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]

[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