120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Malintent]

Which bible agrees with which bible?

The historical record consists of internally consistent, and cross-source consistent documents. For example, we don't have two sets of constitutional documents, one that has John Hancock's signature on it, and another without his signature, but John Lennon's signature on it instead. The historical record is consistent across reporting sources.

The difference between creation myths and other ancient accounts across biblical documents is so completely inconsistent and contradictory, it cannot even come close to being called 'history'. Christianity is on equal footing with Greek Mythology. Except Greek Mythology has far better literature than the three, conflicting, Abrahamic religious documents. They just don't make um like they used to.

History is a collection of discovered and documented facts of happenings past. Religion is mud and sticks used to fill gaps in the thatch. Modern society doesn't use thatch so much anymore... we have superior products to keep us dry and warm.

 

[atrib]

It's possible, but highly unlikely. There's no evidence of any such thing. But there is evidence that the Jesus miracles did happen.

No there isn't. There is no evidence to support the supernatural claims of the Bible. There is no evidence that Jesus walked on water, turned water to wine, died and later came back to life, or that he flew up into the sky. Not a single historian of the time saw fit to record any of these amazing events. NOT ONE! Repeating this lie over and over will not magically make it true.

You will not respond to a single post that challenges your claims on these points, which is central to the doctrines of Christianity. That speaks volumes of the character and integrity of your testimony here.

 

[Malintent]

writing down a story, and then responding to observations that the story is demonstrably fiction, by referencing characters within the story as 'evidence' of eye witness, is unacceptable. This should be plainly obvious to any rational, competent person over the age of 3. Apart from the statements made within the story itself, there is no evidence that any miracles (or much of anything therein) is anything but fiction. Some nice stories, and some horrific ones. But all fiction.

You owe me 1 million dollars. My friend, Frank, agrees. Frank says over 10,000 people also know this as fact. Now, you must agree to pay me, because I provided the evidence of many eyewitness to the debt.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's possible, but highly unlikely. There's no evidence of any such thing. But there is evidence that the Jesus miracles did happen.

No there isn't. There is no evidence to support the supernatural claims of the Bible. There is no evidence that Jesus walked on water, turned water to wine, died and later came back to life, or that he flew up into the sky. Not a single historian of the time saw fit to record any of these amazing events. NOT ONE! Repeating this lie over and over will not magically make it true.

You will not respond to a single post that challenges your claims on these points, which is central to the doctrines of Christianity. That speaks volumes of the character and integrity of your testimony here.

Well there is evidence for the miracles - the recorded accounts at the end of fifty to a hundred years of the game of Chinese whispers (telephone game in the US). However the evidence is much more questionable than the questionable evidence for anal probing aliens, bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. At least for these three we have many, many first hand accounts and even some photographs and video.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is the same evidence as for any other historical events.

I'm convinced Saul/Paul was delusional and his followers mimic the delusion look at the evidence

He's on that kick, still?

Say that we can identify two people from Cleopatra's time who claim to have seen Cleopatra, then we would have far more evidence for the historical event that was 'Cleopatra,' than we have for Jesus.
I wonder, then, if we can find four sources that repeat the Pharaohs' claims to be descended of gods, does that mean that her divinity would be twice as historical as her mere existence?

 

[atrib]

I'm convinced Saul/Paul was delusional and his followers mimic the delusion look at the evidence

He's on that kick, still?

Say that we can identify two people from Cleopatra's time who claim to have seen Cleopatra, then we would have far more evidence for the historical event that was 'Cleopatra,' than we have for Jesus.
I wonder, then, if we can find four sources that repeat the Pharaohs' claims to be descended of gods, does that mean that her divinity would be twice as historical as her mere existence?

If you were to follows Lumpy's train of logic, then yes.

But why look that far back? According to Lumpy, if you could find 3 Chinese people today who had heard a story of a man coming alive after 4 days of being dead and then flying up into the sky in 19th Century Tibet, that would be credible evidence that a man in Tibet rose up from the dead and flew up to the sky 150 years ago. or at least, Lumpy would consider the story to be likely true.

Or maybe supernatural claims are only true if they are written in the Bible, and no other supernatural claim, no matter how well supported, could be considered credible or even plausible. Maybe Lumpy knows something about the Bible that nobody else knows, and he simply unwilling to share that information with us. Because he sure as fuck is not interested in discussing any evidence pertaining to Jesus' resurrection and flying with us, which is kind of the whole premise that Christianity is founded on. Or maybe Lumpy is knowingly making up shit like pretty much every other "liar for Christ" that occasionally grace us with their presence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you were to follows Lumpy's train of logic, then yes.

Ah, but you miss the keyest point of Lumpy's 'logic.' Start with the desired conclusion and work backwards.
If he doesn't desperately need Cleopatra to be descended of gods, then it's not historical.
At best it's a possibility, but it's not one that grants eternal life, so it's improbable.

 

[atrib]

If you were to follows Lumpy's train of logic, then yes.

Ah, but you miss the keyest point of Lumpy's 'logic.' Start with the desired conclusion and work backwards.
If he doesn't desperately need Cleopatra to be descended of gods, then it's not historical.
At best it's a possibility, but it's not one that grants eternal life, so it's improbable.

Lumpy does not appear to care about any other supernatural stories, he only believes the supernatural stories he has heard from his Christian preacher and/or his Christian peers. Lumpy couldn't care less about Cleopatra's divinity, the monkey god of Hindu mythology, Hanuman, or Vishnu and Shiva. I also believe that he is barely literate in the Bible (has he even read the book?), much less the history and foundation of faiths other than his own.

The Biblical stories of Jesus performing supernatural acts are:

1. Absurd (people rising up from the dead and floating up into the sky - it doesn't get any more absurd than that)
2. Based on anonymous hearsay far removed in space and time from when these events allegedly transpired,
3. Unsupported by any narrative from contemporary historians (which is itself quite miraculous, since people rising up from the dead and floating up into the sky is NOT commonplace and would definitely be recorded by many people far and wide if it had actually happened),
4. Demonstrably flawed in their depiction of reality, and
5. Just like every other myth or magical story that humans have made up over the millennia.

In a thread spanning 100 odd pages and many months, Lumpy has continued to assert that his favorite Bible stories of Jesus' corpse turning into a zombie and flying up into the sky are credible. That a literate adult can make such a claim with a straight face is a testament to the corrupting power of religious faith. I also believe Lumpy fully understands the absurdity of his position, but is unable to acknowledge his doubts because his imaginary god is allegedly too insecure to handle any semblance of rational thought in his followers.

 

[Atheos]

The anonymous people who invented the Jesus myth lied about the virgin birth. They lied about Herod having all male babies 2 and under killed 'throughout the coasts.' They lied about Quirinius requiring everyone to go to their ancestors home towns for a census (stupid, stupid, stupid). They lied about many other things we actually have the ability to check on. Obviously some things they got right, such as that Bethlehem was near Jerusalem and that Pilate was procurator of that region in roughly the time period in question, but those are the sorts of things that were of such common knowledge that nobody could possibly get away with claiming otherwise.

Tales of clandestine meetings between Herod and some anonymous mystics from the East, scandals of guards being bribed in secret meetings with religious rulers, associations with known historical figures of the day such as John the Baptist or Pilate are exactly the sorts of things that are immune from validation.

So they lied about nearly everything we can verify and they mixed in a bunch of stuff there's no way to verify. Then they included a bunch of extraordinary claims about magic, alchemy, levitation, necromancy, demon possession, magic pools, etc. And people buy this bullshit today!

And that's just the thing. Lumpenproletariat wishes we'd all just forget the fact that 90% of what we know about history is validated with actual physical evidence, not just hearsay. Ancient ruins, coins, artifacts, tools, pictures, adversarial testimony, etc. Nothing validates extraordinary claims better than physical evidence but adversarial testimony is certainly better than nothing. And when I say adversarial testimony I'm not talking about made-up adversaries that are part of the story-line written by the apologetic author, I'm talking about independent testimony spoken (and/or written) by a genuine adversary.

So no, Lumpenproletariat, what you keep saying about how we evaluate history is not just wrong: It's nearly as wrong as it is possible to be. You may believe it but you're not going to sell it here.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A long time ago, I noticed that Lumpy knows about as much about historians as most creationists know about evolutionary research or the real Big Bang theory.

 

[skepticalbip]

The anonymous people who invented the Jesus myth lied about the virgin birth. They lied about Herod having all male babies 2 and under killed 'throughout the coasts.' They lied about Quirinius requiring everyone to go to their ancestors home towns for a census (stupid, stupid, stupid). They lied about many other things we actually have the ability to check on. Obviously some things they got right, such as that Bethlehem was near Jerusalem and that Pilate was procurator of that region in roughly the time period in question, but those are the sorts of things that were of such common knowledge that nobody could possibly get away with claiming otherwise.

Tales of clandestine meetings between Herod and some anonymous mystics from the East, scandals of guards being bribed in secret meetings with religious rulers, associations with known historical figures of the day such as John the Baptist or Pilate are exactly the sorts of things that are immune from validation.

So they lied about nearly everything we can verify and they mixed in a bunch of stuff there's no way to verify. Then they included a bunch of extraordinary claims about magic, alchemy, levitation, necromancy, demon possession, magic pools, etc. And people buy this bullshit today!

And that's just the thing. Lumpenproletariat wishes we'd all just forget the fact that 90% of what we know about history is validated with actual physical evidence, not just hearsay. Ancient ruins, coins, artifacts, tools, pictures, adversarial testimony, etc. Nothing validates extraordinary claims better than physical evidence but adversarial testimony is certainly better than nothing. And when I say adversarial testimony I'm not talking about made-up adversaries that are part of the story-line written by the apologetic author, I'm talking about independent testimony spoken (and/or written) by a genuine adversary.

So no, Lumpenproletariat, what you keep saying about how we evaluate history is not just wrong: It's nearly as wrong as it is possible to be. You may believe it but you're not going to sell it here.

You will likely enjoy this alternative reading of Jesus' place in "reality". It takes some real verifiable science, some unverifiable science speculations, the Biblical accounts and spins a more supportable (though itself unsupportable is still funny as hell) story of what the Bible is really telling us about Jesus.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Can we believe ANY documents from history? Or are all of them "forgeries"? a ''pack of lies"? later "interpolations"?

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.

your response is too idiotic to pass up.

basically somebody wrote a story that said there were witnesses and you believe the story because it was written.

retarded

No, I made it clear that there are written stories that I do NOT believe. To be credible, the story has to meet certain critical standards. The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard and so are credible. But there are other Bible miracle stories that are not credible because they don't meet the higher standard.

So it's not "because it was written" that I believe the story.

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.

There's more than one source for them.

Wow, 2 primary sources . . .

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

Well, at least you dropped the 10-30 year BS. Though I hardly consider 30 to 60 years a “short time”.

The accounts of the Jesus miracles existed probably in the 40s, less than 20 years afterward.

The earliest document about Jesus is actually not the Gospels themselves or even St. Paul, but the Q document from which much of Matthew and Luke is derived. This document is likely as early as 50 AD, or 20 years after the reported events http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm , and is thought to be from some of the actual direct disciples of Jesus.

Though it's mostly sayings rather than miracle stories, there are two miracle healings of Jesus reported in it (Mt 8:5-13/Lk 7:1-10 and Mt 12:22/Lk 11:14), and also a 3rd reference in which these acts of Jesus are referred to (Mt 11:2-5/Lk 7:18-22).

Though this document was written probably around 50 AD, it is based on oral tradition already in existence for some period earlier. So these miracle stories of Jesus almost certainly were current in the 40s. So they were circulating within 20 years from the time of the actual events and when many eye witnesses were still alive.

Where did such stories, oral or written, at that early date, originate from? You can speculate that they were all invented maybe about 40 AD or so. But a better explanation is that they date back to around 30 AD when the events actually happened. They originated as reports based on the memories of those who witnessed the events.

By comparison, stories about other 1st-century miracle workers, like Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana, didn't exist until at least a century later than the life of the reported miracle-worker. So we have much less reason to believe those accounts.

Nevermind the 2 centuries the stories got to percolate before we ended up with any copies. We have strong evidence in a few cases showing that the followers of this new cult were not above amending the stories.

Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance.

A greater time lapse than this is normal for accounts about the events of the period. For historians like Herodotus and Livy and Tacitus etc., the time lapse is far greater from the original writing and the date of the copies we have now, and the risk of changes during copying is just as great.

Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance.

You have absolutely no way to show this to be true.

The claim: "Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance."

This claim has just as much "historical value" as saying:

Or: Overall the writings of Homer and Livy and Josephus and Virgil and Tacitus were preserved accurately, with no significant change.

Okay.

Is anyone claiming that Homer and Livy and Josephus and Virgil and Tacitus' writings were preserved accurately?

Everyone is assuming that they were preserved accurately.

Historians tell us what these writers said, claiming they said it, and they base this on modern published editions, which they quote and use as proof of what those writers said. So they are implying that the published editions they use tell us accurately what that writer originally wrote.

Most historians i read will refer to a copy from a known date, or a copy from a range of dates.

But they claim this is what the writer himself said. They quote Thucydides and tell us this is his account of the Peloponnesian War. They don't say it's the account of a 7th-century AD copyist who is giving us his version of Thucydides.

In this Wiki page on Thucydides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides there are many statements and ideas attributed to the 5th-century BC historian, claiming this is what he said, but there is no later copyist identified as the real source. It's assumed that all of it really came from the 5th-century BC author.

They are assuming that the later copies, which our published editions are based upon, are generally accurate in passing on to us what the original writer said. Which does not rule out that there can be some changes added to the original text, but these are minor and do not distort the overall substance of the original writing. Later copying changes can lead to some arguments about the original text, but only in certain disputed passages, which are a small fraction of the total writing.

I don't know of any trying to claim that they know what the writings contained from copies they've never seen?

They all assume to know what the writings contained. They claim to know what the writer originally wrote based on our present published editions, which come from documents dating many centuries later than the original writer lived. Obviously they believe these published editions accurately present the original author's text.

It is laughable that you are trying to debunk the reliability of the gospel accounts based on a theory that would basically eliminate our reliance on ANY of the historical record, since we can't prove with certainty that ANY writings are truly what the original authors said based on verifying it by going back in a time machine to watch them write the original words.

Your argument DEMANDS that you have access to data that isn't available to scholars today.

No, the only "data" needed are the manuscripts which are available, most of which are dated many centuries later than the original writing. All the historical record is based on the reliability of these manuscripts to pass on to us what the original authors wrote, even though there are probably some changes or edits to the original text.

No one claims to have verified our current editions by having gone back in a time machine to verify that the original author did in fact write these exact words that we have now, as your criterion demands. But they all assume that the editions we have now are an accurate rendition of what the original author really did write, while recognizing the likelihood of minor changes over centuries of copying and recopying. These changes do not distort the text we now have into something substantially different from what the original author wrote.

If you have a private family archive that no one else knows about, that might be interesting. But without that, it's just impossible for you to know what did and didn't change.

And therefore, we don't really know that Julius Caesar was assassinated? This alleged event is based on alleged reports from 44 BC, but we have no access to those original oral or written reports when the event(s) happened, and therefore we cannot verify the accuracy of the documents we do have access to, from centuries later, which may have been changed from what the original reports said.

So your whole case, that we can't rely on the gospel accounts, requires us to also reject the reliability of ANY accounts of history, and therefore to reject the entire historical record for events of many centuries past, probably from about 1500 AD and earlier.

Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance.

You have absolutely no way to show this to be true.

But if it were not true, someone would give an example of such a significant change or change of substance.

No.

This is still not demonstrating that the accounts were preserved over time.

You would need to have two accounts to compare, from known times of authorship, in order to see if major error were or were not introduced.

By that standard we can't believe most accounts of historical events, most of our accepted historical record would have to be rejected. We can't prove that the record or the documents reporting them were not changed over time in the copying. You're arguing against most of the historical record, eliminating most of what's taught in history classes about Rome or Greece or any other early period.

There are a tiny few cases where a comparison similar to what you're demanding is possible. E.g., the earliest manuscript fragment of the Gospel of John, dating from the early 2nd century, has exactly the same wording as the later-dated manuscripts.

And there are a few other variant readings or versions to allow some comparison, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls contain long excerpts from the Hebrew scriptures, and the text is the same.

So there's a little evidence that earlier documents were preserved in substance as they were copied and recopied over many centuries. And probably there were changes, or additions, but nothing substantial. No indication of "major error" being introduced.

But for the vast majority of the historical record, or documents of any kind, there is no possibility of comparing later manuscripts with earlier ones to prove that the text was not changed over time. So by your standard, most recorded history from that far back -- the accepted historical record -- has to be rejected as unreliable.

I want to improve on my above remark, "So there's a little evidence that earlier documents were preserved in substance as they were copied and recopied over many centuries. . . . But for the vast majority of the historical record, or documents of any kind, there is no possibility of comparing later manuscripts with earlier ones to prove that the text was not changed over time."

I think there are many examples of writings for which there are different versions, or manuscripts, probably some from dates far apart and thus allowing comparisons, such as is demanded here, to determine if major changes might have occurred over time. Obviously this is the case for high-profile writings like Homer and Cicero and the Bible (but not most documents from history).

So, where such comparisons are possible, they show that there were occasional changes ("interpolations" or "glosses" or whatever they're called), but virtually none where the overall text was substantially changed, i.e., "no significant change" -- no cases where the original text was distorted into something substantially different or contrary to the original text.

A simple example would be the famous Josephus text, Antiquities 18.3.3, where the words "He was the Christ" and some others were added to the original text. Let's assume, for the present purpose, that these words, or this passage, was entirely a later insertion by a Christian editor.

Even so, this does not distort the substance of the Josephus accounts. What we have in the modern editions of Josephus is substantially what Josephus wrote, despite this insertion and maybe some others also.

Just because you can cite some later changes or insertions does not invalidate the document as a whole. The added ending to Mark does not invalidate or undermine the credibility of Mark's Gospel generally. All the complaints about such changes or "interpolations" or "glosses" which later copyists/editors added do not say anything at all about the reliability of these accounts as a record of what happened and which we can believe generally, even though certain passages might be rejected as inaccurate.

Sensationalist language about "forgery" and "lies" and "making up shit" is nothing more than an emotional outburst which is totally irrelevant to the main issue, of whether the historical Jesus Christ person did or did not have power such as he is depicted to have in those documents.

The same basic problems of determining the exact text exist with all documents of the period, not just the New Testament writings. Even if you can show that the Gospel accounts may have more of such copying/editing problems than normal, or more "interpolations"/"glosses" than is usual for the period, this still does not discredit these accounts as a reliable source for determining the events that took place. Rather, you just have to consider each individual problem text and make a judgment in that case as to the reliability of that one text.

Even if you can come up with several dubious passages in the Gospel accounts, this does not mean these accounts are unreliable generally as sources for the events in question. I.e., we can still believe the accounts overall, while rejecting the quotes at the end of Mark, or the incident of Mt. 27:52-53 of the corpses rising up and invading Jerusalem, or some other questionable subject matter. It is petty and bone-headed to pounce on these examples as proof that you have debunked the gospel accounts generally or the overall portrayal of Jesus in the gospels.

The Jesus-debunker crusaders need to rise to a higher level than this in order to discredit the gospel accounts as evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus.

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat, until you address the very real arguments that have been presented time and time again about how real historical criticism is done (not religious bias) you're just babbling.

People lie. People lie a lot and even when they're writing what they intend to be taken as history they misrepresent the truth based on their own agendas. And nobody is more prone to embellish the truth than someone with good intentions trying to convince someone else that their magic super-hero god is better than everyone else's.

The reason that sensible people reject the miracle claims of the gospels is that they are extraordinary claims substantiated only by anonymous testimony from people who did not even claim to have been eye witnesses. It just doesn't get much worse than that.

Sensible people reject that George Washington hurled a silver dollar over the Potomac river for the same reasons.

You can keep babbling on about how this attitude would relegate all written history to the trash bin but you're just wrong, and everyone here knows it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Comparison of Jesus to Mohammed -- OK, let's see the evidence. What are the sources? When were they written?

I have been loosely reading lumpenprat's ravings...

anybody have a summary of the major fallacies that are being used?

I would wonder if the same approach lumpenprat is using can be used to justify the Qur'an or maybe buttress the truth of Islam.

It would have to be claimed that Mohammed demonstrated power, such as in the Jesus miracle acts, and we would need to see the evidence for those claims.

Such evidence would be accounts of such miracle acts performed by Mohammed which were written reasonably close to the time of the alleged events. So we would need to see accounts of miracles he performed, and these accounts should be dated to prior to 650 AD or so.

The Qu'ran is an acceptable source for such miracles, but we need more than only one source. One might question this source, as maybe everything in it is only from Mohammed himself, but it's basically acceptable as long as there are some additional sources from someone other than Mohammed. We should accept the source as long as it was accepted at the time as reliable, even if we are suspicious of the writer or speaker of the words. Having some additional sources as well is the main requirement.


Miracles of Mohammed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad gives a list of miracles of Mohammed.

So, what is the evidence for Mohammed's miracles by comparison to that of Jesus in the Gospel accounts? The comparison is pathetic, based on any reasonable standard.

Virtually all the "miracles" of Mohammed are to be found in the collection called the Hadith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith , not in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran is close enough to the time of the alleged events that it should be taken as evidence, but it's not strong enough by itself, and yet the only early source for any of these "miracles," such as they are, is the Qu'ran.

Whereas the Hadith writings are spread out over several centuries later, and virtually none of it is less than 200 years past Mohammed's life when the events allegedly happened, although the claim is that most of its contents are ultimately derived from the sayings of the prophet himself. Like most of the sayings of Confucius, which are really dated to centuries later than Confucius himself, are attributed to the great teacher himself by his devotees.

The Hadith could be considered as similar to the New Testament, as being not only one source but a collection of several sources or writings, and so perhaps these separate sources would satisfy the requirement that we have more than one source only. That's fair enough. But the Hadith are really worthless as evidence, being all dated from 200 years or more past the actual events being reported.

So, be careful about claims that Mohammed also performed miracles like Jesus did and so is equal to Jesus, and that there were eye witnesses and so on. We have no evidence of any such miracles, or accounts, such as we have for the miracles of Jesus. For the latter we have four separate documents, separate sources, dated to less than 100 years later, mostly to 50 years or less, whereas for Mohammed there is only a collection of writings from 200 years or later after the events.

But there is another factor to consider: In the case of Mohammed it is very easy to explain how some miracle stories could have evolved as a normal process of mythologizing, because he became a very powerful celebrity over a long career of preaching and conquering as a warrior and crusader. So it is easy to see how miracle stories would become attributed to him by his followers during this long time in which he influenced them with his charisma and his talent as a warrior-conqueror.

But in the case of Jesus there is no such explanation possible. He was not a celebrity at the time of his death, having had an extremely short career of less than 3 years and having no official recognition or power. By all logic, he should have been totally forgotten without a trace in the historical record. Why should he be mentioned IN ANY DOCUMENT AT ALL, even one? For what? What did he do?


How does a legend get started in the first place?

A mythic hero or legendary wonder-worker always had to be someone who did something notable, to distinguish himself, and then from that point became popularized in folklore as the original accounts became exaggerated and story-telling took over from the original accounts, which were true, and new fictional accounts became added over a considerable time lapse within which the new stories had time to evolve.

You have to find an answer to this question: Why should someone get a mention in ANY document whatever if he did as little as Jesus did (unless he performed the miracle healing acts) and whose public life was less than 3 years? What distinguished him in the beginning, that brought him the attention and got the early story-telling started? There was nothing notable (without the miracle acts) to get the legend started in the first place.

It's inexplicable. There is absolutely no historical precedent for such a thing. The comparison to Mohammed is ludicrous and laughable.


HOWEVER,

Here is a book of Mohammed's miracles: https://muqith.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/the-miracles-of-the-prophet-bv-ibn-kathir.pdf

perhaps detailing his deeds of producing food, like Jesus multiplying the fish and the loaves, or healing someone, or whatever -- the earlier long list of miracles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad contains these, though most of the "miracles" listed there seem to be only prophecies which any ordinary person could have made, as normal predictions of the future.

But if anyone thinks Mohammed performed miracles that are documented by writings near to the time they happened, let them go through this book, or other source, and provide the examples. I am too biased to believe that there is anything of substance in these sources and will not pursue them at this point. But I'd like to know if anyone finds something there.

Remember, we need more than one source, preferably 3 or 4, which were written close to the time of the events, like to 50 or so years later, or not more than 100 years maximum.

It is interesting that some contributors to this topic keep implying that there are other documented miracle-workers similar to Jesus in the Gospels, and yet no one is giving any real example of this and citing the sources for it.

The lack of sources for these claims is amazing. This extreme lack of sources, and nothing but empty claims, is itself a further bit of evidence in favor of the miracles of Jesus, showing how uniquely these stand apart from all the other alleged cases of miracle-workers.

Why the secrecy? Why are the documents never cited? Are the examples so ludicrous that you're ashamed to present them?

 

[DBT]

The 'evidence' for the miracles of Jesus being based on nothing more than hearsay. Written by people who had no first hand experience with the so called events they were writing about. Which is pretty poor as far as evidence goes.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Mohammed miracle story dated 200+ years later than Mohammed. (too late to qualify as evidence)

HOWEVER,

Here is a book of Mohammed's miracles: https://muqith.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/the-miracles-of-the-prophet-bv-ibn-kathir.pdf

perhaps detailing his deeds of producing food, like Jesus multiplying the fish and the loaves, or healing someone, or whatever -- the earlier long list of miracles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad contains these, though most of the "miracles" listed there seem to be only prophecies which any ordinary person could have made, as normal predictions of the future.

But if anyone thinks Mohammed performed miracles that are documented by writings near to the time they happened, let them go through this book, or other source, and provide the examples. I am too biased to believe that there is anything of substance in these sources and will not pursue them at this point. But I'd like to know if anyone finds something there.

Too late to do an edit on this, so I'll add this here: I looked up the miracle of Mohammed producing food similar to that of Jesus multiplying the fish and loaves. Just a spot-check taking this one as a test.

It turns out that this comes from the Hadith,

collected by the Iranian Muslim scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari, after being transmitted orally for generations. Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik.[1] It is also used as an authentic hadith collection by Zaidi Shia Muslims.[2] In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Quran.[3][4] The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.[5]

. . .

The book covers almost all aspects of life in providing proper guidance of Islam such as the method of performing prayers and other actions of worship directly from the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Bukhari finished his work around 846, and spent the last twenty-four years of his life visiting other cities and scholars, teaching the hadith he had collected. In every city that Bukhari visited, thousands of people would gather in the main mosque to listen to him recite traditions. In reply to Western academic doubts as to the actual date and authorship of the book that bears his name, scholars point out that notable hadith scholars of that time, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal (855 CE/241 AH), Yahya ibn Ma'in (847 CE/233 AH), and Ali ibn al-Madini (848 CE/234 AH), accepted the authenticity of his book[9] and that the collection's immediate fame makes it unlikely that it could have been revised after the author's death without historical record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari

So it dates from about 840 AD, more than 200 years after the Prophet's death. Probably all the "miracles" of Mohammed which might have any credibility as real miracle acts, or superhuman acts, originate from this much later period, and are thus not credible as evidence for any miracle acts which Mohammed himself might have done.

It's interesting that the article here is eager to emphasize the "authenticity" of this book, i.e., that it really comes from this 9th-century author and not some later myth-maker.

Those who think the Jesus miracle stories are too far separated from the actual events, like 40 or 50 or 60 years, and that this makes those accounts unreliable, need to do more reading to see how far removed the writings usually are from the actual events. They would learn that the Jesus miracle stories are unusually close to the actual alleged events in comparison to even normal events, and astonishingly close for something like miracle stories.

Now, I'm too bigoted and prejudiced to spend any more time looking up Mohammed miracle stories, but if someone wants to make the case, find those accounts, show the evidence, then fine, and we can consider if a similar case can be made that Mohammed had power similar to that of Jesus in the Gospel accounts.

Or if there is any other miracle-worker hero figure similar to the 1st-century Jesus who was crucified in about 30 AD, then let's look at it. Find the accounts, give the quotes, the references, the text that it's based on. So far no one seems to be able to offer any serious example for comparison.

 

[James Brown]

The written evidence for the miracles of Moses dates back to thousands of years after the events. But because they are found in the same "book" as the miracles of Jesus, they are accepted all the same. In fact, they mutually support each other.

 

[Atheos]

Joseph Smith. *sigh*

 

[Kharakov]

I would wonder if the same approach lumpenprat is using can be used to justify the Qur'an or maybe buttress the truth of Islam.

It would have to be claimed that Mohammed demonstrated power, such as in the Jesus miracle acts, and we would need to see the evidence for those claims.

Ok, this is pretty nice, because it goes along with the numerology angle that I like. The Qur'an has some cool ass numerical shit, as well as the biblical stuff, both of which I enjoy. So does nature... but that's another story altogether.

Funny, of course it's deliberate (maybe not your act, but by someone who monitors my activity) that you addressed the Qur'an in this post, since I recently read some things about numerology and the Q.

I happened to be curious about how many posts were between your reply and Schrodinger's Outlaw's post... and it was a nice round number: 99,999. I like round numbers... recently posting the 22,222th post in the lounge, in the 555th thread. Anyway...

You're fucking crazy.

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat's argument is a sinking ship with holes throughout the hull. His myopic treatment of each part of the argument is laughable, like a sailor sticking his hand over one hole and saying "See, the ship isn't sinking!" all while gallons of water pour in from the other holes.

He ignores that there have been literally dozens (perhaps hundreds) of hero-god myths laid out over the centuries, many of which predate his favorite one. "Ah, but this one doesn't include this detail, and that one doesn't follow that pattern." It's the big picture that damns his claim that somehow his story is unique. They're *all* unique in some way.

He ignores that there is no meaningful evidence supporting the existence of his favorite super-hero so he can make the claim that written documents appeared within decades of his life. If this character had no actual life (which is still a valid possibility) placing written evidence within whatever time frame of his life is meaningless.

He ignores the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not just a slogan as he likes to say, it's a way of life. Science is the discipline of separating truth from fiction using that very principle for the express reason that people are unreliable and their testimony worthless without supporting evidence. Not more people parroting the same thing, more actual evidence that what they're parroting is actually correct.

Peer review is an entire field dedicated to little else besides the discipline of separating truth from claims.

Yet Lumpenproletariat expects skeptics to swallow the whole unsubstantiated Jesus-miracle myth with the worst evidence possible: anonymous testimony of people who did not claim to be witnesses writing decades and hundreds of miles removed from the events in question.

Seriously? It's absolutely insane how horrid this "evidence" is.