120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

To disprove the Jesus events, you must impose dogmatic standards onto the gospel accounts not imposed onto any other documents.

If you could just produce these "sources" then we could be certain they had sources.

But we cannot produce such sources for virtually any other historical documents we rely on for our knowledge of history. Again you are imposing standards for the gospel accounts to meet which are not imposed onto any other documents from history which we rely on for the historical record.

Then you'd simply have to provide evidence that these "sources" were reliable as well.

Which we cannot provide for virtually any historical documents we use, such as the historians of the period. We assume they had sources for their information, but we almost never know what these sources were and whether they were reliable. Yet we believe the accounts generally. But out of prejudice you make extra demands on the gospel accounts in order to disqualify them as sources for the events of the period.

Obviously you can eliminate or censor from the record anything you don't like, by imposing such arbitrary rules which are not imposed onto any other documents.

That's a pretty tall order considering the non-negotiable requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, we don't need any such meaningless slogan. For the miracle stories we need to have more than only one source, even more than two. Which we do have for the Jesus miracle acts. Of course you can start out with the premise that miracle events are absolutely ruled out no matter what. But this dogmatic premise you impose is not mandatory on everyone.

You can always prove your conclusion by just putting it into your dogmatic premise. If your premise is that the Jesus miracle stories must be false, then VOILA! your conclusion will be that they are false. Garbage in -- garbage out.

But for those who do not submit to your dogmatic arbitrary premise, a different conclusion could reasonably be arrived at.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's reason to believe the Jesus events, based on evidence, which we do not have for the pagan miracle myths.

Of course, as with ALL events reported in the history of that time. So the gospel accounts are no more or less reliable than most other accounts we rely on for our knowledge of those historical events.

Fine, we agree.

. . . do you really not understand the differences between a claim that Julius Caesar existed and exerted political power over a people that left evidence of their existence, and a claim that Jesus rose after he died and flew up into the sky?

The former is more certain, or more probable.

We have more evidence for the Julius Caesar events, but that does not negate the evidence we have for the Jesus events. Some events have a high probability, 99% or 99.9999%, while other events have a lower probability -- 90% or 80% or 70%. That doesn't mean the lower-probability events did not happen. One can still reasonably believe they happened, based on the evidence we have for them.

There's many historical events we assume happened even though the probability is much less than 99%. Or even 90 or 80%.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some parts of the gospel accounts had to be of early origin, from early sources, and not fabricated by the gospel writers/editors.

I wanna know what "sources" the NT writers had for Jesus' words to the Sanhedrin...Jesus' pow-wow with Pilate, which was by the sound of it a private consultation...the "Magnificat" (right, some hillbilly woman is spouting poetry about her pregnancy and it gets recorded 60 years later)...stuff Jesus said or things he did when the disciples fell asleep on the last night. I'm sure there's a Bible code somewhere and I can read every 17th or 33rd letter to find the mysterious answer.

Christ belief does not necessarily require acceptance of every gospel account dialogue or conversation as reporting exactly what words were exchanged. Even if some of the dialogues were later compositions, this does not discredit the gospel accounts as credible accounts for the events generally.

Much of it originates from direct witnesses to the events, even if other parts do not. The incident reported in Mt 27:67-68, Mk 14:65, and Lk 22:63-64, is clearly something the gospel writers/editors derived from their previous sources, for reasons I explained above, and could not be something they "made up."

That other stories or sayings or dialogues got added later, by believers wanting to embellish the original story, does not undermine the credibility of the overall accounts.

But this particular incident at the trial, and also the "Rejection at Nazareth" story, and some other reported episodes, had to originate from the beginning, at about 30 AD, and are not of later origin. These are parts of the story that later believers would not have "made up."

 

[couch_sloth]

I wanna know what "sources" the NT writers had for Jesus' words to the Sanhedrin...Jesus' pow-wow with Pilate, which was by the sound of it a private consultation...the "Magnificat" (right, some hillbilly woman is spouting poetry about her pregnancy and it gets recorded 60 years later)...stuff Jesus said or things he did when the disciples fell asleep on the last night. I'm sure there's a Bible code somewhere and I can read every 17th or 33rd letter to find the mysterious answer.

Christ belief does not necessarily require acceptance of every gospel account dialogue or conversation as reporting exactly what words were exchanged. Even if some of the dialogues were later compositions, this does not discredit the gospel accounts as credible accounts for the events generally.

Much of it originates from direct witnesses to the events, even if other parts do not. The incident reported in Mt 27:67-68, Mk 14:65, and Lk 22:63-64, is clearly something the gospel writers/editors derived from their previous sources, for reasons I explained above, and could not be something they "made up."

That other stories or sayings or dialogues got added later, by believers wanting to embellish the original story, does not undermine the credibility of the overall accounts.

But this particular incident at the trial, and also the "Rejection at Nazareth" story, and some other reported episodes, had to originate from the beginning, at about 30 AD, and are not of later origin. These are parts of the story that later believers would not have "made up."

And you know this how?


Why couldn't the "Rejection at Nazareth" story been added to the Gospel, as a partial explanation why the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah? "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house."


I find it far more likely that the Jesus narrative started out as stories about a mystical Jewish teacher which became more & more exaggerated, even borrowing from other stories. Most likely, there were other miracle worker stories to compete for people's attention, so the Jesus tales had to become more fantastic for him to remain the top-dog.
Is this just pure supposition? You bet it is.
But I see it as much more likely than all the bizarre miracle stories of the NT.

Why would an admirer of George Washington have "made up" the story about him cutting down a cherry tree?

Just after George Washington's death, Pastor Weems wrote all that crap about him; painting Washington as some sort of Saint/Prophet. He even had Washington ascendeding to heaven, where myriads of angels rushed to greet him with golden harps. Some of Weems stuff was still being taught when I was in elementary school (e.g. The cherry tree story).
One of my old college instructors said that the reason Weems was no longer taken seriously by anyone, was that we have a lot of other writings by Washington's contemporaries (e.g. Original documents: Letters, diaries, newspapers, official documents, etc), which appear to give a more realistic view of the man.
And still, Pastor Weems was just one source who, in the past, found a big willing audience for his lies.

 

[Atheos]

But we cannot produce such sources for virtually any other historical documents we rely on for our knowledge of history. Again you are imposing standards for the gospel accounts to meet which are not imposed onto any other documents from history which we rely on for the historical record.

Then you'd simply have to provide evidence that these "sources" were reliable as well.

Which we cannot provide for virtually any historical documents we use, such as the historians of the period. We assume they had sources for their information, but we almost never know what these sources were and whether they were reliable. Yet we believe the accounts generally. But out of prejudice you make extra demands on the gospel accounts in order to disqualify them as sources for the events of the period.

Obviously you can eliminate or censor from the record anything you don't like, by imposing such arbitrary rules which are not imposed onto any other documents.

That's a pretty tall order considering the non-negotiable requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, we don't need any such meaningless slogan. For the miracle stories we need to have more than only one source, even more than two. Which we do have for the Jesus miracle acts. Of course you can start out with the premise that miracle events are absolutely ruled out no matter what. But this dogmatic premise you impose is not mandatory on everyone.

You can always prove your conclusion by just putting it into your dogmatic premise. If your premise is that the Jesus miracle stories must be false, then VOILA! your conclusion will be that they are false. Garbage in -- garbage out.

But for those who do not submit to your dogmatic arbitrary premise, a different conclusion could reasonably be arrived at.

I agree that for those who do not insist on extraordinary evidence to warrant accepting extraordinary claims they can be convinced of anything. If four guys decide to lie to you and state that they have the title to Oklahoma and they'll sell it to you for $5... well there are more than two sources for this story so it must be true. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you make this claim?

That requirement doesn't go away just because it's written down. It doesn't go away because the same four guys hand-wrote this claim down on paper 10 years ago. Lying went on well before the creation of the printing press, contrary to your revisionist view of things.

My premise is not that the Jesus miracle stories must be false. My premise is that things which defy the laws of physics need a better explanation than some anonymous person who doesn't even claim to have seen it for himself claims it happened before he was born. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, but you are more than welcome to tell me once again why I'm wrong. Especially if you can do it in 100 words or less.

You have been presented no less than three times in this thread with the words of an actual historian, a person with a doctorate in Ancient History. His actual thesis was the study of how science has been historically applied to the study of ancient history. In other words he is the world's foremost expert in this exact subject, having obtained a terminal degree in it. He says:

I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on. See for example my discussion of the Rubicon-Resurrection contrast in Geivett's Exercise in Hyperbole (Part 4b of my Review of In Defense of Miracles). Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument. So it is no coincidence that this is what you get in serious historical scholarship.

(emphasis mine)

So on the one hand, we have Lumpenproletariat claiming that normal historical methodology involves arbitrarily accepting until proven otherwise stories of fire-breathing dragons, people defying the laws of physics, etc., any time we find the same claim parroted in more than one place. Well... provided it was parroted before the invention of the printing press, because once the printing press was invented people actually started lying on paper.

On the other hand we have a man with a doctorate in the study of how science is applied in historical methodology telling us .... "Bullshit. Real historical methodology is far more complex than that. It begins with suspicion and unusual claims require extensive corroboration."

Sorry dude, your argument just doesn't hold up. You apply a completely different standard to your Jesus myth than you would apply to any other situation you were faced with in life. If you really apply this standard to everything else in your life I just can't help wondering how many titles to bridges you've bought in your day. If ever there was a case of "someone needs to look in the mirror when he says that" it is right now and that person is you.

 

[James Brown]

We're seeing the same mythologizing of Ronald Reagan going on in real time.

 

[skepticalbip]

I seem to have heard a shorter version of this thread somewhere.

1. Everything in the Bible is true.
2. It is true because it is the word of god.
3. We know it is the word of god because it says so in the Bible.

Any argument? See point 1.

 

[Atheos]

We're seeing the same mythologizing of Ronald Reagan going on in real time.

Yeah, but Reagan was famous. You can mythologize famous people. In Lumpenproletariat world you can't mythologize people who weren't famous. Since all Jesus ever managed to accomplish was violate every law of physics we know about, totally PWN every Jewish leader in a 100 mile radius, heal thousands of people of the most dread diseases imaginable, take morsels of food and transform them into feasts for thousands, transform six huge barrels of water into the best wine ever in front of dozens of partying guests at a major wedding, raise the dead daughter of a high-profile ruler right in front of hundreds of mourners, show himself alive after being crucified in front of at least 500 witnesses and levitate off into the sky never to be seen again it's a small wonder he was such a nobody.

The biggest miracle in this whole myth is the unspoken one that someone could do all that and not be famous or leave a shred of physical evidence he actually existed.

But if he was famous he'd violate Lumpenproletariat's law of mythologizing. Can't have that.

 

[Atheos]

You know, Paul Bunyan is an example of the Jesus formula in action. There is no physical evidence Paul Bunyan existed but there are lots of stories about his extraordinary activities. Most were told and retold within a few decades after his life, which began in Bangor, Maine but most of which was spent in the forests of Minnesota. We don't know exactly when he was born, but it was sometime in the mid 1800's based on many of the details in his life. And we know that written accounts of his exploits were around as early as the mid-to-late 1800's. Several of these tell exactly the same story although the details are sometimes a bit different. We do know that he worked with hundreds of lumberjacks at one point, so there were plenty of witnesses.

Ironically there is debate today as to whether or not stories of Paul Bunyan were inspired by one or more historical individual. But in no circumstance is there any serious debate that whoever might serve as the historical nugget around which these extraordinary tales emerged actually performed any of the extraordinary deeds attributed to Paul Bunyan.

As with all oral and written stories coming to us through the fog of history we have enough common sense to know what might be based on actual events and what is definitely not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Paul Bunyan didn't straighten out a river by hooking it to his blue ox and having him tug on one end of it. But someone who was the inspiration for the later exaggerations might have worked with and/or bossed a crew who dug a canal to act as a bypass on a river to get a straight shot for transporting logs more quickly.

And the same non-rocket-scientist can certainly tell the difference between plausible things that an itinerant preacher living 2000 years might have actually done versus the extraordinary exploits his followers gave him credit for 40 years after he was dead. It gets real easy to make up new adventures for Jesus the Magic Jew the further you get away from any actual witnesses who might be able to gainsay your story.

 

[James Brown]

John Frum is another modern-day example. Perhaps based on a real person, but probably not. Yet there are people who passionately believe in his existence and future return to reward the faithful.

 

[couch_sloth]

...And the same non-rocket-scientist can certainly tell the difference between plausible things that an itinerant preacher living 2000 years might have actually done versus the extraordinary exploits his followers gave him credit for 40 years after he was dead. It gets real easy to make up new adventures for Jesus the Magic Jew the further you get away from any actual witnesses who might be able to gainsay your story.

Also, how likely is it that an actual witness (if they existed) would aggressively pursue the argument that some things later attributed to this itinerant preacher were not true, or exaggerated? How likely is it that these arguments would be passed down through antiquity?

 

[Keith&Co.]

. . . do you really not understand the differences between a claim that Julius Caesar existed and exerted political power over a people that left evidence of their existence, and a claim that Jesus rose after he died and flew up into the sky?

The former is more certain, or more probable.

Agreed.
So the evidence for the latter needs to be far better than that for the former.
And you need to stop suggesting that they're equally likely as history goes.

We have more evidence for the Julius Caesar events, but that does not negate the evidence we have for the Jesus events.

No, the very poor quality of the evidence for the Jesus events negates the evidence for the Jesus events.

Some events have a high probability, 99% or 99.9999%, while other events have a lower probability -- 90% or 80% or 70%.

Just pulling numbers out of your ass, here. The very fact that the 'Jesus events' you want to claim as history are miracles means they are impossible. A NEGATIVE probability.
So the evidence for those events being factual has quite the uphill climb to be accepted by historians.

That doesn't mean the lower-probability events did not happen.

No one's saying that low probability = did not happen.

We're saying that in order to countenance the possibility that they did happen, you need much, much, much better evidence in place, to raise the probability to anywhere even above 1% possible.

One can still reasonably believe they happened, based on the evidence we have for them.

No, not reasonably.

There's many historical events we assume happened even though the probability is much less than 99%. Or even 90 or 80%.

Do historians really rate things by probability?
Everything i see tends towards 'according to (insert name or account here)' or 'if we are to believe (name, document, etc.).'

And that way, if any better evidence comes along, we're not wrong to put qualifiers in place.
If counter-evidence comes along, we still weren't wrong to say 'if we accept the word of (someone).'

You don't have that, though.

You're flogging stories that may have been told at any time before they were written down. YOu have no way to actually trace this mythical oral 'source' to an actual event. You can't name the person who first witnessed the event, if anyone did, if there was an event.

So, not 80% probable. Or 8% probable. Or .08% probable....

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The gospel writers/editors must have used earlier sources. They could not have invented the Jesus legend later.

Christ belief does not necessarily require acceptance of every gospel account dialogue or conversation as reporting exactly what words were exchanged. Even if some of the dialogues were later compositions, this does not discredit the gospel accounts as credible accounts for the events generally.

Much of it originates from direct witnesses to the events, even if other parts do not. The incident reported in Mt 27:67-68, Mk 14:65, and Lk 22:63-64, is clearly something the gospel writers/editors derived from their previous sources, for reasons I explained above, and could not be something they "made up."

That other stories or sayings or dialogues got added later, by believers wanting to embellish the original story, does not undermine the credibility of the overall accounts.

But this particular incident at the trial, and also the "Rejection at Nazareth" story, and some other reported episodes, had to originate from the beginning, at about 30 AD, and are not of later origin. These are parts of the story that later believers would not have "made up."

And you know this how?

The story we have (the incident at the trial) in at least the 2 accounts does not make sense, in either account by itself. But all 3 accounts give all the pieces which make the story make sense.

Why would the later writer/editor make up a story which is incomplete, i.e., which makes no sense because part of the story is missing? The writer making up the story would not leave something important out.

But, if he's piecing together an account based on earlier sources, he could very well give us what he has, in his sources, even if he himself doesn't understand the story because of the part that is missing.

So the best explanation for the incident at the trial, where at least 2 accounts leave something out, is that each account was put together by a later editor from earlier sources, or pieces of the story, and each editor included what he had, thus leaving us with a version of the incident which left something out.

So it's highly unlikely that either writer/editor made up the story, but rather each one took it from earlier sources.

And if the Mt and Mk editors had gotten together and collaborated to get the story right, they would have had all the pieces between them and would have each given us a version that was complete. So obviously they didn't know of each other.

Why couldn't the "Rejection at Nazareth" story been added to the Gospel, as a partial explanation why the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah?

What you have to explain is why Mk says Jesus could perform no miracle there. A later Christian writer would not make up a story saying that Jesus was unable to perform a miracle.

The earliest version, Mark, doesn't even give a reason for this, whereas the Matthew version says the reason was their "lack of faith." So the first version just says Jesus could perform no miracle there, without giving a reason why. There's no way a later Christian writer could have made up such a story. Mark must have had this in his sources, and feeling obliged to report what he had, he put this into his account.

How else can this story be explained? Where did it come from, if not from very early, probably 30 AD at the beginning?

I find it far more likely that the Jesus narrative started out as stories about a mystical Jewish teacher which became more & more exaggerated, even borrowing from other stories.

But why was this the ONLY such story that became more and more exaggerated?

Most likely, there were other miracle worker stories to compete for people's attention, so the Jesus tales had to become more fantastic for him to remain the top-dog.

But why didn't any of the other stories also become more fantastic? Why was ONLY THIS one story able to compete for people's attention? Even if this one came out on top, winning first prize for the most widespread and most published of all the miracle legends, we should still see some evidence of a close 2nd in this race to become top-dog. We should see some other "gospel" accounts of some kind about the other competing miracle-worker stories.

But there's virtually nothing.

Why would an admirer of George Washington have "made up" the story about him cutting down a cherry tree?

Because George Washington was a famous widely-publicized hero celebrity who had a long distinguished career recognized by millions of fans who were a ready market for the miracle myth, and so there was much money money money to be made off him.

But Jesus was an unknown at the time of his death, plus, publishing was not profitable in the first century.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Some of our beliefs are true, and there's evidence for it, but we don't know it as proven fact.

The standard division of Faith vs. Fact is incorrect. If you want a simple breakdown of all truth claims, it should be a 3-fold division:

1) known fact, 2) legitimate belief supported by evidence, and 3) belief not supported or even contradicted by evidence

What's the difference between a known fact and a legitimate belief supported by evidence?

A legitimate belief might still not be true, but there is evidence for it and thus some reason to hold the belief. It's something believed by some but possibly disbelieved by others, and there might be evidence either way. It's more doubtful, and yet there's evidence and it's reasonable to believe it.

It's best to just use examples:

known fact: George Washington was the first President; or, Julius Caesar was assassinated.

legitimate belief support by evidence: Cleopatra committed suicide; or Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman, with no accomplices.

It's clear that there is a difference. However, there are also borderline cases, so the definition of each category does not give us black-and-white separation of each example from the other examples. Some cases are ambiguous.

For the established facts we have PROOF which is virtually irrefutable, so there's virtually no chance new evidence could be produced to discredit it as an historical fact. We could say the probability is 99.9999% that it's true. Whereas a belief, not an established fact, supported by evidence, is a legitimate belief one can reasonably hold, though there's a possibility that it's not true.

With enough evidence we can reasonably believe many of the historical events. Some of them are highly probable, others only moderately probable. Perhaps sometimes a history book has to be rewritten to correct an error, because new evidence was turned up. Even so those books are generally reliable.

No one can dictate scientifically how much evidence is required for legitimate belief. But total proof beyond doubt is not necessary before one can reasonably believe the historical accounts in general, even though we know some (most?) of them contain error.

Your three divisions are just two divisions, still:

Known facts supported by evidence, and beliefs that go beyond what the evidence can actually support.

But "the evidence" is not clear in many cases, i.e., it's not unanimous. There is this evidence and that evidence. Some evidence supports the "fact" while other evidence undermines it. So there's some reason to believe it, but it's still not certain.

In a trial isn't there evidence produced by both sides? And yet only one side is presenting the truth of what happened. The two sides contradict each other, so only one can be right. And yet there is at least some evidence for the side which is wrong.

Some beliefs are supported by evidence, but there is still doubt, or it's not totally certain in the sense that "Caesar was assassinated" is certain. Most of the historical facts in a history book are not as certain as the fact that Caesar was assassinated. But still the evidence is enough that one can reasonably believe those facts.

I gave an example of a "fact" that is highly uncertain: the burning of a pagan library by the Christian emperor Jovian in 364 AD. The source for this is highly uncertain. Yet it is reported as a fact by some writers. Maybe something happened, a temple was burned, but it's doubtful that this emperor really ordered the burning of a library.

You just want a special case where you can put YOUR beliefs and pretend they're supported by the evidence.

But it's not a "special case" -- there are many historical facts in this category. There's nothing wrong with believing that Achilles killed Hector. It might be historical fact. But it's not a proven fact. That Homer reports it is evidence that it happened, and some people believe it. But it's not proven fact.

Documents reporting that something happened is evidence that it happened.

Virtually all our historical facts, prior to 1500 or 1000 AD, are based on claims in documents which say the event happened. You can't name any historical fact that is NOT based on this "evidence" from documents. There is virtually NO OTHER EVIDENCE for these historical facts. If you believe any facts from the period, you must believe them because of the claims made in documents which say it's a fact.

And yet obviously some of these "facts" reported in documents are not "facts" at all, but are some kind of error or distortion or non-fact. So this category is that of the doubtful "facts" or the ones not established as PROVED beyond any doubt. And yet these are believed because of the evidence, which gives reason to believe it, and yet in a few cases there is a mistake and it's not true, or partly not true.

The miracles of Jesus are in this category, because there is evidence that they really happened, and yet there is still doubt. The evidence isn't strong enough to make these a certainty, or an established fact proved beyond any doubt.

There is no logical compulsion to purge out all beliefs which are not proved beyond any doubt. One can reasonably hold beliefs based on evidence even if they're not proved beyond any doubt.

 

[Atheos]

Virtually all our historical facts, prior to 1500 or 1000 AD, are based on claims in documents which say the event happened. You can't name any historical fact that is NOT based on this "evidence" from documents. There is virtually NO OTHER EVIDENCE for these historical facts. If you believe any facts from the period, you must believe them because of the claims made in documents which say it's a fact.

How about:

• Neanderthal people living 40,000 years ago made tools and even musical instruments which have been found in caves.
• The Parthenon was located in Athens, Greece. Its ruins are there for anyone to go see today.
• Machu Picchu (built just under your deadline of 1500) is located on top of a 7500 foot mountain peak in Peru (where its ruins can still be seen)
• The ruins of Chichen Itza are a testament to the art and architecture of ancient people living circa 700 AD in Central America.
• Stonehenge, surrounded by hundreds of burial mounds, was built by ancient people around 2000-3000 BC in what it now Whitshire, England. The designers used the positions of the Sun, Moon and certain stars in creating it.
• Sometime in the 12th to 13th centuries, Buddhist monks built a temple in Angkor, a city in Cambodia. The temple, now known as Ta Prohm, has an old tree growing out of it now.
• The Longmen Grottoes were carved by Buddhists between 450BC and 1100 AD. Some of the figurines carved into the stone are only inches tall, while the largest, a statue of Buddha, is 57 feet tall.
• In approximately 1400 BC a temple (now known as the Luxor Temple) was built by Egyptians in Thebes, which was then the capital of ancient Egypt.
• The Romans built a large Colosseum circa 70 AD, the ruins of which still stand.
• Many of the ancient temples that have been excavated in Baalbek (Lebanon) were built around 400-500 BC

You know, this can go on for a long, long time. Thousands upon thousands of "facts" we know today about the ancient world have absolutely zero to do with things that were read in documents. Historical analysis starts with artifacts, political boundaries, language analysis and cultural norms, then fills in the details using written documentation, bearing in mind that much of what is written is still going to be wrong. Not the other way around. You have a habit of making broad statements like this and getting burned with reality. Just like when you claimed that nobody ever said Joseph Smith performed miracles.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We know particular historical events only from written documents which claim it happened.

Virtually all our historical facts, prior to 1500 or 1000 AD, are based on claims in documents which say the event happened. You can't name any historical fact that is NOT based on this "evidence" from documents. There is virtually NO OTHER EVIDENCE for these historical facts. If you believe any facts from the period, you must believe them because of the claims made in documents which say it's a fact.

How about:

• Neanderthal people living 40,000 years ago made tools and even musical instruments which have been found in caves.
• The Parthenon was located in Athens, Greece. Its ruins are there for anyone to go see today.
• Machu Picchu (built just under your deadline of 1500) is located on top of a 7500 foot mountain peak in Peru (where its ruins can still be seen)
• The ruins of Chichen Itza are a testament to the art and architecture of ancient people living circa 700 AD in Central America.
• Stonehenge, surrounded by hundreds of burial mounds, was built by ancient people around 2000-3000 BC in what it now Whitshire, England. The designers used the positions of the Sun, Moon and certain stars in creating it.
• Sometime in the 12th to 13th centuries, Buddhist monks built a temple in Angkor, a city in Cambodia. The temple, now known as Ta Prohm, has an old tree growing out of it now.
• The Longmen Grottoes were carved by Buddhists between 450BC and 1100 AD. Some of the figurines carved into the stone are only inches tall, while the largest, a statue of Buddha, is 57 feet tall.
• In approximately 1400 BC a temple (now known as the Luxor Temple) was built by Egyptians in Thebes, which was then the capital of ancient Egypt.
• The Romans built a large Colosseum circa 70 AD, the ruins of which still stand.
• Many of the ancient temples that have been excavated in Baalbek (Lebanon) were built around 400-500 BC

None of these are singular events which happened on a particular day.

Most of the facts above, such as the dates and the identification of the findings, are known from documents about them. Where there are only the physical objects and no documents, virtually no facts are known about them, such as what they were for, who built them, when, how, etc.

It's only from writings about them, or about other similar objects that were written about, that it's possible to know the facts about them. We know virtually nothing about them apart from the writings.

Before reading and writing there was virtually no knowledge of prior history, except possibly oral reports, myths/stories. If relics were preserved, no one knew what these were unless there was an oral tradition saying what they were. Knowledge of historical events is mainly from written documents, but primitively from some oral tradition also. Not physical objects from the past.

Thousands upon thousands of "facts" we know today about the ancient world have absolutely zero to do with things that were read in documents.

But it's only a tiny fraction of the total "facts" we know, which are virtually all from the writings. Especially about particular events that happened, which is mainly what our topic is. We're talking about particular events which happened, not about geological formations or processes spanning generations or centuries. Our topic is about particular events which happened on certain days and were witnessed by someone at that point in time.

Historical analysis starts with artifacts, political boundaries, language analysis and cultural norms, then fills in the details using written documentation, bearing in mind that much of what is written is still going to be wrong.

We would know virtually none of the events without the written documents telling us about it.

Our topic is about whether the miracles of Jesus really happened. These were particular events which (allegedly) happened. All such particular events, happening at a particular time, are known to us from writings which claim it happened. We don't know any of the historical events apart from such documents.

That there were earthquakes and that humans made stone tools etc. is not about particular identifiable events which happened at certain times and which we can know about individually. It's the individual events we're talking about.

We know humans ate food, they hunted, they had sex. Those are not individual events we know about but broad behavior patterns that were generally engaged in, by whole populations. Our topic is about INDIVIDUAL events involving PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS at certain identifiable times.

You have a habit of making broad statements like this and getting burned with reality.

You haven't given us any example of a particular event which we know other than through written documents saying that the event happened. That wooly mammoths existed and no longer exist is not a particular event which happened at a particular time.

Just like when you claimed that nobody ever said Joseph Smith performed miracles.

Only some of his direct disciples who were greatly influenced by his charisma over a period of several years. Like a church member claims to have recovered after the pastor prayed for him/her.

You are too embarrassed to present any example of a Joseph Smith (healing) miracle, because you know those anecdotes are not persuasive. All you can quote is a 21st-century Wikipedia article but never the original text. It's there, but you know it's too silly to present as a serious example.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A source for historical events is not discredited just because it contains a few flaws. An element of error is the norm.

But you can't lump everything in the Bible into one large mass and call it "the biblical version of events" or speak of "evidence to support the biblical version of events" because there are thousands of events there and some are true and some not. So the biblical version is partly right and partly wrong, and there's evidence to support some parts.

So, Lumpy, your approach to evaluating the accounts in The Books is to say that while some are doubtful, we can still hold other accounts as trustworthy. You reject the idea that finding some faults in one or more books of The Books is a good reason to reduce the credibility of the rest of the contents.

However, way back on page one, you said:

I'll go through some of the "122 Reasons," taking them in order, so as not to leave out any that are more difficult. I might drop dead before reaching to the very end, but if I refute the first 20 or 30 in order, that's a good indication that the remaining ones also will collapse into the trash heap of traditional Bible-bashing Christ-bashing tirades. .

This would be more evidence of your bias. You figure if you can refute 1/6th of the Reasons, we can pretty well assume that the other 5/6ths are as good-as-refuted. Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that refuting 20 Reasons is only refuting 20 Reasons? The rest (and he's up to over 200 at this point) may be taken as probably useful UNTIL they are also specifically, individually, refuted?

Perhaps. This is not a point worth fussing over.

Unless you're comfortable with treating the Books as a special case....?

No, the Bible is not a "special case." No document or collection of writings is somehow totally refuted because you find some errors in it. Of course it should not be taken as infallible or inerrant from beginning to end.

The Bible writings should not be judged by a different standard than any other writings. Virtually all of them contain some error. And yet we are able to figure out the historical events from those writings, including from the biblical writings. Finding an error or flaw in some of them does not disqualify them as reliable sources for the events generally.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, Lumpy, your approach to evaluating the accounts in The Books is to say that while some are doubtful, we can still hold other accounts as trustworthy. You reject the idea that finding some faults in one or more books of The Books is a good reason to reduce the credibility of the rest of the contents.

However, way back on page one, you said:

I'll go through some of the "122 Reasons," taking them in order, so as not to leave out any that are more difficult. I might drop dead before reaching to the very end, but if I refute the first 20 or 30 in order, that's a good indication that the remaining ones also will collapse into the trash heap of traditional Bible-bashing Christ-bashing tirades. .

This would be more evidence of your bias. You figure if you can refute 1/6th of the Reasons, we can pretty well assume that the other 5/6ths are as good-as-refuted. Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that refuting 20 Reasons is only refuting 20 Reasons? The rest (and he's up to over 200 at this point) may be taken as probably useful UNTIL they are also specifically, individually, refuted?

Perhaps. This is not a point worth fussing over.

Fussing?
Dude, this DEFINES your approach.
You dislike kyroot's list, so you are willing to dismiss the entire thing for a few errors.
You like the Jesus story, so you insist it's credible except for specific and discrete parts which you are forced to reject.

That's the very essence of a 'special case' fallacy. You treat two different works by two different standards.

The Bible writings should not be judged by a different standard than any other writings.

But that is EXACTLY what you do. And then pretend you're doing what actual historians would do...

 

[Atheos]

You are too embarrassed to present any example of a Joseph Smith (healing) miracle, because you know those anecdotes are not persuasive. All you can quote is a 21st-century Wikipedia article but never the original text. It's there, but you know it's too silly to present as a serious example.

Predictably you moved the goalposts when confronted with abundant evidence contradicting your broad statement that "You can't name any historical fact that is NOT based on this "evidence" from documents." I produced a short list of many such facts that we can know that are historical and then you start qualifying. Typical.

Then you have the gall to say I am too embarrassed to present any example of a Joseph Smith healing miracle when I have quite clearly directed your attention to any number of them. Again once you were presented with evidence that didn't fit your beliefs which were rooted in ignorance about a given subject you again started backing and filling. It is quite tedious having a discussion with someone who lacks the strength of character to simply admit they happen to be wrong about something. The writings about Joseph Smith's miracles are quoted and/or referenced in the WIKI article I pointed you to, and they are copiously footnoted. You are more than welcome to challenge that article if you believe it to be in error. Put your freaking money where your mouth is and challenge the article and get the WIKI staff to retract it if you truly believe it to be in error. Meanwhile I am not going to waste my time and effort actually purchasing books I have absolutely no use for other than to shut you up about some argument you're going to turn around and shift the goalposts on again.

Again by the numbers: You have a single document with a biography of a magic Jew who died at least 4 decades before it was written and lived hundreds of miles away. This biography was written by some anonymous person who never claimed to have met this individual, nor does he ever claim to have talked to anyone who met this individual. It is simply the worst caliber of "evidence" imaginable, and it makes extraordinary claims. It is therefore insufficient evidence to warrant believe in the claims it makes.

You've already attempted to "treat" the fact that the vast preponderance of scholars believe the document to originated in Rome with the possibility that it originated elsewhere. Fine. What we can tell about it is that it originated several hundreds of miles removed from the place the story is about. You cannot hand-wave that away any more effectively than you can hand-wave away the fact that these myths show abundant evidence of development over several decades. Paul wrote of a heavenly voice that he channeled, speaking only of him being a dying and rising savior, a popular meme long before the Johnny-come-lately Jesus myth was a twinkle in Paul's eye. Again, Paul never mentions any of his teachings, any of the places he visited, any of the people with whom he interacted. Paul's Jesus was a simple framework upon which stories could easily be hung. It is not at all difficult to envision Paul's followers inventing details for the life of this character over the next several decades, eventually leading up to the first of the various "gospels" being written down. We know that process continued as rewrites such as GMatt and GLuke added birth narratives, post-resurrection appearances and other things that had been added to the traditions over the next two decades.

The only thing the Jesus myth needed in order to succeed was a charismatic cult leader capable of convincing people he was in possession of something special. The exact same thing JZ Knight used to bilk millions of followers with her "Ramtha" bullshit. The exact same thing L. Ron Hubbard used to invent and pimp Scientology. The exact same thing thousands of other cult leaders have used over and over again to gain control, wealth and power. With the staggering numbers of times this sort of thing has been attempted it is to be expected that on rare occasions it will take off and be wildly successful.

Your myth's only advantage over other myths of the time are that it was very popular. Yours is an argument from popularity, as if truth can be voted into existence.

 

[funinspace]

Rinse, Wash, Repeat....

Just like when you claimed that nobody ever said Joseph Smith performed miracles.

Only some of his direct disciples who were greatly influenced by his charisma over a period of several years. Like a church member claims to have recovered after the pastor prayed for him/her.

And you have no evidence to suggest it is any different for your favorite Miracle Max, just the claims of those anonymous devotes shrouded in a dense fog of history where only the religious writings survived...

You are too embarrassed to present any example of a Joseph Smith (healing) miracle, because you know those anecdotes are not persuasive. All you can quote is a 21st-century Wikipedia article but never the original text. It's there, but you know it's too silly to present as a serious example.

You have been provided direct evidence on the Joseph Smith miracle paper trail leading back right to his lifetime, with scanned images of his own writings and of his direct followers on 01-28-2016, 02-05-2016, and 02-11-2016. I also chased down one of the miracle claims all the way down to the page, and image right from the time period in question, but of course you ignored it like most everything else... Below was just the most recent time I called you on your BS:

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
View attachment 5691