On the balance of probability, Jesus faked his own crucifixion, resurrection and ascension

Thanks for the debate – let’s get to it… From OP’s first post it seems that we are making a few assumptions in the context of this debate. (a) God exists and (b) Jesus was the son of God. This is not to say that either are true, but only that, again, they are assumed for the duration. OP contends that on some criterion of probability Jesus likely faked his own resurrection. In support of this contention he offers that this is probably true because Noah allegedly lived 950 years and Jesus only lived thirty. If Jesus really was the son of God then it seems incredibly unlikely that God would have ended his life after a mere 30 years. Thus, the resurrection was most likely a fake. Let’s put this into a bit clearer form (recall that this is “according to the Bible”): (1) Noah lived 950 years and Jesus lived 30 years (2) Jesus was the son of God (3) If God let Noah (a mortal) live 950 it is incredibly unlikely he would end Jesus’ life after a mere 30 years. (4) Jesus’ ability to perform “miracles” would have provided him with the power to fake his own death, res, and ascension. (5) Jesus’ would have been more likely to prefer continuing his life on earth as a resulting of faking his death, res, and ascension than if his death, res, and ascension would have occurred. Therefore, it is quite likely that Jesus faked his own death, res, and ascension. I think this is a charitable exposition of OP’s argument. If it is not I apologize and await any corrections. The force of this argument lies in two implicit premises. The first (3a) is that the value of a given being is directly related to the length of life that God allows them. In other words, the more valuable a being is (divine or human) the longer life God will give them, presumably, as some type of reward. Yet, this claim is wholly unsubstantiated. Certainly, a long life has some value – that is not in question. However, there are two things ignored by this premise: (6) The length of one’s life is not indicative of the value of one’s life. (7) Assuming that God rewards/punishes beings based on their value, long life is not the only option. I’ll say a bit more about both. In regard to (5) we have plenty of examples were the length of a person’s life is in no way related to their “value.” For instance Joseph Stalin lived to the age of 74 and Gandhi till he was 78. Stalin instituted practices that led to the ruination of millions of lives. The peaceful efforts of Gandhi brought about reforms that have helped millions. The mere four year difference between them does not account for the vast difference in their “value.” If God exists (again, an assumption of this debate) the value of one’s life makes little, if any, difference in how God decides what the length of their life will be. In regard to (6) it seems plain that God has other rewards at his disposal. In the case of Jesus the Bible says that after Jesus died God “raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms.”1 Now, in considering this we might ask what is better: living a longer life here on earth or being given a place of power in heaven? I think it is safe to say the latter is a much better option and, assuming that God rewards based on value; he would have been more likely to give his son a place of honor in heaven. The second implicit premise (5a) is that Jesus would have preferred a longer life on earth, including all the various frivolities of human living, as opposed to returning to a place of honor in heaven. I think it is fair to say that, in lieu of the previous discussion of (6), this is far from likely and, in fact, it seems much more plausible that one would choose to live in heaven if the choice was between heaven and earth. The discussion of these two implicit premises is enough to sink OP’s argument. However, a bit more can be said. Before I do I would like to note that the first part of my post, in part, assumed that scripture was a viable source as OP made no indication to the contrary. However, if that is not the case, I offer the following criticisms of OP’s “motives”: Point 1 of OP’s post is an ad hominem that bites at a terrible stereotype of the Jewish people. Even if we should consider Jews to be money-grubbers, and I certainly don’t think we should, it is far from given that Jewish people were anything like this at Jesus’ time. We have been given no justification for this claim. Thus, OP’s first point gets us nowhere except to discriminate against the Jewish people. Point 2 says that “Jesus may have thought to himself…” Ok, fine. This is a possibility. Why should we believe it? If we are to think that “on the balance of probability” Jesus did fake his death we need something much stronger than the mere possibility that Jesus may have thought he wanted to give up the whole “divine respectability” thing and go do as he may. It’s also possible that unicorns exist, but you don’t see me arguing that it is probably true. Point 3 is based on another stereotype that fails to provide any justification for OP’s conclusion. OP claims that Jesus’ likely faked his own death and may still live today. Unfortunately, his claim is based in two clearly false implicit premises and, even worse, an assortment of ad hominem and discriminatory claims that are entirely fallacious. [1] Ephesians 1:20b-21a. Note that the “right hand” is considered to be a place of honor.