120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, but how do you get that dough into both engines? A Warthog can still fly on just one?

Sponge in one engine, starter in the other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How do we know that someone else _didn't_ also raise zombies from teh graves during an earthquake that no one noticed?

Because Lumpy knows what was in gospels that were destroyed even as far as 2000 years before he was born. And there were no other miracles...that matter.

Because Jesus.

 

[none]

How do we know that someone else _didn't_ also raise zombies from teh graves during an earthquake that no one noticed?

Because Lumpy knows what was in gospels that were destroyed even as far as 2000 years before he was born. And there were no other miracles...that matter.

Because Jesus.

Do you mean Jesus the extra-terrestrial, the foundation upon which the stories the Gospels are based?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because Lumpy knows what was in gospels that were destroyed even as far as 2000 years before he was born. And there were no other miracles...that matter.

Because Jesus.

Do you mean Jesus the extra-terrestrial, the foundation upon which the stories the Gospels are based?

huh....Kinda like StarLord of Guardians of the Galaxy?
His dad is an ancient power not from Earth, he was taken from Earth by agents of his dad, he has sex issues, he saved a whole planet because he's a nice guy, but never quite lost his dickish qualities? I can see it...

 

[none]

Do you mean Jesus the extra-terrestrial, the foundation upon which the stories the Gospels are based?

huh....Kinda like StarLord of Guardians of the Galaxy?
His dad is an ancient power not from Earth, he was taken from Earth by agents of his dad, he has sex issues, he saved a whole planet because he's a nice guy, but never quite lost his dickish qualities? I can see it...

Yeah, completely plausible and historical fact.

 

[funinspace]

Ok, but how do you get that dough into both engines? A Warthog can still fly on just one?

Sponge in one engine, starter in the other.

Uhm....you said "bring down a warthog", that sort of implies that it was already flying. You must be one Zeus of a sling shot thrower...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sponge in one engine, starter in the other.

Uhm....you said "bring down a warthog", that sort of implies that it was already flying.

Actually, you were the one that inferred i meant a flying warthog.

- - - Updated - - -

Starting to look like some people aren't taking kyroot's thread to terribly seriously...

 

[funinspace]

Do you mean Jesus the extra-terrestrial, the foundation upon which the stories the Gospels are based?

huh....Kinda like StarLord of Guardians of the Galaxy?
His dad is an ancient power not from Earth, he was taken from Earth by agents of his dad, he has sex issues, he saved a whole planet because he's a nice guy, but never quite lost his dickish qualities? I can see it...

No, no, no! That stuff was faked by Brian. The real extra-terrestrials came 10s of thousands of years before, and with such mingling the Sumerian civilization was born. The facts are laid right out in "The 12th Planet" by Zecharia Sitchin.

 

[funinspace]

Uhm....you said "bring down a warthog", that sort of implies that it was already flying.

Actually, you were the one that inferred i meant a flying warthog.

See what happens when you don't use words clearly

- - - Updated - - -

Starting to look like some people aren't taking kyroot's thread to terribly seriously...

It gets kind of boring after the forth recycling of already thrice ruined arguments...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Are we going to have to offer a reward to anyone who can turn up a Jesus-like miracle-worker competitor with Christ?

Getting away from ever layered quotes… Whatever Q is as a primary source is unknowable. We certainly don’t know if anything was written down in the 40’s or 50’s, though it is possible.

It's probably the earliest of the New Testament content, or at least simultaneous with the earliest Paul epistles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
The Q document must have been composed prior to the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest Q may have predated Mark. A date for the final Q document is often placed in the 40s or 50s of the first century, with some arguing its so-called sapiential layer (1Q, containing six wisdom speeches) being written as early as the 30s.

We don’t know when the miracle stories first appeared, as Mark being the oldest source, is generally thought to have been penned 30 years after the events. Paul, whose writings are considered the oldest, doesn’t go into the miracle stories for some odd reason.

Paul does virtually no narrative or biographical matter on Jesus. Most of the Christian writers neglected the miracles of Jesus even though they knew of them. This is a pattern outside the gospel accounts. Nevertheless, the writers knew of the miracle events and gave rare mention to them. The sayings are always given far more prominence, from the 1st century up to the present. Paul follows that pattern. It doesn't mean he was unaware of the miracle accounts.

Atheos addressed your drivel about 30 years being such a short period for stories of “miracles” to occur, with Joseph Smith’s miraculous healings of people.

The low number of sources for those makes them doubtful, plus it's not clear what the date is for those accounts. But even if those stories are true, it doesn't contradict anything about the miracles of Jesus being true. It's possible that Joseph Smith might have had some limited power to heal, but the more likely explanation would be the usual mythologizing that occurs with a preacher who is recognized as a public figure, plus his devotees imagine it was divine intervention when they recovered as they would have anyway.

But if there's good evidence that he performed healings, there's nothing wrong with that. There's no imperative to prove that no one ever performed any healings other than Jesus. There's a good case to be made that Rasputin the mad monk had the power to heal a child, without any medical training, and this is attested by the historical record and multiple witnnesses, not just a story from one of his devotees.

And why in the world would it matter, if any of these healed people had seen a doctor or not? Do you demand the same of the ones Jesus healed?
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ect-Christianity&p=95433&viewfull=1#post95433

Doctor? I think you're confusing this with the case of Rasputin the mad monk. There were doctors who witnessed his healing of the sick child, which happened several times. This is good evidence, because these doctors had tried to heal the child and could not, but they observed his recovery in response to Rasputin. They obviously had no interest in promoting Rasputin's claim to be a healer.

That was the point about the doctors. Their role as witnesses increases greatly the chance that these were genuine cases of a miracle healing. This kind of witness is more reliable for evidence than the testimony of devotees claiming to have been healed by their guru.

As to Joseph Smith, if he healed someone that is just fine. If there's good evidence for it, then I don't dispute it. There are others than Jesus who had some limited power to heal. Most healing stories are probably just wishful thinking, but where there really is evidence, as we have in the case of the Jesus healings, then I assume it probably happened.

We need multiple sources, preferably more than two. If the healer was a recognized public figure, like a guru with a long teaching career, then it's easy to see how the stories could be a product of mythologizing. For J. Smith this is less likely, but again, I'm not sure about the dates of those accounts of his healing acts. It makes a difference if they date from 1860 or from 1835. The later they are, the more likely they are a product of mythologizing.

One of the things I’ve noticed in your attempted apologetics, is you seem to like to say to the effect “see these 15 random pieces of my 1,000 piece puzzle are uber unique and that is what makes it special”. The problem is that the other <fill in the blank god-religion> has a different set of 15 random pieces, which could also be relatively unique. Having some uniqueness, does not make it more real.

They are not "random pieces" -- for example, having multiple sources. Most of the miracle stories we have are from one source only. It makes a difference that in the case of Jesus there are at least four sources. This is not a "random piece."

Also, that the accounts are dated within 50 years or even 30 years later makes them more credible. Stories about Hercules or Perseus or Asclepius etc. are cases where the date of the accounts is several centuries (even 1000 years) after the existence of the healing god or miracle hero figure (assuming that person actually existed earlier in history).

Also, that the pubic career of Jesus was less than 3 years makes it much more difficult, or virtually impossible, that the miracle stories could be a product of mythologizing.

So I'm asking for examples of other miracle workers for whom we have multiple sources which are close to the events reported. And a case that cannot so easily be explained as due to mythologizing, such as with a guru who had a long career teaching for decades.

These factors are not any randomness, or just "uniqueness" in the same sense that every individual object in the universe has its own uniqueness. It matters that we have a case where the normal mythologizing process does not apply. Where mythologizing cannot be the explanation, then the example is more likely a case of the reported events actually having happened.

We can dismiss much of the accounts, as to the details, but the miracle stories of Jesus cannot be dismissed this way. It is too difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories could have emerged if the events did not really happen, whereas most miracle stories can easily be explained without assuming the events really happened.

Jesus purportedly does a few parlor tricks which claims to heal people, and those need to be believed, because nobody could make up that shit in a span of decades. You do realize that to this day, we still have charlatan preachers claiming to heal people, like Benny Hinn? Even in the 21st century, there are people gullible enough to slurp such shit up.

Yes, but most people don't believe it, and we all know the "misses" outnumber the "hits." And the 1st-century people also did not believe it and knew there were more "misses" that were not reported. Most miracle stories are not credible.

But if it's so easy to make up the shit and people slurp it up so easily, then why is this one case, Jesus the Galilean healer, the only case, prior to the invention of printing, where we have written accounts of miracle stories, from multiple sources, appearing in less than 50 years later than the reported events happened?

Why don't we have many more such cases? Why are all the miracle stories from one source only, or from sources several centuries later? Why no others that have multiple separate sources?

OK, I'm lying, we do have one case where there's two separate sources: Vespasian who might have performed a couple healings. There are 2 sources for this. This would seem to be the ONLY exception to the multiple sources rule. For all other reported miracle stories we have only one source anywhere near the time of the reported events, within 100-200 years.

The Vespasian case is best explained as that of a famous public figure being mythologized. But considering that it's more than one source and the reports date from only about 50 years after the event, it's not unreasonable to leave open the possibility that he actually performed a genuine healing or two. The chance of it being true is increased a little by the extra source.

If such miracle stories could easily be invented and foisted upon a gullible public, we should have dozens of Jesus-like saviors or heroes through this historical period which are documented with more than one source. We should have many other Jesus-type cases or Benny Hinns for which there are multiple sources near to the reported events.

We have none of this in the 1 or 2 centuries prior to Jesus. But then it begins with the Jesus miracles, 20 or 30 or 40 years after him, then there is a pause, and then there's an explosion of such stories after 100 AD. How do you explain this?

There has to be an object to begin with who attracts this mythologizing process. Where did this object come from? He can't just pop up out of nowhere.

I have no problem with there being an initial object that got the “mythologizing process” going. My problem is that you want the mythos to only begin after your sacred miracles are accepted as facts, as you find this the easiest thing to believe.

This is the best explanation in the case of Jesus. How else did the mythologizing process begin? What was the initial Jesus object to whom the fiction stories could be attached? Why to him? Why not to any of several other attractive figures, like John the Baptist, e.g.? What was that initial Jesus object they got attached to? He was not a famous figure in 30 AD (unless the miracle accounts of him are true).

I see no reason for the mythos to start much earlier, . . .

We agree there was later mythologizing, like after 100 AD or so. But you have to believe it began much earlier than this if you discount those stories as fiction. Paul attests to the resurrection narrative, and the gospel accounts of the healings are too early. At least those in the Q document must be admitted as quite early. And the Mark accounts also are early. So you must believe the mythologizing began no later than the 50s AD. The resurrection story has to be part of the mythologizing process.

So what was the mythic hero figure in 50 or 40 AD to which the mythologizing took place? Why did they make Jesus into this god figure for attaching miracle stories to? You cannot find any mythic hero in the historical record who became transformed into a god in such a short time. The best explanation is that the mythic hero in this case is supplied by the fact that he already was recognized as a powerful miracle-worker at that early point. That must be what really got him started.

never mind that you agree that these new Christ worshipers had no problem piling on more mythos about their sacred deity.

It's to be expected that some of them would. But the early accounts which are genuine are what provide the initial figure to be mythologized, and without which there's nothing there to add the additional "mythos" to.

I also don’t see a need to pin down the development of this Christ-mythos to be singularly restricted to the stories about just one man. A blending of tales is also certainly possible.

Yes, but this one figure alone is the only one named. There should be dozens of other named and equally-popular or convincing miracle-worker hero figures for whom we would have multiple sources, if the whole story of the miracles is fiction. What constrained all the stories to be attached to this one only? (It's true that 2 or 3 additional named figures emerge in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, some back-dated like Simon Magus, but all invented much later -- none for whom there are any sources prior to about 150 AD.)

Joseph Smith is such an interesting example, partly because it happened not during some ancient fuzzy period and place from which we have so few records. It happened in spite of the large supply of 19th century media sources. It happened in spite of great hostility by the communities his new cult tried to establish themselves in. It happened in spite of a long history of Christian theological development. It happened in spite of many people no longer seeing daemons and gods under every rock. And still this goofy new theology took root, and eventually grew strong. Take this saga back 1800 years in time, squeeze it between the Egyptian pantheon, the Greco-Roman pantheon, and the pantheons of the east. Add in foreign-Roman occupation, a latter rebellion that pissed off the Romans so much that they destroyed the Jewish Temple and much of Jerusalem along with driving the Jewish diaspora. And one has a rich and bubbly cauldron, and a virtual blank slate, for creating gods.

Yes, you make my point. We should have many new Jesus-like "gods" emerging here in this bubbly cauldron, and yet there's only one that has made any showing. Only one for whom we have multiple sources, and sources within 50 years after the events.

There are others? Who? Why doesn't anyone name them? The best example seems to be Apollonius of Tyana, and yet we have only one source for him, and this is dated 150 years later. Why is it that in this rich bubbly cauldron, ripe for lots of new gods to be created to fill it and meet the raging demand, there is only one mythic hero figure who comes forth to satisfy the need?

If you say all the competitors were eradicated in a sinister plot to seize power, corner the market, etc., why is there no evidence of any such plot? or of any such competitors being exterminated? If there were any imaginable competitors to Jesus, or anyone being suppressed, the only evidence of such a thing would be 200-300 years later when there were some heresies being suppressed. But nothing in the 1st century.

Who were these plotters, these exterminators? What was their program? Are they still manipulating us to this day? This theory of a massive insidious conspiracy to wipe out all the competitors is less plausible than the likelihood that Jesus was a one-of-a-kind who did have unique power such as the miracle accounts describe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Most of the Christian writers neglected the miracles of Jesus even though they knew of them. This is a pattern outside the gospel accounts. Nevertheless, the writers knew of the miracle events and gave rare mention to them. The sayings are always given far more prominence, from the 1st century up to the present. Paul follows that pattern. It doesn't mean he was unaware of the miracle accounts.

It does mean you cannot SHOW that he knew of the miracle accounts... But go ahead, make shit up if it makes you feel any more comfortable.

 

[Rhea]

Most of the Christian writers neglected the miracles of Jesus even though they knew of them. This is a pattern outside the gospel accounts. Nevertheless, the writers knew of the miracle events and gave rare mention to them. The sayings are always given far more prominence, from the 1st century up to the present. Paul follows that pattern. It doesn't mean he was unaware of the miracle accounts.

I do that all the time when I'm journaling. "Ho-hum there might have been a miracle or two that defy reality, but holy shitt did you hear that kind and wise thing he said!?!? Imma write about his kind words because the miracles are so mundane they aren't really worth going on about."



It's so reasonable to expect people to do that! people do that all the time!
I mean look how much prominence christians gave the kind sayings of rescuers versus the miracle of the i-beam cross at the world trade center, yanno!?

 

[none]

Pretty much deflates good old Lumpenproletariat's argument of why the stories were written, they were written not because they were true but because they were intended to cause belief that Jesus is the Messiah.
John 20:30-32

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It says so right frikken there^
So now I guess you have to prove that the miracles that weren't recorded happened, good luck.

 

[Keith&Co.]

John 20:30-32

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It says so right frikken there

It also appears to run counter to his claim that the authors used 'sign' to mean a phenomenological event, not a theological one. The 'signs' that are recorded are expressly to show Jesus' connection to divinity..

Oh, wait. Nevermind.
In the KJV, it says "And many other signs truly did Jesus."
"Truly."

Self-Mutation made it clear that when Jesus said 'truly i tell you' that meant he was exaggerating and not intended to be taken literally.
So Jesus did NOT perform signs, at least according to an apologist's interpretation of the gospel. And SM was a true believer, not an agnostic, so he'd clearly have a more accurate interpretation, here.

 

[none]

Basically all the miracles are there to manifest belief not because they occurred, and if miracles actually occurred it seems by that admission they aren't in Bible.
Good Luck finding those unwritten miracles

 

[funinspace]

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat….

From the title of the below quote:
“Are we going to have to offer a reward to anyone who can turn up a Jesus-like miracle-worker competitor with Christ?”
This does seem to be your fantasy issue…

We don’t know when the miracle stories first appeared, as Mark being the oldest source, is generally thought to have been penned 30 years after the events. Paul, whose writings are considered the oldest, doesn’t go into the miracle stories for some odd reason.

Paul does virtually no narrative or biographical matter on Jesus. Most of the Christian writers neglected the miracles of Jesus even though they knew of them. This is a pattern outside the gospel accounts. Nevertheless, the writers knew of the miracle events and gave rare mention to them. The sayings are always given far more prominence, from the 1st century up to the present. Paul follows that pattern. It doesn't mean he was unaware of the miracle accounts.

So now you “know” what anonymous writers knew about 2,000 years ago, even though they didn’t write about it (yeah Paul wasn't anonymous). Wow….tis funny. None’s citation of John 20:30-32 is telling.

Atheos addressed your drivel about 30 years being such a short period for stories of “miracles” to occur, with Joseph Smith’s miraculous healings of people.

The low number of sources for those makes them doubtful, plus it's not clear what the date is for those accounts.

Yeah, the number of JS miracle sources is as bad as your claimed 4 Jesus-miracle sources… The dates for the JS miracle claims is better nailed down then when your fables were written down.

But even if those stories are true, it doesn't contradict anything about the miracles of Jesus being true. It's possible that Joseph Smith might have had some limited power to heal, but the more likely explanation would be the usual mythologizing that occurs with a preacher who is recognized as a public figure, plus his devotees imagine it was divine intervention when they recovered as they would have anyway.

But if there's good evidence that he performed healings, there's nothing wrong with that. There's no imperative to prove that no one ever performed any healings other than Jesus. There's a good case to be made that Rasputin the mad monk had the power to heal a child, without any medical training, and this is attested by the historical record and multiple witnnesses, not just a story from one of his devotees.

So if someone can perform miracle healings, and not believe in Jesus, the tri-headed god, then such miracles are not necessarily signs of said god. This really doesn’t do your argument much good at all.

One of the things I’ve noticed in your attempted apologetics, is you seem to like to say to the effect “see these 15 random pieces of my 1,000 piece puzzle are uber unique and that is what makes it special”. The problem is that the other <fill in the blank god-religion> has a different set of 15 random pieces, which could also be relatively unique. Having some uniqueness, does not make it more real.

They are not "random pieces" -- for example, having multiple sources. Most of the miracle stories we have are from one source only. It makes a difference that in the case of Jesus there are at least four sources. This is not a "random piece."

The 4 sources is your faith, not fact. The evidence for your claim is exceedingly week. The synoptic gospels could just as easily be sourced from one pile of BS, branched into 3 piles of BS. John has no more credibility than the Gospel of Thomas, other than to the faithful.

Also, that the accounts are dated within 50 years or even 30 years later makes them more credible. Stories about Hercules or Perseus or Asclepius etc. are cases where the date of the accounts is several centuries (even 1000 years) after the existence of the healing god or miracle hero figure (assuming that person actually existed earlier in history).

You have spent countless words trying to make the miracles important. Now you have let other people, who don’t cleave to the Jesus-demigod, have miracle powers. So I can thank you for removing this random god “requirement”. BTW, you still have yet to explain why/how you got a hold of the Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist?

Also, that the pubic career of Jesus was less than 3 years makes it much more difficult, or virtually impossible, that the miracle stories could be a product of mythologizing.

The 3 year thingy is also part of your faith, not fact. And even 3 years is plenty of time, unless you can show where this restriction appears in the Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist?

So I'm asking for examples of other miracle workers for whom we have multiple sources which are close to the events reported. And a case that cannot so easily be explained as due to mythologizing, such as with a guru who had a long career teaching for decades.

Nah, I’ll let you go first. Please provide actual evidence for such an example.

Jesus purportedly does a few parlor tricks which claims to heal people, and those need to be believed, because nobody could make up that shit in a span of decades. You do realize that to this day, we still have charlatan preachers claiming to heal people, like Benny Hinn? Even in the 21st century, there are people gullible enough to slurp such shit up.

Yes, but most people don't believe it, and we all know the "misses" outnumber the "hits." And the 1st-century people also did not believe it and knew there were more "misses" that were not reported. Most miracle stories are not credible.

But if it's so easy to make up the shit and people slurp it up so easily, then why is this one case, Jesus the Galilean healer, the only case, prior to the invention of printing, where we have written accounts of miracle stories, from multiple sources, appearing in less than 50 years later than the reported events happened?

Why don't we have many more such cases? Why are all the miracle stories from one source only, or from sources several centuries later? Why no others that have multiple separate sources?

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat…. Why should we have more cases? You have yourself admitted that miracle claims don’t make a god. Again, the multiple sources is your faith, not fact.

If such miracle stories could easily be invented and foisted upon a gullible public, we should have dozens of Jesus-like saviors or heroes through this historical period which are documented with more than one source. We should have many other Jesus-type cases or Benny Hinns for which there are multiple sources near to the reported events.

We have none of this in the 1 or 2 centuries prior to Jesus. But then it begins with the Jesus miracles, 20 or 30 or 40 years after him, then there is a pause, and then there's an explosion of such stories after 100 AD. How do you explain this?

Again, you are the one making this random requirement of the gods, not I. Where is this requirement in the Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist that says real gods have to perform parlor tricks? The point about the gullibility of people, is not that they buy into miracles, but they buy into all sorts of BS. The list is virtually endless, but I’ll give you a few samples: Heaven's Gate; Islam; LDS; UFOs; Peoples Temple; Yahweh’s floody, the exodus, and his day the earth stood still; Scientology; The Creativity Movement; Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth; Nation of Yahweh; The Church of All Worlds; Universe people; random healing miracles, The Prince Philip Movement; Nuwaubianism; ad nauseum…

There has to be an object to begin with who attracts this mythologizing process. Where did this object come from? He can't just pop up out of nowhere.

Actually scientists have demonstrated that BS can materialize out of thin air… A wish (aka “has to be”) is not a requirement.

I have no problem with there being an initial object that got the “mythologizing process” going. My problem is that you want the mythos to only begin after your sacred miracles are accepted as facts, as you find this the easiest thing to believe.

This is the best explanation in the case of Jesus. How else did the mythologizing process begin? What was the initial Jesus object to whom the fiction stories could be attached? Why to him? Why not to any of several other attractive figures, like John the Baptist, e.g.? What was that initial Jesus object they got attached to? He was not a famous figure in 30 AD (unless the miracle accounts of him are true).

Again a lot more wishing… John the Baptist got his own cult following, but it just took a different path, just as so many of the other 173,139 religions took their own path. Some borrow more than others, some less...

I see no reason for the mythos to start much earlier, . . .

We agree there was later mythologizing, like after 100 AD or so. But you have to believe it began much earlier than this if you discount those stories as fiction. Paul attests to the resurrection narrative, and the gospel accounts of the healings are too early. At least those in the Q document must be admitted as quite early. And the Mark accounts also are early. So you must believe the mythologizing began no later than the 50s AD. The resurrection story has to be part of the mythologizing process.

Yeah, the kernel of the mythos seems to have begun with the Jesus human-god resurrection narrative, probably in the late 40’s or early 50’s, so what?

So what was the mythic hero figure in 50 or 40 AD to which the mythologizing took place? Why did they make Jesus into this god figure for attaching miracle stories to? You cannot find any mythic hero in the historical record who became transformed into a god in such a short time. The best explanation is that the mythic hero in this case is supplied by the fact that he already was recognized as a powerful miracle-worker at that early point. That must be what really got him started.

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat…. Several whole gods, with their own special holy books, have appeared in one human lifetime and have already been mentioned. You keep wanting to require god(s) to only partake from your random special requirements from this mysterious Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist, why?

Joseph Smith is such an interesting example, partly because it happened not during some ancient fuzzy period and place from which we have so few records. It happened in spite of the large supply of 19th century media sources. It happened in spite of great hostility by the communities his new cult tried to establish themselves in. It happened in spite of a long history of Christian theological development. It happened in spite of many people no longer seeing daemons and gods under every rock. And still this goofy new theology took root, and eventually grew strong. Take this saga back 1800 years in time, squeeze it between the Egyptian pantheon, the Greco-Roman pantheon, and the pantheons of the east. Add in foreign-Roman occupation, a latter rebellion that pissed off the Romans so much that they destroyed the Jewish Temple and much of Jerusalem along with driving the Jewish diaspora. And one has a rich and bubbly cauldron, and a virtual blank slate, for creating gods.
Yes, you make my point. We should have many new Jesus-like "gods" emerging here in this bubbly cauldron, and yet there's only one that has made any showing. Only one for whom we have multiple sources, and sources within 50 years after the events.

There are others? Who? Why doesn't anyone name them?

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat…. Lots of gods have already been named. You seem to refuse to leave your Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist mantra swamp to ever notice.

 

[funinspace]

John 20:30-32

It says so right frikken there

It also appears to run counter to his claim that the authors used 'sign' to mean a phenomenological event, not a theological one. The 'signs' that are recorded are expressly to show Jesus' connection to divinity..

Oh, wait. Nevermind.
In the KJV, it says "And many other signs truly did Jesus."
"Truly."

Yeah, we know how well the previous "so they will know" worked out in Egypt...Yawhehwho?

Self-Mutation made it clear that when Jesus said 'truly i tell you' that meant he was exaggerating and not intended to be taken literally.
So Jesus did NOT perform signs, at least according to an apologist's interpretation of the gospel. And SM was a true believer, not an agnostic, so he'd clearly have a more accurate interpretation, here.

Please don't, just don't, go into the ORGASM. Lumpy might just convert....

PS Though MHORC doesn't nearly have the same ring to it...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why must the gospel accounts be dogmatically rejected as evidence?

... Again, it has nothing to do with "virtuous" anything. The Christ belief is supported by evidence, while any contrary beliefs are not. So they're not equal and there is no basic PW-type flaw being committed.

This is a baseless assertion. The "Christ" belief is not supported by evidence.

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence. You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence. There are at least 4 separate sources, from near to the time that the events happened, which we do not have for other miracle stories.

These sources are not bound together somehow into one source, but are separate. The fact that two of them use Mark does not change the fact that these are four separate sources. There is nothing wrong about using a previous source to help compose a new account of the same events. The later ones who made use of the earlier source are still separate sources, and they count as separate sources. They add additional matter not contained in the earlier source. Nothing about this reliance on an earlier source makes them less credible.

All you have ever offered is the fact that there are multiple variations of the original myth (which is true for many ancient myths) . . .

Multiple sources, or different authors or different documents attesting to the same events. No, this is not true for other ancient miracle stories. Not documents anywhere near to the time of the reported events. Name the miracle stories for which we have multiple sources 100 years or less from the time of the reported events.

I have acknowledged that for the reported miracles of Vespasian there are 2 sources. This was a famous public figure, which explains how he easily became mythologized. What is another ancient miracle-worker for whom we have multiple sources within 100 years of the reported event?

Your phrase "which is true for many ancient myths" has no application here to anything. Of course there are dozens of references to Homeric heroes over a thousand years after the period of those events. We're talking about less than 100 years, or less than 50 years.

. . . and that it is a popular myth (which is nothing more than an appeal to popularity, another horribly flawed method of argumentation).

OK, you simply start from the dogmatic premise that the reported events must be fiction, and so therefore any evidence only shows the popularity of the fiction stories. You have pronounced the reports as fiction and false, before any evidence, and you simply dismiss any evidence presented automatically as folklore, and no matter how much of it there is, you automatically rule it out. You automatically reject any evidence for this as invalid because the reported events MUST be fiction by your fiat and all possible evidence is automatically falsified. You've given no reason why this evidence has to be invalid. Except that you dogmatically rule out all miracle stories as automatically false regardless of any evidence.

The evidence for every other religious tradition is either equal to or better than the evidence supporting the Jesus myth.

This is not about one "religious tradition" being more logical than another. This is about whether the miracle events reported in the gospel accounts have credibility. Maybe some other religion has some better ideas or theories about the cosmos or the nature of the Soul or how to feel the Universal Allness, etc. But the reported miracle events of Jesus have more credibility than any other reported miracle events in the ancient world. Or from before the invention of printing.

E.g., the miracle claims for Gautama and Zoroaster are incomparable and inferior to those in the N.T. gospel accounts in terms of credible evidence for the respective events. Likewise the miracle stories of Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus.

I say "evidence" when in fact that is not an appropriate appellation. There is no evidence.

Documents that say something happened are evidence for what is reported as happening. If there are multiple separate documents for the same event, that is an increase of the evidence for the reported event beyond having only one document.

If you can't understand how something can be known because it is reported in a document, and that more than one report makes it more credible, then you have a special personal subjective definition of "evidence" which is fine for you but which you cannot impose onto everyone else. Many people accept reports as evidence, and then consider that evidence critically and sometimes reject it as insufficient, but they still consider it as evidence. If you just automatically toss out reports you don't like, because of your prejudice against certain kinds of reports, that is just your own personal subjective definition of "evidence," not the definition that everyone else has to accept just because you demand it.

The evidence for Bigfoot is much better than the evidence for Jesus.

You mean Bigfoot did more miracles than Jesus did? you discovered some new Bigfoot scrolls? a gnostic Gospel of Yosemite Sam (banned by the Christian Establishment) telling how Bigfoot cast out demons from people by grrrrrowling at them? Sounds like you're on to something. But you should hide those scrolls and keep quiet about it so the Christian Establishment doesn't find out -- they would come to confiscate them and destroy that evidence.

 

[none]

Lumpenproletariat, we already have evidence the story of Jesus is a sham.
I posted from your favorite source and it says the story of Jesus is a sham.

 

[none]

Lumpenproletariat, quit trying to bury the truth by posting the same argument in paragraph after paragraph in your posts, it is time to come clean: The story of Jesus is a sham, and we have evidence, it says so right in the book that the stories come from.