120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[GenesisNemesis]

And Genesis 1:1 is not magic.

Talking snakes don't exist. Fruit that contains knowledge does not exist. Flaming swords don't exist. You're telling me none of those things are "magical"? That's hilarious.

 

[DBT]

And Genesis 1:1 is not magic.

If a universe popping into existence on the word of a Cosmic Magician isn't magic, what is?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And Genesis 1:1 is not magic.

Talking snakes don't exist. Fruit that contains knowledge does not exist. Flaming swords don't exist. You're telling me none of those things are "magical"? That's hilarious.

You nailed it.

Can you imagine going to see your doctor who checks you over and then prescribes an antibiotic, fluids and rest? But then he tells you to wear blue clothes every morning, especially at 9:00am which is when they have the most effect? Then he tells you to write 729431 at least three times every day? Then he advises you to listen to every doorknob in the house because sprites and gremlins love to hide there but will flee if discovered, and hence you will heal faster. Then he claims to find evidence that the invisible Whack-Whack is somewhere in your bedroom and you must get it to leave if you are to properly heal.

You'll take his sound medical advice because you know it works, and then laugh your ass off at the rest, and then maybe go look for another sawbones.

 

[Lion IRC]

And Genesis 1:1 is not magic.

If a universe popping into existence on the word of a Cosmic Magician isn't magic, what is?

That's called cause and effect my friend.

Not even Penn & Teller would pretend stuff happens on stage without a cause - an invisible hand.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If a universe popping into existence on the word of a Cosmic Magician isn't magic, what is?

That's called cause and effect my friend.

Not even Penn & Teller would pretend stuff happens on stage without a cause - an invisible hand.

But they would agree that it fits the definition of "magic" that doesn't exist.

 

[bilby]

Quantum physics breaks down above Compton scale, so we have physics of scale. Fish don't come in superposition or in both wave and particle form, they are individual fish and individual loaves.

Well, if you are talking about fish, you have to consider a large number of scales.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, that is so bad... You should feel SO gillty.

 

[bilby]

Oh, that is so bad... You should feel SO gillty.

Judgment is reserved for Cod alone.

 

[DBT]

If a universe popping into existence on the word of a Cosmic Magician isn't magic, what is?

That's called cause and effect my friend.

Not even Penn & Teller would pretend stuff happens on stage without a cause - an invisible hand.

Purely imaginary. We know that quantum fluctuations happen and that virtual particles appear and disappear (confirmed)....but we still have no God to examine and study

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How much evidence is necessary to make a miracle story plausible? a reasonable possibility?

Again, I don't need the Jesus miracles via the stories from the synoptic gospels to be "proven". I'd like reasons that they are at least plausible if not probable.

We have more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for many historical facts which we routinely accept because they are reported in the documents which have come down to us, and it's only because the events are reported in documents that we believe they happened.

What makes the reported events probable? especially miracle events, which require extra evidence? It's difficult to calculate how much evidence is necessary before miracle claims reach 90% or 50% (or 99% or 10%) probable. But the extra evidence for the Jesus miracles -- much more than the minimum needed for reported events to be accepted as likely history -- does make the Jesus miracles plausible, and makes it reasonable for a person to believe the claims (not meaning it's the only reasonable possibility).

People believe a lot of stuff on much less evidence than this. One can reasonably insist that the evidence is still not enough, because of the extra evidence required for miracle events; but not that it's implausible. There's enough evidence to make it a reasonable possibility -- some will believe it, but others not. Either is reasonable. Neither can disprove the other.

The only reason to reject the Jesus miracles as implausible is that you start with the premise that miracle claims must always be false, regardless of any evidence. If you start with that premise, then yes, the Jesus miracle stories must be fiction. But this premise, that all miracle claims must be false regardless of evidence, is not required by science or logic or reason. So without that premise, the miracles of Jesus are plausible, and one can reasonably believe them, based on the evidence (even though another reasonably disbelieves it, based on the not-enough evidence).

There is no official scientific rule establishing exactly how much extra evidence is necessary before the alleged miracle event becomes a reasonable possibility.

Instead, if one steps back and looks at the larger picture of the formation of Christianity out of the history of Judaism one runs into so many problems, it is literally hard to list them all. I'll just re-post my comments from almost a year ago:

Your MHORC seems to include a magical decade limit conveniently right below the timespan that most scholars put down for the development of a large portion of your particular holy texts.

What? "magical decade limit"? "holy texts"?

The Jesus miracles, if they happened, occurred near 30 AD. Paul relates the resurrection miracle at around 55 AD. Mark's account of that plus the healing miracles is dated at about 70 AD, followed by the other gospels up to about 100 AD.

This time gap between the reported events and the writings about them is a relatively NARROW GAP by comparison to other historical events reported during those times. And there are virtually NO other reported miracle events, until modern times, where this time gap is so short, or where the alleged miracle event has that same amount of evidence, or minimum evidence necessary to establish normal events as historical.

The typically much longer time gap indicates a period of time when mythologizing or legend-building generally took place and thus produced miracle stories, e.g., the pagan heroes, etc. This gap explains where those miracle fiction stories came from; but there is no such gap in the case of the Jesus miracle stories, which therefore cannot be explained this way, because they are supported by evidence just as normal accepted historical events are supported by evidence, i.e., by reports in written documents dated near the time of the reported events.

However, there is nothing to support your time limit. In fact it has been shown over and over that mythos can develop within very short periods of time.

Not miracle claims. You can't give any examples.

This has not been shown for any miracle myths/legends before modern times, e.g., before 1500 AD. One supposed exception might be St. Genevieve, late 5th century AD. The biography of her appeared shortly after her death, but this was following her extremely long career as a guru. And also, for this example there is ONLY ONE SOURCE. We can consider other supposed exceptions to this if you want to offer them. There are virtually no exceptions. Dr. Carrier claims there are, but his examples are pathetic, if you look at them individually instead of just believing everything he says because he's your guru.

Don't just say it's been "shown over and over" -- it has not been. Give an example of an instant miracle-worker in the literature.

Even where a shorter time gap might be argued, like the St. Genevieve case (for whom there is ONLY ONE SOURCE), another factor is the very long career of the alleged miracle-worker, spanning several decades. This allows time for some legend-building even during the life of the charismatic figure, so a few stories might appear earlier in these rare exceptions. We have to look at each case to see how poor these examples are by comparison.

Also, there is no reason to limit such examples to miracle max workers, that is just your special pleading trying to pigeon hole your faith as the only valid one (aka random puzzle piece).

"miracle max"? "special pleading"? "random puzzle piece"?

There is reason to reject miracle claims which don't appear in the record until 100+ years after the event reportedly happened. If the alleged miracle-worker was a real historical figure who was a popular hero, then it's easy to explain how the stories evolved gradually over 100-200 years, as folklore (1000+ years for the pagan myths).

This is not a "random" standard, but is a reasonable criterion for judging the credibility of claims about unusual events which are in doubt. If they are reported in documents near to the time of the alleged event, then the credibility of the claim is higher. But if the claim does not appear until centuries later, then it is more likely fiction which evolved gradually. And if there is only one source, this too makes the claim less credible. There is no "special pleading" in applying these criteria for judging the credibility.

To recognize this, you have to look at the individual examples, where you think there's a miracle legend figure for whom there is as much evidence. There's none that comes close.

There is also reason to discount miracle claims about a charismatic hero if s/he was popular over a very long career of performing for audiences and winning disciples. It is easy to explain how the stories might emerge as folklore if the hero had decades of time in which to recruit followers and impress them with his charisma. So in a few cases there might even be some stories occurring during his lifetime, though most of the legend-building requires several generations and occurs after the death of the hero.

There is nothing "random" about these criteria for judging the credibility of the miracle claims.

Your MHORC seems to include your god doing parlor tricks as a pre-requisite for being a valid theology (aka random puzzle piece). Why?

"valid theology"? Wha-zat?

Are you asking why the Jesus miracle stories matter? I.e., are you asking what difference it makes even if the miracle stories are true?

These acts he performed indicate the possibility of life beyond the normal limits, beyond death, and reduction or elimination of suffering. I.e., that he had contact with a life-giving power which could be the source for producing the "eternal life" or "kingdom of god" he proclaimed.

It matters whether there is such a power or eternal-life possibility. If so, wouldn't that be more important than abstractions about "a pre-requisite for being a valid theology"?

Your MHORC seems to require the miracles to be recorded by someone(s) not currently part of the cult (aka random puzzle piece;

This is not "random" but is a relevant factor that increases the credibility. If the claims come only from disciples of the guru or alleged miracle-worker, then we have less reason to believe them because the disciple is intimidated by the guru's charisma and feels pressure to confirm the miracle claim being made. Or the disciple is easily deceived and can imagine seeing something that didn't really happen, or misinterpret as a miracle something that was really normal. The obsession with the guru distorts the disciple's critical judgment.

. . . which you conveniently leave out the fact that you CLEARLY have no evidence to support that your cult’s parlor tricks weren’t recorded by participating cultists).

There is evidence that the miracles of Jesus were observed and reported by onlookers who were not his disciples. For most of the Jesus miracle acts, the accounts clearly imply that observers or non-disciples went from the scene to tell others and spread the word about his healing acts. Very few of these acts were done privately with no outsiders/onlookers present. In most cases this is implied rather than stated explicitly, but it's clearly there in the wording of the accounts.

Consider the first miracle reported in Mark, the curing of a "man with an unclean spirit" (mentally deranged?) in a synagogue at Capernaum. The "they" in vs 21 means only the first 4 disciples -- Peter, Andrew, John, and James:

Mark chapter 1: 21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. 23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How did "his fame spread everywhere" if it wasn't the ones present at the scene, the observers/onlookers who went out and told of this? Who is meant by the phrase "And they were all amazed"? Not only the 4 disciples who accompanied him into the synagogue.

And who is intended by the phrase, "there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit"? Not those 4 disciples, but a non-disciple obviously, someone unknown who had never seen Jesus before.

And this same pattern repeats over and over, throughout the miracle stories, the physical affliction healings as well as the "exorcism" healings like this one. In 2 or 3 cases it says explicitly that the one healed or other non-disciple went out and reported the event.

The pattern is regular, throughout most of the recorded miracle acts, always implying clearly that non-disciples reported it, orally, having only just encountered Jesus for the first time and witnessing the event.

Of course you can speculate that it was really disciples only who spread the word, and that only disciples were present and were healed at these events. But the text of the gospel accounts clearly says otherwise, implying very clearly that the one healed and many of those present were NON-disciples, and also saying that these ones later told others about it.

If this is not what really happened, you must assume that those who wrote or told the stories deliberately fabricated this element -- not just making up the miracle story, but specifically wanting to promulgate the falsehood that the story was spread by non-disciples, to deceive the hearers or readers into believing that the stories came from non-disciples, when they really knew it was only disciples who were present or who were healed (or claimed to have been healed).

You might be correct in conjecturing that such a conspiracy was part of the origin of the stories, that the conspirators planned to spread a falsehood about who was telling the stories and spreading them around. But this is an arbitrary conjecture based not on any evidence but only on the premise that the miracle acts must not have happened. Reason does not require us to make this arbitrary conjecture. It's reasonable not to believe there was such a conspiracy of this extreme complexity, and not to force such an extreme conspiracy theory into the facts but instead to allow that whatever process happened did not involve such a complex of conspiracy machinery at work in the origin of these stories.

It's reasonable to believe that these stories were spread around without a conspiracy taking place to deceive everyone about who was telling the stories. This would be a multi-layered conspiracy theory about not only the inventing of the basic miracle event, but also of inventing scenarios about who originated the stories or who was spreading them. One can reasonably dismiss that as unlikely.

You simply want them to be that way, so therefore it must be true.

No, the actual accounts do say, implicitly but clearly, that there were observers or onlookers present, not connected to Jesus, i.e., NON-disciples, and that these ones went and told others so that the stories spread throughout the region.

The gospel accounts say this -- it's not imagined. Look at the examples, in the text, to see whether there were others present, who were not his disciples, including the ones healed. Is it not clearly implied, in most of the cases, that the one healed was a NON-disciple, and likewise others present? And doesn't it imply that some of these then left the scene and reported this to others locally? Doesn't it say the story spread rapidly, to many areas, so that it could not have been only the disciples going out and reporting it? Usually the disciples remained with him and did not leave the scene to tell others.

Even if it's true that I "simply want them to be that way," this doesn't change the wording of the text. That is what the text says.

It could be true, but that is very different than solid evidence that it is true.

The evidence is simply the straightforward wording of the written accounts telling us of the alleged events. Not just that the miracle event happened, but about who was present, whether they were disciples or not, and whether they told others. This is evidence, not proof, of what happened, and it is totally artificial to insist that the storytellers fabricated stories to make it appear that non-disciples were present when they were not, and that non-disciples reported it to others when they did not.

See how complicated and multi-layered your conspiracy theory is: The accounts usually only IMPLY the above rather than stating it explicitly, so you have to assume the writers or storytellers planned very carefully to not say it explicitly but to only IMPLY this part of the story. So this is a THREE-layered conspiracy -- (1) They invented the stories, (2) they conspired to deceive people about the origin of the stories and who was spreading the stories, and (3) they conspired carefully to not say EXPLICITLY that it was non-disciples who witnessed and spread the stories, but to say it only by implication, to make the deceitfulness less obvious.

It's not reasonable to insist that such a multi-layered conspiracy as this must have taken place.

To assume someone made up a story is reasonable, but not that they engaged in a multi-layered conspiracy to deceive listeners/readers about who spread the stories.

Though it is obvious that this is the source for the LDS miracles, ergo your special pleading argument...

"special pleading"? You mean there is nothing significant in whether the stories were spread by non-disciples? But this IS significant. If the only source for the stories is the disciples, and also the only ones healed were disciples, this makes the stories less credible, because of the influence of the charismatic guru on his disciples, who are less able to make a critical judgment about what happened, and are much more likely to automatically believe the miracle happened, because they are attached to the guru and want to promote his reputation.

Your requirements are not only random, but you also ignore them when you pretend that your version of Christianity fits, as you pick and choose them to make your cult sound somehow more plausible.

Two of the major requirements are 1) the proximity of the sources to the reported miracle event, and 2) the number of sources. What is "random" about either of these? Are you denying that a source 30-50 years separated from the reported event is more reliable than a source 100-200 years later? And are you denying that it's more credible if we have 4 sources instead of only one? How did I "pick and choose" the dates when the gospels were written? or the date of the reported events (about 30 AD)? or the number of sources?

You have no evidence to show that it wasn’t a “small clique who decided to invent (or embellish a small kernel) an instant miracle-worker”, you just wish it is so.

There is evidence that it was not a small clique. (Of course there's no PROOF either way.)

If a small clique invented this instant miracle-worker, why are there no other cases of instant miracle-workers invented by other cults? This is the ONLY example of such a thing, in all the history from 2000 BC up to about 1500 AD, during which we have no other examples, as all the reputed miracle-workers are a result of long-term legend-building, usually over several generations or centuries.

It should be clear that the Paul epistles and the 4 gospels were not written or produced by any single small clique working together to invent an instant miracle-worker. Even if there is some fictional element, or embellishment, there could not have been one monolithic clique of conspirators inventing it, but rather, there were many different conflicting groups each inventing their own versions separately.

In which case you have to explain: Why did these separate groups all agree to create this one instant miracle-worker instead of different ones each creating a different miracle hero, a separate one from the others? I.e., why don't we have MANY of these instant miracle-workers popping up in the literature during the period? There were many possible charismatic heroes to choose from -- John the Baptist, e.g., and the messiah pretenders named in Josephus, and famous rabbis like Hillel and others -- so why did all the myth-inventors happen to make only this one Jesus person into their instant miracle-worker?

Did all the instant miracle-worker inventors hold a secret convention and vote on who they should converge on, or unite around, as their single instant miracle-worker?

One good indicator that there was no organized clique inventing this miracle legend is the "rejection at Nazareth" story which could not have been invented by any such clique trying to invent an instant miracle-worker:

Who says a prophet is without honor in his own country?

Was Jesus the son of Mary & Joseph? with 4 brothers, including James?

In this story we encounter the strange saying, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country." All four gospels, and even the Gospel of Thomas, put forth this saying. How could they all have invented this same saying? This saying could not have been invented by a clique trying to create an instant miracle-worker.

The saying is a falsehood. Prophets are not rejected in their own country. The saying is artificial and makes no sense. It occurs ONLY in the four Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas, and is connected to Jesus and a story that he was rejected in his home village.

The "rejection at Nazareth" story must have been a put-down of Jesus, in its original form, saying Jesus was a charlatan, or a phony of some kind. In Luke, there's an additional put-down of Jesus, "Physician, heal thyself!" which must have been said by someone mocking him. There is no other way to make sense of these words.

This depiction of Jesus in the gospel accounts could not have originated from any clique which was promoting Jesus as an instant miracle-worker. The only possible explanation of it is that this story did exist, from the beginning, about 30 AD, as some kind of spontaneous rumor or gossip circulating from somewhere but not invented by any such clique. Neither a pro-Jesus or ANTI-Jesus clique of any kind could have created this story, because the story contradicts both, saying Jesus could not do any miracle in Nazareth but did do such acts at other places.

And the story could come into existence only AFTER Jesus was reputed to have done miracle acts somewhere, so that this story is a reaction to those claims, but a reaction not from any clique of believers trying to invent an instant miracle-worker.

It has to date from earlier, and the gospel writers felt obligated to include it in some form, even though they did not like this story and wished it did not exist, and Matthew tries to tone it down from the earlier Mark version, which reveals his dislike for the Mark version. How could these Jesus Christ evangelists possibly make up a story saying Jesus was unable to perform a miracle, at Nazareth or anywhere else? It makes no sense.

Though the story says he could do no miracle in this one case, it also says or implies that he did perform miracles at other places. So it confirms that he did perform these acts generally, but says he could not at this one place and time. This story had to be unplanned and spontaneous.

Here's a possible explanation of this Nazareth story:

What is the meaning of the "Rejection at Nazareth" story?

Any explanation of it necessarily contradicts the theory that the miracle stories originate from a clique inventing an instant miracle-worker legend. And other elements in the gospel accounts and the Paul epistles also contradict such a theory.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the extra evidence for the Jesus miracles -- much more than the minimum needed for reported events to be accepted as likely history -- does make the Jesus miracles plausible, and makes it reasonable for a person to believe the claims (not meaning it's the only reasonable possibility).

That's a whole lot of text to justify such a baseless claim. You're the only one saying it meets the requirements for a historian to accept it as history.
Except for other apologists claiming that their religion is history, which is kind of bad history.

 

[abaddon]

Lumpenproletariat,

What's with the need to prove your belief is well-reasoned?

The junk about "more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for many historical facts which we routinely accept because they are reported in the documents" is sophistry. It's just a riff off of some historians saying a similar thing about Jesus' historicity (no strong reasons to doubt that a person named Jesus existed). That basic stance doesn't apply to the fantastical bits but you pretend that's a generally accepted practice (if the fantastical is written about sooner rather than later).

Anyway, the 'I need to convince you this is reasonable' stuff... You seem to value evidence and reason a bit but only just enough for reality to bug you some. Just enough to make you want to layer your unreason with a vague semblance of reason (and at great length).

Why not boldly admit your belief in miracles is a leap of blind faith on your part? Because that's what it is and it'd be more forthright to just say so than strain so hard to try (and fail) to prove it's otherwise.

 

[funinspace]

Again, I don't need the Jesus miracles via the stories from the synoptic gospels to be "proven". I'd like reasons that they are at least plausible if not probable.

We have more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for many historical facts which we routinely accept because they are reported in the documents which have come down to us, and it's only because the events are reported in documents that we believe they happened.

What makes the reported events probable? especially miracle events, which require extra evidence? It's difficult to calculate how much evidence is necessary before miracle claims reach 90% or 50% (or 99% or 10%) probable. But the extra evidence for the Jesus miracles -- much more than the minimum needed for reported events to be accepted as likely history -- does make the Jesus miracles plausible, and makes it reasonable for a person to believe the claims (not meaning it's the only reasonable possibility).

People believe a lot of stuff on much less evidence than this. One can reasonably insist that the evidence is still not enough, because of the extra evidence required for miracle events; but not that it's implausible. There's enough evidence to make it a reasonable possibility -- some will believe it, but others not. Either is reasonable. Neither can disprove the other.

The only reason to reject the Jesus miracles as implausible is that you start with the premise that miracle claims must always be false, regardless of any evidence. If you start with that premise, then yes, the Jesus miracle stories must be fiction. But this premise, that all miracle claims must be false regardless of evidence, is not required by science or logic or reason. So without that premise, the miracles of Jesus are plausible, and one can reasonably believe them, based on the evidence (even though another reasonably disbelieves it, based on the not-enough evidence).

I started with faith that Jesus was my Christ and lived that way as an adult for over 15 years; and after much searching deconverted. So premise wise, uh fail. Additionally, I don’t look at the Gospel Jesus miracle claims in a vacuum relative to the dozens of other foibles in the emergence of this new sect out of Judaism and its history. Humanity generally accept much of what is historical upon vague information, but not miracles and gods. It doesn’t matter whether King Egbert of Wessex drove Wiglaf, the king of Mercia, into exile or if the Vikings killed Wiglaf. But one of those options is far more likely than the other. I know George Washington existed and I accept much of the history about him. Yet I don’t buy the cherry tree or wooden teeth myths. People regularly set aside the BS injected into history, even if we don’t always know when made up shit gets thru simply because it reasonably could be true. You want the synoptic gospels to be 3 sources along with Paul’s letters. I see one source gradually exaggerated and expanded into what we now know as the synoptic gospels. And I see Paul’s letters as the vague beginning, which for some very odd reason don’t talk much at all about who Jesus was. And there is nothing IMPOV that make that not the most plausible explanation.

Instead, if one steps back and looks at the larger picture of the formation of Christianity out of the history of Judaism one runs into so many problems, it is literally hard to list them all. I'll just re-post my comments from almost a year ago:

Your MHORC seems to include a magical decade limit conveniently right below the timespan that most scholars put down for the development of a large portion of your particular holy texts.

What? "magical decade limit"? "holy texts"?

The Jesus miracles, if they happened, occurred near 30 AD. Paul relates the resurrection miracle at around 55 AD. Mark's account of that plus the healing miracles is dated at about 70 AD, followed by the other gospels up to about 100 AD.

This time gap between the reported events and the writings about them is a relatively NARROW GAP by comparison to other historical events reported during those times. And there are virtually NO other reported miracle events, until modern times, where this time gap is so short, or where the alleged miracle event has that same amount of evidence, or minimum evidence necessary to establish normal events as historical.

LOL…See, you know what “magical decade limit” I meant. The magical puzzle part is that you tie this limit together with your parlor trick puzzle piece requirement. Who cares? BS can spring forth within days, let alone 15 years from the purported death of Jesus and Paul’s first writings. And Paul is a guy who by his own words never met Jesus. The writings of Qumran and the LDS have a much better sourcing history than the NT. The Qumran just doesn’t come with parlor tricks.

However, there is nothing to support your time limit. In fact it has been shown over and over that mythos can develop within very short periods of time.

Not miracle claims. You can't give any examples.

I don’t need to give you examples as I find your MHORC to be BS. Mythos of all sorts springs up very quickly. Miracle Max and its time limits is your thingy.

Your MHORC seems to include your god doing parlor tricks as a pre-requisite for being a valid theology (aka random puzzle piece). Why?

"valid theology"? Wha-zat?

Are you asking why the Jesus miracle stories matter? I.e., are you asking what difference it makes even if the miracle stories are true?

I stating that I don’t see having a Miracle Max demigod doing parlor tricks as requirement for a faith system. Mohammad didn’t have a god/demigod doing parlor tricks as a “proof” to support the Qumran promise of a fun filled afterlife. Why not require a Miracle Max to turn the whole Mediterranean Sea red, or stop the sun for a full day? That would be a cool puzzle piece. Then we would have another shocking event that wouldn’t be possible to have happened and not get recorded. Kind of like those Moses and Joshua fairy tales seemed to have happened in an alternate reality…

Your MHORC seems to require the miracles to be recorded by someone(s) not currently part of the cult (aka random puzzle piece;

This is not "random" but is a relevant factor that increases the credibility. If the claims come only from disciples of the guru or alleged miracle-worker, then we have less reason to believe them because the disciple is intimidated by the guru's charisma and feels pressure to confirm the miracle claim being made. Or the disciple is easily deceived and can imagine seeing something that didn't really happen, or misinterpret as a miracle something that was really normal. The obsession with the guru distorts the disciple's critical judgment.

. . . which you conveniently leave out the fact that you CLEARLY have no evidence to support that your cult’s parlor tricks weren’t recorded by participating cultists).

There is evidence that the miracles of Jesus were observed and reported by onlookers who were not his disciples. For most of the Jesus miracle acts, the accounts clearly imply that observers or non-disciples went from the scene to tell others and spread the word about his healing acts. Very few of these acts were done privately with no outsiders/onlookers present. In most cases this is implied rather than stated explicitly, but it's clearly there in the wording of the accounts.

I agree that it would be a relevant factor supporting believability of a claim. However, the point is that you don’t have anything to support the notion. Also, we did this dance already, and I went thru Mark and showed how most of the miracle accounts were most likely recorded by disciples, and then secondarily unknowable.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...t-Christianity&p=277476&viewfull=1#post277476

Consider the first miracle reported in Mark, the curing of a "man with an unclean spirit" (mentally deranged?) in a synagogue at Capernaum. The "they" in vs 21 means only the first 4 disciples -- Peter, Andrew, John, and James:

Mark chapter 1: 21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. 23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How did "his fame spread everywhere" if it wasn't the ones present at the scene, the observers/onlookers who went out and told of this? Who is meant by the phrase "And they were all amazed"? Not only the 4 disciples who accompanied him into the synagogue.

And who is intended by the phrase, "there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit"? Not those 4 disciples, but a non-disciple obviously, someone unknown who had never seen Jesus before.

And this same pattern repeats over and over, throughout the miracle stories, the physical affliction healings as well as the "exorcism" healings like this one. In 2 or 3 cases it says explicitly that the one healed or other non-disciple went out and reported the event.

LOL…You again, ignored the first few words. I know, I know, the disciples added that first part, showing that someone knew the wanderings of the disciples (like the disciples) only to help with readability….sure. The purported fame spreading is often repeated after many of the parlor tricks. You assume that his “fame spread”. There is no evidence to suggest this happened outside of the story; the Jews pretty much forgot about him as his cult went nowhere in Galilee as far as the lack of records suggest. The rest is your gibberish, as anyone could have provided such words, including the disciples.

You simply want them to be that way, so therefore it must be true.

No, the actual accounts do say, implicitly but clearly, that there were observers or onlookers present, not connected to Jesus, i.e., NON-disciples, and that these ones went and told others so that the stories spread throughout the region.

INCONCEIVABLE! You seem to have forgotten that you clearly do not know what the meaning of the word “clearly” means.

Though it is obvious that this is the source for the LDS miracles, ergo your special pleading argument...

"special pleading"? You mean there is nothing significant in whether the stories were spread by non-disciples? But this IS significant. If the only source for the stories is the disciples, and also the only ones healed were disciples, this makes the stories less credible, because of the influence of the charismatic guru on his disciples, who are less able to make a critical judgment about what happened, and are much more likely to automatically believe the miracle happened, because they are attached to the guru and want to promote his reputation.

Clearly you do not get the point. I agree that it is significant that we know that it was key players in the emergent LDS sect that wrote of the miracles. If only you had anything that made it probable that it was any different for your holy writings…

Your requirements are not only random, but you also ignore them when you pretend that your version of Christianity fits, as you pick and choose them to make your cult sound somehow more plausible.

Two of the major requirements are 1) the proximity of the sources to the reported miracle event, and 2) the number of sources. What is "random" about either of these? Are you denying that a source 30-50 years separated from the reported event is more reliable than a source 100-200 years later? And are you denying that it's more credible if we have 4 sources instead of only one? How did I "pick and choose" the dates when the gospels were written? or the date of the reported events (about 30 AD)? or the number of sources?

You assume that we have your claimed 4-5 sources. However, what is known is that Paul’s letters that only hint at who this purported Jesus is and he states he never met Jesus; and then there is some vague Q assumed source for the ever-expanding tales as the synoptic Gospels that emerged decades later by anonymous authors. And you even admit that these anonymous authors embellished many parts of the Gospels. I’m saying that whether it is 30 years or 120 years, BS can emerge in days, so it doesn’t matter.

You have no evidence to show that it wasn’t a “small clique who decided to invent (or embellish a small kernel) an instant miracle-worker”, you just wish it is so.

There is evidence that it was not a small clique. (Of course there's no PROOF either way.)

If a small clique invented this instant miracle-worker, why are there no other cases of instant miracle-workers invented by other cults? This is the ONLY example of such a thing, in all the history from 2000 BC up to about 1500 AD, during which we have no other examples, as all the reputed miracle-workers are a result of long-term legend-building, usually over several generations or centuries.

Again, that is your hobby horse, not mine….

It should be clear that the Paul epistles and the 4 gospels were not written or produced by any single small clique working together to invent an instant miracle-worker. Even if there is some fictional element, or embellishment, there could not have been one monolithic clique of conspirators inventing it, but rather, there were many different conflicting groups each inventing their own versions separately.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Paul was a charismatic and coalescing force that helped build up the Jesus demigod out of some kernel of a very human man named Jesus. As the tales emerged and were passed around about Jesus (aka the Q source) the image of Jesus of the Gospels took form and eventually someone pushed out a written Mark. And not so surprisingly, Mark is the shortest and least flashy. Tack on another 3 to 5 decades and the Gospel of John emerges with quite the flare for being different… Clearly, do not know what the meaning of the word “clearly” means, and evidently you also don’t know what the word clique means either…

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How much evidence is necessary to make a miracle story plausible? a reasonable possibility?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

You conveniently avoid the reality that your miracle worker was written up to believe in all the Tanakh BS;

Probably not "all" of it. He's quoted speaking only negatively about the animal sacrifices, e.g.

It's true that at least some of the earlier Jewish ideas are artificially added to him. Jews put words into his mouth, based on the Hebrew Bible, probably. But also Greeks put some words into his mouth. So it's not just the Tanakh tradition the writers tried to connect him to. So the later writers were not a united single group, but were different or separate cliques, each giving their particular interpretation in contrast to the other groups.

And we cannot easily separate out the part which Jesus really said vs. the part put into his mouth by the later writers. All that is conjecture, and yet one must try to do this separating of the original from the later.

You could reasonably argue that anywhere from 2% to 98% of the "teachings of Jesus" were really words put into his mouth by later Christian writers. I.e., Jewish and Hellenistic writers.


WHY was Jesus "written up" to promote earlier (Jewish/Greek) teachings, traditions, BS, etc.?

There is nothing about this that contradicts the miracle stories. Rather, it's precisely his power, demonstrated in the miracle acts, which explains the attention he attracted and his becoming an object of theologizing and mythologizing by later writers who put words into his mouth.

That Jesus performed the miracle acts explains WHY he "was written up" by later Jews and Hellenists to promote their teachings. Without those miracle acts, it's difficult or impossible to explain why they did this. Why didn't they put those words into John the Baptizer's mouth, e.g.? There were many celebrated prophets and wise men and rabbis of the time into whose mouths they could have put their teachings. Jesus was less famous in 30 AD than a number of others who would have been more appropriate as mouthpieces for these writers.

And, if Jesus performed NO miracles, as you assume he didn't, then he was probably less famous than these other possible mouthpieces even as late as 40 and 50 AD. Even 60 AD. Without those miracle acts he did as the explanation, there is no way to account for this epidemic among so many writers to use Jesus as their mouthpiece instead of someone else. Can you name JUST ONE other 1st-century figure who was used as a mouthpiece by so many diverse writers? How do you explain why they all wanted just this one person to be speaking their teachings? What did he do to gain this widespread recognition? recognition even from different crusaders who hated each other and would have killed each other in some cases?

What explains how he so suddenly became the widely-celebrated Teacher to whom everyone wanted to attribute their ideas? (hint: he did something the others did not do -- What was it? hint: it starts with the letter "m")

. . . even though you admit that the Deluge, Joshua’s day the sun stood still, the Exodus, et.al. are largely BS.

Even if those stories are not literally true, this in no way undermines the credibility of the Jesus miracle stories as literally true. There are plenty of true and false stories. You can't condemn all of them as fiction simply because some appear to be fiction. If you do that consistently, you have to throw out all our historical facts as fiction.

You acknowledge that the miracle birthing narratives are most probably BS. “But hey pay no attention to all that, but believe the miracle max part, cuz I like that part”.

There are good reasons to believe the miracle healing accounts, and the resurrection, but not the virgin birth story. Why do we have to lump them all together and give them equal credibility? There's nothing wrong with believing that for which there is evidence, but disbelieving the part that lacks evidence or is contradicted by evidence.

Without the earlier Yahweh tradition, there could have never been the Jesus cult tradition….

This makes no more sense than saying: Without the earlier Apollo tradition, there could never have been a Socrates tradition. Or: Without the earlier Romulus & Remus tradition, there could never have been a Caesar Augustus tradition, or a Cicero tradition.

You can't just take any two names or events happening in the same geographical region and proclaim that the later of the two could never have existed without the existence of the earlier one.

But we can say correctly that the LDS tradition could never have existed without the earlier Jesus tradition, because everything the LDS religion teaches is explicitly based on the Jesus of the gospels, or is an extension of this. Joseph Smith in his writings, and in his Book of Mormon, names Jesus Christ as the Son of God who performs the miracle acts he (JS) is credited with. He connects himself to the Jesus tradition, despite being thousands of miles away from where the Jesus events happened.

Likewise the reputed miracle healings at the Asclepius temples were all done in the name of the ancient god Asclepius and could not have happened, or have been believed, if they had not been identified by name with that ancient pagan god. Many of those alleged miracles happened in Rome, in Italy, and not in Greece where the Asclepius god originated. The connection of those worshipers to Asclepius was not anything geographical -- it was their expressed belief in that particular ancient god.

But the only connection of Jesus to "Yahweh" is the close geographical proximity, so that those encountering Jesus were inheritors of the "Yahweh" tradition, and so their explanation of Jesus contains some of their "Yahweh" language or symbolism. Jesus did not perform his healing acts in the name of Yahweh or any other earlier god. No such expressed connection to an earlier belief system was the basis for his miracle acts.

. . . never mind the various other borrowing that was done during the Jesus construction that has been shown over and over.

There was no "borrowing" shown -- nothing borrowed for any Jesus "construction," except that those near to the events, or believers/disciples etc., used their prior traditions to try to explain who he was. No borrowing of anything earlier can explain how those miracle stories first occurred. Rather, it's the power he showed in his miracle acts, happening first, which then explains why some early and later Christian writers theologized and mythologized him into their earlier religious traditions.

What difference does it make that the Jesus believers added some of their beliefs or symbols or traditions to their Jesus message or the "good news" about him? Different elements were added, even contradictory elements, borrowed from here or there -- what does that prove?

The only real significance of this is the question "WHY?" -- i.e., why did they think Jesus was so important that they had to explain him somehow, by identifying him as a prophet or Messiah or Son of God? and other designations? Why was there any "Jesus construction" at all? What was there in the first place to which they felt it necessary to add the construction? or for which they did the borrowing of the extra elements? from their theologizing, or from their earlier tradition? What were they adding these to? And why did they add it? Why add it to him and not to anyone else?

The best explanation for the "borrowing" or "construction" is that they started out with a miracle-worker, who stood out uniquely because of these unusual acts, being the only case of such a person; and those around him found it necessary to explain him in terms of symbols or traditions they already knew.

The Jesus cult(s) did adopt baptism from earlier practices, some language from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the words "Messiah" and "Logos," but these are symbolic additions to the Jesus "construction." There is nothing about the miracle acts of Jesus and his resurrection which borrows anything from previous tradition, and these are what caused them to deify Jesus. Without his life-giving power which he demonstrated in the miracle acts, there would have been no Jesus cult(s) or the rise of the early church in the 30s and 40s, and no occasion for "borrowing" from anything previous.

That some earlier symbolism or terminology became attached to him is easily explained by the fact that he showed his power and made such an impression that people felt compelled to use their traditional symbols or language to explain him. This explains why they "borrowed" in order to use only him as a mouthpiece and not anyone else.

As you use all sorts of silly excuses to dis the development of the LDS.

The LDS follows very closely the Jesus tradition and bases all their important beliefs on the Jesus of the gospels. Without this ancient earlier tradition as its origin, there would never have been any LDS religion, because it would have attracted no followers. Its development depended on that earlier tradition as its base and could not have existed without that dependency.

I don’t have a special checklist. But I’d say what would be reasonably impressive from a god, would be a holy book that it helped make sure wasn’t chalk full of BS fables . . .

Nothing about that undermines the credibility of the Jesus miracle stories. In this period of history (1st century AD) there was no "holy book" called "the Bible" (i.e., not one including the New Testament).

Obsessing on the Bible is not necessary in order to identify the Jesus person. One can believe in Christ without believing the Bible is a special "holy book" or sacred object or symbol. It is (or rather, those books are) just our source of information about him, and can be treated like any other written documents of the time, treated with the same (not more, not less) critical scrutiny.

. . . like the Deluge and the day the sun stood still, . . .

Poking fun at the Hebrew legends of 1000 years earlier, or pagan myths, etc., doesn't reduce credibility of the Jesus miracle stories in the gospel accounts. Anymore than it reduces credibility of other historical events reported in the standard sources.

. . . nor had people later forging changes into it.

What happened in 30 AD is not changed or contradicted by what some forger might have written 100-300 years later. We needn't assume that a self-respecting God would have struck dead any such forger to stop him from tampering with holy writ. Nothing about the existence of later forging contradicts the reported events of about 30 AD.

It would be more impressive if the holy texts were more definitive as to who wrote them and that they actually knew the people they were talking about.

Most authors back then who wrote the history texts we rely on did not know the people they were talking about in those writings. Most of the writings are about historical characters who were dead by the time the later writers recorded the events.

We could demand better accounts, from sources closer to the actual events and characters written about, but this doesn't mean that the sources we actually have are unreliable and that no accounts of the events can be believed.

Overall, the gospel accounts are written closer to the reported events than most of our recorded sources for the history of that time.

Islam has that part going for it, but little else. It would be more impressive still, if it had guidance that clearly couldn’t have possibly have been known in its day. It would also be far more reasonable if so much of the Bible didn't talk in terms of how little goat herders knew. For example, just how far was Jesus supposed to see when Satan took him up to the mountain top, when we are on a spherical planet?

Mt. 4: 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 9 and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

You're having sleepless nights over this text?

The author clearly means all the kingdoms of the surrounding region, not the Chinese or the Mayans or Pacific Islanders.

And this occurs in only Matthew, not the other gospels. Mark says only that Jesus was tempted by Satan and that angels ministered to him. No one is saying that Mark and the others were historians presenting only the verifiable facts of history and climate and geography.

Nothing about this passage casts doubt on the evidence for the Jesus miracle acts.

And if there had to be parlor tricks, then it would be even more impressive if such an event was noticed by other peoples and written down and preserved. For example, if somehow there was a 24 hour day in Canaan, then it would be fascinating to have the Egyptians writing about it in absolute panic; or maybe the Chinese writing about a night that never seemed to end.

What's really "fascinating" is that all you can do is poke fun at the ancient Hebrew myths, as if these cheap shots have any relevance to what Jesus did or did not do in 30 AD. If Jesus had appeared instead in India and did his miracle acts there, then he would have been put into the context of the ancient Hindu myths, which you could also poke fun at, and prove nothing.

Your logic is that we should not believe ANY reported facts of history, because there are always some other stories nearby that are not literally true, and so therefore there are NO facts or true reports of any facts, and so we cannot know any history at all. If that's your premise, then yes, it follows that the Jesus miracle stories (and ALL reported events of history) are fiction.

At a smaller level, just imagine if Pilate had written back to Rome about a rather odd character, that the Jewish rabbinical leaders insisted had to be executed.

Maybe he did. 99.9% of what was written has been lost, because it was not copied and recopied for future generations.

There's virtually nothing of Pilate in any Roman records. Josephus is the ONLY Roman who mentions him, other than the one mention in Tacitus only. Other than these two writers, and one monument, there is NO Roman record of Pilate. Nor anything written by him.

Since Rome did keep good records, . . .

99.99% of which perished without a trace. And we can't be sure how important this one case seemed to Pilate at that time, in comparison to the other controversies he dealt with. The Romans finally canned him for his bad behavior.

. . . it certainly wouldn’t have been hard to manage…for a REAL god.

You're not only demanding that such a report should have been written by Pilate, but also that it alone would be copied and recopied for the benefit of future generations, when no other such writings were copied. You're demanding extra miracles on top of the ones which actually happened. There is no reason to demand that such extra miracles must happen in order for us to believe the reported miracle events which were recorded and have survived.

We needn't issue a list of required miracles which must first take place in order for us to believe a claim that God intervened in history by showing some particular miracle acts. We can't insist that all such claims must be false unless they are accompanied by all the miracles contained in that list.

You can issue your own personal list of demanded miracles which God must provide, in order to satisfy you, but you can't reasonably expect everyone to subscribe to your particular list of demanded miracles. One can reasonably believe based on the evidence we do have, even though we can wish additional evidence had also been provided.

Instead we get stories about the purportedly worldly renowned King Solomon cuz he was so damn wise. Yet, the world never seemed to notice. Yahweh did so many massive magic tricks as part of the Exodus, in part, to make sure the Egyptians would know he is the Lord. Yet, all we know is Yahwehwho...

If this purported Christian God of the eternal torment and heaven type, really was interested in helping humans make the right choice, it has certainly done a really shitty job of it.

Maybe, but it's when he created cockroaches that he really botched it. It was after that when everything went down the drain.

Today, even the percentage of Christians is probably down to 28-30% of the world population. The Christian population probably peaked out around 1900, with roughly 34% of . . .

Never-mind those numbers (mostly fake news).

Jesus will turn those numbers around and make Christianity great again, after he completes his courses at Trump University.

So for a god that purported exists and cares about his little ant farm, he sure never did a good job getting the word out...

He used human communication. He provided us with sufficient evidence and left it to humans to pass this on, but we can always complain that there should have been more evidence than this.

There's no way to scientifically calculate how much evidence God would or should provide to humans, and any less than which would not be "a good job of getting the word out" from a real God. The "Gospel" had to be passed on by normal human communication, not special communication beyond this or relying on still extra miracles in communicating. It is reasonable to suppose that there is something desirable about normal human communication that makes this the proper means for the Good News to be transmitted.

There are plenty of proposed theories why extra layers upon layers of miracles might not be the proper form of interaction or communication from God to humans. One can reasonably believe based on the limited evidence we have, without assuming that the network of miracles presented to us humans has to reach a much higher level of complexity than what we have -- and yet some miracle element plays a necessary role, to establish that we do have some evidence, or indication of contact from someone higher.

 

[funinspace]

You conveniently avoid the reality that your miracle worker was written up to believe in all the Tanakh BS;

Probably not "all" of it. He's quoted speaking only negatively about the animal sacrifices, e.g.

WTF??? Are you channeling Self-Mutation? I could post pages citing the linkage between Jesus and Judaism. But let me cite this one verse that is in all 3 Synoptic Gospels (and 2 others)

Mat 22:31-32: But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
&
Matt 24:37 (Luke 17:36) "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah…
&
Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”

It's true that at least some of the earlier Jewish ideas are artificially added to him. Jews put words into his mouth, based on the Hebrew Bible, probably. But also Greeks put some words into his mouth. So it's not just the Tanakh tradition the writers tried to connect him to. So the later writers were not a united single group, but were different or separate cliques, each giving their particular interpretation in contrast to the other groups.

And we cannot easily separate out the part which Jesus really said vs. the part put into his mouth by the later writers. All that is conjecture, and yet one must try to do this separating of the original from the later.

You could reasonably argue that anywhere from 2% to 98% of the "teachings of Jesus" were really words put into his mouth by later Christian writers. I.e., Jewish and Hellenistic writers.

Well, at the upper end of your own estimated insertions, it pretty much deep sixes any point you are trying to make…

WHY was Jesus "written up" to promote earlier (Jewish/Greek) teachings, traditions, BS, etc.?

There is nothing about this that contradicts the miracle stories. Rather, it's precisely his power, demonstrated in the miracle acts, which explains the attention he attracted and his becoming an object of theologizing and mythologizing by later writers who put words into his mouth.

That Jesus performed the miracle acts explains WHY he "was written up" by later Jews and Hellenists to promote their teachings. Without those miracle acts, it's difficult or impossible to explain why they did this. Why didn't they put those words into John the Baptizer's mouth, e.g.? There were many celebrated prophets and wise men and rabbis of the time into whose mouths they could have put their teachings. Jesus was less famous in 30 AD than a number of others who would have been more appropriate as mouthpieces for these writers.

And, if Jesus performed NO miracles, as you assume he didn't, then he was probably less famous than these other possible mouthpieces even as late as 40 and 50 AD. Even 60 AD. Without those miracle acts he did as the explanation, there is no way to account for this epidemic among so many writers to use Jesus as their mouthpiece instead of someone else. Can you name JUST ONE other 1st-century figure who was used as a mouthpiece by so many diverse writers? How do you explain why they all wanted just this one person to be speaking their teachings? What did he do to gain this widespread recognition? recognition even from different crusaders who hated each other and would have killed each other in some cases?

What explains how he so suddenly became the widely-celebrated Teacher to whom everyone wanted to attribute their ideas? (hint: he did something the others did not do -- What was it? hint: it starts with the letter "m")

Back to your hobby horse I see. Why did LDS blossom and grow at a rate like the initial spread of Christianity? Why did the LDS flourish while the Church of Christ, Scientist has floundered? Why did Hinduism become the 3rd largest faith in the world, and Jainism barely make a dent? Why has the Christian faith stalled over the last century; and sagging as a percent of the world population?

. . . even though you admit that the Deluge, Joshua’s day the sun stood still, the Exodus, et.al. are largely BS.

Even if those stories are not literally true, this in no way undermines the credibility of the Jesus miracle stories as literally true. There are plenty of true and false stories. You can't condemn all of them as fiction simply because some appear to be fiction. If you do that consistently, you have to throw out all our historical facts as fiction.

Yeah, in fact it does undermine Christian theology. Now you have built up this custom MHORC quasi-Christian theology to try and get away from the tons of problems.

You acknowledge that the miracle birthing narratives are most probably BS. “But hey pay no attention to all that, but believe the miracle max part, cuz I like that part”.

There are good reasons to believe the miracle healing accounts, and the resurrection, but not the virgin birth story. Why do we have to lump them all together and give them equal credibility? There's nothing wrong with believing that for which there is evidence, but disbelieving the part that lacks evidence or is contradicted by evidence.

You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any more true… They are lumped together because it comes in a big package that most people call Christian theology.

Without the earlier Yahweh tradition, there could have never been the Jesus cult tradition….

This makes no more sense than saying: Without the earlier Apollo tradition, there could never have been a Socrates tradition. Or: Without the earlier Romulus & Remus tradition, there could never have been a Caesar Augustus tradition, or a Cicero tradition.

You can't just take any two names or events happening in the same geographical region and proclaim that the later of the two could never have existed without the existence of the earlier one.

That is just nuts! The Christian sect clearly emerged out of the Judaic faith. You don’t happen to be reincarnated from a follower of Marcion?

But we can say correctly that the LDS tradition could never have existed without the earlier Jesus tradition, because everything the LDS religion teaches is explicitly based on the Jesus of the gospels, or is an extension of this. Joseph Smith in his writings, and in his Book of Mormon, names Jesus Christ as the Son of God who performs the miracle acts he (JS) is credited with. He connects himself to the Jesus tradition, despite being thousands of miles away from where the Jesus events happened.
<snip>
But the only connection of Jesus to "Yahweh" is the close geographical proximity, so that those encountering Jesus were inheritors of the "Yahweh" tradition, and so their explanation of Jesus contains some of their "Yahweh" language or symbolism. Jesus did not perform his healing acts in the name of Yahweh or any other earlier god. No such expressed connection to an earlier belief system was the basis for his miracle acts.

Uh, can you share some of those shrooms? Well in most versions of the Christian faith, Jesus is part of that Trinitarian god-head, so of course he wouldn’t need to heal in the name of Yahweh/Lord/Father. Joseph Smith never claimed to be a god/demigod, so your point is pointless.

. . . never mind the various other borrowing that was done during the Jesus construction that has been shown over and over.

There was no "borrowing" shown -- nothing borrowed for any Jesus "construction," except that those near to the events, or believers/disciples etc., used their prior traditions to try to explain who he was. No borrowing of anything earlier can explain how those miracle stories first occurred. Rather, it's the power he showed in his miracle acts, happening first, which then explains why some early and later Christian writers theologized and mythologized him into their earlier religious traditions.

What difference does it make that the Jesus believers added some of their beliefs or symbols or traditions to their Jesus message or the "good news" about him? Different elements were added, even contradictory elements, borrowed from here or there -- what does that prove?

It provides more information that suggests the writers were writing fan-fiction to support their cult construction. No god needed….

As you use all sorts of silly excuses to dis the development of the LDS.

The LDS follows very closely the Jesus tradition and bases all their important beliefs on the Jesus of the gospels. Without this ancient earlier tradition as its origin, there would never have been any LDS religion, because it would have attracted no followers. Its development depended on that earlier tradition as its base and could not have existed without that dependency.

You are funny…

I don’t have a special checklist. But I’d say what would be reasonably impressive from a god, would be a holy book that it helped make sure wasn’t chalk full of BS fables . . .

Nothing about that undermines the credibility of the Jesus miracle stories. In this period of history (1st century AD) there was no "holy book" called "the Bible" (i.e., not one including the New Testament).

Obsessing on the Bible is not necessary in order to identify the Jesus person. One can believe in Christ without believing the Bible is a special "holy book" or sacred object or symbol. It is (or rather, those books are) just our source of information about him, and can be treated like any other written documents of the time, treated with the same (not more, not less) critical scrutiny.

. . . like the Deluge and the day the sun stood still, . . .

Poking fun at the Hebrew legends of 1000 years earlier, or pagan myths, etc., doesn't reduce credibility of the Jesus miracle stories in the gospel accounts. Anymore than it reduces credibility of other historical events reported in the standard sources.

. . . nor had people later forging changes into it.

What happened in 30 AD is not changed or contradicted by what some forger might have written 100-300 years later. We needn't assume that a self-respecting God would have struck dead any such forger to stop him from tampering with holy writ. Nothing about the existence of later forging contradicts the reported events of about 30 AD.

It would be more impressive if the holy texts were more definitive as to who wrote them and that they actually knew the people they were talking about.

Most authors back then who wrote the history texts we rely on did not know the people they were talking about in those writings. Most of the writings are about historical characters who were dead by the time the later writers recorded the events.

We could demand better accounts, from sources closer to the actual events and characters written about, but this doesn't mean that the sources we actually have are unreliable and that no accounts of the events can be believed.

Overall, the gospel accounts are written closer to the reported events than most of our recorded sources for the history of that time.

Yet not having any of the above has kept your god’s ant farm fairly small…kind of weird for a god that is supposed to be concerned about our species on this tiny speck in an amazingly Yuge universe.

Islam has that part going for it, but little else. It would be more impressive still, if it had guidance that clearly couldn’t have possibly have been known in its day. It would also be far more reasonable if so much of the Bible didn't talk in terms of how little goat herders knew. For example, just how far was Jesus supposed to see when Satan took him up to the mountain top, when we are on a spherical planet?

Mt. 4: 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 9 and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

You're having sleepless nights over this text?

LOL…no. I’m not the one writing walls of text regurgitating the same gibberish over and over… But again, it seems your god likes a small ant farm over a big one.

The author clearly means all the kingdoms of the surrounding region, not the Chinese or the Mayans or Pacific Islanders.

Clearly, you fail to grasp the meaning of the word “clearly"….

And if there had to be parlor tricks, then it would be even more impressive if such an event was noticed by other peoples and written down and preserved. For example, if somehow there was a 24 hour day in Canaan, then it would be fascinating to have the Egyptians writing about it in absolute panic; or maybe the Chinese writing about a night that never seemed to end.

What's really "fascinating" is that all you can do is poke fun at the ancient Hebrew myths, as if these cheap shots have any relevance to what Jesus did or did not do in 30 AD. If Jesus had appeared instead in India and did his miracle acts there, then he would have been put into the context of the ancient Hindu myths, which you could also poke fun at, and prove nothing.

Your logic is that we should not believe ANY reported facts of history, because there are always some other stories nearby that are not literally true, and so therefore there are NO facts or true reports of any facts, and so we cannot know any history at all. If that's your premise, then yes, it follows that the Jesus miracle stories (and ALL reported events of history) are fiction.

Ah the "can’t know any history" meme again. What MHORC chapter is that in anyway? But again, it seems your god likes a small ant farm over a big one.

At a smaller level, just imagine if Pilate had written back to Rome about a rather odd character, that the Jewish rabbinical leaders insisted had to be executed.

Maybe he did. 99.9% of what was written has been lost, because it was not copied and recopied for future generations.

There's virtually nothing of Pilate in any Roman records. Josephus is the ONLY Roman who mentions him, other than the one mention in Tacitus only. Other than these two writers, and one monument, there is NO Roman record of Pilate. Nor anything written by him.

LOL…making excuses for your little god again. But again, it seems your god likes a small ant farm over a big one.

Since Rome did keep good records, . . .

99.99% of which perished without a trace. And we can't be sure how important this one case seemed to Pilate at that time, in comparison to the other controversies he dealt with. The Romans finally canned him for his bad behavior.

. . . it certainly wouldn’t have been hard to manage…for a REAL god.

You're not only demanding that such a report should have been written by Pilate, but also that it alone would be copied and recopied for the benefit of future generations, when no other such writings were copied. You're demanding extra miracles on top of the ones which actually happened. There is no reason to demand that such extra miracles must happen in order for us to believe the reported miracle events which were recorded and have survived.

I’m not demanding anything. I’m making the point that if your god exists, he doesn’t seem to want most humans to get to his paradise. We have trade records from Sumeria going back 5,000 years. Why did God/Jesus put on this whole show some 2,000 years ago then? Why the whole crucifixion/death thingy? A REAL god wouldn’t have any problem making sure such a letter survived.

We needn't issue a list of required miracles which must first take place in order for us to believe a claim that God intervened in history by showing some particular miracle acts. We can't insist that all such claims must be false unless they are accompanied by all the miracles contained in that list.

You can issue your own personal list of demanded miracles which God must provide, in order to satisfy you, but you can't reasonably expect everyone to subscribe to your particular list of demanded miracles. One can reasonably believe based on the evidence we do have, even though we can wish additional evidence had also been provided.

I’m not asking anyone to ascribe to anything. Does your purported god want a big ant farm or a small ant farm (especially if one ascribes to the Auschwitz for the masses doctrine)? Obviously and clearly, what we have is not enough evidence for the majority of people as evidenced by the huge lack of belief in any variant of the Christian theology. And belief in any of the variants of Christianity has been waning for a century now, and there is little reason to think that trend is going to change.

Today, even the percentage of Christians is probably down to 28-30% of the world population. The Christian population probably peaked out around 1900, with roughly 34% of . . .

Never-mind those numbers (mostly fake news).

Jesus will turn those numbers around and make Christianity great again, after he completes his courses at Trump University.

So for a god that purported exists and cares about his little ant farm, he sure never did a good job getting the word out...

He used human communication. He provided us with sufficient evidence and left it to humans to pass this on, but we can always complain that there should have been more evidence than this.

Yeah, Trump University is probably where your MHORC theology belongs. It is not a complaint about lack of evidence, it is an observation of fact regarding the stagnation of Christian theological faith adherents.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracles are reported historical events for which there is evidence, and which cannot be erased by your wishful thinking / debunking theories.

The Jesus miracles in the gospels are best explained as real events, for which we have the same kind of evidence as we have for normal historical events.

No such thing. Confirmed historical events normally have multiple independent sources that corroborate an account of an event or historical personage.

But we have similar multiple independent sources that corroborate the Jesus miracle events. Just because Luke and Matthew rely on Mark does not mean they are not independent sources. Josephus also relied on Philo for some of his facts, but this does not disqualify him as a separate independent source.

And I-II Chronicles is a separate source for earlier events, borrowing heavily from earlier sources like I-II Samuel and I-II Kings. And yet Chronicles is also a separate independent source for those events. Even when it simply repeats the earlier reports, this itself is corroboration for those events.

That you arbitrarily exclude the gospels as sources, without any reason, does not cancel them out as actual historical sources. You cannot pretend they don't exist, just because you don't like some of their content.

There are many standard facts of history for which we have LESS corroboration from separate sources than we have for the miracles of Jesus.

The facts of the Roman attack on the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD are mostly from Josephus, without which we would know far less about this event. These facts are generally accepted as history, though they have NO CORROBORATION from other sources. And there are millions more facts of history which we derive from ONE SOURCE ONLY, without corroboration from a separate source.

Though we do have corroboration for some standard facts of history (possibly most, depending on what you mean), there are still many historical facts from one source only, for which we have NO corroboration. Yet these are still facts of history, assumed to be true because of the ONE ONLY source.

Apart from a few brief questionable mentions by Josephus, et al, the only source of information about the life and acts of Jesus are the books of the new testament, which are copies . . .

ALL sources for any facts that long ago come from COPIES ONLY, not from any original manuscripts. Everything which has survived, from any historian or other writer, exists for us today only in copies from several centuries later, after the original documents were written and had perished. Most of them are copies of copies of copies of copies etc. etc.

. . . which are copies penned by anonymous authors, . . .

Again and again you repeat this "anonymous" rhetoric. It does not matter that the gospel accounts are anonymous. No one has ever shown that "anonymous" documents are any less reliable. Historians do not reject "anonymous" documents. All documents are relied upon for determining what happened.

Much of the Dead Sea Scrolls literature is anonymous. These documents tell us much information about the Essenes. Some of it contradicts partly what Josephus and Philo tell us about them, and yet the Scrolls are still taken as a reliable source on this Jewish sect.

We know about the "Teacher of Righteousness" from these Scrolls, and historians accept this as a real person who had great influence on the community, but based on ANONYMOUS sources only. There is speculation about the particular events and persons, just as there is about the Jesus events. Some events or details are highly probable, others doubtful.

Other anonymous books are I-II Samuel, I-II Kings, and I-II Chronicles, and I Maccabees, all of which are legitimate sources for the history of the period, but probably less objective than Herodotus, e.g., the distinction here being the degree of objectivity. Just as Livy is perhaps less objective than Polybius.

Also the Book of Esther is anonymous. And even though it might be mostly in the fictional category, this is not due to its being anonymous. It's the content rather than the anonymity which identifies the source as being more in the fictional rather than factual reporting category. And even then it is reliable for some historical background.

Meanwhile, II Maccabees is not totally anonymous, because an author is named as the original source for the book. And yet, this book is less reliable as history than I Maccabees, which is totally anonymous. So here's a case where the totally ANONYMOUS book is MORE CREDIBLE as history than the book which names an author/source.

So the anonymous sources are accepted as reliable for the events, despite naming no author, and are subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other documents. Historians do not consign such documents to a "reject" category just because they are anonymous or contain religious matter, but rather try to distinguish those parts that are more credible from the less credible parts, as with all documents.

Much of the gospel accounts is accepted as credible by historians. Obviously the miracle events are in the doubtful category, meaning we have these sources as evidence for the events, but not as PROOF, since there is no official agreement on how much extra evidence is necessary for such claims to be credible.

. . . penned by anonymous authors, not eyewitnesses.

To repeat, for about the 100th time, virtually NO sources for our historical events of 1000+ years ago come from EYEWITNESSES. They are almost ALL later writers, mostly 50 or more years later, who never knew the characters they wrote about. This is our source for most of that history. In a very few cases we get a closer look, and only rarely anything from someone directly acquainted with the persons or events written about.


So again, the Jesus miracles in the gospels are reported events, "for which we have the same kind of evidence as we have for normal historical events."

These are reported in the documents which have survived, with some corroboration, while many of our historical facts are based on ONE SOURCE ONLY, with NO CORROBORATION, yet are accepted or believed as real events which happened.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But we have similar multiple independent sources that corroborate the Jesus miracle events. Just because Luke and Matthew rely on Mark does not mean they are not independent sources. Josephus also relied on Philo for some of his facts, but this does not disqualify him as a separate independent source.

Yes, it does. If you have ever played the game Chinese Whispers you will understand how this works. Please go and play the game now and report back on your findings. I guarantee your mind will be blown.

 

[bilby]

But we have similar multiple independent sources that corroborate the Jesus miracle events. Just because Luke and Matthew rely on Mark does not mean they are not independent sources. Josephus also relied on Philo for some of his facts, but this does not disqualify him as a separate independent source.

Yes, it does. If you have ever played the game Chinese Whispers you will understand how this works. Please go and play the game now and report back on your findings. I guarantee your mind will be blown.

I understand that the Americans call it 'Telephone', presumably because Americans are not generally aware of the existence of China, or indeed of anywhere outside the USA.

 

[Kharakov]

Remember, to real Americans, the USA is the 2nd coming of G's US. It's not the 2nd coming to people like me who were born here.... to be wage-slaves to the corrupt citizenry (top 30%, who redirect attention at the "1%") of many nations.

 

[DBT]

No such thing. Confirmed historical events normally have multiple independent sources that corroborate an account of an event or historical personage.

But we have similar multiple independent sources that corroborate the Jesus miracle events. Just because Luke and Matthew rely on Mark does not mean they are not independent sources. Josephus also relied on Philo for some of his facts, but this does not disqualify him as a separate independent source.

Are you saying that these are independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus performing miracles...but of course not. Hence they are not multiple independent accounts of the events being described. These are various writers repeating things that they had heard or read.