did Him.

Was lying one of the radical teachings of Jesus? And why did they preach the teachings of Jesus? Because it got him killed, or because he rose again and proved he was God? Was Peter teaching the teachings of Jesus the night Jesus was arrested?

Belief in the resurrection is purely a matter of faith as there is no historical evidence for it.

How many historians agree with you?

 

[patg]

Was lying one of the radical teachings of Jesus? And why did they preach the teachings of Jesus? Because it got him killed, or because he rose again and proved he was God? Was Peter teaching the teachings of Jesus the night Jesus was arrested?

No one knows the anwer to such questions. And while one may make a lot of assumptions there is no evidence that belief in the resurrection led directly to anyone’s death.

How many historians agree with you?

It appears that every historian agrees with me. If there was any historical evidence for what would have to be the greatest event in human history - a man rising from the dead - no historian would omit it from any history text. Do you have a world history text which states that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago? There is no hard evidence which is why this supernatural event is a matter of faith.

 

[VociMike]

No one knows the anwer to such questions. And while one may make a lot of assumptions there is no evidence that belief in the resurrection led directly to anyone’s death.

Are you suggesting that the Resurrection played no part in bringing faith to any person, or in strengthening that faith?

It appears that every historian agrees with me. If there was any historical evidence for what would have to be the greatest event in human history - a man rising from the dead - no historian would omit it from any history text. Do you have a world history text which states that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago? There is no hard evidence which is why this supernatural event is a matter of faith.

So no historians believe the new testament has any historical validity? Every historian believes the new testament is entirely myth? Can you substantiate that for us?

 

[patg]

Are you suggesting that the Resurrection played no part in bringing faith to any person, or in strengthening that faith?

Nope, I didn’t say or imply that. I’m saying that we don’t know how much belief in the resurrection directly influenced anyone’s death. It certainly didn’t cause Jesus’ death.

So no historians believe the new testament has any historical validity?

I didn’t say or imply anything like that. But its purpose was certainly not to teach history or present a literal account.

Every historian believes the new testament is entirely myth?

I didn’t say or imply anything like that. But once again, its purpose was certainly not to teach history or present a literal account.

Can you substantiate that for us?

It is very easy to substantiate that historians don’t consider the resurrection to be a historical event - can you show me a history text which states that it occured? There aren’t any because the science of historical research follows rules of evidence and analysis.

 

[Spirithound]

I like the “swoon” theory. Not only was this man beaten nearly to death with massive blood loss probably from both internal and external hemmorhage, he also had a large hole in his pericardium from someone sticking a spear into his side and somehow, after a few day’s rest his body healed itself and he got up and walked around and even had someone stick his hand into that side wound. Right. Makes sense to me.

Not to mention all his apostles were so inspired by this that they went out a preached about it. (And allowed themselves to be brutally murdered for it)

I think this theory close or match what Paarsurrey believe.

And (as far as I can remember) he won’t address whether someone is likely to live a life of hardship and die for what they know is a lie.

 

[Spirithound]

There is no evidence whatsoever that they were killed for their belief in the resurrection. They preached the teachings of Jesus which was radical enough in itself to get a person killed, just as it did Him.

The resurrection is the unifying factor in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus was not all lovey-dovey. He cleared the Temple of the money-changers, he repeatedly warned people of hell, and He told people to leave everything and follow Him. If there is no resurrection, this is nonsense. The resurrection is an inextricable part of the teachings.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Belief in the resurrection is purely a matter of faith as there is no historical evidence for it.

From just the historicity of the text alone, there were well over 500 witnesses to the risen Christ.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The resurrection is the unifying factor in Jesus’ teaching.

In fact, if He didn’t rise, there is no faith.

 

[Nickkname]

The only theory I have yet to hear is that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because there is no resurrection of the dead.