Origin of the Resurrection Story: Jesus Had a Doppelganger

Keanu Reeves has a doppelganger in Brazil. Have you seen these viral pics?  - Trending News News
Which man is Keanu Reeves and which man is his doppelganger?

Isn’t this scenario the likely origin of the stories that Jesus appeared to groups of his followers after his death:

Groups of Jesus’ followers and/or family saw Jesus’ doppelganger (a case of mistaken identity) in a crowd or on a distant hill a few weeks or months after his execution and believed for a brief time that they had seen him alive. But once he “disappeared” (around a corner, into the crowd, or over a hill) they then assumed something miraculous (supernatural) had happened: he had been raised back to life by an act of God to fulfill his destiny as Messiah!

When days, weeks, or months passed and Jesus hadn’t shown up to establish the New Kingdom to rule Israel as the Anointed One (messiah), this belief morphed into the belief that he had been “resurrected” by an act of God and taken to heaven where he was preparing for his return.

Cognitive dissonance plays amazing tricks on the mind, in particular the minds of superstitious religious zealots in newly formed sects and cults.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

21 thoughts on “Origin of the Resurrection Story: Jesus Had a Doppelganger

  1. “The substitution hypothesis or twin hypothesis states that the sightings of a risen Jesus are explained not by physical resurrection, but by the existence of a different person, a twin or lookalike who could have impersonated Jesus after his death, or died in the place of Jesus on the cross.” [wikipedia]

    So, is this supposed to be something new???

    It’d be great if you could show how this is plausible. Because so far, there are no scholars I am aware of that have ever presented any evidence of anyone that saw a look-alike of a person whom they knew to be dead, and on that basis, claimed they were not dead.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Evidence??? HAAAAAAA!!!

      I don’t have to provide one shred of evidence. Why? I am not attempting to prove WHAT happened only what MAY have happened.

      There are plenty of cold cases on the books for which investigators have zero evidence. This applies to missing persons cases. That the person is missing is a fact, but there is no evidence to explain why. That does not stop investigators from speculating what may have caused the person to be missing. To speculate on what may have happened in a missing person case, one does not need evidence to justify one’s speculation or suspicion of a particular cause. The only stipulation is that the suspected cause cannot contradict any known evidence.

      My suspected mistaken identity cause for claims of Jesus appearing to groups of his followers may have zero evidence but neither does it contradict any known evidence. It is a hypothesis. And because it does not contradict any known evidence, it is a valid hypothesis; a valid suspected cause of the event.

      You are, once again, not thinking rationally.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. It’d be great if you could show how this is plausible. Because so far, there are no scholars I am aware of that have ever presented any evidence of anyone that saw a look-alike of a person whom they knew to be dead, and on that basis, claimed they were not dead.

      First of all, you would need to find cases in which the body was missing from the grave for the comparison to be valid. Are you telling me that we must find actual cases for you to believe it is possible for family members of someone who has died but their body subsequently goes missing for you to accept as possible for the grieving family to see a doppelganger of their deceased loved one and conclude he or she might be alive. And that spark of hope triggers a bigger delusion such as that God has brought the loved one back to life to fulfill some cosmic purpose which requires the back-from-the-dead person to abandon/ignore his or her family?

      Come on. Think. Human beings are gullible. They see what they want to see, in particular, when they are grieving the loss of a loved one.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. If your stolen “hypothesis” was worth anything to historians, I’d suspect you’d see some of them using it these days. Some certainly tried it in the past, but, it’s obsolete…

    Like

    1. It is only obsolete to brain-washed Christians who can’t imagine that their BFF Jesus is still dead.

      Illusions, vivid dreams, trances, hallucinations, and false sightings are much more probable and plausible causes of the Resurrection Belief than an actual resurrection…for people who live in the real world. That this topic is given any attention today in the modern era is only because it is the predominate superstition of our culture.

      I bet educated people in non-Christian cultures roll their eyes when they hear the preposterous Christian tall tale of a first century reanimated corpse who stops off to eat a broiled fish lunch with his former fishing buddies before flying off into outer space to live on the edge of the Cosmos. It is soooo ridiculous.

      My current conversation with you reinforces my belief that ridicule is the best anecdote to the spin/hot air of Christian apologists, not debating their pathetic “evidence”.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Gary, you still don’t get it, do you? It’s NOT about what some “Christians” think. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a great big world out there. Most of them AREN’T Christians. And guys like Erhman, Ludemann, Crossan, Carrier, Price, and a whole bunch others – they’re not Christian either. And here’s the deal: None of them GIVE A RIP if some totally unsupported blathering about a “Jesus look alike – yeh – that’s how the resurrection started” – shows up on your blog. They’d look at it, shake their heads, and say “try again, Garfield … or… whatever your name is”.

    They – and most of the people in the world – don’t CARE if your idea is “possible”. They know, just like I do, that “possible” doesn’t amount to squat. It’s “possible” that JFK was assassinated by space aliens. But it’s all those people in the “real world”, and outside the confines of your own little “blog kingdom” that can read what you’re saying, and they’re likely thinking “this guys a bonehead”.

    It’s NOT some “pissing contest” between you and Christians. And it doesn’t add one bit of credibility to your (stolen) idea if Nan and Neal and Ark all come in, in typical “Beavis and Butthead” style, saying “well, it’s more likely than a resurrection”.

    Because, here’s the deal: I’m not even ARGUING (at this point) that a resurrection is more probable or plausible.

    I’m arguing that YOUR idea is worthless, unless you can show in real life how it could work – based on something, Gary. Something other that “it’s more probable than a miracle”. And, believe it or not, most people outside your own little “blog cult” are probably thinking exactly that same thing – UNLESS you provide some real reason to believe that somebody will claim a person that they know is dead, is now alive, “because I saw them for a moment across the street”. Who does that? The answer? Evidently, NOBODY. But.. you’re not gonna get what I’m saying. For YOU, the only that that matters is that you can say “it’s more probable than a miracle”.

    That’s not merely being irrational, on your part. It’s being a numbskull.

    Like

    1. And guys like Erhman, Ludemann, Crossan, Carrier, Price, and a whole bunch others – they’re not Christian either. And here’s the deal: None of them GIVE A RIP if some totally unsupported blathering about a “Jesus look alike – yeh – that’s how the resurrection started” – shows up on your blog. They’d look at it, shake their heads, and say “try again, Garfield … or… whatever your name is”.

      Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

      Erhman, Ludemann, Crossan, Carrier, Price, and other skeptic and liberal scholars would say, “Yea. That is certainly possible. We probably will never know the origin of the Resurrection Belief, but a natural origin, such as the one you have suggested, is the most probable explanation.”

      Don’t be so naive.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. if Nan and Neal and Ark all come in, in typical “Beavis and Butthead” style, saying “well, it’s more likely than a resurrection”.

      Insults don’t help to further the discussion …

      Moreover I haven’t even commented on this particular post, although I do think the resurrection story has a TON of holes that will never been filled by you or any other religious idealist.

      Like

    1. OK, now that surprises me, too, Soc… I mean, really – and I don’t mean this in a bad way – but it’s a pretty “random” idea… Not one that just seems to pop up as a “common option” (like, say, the “stolen body” idea).

      I ran across another theory: Jesus was put in the tomb. And then, sometime afterword, there was an earthquake. The earthquake opened a fissure in the tomb, and Jesus’ body rolled off the stone “ledge” it was on and into the fissure. Then, the fissure closed….

      Liked by 1 person

      1. TOTALLY plausible in the real world.

        An earthquake causing the body to fall into a crack in the earth and then closing back up is much more plausible than that a brain-dead corpse came back to life (or was substituted with an extraterrestrial body, as you believe).

        You
        are
        not
        thinking
        rationally.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. turns out, no, it wasn’t plausible at all. But then, you don’t seem to think too much….

          the fact is that there was no geological indication of any such earthquake at all.

          that’s why stoopid theories have to be supported by something: to show they’re not stoopid

          Like

    2. Interesting.

      Holy Moly seems to believe that if Bible scholars have never seriously entertained a particular hypothetical natural origin of the Resurrection Belief it is somehow implausible. That is ridiculous. Christian scholars spend most of their time trying to prove why their supernatural explanation is the most plausible explanation and skeptic scholars spend most of their time refuting that supernatural explanation. Why would they bother spending a lot of time on hypothetical explanations for which there is no evidence (and remember, for hypothetical solutions to a “crime”, you don’t need any evidence, you just can’t include any potential explanations that contradict the known evidence you do have.)

      Here is another possible explanation for the Resurrection Belief that probably no scholar on the planet has ever considered but is still much, much, much more probable/plausible than a reanimation/transformation of a brain dead corpse (resurrection) in the real world:

      Some teenagers decided to play a joke on the “Jesus freaks”. Saturday night, when the Sabbath was over, they moved the body of Jesus and buried it in an unmarked grave. The next morning female followers of Jesus came to the tomb and found it empty…

      Weeks later, the teenagers paid a man to dress and act like Jesus. This “Jesus” made appearances to some of Jesus’ disciples, never getting close enough for the disciples to be able to inspect him too closely.

      The teenagers then started the rumor that God had raised Jesus from the dead.

      Done.

      Plausible? Hell yes! Much more plausible than a stooopid resurrection superstition.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. once again, Gary, you use the “more plausible than a stooopid resurrection superstition”.

        who gives a rip?

        that theory you just posited may be the most lame-brained idea I’ve seen from you yet – and that’s saying quite a lot. but, I think you need to run it past Ehrman, Vermes, Ludemann & others. They aren’t gonna give it any merit at all for being “more plausible than a stooopid resurrection superstition”. They’re gonna say it may be the most stooopid hypothesis they’ve ever seen.

        You see, THEY don’t CARE if “it’s better than a resurrection superstition”. That’s not like a “mark of excellence”, Gary.

        But – what can I say? You just continue to insist on being pig-headed. It’s just your little “private pissing contest” in which you actually (and, totally unbelievably) think it matters whether these ridiculous scenarios of yours are “better than a superstition”.

        They’re generally garbage, Gary. And that’s why no credible historian would listen to anything you had to say.

        And really – in the case of this latest stooopid hypothesis, I’d have to say “no, actually, this one ISN’T more plausible than a resurrection superstition”.

        Like

  4. Gary –

    Gary-

    explain something to me. Why do you keep repeating that mantra of “it’s more plausible than a miracle”, when I haven’t argued against one of your silly hypothesis by saying “I think a miracle is a better answer”?

    I really don’t get that.

    You posit some hairbrained hypothesis, and I respond by saying “nope, that doesn’t work because this, this and that” But, I never make an argument against your ridiculous scenarios by asserting something/anything about a miracle.

    That’s what I don’t get.

    And, that’s why your repeating the mantra is so utterly pigheaded: it’s like you’re trying really hard to argue with something I flat didn’t say.

    That’s not only irrational. That’s illogical. That’s senseless. Probably sociopathic, actually. It’s gaslighting.

    Like

    1. you posit some hairbrained hypothesis, and I respond by saying “nope, that doesn’t work because this, this and that”

      No. You never explained why a mistaken identity case or a teenage prank doesn’t work you only appealed to the fallacious claim that since no scholar suggests such a claim, it is implausible.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Gaslighting??

      That’s hilarious. You are the one who keeps coming back to my blog, after being kicked off at least half a dozen times, for the sole purpose of insulting me in an attempt to shut me up from criticizing your cult’s superstitions.

      Gaslighting. Give me a break.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. re: “You never explained why a mistaken identity case or a teenage prank doesn’t work you only appealed to the fallacious claim that since no scholar suggests such a claim, it is implausible.”

    Get real, Gary. First, I didn’t appeal to any “fallaciious claim” that the stoopid idea is implausible because “no scholar suggests a claim”.

    I said (and still say) that your (stolen, unoriginal, previously-used) hypotheses has to be SHOWN to be the “most plausible” – and to do that, you need to provide reason to believe that for some reason, in the case of Jesus, a person would claim that someone he/she knew to be dead, was now “alive”, because they’d seen the deceased person across a street. And, no other scholars have ever come up with any documented example of someone who got a moments view of a “lookalike”, and on that basis, claimed that a dead person was alive.

    Yeh, Gary – you are a Gaslighter.

    I’ve seen the multiplicity of complaints about you from other people: you twist words, you misrepresent things that have been said, heck – you’ll flat-out LIE LIKE A DOG. When you can’t prove a point, you attempt to manipulate.

    Yes, you, Gary, are a sociopathic Gaslighter.

    And, I’m spending way too much time on this stolen hypothesis of yours. It’s already been tried by others – by REAL SCHOLARS – in times past, and been found wanting….

    Like

    1. Ok. I’m really sick of you. If you post one more comment I’m going to post your IP address and ask for help identifying you since I have asked you many times to leave my blog and you refuse. I already know you live in Austin, Texas and your IP address gives me your zip code and email address.

      You have some serious problems if you cannot leave my site once and for all. Go annoy some other atheist blogger!

      GO AWAY!!!!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s