Do Alternative Explanations to the Resurrection Hold any Water?

Last week I covered historical evidence for the resurrection, but one might ask if there is a non-supernatural explanation for all the facts. Well to find the answer to that, I read the article, “False Theories Against Resurrection of Christ”, by J. Hampton Keathly, III, in which the author gives historical and logical arguments that refute other explanations.

Keathly provides different explanations, but pulls from different historical testimonies and sources to argue against those explanations. The explanations he refutes include the swoon theory, the hallucination theory, the impersonation(twin) theory, the spiritual resurrection theory, and the theft theory. While I won’t go in too much depth on each of these, I will briefly explain them. The swoon theory basically says that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, but just swooned; this idea is refuted by how terrible crucifixion is and the fact that the guards checked to make sure He was dead with a piercing in His side. Just as preposterous is the hallucination theory which claims that the Christ’s disciples just thought they saw Him after the resurrection; this idea is not reasonable, as people don’t just hallucinate together as if they all experienced the same dream. The impersonation theory puts forth the idea that the appearances to the disciples weren’t actually Jesus but someone impersonating Him; this falls flat when it would be near impossible for the disciples to be convinced by an impostor, as they traveled and lived with Jesus for a long time. One of the last theories the author puts forth is the spiritual resurrection(non-bodily resurrection); this is refuted by the point that Jesus was touched, handled, and He even ate with His disciples. The final theory is the theft theory in which the disciples are claimed to have stolen the body; the author refutes this with the idea that it would be near impossible to get the body, as there would be a heavy stone and Roman guards in the way. So the author concludes after tearing down these unstable theories that the best explanation and only left explanation is that Christ rose from the dead.

The author suggest that the resurrection is the only logical explanation stating,”None of these natural theories adequately deals with the evidence of the known facts that surrounded the resurrection of our Lord”(Keathly). In other words, Keathly makes an argument of the established facts of the case and comes to the best interpretation. But what if the facts themeselves are not supported as many skeptics might argue? In this case, Keathly would’ve made a great argument, but his foundation for those arguments would come crumbling down. But the truth is that the facts are true. As I covered in my last blog, the empty tomb, the appearances to the disciples and the establishment of  the Christian church are all agreed by a historical consensus. Denying the historicity of this events would be like denying the Holocaust happened, so you must take them as fact and put them together to see what you get.

So why does debunking alternative theories matter in the grand scheme of things? It matters because the alternative theories could lead people astray from the truth. Some people don’t accept Christ not because historical basis, but because of a spiritual basis. If they accept that Jesus rose, that means they got to repent and turn to Jesus. A lot of people don’t want to do that, so they accept these false theories to act as a buffer to the truth. They deny the facts just as the apostle Paul said in his letter to the Romans,”Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”(Rom 1:22). So in the end it is important to tear down these false truths, so that no one may cling to them in denial of the truth in the hope that they may be saved.

Source: