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 82 by Kapyong]

G'day, 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?

I mean -
People experience interactions with spiritual beings,
experiences which are real to them, and which occur naturally to many persons.

You are mixing up the meaning of the word "natural"...You seem to be using it the way we use "normal". But that's not what naturalism and supernaturalism is about.

Perhaps if you look up the word :

a) the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b) the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalism

And :

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalism

Paul had a Jesus Christ experience.
Many other persons have had Jesus Christ' experiences, I've spoken with a few.

Consider what people call 'peak experiences' - I consider them to be entirely natural too, yet also uncommon and subtle.

Again, you probably mean a "normal" experience.
That's not what the rest of mean by "naturalistic", sorry.

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.

Fair question.
I do not limit the 'naturalistic' to what is physical.

The opposite of natural isn't non-physical.
In this context, it would be SUPERNATURAL.

Maybe you can look what "supernatural" means:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... pernatural

Hope that helps.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 88 by Kapyong]

Great.

You have one book, which I have never even mentioned in any of these debates.

I don't do links. If a person cannot present an argument himself in his own words, why is he here?

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

[Replying to post 56 by Kapyong]

thank you for your thoughts.

I think the same about Julius Caesar (who was also deemed a god).

Now, show me your evidence, and I'll show you mine.

Sure

I have prepared a clear explanation of my evidence, with supporting arguments, here :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ParadiseTheory.html

Note important textual evidence here :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ChristianTable.html

And relevant contemporary evidence :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/EarlyWriters.html

I look forward to your review of my evidence.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

[Replying to post 88 by Kapyong]

Great.

You have one book, which I have never even mentioned in any of these debates.

I don't do links. If a person cannot present an argument himself in his own words, why is he here?

You claimed the entire NT was before 100 AD.
Your claim is false.

There are many books which could have been written later than 100 :
1 Peter, G.Luke, Acts, G.John, 1,2,3 John, Jude, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter.

You didn't even know that, did you ?
You don't actually know the relevant background facts at all.

And incredibly, you 'don't do links' !
Especially when they show you are wrong.
You have NO IDEA what Peter Kirby's 'Early Christian Writings' even IS, do you ?

So, you never actually do any research by 'doing' links ?
You just keep preaching what you believe, right ?

Do you think that approach is winning the debate for you ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

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.

Great

Here is my thread on the Empty Tomb :
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50&start=0

I look forward to your promised contributions.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

[Replying to post 86 by Kapyong]

You appear to be a late comer in this debate.

I don't have the energy to get you up to speed.

You do not seem to have read much literature on the subject. Perhaps you did. I can't know for sure. But the entirety of your vague explanation has been touched upon at least once throughout several threads over the last month or so.

Ah,
so when you are shown to be wrong, you stoop to the gutter of personal attacks. Disappointing.

The NT was NOT all before 100 CE as you claimed.
It's a pity you 'don't do links' or you might have checked the facts first.

Any researcher of truth obviously DOES 'do links', such as some of these links that I 'do' often :

Peter Kirby's masterpiece Early Christian Writings :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
The best online resource for the Christian writings.

The Church Fathers at New Advent -
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
All the early writings online.

The Nag Hammadi writings -
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
Do you even know WHAT they are, liamconnor ?

Of course, every student needs a Greek Interlinear bible to hand :
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... _Index.htm
How do you 'do' Greek Interlinear, liamconnor ?

I don't read Hebrew, so I have to use an English Talmud :
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm
I assume you must 'do' the Talmud with your own hardcopy of 22 volumes?

Again, I have to use English for my Greek myths :
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/
How do you 'do' Greek myths, liamconnor ?

Meanwhile, my personal hardcopy library covers nearly all the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, also alchemy, to the count of about 400 books.

My digital text library of ancient works is even larger, at about 610 MBytes - approx. 1000 ancient books.

I have been studying and debating this subject for decades. Search for 'Kapyong Jesus' and you will find me all over.


So -
please don't try that silly game of trying to put me down when I show you are wrong about something. Be a man, admit you were wrong, and learn from it.

Let's stick to the evidence, and what we might conclude there-from.
OK ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Blastcat,

Thanks for your reply.

Well, I have absolutely no interest in arguing about meanings of words.

If you wish to consider my use of the word 'naturalistic' to be incorrect (yes, of course I checked the meaning before writing) then you may do so.


My view is :

* Paul had a Jesus Christ experience

* many persons, even to this day, have Jesus Christ experiences

I am quite sure you would agree with that (?)

So,
I see no value at all in arguing whether such an experience is natural or supernatural.

Do you think all experiences which happen inside people's minds are supernatural ?

What is your explanation for Jesus Christ experiences ?
Have you ever had one ?


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

To the aid of my online colleague liamconnor who does 'not do links', I hereby present my

Paradise theory of the Jesus Myth.

Those who 'do' links, will find the original here :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ParadiseTheory.html


What's Notable ?

Key points in my theory include :

* Several distinct phases of growing Jesus Christ belief :

1. Before Paul - a purely spiritual heavenly being experienced only in visions,
2. Paul's crucified and resurrected son-of-God - a spiritual being real to believers,
3. The Gospel of Mark - being mythical literature, copied and spread and increasingly mis-understood as historical,
4. A historical Jesus of Nazareth became the popular, and eventually the required belief.

* Jesus was crucified on the Tree of Life in Paradise in the Third Heaven - according to Paul.

* The docetics' belief in a phantom Jesus is the direct consequence of the conflict between the early belief in a spiritual Jesus Christ, and the later details of the Gospels.

* The historicisation of Jesus Christ was the natural result of the increasing historical detail of the phases in belief.


Before Paul.

Some people had some sort of visions of a spiritual being they came to call Jesus Christ (i.e. Joshua Messiah.) A loose mystery-like cult formed around this demi-God. Two people were prominent - Peter, and James who was revered with title 'brother of the Lord' (perhaps he was especially wise, or had the first vision?)


Paradise in the Third Heaven.

Two books contemporary with Paul were - The Life of Adam (and Eve) aka The Book of Adam aka The Revelation of Moses; and 2 Enoch. Both books place Paradise in the Third Heaven. 2 Enoch also puts the Tree of Life in Paradise, a place that is 'between corruptibility and incorruptibility'. This Tree of Life is where the Lord rests when he 'goes up into Paradise', and it bears 'all fruits'. Yet the Third Heaven is also a 'very terrible place' with 'all manner of tortures' for the wicked.

The Life of Adam tells of a son of God - who died, is buried in Paradise, and eventually resurrected.


Crucified on the Tree of Life

It seems likely that Paul imagined Jesus Christ crucified on the Tree of Life in Paradise in the Third Heaven. Both Acts and 1 Peter claim he was crucified on a tree. Some later writers associate Jesus Christ with the tree of life - Teachings of Silvanus, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus. The confused and controversial Vision of Isaiah, (which Dr Carrier argues has Jesus crucified by Satan in the Air, after descending from Heaven), has Jesus crucified on a Tree - possibly a Tree in the Air (the lowest level of the heavens.)


As Above so Below

This theme was not unknown in the 1st C. - e.g. Ladder of Jacob, Ascension of Isaiah. Paul later contrasted Jerusalem above with Jerusalem below (Gal. 4:25.) The confused Life of Adam may also be evidence for this - an earthly body buried in Paradise on earth mirrored by a soul buried in Paradise in the third heaven. Hebrews too has a heavenly Jerusalem (and a heavenly Jesus Christ who apparently was never on earth at 8:4.) Above affects below.


Paul's Vision - c.37

Paul had a life-changing visit to the Paradise in the Third Heaven (2 Cor. 12) where he believed he met this being Jesus Christ and learned of his crucifixion - which happened in Paradise in the Third Heaven. Paul sees Jesus Christ as a heavenly contrast and successor to earthly Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) as described in the Life of Adam and adds the novelty of a crucifixion to the themes in that book - expanding the Jesus Christ story to include : crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection. All in Paradise in the Third Heaven - all events in heaven that affect us on earth.

Paul believed he has had a grand revelation from and/or about Jesus Christ which has given HIM new insight into ancient mystery (Rom. 16:25) so he travelled and wrote and preached a crucified yet spiritual Jesus Christ that is totally real (to him and the others). Paul expands the small Jesus Christ communities with his fervent preaching of the reality of the crucifixion from personal revelation.

The crucifixion was Paul's baby - it was HIS revelation, and he preached it hard and emphasized its reality - but in metaphorical, not historical ways (Gal. 2:20, Rom. 6:6.)


The Nazarene Nazorean Nazirite from Nazareth

The Jesus Christ cult came to believe he would be called �αζα�ην? (Nazarene) or �αζω�α?ος (Nazoraios = Nazorean) - possibly related to �αζι�αιος (Naziraios = Nazirite) from Hebrew ??????.

G.Mark refers to ?ησο?ς �αζα�ην? (Jesus Nazarene). G.Matthew explicitly notes an unknown prophecy when he connects �αζω�α?ος (Nazorean) with �αζα�?τ (Nazareth) in Matt. 2:23.

The Nazarene meme had to be included because everyone knew the prophecy that called Jesus a Nazarene or Nazorean or Nazirite - not because it was historical. Modern Gospels usually gloss this into 'from Nazareth.' (?π? �αζα�?τ).
(Sorry, the Greek text broke along the way.)


G.Mark - c.70

'Mark' was a literate and educated pagan genius from Rome who had heard of the Jesus Christ mystery cult and also read :

* Paul
* the Tanakh (LXX)
* Greek myths and mysteries

Mark wrote a masterpiece of religious literature - he took names and central themes from Paul, stories and episodes from the Tanakh, and wove a wonderful new tale of a god-man/Messiah set in a Jewish milieu but who followed the pattern of soter (saviour) from the mystery religions.

Literature, even myth, perhaps even prophecy - but not history. No intent to defraud, deceive, hoax, or lie.


Empty Epistles

Early Christian writings used Jesus Christ as a divine name with no historical context - Hebrews, Colossians, 1,2,3 John, James, Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Revelation, Jude, Pastorals, to Diognetus, 2 Clement.


G.Matthew, G.Luke, G.John - c.80 - c.100.

G.Mark was so good, others wanted to emulate it, knowing full well it was great literature. The Gospel expanded into four versions and spreads out into several distant communities.

The Gospels fell on the fertile fields of the existing Jesus Christ cults.


Spreading Historicity

As the Gospels and their stories slowly spread from 100 to 150, there was a natural tendency to believe they are true (people believed Sherlock Holmes was real.) When a Gospel or a new story arrived in a Jesus Christ community many would assume it was true - why wouldn't they ? Even miracles were believed in these times - the Jesus Christ story was no less believable than, say, Aesclepius.

Some communities would have received the Jesus Christ story in three phases :

1 (before Paul) Jesus Christ a heavenly being, few details
2 (from Paul) Jesus Christ really crucified, died, buried, resurrected.
3 (from a Gospel) the full Jesus Christ story.

Each layer became more detailed, and it ended with an apparently historical story. Early beliefs in a heavenly Jesus Christ were supplanted by later historicity -'oh, so THAT'S the truth - Jesus really WAS crucified after all'.

Jesus Christ solidified from myth into history due to the spread of the Gospels - communities knowing the basics had their beliefs confirmed and expanded with the new details - but the context of being a myth was slowly over-written by the later historical story.

My table shows the spread of knowledge of the Gospels and their stories.
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/ChristianTable.html


Piece-wise

Sometimes the Gospel or their stories would spread piece-meal and/or by memory. This we have books like Barnabas and the Didakhe and Ignatius and the Epistle of the Apostles which have confused pieces of the Gospel stories. Papias knew vaguely about some early Gospels.


Myth vs History ?

Some still remembered that Jesus Christ was originally a spiritual being. Arguments began against those who disagreed Jesus Christ came in the flesh (2 John, Polycarp.) The conflict of belief in a spiritual Jesus Christ and the Gospel detail, lead to the docetic view of a purely 'phantom' Jesus - a strong faction in early Christianity - e.g. docetics, Marcion, Basilides, Bardesanes.

1 John appears to be an account of a Christian recording a spiritual experience.

Minucius Felix c.150? seems to explicitly reject the Gospel stories.

Other 2nd C. Christian apologists show no mention of a life of Jesus Christ (to Diognetus, Athenagoras, Theophilus). 2nd C. is a battling mish-mash of claims about Jesus Christ, including many esoteric and non-historical views e.g. Naassene Fragment, Hermas, Valentinus, Vision of Isaiah, Ptolemy, Heracleon, Theodotus.

2 Peter is an oddity - rather docetic. Hermas - has a spiritual son-of-God.


Aristides of Athens - c.140?

He described the (un-named, written, singular) Gospel as being newly preached in his time, and clearly believed it was true. This may represent a clue to the spread of the Gospels - it appears to have reached Athens 'a short time' before his apology.

' The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. '

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-kay.html


Justin c.150

Justin collected several documents (we don't know how many) which he calls 'memoirs of the Apostles' and the 'memoirs of Peter', which are also 'called Gospels'. He gives no names, and his quotes do not match our Gospels very well. He clearly believed his books are historical.


Tatian c.172

Oddly, the Gospels were apparently NUMBERED four before they were even named - by the DiaTessaron of Tatian. It means 'From Four' implying a harmony of four books, and was the official Gospel for many centuries in some communities.

(I think what happened is that Justin handed on his precious memoirs to his student Tatian when he died, and four were all he had collected.)


Irenaeus c.185

Finally the four Gospels receive their names from Irenaeus - based on hints from Papias and his own imagination. He clearly believed them.

Historicity won.

The heavenly and mythical origins of Jesus Christ were gradually replaced with a new detailed earthly story. A historical Jesus Christ was dogma for a millenium and more.


The Last of the Gnostics

The poor original Gnostic Christians struggled on for a couple centuries, but eventually they gave up and buried their sacred library for posterity. Possibly in 367 when Athanasius' famous letter with the first NT canon like ours banned such 'apocrypha' (org. 'obscure') as "an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple". One and half millenia later, posterity thanks that nameless monk for the Nag Hammadi Library. I imagine him standing there after burying their treasures, wondering if they will be lost for ever, or re-discovered long in the future - whether anyone will care, whether it will make a difference to the historical dogma that had settled over his world.


Kapyong

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 71 by liamconnor]
We were talking about the N.T. --documents which are no later than 100 Ad, until you brought up the question as to why the radical switch from Judaism to Christianity.

The actual radical switch came much later, from Constantine making it the state religion.

You stick to OPs (or brush up on your history) if you wish to be taken seriously.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

I see that liamconnor frequently rejects the idea that Paul and the apostles were lying.

As if that somehow proves something, (which obviously it doesn't.)

The unspoken argument must go something like this (if not, please clearly explain what the argument actually is) :

1. Either they lied, or it's all true
2. They could not possibly have lied
3. Therefore it's all true.

This is clearly a ridiculous argument -

Firstly - there are many more alternatives than being a lie or being all true.
Secondly - people DO lie.

An example of another alternative is that they all BELIEVED something not historically true - no-one told a lie.

Another example would be that all the Gospels are religious literature, which were later mistaken as history. Like Harry Potter books discovered after two wars and misunderstood as real history.

Because that's all we have -
a set of BOOKS,
handed down through history.

We do not know who wrote these books, or exactly where. Even Paul is completely unknown to history, apart from his letters.

There is absolutely NO historical evidence for ANY of the Christian characters in the Gospel stories. Nothing for Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Lazarus, most of the disciples or anyone else; not counting known external figures like Pilate, Tiberius etc. Except two real people called Peter and a James were added into the stories. Note that the alleged letters from Peter and James were clearly written by persons who had never met any Jesus.

Consider the important disciple called Joseph of Arimathea - who suddenly pops up with just the right thing at just the right moment - who amazingly comes from a town called 'Best Disciple Town' (Arimathea.) Can it be any more clear that this is a STORY ?

Not one single Christian writer EVER wrote about meeting ANYONE from the Gospel stories. Not a single early Christian writing has ANY claim to direct knowledge of anyone in the stories - not even a single claim to have Mary, who would have been famous. (Apart from the supernatural transfiguration fable in the forged 2 Peter from perhaps as late as 150. And a few later stories about people who knew people who ...)


So, I think you better back up liamconnor -
before we sceptics have to explain the alleged Empty Tomb etc -

how about YOU please explain why we should consider these ancient anonymous conflicting supernatural tales to be true in any way ?

You claim to believe in historical methodology, so I'd like to see some please.


Choose a Christian book or books e.g. a Gospel, and tell us what method lead you to consider these book(s) to be historically true ?

I look forward to reading your arguments.


Kapyong