120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[funinspace]

What is relevant is the fact that there is not one shred of physical evidence that any of the events described in the myth actually happened. This is true even when such evidence should be relatively easy to find. There is no evidence of a mass killing of male children ordered by Herod. There is no evidence of GLuke's absurd "musical chairs" census. There is no evidence of a three-hour eclipse as described when Jesus supposedly died on the cross.

Ah, but there is one shred, though it gently leans towards the negation of the general Christ theology. Pilate was recorded in the Roman Empire, and was recalled as he was evidently even too brutal for Roman standards. Yeah, this really doesn't fit the Gospel sweet guy narrative well. Yeah, this has been pointed out before on this never ending thread, but...

 

[Atheos]

But where is the account of this? Let's have the original text first, and then we'll go from there. You have to get beyond just quoting a 21st-century Wikipedia article.

There are millions of anecdotes of miracle healings. Perhaps some of them are true, which cannot be attributed to coincidence, or would not have "healed itself anyway." I think most of them probably are not true, but we should keep an open mind, and not condemn all such stories as false only because some have been discredited. Or many have been.

But we have to see the original text, just as we can read the gospel accounts which were written about 30-50 years after the reported events.

So what you're saying is that people make shit up. Millions of false stories about miracles have been made up. It's extremely unlikely that true miracles occur. But it's certain that people make stories up about miracles. Yet you pin all your hope of getting us to accept the fantastic story of this magic Jew on an anonymous tale that began circulating 1500 miles away and 40 years removed from the alleged events in question. Do you even listen to yourself?

Like when you say "We have to see the original text" but then you dance around the fact that you cannot produce the original text of GMark, much less any of the other ones. At best the earliest copy of any of the four canonical gospels is 200 years removed from the events in question, and that's P45 which is only a fragmentary copy. The earliest complete copy of GMark is dated an astonishing 330 years removed from the events in question. To put this into perspective we will have to wait until the year 2174 before we've caught up to the changes in the story of Joseph Smith that might have taken place before we can begin to say "Here. This is the original text just like Lumpenproletariat appeals to when he speaks of the original text about his favorite mythical hero!"

Whereas you are claiming they were more gullible and stupid than we today. You're even saying they were this gullible and stupid IN ONE CASE ONLY, in this one Jesus case only, fantasizing and believing the claims in only this case and in no other case, and that they had no more reason to believe this case than the hundreds or thousands of other cases of miracle claims that were floating all around.

Where the hell did I claim people in the first century were more gullible and stupid than we today? If I made such a claim it was in error and I retract it. Something you should consider doing about your original claim that Joseph Smith and Mohammad were never claimed to have performed miracles rather than continue beating this dead horse.

People today are every bit as stupid and gullible as the folks in the 1st century, which is why we have numerous Cargo Cults, The Heaven's Gate fiasco, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mormonism, Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, The PTL Club (well, they're defunct now), etc. Getting away from blindly accepting that wild-assed claims are true simply because someone with charisma came to your town and told you all about this heavenly voice that talks only to him (think every town Paul visited including Rome where GMark was first written) is the cure for that sort of stupidity and gullibility. It's not likely to happen unless human beings evolve away from that sort of thing, but that is the purpose of science. Science is the foundation of a disciplined approach to finding truth rather than simply accepting things as true just because someone tells you.

There is nothing scientific about accepting the miracle claims of the Jesus myths, much though you'd like to keep trying to insist that there is. It is all based on believing some story for no other reason than the messenger was convincing. That's what happened in Rome when Paul peddled his bullshit there, that's why the cult met with success there, and that's why some of their membership began fabricating these stories about the invisible leader who talked only to Paul. Their story ended up with considerable content taken from both the Jewish traditions and the Greek/Roman traditions, combining a miracle-working prophet (a-la Moses / Elijah) with the god-men of Greek folklore (a-la Perseus, Hercules, etc) to form a delicious Reeces Cup of cultural appeal that appealed to the poor and downtrodden because the hero was a common man instead of king. Great concept, great marketing, zero miracles needed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How did the miracle stories originate?

Again: Please present a theologian of any significance that argues that the Gospel stories don’t come from devotees?

The miracle stories did not originate from "devotees" who were his direct disciples, who saw him directly and listened to him speak and experienced his charisma and followed him religiously. I.e., followed him personally because they were moved by his personality.

However, they likely did originate from 30 AD, although it's difficult to determine the origin. But not from his direct disciples who were personally attached to him and marketed him with these stories.

This is the point in comparing Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith regarding the origin of the miracle stories.

So then, are you saying the Jesus miracle stories originated from reports from his direct disciples, who saw him and experienced his charisma in 30 AD, like the miracle stories about Joseph Smith originated from is personal disciples? Is that your point?

 

[bilby]

Again: Please present a theologian of any significance that argues that the Gospel stories don’t come from devotees?

The miracle stories did not originate from "devotees" who were his direct disciples, who saw him directly and listened to him speak and experienced his charisma and followed him religiously. I.e., followed him personally because they were moved by his personality.

You know this how?

However, they likely did originate from 30 AD,

You know this how?

although it's difficult to determine the origin.

So you DON'T know it. You admit that you can't know it. So you are just making shit up.

But not from his direct disciples who were personally attached to him and marketed him with these stories.

You know this how?

This is the point in comparing Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith regarding the origin of the miracle stories.

How is you making up stuff that you admit you have no way of knowing going to help with that?

So then, are you saying the Jesus miracle stories originated from reports from his direct disciples, who saw him and experienced his charisma in 30 AD, like the miracle stories about Joseph Smith originated from is personal disciples? Is that your point?

The point (which you seem incapable of accepting) is that the Joseph Smith stories are BETTER evidenced than the Jesus stories; and we know the Joseph Smith stories are not true; so we have no reason to accept the less well evidenced Jesus stories as true.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's better evidence for the Miracles of Jesus than for Joseph Smith and all the others.

The miracle stories did not originate from "devotees" who were his direct disciples, who saw him directly and listened to him speak and experienced his charisma and followed him religiously. I.e., followed him personally because they were moved by his personality.

You know this how?

This is not about what we "know" but what is most likely. Of course we don't "know" what happened. "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

However, they likely did originate from 30 AD

You know this how?

It's "likely" -- likely, not a certainty, but likely -- because it's the best explanation. All other cases of miracle stories don't appear in the written documents as reported events until generations or centuries later, after the alleged miracles reportedly happened. So the best guess is that in this case the events really happened.

. . .although it's difficult to determine the origin.

So you DON'T know it.

Of course we don't know. This is guesswork. But the best guess is that the events really did happen rather than being invented within such a short time and recorded into documents appearing 30 or 40 or 50 years later. That can happen today with widespread publishing, but it never happened that far back in history. There's no other case of it.

Or rather, any exception to this is like the case of Vespasian, whose reported miracle event is closer in the written record than is the norm, but this is easily explained by the fact that he was a famous celebrity. So, for a non-celebrity like Jesus, someone not famous in his lifetime, there is no other case of miracles being reported in multiple documents so close to the reported events.

You admit that you can't know it. So you are just making shit up.

So every time someone tries to conclude from the limited evidence what happened, they are "making shit up"? There are many events in history for which there is less evidence than we have for these events. Much of what's in the history books is based on less evidence than this. So you think historians are "just making shit up" when they write a book which includes some guesswork? They definitely include events for which there is less evidence than we have for the miracles of Jesus.

But that doesn't mean they are "just making shit up." It's legitimate to draw conclusions from limited evidence and offer it as what likely happened.

But not from his direct disciples who were personally attached to him and marketed him with these stories.

You know this how?

We really should not have any disagreement on this. Do you maintain that the miracle stories of Jesus originated from his direct disciples?

This is the point in comparing Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith regarding the origin of the miracle stories.

How is you making up stuff that you admit you have no way of knowing going to help with that?

The point is that we know the Joseph Smith stories, assuming they exist (no one can produce the original text yet), originated from 1 or 2 of his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma over many years, and this can easily explain how such stories would arise even if the reported events did not really happen. Whereas the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained this way.

The point (which you seem incapable of accepting) is that the Joseph Smith stories are BETTER evidenced than the Jesus stories;

No, if the few anecdotes that exist come only from his direct disciples, then they fit clearly into a mythologizing pattern we can see repeatedly, where a charismatic celebrity figure is said to have done miracles, but these reports come only from direct disciples who worshiped the charismatic figure. This can explain the Joseph Smith stories, but not the Jesus miracle stories.

. . . and we know the Joseph Smith stories are not true;

How do we "know" that? It's better to say they are easily explained as a product of mythologizing which happened in his case the same as we see it with other celebrity gurus or messiah or prophet figures who gained a following as a result of their charisma over several years, or also as a result of their power or celebrity status or notoriety.

. . . so we have no reason to accept the less well evidenced Jesus stories as true.

We have 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus. We don't know the origin of those stories. But we have those sources.

But for the miracles of Joseph Smith, there seems to be only 1 or 2 sources. And we know they're from his direct disciples only, who were under the spell of his charisma.

(But again, no one can come up with the original text of those stories. Or at least something from near to the period, like 19th century. Nothing narrating a healing act performed by Joseph Smith. You can't claim the stories are "BETTER evidenced" if the stories cannot be produced. What's the problem with producing an early source for these stories -- anything earlier than a paraphrase from a 21st-century Wikipedia article?)

 

[bilby]

You know this how?

This is not about what we "know" but what is most likely.

And what makes you think that this is likely? It sounds very unlikely indeed to me.

Of course we don't "know" what happened. "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

Even assuming your un-sourced quote was valid (and I rather doubt that Will Durant was trying to imply that you are allowed to make up any shit you like and call it history - indeed, he was deriding the practice, not trying to promote it), how does the idea that history is mostly bullshit help to show that your preferred version of history is not mostly bullshit?

However, they likely did originate from 30 AD

You know this how?

It's "likely" -- likely, not a certainty, but likely -- because it's the best explanation.

By what standard? How appealing it is to you? It's a SHIT explanation, and is less plausible than a three-year-old who has broken a vase claiming that a dinosaur knocked it over.

All other cases of miracle stories don't appear in the written documents as reported events until generations or centuries later, after the alleged miracles reportedly happened.

JUST LIKE THESE ONES.

So the best guess is that in this case the events really happened.

Nope. That's just your favourite guess. It's not even close to BEST.

. . .although it's difficult to determine the origin.

So you DON'T know it.

Of course we don't know. This is guesswork.

So you guess that maybe some miracles occurred. Well my guess is that no miracles occurred. My guess is that, just like every other dead person in history, all the dead people in the middle east in the period from 1000BC to 1000AD stayed dead. Not all but one; ALL of them. That's a guess too. But in the total absence of any evidence, you would need to be a complete moron to guess otherwise.

But the best guess is that the events really did happen rather than being invented within such a short time and recorded into documents appearing 30 or 40 or 50 years later.

No. No it isn't. That would be a stupid and shithouse guess.

That can happen today with widespread publishing, but it never happened that far back in history. There's no other case of it.

And no evidence that it happened in this case. Just you, guessing. I'm guessing a velociraptor broke mums favourite vase too. It has never happened before in recorded history, so it must be true

Or rather, any exception to this is like the case of Vespasian, whose reported miracle event is closer in the written record than is the norm, but this is easily explained by the fact that he was a famous celebrity. So, for a non-celebrity like Jesus, someone not famous in his lifetime, there is no other case of miracles being reported in multiple documents so close to the reported events.

You admit that you can't know it. So you are just making shit up.

So every time someone tries to conclude from the limited evidence what happened, they are "making shit up"?

No.

But every time people make shit up - like you are doing here - then they are making shit up.

There are many events in history for which there is less evidence than we have for these events.

Name one.

Much of what's in the history books is based on less evidence than this.

No, it isn't. That's you making shit up again.

So you think historians are "just making shit up" when they write a book which includes some guesswork?

Yes, if someone includes guesswork, rather than evidence, then they are indeed making shit up. If the shit they make up is physically possible and in keeping with all of the archaeological evidence, then that's still making shit up.

They definitely include events for which there is less evidence than we have for the miracles of Jesus.

No, they don't. Prove it.

But that doesn't mean they are "just making shit up." It's legitimate to draw conclusions from limited evidence and offer it as what likely happened.

ONLY if it is likely. How 'likely' is it that some dude died and then came back to life? It never happens; so if you want to claim that it did, you need really strong evidence. Not just guessing.

But not from his direct disciples who were personally attached to him and marketed him with these stories.

You know this how?

We really should not have any disagreement on this. Do you maintain that the miracle stories of Jesus originated from his direct disciples?

I, like you, have NO FUCKING CLUE. The difference is that I admit that I have no fucking clue, while you spout shit like "not from his direct disciples who were personally attached to him and marketed him with these stories." as though it were certain, or even likely. YOU DON"T KNOW. NOBODY KNOWS. So you can't claim it to be true.

This is the point in comparing Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith regarding the origin of the miracle stories.

How is you making up stuff that you admit you have no way of knowing going to help with that?

The point is that we know the Joseph Smith stories, assuming they exist (no one can produce the original text yet), originated from 1 or 2 of his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma over many years, and this can easily explain how such stories would arise even if the reported events did not really happen. Whereas the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained this way.

The point is that both sets of tales are made up bullshit, and we know this because the stuff they describe is stuff that NEVER EVER happens.

The point (which you seem incapable of accepting) is that the Joseph Smith stories are BETTER evidenced than the Jesus stories;

No, if the few anecdotes that exist come only from his direct disciples, then they fit clearly into a mythologizing pattern we can see repeatedly, where a charismatic celebrity figure is said to have done miracles, but these reports come only from direct disciples who worshiped the charismatic figure. This can explain the Joseph Smith stories, but not the Jesus miracle stories.

No. People make up shit about other people they have never met; and even about people who don't exist.

The tale of Peter Parker, who gained miraculous powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider, is well known; but it certainly wasn't reported by disciples, friends, or even people who met Peter personally.

. . . and we know the Joseph Smith stories are not true;

How do we "know" that? It's better to say they are easily explained as a product of mythologizing which happened in his case the same as we see it with other celebrity gurus or messiah or prophet figures who gained a following as a result of their charisma over several years, or also as a result of their power or celebrity status or notoriety.

We know it because it describes physically impossible events. It matters not one whit who reports such events; They are known to be impossible, so either you need solid unquestionable evidence of them, or they didn't happen.

. . . so we have no reason to accept the less well evidenced Jesus stories as true.

We have 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus. We don't know the origin of those stories. But we have those sources.

Any number of sources is valueless if the sources are unknown. How do you know that they are not all sourced from one account; or consolidated from millions? You don't know. You CAN'T know. And you can't use not knowing as a way to get knowledge. Not knowing only leads to ignorance.

But for the miracles of Joseph Smith, there seems to be only 1 or 2 sources. And we know they're from his direct disciples only, who were under the spell of his charisma.

(But again, no one can come up with the original text of those stories. Or at least something from near to the period, like 19th century. Nothing narrating a healing act performed by Joseph Smith. You can't claim the stories are "BETTER evidenced" if the stories cannot be produced. What's the problem with producing an early source for these stories -- anything earlier than a paraphrase from a 21st-century Wikipedia article?)

You don't know shit. You have built a HUGE complex narrative to conceal from yourself the fact that you are using your IGNORANCE as the sole basis for believing that you know something that you really want to believe.

That's very sad indeed.

You don't even know what it means to 'know'. You seem to think that, as you arrive at your 'knowledge' by guessing, that everyone else does too. But we don't. We require evidence. Historians might speculate about what fills the gaps in the evidence; but they don't consider that speculation to be evidence, or fact; and they don't allow it to include things that contradict physical law.

You've got nothing.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What do all mythic heroes other than Jesus Christ have in common? -- There's NO EVIDENCE for their alleged miracles.

(continued)

Waitaminute, wasn't there a pesky passage in Matthew 13:58 where Jesus struck out on the miracle at bat "because of their unbelief?"

But just above that verse it says, "Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds?" While below it says "and he did not work many mighty deeds there . . ." So did he do "mighty deeds" or not?

Meanwhile, the Mark account of the same is also confused (Mk 6:2-5). First the people say, "What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!" But then only a few lines down it says, "So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people . . ."

But what "mighty deed" is expected if not that of curing sick people? And how did he not do "mighty deeds" there when just above they proclaim what "mighty deeds" he did?

Meanwhile in the Luke version it's quite different (Lk 4:16-30), and the episode ends with the people dragging Jesus out of the synagogue and trying to hurl him over a cliff.

So it seems the claim that he could not or did not do miracles is first contradicted by a claim that he DID do them.

There is no other N.T. passage which suggests that he could not or would not do any miracles. There's no case where he fails to heal a sick person brought to him.

There is something odd, or out of place, about this episode in the gospels, with the words "not able to perform any mighty deed there" -- suggesting what? Taking it at face value, it clearly implies that he generally could perform "mighty deeds" but could not only in this one case. Giving this episode any credibility means conceding that he must have had this power much of the time, or at least was believed to have it.


The Rejection at Nazareth story --
"So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there"

There are many possible theories about this "rejection at Nazareth" story. It doesn't make much sense if taken at face value, so it's necessary to look for something irregular going on.

Here's the entire Mark version, which we can assume is closer than Matthew to the original account:

Mark 6:1-6

The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth

He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.

"deeds of power" = dunameis (or dunamin = "deed of power"), also translated "mighty deeds" and "miracles"

First, it's necessary to do something with this text in order to make sense out of it. It contains the contradiction that he did and did NOT do the "mighty deeds," and it cannot be both.

The best correction is the following: eliminate the two contradictory remarks, near the beginning and end -- "What deeds of power are being done by his hands!" and "except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them."

Both these statements contradict the "he could do no deed of power there" words, which seem to be the main point. To say "except that he cured a few sick people" totally revokes any meaning to "he could do no deed" -- Either he could or could not do such acts. To say he could do only a few cures is really just a repudiation of "he could do no deed." There were plenty of times when he did no cures or only a few or only one, so there's nothing noteworthy about him doing only "a few" cures instead of many. This "except a few cures" remark is a vacuous meaningless addition to the original, obviously added as an afterthought or "whoops!" retraction remark of some kind in order to soften the tone of the "he could do no deed" words.

So it's best to recognize that the original version of this is just that he could not do any such act at this time and place.

But at the same time, this whole episode makes no sense unless it's implying that Jesus DID do such acts at other times and places. What is the point of saying that he did "no mighty deeds" here, unless it means this as a contrast to other times and places where he DID perform such acts?

Another important point is that this passage has to be VERY EARLY. This is not something a Christian writer would make up later to add to the earlier story. This has to be very early, probably going right back to the original events near 30 AD. There must have been circulating this story that Jesus was unable to perform any miracle act at a time when he was in Nazareth. And this story makes no sense unless it was understood that he really was performing such acts in other places at other times.

So this story is strong evidence that Jesus did in fact perform miracle acts, or it was believed very early that he did, but it also suggests that he was lacking this power at a time when he was in Nazareth. An explanation is needed for this.

But there's something else that needs explaining. There are 2 sayings that are connected to this "rejection at Nazareth" story:

Physician, heal thyself. -- Luke 4:23, and

No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him.

or

A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither does a physician work cures upon those that know him. -- Gospel of Thomas, saying 31.

These 2 sayings have to be explained here. Whatever the "rejection at Nazareth" story means, it must have something to do with these 2 sayings. There is no explanation of the origin of the "prophet" saying other than its attachment to Jesus in this Nazareth episode.

What does "Physician, heal thyself!" and "A prophet is without honor save in his own village/country" have to do with Jesus being rejected at Nazareth? Both of these sayings are put-down remarks aimed at Jesus. They indicate something negative about him or judgmental against him.

And importantly, these texts must be EARLY, not something inserted by later Christians -- no Christian would make up something like this, because it's negative toward Jesus.


Who says a prophet is without honor in his home country?

Where else do we see examples of a prophet or wise teacher or guru being rejected in his native land or hometown? Do we see this with Confucius or Buddha or Zoroaster or Socrates or Krishna or any of the Hebrew prophets -- Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.? How about Mohammed? Where does this idea come from? Who says prophets are typically rejected in their home country or hometown? On the contrary, this is likely the EXCEPTION to the rule, and is NONtypical and generally opposite of the truth about prophets or wise teachers or deified spiritual figures or religious founders.

We need an explanation for this strange saying which pops up only in the case of Jesus, also the put-down "Physician, heal thyself!" remark, and also why he is said to have lost his power only in Nazareth.

And it's silly to just dismiss it all by saying: Oh that just proves miracle stories are all fiction, or "made up" etc. No, that is contradicted by this Jesus episode, because this story assumes Jesus did do miracles elsewhere, e.g., Capernaum. It makes no sense to say he performed no miracle in Nazareth, unless it's assumed that he did do such acts at other places.

We may need to go far afield to find an explanation for this odd situation. How about this:

Suppose there's a second Jesus in the picture ("Jesus" was a common name), who enters the scene here in this story, at Nazareth. There IS another Jesus character, in Matthew 27:16-17 -- Jesus Barabbas, the one who gets arrested later and becomes confused with the Jesus who did the miracle acts. This could explain the dubious "Rejection at Nazareth" story, and maybe some other things also.

The Aramaic term "Barabbas" means almost the same as "Son of God" and suggests that this person was claiming to also be some kind of Messiah or Savior or Something special. There needs to be an explanation why this character had such a title plus also the same first name as the miracle-worker plus also was set free later by Pontius Pilate in what appears to be an exchange.

The Barabbas character claimed to also be something special. Perhaps he was the Jesus at Nazareth and was challenged to perform a miracle and said (Lk 4:23): "Surely you will quote me this proverb, 'Physician, cure yourself!' and say, 'Do here in your native place the things that we heard were done in Capernaum.'"

We know Jesus (the other one) was in Capernaum and reportedly did miracles there, but his location in Nazareth is more doubtful. Could it be that this Jesus Barabbas was the real son of Mary and Joseph, living in Nazareth, while the reputed miracle-worker Jesus was not at Nazareth?

It's clear that there was some kind of mix-up between them at the trial. Obviously this Barabbas was violent and was in league with the zealots, and he got arrested for a violent disturbance in which he killed someone. What violent disturbance?

Why not the attack on the temple where the money-changers were seized and thrown out, which surely led to a riot and brought the temple police. How could the Jesus who did this not get arrested and thrown in jail for it? Then Judas, who was also a zealot and impatient for an insurrection, made a deal with the authorities to betray Jesus the miracle-worker in return for a promise to have Barabbas released.

And earlier, at this scene in Nazareth where he was rejected, this Barabbas Jesus had gotten into some kind of brawl and almost got himself thrown over a cliff, according to the Luke account. He was some kind of hothead who was trying to stir up an insurrection.

This can explain the "rejection at Nazareth" story. He was unable to perform any miracles and so was scoffed at. They had heard about Jesus doing "mighty deeds" in Capernaum and demanded that this Nazareth Jesus, who was claiming to be the same one or trying to compete with him, do similar deeds before them to prove himself. And when he could not, they mocked him and the brawl began.

He argues that the prophets Elijah and Elisha had both healed certain select ones but not others (Luke 4:25-28):

"But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."

When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage.

Doesn't this sound like he's justifying why he would not "do here in your native place the things that we heard were done in Capernaum"? And those present turned against him for his rationalizing why he did healings in Capernaum but would not in Nazareth.

This passage, this one episode contained in all 3 synoptics, is the only place in the gospel accounts where there is any suggestion that Jesus was unable to perform a miracle. From the contradictions noted above, it's clear that there is something wrong with this story as is. If the real point is that he had lost his power, or it was much limited at this point, we would not have the above contradictions, saying first that he did perform "the mighty deeds," but then 3 seconds later that he was UNABLE to do them.

. . . Matthew 13:58 where Jesus struck out on the miracle at bat "because of their unbelief?" Hmmmm.... that sounds suspiciously like what all the Televangelists today say when they can't seem to get it done.

Why does it say "because of their unbelief"?

More likely the real unbelief behind these words was that of a few years later.

The early believers, in the subsequent years, wanted to duplicate the miracles of Jesus but were unable to do so. They were challenged and ridiculed because they could not produce the same results that Jesus did earlier. Their response to this was that the ones demanding a miracle lacked faith, i.e., they did not truly believe.

The later Gospel writers had a similar problem: they had a story of Jesus rejected at Nazareth because he could not perform a miracle there. But the origin of this was the story of Jesus Barabbas unable to do miracles, who was pretending to be some kind of Messiah or Son of God and trying to imitate Jesus, and this story became circulated as a story of Christ the miracle-worker being rejected at Nazareth because he was unable to perform a miracle there. So the later writers needed an explanation why Christ was unable to do miracles in this one case.

So they used the same logic that some of the followers had used when they could not perform such acts, i.e., cases where believers tried but could not display any such power, and it was because people did not believe, they said. And then later writers gave this same explanation in this story about Jesus being unable to perform miracles in Nazareth, where he actually had never been. Mark's "and he was amazed at their unbelief" seems intended to explain why Jesus could not do any miracle, while the Matthew phrase says it explicitly.

But if your theory is that he had no such power ever, then you are confounded by this Nazareth story, because this story makes no sense unless it's assumed that he DID perform such acts at other times and places, such as at Capernaum. If you reject this and say he never did such acts anywhere, then you have to do something to throw out this Nazareth story entirely, because it clearly says/implies that he did have such power and did perform such acts, even if he lost the power in this one instance.

You could argue that he never really had any such power but that there were false claims that he did such acts in Capernaum and other places, but that at Nazareth, meanwhile, he was challenged to show his power and was unable to perform.

This is plausible, but this argument then has to concede that Jesus was a reputed miracle-worker from the beginning, and so the argument that the miracle stories are a total fiction invented decades later is false. The tradition of the miracle stories has to begin at the original starting point, in 30 AD, and is not a later invention. Because the only alternative is that later Christians invented the "rejection at Nazareth" story in which Jesus was unable to perform any miracles there -- which is utterly impossible. It is inconceivable that later Christians would invent a story saying Jesus could perform no miracle at some place or time.

I.e., they would invent only stories that make him look STRONGER, not weaker.

Of course this is speculation. But then what is the explanation for the Rejection at Nazareth story? Why does it say that Jesus DID but then say he COULD NOT perform miracles at Nazareth? Who was it who could not perform miracles at that place? And why only at that place? Is it not clearly implying that he did do these acts at other places?

If it was really Jesus Barabbas who was rejected at Nazareth, then all these questions are answered, plus also questions about what really happened at the trial and what the Judas betrayal story is about.



Was Jesus really the son of Mary and Joseph?

Now there's a further reason to doubt that Jesus Christ, the one who did miracles, was the son of Mary and Joseph in Nazareth, which then leaves open the likelihood of another Jesus who was their son.

At the crucifixion scene this same Mary, from Galilee, is some distance away, watching the event along with some other Galilean women. In the synoptic Gospels she is identified as "the mother of James and Joseph" (Mt 27:56) and "the mother of Joses" (Mk 15:47) and "the mother of James" (Lk 24:10).

But if Jesus was the son of this Mary, why does it not identify her as the "mother of Jesus"? She is watching this Jesus being crucified before her, and the Gospel writer does not identify her as his mother? but instead as the mother of James and Joseph who were his brothers?

This Mary, at the crucifixion scene, is surely the same Mary named in Mk 6:3 and Mt 13:55, and also the same wife of "Joseph" named in Lk 4:22. How could this not be the same Mary? She has 3 sons named Jesus and Joseph (Joses) and James, she's from Galilee, and she had a husband named Joseph. Two different Marys have all that in common? Plus also, the peculiar spelling "Joses" (for "Joseph") used in Mark only is used for both these scenes. The numerical odds against this being two different Marys with all this in common is astronomical.

Also, there are two epistles assigned to two of the brothers, the epistle of James and the epistle of Jude. In both epistles the writer identifies himself as a "slave of Jesus Christ" but not "brother," and Jude identifies himself also as "brother of James." Now, if they are both really brothers of Jesus Christ, why are they ashamed to say so? This clearly indicates that James and Jude were not brothers of Jesus.

So there is very strong evidence that Jesus Christ was NOT one of the 5 brothers who were sons of Mary and Joseph, and that therefore there was a DIFFERENT Jesus who must have been the brother named Jesus, while the miracle-worker was a different Jesus than the one raised in Nazareth.

There could be a simple explanation how Jesus became associated with the Mary family and came to be regarded as her son and the brother of James. Obviously this belief became circulated sometime prior to 50 AD, being mentioned by Paul and also by Josephus. There is no other reference to this connection of Jesus to the Mary family except in Acts 1:14. Mary was one of several Galilean women who were attracted to Jesus and followed him to Jerusalem.

The rejection at Nazareth story is strong evidence that the gospel writers, whether early original writers, or later editors, did NOT invent the stories they included in their accounts. Rather, this and other examples indicate that those writers/redactors relied on EARLIER reports and included them even if these reports contained elements that were negative toward Jesus. It is unthinkable that they would have invented stories like this one which depict Jesus in a negative way.

Though they were believers, still they reported what had been passed on to them, even something negative. Which doesn't rule out that they could also have invented some parts. But much of it was from earlier and not invented by them, and anything invented could only be something positive, nothing negative. So this Nazareth story is very strong evidence that Jesus was at least a reputed miracle-worker from the very beginning.


(to be continued)

 

[Atheos]

Holy crap you just can't stop with the preaching.

Lumpenproletariat, we don't believe your silly myths. That's the point. Preaching to us about textual analysis as if somehow the actual words used in these stupid myths were inspired by some all-intelligent vast creator god isn't going to work here. The god presented in these myths is responsible for the existence of the entire universe yet somehow can't get over his codependency issues over how people on this one tiny dust speck in the Milky Way galaxy behave without flagellating himself on it. It's a dumbass story nowadays in light of all we now know, but hey. If it gives you peace to believe it enjoy. Just don't expect skeptical folks like us to swallow it. It's ridiculous. 'Nuff said.

Now to get to my immediate response. You've once again jumped back into the wayback machine, taking us to a long ago time when you were making one of the many silly-assed arguments you tend to make about how "If Jesus had struck out as often as modern faith healers strike out maybe there would be reason to doubt." Or something like that, I can't remember. It was a dumb argument and even if true proved nothing. It would only be evidence that the writer(s) of these myths only included success stories and ignored the failures, or (more likely) that they were simply making up a bunch of stories and stories of him striking out weren't near as entertaining as ones where he succeeded.

Regardless I took the bait and pointed out that you were wrong even about this silly argument. The text clearly says he couldn't perform on that one occasion "because of their unbelief."

But even if everything you said in your most recent post is 100% dead-on certain about this "strikeout" it would have no bearing at all on the credibility of the Jesus myth. This is because the story is the story, not the guaranteed truth or the whole story. If the writer(s) wanted to present a 100% successful Miracle Max all they had to do was write the story that way. Have you ever watched a late night infomerical about some pyramid scheme? Do they ever tell the (much more common) tales of people who bought into the scheme only to discover that their money had disappeared without a trace? No. They only tell the (likely made-up) tales of people who had made gazillions of dollars marketing the product. The most compelling anecdotes are the ones who were destitute and desolate, nearly penniless and invested in the product anyway to become rich beyond their wildest dreams. Exactly the appeal the writers of your precious Jesus myth chose when they took the humble child of a modest house and made him this great worker of deeds and the son of a god.

Your story was written 1500 miles and (at least) 40 years removed from the time and place where the events in the story played out. In those days before ready access to the Internet and gas powered vehicles it might as well have been a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. The original readers of the story had no personal knowledge of the events in it, nor any means to verify if anything in it was based on actual events. They believed it because the preacher who presented it to them was convincing. The exact same reason people believed Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate), J.Z. Knight (Ramtha's School of Enlightenment), Sum Yung Moon (Moonies), Joseph Smith (Mormons), etc. The messenger is the message. Until you begin to understand this simple truth you will be forever trapped in this inability to look objectively at your own favorite myth, and will continue to present it using the preaching method which you believe to be god-mandated ("It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" - I Cor 1:21). Just because Paul wrote that back in the day doesn't make it true. These Jedi mind tricks are useless in this forum.

 

[funinspace]

You know this how?

This is not about what we "know" but what is most likely. Of course we don't "know" what happened. "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

However, they likely did originate from 30 AD

You know this how?

It's "likely" -- likely, not a certainty, but likely -- because it's the best explanation. All other cases of miracle stories don't appear in the written documents as reported events until generations or centuries later, after the alleged miracles reportedly happened. So the best guess is that in this case the events really happened.

No it is not a likely explanation, that is just your preference/wish. Your “All other cases” fails as well, as you have been repeatedly shown that Joseph Smith’s (JS) documents are from his lifetime and by known people. There are no guesses in the JS paper trail.

You provided the links to the original scanned documents here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3071-120-Reasons-to-Reject-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817

But not from his direct disciples who were personally attached to him and marketed him with these stories.

You know this how?

We really should not have any disagreement on this. Do you maintain that the miracle stories of Jesus originated from his direct disciples?

What I maintain is that the gospels emerged from people smitten by and within the Christ cult. Whomever compiled most of what Mark comes from might have known a rabble rousing street preacher they called Jesus (assuming there was a person named Jesus as a kernel base for the ideas). Then again, the writer(s) of Mark might not of know this kernel person, that is how little we know. The other Gospels come so late that they were most definitely compiled by people who could have never met this purported Jesus. But they did have the same stories that were being passed around that we see in Mark.

What I don’t think is true, is that dozens of stories got passed around by people who were initially strangers to this purported Jesus, but then after seeing a miracle upon them (or upon others) joined the Christ Cult Brigade. And then I don’t think the first Gospel got compiled by these formerly uninterested people.

This is the point in comparing Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith regarding the origin of the miracle stories.

How is you making up stuff that you admit you have no way of knowing going to help with that?

The point is that we know the Joseph Smith stories, assuming they exist (no one can produce the original text yet), originated from 1 or 2 of his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma over many years, and this can easily explain how such stories would arise even if the reported events did not really happen. Whereas the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained this way.

Utter fail as you have been provided links to the scanned images of the original documents from circa 1830-1850. More BS, as the Jesus miracles can easily be explained as we have far more time and unknown authors added to the mix.

You provided the links to the original scanned documents here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3071-120-Reasons-to-Reject-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817

. . . so we have no reason to accept the less well evidenced Jesus stories as true.

We have 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus. We don't know the origin of those stories. But we have those sources.

But for the miracles of Joseph Smith, there seems to be only 1 or 2 sources. And we know they're from his direct disciples only, who were under the spell of his charisma.

Rinse, wash, repeat…do you ever get tired of repeating the same drivel? You have one primary and theorized Q source for your cult fantasy. All the rest were built decades later, based on the same originating stories, which does not make for separate sources. Paul by his own pen says never met Jesus. Yeah, and I’m sure Paul had no charisma in his 15-20 year leadership….

 

[atrib]

There are several sources that document the exploits of Hanuman, the monkey king who helped Rama fight the demon Ravana, and later lifted a mountain into the air and flew it to another location many miles away. There are several sources that report Lord Ganesha losing his head in an accident (Shiva cut it off), and having an elephants head transplanted in its place. It is hard to believe that someone would actually make up these stories, as incredible as they are, therefore, using Lumpy's logic, they are very likely true.

Lumpy, do you believe these stories of Hanuman and Ganesha?

 

[skepticalbip]

I have come to the conclusion that Lumpy is actually the comedian, Edward Current, spoofing us. Either that or an admirer trying to imitate Edward.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Please present a theologian of any significance that argues that the Gospel stories don’t come from devotees?

Are we allowed to infer anything from the fact that the stories come from people who, by their own admission, denied and doubted and attacked the very subject. Thomas. Peter. Saul. Nicodemus...

Are we able to infer anything from the conspicuous absence of counter-gospel propaganda? The Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman authorities could have quite easily taken up the debunking.

These two factors are something which serious^TM theologians take into account.

 

[Atheos]

Lion IRC, welcome to the posting ranks.

I wouldn't agree that it's a lock that the stories "come from people who, by their own admission, denied and doubted and attacked the very subject." They, too, are part of the story line and their historicity is subject to skepticism much less their various conversion tales.

We can certainly take these things into account but it's a lot like taking the fact that Lois Lane doesn't recognize that Superman is actually Clark Kent simply because he took off his glasses and put on his super suit. Some of these characters may have been fabricated as plot devices is all I'm saying. Serious^TM historians actually do treat any ancient documentation they read with skepticism if it cannot be verified with archaeological evidence and/or supporting evidence from opposing sides. Even then skepticism is the default position.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sure, but skepticism cuts both ways.
We would be skeptical of the idea that Gospel writers, (apparently folks who thought God would be their judge if they lied,) deliberately included embarrassing and shameful details such as Peter's denial of knowing Jesus in their account of events if those events never happened.
We need to skeptically explore all the possibilities including the possibility that they were telling the truth.

 

[Lion IRC]

...and the absence of evidence is of course not evidence of absence.
But neither is it completely irrelevant that we have one set of historical accounts in support of a particular event but practically nothing to the contrary.

 

[atrib]

...and the absence of evidence is of course not evidence of absence.
But neither is it completely irrelevant that we have one set of historical accounts in support of a particular event but practically nothing to the contrary.

What historical accounts support the Biblical claims of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and his levitation into the upper atmosphere without the aid of mechanical devices?

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, the New Testament documents. They are the historical claims.
And before you jump in to remind me that you can't use the bible to support the bible, please remember that the New Testament documents weren't called "The Bible" at the time they were presented.

 

[Lion IRC]

...likewise you can't use the bible to attack the bible.
You need to come up with extra-biblical historical documents if you want to present a 'secular' counter-claim.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...likewise you can't use the bible to attack the bible.
You need to come up with extra-biblical historical documents if you want to present a 'secular' counter-claim.

Exactly. It's like it you want to make the claim that Homer's account of Paris killing Achilles with a poisoned arrow is fictional, you need to present positive evidence of how exactly the guy died without referencing the Iliad. He was the nearly invincible child of a goddess, after all, and you can't just discount Homer's claims with a "well, somebody else beat him somehow" type of argument. You need to present a documented scenario of how it happened or give credence to Homet's historical account of the event.

 

[bilby]

...likewise you can't use the bible to attack the bible.
You need to come up with extra-biblical historical documents if you want to present a 'secular' counter-claim.

No problem:

Resurrection isn't possible: http://courses.mq.edu.au/undergraduate/degree/bachelor-of-science/major-in-human-biology

Nor is levitation with no power source: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-what-is-gravity.html

The Bible (whether or not you call it by that name) is demonstrably wrong.