120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[skepticalbip]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that sums up Lumpenproletariat's argument. To me he seems to be arguing that the Jesus myth is completely unique in its origin. He argues that never before or since in the history of the world has anyone written a biography about someone who had lived only 40 years earlier, and who performed miracles.

He concludes that therefore it is at or near impossible for someone to make up a story about someone who lived only 40 years earlier, who performed miracles and get people to believe it. He further argues that the only reason people would have believed these crazy stories is because they had some other reason to believe them besides the fact that they were simply presented in this way. He appeals to vague witnesses and such, but has never addressed the fact that this version of the story (the one that included all the doings and the miracles) appeared 1500 miles away from the scene at which the miracles allegedly occurred, a fact that pretty much demolishes his whole argument. After all, we're talking about 40 years and 1500 miles. In that day and age when the average life span was less than 40 years and people with the means to travel thousands of miles were even more rare than people who lived to be 80, the number of actual witnesses to any of these alleged events present in Rome to assent to the story with "Yep, I was there and saw the whole thing" is going to be negligible at best.

Lumpenproletariat would have rational people accept the proposition that it's more likely that Jesus actually levitated unassisted off into the sky never to be seen again than that people made up stories that included a tale of him doing so. It's about as poor an argument as one can make. The only miracle here is that people can make such arguments with what is evidently a straight face.

That particular miracle/myth could be more likely true than people making it up if you accept Lumpy's unspoken first assumption that Jesus was divine (and the only divine among all the mythic heros). He just doesn't state it to start but uses the miracle to "prove" it in a very circular way.

Essentially his arguments assume the divinity of Jesus without stating that is the position he is arguing from. However, most of his walls of text are nothing but unfounded assertions attempting to justify his unspoken assumptions. Either that or red herrings that have nothing to do with how the validity of such claims are actually judged.

For example some red herrings that have nothing to do with how validity is actually judged:
.. how long Jesus preached compared to others.
.. how long after the event it was reported - not immediately - not a hundred years.
.. did any other miracles exactly match Jesus'
.. etc.

All are only indications of validity according to Lumpy if they exactly match Jesus'

 

[Barbarian]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that sums up Lumpenproletariat's argument. To me he seems to be arguing that the Jesus myth is completely unique in its origin. He argues that never before or since in the history of the world has anyone written a biography about someone who had lived only 40 years earlier, and who performed miracles.

I see a different circularity: he's picking the particular details of his favorite religion and tries desperately to rationalize why exactly those details and no others mean the story is trustworthy even though it contains supernatural events. His reason for doing this is that he wants his religion to be proven true. If he was a Muslim, he'd argue that no other religion-starting figure managed to kickstart the spread of his religion by conquering his own city first and a sizeable part of the world later, so obviously Islam is the light.

 

[Lion IRC]

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...

Sure, why not. Now somehow I don’t think you mean we should seriously consider the historical value of the Gospel of Thomas IRT to the atypical Christian theology. I wonder what else he wrote…

I think the gospel of Thomas is extremely important. Why wouldn't we consider it very carefully in the context of the historical method? That goes to the point I was making about the high value of any documents on the topic from that same period.
I bet non-theists would LOVE to have contemporary historical documents which debunked Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.....

...Anywho, as I barely noticed your post within the din that pretty much sums up this thread, if you actually desire at least a half-way intelligent conversation about some detail, I'd suggest starting a new thread.

I tend not to initiate new threads. (Some ppl might mistakenly perceive it as trolling) Instead, I prefer to comment on topics raised by others. That also helps me avoid accusations that I am the one derailing a thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

the high value of any documents on the topic from that same period.

What period would that be? When was the Gospel of Thomas written?
By whom?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I bet non-theists would LOVE to have contemporary historical documents which debunked Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.....

Seems redundant. If i'm a non-theist, i've already rejected Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, haven't I?

 

[Atheos]

Sure, why not. Now somehow I don’t think you mean we should seriously consider the historical value of the Gospel of Thomas IRT to the atypical Christian theology. I wonder what else he wrote…

I think the gospel of Thomas is extremely important. Why wouldn't we consider it very carefully in the context of the historical method? That goes to the point I was making about the high value of any documents on the topic from that same period.
I bet non-theists would LOVE to have contemporary historical documents which debunked Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.....

...Anywho, as I barely noticed your post within the din that pretty much sums up this thread, if you actually desire at least a half-way intelligent conversation about some detail, I'd suggest starting a new thread.

I tend not to initiate new threads. (Some ppl might mistakenly perceive it as trolling) Instead, I prefer to comment on topics raised by others. That also helps me avoid accusations that I am the one derailing a thread.

Considering the fact that most Christians are loathe to entertain the very real probability that the Jesus they believe in was concocted over decades of legend-building rather than represented intact in the gospel narratives, it puts us at a bit of an impasse. The lack of any contemporary debunking documents points more to the likelihood that Christianity just wasn't that big a deal in those days and that Jesus wasn't the impressive figure Lumpenproletariat (and others like him) want to paint.

The evidence strongly favors the scenario that Jesus was possibly an itinerant zealot preacher who gathered a tiny cult following and pissed off some powerful Jewish leaders to the point he got his ass Jimmy Hoffa'd. His followers refused to believe he was dead and continued to encourage each other that he'd be back. Paul at some point got enmeshed in the group and successfully convinced people that he was "channeling" Jesus. He convinced them to fund him so he could go around preaching the good news everywhere. As time went by and Paul's efforts were more out there in Greek and Roman cultures the Jesus story got revamped with elements from the classic Greek god legends including a birth resulting from God impregnating a human female. Jesus had to best the god of wine by turning water into wine. He had to best the god of healing by himself healing people of every possible malady. He had to best Hades by raising people from the dead. He had to best Zeus by calming a storm.

After several decades of that the stories got written down in GMark by one or more people in Rome. There may have been shorter earlier written narratives of some of these stories, but if they ever existed their only effect is seen today in the "Q" theorized similarities between GMark and GLuke.

It is equally possible that there never was an historical Jesus and that the stories we have today were originally inspired by the lives of several different itinerant preachers of the day.

This is a reasonable scenario and it fits the evidence we have today. The original ending of GMark doesn't include any post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, so that part of the story came later in the development cycle. GMark's original ending is consistent with the Jesus who got a cap popped in his ass but "will be back some day." Paul's earliest writings about Jesus never mention any place he went, any deed he did, any words he said (with the exception of the crucifixion). This is tellingly true even when Paul addresses subjects which the gospel narratives claim Jesus specifically addressed, such as marriage and divorce. The evidence strongly favors the theory that the Jesus myth evolved over several decades from the roots of one or more charismatic cult leaders to the refined god-man of the gospels.

The character of Jesus also evolves noticeably as the later gospels are written. GMark's Jesus was "adopted" by God when the story opens with his baptism. GMatt and GLuke portray a god-man born of a Zeus-like impregnation of a human female. GJohn portrays Jesus as an eternal god without beginning. Clearly an evolving myth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't you come up with any credible examples of miracle myth heroes comparable to Jesus, for whom we have evidence?

Yes there are tons of miracle stories. Different cults accept the ones that support their particular mythologies and each cult rejects all others. Such as in your case you accept the Jesus miracle myths because you are in a Jesus cult and reject the others. Muslims accept the Mohammed miracle stories and reject the others.

Actually, many Muslims reject those stories.

But more important, the Mohammed miracle stories originate from 200 years after he lived. So in that case the stories can easily be explained as a product of mythologizing. But the Jesus stories emerged too soon after his life for such mythologizing to have evolved, and so mythologizing cannot explain their origin. There are no other examples of miracle myths emerging so soon after the time of the reported events. Especially not if the myth hero in question was an unknown figure in his lifetime with no public recognition or status, as in the case of Jesus, and such as was the case for all other figures who became mythologized.

Mormons accept the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

It seems there's really only one source for those events, all from one of Smith's devotees who had been a devout disciple of him for more than 10 years. And the ones reported as healed were also close disciples of Smith and had been influenced by his charisma over many years.

This is the norm for modern faith-healer preachers, who pray for a member of the congregation and are credited with causing some of them to recover. There were probably many gurus like this in ancient times, and they were dismissed as not worthy of being recorded in writing, whereas 4 different writers/editors found the Jesus case noteworthy and needing to be recorded for posterity.

Ancient Romans accepted the miracles stories supporting their gods. etc.

But those are obviously a product of mythologizing over many centuries. This cannot explain the emergence of the Jesus miracle stories. It's easy to explain all those other miracle myths, but it is difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories popped up suddenly in such a short time.

However, those not in any of these religious cults see no evidence for the veracity of any of them.

Many of them really do see the evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, and it makes them uncomfortable, and they pretend it's not really there. They seek comfort by comparing the Jesus events to the pagan stories for which there is no evidence, and then they falsely put the Jesus miracle stories into the same category. They would be more honest to just admit that in the Jesus case there really is some evidence, while they could still insist that this evidence just is not strong enough.

 

[Lion IRC]

I bet non-theists would LOVE to have contemporary historical documents which debunked Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.....

Seems redundant. If i'm a non-theist, i've already rejected Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, haven't I?

That might be true in your case. But you don't see many so-called skeptics closing their mind and ruling stuff out.

Normally they are begging for more evidence. If you have made up your mind based on the supposed absence of evidence you're acting quite unusually in my opinion.

Have you already made up your mind about the existence of dark energy? Parallel universes? Higher beings?

As for the four Gospels there might well be non-theists who havent rejected them. You can be a non-theist who has never heard the Gospel.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you don't see many so-called skeptics closing their mind and ruling stuff out.

Normally they are begging for more evidence.

At this point, i tend to suspect you reject the Norse Gods. Are you constantly begging for more evidence to support rejecting Freya? Odin? Thor? Or are you comfortable with your current stance on the topic of the Asgard?

If you have made up your mind based on the supposed absence of evidence you're acting quite unusually in my opinion.

'Supposed?'

When i was a believer, i had questions. I got platitudes as replies. Or IOUs. More than a few accusations. How dare i even question God/the Church/the Prophets. I'll understand when i'm older. It's a mystery. It's God's mystery.

I left that church and sought god elsewhere. Platitudes, arrogance, IOUs, circular arguments, special pleading, ignorance... Basically several years of Lumpenproletariat's performance in every tradition i encountered.
A lot of terribly sincere people insist that a pocket watch proves God, in this cute little argument that first establishes that a watch is an artifact because it's NOTHING like nature... Then they do this magic substitution, wave the magic wand and suddenly Nature is an artifact because it's EXACTLY like the watch.
And they keep a straight face through the whole dance. It's really quite adorable. But it still looks, to me, like cheating. I'm skeptical of anything where you have to work so hard at cheating to get the point across.

Have you already made up your mind about the existence of dark energy? Parallel universes? Higher beings?

I've always wondered about parallel universes. If 'universe' means 'everything that exists,' what is the value in discussing 'another collection of everything that exists.' Wouldn't both sets of 'everything that exists' really be better termed 'The Universe?'

As for the four Gospels there might well be non-theists who havent rejected them. You can be a non-theist who has never heard the Gospel.

In their case, then, it would not be redundant. On the other hand, one WOULD have to ask why someone who's never heard hf the gospels is hoping to find more evidence against them...?

 

[funinspace]

Mormons accept the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

The original sources aren't hidden...you just seem to be too busy going . You were provided links to the original scanned documents twice now. First here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817
And later here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=253658&viewfull=1#post253658

Here is a copy of just one image page of one of the early 19th century Mormon document (Obviously I am not going to post the hundreds of page images). The links also the documents in typed text on the side.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834

 

[funinspace]

Sure, why not. Now somehow I don’t think you mean we should seriously consider the historical value of the Gospel of Thomas IRT to the atypical Christian theology. I wonder what else he wrote…

I think the gospel of Thomas is extremely important. Why wouldn't we consider it very carefully in the context of the historical method? That goes to the point I was making about the high value of any documents on the topic from that same period.
I bet non-theists would LOVE to have contemporary historical documents which debunked Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.....

...Anywho, as I barely noticed your post within the din that pretty much sums up this thread, if you actually desire at least a half-way intelligent conversation about some detail, I'd suggest starting a new thread.

I tend not to initiate new threads. (Some ppl might mistakenly perceive it as trolling) Instead, I prefer to comment on topics raised by others. That also helps me avoid accusations that I am the one derailing a thread.

Atheos provided a response that I find sufficient. I'm not sure why you would be concerned about called a troll. Following the rules here is really pretty easy. We even once had a TULIP spouting Calvinist preacher here for a number of years, and he figured out how to get by on the board. Also, it is pretty hard to derail a thread that you started...

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually, many Muslims reject those stories.

But more important, the Mohammed miracle stories originate from 200 years after he lived. So in that case the stories can easily be explained as a product of mythologizing. But the Jesus stories emerged too soon after his life for such mythologizing to have evolved, and so mythologizing cannot explain their origin. There are no other examples of miracle myths emerging so soon after the time of the reported events. Especially not if the myth hero in question was an unknown figure in his lifetime with no public recognition or status, as in the case of Jesus, and such as was the case for all other figures who became mythologized.

Mormons accept the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

It seems there's really only one source for those events, all from one of Smith's devotees who had been a devout disciple of him for more than 10 years. And the ones reported as healed were also close disciples of Smith and had been influenced by his charisma over many years.

This is the norm for modern faith-healer preachers, who pray for a member of the congregation and are credited with causing some of them to recover. There were probably many gurus like this in ancient times, and they were dismissed as not worthy of being recorded in writing, whereas 4 different writers/editors found the Jesus case noteworthy and needing to be recorded for posterity.

Ancient Romans accepted the miracles stories supporting their gods. etc.

But those are obviously a product of mythologizing over many centuries. This cannot explain the emergence of the Jesus miracle stories. It's easy to explain all those other miracle myths, but it is difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories popped up suddenly in such a short time.

However, those not in any of these religious cults see no evidence for the veracity of any of them.

Many of them really do see the evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, and it makes them uncomfortable, and they pretend it's not really there. They seek comfort by comparing the Jesus events to the pagan stories for which there is no evidence, and then they falsely put the Jesus miracle stories into the same category. They would be more honest to just admit that in the Jesus case there really is some evidence, while they could still insist that this evidence just is not strong enough.

Thanks for the confirmation. As I said those in any particular cult believe their myths to be true and the myths of others to be false. It just always amazes me how their blind faith makes them incapable of recognizing their arguments are special pleading and circular reasoning.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

the high value of any documents on the topic from that same period.

What period would that be? When was the Gospel of Thomas written?
By whom?

If you mean the Gnostic GoT, nobody knows. This collection of sayings by Jesus has no name on it of its writer. Nor is it even sure that as we know it, it isn't a collection over time by several hands. Parts of it echo Mark and so its a question if Mark knew GoT or the writer of GoT knew Mark. Jesus Seminar experts simply state it is an early work, and is an important work. It has been called "The Fifth Gospel". It is not a narrative life of Jesus. Its more a puzzle than an answer.


DORESSE
42 [37]. His disciples say to him: "On what day wilt thou appear to us, and what day shall we see thee?" Jesus says: "When you strip yourselves without being ashamed, when you take off your clothes and lay them at your feet like little children and trample on them! Then [you will become] children of Him who is living, and you will have no more fear."
[TABLE="width: 582"]
[TR]
[TD]Oxyrhynchus Greek Fragment

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 582"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 291"] DORESSE - Oxyrhynchus
His disciples say to him: "When wilt thou appear to us, and when shall we see thee?" He says <to them:> "When you strip yourselves and are not ashamed [...]"
[/TD]
[TD="width: 291"] ATTRIDGE - Oxyrhynchus
(37) His disciples said to him, "When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?" He said, "When you disrobe and are not ashamed [...afraid]."
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Funk's Parallels
POxy655 37, GThom 21:1-2, DialSav 51-52, DialSav 84-85.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Further indication that Joseph Smith did no miracle acts.

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

The original sources aren't hidden...you just seem to be too busy going . You were provided links to the original scanned documents twice now. First here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817
And later here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=253658&viewfull=1#post253658

Then why aren't you just quoting the particular text containing the miracle acts you claim are there? How do you know it's there? If you found it, then just post here that text. What's the problem?

Here is a copy of just one image page of one of the early 19th century Mormon document (Obviously I am not going to post the hundreds of page images). The links also the documents in typed text on the side.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834
View attachment 5691

Come off it!

We don't need a picture of the original manuscript.

Just quote the relevant text. (Not the entire document, only the relevant part narrating the miracle event.)

This should not be so difficult. You continue to give further indication that these documents don't really exist. The only one that gave any real miracle event was the Wilfred Woodruf What's-His-Name letter, or diary entry.

I'm tired of looking for it -- you say it's available? Fine. Dig it out and post the text here.

Until then, the bottom line is that this document, or others claiming to be 19th-century and relating these events, are not really taken seriously by the LDS Church, and they do not want to make these documents available to the public.

Almost certainly they exist. But if they could be fully presented and quoted, it would probably be obvious that they have no merit as evidence for any miracle acts. Other than just the usual faith-healer congregation in which some member claims to have been healed by the pastor and one of them wrote some exaggerated anecdote about it in his memoirs. These were long-time faithful devotees of the guru, which is very familiar and is an obvious case of mythologizing.

No? Then produce the text.

If you produce it, I will pay the donation to this message board TFT, as I said earlier. $50 it will cost me.

Anything relating a miracle done by Joseph Smith. Not him claiming one of his disciples did this somewhere.

I'll even help you. Try this: http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/joseph-smith-miracles/

It might be there, but I'm too tired of scanning through this stuff and still not finding a clearcut case which narrates Joseph Smith actually healing a dozen of the disciples one day in the park, or whatever it was.

I'm not going to search thru all these anecdotes to find something that really makes sense. So far I don't see ONE that really presents the original text, 19th-century, relating JS himself doing the miracle healing act.

Here's one: http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/joseph-smith-miracles/#Heber_C_Kimball_Made_Whole

Is this what you have in mind? This disciple of JS saying his back felt better after JS told him to rise up in the name of Jesus Christ?

Obviously any such anecdotes that have credibility show a strong dependency on the miracle acts from the gospel accounts as their real source. This close attachment to an earlier centuries-old tradition is a necessary component, without which the later anecdotes are not possible. We don't see any such attachment to an earlier religious tradition in the Jesus miracle acts.

What's ironic is that even if you finally turn up something that is convincing, then my response is "OK, so he did have some limited power to heal 1 or 2 persons at some event." Maybe in some cases a healer really did have some such power. My guess is that there really have been a few cases of this where someone had some limited power. Like Rasputin the mad monk. But these do not stand out in history. Had it happened before 1000 AD or 1500 AD, we'd have nothing about it because it would not have ever been recorded.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Considering the fact that most Christians are loathe to entertain the very real probability that the Jesus they believe in was concocted over decades of legend-building rather than represented intact in the gospel narratives, it puts us at a bit of an impasse.”

Not really. All you have to do is present counter-evidence to that which we have extant today such as it is.
Surely you aren’t going to begrudge ‘most Christians” entertaining the probability that the Jesus they read about in the Gospel texts actually did say what He is claimed to have said – given that practically all the historical documents have overlapping consensus that there WAS a person named Jesus who said such things and we have no mutually exclusive historical counter-narratives to the contrary.

Following the evidence where it leads does not make one “loathe” other invisible absent evidence.

...The lack of any contemporary debunking documents points more to the likelihood that Christianity just wasn't that big a deal in those days and that Jesus wasn't the impressive figure Lumpenproletariat (and others like him) want to paint. ”

Not to speak for Mr Lumpenproletariat, but it’s neither he nor I who painted the picture. We have only the texts – just like you. If we are accused of painting pictures, what do you call the type of imaginary, possible, ‘scenario’ screenplays which 21st Century Jesus Mythers write?

...The evidence strongly favors the scenario that…”

I don't accept your strongly favoured opinions about possible scenarios and I will not accept being told what “the evidence strongly favors” by someone who wont let me propose very real probabilities or scenarios based on actual historical documents. (Remember – those oral testimonies and early manuscripts weren’t called “The Bible”^TM at the time they were being collated for historical preservation.) But I will say thank you for your acknowledgement that there is evidence even if we disagree on what that evidence shows.

...that Jesus was possibly an itinerant zealot preacher who gathered a tiny cult following”

Yep.
I can agree with that - because that's what the text actually confirms.
Jesus WAS itinerant! Jesus Himself said… “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
Yes – Jesus was a zealous preacher! Passion for my Fathers House consumes me.
So you aren't straying off script there friend. Youre not giving us anything we don’t already have as evidence before us. You’re actually paraphrasing the bible.

And yes, His tiny following WAS viewed as a cult.
It's not tiny anymore though is it?

......and pissed off some powerful Jewish leaders to the point he got his ass Jimmy Hoffa'd.

Yep. Same with John the Baptist.
Again, you're simply paraphrasing what everybody already knows from scripture. You're conceding biblical facts. Thank you.

......”His followers refused to believe he was dead and continued to encourage each other that he'd be back. ”

That’s right! Again, that’s what the text tells us. They genuinely had reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
And whereas we may differ over HOW & WHY they came to think that, (skeptics propose swoon theory, twin brother, hallucination, etc,) there are virtually undisputed, widely accepted, historical facts such as His Crucifixion, the empty tomb, that lead His persecuted followers to believe in His Resurrection so strongly that they managed to pass the toughest, most barbaric lie-detector test which the Roman military machine could devise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

View attachment 5700

And after the Christains took over the Holy Roman Empire, they threw pagans to the lions for not converting to Christainity.

Can't imagine why anyone would refuse to leave their pagan beliefs in favor of Christainity if their life depended on it. It's not like they'd ever actually SEEN pagan gods, in most cases, just been raised by people who told them what to believe.

 

[Atheos]

Lion IRC, I notice you stopped quoting me when it got tough. Feel free to show where my scenario is incompatible with the evidence we have.

 

[funinspace]

The original sources aren't hidden...you just seem to be too busy going . You were provided links to the original scanned documents twice now. First here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817
And later here:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=253658&viewfull=1#post253658

Then why aren't you just quoting the particular text containing the miracle acts you claim are there? How do you know it's there? If you found it, then just post here that text. What's the problem?

Doesn't your holy book say something about being forthright? Your responses remind me of the Mitt Romney tax plan joke website, we could call yours the Miracle Max Goalpost Shuffle:
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com...joke-website-about-governor-romneys-tax-plan/

The Democratic National Committee launched a parody website today called RomneyTaxPlan.com.The site says users can “simply click the button below” to get details on Gov. Romney’s tax plan, but the button moves to another part of the screen when a user tries to click it.

Anywho, I did just that in the first link I provided, where I sourced the links to the original scanned images you managed to avoid seeing twice. I provided the text regarding one of the miracles and it confirmed that the Wiki page on JS was valid, and has time relevant original documents to back it up.

Here is a copy of just one image page of one of the early 19th century Mormon document (Obviously I am not going to post the hundreds of page images). The links also the documents in typed text on the side.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834
View attachment 5691

Come off it!

We don't need a picture of the original manuscript.

Just quote the relevant text. (Not the entire document, only the relevant part narrating the miracle event.)

This should not be so difficult. You continue to give further indication that these documents don't really exist. The only one that gave any real miracle event was the Wilfred Woodruf What's-His-Name letter, or diary entry.

I'm tired of looking for it -- you say it's available? Fine. Dig it out and post the text here.

Like I said, I already provided the text. I'm done chasing your childish attempt to keep moving the goalposts. The only person you could possibly be fooling at this point is yourself.

What's ironic is that even if you finally turn up something that is convincing, then my response is "OK, so he did have some limited power to heal 1 or 2 persons at some event." Maybe in some cases a healer really did have some such power. My guess is that there really have been a few cases of this where someone had some limited power. Like Rasputin the mad monk. But these do not stand out in history. Had it happened before 1000 AD or 1500 AD, we'd have nothing about it because it would not have ever been recorded.

Again, already did that. Good to know that being a Miracle Max isn't that important in constructing a god...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm tired of looking for it -- you say it's available? Fine. Dig it out and post the text here.

Until then, the bottom line is that this document, or others claiming to be 19th-century and relating these events, are not really taken seriously by the LDS Church, and they do not want to make these documents available to the public.

Just gotta love how Lumpy's an expert on the policy and beliefs of a religion he doesn't belong to, on a subject he didn't know existed two years ago, concerning evidence he hasn't been able to find on the internet.

 

[funinspace]

Not really. All you have to do is present counter-evidence to that which we have extant today such as it is.
Surely you aren’t going to begrudge ‘most Christians” entertaining the probability that the Jesus they read about in the Gospel texts actually did say what He is claimed to have said – given that practically all the historical documents have overlapping consensus that there WAS a person named Jesus who said such things and we have no mutually exclusive historical counter-narratives to the contrary.

Following the evidence where it leads does not make one “loathe” other invisible absent evidence.

Though I have no idea which one of dozens of major theological Christian flavors you hold to... The God-breathed Bible theological construct (GBBT) has a serious problem in that your Jesus often cited what we now call the OT as valid and real. Yet archaeology, geology, and history provide significant counter-narratives to the below fairy tales:

- There was never anything even close to the Noah Deluge fable
- The Tower of Babel fable...is well babel BS
- Moshe and his Exodus fable is at least 99.9% BS
- The whole conquering of Canaan is largely made up
- There was never any day the Earth stood still for Joshua
- The sun wasn’t set back 10 degrees for Hezekiah

Relative to GBBT, either what Jesus said was false, or was falsely added to the Gospels, or Jesus isn't part of a triumvirate, or some other variant of falsity. Typical liberal Christian theology has a workable escape clause...