Non Believers Are "Evasive" and "Nervous"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I posted this in another string. But it seemed important enough to give it it's own topic.

Is it possible that atheists evade offering a positive alternative historical explanation for Christian origins because it is hard (anyone can doubt something, after all) and they are nervous it might get them trapped: that is, they might have to defend a position which itself might crumble?

You have been a member of this forum for two years now. To insist that non believers are somehow "nervous" or timid or have in some way been evasive in offering an explanation for the origins of Christianity is way past distressing and all the way to psychotic. As in, a complete disassociation from reality. In what way does it seem to you that making these sorts of obviously ridiculous declarations is somehow strengthening your claims? Because to the rest of us they seem nothing short of delusional.

But I will be perfectly happy to take you up on your claim that no one can offer an explanation for the origins of Christianity. The short version is to be found in Matthew 27:62-64.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[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.

And there you have it, right in the pages of the Gospels. Because this is EXACTLY what occurred, according to the NT. The body of Jesus disappeared, and a few weeks later his followers began spreading the rumor that he had risen from the dead.

But for a slightly deeper analysis, let's turn to what the Gospels themselves detail.

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. (Matt.27:57; John 19:38)
3) The body of Jesus was taken to the personal tomb of Joseph of Arimathea 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 washed according to Jewish tradition, and 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.
7) Finding the tomb entrance closed off by the large stone, and, given the nature of the high holy day, the priests simply placed seals on the closed tomb and set a guard.
8) The next morning (Sunday) Joseph's tomb proved to be empty.

So we are confronted with the obvious conclusion that Joseph's personal tomb was already empty when the priests set the guard. We also notice that the disciples of Jesus were the last individuals to be in clear control of the body.

Now Acts indicates that after being away in Galilee for about forty days, the apostles and other disciples returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 1:3) On the day termed by Christians as the day of Pentecost, the followers of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had "risen from the dead." Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus? His followers and ONLY his followers. And where was the "risen" man now? He was gone, having lifted bodily up off of the ground and disappeared into the clouds. (Acts 1:9) Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus lift bodily off of the ground and fly up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds? His followers and ONLY his followers.

What did the Jewish priests believe the followers of Jesus intended to do? Relocate the body of Jesus from Joseph's tomb and then spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. And what happened? The tomb of Joseph proved to be empty and some six weeks later the followers of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Now, if you still wish to assert that non believers are somehow unable or uncertain about providing an explanation for the origins of Christianity, perhaps you should read the answer that has been provided to you yet again a few dozen more times!

Agreements? Disagreements?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What you have given is a perfectly sound and valid explanation for the rise of the Christian Gospel Rumors. There simply is no need to elaborate further.

Yet Liamconnor continually, and quite falsely, proclaims that atheists don't have a rational explanation for the origins of Christianity. Liamconnor is clearly wrong as Tired of the Nonsense has clearly provided a perfectly rational explanation that explains everything leaving absolutely nothing left to explain.

So Liamconnor is perpetuating a false and invalid claim that atheists don't have a rational explanation. Tired of the Nonsense has provided a perfectly valid secular explanation. And other atheists have provided similar valid explanations as well.

In fact, no one can actually dispute the claim of some atheists that the entire story was fabricated, and that there never was a Jesus, a crucifixion, or any exchange between Pilate and the Chief Priests at all.

Personally I tend to lean toward Tire of the Nonsense's explanation as being more practical since it includes an explanation for the precise fodder of how these rumors began. It's difficult for me to accept the claim that the entire story was totally fabricated from scratch. However, even I can't demonstrate that the claim that the entire story was fabricated from scratch is necessarily false.

After all, look at Islam, and the stories of Muhammad. Where they totally fabricated from scratch? Or was there an actual Muhammad who's actual deeds gave rise to the rumors about him?

As far as I'm concerned, Christians who claim that atheists need to explain the origins of Christianity had better first explain the origins of Islam.

And they need to do so in a way that is convincing to devout Muslims as well.

Otherwise, they are just whining about nothing. Christian theists can't even convince each other of their extremely diverse views and opinions on this obviously ambiguous collection of religious rumors. Why they think they have a chance of convincing non-Christians is beyond me.

If they had a single consistent story they could all agree upon they might be onto something, but they can't even come up with that.

So even if Liamconnor convinced atheists that Jesus rose from the dead, so what? What would that mean? Apparently even Christians can't agree on the answer to that question.

Also, if Christians themselves can't even agree on the message or meaning of Jesus then isn't that proof positive that Jesus was a horrible teacher who couldn't even teach a clear message? That's hardly evidence that he was "The Word Made Flesh".

Christians need to get their own act together before they try to proselytize their religion to others. And I'm not about to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. If anything Christians just continue to become more diverse and divisive among themselves with every passing year.

Attempting to proselytize their self-destructive religion to atheists is beyond silly.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

liamconnor wrote:

Is it possible that atheists evade offering a positive alternative historical explanation for Christian origins because it is hard (anyone can doubt something, after all) and they are nervous it might get them trapped: that is, they might have to defend a position which itself might crumble?

You have been a member of this forum for two years now. To insist that non believers are somehow "nervous" or timid or have in some way been evasive in offering an explanation for the origins of Christianity is way past distressing and all the way to psychotic. As in, a complete disassociation from reality.

I asked a question; you use the language "insist"?

You also insinuated I was psychotic. Mod intervention?

But I will be perfectly happy to take you up on your claim that no one can offer an explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Exellent. I am looking forward to seeing your historical methodology at work! Yet I scanned very briefly and am already a bit disappointed: it seems you are simply taking the texts as they stand, as if they were not the product of a community: that we need to apply good historical methodology to filter out what is historically reliable and what is clearly the product of the later church. If your only target is something only a Christian fundamentalist would defend, then I am not your target and you may want to do a little more research and study before engaging me...

And there you have it, right in the pages of the Gospels. Because this is EXACTLY what occurred, according to the NT.

Ah. You think I am a Christian fundamentalist and not an historian. You see, this won't work. As an historian I am under no compulsion to accept every historical claim made by the Bible. I have worked hard, read much, to arrive at what I think are the bedrock historical facts and they by no means include everything in the Bible.


So, before you and I can engage, I suggest you read a little more critical history on the N.T. and not just the Bible as the claimed "Word of God".

I will start you with this question: If the three of the four gospels lack the presence of Roman guards at the tomb, why do you presume Roman guards were at the tomb? Why select only bits as true which you can manipulate to disprove other bits (the resurrection) which you don't?

I myself am highly skeptical (on historical grounds) that Roman guards were present at the tomb at all.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Yet Liamconnor continually, and quite falsely, proclaims that atheists don't have a rational explanation for the origins of Christianity. Liamconnor is clearly wrong as Tired of the Nonsense has clearly provided a perfectly rational explanation that explains everything leaving absolutely nothing left to explain.

No such thing has happened. ToN has simply demonstrated a non-historical approach to the gospels and that "proof texting" is not a game merely played by amateur theologians. ToN has selected some claims of the N.t. as historically accurate to question other claims made by the same book. But why does he approve those claims? He (and I think you) have once more mistaken your adversary.

I am not a fundamentalist. I work as an historian.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Not that I am terribly motivated to continue your half-baked hypotheses since it is based on an uncritical examination of the data, but are you saying that someone stole the body, and then full out lied that his master was risen from the dead?

If so, have you followed this hypotheses up with any kind of critical examination?! I mean, good grief, the problems abound. Talk about a breach of Occam's Razor!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by liamconnor]

I asked a question; you use the language "insist"?

You also insinuated I was psychotic. Mod intervention?

I suggested that by continuing to insist, after two years of everyone attempting to do that very thing, that no one is willing to answer the questions on the origins of Christianity you are exhibiting traits that seem to indicate that you may be disconnected from reality.

Wikipedia
Psychosis
Psychosis is an abnormal condition of the mind that involves a "loss of contact with reality".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Psychosis is a specific condition with a very specific set of traits.

Exellent. I am looking forward to seeing your historical methodology at work! Yet I scanned very briefly and am already a bit disappointed: it seems you are simply taking the texts as they stand, as if they were not the product of a community: that we need to apply good historical methodology to filter out what is historically reliable and what is clearly the product of the later church. If your only target is something only a Christian fundamentalist would defend, then I am not your target and you may want to do a little more research and study before engaging me...

The Gospel and Acts were written 40-60 years after the time when they indicate that Jesus was executed. The life and death of Jesus went entirely unrecorded by anyone for about the first quarter of a century after Jesus was supposed to have been executed. The information contained in the NT is the ONLY information that anyone credits with being accurate. Dozens of other documents purporting to be authentic accounts of Jesus were written, mainly during the late first, second and third centuries. These are largely discounted as fraudulent by scholars and even devout Christians.

My methodology is that those portions of the NT that COULD be true, MIGHT be true. Those portions that defy all common experience, common observation and therefore common sense we have every right to exclude. Unless of course some extraordinarily convincing evidence should be produced. The story at hand however indicates that the story of the risen Christ is based on nothing more than rumors perpetuated by his followers. And there is nothing extraordinary about unverifiable rumors.

I will start you with this question: If the three of the four gospels lack the presence of Roman guards at the tomb, why do you presume Roman guards were at the tomb? Why select only bits as true which you can manipulate to disprove other bits (the resurrection) which you don't?

Matthew 27:
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

I don't question "the presence of Roman guards at the tomb," because no mention is made of Roman guards at the tomb. If you would like to challenge the historical accuracy of the guard at the tomb, I am listening.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Not that I am terribly motivated to continue your half-baked hypotheses since it is based on an uncritical examination of the data, but are you saying that someone stole the body, and then full out lied that his master was risen from the dead?

If so, have you followed this hypotheses up with any kind of critical examination?! I mean, good grief, the problems abound. Talk about a breach of Occam's Razor!

Islam... based on actual events, or lies and delusions? Mormonism... based on actual events, or lies and delusions?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by liamconnor]

I will start you with this question: If the three of the four gospels lack the presence of Roman guards at the tomb, why do you presume Roman guards were at the tomb? Why select only bits as true which you can manipulate to disprove other bits (the resurrection) which you don't?

I myself am highly skeptical (on historical grounds) that Roman guards were present at the tomb at all.

Okay, so how then do you, liam, rule out the possibility of the body being moved? I can't count the number of times I've heard from other Christians that the 'fact' there were Roman guards standing watch over the tomb means there is no possibility of foul play or trickery.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 7 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Not that I am terribly motivated to continue your half-baked hypotheses since it is based on an uncritical examination of the data, but are you saying that someone stole the body, and then full out lied that his master was risen from the dead?

I should also point out liam, as I have done REPEATEDLY over the last two years, that the disciples did not have to "steal" the body of Jesus. The body was given to Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, by Pilate. The disciples of Jesus were in full legal possession of the body from the beginning, did not have to "steal" it, and had every legal right to bury the body wherever they chose. They first took the body to Joseph's newly constructed family crypt because it was located close to the place where Jesus was crucified, and because it was a convenient private place to wash and prepare the body. But Joseph's tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. Not because the disciples "stole" it. But because it was never intended to be the final resting place for Jesus in the first place.

Halfbaked... as compared with the conclusion that Joseph's tomb proved to be empty because the corpse came back to life and left of it's own volition... you mean?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 9 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Halfbaked... as compared with the conclusion that Joseph's tomb proved to be empty because the corpse came back to life and left of it's own volition... you mean?

uhh...Half-baked compared to better natural explanations maybe?