120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

 Honi ha-M'agel -- Honi the Circle-Drawer

We are not sure when he lived, but it was some decades before Jesus Christ lived.

Yes, but there is no source for this character until Josephus in about 90 AD. There is nothing in the literature about any miracle acts until after the Jesus miracle stories were already circulating.

Your source for Honi, the Mishna, is after 200 AD.

That's hilarious.
You insist that the Jesus myth is based on a completely dependable oral history going straight back from the written record to disinterested eyewitnesses to the events. No evidence for this, but you will insist that it is so.
But your criticism of Ipetrich's evidence uses a cut-off date based on the first written record.

Special case, much, lumpy?

 

[lpetrich]

Why are there no miracle stories in any literature from an earlier period than this? Why do all of them have to appear ONLY AFTER the Jesus miracle stories were circulating?

If one dismisses all previous accounts, then one won't find any.

But also, this kind of "miracle" is pretty anemic.

Not that part about drawing a circle and stepping into it. Honi seemed like he had a lot of chutzpah.

Also, this is another case illustrating the UNcritical mindset of the mainline historians (like Josephus), the Talmud rabbis, and other writers, disproving the claim that only the New Testament writers were uncritical about sources and about checking for accuracy and being skeptical.

Isaac Asimov: "Worlds in Confusion" in "The Stars in their Courses":

In fact, Velikovsky depends throughout his book on the denial of metaphor. He quotes heavily from myths and legends of all nations, taking every word literally, treating them as though they were architect's blueprints. To be specific, he makes frequent use of passages from Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg. I happen to have read Ginzberg (I wonder how many Velikovskians have?) and it would take a man chemically free of any trace of humor to take those medieval rabbinical tales seriously.

Causes of the Temple's Destruction at josephus.org -- "Why the Almighty Caused Jerusalem and His Temple to be Destroyed". That page has a whole section on "Omens of Destruction" (War of the Jews 6.5.3 288-309):

• Star and Comet -- Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.
• Light Around the Altar -- ... at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour.
• Cow Gives Birth to Lamb
• The Eastern Gate -- of the inner temple ... (though it was very heavy, it) was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.
• Miraculous Phenomenon of Chariots in the Air ... before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
• Weird voices

Josephus seems to have known very little about Jesus Christ, if anything at all. He talked about several self-styled prophets, without mentioning Jesus Christ. He talked about a riot in the Jerusalem Temple provoked by a Roman soldier exposing himself, without mentioning Jesus Christ's Temple temper tantrum. Etc.

There's the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called, but it is rather absurdly out-of-character for him -- and stylistically different from his usual writing (The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already - Richard Carrier).

 

[lpetrich]

I researched the oil miracle in  Hanukkah, written about in  1 Maccabees and  2 Maccabees, both written some time around 150 BCE. It is discussed in more detail in  Miracle of the cruse of oil.

When the Jews successfully revolted against their Seleucid Greek overlords, they faced a challenge in rededicating the Jerusalem Temple. In that temple was a jug of lamp oil, there was only enough to light the lamps for one day, and they had to light the lamps for eight days. But the oil in that jug miraculously lasted for all eight days.

However, the first accounts of that miracle are in the Talmud, some centuries after that victory.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Where are the miracles which are "a dime a dozen" during the "Age" when the gospels were written? If there were so many of them . . .

. . . why can't you come up with any examples?

or why only examples AFTER the gospels were already written?

 Honi ha-M'agel -- Honi the Circle-Drawer

During the 1st century BC, a variety of religious movements and splinter groups developed amongst the Jews in Judea. A number of individuals claimed to be miracle workers in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha, the ancient Jewish prophets. The Talmud provides some examples of such Jewish miracle workers, one of whom is Honi ha-Ma'agel, who was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain.

Yes, but there is no source for this character until Josephus in about 90 AD. There is nothing in the literature about any miracle acts until after the Jesus miracle stories were already circulating.

Your source for Honi, the Mishna, is after 200 AD.

Also your quote

During the 1st century BC, a variety of religious movements and splinter groups developed amongst the Jews in Judea. A number of individuals claimed to be miracle workers in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha, . . .

is based entirely on that very late source, nothing from before 200 AD or even close to the period when the Jesus miracle stories appeared.

Why are there no miracle stories in any literature from an earlier period than this? Why do all of them have to appear ONLY AFTER the Jesus miracle stories were circulating?

Your source for Honi, the Mishna, is after 200 AD.

That's hilarious.

You insist that the Jesus myth is based on a completely dependable oral history going straight back from the written record to disinterested eyewitnesses to the events.

No, probably some of the oral and written history is incorrect. If I ever said the history is "completely dependable" I should be taken out and shot.

You're the one who hallucinates that we can't believe anything without absolute certainty. It's reasonable to believe based on evidence and reasonable possibility, even if we don't have 100% certainty, as you insist.

However, the reliability of the record, oral and written, is higher as it gets closer to the time of the reported events. So if there's a gap of 50 years between the story circulating and the time of the alleged events, that story is more reliable than a case where the gap is 150 years.

Also, where we have extra sources for the alleged event it's more reliable. So if there's only one source for the story, it's less credible than if there are 3 or 4 or 5 sources. More sources = more reliable.

By these common-sense standards, the Jesus miracle stories are obviously more credible than the stories of Honi making it rain by drawing a circle and dancing, for which the evidence is much weaker than our evidence for the Jesus miracle acts.

The main point is that there's no record of Honi until long after the accounts we have of Jesus doing miracle acts, though the one early Josephus reference might be concurrent with the account of John or Luke. But most of the Honi legend is from the much later Talmud source after 200 AD.

We can assume there were oral accounts of miracle claims and various charlatans which are lost or which we have only a small trace of, but which were rejected by virtually everyone, including writers. Since no one took them seriously, we can't take these as any indication of some "age of superstition" or a period producing miracle stories which were taken seriously.

The less evidence in written documents indicates not only less credibility of the alleged events, or miracles, but also less acceptance by the population, or fewer number of believers, or less widespread popularity of the beliefs.

So the Honi stories were probably not important in the 1st century AD and had virtually no circulation that can be demonstrated. Obviously we don't know what oral stories were circulating about him or about Jesus, because all we have are the written sources.

We can only speculate what oral history is "dependable" or goes "straight back" to the events. So let's focus on WHAT WE KNOW, which is that a significant Jesus "legend" was in circulation by 55 AD (the resurrection in Paul) and by 70 / 80 / 90 AD (the gospel accounts), giving us these multiple sources for the Jesus events during that time.

Whereas all we have for Honi the Circle-Drawer is one source at about 90 AD, and then some half-way serious miracle claims after 200 AD.

So with such virtual non-existent sources for Honi, in the 1st century AD, one has to be desperate and starved for evidence to offer this as an example to show a "context" or an "age of superstition" giving rise to the Jesus miracle stories, which date from earlier.

To offer such a poor example as this only proves the point that THERE WAS NO SUCH "AGE OF SUPERSTITION" OR "CONTEXT" for miracles and superstitions which could have produced the Jesus miracle stories. The latter which were circulating in documents during this period, prior to the Josephus writings, obviously could not have been produced from these later stories, or from some superstitious mindset which produced these later stories.

If there was such a mindset or superstitious psychology causing people to make up miracle stories, we should see some indication of it BEFORE the Jesus miracle stories appeared. Or at the same time. Why did this psychology or atmosphere of superstition produce ONLY the Jesus miracle stories and no others? if it existed in 50 AD or earlier? Why do we see no evidence of it until AFTER the Jesus miracle stories were in circulation?

Again, the thing that happens EARLIER has to be the cause of the thing happening LATER, not the other way around.

I.e., no one has offered ANY evidence of a "context" or "age of superstition" going on which could have caused the Jesus stories to have been invented between 50-90 AD. Why did it cause only the Jesus miracle stories and no others?

No evidence for this, but you will insist that it is so.

No, I'm insisting only on the fact that the Jesus written accounts begin in 55 AD and continue to about 90-100 AD. For which there is abundant evidence, and agreement among the experts. While one small piece of the Honi story appears first in Josephus, around 90 AD (one source only), while the rest is from after 200 AD, for which there is evidence and agreement.

We don't know what preceded the written accounts. Probably there were oral stories first, but if no one wrote them down, we can assume they had little recognition, or were not taken seriously, and were discarded as nonsense, as most superstitions and miracle claims were. It's the ones which were recorded and then copied which were taken seriously by a significant number of believers.

But your criticism of Ipetrich's evidence uses a cut-off date based on the first written record.

So, you're saying I'm supposed to invent my own dates rather than those determined by the experts? What dates do you recommend I should fabricate for when the Honi stories and the gospel accounts were written?

The factual evidence shows that the Jesus miracle events are in documents dating from Paul's account of the resurrection in about 55 AD, followed by Mark's account near 70.

But there are no other miracle stories in any other accounts until after 100 AD. Though you can cite the Book of Acts mentioning Simon Magus, described as a magician who impressed people, and the Josephus mention of Honi, who prayed for rain. About 90-100 AD. This is all you have to show there was any "age of superstition" causing miracle stories. But the Jesus miracle stories appeared much EARLIER than these.

While AFTER this, decades later, we see a huge wave of new miracle stories appearing, many of which are copycat versions of those in the gospel accounts. So, isn't it obvious which caused which? This is the only "age of superstition" and occurs later, after 100 AD when this flood of new miracle stories appears.

If you say the "age of superstition" begins with the Jesus miracle stories, then you have to admit that it's these stories which caused the "age of superstition" and not the "age of superstition" which caused the Jesus miracle stories. Because this "age of superstition" did not exist -- we see no sign of it, outside the Jesus miracle stories appearing at the beginning of it.

There is no evidence of Honi prior to 90 AD, and after this one reference there is nothing until after 200 AD. No one is picking these dates arbitrarily.

Special case, much, lumpy?

So when we use facts as evidence, that's a "special case"?

I'm selecting which facts matter and which ones don't? If so, then presumably you have alternative facts to show that Bugs Bunny performed miracles? or someone for whom there is equal evidence? Then give your alternative facts, if there are others which are just as important as these in order to establish when the "age of superstition" was or what caused miracle stories to be invented, or which miracle claims are more supported by evidence and which ones less.

Do you know what "special case" means? It means in part that one could change to a different set of facts and make the same case for the other side of the argument.

So are you claiming there is a different set of facts which would prove that the Honi miracle stories are more credible? or were more widely circulating in the 1st century? What's the evidence that these were circulating at that time? or any other miracle stories?

The claim is that there was an "age of superstition" or a "context" of miracles and superstitions leading up to the Jesus miracle stories. So I'm asking: what's the evidence that this "age of superstition" existed? Doesn't it have to be there BEFORE the Jesus miracle stories appeared, rather than only AFTER?

What other accounts of miracle events are there prior to the gospel accounts? I.e., from 30 AD or 10 AD or 30 BC or 100 BC? What's wrong with asking for examples from that time period? Doesn't it make sense to say that the "context" of superstition leading up to the Jesus events has to be something existing PRIOR to those events? or prior to the known reports about the Jesus events?

How do examples from 100 AD or later, or even from 80 AD and later, serve as a "context" for the Jesus accounts which were already appearing, or had appeared earlier? Why a total ABSENCE of anything earlier to demonstrate the existence of this "context" in which the Jesus miracle claims appeared?

Why nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g., showing miracle acts by someone, like the Teacher of Righteousness? Why nothing in the apocalyptic literature?

Why nothing in the Greek/Latin literature, other than rehashing of ancient miracle acts of the pagan deities? Why no new miracle heroes appearing and performing amazing deeds?

We have plenty of such stories appearing AFTER 100 AD, resembling the Jesus miracles -- so why not something before that time?

Why is it a "special case" fallacy to ask for such examples of superstitious beliefs or miracle claims of the time, if these are supposed to indicate an "age of superstition" which led up to the miracle stories we see in the gospel accounts?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Defining the alleged "Age of Superstition" or "Context" for the appearance of the Jesus miracle stories, which "Age" is a fiction having no factual basis

Why are there no miracle stories in any literature from an earlier period than this? Why do all of them have to appear ONLY AFTER the Jesus miracle stories were circulating?

If one dismisses all previous accounts, then one won't find any.

You're partly right -- if I use precise language I cannot say there are "no miracle stories in any literature" earlier than the gospels. Of course there are a few accounts you can offer as examples to try to disprove my theory.

However, your insistence on precise absolutely correct language will cause my Wall of Text to be 3 or 4 miles long instead of only a half-mile long. But so be it.

More correctly, I'm asking for miracle stories during the period from about 600 BC to 100 AD. My contention is that there are very few, but obviously there are some you can cite. But there is an extreme shortage of such stories during this period.

The 600 BC date is the approximate time when 1-2 Kings was written, giving the miracle stories of Elijah/Elisha. So that begins the 700-year period of NO MIRACLE STORIES -- or more correctly, virtually no such stories.

You can show examples to weaken my theory, but I'm not really claiming an ABSOLUTE ABSENCE of such accounts -- just a very noticeable shortage. This becomes very obvious as you keep trying to come up with examples, in your desperation, as these examples fall short, and the number of them is very few.

And the outer dates -- 600 BC and 100 AD -- are a bit arbitrary. The 100 AD date especially is fuzzy, as you might turn up some examples around 70-100 AD. Your Josephus examples are in this category. Probably the miracle stories in the Book of Acts also go here, around 90 AD.

If your claim about the "Age of Superstition" or "context" for the Jesus miracle stories is to make any sense, you really need to come up with something earlier than 50 AD. Certainly earlier than 60 AD, because the Paul references to the Jesus resurrection are from the 50s, so if this miracle claim is a result of the "Age of Superstition" of this time, that "Age" must have been going on earlier than this.

So all your Josephus examples, or others after 50 AD, really fall short and must be accompanied by some earlier examples. Maybe the 50-100 examples are helpful if you have a good number of earlier ones which are similar. But you have virtually nothing earlier to offer. So the facts show very clearly that there was an INCREASE in these miracle claims, beginning perhaps around 70 AD and slowly increasing to a huge volume into the 2nd and 3rd centuries. With the Jesus stories being at the very beginning of this pattern. Probably the cause of it.

But also, this kind of "miracle" is pretty anemic.

Not that part about drawing a circle and stepping into it. Honi seemed like he had a lot of chutzpah.

I didn't mean to insult Honi as being a girly-man. Perhaps it was his super physical strength that gave him a special dancing ability, and this impressed the spectators. But on the other hand, it doesn't require extra testosterone to be able to draw a circle.

But this kind of miracle is "anemic" by comparison to the ability of Jesus to cure leprosy or blindness etc. Here again is the best source for Honi:

Now there was one named Onias, a righteous man and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had once prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and God had heard his prayer and sent rain.
http://josephus.org/HoniTheCircleDrawer.htm

So this source, the only one before 100 AD, says only that Honi ONCE prayed for rain and that God sent rain. But even if rain did happen the next day after he did his dance, it could easily be a lucky coincidence.

Obviously there were thousands (millions?) of prayers for rain, and of course many of these prayers were "answered" by rain coming a day or 2 afterwards. So you know this is a pretty weak example of a "miracle" claim.

Whereas the healing miracles of Jesus were cases of a person known to have been afflicted for a long time and being cured immediately, in front of witnesses. And this happened dozens of times (if not hundreds). That's why the Honi "miracle" claim is "anemic" by comparison. We have only one source for it, 150 years after the event, while the Jesus miracle stories appear in 30-70 years after the reported events, which was a normal gap in those days between an event and the first report of it in the written accounts.

But we don't know if Honi had more "chutzpah" than Jesus. Maybe the word "cojones" originally derives from Honi the Circle-Drawer.

Also, this is another case illustrating the UNcritical mindset of the mainline historians (like Josephus), the Talmud rabbis, and other writers, disproving the claim that only the New Testament writers were uncritical about sources and about checking for accuracy and being skeptical.

Isaac Asimov: "Worlds in Confusion" in "The Stars in their Courses":

In fact, Velikovsky depends throughout his book on the denial of metaphor. He quotes heavily from myths and legends of all nations, taking every word literally, treating them as though they were architect's blueprints. To be specific, he makes frequent use of passages from Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg. I happen to have read Ginzberg (I wonder how many Velikovskians have?) and it would take a man chemically free of any trace of humor to take those medieval rabbinical tales seriously.

Causes of the Temple's Destruction at josephus.org -- "Why the Almighty Caused Jerusalem and His Temple to be Destroyed". That page has a whole section on "Omens of Destruction" (War of the Jews 6.5.3 288-309):

• Star and Comet -- Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.
• Light Around the Altar -- ... at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour.
• Cow Gives Birth to Lamb
• The Eastern Gate -- of the inner temple ... (though it was very heavy, it) was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.
• Miraculous Phenomenon of Chariots in the Air ... before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
• Weird voices

You are right to place this directly after your Asimov quote, as portents like these are to be taken mostly as metaphor. Such symbolic language is frequent in connection with battle scenes, where signs in the sky are described, or other weird happenings, which are supposed to be announcing that the gods favor one side or the other.

These have nothing to do with the miracles of Jesus, to which there is no similarity.

But it's a mistake to reject them as entirely symbolic only, with no literal intended meaning.

The "Cow gives birth to a lamb" example was probably intended literally. It could easily have been a premature birth or a deformed calf which someone thought resembled a lamb. Such deformed and premature births were interpreted as evil omens.

Herodotus relates two such omens, saying a horse gave birth to a rabbit, and a mule gave birth to a deformed mule, both interpreted by him as a warning to Xerxes not to continue his campaign into Greece. Obviously the horse example was that of a deformed offspring or a premature birth and not really a rabbit.

Deformed and premature offspring can be shocking and easily twisted into a tale about an animal giving birth to a different kind of animal. Both the Herodotus and the Josephus examples are of a sign from God/the gods in connection with a battle scene about to happen, with a warning to the side about to suffer a disaster.

Josephus seems to have known very little about Jesus Christ, if anything at all.

There are TWO references to Jesus Christ in Josephus (not only one), and at least one is authentic, Antiquities 20:9:1, where he relates the death of James, who he says was the "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," which quote is agreed by virtually all the scholars as an original Josephus text, even if the other more famous quote is not.

He talked about several self-styled prophets, without mentioning Jesus Christ.

He did mention Jesus, but had no reason to place him alongside the various charlatans and demagogues who were leading anti-Roman rebel movements, which would be the "self-styled prophets" you're referring to, like Judas the Galilean and other political dissidents.

He talked about a riot in the Jerusalem Temple provoked by a Roman soldier exposing himself, without mentioning Jesus Christ's Temple temper tantrum. Etc.

The story of Jesus attacking the temple might be a distortion of an incident separate from anything he was involved in. It was soon after this that he was arrested, but if he had led this riot, then he probably would have been arrested at the time it happened. The character Barabbas was likely one of the instigators, which explains why he was in detention and scheduled for execution.

This riot might have been a minor incident compared to others, so Josephus had no reason to report it or even know about it. Whereas the incident you cite, of the Roman soldier exposing himself, caused a stampede in which 20 thousand people were trampled to death, according to Josephus (Ant. 20.5.3), so that's why he reported it. Probably most riots at the temple were never reported.

There's the Testimonium Flavianum, as it's called, but it is rather absurdly out-of-character for him -- and stylistically different from his usual writing (The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already - Richard Carrier).

It's silly to keep beating this dead horse -- It's agreed that this Josephus text probably got distorted by a later scribe -- So can we move on already? The most common view among the scholars is that Josephus did make mention of Jesus Christ at this point but that the text later was changed by a Christian scribe who added the doubtful language. There are many different theories about it, and many suggested versions of what the original text was.

I researched the oil miracle in  Hanukkah, written about in  1 Maccabees and  2 Maccabees, both written some time around 150 BCE. It is discussed in more detail in  Miracle of the cruse of oil.

When the Jews successfully revolted against their Seleucid Greek overlords, they faced a challenge in rededicating the Jerusalem Temple. In that temple was a jug of lamp oil, there was only enough to light the lamps for one day, and they had to light the lamps for eight days. But the oil in that jug miraculously lasted for all eight days.

However, the first accounts of that miracle are in the Talmud, some centuries after that victory.

It's obvious that you're desperate to find a miracle claim in the earlier literature but cannot find any. Not even Josephus had any knowledge of this alleged miracle, meaning it's probably a product of the new "age of superstition" beginning around 100 AD and showing up many times in later literature.

However, the earlier literature, including Maccabees, is not 100% clear of all miracle claims. Only about 95% clear.

There are at least 3 OT Apocryphal books which are the type which should contain miracle stories, all written in that supposed "age of superstition" which might have led up to the Jesus miracle stories in the gospels.

These are 2 Maccabees and Tobit and Judith. A quickie summary of miracle claims in these would be:

• 2 Maccabees: No serious miracle claims, but there are a great number of weird events reported, including portents and visions and heavenly signs, such that one might claim there are miracle events reported there. But nothing in it can seriously be compared to the miracles of Jesus reported in the gospel accounts. The Transfiguration scene of the gospels might be compared to some of the portents in 2 Maccabees. But the serious miracles of Jesus are the healing acts, and his own resurrection, rather than visions and voices from Heaven, etc.
  
  
• Tobit: There is one miracle event, a healing, which must be acknowledged as having some similarity to the Jesus healings, and to the 3 healings of Elijah/Elisha. However, the Tobit healing of a blind man involves the use of fish oil rubbed into the victim's eyes, and can be categorized as a normal medical healing.
  
  For simplicity, we can chalk up this as one seriously resembling the later Jesus miracles. But it is an extremely rare exception to the rule that there are no miracle stories in this period having any resemblance to the miracles of Jesus.
  
  
• Judith: This is a wild "profile in courage" thriller which should have a few miracles in it as part of the drama, and yet there is not one miracle act included, which is very remarkable. There are many places where it would have been so easy to expect God to send something from Heaven to strike down the bad guys, or to help the heroine Judith overcome an obstacle, etc.

So the Apocryphal Old Testament offers virtually nothing to the "age of superstition" theory claiming to explain the "context" for the Jesus miracle stories. In all of it there is one miracle event only that can be cited in support of Dr. Carrier's theory. Yet, since he says miracles were "a dime a dozen" during this time, we should expect to find dozens of miracle stories in the vast literature of this period. Mostly 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries BC.

Instead he finds only 2 or 3 very pathetic "miracle" stories in Herodotus, all of them relating to crazy war omens, or battlefield visions, which are a common phenomenon in the literature and having no possible linkage to anything we find in the gospel accounts. It's laughable that anyone would claim these could shed the slightest ray of light onto whatever caused the appearance of the Jesus miracle stories in the first century AD.


What about the ASCLEPIUS cult? The healing claims?

Having said all that, there still remains the Asclepius healings, i.e., inscriptions on temple walls and on statues attesting to healing miracles from the ancient god, as worshipers prayed there and claimed they were healed.

These are no different than claims made by the millions everywhere, at all times, by worshipers who prayed to ancient healing gods. These are not especially characteristic of this period of history.

And the Asclepius cult was DECLINING in the 1st century BC & AD. But then it experienced a sudden REVIVAL around 100 AD, just as the new "age of superstition" was beginning.

So, why would this DECLINE in miracle claims, by this cult, lead to the Jesus miracle stories? If there was such a decline in healing stories, we'd expect such claims to die out completely. But instead, there is a sudden unexplained outburst of new miracle claims, recorded in the gospel accounts, followed by a sudden unexplained rise in the old Asclepius cult.

So, what caused this ancient healing cult, which had been dying, to experience a sudden revival at this time?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

correction in last post

In my last post above I neglected to place part of it in quotes, from the earlier Ipetrich post I was responding to. Here it is again, corrected, with the "causes of the temple destruction" text included in the quote with the Asimov text:

____________________________________________
​

But we don't know if Honi had more "chutzpah" than Jesus. Maybe the word "cojones" originally derives from Honi the Circle-Drawer.

Also, this is another case illustrating the UNcritical mindset of the mainline historians (like Josephus), the Talmud rabbis, and other writers, disproving the claim that only the New Testament writers were uncritical about sources and about checking for accuracy and being skeptical.

Isaac Asimov: "Worlds in Confusion" in "The Stars in their Courses":

In fact, Velikovsky depends throughout his book on the denial of metaphor. He quotes heavily from myths and legends of all nations, taking every word literally, treating them as though they were architect's blueprints. To be specific, he makes frequent use of passages from Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg. I happen to have read Ginzberg (I wonder how many Velikovskians have?) and it would take a man chemically free of any trace of humor to take those medieval rabbinical tales seriously.

Causes of the Temple's Destruction at josephus.org -- "Why the Almighty Caused Jerusalem and His Temple to be Destroyed". That page has a whole section on "Omens of Destruction" (War of the Jews 6.5.3 288-309):

• Star and Comet -- Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.
• Light Around the Altar -- ... at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour.
• Cow Gives Birth to Lamb
• The Eastern Gate -- of the inner temple ... (though it was very heavy, it) was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.
• Miraculous Phenomenon of Chariots in the Air ... before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
• Weird voices

You are right to place this directly after your Asimov quote, as portents like these are to be taken mostly as metaphor. Such symbolic language is frequent in connection with battle scenes, where signs in the sky are described, or other weird happenings, which are supposed to be announcing that the gods favor one side or the other.


etc.

 

[DBT]

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for miracles - events that contravene the laws of physics and the normal progress of events - at any time or place in history, including modern times and the present. What is described in the bible as being miracles is not evidence that actual miracles occurred as described.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Christ belief is based on skepticism and openness to the EVIDENCE. vs. DOGMA which rejects any possible evidence.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for miracles - events that contravene the laws of physics and the normal progress of events - at any time or place in history, including modern times and the present.

This is ideology, or dogma, not a scientific statement of anything about the real world.

If an event happened, that overrides your subjective religious feelings which you clothe in this pseudo-scientific rhetoric. Calling your religion "the laws of physics" does not make it scientific.

Any "laws of physics" which are scientific must necessarily make room for any events which have actually happened. You cannot impose an ideology which dictates that certain supposed events could never have happened regardless of the reports/evidence claiming they did happen.

It's consistent with science to propose a skeptical scheme for judging what events are likely or unlikely to have happened, but it is unscientific to impose a dogma which dictates that certain events could not possibly have ever happened.

What is described in the bible as being miracles is not evidence that actual miracles occurred as described.

I.e., claims that something happened are not evidence that it happened. Thus, no [written] account that something happened is evidence that it happened.

And therefore, there is no evidence for historical events 1000 or 2000 years ago. All those alleged events are based only on documents saying the events happened, which "is not evidence that" the actual events "occurred as described." ? ? ? ?

If "what is described" as having happened "is not evidence that" it occurred, then all the history books have to be rejected as fiction. You can't name any events of history which are not based on "what is described" in the written record saying that it happened.

So, "What is described [in the record] . . . is not evidence [that it occurred]" = dogmatism, and rejection of any evidence for historical events.

Whereas belief in Christ, in his power shown in the written accounts, is based on skepticism, or allowance of the possibility, or hope, that it might be so, since this is based on the same kind of evidence as for all our knowledge of history.

So for Christ-faith, the only question is: how much of this evidence do we have?

vs. dogmas which exclude any evidence, such as the dogma "what is described" as having happened "is not evidence that" it happened.


Here is a website which proves that the 9-11 attack on the WTC could not have happened, because such an event would have violated the laws of physics: https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-impossible-physics/

And no doubt there are many other alleged historical events which must not have happened because they would violate the "laws of physics."

 

[DBT]

This is ideology, or dogma, not a scientific statement of anything about the real world.

Nope. Wrong. It is logic and reason based on how the world actually works as opposed to how some people claim it works but cannot prove it...there being not a single bona fide, provable miracle (as defined) to be found in ancient records or in modern times.

If an event happened, that overrides your subjective religious feelings which you clothe in this pseudo-scientific rhetoric. Calling your religion "the laws of physics" does not make it scientific.

Physics is not a religion or an ideology or a matter of faith but an ongoing study on how the world works based on many decades of observation, testing, prediction and review. There is no faith involved. Nor has there been evidence for miracles, events that contravene the laws and principles of physics, uncovered to date.

Again, what it says in the bible, or any holy book, is not evidence that what is said is something true and accurate.

Do you believe whatever is said in the Quran, the Gita, Upanishads, the Tibetan book of the Dead - for example - because the things they say happen to have been written in these books?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If an event happened, that overrides your subjective religious feelings which you clothe in this pseudo-scientific rhetoric.

No, he's very careful in how he phrased it.
There's no evidence for any historical miracles. That's accurate. He's not claiming omniscient knowledge that it never, ever, ever happened, just that there's no reason being presented to accept it as historical.

You note, maybe, that you don't really offer any evidence for miracles, you offer your interpretation of how the stories spread and offer your belief that behind those stories must be actual miracle events. You ignore counter evidence and you spend quite a bit of time criticizing the bias of anyone who criticizes your arguments, your 'evidences' or your conclusions.

And yet, DBT's statement remains true. NO matter how many times you hold your breath until it turns dogma.

 

[lpetrich]

(On Josephus's omens of the conquest of Jerusalem)

You are right to place this directly after your Asimov quote, as portents like these are to be taken mostly as metaphor. Such symbolic language is frequent in connection with battle scenes, where signs in the sky are described, or other weird happenings, which are supposed to be announcing that the gods favor one side or the other.

What gives you that idea? Why would those miracles be allegorical and not (say) Jesus Christ's miracles?

 

[lpetrich]

(DBT: no such thing as miracles)

This is ideology, or dogma, not a scientific statement of anything about the real world.

There is a problem here. A problem that I also see in the posts by DBT and Keith&Co. on this subject. How does one distinguish between miracles and non-miracles? How can we be sure that there is no possible law of nature that can accommodate some event?

Or would a good criterion here be how contrived and complicated a law of nature would have to be? That is pretty much David Hume's criterion, that a miracle's not occurring would have to be an even bigger miracle.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How does one distinguish between miracles and non-miracles?

That would be in the way that lumpy is using the miracle. It's an event that can only be explained by the direct action of a deity, at least as far as our current knowledge of the operation of the universe sits at present.

To Lumpy, if Jesus' impossible healing acts happened, then the only explanation is that he was the messiah, thus his promise of eternal happy-happy joy-joy in the afterlife is a reasonable expectation.
If healing-by-touch has a more mundane explanation, then it doesn't support any conclusions or hopes of a messiah, or an afterlife, or eternal happy-happy joy-joy.

How can we be sure that there is no possible law of nature that can accommodate some event?

Possible? Anything's possible.
But we would need quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it's possible, and a great deal of experimental evidence to thrash out the natural law that predicts such 'powers' or behaviors, to accept that it may have possibly happened in some very specific conditions at a remote point in history.
And by the time that's done, Lumpy's whole point of using it to prove that Jesus was the Christ is made defunct, and his participation in this thread even more pointless than it would appear so far.

 

[funinspace]

If an event happened, that overrides your subjective religious feelings which you clothe in this pseudo-scientific rhetoric.

No, he's very careful in how he phrased it.
There's no evidence for any historical miracles. That's accurate. He's not claiming omniscient knowledge that it never, ever, ever happened, just that there's no reason being presented to accept it as historical.

You note, maybe, that you don't really offer any evidence for miracles, you offer your interpretation of how the stories spread and offer your belief that behind those stories must be actual miracle events. You ignore counter evidence and you spend quite a bit of time criticizing the bias of anyone who criticizes your arguments, your 'evidences' or your conclusions.

And yet, DBT's statement remains true. NO matter how many times you hold your breath until it turns dogma.

Butt...butt...butt...it has to fit within the 15 random puzzle pieces (out of a thousand in total) as specified within the Mythological Hero Official Checklist (MHORC), to get the E-ticket into Lumpy's heaven, otherwise they are fake miracles or irrelevant miracles.

 

[atrib]

This is ideology, or dogma, not a scientific statement of anything about the real world.

If an event happened, that overrides your subjective religious feelings which you clothe in this pseudo-scientific rhetoric. Calling your religion "the laws of physics" does not make it scientific.

The physical laws of the universe make it impossible for dead people to rise up from their graves and fly up into space under their own power. Agree or disagree?

Any "laws of physics" which are scientific must necessarily make room for any events which have actually happened. You cannot impose an ideology which dictates that certain supposed events could never have happened regardless of the reports/evidence claiming they did happen.

You have not demonstrated that the Bible miracles actually happened. Get back to us when you are able to do so.

It's consistent with science to propose a skeptical scheme for judging what events are likely or unlikely to have happened, but it is unscientific to impose a dogma which dictates that certain events could not possibly have ever happened.

It is impossible for dead people to rise up from their graves and fly off into space under their own power. Not unlikely, but impossible. Case closed. If you disagree, explain how such an event could happen using the laws of science.

What is described in the bible as being miracles is not evidence that actual miracles occurred as described.

I.e., claims that something happened are not evidence that it happened. Thus, no [written] account that something happened is evidence that it happened.

And therefore, there is no evidence for historical events 1000 or 2000 years ago. All those alleged events are based only on documents saying the events happened, which "is not evidence that" the actual events "occurred as described." ? ? ? ?

This has been explained to you in the past, and yet you persist with your lies.

1. Historians don't believe in the veracity of historical events simply because someone wrote a story about it, they look for corroborating evidence.
2. Second, there is not a single miracle, i.e. an event that defines the laws of physics, in our historical record that is believed to be true by modern historians. Not one. Your argument that the miracle claims of the Bible should be believed because historians routinely consider miracle claims to be true is a lie. The fact that you keep repeating this lie is a testament to your character and your intentions here.

 

[Learner]

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for miracles - events that contravene the laws of physics and the normal progress of events - at any time or place in history, including modern times and the present. What is described in the bible as being miracles is not evidence that actual miracles occurred as described.

Miracles don't neccesarily need to be seen soley from this angle of "contravening the laws of physics ". A historian should factor in imo the notion at least that; miracles can exist if we understand it being rather "beyond logical comprehension" especially for people of those times - who are only used to the usual progress of events, for example what would be seen as miraculous : Healing ... the sick , the blind , the lepers and handicapped. These written about does mean miracles is not beyond possiblity of physics.

It is known that Doctors who have studied medicine under scientific methods have giving some patients very short times to live where infact they have remarkably & unexpectedly pulled through and lived much longer. Some cases ; the desease is gone.

 

[abaddon]

How does one distinguish between miracles and non-miracles?

Miracles defy nature and confirm the supernatural. Non-miracles don't.

How can we be sure that there is no possible law of nature that can accommodate some event?

Then it wouldn't be a miracle. Possibly explainable naturally = non-miracle. You undo everything Christian miracle-believers want if you naturalize miracles. The whole point is to find A PERSON who is greater than nature. Because ultimately they want an out... to "transcend" nature.

All the blather about historical evidence is because all history is fantasy and thus easy to manipulate to suit fantasies about the fantasy of history. To argue ancient texts with Christians is to engage the fantasy and make it seem like there *might* be something significant within the texts. (If there is, it isn't miracles.)

 

[abaddon]

Miracles don't necessarily need to be seen soley from this angle of "contravening the laws of physics ".

They do if God manipulated nature to make the miracle happen.

A historian should factor in imo the notion at least that; miracles can exist if we understand it being rather "beyond logical comprehension" especially for people of those times - who are only used to the usual progress of events, for example what would be seen as miraculous : Healing ... the sick , the blind , the lepers and handicapped. These written about does mean miracles is not beyond possibility of physics.

So miracles are just confusions of the Bible writers? Where is Jesus' divinity in this "angle" you are proposing?

You left out the revivification of dead bodies and the ascension of at least one formerly dead body into heaven. Is there another angle from which to view those miracles naturally?

It is known that Doctors who have studied medicine under scientific methods have giving some patients very short times to live where infact they have remarkably & unexpectedly pulled through and lived much longer. Some cases ; the desease is gone.

And in such cases is that an act of divine intervention or is it just happenstance?


If you relativize these beliefs into "views", if you compromise so that skeptics get to have their 'natural explanation' and believers get to have their 'miracles', then you compromise away the miraculous quality of the Bible's alleged events. Miracles become highly improbable but very nice coincidences and nothing more.

 

[Learner]

Miracles defy nature and confirm the supernatural. Non-miracles don't.

I don't entirely disagree here in the context of beyond natural "cause", however this is a recent or modern understanding and now the criteria. People back then didn't call those events "miracles" because they would have understood or known the laws of physics.

How can we be sure that there is no possible law of nature that can accommodate some event?
Then it wouldn't be a miracle. Possibly explainable naturally = non-miracle. You undo everything Christian miracle-believers want if you naturalize miracles. The whole point is to find A PERSON who is greater than nature. Because ultimately they want an out... to "transcend" nature.

Theists (as you put it "naturalized miracles") would still call these miracles - "natural things" being influenced to result in some unexpected change.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Like if it rains at a convenient point during growing season in a non-drought summer. You don't get hordes dancing in the mud shouting 'It's a coincidence! It's a coincidence!' No one's faith in the water cycle is restored by a gentle misting after three days of overcast.

But if it's a drought, and a rainmaker causes a clear-blue sky to darken up on his command in the name of 'religious tradition here', and it rains ONLY on those farms that have paid the rainmaker, and not on the farms of skeptics or people too proud to pay for it, and also not on the farms of atheists or those who practice the wrong religious tradition, or undeveloped properties, then historians would accept that miraculous nature of the rain. Except it never happens that way, does it?