1. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    25 Apr '11 18:16
    I used to think the part about the resurrection of Jesus was probably simply made up as opposed to some people actually believing they witnessed it but then I saw what I believed to be a non-biased (I mean not biased towards religion) documentary (sorry, can't remember which one) with historical analysts that explained several reasons why that part, unlike several of the other parts of the Biblical story, is unlikely to have been simply made up!

    For example, the gospels are inconsistent with each other in several areas except, if I remember hearing this correctly, when it comes to the resurrection where they are all remarkably constant. Then, if I remember this correctly, according to the gospels, the first person to have witnessed his resurrection was a woman -so what? You may ask. Well, the historical analysts explained that, in those days, women where generally not considered to be credible witnesses. So if that part was simply made up, the people that made it up would not choose to have a woman as the first witness according to the story.

    I find all these facts intriguing because they surely strongly indicate that the resurrection part was not simply made up. But then that begs the question, if it was not made up and if some people actually believing they witnessed it, and, of course, putting to one side the totally absurd and stupid idea that something supernatural was involved, what really happened?
    -I cannot see any other sensible answer to this question other than this: -

    The Romans that crucified him probably made a freak blunder of taking him down before he was actually dead because they only assumed he must be dead because he looked dead when, in fact, he was merely in an unconscious near-death state.
    He later regained consciousness alone in the tomb where they put him and got up and got out the tomb.
    He then talked to some of his no-doubt astonished followers for a while (hence those followers actually honestly believed they witnessed his resurrection) but, realising that the executioners had made a blunder and fearing that they would realise this if he hang about for too long and might come back to him to finish off the crucifixion properly, he decided to run away and go into permanent hiding and was never heard of again by his followers.

    I have found out that this idea is not new:
    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=250535&highlight=jimmmy+Kirby

    “...
    ….Although with modern medicine it has become considerably less frequent, medical literature/history is repleat with instances where persons have been delcared dead, only to revive in the morgue (best-case scenario) or their coffin (bummer). ….
    ….
    ...isn't it entirely possible, or even probable, that the charismatic person known today as "Jesus" only passed out/lost consciousness/fainted/etc., and since Golgotha CSI wasn't around to set the record straight, he was hastily and erroniously declared dead and whisked off by (the) Disciples or whomever, that had a vested interest in seeing him survive? Perhaps they even knew he was still alive (maybe he winked at Mary) and said things like, "Yeah, he was up there (how many?) hours, and nobody has ever made it that long before, he's gotta be dead." to distract the rest of the mob that would otherwise have finished the job. (The shock of the blood loss could also have caused his body to go into a "survival" mode, slowing bodily functions such as blood circulation and respiration, allowing him to "last longer" than those malfactors.) So, everyone in the know went along with the ruse and Jesus winds up on a slab in the tomb with perhaps some frankincense and a little ventilator shaft out the back. Saturday, they all work out the Resurrection script and Sunday Jesus cops a David Copperfield/ bin Laden maneuver. ...”

    -I think that is similar enough to my basic theory.

    Any opinions?
  2. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    25 Apr '11 18:26
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I used to think the part about the resurrection of Jesus was probably simply made up as opposed to some people actually believing they witnessed it but then I saw what I believed to be a non-biased (I mean not biased towards religion) documentary (sorry, can't remember which one) with historical analysts that explained several reasons why that part, ...[text shortened]... neuver. ...”

    -I think that is similar enough to my basic theory.

    Any opinions?
    I tend to go with the assumption *someone* got crucified, perhaps a wise person that rubbed some people up the wrong way (and probably died); any witnesses present would have witnessed some poor sap get shafted by the romans, and given his charisma and wise words, they might have exaggerated their stories about him and then all the garbage about Jesus fulfilling some damned prophecy and resurrections etc.. were made up later.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Apr '11 18:26
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I used to think the part about the resurrection of Jesus was probably simply made up as opposed to some people actually believing they witnessed it but then I saw what I believed to be a non-biased (I mean not biased towards religion) documentary (sorry, can't remember which one) with historical analysts that explained several reasons why that part, ...[text shortened]... neuver. ...”

    -I think that is similar enough to my basic theory.

    Any opinions?
    yes its nonsense to try to rationalise the event and then proceed to explain it away in
    pure speculative terms, simply because you deny the divine element. Once you agree
    that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
    elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Apr '11 18:281 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I tend to go with the assumption *someone* got crucified, perhaps a wise person that rubbed some people up the wrong way (and probably died); any witnesses present would have witnessed some poor sap get shafted by the romans, and given his charisma and wise words, they might have exaggerated their stories about him and then all the garbage about Jesus fulfilling some damned prophecy and resurrections etc.. were made up later.
    you pansy atheists are the worst, you will make up anything to escape having to give
    credence to the idea that there may have been divine intervention. Your stance is both
    unreasonable and illogical, not to mention prejudicial.
  5. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51439
    25 Apr '11 18:29
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes its nonsense to try to rationalise the event and then proceed to explain it away in
    pure speculative terms, simply because you deny the divine element. Once you agree
    that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
    elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.
    Pure genius.

    How you can write that and keep a straight face i'll never know.
  6. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    25 Apr '11 18:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you pansy atheists are the worst, you will make up anything to escape having to give
    credence to the idea that there may have been divine intervention. Your stance is both
    unreasonable and illogical, not to mention prejudicial.
    please explain the illogical part
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Apr '11 18:32
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Pure genius.

    How you can write that and keep a straight face i'll never know.
    Hamilton admits it himself, the story is of an eye witness account, the cultural details,
    etc etc, the only trouble he has is that he has closed his mind to the idea that there
    could have been supernatural intervention, on what basis? But if it raised a smile, its
    enough for me at present 🙂
  8. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51439
    25 Apr '11 18:34
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you pansy atheists are the worst, you will make up anything to escape having to give
    credence to the idea that there may have been divine intervention. Your stance is both
    unreasonable and illogical, not to mention prejudicial.
    Rejection of 'divine intervention' is 'illogical'?

    Looks like your on a roll tonight. Would you care to elaborate?!
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Apr '11 18:36
    Originally posted by Agerg
    please explain the illogical part
    yes indeed, you base your whole premise on an assumption. Instead you could have
    stated, well we do not know what transpired, but instead you concoct a hypothesis out
    of thin air, which cannot possibly be known, that is illogical as it leads to nothing but
    further speculations.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Apr '11 18:38
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Rejection of 'divine intervention' is 'illogical'?

    Looks like your on a roll tonight. Would you care to elaborate?!
    yes when one is presented with certain criteria, and when one has eliminated all that
    seems unlikely, no matter how improbable, that which is left through the process of
    deduction, must be the truth, thus, we are left with nothing but the fact that it must
    have been a supernatural event, if we are to take the Biblical record as our criteria,
    which Hamilton started to do but immediately rejected it as soon as their was mention
    of divine intervention.
  11. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    25 Apr '11 18:391 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes indeed, you base your whole premise on an assumption. Instead you could have
    stated, well we do not know what transpired, but instead you concoct a hypothesis out
    of thin air, which cannot possibly be known, that is illogical as it leads to nothing but
    further speculations.
    So not a parodoxical or internally inconsistent statement then - i.e. nothing that leads to the conclusion P and not P are simultaneously true.
    When you say illogical you mean difficult for your biased mind to take in - I can live with that!

    Now please explain unreasonable
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Apr '11 18:411 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    So not a parodoxical or internally inconsistent statement then - i.e. nothing that leads to the conclusion P and not P are simultaneously true.
    When you say illogical you mean difficult for your biased mind to take in - I can live with that!

    Now please explain unreasonable
    i am not the not the one who has limited my search of truth to unintelligent agencies,
    you are. Unreasonable?, same as above.
  13. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    25 Apr '11 18:42
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes its nonsense to try to rationalise the event and then proceed to explain it away in
    pure speculative terms, simply because you deny the divine element. Once you agree
    that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
    elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.
    “...its nonsense to try to rationalise ...”

    LOL.

    Don't you see anything wrong with that statement fragment? -it is clearly a contradiction.

    “...Once you agree
    that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
    elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations. ...”

    how could the concoction of a divine intervention possibly be a less absurd explanation than even the wildest speculation that involves no such absurd divine intervention?
    Why isn't the claim of divine intervention a concocted story?
    Also, my explanation is not “concoct elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations” but reason-based; based on the reasons I just gave.
  14. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    25 Apr '11 18:44
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes when one is presented with certain criteria, and when one has eliminated all that
    seems unlikely, no matter how improbable, that which is left through the process of
    deduction, must be the truth, thus, we are left with nothing but the fact that it must
    have been a supernatural event, if we are to take the Biblical record as our criteria,
    ...[text shortened]... started to do but immediately rejected it as soon as their was mention
    of divine intervention.
    You haven't successfully eliminated the proposition that the Bible isn't a true historical account of what happened 2000 years ago. There is no valid reason to *deduce* it must have been a supernatural event.
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    25 Apr '11 18:461 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i am not the not the one who has limited my search of truth to unintelligent agencies,
    you are. Unreasonable?, same as above.
    Rejecting twinkle dust 'theories' is not "illogical"; you haven't answered my second query.
Back to Top