Resurrection: the most plausible alternatives

[pneuma07]

For Christians and anybody else: what is according to you the most plausible alternative explanation ( which for non-Christians could mean “how things likely really did go” ) for the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ presented in the NT ? I’d expect a sort of brainstorming if you want, where any perspective is a priori acceptable and useful. From the most radical ones, such as “Jesus of Nazareth never existed in the first place” or “Anything should be considered more plausible than His Resurrection”, to the most nuanced ones, accepting some sort of “non-traditional” ( ie not bodily or whatever else ) Resurrection . Thanks in advance to everyone.

 

[danserr]

For Christians and anybody else: what is according to you the most plausible alternative explanation ( which for non-Christians could mean “how things likely really did go” ) for the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ presented in the NT ? I’d expect a sort of brainstorming if you want, where any perspective is a priori acceptable and useful. From the most radical ones, such as “Jesus of Nazareth never existed in the first place” or “Anything should be considered more plausible than His Resurrection”, to the most nuanced ones, accepting some sort of “non-traditional” ( ie not bodily or whatever else ) Resurrection . Thanks in advance to everyone.

Since I don’t think that there are any plausible alternatives, I’ll share one that I find among the funniest. Jesus had an identical twin, they were separated at birth. After the crucifixion, the identical twin showed up from wherever he was hiding and convinced everyone that he was really Jesus, risen from the dead.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

The most plausible alternative explanation, that is, that best explains the virtually undisputed historical facts (Jesus death by crucifixion, early postmortem appearances, appearance to St. Paul) surrounding the Resurrection, would be the visionary/hallucination hypothesis. There are really two variants of it: a spiritual resurrection that is favored by religious liberals and simple, natural hallucination that is favored by nonbelievers.

 

[pneuma07]

Thank you for both contributions. P7

 

[DavidFilmer]

There are some who speculate that Jesus did not actually die on the Cross. He was basically “pronounced dead” by the visual observation of a Roman soldier, who stabbed him in the side, kinda “just to be sure.”

Jesus had not hung on the Cross as long as is typically required for death (the other two had not yet died), and we don’t know how proficient the Roman’s lance might have been (although Roman soldiers were trained to be pretty good with a spear - I doubt his thrust would have been shallow or poorly placed).

So a doubter could argue that the wounds were possibly survivable. Maybe the Roman guards at his tomb (all of them) had simply fallen asleep at their post (a capital crime), and Jesus regained consciousness in the tomb, and (despite his injuries) was able to open the crypt and slip away unnoticed.

He would thus be able to appear before the Apostles a short time later, still bearing the wounds of his (attempted) execution. Although his recovery time would have been absolutely remarkable.

Of course, even a doubter must admit that Jesus had no way to insure (or even predict) his survival. If Jesus survived a Roman crucifixion, he was probably the first (and last) to do so. Roman soldiers were pretty good at killing people.

Despite the MANY holes in this account (only a few of which I have mentioned), I believe this the most plausible scenario where Jesus could have perpetuated a fraud on the Apostles. There is no reason why the Apostles would have devoted themselves to Jesus (at the risk and expense of their own lives) if they knew that Jesus was a fraud. So the only plausible alternative is that the Apostles were ALSO tricked.

 

[Atemi]

For Christians and anybody else: what is according to you the most plausible alternative explanation ( which for non-Christians could mean “how things likely really did go” ) for the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ presented in the NT ?

For followers of Jesus Christ, there are no plausible alternative explanations.

Anyone claiming to be Christian should not be able to entertain the thought.

When one actually meets the Lord and knows Him personally, they cannot think of any other plausible explanations that would render Him moot.

…

 

[DavidFilmer]

Anyone claiming to be Christian should not be able to entertain the thought.

I claim to be Christian, but I am quite able to entertain the thought (and thoughtfully consider MANY alternatives). Although I would prefer the word “consider” over “entertain” (because “entertain” might suggest pleasure, and I take no pleasure in such thoughts).

The Bible tells us to “Question everything; keep what is good” (1Thes 5:21). To me, the word “everything” includes even the most basic tenets of our Christian faith.

I am grateful for my questioning nature. I questioned the most basic tenets of my Methodist and Episcopal upbringing. It led me away from the errors of protestantism, and into the Truth of the Catholic Faith. I have questioned the most basic tenets of the Catholic Faith (over and over again), yet here I remain, both spiritually and intellectually satisfied.

 

[Atemi]

I claim to be Christian, but I am quite able to entertain the thought (and thoughtfully consider MANY alternatives).

That is sad.

As a married man for many years, I have never once thought to entertain any other plausible alternatives to my wife’s existence and our marriage.

To the Christ follower that knows the Lord personally, there are no plausible alternatives to His resurrection.

The fact that you entertain plausible alternatives to the Lord being true is a shocking witness.

Is this the witness of the Catholic Church, or just your own?

…

 

[Church_Militant]

That is sad.

As a married man for many years, I have never once thought to entertain any other plausible alternatives to my wife’s existence and our marriage.

To the Christ follower that knows the Lord personally, there are no plausible alternatives to His resurrection.

The fact that you entertain plausible alternatives to the Lord being true is a shocking witness.

Is this the witness of the Catholic Church, or just your own?

…

I think he more than answered you below. Considering alternatives is part of using the God given intelligence that The Almighty gave us, and as you can see, Brother Filmer has the New Testament to back him up. It’s so pitiful. We Catholics are pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don’t. So many a-Cs like to try to portray us as unthinkingly deceived, as the following quote from an anti-Catholic displays…

That is a big problem with Catholic apologists: so often they simply refuse to think.

and yet when we prove that we are thinking individuals it is called “sad” and we are portrayed as wrong to do so.

No double standard, right?

I claim to be Christian, but I am quite able to entertain the thought (and thoughtfully consider MANY alternatives). Although I would prefer the word “consider” over “entertain” (because “entertain” might suggest pleasure, and I take no pleasure in such thoughts).

The Bible tells us to “Question everything; keep what is good” (1Thes 5:21). To me, the word “everything” includes even the most basic tenets of our Christian faith.

I am grateful for my questioning nature. I questioned the most basic tenets of my Methodist and Episcopal upbringing. It led me away from the errors of protestantism, and into the Truth of the Catholic Faith. I have questioned the most basic tenets of the Catholic Faith (over and over again), yet here I remain, both spiritually and intellectually satisfied.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/sign0011.gif

 

[Atemi]

**That is sad.

As a married man for many years, I have never once thought to entertain any other plausible alternatives to my wife’s existence and our marriage.

To the Christ follower that knows the Lord personally, there are no plausible alternatives to His resurrection.

The fact that you entertain plausible alternatives to the Lord being true is a shocking witness.

Is this the witness of the Catholic Church, or just your own?**

I think he more than answered you below.

Interesting.

Are you saying that it is the witness of the Catholic Church that there are indeed plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Considering alternatives is part of using the God given intelligence that The Almighty gave us

I am sorry, but I considered alternatives to Christ’s resurrection when I was an unbeliever.

I do not consider alternatives to Christ’s resurrection as His follower today.…nevermind find ANY alternative explanation to be plausible.

You do?

Wow.

and as you can see, Brother Filmer has the New Testament to back him up

I am sorry, but I cannot find any other plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Christ offered by the Holy Spirit in the NT…and never once does any Apostle suggest there are any.

Did you really think the NT evidences otherwise?

I would like to see it.

If you as a Catholic think it is plausible that Jesus was not raised, then that testimony is an important one for people to hear.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

Interesting.

Are you saying that it is the witness of the Catholic Church that there are indeed plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I am sorry, but I considered alternatives to Christ’s resurrection when I was an unbeliever.

I do not consider alternatives to Christ’s resurrection as His follower today.…nevermind find ANY alternative explanation to be plausible.

You do?

Wow.

I am sorry, but I cannot find any other plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Christ offered by the Holy Spirit in the NT…and never once does any Apostle suggest there are any.

Did you really think the NT evidences otherwise?

I would like to see it.

If you as a Catholic think it is plausible that Jesus was not raised, then that testimony is an important one for people to hear.

…

I think you’re being willfully obtuse here, since none of us have even inferred that we give credence to any such, though I’m sure you wish we would, so you could appear to have a credible argument, but we don’t, so you don’t.

Furthermore, don’t sit there and misconstrue what was said, (again…knowing you, willfully so), I was referring to the passage of 1st Thessalonians that Brother Filmer cited, which says, "but test everything; hold fast what is good, ". How can one do that without considering them? That is part and parcel of “testing everything”, so do yourself a favor and give it up, unless you are really that dumb, which I doubt.

 

[Atemi]

I think you’re being willfully obtuse here, since none of us have even inferred that we give credence to any such, though I’m sure you wish we would, so you could appear to have a credible argument, but we don’t, so you don’t.

Furthermore, don’t sit there and misconstrue what was said, (again…knowing you, willfully so), I was referring to the passage of 1st Thessalonians that Brother Filmer cited, which says, "but test everything; hold fast what is good, ". How can one do that without considering them? That is part and parcel of “testing everything”, so do yourself a favor and give it up, unless you are really that dumb, which I doubt.

Can you explain which part of that verse tells Christians that there are plausible alternatives to the resurrection.

I tested those alternatives when I was an unbeliever and discovered none of them were plausible…thus becoming a follower of Christ.

Why would anyone still think there are plausible alternatives if they already tested those alternatives and found that none of them were plausible?

Keep in mind it is the Catholic posters in this thread that insist there are plausible alternatives to God being true, not me.

I understand that this may be a radical concept in your view. I was there once myself.

…

 

[pneuma07]

I tested those alternatives when I was an unbeliever and discovered none of them were plausible…thus becoming a follower of Christ.

Why would anyone still think there are plausible alternatives if they already tested those alternatives and found that none of them were plausible?

.

Hi Atemi ! Welcome back to CAF. Which of the alternatives you tested would appear as the most pausible in those times ? How did you refute them/it ? Thanks.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

There are other “explanations” for the resurrection of Christ, which boil down to the following:

• Disciples were “mistaken” about Christ’s return
• The resurrection was “symbolic” and didn’t actually occur
• Swoon theory of resurrection (Christ “swooned” and revived later on)
• Mass hallucination that were “shared” in terms of experiences
• The resurrection was “staged”, beginning with Jesus’ body being stolen

These are more convoluted that the straight forward rationale and require unsupportable or implausible assumptions to make work.

 

[Holly3278]

Honestly, there aren’t any plausible alternatives. All of the so called alternatives can be refuted rather easily. The fact is that Jesus did die on the cross and that He rose from the dead 3 days later and was triumphant over death and sin. He then ascended into Heaven some days after His resurrection.

 

[Nita]

Unless one is doing it for apologetics purposes, like Atemi, I also do not think it is right to do it.

Trying to think of all possible teachings/proposals that might arise which would be contrary to a Catholic doctrine in order to prepare rebuttals to them seems like a waste of time at best, and possibly a danger to one’s own faith. And it doesn’t do to think one is so strong in their faith that such a thing could never happen.

I say it’s a waste of time, because if one spends the time instead reading the history of a Catholic doctrine they’ll discover that almost every conceivable contradiction has already been proposed – and answered.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Honestly, there aren’t any plausible alternatives. All of the so called alternatives can be refuted rather easily. The fact is that Jesus did die on the cross and that He rose from the dead 3 days later and was triumphant over death and sin. He then ascended into Heaven some days after His resurrection.

I agree or the whole Christian faith is a mass of perpetrated lies to deceive all and should be considered evil.

As St Paul prayed :

Dear Father, rewarder of all who diligently seek you,
Thank you for Jesus, whose life not only taught us how to live, but whose resurrection proved that you have power over death. Thank you for the assurance of resurrection, for without it we would have no reason to persevere.
His resurrection is why I believe in my own future resurrection. All my hopes are pinned on him. Were it not for this, I would live as do unbelievers, who say, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
May I live according to Christ’s righteousness through the power that raised him from the dead. And may I never forget the promise of resurrection.
In the name of Jesus I lift up this prayer. Amen.

 

[Church_Militant]

Can you explain which part of that verse tells Christians that there are plausible alternatives to the resurrection.

No one here has asserted that these are actually plausible, but rational person may have to test them as if they were in order to be able to adequately explain and defend why they are rejected. BTW you cannot provide a part of that verse…or any other for that matter, that says otherwise, so there you go beyond what is written.

I tested those alternatives when I was an unbeliever and discovered none of them were plausible…thus becoming a follower of Christ.

That’s your experience, however, just because an unbeliever asserts something, obviously that does not make it so. Believers are gifted with both faith and a rational intellect that allows them to measure and discern such things without sullying their faith.

Yours must be a weak faith if you feel so threatened by that.

Why would anyone still think there are plausible alternatives if they already tested those alternatives and found that none of them were plausible?

Duh…but no one has said that. They have merely stated that these things were put forth purporting to be plausible.

Keep in mind it is the Catholic posters in this thread that insist there are plausible alternatives to God being true, not me.

Not true…you have (willfully, as usual) grossly misconstrued what was said in a vain attempt to cast doubt on the Catholic faith. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has seen through your agenda of contempt for the Catholic faith and malicious misrepresentation of it. One need only take a look at all posts by Atemi for it to become very clear. It’s kinda pitiful…

I understand that this may be a radical concept in your view. I was there once myself.

Keep dreamin’. The only radical concept here is that you might actually someday (God willing) be honest and abandon your malicious anti-Catholic polemics and misrepresentation of Catholic belief and practice.

…

 

[DavidFilmer]

Are you saying that it is the witness of the Catholic Church that there are indeed plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

There are certainly alternatives - and non-Christians will bring them up. I’ve never heard one that, upon examination, was plausible. But that has nothing to do with the reason I believe in the Resurrection. I don’t believe in it just because no other answer makes sense.

As a (very amateur) Catholic apologist, I constantly question everything - even the very existence of God (that does not mean I ‘doubt’).

Catholics are encouraged to question everything. This is not always true in protestant religions. My mother was raised Baptist. Some Baptist teachings did not make sense to her (such as, why can we not play card games on Sunday, but other days are OK?). When she questioned these things, she was told that she was being a “doubter” and she needed to have “more faith.”

Your posts sound like they could have been written by my mother’s Baptist teachers. Catholics don’t equate questions with doubts.

 

[Atemi]

**Are you saying that it is the witness of the Catholic Church that there are indeed plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? **

There are certainly alternatives - and non-Christians will bring them up.

Sorry, but the OP clearly asked:

“For Christians and anybody else: what is according to you the most plausible alternative explanation…for the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ presented in the NT?”

I’ve never heard one that, upon examination, was plausible.

Really?

That is what I replied…and you seemed to have a problem with that.

I said:

"For followers of Jesus Christ, there are no plausible alternative explanations.

Anyone claiming to be Christian should not be able to entertain the thought."

To this you disagreed and replied:

“I claim to be Christian, but I am quite able to entertain the thought (and thoughtfully consider MANY alternatives).”

You said, as someone claiming to be a “Christian,” you are able to entertain the thought that there are plausible alternatives to the resurrection of Christ.

I say no plausible explanations exist. If you ever think you thought of one, I would love to hear it.

Christ followers are called to the truth and not to entertain fantastical alternatives to the truth.

But that has nothing to do with the reason I believe in the Resurrection. I don’t believe in it just because no other answer makes sense.

I believe in it first and foremost because I know the risen Lord.

All the historical evidence confirms this as well.

As a (very amateur) Catholic apologist, I constantly question everything - even the very existence of God (that does not mean I ‘doubt’).

I know my wife. I never question her existence.

I know the Lord. I never question His existence.

For those who know the Lord, questioning His very existence is irrational and unreasonable.

To those who merely know about God, questioning is inevitable.

I’ll take your word for it that this is encouraged among Roman Catholics.

…