• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

And to say that a miracle, some miracles, ALL miracles, never happened despite the weight and volume of unbiased testimony to the contrary is really hard to believe - especially since that negation claim comes from people with a deliberate skeptical bias who are living thousands of years remote from the event.

...oh yeah, and since God exists, there's nothing all that extraordinary about someone reporting that they witnessed something supernatural. (Water turning into wine, leprosy being cured, multiplication of loaves/fishes.)

So how do you explain why obvious miracles all seem "thousands of years remote" from our day? Has God gotten shy, or maybe less powerful?

The "deliberate skeptical bias" you speak of would be far less common if we saw the occasional mountain moved by prayer, or re-grown amputated limb, or any of the flashy miracles recounted in your holy book- or any other. Why does reality have a skeptical bias, hmm?

Jobar, methodological skeptics - empiricists - respond to modern miracles the same way as they do to ancient miracles.

They want repeatability on demand. They claim people are lying. They claim people are deluded. They say the miracle isn't 'miraculous' enough. (Chop your leg off and make it regrow by praying while standing on your head juggling chainsaws)

They want a God who can be put to the test. Show me God in a microscope/telescope.
...I'll obey God but first I want God to obey me

3084038793_7e7dc5939f.jpg
 
Matt. 21:21- "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done."

It's not we modern skeptics that promised this, Lion- nor would we ask for it if it were not clearly offered. This, and others by the dozen, just as astounding- and yet we see not one being performed.

Okay, I grant you that there would be skeptics, including me, that would question the provenance of any miracle, no matter how flashy and incontestable. But I assure you that we would not deny that it happened- we would admit that this extraordinary and inexplicable event was real, if we witnessed it. And if the prayers of Christians caused these miracles but those of Muslims or Hindus did not, we'd admit that, too. Even something far less flashy, like a lost limb growing back after it was prayed over, would silence quite a large percentage of our objections to your faith.

But again, it's jam two thousand years ago, but never jam today. We never see the beef. All words, no actions. And your excuses make it worse, not better.
 
I don't expect God to do tricks. I expect that anything that exists will demonstrably exist.

'It doesn't work with skeptics in the room' is something psychics say. This way of blaming others for the non-evidence supports the idea it's only wish-fulfillment. Same with God and miracles. If it needs the special condition that people withhold skepticism, that is strong evidence it's not true.

And I wonder, what modern miracles? Jesus' face in toast?
 
Some miracle claims (e.g., the Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels) are more credible than others.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)


Not without qualifiers like "the story is told" or "the people believed" or "his tomb claims."

But in some cases the "qualifiers" do not appear, in the writings of the "professional historians" (e.g., Tacitus and Suetonius reporting the Vespasian story). Did they actually believe the claims in some cases? or pretend to? Why might they sometimes believe the miracle story?


A "miracle" which Josephus believed

This might be the only reported EXORCISM event in the ancient record believed seriously by the writer.

There are many exorcism rituals mentioned in the literature, including narratives of someone consulting an exorcist, but virtually no cases of an exorcism account which narrates the actual healing of the victim. There is this one Josephus miracle story, believed by him, as opposed to the charlatan examples which he ridicules. He cites a contemporary event:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0146:book=8:section=42 God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a Foot of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly: for which reason it is, that all men may know the vastness of Solomon's abilities, and how he was beloved of God, and that the extraordinary virtues of every kind with which this king was endowed may not be unknown to any people under the sun for this reason, I say, it is that we have proceeded to speak so largely of these matters.

So here's another case of a source who believes the miracle claim, having witnessed it himself. So it cannot be said that all "professional historians" rejected the miracle claims they reported, or that they always used the "qualifiers" to show their skepticism. In at least a few cases the historian did believe the miracle claim.

But on close examination it's difficult to see a serious "miracle" here, other than a cup or basin of water which is knocked over when the demon supposedly exits the victim's body. Josephus says nothing about the victim actually being cured of anything. There is no recovery by the victim, no regaining his normal mind, seizing from convulsions, or any other healing, except the container of water knocked over to let the audience know that the demon had come out.

He saw the exorcist "releasing people that were demoniacal," but what does this "releasing" mean? What happened other than the cup of water being knocked over?

It's a very weak example of a miracle act. Yet it shows that even a "professional historian" might believe a miracle claim -- in this case, that a "demon" came out and knocked over a container of water.


Why do expelled demons engage in mischief?

Why this emphasis on a mischievous act by the demon, rather than on the victim being healed? Where else to we see such a description of misbehavior by demons being expelled?

Where else except in the story of the Gerasene Demoniac of Mark 5:1-10? Could it be that this story, in Mark and repeated in Matthew and Luke, is the first case historically of alleged misbehavior by demons being cast out of a victim? Where else is there any such reported phenomenon, in all the literature? or all the known record?

If no other such story can be found, then it's a reasonable hypothesis that this Jesus miracle story is the very first one describing a misbehaving demon, and Josephus was influenced by this Gospel story and used it as a model to create his own misbehaving-demon scenario. Or, the exorcist he observed was influenced by this Jesus story and tricked observers into believing him by doing this stunt with the water container being knocked over. He had heard of Jesus sending demons into the herd of swine and decided he needed something similar to show to his audience, to enhance his credibility.

Why isn't that very plausible, assuming that Jesus and the herd of swine is the very first reported case of this? i.e., assuming there are no previous stories of such misbehavior by demons being cast out?

But did demons really go into the herd of swine? A more likely explanation is that the demoniac really was healed by Jesus, and when it happened he screamed, and this startled some of the pigs, resulting in the stampede. Since the two happened together, it was simple for observers to connect the two, thinking the pigs were driven by the demons cast out of the demoniac. All that really happened is that the demoniac screamed in his confusion when he was suddenly healed.


The importance to Josephus of the ancient Solomon legend

Note the emphasis on Solomon: "making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed." The connection by name to the ancient hero or deity is a main factor in the writer's belief in the miracle claim.

We can suspect what drove Josephus to offer this oddball "miracle" claim. He is praising Solomon and so might not be the most honest source for objective reporting here, and yet he's honest enough to not make up stories about the victim suddenly recovering and becoming healthy again. So we can read between the lines to see that probably there was only a clever trick here, and no miracle event. But our historian Josephus says there was, because he wants to pay respect to his ancient Solomon hero.

So this is weakly comparable to the exorcism claims about Jesus releasing demoniacs who are described as recovering from their insanity or their convulsions, regaining their ability to speak, etc. In the literature there are many exorcism rituals described, e.g., in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but no accounts of anyone actually being cured, such as we see in the Gospel accounts. This Josephus excerpt might be the closest.

This is about all there is in the way of miracle healing accounts where the writer actually believes the miracle claim, without any "qualifier" to cast doubt on the credibility.

So, in this period when there's almost nothing by writers attesting to the truth of miracle claims -- in a period of "dime a dozen" reported frauds only, but no reported events or believers in such events -- we have the Jesus miracle stories popping up out of nowhere, with more than 30 distinct miracle claims, or superhuman acts by Jesus, not done in the name of any ancient healing deity, as all the others, but just done by him with no Source being named, in public places, with non-disciples usually present, unlike all the others which are done privately in the presence of believers only.

These are the facts about miracle claims, anywhere from 1000 BC to 1000 (1500) AD, in all the writings, as to whether the writers actually believed the miracle claims being made. There are some very early stories, before 500 AD, where such legends are believed by the writers, and then after 100 AD many miracle claims appear, which the writers believed, but nothing in the "era" of Jesus and the Gospels.

The only time they believed such claims is when those were claims about ancient gods, or legendary heroes and ancient myths from centuries earlier, but not about recent (charlatan?) miracle-workers who were current to the time of the writers. Such recent fiction-fraud-charlatan miracle-workers were NOT believed and recorded by educated writers, other than to denounce them as fraudulent.

It does make a difference whether the source/writer for the stories actually believed the claims. If he prefaced it with "according to the story," or "some people claim" etc. etc., then it's much more doubtful that the claims are true, with the author expressing his skepticism. But when it's reported as fact, without those qualifier clauses, as in the Gospel accounts, then the miracle claims have higher credibility.

So the presence of the qualifier phrases in the miracle claims is important. Which phrases do not appear in the Gospel accounts, but do appear in virtually all other claims about miracles or superhuman acts or miracle-workers throughout all those centuries, with the only exception being the stories of the ancient gods, or centuries-old legend, rather than recent miracle-workers appearing on the scene and claiming such powers.


Why did ONLY the Gospel writers "make up shit" about miracles?

So, what's the difference between the Gospel writers who never used the "qualifiers" and those writers who were skeptical of the miracle claims they reported using the "qualifier" language? It's that in most cases there was good reason to doubt the claims made, whereas in the case of the Jesus miracle claims there was little or no doubt.

The simplistic outburst, "Aww damn it, people make up shit!" explains nothing. Why did ONLY THE CHRIST-BELIEVER writers make up such shit? in 4 (5) sources, about a recent miracle-worker claim? Why is there ONLY ONE case of this rather than several cases, if it's true that people "make up shit" all the time? If people were doing this constantly, and seriously enough to record it in writing, why is there ONLY ONE case of it that you can name?

This pattern repeats again and again: The Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels are virtually the ONLY case of miracle claims which are believed by the writers who are our source for the claims. There are almost no other examples, as the writers reporting (recent) miracle claims typically distance themselves from the claims, saying it was claimed or believed, rather than saying the event really did happen, and even suggesting the claims were fraudulent.

Possible exceptions to this rule are easily explained. Both these cases -- the Josephus exorcist and the Vespasian healing miracle claims -- are explained partly by their attachment to an ancient healing god (Serapis), or healing Teacher (Solomon), illustrating how a miracle story is given credence by the writer if it is closely attached by name to an ancient hero legend.

Summation: The "qualifiers" (disclaimers) occurring so frequently in the writings but not in the Gospel accounts are further evidence for the historicity of the Jesus miracle acts. These "qualifiers" are not always in the "professional historian" accounts and others, who in a few cases did believe the miracle claims. And they did give a kind of respect or credibility to the ancient miracle legends, at least pretending to believe them, and reserving their ridicule mainly for the recent charlatan cases which were mostly scoffed at by everyone.

But special attention is needed for the Asclepius cult, in the next Wall of Text. Followers of this cult made claims of healing miracles at the Asclepius temples, and the written accounts of these are often close to the time of the alleged miracle events, rather than centuries later.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)
 
Okay, so what you're showing is that people who already believe in magic willfind some tales of magic to be believable.

Not all tales, such as your dismissal of almost all the miracles that were not done in the name of Jesus. Such as your resistance to accepting the direct and well documented eyewitness reports of Joseph Smith as better evidenced than Jesus' efforts.

So, reporters filter out tales that don't match the reporters' beliefs.

But then, those reports would be worthless for your main reason for posting in this thread.

You want to pretend that the stories of the healing miracles of Jesus arevsufficient for skeptics to accept them as historical fact, but you're establishing that no sceptic accepts these fairy tales as fact. Just bleevers.

So, you're right back where we started. You believe what you want to believe BECAUSE you want to believe, and more power to you.

Just don't whine if the rest of us do not think your evidence is credible.
 
I wonder if i should start a betting pool on when in 2019 Lumpy will address thar post?

Today is the 38th anniversary of my initial enlistment. I wager he'll figure out a reply by the 39th anniversary of my reporting to sub school....
 
Some miracle claims (e.g., the Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels) are more credible than others.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)


Not without qualifiers like "the story is told" or "the people believed" or "his tomb claims."

Summation: The "qualifiers" (disclaimers) occurring so frequently in the writings but not in the Gospel accounts are further evidence for the historicity of the Jesus miracle acts. These "qualifiers" are not always in the "professional historian" accounts and others, who in a few cases did believe the miracle claims. And they did give a kind of respect or credibility to the ancient miracle legends, at least pretending to believe them, and reserving their ridicule mainly for the recent charlatan cases which were mostly scoffed at by everyone.

But it's necessary to consider the Asclepius stories here, which make miracle healing claims. In some of the testimonials, the miracle claims are stated as facts which are believed by the writer or source.


Do the ASCLEPIUS miracle claims have more credibility?

Carrier, in his "Kooks and Quacks" says:

But above all these, the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing savior, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ. Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, 1945--entries 423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples. These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232), all being cured by this pagan "savior." And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire. Clearly, the people of this time were quite ready to believe such tales. They were not remarkable tales at all.

For now, let's assume that the above entries 423-450 give the best evidence for miracle events comparable to the Gospel accounts of the Jesus miracle acts. We can draw conclusions from this listing, but of course the real list is at least 10 times longer, so that this special group here is only a good indication of the pattern of the miracle claims with this cult, which spreads out over many centuries, going back perhaps to 1500 or 2000 BC, and written testimonials back to about 500 BC.

These accounts, covering pp. 221-259 (Edelstein), are stories generally believed by the writers as real events of encounters with Asclepius and resulting cures. And the sources are not just that of low-class uneducated commoners, but in some cases of historians and physicians and other educated writers comparable to the "professional historians."

But above all these, the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing savior, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ.

But not during it, or anywhere near it. In fact, there's a blank space of about 200 years, 100 BC to 100 AD, during which there are no accounts of Asclepius miracles, or virtually none.

These entries 423-450 (pp. 221-259) throughout are virtually all from the period BEFORE 100 BC and AFTER 100 AD. Why is there a huge hole here, from 100 BC to 100 AD? What happened to the healing power of Asclepius after 100 BC, for which there is no testimonial, but then which comes roaring back about 100 AD and increasing then for another 100-200 years?

What happened to Asclepius during this 200-year inactive period? Was he "on a journey" (I Kings 18:27)?

This gaping hole cannot be ignored as insignificant. For centuries there evolved many Asclepius stories, in the inscriptions, beginning around 500 BC, and these began from earlier traditions of unknown origin, dating back many centuries. And a healing cult had evolved, with priestly rituals, of uncertain origin, and lasting up to the 2nd century BC. But by about 100 BC it fades away, leaving no trace from then until about 100 AD. Why?

Here's a good general history of the cult: https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/12602/wickkhiserbl032.pdf?sequence=2

We can see this hole, or blank space, by looking at the information provided in the entries 423-450, which are representative enough to use as an indicator of the cult's miracle claims.

There are 2 ways to identify the chronologies and the empty period: there are some dates given (years BC and AD), and names of authors who can be identified. These are sufficient to identify the quantity of quotations from each of the 4 periods:

1) prior to 100 BC,

2) 1st century BC,

3) 1st century AD, and

4) after 100 AD;
and also to identify the number of authors from these periods.


# of pages of Asclepius testimonials/quotes

prior to 100 BC: 17+ pages

1st century BC: 2 pages

"2nd-1st c. BC": 1 page -- i.e., ambiguous category

1st century AD: 0 pages

after 100 AD: 5+ pages

So there are zero Asclepius inscriptions in the 1st century AD, but a small amount of them in the 1st century BC. Do these fill in the hole from 100 BC to 100 AD? No, a close look shows that the real miracle healing stories of Asclepius are earlier than 100 BC. The pattern is very clear that these miracle stories were decreasing and had disappeared by the 1st century BC.

These 100 - 1 BC cases are short enough to give the English here. Consider whether these are serious miracle stories:

To Asclepius

Poplius Granius Rufus

When for two years I had coughed incessantly so that I discharged purulent and bloody pieces of flesh all day long, the god took in hand to cure me. . . . He gave me rocket to nibble on an empty stomach, then Italian wine flavored with pepper to drink, then again starch with hot water, then powder of the holy ashes and some holy water, then an egg and pine-resin, then again moist pitch, then iris with honey, then a quince and a wild purslane to be boiled together -- the fluid to be drunk, while the quince was to be eaten -- then to eat a fig with holy ashes taken from the altar where they sacrifice to the god. -- -- --[p. 252]

Sounds like a formula to induce vomiting.

"rocket to nibble on an empty stomach"? "a quince and a wild purslane" etc.? This is the "more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus"? The "miracle" here is that this character was allowed to run around loose instead of being locked up.

This could easily be a satire from Mad Magazine, poking fun at some religious cult. The only reference to any healing here is the phrase "the god took in hand to cure me," which might mean this worshiper recovered immediately, but there were better ways to say it if that was the meaning. It's not clear that a "miracle" is happening here. This is no comparison to the list of earlier inscriptions of entry 423, with several serious miracle claims.

Here's the other entry indicated as from "1st c. B.C.":

To Asclepius

Poplius Granius Rufus

My right shoulder -- -- -- and -- -- -- and the whole from -- -- -- giving me unendurable pains, the god ordered me to be confident and gave me relief. I should apply a plaster of barley-meal mixed with old wine and of a pine cone ground down with olive oil, and at the same time a fig and goat's fat, then milk with pepper, wax-pitch and olive boiled together -- -- --[p. 253]

He says the god "gave me relief," suggesting a possible healing experience. If so, perhaps the cause was the exercise from all the work of collecting the above ingredients -- especially grinding down the pine cone and boiling the goat's fat and wax pitch -- after all that fuss who's gonna care about an aching right shoulder?

Many of the Asclepius cures have elements like this, prescribing various items for rubbing or ingesting, with procedures to follow, resulting in the recovery.

(Can you imagine Jesus in the Gospels scrambling around to put together such a concoction as this to heal the paralytic, and then saying "Take up your bed and walk!"? How could anyone walk after ingesting all that, let alone pick up a bed?)

So, there is this small amount of "testimonial" in the intermediate period, but let's get serious -- the real Asclepius miracles all fall into the very early period, before 100 BC, or the later period, after 100 AD, leaving the wide hole in the center. And these "1st c. BC" stories are much more like prescribed medical remedies than miracle cures. All the clear miracle healing stories date from before or after this empty period 100 BC - 100 AD.

The other quote, possibly of the intermediate period, has the ambiguous dating of "2nd-1st c. BC":

-- -- -- (a certain woman) -- -- -- at the head and -- -- -- gives thanks to Asclepius the Savior; having suffered from a malignant sore on her little finger she was healed by the god who ordered her to apply the shell of an oyster, burnt and ground down by her with rose-ointment, and to anoint [s.c., her finger] with mallow, mixed with olive oil. And thus he cured her. After I had seen many more glorious deeds of the god in my sleep and god ordered me to inscribe my visions -- -- -- in my sleep the god ordered -- -- --[p. 253-254]

Whoops! "in my sleep"? "visions"? Here the miracle element disappears altogether, as it's only someone reporting "visions" or scenes from a dream. Legitimate miracle claims have to be something more than "visions" experienced while someone is sleeping.

(Oyster shell, burnt and ground with rose-ointment? Oh, and don't forget the mallow mixed with olive oil.)

So, except for the above 3 dubious "miracle" claims, the entire list (423-450) is of inscriptions prior to 100 BC and after 100 AD, with nothing happening in the 200-year interval of 100 BC to 100 AD. Why did the miracles of Asclepius cease during this interval? Surely no one thinks the above 3 cases are any kind of serious "miracle" claims, comparable to Jesus healing lepers etc. The earlier and later reported Asclepius miracles do include serious claims of cures, and not just prescriptions for holy ashes and burnt oyster shell and grounded pine cone with goat's fat and boiled wax-pitch. So the period 100 BC - 100 AD is virtually devoid of any serious miracle claims, such as we see in both the earlier and the later periods.

These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, . . .

You might say it's equally reliable evidence. The inscriptions apparently were written close to the events, maybe a decade or two later -- the dating is not precise, but probably less than 50 years, perhaps even contemporary to the time of writing.

But it's easy to explain why these worshipers of the ancient healing god believed the miracle cures happened: At all times and in all cultures there are ancient healing gods believed in by the general population, to whom they pray for miracles such as healing, to recover from their illnesses. Everyone in the culture gives respect to the ancient traditions without ridiculing them or poking fun at the worshipers who pray to be cured or to recover.

In modern times almost all those who pray for healing are Christians believing in the ancient Christ healing tradition from 2000 years ago. A few religionists of other traditions, like Hinduism, also believe in their ancient healing deities, whose names are invoked by the worshipers and also by their priests or gurus etc. The ancient Asclepius rituals fall neatly into this pattern of miracle claims of all cultures, which worship ancient healing gods.


When miracle claims are believed and when they are not

But this cannot explain why the Gospel writers believed in the Jesus miracle healings, which were not done in the name of an ancient healing deity. The ancient healing tradition is always very specific and the ancient healing god is always named by the practitioners and worshipers. There are no exceptions to this (except Jesus in the Gospel accounts where no ancient authority is invoked by name as the source of the miracle power).

The Gospel writers surely had no motive to omit such invoking by Jesus, if he did in fact name Yahweh or Moses or Solomon or Elijah etc. as the source of his power. He never does, in all the Gospel reports of his healing acts.

So this explains why fictional claims of miracles by Asclepius were believed, by worshipers and priests in the temples, where the written accounts we have might be dated near to the time of the reported events.

But also, isn't it strange that the miracles of Asclepius die out, before 100 BC, and that they are totally absent from then up to about 100 AD, where they suddenly appear again as the cult experiences a revival? Why this empty gap of 200 years of no Asclepius miracles?

. . . even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232), all being cured by this pagan "savior."

But isn't it interesting that all these serious miracle claims are back in the 4th century BC, and there are no such claims later, none from 100 BC to 100 AD? Why is it that all the serious claims about Asclepius miracles have to be limited to that earlier period, or later after 100 AD, and there are no such reported miracle events during that empty 200-year space?


And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire.

No they don't. They die out and are totally absent from 100 BC to 100 AD. They do not "span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D.," but only to the 2nd century BC, where they die out, and are totally absent after 100 BC until about 100 AD.


Clearly, the people of this time were quite ready to believe such tales.

No they were not. I.e., not from the 2nd century BC up to 100 AD. Why were "the people of this time" not ready to believe such tales during this empty space of at least 200 years? i.e., this space during which the Jesus miracle stories originate? Why were they NOT ready to believe such tales, and yet all of a sudden were ready to believe it in this one case only and no other case, in the 1st century AD? Why this one case which stands out against this pattern of NOT BELIEVING during this time?


They were not remarkable tales at all.

But such tales were NONEXISTENT after 100 BC. If one case only stands out in contrast to this, of miracle claims appearing and being published in written accounts, and there is no other case of such a thing, then how is that not "remarkable"?


Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough . . .

No, not "throughout the classical age," but only during this age up to about 100 BC and then resuming after 100 AD, with a dead period in between. Not "throughout" the classical age.

. . . are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, 1945--entries 423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples.

But why did the healing claims stop happening during the 200-year empty space, or slowly die out going into this period?

The listing of authors shows the same pattern of the near-empty 200-year space. For those earlier quotes, noted above, many are inscriptions with apparently no author named. But there are a few, and then several more after 100 AD:


# of authors cited

before 100 BC: 3

1st century BC: 1

1st century AD: 2

after 100 AD: 12

Let's look at the 3 in-between authors which are on the borderline to the empty 200-year period. The pattern is still clear, that there are no serious miracle claims during this period.

1st century BC (just after 100) -- The Poplius Granius Rufus quotes are already noted above, showing the prescription remedies for coughing and for pain in his right shoulder -- the "plaster of barley-meal" and "a pine cone ground down with olive oil" and of course the "goat's fat" with "wax-pitch" and so on. So here are 2 examples into the 1st century BC, but these are much more in the category of medical prescriptions than miracle cures.

1st century AD -- At the other end of the empty space, near 100 AD, we have Statius and Rufus (a different Rufus than the above), perhaps in the 90s.

Statius was a poet of that period, and in the passage here he only relates the ancient legend of Asclepius making a voyage from Greece to Rome to cure Romans of a plague at around 290 BC. I.e., about the time when Romans adopted this Greek healing god.

But the poem (p. 255) mentions a "lad" being treated:

To none else was trusted the power to unman the lad, but the son of Phoebus [Asclepius] with quiet skill gently bids his body lose its sex, unmarred by any wound.

This seems to refer to the castration of a eunuch named Earinus, who served the emperor Domitian. If there's any "miracle" or healing here, it might be that the procedure done on this boy was done according to a method to minimize the pain, and so the poet Statius is crediting Asclepius with doing a castration that didn't hurt too much.

Again, such "miracles" indicate a medical school rather than a miracle cure cult. Castrations to produce eunuchs were practiced with some procedures to minimize the damage. And Asclepius was credited with anything that had a good outcome, including good castration outcomes, apparently.

So obviously, the "miracles" of Asclepius during this period don't amount to much, in the empty space 100 BC - 100 AD. The serious examples are outside this space, before 100 BC and after 100 AD.

In the other inscription from the 90s AD, Rufus, a physician, relates a "cure" from Asclepius (p. 239), but the patient had to choose the lesser of 2 evils: he could get rid of his epilepsy, but only by taking on a new Quartan Fever illness. If he would accept the latter in exchange for the epilepsy, then he would be cured of the epilepsy. He agreed to this, so Asclepius gave him the Quartan Fever in place of the epilepsy.

So that's the miracle cure in this case.

So the Asclepius cult was transitioning from a religion into a medical school, partly legitimate, moving away from miracle claims, offering some relief from afflictions in some cases, or some standard medical remedies with partial effectiveness, but also negative side effects.

So, maybe a less painful castration, trading epilepsy in return for a Quartan Fever, and some pain relief by grinding pine cones and consuming boiled goat's fat with pine-resin and boiled barley meal etc. etc. -- These are the miracles of Asclepius during the 200-year gap. Otherwise it's clear that Asclepius was not doing his miracles during this period, i.e., not throughout the classical age, but only up to the 2nd century BC, at which point he took a long vacation, and then returned, after there were rumors of Jesus in Galilee healing lepers and the blind and raising the dead, at which point Asclepius was revived and put his priests back to work at the temples.

So the 200-year empty space contains no serious examples of miracle healing claims. Except for the above 3 dubious examples, all the authors named are either before 100 BC or after 100 AD. This pattern of the empty 200-year space is very obvious here, despite these 3 authors at the two ends of the 200-year empty space. So there is virtually no Asclepius miracle cult during this period -- no serious miracle claims coming from this cult.

There's a simple explanation for this empty period: The normal life of this cult was its very slow evolution over many centuries, and it was dying a natural death from 300-200-100 BC, along with several other ancient miracle cure legends, of which the Asclepius cult was the most widespread. All of them were dying, slowly disappearing during the period after 200 BC and into the 1st century AD. But then there was a sudden revival of the cult at around 100 AD, which was not normal and is difficult to explain, unless something irregular happened.

This coincides with a clear pattern of miracle stories appearing in the literature, from the very earliest writings, with a general decline beginning around 600 BC onward, dying out almost totally up to about 100 AD, but then suddenly starting up again and increasing into the Middle Ages.

The miracle stories which fit neatly into this pattern are easily explained, as to how they occur even though they are fictional. But any which do NOT fit the pattern are more difficult to explain as being fictional, and the possibility that they are fact increases. Or, since many of the stories are a mixture of fact and fiction, the element of fact becomes more probable as the stories are more inconsistent with the general pattern of such stories appearing in the literature, whereas the element of fiction becomes more probable as the stories fit in more with the standard pattern.

I.e., the recognized pattern of miracle claims appearing in the literature can clarify why the miracle stories were written and believed by readers, when the stories conform to the pattern. But where any of them appear contrary to the general pattern of such stories appearing in the literature, then it's more difficult to explain how the (fiction) stories came to be written and believed, and so their appearance in the writings becomes more easily explained by the possibility that the alleged events really did happen, and so the accounts of them become more credible as factual reports of what happened (even if there's still a fictional element).

The following shows approximately the pattern of the appearance of miracle stories in the literature, from the earlier to the later periods:
__________

Earliest known times
Many miracle stories in most cultures

600 BC

Approximate turning point where miracle claims begin to decrease in frequency.

500 BC

The frequency of such stories is slowly decreasing.
The stories are preserved by cults but are decreasing in importance.

400 BC

Slow decline in the stories. Skepticism toward claims of recent miracles.
Adherence to ancient traditions is the norm.

300 BC

Increasing decline in the stories and cults believing them.

200 - 100 BC

Major decline and disappearance of miracle claims.
Increasing skepticism of such claims.

100 BC - 100 (90) AD

BLANK! No new miracle stories anywhere (except the Gospel accounts).
Almost total rejection of charlatans, pretenders, messiah-types.

100 - 200 AD

Sudden outburst of new miracle stories in all the literature.
New charlatans start appearing.

200 AD - into the Middle Ages

Continuing increase in miracle claims, becoming more common than ever.
Increasingly more miracle-workers on a grand scale.

__________

The Asclepius miracle stories fit neatly into this pattern, except that the cult eventually dies and is replaced by Christian miracle claims which satisfy the demand.

So, whatever caused miracle claims to be more popular in 600-400 BC also inspired those of the Asclepius cult, and the disillusionment with such stories occurred in common between the Asclepius stories and the other pagan stories, all decreasing in popularity from 300-200-100 BC.

But by contrast, the Jesus miracle stories totally disrupt this pattern, appearing suddenly in the mid-first century AD, when no other miracle stories had been appearing for more than 100 years. So there was no miracle tradition leading up to the Jesus miracle claims appearing without warning some time from 30 AD and later, in contrast to the Asclepius cult arising as part of a tradition of miracle beliefs still going strong in 600-400 BC when the Asclepius cult appears along with the testimonials at the temples, and then slowly dying with the others, virtually disappearing until they are artificially given a boost after 90 AD and are revived to continue another 200-300 years.


No, miracle claims were NOT widespread or popular among the general population.

belief in the ancient gods/heroes -- YES
belief in the latest charlatan-messiah -- NO
belief in instant miracle-workers popping up -- NO
belief in any miracle-worker resembling Jesus in the Gospels -- NO

People believed in the ancient legends, but not in any new or sudden charlatans, all of whom were rejected and ridiculed. But priests doing healing rituals in the name of Asclepius or other ancient healing god were respected and not ridiculed as the instant miracle-workers were, and the writers often did not use the "qualifiers" when describing their miracle healing events.

But something happened in the 1st century AD to interrupt the pattern of the disappearing miracle cults. Because at about 100 AD we see a new explosion of miracle stories, and a revival of the ancient cults, producing a new period of miracle beliefs, going toward the Middle Ages into a new period where miracle stories became far more popular than in pagan Greece and Rome, or in the Jewish scriptures.

Our original question was: Why did the writers (historians and others) so often employ the "qualifiers" which express their skepticism about the claims, but also in a few cases did believe the claims and expressed no skepticism?

The pattern they followed was to give credibility to the ancient miracle gods/heroes, but not recent charlatans. And it's easy to explain how Asclepius and ancient gods were revived in response to a stimulus, which must have happened in the 1st century. It wasn't a new charlatan who caused this stimulus, as all the charlatans were recognized for what they were and were scoffed at by both the educated and uneducated.


Why are there no "qualifiers" in the Gospel accounts of the Jesus miracle acts?

best explanation: The events really did happen.

So the meaning of the "qualifiers" in the writings is that they show legitimate doubt by the writers, who disbelieved such stories without good evidence. But in the case of the Gospels there are no qualifiers in reporting the miracle acts of Jesus, so those writers must have had good evidence for believing the claims. There's no other explanation why these were believed and yet no other such claims were believed by any writers, even though many of them were ready to believe such claims if there was evidence.

They did believe in the established ancient miracle traditions dating from centuries earlier (or seemed to believe them) and they accepted some recent reports based on the ancient traditions, or on rituals done in the temples where the ancient traditions were practiced, honoring the ancient deities which the current priests invoked by name, thus gaining credibility for their claim to perform miracle cures.

This explains why many of the Asclepius miracle claims were believed even by people near the time of the reported events. I.e., 4th century inscriptions describing miracle healings reported at the Epidaurus temple, built earlier in the 4th century.


Asclepius cult priests and worshipers = Today's Christian evangelists and their followers

Every culture has its ancient religious tradition of praying for miracles.

Just as today, or any time in history, there are worshipers who pray and claim to have been healed by their ancient healing god -- if it's a popular ancient god being invoked, then the claims are far more likely to be accepted, including by historians and other educated writers. Like Josephus believing the exorcist cast out a demon which knocked over a container of water, which he attributes to the tradition of Solomon who prescribed the expulsion ritual. Or like Suetonius and Tacitus believing in the miracle healing by Vespasian, which was attributed to the ancient god Serapis.

When the writers believe the claim, or at least respect the ancient god which is invoked by name, they present the story as true, without "qualifiers," and refrain from ridicule or skepticism about the claim.

But there's no explanation why the Gospel writers believed claims of the Jesus miracles, unless it's simply that there was abundant evidence for these claims, as being of real events which did happen, in contrast to all the other claims about "messiahs" or god-men or prophets etc. having miracle powers.
 
We don't need a 1st-century statue of Jesus to know that he existed and performed the miracle acts.

Most of the statues (Caesar) are not contemporary to his time.

Evidence please.

I think I was technically right, on the above point, but this was not an important detail to get bogged down on. Maybe there are some statues of Caesar which were contemporary, and also of some other historical figures. And what does "contemporary to his time" mean? What about 20 or 30 years later.

But for the vast majority of ancient historical figures we know existed there are no statues or other images. So the absence of them for a particular person says nothing about whether he existed or what he did or did not do.

Here's one site which seems to say there are no contemporary statues of Caesar:

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/marble-bust-julius-caesar-oldest-known
Luc Long, the archaeologist leading the excavation, said the bust was probably thrown into the river after the assassination because “it would have not been good at the time to be considered a follower of his.”

"In Rome you don't find any statues of Caesar dating from the time he lived, they were all posthumous," Long added.

Even if he's wrong and there are contemporary statues, it's not based on these that we know of the historical figures. It's mainly from the writings, and these are usually 50 or 100 years later than the actual events. The cases where the writings are contemporary, or only 10 or 20 years later, are a small minority of our historical information.

Another important point, about statues or portraits, images, is that these may have been common for Greek and Roman historical figures, but they were not for Jews in Palestine/Galilee/Judea, of which there are no contemporary statues from the 1st century. Not for famous Jews like Hillel or Shamai or Josephus or Herod Antipas or John the Baptist, etc. Also not for Philo the Alexandrian or for the governor Pontius Pilate. These and other important historical figures existed, and we know facts about them, but no physical representations of them exist from the time.

So, with such an absence of physical images of anyone of the eastern Mediterranean world in the 1st century, how can you suggest that there ought to exist a statue of Jesus as evidence for his existence in order for us to believe anything about him reported in the writings?

He and other historical figures did exist and are part of our known historical record, which tells us facts about them, regardless that there are no images of them from the time. All the pictures or images we have are just imaginative creations of the artists.

josephusbust.jpg

There's a famous statue of Josephus, but almost everyone says it's fake. The real origin of it is difficult to figure out. Here is a message board page https://forum.christogenea.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8794 which pokes fun at this statue used often in presentations of Josephus. That it's used so much, and yet has no verification, tells us how rare legitimate statues are and so the publishers resort to fakes which become accepted out of desperation for a physical representation of an historical figure for whom there is no legitimate image from his time.

In the original post there were some points much more important than whether there were "contemporary" statues:

Aren't you arguing that multiple independent accounts in effect confirm the events in the gospels?

They add more credibility, yes. 5 sources for the resurrection goes far beyond what is necessary. For normal events even one only source is sufficient to make the reported event probable, if there's no other source contradicting it.

That the miracles/events described in the gospels happened as described because there are multiple independent accounts?

Yes, the extra sources = extra evidence that they happened. It's still only probable, not certain.

How many times must I repeat it? -- Virtually NONE of our historical facts for ancient history comes from eyewitness accounts. The gospel accounts have more corroboration from separate sources than most of our standard history. But virtually no history of that time is known to us from eyewitness accounts. I.e., none of our sources are eyewitness accounts.

Thucydides was a participant in the Peloponnesian War. Xenophon, etc, wrote about their experiences and the people and events, things that were happening around them, errors included.

Of course you can name these rare exceptions to the rule. But 99% of our ancient history comes from sources who were not eye-witnesses and who didn't even know directly the persons they wrote about. Much of it is from 100 years later than the events reported. Yet it's still reliable evidence which we rely on for our knowledge of the events, and frequently we have ONE SOURCE ONLY for the events, not 4 or 5.

(Presumably the accounts we have trace back to original eyewitnesses, but we have NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS today. No more for Tacitus or Plutarch or Herodotus etc. than for the gospel accounts. No eyewitness account of Caesar's assassination or virtually any other event.)

So all you have is hearsay . . .

Virtually all our standard history is based on hearsay, for the ancient period.

. . . unlike the existence of Caesar . . .

You're selecting perhaps the most famous and powerful figure in Roman history, so you're not choosing a typical example. For the vast majority of the historical figures we know of, the evidence is less than for Jesus. For a few major figures the evidence is greater than for Jesus, but not most of the historical figures we take for granted, often from ONE SOURCE ONLY.

. . . which actually has multiple independent sources confirming his existence, statues, inscriptions, Julius Caesar's name and/or image appeared on coinage from 49 BC until his death, . . .

Most of the statues are not contemporary to his time.

And most of our information on him is from 100+ years after his time.

We know of many people who existed at the time other than Julius Caesar, and for 99% of them we have less evidence than we have for Jesus. If your argument is that Julius Caesar and 2 or 3 other characters are the only ones who existed, and all the others are fictional characters invented by the writers, then you have an interesting point. And an enormous job rewriting all our history books.

. . . a coin commemorating the murder of Julius Caesar, and so on, . . .

What does "and so on" refer to? There's virtually no other example of such evidence, based on something contemporary to the event. There's no evidence like this for 99.9% of the events we know happened from the historical record.

If you're saying no events happened unless there's a coin depicting them, then you have a point: You're throwing out virtually all our known history, because there are no contemporary coins depicting the events, except this and perhaps 2 or 3 other major events. Don't you understand that there were also a few less-famous events going on?

So to eliminate the Jesus miracles from the historical record, you are also eliminating every event from the historical record which is not depicted in contemporary coins, meaning you are rewriting history to eliminate virtually all of it from having happened, because virtually none of it is depicted on contemporary coins.

. . . done by people living in the time responding to actual personages and events, not hearsay.

So you're eliminating 99.9% of our ancient historical record, because virtually all of it is hearsay only, in our sources, and is not depicted on coins or attested to by people living at the time of the reported events.

There is no comparison to be made. This has been pointed out numerous time, yet here I am having to point it out again.

Yes you continue to eliminate 99% of the historical record in order to preach your dogma that there's no evidence for the Jesus miracle acts. You continue to have no way to eliminate this legitimate evidence from the ancient record without also eliminating virtually ALL our evidence for the mainline historical events.

You are proving the point that we do have evidence for the Jesus miracle events, because you're so desperate to debunk that evidence and yet all you can come up with is something requiring us to throw out ALL our evidence for the ancient historical events.

If you had a real case, you would have presented it by now. Instead of continuing to only trash ALL our known history.

There's nothing wrong with believing based on the limited evidence. In a few cases there is much more than limited evidence. But when we have only limited evidence -- which is perhaps most of the time -- it's reasonable to believe the reported events happened.

Of course there are some major events for which there is greater evidence than we have for the miracles of Jesus. But also many important events (and zillions of minor events) we believe based on very limited evidence, including less than what we have for the miracles of Jesus.

Merely pointing out a few major events for which there is greater evidence does not diminish the significance of our knowledge of the many other events for which the evidence is less.
 
Last edited:
For those who want to read long articles which refute Lump's walls, try the badnewsaboutchristianity.com site; the articles on Miracles as evidence of the truth of Christianity and Christian deceptions 3: Fabricating records are good places to start. You can find excellent refutations of every single one of Lump's points on that site, I think.

From 'Fabricating records'-
Trial records disappear. Original accounts of visions disappear. Books disappear. Paintings disappear. Records of clerical crimes disappear. Photographs disappear or are re-touched. Churches have become so accustomed to manipulating records that they sometimes forget that in the age of the internet it is not as easy as it once was. A photograph of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Kirill I posted on his website in April 2012 showed him wearing a watch worth at least $30,000. He had previously denied owning such a watch, and the photograph (below left) was quickly replaced by an edited version with the watch covered up (below right). Patriarch Kirill then insisted in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn such a watch, and that any photographs showing him wearing it must have been doctored to add the watch (anticipating the danger of of anyone having copied the incriminating photograph before it was doctored). But His Holiness had not realised that his photo-editor had failed to remove the reflection of the Patriarch's watch on the shiny table. When this was pointed out, a Church spokesman admitted that the photograph had been doctored through a "technical mistake" - declining to comment on the fact that His Holiness, champion of public morality, had been caught out in the most blatant deception.

A Breguet watch on the left wrist of Patriarch Kirill I, left, vanished in a doctored photo (right)
but its reflection on the table remained.
kirill.jpg

I just finished reading What did Jesus believe himself to be?; told from a historicist position, but with a respectful nod towards mythicism. Also quite good.
 
I think I was technically right, on the above point, but this was not an important detail to get bogged down on. Maybe there are some statues of Caesar which were contemporary, and also of some other historical figures. And what does "contemporary to his time" mean? What about 20 or 30 years later.
.

Not so;


Caesar: Images from his own lifetime

An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.

caesar-real.gif

Julius Caesar on denarius from February/March, 44 BC.

caesar-coin3.gif

Caesar is proclaimed 'perpetual dictator' at the age of 55.

On the reverse of the coin the symbols represent various aspects of Caesar's power and political program.



Contemporary images of Jesus? Nothing!

Not only was no "from life" image ever made of Jesus, there is not even one word describing the godman in the entire New Testament.

The earliest Christian iconography was simply cribbed from traditional representations of the god Apollo. Over the centuries, the image of Jesus has been adapted and modified to reflect the tastes (and often the appearance) of earthly powers.


Fantasy Meets Reality

"... more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for anyone else ..."

Let's remind ourselves: Jesus Christ The Legend did some pretty remarkable things. His 'ministry' was a pretty public affair. Many of his tricks were of no particular value (cursing a fig tree?); some would have had disastrous consequences for innocent third parties (remember that herd of 2000 suicidal pigs into which he cast demons? Surely that ruined somebody else's living?).

But certainly, by such 'miracles' he convinced his disciples and the multitude that he was the Messiah, right? Turning a jug of water into wine may have been trivial but resurrecting oneself from death was no mean trick.

But if we are to 'believe' that these stories relate real events what is to be our criteria for acceptance? On what basis should we accept any of this as 'fact' rather than fancy?''
 
The blasting of the fig tree miracle of the gospels has always made me laugh. So Jesus has magic powers but a bad temper. I'd have been more impressed if by a miracle he made the fig tree produce figs over night. After all, for trinitarians, Jesus IS God. He could do that.

Better yet, "Munch. Munch. Munch. Do any of you guys want some fig newtons?" The whole tall tale reeks of bad tall tale invention that views Jesus and God as idiots.
 
I think I was technically right, on the above point, but this was not an important detail to get bogged down on. Maybe there are some statues of Caesar which were contemporary, and also of some other historical figures. And what does "contemporary to his time" mean? What about 20 or 30 years later.
.

Not so;


Caesar: Images from his own lifetime

An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.

View attachment 17437

Julius Caesar on denarius from February/March, 44 BC.

View attachment 17436

Caesar is proclaimed 'perpetual dictator' at the age of 55.

On the reverse of the coin the symbols represent various aspects of Caesar's power and political program.



Contemporary images of Jesus? Nothing!

Not only was no "from life" image ever made of Jesus, there is not even one word describing the godman in the entire New Testament.

The earliest Christian iconography was simply cribbed from traditional representations of the god Apollo. Over the centuries, the image of Jesus has been adapted and modified to reflect the tastes (and often the appearance) of earthly powers.


Fantasy Meets Reality

"... more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for anyone else ..."

Let's remind ourselves: Jesus Christ The Legend did some pretty remarkable things. His 'ministry' was a pretty public affair. Many of his tricks were of no particular value (cursing a fig tree?); some would have had disastrous consequences for innocent third parties (remember that herd of 2000 suicidal pigs into which he cast demons? Surely that ruined somebody else's living?).

But certainly, by such 'miracles' he convinced his disciples and the multitude that he was the Messiah, right? Turning a jug of water into wine may have been trivial but resurrecting oneself from death was no mean trick.

But if we are to 'believe' that these stories relate real events what is to be our criteria for acceptance? On what basis should we accept any of this as 'fact' rather than fancy?''
Ah, Lumpy is trying to misrepresent history surrounding Caesar again...so not surprising.

A snippet from Lumpy's last summers attempt at shoveling buffalo chips..
Actually, I think you have inverted what is subject and what has clear objective meaning, but since you fail to grasp the meaning of “clear”, it is not surprising.

Some Julius Caesar independent and contemporary sources (none are anonymous either; nor are we trying to build a god upon a pedestal):
Several of his own writings including: The Gallic Wars, The Civil War
Cicero’s letters
Sallust’s account of Catiline’s War
Augustus, Caesar’s adopted son and successor, who commissioned many inscriptions and coins
Livy covers Caesar in his histories
Virgil, Ovid, and Catullus reference Julius in their poetry
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
Jobar, methodological skeptics - empiricists - respond to modern miracles the same way as they do to ancient miracles.
Yes; using their reason, not their fears.


They want repeatability on demand.
That's how we test the world. It is a method that works beautifully to weed out bogus claims in medicine, fragrance, bridge construction, airplane design and food safety.

I expect you feel exactly the same about testing everything other than your god.


They claim people are lying. They claim people are deluded. They say the miracle isn't 'miraculous' enough. (Chop your leg off and make it regrow by praying while standing on your head juggling chainsaws)
You're saying your god couldn't make that happen? After parting the red sea? After creating DNA? He couldn't do a simple juggling act with appendage growth? There's an 11 year old kid who can solve three Rubic's cubes while juggling them in less than 5 minutes.


They want a God who can be put to the test. Show me God in a microscope/telescope.
The real puzzler here is why god's not volunteering, if that's what it takes to save souls...


...I'll obey God but first I want God to obey me
Funny how you jump from "believe" to "obey." Very Catholic of you.
But - and be honest here - do Christians reliably obey the god? Hmmm? "Every one of you falls short."
 
The simplistic outburst, "Aww damn it, people make up shit!" explains nothing. Why did ONLY THE CHRIST-BELIEVER writers make up such shit? in 4 (5) sources, about a recent miracle-worker claim? Why is there ONLY ONE case of this rather than several cases, if it's true that people "make up shit" all the time? If people were doing this constantly, and seriously enough to record it in writing, why is there ONLY ONE case of it that you can name?

? There are lots of written religions.
Oh, oh, oh... you're saying _simultaneous_ and you deftly say, "anything made up and recorded outside of this 100 year window doesn't count."

LOLz.

Says the religion famous for burning books.
 
The simplistic outburst, "Aww damn it, people make up shit!" explains nothing. Why did ONLY THE CHRIST-BELIEVER writers make up such shit? in 4 (5) sources, about a recent miracle-worker claim? Why is there ONLY ONE case of this rather than several cases, if it's true that people "make up shit" all the time? If people were doing this constantly, and seriously enough to record it in writing, why is there ONLY ONE case of it that you can name?

? There are lots of written religions.
Oh, oh, oh... you're saying _simultaneous_ and you deftly say, "anything made up and recorded outside of this 100 year window doesn't count."

LOLz.

Says the religion famous for burning books.

Doesn't Lumpy also reject miracle stories that spread too soon after the supposed event?
 
Yes; using their reason, not their fears.



That's how we test the world. It is a method that works beautifully to weed out bogus claims in medicine, fragrance, bridge construction, airplane design and food safety.

I expect you feel exactly the same about testing everything other than your god.


They claim people are lying. They claim people are deluded. They say the miracle isn't 'miraculous' enough. (Chop your leg off and make it regrow by praying while standing on your head juggling chainsaws)
You're saying your god couldn't make that happen? After parting the red sea? After creating DNA? He couldn't do a simple juggling act with appendage growth? There's an 11 year old kid who can solve three Rubic's cubes while juggling them in less than 5 minutes.


They want a God who can be put to the test. Show me God in a microscope/telescope.
The real puzzler here is why god's not volunteering, if that's what it takes to save souls...


...I'll obey God but first I want God to obey me
Funny how you jump from "believe" to "obey." Very Catholic of you.
But - and be honest here - do Christians reliably obey the god? Hmmm? "Every one of you falls short."

Awww, the guy who thinks the evidence for evolution is insufficient is whining because people want repeatable observations for his skybuddy's power to fuck with reality.

I think that empiricists do NOT say 'you are lying,' so much as they point out, 'you could be lying, or mistaken, or just really gullible.' And after that, they ask, 'Why should we believe you?'

Then the claimant seems to tend towards blaming the skeptic for being a skeptic. But really, what else is supposed to happen?

Seriously? How else is this supposed to go down?

Someone says that disease is caused by tiny life forms, a zillion medical profesionals ask, why should we believe you? And they came up with evidence.

Someone says the continents move, we ask, why should we believe you? And they came up with evidence.

Someone says they came up with cold fusion, the world turned to ask, why should we believe you? And they came up ....with bupkes.

Someone says there was an event that can only be explained by the hand of the boodthirsty fuck in the Books, should we say, this might not be true, but for some reason we will pretend the story is more compelling than the last one you told us, for a while, anyway, because... um? Reasons?
 
Cessation. The theist theory that the miracle working abilities promised in the Gospels etc were only effective for a short period of time some 2000 years ago. And for a short period of time during the days of Moses and Joshua. These theists don't really have a good reason for that to be so. We don't move mountains by faith, or work bigger miracles than Jesus as promised by Jesus. We do not see God appearing as a pillar of smoke or flame, or appearing to the 72 elders of Israel standing on a pavement of sapphire.

Of course the answer is simple. There were no miracles like this, just tall tales, so of course we do not see such tall tale type miracles like these now a days.

Big, grand, unmistakable miracles as per the Bible were tall tales told by lying priests, not any different than the lying tall tales of the miracles worked by the Greek Gods.
 
The simplistic outburst, "Aww damn it, people make up shit!" explains nothing. Why did ONLY THE CHRIST-BELIEVER writers make up such shit? in 4 (5) sources, about a recent miracle-worker claim? Why is there ONLY ONE case of this rather than several cases, if it's true that people "make up shit" all the time? If people were doing this constantly, and seriously enough to record it in writing, why is there ONLY ONE case of it that you can name?

? There are lots of written religions.
Oh, oh, oh... you're saying _simultaneous_ and you deftly say, "anything made up and recorded outside of this 100 year window doesn't count."

LOLz.
Yeah, Lumpy also requires his idea of a viable god to be some sort of miracle max healer. And it has to be possible that the people being healed and the witnesses were not followers of said cult at the time, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith still fits this narrative no matter how much Lumpy disassembled. Of course, from the NT no one can really know about the people who purportedly witnessed these events as any outside details are lost in the dust bin of time; but Lumpy insists it is so. But Lumpy never explained why a god needs to be a miracle max. It's all in his Mythical Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC)...


Other opinions on sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

Says the religion famous for burning books.
Though Lumpy really isn't so much a Christian, as he is sort of a deist who is enthralled by Jesus as the mono miracle max god. Lumpy even said that he could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl...
 
Back
Top Bottom