Can naturalism offer a theory that can explain the origin of Christian belief?

Thanks to mall for this debate. It’s quite a simple format, mall will offer a naturalistic theory as to why the disciples claimed Jesus rose (example of such theory is the hallucination theory) and I will try to poke holes in it.

The burden of proof is on my opponent, I am unconvinced, convince me.

" It’s quite a simple format, mall will offer a naturalistic theory as to why the disciples claimed Jesus rose"

From a natural perspective Thomas saw him. You and I see things. Having sight is natural right. Thomas said"My Lord and My God."

Jesus said "SEE " ..."SEE"..."SEE"...."see it is I...for a spirit have not flesh and bone as you see me have". He said "SEE me have".

He said "behold, handle me and SEE". Just a great pattern with this.

He said " behold my hands and my feet". Thomas handled that body....he said " my Lord......and my God."

Now that's basically it. It can't get more simpler than that. As the scripture says we use great plainness of speech.

You see something it's understandable it gives you reason to claim you seen it and of course believe it.

Jesus said "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed".

So my opponent wasnt quite clear what he meant by "seeing him" Seeing him in what sense? It appears as if my opponent is going for the hallucination theory, let's show why this doesnt work.

Adding more hallucinations to it makes it worst, so we can dismiss it for the previous reason.

It cannot account for the empty tomb, let's 1st verify there was infact an empty tomb. Matthew 28:13-15 says "Telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day." lets not view this verse as necessarily true, instead let's look at what it's defending, the priest's defence to why people claimed the tomb was empty. 

Now we verified the historicity of the empty tomb, the hallucination theory cant account for it, why would the disciples steal the body if they saw a hallucination of jesus, wouldnt they know it was already empty and feel no reason to steal a body?

We"So my opponent wasnt quite clear what he meant by "seeing him" Seeing him in what sense? It appears as if my opponent is going for the hallucination theory, let's show why this doesnt work."

Well it's what Jesus meant . Not me right. I never said "seeing him". 

What did Jesus say?

"Handle me and SEE". Paying attention to the language in the book of Luke. See what to handle. Handling is physical. So you're seeing what is physically there before you. Is that right or wrong?

Jesus said "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed".

Thomas said "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Here we are again with"see". A natural element and indicating physical elements.

So bottomline to this proposition "how/why early Christian claimed to see a risen Jesus " is the following.

A Christian or to put biblically exact, a follower, disciple of Christ would claim or more so biblically put, believe Jesus rose from the dead as Jesus said himself "because thou hast seen me".

We use great plainness of speech.

I apologize for missing my argument, I pinged mall since I still didn’t understand his theory & missed my time.

Mall still hasn’t made it clear what he means, he said they believe because “thou believes because he has seen me” he still hasn’t made it clear how they saw him, so I don’t have enough to go off on, I don’t understand even a bit of my opponent’s theory.

"Mall still hasn’t made it clear what he means, he said they believe because “thou believes because he has seen me” he still hasn’t made it clear how they saw him, so I don’t have enough to go off on, I don’t understand even a bit of my opponent’s theory."

I'm afraid we're at a loss. I trust you understand english. So what is the hang up?

Do you know or are you aware that I'm referencing biblical scripture?

Your topic is in Jesus and the disciples. You're saying it's unclear what I'm saying on how they saw him referring to Jesus I trust.

First off , really pay attention to the EXACT words I'm using. If you want clarity, you have to start there.

I don't think I ever use the terms "they saw him".

If you're actually reading what I've said word for word, I've been talking about Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas.

So you should be saying at least how I'm not clear on how Thomas saw him. Which I thought I just told you.

I told you what Thomas said. Thomas told you what he means by seeing Jesus.  Do we get this? Are we paying attention to what Thomas has said?

Are you readers?

Are you paying attention?

I'm going to repeat his words again. I guess again and again until it registers or until we can no longer pretend, we meaning anyone outside of me, we're not reading what we're reading or pretend to be confused.

Thomas said

 "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

The first sentence says "Except I shall see". Do we know what the word "see" means?

Jesus said a spirit have not flesh and bone. Have not , have not , have not flesh and bone. Why? A spirit is not physical, it's not visible. You can't SEE a spirit. Scripture mentions about the spirit of the invisible God.

When you SEE what it is before you, it is physical. It is there it is real. Unless made manifest some otherwise. It is reallllll. A body of flesh and bone is physical. The print of nails. Nails are physical. Thomas thrusting his hand, a physical member into his side, a physical member.

Thomas is looking to do something physical to what he sees physically.

So I don't know what more you need to understand this. It's as plain as can be. You understand what physical is, what immaterial is I take it.

This is why Thomas believed Jesus rose as he physically saw him right before him beholding what he was seeing.

Do you believe that like you believe you behold these black letters presumably on your screen that you're reading from that you see?

By the way it's no theory. I'm just reporting to you from a report that explains a claim of a disciple which according to the report is not technically a claim or theory. It's a belief. Even Jesus told you that.

Now we're getting towards the end. I suggest you start asking some questions, making some counter points to poke holes as you say, find inconsistency in what I'm saying. 

Everything thus far I brought is straightforward and plain .

Case closed, I've proved my point. The opposing side knows.