120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

The story is more credible if we have serious sources who believe it but are not direct disciples of the guru.

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 . . .

No, the original stories, probably not of miracles, came from the direct admirers of the hero, who was a distinguished person, and attracted the attention that got the legend started.

But for a guru who has a long career of impressing his disciples with his charisma, some miracle stories might get started when he's still alive. Though there doesn't seem to be any clear example of this in ancient times, before printing and widespread publishing.

Most miracle legends (from ancient times) came later, after the hero was gone, while the original stories were probably just of his unusual acts, which really happened and were passed on in stories and became exaggerated. And the miracle stories became added gradually over many generations.

But the very first stories were from the direct followers/admirers of the hero figure, who was a real historical person. Like St. Nicholas, which illustrates this pattern, because we have knowledge of the real person originally, whereas we do not have such knowledge about the earlier pagan heroes, i.e., about the original historical figure. But we can assume these follow the St. Nicholas example.

If there were any Joseph Smith-type heroes credited with miracles while they were still alive, we have no clear evidence of it, because all the sources are from generations later than the time the alleged events happened. Presumably there were some, but they were not taken seriously enough to be recorded and preserved for the future.

Only the case of Jesus was taken seriously enough to be recorded and copied for us by educated writers, in multiple documents, and at a date less than 100 years from when the alleged events happened. This is the closest to a case of written evidence concurrent to the time of the alleged events.

The "Rejection at Nazareth" story almost certainly originates from the beginning, around 30 AD, but the earliest we have is the later report of it in Mark.

. . . by people who only knew of these characters through stories.

We know stories evolved later. It happened in the case of Jesus, about whom there are many later "gospels" which introduce new miracle stories. So you can't deny that later miracle stories were added to the original stories.

In every case there had to be something originating from the original historical figure, normally from his direct followers/admirers. Then in some cases maybe some miracle stories emerged while the hero figure still lived. But this was always after he had enjoyed a career of doing something noteworthy (a LONG career usually, though you can claim the case of Joseph Smith was a bit shorter than normal). It couldn't have been something that emerged in only 5 or 10 years. I.e., the case of Jesus does not fit the normal pattern.

For the pagan heroes it's pretty clear that the MIRACLE stories evolved over many generations or centuries, like the case of St. Nicholas. An odd case is that of Vespasian, who might have been credited with a miracle event while he was still alive, though our accounts of this originated 50 years later, after he was dead. But this fits the normal pattern because his case originates from his long distinguished career and celebrity status.

For miracle healer gurus who become mythologized while still alive, it's clear that the stories all originate from his direct disciples who were inspired by his charisma over a long time.

He argues that somehow my experiences as a youth in midweek Pentecostal 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.

Your examples support my point that the stories originate from the direct disciples of the miracle-worker guru. Do you know of other examples that don't fit this pattern?

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.

We typically don't know where a writer got his information for historical events. You can make this same criticism about ANY source for history.

There's no "certainty." But almost all the Mark stories, taken at face value, clearly indicate that the ones healed, and the ones first reporting the stories, were NOT direct disciples of Jesus. Of course we can assume this wouldn't be so in every case. But the stories presented generally show a situation where it's outsiders, not his direct disciples, who were the ones healed and also the ones reporting the stories. This was the general pattern.

Honestly, this is an argument where I'm really having a hard time understanding how it helps his claim.

The direct disciple of the guru is less reliable, being subject to delusions about the guru's power, because of the powerful effect of the guru's charisma. This is a pattern with ALL the miracle claims of faith-healer cults. The claims are more reliable when they come from someone who is not a direct disciple. Like the case of Rasputin the mad monk, which is a more credible case.

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.

The most credible source would be someone who is not a direct disciple and is the victim cured by the guru, or a non-disciple who knows the victim who was cured. I.e., someone who was not directly impacted by the guru's charisma, and either not a believer, or a believer who had little or no contact with the guru.

A Mormon who had little or no contact with Joseph Smith might be a credible source for the Smith miracles. But more credible still would be a non-Mormon. Being contemporary is better, but not a direct disciple. And preferably not raised from childhood to be a believer.

There are almost no cases of such unbiased accounts of faith-healing miracles, among the many millions of miracle healing claims. Anything coming close to this should be taken more seriously.

A likely explanation for the gospel accounts is that these editors/writers were persons who became believers over a period of time when they were exposed to several of these stories, and this is what convinced them. They were probably not raised in "Christian homes" at that time and were likely Hellenistic Jews rather than Christians who gained their information from having attended "Sunday School" in their childhood.

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.

The location of the source is not important. It's the encounter with the guru's charisma that can taint the report, not the close or far-away geographical distance from the event.

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.

It was a bad example. You're right for once. Your story was much sexier than mine.

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.

There was nothing "impossible" about your story of Jesus handing the cookie to that child. That event you described could have happened.

It's not because it was "impossible" that we disbelieve the story. It's because there's no serious witness who believes it.

Produce the adult witnesses who say it really happened, because they investigated it and believed the explanation, and then it becomes more credible. Like the Jesus miracle events are more credible (than those of Perseus et al.) because we have responsible accounts of it reported by educated writers who had reason to believe it and took it seriously enough to record it for future generations.

When your cookie story rises to that level of seriousness, it will become more credible, like the Jesus miracle stories are.

 

[skepticalbip]

The story is more credible if we have serious sources who believe it but are not direct disciples of the guru.

Unbelievable... An argument that someone who believes in a claim without any actual knowledge or even any possibility that they could have any direct knowledge is a better indicator of truth than someone who has firsthand knowledge.

I would guess that you didn't do very well in any of your science classes.

I would agree that just because someone says they saw something happen isn't proof that it did. But even further removed is someone who has no basis for believing that something happened but claims it is true only because they believe it. The movie "Peter Pan" comes to mind for some reason - maybe it is because, as a kid, I really believed that I saved Tinkerbell.

 

[couch_sloth]

The "Rejection at Nazareth" story almost certainly originates from the beginning, around 30 AD, but the earliest we have is the later report of it in Mark.

I don't find this point the least bit compelling.
On the the surface of it, the "Rejection at Nazareth" seems like a rather trivial interlude to be added to the gospel of Mark; especially considering the short length of the gospel which could only tell so much about this character Jesus.
I suspect that it was made up to make a point (or answer a question) the writer(s) of Mark found important. (With all the other supposed fabulous and miraculous stuff happening in Jesus's life why add this?)

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.

This could have been added to Mark as a partial explanation as to why the vast majority of Jews would not recognize Jesus as their Messiah, or as a put-down of Jewish Christians who claimed to have ties to Jesus's hometown. And I'm sure that there are other plausible explanations that we just have no evidence for.
I don't see this story in any way confirming the authenticity of Mark, or the miracles described within it.

You seem to be saying that it is VERY unlikely that this story is a fabrication. I just don't see it.

 

[bilby]

The story is more credible if we have serious sources who believe it but are not direct disciples of the guru.

Unbelievable... An argument that someone who believes in a claim without any actual knowledge or even any possibility that they could have any direct knowledge is a better indicator of truth than someone who has firsthand knowledge.

I would guess that you didn't do very well in any of your science classes.

I would agree that just because someone says they saw something happen isn't proof that it did. But even further removed is someone who has no basis for believing that something happened but claims it is true only because they believe it. The movie "Peter Pan" comes to mind for some reason - maybe it is because, as a kid, I really believed that I saved Tinkerbell.

Tales of sea monsters are more credible if they come from people who have never seen the sea.

Obviously.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Again, the Jesus miracle stories are more credible than the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

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.

Please present “internal evidence from the stories” that clearly points to mysterious onlookers as “main initiators of the stories”.

The miracles begin at Mark 1:21

21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

The "they"/"them"here is a group not identified with certainty, but most likely there were many others present than only Jesus and his disciples. The demoniac who now appears is obviously not one of the disciples:

23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How could his fame spread like this if it was only his disciples who were present and told others? This must have been a large group of locals other than his disciples. In the following episode, the one cured, Simon's mother, is not a disciple, but the others were his disciples, so in this case they are the ones who spread the word about this healing. But this is the only case where it was his disciples who told it to others:

29 And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.

In the following scene it's obvious that the crowd is mostly people other than his disciples:

32 That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. 33 And the whole city was gathered together about the door. 34 And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Obviously both those cured and the observers were mainly non-disciples. As is the case in the following scenes:

39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons. 40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean." 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 43 And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, 44 and said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people." 45 But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, . . .

It's the one healed who initiates the rumors, not the disciples.


Mark Chapter 2

In the following episode there is a crowd. It's reasonable to assume that most of these are not his disciples, who are always a small group, separate from the multitude.

1 And when he returned to Caper'na-um after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, . . .

It's clear that these "scribes" are not his disciples. As most of those present are not.

. . . 7 "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the paralytic-- 11 "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." 12 And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

It doesn't say here explicitly who spreads the word of this, but isn't it obvious from the context that the large number here will go out and tell others about this healing miracle?


Mark chapter 3

Next is another synagogue scene where there is a gathering, and it's obvious that most of them are not his disciples:

1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here." 4 And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.

Obviously there are adversaries to Jesus here who are not his disciples. And the cured one again is not a disciple.

In the next scenes it's obvious that the crowd or multitude is not his disciples. The "disciples" are a small group he communicates with, while the crowd becomes very large, and this crowd comes from far-away places, so that most of them obviously had never seen him before:

7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea 8 and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him. 9 And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they should crush him; 10 for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him.

These are all the miracles in Mark 1-3. In ONE case it was only his disciples present, in Simon's house, so that these must have been the ones who told the story. But in all the other cases there was a crowd present, and the text says either explicitly or implicitly that these outsiders are the ones who started the rumors about the healing events.

And this same pattern is repeated again and again throughout all the synoptic gospels, so that virtually all the miracle stories fit this pattern.

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.

Of course you can believe that, but it's not from the accounts themselves that you derive this conclusion, but from your premise that such miracle events cannot happen. Someone not starting out with this dogmatic premise has to take into account the setting as it is presented in the accounts.

But in the case of the alleged Joseph Smith miracles, it is always the direct disciples of the Prophet who are the ones cured and also who report the story.

And you have no evidence to suggest it isn't so.

One can reasonably believe the accounts, taking them at face value. This is "evidence," but not proof that it happened. You can reasonably reject this evidence in favor of your dogmatic premise that such events cannot happen. But others can reasonably believe these accounts, since we have these extra sources and not only one, which makes them more credible.

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.

He attests to the resurrection event, which is the most important of the miracles. This time vacuum is relatively short for most historical events of that time, when it was normal for the event to first be reported decades later in the first written accounts of it.

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.

This is why we need a reputed miracle-worker much earlier than 1800 for a good comparison to Jesus in the 1st century. Why isn't there any other example?

Almost certainly a Joseph Smith at around 100 AD or earlier would not have been recorded in any document at all and would have been totally forgotten by history.

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

Yes they were, either direct disciples or the children of direct disciples. According to the accounts offered so far.

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.

But where there's extra evidence, as in the case of Jesus -- i.e., extra documents near to the time of the reputed events, which does not exist for any other case -- it is reasonable to leave open the possibility that the claims are true.

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.

But the argument that the miracles could not have happened is based on the premise that such events cannot happen. I.e., it is not based on any "evidence" which undermines the credibility of the accounts.

Some of the gospel stories, or the details, are probably false, which means we do not have an infallible record, and so we have to critically consider each text, and some are dismissed as unlikely. However, if every miracle story is automatically dismissed, this is not based on any evidence of a flaw in the account, but only on the dogmatic premise that no miracle report can ever be true.

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?

They are mentioned only in the Book of Acts, and they seem to be a copy-cat kind of story, based on the Jesus stories. The Jesus miracle stories appear abruptly in history, somewhere between 30-100 AD, for which there is no precedent. But then, soon after, there is an explosion of miracle stories which is hard to explain other than as a reaction to the Jesus miracles. The Book of Acts is probably the beginning of this new explosion of miracle stories, which are rooted in the reported Jesus miracle events. Even the Vespasian story may be part of this new miracle story explosion, along with the Simon Magus and the Apollonius of Tyana stories.

So these later stories can be explained as resulting from a normal mythologizing process, and are fiction, whereas the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained as a product of mythologizing, because we can't identify the original miracle traditions or context in which they popped up like this out of nowhere, as we can identify the origin of the later stories, which are copy-cat stories patterned after the original Jesus miracle reports.

Anyway, here is one JS miracle as written by Wilford Woodruff (yes a disciple), 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.

Why is it so difficult for you to offer one simple example of Joseph Smith performing a miracle healing?

In the above case it seems to be his disciple who does the healing. Is it your claim that Joseph Smith reportedly had the power but assigned it to others who would go out and perform the healing directly?

So then it's not that JS actually performed the healings, but rather his new cult did healings, with the disciples healing each other here and there. Of course there are thousands of congregations or cults, maybe millions, where those of the flock pray for each other, and when someone recovers, they say it was the praying that did it. And this is reported only by the faithful within the church family, giving assurance to each other that God answers their prayers.

We need to see some indication of a healing activity that is not just the disciples praying for each other, but where some healing miracle event is reported by someone other than a direct disciple under the guru's influence.

It could even be a contemporary observer, who sees it directly, but not someone who is obviously one of the disciples who worships the guru. How about a believer or disciple who did not experience JS directly.


It's difficult to take the Joseph Smith stories seriously.

I've been looking through a 2-volume book titled Miracles by Craig S. Keener, which lists miracle beliefs from around the world, and especially in the West, including in the U.S. from colonial times to the present. He lists many examples of miracle healings, including those of John Wesley, many other Protestant healers, and also Catholic stories, and there are thousands of them.

Yet Joseph Smith is not mentioned once. Which makes me wonder about these JS websites.

These websites from which the JS stories are taken are very shabby and confusing. You can't offer one coherent example, of a simple case where Joseph Smith meets with an afflicted person and performs a straightforward healing. Instead there are these cases which are confusing, and it's not even clear who is really performing the healing act.

Obviously believers of different religions pray and think God answered them when someone recovers. Is this all the JS miracles are? This author who studied thousands of healing anecdotes, including those in the U.S., apparently thought JS did not stand out at all, but was no different than any ordinary Protestant minister who prays for the sick members of the congregation and sometimes one of them recovers. And those in the immediate church family always "believe" it and rejoice.

So far this is all there seems to be to the JS miracle anecdotes.

Why doesn't the Mormon Church have a respectable website which presents the JS miracles in some kind of coherent form? Do any Mormons today, or over the last 100 years, offer any of these stories in some published form?

Is there any indication that Mormons take these miracle stories seriously? These websites appear to be from kooks rather than from serious Mormons.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I've been looking through a 2-volume book titled Miracles by Craig S. Keener, which lists miracle beliefs from around the world, and especially in the West, including in the U.S. from colonial times to the present. He lists many examples of miracle healings, including those of John Wesley, many other Protestant healers, and also Catholic stories, and there are thousands of them.

Yet Joseph Smith is not mentioned once. Which makes me wonder about these JS websites.

According to a quick trip to google, Keener's book is titled Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

Which makes me wonder:

1) If Keener's looking into NT miracles, he's not going to be terribly interested in Koran- or Torah- or Book of Mormon-credited miracles, is he?

2) Are you REALLY reading this book that you don't tell us the full title of?

3) If you are, how did the title not provide a clue about why there would not be any accounts of Joseph Smith in the discussion?

4) Or were you hoping to sling your point across without anyone noticing your perfidy?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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

(continued)

Again, maybe some faith is such a leap.

All faith is an unfounded leap.

Your term "unfounded" is simply your subjective emotion-based impulse.

Again you're using judgmental subjective language. Faith may be called a "leap" which is lacking PROOF, but there still can be evidence which makes the belief "justified" even though it is not proved beyond all doubt.

Theories about global warming or climate change are beliefs based on evidence. Some of it may be "proved" in a sense, but much of it is less than fully PROVED beyond doubt, i.e., the part predicting the future damage to take place. But it is legitimate belief based on evidence, and it might be best to act on this evidence, or on the belief, because of the "better safe than sorry" principle.

Many actions or decisions are based on belief that something might happen, and this belief is reasonable, based on evidence, and yet the belief is not a proven fact. One could thus take a "leap of faith" based on evidence, because of the odds which favor taking such action, and yet it is still belief or faith rather than proven fact, and this would not be an "UNfounded leap" but a legitimate judgment call.

E.g., the state of Oklahoma might have decided not to allow so much fracking, because of the evidence of the harm from likely earthquakes, and yet there was only some evidence for the predictions, not proof such as there is now. Other places now have this additional evidence, from the case of Oklahoma, now making the case against fracking stronger than before. Perhaps PROOF that the same damage would happen at other places? So, what was earlier a "justified belief" based on evidence, is now proven fact, i.e., at least the claim that it would cause serious earthquakes.

A choice to abolish a technology like fracking might be a prudent one, based on belief and evidence, even if it's not totally proved. It's legitimate to act on a reasonable belief, based on evidence that is short of proof.

If you have evidence for your position, your position is upgraded to perhaps a valid hypothesis, a theory or a justified belief.

That's what Christ belief is. There is evidence, but not PROOF. The belief is justified because of the evidence, but it's not a certainty.

An element or elements of your belief may be justified by evidence and therefore not a matter of faith, . . .

Why can't it be both? Why do you insist that "faith" must be something evil in all cases no matter what? It can be belief based on evidence. As soon as it becomes PROVED beyond doubt, then it goes beyond faith and becomes knowledge and certainty. When it's a certainty, then "faith" sort of drops out of the picture. But it's not easy to say exactly how much evidence is required before it becomes a proven fact.

. . . but these elements alone may not support the remainder of your belief, which still remains a matter of faith.

But the primary belief, or underlying belief which is indispensable -- that the historical Christ person had superhuman power which could be a source of eternal life for us -- is supported by evidence, even if some other less important beliefs are not.

The evidence from the gospel accounts does support the basic underlying belief, but it's not PROOF. It can be called "faith," but this does not mean there is no evidence for it, or that evidence was not part of the process of choosing to believe.

But there is some proof to support some of the biblical version of events. E.g., that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is proved, and that Christ was a real person is proved, because there is historical confirmation of this. Also that John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas is proved. So there are some biblical facts that are proved by verifiable evidence. From historians like Tacitus and Josephus. But these verifiable facts may be a small minority of all the biblical events. Most of the biblical events are not provable.

Tacitus and Josephus are not considered to be reliable.

Of course they are. In the same sense as all the other historians. Obviously you can question the reliability of ANY of them. None of them is infallible or without some error. But most of our history is based on such writings.

The evidence supports some diddling the books by christian scribes keen to provide support for the doctrine.

No, you could say the "evidence" allows this possibility, but there's virtually no evidence that this happened. Only the notorious Josephus quote is evidence of something like that. The less famous quote, connecting Jesus to James, and calling James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," is probably authentic. And there's no "evidence" that the Tacitus quote was tampered with, though the theory that it was is not ruled out by the evidence.

One can doubt these excerpts from non-Christian sources. But there's no "evidence" that they were diddled by Christian scribes. This is a possibility that the evidence does not rule out, but not something shown by "the evidence."

What's really at work here is the premise that Jesus must have been too obscure even by 100 AD to ever be mentioned in a non-Christian source, and from this premise you might work out a plausible theory that the references are not authentic. Such a theory cannot be disproved, but "the evidence" does not support it.

The verifiable facts are the lines that are written, the problem is their reliability.

The facts about the historical Jesus, mentioned above, are virtually established, because of those verifications in the external sources. There are degrees of "proven fact" which might still leave some doubt, like there can be some doubt about the historicity of Confucius and some other historical figures. So there is not 100% certainty. Maybe only 99% instead of the usual 99.99%.

E.g., that Josephus mentions the beheading of John the Baptist virtually establishes this as an historical fact. And the Tacitus quote virtually establishes the execution of Jesus by Pilate as a fact. But, one still might speculate that it never really happened and that Tacitus relied only on some Christian source for this. This cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty. Many historical facts are less than 100% certain.

"History is mostly guessing -- the rest is prejudice." -- Will Durant

We don't need 100% certainty in order to believe the general picture presented in the account. Even if Tacitus had a Christian source, it's still most likely that he checked into it enough to assure that it was credible. Some facts like these might still be placed in a category a tiny percentage lower than the usual 99.9999% certainty of the most well-established facts. But still it's in a very high probability category that's accepted as fact with good reason.

We know for sure that Caesar was assassinated, but is it really true that he said, "Kai su teknon?" to Brutus? Aren't some of the "facts" of history less certain than others?

Aren't there times when the history books have to be rewritten, because of some new discovery? E.g., when they discovered the tomb of King Tut, didn't this result in some rewriting of history, to replace the old "facts" with some new ones?

The phrase "you would not need faith. You would have a justified belief" is incorrect, because "belief" and "faith" are the same.

Not true. The condition that entails a belief that is held without the support of evidence exists, and is quite common.

Perhaps, but there is also much belief that is based on evidence, such as the basic Christ belief.

Faith is holding a belief that is not supported by empirical evidence, a belief held on the basis of desire and psychological need.

The phrase "not supported by empirical evidence" is incorrect. In some cases there might be no evidence. However, in most cases there IS some evidence, as with basic belief in Christ. Even the stories about Krishna might have some truth to them, about a real person in India perhaps before 2000 BC. The "desire" and "psychological need" is probably also part of "faith" or the stories that are believed, but that does not mean there is NO evidence.

Even if some cases of "faith" are lacking any evidence, this is not so with basic Christ belief, which is supported by evidence, i.e., the accounts of his miracle acts. These are "evidence" even though you keep insisting they are not. But they are evidence just like Livy and Plutarch etc. are evidence for the events they report.

The only basis for excluding these as evidence is your dogmatic premise that miracle events automatically have to be ruled out. Except for this, the Jesus miracle accounts are the same kind of evidence as we have for most of our historical facts. Which isn't saying that the level of doubt is no higher. There's more doubt, but that doesn't mean there's no "evidence" supporting the belief.

Faith is leap that goes beyond what is justified.

Beyond PROOF, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't justified. Your moralistic judgments about what is "justified" do not apply to everyone. We can legitimately believe even if we don't have PROOF, despite your insistence on banning what you judge to not be "justified" according to your criteria.

If there was proof, verifiable evidence, to support the biblical version of events, . . .

There IS evidence. But not necessarily "proof." And not of EVERY single event or detail reported in the biblical version. There's "verifiable" evidence for much of it, while other parts are very doubtful. And "verifiable"? Yes, just as much as for other evidence we routinely accept for historical events. There is no way we can go back in time, in a time machine, to find "verifiable evidence" for what happened in order to "support" anyone's version of events.

Name your favorite ancient historian -- there is no "verifiable evidence" to prove his version of events is correct. There are varying degrees of doubt for all of them, and the gospel accounts are not somehow excluded as the only documents in history which have to be rejected for any historical events because they are not "verifiable" in some way that all other documents are.

. . . you would not need faith. You would have a justified belief. But that is not the case.

What we have is evidence and justified belief. It still may not be "proof," but still it is justified belief. It is just as "verifiable" as much of our evidence for historical events. Just because there is doubt does not mean there is no evidence or that the belief is not justified.

The core beliefs are based on the evidence from the gospel accounts which attest to the miracle acts of Jesus. But some peripheral beliefs may not be based on this evidence. Some of these might be described as going "beyond what is justified" if that means there is no evidence for it. But those are not the core beliefs.

This is in contrast to a belief held on the basis of direct experience with objects and events of the world, and is justified by verifiable, testable evidence.

Assuming this includes historical events, then it includes the basic Christ belief, which is based on the same kind of evidence that the historical record is based on.

The word 'faith' distinguishes the former from the latter.

No, "faith" is based on evidence at least in some cases, even if not in some other cases. The word "faith" in the N.T. does not include the meaning that there is no evidence. It probably means there is some doubt, or an uncertainty and lack of PROOF about what is believed. But that does not mean there is NO evidence.

One being a faith based belief, the other a justified belief.

Christ belief is both. It's "justified belief," but NOT ONLY this, because it also includes a psychological ("faith based") element. But it's not exclusively the psychological element without any evidence. There is also evidence, and this does not negate the "faith" element, but supports it.


(to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In some cases there is evidence that miracle acts really happened.

I've been looking through a 2-volume book titled Miracles by Craig S. Keener, which lists miracle beliefs from around the world, and especially in the West, including in the U.S. from colonial times to the present. He lists many examples of miracle healings, including those of John Wesley, many other Protestant healers, and also Catholic stories, and there are thousands of them.

Yet Joseph Smith is not mentioned once. Which makes me wonder about these JS websites.

According to a quick trip to google, Keener's book is titled Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

Which makes me wonder:

1) If Keener's looking into NT miracles, he's not going to be terribly interested in Koran- or Torah- or . . .

The title is somewhat inaccurate. Although most of the examples are about Christian groups, he also covers most other world religions, with many examples from Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. The major O.T. miracles are examined as well as the Mohammed miracles and so on. There's a great emphasis on Shamanism.

Many cases of folk religions, witch doctors, voodoo, etc. He covers everything.

There's not really much about the New Testament accounts per se, but numerous comparisons to the Jesus miracle stories throughout the many examples.

He includes Rasputin the mad monk of the Russian Revolution:

Others have compared the documented curing successes of the "'mad monk' Rasputin," which affected the course of Russian history and thus cannot be omitted from historical inquiry.

Meaning this author is mostly negative toward Rasputin, and might wish to exclude this example, because Rasputin was a bad person. The author has mostly praise or sympathy for the examples he gives, whether they are Christian or any other kind of religious tradition. It's all very positive, and the author is generally a "believer" in the miracle claims, though also expressing doubts as to the degree of verifiability, and he gives preference to those for which there is greater evidence.

Note the strong phrase "documented curing successes . . ." I'm not certain how unusual this is for this book, among the hundreds of curing miracles listed, and it seems he might mean that others of them also are "documented." Off hand it seems he's saying the Rasputin case is more documented than normal.

In the footnote on Rasputin he quotes a source,

. . . the Russian court physician confirmed that when Rasputin would pray, the bleeding of the czar's hemophiliac son would stop).

This is the kind of evidence that has to be taken into consideration with such claims. If the witness is someone who is not a believer in the healer, or is even an antagonist to him, the claim is far more credible.

It's hard to believe that he would omit Joseph Smith if there was credible evidence for his case.

. . . or Book of Mormon-credited miracles, is he?

(It's not the Book of Mormon which the Joseph Smith alleged miracles come from.)

There is no reason to exclude Mormonism or Joseph Smith in a book about miracles, if there's a credible tradition of miracle events there.

Joseph Smith was a Christian, and Mormonism is a Christian cult or denomination. All the alleged Smith miracles in those questionable websites were clearly done in the name of Jesus Christ, in all cases. The Mormons always convert their new members to Jesus first, or make sure they are Christ believers already. This is an essential part of the Mormon teaching. Without the Christ of the gospels there is no Mormon belief system.

The Keener book also includes Seventh-Day Adventist and Christian Science miracle claims. These are also Christian "cults" in the same sense that Mormonism is.

However, after all this, it turns out that I lied -- "I have sinned!!" -- there are 2 footnotes about Mormonism. However, the name Joseph Smith does not appear.

I'll do the footnotes next time. At first glance there seems to be no reference to any miracle events.

I have to concede that this author seems to classify Mormonism as non-Christian. Nevertheless, his book/title is not about "Christian" miracle traditions, but about the "New Testament" miracles or accounts, and Mormonism is based on the New Testament, so there is no reason for the author to exclude Mormonism/Joseph Smith.


(to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Where is there a credible source attesting to the Joseph Smith miracle claims?

According to a quick trip to google, Keener's book is titled Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

Which makes me wonder:

1) If Keener's looking into NT miracles, he's not going to be terribly interested in Koran- or Torah- or . . .

The title is somewhat inaccurate. Although most of the examples are about Christian groups, he also covers most other world religions, with many examples from Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. The major O.T. miracles are examined as well as the Mohammed miracles and so on. There's a great emphasis on Shamanism.

Many cases of folk religions, witch doctors, voodoo, etc. He covers everything.

There's not really much about the New Testament accounts per se, but numerous comparisons to the Jesus miracle stories throughout the many examples. . . .



It's hard to believe that he would omit Joseph Smith if there was credible evidence for his case.

. . . or Book of Mormon-credited miracles, is he?

(It's not the Book of Mormon which the Joseph Smith alleged miracles come from.)

There is no reason to exclude Mormonism or Joseph Smith in a book about miracles, if there's a credible tradition of miracle events there.

Joseph Smith was a Christian, and Mormonism is a Christian cult or denomination. All the alleged Smith miracles in those questionable websites were clearly done in the name of Jesus Christ, in all cases. The Mormons always convert their new members to Jesus first, or make sure they are Christ believers already. This is an essential part of the Mormon teaching. Without the Christ of the gospels there is no Mormon belief system.

The Keener book also includes Seventh-Day Adventist and Christian Science miracle claims. These are also Christian "cults" in the same sense that Mormonism is.

However, after all this, it turns out that I lied -- "I have sinned!!" -- there are 2 footnotes about Mormonism. However, the name Joseph Smith does not appear.

I'll do the footnotes next time. At first glance there seems to be no reference to any miracle events.

I have to concede that this author seems to classify Mormonism as non-Christian. Nevertheless, his book/title is not about "Christian" miracle traditions, but about the "New Testament" miracles or accounts, and Mormonism is based on the New Testament, so there is no reason for the author to exclude Mormonism/Joseph Smith.

Here are the footnotes in the Keener book which say something about Mormonism.


p. 204, note 210

Traditional cessationists apparently account for a minority of evangelicals today, since evangelicals have one of the highest proportions of belief in present miracles (with not only a strong majority agreeing, but 61% agreeing intensely, the same percentage that strongly affirm the existence of angels and demons), second only to Mormons (roughly 80 percent) and close to members of historically black Protestant churches (58 percent).

(The term "cessationist" refers to some form of belief that postbiblical miracles are not legitimate and that only the biblical miracles are to be believed.)



p. 627, note 132

The text is needed for the note to be clear:

The beneficial effect of religion on health is attested in Jewish, Islamic, and other faiths [footnote], as well as among Christians, although some studies so far are inconclusive or indicate negative effects in some religious communities.

the note to the above:

Among Latter-Day Saints, religious factors significantly reduced mortality in Ostbye et al., "Investigators." Contrary to some expectations, in one study Jehovah's Witnesses appear to lack significantly increased risk of trauma fatality (Varela et al., "Risk").

There's nothing else in the book about Mormonism or Joseph Smith. This book covers an awful lot about miracle claims. But no mention of Joseph Smith miracle stories. And yet this book is very thorough, and the 2 notes here indicate that the author is aware of them. So the best explanation for his omission of JS is that the accounts are just too unconvincing (or maybe even silly).

If the JS miracle claims are to be taken seriously, we need to see some serious presentation somewhere, by someone other than the kooks who posted the crazy websites we've seen so far.

Yet there are some very respectable Mormon websites, very slick, high quality, professional-looking. Why don't any of those respectable Mormon sources see fit to present any information promoting the Joseph Smith miracle stories?

Or where is there a decent book on Mormonism or on miracles which provides this information? If the only place to find it is in some sloppy incoherent website that runs on and on with psycho-babble horse manure, I think it's OK to seriously doubt it. In contrast, the gospel accounts about the Jesus miracles are very clear, even though the writers did not have the advantage of modern printing and communication technology.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Jesus was a reputed miracle-worker at an early point, in 30 AD.

I don't find this point the least bit compelling.

On the the surface of it, the "Rejection at Nazareth" seems like a rather trivial interlude to be added to the gospel of Mark; especially considering the short length of the gospel which could only tell so much about this character Jesus.

It can't be something really trivial, because then it would not also be reported in the other accounts. Even the gospel of John includes a trace of it:

John 4:44
For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his native place.

This clearly is connected to the same incident, though John says nothing here about Nazareth. But it has to have originated from the same "rejection at Nazareth" story -- it's impossible for this same idea to be a coincidence.

This idea that a prophet is without honor in his homeland occurs nowhere else. Yet it suddenly pops up in the "rejection at Nazareth" story, in all three synoptics, and then here in John. It's in all 4 gospels -- it cannot be something "trivial."

I suspect that it was made up to make a point (or answer a question) the writer(s) of Mark found important. (With all the other supposed fabulous and miraculous stuff happening in Jesus's life why add this?)

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.

This could have been added to Mark as a partial explanation as to why the vast majority of Jews would not recognize Jesus as their Messiah, . . .

Not by a Christian writer. You have to assume it came from a non-believer. It's inconceivable that a believer would make up a story that Jesus could not perform any miracle somewhere.

. . . or as a put-down of Jewish Christians who claimed to have ties to Jesus's hometown.

There are many other ways the writer could create such a put-down without also including a put-down of the Jesus who is the central hero figure of the whole story. He could have had Jesus rebuke them in some way.

And the Luke version even contains the insult: "Physician, heal thyself!" This is clearly an insult at Jesus, rebuking him for being some kind of a phony. The context makes no sense. By far the best explanation for this rebuke is that the villagers rejected him and thought he was "sick" in some way, and the author had to fit this into the story somehow, because it was in his source. Of course we don't know the explanation, but most likely it is early, coming from some real encounter at Nazareth, and not invented by later Christians.

And I'm sure that there are other plausible explanations that we just have no evidence for.

It's all guesswork. But the explanation needs to include that this came very early, from something that caused people to think Jesus ran into some hostility at Nazareth because he couldn't do a miracle act there, even though he reportedly had done so at other places.

I don't see this story in any way confirming the authenticity of Mark, . . .

It doesn't prove Mark. However, it clearly indicates an early origin, being a story not invented by later Christians. Which doesn't rule out other parts of Mark being later. Note that this document is not one cohesive unit, but is a mix of different pieces, some earlier than others.

. . . or the miracles described within it.

It indicates that Jesus was believed to be a miracle-worker at an early point, i.e., that this belief about him is not of later origin. It says very clearly that he could not do a miracle at Nazareth, but implies he could at other places, and the Luke account says this explicitly. I.e., that he had done such acts at Capernaum. So, whether he did or not, there was a belief that he did, i.e., he was a reputed miracle-worker at that early date.

You seem to be saying that it is VERY unlikely that this story is a fabrication. I just don't see it.

There is no plausible explanation why later Christians would fabricate this story.

Also, there is something very strange about the story. The claim that a prophet is without honor in his homeland makes no sense. It is not true. Prophets are not rejected by their hometown or country.

We have to look for an unusual explanation for this text. And it shows that some parts of the "gospel" story not only make no sense, on the surface, but are also poorly composed and reflect badly on the writers, if they invented it.

It's best explained as originating from some real event, but then the writers reporting on it had difficulty figuring out what really happened. They were sure something happened but were unable to communicate it well, because of some confusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The title is somewhat inaccurate. Although most of the examples are about Christian groups, he also covers most other world religions, with many examples from Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. The major O.T. miracles are examined as well as the Mohammed miracles and so on. There's a great emphasis on Shamanism.

Many cases of folk religions, witch doctors, voodoo, etc. He covers everything.

What do you mean by 'covers?' Keener appears to be an apologist more than a historian. So we can't really evaluate what is and isn't included in his book unless we know his agenda.

YOUR agenda is obvious, you want to flog the Jesus miracles. Which makes me suspicious when you choose a particular reference and even more suspicious when you inaccurately report the title of the book.

There's not really much about the New Testament accounts per se, but numerous comparisons to the Jesus miracle stories throughout the many examples.

Wow.
There's nothing much about the NT, but everything is compared to the miracles IN the NT?
Wouldn't that pretty much make everything ABOUT the NT accounts?

It's hard to believe that he would omit Joseph Smith if there was credible evidence for his case.

Dude, i just keep remembering that when you got here, you knew ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL about Joseph Smith's miracles. That's not an uncommon state for most Christains. They don't know much about Mormons nor do they want to know.
I don't believe Keener 'omitted' Joseph Smith as much as he just didn't know about it.
But either way, you can't use it as conclusive evidence until you know for sure what his reasons were for not writing it down.

There is no reason to exclude Mormonism or Joseph Smith in a book about miracles, if there's a credible tradition of miracle events there.

Why not? You excluded him when you first got here, without ever once evaluating the evidence for his miracle claims. It wasn't about the credibility of the accounts, it was about your ignorance.

Joseph Smith was a Christian, and Mormonism is a Christian cult or denomination.

Not according to many Christain faiths.

All the alleged Smith miracles in those questionable websites were clearly done in the name of Jesus Christ, in all cases.

However, many of the Faithful will insist that the Mormons worship a different Jesus.

So, here you are, claiming the miracles are not credible, but if they WERE credible, they'd be evidence for Jesus more than anything else. You're trying to have it both ways, and drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence to support them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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

(continued)

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.

I don't lump everything in the Bible into one large mass and call it "the biblical version of events" - only the points of contention: the supernatural accounts. Nobody is arguing that there was no city called Jerusalem or the presence of charismatic preachers, etc. Nor the possibility of the existence of a human foundation upon which the hopes and myths were built. It is reasonable to think that the man, the preacher, may have existed, but not reasonable to form a firm conviction that he did in fact exist.

The question is not really whether he existed, but whether he had power, i.e., the kind of life-giving power the miracle acts indicate. It's "reasonable" to believe he had such power, but also to have some doubt. And, along with this doubt, it's reasonable to HOPE it's true and that eternal life is possible.

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

I want to improve the wording of this as follows:

1) known fact, proved by the evidence; 2) legitimate belief supported by the evidence; and 3) belief contradicted by the evidence

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." Hebrews 11:1

We have two separate and distinct conditions - one actual condition or state is where we develop confidence in the things that we have experience with (evidence), and this is defined as Justified true belief.

Like our belief in historical events, and also basic Christ belief, both based on evidence, or the written record of what happened. And there is still an element of doubt.

The other belief condition develops when someone hopes or desires that something is true: the existence of a God, a religious worldview, etc.

But this is not a second belief, separate from the justified belief based on evidence. These may overlap, so that the same belief may be justified by evidence and also the believer hopes or desires that something is true. This hope or desire does not then negate or cancel the evidence that supports the belief. It is quite possible for something to be both true or supported by evidence, and also to be desired or hoped for.

There's no basis for insisting that because something is desired or hoped for, it must automatically be untrue or unsupported by any evidence.

As the article of one's belief - the God, the prophecy, or whatever - cannot be verified through empirical means, one's belief is a matter of faith.

But that's not what Christ belief is. Christ belief is supported by evidence. It's "verified" in the same sense that many of our standard historical "facts" are verified. There is empirical evidence, usually from the documents, but this is not the same as PROOF.

If you mean that much of our historical record also "cannot be verified through empirical means," then yes, the basic Christ belief cannot be "verified" or PROVED by empirical means. There is some doubt, just as there is with many of our reported historical facts. It's reasonable to believe it, so it is "justified" belief, but that doesn't mean all doubt has been removed, and it's not "verified" in the sense that the official history scientists today could "play back" the historical events to PROVE that they really happened.

And though the Christ facts are less "verifiable" than the major historical facts that are established as proven fact beyond doubt, still, there are other facts -- many -- which are generally recognized even though there is some doubt about them because they are not proved with certainty.

Hence two distinct states, . . .

No, the 3-fold division is more comprehensive, and there are even some categories in between these:

1) We know for sure, with proof. E.g., Caesar was assassinated.

2) We believe with evidence, but not proof. E.g., Homer was blind.

3) We believe contrary to the evidence. E.g., Napoleon shot off the nose of the sphinx with a cannonball.

It's better to include the middle category, belief with evidence, but not proof, because this is a necessary category of thinking which we use for some practical decisions or judgments.

. . . and the former (justified true belief) cannot be equated with the latter (faith based belief)

But they can overlap. E.g., Christ belief is justified, i.e., based on evidence, but there's also a psychological element, such as hope or desire, which might be an essential part of the belief and which you can call "faith" or some other term. But it does not contradict the element of evidence which is also part of the belief.

Also, in the N.T., "belief" and "faith" are the same word, or have the same meaning: pistis / pisteuo. They are closely related to "knowledge" episteme or "know" epistamai, and do not mean that there is no evidence.

The famous Jesus quote, "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed" (John 20:29), does not mean there is no evidence whatever. Rather, it implies that the less direct belief -- believing without seeing the truth directly -- has some higher value, but this does not rule out all the evidence entirely.

That "faith" has this special value, being less directly connected to the truth that is believed, is obviously important, but nothing about it requires that there must be a TOTAL ABSENCE of any evidence. Rather, it's like the difference between the animal's consciousness of its direct experience, like eating or having sex, which the animal "believes" is happening, and the human ability to believe something far away, or far in the past (or in the future) based on something other than the direct encounter with the truth that is believed.

This is a better explanation of "faith" than the notion that there's a complete absence of any evidence, which would mean a totally illogical belief based on pure instinct or emotion or impulse. Despite your insistence, this is not what Christ belief is.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is there ONLY ONE miracle-worker for whom there is credible evidence?

A bloke in Goondiwindi won the Gold Lotto jackpot.

Goondiwindi must be extra-super-dooper special, because if it's not, how do you explain how none of the other towns where people play Gold Lotto hosted a winner? Where are all the winners in other towns? If Goondiwindi isn't super special, surely we would see other lotto playing regions with winners. But we don't.

I'll take this seriously.

If the facts are that there is a lottery game that has multiple winners, or that this game was held several times, so that there are several winners over a number of times that the game was played, and if all the winners are from this one town, and no winners from any other towns, even though the game is totally random, then there is a need for an explanation why all the winners are from this one town. So the improbability is legitimate and the question "Why only this town?" requires an answer.

On the other hand, if the facts are that there was one game with only one winner possible, then the fact that the winner was from this one town does not require any explanation, because it's inevitable that there will be one winner who will be from one town, whatever town it might be, and so this random win by whoever it is from whatever town will not be a surprise, or will not be contrary to the odds. Because it is dictated that there will be one winner, or the conditions dictate that there is to be one winner only, and no matter who it is or what town the winner is from, this result conforms to the expectation.

By contrast, suppose a phenomenon happens only once, which was not predestined to happen once only by conditions imposed artificially (as the conditions of a game are imposed artificially by those who create the game), and suppose someone caused this phenomenon to happen in order to gain a benefit, and suppose they are successful at causing this to happen and gain the result they intended.

Why would such a thing happen only once? i.e., why would only one person do it? If such a happening produces the intended benefit or result for those who caused it, or is easily predictable to produce that result, and if nothing prevents others from doing the same thing, why wouldn't others also do the same thing in order to gain the same benefit or result? Why would only one person or group do this and not many?

If a group can create a mythological figure in order to promote their crusade, and this mythic figure is likely to be successful, why would there be ONLY ONE group that creates such a mythological figure to promote their crusade? I.e., why wouldn't other groups, other crusades, do the same thing and create other such mythic figures, so that we would see several of these mythic figures created by several different groups promoting different crusades, i.e., each one creating its own mythic figure, and all of them being equally successful? Why would only one stand out far beyond all the others?

The Christ figure stands out uniquely in contrast to them all, as a reported miracle-working historical person, as the only one for which there are multiple sources near to the time when this historical figure performed the acts described and who had no fame or public recognition during his life or at the time of the reported events about him.

If it was so easy to create this legendary character by artificial means, with no real historical person performing the reported miracle acts, then why is there only one such reported mythic figure as this? Why didn't other groups, or competing groups also create such a mythic figure, since there was a reason or motive for them to do it and it was so easy to pull it off?

(No, Gautama was not such a figure, as he really existed and was famous at the end of his long public life. No one invented him, and over several centuries later his devotees mythologized him. And no, Joseph Smith was not such a figure, as he was never mythologized into a god. There are no other examples, though we can continue to go through the other alleged examples.)

To say this happened only once is like saying there was only one discoverer of oil or gold, or only one discoverer of new lands during the period of European exploration of the New World, or only one race or tribe that discovered language or how to use stone tools or how to map the stars.

Religion or church is obviously big business and a means to gain power or prestige or profit or fame, and for there to be a winning combination that only one would be able to use and foist as a successful hoax upon the world makes no more sense than for only one tribe to invent language or invent agriculture.

This is not about various religions competing through several centuries. There are many of those competing with each other with no clear winner. That's not the point.

This is about a mythic hero figure created as a strategy by one religious group, or one crusade, or one cult, which is the only mythic hero figure that succeeded in becoming deified into a miracle-working god in less than 50 years from its creation by that one religious group or crusade.

To explain this you have to believe there was only this one group, or cult, which had the intelligence to figure out such a plan, and so this was a unique experiment in history, by one religious cult, which pulled off a great hoax that no other group ever thought of trying to do.

You have to believe that anyone, or any small group, could fabricate a miracle-worker and present this fictional figure to people, give it some kind of fictional connection to prophets or gods or symbols of any kind, and people will automatically accept it and begin to worship this fictional figure.

Since that's all Christ was (if he didn't really exist or if he did no miracle acts), then this kind of myth-making is so easy that it is not plausible that only one cult or one religious group would adopt this ploy and be successful at launching such a hoax, and that no other group would do the same. If it was really so easy to perpetrate such a hoax, then surely there would be others equally successful, i.e., many other mythic hero figures for which there are multiple sources and which were deified into gods in such a short time period. There should be dozens or even hundreds of them, and several that would be virtually identical to the Christ hoax with only a few minor differences in detail about the names and locations and times.

But we have no others. Unlike the lottery game, which is predestined to have only one winner, the game of mythic miracle-working heros is not restricted to only one winner, and yet there is this one that stands out uniquely distinct from all other mythic heros, as the only one for whom there is good evidence that he performed miracle acts. Why didn't other players of this game also document their hero with scrolls that would appear to be from multiple sources and would appear within a few decades of the hero's historic time period?

It would even be an extreme coincidence, or virtually a miracle, if there were only 2 or 3 or 4 such identifiable mythic hero figures -- let alone only one -- instead of dozens. If it was easy to create this mythic figure, who need not have performed any miracles but who would be believed in because someone merely invented him or invented the stories, and in such a short time lapse from the point of his being invented, then there should easily be dozens more of these in documents which would be preserved just as the gospel documents were preserved. It makes no sense that only one such mythic hero figure has been preserved and passed on to us in documents dating from the period.

By analogy, it's obvious that virtually anyone can create a website or blog, and so if merely creating a blog automatically brings the blogger instant fame, then we should have a billion-or-so instant famous bloggers -- and thus it's not true that you can gain instant fame by merely creating a blog. And nor is it true that you can perpetrate a mythic hero hoax onto millions of believers by merely inventing a fictional hero and some miracle stories. The key is: the mythic hero always exists first as a recognized public figure, AND THEN we can see the miracle stories being invented and added to the recognized legendary figure that already exists.

(There's no reason to believe Jesus was a recognized public figure in 30 AD, unless you also believe he performed the miracle acts, because the only references which say that his fame spread are also ones reporting on his miracle healing acts (e.g., Mt 4:23-25).)

You claim the early Christ-inventors found a formula to perpetrate a mythic hero hoax without an already-existing recognized public figure to begin with? You must explain how they did this by a means that others could not do. If it was a tactic that any other group also could do, then there must be others from history who also did the same thing, and we should see dozens of other reported Christ-like miracle-workers by other names who are placed into history at other times and places and for whom there are multiple evidence sources near to the time of the reported mythic hero figure.

We DO see dozens of other reported miracle workers reported at various times and places throughout history.

No, only myth heroes which can all be explained as a product of mythologizing, because:

-- those original historical characters were famous celebrities during their lifetime;

-- and also the number of sources for them is so few, even only one, so that it's easy to explain how they were invented, like Apollonius of Tyana whose miracles were all invented by one writer, Philostratus, unlike Jesus for whom we have at least 4 (5) sources reporting his miracle acts;

-- and also because those "dozens of other reported miracle workers" were generally not reported in documents until many generations or centuries after they existed and allegedly performed their miracle acts, which easily explains how those miracle stories could be invented over such a long time period, as the myth evolves over the centuries;

-- or in modern times, when there are more published sources for everything, your examples all still fit the pattern of gurus who were worshiped by their direct devotees and ONLY THESE DIRECT DISCIPLES are a source for the miracle claims, who are not reliable because they were strongly impacted by their hero's charisma, which explains how the mythologizing first happened.

So it's not true that we see those "dozens of other reported miracle workers" -- other than those which are obviously a product of mythologizing which explains the origin of the fictional stories, whereas in the case of Jesus there is no way to explain the miracle stories as a product of mythologizing. Because he was not a famous celebrity in his lifetime, as all your examples were, and the miracle stories appeared in published writings much too early for them to be a product of the normal mythologizing which we see in all the other cases you're referring to.

So despite your false advertising -- "We DO see dozens of other . . ." etc. -- You cannot give any example of these "dozens of other reported miracle workers" other than these cases which can easily be explained as a product of the normal mythologizing process.

Your entire argument for the unique and special nature of your chosen religious leader is founded in apparent ignorance of all the other religions in history.

We've gone over many of them -- repeatedly you fail to give any serious example. ALL of them fit the above pattern: They were famous celebrities, which explains the origin of the myths about them. The reports of them are generally centuries later, or at least many generations later. And there's rarely any more than one source for them, or maybe 2 or 3 if we go 100 or 200 years later for the source. And in modern times, with the added benefit of mass publishing, we still have only their direct disciples as sources, who were influenced by the guru's charisma, which also explains how the mythologizing originated.

And by Christ you waste a LOT of words. Brevity is a virtue. You are not made any less wrong by expressing your errors in hundreds of words where a couple of dozen would do.

OK, I'll start over and do it briefly:

A bloke in Goondiwindi won the Gold Lotto jackpot.

Goondiwindi must be extra-super-dooper special, because if it's not, how do you explain how none of the other towns where people play Gold Lotto hosted a winner? Where are all the winners in other towns? If Goondiwindi isn't super special, surely we would see other lotto playing regions with winners. But we don't.

This analogy is false.

Only one lotto winner: EASILY EXPLAINED

Only one reported miracle-worker for whom there is credible evidence: NO EXPLANATION



"Get it? Got it? Good!"

 

[Barbarian]

Did anyone here read Keener's book? I'm starting to wonder if we were arguing with it by proxy during the whole time.

 

[Atheos]

That sort of makes sense Barbarian. This whole "normal mythologizing" argument is a non-starter anyway. It presupposes that a common scenario which we cannot determine for sure happened for lack of actual evidence is by definition the only way something can be done. In the real world we know that people make shit up all the time, and we know that sometimes the shit sticks. We know that even early pimps of Christianity would have been able to recognize the fiscal and political power it focused on a few. We know that cults spring up on an almost hourly basis. We know that there are nearly limitless myths about gods, demigods, god-men, demons, leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, witches and ... well ... the list can go on for a long, long time.

We know that there is no evidence this myth was popular in the areas where the events in the myth supposedly happened; that it appears to have risen in popularity around Rome and other places hundreds of miles removed. We know that the myth shows compelling evidence of development from a simple dying-and-rising savior being channeled by Paul to a living, flesh-and-blood person living in and around Jerusalem complete with bullshit (and contradicting) pedigrees. We know that most of what we can verify through forensic anthropology and archaeology that was claimed in these myths was wrong. We know that thousands of miracle claims are touted every day that have perfectly rational explanations, and that claiming to be able to heal sick people is the single most popular religious scam throughout history.

We know that absent physical evidence testimony (especially hearsay testimony) is absolutely the worst form of evidence imaginable, and wouldn't be sufficient to get someone convicted of something so mundane as stealing a candy bar. Yet we are expected to accept it for something as extraordinary as walking on storm-tossed water, multiplying morsels of food into gigantic barrels, turning water into wine, controlling the weather by command, healing blindness and paralysis, mental telepathy, raising dead people back to life and levitating up into the sky unassisted never to be seen again.

The chutzpah simply boggles the mind.

Why is there ONLY ONE miracle-worker for whom there is credible evidence?

There isn't. There are precisely zero miracle-workers for whom there is credible evidence.

 

[funinspace]

Please present “internal evidence from the stories” that clearly points to mysterious onlookers as “main initiators of the stories”.

The miracles begin at Mark 1:21

21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

The "they"/"them"here is a group not identified with certainty, but most likely there were many others present than only Jesus and his disciples. The demoniac who now appears is obviously not one of the disciples:

23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How could his fame spread like this if it was only his disciples who were present and told others? This must have been a large group of locals other than his disciples.

And how did these “others” know Jesus and his band “immediately on the Sabbath” did XYZ? And nothing in this passage suggests it was passed on by a outsider, never mind clearly so. It could have been in theory, but that is it. What fame? The new Christ cult was a flop in Judea.

In the following episode, the one cured, Simon's mother, is not a disciple, but the others were his disciples, so in this case they are the ones who spread the word about this healing. But this is the only case where it was his disciples who told it to others:

29 And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.

And how did the mother know that they came straight from the synagogue? Also, it is far from the only case, as Jesus calming the water and walking on water were private affairs with his disciples. I cut it down to just these 2 examples until you deal with your lack of clarity with them.

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.

Of course you can believe that, but it's not from the accounts themselves that you derive this conclusion, but from your premise that such miracle events cannot happen. Someone not starting out with this dogmatic premise has to take into account the setting as it is presented in the accounts.

And you can believe in the tooth fairy… Either way, you still haven’t shown anything that provides any clarity that someone other than the followers of this new cult passed along these stories.

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.

This is why we need a reputed miracle-worker much earlier than 1800 for a good comparison to Jesus in the 1st century. Why isn't there any other example?

Almost certainly a Joseph Smith at around 100 AD or earlier would not have been recorded in any document at all and would have been totally forgotten by history.

Your hobby horse not mine…and I was using JS as my example, as it has more clarity than most.

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

Yes they were, either direct disciples or the children of direct disciples. According to the accounts offered so far

No the example I provided were family member of a ferryman, unrelated to the Mormon cult. You just decided that you now don’t like indirect healing (much like Jesus did a few times).

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?

They are mentioned only in the Book of Acts, and they seem to be a copy-cat kind of story, based on the Jesus stories. The Jesus miracle stories appear abruptly in history, somewhere between 30-100 AD, for which there is no precedent. But then, soon after, there is an explosion of miracle stories which is hard to explain other than as a reaction to the Jesus miracles. The Book of Acts is probably the beginning of this new explosion of miracle stories, which are rooted in the reported Jesus miracle events. Even the Vespasian story may be part of this new miracle story explosion, along with the Simon Magus and the Apollonius of Tyana stories.

So these later stories can be explained as resulting from a normal mythologizing process, and are fiction, whereas the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained as a product of mythologizing, because we can't identify the original miracle traditions or context in which they popped up like this out of nowhere, as we can identify the origin of the later stories, which are copy-cat stories patterned after the original Jesus miracle reports.

Anyway, here is one JS miracle as written by Wilford Woodruff (yes a disciple), 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.

Why is it so difficult for you to offer one simple example of Joseph Smith performing a miracle healing?

Again, you are splitting hairs. The text clearly posits that JS was channeling his God’s woo woo, to heal people.

But either way, 2 pages before offers this on Page 62:

On the morning of the 22nd of July, 1839, he arose reflecting upon the situation of the Saints of God in their persecutions and afflictions, and he called upon the Lord in prayer, and the power of God rested upon him mightily, and as Jesus healed all the sick around Him in His day, so Joseph, the Prophet of God, healed all around on this occasion. He healed all in his house and door-yard, then, in company with Sidney Rigdon and several of the Twelve, he went through among the sick lying on the bank of the river, and he commanded them in a loud voice, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come up and be made whole, and they were all healed.

It could even be a contemporary observer, who sees it directly, but not someone who is obviously one of the disciples who worships the guru. How about a believer or disciple who did not experience JS directly.

LOL…yeah, how about you providing a contemporary observer, for your magic Jew.

It's difficult to take the Joseph Smith stories seriously.

Et tu, Brute.

 

[funinspace]

Joseph Smith was a Christian, and Mormonism is a Christian cult or denomination.

You might as well toss in Islam as well, since they like their version of Jesus and Yahweh as well. LDS theology rejects a key standard Christian notion called the Trinity, enshrined in the Nicene Creed.

https://www.lds.org/general-confere...d-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I thought you were going to explain how belief in Santa Claus is different from Christianity.

There's no empirical evidence that Santa travels around the world in one night and stops at every household. There should be numerous sightings of this if it happens. Real sightings reported seriously.

But there is historical evidence from documents at the time that Jesus performed the miracle acts. There were witnesses present.

This is not proof, but it is reasonable empirical evidence for concluding that the events took place. Which doesn't rule out doubting the events for various reasons. There can be evidence or reasons on both sides of a question, so that you can still judge against one side despite the evidence, because you think the other side is stronger. But that empirical evidence, or historical data is there, so a case can be made.

But there is no such evidence for the travels of Santa.

You're going to use the bible to prove that the bible is correct?

 

[skepticalbip]

There's no empirical evidence that Santa travels around the world in one night and stops at every household. There should be numerous sightings of this if it happens. Real sightings reported seriously.

But there is historical evidence from documents at the time that Jesus performed the miracle acts. There were witnesses present.

This is not proof, but it is reasonable empirical evidence for concluding that the events took place. Which doesn't rule out doubting the events for various reasons. There can be evidence or reasons on both sides of a question, so that you can still judge against one side despite the evidence, because you think the other side is stronger. But that empirical evidence, or historical data is there, so a case can be made.

But there is no such evidence for the travels of Santa.

You're going to use the bible to prove that the bible is correct?

The best I can figure, that is pretty close to what Lumpy's argument has been. The Jesus miracle stories can be believed because they are in the Bible - all other miracle stories attributed to other people can't be believed because they aren't in the Bible.

Although he doesn't state it like that. He just says that the exact conditions and criteria that surround the Jesus stories like length of time the miracle worker worked the miracles, how long ago the miracles supposedly happened, that he couldn't be well known during his time, the time after he died before anything was written, the fact that the people writing it couldn't have possibly had any first hand knowledge, etc. has to be match the conditions of the Jesus story for it to be believable. Otherwise it is obviously not true.

 

[Barbarian]

You're going to use the bible to prove that the bible is correct?

Sure, why not? All he's doing is picking specifics of the Christian story and trying to promote them to criteria of believability.