120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[4321lynx]

Surely one only needs one reason to reject "Christianity" :- No Resurrection = No Christianity. At least no "Holy" Christianity. It continues as a philosophy and religion, continues intact with all the subsequent additions, subtractions, omissions, variations, and misinterpretations, whether these are made accidentally or intentionally. All the other stories are just commentary, as the rabbi Hillel said of the "rules" of the Old Testament. The stories are made to instruct and impress the mob, the mob being those from illiterate peasants and labourers to the then "educated": priests, philosophers, and so on, right down to the present day. The Bible was the equivalent of the radio, TV, internet, and propaganda webs of the present day.

Presumably this point has been made. I confess I have only scanned two or three of the opening posts. I will not waste time reading seven hundred posts on this subject. Reliable medical and non-medical accounts of misdiagnosis of death have been presented in the 20th century alone to account for the apparent resurrection if in fact it occurred and its occurrence was not just another gimmick invented to impress the mob.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The miracle accounts of Jesus are easier to explain if they are true than if they are fiction.

We should apply the same skepticism toward the "gospel" accounts as we do to any other writings of the period. On that standard we can accept these accounts as generally reliable in transmitting on to us the accounts they had from before. Which doesn't mean they have to be taken as accurate in all detail or can contain no discrepancies whatever.

And when there are reported "miracle" events there's nothing wrong with imposing a more rigid standard. But there's no reason to impose a standard that absolutely rules out the possibility of such events, as some Bible-bashers would do.

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

There's more than one source for them.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true. If they're stories about a sage who taught disciples for several decades, it is much easier to explain how they could have been invented and attached to the master. Or if the stories don't appear until centuries later, then it's easier to explain how they could have emerged over that time lapse. And in other ways it can be easy in some cases to explain how the stories originated but more difficult in other cases. If it's more difficult to explain how the stories could have been invented, then it increases the chance that they're true.

There is specific information in the stories about the event, such as when or where it happened and who was present and what the setting was. We can assume that such detail might be partly fictional but also partly factual. The presence of such detail makes the story more credible.

So, on the doctrine of Easiest:

it's really easier to assume that all supernatural claims are bullshit.

Because then we're done. Period, end of conflicts. Sure, there's room to examine the human psyche and wonder why we're attracted to such stories, why we make them, how we can maybe create automatic filters that detect pure bullshit and prevent stories of AIDS-dipped needles or missing birth certificates from floating around the internet. But the question is done.

But being "done" is not the point of "easy" -- seeking an "easier" explanation, or one less "difficult" if we assume the stories are true -- does NOT mean "easier" in the sense of "being done" with it or finding an "end of conflicts." This is not what is meant by an "easier" explanation.

ALMOST as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No no, again, this is not what an "easier" explanation means. Some claims people make are more difficult to accept as true because they conflict with logic or with what we know is true. Not "easier" in the sense of ceasing to think about it or putting it away as easily as possible.

"It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true" does not mean "difficult" in the sense of requiring more work or more thinking -- no, "difficult" here means simply that the explanation is contrary to reasoning, or to the truth we already have, or to the evidence. Perhaps "easy" or "difficult" were poor words to choose for making my point.

The accounts, like the miracle reports in the gospels, are probably very complicated to explain, or difficult, but the point is that assuming they're true makes it "easier" to explain them in the sense that we can give a logical explanation for them or about how they came about, i.e., easier as more consistent with logic and the known facts, than if we assume them to be fiction. Assuming them to be fictional makes it more difficult to "square" them with the truth or the facts or with logic or with common sense.

Except, some claims contradict other claims. There can't be two gods that created the world, for example. We have problems if we assume Ptah and Jehovah are both true. So that's a difficulty, trying to explain how all the creator claims can be true. But creationists have done some stellar work in apologizing for conflicting truths to be held at the same time in one mind. I'm sure we'll conquer it eventually.

Least easy would be to assume that SOME supernatural tales are true.

No, that's the "easiest" in that it leaves open reasonable possibility of such "tales" being true in those cases where there is good evidence that they are true. You can't leave open this possibility? You insist on a rule that absolutely bans all propositions that someone brands as "supernatural"?

Yes, it's "easy" to just lazily blurt out, "Aaaah they're all false, now go away and leave me alone so I can drink beer and watch football!"

But that's not what "easy" and "difficult" mean in the sense of an "easier" or a more "difficult" explanation. Rather, we're talking about an explanation which more "easily" fits the known facts or agrees with basic logic or common sense. So in many cases the correct explanation might be more "difficult" in the sense of requiring more work or more thinking or more analyzing and searching for answers. It's not in that sense that we need the "easier" or less "difficult" explanation.

It would resolve a lot of the conflicts in the second method, and it would make work of the psyche investigations in the first method, but there's the difficulty in knowing which supernatural claims are true.

We can compare one "supernatural claim" with another and judge one to be more credible than another. You can't lump them all together as though they're all equal just because someone branded them all as "supernatural" and thus dismissed them en masse. In that sense the "easy" way is wrong. You have to make the effort to distinguish one claim from another and judge each on its merit.

It would be dishonest to just pick one, without any evidence at all.

For the miracle acts of Jesus we do have some evidence. Even if one might wish for more, there is at least some evidence. And for competing miracle claims, like for Zeus or Horus or Krishna or Apollonius of Tyana, there is less evidence, if any at all.

Of course, if you did, then all the claims for that tradition would tend to self-support, but that's circular. And if one did that, someone else could pick a different tradition, assume THAT is the one true one, and build up a circular-logic structure that self-verifies it. And someone else with yet another tradition, and so on down the line.

The accounts of the Jesus miracles are the evidence -- at least 4 different documents, anywhere from 40 - 60 years after the events. Now for comparison, what is the evidence for the "different tradition" which claims to be "the true one" in competition with the Jesus "tradition"? Are all the "traditions" equal in their claim to being "the true one"? If so, then what is the evidence in those other "traditions"?

It'd be chaos!

Certainly not the easiest option... All those parallel but equally futile efforts...

You're saying every claim of having "the truth" is equally futile because all the crusaders making such claims are equally wrong and none of them have "the truth." Including every claim about a miracle event or "supernatural" event.

But that Jesus had unusual power, life-giving power, is not one of these "futile efforts," because there is evidence that he did have such power, even if that evidence is less than one might wish. Because there are not other competing schools promoting other miracle-workers who are making equal claims. You never have named these other equally-competing claims.

OK, I'll rehash Joseph Smith again, since this analogy has been offered many times. He relied on a popular idea, dependent upon the earlier Jesus tradition, which all his followers believed, and with this earlier Jesus figure as his central object, he then expanded on that tradition to have Jesus make an appearance in the Americas, and this is the main attraction that drew large numbers into his new cult, and without which his cult could not have succeeded.

This is not a competing claim, but a repeat of the already-existing Christ belief and expansion of it to include a larger number of possible recipients. The Smith cult is a division of Christianity, not a competing belief system with an alternate miracle-working mythic hero.

With this winning message, plus his charisma which he exercised for 10-15 years, Joseph Smith put forth a winning combination that enabled him to become mythologized into a miracle-worker, though the accounts of his reported miracles have not been presented for us to consider, so we don't really know that he is a comparable case to that of Jesus in the gospel accounts. We first have to see the accounts and read them to see if they have the same kind of apparent credibility that the gospel accounts have, or similar characteristics to distinguish them from other miracle-worker legends that can easily be explained as fiction.

So, where are the competing miracle-worker heroes that we can compare to the case of Jesus and consider what evidence they offer? not a division of Christianity, but a competing cult and one different than the Christ-belief cults that emerged after 30 AD?


(to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The miracle accounts of Jesus are easier to explain if they are true than if they are fiction.

(continued)

No, it's better to seek the answers and choose the one which most "easily" explains the facts we have, not the one which ends the "conflicts" or ends the discussion.

ALMOST as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.

Least easy would be to assume that SOME supernatural tales are true . . . , but there's the difficulty in knowing which supernatural claims are true.

We can investigate them and choose, as with any claims. Some claims are true, others false. Why doesn't that apply to all categories of claims, even the unusual ones that conventional science cannot explain?

It would be dishonest to just pick one, without any evidence at all.

Yes, but I'll repeat, I'm saying there's evidence that the Jesus miracle healing acts really did happen. Other claims also should be checked for possible evidence. You're right that there might be a certain "dishonesty" in picking one claim only and ignoring all the others, but on the other hand, perhaps one cannot investigate every claim ever made before deciding to believe one or another of them. So a fervent truth-seeker should keep looking further, but you can't demand that everyone devote their life to this and refrain from believing anything until they've exhausted every belief in the universe.

Of course, if you did, then all the claims for that tradition would tend to self-support, but that's circular.

I hope you'll correct me if I engage in any circular reasoning.

All those parallel but equally futile efforts...

Whoever believes anything should try to give evidence or reasons for their belief. It's NOT "futile." Some beliefs are true. Some are probable, some less likely, and so on. It's not wrong to hold a belief just because you don't have absolute certainty. And it's fine if many belief systems are out there each trying to prove it's the truth.

And someone else with yet another tradition, and so on down the line.

It'd be chaos!

No it's not chaos. We do have this now, with many "traditions" or belief systems claiming to be the truth -- just surf the Internet -- wow! it's fun considering all those possible versions of what "the Truth" is. A little healthy "chaos" never hurt anyone.

The goal should be to try to figure out whatever "the Truth" is, not to shut down the whole array of different crusades or "traditions" competing for attention and claiming to have the truth. Some of them probably do have some "truth" that people are seeking.

ALMOST as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.

No, no. If you're going to offer 'easiest,' then you have to be consistent with 'easy.'

It's easiest of all to just deny all supernatural claims.

No, not if a "supernatural" claim is made which conforms to all the known facts and the denial of it conflicts with all the known facts -- in that case it is easier to believe that "supernatural" claim.

I can't even parse this claim. What are you trying to say?

We are caught in semantics. I.e., "easier" or "easiest." You're taking it to mean something like lazy, or just deciding something with the least amount of effort or regard for the truth-seeking process.

I introduced the word "easy" or "easier" way back there, without intending anything special about that word. It means that which best conforms to the existing truth or facts we already have. "Easy" only in the sense that it most "easily" conforms to whatever truth we've already arrived at. But you're taking it to mean something like lazy or least amount of work.

So a "supernatural" claim (whatever "supernatural" means) which conforms to the facts better is "easier" to explain or accept as explaining what happened than some other claim which conflicts more with the facts or with the truth that's been established.

So you can't just dismiss every "supernatural" claim as false, nor say it's "easier" to just reject every such claim, because if certain ones are more consistent with the facts or with the truth, then that makes them "easier" to accept as true or as explaining what happened.

You can't lump all "supernatural" claims together as if they're all the same. Some are more credible than others. Even if most are false, you can't reject all of them automatically. Some of them might be true. Each one has to be judged individually. I did not intend "easy" as a choice to avoid doing the work of questioning and searching for more answers.

Rather, "easy" has to be understood only in the sense of being more consistent with logic or evidence. I.e., "easier" to place within the whole scheme of facts or evidence or reasoning so far established.

It is difficult to deny a claim if it fits in with all the agreed facts and if denying it then puts you in conflict with the facts.

Okay.

But half of your facts are made-up shit.

Conflicting with things you label as 'it's a fact that . .' are no real strain. It's even becoming easier to ignore anything you call a fact, just to stay ahead of the tide of bullshit.

OK, but aside from the personal fact that I'm a liar and everything I say is a lie (and aside from the fact that whether I'm a liar is not the topic), do we agree that an account is more credible, or meets a "higher standard," if it is more difficult to explain that account if it's false than if it's true? i.e., more difficult to explain it as false than as true? Or, that it's "easier" to explain it if we assume it's true than if we assume it's fiction?

Is this not a reasonable common sense guideline for judging the reliability of an account about what happened?

So, e.g., the story of Apollonius performing miracles, which is offered as a parallel to the case of Jesus, comes from one source only, does it not? I.e., from Philostratus, who wrote his account about 150 years AFTER the reported events? And therefore, doesn't this make it more difficult to believe? Isn't it "easier" to explain how this fictional account came about, considering that it came from one source only, was commissioned by a rich and powerful party in close contact with the emperor, and was written about 150 years after the reported miracle-worker lived?

And by contrast, isn't it more difficult to explain the miracle accounts of Jesus, which emerge within 50-60 years from the time of Jesus, some probably earlier, and come to us from FOUR sources rather than only one? So, why isn't it "easier" to explain the Apollonius accounts as fiction than it is to explain the Jesus accounts as fiction? or more difficult to dismiss the Jesus accounts as fiction than the Apollonius accounts?

Why are we having trouble understanding this simple principle?

(To be precise here I might need to acknowledge healing stories inscribed on monuments, temple walls, statues, where someone prayed to Asclepius or some other healing god, and the supplicant soon recovered, and these might be accounts, inscribed at the time of the event, of a supposed healing performed by the healing god. But these were prayers to an estabished deity who had been worshiped for centuries going back. So this exception applies only to some celebrated "god" which enjoyed a long tradition stretching far back, not to any living person or new figure, such as Jesus Christ was in 29-30 AD.)

Is there anything here that is false, or "made-up" or "bullshit"?

Is it true or not that some or most of these accounts that narrate the miracles of Jesus were written somewhere within 50-60 years from the time of the alleged events? Is this true of other miracle stories about the Greek gods or the Roman gods or other miracle-working heroes? Where are the accounts of the pagan gods which exist within 100 years of the time those gods were living historical individuals performing those acts?


A credible "primary source" can be 100 years later than the reported events.

And is it true or not that much of our historical record comes from written sources that are even farther removed than this from the reported events? Isn't it true that some of Tacitus is about Caesar Augustus who lived 100 years earlier? And yet don't we still believe Tacitus as a source for this period?

Here is a website which lists Tacitus as a "primary source" for Caesar Augustus -- http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/augustus_sources.html -- even though most of what Tacitus reports about him happened at least 100 years before he reported it. (I have mostly given up on the meaning of "primary source," but Tacitus is always high on the list of sources for Augustus. I'm sure there are many facts about Augustus that are from Tacitus ONLY.)

(This Tacitus document, the Annals, is the same one in which Tacitus reports that "Chrestus" or "Christus" was executed by order of Pontius Pilate, an event later and thus closer to Tacitus than the many events he reports about Augustus.)

The point is that if an author writing 100 years later is relied upon as a "primary source" for the events, why should we have so much difficulty giving credibility to the gospel accounts which are 50-60 years out, and actually much closer for a large part?

And further, why should we have trouble believing Josephus and Tacitus, who attest to Jesus as an historical person, who spoke of him as an historical figure about 60-90 years later?

Don't these attestations to his existence make it more difficult to believe he was "made up shit" or fictional? or "easier" to believe that he really did exist as an historical figure?

Aren't the gospel accounts about Jesus easier to believe than accounts of the deeds of Hercules who, if he lived at all, had to have lived at least 1000 years before any source we have about him?

Why is it "bullshit" to say that the gospel accounts about the deeds of Jesus are easier to believe than the accounts of Hercules?

There are no complicated steps, which is what makes that "easiest."

There is always the step of comparing the claim with the known facts. This is not an option, but is mandatory.

Yes. But you select odd things as 'facts,' making your analysis undependable.

Again, you can't find fault with the principle, i.e., believing the account because it's "easier" to explain it if it's true than if it's false, and instead your only objection is that I'm a liar. OK. But you can't give any reason for rejecting this straightforward common-sense principle, i.e., that:

Assuming the account is false makes it more difficult to explain where the account came from, or how it came to be written, or

Assuming the account is true makes it easier to explain where the account came from, or how it came to be written.

Another example of this is the fact that Jesus was not a widely-reputed celebrity or a powerful politically-connected figure or someone with a long career behind him, like John the Baptist or Hillel or Vespasian, or even like Apollonius of Tyana who enjoyed a long colorful career.

So, doesn't this make it more difficult to explain how Jesus could have become mythologized? Doesn't the widespread reputation of the mythic hero or Sage or Prophet, widespread fame and large accumulation of disciples recruited over 20 or 30 or 40 years, make it much "easier" for a charismatic figure to be explained as someone who became mythologized and to whom miracle deeds might be ascribed? Isn't this how the miracle acts became ascribed to Gautama Buddha, e.g.?

Why are we having trouble understanding this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Assuming the account is true makes it easier to explain where the account came from, or how it came to be written.

But that's not what historians do.
But even if they did, that's hardly a useful practice.

Assumptions made by the evaluator may be helpful in knowing where to look for evidence, but we still need evidence.

Anonymous stories from unknown people, even if they're tentatively identified as about real events, we still don't know who wrote them, or why or when.

Historians would need some substantial evidence to accept that magic happened and consider that miracles were part of the historical record.

This ain't enough.

 

[Atheos]

The miracles are easier to explain if we assume people made the stories up. Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why did they call Jesus the "Messiah" or "Christ" if he did not perform any miracle acts?

Some of the Earliest Christains were sure that John the Baptist was the Christ, Jesus just one of his prophets.

I won't deny this exactly, because no doubt there were probably a few. However, do you have any source that confirms this? I suggest these early devotees were an extremely small number and that there is no documentation for it. Just because you can turn up a John the Baptist cult 1000 years later who make this claim will not do.

Is there anything dated earlier than 200 AD or so that confirms this?

In any case, we know for sure that no miracles were attributed to John the Baptist.

Not true.

We know for sure that no stories attributing miracles to John the Baptist survived the Christian efforts to sanitize history.

There's no evidence that there were any such efforts.

By this paranoid kind of reasoning you can prove anything you want. You can make any crazy claim and then argue that the evidence proving you're right was destroyed. Especially that there was a conspiracy by some Evil Entity (like the evil fire-breathing "Church" Monster Dragon burning all books it disapproved of) roaming around everywhere and destroying that evidence.

(There's no evidence for claims like this, despite a massive amount of paranoia from Jesus-debunker cultists. They have never documented any such book-burnings or destructions by the "Church" leaders prior to 500 AD. E.g., there's no evidence for the frequent claim that Christians burned down the Library of Alexandria. This is all popular church-bashing folklore and nothing more.)

Some creationists have argued that the evidence for evolution, like fossils, were planted by God or by the Devil or by evolutionists to trick us into thinking life evolved over millions of years.

Your argument that there were other reputed miracle-workers is based on the same reasoning -- some evil entity found all the evidence and destroyed it. With such paranoia you can prove anything.

They may have burned dozens of such accounts.

And the Devil may have planted all those fossils. Or Evil evolutionists. Isn't it suspicious that everyone who discovers fossil remains is an evolutionist?

No one believed he did such acts.

You can't say that.

There's no indication of it. There should be many who believed he did, if it is easy for miracle stories to be invented and attributed falsely to Jesus. The followers of John the Baptist should have done the same and attributed miracles to JB and got them recorded, if they believed he did miracles.

The fact that there is nothing indicates that they did not believe he did such acts.

And yet, if the two were of equal importance, and if the miracle acts attributed to Jesus did not really happen, then we have to ask: Why were no miracle acts attributed to John the Baptist?

Tell me, how many of the requirements for a 'messiah' actually require that he perform miracles? Hint: It's in the Old Testament.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The reason miracles were attributed to Jesus is not that they thought he was the "Messiah" -- but rather, the reason they called him "Messiah" or "Christ" is that they thought he performed miracle acts.

There are many many reasons why they should NOT have bestowed the title "Messiah" or "Christ" onto Jesus the unimportant obscure "rabbi" or "prophet."

(I.e., he was obscure by all indication, except for the "His fame spread throughout the region" references, e.g., Mark 2:28, where it's the miracles he did that are the reason for this "fame.")

And yet they did give him these titles. Why? It's very easy to explain why they called him "Messiah" and "Christ" if he did in fact perform those acts. These acts explain it.

But if he did not do the miracle acts, what explains why they called him "Messiah" and "Christ"? And why did they claim he did miracle acts that he did not do?

They just "made up shit"? Then why didn't they also make up the same "shit" in the case of John the Baptist? Why would they concoct such stories about Jesus but not also about John the Baptist?

Or about many others? Why not about Hillel? and other famous Jewish teachers (more famous than Jesus at the time)? Why not about the zealot Judas of Galilee and other similar charismatics?

Why is it only this one Galilean that they "made up shit" about?

 

[bilby]

Why did they call Jesus the "Messiah" or "Christ" if he did not perform any miracle acts?

For the same reason they call Luke Skywalker 'Jedi', even though he never actually blew up any Death Stars.

IT'S A STORY - IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REALISTIC!!!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Tell me, how many of the requirements for a 'messiah' actually require that he perform miracles? Hint: It's in the Old Testament.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The reason miracles were attributed to Jesus is not that they thought he was the "Messiah" -- but rather, the reason they called him "Messiah" or "Christ" is that they thought he performed miracle acts.

So?
So what in the Old Testament tells them to expect the messiah to perform miracle acts?
Or to interpret miracle acts as a sign of the messiah?

Why is it reasonable that if he did miracles, then people accepted him as the messiah?
Or, if he did do miracles through his travels in Judea, then why did other people NOT accept him as the messiah?

 

[skepticalbip]

Why did they call Jesus the "Messiah" or "Christ" if he did not perform any miracle acts?

Why are you so hung up on miracles? You seem to believe that Jesus is the only person who has been credited with miracles. Miracles at that time were attributed to pretty much anyone in a leadership position from roaming street preachers to Caesar himself. Miracle workers are a little more rare today (at least in the industrialized west) but still with us. The Roman Catholic Church still canonizes saints and a requirement for sainthood for those not martyred is that miracles be attributed to them. Of course, we still have street preachers (sorta like Jesus was supposed to have been) who "heal" people in their tent revivals or, for the industrial version, we have Benny Hinn and his Miracle Crusade where he tours the world preaching and healing (and pocketing millions). Thousands, if not millions, of people can attest to Hinn's miracles (first hand accounts). They have been recorded and even videotaped (real time documentation), Who knows, maybe in the future Hinnism will replace Christianity. Certainly his "miracles" are much better documented.

Leave the industrialized west and miracle workers are common.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did the early Christians go on a book-burning rampage to destroy all evidence of Jesus-like rival messiahs?

In any case, we know for sure that no miracles were attributed to John the Baptist.

Not true.

We know for sure that no stories attributing miracles to John the Baptist survived the Christain efforts to sanitize history.

They may have burned dozens of such accounts.

By this paranoid kind of reasoning you can prove anything you want. You can make any crazy claim and then argue that the evidence proving you're right was destroyed. Especially that there was a conspiracy by some Evil Entity (like the evil fire-breathing "Church" Monster Dragon burning all books it disapproved of) roaming around everywhere and destroying that evidence.

(There's no evidence for claims like this, despite a massive amount of paranoia from Jesus-debunker cultists. They have never documented any such book-burnings or destructions by the "Church" leaders prior to 500 AD. E.g., there's no evidence for the frequent claim that Christians burned down the Library of Alexandria. This is all popular church-bashing folklore and nothing more.)

I will partly correct myself on this:

Maybe there were some book-bannings, possibly burnings, by order of Constantine. The number of provable cases is small, probably only Arius and Porphyry.

But not before Constantine. When the new Christ belief became institutionalized and established as the state religion, the practice of suppressing other beliefs and destroying their literature became possible, but before this it was not possible and there's no evidence of any such bannings or burnings or destructions by Christian authorities.

But more important, there was no banning or burning of anything from the 1st century, or probably even the 2nd. It was only the works of current heretics against which the state took such actions.

Further, there's little evidence of the SUCCESS of these banning or burning directives. Just because something is condemned to the flames does not mean the actual burnings took place. The only evidence is that some literature was condemned and ordered to be burned and heretics condemned who were circulating such literature.

So we might assume some of this literature was in fact destroyed, however this probably had extremely small effect in actually eliminating any such literature from existence, and most of the literature that perished did so not because anyone burned it or banned it, but simply because it never got copied and so rotted, like 99% of all literature did (or more likely 99.9%).

So any notions that 1st- and 2nd-century books were destroyed are pure paranoid folklore, while into the 3rd century it is still unlikely, because the "church" still had no power, though going into the 4th century and beyond such suppression of "heretical" literature became possible, and there was at least the official condemnation of Arian literature, and some reference to "burning" such literature.

Furthermore, such banned literature was CHRISTIAN literature, virtully no pagan, or rival anti-Christian literature, or that promoting alternative "messiah" type figures or gurus or miracle-worker rivals to Christ. E.g., the Apollonius of Tyana book, or anything similar, was absolutely immune to any of this, or anything not Christian "heresy" or not some kind of Christ-cult. There's little evidence of any such non-Christian literature being banned or burned or ordered destroyed by the "church" or the state or any other authority.

Some of Porphyry's writings were banned, as probably the only exception to the above, but not because of what he said about Christ, but rather because of his attacks on the church and theologians. This was more political writing than religious or anti-Christian, though it was anti-church. Porphyry was even seen as pro-Christ, and some church leaders (e.g., St. Augustine) even thought he was a Christian, though he probably was not. So this is not exactly the same as suppressing anti-Christian writing.

This would be the closest to any suppression of "pagan" or anti-Christian literature by Christians. There was little of this by comparison to the attacks on Christian heretical literature, and all this was only AFTER Constantine, not before.

So there is no basis for believing there were other Jesus-like miracle-workers running around in the 1st century and about whom all the evidence was destroyed by early Christians. This is paranoid delusionalism by Jesus-debunker fanatics frantically trying to explain away the evidence we have that Jesus uniquely performed miracle acts.

Those in power who suppressed some literature from the 4th century and later were a totally different breed than the early 1st- and 2nd-century Christians who did no such thing because they had no power whatever to do it.


The only confirmed early book-burning

There's also the incident in Acts 19:19 where a group of new Christian converts renounced their former practices of "magic" and brought out their own personal books on magic and burned them in a public demonstration. But this was not the "church" conducting any raid or crusade to hunt down heretics or their literature and burn them. The "church" at this time had no power whatever to conduct book-burnings or raids on libraries or any organized suppression of heresies.

Equating those 1st- and 2nd-century believers with power-wielders like Constantine and Theodosius in the 4th century is delusional to the point of extreme hysteria.

 

[Atheos]

As usual Lumpenproletariat spends a great deal of time arguing against a point nobody here has made. Comprehending what the opposing parties are actually saying is a good first step towards presenting arguments that defeat them. Otherwise one is merely engaged in strawman argumentation.

 

[atrib]

As usual Lumpenproletariat spends a great deal of time arguing against a point nobody here has made. Comprehending what the opposing parties are actually saying is a good first step towards presenting arguments that defeat them. Otherwise one is merely engaged in strawman argumentation.

You are being way too generous. I believe Lumpy understands what other posters have been telling him, he just doesn't want to address their points.

 

[Keith&Co.]

he just doesn't want to address their points.

That might explain why he doesn't always move forward on answering posts. He answered several from December, then moved back to November, then answered the same one again...

Picking and choosing the posts he thinks he CAN respond to?

 

[atrib]

Lumpy wrote:


So there is no basis for believing there were other Jesus-like miracle-workers running around in the 1st century and about whom all the evidence was destroyed by early Christians. This is paranoid delusionalism by Jesus-debunker fanatics frantically trying to explain away the evidence we have that Jesus uniquely performed miracle acts.

What does the Bible say about <edited>?

<edited>

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat has never really addressed much, if anything of what has been written in this thread to challenge his assertions. His arguments appear for the most part to be regurgitations of Lee Strobel's mind-blowingly dishonest book-selling crap.

I guess what I continue to find laughable about the whole argument is the fact that he goes on claiming that the only possible explanation for the rapid growth of Christianity in the 1st century is that Jesus actually did perform miracles.

Yet the stories themselves go out of their way to make a point of how the miracles were not effective in promoting belief.

Matthew 11:20 - Then Jesus began to denounce the towns where he had done so many of his miracles, because they hadn't repented of their sins and turned to God.

The myth goes on to say Thomas himself had ostensibly seen Jesus raise no less than 3 different people from the dead yet still wouldn't believe Jesus himself was alive unless he could poke his fingers into the nail holes.

The rest of the disciples act as predictable plot devices, constantly questioning whether Jesus can perform each miracle (most strikingly in the 2nd feeding of thousands with only a few loaves and fish, where you'd expect them to say something like "Hey, you gonna feed all of them with a small amount of food like you did last time?") Witnessing all of these things first hand, these storybook characters never get used to the hero's miracle-working antics.

Speaking of the feeding of the thousands here is another example of supposedly thousands of people who watched these things happen first-hand, but were so unimpressed with his "power" that by the end of the story everyone has forsaken him, even the 12. The original version (GMark) was patterned as a Greek tragedy, where the hero dies in the end.

The evidence is quite clear that the single most unimportant factor in the early growth of Christianity was the miracles. Christianity grew by word of mouth, not because people had unimpeachable evidence that Jesus had performed miracles.

 

[atrib]

Lumpenproletariat has never really addressed much, if anything of what has been written in this thread to challenge his assertions.

To be fair, Lumpy doesn't have much to go on. He has a story written by an anonymous author who had no first or even second hand testimony to go on, and was far removed in space and time from the alleged supernatural acts performed by a character whose existence cannot even be demonstrated conclusively. And a couple of copycat stories even further removed from said events. Lumpy doesn't have a leg to stand on and he knows it. There is no way to defend the idea that the clone of a supernatural creator rose up from the dead and floated up into the atmosphere, and he will not even try. Balance that against Lumpy's belief system which he was likely indoctrinated into at an early age, and his mandate to propagate said beliefs, and you have a recipe for the evasive behavior he has been exhibiting.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

As usual Lumpenproletariat spends a great deal of time arguing against a point nobody here has made. Comprehending what the opposing parties are actually saying is a good first step towards presenting arguments that defeat them. Otherwise one is merely engaged in strawman argumentation.

You are being way too generous. I believe Lumpy understands what other posters have been telling him, he just doesn't want to address their points.

he just doesn't want to address their points.

That might explain why he doesn't always move forward on answering posts. He answered several from December, then moved back to November, then answered the same one again...

Picking and choosing the posts he thinks he CAN respond to?

I'm on #224 next, on page 23.

If I skipped over any post that I should have answered (up to #224), tell me which one and I'll do it next.

And stop calling me Lumpy!!

just kidding

 

[Keith&Co.]

The rest of the disciples act as predictable plot devices, constantly questioning whether Jesus can perform each miracle (most strikingly in the 2nd feeding of thousands with only a few loaves and fish, where you'd expect them to say something like "Hey, you gonna feed all of them with a small amount of food like you did last time?") Witnessing all of these things first hand, these storybook characters never get used to the hero's miracle-working antics..

There's a story in the commentary on Sun Tzu's Art of War.
A king took the throne of one of the weaker Chinas. A neighbor asked for one of the royal daughters. Not for a wife, just a concubine until she got used up.
The king's advisors insisted they go to war over this insult.
The king said, 'Who can deny a friend a pretty girl?' and off went a girl.

The neighbor asked for one of the nation's rare horse breeds.
Advisors: Insult! Go to war!
King: it's just a horse.

The neighboring country made a few requests and the king always gave in.

Then they asked to shift the borders a bit. They needed a fishing port and said that they would like one particular city. The king turned to his advisors. Some said, "WAR, GODDAMNIT!" Some stroked their chins and said, "Yeah, well, it's only a fishing village..."

FOOLS!" the king shouted. "Our rule is based on the land!" He beheaded the advisors who suggested going along with the request, jumped on a horse and led his army to invade the neighbor ,who lost due to being completely surprised that his nation posed any sort of threat.

I always thought it was funny that the Apostles never even showed as much character development as the king's advisors. Or even as much as the neighboring king!

You'd think if they were real, SOMEONE would be taking bets that, 'Yes, yes, I'll bet one talent that he WILL feed the multitude!'

 

[atrib]

I'm on #224 next, on page 23.

If I skipped over any post that I should have answered (up to #224), tell me which one and I'll do it next.

You don't actually respond to any of the rebuttals that point out the gaping holes in your apologetics. You just repeat your original assertions, and throw in walls of text to try to cover the fact that you have nothing to say. As an example, you keep asserting that the supernatural acts performed by the Jesus character described in the Bible is supported by sufficient evidence to make it credible. You won't tell us what this evidence is, even after being called out by other posters many times, yet you keep repeating this assertion as if it were true. So one more time, what is the evidence that Jesus rose up from the dead and floated up into the atmosphere?

PS. I know you will not respond to this post either

 

[atrib]

Lumpy has not posted in this thread for a few weeks, so I will assume he has no new evidence to support his assertion that the supernatural events described in the Bible should be treated as credible. I suspect we will never know why Lumpy believes it is more reasonable to believe that the human clone of a supernatural universe creator was needed as a blood sacrifice to atone for the fuckups of aforementioned creator, and then resurrected from the dead and levitated up into the sky, than to believe such stories are simply myths and works of fiction.