skepticismskeptic

I am curious to know which naturalistic theory the viewers here believe can best account for the origin of the belief in Jesus' resurrection in the first century CE.

show_no_mercy

There are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrection; all of the gospel accounts are heresay (ie I heard from a guy who said a guy named Jesus rose from the dead).

Shinobi

Someone wrote a fictional story, for whatever reason. People continued to belive in that story.

Toto

You're playing a game, based on a long gone faction of Christianity (Protestant Rationalists) which believed that the Bible was true, but did not believe in miracles, and so tried to find naturalistic explanations for the events in the Bible.

No one does this any more. There is no reason to think that the Bible is an accurate historical record. The most naturalistic explanation of the events of the Bible is that someone created a story for theological purposes. There is no need to invent fanciful explanations of things that didn't happen.

But, playing your game:

First of all you need to show that there was a first century belief in Jesus' resurrection. I don't think you can do this.

But assuming that you accept that Paul the letter writer had visions of Jesus and wrote about them in the first century, I would say that the best explanation is that a few people had visions. Mass hallucination is not required. Later legendary development created the myth that Jesus had appeared to a lot of people.

But I expect you want the best explanation that also accepts most of the gospel story as historical, although it appears to be fictional. You want us to believe that there was a first century wandering Jewish teacher who was crucified for some reason - and, unlike other Jewish leaders of the time, his followers were not crucified. Then you want us to accept as fact a disputed part of one of Paul's letters that claims that Jesus "appeared" to various followers, including 500 believers.

I still say visions, hallucinations, or mass hysteria are better explanations than a Resurrection. We know that there have been visions, mass hysteria, and multiple sightings of Elvis. We have never known anyone to rise from the dead.

If you really care about this, you will want to read The Empty Tomb.

If you really wanted an answer, of course, you would post this in BCH.

skepticismskeptic

Thank you all for your responses, and I am looking forward to learning what others have to say as well.

In gratitude,

skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me about this topic.

That is excellent advice. Thank you.

In gratitude,

skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

I am curious to know which naturalistic theory the viewers here believe can best account for the origin of the belief in Jesus' resurrection in the first century CE.

Killer Mike

Simply that its myth. I mean how does one account for the belief in Santa Clause? Simple: its human nature to be story tellers.

Overcomer

The comparison of Jesus Christ to Santa Claus is a weak argument for the following reasons:

Some atheists say that you cannot prove Jesus existed anymore than you can prove Santa Claus exists. Of course, this is not accurate for several reasons.

First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally and knowing presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.1

Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit an historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a north pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

Fifth, the facts are that parents are the ones who buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth commenting on since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly which further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.

Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracts on the roofs of snow covered homes strewn about millions of homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected -- particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the mind of children.

Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them that Santa is real.

For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed children's' stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

___________
1. Granted there are probably some adults why may believe in Santa Claus as a reality, but I suspect they would be mental patients or some other such people not fully in touch with reality.

The above is taken from: http://www.carm.org/atheism/santa.htm

Historians don't question the existence of Jesus Christ. There are enough secular as well as sacred sources to prove that he walked this earth.

Interestingly, the same people who question whether Jesus was a real person don't seem to question whether Socrates or Plato or Genghis Kahn were real people. Yet there is no more evidence that they existed than that which proves that Christ was real.

Here is a link where you can see the numerous sources showing that Jesus was a real person:

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/main.html

Here's just one example from that site. It comes from Thallus, a Samaritan, written in 80 A.D.:

Thallus (circa AD 52) wrote a history about the middle east from the time of the Trojan War to his own time. The work has been lost and the only record we have of his writings is through Julius Africanus (AD 221). Below Julius Africanus refers to Christ's crucifixion and the darkness that covered the earth prior to his death.

"This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as it appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse occur when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?

Phlegon records that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth — manifestly that one of which we speak." The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus 18

This reference reveals several key things:

1) Darkness covered the earth at Christ's death.

2) The only question was: "What caused it?"

3) The time of the darkness agrees with Matthew 27:45.

4) An eclipse cannot account for the darkness - this was a miracle.

Please note that Thallus wrote the original piece in 80 A.D. There were many people alive at the time he was writing who had been alive at the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ including those who had witnessed it.

This is from: http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/thallus.html

Consider this information about the eclipse of the sun that occurred the day of Christ's crucifixion:

THALLUS' STATEMENT:
"For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon . . . but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun."

CONSIDERATION:
If we look for natural events to explain this event, this can only happen when the moon passes between the sun and the earth. This is called a solar eclipse. But this could not have occurred because the Bible also tells us that Jesus died on a Friday just before Passover (Luke 22:13-15). This is important because the Jews scheduled Passover during a full moon. A solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon. There is a second reason a solar eclipse cannot explain the darkness. Astronomical records show that no solar eclipse occurred on that date anywhere near the city of Jerusalem.

Solar Eclipse. A solar eclipse can only occur when the moon passes between the sun and the earth. When this happens, the moon is referred to as a new moon. When the moon passes between the sun and the earth as shown in the figure, the sun's rays are blocked and part of the earth is darkened.

Full Moon. A full moon only occurs when the moon is behind the earth. The expression full moon means that it appears in the night sky as fully illuminated and completely round. This means the moon must be behind the earth, otherwise the light reflected off the moon would not be seen on earth.

CONCLUSION:
No eclipse was possible due to the alignment of the celestial bodies. Darkness over the face of the earth with no eclipse - what a supernatural event! Consider the following:

1) The Jewish Passover occurs during the full moon.

2) Full moon occurs when the moon is behind the earth.

3) This means a supernatural darkness occurred over the earth.

4) The darkness occurred during Christ's death.

5) The universe responded to the Creator's death.

There are graphics to accompany this information here: http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/dark.html

The eclipse happened. From a scientific point of view, we can see that it was not a natural occurence. Neither was Christ's resurrection.

Therefore, when you ask for a naturalistic theory explaining Christ's resurrection, I have to tell you -- there isn't one! It was a miracle! Miracles, by definition, defy nature.

The swoon theory is laughable (and I'd love somebody who believes otherwise to be beaten to a bloody pulp, hang on a cross, survive three days without food and water after having lost so much blood and then remove a rock so large that several men were needed to seal the tomb to actually go through the process themselves and prove that it's a valid theory if they really believe that it is!).

So, too, is the idea that the disciples stole and hid the body (if they did that, it's amazing that all of them, except John, were martyred because most people, when threatened with death will tell the truth rather than be tortured and killed for a lie).

The idea that the Pharisees took the body is also silly because, if they did, they would have put it on display for all to see to prove that Christ wasn't the Son of God.

Interestingly, it was the information above about the eclipse that occurred at Christ's death that encouraged atheist Lee Strobel to seriously consider the truth of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. It led him to the Lord and he now writes books (The Case for Christ; The Case for Faith; The Case for a Creator) to help other people come to an understanding of who Christ is and what he has done for humankind.

premjan

I would have considered that Jesus actually died and the resurrection part of it was just manufactured.

But the eclipse without the moon story is quite interesting.