120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

So every time a member of one sect or religion has told me that all other religions are going to Hell, they were sarcastic?
Somehow, i doubt that.

I doubt any such person ever said that to you.

As we've seen, you believe and doubt things based on zero evidence and a lot of your emotional attachment to the world as you wish it were.
The fact that you doubt this pretty much works as validating my case.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Until a good explanation is given for this, you cannot dismiss out-of-hand the simple explanation that he must have actually performed those miracle acts, on a grand scale that would attract wide interest, from so many different conflicting camps.

Yes, we can dismiss it out of hand.
Because you've offered no evidence FOR it.
You just pretend that it's the only possible explanation, and if no one can disprove it, that's the same as positive proof for it.

'Evidence' doesn't work that way, Lumpy.

Show your evidence, don't ask others to do your homework and declare a victory.

 

[Atheos]

Besides, good explanations have been given. Just because Lumpenproletariat doesn't like the explanations doesn't mean they're not good ones. They're certainly much better explanations than believing all those miracles happened.

Lumpenproletariat is really having to contort hard to excise his fairy tale from the clutches of Joseph Smith.

Some have suggested Joseph Smith as a case. The evidence there is not as good, because of so few sources, and also he had a period of 15 years or so to establish his reputation and public image as a prophet, which made it easier for normal mythologizing to take place.

But even so, maybe he did a small number of healings -- I don't rule it out. This is not comparable to the power Jesus demonstrated. And also, Smith based his religion on Christian tradition, adding his new interpretation of the Christ belief, so he is not an alternative religion to Christianity, but is one division of it.

If some other religions have equally persuasive evidence to offer, give an example for us to consider and compare. I've already given reasons why Buddha and Zoroaster and the gods Zeus and Apollo and Perseus etc. are not comparable. As to Mohammed, he's not reputed to have done any miracles, so we have no evidence of his power.

You are the one who has to provide the examples for us to consider, since you say these "other religions" exist which have evidence.

I just can help but laugh. Let's compare what you are asserting with reality:

• The evidence there is not as good - The evidence in the case of Joseph Smith is the testimony of signed and named witnesses who are not themselves a part of the narrative and whose testimony appeared in written form within weeks (sometimes days) of the events in question. The evidence in the case of Jesus is anonymous narratives written by people who never claim to have seen anything they wrote about, nor do they claim to have talked to any actual witnesses.
• Evidence for Joseph Smith is so few sources - You are asserting that the four gospels are four independent sources (which is debatable). There are 8 signed witnesses alone to the translation of the golden plates. There are no less than 7 named witnesses who will testify that Smith performed exorcisms and an indeterminate number of healings, including remote control healings where he didn't have to actually go visit the sick person himself.
• Smith had a period of 15 years or so to establish his reputation - By contrast we have no idea how long the "Jesus" dude had to establish his. If he was entirely fictional (which is a very good possibility) then he never established a reputation. His reputation is part of the story line. If he did exist the stories place him in a temple confounding rulers at age 12, claiming "I must be about my father's business." Just because his activities during the next 18 years of his life aren't included in the story line doesn't mean he couldn't have been investing a lot of time in establishing himself as a prophet and gaining a reputation. That gives him a full 21 years of potential reputation building, 30% more than you've given Joseph Smith. Add to this the fact that the first stories (GMark) appear 3 decades after the alleged incidents and GMark was likely written in Rome. There would have been nobody around to gainsay this story. As far as the readers were concerned it happened "a long time ago in a small town far, far away." You demonstrate a profound inability to consider how dismal these arguments are.
• Maybe Smith did a small number of healings - The number of healings Smith performed was "Large" according to signed witnesses William Woodruff, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. An actual date of July 22, 1839 is given in which a huge number of people were healed in a single night by Smith, including the remote-control healing of a ferryman's children at their home.
• Smith's miracles are not comparable to the power Jesus demonstrated - So "truth" is established by a comparative analysis of what kind of superpowers the protagonist has. Since Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound, is faster than a speeding bullet and is more powerful than a locomotive he must be real, whereas Flash, who is only faster than a speeding bullet is probably fake. Got it.
• Smith's miracles are based on christianity, so not something new - And the "Jesus" religion was based on Judaeism, so it wasn't anything new at the time either. What's the point? Mohammad claims that Jesus was just another prophet in a long line of prophets. How do you know Mohammad isn't correct?

Here's the problem: You continue to ignore that you haven't established the existence of your "Jesus" figure in history. Anonymous tales about a magic superhero that existed decades ago in a far away place is not evidence that the individual in question existed. Had Jesus been the extraordinary person presented in the gospel narratives there is little doubt that archaeology and forensic history would have uncovered evidence of his place in the historical record. We have ample evidence of many much more mundane people from that period and absolutely none about this rather extraordinary figure.

That means that everything written about him is suspect. You don't get to take the storyline and use it to prove the storyline. We don't know that he was around for 3 years and we don't know that he wasn't actively practicing his craft for 30. We don't know anything about him other than that he is a character in some books that reflect ancient stories told around campfires about Jesus the Magic Jew, stories like those of Paul Bunyan that grew more fantastic as they were retold and eventually found themselves written down. That is what appears to have happened.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Believing the truth is good, even if you don't know about alternative beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know, but what if it's true?"

Well, by 'it' do you mean all religion in general? Because then we have to determine

what if Satanism is true? and,
what if Shintoism is true? and,
what if Shatnerism is true? and,
666 Watch
Adidam The Way Of The Heart
[etc.]

The above listed beliefs and the millions more which could be added, are not mutually exclusive and might be considered as possibly true. Perhaps several on this list are true, or mostly true. There are degrees of truth here, where you have a complex belief system.

Is "Marxism" true? There are parts of Marxism that are true. It would be incorrect to brand it or almost any ideology as 100% false. And this being the case, all the "isms" on this list (except any prank names slipped in) should be considered to determine how much truth there may be to them.

African Methodist Episcopalian Church
AME Church
Amish
Anglican
Anthroposophy
Apollinarian
Apostolics
Aquarian Concepts
Aradianic Faerie Witches . . . . . . .

. . . . .Yoga Research Society
Zen Atheism
Zen Buddhism
Zodian New Age
Zones of Apollyon Sell your soul here.
Zukav New Age
Zendik Farm
Zentech
Zerubbabel
Zoroastrianism
Tenets of the Zoroastrians
Zygon International

How do you go about considering what if it (all of the above) is true?

What's the point? Most are at least partly true. You're saying no one can consider any belief at all unless one considers EVERY belief that ever existed? Can't read Plato unless you also read Plotinus and Spinoza and Squarcialuppi and every crackpot who ever self-published his theory of the universe?

Or, how do you go about trimming off some of the possibles?

You start by choosing the one on the list which you think is the most believable, and you consider it, having a proponent of it present their pitch to you.

You aren't making any case for anything on this list. What kind of claim do they make? Do they claim to have disproved that Christ ever had any power? What do they claim that addresses my point, or the point Pascal makes in his "wager"?

Just printing a long list of names, perhaps just random names from the phone book, doesn't prove anything. What claim are you making about anything on this list? It's not up to Pascal to examine every possible list of random names and disprove everything on the list.

If you think something on this list has something to say about our topic, tell us what it is. Just running out a long list of loose names doesn't disprove anything about Christ.

Choose one name off this list and tell us what that "ism" teaches that contradicts Christ or Pascal or the church or the Bible or whatever you claim it contradicts.

You start by choosing the one on the list which you think is the most believable, and you consider it, having a proponent of it present their pitch to you.

Imagine using this strategy on the question about the shape of the Earth. Someone says it's flat. Someone says that it's a globe. Someone says that it's an oblate spheroid.

You look around and decide that it's more believable that the Earth is flat. It looks flat. As far as you can travel in any direction, you never find yourself sliding down the side of the Earth or falling off the bottom. So you pick the Flat.

Then you ask for a proponent.

William Carpenter wrote a pamphlet, 100 proofs that the Earth is not a Globe.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/... Earth is not a Globe (William Carpenter).pdf

You let William provide his evidence. It seems sound, convincing, and you adopt that position.

Then you, Lumpy, seem to stop. You won't listen to anyone else describe their view of the world's shape until they can address the 100 points of Mr. Carpenter's argument.

You also seem to think that examining the arguments for the other shapes is unnecessary, because they're all at least partially true.

And all the people who are obsessed with saying the Flat Earth society is a bunch of goobers, they're just insecure about where they stand on the globe.

Probably afraid they're going to start rolling off at any time.

The above makes sense only if the original argument is simply: But what if it's true?

If the only argument is: "One should believe in Christ because -- What if it's true?" then it's a bad argument. Or it's not an argument at all. Rather, the argument is that there is evidence that Christ had power, and this kind of power indicates the possibility of eternal life. The question "What if it's true?" by itself is not the argument. This question, "What if it's true?" is important, but it does not address the question of how we know or why we should believe it or the likelihood that it's true.

So the Christ belief is based on the power he demonstrated, or the historical evidence, and not simply on the question, "but what if it's true?" The question "but what if it's true?" generally has to be understood as connected with evidence or reasons to show that it is true or likely to be true.

The existence of other belief systems does not invalidate the Christ belief. If they have evidence, they can present it, and they may also be true, or partly true, depending upon what they claim and what their logic is and what evidence there is. The existence of other beliefs per se does not contradict the basic Christ belief, even if some of those other beliefs are true.

The Christ believer is not obligated to analyze all the alternative belief systems and refute each one before claiming to have a reasonable belief, anymore than a round-earth believer is obligated to study all the alternative theories about the shape of the earth and refute each of them before adopting the round-earth belief, or continuing to believe it.

So merely pointing out the existence of other beliefs does not refute the Christ belief. To do this you must do more than just present a laundry list of alternative beliefs. You must identify what they claim that contradicts the Christ belief and show how their contrary belief is more reasonable.

A "reason to reject Christianity" might be based on flaws in the Christian beliefs or theology or historical evidence, but not on the mere fact that there are many other beliefs floating around.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Curious, Lumpen, have you never talked to a Christian who is convinced that their theology claims some other "so called" christian is actually going to hell?

Ever?

Are you aware that they exist - in droves? Legions? Each saying the other does not "actually" have salvation?

There really isn't much of this. (Though I'm not sure how important this is.)

Give us a Christian website which says other Christian believers are actually going to Hell. You'll have difficulty finding them.

OK, I can think of 2 possible types you might mean:

1) Some traditionalists who condemn the "modernist" types as not true believers, and

2) Some who want to impose guilt feelings onto others they think are misbehaving.

These examples are a bit petty. Not to be taken too seriously.

 

[NobleSavage]

I noticed you are up to 237 reasons. If anything, you've got a lot of energy Lumpenproletaria.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So the Christ belief is based on the power he demonstrated,

Of course, by your own testimony, you assumed it was true before evaluating the tale to see it if was historical.

or the historical evidence,

Which you don't have.

and not simply on the question, "but what if it's true?" The question "but what if it's true?" generally has to be understood as connected with evidence or reasons to show that it is true or likely to be true.

And again, you don't have evidence. You're using material inside the story to judge if the story is true, which is circular logic, and a fallacy, rather than finding evidence to SUPPORT the story.

Massive fail, Lumpy.

The existence of other belief systems does not invalidate the Christ belief.

It does, if you're using Pascal's Wager to assess it. That applies even if you're using the structure of the Wager, but pretending that you're not formally using The Wager.

The Christ believer is not obligated to analyze all the alternative belief systems and refute each one before claiming to have a reasonable belief, anymore than a round-earth believer is obligated to study all the alternative theories about the shape of the earth and refute each of them before adopting the round-earth belief, or continuing to believe it.

He is so obligated if he's going to make statements like 'the Christain Belief is unique because...' or 'No other religion has...' Once you make THOSE statements, you're obligated to have a fucking clue about other religions.
You don't.
Thus your claims are rather hilariously wrong, your ignorance spectacularly visible, and your arrogance is highlighted.

So merely pointing out the existence of other beliefs does not refute the Christ belief.

Never meant it to.
That's why usually, pointing out other belief systems was either a response to your defense of Pascal's Wager, or a reply to a specific claim you made and were totally unable to substantiate.

To do this you must do more than just present a laundry list of alternative beliefs.

THAT was for your defense of the Wager, Lumpy.

A "reason to reject Christianity" might be based on flaws in the Christian beliefs or theology or historical evidence, but not on the mere fact that there are many other beliefs floating around.

And once more, your defense of Christain beliefs should probably stick to Christainity, not claimsbased on ignorance that pretend no other religion compares to the only one you know fuck-all about. When you make absolute statements and sweeping remarks that are just not true, then you look rather foolish.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I noticed you are up to 237 reasons. If anything, you've got a lot of energy Lumpenproletaria.

No, Kyroot is up to 237, most of them rather shallow and contradictory.
Lumpy planned at one time to refute about 30 of them, assuming that this would be enough to dismiss them all by association.
Of course, this in itself contradicts his approach to scripture, holding that finding any number of faults in the litany does not mean that the rest of it shouldn't be taken as useful and historically accurate. His bias is equal to kyroots, if in the opposite direction.

 

[Atheos]

You know, in the miniseries "Fargo" (Season 1) each episode opens up with the following statement:

This is a true story. The events depicted took place in Minnesota in 2006. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.

Only thing is, it's not a true story. It did not take place in Minnesota, it did not take place in 2006. Nothing in it actually happened. Yet the entire story is presented as something that happened in recent history.

We can determine that the things in the story didn't happen because we can check evidence about Bemidji Minnesota in 2006 and find nothing in the historical record telling of a man who enlisted the aid of a mafia killer who had befriended him in a hospital emergency room to kill a bully who had broken his nose. No record of this man brutally killing his wife and getting the hit man to help cover up the scene. There is no record of them killing a local sheriff who had happened upon the scene almost by accident, and no record of them pinning the whole thing on brother of the man in question, raising allegations that said brother was having an affair with the murdered wife. In spite of all that this story could have happened exactly as described and does not require one to believe in the impossible. Nobody in the story held conversations with demons currently in possession of a human being's body. Nobody healed blindness and paralysis. Nobody turned water into wine or raised dead people back to life. Nobody walked unassisted on storm tossed water or caused a fierce storm to stop simply by commanding it to. Nobody resurrected after being dead or floated off into the sky.

But we can still determine the "Fargo" story didn't happen simply by looking at the evidence and using just a modicum of common sense to realize that if it had happened there would be a tremendous amount of evidence in the form of newspaper articles, court records, personal communications about the events, etc. One would expect a flurry of information about the story to be around for a few months and up to a year or so after the story, and then for interest to fade and die down. That's how something that actually happened would have effected the historical record.

So at the risk of beating a dead horse, what we have with the Jesus myth looks much more like the Fargo Miniseries than actual history. There is nothing in the historical record about any of these fascinating events, and the few things we can verify (such as Herod's slaughter of the babies, Quirinius's bizarre musical chairs census or the 3 hour eclipse that supposedly happened when Jesus was crucified) are obviously untrue. There is no record of a "Jesus" character who attracted a following of thousands, no record of a great miracle worker who could heal blindness and paralysis, nothing. Dead silence. Then, years later, the story appears, full of all these fantastic claims.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But we can still determine the "Fargo" story didn't happen simply by looking at the evidence and using just a modicum of common sense .

And there's the crux.
Lumpy gets to offer 'this sounds reasonable to me' and call it evidence, while holding his critics to far firmer standards for their evidence.
And then claim that no one's offered countering or quibbling evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Later Christian believers chastising each other by putting words into the mouth of Jesus

Evidently Jesus doesn't agree with Lumpenproletariat either.

Matthew 7
:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Apparently even many of those who believe they are working for Jesus will get the shove. Musta been 3rd Baptists instead of 2nd Baptists. Buncha heretics.

Did the actual historical person Jesus speak these words? This text makes sense as a rebuke by some believers against others many decades later, no sooner than 50 AD, when there were many followers and believers who identified with Christ

These words, taken at face-value, simply condemn those who do good deeds or preach in the name of Jesus. So just believe, but don't proclaim Jesus or do anything in his name. It's OK to do things, but never in his name. Anything you do in his name is "iniquity," and only pure silent belief is what he wants. Did the disciples follow this injunction against ever invoking his name or doing anything in his name?

The same Sermon on the Mount text from which this comes also tells us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect, also not to do any work, not to sow or reap, but to rely only on our Heavenly Father to provide for us.

It's easy to pounce on words like these and condemn all Christians for violating them. Why don't you condemn all Christians as hypocrites for refusing to obey his injunction to stop doing any work and just wait for God to take care of them?

Most or even all the "Sermon on the Mount" sayings can be understood best as words put into the mouth of Jesus decades later. Much of them, like the ones quoted here, are easily recognizable as criticism of believers, or early Christians, who need to have Christ speaking to them directly, as though he were there and chastising them for their weaknesses. By this point there is a large number of such believers or followers, maybe into the thousands -- unlike in 29-30 AD -- and the early writings got circulated around and were used for sermons to preach at them. Like some Christ-bashers today want to preach at believers about their phoniness and self-righteousness.


Putting words into the mouth of Jesus

When asked to perform a miracle, Jesus is quoted saying, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet." etc. (Mt. 12:38)

This was referenced by someone earlier -- but I can't find the post -- saying it reflects an attitude much later by followers who could not perform miracles when doubters demanded this from them.

Which is a good explanation of this quote, i.e., not from Jesus, but put into his mouth. But when? In my response to that post I might have pushed the date of this quote back too far. Here it is in a reconstruction of the Q document, from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm :

Q 11:16, 29-30 The Sign of Jonah for This Generation

16 ·But‚ some .. were demanding from him a sign. 29 But .. ·he said‚ ..: This generation is an evil .. generation; it demands a sign, and a sign will not be given to it — except the sign of Jonah! 30 For as Jonah became to the Ninevites a sign, so ·also‚ will the son of humanity be to this generation.

It could be that the reference to the symbolic "3 days" was added later (as Jonah was in the belly of the "whale" for 3 days, so shall the Son of Man etc.) -- probably not in the Q document.

Since this "no sign shall be given" quote is in the Q document, and this is early, near to when Paul was writing, this fits well with the theory that after Jesus there was a demand for miracles that the disciples or earliest church community could not provide. And they put these words into his mouth, to rebuke those who were demanding a sign.

This shows that the disciples, even those who knew him directly, might put words into his mouth as needed, because they were saying he did miracles and yet could not produce any miracles themselves as they were being requested to do. This is strong evidence that the miracle stories are very early, not some later invention toward the end of the 1st century or into the 2nd century.

The Q document is generally regarded as early enough to have been produced by the actual disciples who saw Jesus directly, rather than later indirect witnesses. And the sayings of Jesus they recorded are closer to his real sayings but still subject to editing to fit the need of the new Christ community trying to expand and win converts.


How you can refute the above

Christ-bashers, here's a homework assignment for you (if you really want to make yourself useful): You can easily counter the above argument about the early origin of the miracle stories by showing that there was a strong appetite for these stories in the period before Christ. Starting from 100 BC up to about 30 or 40 AD can you find lots of interest in miracle stories? Were there many wonder-workers running around in Judea/Samaria/Galilee or the general region there, at about this period, prior to the Jesus miracle stories?

We see an explosion of them beginning with the Jesus miracles and then expanding further into the 2nd century and later. But what about earlier, leading up to 30 AD? Such an interest in this and a demand for miracles could explain how the Jesus miracles got started. Is there an indication of such an interest? i.e., a demand for them, to explain these Jesus miracles as the supply to meet that demand?

Even the Vespasian miracle stories and the goofy story in Josephus about an exorcist come a little too late. Can't you find me a miracle-worker or two in this earlier period? Why are they so scarce?

On YouTube Christ-basher Robert M. Price gives some Jesus "Parallels" showing other miracle-worker heroes etc., and one of them he said was an earlier hero, 1st or 2nd century BC, which made me wonder, shook my "faith" a little, but then I looked it up, and -- WOULDN'T Y'KNOW IT -- the writer of it was 2nd century AD. And it's the only source.

 

[Juma]

Did the actual historical person Jesus speak these words?

:-D

 

[NobleSavage]

I noticed you are up to 237 reasons. If anything, you've got a lot of energy Lumpenproletaria.

No, Kyroot is up to 237, most of them rather shallow and contradictory.
Lumpy planned at one time to refute about 30 of them, assuming that this would be enough to dismiss them all by association.
Of course, this in itself contradicts his approach to scripture, holding that finding any number of faults in the litany does not mean that the rest of it shouldn't be taken as useful and historically accurate. His bias is equal to kyroots, if in the opposite direction.

Thanks for the clarification. If I knew more about the Bible I might jump in.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Most or even all the "Sermon on the Mount" sayings can be understood best as words put into the mouth of Jesus decades later.

Then how can you trust ANYTHING written about Jesus, his miracles or his very existence?
More importantly, once you've admitted that you will declare problematical scripture as a falsehood, what stops the rest of us from declaring the whole things as falsehood?

The Q document is generally regarded as early enough to have been produced by the actual disciples who saw Jesus directly, rather than later indirect witnesses. And the sayings of Jesus they recorded are closer to his real sayings but still subject to editing to fit the need of the new Christ community trying to expand and win converts.

Early is crucial to your theme. YOu seem to insist on there being some limit to how much one generation can lie in one story. Some sort of governor about how many details can change in a given time.

YOu've yet to show this, though.

You HAVE shown that some myths had centuries of oral transmission before they were written down. You've implied that the amount of time is proportional to how much mythologizing was possible. But you haven't shown that. If there's no written record, you can't tell us exactly when certain mythical elements were added to the story. Or at the very least, there' s no fucking reason to believe you when you say it took centuries.
Fiction is easy to create. Look at how different Star Trek's Earth was from the one Gene Roddenberry saw around him. There was no need for centuries of episodes to slowly bring about the more fantastic elements such as FTL travel, planet-destroying weapons, alien civilizations....

How you can refute the above

Christ-bashers, here's a homework assignment for you (if you really want to make yourself useful): You can easily counter the above argument about the early origin of the miracle stories by showing that there was a strong appetite for these stories in the period before Christ.

Lumpy, you have it ALL wrong.
You don't get to shift the burden of proof to us, AND dictate what the countering evidence would have to be.

You have to provide the evidence to convince us. And mostly you just keep showing your ignorance and bias.











No evidence.












And sometimes your arrogance.

 

[Atheos]

Evidently Jesus doesn't agree with Lumpenproletariat either.


Apparently even many of those who believe they are working for Jesus will get the shove. Musta been 3rd Baptists instead of 2nd Baptists. Buncha heretics.

Did the actual historical person Jesus speak these words? This text makes sense as a rebuke by some believers against others many decades later, no sooner than 50 AD, when there were many followers and believers who identified with Christ

These words, taken at face-value, simply condemn those who do good deeds or preach in the name of Jesus. So just believe, but don't proclaim Jesus or do anything in his name. It's OK to do things, but never in his name. Anything you do in his name is "iniquity," and only pure silent belief is what he wants. Did the disciples follow this injunction against ever invoking his name or doing anything in his name?

The same Sermon on the Mount text from which this comes also tells us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect, also not to do any work, not to sow or reap, but to rely only on our Heavenly Father to provide for us.

It's easy to pounce on words like these and condemn all Christians for violating them. Why don't you condemn all Christians as hypocrites for refusing to obey his injunction to stop doing any work and just wait for God to take care of them?

Most or even all the "Sermon on the Mount" sayings can be understood best as words put into the mouth of Jesus decades later. Much of them, like the ones quoted here, are easily recognizable as criticism of believers, or early Christians, who need to have Christ speaking to them directly, as though he were there and chastising them for their weaknesses. By this point there is a large number of such believers or followers, maybe into the thousands -- unlike in 29-30 AD -- and the early writings got circulated around and were used for sermons to preach at them. Like some Christ-bashers today want to preach at believers about their phoniness and self-righteousness.


Putting words into the mouth of Jesus

When asked to perform a miracle, Jesus is quoted saying, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet." etc. (Mt. 12:38)

This was referenced by someone earlier -- but I can't find the post -- saying it reflects an attitude much later by followers who could not perform miracles when doubters demanded this from them.

Which is a good explanation of this quote, i.e., not from Jesus, but put into his mouth. But when? In my response to that post I might have pushed the date of this quote back too far. Here it is in a reconstruction of the Q document, from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm :

Q 11:16, 29-30 The Sign of Jonah for This Generation

16 ·But‚ some .. were demanding from him a sign. 29 But .. ·he said‚ ..: This generation is an evil .. generation; it demands a sign, and a sign will not be given to it — except the sign of Jonah! 30 For as Jonah became to the Ninevites a sign, so ·also‚ will the son of humanity be to this generation.

It could be that the reference to the symbolic "3 days" was added later (as Jonah was in the belly of the "whale" for 3 days, so shall the Son of Man etc.) -- probably not in the Q document.

Since this "no sign shall be given" quote is in the Q document, and this is early, near to when Paul was writing, this fits well with the theory that after Jesus there was a demand for miracles that the disciples or earliest church community could not provide. And they put these words into his mouth, to rebuke those who were demanding a sign.

This shows that the disciples, even those who knew him directly, might put words into his mouth as needed, because they were saying he did miracles and yet could not produce any miracles themselves as they were being requested to do. This is strong evidence that the miracle stories are very early, not some later invention toward the end of the 1st century or into the 2nd century.

The Q document is generally regarded as early enough to have been produced by the actual disciples who saw Jesus directly, rather than later indirect witnesses. And the sayings of Jesus they recorded are closer to his real sayings but still subject to editing to fit the need of the new Christ community trying to expand and win converts.


How you can refute the above

Christ-bashers, here's a homework assignment for you (if you really want to make yourself useful): You can easily counter the above argument about the early origin of the miracle stories by showing that there was a strong appetite for these stories in the period before Christ. Starting from 100 BC up to about 30 or 40 AD can you find lots of interest in miracle stories? Were there many wonder-workers running around in Judea/Samaria/Galilee or the general region there, at about this period, prior to the Jesus miracle stories?

We see an explosion of them beginning with the Jesus miracles and then expanding further into the 2nd century and later. But what about earlier, leading up to 30 AD? Such an interest in this and a demand for miracles could explain how the Jesus miracles got started. Is there an indication of such an interest? i.e., a demand for them, to explain these Jesus miracles as the supply to meet that demand?

Even the Vespasian miracle stories and the goofy story in Josephus about an exorcist come a little too late. Can't you find me a miracle-worker or two in this earlier period? Why are they so scarce?

On YouTube Christ-basher Robert M. Price gives some Jesus "Parallels" showing other miracle-worker heroes etc., and one of them he said was an earlier hero, 1st or 2nd century BC, which made me wonder, shook my "faith" a little, but then I looked it up, and -- WOULDN'T Y'KNOW IT -- the writer of it was 2nd century AD. And it's the only source.

First, I am *not* a Christ-basher. I am a truth-seeker. There is nothing in the historical record that gives us any reason to believe the Christ myth is anything other than historical/religious fiction. Using derogatory names as generic labels in an effort to denigrate folks who disagree with you is the sort of thing 7 year old kids do on the playground.

Second, you have on several occasions in this thread, demonstrated a profound tendency to summarily toss out anything in your mythology of choice that is inconvenient to the points you want to make. That's fine with me, as I accept you as you are. If you find happiness by believing these things then peace out dude and enjoy. But I do feel constrained to point out that this sort of thing undermines other arguments you have presented in which you have denied that mythologizing took place. If people were so free with putting words in the mouth of this character in their book, what barrier kept them from including deeds this character did?

Third, you keep raising the "Q" document as some form of evidence. Produce a copy of it and those of us who are skeptical about the claims made by these gospel writers will be glad to consider it. In case there is anyone else reading this thread who is not actually somewhat familiar with Q, here is the truth about Q: Q is nothing more than a theorized document. The theory that such a document existed is popular among biblical scholars, but there is a significant number of top tier scholars who disagree. But even if one were to concede that Q existed, which I will for sake of argument, the theorized document is nothing more than a collection of "sayings" of Jesus, not a chronology in any sense of the word. It doesn't "place" Jesus anywhere or at any period of time. That part of the mythologizing process is still safely tucked into the 40 year gap between when the events allegedly occurred and when the first written stories of them appeared. Also, and this is critical to Lumpenproletariat's use of the Q document, there is no implied date on the theorized document. It could have been written after GMark and still influenced GMatt and GLuke. A strong case could be made that it would have been written after GMark, as it includes things Jesus said that GMark did not include. Suggesting that it had to have been written earlier (circa the time of the authentic Pauline epistles) is wishful thinking, not evidence in any sense of the word.

Finally, you can keep your homework assignment for yourself. The only thing unique about the Jesus myth is that it takes many of the superheroes who had enamored audiences for thousands of years and combines all their special powers into a single super-dooper character. GMark originated in or near Rome 40 years and 1400 miles away from the events it describes in and around Jerusalem. There is no evidence that vast hordes of people believed all these things before GMark came out. There is no reason to suspect that a pocket of accepting believers in or around Rome when it came out would have had any first hand, second hand or even third hand experience with the events described in the book. Even if a vast pocket of such believers existed it would be the result of salesmanship, not personal knowledge and/or experience. In other words they believed for no better reason than you do. You didn't see any of it for yourself, there is nothing in your experiences that would suggest any of it could have happened, but you were told by people you were inclined to believe that others saw it and believed. Parents, preachers, devout family members, Sunday school teachers, etc. Only you must face the honest answer to the question of whether you would have believed all this stuff if such people hadn't presented it to you with sincerity and conviction.

I reject the Jesus myth for the same reasons I reject the Perseus myth. And I accept that the kernel of an actual person might be lurking somewhere underneath these stories, but it is not necessary to think one of them walked on water or that another flew on a winged horse.

 

[Keith&Co.]

On YouTube Christ-basher Robert M. Price gives some Jesus "Parallels" showing other miracle-worker heroes etc., and one of them he said was an earlier hero, 1st or 2nd century BC, which made me wonder, shook my "faith" a little, but then I looked it up, and -- WOULDN'T Y'KNOW IT -- the writer of it was 2nd century AD. And it's the only source.

So, how would you go about providing evidence that creator of that myth was 2nd century? That the account wasn't transmitted orally from the 1st century BC? Or the 14th?
Or are you just going to assert that it's evidence to support your supposition and leave it at that?

 

[Barbarian]

Christ-bashers

Your colors are showing.

, here's a homework assignment for you (if you really want to make yourself useful): You can easily counter the above argument about the early origin of the miracle stories by showing that there was a strong appetite for these stories in the period before Christ. Starting from 100 BC up to about 30 or 40 AD can you find lots of interest in miracle stories? Were there many wonder-workers running around in Judea/Samaria/Galilee or the general region there, at about this period, prior to the Jesus miracle stories?

The entire story is that of one huge miracle, with lesser miracles attached. There's nothing else to it. This is why it is a made-up fairy tale; no further argumentation is necessary because miracles just don't happen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

, here's a homework assignment for you (if you really want to make yourself useful): You can easily counter the above argument about the early origin of the miracle stories by showing that there was a strong appetite for these stories in the period before Christ.

I'm curious, now that i think about it.
Can anyone tell me a time that people were NOT showing a strong appetite for fantastic stories?
I was just thinking of all the people that stood in line to watch Star Wars fifty times back in the 70's.
The people who camped out in the streets to see Avatar's opening.
The way so many things go 'viral' because everyone wants to be in on the next big thing.
The people who still defend the lost Tomb of Jesus.
The number of Jesus shrouds that circulated.
Johnny Carson's self-fulfilling prophecy about the coming shortage of toilet paper.
The War of the Worlds.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Prester John.

Everyone taken by UFO's.

The Loch Ness and all the other Lake MOnsters.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
― Mark Twain

Frankly, the person with the hardest job would be the one trying to convince us that an occupied Israel was decidedly NOT primed for hopeful tales of a messiah, any messiah, showing up to repel the invader.
Just like everyone else....

 

[Atheos]

All this talk of "People would never buy that" and "You can't start with a mythical character that doesn't have a historical basis" has had me thinking. Today I remembered the fame and fortune of one  J. Z. Knight, who in the 1980's bilked hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) into believing she was channeling a 30,000 year old warrior named Ramtha. She made the talk show circuit, even appearing on Merv Griffith and being regarded in Time Magazine. I have no idea how much money she made and continues to make from her books and DVD's, and from "Ramtha's School of Enlightenment." She owns a legal trademark on the name Ramtha.

Lumpenproletariat continually chides us asking "If it was so easy to do why doesn't everyone do it?" The answer to that question is this isn't really all that easy to pull off. You have to be very convincing. But Judith Darlene Hampton (aka J. Z. Knight) was up to the task. She took a lame story about a private revelation from a mythical figure nobody could hear but her and made an absolute killing off it. I might as well ask why there aren't hundreds of other folks claiming to channel 30,000 year old spirits making their millions. Not everyone has that perfect combination of charisma and willingness to live their lives scamming everyone around them.

So please spare us the melodramatic non-starter arguments about how people wouldn't buy such BS. People living in near modern times with access to education and nearly limitless information about world culture fell for J. Z. Knight's bullshit. There is no reason in the world that Paul, if he had anywhere near the ability J. Z. Knight had to sell the preposterous, could have hoodwinked hundreds or thousands of people living in a pre-technology society, few of whom could even read much less have access to libraries of information that would help them gain the perspective necessary to know bullshit when they saw it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Four books in a 2000 year old canon is all he's got.

There's more. The epistles of Paul attest to the resurrection miracle. The epistle to the Hebrews makes a clear indirect reference to the miracles of Jesus (2:3-4).

Also Josephus and Tacitus confirm the historicity of Jesus, Tacitus confirming the crucifixion by order of Pontius Pilate.

And Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 100 AD, shows that the gospel of Matthew was then in circulation, because he makes reference to the otherwise unknown symbols of the virgin birth and the Star of Bethlehem. So the accounts we have were circulating by that time.

And although the Q document is not known, we know about what it contained and that it existed early, probably in the 50s AD, and it mentions the miracles of Jesus.

So there's more than just the 4 standard gospel accounts.

Sherlock Holmes otoh had four novels and 56 short stories. And he has plausibility on his side and an actual physical address. You would do better believing in Sherlock Holmes

Is his actual existence confirmed by any historian?

The reference to Christ in Tacitus cannot be mistaken as having any reference to a fictional or mythological character, because it cannot be said that a fictional character was ordered to be crucified by a Roman official.