120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[atrib]

There are 4 (5) separate sources reporting those miracle acts that he did, sources dated nearer to the time the events reportedly happened than most sources are to the events they report (i.e., events that far back historically). So this is better evidence than we have for many of the historical events we routinely accept as true.

This is a lie. The magical claims of the Bible are unsupported by any historical accounts outside the Bible. Prove me wrong, cite these 4 sources!

 

[Atheos]

In a court of law, both sides present evidence for their claim. There is evidence even for the side that is wrong. What matters is how much evidence there is.

Trust me, you don't want to go there. In a court of law any evidence that consists of nothing else besides third-hand accounts and not the sworn testimony of an actual named witness is tossed out summarily as hearsay. Even if it is the sworn testimony of the person that someone else told him what happened. Hearsay. Not evidence. That's because the courts have learned through years of experience that people make shit up.

Secondly, a critical factor in weighing evidence is how likely the testimony is to be true, not how many people claim it is. The testimony of 50 people swearing they saw someone levitate with pure magic into the air will be trumped by the mere fact that rational people know this is impossible. Maybe they saw something. Maybe they were influenced to believe they saw something. Maybe they encountered a skilled magician. There are endless possibilities that would explain their story without resorting to accepting that someone actually floated in the air contrary to the laws of gravitational attraction and physics with which we are quite familiar. In other words, rational people know that no matter how many people swear they saw a miracle it is still more likely that they are mistaken than that a miracle actually happened.

You keep ignoring the 800 pound gorilla. Thousands of anonymous believers do not trump the fact that it is (and always has been) impossible to heal blindness, paralysis and severed appendages with a mere touch. Show us any other piece of historical analysis where genuine historians accept as true accounts of genuinely miraculous events just because there is more than one written attestation to it and you've got something. Until then you've got a sharpshooter fallacy mixed with generous appeal to popularity topped with sprinklings of at least half a dozen other known argumentation fallacies.

George Washington did not throw a coin across the Potomac. Davy Crockett did not ride a lightning bolt to get somewhere really fast. Joseph Smith did not meet up with an angel named Moroni and discover a hidden entrance to a mountain containing magical golden plates with conveniently disappeared after he was through translating them. Jesus (if he existed) did not feed thousands with mere morsels, heal blind people, paralytics, raise dead people back to life or float magically off into the sky never to be seen again. These are the things of myth, not the accounts of things that happened.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Don't compare Jesus Christ to popular celebrities. Jesus was NOT FAMOUS in AD 30.

Daniel Boon was a real historical figure but there is no evidence for the amazing feats credited to him.

George Washington was a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did amazing feats like throwing a silver dollar the several miles across the Potomac.

Caesar [let's change this to emperor Vespasian who is credited with a couple of miracle healings] was a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did the miracles credited to him.

I forgot to add this point: All the above were famous celebrities, which makes a difference.

There is some evidence that all the above did those miracles/feats. Reports that an event happened is evidence -- not proof -- that it happened, whether the event really happened or not.

But for famous celebrities we have to be more skeptical, because these are popular folk heroes who had thousands of admirers, during their lifetime, who gossiped about them and wrote about them to promote their reputation. And this is how mythologizing gets started. All the mythic heroes were popular celebrities during their life, probably after a very long successful career, or career of having done some well-publicized accomplishments.

But this is not the case with Jesus who was a nobody in 30 AD, unless he performed the miracle acts, because without those acts there are no great deeds he performed which had any wide recognition, as was the case for the popular celebrity figures you're comparing him to. So there is no way to explain how he became mythologized, as we can easily explain how Daniel Boone and George Washington and emperor Vespasian became mythologized.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes. Daniel Boone was a real historical figure but he has been mythologized. Many of the deeds credited to him didn't happen. Do you really believe that, since he was a real figure, that "he killed himself a bear when he was only three"?

How many separate sources report this "miracle"? If there are 4 sources that report it, then it's more credible than if there's only one.

Meanwhile, a Boone myth debunker says: Hey, this probably didn't really happen, because there have been earlier mythic heroes who did "similar" deeds or who were "similar" to Boone. Look at the "similarities" to Siegfried the dragon-killer or to Robin Hood or to William Tell -- it's obvious that this Boone story is derived from those earlier mythic heroes.

And the point is that this is a false analogy unless the myth-debunker can show what the "similarity" is between this story and the earlier mythic heroes. Just because William Tell is said to have shot an apple off a kid's head does not cast doubt onto the story of Boone killing a bear at the age of 3, and cannot be said to be the origin of the Boone myth or to be causally related to it.

And neither is there any connection of the "Jesus myths" to the pagan myths about Horus or Perseus or Mithras etc., to show any "dependency" upon those earlier myths, or any derivation from them.

Daniel Boon was a real historical figure but there is no evidence for the amazing feats credited to him.

If there are some written accounts, especially if more than one, which report such events, then there is some evidence, though maybe still not enough to make the stories credible. But whether the events happened or not, the point here is that these legends are not debunked by showing some "similarities" to earlier legends, unless the myth-debunker can show a real connection to those earlier myths.

But if all the debunker can do is keep repeating that these "similarities" exist and yet cannot provide any examples, and show the reports or the accounts about those earlier legends, then the claim about the "similarities" is irrelevant.

George Washington was a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did amazing feats like throwing a silver dollar the several miles across the Potomac.

If there are multiple accounts saying that he did this, it is evidence. But if the myth-debunker says it couldn't have happened because there were earlier heroes who reportedly did superhuman acts, that myth-debunker is wrong. Unless he names an earlier myth of someone throwing a coin several miles across a river. If there is such a story, one could argue that this might be the origin of the Washington story.

Is there something in the myth of Mithras, or in the Mithras rituals, which speaks of sinners being "washed in the blood" to cleanse their souls? If there is such a thing, you could reasonably claim that this Christian language might have originated from that mythology. I would call that a real "similarity" that raises questions about blood atonement language. However, it does not cast any doubt on the Jesus miracle events, like the healing miracles, in the gospel accounts.

Caesar was a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did the miracles credited to him.

Are there "miracles" credited to Caesar? If they are in documents near to the time they reportedly happened, then this is evidence.

Jesus may have been a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did the miracles credited to him.

There are 4 (5) separate sources reporting those miracle acts that he did, sources dated nearer to the time the events reportedly happened than most sources are to the events they report (i.e., events that far back historically). So this is better evidence than we have for many of the historical events we routinely accept as true.

Documents reporting that something happened are evidence that it happened. Just because there's less evidence than you'd like doesn't mean there's "no evidence."

In a court of law, both sides present evidence for their claim. There is evidence even for the side that is wrong. What matters is how much evidence there is.

Dude, you seem to have a tenuous, if non-existent, grasp on human nature or on reality. Most of the "miraculous" feats credited to Boone, Washington, Caesar, and other mythologized heroes were invented during their lifetime. Boone even remarked at how much he hated the misrepresentation of his life popular at the time. The stories of Jesus could have well been invented during his life (if he was real rather than an invented figure) as oral embellishment that wasn't written down and added to until fifty to a couple hundred years after his death. But the myth making of Boone, Washington, Caesar, etc. were all written during their lifetime. People love heroic figures and tend to exaggerate their accomplishments past the point of absurdity.

 

[skepticalbip]

Daniel Boon was a real historical figure but there is no evidence for the amazing feats credited to him.

George Washington was a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did amazing feats like throwing a silver dollar the several miles across the Potomac.

Caesar [let's change this to emperor Vespasian who is credited with a couple of miracle healings] was a real historical figure but there is no evidence that he did the miracles credited to him.

I forgot to add this point: All the above were famous celebrities, which makes a difference.

There is some evidence that all the above did those miracles/feats. Reports that an event happened is evidence -- not proof -- that it happened, whether the event really happened or not.

But for famous celebrities we have to be more skeptical, because these are popular folk heroes who had thousands of admirers, during their lifetime, who gossiped about them and wrote about them to promote their reputation. And this is how mythologizing gets started. All the mythic heroes were popular celebrities during their life, probably after a very long successful career, or career of having done some well-publicized accomplishments.

But this is not the case with Jesus who was a nobody in 30 AD, unless he performed the miracle acts, because without those acts there are no great deeds he performed which had any wide recognition, as was the case for the popular celebrity figures you're comparing him to. So there is no way to explain how he became mythologized, as we can easily explain how Daniel Boone and George Washington and emperor Vespasian became mythologized.

Jesus was a folk hero for those who were telling these outrageous stories about his feats of magic. Just as the stories of those other "celebrities" were folk heroes for those telling their outrageous stories about them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Latest Revelation: ALL HISTORY IS FICTION!

There are 4 (5) separate sources reporting those miracle acts that he did, sources dated nearer to the time the events reportedly happened than most sources are to the events they report (i.e., events that far back historically). So this is better evidence than we have for many of the historical events we routinely accept as true.

This is a lie. The magical claims of the Bible are unsupported by any historical accounts outside the Bible. Prove me wrong, cite these 4 sources!

By this standard there are no historical facts. All history is fiction. Because there are no historical facts which are supported by anything outside the sources which report them.

History has to be based on the evidence, ALL the written documents. Your prejudice which arbitrarily eliminates from the record something you hate cannot be the basis for knowledge of history.

We have to include the Vedas, the Koran, the Book of Mormon -- ALL documents, no matter how much you hate a certain one. We must include them all, and then use each one with skepticism. Just because some are more reliable than others does not mean ANY must be excluded.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Jesus cannot be compared to famous celebrities like Washington, Daniel Boone, Julius Caesar, etc.

Dude, you seem to have a tenuous, if non-existent, grasp on human nature or on reality. Most of the "miraculous" feats credited to Boone, Washington, Caesar, and other mythologized heroes were invented during their lifetime. Boone even remarked at how much he hated the misrepresentation of his life popular at the time. The stories of Jesus could have well been invented during his life as oral embellishment that wasn't written . . .

They couldn't have been unless he was famous for something. Only famous public personalities with recognized accomplishment become mythologized. So, what was he famous for? What were his real accomplishments? A NOBODY DOES NOT GET MYTHOLOGIZED.

. . . as oral embellishment that wasn't written down and added to until fifty to a couple hundred years after his death. But the myth making of Boone, Washington, Caesar, etc. were all written during their lifetime.

Only because they were famous celebrities. Each of these was known by more than a million people. They had widespread reputation.

People love heroic figures and tend to exaggerate their accomplishments . . .

Which accomplishments are widely known because of their reputation.

But Jesus had no such reputation, was probably known of by fewer than a thousand (though you could speculate more than this if he really did those miracle acts). We have no indication what the Jesus accomplishments were if he did not do the miracle acts.

So you cannot compare him to famous celebrity figures like these. You have to find someone who had no wide reputation (during his life), outside a small band of followers, maybe a hundred or so, and then became a recognized and published mythic hero within a generation or two but having had no distinguished career during his life.

That would be a proper comparison, rather than falling back on these examples of famous celebrities who were widely recognized for obvious accomplishments during their lifetime.

 

[skepticalbip]

They couldn't have been unless he was famous for something. Only famous public personalities with recognized accomplishment become mythologized. So, what was he famous for? What were his real accomplishments? A NOBODY DOES NOT GET MYTHOLOGIZED.

. . . as oral embellishment that wasn't written down and added to until fifty to a couple hundred years after his death. But the myth making of Boone, Washington, Caesar, etc. were all written during their lifetime.

Only because they were famous celebrities. Each of these was known by more than a million people. They had widespread reputation.

People love heroic figures and tend to exaggerate their accomplishments . . .

Which accomplishments are widely known because of their reputation.

But Jesus had no such reputation, was probably known of by fewer than a thousand (though you could speculate more than this if he really did those miracle acts). We have no indication what the Jesus accomplishments were if he did not do the miracle acts.

So you cannot compare him to famous celebrity figures like these. You have to find someone who had no wide reputation (during his life), outside a small band of followers, maybe a hundred or so, and then became a recognized and published mythic hero within a generation or two but having had no distinguished career during his life.

That would be a proper comparison, rather than falling back on these examples of famous celebrities who were widely recognized for obvious accomplishments during their lifetime.

You really need to take a course in logic. Your "arguments" are nothing but logical fallacies, mostly special pleading, Argumentum ad populum, unfounded assertions, and red herrings.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's another example of a mythic hero who was not a famous celebrity during his lifetime?

I forgot to add this point: All the above were famous celebrities, which makes a difference.

There is some evidence that all the above did those miracles/feats. Reports that an event happened is evidence -- not proof -- that it happened, whether the event really happened or not.

But for famous celebrities we have to be more skeptical, because these are popular folk heroes who had thousands of admirers, during their lifetime, who gossiped about them and wrote about them to promote their reputation. And this is how mythologizing gets started. All the mythic heroes were popular celebrities during their life, probably after a very long successful career, or career of having done some well-publicized accomplishments.

But this is not the case with Jesus who was a nobody in 30 AD, unless he performed the miracle acts, because without those acts there are no great deeds he performed which had any wide recognition, as was the case for the popular celebrity figures you're comparing him to. So there is no way to explain how he became mythologized, as we can easily explain how Daniel Boone and George Washington and emperor Vespasian became mythologized.

Jesus was a folk hero for those who were telling these outrageous stories about his feats of magic. Just as the stories of those other "celebrities" were folk heroes for those telling their outrageous stories about them.

No, the latter "celebrities" had a wide reputation during their lifetime, known to millions. This is what led to them becoming mythologized.

But you're saying there are also NON-famous folk heroes, similar to Jesus, who became mythologized with magic stories.

There were probably thousands of such unknown folk heroes (unknown outside a small band of 100 followers). So, why did ONLY THIS unknown folk hero get widely mythologized into a god within 1 or 2 generations and be published in 4 (5) documents that were preserved? Why are all the other unknown folk heroes forgotten who were just as important as this Jesus character?

Why is this folk hero the only one who was not famous in his lifetime and yet became mythologized later into a famous mythic hero?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You really need to take a course in logic. Your "arguments" are nothing but logical fallacies, mostly special pleading, Argumentum ad populum, unfounded assertions, and red herrings.

Oh I see! I'll take a course in logic and then finally I'll understand.

Thanks for straightening me out!

 

[skepticalbip]

Jesus was a folk hero for those who were telling these outrageous stories about his feats of magic. Just as the stories of those other "celebrities" were folk heroes for those telling their outrageous stories about them.

No, the latter "celebrities" had a wide reputation during their lifetime, known to millions. This is what led to them becoming mythologized.

But you're saying there are also NON-famous folk heroes, similar to Jesus, who became mythologized with magic stories.

There were probably thousands of such unknown folk heroes (unknown outside a small band of 100 followers). So, why did ONLY THIS unknown folk hero get widely mythologized into a god within 1 or 2 generations and be published in 4 (5) documents that were preserved? Why are all the other unknown folk heroes forgotten who were just as important as this Jesus character?

Why is this folk hero the only one who was not famous in his lifetime and yet became mythologized later into a famous mythic hero?

Learn some logic, PLEASE.

Jesus (or the idea of Jesus) was popular among a smallish group who invented all sorts of miraculous stories. It took years for this group to expand. If David Koresh's small group of followers hadn't been killed along with him then they could have well grown into a much larger following. While Koresh was alive his followers believed he was divine and would have passed this belief on to converts they brought in growing the cult so that eventually they may have displaced Christianity and the US would be celebrating Koreshmas rather than Christmas. Your argument for Jesus's story being true is an Argumentum ad populum since the belief has become popular, not because there is any evidence of its truth.

 

[skepticalbip]

You really need to take a course in logic. Your "arguments" are nothing but logical fallacies, mostly special pleading, Argumentum ad populum, unfounded assertions, and red herrings.

Oh I see! I'll take a course in logic and then finally I'll understand.

Thanks for straightening me out!

Well, with an understanding of logic, you may at least learn how to make meaningful arguments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, with an understanding of logic, you may at least learn how to make meaningful arguments.

Or at least actually understand the objections made against his arguments...

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, with an understanding of logic, you may at least learn how to make meaningful arguments.

Or at least actually understand the objections made against his arguments...

Aha.. Well said. That is likely more important. If Lumpy understood the objections then possibly we would see a discussion from him rather than repeated long-winded sermons that ignore the objections.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What do all mythic heroes other than Jesus Christ have in common? -- There's NO REASON TO BELIEVE their alleged miracles.

(continued)

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

Justin Martyr - First Apology Chapter 21

to repeat the above:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

Justin Martyr - First Apology Chapter 21

Those "gods" were not real people, or, any of them that were historical persons lived many centuries before any sources we have about them. Where are the actual historical persons who were mythologized into miracle-working gods within 50 years of the time when they lived?

What does that have to do with whether or not the story is true?

Once again, the claim about the event is more credible if the source reporting it is closer to the time when the event allegedly happened. The evidence for the Jesus miracles is from 30-70 years after the reported events. This is much better evidence than some mention of gods based on traditions going back 1000 years or more.

The Jesus miracles are more likely real events because there is credible evidence for them. They are reported much the same as other historical events that we assume did happen. I.e., they are reported in documents near to the time of the reported events, unlike the pagan myths.

So you can't put the Jesus miracles in the same category as the pagan myths for which there is no evidence. You can't offer this Justin quote as evidence for the pagan myths because those pagan events, if they happened, date far back at least 1000 years before Justin. Any real evidence for them has to come from that earlier period.

You apparently offer this quote --

And when we say also that . . . Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

-- as equating Christ belief with pagan beliefs. This is nothing more than a simplistic "Gotcha!" argument. Possibly Justin could be faulted here for saying something he didn't really mean -- "we propound nothing different" etc. But so what? Even if he's in error, that doesn't address the question whether the miracle events really happened.

You're ignoring the whole point that he's trying to make, which is that Christians are not guilty of any crime for holding their beliefs anymore than pagans (or "poets and philosophers") are guilty for holding their beliefs. To make this point he argues as follows:

If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

He is defending Christian belief as being just as legitimate or legal as the teachings of the "poets and philosophers." Obviously he doesn't mean to equate the two, but only to defend Christians against some attacks and accusations made against them.

Similarly,

In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners;

He obviously does not mean to say that Christ belief is the same as those of "Greeks" or pagans, but rather that it is equally innocent, or no different in terms of being criminal or deserving hate or punishment in response. He is complaining that a belief connected with the "Christ" name is punished for that reason only, just for this label, even though it is no more criminal than another belief which is "similar" except for the name.

But clearly he is not saying the Christ belief is really "similar" or on a par with the pagan belief. You might catch him saying this as misspeak, for bad wording, but you're not so empty-headed as to think Justin really means to equate the two belief systems. Surely you have enough sense not to base your argument on a poor choice of words by this writer.

He says many other points to make it clear that Christ belief is based on real facts, or actual historical events, for which there is evidence, whereas the pagan beliefs are artificial and fiction. He makes this clear many times.

He uses the Hebrew prophecies as part of his proof that the Christ beliefs, or events, are real, and on this point one could disagree. His citation of Hebrew prophets might be mistaken, but this is not the point.

The proper evidence for the Christ events is the recent record, in the gospel accounts, which are from near to the time of the events. Whereas there is no evidence, or written record, of the pagan events, other than traditions about events from 1000+ years earlier, so there are no documents going back near to the time of the actual events, if they happened.

And of course Justin has the "demons" creating the stories, for which you can superficially giggle at him, but the meaning is that the stories are fiction, not true, and that's his legitimate point, which you ignore with your poking fun at him.

So your Justin Martyr quote here serves no point other than the entertainment of poking fun at him, and to ambush him with this "Gotcha!" quote does nothing to make your case about the Jesus events having any dependency on the pagan myths, or having less credibility because of some alleged "similarity" to those pagan myths. You've not established that any such "similarity" or dependency exists.

Your "Gotcha!" quote here is not some admission to anything serious, like you've caught a Christian making a "smoking gun" disclosure of something that was being denied. What do you think this quote proves?

What matters is whether Jesus has or had power, like is described in the gospel accounts. Did he do those acts or not? This quote does nothing to answer that question.

You can't rely on this 2nd-century AD writing as a source for the pagan myths, from 1000+ years earlier, and show some "similarity" to the accounts of Jesus in the gospels. We can't determine from this text what the pagan beliefs were. Other than that Hercules was strong and Asclepius was a healing god, etc.

Every culture has its pantheon of strong hero gods or gods one prays to for healing and other favors. Just because the Romans/Greeks had theirs -- i.e., these "gods" were in their religious culture -- doesn't mean that any later claim about a strong person or about a healer must have been derived from the Roman or Greek god who was strong or did healings.

Some of the gods also quarreled, but that doesn't mean every quarrel among humans was derived from gods who quarreled.

There is nothing in the Christ events which is traceable to the pagan myths.

Even if you turn up some superficial "similarity" it proves nothing. It casts no doubt on the credibility of the Jesus miracle events or shows any dependency of these on the pagan myths. Whatever you come up with is petty and superficial, which is why you won't give any example, because it would be a silly comparison. You know there's no serious pagan "parallel" in your Justin quote.

All Justin really shows here is that he knows lots of pagan myths and also lots of Hebrew scriptures/prophecies, and he mixes and matches these up in various ways to draw Christ prophecies out of it.

What really matters is that there's credible evidence for the Jesus miracle events, but it's not Justin's point to present that evidence. Perhaps it was obvious -- the recent written accounts existed, it was clear. And there were no written accounts for the miracle acts of the pagan gods, but only reference to oral traditions going back 1000+ years earlier. Justin attributed it to "demons," but it was obviously the mythologizing process, the storytelling over many centuries, that explains those pagan myths.

It is quite possible that "Jesus" never actually lived as such.

You could say that equally about many historical figures we all assume existed. It's possible that none of them existed and that all recorded history is a pack of lies/fictions. Again, this is really your best argument against the historicity of Jesus. I.e., no historical events ever really happened -- they are all fiction. There's your real argument that Jesus "never actually lived as such."

Claiming that these stories were within 50 years of his life is irrelevant . . .

No, not "within 50 years of his life" but WITHIN 50 YEARS OF THE REPORTED EVENTS -- The alleged events are connected to a point in time, i.e., in the gospel documents enough is given to date the events to within 5-10 years, i.e., to a date when they reportedly happened, i.e., to an alleged date when they allegedly happened. For the document to be credible, that reported date needs to be close to the date of the document or source, not 100-200 years prior to the document which is our source for the event.

. . . because we don't actually have a life to reference it to.

We're not referencing it to "a life" but to a date in the historical chronology. 30 AD is a reference point, which is determined from the documents.

Just as for any historical event we rely on the date given by the documents in order to date the reported event, so the Jesus miracle events have to be dated somewhere from 25-35 AD, i.e., this is when they reportedly happened, regardless that someone might snort back "Yeah but it didn't really happen at all, so there IS no such date" etc. -- nevermind that! We're talking about the reported or alleged date when it allegedly happened, whether it really happened or not. There IS such a date or reference point.

And the 50 years, or 40 years, is a relatively SHORT time period, compared to other reported events -- i.e., events usually are not reported that soon in the documents. Especially not miracle claims which are usually centuries later, like the claims about Perseus and Horus and Zeus and so on.

It's not having "a life to reference it to" that's important, but having a date for the reported events, and then comparing that date to the date of the documents reporting the events. If that is a relatively short time span, the credibility of the document, or of the report, is increased. I.e., it is stronger evidence for the event than if that time separation were much longer.

Put simply: The miracle claims of Jesus are much more credible because they appear in 30-70 years after they reportedly happened, whereas those of the "gods" are not reported until centuries later, usually more than 1000 years later (if those "gods" existed at all, i.e., maybe they were normal humans who were later mythologized).

We know for a fact that the earliest mentionings of Jesus in the authentic Pauline epistles provide absolutely no time frame and no geographic place in which Jesus lived.

It wasn't Paul's purpose to provide such biographical information, but we do have the time frame for the resurrection event which he attests to. And he names witnesses we know of for whom there is a time frame.

The gospel accounts do provide the time frame and geographic location. And these are relatively close to the reported events, in comparison to other reported events which we believe did happen and which are given their time frame in the documents which report them, and which are generally farther separated from the date of the documents than the Jesus events are separated from the date of the gospel accounts.

Thus it is silly to make a fuss over the time frame and geographic place of Jesus. This is better documented than is the case for most other events which we routinely believe happened.

We know that those details did not start getting written about until at least 30 years after they allegedly occurred. That leaves plenty of time for stories to get made up.

No, not miracle stories recorded in multiple documents -- you can't name an example of this. An ORAL report might become tainted with stories that are made up, but not written documents, in the 1st century. Writers did not waste their time on rubbish. They were vastly more selective than today and published documents only on subject matter which was worth preserving and had credibility.

You cannot give any examples of stories being recorded in multiple documents which were "made up" within 50 or even 100 years. Single-source stories perhaps, like epic poetry from a famous author being subsidized by someone rich. But we don't see a fictional miracle-worker hero emerging in 4 or 5 different documents in only a few decades, and not one which became widely believed to have been a real historical figure.

That some of the pagan myths attached themselves to the Jesus figure leaves unanswered the question: WHY did these myths get attached to him? Why did the pagans want to attach their myths or symbols to Jesus? There had to be something there, an object or entity, that they identified as desirable to attach their symbols to. What was that object and why did they choose this as something to attach their symbols to?

The Jesus myth was popular.

The ONLY myth that was popular? There were no others? Why? Why is there not one other popular myth which also got published in multiple documents?

It had been marketed quite successfully (probably by Paul).

Why weren't any of the other myths marketed successfully? There's no evidence that the Christ cult(s) had any exceptional marketing ability. Marketing is nothing if you have no product. What was his "Jesus myth" product? Who was this secret cabal of promoters and why did they choose to apply their amazing one-of-a-kind marketing skill to this unimportant unknown would-be cult?

Myths about the gods required centuries to evolve into something popular. How did this unimportant "Jesus myth" become popular in less than 50 years?

Why not parlay some of that popularity into personal profit?

What popularity? You're just assuming there was some popularity as a given, but not explaining how Paul was able to turn a nobody into a deity, which people started attributing miracle stories to. You have to explain where the "popularity" came from, not just assume it as a given.

Of course Paul wanted profit, but doesn't EVERYONE? So this doesn't explain why Paul was successful and others were not. Why did the "Jesus myth" become popular? or why did it sell while others did not?

How was this "myth" a better product than all the other hundreds of myths floating around? Why did Paul choose THIS PARTICULAR myth to sell instead of another one?

The answer is that Jesus already had a reputation as a miracle-worker. As long as this reputation was credible, the "Jesus myth" would sell, and anyone who could connect to this "myth" would increase their influence, or gain followers, or customers.

Unless you have a better answer, it is that He already had a unique unprecedented reputation as a miracle-worker and so they switched or expanded their myths/symbols to him, because his already-existing reputation then gave stronger credibility to those myths/symbols, and they were more credible being attached to him than to the previous "gods" to which they had been attached earlier.

See above for a better answer. The Jesus myth was marketed successfully and popular enough to . . .

No, you're not answering why ONLY THIS myth was marketed successfully, or was "popular enough."

The question is: why did Paul choose THIS myth to market rather than any of the hundreds of others? Why did he waste his talent on this nothing cult which was NOT popular at first when Paul joined it and had a dead guru who was a nobody at the time, killed long before he had gained any wide recognition?

There were thousands of myths to sell, and there were thousands of good salesmen to market those myths. Why did ONLY THIS one myth succeed in becoming a popular miracle-worker myth recorded in documents unlike any other miracle-worker myths?

You can't credit the success to the marketing. You can't seriously claim that this one myth only was able to succeed, with all the good marketers out there and all their equally good myth products, and say Paul chose this one myth for no reason, and because of this one fluke choice he made, and being the greatest salesman in history, he then cooked up the grandest hoax that was ever perpetrated. No, this is not a serious explanation.

A much more credible explanation is that he had a far superior product to begin with. He had a "Jesus myth" based on a reputed miracle-worker who already had enough credibility so as to make this product easy to sell. It was the "Jesus myth" that made Paul successful or popular, not the selling talent of Paul that made the "Jesus myth" popular.

The "Jesus myth" was popular anyway, even without Paul. It was spreading to the Greeks and Romans regardless of Paul. It was his writings which had the real impact on the later spread of the Christ cult(s), not his personal trips to found new Christ communities.

. . . generate some cross-breeding. But the Jesus myth took much more than it gave, as the story of Perseus and the powers of Bacchus, Asclepius and Poseidon were appropriated by its adherents.

If there were any truth to this talking point, you would provide an example of the pagan story that was "appropriated" by the Christ-believers. You would cite the original source for one of these and show the similarity. You have nothing about Perseus or Bacchus etc. to offer other than empty sloganism -- which you have absorbed uncritically from 21st-century sources only.

Everything you keep repeating about Perseus et al. is only empty sloganism until you provide the original text account of these stories and show the similarity and dependency of the "Jesus myth" upon those stories.

There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in the Jesus myths that requires that any of it happened in order for it to have been written down as it appears today.

Yes there is something that requires that it happened: If they didn't happen, then they are fictions which emerged TOO EARLY after him for them to be a result of normal mythologizing. None of the other persons who were mythologized into dieties had this happen to them within such a short time after they lived, including getting published in documents within 50 years, or even as soon as 20 years.

Too early!?! If they didn't happen then "too early" is meaningless.

No, it means too close after the alleged date that the alleged events took place.

Once again, the time reference means the time indicated in the documents. You cannot deny that the documents, gospel accounts, exist and that they give a time frame for the events. And we have reasonable dating of the documents. So we can compare the date of the documents to the date of the reputed event whether the event happened or not.

So the "too early" is meaningful. It means the time between the date of the documents and the date of the reputed events. The latter date is about 30 AD. And the existing documents date variously from 65 AD to 90 or 100 AD. Or 50-60 AD for the Paul epistles.

This time span is too short for the events to be fictional, because the mythologizing process requires a much longer time span than this. Especially for a figure who had no status or pubic recognition and was active publicly for 3 years at most.

There is no statute of limitations on how quickly a myth can fabricate.

You cannot name ANY miracle myth that was fictional and emerged this soon in the documents (other than possibly some wacko cults later than 1900 AD). There is a limit on how short this time can be, because it's not true that people are the zombie idiots you're assuming, who spontaneously swallow any wacko charismatic who pops up in front of them -- it does not happen, despite your slander of 1st-century Greeks and Romans as being mindless cattle who stampede to the first charismatic cowboy charlatan who fires off his gun.

Combine an excellent cult leader with an audience motivated to listen and you've got the makings of any story imaginable, no matter how ridiculous.

Again, this delusionalism of yours is refuted by the fact that there is NO OTHER CULT than the Christ cult(s) who ever pulled off such a miracle-story hoax as you're suggesting. If the audience could be so easily manipulated and stampeded by the "excellent cult leader" guru charlatan, then there would be hundreds of Jesus-like cults from the first century, each with its own published "gospel" accounts, instead of this one only.

You consistently fail to explain why there is ONLY ONE such hoax cult rather than dozens. Your explanation supposes a mythologizing process which would have produced dozens of other Jesus-like cults, which is not the case. There's only this one for which we have serious evidence for the events.


(to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What makes Christ belief true, or more probable, is the EVIDENCE, not the popularity of the belief.

Learn some logic, PLEASE.

Jesus (or the idea of Jesus) was popular among a smallish group who invented all sorts of miraculous stories.

But there were easily hundreds of other such groups. Over many centuries there were surely thousands of such cults. So you need to answer:

Why did only the Christ cult(s) succeed in getting their miraculous stories published and passed on to us? What's another example of a "smallish group who invented" such stories and which got these published in multiple documents within 100 years?

It took years for this group to expand. If David Koresh's small group of followers hadn't been killed along with him then they could have well grown into a much larger following.

This can be tested. Other groups just like Koresh's group HAVE survived. And guess what -- they have NOT grown into much larger groups because too few people would join such a cult, because they don't believe the nonsense being preached by them. And so you are probably wrong about what would have happened to Koresh's group. It too would have remained small and ignored.

While Koresh was alive his followers believed he was divine and would have passed this belief on to converts they brought in growing the cult . . .

But there would have been very few, and the total number of members would have remained small. We have evidence for this -- there are easily dozens of other such cults just like that one, and they have not grown.

Further, you could easily be wrong about them eventually passing on their belief because Koresh could easily have gotten booted out of the cult subsequently just as he had booted out his predecessor. And with him booted out, the members would have started believing the new leader was divine and that the one booted out was a false prophet.

. . . so that eventually they may have displaced Christianity and the US would be celebrating Koreshmas rather than Christmas.

If that were so it would already have happened, because, again, there ARE many surviving Koresh cults, i.e., other cults just like that one, which have not gotten fire-bombed or annihilated and are doing whatever the Koresh cult would have done if it had not been annihilated. And yet they have not "displaced Christianity."

Your argument for Jesus's story being true is an Argumentum ad populum since the belief has become popular, . . .

No, it was not "popular" in the 2nd century, and yet at that time there was the evidence for the miracles of Jesus, because there were multiple documents attesting to those events, written near to the time of the events. While there was no such evidence for any other belief system, like that of the pagan deities.

It's the existence of the evidence, or the reports of the miracle events, that makes it true, or more likely true, not the popularity or the number of members recruited. Even if the numbers were increasing rapidly, it's not this, but the abundance of reports of the events that is the reason to believe. I.e., those miracle acts indicated that this Christ person had power, and this is why the claims about him were more likely true and thus were believed.

. . . not because there is any evidence of its truth.

It's the same kind of evidence as for any historical events. It's reported in written documents, even more than one (which usually isn't necessary), and these were written near to the time of the events. That is evidence. All the historical facts you believe are based on the existence of documents which claim those events happened. You have no other evidence for any historical facts except documents which claim those events happened.

If you reject this as evidence for the truth of the reported events, then you must reject ALL historical facts, because that's all the evidence you have for any facts of history.

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat, it's nice to see you engaging in contemporary conversation rather than continuing with the pattern of responding with long sermons in response to posts made well over a year ago. However your recent responses also belie the likelihood that you have not read the responses many of us have made to your continued baseless assertions over the last year or more.

First of all this silly argument you keep making about Jesus not being famous in A.D. 30 has been dealt with several times. You've yet to address the objections.

Secondly, there is more to historical analysis than simply accepting every written source that is "corroborated" by one or more later written sources. Sensible historians have many considerations when analyzing historical evidence. Written evidence is nice, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. Historians know that what people say about things that happened even if they were first-hand witnesses, are inevitably colored by any agenda they have. A Roman historian writing about Roman conquests will describe a noble liberation, where if a record survived written by someone on the losing end it will describe a barbaric massacre. Sensible historians try to look at how likely a story is, how well it fits in with archaeological evidence, geological evidence, etc. You've already been presented with the Sumerian King List as an example of a quasi-historical document and the methodologies used by modern historians to separate the history from the fantasy. Sensible historians have done the same with the ancient quasi-historical legends of nearly every culture that has ever existed. Early Christianity is no exception.

People believe the miracle tales because they want to, not because there is any actual evidence they happened. Whoever wrote GMark was not a witness to the things written therein. If the writer (or writers) actually believed what they were writing it is because someone convinced them these things were true, not because they had any evidence they were true. The people who believe because they read the tale in GMark did not have any evidence the stories happened as described. They only had the word of other people and the story. In other words these people believed for the same reason you believe today. Other folks told them. Not because there is any actual evidence.

As I've mentioned several times in thread, and will continue to do so for as long as you persist in this inane argument, rational historical criticism always separates fact from fantasy. Historians don't have to believe Alexander was the son of Zeus to believe he sacked Halicarnassus. Sensible historians separate Washington's tossing of a coin across the Potomac from Washington crossing the Delaware. One is possible, the other is not.

Sensible historians recognize that there could have been an itinerant preacher named Jesus who gathered a following of devout disciples who were unwilling to accept that he was dead and began fabricating scenarios whereby he would come back. This would be especially reasonable had he been offed in a manner similar to Jimmy Hoffa. He wouldn't have to be world renown in order for people to begin attaching miraculous tales to him. Many of the miracle-working people in the Old Testament were nobodies as well, whose stories only survive because they are included in Jewish folklore. This argument you keep making that people have to be famous to be mythologized is a non-starter.

And it remains possible that the Jesus legend was fabricated from the get-go. The evidence available to us today is completely consistent with that scenario.

Finally, it really wouldn't hurt you to learn a little about logic. If you are seriously not familiar with basic logical fallacies such as appeal to popularity, affirming the consequent, sharpshooter fallacy, etc., it's no wonder you are getting hammered so hard in this thread. You've come to a place where rational people are willing to accept logical arguments but are justifiably skeptical about wild claims concerning things that are neither logical nor are they presented without logical fallacy. Clean the fallacies out of your arguments and then present them. You may find you have little left to present.

 

[Atheos]

It's the same kind of evidence as for any historical events. It's reported in written documents, even more than one (which usually isn't necessary), and these were written near to the time of the events. That is evidence. All the historical facts you believe are based on the existence of documents which claim those events happened. You have no other evidence for any historical facts except documents which claim those events happened.

If you reject this as evidence for the truth of the reported events, then you must reject ALL historical facts, because that's all the evidence you have for any facts of history.

Let's ask an actual historian how this is accomplished. Richard Carrier holds a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University. His thesis was on the history of science in ancient antiquity. In the interest of full disclosure I readily acknowledge that he is an atheist activist, and argues the position of a non-historical Jesus. Leaving that aside for a moment his credentials are impeccable. He knows how to study ancient history. He shares a bit of that knowledge with us in this paragraph:

I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on. See for example my discussion of the Rubicon-Resurrection contrast in Geivett's Exercise in Hyperbole (Part 4b of my Review of In Defense of Miracles). Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument. So it is no coincidence that this is what you get in serious historical scholarship.

Lumpenproletariat, your description of how historical analysis is performed is about as full of holes as every other argument you have presented in this thread.

 

[skepticalbip]

But there were easily hundreds of other such groups. Over many centuries there were surely thousands of such cults. So you need to answer:

Why did only the Christ cult(s) succeed in getting their miraculous stories published and passed on to us? What's another example of a "smallish group who invented" such stories and which got these published in multiple documents within 100 years?

It took years for this group to expand. If David Koresh's small group of followers hadn't been killed along with him then they could have well grown into a much larger following.

This can be tested. Other groups just like Koresh's group HAVE survived. And guess what -- they have NOT grown into much larger groups because too few people would join such a cult, because they don't believe the nonsense being preached by them. And so you are probably wrong about what would have happened to Koresh's group. It too would have remained small and ignored.

While Koresh was alive his followers believed he was divine and would have passed this belief on to converts they brought in growing the cult . . .

But there would have been very few, and the total number of members would have remained small. We have evidence for this -- there are easily dozens of other such cults just like that one, and they have not grown.

Further, you could easily be wrong about them eventually passing on their belief because Koresh could easily have gotten booted out of the cult subsequently just as he had booted out his predecessor. And with him booted out, the members would have started believing the new leader was divine and that the one booted out was a false prophet.

. . . so that eventually they may have displaced Christianity and the US would be celebrating Koreshmas rather than Christmas.

If that were so it would already have happened, because, again, there ARE many surviving Koresh cults, i.e., other cults just like that one, which have not gotten fire-bombed or annihilated and are doing whatever the Koresh cult would have done if it had not been annihilated. And yet they have not "displaced Christianity."

Your argument for Jesus's story being true is an Argumentum ad populum since the belief has become popular, . . .

No, it was not "popular" in the 2nd century, and yet at that time there was the evidence for the miracles of Jesus, because there were multiple documents attesting to those events, written near to the time of the events. While there was no such evidence for any other belief system, like that of the pagan deities.

It's the existence of the evidence, or the reports of the miracle events, that makes it true, or more likely true, not the popularity or the number of members recruited. Even if the numbers were increasing rapidly, it's not this, but the abundance of reports of the events that is the reason to believe. I.e., those miracle acts indicated that this Christ person had power, and this is why the claims about him were more likely true and thus were believed.

. . . not because there is any evidence of its truth.

It's the same kind of evidence as for any historical events. It's reported in written documents, even more than one (which usually isn't necessary), and these were written near to the time of the events. That is evidence. All the historical facts you believe are based on the existence of documents which claim those events happened. You have no other evidence for any historical facts except documents which claim those events happened.

If you reject this as evidence for the truth of the reported events, then you must reject ALL historical facts, because that's all the evidence you have for any facts of history.

There is too much nonsense here. You argument essentially boils down to the story of Jesus must be true because people believe it and it was written down within fifty to a hundred years. Writing myths down doesn't make them true. People believing the myths doesn't make them true.

Your argument that it be written down and people believing it makes it true is the logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Not accepting others that meet your idea of the myth being written down and people believing the myth as making them true but that it makes the Jesus myth true is special pleading.

Joseph Smith's "miracles" were written down contemporaneously and people believe it. Your assertion that his miracles are not true but Jesus's are true is special pleading. The same for Buddha, Mohammad, etc.

ETA:
You are evading the real discussion of how we know if something can possibly be true by offering endless red herrings. We know if some story is possibly true by whether or not it requires violation of the laws of physics. However, even if a story does not require a violation of the laws of physics it still may not be true. In this case we can judge the possibility of truth by the reliability of the "witnesses".

 

[atrib]

This is a lie. The magical claims of the Bible are unsupported by any historical accounts outside the Bible. Prove me wrong, cite these 4 sources!

By this standard there are no historical facts. All history is fiction. Because there are no historical facts which are supported by anything outside the sources which report them.

History has to be based on the evidence, ALL the written documents. Your prejudice which arbitrarily eliminates from the record something you hate cannot be the basis for knowledge of history.

We have to include the Vedas, the Koran, the Book of Mormon -- ALL documents, no matter how much you hate a certain one. We must include them all, and then use each one with skepticism. Just because some are more reliable than others does not mean ANY must be excluded.

So, you are not able to cite the four or five separate sources that provide an account of Jesus rising up from the dead and flying up into the sky, and your claim was not truthful.

And for your information, I do NOT hate the Bible. I simply do not believe the supernatural stories that the Bible contains, just as I do not believe the supernatural stories regarding the elephant headed god Ganesha, or the monkey god Hanuman who could fly and lift up entire mountains, even though such stories are widely documented in Hindu mythology in multiple sources.

Never in the history of our species has a human risen up after several days of being dead, or flown up into the sky without the aid of mechanical devices. Not once. If you claim that the these extraordinary Bible stories are credible, you need to provide extraordinary evidence to support your claim, which you cannot do. So all you do is post walls of text that say nothing while ignoring every rebuttal that has been posted here. That speaks volumes about the integrity of your testimony.

The Jesus miracles are more likely real events because there is credible evidence for them. They are reported much the same as other historical events that we assume did happen. I.e., they are reported in documents near to the time of the reported events, unlike the pagan myths.

Name one event in history that is generally considered to be true that involves supernatural acts like people rising up from the dead and floating up into the sky. Just one. You cannot, because there are none. It is very different to consider the evidence and conclude that Caesar invaded Gaul (no magic involved), than it is to read the Bible and conclude that Jesus really did magical things. This fact has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you continue to repeat your argument while ignoring the rebuttals. Why does it take so much dishonesty to keep your faith alive?