The Best Naturalistic Explanation for Christianity

[liamconnor]

I believe I posted something like this before and it got derailed; or rather, the issue was dodged.

A quick scenario: Let us suppose a man who is undecided on the issue of Jesus' resurrection (and for that matter, the existence of God). He wants to know in what direction the historical data points. If he is an honest thinker, does his homework, I believe the "best" naturalistic interpretation of the evidence he will find will include the following:

1) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
2) The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.
3) Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples
4) Several days later, a large number of his disciples, individually and collectively suffered hallucinations which were consistent with each other: a) they were bodily and involved the delusion of "touch" b) they left the impression of a commission to preach a specific message which was consistent among them all
5) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.
6) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 56 by Kapyong]


Hi Kapyong.

1. Jesus Christ was initially a purely heavenly or spiritual being - with a few details known to an early mystery-like cult of proto-Christians which included a Peter, and a James entitled 'brother of the Lord';

er... how is a "purely heavenly or spiritual being" NATURALISTIC?

2. Jesus Christ' story was expanded by Paul's visionary journey to Paradise in the Third Heaven - he saw a son-of-God who really was crucified, died, buried, and finally resurrected - all in Paradise in the Third Heaven;

Again, Paradise and Third Heaven is NATURAL? .. could you explain how you use the word "naturalistic"? I don't think you use it the same way as most people.

[Zzyzx]

.

Of course, I don’t think that the resurrection was a hoax but a genuine supernatural event and the only critique I’ve heard against it is “the supernatural doesn’t exist� or “we’ve no evidence that the supernatural exists.� The first is covered w/in the second and we do indeed have evidence that it exists. There are mystics alive today who say it does since they claim they’ve experienced direct revelation from God.

That's it – solid evidence that the supernatural exists – �Mystics say so� and say they have experienced direct revelation from God.

Stories by mystics about “visions� or “visits� from supernatural beings should convince us. Such people should not be institutionalized or medicated. They should become religious leaders – like Paul/Saul.

How could anyone NOT take their word?

Why should the believer conclude that every one of them is lying or experiencing a psychotic break? The answer is, “They shouldn’t conclude that.�

Right. The Believer should take their word because it aligns with what they already believe, what they have been taught / indoctrinated to accept.

[JLB32168]

That's it – solid evidence that the supernatural exists – “Mystics say so� and say they have experienced direct revelation from God.

They’ve met my burden of proof. Some of them tell the future. Some cause spontaneous healing. Some are clairvoyant, etc. That you don’t believe them is your affair.

I’m sorry it annoys you that I do.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

A quick scenario: Let us suppose a man who is undecided on the issue of Jesus' resurrection (and for that matter, the existence of God). He wants to know in what direction the historical data points. [. . .]. Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

I don’t see how there’s a better naturalistic explanation. That one seems to be the most logical.

Of course, I don’t think that the resurrection was a hoax but a genuine supernatural event and the only critique I’ve heard against it is “the supernatural doesn’t exist� or “we’ve no evidence that the supernatural exists.� The first is covered w/in the second and we do indeed have evidence that it exists. There are mystics alive today who say it does since they claim they’ve experienced direct revelation from God. Why should the believer conclude that every one of them is lying or experiencing a psychotic break? The answer is, “They shouldn’t conclude that.�

1) Jesus was crucified and died on the Friday before Passover.
2) The body of Jesus was turned over to his followers (Joseph and Nicodemus) that same day by the Roman governor.
3) The body of Jesus was taken to the personal tomb of Joseph to be washed and prepared because the tomb was conveniently close to the place where Jesus was crucified.(John. 19:42)
4) The body of Jesus was heavily wrapped and coated with 100 pounds mixture of aloe/myrrh.(John.19:39)
5) The entrance to Joseph's tomb was covered with a large stone and the disciples departed.(Matt.27:60)
6) The Next day (Saturday) the chief Jewish priests asked for and received permission from the Roman governor to place a guard at Joseph's tomb, which they did, also placing seals on the closed tomb.
7) The next morning (Sunday) Joseph's tomb proved to be empty.

The clear and obvious reason that Joseph's tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning is because the body of Jesus was already gone when the Jewish priests took possession of the tomb. Why?

Matthew 27:
[64] lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

The entire question of the missing corpse and story of the "risen" Jesus can be explained in this verse. Because exactly what the priests feared would occur is exactly what DID occur. Except that the disciples did not have to "steal" the body. Joseph had every legal right to bury the body where ever he chose to.

Six week later, upon their return from Galilee, the apostles and early followers of Jesus began to spread the rumor of the "risen" Jesus as detailed in the first few chapters Acts. All of which proved that the suspicions of the Jewish priests had been justified all along.

So exactly how is this explanation somehow "less logical" than the Christian conclusion that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and then subsequently flew away, off up into the sky? And do you really think that anyone should actually find your flying reanimated corpse conclusion to be the only logical conclusion, when a perfectly reasonable natural conclusion is right at hand?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 63 by JLB32168]

That's it – solid evidence that the supernatural exists – “Mystics say so� and say they have experienced direct revelation from God.

They’ve met my burden of proof. Some of them tell the future. Some cause spontaneous healing. Some are clairvoyant, etc. That you don’t believe them is your affair.

I’m sorry it annoys you that I do.

We don't have to pretend that we can read minds, if someone is annoyed, and it's somehow relevant to the debate, they can just let us know. What we believe is our affair, and to SOME, it's important to believe only what is true.

If you say that mystics have met your burden of proof, do you believe everyone who claims to BE a mystic?

How do you tell them apart?
Many of them make claims... mystical claims, but not ALL are of the same religion.

[Zzyzx]

.

That's it – solid evidence that the supernatural exists – “Mystics say so� and say they have experienced direct revelation from God.

They’ve met my burden of proof.

Of course. One is free to set their bar for burden of proof as low (or as high) as they wish.

Some of them tell the future. Some cause spontaneous healing. Some are clairvoyant, etc.

Any who could demonstrate such abilities without tricks or illusions could have collected one million dollars via the Randi Challenge – that was available for nearly fifty years.

For those unfamiliar with James Randi and his challenge:

James Randi is a Canadian-American retired stage magician and scientific skeptic[2][3][4] who has extensively challenged paranormal claims and pseudoscience.[5] Randi is the co-founder of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). He began his career as a magician named The Amazing Randi, and later chose to devote most of his time to investigating paranormal, occult, and supernatural claims, which he collectively calls "woo-woo".[6] Randi retired from practicing magic aged 60, and from the JREF aged 87. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi


The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge was an offer by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) to pay out one million U.S. dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural or paranormal ability under agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. A version of the challenge was first issued in 1964, and over a thousand people have applied to take it since then, but none has yet been successful.

James Randi developed the idea for the challenge during a radio panel discussion when a parapsychologist challenged him to "put [his] money where [his] mouth is."[1] In 1964, Randi started offering $1,000, then $10,000 prizes. Later, Lexington Broadcasting wanted Randi to do a show called the $100,000 Psychic Prize, so they added $90,000 to the original $10,000 raised by Randi. Finally, in 1996, one of his friends, Internet pioneer Rick Adams, donated US $1,000,000 for the prize.[2] The prize is sometimes referred to in the media as the "Randi Prize".

On January 4, 2008, it was announced that the prize would be discontinued on March 6, 2010 in order to free the money for other uses.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Milli ... _Challenge

A thousand failures and no successes -- does that tell us anything?

That you don’t believe them is your affair.

I do not believe anyone's claims of magic or paranormal ability UNLESS they can demonstrate such ability openly and honestly. TALES of such things and illusionist tricks are not at all convincing.

It seems to me as though believing paranormal (or any) claims without sound, verifiable evidence meets the definitions of gullible and naïve.

I’m sorry it annoys you that I do.

Anyone who thinks their theological positions annoy me is seriously overestimating their own importance. I enjoy having religionists make their claims, tell their supernatural stories, and quote their literature – for readers to compare to what is known of the real world.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 57 by Tired of the Nonsense]

They had a perishable cargo, so speed was essential. Waiting until Sunday would have put them on the road with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims returning home from the Passover celebration. Traffic jams equal long delays which they could not afford. Especially when an early start would place them on a wide open road miles ahead of the coming congestion. They would necessarily have taken the obvious course open to them, as most of us would have done.

1) You have not explained why the body was not allowed the dignity to remain in a tomb near Jerusalem. The tradition says it was Joseph's and was unoccupied. Joseph was an aristocrat. He had no problem buying another tomb--perhaps he had a couple.

2) Despite that major set back, still, we have this: So they left during the night, breaking the Sabbath all the next day without raising an eyebrow, because it was really, really, important to bury a corpse a little less rotted than had they waited a day--why was this so important? And, of course, ALL pilgrims were from GALILEE, right? So the travel was comparable to Chicago traffic at rush hour (Traffic Jams!!! We don't have cars merging, changing lanes at 60 mph, making sudden turns!!)

Silly. You have given no plausible reason for why the disciples would have transported the body at all, let alone do so immediately. I have every historical reason to believe the disciples left the body in the tomb and intended to leave it there.

[liamconnor]

Gday all,

1) Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb: no plausible reason has been given as to why we should doubt this.

Actually, many such reasons have been given,
but you ignore them.

An example would be :
Jesus and the disciples are characters in a supernatural story which has impossible religious events - a story preached by believers, a story not supported by any evidence.

Here is another reason :
outside the Gospels, which were unknown to the wider Christian community until mid 2nd century, NO Christian writer mentions the empty tomb story until Justin c.150 :



Note the orange box shows terms like 'resurrection' ('r') are found from the earliest times.
But the red box shows the 'Empty Tomb' ('T') was NOT mentioned until 150 or so (outside the Gospels).

How do you explain that so many early Christians writers FAIL to mention the Empty Tomb story ?


Kapyong

This OP is about natural explanations. The only one I think you might have given is this

Actually, many such reasons have been given,
but you ignore them.

An example would be :
Jesus and the disciples are characters in a supernatural story which has impossible religious events - a story preached by believers, a story not supported by any evidence.

This is so vague it does not amount to an historical explanation. I also wonder if you know what the definition of "evidence" is in history.

Your problems with the empty tomb are a separate category. Since it is enough of a topic in itself, if you post a separate OP, I will be sure to join in. I promise.

[liamconnor]

.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

Some natural (naturalistic) factors to be considered:

Long-dead bodies are not known to reanimate
Empty tombs are common and are not regarded as evidence the deceased came back to life and left
Religious zealots and fanatics are not always truthful and reliable
Not all who claim to be prophets or messiahs have been shown to be so
Folklore and legends are not generally regarded as reliable sources of truth and accuracy
Humans are capable of being wrong, deluded, psychotic, deceptive (including the "holy")
Human observation and memory are not infallible

Long-dead bodies are not known to reanimate

correct. Known to us, and known to the ancients. So this only makes the Christian proclamation more intriguing, since they knew very well that it was remarkable.

Empty tombs are common and are not regarded as evidence the deceased came back to life and left

correct. I know of no one who basis the entire case on the report of an empty tomb.

Religious zealots and fanatics are not always truthful and reliable

nice try. People are not always truthful and reliable. To sneak in pejorative terms like "zealot" and "fanatic" is begging the question.

Not all who claim to be prophets or messiahs have been shown to be so

correct.

Folklore and legends are not generally regarded as reliable sources of truth and accuracy

nice try. "folklore" and "legend" are terms loaded with connotations: you pretty much said "things that are not trustworthy are generally not regarded as reliable sources...".

If you want to try again, I suggest "ancient oral history is not infallible". But than that gets you no farther than saying any history is not infallible.

Humans are capable of being wrong, deluded, psychotic, deceptive (including the "holy")
Human observation and memory are not infallible

Agreed.

Now what?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 57 by Tired of the Nonsense]

They had a perishable cargo, so speed was essential. Waiting until Sunday would have put them on the road with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims returning home from the Passover celebration. Traffic jams equal long delays which they could not afford. Especially when an early start would place them on a wide open road miles ahead of the coming congestion. They would necessarily have taken the obvious course open to them, as most of us would have done.

1) You have not explained why the body was not allowed the dignity to remain in a tomb near Jerusalem. The tradition says it was Joseph's and was unoccupied. Joseph was an aristocrat. He had no problem buying another tomb--perhaps he had a couple.

2) Despite that major set back, still, we have this: So they left during the night, breaking the Sabbath all the next day without raising an eyebrow, because it was really, really, important to bury a corpse a little less rotted than had they waited a day--why was this so important? And, of course, ALL pilgrims were from GALILEE, right? So the travel was comparable to Chicago traffic at rush hour (Traffic Jams!!! We don't have cars merging, changing lanes at 60 mph, making sudden turns!!)

Silly. You have given no plausible reason for why the disciples would have transported the body at all, let alone do so immediately. I have every historical reason to believe the disciples left the body in the tomb and intended to leave it there.

1) You have not explained why the body was not allowed the dignity to remain in a tomb near Jerusalem. The tradition says it was Joseph's and was unoccupied. Joseph was an aristocrat. He had no problem buying another tomb--perhaps he had a couple.

The question here is, is it considered undignified under Jewish custom to transport a body for burial? And the answer is, NO, NOT AT ALL.


When To Hold A Jewish Funeral
Jewish law requires that the body be buried within a day or as soon as practical from the time of death. However, exceptions may be made in a number of cases, including if there are any legal issues surrounding the death that must be investigated, if the body must be transported from one city or country to another, if close family members must travel far distances to be present for the funeral, or to avoid burial on Saturday or another holy day.
https://www.everplans.com/articles/jewi ... traditions

2) Despite that major set back, still, we have this: So they left during the night, breaking the Sabbath, because it was really, really, important to bury a corpse a little less rotted than had they waited a day--why was this so important? And, of course, ALL pilgrims were from GALILEE, right? So the travel was comparable to Chicago traffic at rush hour (Traffic Jams!!! We don't have cars merging, changing lanes at 60 mph, making sudden turns!!)

The question here is, just what was the attitude of the disciples of Jesus regarding the sanctity of the Sabbath? As it so happens, we have written examples of just what their attitude on the Sabbath was available to us.

Mark 2
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.


Romans 14:5
5. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Colossians 2
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day.

Colossians 2 reminds us of another fact. It was no violation of the law for non Jews to travel on the Jewish Sabbath. Joseph the rich man certainly had the resources to have hired a group of non Jews to transport the body of Jesus to Galilee if the Jewish disciples felt they could not violate the Sabbath themselves. There simply are no details on exactly how the body would have been transported. That the possibility that the body was taken home to Galilee to be buried is vastly more likely then the Christian contention that the tomb proved to be empty because body of Jesus came back to life and left the tomb of it's own volition, ultimately flying off, up into the sky however.

And then of course there is the distinct possibility that the disciples may have feared that Jewish authorities might seek to intervene and prevent any departure. Which would have been a fully justified fear as it turned out, since that is EXACTLY what the Jewish authorities did.

Silly. You have given no plausible reason for why the disciples would not have waited until Sunday.

You are claiming that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. Are you REALLY in the best position to be making judgments concerning what is silly, and what is not?

Consider this. You have a truck full of hard frozen ice cream worth several thousand dollars to you, but the truck's refrigeration system has stopped working. It's early Friday morning, the freezer for storing your ice cream is a four hour drive away, and the highways are currently clear. The problem is, Friday is a work day, and Saturday begins a three day holiday. By the time you get off of work the highways will be bumper to bumper. Think the LA freeways on a Holiday. Throngs of people and animals (much like the LA freeways I might add) all trying to get somewhere at the same time. Total gridlock. Do you go to work and wait, or do you call in sick and leave immediately? In truth this is not really much of a decision at all, is it! Most people would take the obvious path and call in sick.

But perhaps the disciples did choose to respect the Sabbath. By employing a non Jewish crew that still is no real practical obstacle to the body of Jesus being a full day closer to Galilee by Sunday, well beyond the throngs of returning worshippers. The body came back to life and left the tomb on it's own power? Now we have a clear conflict with both reason and logic which only make believe can explain. Now you have to make up an answer that violates all experience with the nature of what dead bodies are capable of accomplishing and declare "That is what occurred." Somehow the reasonably possible could not possibly be what actually occurred, leaving the totally impossible as the only answer. In your mind.