For popular or very good threads

Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
1,475
501
The reason I don't accept some of the skeptical explanations is because they leave out details of the story which makes their explanation faulty (it doesn't explain all of the data or it's conveniently selective on which data to include).
That's crummy and lousy. And that's how I guess a less mature person debates.

And maybe it helps that I'm 62. But in any case, I embrace the quirks, the snags, the difficult issues.

Okay, in general,

the Resurrection of Jesus is typically given the date of 33 AD.

And yet the earliest letters of Paul start maybe 50 AD. The Gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel is 70 AD or thereabouts, pretty much at the earliest.

In any case, a lot of time for "urban legends" to spread, get elaborated, the "better" versions to get repeated with even more energy, etc. But back then, I guess these were in the nature of "rural legends."

And then, there are grief hallucinations which are a phenomenon of the human mind. For example, among senior citizens who have lost a spouse, around 50%
will see the person for a few important seconds
OR
hear their voice
OR
feel their presence.

And to me, the combo of these two factors pretty much explains it. Plus, other ancient gods such as Mithras and Osiris were supposed to have resurrected.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
An evangelical Christian will sometimes come back and claim, "How can a group of people all have the same hallucination?" Valid Point. No Question.

But that's not what I'm claiming.

If grief hallucinations are on average 33% for non-spouses, that would mean on average 4 of the 12 disciples have a grief hallucination. Urban legend builds it up from there. There's a part in the Gospel of Matthew which talk about multiple people resurrecting at the time of Jesus's death and deceased saints walking in the city. Literalist Christians tend not to talk about this. It's embarrassing, and it's a challenge to the view that every verse of the Bible is accurate. So yeah, urban legend can grow, past the point where most (devout) Christians are comfortable.

There's also a verse in one of Paul's early letters —


1 Corinthians 15:6 "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."

— — —

It's sparse. Not a single person's name mentioned for this incident. No time or place.

And the fact that Paul never repeats this in maybe (?) 3 later letters tells me that he kind of had doubts himself about this incident. Or, in fairness that his goal was to instruct believers.

And this incident is included in not a single one of the four gospels.

—,— —

But evangelical Christians are sometimes taught by apologists that this is a real "zinger." I just don't see it that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
Good points, Lemur.

I covered the topic of hallucinations in another thread here:
https://theagnosticforum.com/thread...-for-jesuss-resurrection-valid.930/#post-5824 (mainly posts 3 and 4).

Ultimately, I'm not convinced by the hallucination explanation, although I do believe it is the strongest skeptical theory out there for the resurrection. The strongest reason I'm not convinced by it because post-mortem Jesus is said to have had group conversations. I can maybe see one person hearing what an imagined Jesus would be saying, but to have others hear (as opposed to just seeing) the same thing and at the same time and without anyone repeating what's being heard but yet talking back to imagined Jesus (which eliminates suggestion) goes against group hallucinations. Jesus also ate food.

My only doubt is that the apostles could've gathered more details on what everyone heard so we can even be more sure of what the witnesses saw and heard. Perhaps each person could've been questioned independently. But then I remember that these people weren't scientists, and at the least this is just what I judged it to be from the beginning, just witness testimony. As much as I find that standard unsatisfactory, I keep in mind that it's all we got a lot of times for history, which is why I view the resurrection as a historical fact and not a scientific one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
No problem amigo 🤠
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
I can maybe see one person hearing what an imagined Jesus would be saying, but to have others hear (as opposed to just seeing) the same thing and at the same time and without anyone repeating what's being heard but yet talking back to imagined Jesus (which eliminates suggestion) goes against group hallucinations. Jesus also ate food.

My only doubt is that the apostles could've gathered more details on what everyone heard so we can even be more sure of what the witnesses saw and heard. Perhaps each person could've been questioned independently.
But if you do that, you're already a skeptic.

And, I think we just have vastly different views on how common urban legend is. People have active intelligence and link things together. And maybe a little lying, not for money, but more to be a big shot and be taken seriously, finally! Some people absolutely long for this.
 
But if you do that, you're already a skeptic.
That's true. I can say that I believe these events likely happened (although not to the extent that the Bible says w/ God being involved) but the skeptic side of me still has more questions I would've loved to ask.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
The accepted common argument is that if Jesus did not literally resurrect, then the Bible is false and everything in it is questionable, right? But what if that is not true? I suggest that the striving or insistence on making Jesus literally true (or else) is a false paradigm, that arises from a desire to become immortal after literal death; and while it is somewhat obscured in the Bible, that makes one a meat eater, who requires literal facts to support their belief

Now i am not interested in quashing a discussion on it, but at the end of this discussion, what will the conclusion be? Will there be any consensus? Is one even required? By all means seek any evidence that you are able to discover, but at the same time have a clear definition of “evidence” imo, and possibly more importantly understand the reason you are seeking it.

I am invariably asked in meetings now—more often, recently—whether i believe in a literal resurrection, and my answer is kinda changing as we speak, mostly to suit my audience. Which i strongly dislike, bc it feels like pandering to me. There is a gap here in this discussion, that it is quite difficult to stand in or build a bridge across, i guess bc you cannot change ppls motivations? At least not easily;

The pov that if Jesus did not literally resurrect then Christianity is pointless is i guess a pretty common one, and we have even heard it repeated here. I was that guy for like forty years myself, so really im not interested in any condemnation of the perspective, but i would suggest that one be a bit more rigorous in their definitions on so existential a topic; evidence has rules, that one is of course free to accept or reject, but at least dont do so lightly imo.

Truth is established by witnesses, at least according to the Bible, so for instance the 500; is that corroborated anywhere else? If it is not, but it is still in the Bible, then understand what that likely means, imo; things that are written without a witness/corroboration are not untruths, necessarily, but they should be given a diff weight, if for no other reason than a lack of witnesses. They are in there only once for a reason iow, and since the authors understood the witnessing thing implicitly, they are likely trying to make a diff point than the one assumed.

Also, in all your searching for and requiring a literal resurrected Jesus, i would understand the parts of the Bible that must be ignored; which are many, starting with Jesus Himself telling us that many would come in His Name, and that they should be ignored. By all means read the Bible as though it were a journal, if you like, i mean i cant stop you, and at least youre reading the Bible, but imo understand that when i tell you that Yah Himself came down last night and appeared to me and a congregation of 500 other souls and explicitly told me to come make this post about questioning your motives and your definitions of legal terms, you still have no evidence for this.

I believe in Christ, and frankly adore the concept of a literal resurrection; should i then go stand and look up at the sky? Or what is it that would be recommended to me, in that case? Iow explore that too, ok; what is the end result or recommendation or whatever of holding the belief, and rejecting Buried with Him in death, raised to new life in Him, the resurrection that the Bible describes?

Bc i guess lotta ppl think they can maybe have both, but i tell you that they are night and day, ok

And this post should not be taken to mean that literal resurrection is untrue either, bc i dont know; i would welcome and be open to any new evidence on the matter, just read about some famous Indian girl who gave intimate details of her past life that were then corroborated, and idk what to make of that tbh; she wasnt a Christian though, so hmm, but the point is that we humans know virtually nothing even about the real world lol, so as much as i detest Magical Thinking, there is also a certain magic involved in life, that i guess i am not even qualified to comment on.
 
Last edited:
@bbyrd009 Wow! That was a good perspective to read through. Thanks for sharing it.
Well Done Good Job GIF by America's Got Talent
 
@bbyrd009

Evidence is a big part here. Another thing I look at is how the supernatural is treated by academics (historians, scientists, etc). There seems to be this big presumption that naturalism is always valid and i think that's unjustified. I also think that's at play when it comes to rejecting the validity of stories that involve the supernatural.