120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[funinspace]

Whether the Bible mentions the Trinity or not - i.e. whether the Trinity is a biblical teaching or not - is hardly a minor difference.

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned and does not matter.

But if you mean "Trinity" language, like "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost" (the "FSHG") -- then maybe it matters a little, but probably not much.

There are NT texts which seem to imply some kind of separation between the "Son" and the "Father" -- and this is not totally explained, and never has been. "Trinity" language, like the FSHG, is an attempt to explain this. It's not a new doctrine if a variant text containing such language should turn up.

And yet we have textual variants with both, and in some of these cases we know for sure which variant is earlier, because e.g. church fathers quote the 'wrong' text.

But the "Trinity" problem always existed, from the very beginning. There are several texts in the earliest manuscripts which imply some kind of "Trinity" idea, or separation of the "Father" and the "Son" -- and the "Holy Ghost" idea pops up also in one form or another.

Every Christ believer has his/her own understanding of the "3 persons" and tries to remain a monotheist while at the same time recognizing the 2 or 3 different "persons" somehow. Hardly any believer is offended when s/he encounters a new Bible text that is pro-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian. Both kinds of text have always been there, and a believer just tries to accept both, and this doesn't seem to be a problem for Christ believers.

The account of Jesus praying in the Garden while the disciples are sleeping is a revered scene for Christians, and this seems to suggest a distinction of the "Son" and the "Father" -- how can they be "One" if one of them is praying to the other?

And yet, is this really a contradiction that Christians have a problem with? The truth is that believers have become accustomed to this "contradiction" and just accept it as some kind of mystery, or dilemma, that doesn't need an ultimate resolution.

Yet, Christian groups to this day still split apart over theological issues/disagreements. Today churches are rupturing over the issue of gay marriage relative to their doctrine. My father was told as a kid growing up more than a few times that he was going to hell as he went to the wrong church. I’ve been to a few churches over the decades where real regular people firmly believed that most RC’s practiced idolatry (among other things) and were generally hell bound. I can guaranty that these real regular evangelical people would find a person espousing a disbelief in the Trinity, to be unsaved and hell bound. It would not be trivial nor a small problem. These people generally also would consider Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons to be unsaved and hell bound as well. Of course this cuts both ways for these sects, but for that these sects have differing views on eternal torment for the masses.

Then: these are accepted as later changes by Ehrman, contrary to what you claimed.

There may be "changes" on these points, but they are not major doctrinal points. I.e., the "changes" don't really change anything important in doctrine, or present any new challenge to traditional doctrine. Christians today don't care about it, and it's not clear that average Christians in the 3rd century really cared either. The "Arian" controversy, which the theologians cared about, was not about the "Trinity" -- both Arian and Athanasius accepted the "Trinity" language.

Arius did not accept the standard Trinity language. Arius was exiled for a dozen years along with a number of supporters. He clearly had a non-traditional view of the father, son, & HG. He did later mute at least some of his ideas, probably to make peace, but I’m not sure if we know what he recanted. Below is a quote that clearly shows a non-trinitarian view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Theological_debates

A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.

The "Trinity" points have only minor importance. Nothing has really changed simply because a new text is discovered, or a text variant is discovered, relating to the "Trinity" -- No matter what new text variant turns up, this minor problem remains anyway. The theologians will keep nitpicking forever about the 3 Persons, regardless what it says in some new text variant, even if that variant can be proved as the earliest wording of that text. It still won't settle this issue anymore than it has already been settled (or not settled).

<snip>

Ehrman acknowledges that the references to Trinity are later insertions.

You mean that there were earlier manuscripts which did not have these references?

The famous Matthew reference, Mt 28:19, is the earliest reading ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"). This is not from a later copyist.

Ehrman says that 1 John 5:7-8 had a Trinity insertion which made it into the KJV but has now been removed because it is a later copyist insertion.

So, yes there was that one later variant reading, in the 1 John text. But there was always the Matthew text, which was not a variant reading. And the Matthew text is just as much a Trinity text as the 1 John text. So the Trinity is an established doctrine, from the earliest Mt manuscript.

The Mt source dates from about the same time as 1 John. So this added reading in 1 John was not a significant change in the existing doctrine.

I can't find Ehrman's interpretation of Mt 28:19 which is in all the translations and is based on the earliest manuscripts, unlike the 1 John text which everyone agrees is later and is no longer included in the modern translations.

So, what does it matter that the 1 John text had that variant reading in some earlier versions? It didn't conflict with settled doctrine.

There are many Christian theologians who question the originality of Mt 28:19-20, see linky below.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

The problem is that non-trinitarian views were emerging along side trinitarian views from as early as we can look back. Marcion also had a non-trinitarian view, and he was exiled in 144 AD from the church in Rome and lead his very heretical church(s). So there would have been incentives to juice up the trinity notion very early on within the texts.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There was no altering of the NT text by later copyists to try to change the doctrine.

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned and does not matter.

But if you mean "Trinity" language, like "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost" (the "FSHG") -- then maybe it matters a little, but probably not much.

There are NT texts which seem to imply some kind of separation between the "Son" and the "Father" -- and this is not totally explained, and never has been. "Trinity" language, like the FSHG, is an attempt to explain this. It's not a new doctrine if a variant text containing such language should turn up.

And yet we have textual variants with both, and in some of these cases we know for sure which variant is earlier, because e.g. church fathers quote the 'wrong' text.

But the "Trinity" problem always existed, from the very beginning. There are several texts in the earliest manuscripts which imply some kind of "Trinity" idea, or separation of the "Father" and the "Son" -- and the "Holy Ghost" idea pops up also in one form or another.

Every Christ believer has his/her own understanding of the "3 persons" and tries to remain a monotheist while at the same time recognizing the 2 or 3 different "persons" somehow. Hardly any believer is offended when s/he encounters a new Bible text that is pro-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian. Both kinds of text have always been there, and a believer just tries to accept both, and this doesn't seem to be a problem for Christ believers.

The account of Jesus praying in the Garden while the disciples are sleeping is a revered scene for Christians, and this seems to suggest a distinction of the "Son" and the "Father" -- how can they be "One" if one of them is praying to the other?

And yet, is this really a contradiction that Christians have a problem with? The truth is that believers have become accustomed to this "contradiction" and just accept it as some kind of mystery, or dilemma, that doesn't need an ultimate resolution.

Yet, Christian groups to this day still split apart over theological issues/disagreements. Today churches are rupturing over the issue of gay marriage relative to their doctrine. My father was told as a kid growing up more than a few times that he was going to hell as he went to the wrong church. I’ve been to a few churches over the decades where real regular people firmly believed that most RC’s practiced idolatry (among other things) and were generally hell bound. I can guaranty that these real regular evangelical people would find a person espousing a disbelief in the Trinity, to be unsaved and hell bound.

No they would not. I doubt that you can find anyone saying this. You probably cannot find any website from any denomination which says this.

It would not be trivial nor a small problem. These people generally also would consider Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons to be unsaved and hell bound as well.

No they wouldn't. Find a website which says this.

Of course this cuts both ways for these sects, but for that these sects have differing views on eternal torment for the masses.

Then: these are accepted as later changes by Ehrman, contrary to what you claimed.

There may be "changes" on these points, but they are not major doctrinal points. I.e., the "changes" don't really change anything important in doctrine, or present any new challenge to traditional doctrine. Christians today don't care about it, and it's not clear that average Christians in the 3rd century really cared either. The "Arian" controversy, which the theologians cared about, was not about the "Trinity" -- both Arian and Athanasius accepted the "Trinity" language.

Arius did not accept the standard Trinity language. Arius was exiled for a dozen years along with a number of supporters. He clearly had a non-traditional view of the father, son, & HG. He did later mute at least some of his ideas, probably to make peace, but I’m not sure if we know what he recanted. Below is a quote that clearly shows a non-trinitarian view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Theological_debates

No, there's no quote from Arian in this link showing a non-trinitarian view.

A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.

This is not about the "Trinity" language. And not about Mt. 28:19. The current wording of this verse is probably the earliest wording. Arian did not speak against this wording, which was standard during his time.

The "Trinity" points have only minor importance. Nothing has really changed simply because a new text is discovered, or a text variant is discovered, relating to the "Trinity" -- No matter what new text variant turns up, this minor problem remains anyway. The theologians will keep nitpicking forever about the 3 Persons, regardless what it says in some new text variant, even if that variant can be proved as the earliest wording of that text. It still won't settle this issue anymore than it has already been settled (or not settled).

<snip>

Ehrman acknowledges that the references to Trinity are later insertions.

You mean that there were earlier manuscripts which did not have these references?

The famous Matthew reference, Mt 28:19, is the earliest reading ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"). This is not from a later copyist.

Ehrman says that 1 John 5:7-8 had a Trinity insertion which made it into the KJV but has now been removed because it is a later copyist insertion.

So, yes there was that one later variant reading, in the 1 John text. But there was always the Matthew text, which was not a variant reading. And the Matthew text is just as much a Trinity text as the 1 John text. So the Trinity is an established doctrine, from the earliest Mt manuscript.

The Mt source dates from about the same time as 1 John. So this added reading in 1 John was not a significant change in the existing doctrine.

I can't find Ehrman's interpretation of Mt 28:19 which is in all the translations and is based on the earliest manuscripts, unlike the 1 John text which everyone agrees is later and is no longer included in the modern translations.

So, what does it matter that the 1 John text had that variant reading in some earlier versions? It didn't conflict with settled doctrine.

There are many Christian theologians who question the originality of Mt 28:19-20, see link below.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Nothing in this link indicates that the Mt. verse, as we currently know it, is not the earliest reading. Just because some theorists insist that it has to be later does not prove that it was later. There's no reason to believe the text was changed to its current wording from an earlier wording. The ms. evidence all supports the current wording despite the theories that it had to be a later addition.

The problem is that non-trinitarian views were emerging along side trinitarian views from as early as we can look back.

OK, but that doesn't change the fact that the current reading of that verse is probably the ORIGINAL wording. There were differing "Trinity" theories, but that verse as we now have it was probably the earliest wording. That the differing ideas existed doesn't mean that verse had to be a later variant text added to Mt.

This same wording ("Father, Son, Holy Ghost") is also found in the Didache, early document, probably 1st-century, so this wording was early.

Marcion also had a non-trinitarian view, and he was exiled in 144 AD from the church in Rome and lead his very heretical church(s). So there would have been incentives to juice up the trinity notion very early on within the texts.

But there's no evidence that anyone did change the text in order to promote their view. The pro-Trinity language was already there. It was early language, right alongside some who apparently did not like the language.

What point is served by obsessing on the notion that they doctored up the text in order to slip in their theories surreptitiously? There is no example of this that you or anyone else has offered.

Actually, the 1 John 5:7-8 text was shown to be an example, from several centuries later. However, this was simply borrowed from the Mt wording and the Didache wording. So this was nothing new.

So you can give this as an example, which has been corrected in all the latest translations. This one case hardly shows any general pattern of variant text additions which change anything of doctrine.

Instead of obsessing on this narrative that the text was tampered with by later copyists in order to introduce new doctrine, for which there is virtually no evidence, why don't you explain what your point is in continuing to obsess on this.

 

[James Brown]

Are Roman Catholics Christian?

As answered by the infamous Evangelical Tract-Maker Jack Chick.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It would not be trivial nor a small problem. These people generally also would consider Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons to be unsaved and hell bound as well.

No they wouldn't. Find a website which says this.

Are Mormons Christians?

The Truth About the Seventh Day Adventist Church

Just two of the many "ministries" denying salvation of LDS and 7-DA believers.

 

[Atheos]

Philosophical question: Is an argument still wrong if a goalpost can be moved? We'll be investigating this and other questions again soon in this thread.

 

[funinspace]

The word "Trinity" is not mentioned and does not matter.

But if you mean "Trinity" language, like "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost" (the "FSHG") -- then maybe it matters a little, but probably not much.

There are NT texts which seem to imply some kind of separation between the "Son" and the "Father" -- and this is not totally explained, and never has been. "Trinity" language, like the FSHG, is an attempt to explain this. It's not a new doctrine if a variant text containing such language should turn up.

And yet we have textual variants with both, and in some of these cases we know for sure which variant is earlier, because e.g. church fathers quote the 'wrong' text.

But the "Trinity" problem always existed, from the very beginning. There are several texts in the earliest manuscripts which imply some kind of "Trinity" idea, or separation of the "Father" and the "Son" -- and the "Holy Ghost" idea pops up also in one form or another.

Every Christ believer has his/her own understanding of the "3 persons" and tries to remain a monotheist while at the same time recognizing the 2 or 3 different "persons" somehow. Hardly any believer is offended when s/he encounters a new Bible text that is pro-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian. Both kinds of text have always been there, and a believer just tries to accept both, and this doesn't seem to be a problem for Christ believers.

The account of Jesus praying in the Garden while the disciples are sleeping is a revered scene for Christians, and this seems to suggest a distinction of the "Son" and the "Father" -- how can they be "One" if one of them is praying to the other?

And yet, is this really a contradiction that Christians have a problem with? The truth is that believers have become accustomed to this "contradiction" and just accept it as some kind of mystery, or dilemma, that doesn't need an ultimate resolution.

Yet, Christian groups to this day still split apart over theological issues/disagreements. Today churches are rupturing over the issue of gay marriage relative to their doctrine. My father was told as a kid growing up more than a few times that he was going to hell as he went to the wrong church. I’ve been to a few churches over the decades where real regular people firmly believed that most RC’s practiced idolatry (among other things) and were generally hell bound. I can guaranty that these real regular evangelical people would find a person espousing a disbelief in the Trinity, to be unsaved and hell bound.

No they would not. I doubt that you can find anyone saying this. You probably cannot find any website from any denomination which says this.

It would not be trivial nor a small problem. These people generally also would consider Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons to be unsaved and hell bound as well.

No they wouldn't. Find a website which says this.

Though another person has already provided 2 links…. We already did this in Dec 2014:

A noted pre-Vatican II traditionalist RC father:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

by Fr. William Most

It is a defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. Yet, as the Holy Office pointed out in condemning L. Feeney (DS 3866) we must understand this the way the Church means it, not by private interpretation.

Can you guess which horrendous sect, this hardcore evangelical is getting ready to identify ROTFLMAO....
http://www.reachingcatholics.org/cult-cult.html

For decades evangelicals have diligently and faithfully attempted to identify, analyze and warn the church against cults. Included in the standard list are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, etc. Yet the most seductive, dangerous and largest cult (many times larger than all of the rest combined) is not included in the list! Most cult experts refuse to identify this horrendous cult as such! Instead, they accept it as "Christian."

Here is another anti-7DA website, and they even have the hots for the KJB:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Seventh-Day Adventist/sneaky.htm

Seventh-Day Adventism is a hellish cult. SDA are a scary bunch, singing and talking like Biblical Christians; but they are a Satanic cult who adhere to some very strange doctrines. Hebrews 13:9, “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.”

Or here where some evangelicals goes ape shit on the 7-DAs, and specifically their non-trinitarian views. The funny part is that they also affirm my point that Aruis held a conflicting view with the standard Trinitarian view.
http://www.cultorchristian.com/

The reality is that Seventh-day Adventism is actually anti-Trinitarian and teaches Tritheism (three gods), just like the Mormons do.
<snip>
The Biblical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is only one God (which is affirmed throughout the Old and New Testaments). In other words, there is only one living Being that is God. As the Nicene Creed affirms, Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father." God is one spirit, not three spirits. He is one being, not three beings. Otherwise, we would have three gods.

In the early days of Seventh-day Adventism, they (including their prophetess Ellen G. White) taught some form of Arianism--denying the eternality of Jesus Christ, denying the personality of the Holy Spirit, and teaching bitheism, or two gods: the eternal Father and the non-eternal Son.
<snip>
This shows that Adventism is still Arian to this day, in that they still deny the Arius-opposing Trinitarian confession of the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father."
<snip>
The following excerpts are from another presentation at the Adventist Theological Society's 2006 "Trinity Symposium," by John Reeve, Assistant Professor of Church History at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary (at Andrews University)…..'Ok, the nature of the Father is completely other than the nature of the Son. Let's admit the fact that Arius was right, and it's illogical to talk about two being of the same nature, and two gods in the same, in the same, one Godhead,’

Then: these are accepted as later changes by Ehrman, contrary to what you claimed.

There may be "changes" on these points, but they are not major doctrinal points. I.e., the "changes" don't really change anything important in doctrine, or present any new challenge to traditional doctrine. Christians today don't care about it, and it's not clear that average Christians in the 3rd century really cared either. The "Arian" controversy, which the theologians cared about, was not about the "Trinity" -- both Arian and Athanasius accepted the "Trinity" language.

Arius did not accept the standard Trinity language. Arius was exiled for a dozen years along with a number of supporters. He clearly had a non-traditional view of the father, son, & HG. He did later mute at least some of his ideas, probably to make peace, but I’m not sure if we know what he recanted. Below is a quote that clearly shows a non-trinitarian view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Theological_debates

No, there's no quote from Arian in this link showing a non-trinitarian view.

A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.

This is not about the "Trinity" language. And not about Mt. 28:19. The current wording of this verse is probably the earliest wording. Arian did not speak against this wording, which was standard during his time.

You are funny. But yes, this part is not about Mt. 28:19, I didn’t say it was. Just why do you think the Athanasian Creed was developed? Why do you think Arius was exiled after the 325 council?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

The creed has been used by Christian churches since the sixth century. It is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated. It differs from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Apostles' Creeds in the inclusion of anathemas, or condemnations of those who disagree with the creed (like the original Nicene Creed).

Widely accepted among Western Christians, including the Roman Catholic Church and some Anglican churches, Lutheran churches (it is considered part of the Lutheran confessions in the Book of Concord), and ancient, liturgical churches generally, the Athanasian Creed has been used in public worship less and less frequently, but part of it can be found as an "Authorized Affirmation of Faith" in the recent (2000) Common Worship liturgy of the Church of England [Main Volume page 145]. The creed has never gained much acceptance in liturgy among Eastern Christians. It was designed to distinguish Nicene Christianity from the heresy of Arianism.

From the 325 Nicene Creed: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;”

And the above has a significant difference with what Arius says here. Part of the Trinity construct is the nature of the Son, and Arius argues that the Son has a beginning and was created. Arius clearly contradicts the Nicene Creed from the quote I already provided and specifically here:
“and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.”

The "Trinity" points have only minor importance. Nothing has really changed simply because a new text is discovered, or a text variant is discovered, relating to the "Trinity" -- No matter what new text variant turns up, this minor problem remains anyway. The theologians will keep nitpicking forever about the 3 Persons, regardless what it says in some new text variant, even if that variant can be proved as the earliest wording of that text. It still won't settle this issue anymore than it has already been settled (or not settled).

<snip>

Ehrman acknowledges that the references to Trinity are later insertions.

You mean that there were earlier manuscripts which did not have these references?

The famous Matthew reference, Mt 28:19, is the earliest reading ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"). This is not from a later copyist.

Ehrman says that 1 John 5:7-8 had a Trinity insertion which made it into the KJV but has now been removed because it is a later copyist insertion.

So, yes there was that one later variant reading, in the 1 John text. But there was always the Matthew text, which was not a variant reading. And the Matthew text is just as much a Trinity text as the 1 John text. So the Trinity is an established doctrine, from the earliest Mt manuscript.

The Mt source dates from about the same time as 1 John. So this added reading in 1 John was not a significant change in the existing doctrine.

I can't find Ehrman's interpretation of Mt 28:19 which is in all the translations and is based on the earliest manuscripts, unlike the 1 John text which everyone agrees is later and is no longer included in the modern translations.

So, what does it matter that the 1 John text had that variant reading in some earlier versions? It didn't conflict with settled doctrine.

There are many Christian theologians who question the originality of Mt 28:19-20, see link below.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Nothing in this link indicates that the Mt. verse, as we currently know it, is not the earliest reading. Just because some theorists insist that it has to be later does not prove that it was later. There's no reason to believe the text was changed to its current wording from an earlier wording. The ms. evidence all supports the current wording despite the theories that it had to be a later addition.

Those theories are mostly from well-known Christian theologians. I agree that it is quite possible it was in the original drafting of Matthew. But your own views seem to waver when a particular item is in only 1 of Mt, Mark and Luke, dropping your surety of origins. Heck, you even drop off the silly birthing narratives and they are in both Mt. and Luke, among a dozen or so other items from the NT.

The problem is that non-trinitarian views were emerging along side trinitarian views from as early as we can look back.

OK, but that doesn't change the fact that the current reading of that verse is probably the ORIGINAL wording. There were differing "Trinity" theories, but that verse as we now have it was probably the earliest wording. That the differing ideas existed doesn't mean that verse had to be a later variant text added to Mt.

This same wording ("Father, Son, Holy Ghost") is also found in the Didache, early document, probably 1st-century, so this wording was early.

So what? My point is that both view have very early backing, ergo there would have been incentives for pro-trinitarian people to justify their view by tweaking texts.

Marcion also had a non-trinitarian view, and he was exiled in 144 AD from the church in Rome and lead his very heretical church(s). So there would have been incentives to juice up the trinity notion very early on within the texts.

But there's no evidence that anyone did change the text in order to promote their view. The pro-Trinity language was already there. It was early language, right alongside some who apparently did not like the language.

What point is served by obsessing on the notion that they doctored up the text in order to slip in their theories surreptitiously? There is no example of this that you or anyone else has offered.

Actually, the 1 John 5:7-8 text was shown to be an example, from several centuries later. However, this was simply borrowed from the Mt wording and the Didache wording. So this was nothing new.

So you can give this as an example, which has been corrected in all the latest translations. This one case hardly shows any general pattern of variant text additions which change anything of doctrine.

Instead of obsessing on this narrative that the text was tampered with by later copyists in order to introduce new doctrine, for which there is virtually no evidence, why don't you explain what your point is in continuing to obsess on this.

Clearly you were the one who drove this “obsession” with your "no changes" but for minor “spelling et.al.” BS which you slowly retracted. This was my first post regarding the Trinity issue. All I did was point out that many Christian theologians question the originality of Mt. 28:19-20. Clearly you don’t know the meaning of the word “obsession”.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No they wouldn't. Find a website which says this.

Are Mormons Christians?

The Truth About the Seventh Day Adventist Church

Just two of the many "ministries" denying salvation of LDS and 7-DA believers.

Ok ... but you wouldn't find, like ... 4 websites which say this.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's not true that all miracle stories, except those of Jesus Christ, were expunged from the record in a massive cover-up conspiracy.

No, this [Book of Acts] is not a source for any miracles done by Simon Magus. Obviously he had some charisma and could impress people. But what is a specific miracle act which he did?

The real sources for his alleged miracle acts do not appear until the mid-2nd-century and later.

Acts speaks of Simon "amaz(ing) the people" by practicing "sorcery". And what is "sorcery" but miracles performed by the "wrong" people?

No, if that's the explanation why Acts mentions no real miracles, i.e., narrates no specific miracle acts by Simon Magus, then it should also apply to later Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus who do narrate specific miracle acts allegedly done by Simon Magus. Why are there no such specific miracle acts of his reported earlier, nearer to the time of the alleged events?

Answer: because they did not really happen. There are plenty of miracle stories by the "wrong" people reported by Christian writers, but only centuries after the alleged acts happened.

We need something more specific than "sorcery" acts. We all know that "sorcery" and magic etc. are real events where there is illusion and deception. And most people know the difference, including Galileans and Judeans and Greeks and Romans in the 1st century. They did not get very excited about another "sorcerer" coming to town. They did not write these acts down and publish them a generation or two later in multiple accounts, and start a new religion over it.

On the contrary, later Christian writers did reluctantly admit (incorrectly) that Simon Magus performed miracles, because the mythologizing or legend-building around him had 100+ years in which to grow. But no one believed it in 100 or 90 AD because these legends had not yet accumulated.

Some of those later Christian writers also admitted (incorrectly) that Apollonius of Tyana performed miracles, after this legend had time to reach maturity.

So you're wrong to say that the Christ believers would never admit that anyone other than Jesus had performed miracles. They believed it in some cases because of the popular legends that had accumulated.

(However, to get the whole story straight, not ALL Christian writers believed these stories.)

Even if I accept your claim that Acts mentioning "sorcery" does not mean it's talking about "miracles" (which I don't, BTW), . . .

The point is that in Acts we do not have an example of a miracle act done by Simon Magus. Vague language about "magic" or "sorcery" or even about "signs and wonders" is not a clear indication or evidence of miracle acts. It's the miracle acts narrated in the gospel accounts which are the evidence that Jesus did miracles, not vague references to something that impressed people. We must have specific acts narrated, stating what he did that normal humans cannot do. Which we do have in LATER patristic writings, 100+ years later, about some alleged miracles of Simon Magus.

. . . you're still making an arbitrary distinction between claims made 30-40 years after the alleged events, and claims made 100 years after them.

It's not arbitrary. An account much closer to the actual event has a greater chance of being reliable, especially with regard to something doubtful like alleged miracle events. We know miracle stories typically evolved over a long time period, like several generations, whereas we don't see it happening in only 2 generations.

Paul's account of the resurrection of Jesus appeared less than 30 years after the alleged event. There's no other case of a miracle event being reported so soon after it allegedly happened. There's no other case even close to this, as the usual time gap is centuries later, because it took so long for the myths to evolve.

It's reasonable to assume that it required at least 100 years, usually longer, for such stories to evolve, because this was the case for ALL the alleged miracle events/legends, with almost no exception. Why shouldn't we be surprised that we suddenly have a case where that time gap is severely reduced, plus we have FIVE accounts, not only one, reporting this in 70 years or less from the date of the alleged event. Why is it "arbitrary" to consider this case as different than the others, i.e., as being more difficult to explain? because of the much less time within which the legends could have evolved?

I see no reason to make that distinction;

There is a reason to distinguish these, because we have here one case of miracle event reports which cannot be explained as all the others can be. All the other miracle legends had centuries, or many generations, within which to evolve, explaining how these stories originated and spread even though they were fictional. Unlike the Jesus miracle stories which did not have such a time span in which to evolve before first appearing in writing.

(In modern times there might be examples of myths evolving much sooner. But 1000 years ago, even 500 years ago, without publishing to spread the stories, such spread of miracle stories and early written accounts of them did not happen.)

The distinction is: one miracle legend which cannot be explained vs. all the other miracle legends which can be explained as a result of a long time lapse within which the myth-building could occur. (We have to explain not only the origin of the story, but its wide transmission and acceptance by a large number who heard it, and being published in multiple accounts -- and all this within a close time, 3 or 4 decades from when the events allegedly happened.)

all it means is there might be fewer accretions in the shorter timeframe.

It's not about "accretions" occurring in the later accounts. It's perfectly normal for later legitimate accounts to add more information to what was in the earlier accounts. These "accretions" per se do not detract from the credibility of the later (or earlier) accounts. E.g., just because Tacitus and Suetonius give more details about the assassination of Caesar than Cicero gives, or more information ("accretion"), does not mean there's anything less credible about their accounts.

What pertains to the credibility is the element of miracle claims, or claims of something doubtful or difficult to believe. For these there is typically a pattern of the stories appearing in writing only many generations later, which indicates a long process of myth-building that took place.

I say "might" be, because the development of the story in the synoptic gospels is evidence of accretion just in the couple of decades between the first of them and the last.

There is nothing in the "accretion" from Mark to the later gospels to suggest less credibility as to the major events. The same kind of miracle claims are in Mark as are in the later accounts. That some later information is added in Lk and Mt does not detract from the credibility.

The later writers may have applied their own interpretation to the original Mark account, and one might even disagree with their interpretation, but the basic picture of Jesus as a miracle-worker is the same in the earlier Mark as in the later versions. There's no pattern of a miracle-worker being invented as we go from Mark to Mt and Lk.

. . . the development of the story in the synoptic gospels is evidence of accretion just in the couple of decades between the first of them and the last.

It's no indication of any less credibility. What is the fancy word "accretion" supposed to prove?

The addition of more versions of the same event(s) indicates an INcreased credibility of all the accounts, i.e., on the general points. Calling it "accretion" does not make the accounts any less credible. There's nothing wrong with one account containing more information than another. Nor that the later accounts get longer.

What's wrong about later accounts containing something not in the earlier account? Do you see something "rotten in Denmark" about Tacitus and Suetonius adding something additional to the assassination of Caesar which was missing in Cicero's accounts that mention the event?

There is no reason to suspect foul play of some kind simply because the later accounts added further information to the earlier account.

Even if the later accounts contain an element of contradiction to the earlier, i.e., some inconsistency or discrepancy, they still INcrease our knowledge and understanding of the event(s) reported and make this MORE credible, even if some particular details are put in doubt. All that additional input means an enhancement to our knowledge of it, and overall more accuracy, while we may give the earlier account greater credibility where there's a discrepancy.

A totally simple and uniform presentation with nothing doubtful might really be more misleading and distorted than 3 or 4 or 5 presentations which make it more complicated and offer differing interpretations, even "accretions" -- those additions overall give us more of the truth than we'd have with only the one version by itself.

There's just no telling how much the story gained in the 3 or 4 decades between the alleged events and the first of those gospels, . . .

Of course "there's no telling" anything -- no certainty to any of this. However, there's good reason to believe the miracle stories were NOT invented within that time, because there were no recorded cases of miracle stories developing and spreading and being published within a space of only 3-6 decades, from the time the event allegedly happened up to the time of the written report of it.

E.g., ALL the pagan myth miracles required CENTURIES to appear in the written record. None of them appeared in such a short time as only 40 years after the miracle allegedly happened. And the same pattern occurs in the following centuries (though from about 100 AD onward many Jesus-like copycat miracle stories began popping up).

So if this happened in the case of the Jesus miracle stories (i.e., they are fictions which emerged within 40 years), it would be the only case of miracle fictions appearing in the written record in such a short time period. And usually this time span is SEVERAL CENTURIES, not only a few decades.

There's virtually no exception, though we have the case of Vespasian, where the written account appears 50+ years later. In this case the exception to the long time-span rule is easily explained by the fact that he was a very famous celebrity, in which case the miracle legend can emerge much sooner. I.e., his widespread celebrity status partly explains the quicker myth-building process.

. . . although we can already see that much has been added to the story just from Paul's letters to the first gospel.

But we know "the story" had the miracle elements in it earlier than Mark. It's virtually certain that Matthew and Luke relied on the earlier Q document, and this contained 2 of the miracle stories, and also a third non-narrative reference to the miracles.

That later accounts added something further only INcreases the credibility of ALL the accounts. What is the "much" that was added after Paul?

Paul tells the most important miracle of them all -- the resurrection. So the miracle healing stories in the gospel accounts are not really that much new being added. Plus, Paul says NOTHING about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. It only stands to reason that something additional would appear in the other accounts, which would tell us of the Jesus events PRIOR to the arrest, where Paul begins his version of what happened.

Of course "much has been added" to the little that Paul provided. He starts AT THE END of the story. How can there not be more to add? i.e., about what happened before?

And, BTW, I did not say that "the Christ believers would never admit that anyone other than Jesus had performed miracles". I said that the author of Acts didn't want to admit that.

You're assuming there was something there for him to admit. There's no reason to believe there were any Simon Magus miracles or reported miracles in the 1st century. The best explanation why Luke says nothing about any miracles of Simon Magus is that there were no such miracles for him to say anything about. SM is reported as a magician, possibly also in Josephus, who mentions a Simon the magician. That doesn't mean a miracle-worker, especially not a miracle healer. Do you think Josephus also didn't want to admit that SM performed miracles?

We have reason to believe Josephus would report any such events if he believed they happened. He reported about the goofy exorcist who could cause a pot of water to be knocked over when the demon allegedly exited out from the victim. Josephus apparently did believe in this invisible demon. So there's no indication that the 1st-century writers tried to cover up stories about miracle-workers if they believed some real miracle acts took place.

There's no reason to say the Acts author would have left this out. He had no more reason to exclude it than the later Christian writers did. If the latter saw fit to include miracle legends about Simon Magus, other Christian writers would have also. But they either ignored him altogether or just called him a "magician."

Later christians might have had their reasons for allowing it, . . .

No. You're implying that the author of Acts believed Simon Magus did miracles but covered it up for some sinister motive, whereas later Christian writers had no motive to cover up any such thing.

But all the evidence contradicts this, because we have no other case where a writer believed any such miracle claims about a recent alleged miracle-worker, i.e., contemporary to that writer, or near to the writer's time. (Unless you want to pounce on the nutty Josephus story about the exorcist who could cause a pot of water to be knocked over. But if this is all there is to offer, it virtually proves the point that there were no serious miracle stories known to the writers other than the legends of events that had happened many generations earlier, i.e., NOT contemporary.)

I.e., ALL the miracle events reported came only from writers who lived many generations or even centuries AFTER the miracle event had allegedly happened.

For your theory to be correct, there must have been many cases where a writer believed such events happened recently, contemporary to the writer, and yet the writer CHOSE NOT TO REPORT it precisely because it was too recent, and that the ancient writers always refrained from reporting on any miracle event they believed happened only recently, while having no such reluctance to report such events from 100+ years earlier.

But why? Why would they choose to cover up a story of such an event they believed happened only a few years earlier?

A much better theory is that they reported a story if they believed it, regardless whether it was recent or ancient. I.e., there were no cases of recent miracle events which they believed. Whatever miracle stories they believed were only from centuries or many generations earlier.

(Slight correction on this, or "exception to the rule": There may be some cases later, maybe from 300 AD onward, where some miracle stories are reported in which the alleged event was recent. One definite case of this is St. Augustine who reported a long slew of miracle stories he claimed personal knowledge of, such as victims being healed. For any such case we have ONLY ONE SOURCE, which is a big difference; but also, in the ensuing centuries we have many miracle stories which are obvious copy-cat stories based on the Jesus miracles in the gospel accounts. So exceptions to the above rule are probably copy-cat stories, where believers built on the Jesus miracles as their inspiration, and came up with new miracle claims, i.e., personal experiences, and a few of these were published, such as the St. Augustine case. But otherwise the rule holds that the writers reported such stories only in those cases where the alleged event was NON-contemporary but believed to have happened many generations or centuries earlier.)

The best explanation for this is that the alleged events never really happened but that the fictional stories about such events were able to evolve over a long time period, and so these are the only miracle stories that appear in the writings, because in some cases writers believed such stories about events that had allegedly happened many generations earlier, whereas such stories current to their own time were rejected by them as not credible. I.e., it required the long time lapse for some fictional stories to become credible and attain legend status.

. . . but the Acts author would not have had the same reasons, . . .

Yes he had the same reasons to report a miracle IF he believed such a miracle event really happened. But he simply did not believe any such miracles (of Simon Magus) happened. Had he believed it, he had the same reason to report it as any other writer, such as Christian writers 100+ years later.

You're implying that writers had some motivation to cover up reports about any RECENT miracle event, which they believed but refused to report, whereas they would report a miracle claim if it was about an event happening more than 100 years earlier. The only way that can make sense is that the more recent event was not credible, whereas some of the much older stories caught on and took on a legend status which gave them credibility of a kind which a recent story did not have.

. . . the faith being at a different stage of development at the time, and circumstances in the Roman Empire being also different.

What circumstance would prevent a 1st-century writer from reporting what he believed was a recent miracle event? only a few decades earlier? The only reason they did not report such a thing is that there were no such events, and no writer, including Luke, believed there was, other than the ones he reported in Luke-Acts.

There are no other similar miracle events of the 1st century reported by any 1st-century or early 2nd-century author. All we have are stories dated at least 100+ years after the miracle event reportedly happened.

How is this explained as due to some attitude of 1st-century writers to want to cover-up any such recent events which they believed really happened but wanted to slam the lid on? That's ludicrous. Unless you believe there was a widespread conspiracy to launch the new Christ legend which all writers participated in, where they all agreed to report this one Christ miracle-worker only and to slam the lid down on all other competing miracle reports popping up here and there.

Of course you can always concoct some conspiracy scheme to explain anything that conflicts with your fundamental ideological bias about what can and cannot happen.

You have to explain how it is that we have considerable evidence, written accounts, saying that Jesus did these miracle acts, while at the same time evidence of other miracle-workers does not exist. So, the explanation is that there was a conspiracy afoot in the 1st century caused by what the Romans were doing at that time, somehow, creating something that caused writers to report these Jesus miracle events but to shred the documents on anything else -- other competing messiahs or miracle events, etc. -- because of those 1st-century conditions somehow causing writers to give us this evidence that the events happened (which did not really happen) because of all those conditions, whatever they may have been, while censoring out similar evidence for the other miracle-workers like Simon Magus.

So they slammed the lid down on Simon Magus and others -- who knows how many? -- while at the same time cranking out lots of evidence for us about the Jesus miracles in order to promote this new cult because the conditions at that time somehow made them do this.

Any explanation like this is obviously based only on the dogmatic premise that no miracle act can ever happen. Your intuition that the Acts author really believed Simon Magus did miracle acts but covered it up is based on this dogmatic premise only and nothing else. Your dogmatic premise is that there MUST have been competing miracle myth heroes just as well-publicized as the Jesus case and that someone must have censored all the accounts of these, or all the historians were in on the crusade to promote the one Jesus miracle-myth narrative and suppress anything else.

But leaving out this dogmatic premise and looking at the real evidence that we have -- what it shows is that we have evidence of this one case and no others, meaning that something happened that caused large numbers to believe these miracle events really happened, in this one case only, while there was not any such belief in any other cases -- i.e., other such claims were rejected as not credible and not worthy to be published.

 

[Smoker]

So what else did Matthew lie about? All the Messianic prophecies? The genealogies illustrating that Jesus is a descendant of King David? Joseph's and Mary's flight to Egypt? The healing of the two blind men? The tax paid by Jesus by finding it in a fish? The story of Judas' suicide? The guards at the tomb? The Great Commission?

Did none of those things probably happen on account that only Matthew wrote about them?

If there's only one account, the evidence is weaker.

But it's not just the uniqueness of the story, unsupported by the other accounts, but also the TYPE of story that matters. E.g., the healing stories are so common in all the gospels that these stories in general are more credible, whereas the zombie scene in Matthew is totally different than anything else in the other accounts, thus making it less credible, or unlikely.

All the stories should be looked at critically, not only the ones you list. If there's something dubious or peculiar about it and it's found in only one account and no others, then it's less likely.

Isn't that reasonable? What's really illogical is to just dismiss them all as hogwash. The best explanation is that the fictional stories were added later in response to the original miracle stories which really did happen. This makes the most sense, because otherwise it's impossible to explain how the stories got started in the first place.

It's necessary to explain what got the mythologizing started at the beginning. Without the basic miracle healing stories as the original starting point, how do we explain where this Jesus legend got started? There has to be something which makes the mythic hero stand out at the beginning, so that he has the recognition or distinction which then inspires the myth-making process.

I.e., the original miracle acts, as real events, are the catalyst to set off the later mythologizing.

We need this explanation, because there is nothing we can see prior to 50 AD which could have set off the extreme wave of miracle stories that begins here and expands into the following centuries.

The best example of anything leading up to this that anyone here has cited is the pathetic example of Honi the Circle-Drawer of about 60 BC, but there is no record of his miracle acts until after 100 AD, so this is really just another part of the explosion of new miracle stories beginning around 50-100 AD.

Its all a lie dude. None of that stuff really happened. All the stuff in the Muslim and Hindu religions never happened either. We can now tell these myths are bullshit because we can test the most important statements these religions claim as true. It's all lies and mystical nonsense. If Jesus is really the son of the one true God then I hope he sends his most hottest fireball towards my head right now. I used to pray to that cocksucker Jesus, and he never answered any of my prayers. If I am going to burn in hell for eternity, then I need to tell Jesus what I really, honestly think about him and his asshole father. I hope both of them, and the Holy Spirit, burn in hell for eternity, just like they claim all the people who don't believe in them will. I'm not going to believe in this fear based bullshit just because of the small chance I might suffer for eternity. If the Christian God really exists, and can read my mind, then It already knows how much of a piece of worthless shit It is in my opinion.

 

[Atheos]

This thread has pretty much degenerated into a cycle. Lumpenproletariat presents his arguments which by now have been thoroughly debunked. Those who care debunk afresh. Lumpenproletariat's arguments use a combination of bandwagon fallacy, sharpshooter fallacy, false dilemma fallacy and a sprinkling of baseless assertion. A great deal of the walls of text have to do with painting a bulls-eye around his favorite fairy tale that excludes all the other similar tales, along with rationalizing evidence that doesn't fit his intended conclusion.

The short version is that Jeezus is the only one true god-man because his story is the only one that is really popular that is built around a hero who was so obscure during his lifetime that he went completely unnoticed by contemporary historians yet made such a big splash with his miracles that everyone over a 1500 mile radius knew he was for real.

He's unlike Joseph Smith because his own disciples weren't the ones telling about miracles he worked but instead it was completely anonymous onlookers that did so. Also Joseph Smith had a printing press to work with, which everyone knows you had to have a printing press before folks could make up stories.

So either Jesus worked all these miracles for real or he's the only obscure person anyone ever made up miracle stories about within decades of his disappearance. And even though there is absolutely not one whit of physical evidence he ever actually existed we can be certain he existed for the exact same reasons we can be certain that George Washington existed.

Oh, and being skeptical of miracles means you're just being dogmatic.

 

[Barbarian]

I recall a small Windows program that made the rounds back before 2000. It claimed to be able to measure one's IQ, but when started, it only displayed a regular window with a lot of seemingly random labels and a button. Pushing the button seemingly did nothing, no matter how many times one tried, until one realized that one of the small labels in a corner shows a number which starts at 120 and gets decreased by one for every push of the button. It reminds me of this thread for some reason.

 

[funinspace]

This thread has pretty much degenerated into a cycle. Lumpenproletariat presents his arguments which by now have been thoroughly debunked. Those who care debunk afresh. Lumpenproletariat's arguments use a combination of bandwagon fallacy, sharpshooter fallacy, false dilemma fallacy and a sprinkling of baseless assertion. A great deal of the walls of text have to do with painting a bulls-eye around his favorite fairy tale that excludes all the other similar tales, along with rationalizing evidence that doesn't fit his intended conclusion.

The short version is that Jeezus is the only one true god-man because his story is the only one that is really popular that is built around a hero who was so obscure during his lifetime that he went completely unnoticed by contemporary historians yet made such a big splash with his miracles that everyone over a 1500 mile radius knew he was for real.

He's unlike Joseph Smith because his own disciples weren't the ones telling about miracles he worked but instead it was completely anonymous onlookers that did so. Also Joseph Smith had a printing press to work with, which everyone knows you had to have a printing press before folks could make up stories.

So either Jesus worked all these miracles for real or he's the only obscure person anyone ever made up miracle stories about within decades of his disappearance. And even though there is absolutely not one whit of physical evidence he ever actually existed we can be certain he existed for the exact same reasons we can be certain that George Washington existed.

Oh, and being skeptical of miracles means you're just being dogmatic.

Clearly you are just obsessing on the miracles

I think I would add a little to your sentence below, but still trying not to build a text wall:
“He's unlike Joseph Smith because his own disciples weren't the ones telling about miracles he worked but instead it was completely anonymous onlookers that did so. Also Joseph Smith had a printing press to work with, which everyone knows you had to have a printing press before folks could make up stories. “ Jeezus also has 3-5 independent and anonymous sources, drawn from the common Q source, which Joseph Smith doesn’t have.

Come to think about this strange argument (that I’ve never read from a Christian theologian), with the Jeezus miracle stories clearly coming from these mysterious and curious onlookers, wouldn’t that make it 30-40 independent sources?

 

[funinspace]

I recall a small Windows program that made the rounds back before 2000. It claimed to be able to measure one's IQ, but when started, it only displayed a regular window with a lot of seemingly random labels and a button. Pushing the button seemingly did nothing, no matter how many times one tried, until one realized that one of the small labels in a corner shows a number which starts at 120 and gets decreased by one for every push of the button. It reminds me of this thread for some reason.

LOL...never saw that one.

Though I think this thread reminds me more of the parody of Mitt Romney's tax plan:
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com...joke-website-about-governor-romneys-tax-plan/

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

 

[Atheos]

This thread has pretty much degenerated into a cycle. Lumpenproletariat presents his arguments which by now have been thoroughly debunked. Those who care debunk afresh. Lumpenproletariat's arguments use a combination of bandwagon fallacy, sharpshooter fallacy, false dilemma fallacy and a sprinkling of baseless assertion. A great deal of the walls of text have to do with painting a bulls-eye around his favorite fairy tale that excludes all the other similar tales, along with rationalizing evidence that doesn't fit his intended conclusion.

The short version is that Jeezus is the only one true god-man because his story is the only one that is really popular that is built around a hero who was so obscure during his lifetime that he went completely unnoticed by contemporary historians yet made such a big splash with his miracles that everyone over a 1500 mile radius knew he was for real.

He's unlike Joseph Smith because his own disciples weren't the ones telling about miracles he worked but instead it was completely anonymous onlookers that did so. Also Joseph Smith had a printing press to work with, which everyone knows you had to have a printing press before folks could make up stories.

So either Jesus worked all these miracles for real or he's the only obscure person anyone ever made up miracle stories about within decades of his disappearance. And even though there is absolutely not one whit of physical evidence he ever actually existed we can be certain he existed for the exact same reasons we can be certain that George Washington existed.

Oh, and being skeptical of miracles means you're just being dogmatic.

Clearly you are just obsessing on the miracles

I think I would add a little to your sentence below, but still trying not to build a text wall:
“He's unlike Joseph Smith because his own disciples weren't the ones telling about miracles he worked but instead it was completely anonymous onlookers that did so. Also Joseph Smith had a printing press to work with, which everyone knows you had to have a printing press before folks could make up stories. “ Jeezus also has 3-5 independent and anonymous sources, drawn from the common Q source, which Joseph Smith doesn’t have.

Come to think about this strange argument (that I’ve never read from a Christian theologian), with the Jeezus miracle stories clearly coming from these mysterious and curious onlookers, wouldn’t that make it 30-40 independent sources?

I know it's all tongue-in-cheek, but...

Since we don't know where a writer got his source material for a story we get to just make up any scenario we want to and pretend like that's the one that happened, then use that scenario to bolster claims that the story is about actual events. I just don't know how it can get any lamer than that.

To claim that GMatt, GLuke and GJohn are independent witnesses supplementing GMark even though they clearly do not appear on the scene for decades following GMark is laughable.

Then you add his (5) where he keeps implying that the authentic Pauline epistles also corroborate this miracle ministry of his magic Jew.

But here's the kicker: the Pauline epistles never mention a single one of those miracles, nor do they chronicle any of the other activities this man did. Then, in a supreme display of chutzpah, Lumpenproletariat turns around and claims that the adversarial mentioning of miracles worked by Simon the Sorcerer in "Acts" are not corroboration that Simon was a miracle worker. Why? Because they don't specifically mention a specific miracle worked by Simon. This is hypocritical at best. To me it is a clear indication of the effects of confirmation bias. Lumpenproletariat must work hard to draw unwarranted attention to criteria that he thinks bolsters his claims, then downplay nearly identical evidence when it harms his position. It clearly demonstrates just how vacuous his claims are.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Are ALL historical facts really based on one "logical fallacy" or another?

Lumpenproletariat's arguments use a combination of bandwagon fallacy, . . .

bandwagon: everyone believes it so it must be true.

It is normal to grant greater credibility to reports if there are extra sources for the same report, or indications that those who believe the report are a large number rather than a small number.

The basic bandwagon fallacy, or Argmentum ad populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum , applies only to claims of certainty or PROOF of one's claim. However, if the appeal to popular acceptance of the belief is only used as further evidence of the truth, without claiming certainty, then it is a legitimate basis for belief, or increased credibility, or higher likelihood of truth, for the claim being made.

So this "bandwagon" argument is not a fallacy but is legitimate for indicating a higher level of credibility of the Jesus miracle acts as opposed to some other miracle claims, such as for Hanina ben dosa, contemporary of Jesus and yet for whom there is no recorded evidence of his miracle acts until at least 150 years later, in Talmud sources from 200 AD and later.

We clearly have written accounts of the Jesus miracle acts within 30-50 years of the reputed events, and it's clear that a new explosion of fictitious miracle stories began soon after, from about 100 AD and later. So clearly the later explosion of miracle stories indicates the increasing belief in such stories after 100 AD, while much earlier the Jesus stories appeared abruptly and obviously became popular much nearer to the time of the alleged events, and not as part of some new explosion of such stories. What made these early Jesus miracle stories spread so fast, while those of his contemporary Hanina ben dosa don't appear until after 200?

And a similar comparison applies to the other miracle-worker legends appearing after the gospel accounts about Jesus. And the early Jesus stories are obviously copied by the later fictitious accounts, for which a popularity begins appearing in the later centuries but for which there is no indication of any belief or popularity near to the time the events allegedly happened.

If no one really believed those stories -- of Simon Magus, or Hanina ben dosa, or Apollonius of Tyana -- near to the time they allegedly happened, but only centuries later, while we have evidence of the Jesus miracle events from multiple accounts within the first century, and the new religion, or Christ cult(s) spreading the word of him and pronouncing him a deity or Messiah, etc., this indicates that there were vast numbers who believed these reports, long before 100 AD, some writing it down, so there are multiple accounts, some which were copied and spread throughout the region.

Whereas for Apollonius of Tyana there is no account of any miracle he allegedly did until after 200 AD. Doesn't this add credibility to the Jesus miracle claims by comparison? with such a vast number of those spreading these claims within such a short time span after it allegedly happened? while for Apollonius there is total silence until after 200 AD?

Even if you dismiss all miracle claims as fiction, based on the premise that there can be no such events, don't you have to admit that in the case of Jesus there is a greater element of credibility, i.e., of likelihood -- not PROOF -- but of a higher probability of it being true than in the case of Apollonius? Doesn't the Jesus case cast some extra doubt on the premise that there can be no such event, because of this extra evidence, in comparison to the lack of evidence for the case of Apollonius?

If such extra evidence is so easy to appear, because "people make up shit," then why isn't there any other example of a case which is documented so early after the date of the alleged event(s)?

For normal historical events -- those routinely believed -- a greater amount of written evidence or attestation to the event, claiming it happened, increases the possibility that it did actually happen and reduces the doubt, even if one still does doubt. That much greater numbers believed it or wrote about it or attested to it undermines the doubt and undermines the premise that such an event could not have happened.

. . . sharpshooter fallacy, . . .

An archer shoots the arrow anywhere, then wherever it hits he draws a target around that point and declares "Bullseye!" -- Sneaky.

This seems to mean false correlations, or correlations which really prove nothing but are just coincidental, and one can always find apparent correlations in anything. One first looks for and identifies some kind of "correlation" (which can always be found) and then insists that this correlation is somehow proof of one's belief, but without knowing at the outset what the correlation would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

But to prove that this fallacy has been committed you have to show how the same kind of false correlation could also be used to prove a contradictory conclusion, or a competing theory/scenario. If you cannot demonstrate that the same arguing process leads to that contrary conclusion, then you've not shown that this fallacy was committed. E.g., you have to shoot another arrow randomly, then paint a target where that arrow struck and declare, "See, this is the real Bullseye," or "this Bullseye is just as legitimate as that one."

I.e., one must show that any miracle-worker legend taken at random can be shown to be just as credible as the Jesus miracle-worker legend, based on the evidence. It should be possible to use ANY miracle-worker legend to make this point, thus showing that the Jesus legend has no more credibility than any of the others.

And yet, those making this argument keep using Joseph Smith as the only example of a miracle-worker analogous to the Jesus case, rather than citing other examples for which an equally strong case should be possible. They keep seizing on the Joseph Smith example (only because of the widespread publishing in modern times and thus the accounts from eye witnesses who were all his direct disciples, copying the Jesus miracle stories and pretending to make their Prophet equally credible to the Jesus case).

But this makes it clear that it's not a "sharpshooter" fallacy taking place here, but rather a real example of a possible higher degree of evidence, and the real question is on the amount of evidence or the quality of the evidence, and not about any logical fallacy.

For it to be a "sharpshooter" fallacy, you have to show that there is equal evidence for ANY claimed miracle legend. You have to prove that there is equal evidence for St. George or Perseus or Hercules or Sai Baba or Zoroaster and so on, because the same kind of reasoning would lead to the same conclusion that this one hero alone is clearly the only true Real McCoy miracle-worker far out-shining all the others.

So, shoot your Perseus arrow, e.g., and draw your bulls-eye to show how this logic proves that Perseus is the real superhuman hero. Or Simon Magus or Bacchus or Horus etc. -- the same argument works equally well for all of them, if this is really a "sharpshooter" fallacy.

. . . false dilemma fallacy . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma or the false dichotomy -- it's either this or that. Black and white, you must choose A or B, no in-between, choose one and reject the other.

Here's the closest to a hard choice: EITHER Jesus had superhuman power, a life-giving power, which he demonstrated in the miracle acts -- OR you have to assume he is the only miracle hero fiction character which cannot be explained as a product of normal mythologizing.

I.e., we can explain how all other miracle myth heroes were produced or popularized through the normal mythologizing process, but this one case alone, Jesus of Galilee/Judea in about 30 AD, stands out as the only one which cannot be explained, i.e., which originated somehow without the help of the normal mythologizing process which explains ALL the other known miracle myth heroes.

I.e., we have one miracle myth hero for which there is no explanation as to the origin of the legend or fictional account, and ONLY this one, so that the origin of this legend is either unknown, or the origin is simply that the miracle events described in the gospel accounts actually did happen.

So either there is no explanation known, or the explanation is that the miracle events really happened. Take your pick -- one or the other -- either this or that.

Saying we don't know the explanation is not unreasonable. Much is not known. There might still be an explanation which is unknown. Is it so difficult to just say that in this one case we cannot explain the origin of the miracle myth legend, whereas we can recognize the origin in all the other cases? i.e., in EACH case taken one by one?

And it's no explanation to just bellow, "Aw, people make shit up!" This outburst simply obliterates every miracle claim per se with no explanation or further elaboration on how this particular miracle story originated and was believed. But we can take each one individually and explain it as a product of normal mythologizing. -- i.e., there were several generations which passed during which the myths developed, or the hero figure had been a famous celebrity, etc.

So the explanation has to say something specific about the individual case, not something that applies to every imaginable example of a miracle claim. Is this a "false dilemma" fallacy? What is fallacious about this dichotomy?

. . . and a sprinkling of baseless assertion.

The most important assertions are that the gospel accounts and Paul epistles were written from 30 to 70 years after the alleged events, while there were no other cases of miracle events recorded in more than one document less than 100 years after the alleged events, and the closest to any exception might be an occasional celebrity figure who was famous enough to be popularized early and benefit from his widespread reputation after a long colorful career, i.e., becoming a "legend in his own time" which led to him being credited with a supernatural act of some kind.

If this assertion is true, then we have the Jesus case as the only one which cannot be explained as a product of normal mythologizing.

What's another example of a mythic miracle legend which cannot be explained as a product of normal mythologizing? "Normal" = the mythic hero, if he began as a real person, was a popular celebrity in his time who did something of distinction, and/or there was a long period of time or many generations during which the myths evolved.

Isn't this how legends emerge? The real person was someone special and widely recognized, and/or it required many generations for the legend to acquire the miracle or superhuman element.

A great deal of the walls of text have to do with painting a bulls-eye around his favorite fairy tale that excludes all the other similar tales, . . .

But what similar bulls-eye could just as easily be painted around any other "fairy tale" example of a miracle-worker hero? Presumably if this fallacy is at work, then the same trick can be played of painting the bulls-eye around any of the "fairy tale" heroes. So take any other example and paint the bulls-eye around it in order to show how this is fallacious.

. . . along with rationalizing evidence that doesn't fit his intended conclusion.

Many comparisons have been made. One recent post about Jesus-like miracle-worker parallels gave Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben dosa as examples of other miracle-workers who are supposed to be just as credible as the Jesus case. My "rationalizing evidence" is that the only evidence we have for these cases are from at least 150 years after the alleged events happened, so that there was a long time for normal mythologizing to take place, as we see it in many other examples, whereas for the Jesus case the time span was much too short for this to be the explanation. How does this not support the intended conclusion that the evidence for the Jesus miracles is more credible?

Where is the evidence that the Jesus case is in the same category as all these other examples and can be explained just as easily as they can be? Where is the evidence for the Perseus and Asclepius and Hercules miracles which makes those legends just as credible as the Jesus legend for which we have evidence in multiple sources dated within 30-70 years after the alleged events? How does the shorter time span from the events to the reports about them not fit the intended conclusion that these reported events are more credible?

What explanation is there, other than the knee-jerk emotional outburst, "Aw people fuckin' make up shit! . . . . etc."? You can do better than this to explain the origin of the Simon Magus and Perseus etc. legends. You can say there was a long time in which the stories could evolve. We see the mythologizing process at work in these other cases, because of particular facts about them. But for the Jesus case, all you can come up with is "Aw, people make up shit!" Why is this the only example where you have to fall back on this slogan?

The short version is that Jeezus is the only one true god-man because his story is the only one that is really popular that is . . .

No, get the chronology correct -- "his story" is the only one that WAS popular near to the time the events happened. Popularity 500+ years later is irrelevant. So, within 50 years or so after the alleged events we have multiple reports of them, which was not so in the other cases.

. . . the only one . . . built around a hero who was so obscure during his lifetime that he went completely unnoticed by contemporary historians, yet made such a big splash with his miracles that everyone over a 1500 mile radius knew he was for real.

His local reputation could have spread beyond just Galilee and Judea (not "a 1500 mile radius") during his time without any notice from mainline historians, as 99.9999999% of humans were ignored by them, while this case finally became noticed as the oral and written reports increased and were copied.

All this fits exactly with what we have. He had to have done something highly irregular to have received the attention eventually paid to him in the written accounts. The irregularity and impact of it resulted in the reports being spread further and being written and copied. The actual occurrence of the miracle events explains everything perfectly, whereas if it is fiction, there is no explanation yet that fits these facts or this written evidence that has been transmitted to later generations.

That we know anything whatever of this 1st-century person, whose public career was only 3 years at most, requires that something extremely irregular must have happened in this case.

He's unlike Joseph Smith because his own disciples weren't the ones telling about miracles he worked but instead it was completely anonymous onlookers that did so.

In addition to this, we can easily explain the Smith miracle stories as copycat stories patterned after the Jesus healing stories. This is another factor which enables the mythologizing process, where the guru falls back on a longstanding earlier religious tradition as a basis for his acts, which adds credibility and persuades the disciples.

This can be seen as part of the mythologizing process with many miracle myth heroes, explaining how the stories were believed and the legend could get started. Unlike the Jesus example where there is no earlier religious healer whose name he invoked to support his claim to power.

Also Joseph Smith had a printing press to work with, . . .

No, there were thousands of publishers printing stories in one form or another, making Joseph Smith into a widely-known and notorious public figure and propagating his radical claims, while if he had been a 1st-century figure, nothing would have been published and today there'd be no record of him whatever. In fact there probably were some "Joseph Smiths" running around back then.

. . . which everyone knows you had to have a printing press before folks could make up stories.

No, millions of folks made up stories, but today's widespread publishing industry made it possible to propagate one's stories in a way that was impossible a few centuries earlier. (You're not too dumb to figure this out.)

So either Jesus worked all these miracles for real or he's the only obscure person anyone ever made up miracle stories about within decades of his disappearance.

Close, but not just "made up miracle stories about . . ." etc., but also recruited converts who believed the stories. If the stories had been invented by the storyteller and were not real events, then the number of believers would be vastly smaller. I.e., there's no way to explain how so many came to believe the stories in such a short time if they were simply invented. It's because they were credible that more believed them. The reports must have come from enough different directions, from different persons or witnesses, that people became convinced, unlike in all the other cases where such stories were summarily dismissed, or received only a lukewarm response.

And even though there is absolutely not one whit of physical evidence he ever actually existed . . .

That's the case for virtually every person who lived before 1000 or 1500 AD. There's virtually no "physical evidence" that any such person you can name actually existed. (You might claim a dozen or so such persons, depending on the meaning of "one whit of physical evidence.")

. . . we can be certain he existed for the exact same reasons we can be certain that George Washington existed.

No, this kind of exaggeration is totally unnecessary.

There are easily thousands of historical figures -- maybe millions -- for whom there is less evidence than we have for the existence of Jesus Christ. I.e., historical figures who are routinely believed to have existed because they are mentioned in written accounts.

Oh, and being skeptical of miracles means you're just being dogmatic.

No it's NOT being skeptical that is dogmatic. Skepticism or doubt is a legitimate part of believing. The dogmatic premise that miracle events cannot have ever happened and must be ruled out despite any evidence is based on dogmatism, not skepticism.

Being skeptical means leaving open the possibility that some miracle events may have happened, which leaves open the possibility of believing in Christ, or the possibility that the miracle stories could be true and that he had power.

The insistence that science has disproved miracles, or has proved them to be impossible, and that such events can never happen is based on dogmatism and a rejection of skepticism, which leaves open the possibility by acknowledging that we don't know for sure.

Jeezus also has 3-5 independent and anonymous sources, drawn from the common Q source, which Joseph Smith doesn’t have. . . . with the Jeezus miracle stories clearly coming from these mysterious and curious onlookers, wouldn’t that make it 30-40 independent sources?

The "sources" as our evidence refers to the documents we have today, i.e., OUR sources. But these in turn drew upon earlier "sources."

The origin of the stories was earlier than the eventual writers/editors who provided the N.T. accounts. The gospel writers and Paul did not make up the stories but got them from earlier reports. If they were "made up," it had to be by someone earlier than the final writers of the accounts we now have.

 

[Keith&Co.]

bandwagon: everyone believes it so it must be true.

It is normal to grant greater credibility to reports if there are extra sources for the same report,

Yes, but you insist on fucking that up, over and over and over and over, Lumpy.

or indications that those who believe the report are a large number rather than a small number.

No. No, argument from popularity is a fallacy.
You're wrong, Lumpy. You fucked it up again.

 

[funinspace]

INCONCEIVABLE

Jeezus also has 3-5 independent and anonymous sources, drawn from the common Q source, which Joseph Smith doesn’t have. . . . with the Jeezus miracle stories clearly coming from these mysterious and curious onlookers, wouldn’t that make it 30-40 independent sources?

The "sources" as our evidence refers to the documents we have today, i.e., OUR sources. But these in turn drew upon earlier "sources."

The origin of the stories was earlier than the eventual writers/editors who provided the N.T. accounts. The gospel writers and Paul did not make up the stories but got them from earlier reports. If they were "made up," it had to be by someone earlier than the final writers of the accounts we now have.

Well you seem to think that the miracle stories "clearly" come from these curious onlookers. If the stories actually were "clearly" sourced from these curious onlookers, instead of "assumed by you" to have come from them, then they would clearly be independent sources. However, it has become clear that you have formed a rather unique and custom definition of the word "clearly".

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is normal to grant greater credibility to reports if there are extra sources for the same report, or indications that those who believe the report are a large number rather than a small number.

Lumpy, if MOST (the greater or larger number) biblical historians accept that three of the gospels are copies out of a fourth, thus are NOT independent sources, then according to you, it should be normal to accept that view rather than insist they're all fully independent, right?
That's the logic you're espousing here, if not actually demonstrating.

How do you reconcile this problem, where you want to hold to the less-accepted view as historical, but also want the popularity of the Jesus myth to be directly proportional to its historicity?



For another point to consider, when historians started to look into the story about George Washington and the cherry tree, they went looking for historical corroboration. They wanted the records that were used by the original biographer who first told the story. They didn't find it, and they began to discount the legend.

At no point did the actual historians consider the number of people who believed the story as having any damned thing to do with the truth of the legend, did they?

You continue to tell fibs about how history works, and you change your criteria as necessary to match your desired outcomes. That's not good scholarship in general, much less good historical analysis.

Why do you continue at this?

No one accepts your assertions, no one believes your justifications, and you've gone to great lengths to make sure no one confuses you with a historian. What are you flogging this dead horse FOR at this point?

 

[Smoker]

No one accepts your assertions, no one believes your justifications, and you've gone to great lengths to make sure no one confuses you with a historian. What are you flogging this dead horse FOR at this point?

Lump is probably still subconsciously afraid of burning in hell for eternity. That's why he or she keeps doing this. If I thought that god actually existed, I would be afraid of hell too. Eternal torture is the most evil idea I've ever heard.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All Christian writers have greatly ignored the Jesus miracles (except the resurrection).

Another exception: the virgin birth, which is mentioned 100 times as much as the healing acts of Jesus. (rough estimate, probably more than 100)

Most of the Christian writers neglected the miracles of Jesus even though they knew of them. This is a pattern outside the gospel accounts. Nevertheless, the writers knew of the miracle events and gave rare mention to them. The sayings are always given far more prominence, from the 1st century up to the present. Paul follows that pattern. It doesn't mean he was unaware of the miracle accounts.

It does mean you cannot SHOW that he knew of the miracle accounts...

Or that he knew anything of the existence of Jesus before the night of the arrest, all of which he says nothing about.

Likewise we can't show that he knew anything of John the Baptist, or Pontius Pilate, or Herod Antipas, or Tiberias etc. . . . or camels, . . etc. etc.

-- Whatever Paul didn't mention in his writings he must not have known about ??

How is it possible that Paul knew nothing about Jesus except that he was "handed over" and was crucified and rose again? that there was nothing to Jesus other than this "handed over" event followed by the crucifixion and resurrection? What kind of entity is it who does nothing in life except get arrested ("handed over") and killed by earthly rulers but prior to this does nothing or has no existence or history of any kind? How could Paul have believed in a character who was arrested and killed but had no existence prior to being arrested? How does that work?

But go ahead, make shit up if it makes you feel any more comfortable.

No, I'll leave the making up shit to you since you're so much better at it than I am.

Like your claim that gnostic gospels were confiscated by Constantine's bookburning squads, or your history seminar on the Council of Nicea and its earth-shattering John the Baptist debate:

Part of the discussion at the Council of Nicaea was to identify which prophet was the actual Christ. One of the sects that participated insisted that John the Baptist was the messiah. They did not have enough votes to swing the Articles of Faith to their belief, though. . . . History does not support your claims.

No, not the "history" you're spinning here, about the Jesus delegates at Nicea winning the vote by outmaneuvering the angry John delegates who went on a rampage -- the fiery speeches inside the covention hall, the John delegates protesting and disrupting the speeches, getting beat up by thugs from the Jesus camp, the commotion spilling out onto the streets of Nicea, the rioting John demonstrators fistfighting and clashing with police, jumping up and down on police vehicles and blocking traffic and being tear-gassed, and cops on camels shoving them back and trampling them as they tried to scramble out of the way --

No, when it comes to making up shit, you're the expert here.