The Best "Non-Divine" Explanation of Christianity

[liamconnor]

This is different from my previous Threads. I give first what is considered by numerous scholars representing the full gamut of theological beliefs to be historical bedrock. I then give what I think the "best" non-divine explanation of the early Jesus movement will entail.

1. Jesus is an historical figure.
2. Jesus was regarded by his contemporaries as a exorcist and miracle worker.
3. He was crucified under the auspice of Pontius Pilate
4. He was buried in a tomb
5. His tomb was discovered empty by female followers of his
6. Within two months of his burial, followers of his believed and declared that he had been raised, they believed that this encounter involved such sensory interactions as touch and conversation.
7. Jesus’ brother, James, believed he had an encounter with the risen Jesus
8. Within three years Paul, a Pharisee who zealously persecuted the Jesus-movement in Palestine, had an experience which he believed to be an encounter with the risen Jesus. This encounter differed from mere visions which even other Christians report (i.e. Ananias Acts 9:5; 1 Cor. 15).


Best “natural� Hypothesis: (I have borrowed from Vermes, Sanders, and other non-Christian scholars).

1) Jesus’ body was taken by a non-disciple leaving the tomb empty: there is no historical data suggesting why. All explanations are purely speculative.

2) His tomb was discovered empty by women two days after his death (crucified and buried on Friday; unobserved on the Sabbath; found empty on Sunday morn) and verified by at least a couple of Jesus' closest disciples--Peter most certainly.

3) Not much later (within a little more than a month of his death), several of his disciples, collectively and individually, suffered complex hallucinations—we can call them uniform hallucinations. In the case of individual hallucinations, the uniform general impression was a vocation—“go and tell� and the content of the vocation was generally the same. In the case of collective hallucinations, the victims saw and heard the very same things.

Question: Do you think this is a good/plausible explanation for Christianity's origins?

[Danmark]

This is different from my previous Threads. I give what I think the "best" non-divine explanation of the early Jesus movement will entail.

Best “natural� Hypothesis: (I have borrowed from Vermes, Sanders, and other non-Christian scholars).

1) Jesus’ body was taken by a non-disciple leaving the tomb empty: there is no historical data suggesting why. All explanations are purely speculative.

2) His tomb was discovered empty by women two days after his death (crucified and buried on Friday; unobserved on the Sabbath; found empty on Sunday morn) and verified by at least a couple of Jesus' closest disciples--Peter most certainly.

3) Not much later (within a little more than a month of his death), several of his disciples, collectively and individually, suffered complex hallucinations—we can call them uniform hallucinations. In the case of individual hallucinations, the uniform general impression was a vocation—“go and tell� and the content of the vocation was generally the same. In the case of collective hallucinations, the victims saw and heard the very same things.

Question: Do you think this is a good/plausible explanation for Christianity's origins?

No.
#1 is entirely speculative and also sets up a straw man inviting the answer "there is no historical data suggesting why. All explanations are purely speculative." Why, for example, speculate it was a "non-disciple."
#2 adds nothing
#3 is another straw man and presents an argument non theists do not make.

The problem with all of these is that they presume these reports written by anonymous authors decades after the alleged events are accurate depictions of what was observed. They also fail to note the many contradictions in the 'gospel' accounts.

[liamconnor]

This is different from my previous Threads. I give what I think the "best" non-divine explanation of the early Jesus movement will entail.

EDIT: Based on a response, I have edited this: I now include historical bedrock--what scholars (using common sense) representing a the full gamut of theological beliefs, assent to:

1. Jesus is an historical figure.
2. Jesus was regarded by his contemporaries as a exorcist and miracle worker.
3. He was crucified under the auspice of Pontius Pilate
4. He was buried in a tomb
5. His tomb was discovered empty by female followers of his
6. Within two months of his burial, followers of his believed and declared that he had been raised, that this encounter involved such sensory interactions as touch and conversation.
7. Jesus’ brother, James, believed he had an encounter with the risen Jesus
8. Within three years Paul, a Pharisee who zealously persecuted the Jesus movement in Palestine, had an experience which he believed to be an encounter with the risen Jesus. This encounter differed from mere visions which even other Christians report (i.e. Ananias Acts 9:5; 1 Cor. 15).


Best “natural� Hypothesis: (I have borrowed from Vermes, Sanders, and other non-Christian scholars).

1) Jesus’ body was taken by a non-disciple leaving the tomb empty: there is no historical data suggesting why. All explanations are purely speculative.

2) His tomb was discovered empty by women two days after his death (crucified and buried on Friday; unobserved on the Sabbath; found empty on Sunday morn) and verified by at least a couple of Jesus' closest disciples--Peter most certainly.

3) Not much later (within a little more than a month of his death), several of his disciples, collectively and individually, suffered complex hallucinations—we can call them uniform hallucinations. In the case of individual hallucinations, the uniform general impression was a vocation—“go and tell� and the content of the vocation was generally the same. In the case of collective hallucinations, the victims saw and heard the very same things.

Question: Do you think this is a good/plausible explanation for Christianity's origins?

No.
#1 is entirely speculative and also sets up a straw man inviting the answer "there is no historical data suggesting why. All explanations are purely speculative." Why, for example, speculate it was a "non-disciple."
#2 adds nothing
#3 is another straw man and presents an argument non theists do not make.

The problem with all of these is that they presume these reports written by anonymous authors decades after the alleged events are accurate depictions of what was observed. They also fail to note the many contradictions in the 'gospel' accounts.

I asked whether this was the best explanation. YOu say no. So what is YOUR best explanation?

As for this

The problem with all of these is that they presume these reports written by anonymous authors decades after the alleged events are accurate depictions of what was observed. They also fail to note the many contradictions in the 'gospel' accounts.

Do you really still not understand how ALL ancient history works? Any time you criticize historical evidence for the Resurrection, ask yourself, "Do I really think that 99% of ancient historical claims can pass muster?"

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Danmark]

I feel the need to reply to this yet again.

I am not making an argument I think a "atheist would make". I am presenting what I think the best non-divine theory is. In short, I am saying that all other natural theories I have read are ridiculous. THIS IS THE BEST THERE IS.

To make this clearer: I will say that the fact you reject this explanation leaves only ONE possibility--supernatural intervention. EITHER YOU ACCEPT THIS, OR THAT.


As for "anonymous"... Paul is NOT anonymous.

[Danmark]

I asked whether this was the best explanation. YOu say no. So what is YOUR best explanation?

As for this

The problem with all of these is that they presume these reports written by anonymous authors decades after the alleged events are accurate depictions of what was observed. They also fail to note the many contradictions in the 'gospel' accounts.

Do you really still not understand how ALL ancient history works? Any time you criticize historical evidence for the Resurrection, ask yourself, "Do I really think that 99% of ancient historical claims can pass muster?"

What is the explanation for a novel? Why do people write about things that never happened? Certainly they have an agenda, but I don't bother myself with trying to explain why people tell fairy tales or write novels. I just know they do.

Every claim about any historical event must stand or fall on the merits of its own claim. It is a false and illogical argument to claim that because someone rejects one fairytale, or one bogus and unreliable account about supernatural or magical claims, that one thereby rejects ALL historical claims that are about NON magical or NON supernatural events.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2 by Danmark]

I feel the need to reply to this yet again.

I am not making an argument I think a "atheist would make". I am presenting what I think the best non-divine theory is. In short, I am saying that all other natural theories I have read are ridiculous. THIS IS THE BEST THERE IS.

To make this clearer: I will say that the fact you reject this explanation leaves only ONE possibility--supernatural intervention. EITHER YOU ACCEPT THIS, OR THAT.


As for "anonymous"... Paul is NOT anonymous.

You are constructing a straw man and doing a rather poor job of it.

Agreed: Saul-Paul is not anonymous. He also does not claim to be a witness. After falling down at high noon, blinded, he went 3 days without food or water. When he came to he reported a supernatural event upon which most of Christianity is based. That anyone takes seriously, the report of a clearly delusional person who was near death before he related his claim of supernatural events is mind boggling. For me it suggests the incredible gullibility of some of my fellow humans, as well as the power of tradition and telling the same story over and over and over again until a false claim is accepted as fact by the credulous.

[liamconnor]

I asked whether this was the best explanation. YOu say no. So what is YOUR best explanation?

As for this

The problem with all of these is that they presume these reports written by anonymous authors decades after the alleged events are accurate depictions of what was observed. They also fail to note the many contradictions in the 'gospel' accounts.

Do you really still not understand how ALL ancient history works? Any time you criticize historical evidence for the Resurrection, ask yourself, "Do I really think that 99% of ancient historical claims can pass muster?"

What is the explanation for a novel? Why do people write about things that never happened? Certainly they have an agenda, but I don't bother myself with trying to explain why people tell fairy tales or write novels. I just know they do.

Every claim about any historical event must stand or fall on the merits of its own claim. It is a false and illogical argument to claim that because someone rejects one fairytale, or one bogus and unreliable account about supernatural or magical claims, that one thereby rejects ALL historical claims that are about NON magical or NON supernatural events.

This was very, VERY helpful for me.

"Every claim about any historical event must stand or fall on the merits of its own claim."

And yet you will not take me on in real historical work (I have presented numerous opportunities).

You show you are unwilling (unable?) to engage me on historical matters. I still don't understand why you engage historical threads. I have written elsewhere (countless times) about skeptics like yourself who pretend to do historical work when really you are just sitting idly in your philosophical ASSUMPTIONS. From here on out, I see no reason to read your responses. If you want to PM me, or challenge me to a one-on-one, that is fine; or even start a Philosophical Thread.

But what we are doing, is a waste of intellectual energy.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Danmark]

I feel the need to reply to this yet again.

I am not making an argument I think a "atheist would make". I am presenting what I think the best non-divine theory is. In short, I am saying that all other natural theories I have read are ridiculous. THIS IS THE BEST THERE IS.

To make this clearer: I will say that the fact you reject this explanation leaves only ONE possibility--supernatural intervention. EITHER YOU ACCEPT THIS, OR THAT.


As for "anonymous"... Paul is NOT anonymous.

You are constructing a straw man and doing a rather poor job of it.

Agreed: Saul-Paul is not anonymous. He also does not claim to be a witness. After falling down at high noon, blinded, he went 3 days without food or water. When he came to he reported a supernatural event upon which most of Christianity is based. That anyone takes seriously, the report of a clearly delusional person who was near death before he related his claim of supernatural events is mind boggling. For me it suggests the incredible gullibility of some of my fellow humans, as well as the power of tradition and telling the same story over and over and over again until a false claim is accepted as fact by the credulous.

That is NOT the whole story sir. Please include the rest of Acts--including the damaging parts to your position.

[Danmark]

And yet you will not take me on in real historical work (I have presented numerous opportunities).

You show you are unwilling (unable?) to engage me on historical matters. I still don't understand why you engage historical threads. I have written elsewhere (countless times) about skeptics like yourself who pretend to do historical work when really you are just sitting idly in your philosophical ASSUMPTIONS. From here on out, I see no reason to read your responses. If you want to PM me, or challenge me to a one-on-one, that is fine; or even start a Philosophical Thread.

But what we are doing, is a waste of intellectual energy.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim I am "unwilling (unable?) to engage me on historical matters. " What 'historical matters?' I'm not aware of you presenting any.

[liamconnor]

And yet you will not take me on in real historical work (I have presented numerous opportunities).

You show you are unwilling (unable?) to engage me on historical matters. I still don't understand why you engage historical threads. I have written elsewhere (countless times) about skeptics like yourself who pretend to do historical work when really you are just sitting idly in your philosophical ASSUMPTIONS. From here on out, I see no reason to read your responses. If you want to PM me, or challenge me to a one-on-one, that is fine; or even start a Philosophical Thread.

But what we are doing, is a waste of intellectual energy.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim I am "unwilling (unable?) to engage me on historical matters. " What 'historical matters?' I'm not aware of you presenting any.

Okay, I tried giving you a PM, but I am not sure it worked