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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

So why would the Jewish Authorities have worried about such nonsense?

The Jewish Authorities might have demanded evidence like the risen Jesus to appear, but not all people it seems require such airtight evidence. The Jewish Authorities would be correct in their own skepticism, but they could still be worried that Jesus's followers would spread the claim of his resurrection, and that this claim would spread among the masses.

[Student]

[Replying to liamconnor]The problem with your composite picture is that you would be hard pressed to identify many historians (rather than theologians) who would accept your list in its entirety.

In fact your hypothesis falls flat at the second hurdle, regarding how Jesus was regarded by his contemporaries.

You suggest that it was as an exorcist and miracle worker; others reject that portrayal, supposing instead that he was an itinerant preacher, or a cynic sage, or the Essene's righteous rabbi, or a Galilean holy man, or a revolutionary leader, or an apocalyptic preacher, or a proto-liberation theologian, or a trance-inducing mental healer, or an eschatological prophet, or an occult magician, or a Pharisee, or a rabbi seeking reform, or a Galilean charismatic, or a Hillelite, or an Essene, or a teacher of wisdom, and so on and so on.

Evidently, either the historical Jesus took multitasking to a whole new level, or your supposed historical bedrock is no more than the slippery slope of conjecture, grounded on the quicksand of speculation.

[Willum]

I'll expand on Danmark's explanation:

I presented it to you before, so I think you are probably just ignoring the obvious.

If we examine the effects of Jesus teachings on Earth, we remove all the spiritual, and unverifiable aspects of the Word. We can't observe heaven, God, Jesus magic powers, etc..

So what are the practical impacts of the NT/Christianity?

The Saviour is no longer a warrior saviour. He is a lamb advocating peace, and one who says that God selected the empire of Jove to rule over Palestine, and by doing so you will be rewarded in heaven. (Also sounds like Satan.)
He says that you should pay the divine Augustus his Taxes, supporting the false gods monarchy.
Don't molest tax payers.

So the practical upshot of the NT is to pacify Palestine.

The best "non-divine" explanation of Christianity is that Rome created it to pacify Palestine. Continuing it's policy of using religion to pacify, Greece, Egypt most famously, and Europe and others less so.

Put another way:
Means, motive and opportunity.

[Danmark]

For anyone wanting an 'explanation' for "the literalist absurdities of contemporary fundamentalism" I highly recommend this little book I read 30 years ago. It does no violence to the accounts in the synoptic gospels. It explains how the early Christians, led by Paul, made the classic human error of worshipping the messenger instead of the message:

[center]The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity[/center]
Thomas Sheehan analyses the historical background of Jesus and his teachings, and finds, amidst variously-conceived messianic expectations among Jews of the time, the probable content of what Jesus taught: a message of God's definitive presence among humankind, with radical implications for social justice and personal ethics. Sheehan argues that Jesus thought of himself not as God or Christ but as God's eschatological prophet proclaiming the arrival of God's kingdom, that the resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus coming back to life, and that the affirmation that Jesus was divine first arose among his followers long after his death.

This bold and well-argued theory rescues the message and person of Jesus from the literalist absurdities of contemporary fundamentalism and recovers the social and ethical significance of what Jesus called the "kingdom of God." In making its case, the book leads the reader through the basics of modern Scripture scholarship, as well as the the development of christology within first-century Christianity. An excellent bibliography and an abundance of end-notes provide resources for further research on these and related topics.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thom ... rstcoming/

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

So why would the Jewish Authorities have worried about such nonsense?

The Jewish Authorities might have demanded evidence like the risen Jesus to appear, but not all people it seems require such airtight evidence. The Jewish Authorities would be correct in their own skepticism, but they could still be worried that Jesus's followers would spread the claim of his resurrection, and that this claim would spread among the masses.

IF this is TRUE, doesn't this speak VOLUMES?

Let's assume that this is true. The Jewish Authorities were afraid that mere rumors might be started and cause the masses to follow a totally bogus religion that would become a threat to their religion.

If this is true what does this tell us? Well it tells us that even the people back in those days were well aware of how mere rumors could be taken seriously enough by the masses to actually become a full-blown religion.

So why is it that today, when I suggest that this is precisely what happened theists like liamconnor will say that this is ridiculous, there has to be something more to it than just rumors. Yet the very authors of these gospel rumors proclaim that this is precisely what the Jewish Authorities were afraid of. And this is why they went to Pilate and asked to have Roman Soldiers guard the tomb of Jesus, just to be sure that no rumors would get started.

This sounds extremely fishy to me.

They were so afraid that mere rumors might turn into a full-blown threatening religion, yet theists like liamconnor dismiss that as being an unrealistic explanation for this religion.

Apparently the Jewish Authorities thought otherwise if they actually did what these Gospel Rumors claim they did.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

So why would the Jewish Authorities have worried about such nonsense?

The Jewish Authorities might have demanded evidence like the risen Jesus to appear, but not all people it seems require such airtight evidence. The Jewish Authorities would be correct in their own skepticism, but they could still be worried that Jesus's followers would spread the claim of his resurrection, and that this claim would spread among the masses.

IF this is TRUE, doesn't this speak VOLUMES?

Let's assume that this is true. The Jewish Authorities were afraid that mere rumors might be started and cause the masses to follow a totally bogus religion that would become a threat to their religion.

If this is true what does this tell us? Well it tells us that even the people back in those days were well aware of how mere rumors could be taken seriously enough by the masses to actually become a full-blown religion.

So why is it that today, when I suggest that this is precisely what happened theists like liamconnor will say that this is ridiculous, there has to be something more to it than just rumors. Yet the very authors of these gospel rumors proclaim that this is precisely what the Jewish Authorities were afraid of. And this is why they went to Pilate and asked to have Roman Soldiers guard the tomb of Jesus, just to be sure that no rumors would get started.

Exactly! But for the tradition built up around it, Christianity has nothing to recommend its supernatural aspects. It is proof of how effective it is to keep telling a lie or an unfounded rumor over and over and over until it becomes a magical "fact."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

By the way, why should the Jewish Authorities give a hoot about a bunch of rebel apostates who might claim that Jesus rose from the dead?

If they made that claim wouldn't they be asked to back up the claim by producing this raised Jesus?

What are they going to say, "Oh we can't do that because he flew off to heaven".

Yeah right.

And yet this is exactly what occurred, according to Gospel Matthew, and Acts of the Apostles.

Matthew 27:
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, 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.

Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Are these claims believable? Are they valid history simply because Christians have declared that it is so? That is of course exactly the point.

Claiming that he then flew off to heaven would have been laughed at.

The story was just as laughable 2,000 ago as it is today, this is true. Believing it takes a very special type of trusting gullibility that is necessarily quite childlike in nature. Individuals like Paul who were heavily steeped in superstition and believed that metaphysical occurrences were a routine part of life. And as a result accepted his dreams and hallucinations as equally spiritually valid.

The claims of Jesus' resurrection were overwhelmingly dismissed as rumors and lies by the Jewish population of Jerusalem at the time. And they still are to this day.

[Elijah John]

Do you really still not understand how ALL ancient history works?

Moderator Comment

As it stands, this is considered a personal attack. Please make your points without assuming your opponent is in any way deficient in understanding.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

The best "non-divine" explanation of Christianity is that Rome created it to pacify Palestine. Continuing it's policy of using religion to pacify, Greece, Egypt most famously, and Europe and others less so.

Put another way:
Means, motive and opportunity.

Exactly.

If these people were so easily convinced by superstitious tales then why not take charge of the superstitious tales and use them to control the masses?

And this appears to be precisely what happened with Christianity.

If we want to talk about history what do we see historically?

We see these particular Gospels Scriptures being controlled and authorized by Roman Authority. Even to the point of demanding that only their Holy Scriptures are to be acknowledged as the truth of Jesus and God. And any other "rumors" of Jesus that don't agree with their official "Gospel Rumors" will bring the wrath of Rome including the beheading of those who dare to suggest that anything other than the "Official Gospel Rumors" are the only TRUE rumors.

Talk with actual historians. They will tell you that back in the early days of Christianity there were many different "rumors" of what Jesus was supposedly all about. Some proclaimed him to be the Son of God, others did not. In the early going rumors of Christianity were strongly pitted against each other.

It wasn't really until Constantine proclaimed "Christianity" to be the official religion of Rome that these particular Gospel Rumors became the official "Holy Texts" whilst all other rumors of Jesus were destroyed as being blaspheme against God.

What we are calling the "Gospels" today are merely the ones that survived after having been proclaimed to be the "Holy Gospels". Anything else was deemed to be blaspheme rumors.

And as Willum points out, these particular "Holy Rumors" have Jesus preaching to people to turn the other cheek, always bow down to authority, give to Caesar (or whoever is in charge) what belongs to them. Pay your taxes! If you are a slave be obedient, etc.

Rome couldn't asked for a BETTER JESUS.

Most likely they invented this particular version of him. And then methodically went about beheading anyone who disagreed with their "Holy Gospels".

And this is how we ended up with these particular "Gospels" being proclaimed to be "Holy Texts".

It wasn't just rumors, it was purposefully manipulated rumors.

And this is the BEST non-divine explanation for Christianity as we have come to know it today.

It's a far better explanation than to think that some God had actually orchestrated to have his only begotten demigod Son crucified just so people could argue about it for millennia to follow.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?"

Instead of being subjected to you continuously telling us how ancient history works, here is an ACTUAL explanation on how ancient history works from an ACTUAL expert on the subject.

"In the ancient world, history may be generally designated as the 'remembered past'; it was the past as it was remembered and as it was told, and it was not supposed that it could be recovered by critical investigation of documents and other remains of human activity." (Dictionary Of The Bible, "History," pg. 360, by Father John L McKenzie)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._McKenzie

We DO suppose that some, not all, of ancient is potentially recoverable today however, because modern historians have gathered together many of the documents which were written in ancient times, subjected them to critical analysis, and have developed a comprehensive overview. Obvious mythology and fiction is NOT included in this comprehensive overview.