Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[DeistPaladin]

"for fucks sake, didn't any of you assholes hear me banging on the inside of that tomb for three-and-a-half goddamn days???"

Or one and a half, depending on which "reliable eye-witness" of the story you believe. John says Jesus died on Friday and rose before dawn on Sunday.

Another of many continuity gaffes in the resurrection story.

[DeistPaladin]

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I like to believe that somewhere inside the believer's brain lie some neurons coded for honest introspection.

I can relate. Anyone who's read my exchanges with Statler/Waldorf knows my hope springs eternal.

[Confused Ape]

Paul claims to have met the risen Christ, and he makes the explicit claim that the risen Christ appeared before 500 Christians at one time. One deluded person may have an hallucination, but 500 at once? All the disciples? All the apostles too? Mary and Mary? What would make your theory more credible is if one of the disciples or one apostle came out and said "hey these guys are deluded" - did that ever happen? Heck, not even someone from the laity of the period said it.

Just because Paul claimed these things doesn't automatically make them true. How do we know that Paul even made the claim about 500 Christians? Maybe the story about Jesus's resurrection grew in the telling and that's how it ended up.

A very famous story which grew in the telling is the Angel of Mons. This is an in-depth analysis on the Military History Online site.

Smoke Without Fire: A re-examination of the Angel of Mons

During World War One there was a widespread belief in Britain that some form of supernatural intervention saved allied troops during the retreat from Mons. Since the war this event, generally known as the “Angel of Mons” has been variously used as evidence of supernatural intervention in combat, an example of a collective hallucination or as an urban myth unwittingly originated by a piece of fiction.

and

Working for a British newspaper at the time was Arthur Machen, a Welsh writer of popular gothic horror stories.

On 29th September 1914 a short story by Machen called The Bowmen appeared in the Evening News. Set during the battles at Mons the story told of a group of soldiers of the BEF fighting desperately against overwhelming German attacks. One of the British soldiers unwittingly summoned the spirit of St George and, just as it seems that they can no longer hold out;

“… he saw before him, beyond the trench, a long line of shapes, with a shining about them. They were like men who drew the bow, and with another shout their cloud of arrows flew singing and tingling through the air towards the German hosts.”

In the story, thousands of Germans are killed by the ghostly archers, and the attack is turned back.

The Bowmen was not specifically labelled as fiction, and potentially confusingly another piece in this edition of the newspaper was titled “Our Short Story”. However, given the style and format of the piece, it’s difficult to believe that it could have been read as anything but fiction. And this generally seems to have been the case. Contrary to subsequent claims, the notion of supernatural assistance coming to the rescue of the BEF did not instantly seize the British popular imagination after publication of The Bowmen. The only immediate response was that Machen was contacted by the editors of two specialist publications - The Occult Review and the spiritualist magazine Light. Both asked whether The Bowmen was based on a true story? Machen assured them that it was simply a piece of fiction. For more than six months newspapers made no mention of ghostly forces assisting British troops at Mons, though several parish magazines reprinted The Bowmen as a piece of patriotic fiction.

And then -

On 3rd April 1915 a small English provincial newspaper, the Hereford Times, carried an article called “A Troop of Angels”. This appears to have been where the term Angel of Mons was first used in print. The article was a second-hand account originating from a story told by a Miss Marrable (described as "the daughter of the well-known Canon Marrable".) Miss Marrable had met two officers from the BEF "both of whom had seen angels which had saved their left wing from the Germans when they came right upon them during our retreat from Mons [1]."

The 24th April (23rd April is St George’s day) 1915 edition of Light magazine ran a similar story titled: "The Invisible Allies: Strange Story from the Front." Although not identical to the Hereford Times piece, this also claimed that supernatural forces had come to the aid of British forces at Mons. In May 1915 an article in the Occult Review stated that at Mons "those who could see said they saw 'a row of shining beings' between the two armies.[2]" It will be recalled that Light and The Occult Review were the two magazines which had contacted Machen in September 1914 to ask for confirmation that the The Bowmen was based on fact. His denial does not appear to have dampened their enthusiasm for the story.

Also in May 1915 a reprint of the Hereford Times article appeared in the All Saints Church Parish Magazine in Bristol (the April edition of the same magazine had included a reprint of The Bowmen). Although largely forgotten now, at the beginning of World War One parish magazines were widely read and influential. Reverend Gilson, editor of the All Saints magazine was quickly overwhelmed;

“…to find that our modest little parish magazine has suddenly sprung into almost world-wide notoriety; every post ... has brought letters from all over the country, not asking merely for single copies, but for dozens of copies, enclosing quite embarrassing numbers of stamps and postal orders, the more so since there were no more magazines to be had.”[3]

In June 1915 the story was mentioned in the sermon of the Reverend R. F. Horton. He said;

“… when soldiers and officers, who were in the retreat from Mons say they saw a batch of angels between them and the enemy…, no thoroughly modern man is foolish enough to disbelieve the statement or to pooh-pooh the experience as hallucination.”[4]

There's more -

In August 1915 The Occult Review published the first of a series of articles by a British Nurse, Phyllis Campbell, who had been stationed in field dressing stations near the front line in France and Belgium during the retreat from Mons. She claimed to have heard stories from wounded soldiers of supernatural entities helping British troops. Many of these stories were repeated in her book Back to the Front, published in 1915. These stories, or derivations from them, were repeated in newspapers and parish magazines and used in sermons across the UK. A small number of eyewitnesses came forward to give first-hand testimony. One of the best known, Private Robert Cleaver of the 1st Cheshire Regiment gave to newspapers a detailed account of Angels he had seen at Mons and swore to the truth of this under oath. The Angel of Mons was frequently cited as evidence that God was on the side of the Allies. By late summer 1915 it was "unpatriotic, almost treasonable, to doubt it"

When people looked into it after the war,however, all the proof melted away like snow.

However, those who examined the evidence quickly found that contemporaneous first-hand accounts were very difficult to locate. The Imperial War Museum, repository for a vast array of documents from the period noted that "to pursue the supporting stories to source is to make a journey into a fog" [8] What appeared to be reliable testimony often proved worthless on closer examination. For example, following publication of his account of seeing the Angels, Private Robert Cleaver became mildly famous and his story was quoted in a number of newspapers and other publications. It was also used as the central piece of supporting evidence in a book which set out to prove the reality of the Angels.[9] However, on investigation it was found that Cleaver was not inducted into the Army until late August 1914 and did not arrive in France until 22nd September – four weeks after the end of the battle at which he claimed to have been present! [10]

Nurse Phyllis Campbell was also challenged to provide details of any of the soldiers from who she claimed to have heard of the angels. She was unable to do so, but claimed in justification that troops had been ordered not to tell of their experiences at Mons. However, no other nurses or sisters who had treated the wounded from Mons and the Marne could recall hearing similar stories.

So back to Arthur Machen.

Arthur Machen maintained that The Bowmen was at the root of belief in supernatural intervention at Mons. He believed that his original story about ghostly archers at Mons had gradually evolved and been embellished to become the Angel of legend. In August 1915 he re-published the story in an anthology, and included in the preface a clear statement that The Bowmen was fictional and had no basis in fact. He went on;

“It began to dawn on me that if I had failed in the art of letters, I had succeeded, unwittingly, in the art of deceit. This happened, I should think, some time in April, the snowball of rumour that was then set rolling has been rolling ever since, growing bigger and bigger, till it is now swollen to a monstrous size.”[13]

Although the anthology which included The Bowmen quickly sold out, Machen’s denial had little effect on belief in the reality of the Angel. However, over time his view has become more generally accepted. Most recent accounts of the Angel cite The Bowmen as the probable origin of the story. Two folklorists recently looked at the Angel and concluded that it represents "a contemporary legend which satisfied religious and patriotic needs, and became a powerful and enduring part of the mythology of the Great War" [14].

Finally, there's speculation about Brigadier John Charteris who was part of the intelligence branch of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force).

Could the Angel of Mons also be a story promulgated and encouraged by Charteris and British Intelligence? We have to consider why Britain might have seen value in promoting the story of the Angel in March/April 1915? The first Zeppelin raids on the British mainland had begun, terrifying civilians. The German submarine blockade of Britain had started, raising fears of starvation. The indecisive battle of Neuve Chapelle had produced high casualties but few gains. The initial flood of volunteers to join the British army was lessening. Most of all, war weariness was taking hold as the public began to realise that this horrific and destructive war was set to last much longer than had at first been expected. If the story of the Angel of Mons could help to lift the morale of the British people at this difficult time, persuade them of the divine rightness of their cause and encourage enlistment, it would surely make sense for military intelligence to assist in its spread?

After going into clues the article ends with -

There is certainly no good evidence to support the view that anything supernatural or even unusual happened during the retreat from Mons. The Bowmen may have had a role in the creation of the subsequent myth, but it does seem likely that this was at the very least assisted by British Intelligence. If true, the Angel of Mons is worthy of note not just as an interesting piece of social history, but also as a masterly and enduring early example of disinformation and propaganda.

So, here we have people believing in something which never happened with some evidence that British Intelligence helped the story along because it was useful as a morale booster. If this could happen just 100 years ago, why couldn't something similar have happened 2,000 years ago? After all, a story about the resurrected Jesus being seen by 500 people would have been very useful to the Church establishment.

[DarkHorse]

I must say, I enjoyed this piece! Yet more proof that just because hundreds, thousands or even millions of people believe something, doesn't mean it's true.

[Mudhammam]

I must say, I enjoyed this piece! Yet more proof that just because hundreds, thousands or even millions of people believe something, doesn't mean it's true.

The follow-up question to "Were Christianity's origins miraculous?"--and people don't often seem to ask--is "Did its population growth reflect those miraculous beginnings?" If Christianity didn't spread like wildfire but instead took centuries to gain any momentum or notable influence, then we have to wonder if the nature of its origins were that different from other religions to begin with it. And?

Well, apparently by 100 A.D. Christians comprised about 1% of the Roman Empire. 1%?!?! Not very fucking special or miraculous.

[Confused Ape]

Well, apparently by 100 A.D. Christians comprised about 1% of the Roman Empire. 1%?!?! Not very fucking special or miraculous.

How are you defining Christianity here? Are you including Gnostic sects etc or just talking about what became Orthodox Christianity?

So many different versions of early Christianity indicates that the stories of Jesus and Paul's missionary work aren't as straightforward as the Bible tells us they were.

[Mudhammam]

Well, apparently by 100 A.D. Christians comprised about 1% of the Roman Empire. 1%?!?! Not very fucking special or miraculous.

How are you defining Christianity here? Are you including Gnostic sects etc or just talking about what became Orthodox Christianity?

So many different versions of early Christianity indicates that the stories of Jesus and Paul's missionary work aren't as straightforward as the Bible tells us they were.

I'd have to check my source but I believe it was referring to all Christian sects.

[xpastor]

About his life and death, we can say only that he probably created a disturbance in the temple and he was probably crucified as a troublemaker.

That's not accurate at all, you know that. The facts not in dispute are that Jesus lived, that he called disciples, was baptized by John and that he died by crucifixion. Furthermore, it's also not in dispute that his body went missing three days after his crucifixion, and many atheists have come up with interesting theories as to explain why or how. Some other facts generally accepted are that Paul knew the family of Jesus and that he wrote at least 7 of his Epistles, and furthermore consensus is that Luke-Acts was written by a single Author.

Yes, I should have included the baptism by John, but no dove descending and no voice from heaven. I took the disciples following Jesus as a given, though I see no reason to be confident that there were 12 of them or that their names were as recorded or that the stories of their calling are accurate. I guess we could also note that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples shortly before his crucifixion, as stated by the three synoptic gospels and Paul.

Your other points above don't really have much bearing on our knowledge of Jesus' life, which is what I was writing about, but I will respond. It's generally accepted that Paul met James, the brother of Jesus, on a few occasions, and we might note disagreed with him on religious issues. I don't recall any evidence to the effect that he "knew" Jesus' family beyond that. Nobody has ever doubted that Luke and Acts are by the same author, who was probably not Luke and who probably did not accompany Paul on his travels in spite of trying to create that impression with the first-person narratives in Acts. Luke-Acts was written decades after the life of Jesus and even 20-30 years after Paul's epistles. I don't know what you think Paul's authorship of his epistles has to do with the question of Jesus' historicity. However, yes, I agree that he wrote 7 of the 13 epistles attributed to him. Ehrman considers the other six to be forgeries, though he acknowledges that Colossians and Ephesians have some support among critical scholars, unlike 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Thessalonians which are almost universally rejected.

What we can say is that he was a brilliant speaker, the parables and the wrong-headed moral teaching really catch your attention. He made a huge impact on his immediate followers, so much so that they could not accept his death, and they began to spread stories of his resurrection, probably after one deluded person had a hallucination.

This theory, as I've pointed out before, means you have to do a lot more explaining like how did Paul get converted to Christianity, and why does he record in 1 Corinthians that there are more than 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ, most of them still alive?

I don't feel it is incumbent upon me to explain how Paul got converted. There are any number of explanations of his psychology. Bishop Spong claims that Paul was suppressing homosexual urges. I don't say that's true, but it would explain the appeal of a religion with a Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card for a 1st century Jew. All we really know is that Paul says he saw a vision, what most of us today would call a hallucination.

As for referring to the 500 witnesses, it doesn't mean anything except that Paul heard someone say that. Most people even today are not great as fact checkers. I really appreciate Confused Ape giving us that thorough summary of the story of the Angels of Mons. I was going to reference it in much less detail. It shows how even in the modern era people will firmly believe any sort of superstitious nonsense. And it's far from the only example of modern credulity. Elvis stories, for sure. Much of the stuff that goes from my Inbox to my Trash folder. And 2000 years ago there were even fewer people who were fact checkers. To be fair, it was also much harder for them to check facts with no modern means of communication. If Priscilla told Paul that Andronicus told her that 500 people had seen the risen Christ, that would likely have been enough for Paul, without traveling hundreds of miles to interview one of these supposed witnesses.

More to the point, why is this completely consistent?

• Matt 28:10: Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”
  
• Matt 28:16-20: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
  
• Mark 16:7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
  
• Luke 24:18-24: Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered (Jesus), “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

Still more to the point, why did you leave off the rest of the passage from Luke which is completely inconsistent with the passages from Matthew and Mark?

According to Matthew and Mark an angel tells the women to tell the disciples to travel to Galilee where Jesus will meet them.

According to Luke the angel(s) just tell the women to let the disciples know that Jesus is risen. Jesus subsequently appears to two of the disciples in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Then he appears to a gathering of all of them in Jerusalem itself. There is nothing about going to Galilee. On the contrary Jesus tells them "stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." Then right after that Jesus leads them out of Jerusalem and floats up to heaven.

When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Nope, the challenge to me right now is this: STOP BEING SO FUCKING HORNY AND GO THE FUCK TO SLEEP.

Got it wrong again, theist on AF...

[Esquilax]

Nope, the challenge to me right now is this: STOP BEING SO FUCKING HORNY AND GO THE FUCK TO SLEEP.

Got it wrong again, theist on AF...

Oh, get a vibrator!