I doubt a naturalistic origin for Christian resurrection belief.

There are many naturalistic theories to explain why the disciples came to believe/claim the resurrection happened, like the conspiracy theory says they merely lied, or the hallucination theory says they hallucinated it, etc. I am unconvinced that these theories can explain the origin of the christian belief, so convince me.

Christianity came about the same way as the Mormon Church. The Mormon movement began with the publishing of the Book of Mormon in March 1830, which Smith claimed was a translation of golden plates containing the religious history of an ancient American civilization that the ancient prophet-historian Mormon had compiled. Smith claimed that an angel had directed him to the golden plates buried in the Hill Cumorah On April 6, 1830, Smith founded the Church of Christ. In 1832, Smith added an account of a vision he had sometime in the early 1820s while living in Upstate New York. Some Mormons regarded this vision as the most important event in human history after the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It's too bad they didn't have smart phones 2000 years ago.

So I want to expand on your theory, Are you saying early christians lied about the resurrection, or were they genuine in their belief, or did they just make it up years later?

Well, do you also believe in Zeus, Thor, Hera, Hecate, Apollo, Artemis, Athena?

 They just made it up years later.

I dont see any real good reason to even believe those beings existed.

Was it made up by the apostles, or did people make it up in the apostles names?

I don't know, we don't have any video recordings.  As my first cousin once removed said,  “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Ancient people lied a lot. They even talked of battles that never even happened... of nations that never even existed... of creatures that were never observed to exist... they spent thousands of years building the most useless structures, such as the pyramids. Ancient people had a wild imagination. Ancient people werent exactly rational.

Of course Artemis exists. You cant doubt in Artemis. Artemis was a nice person. Why would ancient people lie so much?

Well how munch later do you think it was created? 30 years? 40? 50? less than that?

I dont even see a real reason to believe Artemis was real either. So I conclude I have no reason to believe any of these beings even existed.

Artemis is a beautiful hunter. You should start praying to Artemis. Artemis can help you in hunt.

Again I havent seen any real good reason to believe Artemis was real, I am unconvinced, convince me.

How dare you disrespect Artemis. You could have enjoyed good hunting with Artemis. Now you cant because you rejected Artemis.

Well im going hunting tomorrow so feel free to curse me with artemis, I dont see a reason for her to exist, so im not afraid.

ancient historians note factually that the apostles died for their faith based on what they say they saw. usually people dont die for hoaxes.... yes sometimes fanatics might die for second hand testimony or for cults, but the apostles testimony was first hand. ancient historians dont know about all the apostles, but the core ones they do know, such as peter, paul, james, and john.  ancient historians called jesus a magician based on his reputation for doing mystical things. both jewish and roman ancient historians made note that jesus existed. there's a consensus among modern historians that he existed. basically, there's compelling reasons to think there might be something to this jesus story. that's not looking at miracles, near death experiences, or just looking at the writings of the apostles philosophically... as jesus said, his sheep know his voice, the shepard. 

I think it isnt a minority opinion that the apostles were genuine in their belief (atleast that some of them were), ehrman even accepts that some saw genuine visions, although he says some didnt. Of course there are theories to explain a genuine belief like the swooning theory, the hallucination theory, etc. But I think these theories majorly fail.

Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormons), claimed that after both God the Father and Jesus Christ visited him in 1820, an angel named Moroni, an ancient Nephite warrior, visited him in the fall of 1823. Smith was told by Moroni how he had buried gold plates fourteen centuries earlier not far from the Smith farm near Palmyra, New York. The angel said that they contained a record of ancient inhabitants and the “source from whence they sprang.” Smith claimed he was prohibited from retrieving the gold record for another four years. The story of the gold plates is an absolutely essential part of the Mormon narrative, for in the eyes of many Latter-day Saints, the coming forth of this record, and its subsequent translation into the Book of Mormon, legitimizes their belief that Smith was indeed a prophet sent by God to restore the true Christian faith lost long ago due to a “great apostasy.” The story of the gold plates cannot be underestimated, for without them there can be no Book of Mormon. 

And yet, you take no issues with concluding that they're lies.

Einstein was your cousin? With the way you appeal to authority, I'm surprised that it has never come up before.

Your hunt will be better if you pray to Artemis. You should open your heart to Artemis. May Artemis show you the right path. Happy hunting!

There is no direct empirical or archaeological evidence to support the claim that Joseph Smith, Jr. found actual gold plates as described in the founding narrative of the Mormon faith. The existence of the gold plates is primarily a matter of faith for believers in Mormonism. While some witnesses at the time reported seeing the plates, these accounts are often considered subjective and have not been independently verified. We can make a naturalistic theory to this, and say he lied and still meet the criteria for the explanation. Of course my theory could be wrong, and ill admit it is if further evidence is shown.

My main critique was that there is no naturalistic theory that can explain the origin of the christian belief (origin meaning the belief in the resurrection, the spread of it, the enemies that were converted, etc.) but mormonism has a explanation, a natural one at that.

Seth Brown, who is vying to be more Bible Stupid than our #1 Bible inept Miss Tradesecret,

Subsequent to your hunting to maim and murder innocent wildlife in a bloody way, and more so than not, you do this act to make your male anatomy seem bigger than it truly is, we look forward to your assumed enlightenment that you are running away from at this time shown herewith:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10047/posts/415415

.

I sent you a debate request, you denied it because you didnt want people to vote on it. I really dont care if you want to debate, I don't consider it running to simply decline a debate, but it is childish to say someone is running after you declined a debate. 

Here's the receipts that I sent him a debate challenge https://i.imgur.com/oWBqQPf.png

.

Seth Brown, that is vying to be more Bible Stupid than our #1 Bible inept Miss Tradesecret,

What part of the fact that I DO NOT DO DEBATES don't you understand?!  Furthermore, YOU SAID that you cannot make threads because you don't have 25 posts; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10043/posts/415095, now that you have over 25 posts, you can now make a thread of the topic shown in my link herewith : https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10047/posts/415415

Listen, to make your thread more comical, get the equally Bible Fool Miss Tradesecret to join you with the topic in question, that is, if you can talk her into it, whereas, and as shown, I and many others repeatedly have to correct her Bible Stupidity all the time in her threads as well!   Come on, you two together with this topic will be one of the most laughable threads ever conducted upon this Religion Forum, okay?  PLEEEEEEEESE?

.

Then what was it?

What was the origin of christian belief?

if someone said that jesus was a cult leader what would you say? 

They may not be wrong, christianity was considered a cult back then, as to if jesus lead it, debatable, it was certainly based around him though

so you asked for a naturalistic explanation for why the apostles did what they did, and i pointed out the cult theory. why doesn't the cult theory fit the definition of an adequate naturalistic answer? do you think cult members wouldn't make up seeing a resurrected cult leader?