Were the stories about the miracles and resurrection of Jesus lies?

In his most recent debate, Dr. Richard Carrier explores the idea that the miracles about Jesus were part of a conspiracy. He talks about it at 48:00 – 49:49 of the video, where he starts speculating about the possibility that the apostles were lying about the risen Jesus to create a better world. Carrier continues to examine the conspiracy possibility at 57:37 – 1:00:35 of the video. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_dsO2dOv4 . I have made this speculation to him many times, including in comments 2 and 3 in Carrier’s blog post from a few weeks ago about why he thought Jesus was invented: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9929

In his most recent debate, Dr. Richard Carrier explores the idea that the miracles about Jesus were part of a conspiracy. He talks about it at 48:00 – 49:49 of the video, where he starts speculating about the possibility that the apostles were lying about the risen Jesus to create a better world. Carrier continues to examine the conspiracy possibility at 57:37 – 1:00:35 of the video. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_dsO2dOv4 . I have made this speculation to him many times, including in comments 2 and 3 in Carrier’s blog post from a few weeks ago about why he thought Jesus was invented: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9929
The miracles and resurrection by today's standards were lies. But, in context, centuries before the biblical Jesus character those types of supernatural stories were a popular genre in literary reference they were historic fiction. I don't think they've been shown to be outright lies, but they are certainly exaggerations, misinterpretations and mistranslations that are to be expected of stories handed down orally at least a hundred years after the events. All such stories get blown way out of proportion. The stories are more a reflection of how people thought and believed in that era than true stories. Nothing they claim that breaks the rules of physics should be trusted o believed. If people would use common sense about biblical stories, we wouldn't have to delve into these kinds of questions. Lois

Once again, we need to read more Bart Ehrman. One of his general themes is that we can’t judge the writers of the bible throughout the ages by current standards. For example, it was very common for an author to attribute his own writing to his teacher. Or to copy word for word what someone else said and put their own name on it. We’d call that plagiarism, or some kind of false attribution. But that’s just how things worked back then. There was no intention to deceive at all. Similarly, there weren’t actual people called “Mark”, “Luke”, “Matthew”, and “John” writing the gospels. (Well I think one of them there was an actual person.) Those were just names given as an author in tribute. So to say someone was lying seems a bit of a stretch.

Is it fair to treat what is essentially mythology, as a lie?

Is it fair to treat what is essentially mythology, as a lie?
Probably not, but it should be understood that it is not to be taken literally. One might wonder if fairy tales should be seen as "lies." Or any fictional story or parable. Should they be labeled as myths in case people take them as true? Lois
In his most recent debate, Dr. Richard Carrier explores the idea that the miracles about Jesus were part of a conspiracy. He talks about it at 48:00 – 49:49 of the video, where he starts speculating about the possibility that the apostles were lying about the risen Jesus to create a better world. Carrier continues to examine the conspiracy possibility at 57:37 – 1:00:35 of the video. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_dsO2dOv4 . I have made this speculation to him many times, including in comments 2 and 3 in Carrier’s blog post from a few weeks ago about why he thought Jesus was invented: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9929
Carrier does use the word "lie", but he does not say "conspiracy", he says "movement". A conspiracy connotes some devious agenda, a hidden agenda, usually one that would result in gains for a few. A movement connotes a public agenda, one that would benefit the greater good and the future. Clearly Carrier supports the idea of the early Christians being a movement designed to reform the Roman government and the Jewish elite that supported them. He has plenty of evidence to support this.

You ask about the “resurrection”
but the resurrection means nothing without the Passion of Christ walking up to his death in full awareness.
For me the eternal human truth (as opposed to the ultimate truths of natural laws.)
in Christ’s Passion is that, it’s a wonderful metaphorical guide to help us walk through the various stages of our own troubled lives.
To offer help and guidance in finding our own inner strength to face one’s own demons, sins, with brutal, self honesty.
Facing them full on, accepting one’s guilt is crushing, a dying experience of sorts.
But, once you experience that dying and that burning burns itself out,
you are reborn into whole new realm of interacting with yourself and the life unfolding around you.
Jesus’ lesson for us, is personal. One for every person who chooses to be assisted by it.
It is not the word of the God of Time, Creation and Love.
It is a fundamentally true idea on a human psychological level - but what the egomaniacal Abraham Religions never figured out was that we are only a small sliver of whatever god is, we are no more, or less God’s children then the sun or stromatolites that provided the oxygen to kick start this whole show. At best Jesus it is an echo, a shadow, of something we cannot comprehend.
And that leaves us back on our miraculous utterly unique little blue, green, white planet.
Want to know about the true “god”, there’s only one way, be curious, pay attention, love this moment you were given.

GOD IS CREATION
Everything else is in our head and hearts.

The miracle stories are true! In fact, as a child jc strangled little birds just to receive praise for raising them from the dead.

The miracle stories are true! In fact, as a child jc strangled little birds just to receive praise for raising them from the dead.
Boys will sometimes be (psychopathic) boys. Unfortunately for the little birds of the time, I imagine they were not so lucky, when other boys, trying to follow Jesus's model, were unable to perform the resurrection part.

I disagree with William Lane Craig’s idea that we can be sure of “Multiple Attestation" on the issues of the “Crucifixion," “Empty Tomb," and “Resurrection Appearances." Paul said “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures… and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor 15:3-8)." If Mark read Paul, and John read at least one of the synoptics, then there may only be one source (Paul) for all of these. In fact, it all goes back to a single author: the author of the Corinthian creed. Probably Peter. One source. Who cites only scripture and visions as evidence.
And I’m wary of the way New Testament scholars liberally posit multiple sources to explain innovations from authors. For instance, Ehrman explains the material unique to Matthew by imagining there was an “M" source that Matthew had access to. In this case, I would say Matthew’s gospel shows itself to be a Judaizing of the gentile gospel of Mark, so there is no reason to think Matthew has an independent source here, let alone that it can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Something similar might be applicable to “Q." Burton Mack argues for a stratified Q, Q 1 being the earliest. But Q 1 simply reflects sayings that have a common cynical tang, and hence do not need to come from one sage, let alone Jesus.
Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark. Most scholars posit a “Q" source that was shared by Matthew and Luke (for the material common to them that we don’t find in Mark), although some maintain that Luke borrowed from Matthew (Goodacre and Carrier argue this latter position). Where I raise my eyebrow is when scholars like Ehrman go one step further and posit a myriad of sources every time a gospel author has material unique to them. Ehrman might be right about this, but I don’t think there is any reason to think so. The gospel writers may just have been inventing the material that was unique to them: We have ample evidence with the apocryphal gospels about Jesus and the forged pseudo-Pauline epistles that the writers of that period were more than willing to invent material to suit their purposes, so it is perfectly reasonable to think that this was going on in the canonical Gospels as well.

Ehrman might be right about this, but I don’t think there is any reason to think so. The gospel writers may just have been inventing the material that was unique to them.
What difference does it make?
Ehrman might be right about this, but I don’t think there is any reason to think so. The gospel writers may just have been inventing the material that was unique to them.
What difference does it make? Hi I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

Were the stories about the miracles and resurrection of Jesus lies?
Only if the people relating them knew them to be untrue. If they simply passed on stories from other people they would not qualify as lies unless the speaker knew they were not true but claimed them to be true. One of the problems with knowing a lie from a simple reiterating of a story is that the introductory words are often left out when the stories are retold or written down. For all we know the person who first passed on a story might have prefaced it with, “This is what I heard, but I don’t know if it’s true.” People passing on the story might have thought the disclaimer took away from the drama of the story. I suspect this happened often, as it does to this day. Somebody (or several somebodies) was most likely lying or mischaracterizing the story. It’s impossible to know who knew what at this late date.

Were the stories about the miracles and resurrection of Jesus lies? Only if the people relating them knew them to be untrue. If they simply passed on stories from other people they would not qualify as lies unless the speaker knew they were not true but claimed them to be true. One of the problems with knowing a lie from a simple reiterating of a story is that the introductory words are often left out when the stories are retold or written down. For all we know the person who first passed on a story might have prefaced it with, "This is what I heard, but I don't know if it's true." People passing on the story might have thought the disclaimer took away from the drama of the story. I suspect this happened often, as it does to this day. Somebody (or several somebodies) was most likely lying or mischaracterizing the story. It's impossible to know who knew what at this late date.
Some scholars even think that the gospel stories are allegories of a Celestial Jesus, and sometime early on they were mistaken as literal truths. Or some speculate that they made a Celestial Jesus more historical to combat opposing views from critics of Christianity (our earliest apologetics!). What we do know is that none of the gospels should be taken as historical accounts. For more information read some of the books by Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, James Tabor, Raphael Lataster, etc.