120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Barbarian]

There is nothing arbitrary or inappropriate about including only the early documents and excluding documents from 100-200 years later.

Given the limitations of the age, it is totally arbitrary what was or wasn't thought to be an 'early document' 300 years later. They had no idea and no chance to know.

 

[Atheos]

It does seem telling that most of the arguments presented by Lumpenproletariat are predicated on a refusal to consider that the legends of Jesus might have developed over time. He cannot seem to accept anything other than a perfectly formed and cohesive Jesus story in 33 A.D., unadulterated by even the slightest oral exaggeration over the next 40 years when Mark transcribed it from a tape recording he had.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It does seem telling that most of the arguments presented by Lumpenproletariat are predicated on a refusal to consider that the legends of Jesus might have developed over time. He cannot seem to accept anything other than a perfectly formed and cohesive Jesus story in 33 A.D., unadulterated by even the slightest oral exaggeration over the next 40 years when Mark transcribed it from a tape recording he had.

Well, the Ancients had many skills we lack today. The Egyptians grew colored cotton, the Hittites could hypnotize cobras while eating a cheese Danish, the Greeks could dance Limbo under a closed door and the Jews could transmit oral traditions with all the precision of a stone tablet cut with a cold-steel chisel. Or at least, that's the story handed down by the Ancients, and you have to figure they were in a position to know these things.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Which is more important -- whether Christ had power, or nitpicking over the definition of "miracle"?

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

What an incredibly self-serving misuse of the term. Where do you find this definition held by any other people?

There are 3 New Testament Greek words: dunamis ("power"), teras ("wonder"), and semeion ("sign"). My intermediate Liddell-Scott Lexicon gives definitions like what I told you above. Perhaps the extensive version of this Lexicon would also include something about deities giving signs or wonders.

Can you point to where it says 'power-exclusive of divine power' or 'wonder-but not so wondrous as the divine' or 'sign, but not a sign of divine?'

No. The definition does not exclude the possibility of "God" being the cause of it. In many cases "God" is believed to be the cause, obviously.

Those definitions do not seem to actually disagree with the google definition that includes 'therefore the work of a divine agency.'

But the point is that "divine agency" does not have to be part of one's definition, or use of the word. I.e., an event or act might be a "miracle" without "divine agency" being part of the meaning of this word.

And also, there are two other Google definitions of "miracle" in addition to the one you gave:

"a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences" and

"an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something"

https://www.google.com/#q=miracle+definition

And these say nothing about a divine connection.

So clearly, the word "miracle" does not require the meaning that God caused it. One can use this word in a context that does not require the connection to God in the meaning.

So the event can be a "miracle" without any claim about what caused it. Or the cause can remain unknown. Just like a "UFO" can be of unknown origin and does not necessarily mean a "flying saucer" bringing invaders from Mars.

Under "semeion" the gods are mentioned as possibly giving the sign. But other meanings do not include the gods as having a role. It doesn't have to be something theological or religious.

You seem to be a little confused, then, as to why the Jesus-fan religion has so much more going for it.

It "has so much more going for it" because in this case we have evidence that the miracle acts really happened. And there's a big difference between miracle claims which are true and claims which are fiction. It makes a difference if his power was real and if he is still alive today and if that power still exists. This makes him far more important than other figures who have been worshiped but who did not have any similar power, or than other reputed miracle-workers for whom there is no evidence of their having such power.

You draw a direct connection between Jesus performing healing miracles and his ability to give us eternal salvation.

If that power is great enough, why should it not also produce life beyond death? This possibility is suggested by his resurrection and also by his raising the dead back to life. Power such as this is directly connected to the possibility of "eternal life."

But it's not proof or certainty. Rather, it's a reasonable hope based on historical evidence of the power he demonstrated.

Then in some strange two-faced approach, you want to discuss the healing as a miracle, but completely apart from his divinity.

Why is that?

No, it's not necessarily "apart from his divinity." It's just that the actual miracle event can be understood or recognized by someone who has no theories about "divinity." It's an event that happened and was observed or experienced, regardless what an observer believes about "God" or "divinity."

The "divine" source of the miracle is not part of the definition of "miracle." Just like the physics of precipitation is not part of the definition of "rain." One can recognize rain without knowing the cause of it, the precipitation. Or one can know the difference between day and night without knowing the science of the earth rotation. We can identify something, know it, define it, even though we don't know the cause of it.

A non-theological definition is proper, even though there are those who also want to insert "God" into the meaning.

Sure. That's what the word you used, 'miracle,' actually means. With 'divine' in the definition.

No, the "divine" part is optional. I've shown from a standard Greek lexicon, and also from Google definitions, that the word does not necessarily include "divine" as part of the meaning. One's use of the word may include that, as an option, but it's not required.

Did Jesus perform these acts depicted in the gospel accounts or did he not? The answer to this matters regardless of anyone's theories about the source of his power or about the nature of "divinity" or theological definitions.

We should not be quibbling about the definition of a word.

Unless it's crucial to your argument...that Jesus performed miracles, therefore we should think about worshiping him to avoid Hell.

No, the definition, such as from both the Greek lexicon and also from Google, is legitimate regardless what argument it's being used in. There's no need to quibble over the meaning of a word as long as it's being used according to its legitimate meaning, or one of its legitimate meanings. It doesn't matter whether it's used in an argument or what kind of argument it's being used in. Regardless of all that, it's silly to quibble over a word meaning as long as the word is being used according to a standard dictionary definition.

If the 'miracle' is NOT a sign of his divine authority, . . .

But maybe it IS a sign of his divine authority -- this isn't ruled out. It's just that this "divine" element is not necessarily part of the definition. The performance of the "miracle" act may be a sign of his "divine authority," but the act itself is a "miracle" regardless of what caused it or what it's a sign of or its possible "divine" connection.

. . . then there's no reason to conclude he's got any chance of granting our salvation.

If he had such power as the gospels describe, and if this power was great enough, then there IS reason to conclude, or there is reasonable hope, that he can grant "salvation" or continued life beyond death, such as through resurrection.

My definition is appropriate even though "God" or "gods" can be part of someone else's meaning.

Too bad, then, that it's clearly part of YOUR meaning.

Gee, thanks for letting me know what my real meaning is. I thought my meaning was according to the following standard definitions:

*a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences

*an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something

*a sign, mark, token, an omen, a sign or signal to do a thing

*a sign, wonder, marvel, sign in heaven, a monster

*power, ability to do a thing, strength, might

From now on I'll consult you first to find out what I really mean before I post anything. I don't want to misrepresent what I really mean, so I'll clear everything I say with you after this. Or I'll have you write my posts for me, since you know what I think better than I do. In fact, since you know what everyone else thinks better than they themselves, you should be the only one allowed to post anything.

I am giving my responses to the "reasons to reject Christianity" and I'm saying that the healing acts which Jesus did are evidence of his life-giving power, which is a basis for believing in him.

Yes. Belief in Jesus, as the Christ, as the ticket to eternal life.

That's theological.

Call it what you wish. Putting a label on it is not important.

What's important is what happened 2000 years ago, i.e., the acts of power which Christ performed for which we have evidence, and whether he is still alive or that power still exists.

This does not require a theological definition, though many Christians would include that. But it is usually not a part of the meaning of those 3 words. Perhaps in most cases the N. T. writer was assuming that "God" is the source of the power. But the raw word itself usually does not include that.

Considering your track record, i'm just going to have to conclude that you have no idea what the authors were trying to say, . . .

The point here is not "what the authors were trying to say" but that it's proper to use the word "miracle" as meaning:

*a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences

*an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something

*a sign, mark, token, an omen, a sign or signal to do a thing

*a sign, wonder, marvel, sign in heaven, a monster

*power, ability to do a thing, strength, might

without "God" or "divine" or "divinity" being a necessary part of the definition. This is not a pronouncement about "what the authors were trying to say."

The above meanings obviously were intended by some Greek writers, if the Greek lexicon is correct.

. . . and are projecting this strange schism for some unknown agenda of your own.

The only schism here are the 3 Greek words that are used in the N.T. and the definitions of them, from a standard Greek lexicon (and there is no presumption here "what the authors were trying to say" -- this is only a listing of the 3 major words they used and the standard lexicon definition):

sample text:

It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God added his testimony by signs and wonders and various miracles, . . .
(Hebrews 2:3-4)

The words "signs, wonders, miracles" --

1) by signs -- σημείοις -- (semeion)

2) (by) wonders -- τέρασιν -- (teras)

3) (by) miracles -- δυναμεσίν -- (dunamis)

The meanings of these words are as follows:

1) semeion: sign, mark, token, a sign from the gods, an omen, a sign or signal to do a thing

2) teras: a sign, wonder, marvel, sign in heaven, a monster

3) dunamis: power, ability to do a thing, strength, might, authority, a force for war

from Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon.

My use of the word "miracle" conforms to the above.

The "miracles of Jesus" are unusual acts he reputedly did and which some people believe really happened and others believe did not happen. The only legitimate question is whether he really did these acts, not whether someone is misusing the word "miracle" or anything about some "schism" or hidden "agenda" or theory about "what the authors were trying to say."

Since I'm giving here my arguments against the "reasons for rejecting Christianity," it is appropriate for you to accept the standard definition that I'm choosing, i.e., the meaning of the respective Greek word, and not impose your theological definition, even though many theologians and religionists would agree with your attaching it to "God" as you're doing.

I'm not attaching anything that isn't in the dictionary meaning of the word.

There's no such thing as THE dictionary meaning of the word -- There are several meanings, most of which do not have the "God" or "divine" part that you intolerantly demand must be included in the meaning. When there are alternate meanings, you are not entitled to dictate to everyone else the meaning you select as the only acceptable one for them to use, to the exclusion of the other meanings.

You need to stop quibbling about which dictionary meaning is allowed -- ALL of them may be used, including the ones which omit the "God" or "divine" component, as I am doing when I refer to the healing acts of Jesus as "miracles" -- there is nothing wrong with this meaning.

IF 'miracle' isn't the best translation for the healing acts, you should use another word.

It IS the best English word, and it is commonly used for the healing acts of Jesus. There is not "another word" that is better.

Don't blame me for your incoherence.

You're not being blamed for anything. (Could you try to stick to our topic.)

But such a theological meaning is not necessary since the 3 Greek words that are used do not require that.

But they do allow that. So you haven't made your case that the authors did not MEAN that.

There's no need to make any case about what "the authors" meant. In some cases "the authors" no doubt did intend a theological meaning, or that the "miracle" was caused by God. But in some cases this was not intended. E.g.:

Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute. He cured the mute person so that he could speak and see. All the crowd was astounded, and said, "Could this perhaps be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man drives out demons only by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons."
Mt. 12:22-23

It's clear in this example that the healing was recognized by critics who thought it was NOT caused by God.

If this act really happened, then it was a "miracle," even though one might think it was done by the power of demons rather than God. It was still an act of power (dunamis), or a "wonder" (teras).

There is nothing wrong with calling this act a "miracle" -- where the cured one receives both speech and sight. The healing act is clearly identified, but it's not identified how the cure was done -- what the source was, whether the power was from God or from demons.

The "miracle" act is one thing, but what caused it is something else. The "miracle" is not defined by the source that caused it.

So let's not degenerate into a superficial brawl over the meaning of a word.

This from the guy who argued for PAGES about the Wager, without ever actually knowing what the Wager says.

That has nothing to do with our topic.

My meaning is standard.

No, it's not.

So, Google definitions are not standard? Once again:

"a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences" and

"an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something"

What's not standard about these Google definitions? and also the Greek lexicon definitions I've listed earlier?

. . . even though there are other meanings also, and my use of these words does not preclude others using a more theological meaning.

Others? You haven't precluded the authors using a theological meaning, not yet.

Prophecies of what someone will do in the future is not our topic.

But for my arguments here the raw Greek word meaning is all that is intended, without the need for the theological doctrines along with it.

If that's your intent, you're doing a poor job of it.

Job performance is not our topic.

To tie the "miracle" concept to theology introduces unnecessary bickering over the nature of "God" and "supernatural" which is not necessary here.

It's your whole POINT, Lumpy!

Then this website needs to eject all other contributors and install you in their place to write all the posts, since you know what everyone's real point is, better than they themselves, and so it's better to have you write everything, so we're getting what everyone really thinks, rather than what they falsely THINK they think.

The reason to accept or reject Christianity is theological.

You mean if someone's "reason to accept Christianity" does not conform to your "theological" specifications, then it's invalid or nonlegitimate?

Here's an example of someone whose reason might not have been "theological":

A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak. She said to herself, "If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured." Jesus turned around and saw her, and said, "Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you." And from that hour the woman was cured.
Mt. 9:20-22

Her motivation or her thinking was not anything about "theology" but simply a desire to be healed. The thinking or the reasoning need not be anything more profound than this.

One can theologize verses like this, but it's not mandatory. One can think simply in terms of the benefit they seek, or the relief from suffering, and have no "theological" theories about the nature of "God" or about "divinity" or the "trinity" or the "Godhead" and so on.

Either there are gods, or there are not.

Perhaps. But the woman in the example above wasn't trying to solve such riddles. One can seek salvation from Christ without contemplating this or that theory about gods.

You're trying to avoid defining God, to sidestep crucial definitions that you're apparently not prepared to engage in.

Didn't the woman above who was healed also sidestep those "crucial" definitions? Did Jesus rebuke her and say, "Hey lady, first tell me your definition of God. I can't heal you as long as you're sidestepping these crucial definitions."?


(to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Which is more important -- whether Christ had power, or nitpicking over the definition of "miracle"?

(continued)

My arguments are not about theological doctrines, but about the events that happened in about 29-30 AD and whether these are an indication of a life-giving power that Jesus might have possessed. For my purpose it does not matter what the grand SOURCE of this power was.

So...maybe he was just a mutant and we can completely reject Christianity, anyway?

Or maybe he had power, and he returned to life after being killed, and maybe he's still alive and that power still exists. There are many maybe's.

The 'purpose' of your argument would seem to be rather different than you'll admit to.

Maybe I should not have said "For my purpose it does not matter what the grand SOURCE of this power was."

Instead I should have said "My point is about whether Christ had power and offers us eternal life, but not about what the SOURCE of his power was."

It's OK to address the source issue, but it's not what I'm addressing. My point (that Christ had power) is legitimate regardless what the Source of his power was.

Miracles are super-human acts, but that's because they show the power of God.

That is your doctrine, not mine. I'm not making any argument based on that doctrine.

You are, . . .

You're telling me what I really think in contradiction to what I say I think. At this point you're changing the topic away from our real topic -- reasons to reject Christianity or to believe in Christ -- to the topic of what I really think.

This new topic is not legitimate and is pointless.

Only what pertains directly to the official topic matters, not a new topic about what one of us really thinks vs. what he CLAIMS to be thinking.

So to repeat the relevant point: It matters whether Christ had power, i.e., whether he really did the miracle acts described in the gospel accounts. We can address this without needing to make claims about the SOURCE of this power.

If you want to make claims about the source of his power, it's fine, but it's up to you to make those claims. In the meantime, my claim that he had power and that this is important does matter without any need to identify the source of his power or analyze this source or theorize about it.

If you accuse me of really claiming something about "God," then you're changing the topic to what I really claim vs. what I'm claiming I claim, and this is not a legitimate topic here. You need to open your own separate topic in which you accuse other participants here of thinking or believing or claiming something contrary to what they claim they think or believe or claim.

. . . but you're trying not to get caught up in doing the ground work to support your conclusions.

Which conclusions are those? Which ones did I not support?

My main conclusion is that Christ had power, not as a certainty, but as a reasonable possibility, based on the evidence from 1st-century documents, and if this power was great enough, or extends far enough, it means the possibility of "eternal life" or resurrection to life beyond death.

This should be our topic, not quibbling over word meanings or over what a participant really means or thinks in contradiction to what he claims to be meaning or thinking.

Did your teachers never tell you to 'show your work'?

This also is not our topic.

The guy that brought up Smith's miracles was just to show that most of your bald-assertions about miracles were wrong. Then you went directly into moving your goalpost.

OK, let's go back over the Joseph Smith arguments again. (This would take up less space if you would be more specific in bringing up these examples. I.e., what's your point about Joseph Smith or about the points we've already covered concerning him?)


The Analogy between Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith

Did Joseph Smith do miracles?

The first step is to give the evidence for the Joseph Smith miracles. No one here has done this. You must give the actual documented text of these events and the approximate dates they were written.

There seems to be a reluctance by the Mormon Church to make these available. If someone can find them and give the quotes, we can then consider it.

But secondly, even if someone did make such claims, which seems likely, it is very easy to explain how Joseph Smith became mythologized and someone claimed he did a miracle when he really did not.

Although he did not have a long career like Gautama and Zoroaster and others, still his career was at least 15 years, during which he gathered a large number of disciples and they experienced his charisma, which obviously influenced them. Jesus had no such length of time within which to gather disciples and impress them and gather fame.

Also, Smith had a reputation which made him a controversial celebrity, which can easily lead to extra attention toward him, such as through rumors and gossip. He acquired this reputation as a controversial public figure over a period of 10-15 years, whereas the career of Jesus was too short for him to become a recognized public figure in his lifetime.

And further, by the 19th century the publishing industry had boomed vastly beyond anything in the 1st century, so that the printed word was used to spread the fame of charismatic figures and celebrities of all kinds. So it is to be expected that reports or beliefs or rumors about celebrities would be widespread by comparison to the 1st century when only a tiny fraction of such material got written or published, and virtually all written documents deteriorated and perished.

It's the norm for mythologized heroes to originate as recognized celebrities or known public figures, including someone notorious like Joseph Smith, but not someone unknown in his lifetime, or obscure, and having a short public career (3 years maximum). There is no explanation how Jesus, if he did not do the miracle acts, could have acquired any public recognition which would lead to him becoming mythologized into a god/hero figure as we see in the gospel accounts.


We know what was unique about Joseph Smith.

But further, it can be acknowledged that Joseph Smith was unusual compared to other religious founders. We can explain how he was more unique and attracted more attention than most others, and so could have become an object of mythologizing.

His message was a clear reinterpretation of the Christ belief tradition already long-established, such that he picked up on an earlier tradition, not starting something entirely new, and added a new unusual ingredient that was welcomed by a vast number of Christians. This message was the claim that Christ had made a visitation to the New World and presented the "gospel" to native Americans similar to what he did in Galilee and Judea.

This message had a strong impact, and we can identify this message exactly, or what the uniqueness was that drove the rapid spread of this new religion.

But by contrast, what was the new message brought by Jesus Christ in the gospel accounts? We cannot identify it. There were a vast number of new Christ cults that formed after 30 AD, and they went in all different directions in interpreting him and trying to claim to be his true "church" as opposed to all the others which were apostate.

The New Testament is full of conflicts and controversies between different groups claiming to be the true "apostles" of Jesus in contrast to the others which were going astray. There is no single message that prevails. We cannot identify a unifying force that drew the Christ believers together such as we can in the case of the followers of the early LDS movement.

For at least these reasons, we can easily explain the spread of the Mormon movement and the mythologizing of Joseph Smith, whereas we cannot explain the early Christ miracle stories and the attention given to this figure whose career was so short and who had no reputation or celebrity status until many decades after his departure.

(However, it's possible Jesus did have a reputation as a miracle-worker, in 30 AD, which would explain everything. But if the miracle accounts are fictitious, then there is nothing we can find to explain how he became mythologized, deified, made the object of a new religion, and why he is remembered in history at all.)

So the analogy between Jesus and Joseph Smith is not to be taken seriously.

So, what is your point about them? The Jesus miracles are believable because there is evidence that they happened.

No, there is not. There's a story that some thing happened.

That's evidence. Most history is based precisely on "a story that something happened." I.e., documents written during the period in question saying it happened.

Most of our history of that time is based on this kind of evidence. That's virtually all we have. It's all based on written "stories" of what happened. Most of our history of Greeks and Romans and others is based on stories "that something happened."

The gospel accounts were written closer to the reported events than most of our recorded history was written. It is typical for our recorded historical events to not have been written down until even 100 years after the events. Tacitus is regarded as a "primary source" for events that happened 100 years before he wrote about them.

And the stories are kinda clear that the reason they happened was 'because God,' which you're trying to avoid.

The question is: Did the events happen or not? That they were attributed to "God" answers nothing. It's precisely because the events did happen that someone found it necessary to provide an explanation for them.

Why did they need to explain anything? or give a "reason they happened" unless it was because the events did happen which then made an explanation necessary?

It was not a practice in the 1st century to invent miracle stories to support someone's religion. Name anyone who was doing this (i.e., successfully, who was believed widely and whose deeds were recorded). There especially were no miracle healing stories being invented at this time.

It's only AFTER Christ, after 50 or 100 AD, that new miracle healing stories started appearing (outside those in the gospel accounts). There is no precedent or pattern of inventing miracle stories that explains the sudden appearance of these miracle healing accounts of Jesus in the 1st century.

Yes, "the reason they happened was 'because God,'" is part of the gospel accounts, but what was the need to give a "reason they happened"? There could not even be a need to give a "reason they happened" unless those events actually happened. After the events actually happened, then there developed a need for a reason, i.e., there was something requiring an explanation -- i.e., God must have caused those events.

If there is evidence for other miracles, like for Yahweh or Joseph Smith, then maybe there's reason to believe them. But instead of giving any evidence for them, you just offer them as something to chuckle at and mock as objects of ridicule.

I don't believe in them because there's only a little bit better evidence for Smith's than there are for Jesus'.

Neither you nor anyone else here has cited this evidence. We need to read the text that someone wrote claiming that he did these miracles.

Plus, it's easy to explain how Joseph Smith may have been mythologized into a wonder-worker. This fits the same pattern as other reputed miracle-workers who had a widespread reputation, during their life, and influenced their disciples for many years, which is not so in the case of Jesus.

What is the evidence that Joseph Smith did miracles? Why won't anyone provide this evidence?

But still, they do show that Jesus' works aren't as unique as you would have us believe.

He is unique because he's the only case of a wonder-worker or mythologized hero/deity figure for whom there is no explanation how he became mythologized or deified.

I've explained how Joseph Smith was mythologized into something superhuman by some disciples (if those miracle stories about him do exist). It fits the normal pattern, whereas the Jesus case does not. You have to give the explanation how the mythologizing took place. This cannot be done in the case of Jesus, whereas it can easily be done in all the other cases that anyone has offered.

Give the evidence, or make the case for them, if you think there is a case or that they are comparable. Tell us about the witnesses and the multiple sources that report those events.

. . . the fact is that the stories exist and your lack of familiarity with them is clear.

We've had comparison to Apollonius of Tyana and to gods/heroes like Perseus and Hercules and Asclepius, also to Krishna and Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

In most or all cases the accounts of their alleged miracles don't exist until centuries after they existed, if they existed at all. And we can explain the stories as a result of normal mythologizing, usually over centuries. Joseph Smith would be an exception to the latter. But he had a long-enough career -- we can explain mythologizing happening before the death of the hero, if he had a long career, or he had a widespread reputation, and if he was unique in some way we can identify.

If you are not willing to offer the examples and show how they break the normal mythologizing pattern, then we can't take your claim seriously that these other cases do exist as parallels to Jesus and that Jesus is not unique.

So that makes me question how it is that you dismissed religions that you know fuck-all about, in favor of the one you were raised in?

You are the one dismissing them. You think none of them is worth offering as an example to prove your point. If your point were correct, that there are others who reputedly had power, such as Christ reportedly did, and for whom there is better evidence, then you would provide the examples.

Some of your comrades here have given examples, such as Krishna and Apollonius and others, and I have shown that there is no credible evidence for these which is comparable to the evidence we have for the historical Christ figure in the gospel accounts.

It's not an educated evaluation.

I'm asking for the examples. You're claiming to be educated and to know fuck-all about them, and yet you won't give them. You're asking me to take it on faith that these examples exist, and I'm supposed to believe it because you say it, and for no other reason.

So I'm doing the best evaluation of all the examples that have been offered. How can I do an educated evaluation of something that someone claims exists but won't give any example of?

It's not logical deduction.

Until those who claim something exists give the evidence for it, what is logical about believing them?

It's logical to assume that the historical Christ person is the only figure who had any large amount of power to do healing or to cause a dead person to come back, because we have written accounts of him doing this, documents written near to the time it reportedly happened, and there's no other case of anyone having such power for which there is comparable evidence.

If there is another case, someone has to give the example. As long as no one can come up with a credible example, why isn't it logical to deduce that there is no other case, in terms of the probability?

If you're saying it's not a certainty, I agree -- I'm saying the probability is much greater, because in this case we have real evidence, while in the other alleged cases there is no comparable evidence. What's not logical about that?

It appears to be just an emotional attachment to one story out of thousands.

But you can't name one other "story" out of those thousands.

Why are you so emotionally attached to this theory that there must be these thousands of examples even though you cannot offer one?

What are Smith's "miracles"?

Atheos:There are 8 signed witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates themselves:

BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold ; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

- Signed by Christian Whitmer, Hiram Page, Jacob Whitmer, Joseph Smith, Sen. Peter Whitmer, Jun., Hyrum Smith, John Whitmer and Samuel H. Smith

These plates, inscribed in "reformed Egyptian," were ostensibly taken back up to Heaven by god after Smith was through translating them, conveniently making it impossible for real scholars to get their hands on them and demonstrate that the whole story was BS.

What is the "miracle"? Assuming someone witnessed the "plates," how is that a miracle? Did someone see them float up to heaven? Did a giant Hand come down from the sky and did a deep echoing Voice boom down saying "I need back the plates, Joe"? It's not clear that a "miracle" took place here, even if the witnessed statement is all truthful.

Direct revelation from God is not a miracle?

No, a "miracle" in the gospel accounts is an act of power. A super-human act. An act of great power that humans cannot do. And of course we want it to be something that benefits humans.

Like the healing acts of Jesus.

How did Joseph Smith's tablets benefit people? Did they heal someone? What was the act of power?

Wow. What would you require, as a bare minimum, for a miracle? "For a miracle from God, God would have to...." Fill in the blank, could you?

It doesn't even matter where it comes from.

A "miracle" would be a great act of power that benefits people and cannot be performed by humans. Or by human power as we know it. Something far beyond human technology.

As Bible/Christ debunker Richard Carrier says in his definition of "Christian Historicity": "Jesus was an amazingly famous superman who could walk on water and shit."

Despite the vulgarity of this, I think the straightforwardness and bluntness of it is attractive and serves a useful purpose today in contrast to most of what comes from current sophisticated and refined theology, especially from existentialism.

Did Jesus have power or didn't he? Can he put us in Heaven after we die or not? I really see nothing wrong with this more simple "meat & potatoes" language for getting at the truth.

This blunt definition of Jesus is never refuted but just ridiculed.

Was it good that Jesus healed the blind and the lame and the lepers? . . . You're unable to address this question?

Once again, you take a non-answer as the inability to answer.

There are two unanswered questions here. One is simple:

Where are the other reputed miracle-workers in history who are supposed to be comparable to the case of Jesus? Where are the documents that tell about their deeds? What does the text say about them? When were the documents written?

No one is answering this question. Names like Krishna and Perseus etc. are given, but when we look into the details of what we know about them, it becomes obvious that there is no parallel whatever to the case of Jesus in the gospels. It is pathetic that anyone gives these and other such names as supposed parallels to Jesus.

So no one gives any serious answer to this question. And yes, there can be only one explanation for this pathetic non-response that is repeatedly given, which is that those who make the claim simply are UNABLE to give any answer. They have no real examples of parallels to the case of Jesus in the gospels. Unless they stop it and finally get serious and give us the examples, our only conclusion has to be that there are no such examples, despite the frequent claims that there are "thousands" of other Jesus-like reputed miracle-workers.


But the other unanswered question is more complicated:

What could be important about a "miracle" if no great benefit is produced from it? And what's more important -- the benefit from the "miracle" or simply that it was "God" that made it happen?

Both definitions are legitimate:

1. A great act of power, seeming to be of superhuman origin, and which greatly benefits humans.

2. An act which only "God" can do.

You can choose either of the above. Or try to combine them.

I'm interested in choice 1 -- this is the one that really matters, whereas choice 2 can be something that is irrelevant, because who cares that "God" did it if it's not something that greatly benefits people? or even animals, or extra-terrestrial beings, or someone?

What's the point? Who cares, if there is not a great benefit from it (like the healing acts of Jesus benefited people)?

But still, either use of the word "miracle" is legitimate. No debate point is scored by mere petty quibbling over the definition of this word.

You project a LOT.

This isn't our topic.

I'm saying the healing acts Jesus did are evidence of his power, and this kind of power is something that matters.

And you're connecting that 'power' to avoiding Hell, and pretending that it's not theological.

I'm not saying it is or is not theological. There are many "theological" ideas that I am not connecting that power to, but if you connect it to them, I don't fault you for it. What I am "connecting" it to is the prospect that maybe there's something more, beyond this world, beyond death.

. . . if you're going to use words in English that have meaning, then be prepared for the meaning to be read by your readers.

What does your sermon on word meaning have to do with our topic?

If you mean another concept or meaning, then use another word.

What other word? The "concept or meaning" is:

"a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences" and

"an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something"

Also:

a sign, wonder, marvel, omen, power, ability to do a thing, strength, might

So, what is "another word" that has the above meaning that you're preaching at me to use instead of the word "miracle"? Why are you disallowing "miracle" here, when the above are among the standard definitions of this word, as I have shown?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

(
Maybe I should not have said "For my purpose it does not matter what the grand SOURCE of this power was."

Instead I should have said "My point is about whether Christ had power and offers us eternal life, but not about what the SOURCE of his power was."

It's OK to address the source issue, but it's not what I'm addressing. My point (that Christ had power) is legitimate regardless what the Source of his power was.

This is an important place to start. The question of where his power comes from is a secondary one which doesn't matter unless it can be demonstrated that he had this power in the first place. If Christ's power can be shown to be a something instead of a nothing, then the nature of what that something is becomes a relevant question. If it can't be shown to even be a something, then discussing where his power comes from is like discussing the attributes of the invisible dragon in the garage - until it's been made clear that there's actually a dragon there in the first place, the method that dragon used to become invisible is a moot point.

As for the question of miracles, however, it's very important to define how you're using the term. For instance, I once heard a reverend give this interpretation of the bread and fishes thing at the Sermon of the Mount. Jesus had been talking for a while and everyone was getting hungry, but the Apostles had only brought a little bit of food. Jesus took the one loaf of bread and bit of fish that he had and he went up to someone who didn't bring anything. He said to him "You are a Roman and I am a Jew, but I have some food and you have none. Let me share it with you". After that, he encouraged the rest of the crowd to do the same. Some of them had brought a lot of food with them and some had none, but Jesus got them all to share together, regardless of the race or creed of the people that they were sharing with, and that made for more than enough food to go around for everyone. His ability to bring out the best nature of all those who were listening to help their fellow man, no matter who those fellow men were, was the true miracle he performed that day.

That was defined by the reverend as a miracle, but there was absolutely nothing magical or supernatural about it. He considered Jesus having the ability to do something like that to be far more impressive than some parlour trick of continuously breaking up a loaf of bread and not having the loaf get smaller. I assume that when you use the word miracle, you're referring to the parlour trick version of the word.

 

[funinspace]

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat…

(diarrhea)

The guy that brought up Smith's miracles was just to show that most of your bald-assertions about miracles were wrong. Then you went directly into moving your goalpost.

OK, let's go back over the Joseph Smith arguments again. (This would take up less space if you would be more specific in bringing up these examples. I.e., what's your point about Joseph Smith or about the points we've already covered concerning him?)


The Analogy between Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith

Did Joseph Smith do miracles?

The first step is to give the evidence for the Joseph Smith miracles. No one here has done this. You must give the actual documented text of these events and the approximate dates they were written.

There seems to be a reluctance by the Mormon Church to make these available. If someone can find them and give the quotes, we can then consider it.

You have already been provided the sources several times, you just conveniently decide that the references don’t exist.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ect-Christianity&p=95433&viewfull=1#post95433

I'd also encourage you to actually click on the link to the "Miracles of Joseph Smith" before embarrassing yourself yet another time with your lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Since you evidently can't be bothered to do so I'll quote a brief portion of the article:

Healing
According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.

• Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio. This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.
• Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed in October 1835.
• Smith related another experience, occurring in December 1835, in which he said the Lord gave him the power to immediately heal Angeline Works when she lay dying, so sick that she could not recognize her friends and family.
• In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all. Among those healed were Woodruff himself, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. Woodruff also tells of how, just after these events occurred, a ferryman who was not a follower of Smith but who had heard of the miracles asked Smith to heal his children, who had come down with the same disease. Smith said that he did not have time to go to the ferryman's house, but he charged Woodruff to go and heal them. Woodruff reports that he went and did as Smith had told him to do and that the children were healed.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...o-Reject-Christianity/page8&p=91521#post91521

You ask "What miracles did Joseph Smith perform?" Wikipedia is your friend.

But secondly, even if someone did make such claims, which seems likely, it is very easy to explain how Joseph Smith became mythologized and someone claimed he did a miracle when he really did not.

Really? Why? We actually know who made the JS miracle claims, as they are known people. We know for sure what decade the claims were made; where the claims were made; and the claims were made in the decade that the purported miracles happened. Now if you want to talk mythologization, let us start out with assumed authors, assumed locations, and admittedly written at least 3 decades after the purported miracles. And voila, one has the accurate description of the Jesus miracle claims.

Also, Smith had a reputation which made him a controversial celebrity, which can easily lead to extra attention toward him, such as through rumors and gossip. He acquired this reputation as a controversial public figure over a period of 10-15 years, whereas the career of Jesus was too short for him to become a recognized public figure in his lifetime.

Uh, besides so what, this seems to be another one of those special hidden rules within the Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist that you seem reluctant to reveal. JS is more like Moses, Paul, or Mo, as none of them claimed to be a demigod. And all of these people had long religious careers.

And further, by the 19th century the publishing industry had boomed vastly beyond anything in the 1st century, so that the printed word was used to spread the fame of charismatic figures and celebrities of all kinds. So it is to be expected that reports or beliefs or rumors about celebrities would be widespread by comparison to the 1st century when only a tiny fraction of such material got written or published, and virtually all written documents deteriorated and perished.

At the same time this also cuts against the BS factor, as the counter argument of “who could believe such a crock of shit”, should help reduce its influence. It turns out people will believe all sorts of BS from all sorts of charlatans. I’m not sure how in Zeus this helps your claims.

It's the norm for mythologized heroes to originate as recognized celebrities or known public figures, including someone notorious like Joseph Smith, but not someone unknown in his lifetime, or obscure, and having a short public career (3 years maximum). There is no explanation how Jesus, if he did not do the miracle acts, could have acquired any public recognition which would lead to him becoming mythologized into a god/hero figure as we see in the gospel accounts.

This seems to be more of those special hidden rules within the Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist that you seem reluctant to reveal. The 3 year bit is something only assumed from believing the fables from within the Gospels. It could be true, it could be utterly false.. Mo built up what is now the second largest god franchise in the world without parlor tricks. Neither Mo nor JS were well known in their lifetime, probably not much different than Paul. And Paul had a 20 some year career at building up the Christ cult.

We know what was unique about Joseph Smith.

But further, it can be acknowledged that Joseph Smith was unusual compared to other religious founders. We can explain how he was more unique and attracted more attention than most others, and so could have become an object of mythologizing.

His message was a clear reinterpretation of the Christ belief tradition already long-established, such that he picked up on an earlier tradition, not starting something entirely new,

And Jesus/Paul’s message was a clear reinterpretation of the Judaic belief tradition already long-established, such that they picked up on an earlier tradition, not starting something entirely new. Funny how that works….

and added a new unusual ingredient that was welcomed by a vast number of Christians. This message was the claim that Christ had made a visitation to the New World and presented the "gospel" to native Americans similar to what he did in Galilee and Judea.

Again you say such blather. Again, where is evidence that this ‘"gospel" to native Americans’ was welcomed by a vast number of Christians?

The gospel accounts were written closer to the reported events than most of our recorded history was written. It is typical for our recorded historical events to not have been written down until even 100 years after the events. Tacitus is regarded as a "primary source" for events that happened 100 years before he wrote about them.

I see you are back to Wish, Wash, Rinse & Repeat mode. Again, I ask you to provide a source where a historian (please don’t bother quote purely Christian apologists like McDowell instead of real historians) considers Tacitus as a “primary source” for the purported life of Jesus. Tacitus does provide evidence of the existence of followers of Jesus in that second century AD. Simple deduction makes it clear that Tacitus is not a primary source of the life of Jesus, as he would have not been an adult until at least 40 years after the claimed events. All he would be capable of telling is what other people claimed they new/saw half a century before.

What is the evidence that Joseph Smith did miracles? Why won't anyone provide this evidence?

It is hard to believe that you managed to avoid the dozen or so posts specifically pointing out this evidence….Wish, wash, rinse, repeat….

 

[Atheos]

It's like arguing with ROM. No matter what information you present that is contrary to the programmed data you'll always get the same data back out. These arguments have been thoroughly trashed dozens of times now in this thread and they keep getting blatantly asserted as if they've never been challenged. It's quite tiresome.

 

[funinspace]

It's like arguing with ROM. No matter what information you present that is contrary to the programmed data you'll always get the same data back out. These arguments have been thoroughly trashed dozens of times now in this thread and they keep getting blatantly asserted as if they've never been challenged. It's quite tiresome.

LOL...but one never knows when it really is just EPROM; one just needs to find the right light frequency to shine on it...and voila a reset

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Reason # 14 (to reject Christianity) ends up giving further verification of Christ's miracle power.

Reason 14

(14) Polytheism and the Trinity

Christianity was born from a strictly monotheistic religion, Judaism, a faith that itself evolved from a polytheistic model, considering their god to be one of many [one of the 10 Commandments is to have no other gods before Yahweh, implying the existence of others], to a doctrine claiming their god to be the only one in existence. The belief in a single god is considered by religious historians to be an important maturation in sectarian theology.

A few decades after Jesus died, Christianity ran into a problem. The Apostle Paul as well as the Gospel of John made Jesus into a god himself and left congregants with the impression that there were two gods, the Father and the Son. Thus, Christianity was beginning to lose the mantle of being monotheistic and thereby risking the denigration of being compared to the polytheistic pagan religions.

The need to be "monotheistic" is overemphasized. The real superiority of the Christ belief is that there was evidence, the miracle acts of Jesus, to serve as proof of his power -- the resurrection being the ultimate miracle. There is no need to get hung up on the problem of "polytheism" vs. "monotheism." The problem of the Father-Son dichotomy is interesting, but this is not a basic flaw in the Christ belief.

A more important controversy between the Christ belief and paganism in this period was the pagan worship of idols, which is criticized in the New Testament far more than the "polytheistic" element of paganism.

The solution to a problem often creates an even bigger problem and that, it can be argued, is just what happened. Straining to find (or create) scripture to support a synthesis of the gods into a single entity, the idea of the trinity was born.

There is no basis for saying that the "trinity" was spawned out of some need for "synthesis of the gods into a single entity." This is incoherent babble. The "Holy Spirit" was a product of mystical instincts, not any need to synthesize the "gods" into one entity.

Because the scriptures clearly defined Jesus and the Father as being separate beings, both in the image of human males, a ‘glue’ was needed to fuse them into a single consciousness. Thus the Holy Spirit was invented.

No, the "Holy Spirit" came from ideas about "spirit" which predate Christianity. There is no sense in which the Holy Spirit serves as any "glue" to fuse anything to anything else. The early Christian writers believed that the spirit of Christ was operating within the early church and within themselves personally as they wrote their accounts. If they "invented" anything, it was an entity to serve the purpose of verifying the authority of their writings and also the preaching of Paul and others. Its purpose was not to "fuse" things together.

If you ask 100 Christians to define the Holy Spirit, you will get 100 answers because the scriptures provide no description. All Christians could do was to point to one scripture that hinted at this third divine being, Matthew 28:19, with Jesus saying:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

It's not true that "All Christians could do was to point to one scripture" in Matthew to identify the "Holy Spirit." There are many more references in the New Testament to this "spirit" or this mystical entity. This Matthew text is a reference to the "Trinity," but the "Holy Spirit" pops up in many other examples than this one.

It is likely that this scripture was a later edit and was not part of the original text. There is a further mention of the Holy Spirit in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 13:14:

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

However, this provides little evidence that Jesus ever preached this theology. How could one-third of God be left out of the Old Testament and be so thinly mentioned in the New Testament?

So Christianity in struggling to regain the respect of being monotheistic actually became more polytheistic, going from two to three gods, and then mystifyingly trying to say that they were all the same being. This didn’t have to happen as there was no need for Christianity to make Jesus into a god. It was a fatal mistake to do so, and Christianity is paying for it today with the baffling and confounding idea that three gods are one.

I'm just quoting the whole text here without much need to respond to it, because there is no "reason to reject Christianity" given here.

At most, this might be a reason to doubt the "Trinity" doctrine, or some versions of it, but not a reason to reject Christ belief. Instead of going on a crusade against the "Trinity" doctrine, it's better to just believe in Christ without worrying about whether "God" is divided into separate natures or personalities. It's not necessary to explain the nature of Christ's power. Rather, basic Christ belief is just to recognize this power, as it was demonstrated by Jesus 2000 years ago, without the need to explain it or break it down into its basic components.

There is no harm in trying to explain it, but such explanation or analysis is not a requirement for believing, and not having an explanation does not negate or undermine the belief.

But this "Reason 14" actually gives us additional evidence or support for believing that Jesus actually did perform the miracle acts described in the gospel accounts:

This didn’t have to happen as there was no need for Christianity to make Jesus into a god. It was a fatal mistake to do so . . .

OK, then we need an explanation WHY they made Jesus into a god, don't we? if there was no need to do so, and if it was a "fatal mistake"?

So, WHY was Jesus made into a god? Once again, IF he actually did perform the miracle acts, we have the full explanation.

The people who made him into a "god" were Jews, were they not, and monotheists? So, why should they want to make this ordinary human into a "god"? Doesn't make much sense, does it? So, what's the explanation for them doing this?

No explanation makes more sense than that he actually did perform those acts, and so they virtually had no choice. They had to make him into something special. For him to be just another prophet or rabbi or wise man or David-like hero wasn't good enough. There was something so unique or special about him, so much greater than anything before, that they couldn't help but believe he had superhuman status.

So this would-be "reason to reject Christianity" is just one further indication that Jesus really did have superhuman power such as we see in the miracle events of the gospel accounts.

No? OK then, give an answer to the question: WHY did these monotheistic Jews choose to make Jesus into a god?

They weren't making any others into a god, were they? They didn't make Rabbi Hillel into a god, did they? They didn't make John the Baptist into a god, did they?

So, why did they single out Jesus to be made into a god? Give a reason why they did this which leaves open an explanation why they did not do this to anyone else, but to Jesus only?

Once again, as we see over and over, the best explanation is that Jesus must have actually performed those miracle acts, and no others were doing anything similar. Why is it that this answer is always the best explanation?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If Jesus did not perform those miracle acts, then why do we know he even existed? Why is he in the historical record at all?

It all happened in a very short space of time, 1-3 years. It was not possible for events of such a short time period to become corroborated or publicized, like we're accustomed to it today.

Although there is no attestation to the miracle events, there are 3 non-Christian sources that refer to Christ in less than 100 years from his death. These are Josephus about 94 AD, Tacitus about 115 AD, and Suetonius about 121 AD.

And what are the odds of this?

Is there any other historical figure whose public life was 3 years or less who is mentioned even once in the historical record? This may happen today, but probably not anytime previously. Prior to 1900 or 1800 there probably is no example of this.

OK, an exception would be an assassin, or other figure who pops up suddenly and does some extraordinary act, maybe criminal, which captures attention. Or perhaps a knight or soldier or other hero-warrior type who performed a heroic deed. The hero Spartacus might be a case. Heroism, sudden rise to fame, then killed.

So, excluding warrior-heros -- among persons of on-going public interest, like a teacher-guru or political figure or scientist or artist or writer, etc., there is likely no other case in history of someone whose name is in the historical record and who performed all his public activity in 3 years or less.

Who would be an example? If any, they are extremely rare.

Another way to look at it -- compile a list of the top 100 or top 1000 most famous names of persons in history. Jesus Christ obviously is one name on that list. This one is almost certainly the only one on the list whose public career was less than 3 years.

So you have to ask: What did he do that caused his name to get into the historical record and be among the top 100 most famous names, and yet he had to do it in 3 years or less?

And that list would really extend way beyond 1000 or even 10,000 top names before we would finally come up with another name of someone whose public life was so short. At some point down the list, taken in order from the most to the least famous, we would finally start getting some names of assassins or others who made a name for themselves by doing some amazing or shocking deed.

In modern times it is easier to find such a name because of so many more sources of information. But even for modern times, that first name in the listing would probably be down beyond a thousand names.

Don't we have to conclude that this Jesus Christ person must have done something really unique or astounding? How could he make it into the historical record doing whatever he did in such a short time period?

And this is excluding the Bible accounts of him.

Simple answer: He actually did perform those miracle acts. Didn't it have to be something shocking?

Of course you can say we just don't know. But of all the possible answers, isn't this the most likely?

What kind of colossal conspiracy or hoax could have manufactured such an irregular character of history? How did they pull it off? and why? How was it decided to choose this Galilean figure for the role?

If it was so easy to create such an unlikely character, and if there was a motive for creating him, why is there only one such character in history? Why aren't there others?

Wouldn't some others also want to do the same -- create their own Jesus-like character, from the same motive?

That the myth of jesus was/is popular is no evidence of it being true.

But we need an explanation why Jesus is so high on the list of "famous" historical figures, and yet he did nothing recognizable to explain his fame (assuming the miracle events are fiction), and his public career was too short for him to have become a recognized public figure like all the others high on the list of "famous" historical figures.

This sets him apart from any other person in the historical record (from before about 1800 or 1900 AD). I.e., ALL others in the historical record were persons who did something recognizable as important in some way and who had long public careers. They all were publicly active long enough to establish their reputation, and they all performed some important act which warranted their being mentioned by historians.

But no one can identify what it was that Jesus did, in such a short time, that he should gain the status of being included in the historical record.

I'd step it up a notch.

Stories aren't true because they are rare, intricate, extraordinary, popular, or sanctioned by theologians or believed by millions or billions.

No, but we need an explanation why the Jesus figure has gained a high spot on the list of famous historical figures (the top 1000 or top 10,000 most famous) -- why there are no others on that list about whom we cannot identify what they did to become famous and who had such a short public career.

The best explanation so far is that he actually did perform the miracle acts described in the gospel accounts. "Stories aren't true because they are rare, intricate, . . ." etc. -- no, but their credibility is greatly increased if they answer a question for which no other explanation can provide an answer.

This question is diminished if you can name some other figures in history who had such a short public career or did nothing recognizable and yet have been placed into the historical record in a prominent position, among the top 30 or 40 or 50 most famous names in the record.

Who else might fit this description?

again:

1. among the 1000 most famous historical figures

2. deeds not identifiable (i.e., the deeds that brought recognition to him/her)

3. public career no longer than 3 years

For point 2, you might say he was a notable teacher, but how is it that all other notable teachers in the historical record had long careers of teaching, like more than 20 years, and yet the career of Jesus was only 3 years or less?

Why can't we find another famous "teacher" whose career was so short?



The historicity and the 3 years

Just to summarize it briefly: The "historical record" includes ALL documents, no matter where they're from, so even the gospel accounts are included. Just as the Vedas are part of the "historical record" and tell us about Krishna.

And the career of Jesus began at a point just prior to the arrest of John the Baptist, and ended soon after John was beheaded by Herod Antipas. This makes his career very short, probably less than 3 years.

We can go further into this chronology if need be. It cannot be established as a certainty, but a strong probability, like most other chronologies. "History is mostly guessing -- the rest is prejudice."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Christ belief is not conditioned upon theological edicts of the 4th century.

Surely you're not suggesting an Emperor made choices that were motivated by ANYTHING other than a sincere search for the bestest of truthiness...?

Or that he set up the synods to resolve theological issues for the purpose of unifying the Empire rather than purifying the Christain Faith?

That would make the faith the product of bureaucracy more than revelation!

It's well established that that is exactly what happened.

Something like that happened. But this has nothing to do with Christ belief being flawed in any way.

The basic facts about Christ, i.e., the historical person of about 30 AD who was crucified, obviously were not established by any such synods or councils after 300 AD. These basic facts are what's important, not the later doctrines. The latter have to be judged on their merit, as to the logic of them, given the earlier accounts about the power that Christ demonstrated and which the later doctrines are trying to explain.

There's no need to accept all these doctrines figured out later, if some of them are illogical or contrary to what we know now. But they serve a useful purpose in trying to make sense of the basic historical facts from about 30 AD. A Christ believer need not feel compelled to accept all these doctrines, which are mostly interpretation.

We can dismiss any notion that God somehow gave the later clerics of the 4th century some special power to divine the truth separately from a normal interpretation of the 1st century documents. The truth of the Christ event, or the "gospel" message, is available to everyone to investigate, not the exclusive jurisdiction of any appointed officials having political power 3 centuries later.

Somehow, Lumpen has convinced himself that he knows more about this topic than the majority of Bible scholars.

No, the Bible scholars know more.

Maybe he should write something up and get it published in an academic journal so he can set them all straight.

It's not Bible scholars who need to be set straight, but some of the theologians.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The improbability of a Jesus Christ NON-miracle-worker.

It [public career of Jesus] all happened in a very short space of time, 1-3 years.

So you say. So you cannot show to be true, however.

Most sources give this chronology of 1-3 years:

Scholars generally estimate that Jesus began preaching, and gathering followers, around 27-29 AD and continued for at least one year, and perhaps as many as three.[6][8][12][13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus

That the Synoptic Gospels all mention only one passover is also an indication that the time period was probably too short for more than one passover season to have occurred.

It's not a certainty. But high probability. There are some who try to stretch it out a little longer, but they're a small minority.

But even if it was a bit longer, it is still difficult to explain how Jesus got into the historical record having a public career of only 5-6 years. There's no other example of such a public figure in history being in the historical record, other than in modern times.

Now again, there might be a terrorist-assassin or similar figure who did something shocking and got into the record somewhere, but this would still be a rather obscure figure not mentioned in many accounts. He would be far down the list of important figures in history, but maybe among the top 10,000 or whatever.

It was not possible for events of such a short time period to become corroborated or publicized, like we're accustomed to it today.

So, you agree there's no corroboration for the stories.

Not by today's standards, as you're demanding, and which is not possible for virtually any historical events prior to modern times.

But by the standards of that time, the corroboration for the miracle events in the gospel accounts is better than for 90% of historical events. (OK, maybe only 88%, actually it's probably more like 99%, but the exact percentage is not important.)

However, I accept that the standard has to be higher for miracle stories, so it's reasonable to demand extra corroboration, such as extra sources, for such alleged events. And we have extra sources for the Jesus miracles.

The corroboration is much higher than for most normal events -- 4 (5) sources, all within about 40-70 years from the events. That's unusually high corroboration for most historical events in those times. And it's absolutely unique for any alleged miracle events.

Although there is no attestation to the miracle events, there are 3 non-Christian sources that refer to Christ in less than 100 years from his death. These are Josephus about 94 AD, Tacitus about 115 AD, and Suetonius about 121 AD.

Still not eyewitness corroboration.

By eye-witness standard, you would have to eliminate virtually ALL historical events from the record -- prior to modern times -- as virtually none of them come to us from eye-witnesses. Even from a contemporary like Julius Caesar, writing of his own military campaigns, much/most of what he reports is from 2nd-hand sources and not eye-witnesses.

And what are the odds of this?

If they're above zero, then your doubt is not conclusive evidence against the possibility.

There's a "possibility" that George Washington did not really exist. Any fact of history is based on evidence that is less than 100% certain.

"All history is guessing -- the rest is prejudice." -- Will Durant

We can settle for 99% certainty. In some cases it's 99.999. But 99 or even 95% is fine. Even 90% or 80% or 70% is still a basis for reasonable hope. Even 50%. Some decisions, like precautions, are made on the basis of less than 50% probability. (Like fastening your seat belt?)

And this is excluding the Bible accounts of him.

Yes, we tend to exclude the bible accounts as they are so very far from evidence of anything.

No they aren't. ALL accounts are included for their evidentiary value. To exclude any accounts arbitrarily just because you dislike them is prejudice and bigotry. ALL documents from the period have to be taken into account to determine the events of that period. Homer's epic poetry is taken into account for the events of the Trojan War. Even historical fiction is taken into account.

However, Jesus is in the "historical record" even minus the gospel accounts, because he is mentioned by the 3 secular historians.

These brief mentions of Jesus in secular history themselves are difficult to explain, because there is no other figure of history, mentioned in the record as Jesus is, who had such a short career and of whom we cannot identify what deeds he performed to gain this recognition (assuming his miracle acts are fiction).

Simple answer: He actually did perform those miracle acts.

But that was your conclusion before you tried to establish that there was evidence for that conclusion.

I had earlier evidence. However, that's irrelevant. You have to judge on the evidence that is presented, not on the psychology of the one presenting the evidence.

There are evolutionists who believed in evolution before they went on their search for evidence of evolution. And atheists who disbelieved before, and believers and disbelievers of every kind who (dis)believed first and then searched for evidence to make their case. This doesn't invalidate their case.

One's emotions might play a part in driving a believer or disbeliever to their particular belief. The proof they come up with cannot be based on those emotions, though the latter play this role in forming their belief. But if they give good evidence, apart from those emotions, that evidence is all that matters, while the emotions are irrelevant to their case in trying to prove it.

That's very poor logic.

No, the poor logic is your presumption that evidence is invalid if the one presenting it had prior belief before gathering that evidence.

It's irrelevant what the presenter's prior belief was. Sometimes a prior belief might be correct. You cannot judge it by whether the presenter had this prior belief. You have to judge the evidence and the logic on its merit, regardless of the psychological state of mind of the one presenting the case for the belief.

 

[Juma]

However, Jesus is in the "historical record" even minus the gospel accounts, because he is mentioned by the 3 secular historians.

No. Jesus is not mentioned by any contemporary secular historian.

 

[Juma]

That the myth of jesus was/is popular is no evidence of it being true.

But we need an explanation why Jesus is so high on the list of "famous" historical figures, and yet he did nothing recognizable to explain his fame (assuming the miracle events are fiction)

What did muhammad do? What did herkules do? (assuming that the miracle events are fiction) etc.

 

[Atheos]

Again, many plausible explanations have been tendered in this thread. Lumpenprolariat argues largely by baseless assertion and ignoring responses.

 

[atrib]

However, Jesus is in the "historical record" even minus the gospel accounts, because he is mentioned by the 3 secular historians.

No. Jesus is not mentioned by any contemporary secular historian.

Lumpy has been repeating this lie for a long time. He cannot be shamed into speaking the truth.

It is remarkable that Jesus allegedly performed all manner of supernatural acts in front of many people, including rising up from the dead and flying up into the sky, but not a single contemporary historian saw fit to record these events.

 

[skepticalbip]

If Jesus did not perform those miracle acts, then why do we know he even existed? Why is he in the historical record at all?

For starters, Jesus isn't in the historical record. He is in the religious stories of his followers.

As for what he did, he managed to get some Jewish followers who he and his P.R. team were able to convince that he was the messiah. His followers then developed the myths and stories to convince others.

The founders of religions don't really have to do anything historic. They only have to convince a few religious nuts to follow their teachings. These followers then develop the "teachings" into a religion by inventing stories to make the teachings seem more authoritative. What did Zoroaster, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Confucius, Muhammad, etc. do?

There were at least four notable potential founders of religions (just in the U.S.) in the 20th century that were foiled by circumstances. Charles Manson happened to have followers who were piss poor at organizing and spreading the word. Jim Jones, driven by his paranoia, killed all his followers so they couldn't spread the word. David Koresh was killed along with all his followers by federal agents so there was no one left to spread the word. Marshall Applewhite made the unfortunate choice of founding the Heaven’s Gate cult - a suicide cult isn't a good choice if the intent is to establish a lasting belief system.

 

[Atheos]

... And then you have L. Ron Hubbard who invented a completely fictitious backdrop for the very successful Scientology religion, as well as J.Z. Knight who invented a completely fictitious 30,000 year old warrior named Ramtha whom she "channels." This is another successful religious movement, accomplishing the same thing all religious movements do: Rewarding their founders/leaders with money and power while selling a product with absolutely no cost of goods and no returns.

Not to mention all the cargo cults that sprang up in the early 20th century, preaching the imminent return of John Frum.

 

[James Brown]

Didn't we agree long ago that we were going to precisely identify what is meant by the phrase "historical record"?

Oh that's right. This is not a discussion thread. This is argument by long-winded graffiti.