Similarities Between the Resurrection and The Big Lie

Christian apologists tell us that there is no way that the Resurrection Story is a legend. According to these “experts”, legends take many, many years to develop. The time period between Jesus’ death and the writing of the Gospels was too short for legendary material (fiction) to creep into the story. In addition, they say, the living eyewitnesses would have refuted any fictional material and stopped the circulation of (false) legends in their tracks.

Yet today, in an era of instant communication, we see the development of legends (false stories) develop all the time. Bill and Hillary Clinton run a pedophile ring based out of a pizza parlor in suburban Washington DC. And of course there is the Big Lie: that Donald Trump won the 2020 election when even Republican secretaries of state deny that he did.

The truth is: Human beings believe what they want to believe. They will even create tall tales (legends) to support their wishful thinking.






End of post.


6 thoughts on “Similarities Between the Resurrection and The Big Lie

  1. Hello Gary. That is a very valid point. It depends on how invested a person is in their opinion on how hard they will ignore evidence or disregard reason. If a person doesn’t want to know something, you cannot convince them differently. There is the old saying that if a person’s salary depends on them not agreeing with you, you will never get them to agree. It is the same with things that are very personal to people. It is hard to train yourself to look beyond feelings and emotion to see the real facts of an issue. Best wishes. Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s absurd to think that anyone hanging around with Jesus would be able to zip around Palestine and later the eastern mediterranean catching any mistellings of what actually happened, and that those corrected would make sure everyone else they told the false stories to was also corrected, and then the 2nd corrected person would in turn make sure to correct their contacts, etc, all down the line. A ship’s captain who heard a false story in Antioch and then immediately left port for Athens or Alexandria would then spread it there. You wouldn’t then be able to tell him the story was false if you were the person in Antioch who originally told him. And on and on.

    We also know that just because a story has been corrected, or falsified/fact checked and demonstrated to be wrong, that those determined to believe it often don’t change their minds. Anyone who’s lived on this planet past the age of 10 knows that, The Trump era reinforced it. Add in religious zeal – a story making Jesus look really good but later shown to be false, would still be clung to by many – and peoples ability to downgrade a good story after being corrected goes way down.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Again, Gary’s assertions fail short on evidence. How do you know Trump didn’t win? Because the credible sources refute this.
    When it comes to Jesus, you imply have too many independent sources affirming His resurrection – Mark, Paul, Q, sources only found in Matthew, sources only found in Luke, Peter, Jude, James – all telling the same story. How did they all come up with this fabrication independently? Or even more difficult to manufacture, did they all conspire?

    So again, a false analogy that doesn’t fit the evidence we do have.


    1. The sources for the Jesus story are NOT independent.

      Even most Christian scholars admit that Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark. And since the Gospel of John was written many decades later, it is entirely possible that the author of this gospel had heard the stories found in Matthew and Luke and simply reshaped these stories for his own (tall) tale. The other sources you mention tell us nothing about the historical Jesus, but simply repeat the proto-orthodox Christian talking points. Paul tells us very, very little about the historical Jesus.

      So to boil it all down we have two sources: Mark and Q. Just because two sources tell a tale does not mean the tale is true. Both writers could have heard it from the same source who could have: 1) been telling the truth. 2) related a tale to both sources that he had heard from someone else, a tale he believed to be true, but had no way to confirm. 3) invented most or all of the story.

      How would we know, Liam?


      1. “Now FAITH is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen …”

        Faith = belief, trust, dedication, allegiance
        Truth = reality, actuality, veracity


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s