There’s no point in arguing this with @DrDeth. It’s been argued before and no matter how many papers and cites you provide, it’ll not move them one little bit. John the disciple wrote the gospel, as far as DrD is concerned.
It’s entirely possible that there was a “resurrection” of some sort. Keep in mind that the Gospels themselves say that a lot of folks didn’t recognize Jesus after he came back from the dead. One possibility that does not require the supernatural to explain both the resurrection and the lack of recognition is that some other dude inflicted some wounds on his own body to simulate the wounds from crucifixion, then went around telling everyone that he was Jesus back from the grave (after disposing of the real body, of course).
Oh, and it still all comes down to Paul, who was explicit:
1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins
Historical Jesus or not, miracles, healing, it all boils down to this. Paul, who predates the gospels, recognized this. The whole edifice of the Christian faith relies on Jesus rising.
ETA:
And this is way I find it astonishing when believers try to justify or modernize the resurrection and miracles by applying some quasi-scientific explanations. It’s all a matter of faith. If you believe Jesus was the son of god or god incarnate, then believing that he walked on water isn’t much of a stretch. Of course, a divine being was capable of all that. And if you need science to obfuscate the matter, then the faith is what…? Futile, as Paul said.
And his disciples were fooled by a look-alike? What motive would someone have to convince people to think he was a resurrected Jesus? The story becomes more and more twisted…
The ones that were willing to believe that Jesus appearance was changed by the resurrection went off to found Christianity. The ones who didn’t believe it went off and did something else.
It’s just a possibility. The true believers were absolutely certain he would come back from the dead.
Is this what actually happened? I can’t prove it. Not even close.
But look at how many people believe Anastasia survived the Russian Revolution. People believe what they want to believe.
Is it possible that some people (a) who were really suggestible (b) took some drugs?
“Dad gave me this new body! What a cool guy.”
Some people will believe anything they are told, no matter how implausible. That’s called brainwashing where I come from.
The past is information. The information may be of significant value to us or it may merely be interesting, but it has a dynamic aspect to it. Our understanding of the past changes just as much as our understanding of what is likely to occur in the future does.
What actually happened is only meaningful to the extent that past events affect the (our) future. If we believe that the distant events in the life of an ancient afterlife insurance salesman are meaningful to us, then we will act upon our (often distorted) understanding of the significance, to us, of those events.
For the rest, we are left with figuring out how to cope with the actions of those who do hold those beliefs. And the difficult task of disabusing them of the notion that we should act according to their infomation.
And those ‘many people’ included some of the real Anastasia’s relatives and acquaintances (e.g., Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich and the Botkin siblings).
BTW, it looks like I am just picking on Christianity. I’m not. Scientology, for example, makes no sense either, yet millions of people believe in it and donate much of their money. It shows you that not much has changed in over 2000 years.
I remember Jim Baker on 60 minutes, in probably mid 70’s, being questioned about his mansions and airplanes. He said “GOD doesn’t like junk” That’s around the time I became an atheist.
For starters, the largest part of the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the time period when Jesus might have been mentioned; the earlier scrolls date to around the third century BCE, with the bulk in the first/second centuries BCE, and a relatively small proportion from the first century CE, probably ending around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. There’s a theory that one of the scrolls preserves a text from the Gospel of Mark, but even that is not universally accepted.
The Scrolls also aren’t chronicles or histories of what was happening contemporaneously; the largest part are copies of various parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and extracanonical works such as the Book of Tobit and the Book of Enoch. The most-commonly accepted theory is that they represent the library of the Essenes, a Jewish sect active in Roman Judea, while a competitor theory is that the scrolls came from Jerusalem, and possibly even from the Temple library itself, and were hidden by people fleeing the destruction thereof. There’s nothing analogous to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example, so the lack of mention of Jesus doesn’t really tell us anything.
Even if they DID write about amazing miracles and the resurrection, the writings might still not have survived. For example, Nicolaus of Damascus wrote a Universal History in 144 books, including almost the only contemporary references to his friend and patron Herod the Great; reasonably extensive fragments of seven remain, with a few references to a handful of others. Whatever he had to say in the other volumes is gone. The Constantinian Excerpts, compiled in the tenth century, preserves some fragments of his work and the works of several dozen other historians, principally Greek and Roman, but even here we have two complete volumes out of 53, plus fragments of a couple more and the titles of maybe half. The sheer volume of what has been lost means that even obvious miracles and great events may well remain unknown.
So what, though? If you tell me there’s a 51% chance that some random and unimportant historical figure existed, I’m inclined to believe it since there is zero consequence one way or another. That’s fine as long as we accept that we’re just trying to figure out what is most likely to have happened.
But the existence of Jesus is far more consequential, even if you exclude the miracles. Billions of people arrange their lives around what he allegedly said and did.
If there was someone that may or may not have gone by that name, or a variation, or may be an amalgamation of multiple people, or isn’t even anyone specific but rather one of the many unknown religious frauds that were going around at the time, etc.–well, fine, it’s no skin off my back. But that isn’t the Jesus that people today are referring to. Not even the one in the Jefferson Bible with all the supernatural stuff removed. I’m going to demand a hell of a lot more than 51% chance that such a person existed before expressing any positive belief value.
Not one word survived. Is that believable to you? He performed many miracles in front of groups of people. It wasn’t some magic trick, he made a blind man see. He walked on water. You can’t fake that, can you? You don’t think someone might have made a note that would have survived hidden in some cave somewhere? He lived in a populated area. Lots of people witnessed his miracles. Nobody wrote anything about it until years after his supposed resurrection. That’s not suspicious.
For Roman Judea, something on the order of 99.9% of everything written down is GONE. Books that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt once existed no longer survive, not even hidden in some cave somewhere.
Do you find it suspicious that nobody in Judea wrote anything at all about Pontius Pilate, the governor of that province? We certainly have no writings from any contemporary living in Judea about him; there’s an inscription on the Pilate Stone and he’s mentioned by Philo of Alexandria in that Egyptian’s Embassy to Gaius, and there’s a few coins, but that’s it. We know nothing of his life before or after his rule in Judea, not even his full name, and he is the BEST-attested governor of Roman Judea. He lived in a populated area, lots of people knew him and knew about him, he was the big cheese. Nobody there wrote about him, as far as we know from the surviving evidence.
Pilate didn’t perform one miracle, Jesus performed numerous. Pilate didn’t die, come back to life three days later, and disappear into the sky in front of witnesses. Jesus did. I assume that has never happened before, so there should be lots written about it, yet nothing survives. That seems plausible to me.
Yes. 100%, completely believable.
You really don’t understand how little direct historical documentation exists, or how easy it is for stuff to be lost permanently.
So I can make up anything I want, no matter how crazy, about something that I say happened long ago, I don’t have to prove it, and nobody can refute it. You’ve given me a great idea. Thanks!
Literally no idea how you got that from my post.