120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, a prediction which comes true is not a "miracle."

unless you want to make an ass of yourself, like Matthew Ferguson, who cites a prophecy which came true and calls that a "miracle").

What are you referring to? A ”prophecy which came true” is a miracle so how did he make an ass of himself?

So if you correctly predict (before the season begins) which team will win the Superbowl, that's a miracle?

But you're right. I should have used the word "prediction" instead of "prophecy." In fact, if there's still time, I'll go back and edit it.

(The edit is done.)

Here's the larger point: Why didn't this scholarly Jesus-Debunker expert come up with a better example than a simple prediction, which others had made? as an example of a "miracle"?

He claimed there were many other "miracles" having more evidence for them than the Jesus miracles in the Gospels. OK, then where's a REAL example? A simple prediction which happened to come true? That's a "miracle"?

This gaff from an expert, supposedly giving us an example of one "miracle" among many, is good evidence that there are NO EXAMPLES of any serious miracle claims, prior to about 100 AD, which have any evidence for them.

If there were anything to offer, to compare to the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, why does he give us only this phony example? Obviously there are no examples. There must be nothing, or else this learned scholar would provide it to us.

Do you want to help out this bumbling idiot would-be scholar by offering a SERIOUS example?

 

[DBT]

It would be miraculous if someone was able to predict future events with 100% accuracy. True Precognition rather than mundane means such as using probability, which can be hit or miss, more hit than miss when the factors that determine outcome are understood, but still mundane....however, precognition implies supernatural means, seeing the future before it unfolds for mere mortals, hence miraculous.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is a prediction which came true the best example of a "miracle"? There's no other example in all the ancient literature?

"miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels"

OK, where's a serious example? No, not a prediction which came true, Dumb-Dumb.
​

Can anyone help this guy out with a real example?

It would be miraculous if someone was able to predict future events with 100% accuracy. True Precognition rather than mundane means such as using probability, which can be hit or miss, more hit than miss when the factors that determine outcome are understood, but still mundane....however, precognition implies supernatural means, seeing the future before it unfolds for mere mortals, hence miraculous.

No, that won't save him. Can't you give us an example from all the ancient literature to save this buffoon from disgracing himself?

the gaff:

I certainly do not trust miracle claims, simply because a historical text records them. Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels. The historians Tacitus (Ann. 6.20), Suetonius (Gal. 4), and Cassius Dio (64.1) all independently corroborate that the emperor Tiberius used his knowledge of astrology to predict the future emperor Galba’s reign.
https://celsus.blog/2013/08/18/anci...compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/ (scroll down to "11. Even Good Historical Texts Should Not Always Be Trusted")

This is Ferguson's example of a "miracle" claim. Obviously a normal prediction, like who will win the World Series this year -- near the beginning of the season when it's a long shot. Not a "miracle" -- e.g., not comparable to instantly healing a leper, etc.

So do you want to help the bumbling-idiot would-be scholar, and give us a miracle story, from the 1st century or earlier, for which there is evidence?

Ferguson also names the Vespasian reported miracle, for which there is some evidence, but that story doesn't appear in the literature until after 100 AD.

This gaff: "Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels." surely suggests there is an example before 100 AD. (There's virtually nothing comparable after 100 AD either, but there is a rash of new miracle stories beginning about that time.)

Is a prediction -- "prophecy" -- like the above the only example that can be found?

If there's nothing better than this, it virtually proves that Jesus in the Gospels is the ONLY case of any miracle-worker attested to in all the ancient literature, and there is no other example which comes even close. With his gaff above, our Useless Idiot Scholar, Recognized official Jesus-Debunker Mythicist, pretty much makes the case himself.

 

[DBT]

No, that won't save him. Can't you give us an example from all the ancient literature to save this buffoon from disgracing himself?

Wasn't trying to save anyone. Just pointing out the conditions where prediction may be defined as being miraculous....

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there's nothing better than this, it virtually proves that Jesus in the Gospels is the ONLY case of any miracle-worker attested to in all the ancient literature, and there is no other example which comes even close. With his gaff above, our Useless Idiot Scholar, Recognized official Jesus-Debunker Mythicist, pretty much makes the case himself.

Good job, Lumpy.
You've carefully dismissed any account that might increase the possibility that miracles are at least possible.
So the stories of Jesus stand alone. Meaning they need to be really well-documented, multiple-corroborated, deeply supported and repeatable, to be taken as anything close to reasonable...

You have just disproven Jesus.

Welcome to the free side.

 

[funinspace]

However, in all the healing miracle stories of him, he is never quoted as performing his miracle healing acts in the name of Yahweh or Moses or Elijah or Elisha etc. He did not invoke any such names in his miracle acts.

But by contrast, all the reported miracles of Joseph Smith were done by him in the name of Jesus Christ, who was invoked by him every time. Likewise all the modern faith-healers do their healing acts in the name of Jesus, though there are a few Eastern mystics who invoke other ancient gods like Krishna. E.g., Sai Baba, who had a reputation for doing miracles and who enjoyed a very long career of winning disciples with his charisma.

Also, the ancient healing miracles at the Asclepius temples were done in the name of the god Asclepius, never by a recent miracle-worker acting on his own, a "free-lancer" as it were. They all invoked the name of the ancient healing god. There were also some other pagan gods invoked by the healers, but Asclepius was by far the most common.

So it's not that Jesus is unconnected to any ancient deity -- obviously he is put into the Jewish tradition of the land where he carried on his mission, and he is quoted citing Moses and others, but never naming them as the source for his miracle healing acts or doing these in their name, as in the case of Joseph Smith and all other reputed faith-healers. So we know these practitioners have always relied upon the already-existing traditions of the ancient healing gods, invoking them by name, without which their followers would not have believed in them.

So again, no one would have believed Joseph Smith had he not named Jesus as the source for his power or claim to be able to heal. He would not have acquired miracle healing stories in his reputation and his new religion would not have attracted followers had he not invoked by name the ancient faith healing tradition.

Ah, further disassembling of the Gospels into nothingness. Matt 22:31-32 is in all 3 of the Synoptic Gospels.

But this Matthew quote, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," has nothing to do with the Jesus miracle acts. (He also was not claiming to be the God of Abraham etc.) Even if he quoted these words from Exodus, this says nothing about the Jesus miracle stories being derived from the earlier Jewish tradition. He is not invoking Abraham or Yahweh or Moses as the source for his miracle power, like Joseph Smith invoked the name of Christ when he performed his claimed healing acts, or like the pagan priests invoked the name of Asclepius when they performed their healing rituals.

If you're saying Jesus did his miracle acts in the name of an ancient deity, you need to find a quote of him saying this at one of his reported miracle events.

Just wow!!! Talk about tossing the baby out with the bath water... First I don't need to define what a god must do, like you try with your MHORC. The Gospel writers and Paul all clearly wrote tying this Jesus character back to God/Yahweh/The Father. But as you seem to be ignorant of your Bible....:

Luke 5:17 "One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing."

Acts 10:38 "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

If you are willing to say, 'who knows, it might not have been said', then the same thing can be said about the purported Jesus miracles.

No -- let's assume he did say the above quote from Exodus. It doesn't mean he performed his miracle acts in the name of Yahweh or other ancient deity, or claiming his power was from such a source. There's no Jesus quote in which he invokes Yahweh or other ancient authority as the source of his miracle power, as all other reputed miracle-workers had to do in order to persuade the believers.

After all only about a third of the Jesus miracle events are in all 3 texts. If the Gospels say little to nothing of reality, then there is really not much to discuss/debate.

They do say much of reality and there's much to discuss/debate. The quotes overall might reflect much/most of what he really said -- we don't know. But since there's not one which has him invoke Yahweh or Moses etc. as the source for his miracle power, we can reasonably assume he never did invoke these ancient authorities as the source of his power, as all other miracle-workers (that we know of) did invoke an ancient deity by name as their power source.

Again, I don't care about your MHORC and how you think a god should be defined. But either way, read the verses above...

The Jesus character of the Gospels is nonsensical without its connection to Yahweh...

No, he's no more connected to Yahweh than any other Jew is. Nothing in the texts connects him anymore to Yahweh than Jews generally were connected to Yahweh. The genealogies connect him to David, and he's called "Son of God" and "Son of Man," but he's also called "Logos," making him a Greek entity of some kind.

In various ways the Gospel writers connected him to the ancient traditions in the accounts, including in quotes he might have spoken. But none of those quotes have him claiming his power was from Yahweh. Not once do they attribute his miracle acts to Yahweh or other ancient miracle tradition, or have him name them as his source.

When he "cast out demons," he never said: "In the name of Yahweh I command you to come out!" etc. This kind of language could easily have been used, but it's not there. In all the healings, he never invokes an ancient authority or says "in the name of" etc. He didn't need to do this in order to win their belief in his power, as all other reputed miracle-workers did, who won a significant following.

You are funny. Again, see the verses above. Who is The Father in the Gospels, if not Yahweh? Just a couple example verses among literally dozens...

John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Matt 3:16-17 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

Why is it important whether the healer invoked the name of an ancient healing deity?

Actually, it isn't important any more than it is important for a/the god to do magic healing tricks. But what is important is to look at the big picture of the set of holy writings called the Bible and see if the package (history, archaeology, sources, conflicts, hermeneutics) make sense...and you know it doesn't, ergo you walls of text, your belaboring the trivial, your eye blinder demand to focus on your idea of a half dozen special theology pieces...as you build up your Miracle Max and toss Yahweh into the dust bin.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It was NOT normal in the 1st century to believe claims about miracle-workers.

Recently, a Florida Resort Man...

This week, some cleric made up some shit.
There was a story about it, quoting him.
Another story quoted that story.
FOX quoted THAT story.
FFvC tweeted the FOX story, believing it to be true.
Mobs of Trumpanzees swallowed the story because Trump tweeted it.

Now, Trump his own self has access to the involved agencies and can ask, oh, just oodles of people for the actual numbers, even names and dates, or even simply, Is this shit true?
He did not, because the story passes his bullshit filters. He wants it to be true. So do his followers.
And these are people with access to corroborating, or denying, reports, to internet, to witnesses, all within days of the tweet.

You want us to believe that far-worse-educated people, who accepted magic as a fact, who were actively waiting a promised messiah to magically free them from the invaders, were much more sophisticated about filtering miracle stories for factual basis...

AND you want it accepted pretty much entirely on your say so, despite your horrible failures as a historian.

What, uhm what else you got?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Miracle-worker charlatans always had to invoke an ancient miracle legend as the source of their power --

-- in order to be believed and win disciples.

The Jesus character of the Gospels is nonsensical without its connection to Yahweh...

That's like saying the Bernie Sanders character is nonsensical without its connection to Karl Marx (or to Lenin or Stalin).

No. We can identify the basics about Jesus Christ (that person in Galilee-Judea 2000 years ago) without knowing previous Jewish-Greek-Roman-etc. religious traditions which got connected to him. The earlier culture is always interesting to look at for comparison, but the historical Jesus is uniquely different from all other miracle legends in that the accounts of his healing miracles never invoke the name of an earlier deity figure, e.g., "Yahweh," as being the source of his power.

Of course you can cite NT verses which quote from the prophets, etc., but never do they invoke them or "Yahweh" or any other name as being the source for his miracle power.

Whereas all other reputed miracle-workers/healers performed their acts by expressly invoking the name of their ancient healing deities -- like the priests at the Asclepius temples who always invoked the ancient healing god Asclepius, and like virtually all modern evangelist healers name Jesus Christ as their source. And by contrast, those who do not invoke an ancient miracle-worker legend have virtually no following, because no one believes them.

"Woman, in the name of Jesus Christ, I command thee to be whole" -- Joseph Smith
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles

That connection, by name, to the ancient healer-deity is a necessary part of their miracle act or claim to have power, which partly explains why the worshipers believed them and sometimes believed a miracle cure happened even if it really did not. But in the case of Jesus around 30 AD there's nothing in the accounts expressing any connection of his miracle acts to an ancient deity invoked as the source of his power. Ancient traditions are mentioned, including Greek as well as Hebrew symbols, but nothing saying that his miracle power is derived from them, as is said in the case of all other miracle legends.

Obviously there are "connections" to earlier traditions, but nothing expressing a dependency of his miracles on anything earlier, as we see such dependency of the Asclepius miracle claims based on the ancient Asclepius deity, i.e., expressly naming this as the source of the miracle power.

For Lumpy's purpose, Jesus MUST be connected to Yahweh, . . .

Every Jew was "connected" to Yahweh as being part of that culture. Like Socrates was connected to Apollo. Otherwise there's no particular connection.

. . . to Yahweh, and to Heaven, and to life eternal, . . .

I plead guilty to wanting Heaven/eternal life, no matter who or what gives the connection to it. If there's evidence that "Yahweh" or "Brahma" or "The Force" or the "Kwisatz Haderach" etc. can connect us to eternal life, we need to consider that evidence -- "Bring it on!" Whoever knows of such evidence should present it for all those interested in checking out such reported connections to eternal life.

So far the only alleged connection to eternal life for which there is evidence is the Jesus person of 30 AD, for whom we have documents from the time attesting to his power to heal and to resurrect the dead.

. . . but not to the Old Testament, . . .

But he obviously was connected to the Old Testament, as all Jews were, and actually as all of us are today, because of the culture we're born into. Maybe some Asians and Native Americans are not, but even they become influenced by the Western nations today and thus indirectly by that ancient E. Mediterranean culture.

We're also connected to Apollo and other Greek-Roman legends, to Homer and Virgil, etc., and also to Zoroaster and traditions of the Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. As part of the eastern Mediterranean culture, Jesus was connected to all that, so it's nonsensical to say he "must" not be connected to the Old Testament and other elements of that Mediterranean world, which he obviously was connected to.

. . . or any moral rules, or any guidance on how to live.

Many have been connected to these -- the prophets, the philosophers, the Church (churches), preachers, rabbis, yogis, imams, Bodhisattvas, avatars, Supreme Leaders, even politicians and social planners and revolutionaries and community organizers and talking heads on TV. We're up to our ears in pundits dictating moral rules to us and giving us guidance on how we should live. There is no shortage of these, but an oversupply.

Whether Jesus is in this category doesn't matter. We have more than enough guides for morality and how to live without needing to add Jesus to the crowd of charismatic pundits wanting to feed us our daily programming. What separates him from these pundits is the huge explosion of reported miracle acts by him, unlike any other, and for which no explanation yet has been provided.

Lumpy does not want to observe the behavior associated with being a good Christian, for any given flavor of Christian.

E.g., behavior like listening to long-winded sermons (which will be banned in a "Lumpy" Heaven)? or rituals where everyone circles around and claps their hands, singing "Them bones, them bones, them . . ."? etc. and many other behaviors "associated with" this or that "flavor"?

There are many behaviors -- plural -- to observe, not just one, i.e., "the behavior associated with being a good Christian" -- so one can prescribe this or that "behavior" and from this make judgments who is a "good" Christian and who is deficient and needing to be upgraded from a lower- to a higher-grade Christian product.

Each believer (and non-believer telling believers what they should or shouldn't want) prescribes different behaviors according to his individual "5-Year Plan" of what Jesus should have said or done (or should not have said or done).

He wants to simply believe that Jesus came and did miracles, and that this belief is sufficient to purchase a billet in a comfy afterlife.

Including breakfast-in-bed -- yes, I'll take a dozen.

Nothing about sacrifice or . . .

The word "sacrifice" in the Bible, including the NT, refers mainly to the offering up dead animal carcasses and burning them to cause smoke, which gives Yahweh pleasure, i.e., the "sweet savor" etc. (In the NT a twist is added to make Jesus the one sacrificed.)

The theme of self-sacrifice (other than the word "sacrifice") can be found in the NT, but much more in other cultures, e.g. in the Hindu Scriptures, where we're taught we must work but not expect any benefit from the work we do.

So if your hobby horse is self-sacrifice rhetoric, you can fashion Jesus into such a pundit, but there were many other pundits already serving that role long before he appeared on the scene (but no evidence of anyone earlier who healed large numbers of the physically afflicted, and saying to them "Your faith has saved you.")

Nothing about . . . being an upstanding citizen, . . .

Of which there is no shortage among all the great sages and speech-makers.

If your hobby horse is teaching sacrifice and how to become an "upstanding citizen," then you need the genuine Real McCoy inspiring charismatic speaker: BestCommencementAddress.com , who says it like it really is, unlike all the others.

. . . or any of that inconvenient rot.

Not the above Speaker, whose specialty is to say it all CONVENIENTLY in only a minute or 2. It's all right there -- "everything in the world you could ever want to know" about sacrificing and becoming an upstanding citizen.

Thus any behavioral comments are suspect, . . .

ALL behavioral (and non-behavioral) "comments" in the Gospels or any other writings are suspect.

. . . or can be suspect, so they can be ignored.

No, none should be ignored. All the "comments" have to be considered for determining what the truth is, including those which are "suspect." The comments people don't want to hear could be the truest and most important ones.

But the miracles simply HAVE to have been based in history.

If the reported miracle acts of Jesus really did happen, it explains why the new Jesus faith began, i.e., the new Christ cults, and why we have the 4 Gospels and other NT writings. But if those miracle events did not really happen, there is no explanation how these documents came to be written and copied and recopied for future generations, and why Jesus became identified as "the Messiah" or "Son of God" etc.

If he did not perform the miracle acts, there is no explanation why anything was written about him and why there has been any quest for "the historical Jesus" or any dispute over what he said and did. If he didn't really do those acts, no one would care what he really did, because there would be nothing there to care about.

But if those events did happen and that power is real, it's good news because it means eternal life is a possibility. So, hopefully it is historical fact, as the evidence indicates.

 

[steve_bank]

I expect miracle cures, potions for virility and the like go back to the beginnings of civilization. Consider we have it all today in our modern, rational, science world....yes sarcasm to make the point. The Romans coined the term Let The Buyer Beware.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If documents written near the time say it happened, how is that not evidence that it happened?

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

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

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

Are you saying that these are independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus performing miracles...but of course not.

So what?!!!!

99% of the historical events we believe in (from before 1000 AD) are from

NON-eyewitness accounts.​

These sources for our historical record are from NON-eyewitnesses.

How many times does this have to be repeated to you? These non-eyewitness accounts are our independent sources for most of the historical record. We believe them. YOU believe them, despite that they are NON-eyewitness accounts.

Hence they are not multiple independent accounts of the events being described.

Yes they are 4 (5) sources we have for the events. Independent just as surely as Josephus and many other historians are independent sources. Again, I-II Chronicles relies heavily on earlier documents, like I-II Kings etc., and yet it is a separate independent source for the events.

How many times do you have to be told this? There is nothing wrong with a source which quotes from an earlier source, or relies on the earlier source. That later source is still a separate independent source, and you can take into account that it relies on an earlier source, but that does not change the fact that it is a separate independent source. We rely on many such sources for our historical record.

These are various writers repeating things that they had heard or read.

OF COURSE, that's what ALL the ancient historians did. How else did they get their information if not by reading it or hearing it from somewhere?

There are a tiny few exceptions to this, like Thucydides and Caesar writing about the wars they experienced. But even they also relied on much which they did not witness directly, hearing or reading of it from others.

The vast majority of our historical record comes from sources who had no direct contact with the events but relied on what they read or heard from others.

The vast majority of our historical record [from 1000+ years ago] comes from sources who had no direct contact with the events but relied on what they read or heard from others.

The vast majority of our historical record isn't attempting to establish the events in question as direct proof of divine intervention.

Yes it is, or is attempting something similar, propagandizing in one way or another, including to prove divine intervention, or divine origin or superiority of this or that race or nation or dynasty, or divine favor, or to promote the author's personal status, or the status of a chosen hero, to promote a political or philosophical or religious agenda, etc.

The motivation of the writers -- what they're "attempting to establish" in their accounts -- does not nullify the credibility of the reported events. Much of it is propaganda that is biased politically and religiously, and yet it's what we depend on for the historical events.

Telling the unembellished factual truth was seldom the main purpose of most of the writings. If you can name one or two who had such an untarnished motive, they are the rare exception.

We can still believe the accounts, separating the fact from the propaganda, using all the writings as reliable sources for the events. There are no accounts which can be rejected simply because of ulterior/dishonest motives mixed in with the honest ones. The Gospel accounts cannot be singled out as the only ones to be rejected, of all the millions of documents, due to tainted motivation of the writers.

Are our accounts of, say, Sargon of Akkad second-hand? Sure. But historians generally aren't trying to back up the claim that Sargon was the offspring of a supreme being.

Whatever they're backing up or not backing up, there's nothing about the motivation of the writers which undermines the credibility of the reported events, except that normal skepticism is appropriate to ALL the writings, and the bias factor has to be considered.

That miracle events are reported does not automatically render the document unhistorical. What it means is that extra sources are needed, near the time in question and not dated centuries later than the reported events. This standard is higher than for normal events, which require less corroboration.

It is quite a leap from "historical figure existed" to "historical figure existed, and is therefore a god."

But that's not the "leap" here. If there's a leap, it's "historical figure did miracle (superhuman) acts" and therefore "had some kind of superhuman power source." The "historical figure" didn't just exist, but reportedly did those acts, and if there are multiple sources saying this, then there's credible evidence in this case which virtually always is lacking with miracle claims.

Even if the writers believed the historical figure was "a god" and presented the "events in question as direct proof of divine intervention," you don't know if they present those events in order to prove the "divine intervention" or if they claim the "divine intervention" because they believe those events really happened. If the latter, it's a legitimate report of what they believed was historical fact, regardless of their interpretation of it.

The credibility is not undermined unless the writers invented the miracle events in order to promote their "divine intervention" belief. But what's more likely is that they believed the events really happened, so they reported them legitimately, as historical, even if their interpretation of it as "divine intervention" is dubious, and even if they're mistaken because the events did not really happen.

We don't know if the writers are mistaken, because it's not known for sure if the events happened; but if the writers of the documents believed the events happened, then it's evidence that the events happened. (No? their belief that it happened is NOT evidence? -- Well then there's no evidence for ANY of the history, i.e., virtually NO EVIDENCE for any of the ancient history events -- which is your best bet for proving that the Gospels are unreliable as evidence for those events. I.e., just be done with ALL the historical events, by throwing out ALL the evidence from the documents (because the writers were biased, or their belief that something happened is not evidence that it happened.))

 

[funinspace]

-- in order to be believed and win disciples.





That's like saying the Bernie Sanders character is nonsensical without its connection to Karl Marx (or to Lenin or Stalin).

Really silly analogy....

No. We can identify the basics about Jesus Christ (that person in Galilee-Judea 2000 years ago) without knowing previous Jewish-Greek-Roman-etc. religious traditions which got connected to him. The earlier culture is always interesting to look at for comparison, but the historical Jesus is uniquely different from all other miracle legends in that the accounts of his healing miracles never invoke the name of an earlier deity figure, e.g., "Yahweh," as being the source of his power.

Of course you can cite NT verses which quote from the prophets, etc., but never do they invoke them or "Yahweh" or any other name as being the source for his miracle power.

You are funny. You seem to be stuck in 2017. Try reading my answer on the previous page (#3786), showing how you don't know your own Bible...

Or follow the rabbit:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...t-Christianity&p=557960&viewfull=1#post557960

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The CHARISMA of Jesus does not explain the rapid spread of the Christ belief in the 1st century.

These [Gospel accounts] are various writers repeating things that they had heard or read.

OF COURSE, that's what ALL the ancient historians did. How else did they get their information if not by reading it or hearing it from somewhere

There lies the problem. Hearsay is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

Most (probably 90%) of the ancient history record is based on "hearsay" reported by the writer.

Followers of charismatic leaders tend to elevate the words and actions of the one they place their faith in beyond what an objective observer would do.

But this charismatic effect was a small factor in the early spread of the Christ cult(s), in the 40s and 50s AD, because Jesus was long gone and had no charismatic effect on anyone other than the first disciples at around 30 AD. These ones who experienced his direct presence were only a small fraction of the believers, as all the new converts after 30 AD were ones who never saw him directly.

So this charisma factor was LESS in the Christ cult(s) than in other cults where the guru lasted much longer and had a long-term impact on his followers, over many years, even decades, of preaching and influencing his listeners with his personality.

So if this charisma factor is the explanation for the enthusiasm of the followers, to spread the word and win converts, you have to explain why it had this powerful impact in this one case where it was the least important as a factor in comparison to all other cults.

I.e., why did this one cult movement have the most enthusiastic acceptance and get its message spread way beyond all others, even though the charisma factor was the least in this case, compared to all the others where the charismatic founder lasted much longer?


Why did CHARISMA work only for Jesus and none of the other prophets, gurus, rabbis, messiahs, etc?

Some other cults we know of in the 1st century were that of Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus and Hanina ben Dosa, all of whom had long careers of preaching and spreading their message and influencing disciples. And then also there must have been dozens (hundreds) which are totally forgotten without leaving a trace. All their cults died without leaving any written record from their disciples, other than Apollonius for whom there is ONLY ONE SOURCE about 150 years later than he lived.

What was the factor which influenced hundreds of writers or scribes to keep copying and recopying the Gospel accounts? Virtually all these were persons who had never seen Jesus and thus were totally UNINFLUENCED BY HIS CHARISMA, and yet they wrote or copied thousands of documents to such an extent that some of it survived for posterity. How can this be explained by his charisma which they never experienced?

They are not critical thinkers.

Right, the ones who experience their guru directly, over an extended period, and whose minds are manipulated by the guru's charisma, as happens with a cult leader, but not in a case where the guru's presence lasted only 1-3 years. All the great gurus you can name, who had such strong impact on their disciples, are cases where he had a long career of influencing his disciples with his direct presence, with his personality, with the "glow" on his face, etc. Of all the great gurus, Jesus is the one who LEAST fits this description.

They see and hear through the filter of their faith, . . .

Yes, produced by their direct contact with the guru, by his Personality, the sound of his Voice, the Twinkle in his Eye, etc., which most of the Jesus followers never experienced because they joined long after he had departed from the scene, so their contact was indirect only, through the word which was passed on by the earlier followers who soon were far outnumbered by the ones who never saw Jesus directly.

. . . so in their own minds they tend to embellish what they see and hear. They are biased observers.

Yes, you mean the followers of Gautama Buddha and Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana and Joseph Smith and Jim Jones and David Koresh and L. Ron Hubbard and others -- that's a good description of those disciples, but not those of Jesus the Galilean-Judean of about 30 AD, most of whom never acquired that bias from direct contact with their charismatic guru.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There lies the problem. Hearsay is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

Most (probably 90%) of the ancient history record is based on "hearsay" reported by the writer

Man. You are so totally full of rich and chunky shit...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Some people have excellent bullshit filters, and some........

 

[Lion IRC]

There lies the problem. Hearsay is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

Most (probably 90%) of the ancient history record is based on "hearsay" reported by the writer

Yep! This is probably just as true of your average daily newspaper which is full of stories by reporters telling us stuff they learned from someone else who was there.

 

[abaddon]

There lies the problem. Hearsay is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

Most (probably 90%) of the ancient history record is based on "hearsay" reported by the writer

Yep! This is probably just as true of your average daily newspaper which is full of stories by reporters telling us stuff they learned from someone else who was there.

If so then why not be careful to disbelieve the hearsay-based reporting by anyone? How does "most of it is unreliable shit" become "you should give it more credit than you do"? You know that withholding belief from all of it is an option, right?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What was the factor which influenced hundreds of writers or scribes to keep copying and recopying the Gospel accounts? Virtually all these were persons who had never seen Jesus and thus were totally UNINFLUENCED BY HIS CHARISMA, and yet they wrote or copied thousands of documents to such an extent that some of it survived for posterity. How can this be explained by his charisma which they never experienced?

For thousands of years, Hindu copyists copied thousands of copies of the Vedas and other books filled with tales of Krishna, Vishnu, Hanuman the king of the monkeys, and other legendary figures. Why would they do that if it was all nonsense?

 

[DBT]

There lies the problem. Hearsay is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

Most (probably 90%) of the ancient history record is based on "hearsay" reported by the writer.

How did you come to that figure?

However, assuming that your 90% hearsay is true, how are we to sort fact from fiction? Because the source says so? Because what is claimed to be true is an attractive proposition to the reader?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why were the Krishna "events" recorded and copied? when? and --

Why were the Jesus events recorded and copied? in only a few decades?

DBT: Followers of charismatic leaders tend to elevate the words and actions of the one they place their faith in beyond what an objective observer would do. They are not critical thinkers. They see and hear through the filter of their faith, so in their own minds they tend to embellish what they see and hear. They are biased observers. [emphasis added]

What was the factor which influenced hundreds of writers or scribes to keep copying and recopying the Gospel accounts? Virtually all these were persons who had never seen Jesus and thus were totally UNINFLUENCED BY HIS CHARISMA, and yet they wrote or copied thousands of documents to such an extent that some of it survived for posterity. How can this be explained by his charisma which they never experienced?

For thousands of years, Hindu copyists copied thousands of copies of the Vedas and other books filled with tales of Krishna, Vishnu, . . .

By "thousands of years" you mean from about 500 BC up to the present (about 2500 years), or up to 1500 AD when the printing presses took over (so 2000 years)? What is the importance of this "thousands of years"?

So you're referring to the copying from 500 BC to 1500 AD, roughly. And copying stories of events happening before 3000 BC, according to most of the scholars. So, events anywhere from 2500 to 4500 years earlier than the copyists. Also, the original writers of the documents being copied lived about 2500 to 3500 years later than the events (of Krishna etc.).

When Krishna lived (if he lived):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna
Lanvanya Vemsani states that Krishna can be inferred to have lived between 3227 BCE - 3102 BCE from the Puranas.[123] A number of scholars, such as A. K. Bansal, B. V. Raman places Krishna's birth year as 3228 BCE.[124][125] A paper presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months.

The above gives the earliest sources for Krishna as early as 700 BC, but most of them centuries later. So it's possible the time gap between the events and the earliest written accounts is only 2200-2300 years, but no less than this.

So you're comparing these Hindu writers and copyists whose work dates 2200+ years later than the events in question to the 1st-century Gospel writers and copyists, who did their writing and copying 20 to 70 years later than the events of 30 AD, or all within a century of the reported event -- a time gap normal for most of our recorded history of that period, i.e., the gap between the reported events and the written record of them which we rely on. Whereas the time gap between the reported Krishna etc. events and the earliest Hindu writers and copyists is 2200+ years.

. . . filled with tales of Krishna, Vishnu, Hanuman the king of the monkeys, and other legendary figures. Why would they do that if it was all nonsense?

What "nonsense"? The ancient religious traditions and legends? Every culture has ancient legends which are written over and over, copied and recopied, with additional stories added to the ancient legends over many centuries of new story-telling, but all the stories being about ancient deities or heroes who lived thousands of years before the writing.

The ancient traditions and myths of any culture are not "nonsense" but are cherished by millions of worshipers, most of whom believe those ancient heroes were real persons in history, thousands of years earlier.

All cultures with a written language have their ancient legends which evolve over centuries and get recorded 1000+ years after the events reportedly happened.

There is no analogy of this to the singular event of about 30 AD which was recorded 25-70 years later, like normal historical events got recorded, but then copied and recopied as something more important than any other events, such that eventually (probably by 300-400 AD), there were no events or any subject matter as widely documented as this one, in terms of the number and circulation of copies or manuscripts attesting to it.

And this writing and rewriting and copying and recopying was happening long before the Council of Nicea when this event finally became recognized and incorporated into an officially-established religion, so it was not political or military power which gave this event special recognition while suppressing anything contrary. Rather, "the Establishment" of 50-300 AD applied its influence to suppress this "good news" rather than help spread it.

So again, what drove these writers and copyists to record this event and preserve the record of it? Why did no other "messiahs" or cult movements or miracle legends receive similar attention (though they were numerous)?

It was not the "charisma" of Jesus influencing them, as shown above, nor were they passing on the ancient legends like the Hindu writers did. So, what happened to distinguish this one miracle legend from all the others? such that so many writers and copyists thought it necessary to report it and preserve the record of it? but not report or preserve any others?

 

[Learner]

1 rep lumpen , Enormous effort and research in your walls of text