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?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 50 by liamconnor]

The Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God, co-eternal with him and currently reigning with him (this can be traced back, chronologically, from Revelation through all four gospels to Paul).

False. Christians have never, not ever, had a single unified theology regarding Jesus. Even in the earliest days of Christianity, there were various groups with diverse beliefs. There were groups who believed Jesus was just a man, others who believed he was pure spirit, and so on and so forth.

In three years’ time a tale about a one foot fish can evolve into a three foot fish; it is not enough time for Jewish beliefs, as described above, to evolve into Christian beliefs.

You clearly ignore the existence of memes. You also have ignored what I wrote in earlier posts about Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the famous Jewish rabbi who died in 1994 and whose followers, almost immediately, started believing he still sat, in invisible spirit form, on his favourite chair

Liam, you also portray the Corinthians as being perfectly rational, when we have no reason to believe that. Going back to Schneerson, even though in public and for all to hear, he denied being the Messiah...there are still people alive today who believe him to be such.
One of the most important lessons about life is this: People are stupid. You, me, everyone. There are things that all of us believe that we believe for stupid reasons. I am no exception.

Jesus' divinity. I am referring to the earliest stratum of Christianity, as represented by the N.T. If one knows Jewish theology (which is based on O.T. exegesis) then one will see this in the n.t. writings. This is a big topic. If you want to address an OP to it in particular (does the N.T. anywhere identify Jesus with YHWH) I would be happy to jump in.

Analogies from 20th c. need to show they are appropriate. I see nothing appropriate about your analogy.

Liam, you also portray the Corinthians as being perfectly rational, when we have no reason to believe that. Going back to Schneerson, even though in public and for all to hear, he denied being the Messiah...there are still people alive today who believe him to be such.

And you think they are all idiots. The difference is that I read the actual text like an historian: 1 Cor. 15 onward show that some of the Corinthians were incredulous about aspects of the Christian teaching. They were not willy-nilly accepting anything. They were thinking individuals. Any notion to the contrary is ridiculous.

One of the most important lessons about life is this: People are stupid. You, me, everyone. There are things that all of us believe that we believe for stupid reasons. I am no exception.

Two problems here.

You just called me and everyone on this forum stupid. Insulting.

You just called yourself stupid, thereby logically condemning all your above arguments as....stupid?

[Kapyong]

Gday Blastcat

Thanks for your thoughtful question.

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.

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.

I consider a Jesus Christ experience to be a natural thing - it is part of the real natural life of many persons.

As to exactly WHAT Jesus Christ really IS in this context is not so clear - but I describe him as a spiritual or heavenly being as fair approximation.

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.

Fair question.
I do not limit the 'naturalistic' to what is physical. There are many real and natural things that are not physical - from love to light to inspiration.

Clearly, Paradise in the Third Heaven is not a physical place. But it could still be real and natural - as a state of consciousness.

Because there ARE different states of consciousness that take people to different 'places'. I consider these to be natural - but certainly not physical.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

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 ?

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]

[Replying to post 80 by Tired of the Nonsense]

answers nothing.

There is no reason why the disciples of Jesus should not leave Jesus' corpse in a wealthy tomb closer to Jerusalem than Galilee. There is no law that says a corpse HAS TO BURIED IN ITS HOME TOWN.

You are confined by little scraps of history which talk of common policy; you pull them off the internet and think that they are infallible and unbreakable.

They aren't. Generalities are that, generalities.

All the evidence points in one direction: the disciples were inactive between Jesus' crucifixion (they all abandoned him at his arrest) and Sunday afternoon. His disciples did not have possession of the body. Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus did, and they were not disciples. They were sympathizers. The women watched from a distance. The disciples were in hiding (quite naturally, their master was just condemned as an insurrectionist).

Your wild theories are the product of an overactive imagination unrestrained by the historical evidence.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

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 ?

This OP is about natural explanations.

Indeed it is.

So what is your natural explanation for why all the early Christian writers (outside the Gospels) FAILED to mention the Empty Tomb story ?

After Justin and Irenaeus, EVERYONE mentions the Empty Tomb story, over and over, ad nauseum...

My natural explanation is the best -
the Empty Tomb story was a NOT known to early Christians at all.

It was invented later, and didn't become known to the wider Christian community until about 150 - when the Gospel finally arrive.


Kapyong

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 80 by Tired of the Nonsense]

answers nothing.

There is no reason why the disciples of Jesus should not leave Jesus' corpse in a wealthy tomb closer to Jerusalem than Galilee. There is no law that says a corpse HAS TO BURIED IN ITS HOME TOWN.

You are confined by little scraps of history which talk of common policy; you pull them off the internet and think that they are infallible and unbreakable.

They aren't. Generalities are that, generalities.

All the evidence points in one direction: the disciples were inactive between Jesus' crucifixion (they all abandoned him at his arrest) and Sunday afternoon. His disciples did not have possession of the body. Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus did, and they were not disciples. They were sympathizers. The women watched from a distance. The disciples were in hiding (quite naturally, their master was just condemned as an insurrectionist).

Your wild theories are the product of an overactive imagination unrestrained by the historical evidence.

You have yet to provide your personal explanation for the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Why so coy? Until you have provided a more reasonable explanation than the one I have offered, my explanation is perfectly satisfactory and answers the OP entirely. Here is a recap in fact.

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.

Now, all you have to do is come up with a more plausible explanation. What is it?

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

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.

It's not vague at all - it's just concise.
And it's exactly true :
* what we have are some ancient supernatural stories,
* demonstrably based on the Jewish scriptures and Greek myths
* about a supernatural god-man who does impossible miracles
* with absolutely NO evidence to support it

I know exactly what evidence is :
* we have NO contemporary historical evidence for the alleged Jesus
* we have NO contemporary historical evidence for ANYONE who EVER met the alleged Jesus
* we have NO contemporary historical evidence for any of the alleged Christian religious events in the Gospels

All we have is STORIES written LONG after the alleged events.
Stories which you place so much faithful belief in, that you think they are history.


Kapyong

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 85 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I did. In the OP.

The grave was robbed by a non-disciple. I borrowed this from Vermes (a Jewish historian of a 1st rate mind).

I am not saying it is a great reason; nor does he. I am only saying it is "the BEST NATURAL reason".

Grave robbery occurred back then.

But once you bring in the disciples, you have far too many obstacles in front of you.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

We are talking about the N.T.--documents which are no later than 100 Ad.

Wrong again.
Some books, e.g. 2 Peter, could have been forged as late as c.150.

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

Please brush up on your facts if you wish to be taken seriously.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


Kapyong

[liamconnor]

[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.