120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Yes, if the one claiming it believes it, that makes it more credible.

The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it.

So if my uncle goes off his meds for an afternoon and reports that he made love to a large purple and gold dragon with neon tiger stripes on her wings, we're honor bound to consider that evidence that it happened?

Yes, if your uncle still claims this today and is not being influenced by meds (or absence of) or by a charismatic guru etc.

If someone who is NOT under a doctor's care makes a similar report, and we have no reason to suspect that he's schizophrenic, is that report more or less credible than my uncle's?

It's more credible, if he really believes it and is of sound mind. It might not be true, but it's more credible if the one saying it is of "sound mind" and really believes it.

(Of course, maybe there's no way to KNOW if he really believes it, because he might be lying. But if we know he really believes it, then the report is more credible than that of a whacko.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I don't believe that shit!

The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it.

I would say that is a silly basis to accept a story.

Yet you do accept stories based on this.

There are thousands of people who believe they have been abducted by anal probing aliens.

Maybe they don't really believe it but just say it for fun. Why are you sure they believe it?

So by your standard, there is a hell of a lot more evidence for anal probing aliens than there is for Jesus' miracles.... Hmmmm, never mind. Maybe you have a point.

Probably they're just goofing off, and you don't have a sense of humor.

But if some really believe it happened to them, it might have just been a dream. So they really did have the experience.

Going to the extreme, there's no reason to totally rule out the possibility that the aliens do exist and have done some such examinations of humans.

But for now, the best explanation is that your basic premise is incorrect -- I.e., they don't really believe this. Can you produce one of the probed ones and get them to present their story and prove that they really believe this and are not just making an ass out of you?

 

[Atheos]

What an absurd sentence. Do you even listen to yourself?

(Of course, maybe there's no way to KNOW if he really believes it, because he might be lying. But if we know he really believes it, then the report is more credible than that of a whacko.)

On the one hand we can't know, but if we do know ...

But you've evidently got the inside dope on something nobody else here has. You know GMark wasn't lying. Even though you have no clue who he was, where he lived, how he was influenced to write GMark, whether he worked alone or as a group, whether he was a she. You know Jack Shit about this person yet you seem to have this miraculous insight that this writer was telling what he/she/they believed to be the truth when they reported impossible stories about a magic Jew living 40 years ago in a land far, far away. Someone they never claim to have even met. Someone about whom they never claim to have even met or talked to someone who met this remarkable person.

But even if this person believed with all his heart that the stories were true it only serves to show that he believed them to be true. Millions of people believe Joseph Smith was a direct prophet of god. The people who crashed the planes on 911 evidently believed with all their heart that they would be rewarded by Allah for their deeds. People can and demonstrably will lie, kill, maim and commit all manner of atrocity in service to their religious beliefs. But you somehow know the innermost mind of this person (or people) who wrote this anonymous myth, and you know they believed it with all their heart and they weren't deceived into believing it by someone charismatic.

It is the height of absurdity to present such dismal evidence and even suggest that it is sufficient to warrant belief that the stories written by this person (or persons) is actually true. Then you back it up with the corroboration of people whom we can tell are lying as they fabricate false stories about birth narratives, genealogies, atrocities such as having all male children aged 2 and under summarily massacred, a Roman census that never happened as described, etc. In other words whoever the liar was that wrote GMark is corroborated by these known liars about all these other things. It would be a hoot if you weren't actually serious. And the sad thing is for all I can tell you are.

But that's where we are. You'd have us believe a man walked on water, fed thousands with morsels, healed the most dread diseases and conditions known to man, raised people from the dead and levitated off into the sky never to be seen again, yet never made even a scratch in the historical record until 40 years after his death.

You've been presented with dozens of plausible scenarios that get us where we are. You reject them for completely made-up criteria with no other possible end-game than to draw a circle around your favorite fairy tale and excise it from other similar fairy tales.

People make up (and have made up) millions of fairy tales. Magicians have created untold millions of fantastic illusions giving the impression they can perform magic. Nobody has ever been able to produce actual evidence that magic (miracles) exist. Nobody. Ever.

You also asked:

What's the best example of a reported miracle-worker for whom there is evidence equally credible as the evidence for the Jesus miracles?

There are no examples of reported miracle workers that are credible. None. Including your favorite fairy tale. They all suffer from the same exact problem: The only evidence for them is testimony. There is not a trace of physical evidence they happened.

If a murderer claims he was 800 miles away from the crime scene and gets several people to corroborate his claim but physical evidence places him within a mile of the crime scene 30 minutes after the murder, people don't suspend their belief in the laws of physics and assume a miracle occurred. They are certain his alibi is a lie. For the exact same reason we assume that people making equally insane claims about this magic Jew are also fabrications. They are not just unlikely. They are impossible. Testimony is not enough to corroborate the impossible. Not even a little bit.

Plausibility. Come back when you get some.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So if my uncle goes off his meds for an afternoon and reports that he made love to a large purple and gold dragon with neon tiger stripes on her wings, we're honor bound to consider that evidence that it happened?

Yes, if your uncle still claims this today and is not being influenced by meds (or absence of) or by a charismatic guru etc.

And the qualifiers come out... You've made an absolute statement and now you have to tweak it, but you're still supporting the credibility of a schizophrenic's hallucination.

Seriously, that ought to be a warning bell, Lumpy.

If someone who is NOT under a doctor's care makes a similar report, and we have no reason to suspect that he's schizophrenic, is that report more or less credible than my uncle's?

It's more credible, if he really believes it and is of sound mind.

It might not be true, but it's more credible if the one saying it is of "sound mind" and really believes it.

(Of course, maybe there's no way to KNOW if he really believes it, because he might be lying. But if we know he really believes it, then the report is more credible than that of a whacko.)

'whacko?' Pleeeeeese.
We prefer the term 'Bugknuckle Americans.'

But we're talking about a report that seems to indicate that the reporter is, or is listening to, a BKA.
Maybe the second story is just from someone who has not been formally diagnosed as a BKA.
Or maybe the person who wrote it down is just rather credulous.

Stories with literally incredible details do not become more credible because the reporter credits them. We still have to weigh them against possibility, and plausibility, and we need REALLY good evidence to find incredible stories to be trustworthy.

You don't got anything like this for the Jesus miracles... Hard though you work to try to manufacture evidence for them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle stories probably originated from actual events, not from storytelling.

There are myriads of problems with the approaches and contortions Lumpenproletariat has to go through to create a sharpshooter fallacy specific enough to allow his favorite myth to pass without allowing thousands of others across the threshold. Most of us participating in this thread know that. His latest attempt, titled "The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it." is once again a non-starter from the get go.

First of all we have no idea who actually wrote the various gospels so venerated by Christians today. We have no way to ascertain what agenda they had, where they got the information they included, etc. For this reason it is impossible to know if the original writers actually believed what they were writing or if they were simply creating myths in hopes of seeing their efforts become well accepted. Modern day graffiti artists as well as modern day virus writers hope to see their anonymous works gain fame but have no desire for anyone to be able to trace their works back to themselves. Their reward is the spread itself. For all we know the anonymous writers of these early gospels got little reward from their efforts than to giggle as they watched religious people eagerly lap up the insane stories they penned. Truth is that would explain a lot. Especially GMatt's insane tale of the night of the living dead. I can just see him and his buddies at a bar yukking it up that people actually swallowed that one hook, line and sinker.

Lumpenproletariat has absolutely no means to demonstrate that this is not what actually happened.

Of course, and you could say that about ALL of our historical record. We can't prove that all those writers were not lying.

Once again, and again and again and again, the only reasons you can give to reject the gospel accounts are also reasons to reject ANY source for ANY historical facts. Every reason you give above is also a reason to reject ANY historical document.

Poe's law may be a modern contrivance but it is merely an observation of human nature that can be traced back as far as history can be traced.

Baseless assertions du jour:

Fictitious miracle healing claims are usually from the disciples of the guru who want to believe him because of his charisma.

Okay, show us some evidence of this baseless assertion.

I don't have to because you're giving the evidence for it yourself when you say the following:

I have seen thousands upon thousands of claims of healing miracles where I am certain no miracle took place. Having spent part of my childhood in a Pentecostal church I personally witnessed "healing miracles" that I am certain were nothing of the sort. I saw people "speak in tongues" and get "slain in the spirit." I know it was all show, and that it remains a show even though these people actually believe this is what is happening. Mass hysteria, delusions, etc. Not miracles. Restore a missing limb and I'll retract everything I've said by way of observation. Until then I can honestly say I have never seen any example of a miracle claim where the only possible explanation is a miracle. That includes the ones penned in your favorite fairy tale.

All the above here are cases of the disciples believing in the charisma of the preacher/guru/healer and wanting to support his claim to perform these miracles. So you've just provided "some evidence" for my assertion, "Fictitious miracle healing claims are usually from the disciples of the guru who want to believe him because of his charisma."

No, we/you do NOT know that GMark was lying, while "Mother" does know that the kid is lying.

Sure I do. For the exact same reasons.

No it's not for the same reasons. One can doubt both stories. But the GMark miracle stories have vastly greater credibility than the story the kid told to his mother (that the cookie was given to him by Jesus who told him "Take, eat. This is my body."). We all know the kid is lying, but we don't know that GMark was lying. There are doubts about the Mark stories, but there is no doubt about the kid's cookie story.

The stories GMark tells are impossible.

The correct word is "improbable," and they become more probable as additional factors are considered.

Just like the story the kid tells.

But even if his story is "impossible," it's not for this reason that you know he's is lying. You know the kid's story is untrue, regardless whether it's "impossible."

Here's a story which you know is untrue:

In less than 60 minutes from now (from when you start reading this sentence), a beautiful Iranian girl 20 years old will suddenly storm into your room, wearing a burka made in Birmingham, England by a man named Jeremiah Jollypuff. She will take off the burka and dance in front of you naked, performing a ballet dance to the music of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. She will stand on her head and recite Marc Antony's famous speech ("Friends, Romans, countrymen," etc.), then she will take out a banana cream pie and throw it smack in your face, and then recite the Gettysburg Address backwards. A policeman will rush into the room and try to arrest her for stealing the pie from Joe's Bakery, but she will claim she bought it legally at Walmart, but then the local Walmart manager will enter the room and deny her story, saying they don't sell banana cream pies, but then she will produce the sales receipt, but before they look at it she will put it in her mouth and eat it, and then the Walmart manager will say it was all a mistake, but then 4 jihadi terrorists will storm into the room and cut off the heads of all three of them and will then start to pray toward Mecca but will have an argument over which direction Mecca is, but then someone looking like Marshall Dillon from Dodge City will storm into the room and arrest the 4 terrorists and take them to jail.

How do you know the above story is not true? There's nothing "impossible" about any of it.

You know this story is false for the same reason you know the kid's story about Jesus giving him the cookie is false. It's not because anything is "impossible" about the story. Whether something is "impossible" has very little to do with you knowing that the story is false.

My story about the naked Iranian girl etc. is less probable than the story that Jesus Christ rose from the grave "on the third day." The latter is vastly more probable than my story above (having no miracles in it), and also vastly more probable than the kid's story about the cookie.

"I don't like this story" is NOT my response. My response is that the sarcasm and giggling of the kid is the reason "Mother" knows the story is a lie, because if the storyteller himself does not believe the story, that is evidence that the story is false, and so she rejects the story based on this evidence.

So now you're just making up new details behind the scene of the story itself for no other reason than to give yourself a way to wriggle off this hook. Having authored this scenario I recall not giving any details about the body language of the kids telling the story of the levitating cookie thief. My story has anonymous kids sounding quite sincere as they make this claim. Just like those lepers you made up additional details about. Mother is not, in this instance, a mind reader.

Yes she is. You can't make up this part of the story. The only part of this that you can invent is the story told by the kid, not the person he's telling the story to -- she's not a character in "the story" -- she's a normal human making a decision whether to believe the story. Every normal human knows the kid's story is a lie, i.e., everyone is a "mind reader" to the extent that they know this kid is lying. Just like you know my story about the naked Iranian girl is a lie, even though there's nothing "impossible" about it.

Since I am the author of this story I hereby amend my tale to say that the kids in the story telling of the appearance of a levitating liberator of cookies have straight faces and give every appearance that they believe what they are saying. Mother in this case is not a mentalist.

Yes she is, in the sense that she's a normal human who knows this kid's story is a lie. Again, she's not part of "the story" but someone like us who is judging whether the story is a lie, and she knows it's a lie for the same reason that you and I or anyone else knows it.

Does she believe the story backed by 4 witnesses, the story told by only one witness, or does she decide it's just a toss up?

She knows it's a lie, regardless of any witnesses. Just as you know my naked Iranian girl story is a lie, regardless of any witnesses.

Are you really going to sit there and try to sell us on the idea that you don't see her taking the plausibility of the story into account?

The cookie story and the naked Iranian girl story are both extremely implausible. But not because of anything "impossible" contained in either story, or anything unscientific or against the laws of nature or supernatural, etc.

And the GMark stories are vastly more plausible than either of these 2 extreme implausible stories.

There is some doubt about the GMark stories -- one can reasonably believe or disbelieve them. But there is no doubt about the Jesus cookie story and the naked Iranian girl story, and to seriously put these in the same category with the gospel stories, or with other claims of something unusual reported in written accounts, is to say essentially that everyone just makes up their own truth, and all claims are equally true or false, and "history" is just whatever stories we make up and choose to believe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course, and you could say that about ALL of our historical record.

Jesus fuck stop thumping this point. It doesn't help you in any way at all.

At the best you can make us at least a little suspicious of all history, but we're still going to be MORE suspicious of anonymous accounts OF IMPOSSIBLE SHIT!

At worst, it looks like you have a simplistic and self-serving approach to the way historians actually do their jobs, despite many attempts to give you a chance to educate yourself better on this point.

 

[James Brown]

All things being equal, stories about events that break the laws of physics are more suspect than stories about events that don't. This is because a person's ability to not tell the truth does not break any law of physics.

Again, all things being equal.

 

[skepticalbip]

All things being equal, stories about events that break the laws of physics are more suspect than stories about events that don't. This is because a person's ability to not tell the truth does not break any law of physics.

Again, all things being equal.

Yes, someone who says that it couldn't be put in the Bible if it weren't true is like someone who says that nothing can be posted on the internet unless it is true.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I think we've run into a Syed Wall here. Just transpose the Muslim orientation to the Stubborn (Er... Devout) Christian syndrome. Also be glad that (in most parts of the world) the believers no longer feel the need to meet critical thinking and heresy with torture racks and public burnings.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...be glad that (in most parts of the world) the believers no longer feel the need to meet critical thinking and heresy with torture racks and public burnings.

Luckily, many of them have their fears satisfied by the certain knowledge that their critics will burn in Hell, and they'll be able to choose to sit on a cloud above us, watching our torment.

Well, i SAY lucky. Unless you have to wipe off the spittle after one of their rants on the glories of another human being's coming tortures...

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat is dancing so hard to try to support this ridiculous position that his arguments are collapsing in on themselves. On the one hand he's now baselessly asserting that "Most miracle claims come from a disciple of the person the claim was from" while on the other hand arguing that the miracle claims of the Greek gods were invented hundreds of years removed from the time / places where they allegedly happened by people who only knew of these characters through stories. He argues that somehow my experiences as a youth in midweek Pentecostial prayer meetings represents the entirety of all instances where miracle claims have been made, and thus absolves him of any responsibility to defend yet another broad, sweeping statement. He eats his words on a regular basis, but it's no problem for him. Like eating cotton candy there's lots of fluff but very little to swallow.

He has no clue who wrote GMark, much less where he got the information he put in the myth, but he somehow knows with certainty that what GMark wrote down did not originate from a direct disciple of Jesus. Honestly, this is an argument where I'm really having a hard time understanding how it helps his claim. He seems to think that the less a person knows from firsthand experience about a given subject the more likely this individual is to know what he's talking about and give us accurate information. I guess that's why the evening news always cuts to some reporter in South Africa when they're wanting a report about lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

Just when I think his arguments have achieved a terminal level of atrociousness he manages to find new ways to impress us with truly lame logic. Bravo.

In less than 60 minutes from now (from when you start reading this sentence), a beautiful <blah blah blah>

The reason I knew the story was untrue before reading the entire thing is because it is impossible for you to predict the future with that level of detail. I can't tell you with certainty what the Powerball numbers will be this evening but I can tell you what they were in the last drawing. The latter claim is mundane. The first one is extraordinary, and the only evidence that would satisfy anyone with half a brain would be if I went and purchased a ticket using those numbers, and that was, indeed the number drawn. And even then it would be more likely that I just blustered my way into a lucky guess.

In other news it remains impossible for a man to walk on storm-tossed water or turn mere morsels of food into enough to feed thousands with more leftovers afterwards than they started with. Just like it is impossible for a man to give sight to a blind person, heal paralysis or control weather on command. Just like it is impossible for a man to levitate unassisted to the sky and disappear into the clouds.

Impossible. Not improbable. That is how we separate fantasy from reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What's the best example of a reported miracle-worker for whom there is evidence equally credible as the evidence for the Jesus miracles?

Equally as credible?
That would be when my grandmother was late to the airport to pick up my grandfather and prayed for a convenient parking space and SHE FOUND ONE! I mean, it was RIGHT OUT FRONT! She got there JUST as the guy pulled out and she pulled it and told us for years that it was a miracle. God did it in answer to her prayers.

JUST as credible. There's just as much need to add a divine power to this story to explain it.

And Grandma REALLY BELIEVED it was true, therefore that's evidence, right?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Even more cause for fervent belief:
My (deceased) Aunt Carolyn whose Lincoln Continental was literally a Green Light Car -- when she drove it, she only encountered green lights -- you had to believe it, because it was independent of all other probative factors, such as the speed she drove at, her ability to anticipate light changes as she approached them. This was a true miracle, my friends.
My (born again) friend C.F., who was on a very tight financial leash one month when the Almighty intervened by having her son pony up with $200 he owed her. She gave thanks to GOD. (Who the hell else would she thank, given the facts?)
The inmates of Auschwitz, who were miraculously liberated on the night of November 20, 1943, after fervently -- wait -- skip that one.

 

[funinspace]

I don’t claim to know from whom the stories originated. What I said was that you have no evidence that the stories didn’t come from the devotees of this new Christ cult, . . .

Of course our sources for them are the later writers/editors beginning with Mark, who were believers/"devotees". But these were not DIRECT disciples, so they were not influenced by the charisma of the healer. My claim is not that they weren't "devotees" or believers, but that they were not DIRECT disciples, as is the case with the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

So in the latter case it was the charisma of the prophet which influenced those disciples to promote the miracle claims.

. . . not withstanding your silly hand waving claims of clarity. As the authors (or editors as Lumpy has become fond of stating) are anonymous, we can only assume that they are devotes of this Christ cult, that is no longer quite so new. Taking the Jesus miracle stories at face value, no solid conclusions can be drawn as to how they got repeated over the years, even assuming (which I don’t) they came forward from real events. It is possible they were repeated by outsiders as you say, but it could have been from the very disciples you think were there for those 1-3 years. Or the stories could have been slowly added in the first decade or two, as the inerrant and killed heretical preacher faded into the growing mystery cult that Paul was constructing with his devotes. That is the conundrum, there is so little to work with IRT who did pass these tales along. However, whoever kept the stories going over the following decades were most certainly devotes of this new Christ cult as they first emerged into the Gospel of Mark some 30 plus years after the claimed events…practically a lifetime for many.

The point is that the stories are not from his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma, which is the case with the Joseph Smith stories. We have reason to doubt the Smith stories because they come only from his DIRECT disciples, and also the victims healed were all his DIRECT disciples.

Obviously we don't know precisely when and from whom the Jesus stories originated. But the internal evidence from the stories themselves clearly points to the onlookers and the ones healed as the main initiators of the stories, and not the small group of disciples around him. You can discount this evidence, but there is no reason to discount it, other than to promote your premise that no miracle event can ever happen.

One who does not start out with this dogmatic premise might reasonably believe that the origin of the stories was the onlookers, including the victims healed (or believed to be healed), because this is what the gospel accounts suggest, and there is no reason to reject that possibility other than the dogmatic premise that no miracle healing can ever happen.

Please present “internal evidence from the stories” that clearly points to mysterious onlookers as “main initiators of the stories”. If anything, it is more likely that these stories were created/propagated by the disciples of who ever was building up this Jesus cult, whether it was someone vaguely like the Jesus of Gospels or Paul. And you have no evidence to suggest it isn't so. You are projecting into a 20-40 year vacuum of history, where only Paul provided vague hints to the life of this purported Jesus-god. In reality you don’t have jack, so I don’t have to discount your hand waving as if provides clarity. One interesting aspect is just how this new cult doesn’t appear to have had much of any success exactly where all these amazing miracles happened. Churches grew early on in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Corinth. But in Judea? Yeah, whatever. Those 5,000 fed from a few loaves didn’t seem to get the word out too well. We can pick on the LDS, as they have a real and solid paper trail, so their foibles are more self-evident.

And all the healed people were clearly NOT all JS DIRECT disciples.

I generally disregard claims around miracles, as they quite regularly are shown to be bullshit. It would be silly/foolish to assume any/all miracle claims are true until proven otherwise. I didn’t start out with any dogmatic premise that the whole Jesus-god theological construct is false. I spent 30 years neck deep in the Christian faith, until I saw the light.

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

If you're serious about the credibility of these anecdotes, you will post it here. I've read some of this and it's silly stuff, and you know it's silly, and that's why you won't post it.

You can't pick out one example? What's your problem? It's not because it's hundreds of pages. The anecdotes tend to be lengthy, but not hundreds of pages.

Quit pretending that you found credible stories about healing miracles. You know these are not serious accounts. They can easily be posted here if you want to select out the healing miracle stories only.

Pick out just one -- the one you think is most convincing. They're not too long. Quit making up excuses why you won't post one of the stories here.

You know if you didn’t spend so much energy on verbal diarrhea, you might actually have more time to comprehend what other people post. I have already done so, and you have ignored this reality numerous times so far. From the first link 01-27-2016, is one explicit quote of Mormon Miracle Max:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...mber-1805-30-august-1834?p=561&highlight=heal

David <W.> Pattin [Patten] has just returned from his tour to the East, and gives us great satisfaction as to his ministry, he has raised up a church of about eighty-three members in that part of the Country, where his friends live, in the State of New York; many were healed through his instrumentality, several cripples were restored, as many as twelve that were afflicted came at a time from a distance to be healed; he and others administered in the name of Jesus, and they were made whole,

Why are you re-posting this after I pointed out earlier that this is NOT a Joseph Smith miracle act? You can't find a Joseph Smith miracle event?

Not that it should matter one wit, but when I talk about the JS miracles, his band of disciples were pretty much included in the package. Unless of course you want to toss out the miracles performed by Jesus’ disciples mentioned multiple times in the NT? Anyway, I can see that after looking back you were sort of asking specifically for healing miracles attributed directly to JS. This is one of the problems with your long rambling responses, details get lost as you ramble way too much.

Anyway, here is one JS miracle as written by Wilford Woodruff (yes a deciple), published within a book (from his journals) in 1882 some 4 decades after the events in question. This is much in line with the assumed dates for the (missing) original manuscripts of Matthew and Luke by the anonymous authors.

Leaves From My Journal; Third book of the Faith-Promoting Series; by Pressident W. Woodruff; 1882; page 65. And “The Prophet” is JS, which is clear when reading more of the passage from the book.
https://archive.org/stream/leavesfrommyjour00woodrich#page/64/mode/2up/search/ferry

While waiting for the ferryboat, a man of the world, knowing of the miracles which had been performed, came to him and asked him if he would not go and heal two twin children of his, about five months old, who were both lying sick nigh unto death.

They were some two miles from Montrose.

The Prophet said he could not go; but, after pausing some time, he said he would send someone to heal them; and he turned to me [Wilford Woodruff] and said: “You go with the man and heal his children.”

He took a red silk handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to me, and told me to wipe their faces with the handkerchief when I administered to them, and they should be healed. He also said unto me: “As long as you will keep that handkerchief, it shall remain a league between you and me.”

I went with the man, and did as the Prophet commanded me, and the children were healed.

 

[Atheos]

Nobody ever claimed Joseph Smith did miracles

WIKI article is presented demonstrating evidence of claims.

WIKI isn't a source. You have to find the source

WIKI article is copiously footnoted.

Nobody has actually placed the original documents referenced in these footnotes in my hands and held my eyes open and forced me to read them, so they don't exist. Lalalalalalala... I can't hear you...

I swear, it's the debate equivalent of the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I swear, it's the debate equivalent of the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

It's only a flesh fallacy.

I've had worse.

Come back here! I'll bite your footnotes off!

 

[Atheos]

Anyway, here is one JS miracle as written by Wilford Woodruff (yes a deciple), published within a book (from his journals) in 1882 some 4 decades after the events in question. This is much in line with the assumed dates for the (missing) original manuscripts of Matthew and Luke by the anonymous authors.

And I might add that the original handwritten journal entries transcribed into the book that was published in 1882 were evidently kept by Woodruff on a daily basis. This means the original document from which this was published was written down within hours of the events in question. In this case we know who wrote it, we know with certainty that he would have been an eyewitness of the recorded event, we know with near certainty the exact date it was written, and we still are certain it is not an accurate portrayal of events that took place in large part because the events recorded are impossible.

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, I was bored and had time....

I don’t claim to know from whom the stories originated. What I said was that you have no evidence that the stories didn’t come from the devotees of this new Christ cult, . . .

Of course our sources for them are the later writers/editors beginning with Mark, who were believers/"devotees". But these were not DIRECT disciples, so they were not influenced by the charisma of the healer. My claim is not that they weren't "devotees" or believers, but that they were not DIRECT disciples, as is the case with the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

So in the latter case it was the charisma of the prophet which influenced those disciples to promote the miracle claims.

. . . not withstanding your silly hand waving claims of clarity. As the authors (or editors as Lumpy has become fond of stating) are anonymous, we can only assume that they are devotes of this Christ cult, that is no longer quite so new. Taking the Jesus miracle stories at face value, no solid conclusions can be drawn as to how they got repeated over the years, even assuming (which I don’t) they came forward from real events. It is possible they were repeated by outsiders as you say, but it could have been from the very disciples you think were there for those 1-3 years. Or the stories could have been slowly added in the first decade or two, as the inerrant and killed heretical preacher faded into the growing mystery cult that Paul was constructing with his devotes. That is the conundrum, there is so little to work with IRT who did pass these tales along. However, whoever kept the stories going over the following decades were most certainly devotes of this new Christ cult as they first emerged into the Gospel of Mark some 30 plus years after the claimed events…practically a lifetime for many.

The point is that the stories are not from his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma, which is the case with the Joseph Smith stories. We have reason to doubt the Smith stories because they come only from his DIRECT disciples, and also the victims healed were all his DIRECT disciples.

Obviously we don't know precisely when and from whom the Jesus stories originated. But the internal evidence from the stories themselves clearly points to the onlookers and the ones healed as the main initiators of the stories, and not the small group of disciples around him. You can discount this evidence, but there is no reason to discount it, other than to promote your premise that no miracle event can ever happen.

One who does not start out with this dogmatic premise might reasonably believe that the origin of the stories was the onlookers, including the victims healed (or believed to be healed), because this is what the gospel accounts suggest, and there is no reason to reject that possibility other than the dogmatic premise that no miracle healing can ever happen.

Let’s take a walk thru the miracles within GMark and look for internal evidence for who could have possibly or probably passed on this implausible stories. This of course assumes that the sagas weren’t made up shit from months to decades later.

I’d say the first sentence gives it away, as most likely sourced from a disciple. And nothing is suggestive of mysterious onlookers doing the telling. (Disciples: 1; onlookers: 0)

They *went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. 22 They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 saying, “What [n]business do we have with each other, Jesus [o]of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” 26 Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. 27 They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” 28 Immediately the news about Him spread everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee.

Yeah, you are probably right here, there was probably a peep hiding in Simon’s house trying to get sick, and happened to onlook upon this and spread the story all the way to the Fiji. (Disciples: 2; onlookers: 0)

And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with [p]James and John. 30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they *spoke to [q]Jesus about her. 31 And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she [r]waited on them.

Now just who could have been able to record the below sequence? Was a stranger with him in the morning before Jesus and the disciples woke up? Or is it far more likely that this story came right from one of the purported disciples? (Disciples: 3; onlookers: 0)

In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there. 36 Simon and his companions searched for Him; 37 they found Him, and *said to Him, “Everyone is looking for You.” 38 He *said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” 39 And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.

40 And a leper *came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” 41 Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and *said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. 43 And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, 44 and He *said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” 45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but [v]stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere.

This one isn’t definitive, but the intro modestly suggests someone close, as they know he had been home for several days, but I’ll just call this one a tossup with no real internal guidance. (Disciples: 3; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 1)

When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they *came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men.

Blah blah blah removed roof, magic, runs out and tells millions….

Now this one was either passed on by a Pharisee (who was conspiring against Jesus) or by Jesus retelling it to someone, as only the Pharisees and the FSM would know of their “conspiring". And we know that Jesus had a direct line with the FSM. So I think this one would have to be passed along by one of the disciples again. (Disciples: 4; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 1)

He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. 2 They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. 3 He *said to the man with the withered hand, “[a]Get up and come forward!” 4 And He *said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 5 After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He *said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Jesus stilling the Storm Mark 4:35-41: Yeah no need to quote this one. (Disciples: 5; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 1)

The Gerasene Demoniac is a harder one to categorize. The first sentence suggests a person who knew where they came from. But the ending could easily suggest the formerly possessed man carried the story forward. However, as Jesus is part of the tri-headed god, he would also know what happened in Decapolis. IMPOV, the reality is that only Jesus and his disciples could know the whole story, but I’ll let this one slide into unknowable. (Disciples: 5; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him. < snip > 16 Those who had seen it described to them how it had happened to the demon-possessed man, and all about the swine. 17 And they began to implore Him to leave their region. 17 And they began to implore Him to leave their region. 18 As He was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed was imploring Him that he might [c]accompany Him. 19 And He did not let him, but He *said to him, “Go home to your people and report to them [d]what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you.” 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis [e]what great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.

The healing of the dead (or just a comma/sleeping) Daughter of Jairus and the women who just touched his garments: Mark 5:21-43. I’m not going to quote the whole thing. But the saga plays as one sequence, and only the people who were part of the whole sequence would know both of the ill mystery woman and Jairus’ daughters healing within the the saga. I think the only reasonable choice is again the disciples. (Disciples: 6; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)


This one’s lead in quite clearly puts the story in the disciple category, as it includes private conversation. (Disciples: 7; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

30 The apostles *gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught. 31 And He *said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while.” (For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.) 32 They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves. 33The people saw them going, and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of them. 34 When Jesus went [q]ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things. 35 When it was already quite late, His disciples came to Him and said, “[r]This place is desolate and it is already quite late; 36 send them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” 37 But He answered them, “You give them something to eat!” And they *said to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred [t]denarii on bread and give them something to eat?” 38 And He *said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go look!” And when they found out, they *said, “Five, and two fish.” 39 And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass.

Jesus Walking on the Water Mark 6:47-56: Yeah, a private event, another onlooker fail. (Disciples: 8; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

This passage slips from the previous event, to this event, which is about the only suggestion of who would be telling the tale. I guess one could posit that the woman passed on the tale of her daughters healing, and the editor of Mark merely smoothed out the flow between micro sagas. However, there is nothing internally to suggest this is so, but I’ll still give it a weak unknowable. (Disciples: 8; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 3)

Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre[k]. And when He had entered a house, He wanted no one to know of it; [l]yet He could not escape notice. 25 But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a [m]Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not [n]good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered and *said to Him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs.” 29 And He said to her, “Because of this [o]answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.”

Well, here is one miracle event where it is at least unclear who would have been likely to have passed it along. Even the “they” isn’t clear as to whether it is the crowd or the disciples. But, even so, this is hardly a win for the “onlooker” category. (Disciples: 8; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 4)

Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis. 32 They *brought to Him one who was deaf and spoke with difficulty, and they *implored Him to lay His hand on him. 33 Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva; 34 and looking up to heaven with a deep sigh, He *said to him, “Ephphatha!” that is, “Be opened!” 35 And his ears were opened, and the [q]impediment of his tongue [r]was removed, and he began speaking plainly. 36 And He gave them orders not to tell anyone; but the more He ordered them, the more widely they continued to proclaim it. 37 They were utterly astonished, saying, “He has done all things well; He makes even the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”

We don’t need to read the whole feeding of 4,000 to realize that this is also recorded by someone who was a disciple, as Jesus had a private conversation with his disciples as they were whining about what to do about food for so many. (Disciples: 9; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 4)

In those days, when there was again a large crowd and they had nothing to eat, Jesus called His disciples and *said to them, 2 “I feel compassion for the [a]people because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat. 3 If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come from a great distance.” 4 And His disciples answered Him, “Where will anyone be able to find enough bread here in this desolate place to satisfy these people?”

And the next story: This time the “they” is clearly his disciples. Though this time, the story really doesn’t internally give much of any hints as to who is telling the tale, so it could have been an onlooker or a disciple. Not really a Lumpy win here either. (Disciples: 9; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 5)

And they *came to Bethsaida. And they *brought a blind man to Jesus and *implored Him to touch him. 23 Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he [o]looked up and said, “I see men, for [p]I see them like trees, walking around.” 25 Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly. 26 And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

The ending gives it away, and again a private conversation; another onlooker fail. (Disciples: 10; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 5)

When they came back to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and some scribes arguing with them.
<snip>
“You deaf and mute spirit, I [p]command you, come out of him and do not enter him [q]again.” 26 After crying out and throwing him into terrible convulsions, it came out; and the boy became so much like a corpse that most of them said, “He is dead!” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and raised him; and he got up. 28 When He came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately, “Why could we not drive it out?” 29 And He said to them, “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”

Not really clear internally, but the beggar immediately became one of those corrupted followers influenced by the evil charisma. But I’ll still go for unknowable. (Disciples: 10; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 6)

Then they *came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him here.” So they *called the blind man, saying to him, “Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you.” 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “[q]Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has [r]made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.

Another private conversation; another onlooker fail. (Disciples: 11; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 6)

As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up. 21 Being reminded, Peter *said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.” 22 And Jesus *answered saying to them, “Have faith in God.

So after a tour of the Jesus miracles in Mark, I came up with 11 sagas that the internal evidences is most suggestive of a disciple passing the story forward and 6 sagas where the internal evidence is pretty much lacking any guidance. And the mystery onlookers racked up zero points.

Lumpy, I'd say your "internal evidence" is clearly lacking in support of your claim about the Jesus miracle stories coming from mystery "onlookers". OUIJA board suggests another major goal post shift coming up....

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
You are missing Lumpy's argument. Since the Jesus story it told by people that have no logical reason to have been in a position to actually know what happened, this is one of the criteria that is used to judge the validity of the tales. It is necessary that the person relating the tale must have no first hand knowledge for their tale to be judged as true. Any miracles attributed to those other than Jesus by people that could have actually witnessed them (if they happened) is therefore dismissed as biased.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Christ belief is a reasonable belief based on evidence, not proof.

So you recognize that Gautama was a real historical person about whom we have some accurate information, even if much of the legend is fiction. And so likewise Jesus was a real historical figure about whom we have some accurate information and also some legend. So there is some analogy.

It's possible that one or both existed. ''Accurate information'' is the problem.

But "accurate information is the problem" for ANY historical events/persons. There's no historical figure about whom "accurate information" is not a problem. Still, we have facts and reasonable beliefs about the events and persons. We can always wish we had more information and more certainty and more accuracy.

But there is this difference, that in the case of Jesus, we have a record of his miracle acts which occurs within only a few decades, whereas in the case of Gautama the miracle stories are from centuries later.

A few decades is no more a guarantee of reliability and accuracy than centuries.

It gives us assurance of more reliability or higher credibility. There's plenty of doubt with any sources, but less with a source that is closer to the actual events.

Dogmatic/absolutist terminology like "guarantee of reliability and accuracy"(?) is really useless here -- you can't find language appropriate to our topic? We have MORE credibility, LESS doubt, a HIGHER DEGREE of reliability with sources that are closer to the events, such as the gospel accounts are closer to the 1st-century events than our stories about Zeus and Perseus and Gautama and Apollonius of Tyana etc. are to their respective events.

It should be obvious that the closer proximity to the actual events increases the credibility of the sources. When will you stop pretending you can't figure this out?

Verifiability from independent sources increases reliability.

Yes, like Josephus increases the reliability of the gospel accounts regarding John the Baptist, who both of them say was executed by Herod Antipas.

The essence of faith is holding a conviction without sufficient justification.

No, this is not what the N.T. writers meant by "faith." They did not think it was "without sufficient justification." That's your meaning only, and your bias.

Evidence upgrades you to a hypothesis, theory or a justified belief.

Christ belief is the latter. It's believing based on evidence, but short of proof. Your phrase "without sufficient justification" is subjective and judgmental.

Your phrase "conviction without sufficient justification" does not do justice to the N.T. word for "faith" (pistis), which is closer to "justified belief" based on some evidence. Or, even if this greek word might allow that evidence is not always a requirement in every example of "faith," still, in the case of basic Christ belief evidence IS part of the "faith" and not something excluded by the meaning of "faith" as you are trying to dictate, because "faith" does not exclude the element of evidence but includes the normal sense of someone being persuaded by evidence even though there might still be some doubt.

but faith in Christ is belief that is supported by evidence, but which still involves doubt, or which might extend beyond what the facts prove. We can have evidence upon which to form a belief, while still not having certainty, or definite knowledge of it as fact. We believe it's fact, with evidence to support that belief, but we don't know it as proven fact, i.e., with certainty.

Faith is supported by what?

The factual claims made in the documents we have. The miracle events reported there are evidence (not proof) that he had superhuman power.

The best that the evidence supports is: there may have been a historical charismatic figure called Yeshua Ben Yosef, who was later believed to be the Christ.

The evidence supports more than that. The documents attest that he performed miracle acts, or acts which indicated a superhuman power. One might discount this evidence and still not believe these reports, but these are supported by "the evidence." You can't say there's no evidence, but only that there's too little of it in order for you personally to believe the miracle claims.

Based on the evidence the best you can think is, there may have been a charismatic rabbi/preacher going by that name, upon whom the legend was constructed.

And further, that the legend began from his having performed the miracle acts. This is what sparked the beginning of the legend-building, i.e, the evidence indicates this. Of course you can propose other theories too, but these theories are not constructed on the factual claims from the documents, but from a premise that miracle acts cannot ever happen, regardless of any evidence, and from an insistence that the quantity of evidence has to be greater than what these accounts offer.

And that's OK. You can reject the evidence from the gospel accounts and disbelieve the miracle stories based on your premise of the impossibility of such events. But others who do not follow that premise might reasonably believe the accounts. There's nothing in logic or science which makes your premise mandatory.

There is no evidence to support the accounts of miracles . . .

Yes there is. The reported events in the gospel accounts are evidence (not proof) that those events happened. Just like our evidence for virtually all historical events is based on reports that the events happened. For some events there is much more evidence than for others, which increases the credibility. But many events in history are accepted based on far less evidence than we have for the Jesus miracles.

. . . or the underlying supernatural world view.

No particular "underlying supernatural world view" is necessary to believe that the miracle events took place. Perhaps one must allow that somehow those events were caused by something, so perhaps the cause of the events could be termed a "supernatural" entity of some kind, but no particular theory or "world view" is required in order to recognize that something must have caused those events. Many different "world views" are still compatible with the belief that these miracle events happened, whatever the cause.

These are a matter of faith, convictions held without sufficient evidence.

Your term "sufficient" is just your own personal moralistic dogma that you're imposing onto others. It's true that there needs to be evidence for something in order to believe it. If it's a miracle event or something highly unusual or weird, etc., there needs to be more evidence than for normal events. But exactly how much extra evidence is morally required is a subjective judgment.

People hold many beliefs based on limited evidence, but that does not necessarily mean "insufficient" evidence. It is less evidence than we need for PROOF. But it's not a moral obligation to withhold all belief until total PROOF is first produced. It's "justified" to believe based on evidence which falls short of PROOF.


(to be continued)