“The skeptic has to offer a plausible hypothesis of why the disciples of Jesus used the language of resurrection.” —Christian apologist
No. Skeptics do not need to provide possible hypotheses for the origin of the Resurrection Belief any more than we need to provide possible hypotheses for the origin of every other ghost sighting in human history. Superstitious people with wild, hysterical imaginations are capable of concocting the most fantastical of tales. “Resurrection” was not invented by the first Christians. It was an established belief in the mother religion (Judaism). Christians simply gave it a new twist. This is the typical point of origin of most sects and cults.
Only brainwashed Christians are incapable of seeing this fact. Everyone else in the world, theists and non-theists, get it. That is what YOU need to explain, dear apologist. Why is it that only Christians (with very few exceptions) assume that a literal resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the Resurrection Belief?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gary, the point that Wright is making which I paraphrased in the other thread, is that the skeptic has to explain why the disciples of Jesus used Jewish resurrection language–albeit with some important alterations as you say–to describe a “heavenly vision” or emotional feeling of love and forgiveness as a resurrection when they and every other Jew in Palestine and the Diaspora knew that resurrection always involved a dead body coming back to life at the end of the age, and not emotional feelings brought on by heavenly visions.
You have to explain why the disciples called a resurrection an occurrence/event which very clearly was not.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Are you required to provide adequate explanations (by MY criteria) for every other supernatural claim made in human history?
LikeLike
Gary, you’re dodging my question. You’re attempting to explain a first-century phenomenon using twenty-first century presuppositions. That ain’t how real history works! Historians call that an anachronism.
How do you explain the fact that the disciples of Jesus used the language of resurrection when they knew the phenomena they were describing was not a resurrection? Why did they describe your ephemeral, subjective, so-called “heavenly visions” or “hallucinations” as a resurrection when they already had a religious vocabulary for such visions, and further, when they and everybody else knew that a resurrection involved a dead body coming back to life again?
You have to explain this historically if you wish to be taken seriously.
Why use “resurrection” to describe a phenomenon that was anything but? Or didn’t these Jews understand their Messianic theology enough to know the difference?
So please either answer the question or admit that you can’t.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Shifting the burden of proof. A common tactic for would-be apologists.
LikeLike
I would hate to have to provide naturalistic explanations for the millions of Hindu miracle claims, and that’s just one religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person