120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Even if it were possible to pull off such an enormous conspiracy, how could anyone gain a profit, or imagine gaining a profit, from going to all this trouble? Who profited from suppressing the JB cult and propping up the Jesus cult? Why wouldn't "the Establishment" profit more by just choosing the most popular hero figure of the time?

I think you've missed the point of the thread, Lumpy.

No one's claiming that the JB cults were more popular than Jesus' cults. Just the fact that they existed kinda poo-poos your arguments that try to portray the earliest Christains as all sharing the same beliefs. It's striking that up until the Council of Nicaea, people were still insisting that Jesus was God, was LIKE God, was of the same material as God, was as a different material as God, was merely a prophet, and was a false prophet.
They were also arguing about whether Jesus (god) died on the Cross or replaced himself with Satan and let the Deceiver get the nails pounded in.
The books of the Bible were selected AFTER such councils, for their agreement with the articles of faith, which hammered out what Christain beliefs were going to be.... From a wide-ranging selection of dogmas held by people who considered themselves christains, though they thought nothing at all like what you were taught.

So it's kind of silly that you're pounding the gospels as proof of what happened. The best you can support is that the Church selected the gospels that told the approved story. Which was the product of politics as much as theology. Anything different was burned a long, long time ago.

So, let's see.
You've never read Pascal's Wager, but you'll lecture us on it.
YOu don't understand science, but you'll bounce between appealing to it and dismissing it.
You don't know much about other religions but feel confident that you don't need to in order to figure Christainity is the most likely to be true.
You know practically nothing about the history of Christainity, but you'll insist any criticism of your claims about it are 'hysterical.'

You're not really presenting a good case for Jesus, the magic healing false prophet who failed to qualify as the Jewish Messiah... But gosh, it's funny to watch. Do go on.

 

[Underseer]

Even if it were possible to pull off such an enormous conspiracy, how could anyone gain a profit, or imagine gaining a profit, from going to all this trouble? Who profited from suppressing the JB cult and propping up the Jesus cult? Why wouldn't "the Establishment" profit more by just choosing the most popular hero figure of the time?

I think you've missed the point of the thread, Lumpy.

No one's claiming that the JB cults were more popular than Jesus' cults. Just the fact that they existed kinda poo-poos your arguments that try to portray the earliest Christains as all sharing the same beliefs. It's striking that up until the Council of Nicaea, people were still insisting that Jesus was God, was LIKE God, was of the same material as God, was as a different material as God, was merely a prophet, and was a false prophet.
They were also arguing about whether Jesus (god) died on the Cross or replaced himself with Satan and let the Deceiver get the nails pounded in.
The books of the Bible were selected AFTER such councils, for their agreement with the articles of faith, which hammered out what Christain beliefs were going to be.... From a wide-ranging selection of dogmas held by people who considered themselves christains, though they thought nothing at all like what you were taught.

So it's kind of silly that you're pounding the gospels as proof of what happened. The best you can support is that the Church selected the gospels that told the approved story. Which was the product of politics as much as theology. Anything different was burned a long, long time ago.

So, let's see.
You've never read Pascal's Wager, but you'll lecture us on it.
YOu don't understand science, but you'll bounce between appealing to it and dismissing it.
You don't know much about other religions but feel confident that you don't need to in order to figure Christainity is the most likely to be true.
You know practically nothing about the history of Christainity, but you'll insist any criticism of your claims about it are 'hysterical.'

You're not really presenting a good case for Jesus, the magic healing false prophet who failed to qualify as the Jewish Messiah... But gosh, it's funny to watch. Do go on.

He can't even establish that the denominations that ended up non-canon were in the minority since it was the government that picked the winner. So he is using something he can't even prove to "establish" that early Christians believed the same thing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He can't even establish that the denominations that ended up non-canon were in the minority since it was the government that picked the winner.

Surely you're not suggesting an Emperor made choices that were motivated by ANYTHING other than a sincere search for the bestest of truthiness...?

Or that he set up the synods to resolve theological issues for the purpose of unifying the Empire rather than purifying the Christain Faith?
That would make the faith the product of bureaucracy more than revelation!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do we need to quibble over the definition of "miracle"?

Direct revelation from God is not a miracle?

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

Like the healing acts of Jesus.

How did Joseph Smith's tablets benefit people? Did they heal someone? What was the act of power?

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

What an incredibly self-serving misuse of the term. Where do you find this definition held by any other people?

There are 3 New Testament Greek words: dunamis ("power"), teras ("wonder"), and semeion ("sign"). My intermediate Liddell-Scott Lexicon gives definitions like what I told you above. Perhaps the extensive version of this Lexicon would also include something about deities giving signs or wonders.

Under "semeion" the gods are mentioned as possibly giving the sign. But other meanings do not include the gods as having a role. It doesn't have to be something theological or religious.

A non-theological definition is proper, even though there are those who also want to insert "God" into the meaning.

We should not be quibbling about the definition of a word. My definition is appropriate even though "God" or "gods" can be part of someone else's meaning. Most of the meanings in the lexicon do not include that.

I am giving my responses to the "reasons to reject Christianity" and I'm saying that the healing acts which Jesus did are evidence of his life-giving power, which is a basis for believing in him. This does not require a theological definition, though many Christians would include that. But it is usually not a part of the meaning of those 3 words. Perhaps in most cases the N. T. writer was assuming that "God" is the source of the power. But the raw word itself usually does not include that.

Since I'm giving here my arguments against the "reasons for rejecting Christianity," it is appropriate for you to accept the standard definition that I'm choosing, i.e., the meaning of the respective Greek word, and not impose your theological definition, even though many theologians and religionists would agree with your attaching it to "God" as you're doing. But such a theological meaning is not necessary since the 3 Greek words that are used do not require that, but only that there is an act of "power" or a "sign" or a "wonder" no matter what the source of it is.

So let's not degenerate into a superficial brawl over the meaning of a word. My meaning is standard, even though there are other meanings also, and my use of these words does not preclude others using a more theological meaning. But for my arguments here the raw Greek word meaning is all that is intended, without the need for the theological doctrines along with it.

To tie the "miracle" concept to theology introduces unnecessary bickering over the nature of "God" and "supernatural" which is not necessary here. My arguments are not about theological doctrines, but about the events that happened in about 29-30 AD and whether these are an indication of a life-giving power that Jesus might have possessed. For my purpose it does not matter what the grand SOURCE of this power was.

Miracles are super-human acts, but that's because they show the power of God.

That is your doctrine, not mine. I'm not making any argument based on that doctrine.

The Plagues of Egypt did not benefit humans.

I'm saying we want the acts of power to be ones that benefit us. The healings that Jesus did benefited the ones healed. That's what matters. But I'm not saying acts of power couldn't also be done to harm someone.

Pharaoh was ready to let the slaves go, when God hardened his heart for the express purpose of being about to knock the Egyptians around for a while, to show his Glory. The people that were harmed in the Plagues, that harm was unnecessary for the freedom of the slaves. The miracles were gratuitous suffering.

So that's a meaningless quality, and no good reason to dismiss Joe's miracles.

You're not giving any reason to believe the Joseph Smith miracles, or the Yahweh miracles. So, what is your point about them? The Jesus miracles are believable because there is evidence that they happened. If there is evidence for other miracles, like for Yahweh or Joseph Smith, then maybe there's reason to believe them. But instead of giving any evidence for them, you just offer them as something to chuckle at and mock as objects of ridicule.

And you think the charge you gain from sneering at those examples constitutes some kind of argument against the Jesus miracles? Give the evidence, or make the case for them, if you think there is a case or that they are comparable. Tell us about the witnesses and the multiple sources that report those events. Your sneering at them is pointless.

God also grants miracles when He grants prophecy to His prophets. No mortal can do that, it's something that can only be explained by God's actions.

If you say so. But why should I care about someone running at the mouth with "prophecies" that don't bring any benefit such as the benefit Jesus produced when he healed the blind and the lepers and the lame? Even if you define those "prophecies" as miracles because "God" caused them, it still doesn't matter until someone benefits.

God granting knowledge that humans can't know without Him is a miracle. So it doesn't have to be flashy like the Red Sea, it has to be impossible without divine intervention.

Knowledge is desirable regardless whether it comes from "God."

Besides, if God's revelation to Joseph Smith was true, then it would definitely benefit humanity to know that shit.

Was it good that Jesus healed the blind and the lame and the lepers? You're unable to address this question without just spewing out your sneering contempt for Joseph Smith?

If that's all you can do, then you're not addressing any point I'm making. I'm saying the healing acts Jesus did are evidence of his power, and this kind of power is something that matters.

I will say that if Joseph Smith really did perform any healing acts, which I think is claimed, I believe that was a good thing. I don't condemn his miracle deeds if they really did happen and someone benefited. Which apparently is the difference between your premise and mine: You sneer at any such possible benefit, whereas I see it as something good without demanding that it must fit someone's theological definition of what a true "miracle" is.

Once more, you've managed to Special Case your desired God, while completely flubbing the justification.

So, in summary, unless I take the same delight as you in smirking at any miracle Joseph Smith or Yahweh might have performed and bash and ridicule anyone who might have been cured by something other than conventional medicine, and unless I change the definition of Greek words that are listed in a standard Greek lexicon and cut-and-paste over them your theological definition, I must be guilty of Special Casing.

Once again I'm devastated by your superior logic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

What an incredibly self-serving misuse of the term. Where do you find this definition held by any other people?

There are 3 New Testament Greek words: dunamis ("power"), teras ("wonder"), and semeion ("sign"). My intermediate Liddell-Scott Lexicon gives definitions like what I told you above. Perhaps the extensive version of this Lexicon would also include something about deities giving signs or wonders.

Can you point to where it says 'power-exclusive of divine power' or 'wonder-but not so wonderous as the divine' or 'sign, but not a sign of divine?'
Those definitions do not seem to actually disagree with the google definition that includes 'therefore the work of a divine agency.'

Under "semeion" the gods are mentioned as possibly giving the sign. But other meanings do not include the gods as having a role. It doesn't have to be something theological or religious.

You seem to be a little confused, then, as to why the Jesus-fan religion has so much more going for it.
You draw a direct connection between Jesus performing healing miracles and his ability to give us eternal salvation.
Then in some strange two-faced approach, you want to discuss the healing as a miracle, but completely apart from his divinity.
Why is that?

A non-theological definition is proper, even though there are those who also want to insert "God" into the meaning.

Sure. That's what the word you used, 'miracle,' actually means. With 'divine' in the definition.

We should not be quibbling about the definition of a word.

Unless it's crucial to your argument...that Jesus performed miracles, therefore we should think about worshiping him to avoid Hell.

If the 'miracle' is NOT a sign of his divine authority, then there's no reason to conclude he's got any chance of granting our salvation.

My definition is appropriate even though "God" or "gods" can be part of someone else's meaning.

Too bad, then, that it's clearly part of YOUR meaning, Lumpy.

I am giving my responses to the "reasons to reject Christianity" and I'm saying that the healing acts which Jesus did are evidence of his life-giving power, which is a basis for believing in him.

Yes. Belief in Jesus, as the Christ, as the ticket to eternal life.
That's theological.

This does not require a theological definition, though many Christians would include that. But it is usually not a part of the meaning of those 3 words. Perhaps in most cases the N. T. writer was assuming that "God" is the source of the power. But the raw word itself usually does not include that.

Considering your track record, i'm just going to have to conclude that you have no idea what the authors were trying to say, and are projecting this strange schism for some unknown agenda of your own.

Since I'm giving here my arguments against the "reasons for rejecting Christianity," it is appropriate for you to accept the standard definition that I'm choosing, i.e., the meaning of the respective Greek word, and not impose your theological definition, even though many theologians and religionists would agree with your attaching it to "God" as you're doing.

I'm not attaching anything that isn't in the dictionary meaning of the word.
IF 'miracle' isn't the best translation for the healing acts, you should use another word. Don't blame me for your incoherence..

But such a theological meaning is not necessary since the 3 Greek words that are used do not require that,

But they do allow that. So you haven't made your case that the authors did not MEAN that.

So let's not degenerate into a superficial brawl over the meaning of a word.

This from the guy who argued for PAGES about the Wager, without ever actually knowing what the Wager says.

My meaning is standard,

No, it's not.

even though there are other meanings also, and my use of these words does not preclude others using a more theological meaning.

Others? You haven't precluded the authors using a theological meaning, not yet.

But for my arguments here the raw Greek word meaning is all that is intended, without the need for the theological doctrines along with it.

If that's your intent, you're doing a poor job of it.

To tie the "miracle" concept to theology introduces unnecessary bickering over the nature of "God" and "supernatural" which is not necessary here.

It's your whole POINT, Lumpy!
The reason to accept or reject Christainity is theological. Either there are gods, or there are not.
You're trying to avoid defining God, to sidestep crucial definitions that you're apparently not prepared to engage in.

My arguments are not about theological doctrines, but about the events that happened in about 29-30 AD and whether these are an indication of a life-giving power that Jesus might have possessed. For my purpose it does not matter what the grand SOURCE of this power was.

So...maybe he was just a mutant and we can completely reject Christainity, anyway?

The 'purpose of your argument' would seem to be rather different than you'll admit to.

Miracles are super-human acts, but that's because they show the power of God.

That is your doctrine, not mine. I'm not making any argument based on that doctrine.

You are, but you're trying not to get caught up in doing the ground work to support your conclusions.
Did your teachers never tell you to 'show your work?'

You're not giving any reason to believe the Joseph Smith miracles, or the Yahweh miracles.

Never my intention to do so.
The guy thatbrought up Smith's miracles was just to show that most of your bald-assertions about miracles were wrong. Then you went directly into moving your goalpost.

So, what is your point about them? The Jesus miracles are believable because there is evidence that they happened.

No, there is not. There's a story that some thing happened. And the stories are kinda clear that the reason they happened was 'because God,' which you're trying to avoid.
So you've got bupkes, again.

If there is evidence for other miracles, like for Yahweh or Joseph Smith, then maybe there's reason to believe them. But instead of giving any evidence for them, you just offer them as something to chuckle at and mock as objects of ridicule.

I don't believe in them because there's only a little bit better evidence for Smith's than there are for Jesus'. But still, they do show that Jesus' works aren't as unique as you would have us believe.

And you think the charge you gain from sneering at those examples constitutes some kind of argument against the Jesus miracles? Give the evidence, or make the case for them, if you think there is a case or that they are comparable. Tell us about the witnesses and the multiple sources that report those events. Your sneering at them is pointless.

I'm not sneering at them.
For one thing, they're not my topic. You have me confused with another poster.
For another, the fact is that the stories exist and your lack of familiarity with them is clear.
So that makes me question how it is that you dismissed religions that you know fuck-all about, in favor of the one you were raised in?
It's not an educated evaluation.
It's not logical deduction.
It appears to be just an emotional attachment to one story out of thousands.

So, frankly, i'm sneering at you.

Was it good that Jesus healed the blind and the lame and the lepers?
You're unable to address this question without just spewing out your sneering contempt for Joseph Smith?

Excuse me? Once again, you take a non-answer as the inability to answer.















You project a LOT.

If that's all you can do, then you're not addressing any point I'm making. I'm saying the healing acts Jesus did are evidence of his power, and this kind of power is something that matters.

And you're connecting that 'power' to avoiding Hell, and pretending that it's not theological.

Brilliant.

So, in summary, unless I take the same delight as you in smirking at any miracle Joseph Smith or Yahweh might have performed and bash and ridicule anyone who might have been cured by something other than conventional medicine, and unless I change the definition of Greek words that are listed in a standard Greek lexicon and cut-and-paste over them your theological definition, I must be guilty of Special Casing.

Once again I'm devastated by your superior logic.

No. That's not a summary.

Rather, if you're going to use words in English that have meaning, then be prepared for the meaning to be read by your readers.
If you mean another concept or meaning, then use another word.

 

[Underseer]

He can't even establish that the denominations that ended up non-canon were in the minority since it was the government that picked the winner.

Surely you're not suggesting an Emperor made choices that were motivated by ANYTHING other than a sincere search for the bestest of truthiness...?

Or that he set up the synods to resolve theological issues for the purpose of unifying the Empire rather than purifying the Christain Faith?
That would make the faith the product of bureaucracy more than revelation!

It's well established that that is exactly what happened.

Somehow, Lumpen has convinced himself that he knows more about this topic than the majority of Bible scholars. Maybe he should write something up and get it published in an academic journal so he can set them all straight.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Would the Christ hoax have to be the greatest hoax ever?

What with the stories telling about how many people were aware of him and his miracles, but there being no corroboration of all this miraculous shit in any other sources?

It all happened in a very short space of time, 1-3 years. It was not possible for events of such a short time period to become corroborated or publicized, like we're accustomed to it today.

Although there is no attestation to the miracle events, there are 3 non-Christian sources that refer to Christ in less than 100 years from his death. These are Josephus about 94 AD, Tacitus about 115 AD, and Suetonius about 121 AD.

And what are the odds of this?

Is there any other historical figure whose public life was 3 years or less who is mentioned even once in the historical record? This may happen today, but probably not anytime previously. Prior to 1900 or 1800 there probably is no example of this.

OK, an exception would be an assassin, or other figure who pops up suddenly and does some extraordinary act, maybe criminal, which captures attention. Or perhaps a knight or soldier or other hero-warrior type who performed a heroic deed. The hero Spartacus might be a case. Heroism, sudden rise to fame, then killed.

So, excluding warrior-heros -- among persons of on-going public interest, like a teacher-guru or political figure or scientist or artist or writer, etc., there is likely no other case in history of someone whose name is in the historical record and who performed all his public activity in 3 years or less.

Who would be an example? If any, they are extremely rare.

Another way to look at it -- compile a list of the top 100 or top 1000 most famous names of persons in history. Jesus Christ obviously is one name on that list. This one is almost certainly the only one on the list whose public career was less than 3 years.

So you have to ask: What did he do that caused his name to get into the historical record and be among the top 100 most famous names, and yet he had to do it in 3 years or less?

And that list would really extend way beyond 1000 or even 10,000 top names before we would finally come up with another name of someone whose public life was so short. At some point down the list, taken in order from the most to the least famous, we would finally start getting some names of assassins or others who made a name for themselves by doing some amazing or shocking deed.

In modern times it is easier to find such a name because of so many more sources of information. But even for modern times, that first name in the listing would probably be down beyond a thousand names.

Don't we have to conclude that this Jesus Christ person must have done something really unique or astounding? How could he make it into the historical record doing whatever he did in such a short time period?

And this is excluding the Bible accounts of him.

Simple answer: He actually did perform those miracle acts. Didn't it have to be something shocking?

Of course you can say we just don't know. But of all the possible answers, isn't this the most likely?

What kind of colossal conspiracy or hoax could have manufactured such an irregular character of history? How did they pull it off? and why? How was it decided to choose this Galilean figure for the role?

If it was so easy to create such an unlikely character, and if there was a motive for creating him, why is there only one such character in history? Why aren't there others?

Wouldn't some others also want to do the same -- create their own Jesus-like character, from the same motive?

 

[Juma]

What with the stories telling about how many people were aware of him and his miracles, but there being no corroboration of all this miraculous shit in any other sources?

It all happened in a very short space of time, 1-3 years. It was not possible for events of such a short time period to become corroborated or publicized, like we're accustomed to it today.

Although there is no attestation to the miracle events, there are 3 non-Christian sources that refer to Christ in less than 100 years from his death. These are Josephus about 94 AD, Tacitus about 115 AD, and Suetonius about 121 AD.

And what are the odds of this?

Is there any other historical figure whose public life was 3 years or less who is mentioned even once in the historical record? This may happen today, but probably not anytime previously. Prior to 1900 or 1800 there probably is no example of this.

OK, an exception would be an assassin, or other figure who pops up suddenly and does some extraordinary act, maybe criminal, which captures attention. Or perhaps a knight or soldier or other hero-warrior type who performed a heroic deed. The hero Spartacus might be a case. Heroism, sudden rise to fame, then killed.

So, excluding warrior-heros -- among persons of on-going public interest, like a teacher-guru or political figure or scientist or artist or writer, etc., there is likely no other case in history of someone whose name is in the historical record and who performed all his public activity in 3 years or less.

Who would be an example? If any, they are extremely rare.

Another way to look at it -- compile a list of the top 100 or top 1000 most famous names of persons in history. Jesus Christ obviously is one name on that list. This one is almost certainly the only one on the list whose public career was less than 3 years.

So you have to ask: What did he do that caused his name to get into the historical record and be among the top 100 most famous names, and yet he had to do it in 3 years or less?

And that list would really extend way beyond 1000 or even 10,000 top names before we would finally come up with another name of someone whose public life was so short. At some point down the list, taken in order from the most to the least famous, we would finally start getting some names of assassins or others who made a name for themselves by doing some amazing or shocking deed.

In modern times it is easier to find such a name because of so many more sources of information. But even for modern times, that first name in the listing would probably be down beyond a thousand names.

Don't we have to conclude that this Jesus Christ person must have done something really unique or astounding? How could he make it into the historical record doing whatever he did in such a short time period?

And this is excluding the Bible accounts of him.

Simple answer: He actually did perform those miracle acts. Didn't it have to be something shocking?

Of course you can say we just don't know. But of all the possible answers, isn't this the most likely?

What kind of colossal conspiracy or hoax could have manufactured such an irregular character of history? How did they pull it off? and why? How was it decided to choose this Galilean figure for the role?

If it was so easy to create such an unlikely character, and if there was a motive for creating him, why is there only one such character in history? Why aren't there others?

Wouldn't some others also want to do the same -- create their own Jesus-like character, from the same motive?

That the myth of jesus was/is popiäular is no evidens of it being true.

 

[none]

I'd step it up a notch.
Stories aren't true because they are rare, intricate, extraordinary, popular, or sanctioned by theologians or believed by millions or billions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What with the stories telling about how many people were aware of him and his miracles, but there being no corroboration of all this miraculous shit in any other sources?

It all happened in a very short space of time, 1-3 years.

So you say. So you cannot show to be true, however.

It was not possible for events of such a short time period to become corroborated or publicized, like we're accustomed to it today.

So, you agree there's no corroboration for the stories. That's good, Lumpy. You're learning.

Although there is no attestation to the miracle events, there are 3 non-Christian sources that refer to Christ in less than 100 years from his death. These are Josephus about 94 AD, Tacitus about 115 AD, and Suetonius about 121 AD.

Still not eyewitness corroboration, Lumpy.

And what are the odds of this?

If they're above zero, then your doubt is not conclusive evidence against the possibility.

And this is excluding the Bible accounts of him.

Yes, we tend to exclude the bible accounts as they are so very far from evidence of anything.

Simple answer: He actually did perform those miracle acts.

But that was your conclusion before you tried to establish that there was evidence for that conclusion.
That's very poor logic, Lumpy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, let's see if we've got this straight.

If a large group of people believe something, there must be SOMETHING to it.
That 'something' cannot be a lie or a hoax or just an exaggerated account of something because it won't have staying power in the face of time.
Except, of course, for all the people believing in Joseph Smith, because he got his idea of miracles from Jesus, and they weren't really miracles, anyway, and miracles just mean that things are unlikely.

So...if it's unlikely for things to happen, but they still happen, that's a miracle which does NOT mean any gods were involved in the miracle, it could have just HAPPENED though 'science' and 'logic' tell us that it could never happen, or only happens very rarely.

So, Lumpenproletariat offers a logical argument that a hoax cannot have produced the massive industry that is Christainity today.
But if it IS based on a hoax, then its success would be.... a miracle, right?

I mean, he wants us to be open to the possibility of non-divine miracles, things that happen against the odds. And after he goes a long way to try to convince us the odds of a hoax Christainity are against the odds (though he never actually calculates the 'odds' for or against), then one is left with either having to say that Jesus did impossible shit, and science books have to be rewritten, or it's just a miracle that Christainity got as popular as it did for not being based on real events.

And since science dislikes having to be rewritten, esp. for events that there's no sound evidence for, William of Ockham would say that we go with the miracle explanation.

Especially since we're assured that believing in miracles does not have theological consequences for us atheists....

 

[Methinx]

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Again . . . and again . . . Where are all those other Jesus-like miracle-workers who are supposed to be a dime-a-dozen?

What made Jesus stand out? Why aren't there several other similar messiah figures?

The question to answer is: Why does Jesus stand out among all the many possible preaching messiah prophet figures during this period of history?

If he does not stand out, then there should be other similar messiah figures or hero figures who were made into gods during this time. Who would they be? Not just the 1st century -- how about from 500 BC to 1500 AD. Who is a comparable reported historical figure who displayed superhuman power and who was worshiped as a god?

How did such a singular figure arise out from everyone else if he had no unusual power? What distinguished him to cause so many to make him into a god?

The myth/legend grew with the telling and repeating of a story.

What myth? What was the myth at the beginning? Why aren't there other similar myths about other god/hero/savior figures? Why couldn't other myths/legends also grow from being repeated? Why only this one?

Whatever kernel of truth lies at the heart of it, the existence of the man, the character of the man, etc, is hard to determine.

Why is it so easy to determine in the case of Gautama and Simon Magus and others, but hard to determine in this case? One reasonable answer is that he actually did perform the miracle acts attributed to him in the legends.

You mean apart from the literally hundreds of hero god saviors that existed before the Jesus myth was invented? Perseus, Hercules, Osiris, Horus, ect.

If these figures are real historical persons, they lived at least 1000 years earlier than any written source we have about them. And the legends about them accumulated over a period of 500 years or more.

So they are not comparable to the Jesus person whose reputation became established in less than 50 years after his death and for whom we have sources within that time frame. The earliest sources are even as little as 20 years later.

The Paul epistles attest to the resurrection of Jesus, and these are mostly from the 50s AD. Also there is the Q document, which both Matthew and Luke used, which is from about 50 AD, and it narrates two of the Jesus miracle events plus also has one passage which refers to a number of the events without narrating them.

There is nothing like this documenting the miracles of Perseus or Hercules or Osiris or Horus. Where are the other examples of historical persons for whom we have any credible evidence or sources relating the miracle acts they did, such as we have in the case of Jesus? Why is it that this one alone is the only one for whom there is any credible evidence?

I've challenged you on this before in this thread

(above url):

Then why aren't there several of these Jesus myths? Why aren't there other characters, other names, in other places, where the same story unfolds and we would have several of them instead of only this one?

There are. Your lack of knowledge about the various non-canonical gospels is your problem, not mine.

But those sources give us the same Christ figure again, not someone else. You're supposed to give us examples of different hero myths similar to the Jesus one. Is there any other hero messiah figure in the non-canonical gospels than the Christ figure, or Jesus the Galilean? That's what you need to show. So again, where are the other Jesus-like myths?

I'd recommend googling "Early Christian Writings" and reading up so you don't look so ill-informed about the subject matter at hand.

Those will all give the Jesus Christ figure again. I know that Simon Magus is contained in some of those writings. But here again the miracle stories don't come until centuries AFTER the character actually lived. There is nothing relating his miracles in the 1st-century references to him. They come only 2 centuries later. You need to give us an example of a mythic hero miracle-worker for whom there is evidence near to the time he lived, not 2 centuries later.

So again, where are the Jesus-like mythical heros who are supposed to be a dime-a-dozen?

Additionally it would be helpful for you to be aware of the magnitude of hero-gods that inspired the legend of "Jesus the Magic Jew."

Why don't you give an example of these? They are persons in history for whom we have sources near their time reporting on the miracle acts they did? Why are you claiming these Jesus-like myth heros are all over the place but can't give one example?

The similarity between the Jesus myths and the Egyptian / Roman / Greek myths that inspired them was so striking that people who actually knew about the similarities (such as early christian apologist Justin Martyr) offered insane rationalizations such as "The devil got people to make these stories up hundreds of years before Jesus was born so folks would think Jesus was just another "me-too" hero god."

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 those 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?

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?

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.

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.

So in the case of Jesus the normal mythologizing process is not the explanation for the miracle stories. So you have to find an explanation that is unprecedented, so that something totally unique happened in this case. What is it that happened? The best answer is that in this case the miracle acts really did take place. It is not reasonable to suggest that in this one case only a mythologizing process took place that never happened in any other case before or after.

There is no historical evidence that any of it happened, no artifacts, nothing.

There is more evidence, from documents, for these events than there is for many historical events that we assume did happen.

There are many events that are not documented until centuries later and for which there is only one source. But in this case we have events documented within 50 years and earlier, and we have multiple sources. So the evidence for this is greater than it is for many historical facts that we take for granted.

Meanwhile we do have ample evidence of hoaxes being perpetrated by various people for whatever purpose.

We need examples. Each case has to be examined. Usually there's only one source for them. Isn't there usually evidence of a hoax? Or in some cases, maybe something really did happen. Unless you give an example, it's not possible to draw a conclusion, or compare them to the Jesus case.

I mentioned alien abduction stories as an example, one which you dismissed even though the examples are very similar to "eyewitness testimony" you appear to believe about equally unlikely events from completely anonymous people.

Not all alien abduction stories should be dismissed. Each one should be investigated. In some cases something unusual probably did happen. I might judge tentatively that such a story is fiction, but no strong conclusion should be drawn until it is investigated. It's better to say we don't know than to automatically reject any such story regardless of the evidence.

You keep asking "why Jesus and not someone else?" I might as well ask "Why Microsoft and not Digital Research?" We could get into endless debates over whatever happened that allowed one competitor to succeed where another disappeared into complete oblivion, . . .

That's not analogous. There are several successful companies, or legendary hero companies that have emerged. For an analogy to the Jesus legend, you have to show that one stands out uniquely apart from all the others. If there was only one giant mega-corporation that stood out far beyond all the others, with none of the others even close, and if this uniqueness continued on for centuries, then we'd have an analogy to the Jesus legend and one could ask for an explanation. And it might even be proper to consider if it's not some kind of miracle that this one company alone stands out so uniquely.

. . . but what's the point? It remains true that Digital Research once existed as the Goliath to Bill Gates' David. Did it take a god's intervention to make Microsoft successful and dissolve their once vast pool of competitors? No.

There needs to be a reason why one succeeds or wins out above the others. You can probably find those reasons.

And there needs to be a reason why one hero-legend figure is the only one who gets deified into a miracle-worker in such a short time, while all the others require generations or even centuries for this mythologizing process to take place. And why for this one we have several sources near to the event, while for the others there is usually only one source. And also, why this one had the shortest public career of all the hero legend figures and yet still has been mythologized more than all the others.

And what makes this point more extreme is that there is not any other hero legend figure who even ranks a close 2nd to this Christ figure in this regard. There is not any other one who comes close, in terms of the degree of mythologizing that took place, who is identified in writings where the evidence is given to indicate the power he possessed, and whose public life was anywhere near as short so as to reduce the time during which he could develop his reputation and create the necessary public image wherefrom the later mythologizing could take root and grow.

There needs to be an explanation for this extreme uniqueness, if it is not that he actually did perform those miracle acts, because these actual events in history in the period of about 29-30 AD would totally explain this uniqueness, i.e., how he got mythologized in spite of having so short a time period in which to establish his public image.

And it did not take any sort of divine intervention to make one religion more appealing than another either.

Correct, we would probably still have "Christianity" as the dominant religion, in some variant form, even if no Galilean Jesus figure had been available to be adopted as the center god figure for it. And one religion would prevail over the others. And we might be able to identify some factors that helped this one or that one gain more followers and be more successful. No appeal to divine favor to this one or that would be necessary.

But when something strangely unique happens, there needs to be an explanation. Something had to make the Galilean Jesus figure stand out so singularly. And rather than just saying "God intervened" to do it, all we need to do is look at what happened, or what the people who mythologized him actually saw or witnessed, and we have the explanation right there, easy to recognize. He performed acts of power that in themselves proved he had a life-giving source or was in contact with such a source, and this power could be accessed and put to the benefit of humans.

So we have the phenomenological explanation based on particular events that happened, or particular acts that he did, and we don't need any theological or metaphysical or cosmological explanations. We can simply recognize those acts and a power that caused them and not know the further explanation of them. Or each "theologian" or "cosmologist" is free to speculate on the nature of that power. And surely a hundred theologies or cosmologies have become attached to the Christ figure to try to use him as their vehicle, and maybe some of them offer some truth, and probably most of them are pretty far off base.

Why is it that the Mormons are now the fastest growing non-catholic christian denomination? Is it because God is with them? Is the spread of Islam, second only to Catholicism as an organized religion, evidence that Allah is real and approves of that religion? What, exactly, is your point in pursuing this line of argument?

There's probably a reason in each case why this religion succeeded more than that one. Or why anything happens, why this thing succeeded and another failed. It's good to ask why, or seek the reason or cause. And saying "God did it" is hardly an answer. But there does have to be an answer. And even if "we don't know" is the best we can do, it is also appropriate to consider all the possible answers other than "we don't know" and ask which of these possibilities is most likely.

And of all the explanations for the Jesus hero phenomenon, the best one, other than "we don't know," is that he must have actually performed those miracle healing acts, because this solves the mystery of how he got mythologized even though he failed to meet the requirements a hero figure always has to meet in order to become transformed from a normal human into a god.

You ask "What miracles did Joseph Smith perform?" Wikipedia is your friend. Once again your ignorance of the subject matter you are discussing is your own problem, not that of those with whom you are having the discussion.

You aren't going to name one miracle he did?

I've already noted earlier that I found there are some anecdotes that he performed some healings. These are surely more of relevance than some mere dead tablets sitting on a table and just looking "awesome" or at best glowing a bit?

Where is the act of power? The healing acts are much better examples of something to cite.

And I have said, and I'll repeat it, no matter how many times it is necessary, to make the point: It is fine if J. Smith did in fact actually do something to make someone recover from an illness. If it can be proved that he did something, just as it is proved that Rasputin the mad monk did something to cause an apparent dying child to recover, then that "miracle" should be recognized for what it is. And Smith did something good if he caused that person to recover.

However, we all know that most such healings would have happened anyway, and it's just a coincidence that it happened on this occasion and failed to happen in the dozen other cases when the same healing technique was tried. So we have to look at the whole collection of anecdotes or reports and try to figure out if there is a real pattern or only a few coincidences and a relatively low batting average.

The people in 30 AD who witnessed the Jesus miracle acts were not stupid, even though we pretend that everyone living 100 (500) years ago and earlier were simpletons who imagined whatever they wished for. But they knew the difference between a real pattern of healings, with a high batting average, or 1.000, and a pattern of hits and misses and a low batting average of only .100 or .200.

A very high average, or even 1.000, definitely would astound them, just as it would astound us, and anyone who ever achieved that or close to it would be mythologized immediately and be taken seriously and would quickly attain to a record of his acts that would begin to spread through word of mouth and then through written documents.

So, we should look at the Smith reported miracles, and any other reported cases of this, and anyone who wants to present the case that he had a high batting average should do so. It doesn't look to me like anyone seriously wants to present that case. Most ordinary preachers accumulate a few anecdotes from among their "flock" of folks who recovered more quickly, or rarely even immediately, after being prayed for. The Smith examples seem to fall into this pattern, with of course only the "hits" getting any notice and the "misses" being ignored.

If Smith really had a high batting average, we would have a better record of his successes at this.

There is no shame in being ignorant, but there is great shame in choosing to remain ignorant when information that would avoid such embarrassing gaffes is so readily available. So I ask you again, upon what criteria should one accept the testimony of anonymous people making these claims in the bible and reject the claims made by actual, named individuals who swore and even signed documentation attesting to the miracles of Smith?

No, those tablets sitting on a table are not a "miracle" or act of power. I'm sure I could put some odd-looking tablets on a table, make them look strange or reflect light in some way, and then get 1000 witnesses to look at them and attest that they are there.

No, sorry, that is not a "miracle" -- just because something is sitting there and looks interesting.

As to the healing acts of J. Smith, which would be something to take more seriously, I don't think these are any more than the kind of occasional anecdote that worshippers experience and relate to their pastor, and are offset by all the "misses" that far outnumber the "hits."

However, once again, if there is good evidence that Joseph Smith or anyone else really did heal someone, I would have no problem believing it. Go ahead and give the examples and show us any indication that it wasn't just that occasional "hit" among a much larger number of "misses."

In reality, you think the Joseph Smith "miracles" are silly and not worth paying any attention to. And since that's obviously what you think, why do you expect me to take them seriously? They are not in the same category as the Jesus miracles recorded in the gospel accounts. We have good reason to believe that Jesus had a high batting average, if not 1.000.

Do you hope that by doing this somehow the process of repeating these baseless assertions will convince someone they're true?

I'm becoming more convinced that they're true by the repeated failure of anyone to give an explanation as to why this Jesus person became mythologized so greatly despite failing to meet the requirements that all myth heros must meet in order to become mythologized.

And by some of the pathetic comparisons, like to Joseph Smith and to Horus and Perseus and Apollonius and the others. Such poor comparisons, which all fall hopelessly flat, only serve to confirm that the Jesus case is astoundingly unique and still unexplained.

 

[OLDMAN]

The Jews picked their messiahs by the truckload, the Romans turned men into Gods by the truckload...put together and what do you get? A truckload!

 

[DBT]

I'm becoming more convinced that they're true by the repeated failure of anyone to give an explanation as to why this Jesus person became mythologized so greatly despite failing to meet the requirements that all myth heros must meet in order to become mythologized.

What are the requirements that 'hero's' need to meet in order to become 'mythologized' that can't be met by imagination driven by expectation of a Saviour/Messiah and desire and hope?

 

[none]

And by some of the pathetic comparisons, like to Joseph Smith and to Horus and Perseus and Apollonius and the others. Such poor comparisons, which all fall hopelessly flat, only serve to confirm that the Jesus case is astoundingly unique and still unexplained.

I guess your summary concludes your rambling.
"the Jesus case is astoundingly unique and still unexplained.", Yeah and that doesn't make it true.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We have our miracle working faith healers. India has its miracle working "godmen". We have had our miracle working catholic saints. Asclepius, temples dedicated to him were all over the Greek-Rpman world, with many attested miracles.

Google cunning folk for more.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Google cunning folk for more.

That would require the poster to have an actual interest in knowledge rather than in just confirming his starting position, and filtering evidence that might challenge it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm becoming more convinced that they're true by the repeated failure of anyone to give an explanation as to why this Jesus person became mythologized so greatly despite failing to meet the requirements that all myth heros must meet in order to become mythologized.

Probably the same way he was selected as a messiah despite failing all the prophecies about the coming messiah.

Marketing.

 

[funinspace]

Thanks for the snippet I wouldn't have bothered reading otherwise!

I'm becoming more convinced that they're true by the repeated failure of anyone to give an explanation as to why this Jesus person became mythologized so greatly despite failing to meet the requirements that all myth heros must meet in order to become mythologized.

Probably the same way he was selected as a messiah despite failing all the prophecies about the coming messiah.

Marketing.

Wait...there is an Mythogical Heroes Official Requirements Checklist?