I've come up with a possible natural explanation for resurrection. I'd like to hear how it holds up given the available evidence regarding the events.

upon seeing the empty tomb and not knowing what lead to it, perhaps the women told them they saw an angel (who was in fact somebody joseph of arimethea had sent to inform them that jesus was not there- he was buried somewhere else in a common grave) and misinterpreted it as a resurrection. Excited by this they begin talking amongst themselves about seeing Jesus. "I saw him yesterday!" "I swear the guy we were eating with was him! it must've been!" just general rumors and chitchat. To deny this on account of oral tradition is absurd since I'm talking about before the oral tradition formed. In the first few years following the crucifixion. As they continue to talk amongst themselves and amongst others they become more convinced. This is entirely possible since mistaken identity is not an uncommon thing, and given the ignorance of the function of natural world compared to today it's possible to say the least that they had a preponderance for supernatural explanations and as the stories become more intricate and more detailed and more fantastic. It's clear though that the stories themselves are believed and that the tellers believed it since it contains telltale signs such as the fact that many of the did not recognize jesus until the end. The stories also become more fantastic- jesus isn't simply a body- he moves through walls. he appears at multiple places. he shapeshifts. Some historians even argue early christian theology wasn't of bodily resurrection but of spiritual, but it's conjecture and at odds with later theology so who knows. All this while, the body is buried somewhere in a common grave rotting away. Being religious in nature, the disciples form what is the oral tradition to essentially set it in stone. Once this is set the story as it is set at that point are more accurately transmitted since there is a clear narrative based on eyewitnesses that follow instead of a collection of disparate rumors and statements from hundreds of people.

any thoughts? I tried to include as much gospel material as possible.

It's probably as good of a guess as any, but frankly every detail could have been entirely manufactured to develop the myth.

Tbickle wrote:It's probably as good of a guess as any, but frankly every detail could have been entirely manufactured to develop the myth.

Given the accepted facts of resurrection as outlined by Craig et al I think even a possible scenario is enough to refute the supernatural claim.