120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was Jesus only one of several mythic miracle folk-heroes? Who were the others? What's the evidence?

(continued from previous wall of text)

But if it's so easy to make up the shit and people slurp it up so easily, then why is this one case, Jesus the Galilean healer, the only case, prior to the invention of printing, where we have written accounts of miracle stories, from multiple sources, appearing in less than 50 years later than the reported events happened?

Why don't we have many more such cases? Why are all the miracle stories from one source only, or from sources several centuries later? Why no others that have multiple separate sources?

Why should we have more cases?

Because the same factors which produced the Jesus case should also produce many others. There obviously were thousands, even millions, of charlatans or claimed miracle heroes or would-be superhuman folk heroes of one kind or another -- and not only in modern times, but 1000+ years ago. Why should the secret formula which produced the Jesus legend happen only once? None of the others could figure out how to pull this off and make their cult famous by producing a similar miracle legend?

You have yourself admitted that miracle claims don’t make a god.

The claims might be false, and are in most cases. But if there's the same evidence for them that we have for other historical events, then we have to take them more seriously. For the Jesus miracles, we have more evidence than necessary -- more than we have for much of the history which we take for granted.

The claims cannot be discounted if they are numerous enough and come from multiple sources near to the time of the alleged events, which is not so for all the ancient miracle legends except this one case only.

Again, the multiple sources is your faith, not fact.

Yes, ALL sources for any historical events are "faith, not fact." It's reasonable to believe those events and the sources for them. We don't need to toss out ALL sources for history and reject all historical facts just because you call them "faith, not fact."

If such miracle stories could easily be invented and foisted upon a gullible public, we should have dozens of Jesus-like saviors or heroes through this historical period which are documented with more than one source. We should have many other Jesus-type cases or Benny Hinns for which there are multiple sources near to the reported events.

We have none of this in the 1 or 2 centuries prior to Jesus. But then it begins with the Jesus miracles, 20 or 30 or 40 years after him, then there is a pause, and then there's an explosion of such stories after 100 AD. How do you explain this?

Again, you are the one making this random requirement of the gods, not I.

"making this random requirement"? Whoever accused you of doing this should apologize to you for hurting your feelings.

So then let's agree that "the gods" -- Horus and Perseus and Mithras, etc. -- did not really do miracle acts, as the myths relate, because there is no evidence for this, and so it's inappropriate to randomly require them to do something they could not do. And having settled that, we can direct our attention to the miracle acts of Jesus, for which there is evidence.

Where is this requirement in the Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist that says real gods have to perform parlor tricks?

But we've agreed that the "real gods" did NOT really do miracle acts, because those stories are a product of a mythologizing process happening over many centuries in which fictional stories emerged, and so any list of "requirements" for them to do such things is meaningless.

The point about the gullibility of people, is not that they buy into miracles, but they buy into all sorts of BS.

No they don't. Most people, the vast majority, don't "buy into" any of it unless there is some evidence. They do not believe in instant miracle-worker charlatans who suddenly pop up out of nowhere.

Cases where people believe "all sorts of BS" are explained by the fact that a charismatic figure or popular hero impresses them over a long period of time, or develops a wide reputation over a long period and gains celebrity status, and especially a figure who evolves over CENTURIES of tradition, and it's this long-established miracle tradition which large numbers of people believe, but not an instant miracle-worker who cons them with his charisma "BS" and has no established tradition to support him. People generally do NOT "buy into" that kind of BS.

Again, your premise that most people are brainless idiots who believe any con-artist who comes along is simply false. Just because there's a very tiny number of such idiots does not mean that people generally fit this description.

The list is virtually endless, but I’ll give you a few samples: Heaven's Gate; Islam; LDS; UFOs; Peoples Temple; Yahweh’s floody, the exodus, and his day the earth stood still; Scientology; The Creativity Movement; Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth; Nation of Yahweh; The Church of All Worlds; Universe people; random healing miracles, The Prince Philip Movement; Nuwaubianism; ad nauseum…

And the overwhelming majority of people do not believe these, or do not believe miracle claims without evidence, except cases of some miracles which are part of an ancient tradition. People do believe in miracle traditions which were passed on from centuries earlier. But not in instant miracle fads, which are rejected as nonsense by virtually everyone -- only a tiny number believe the latest charlatan miracle claims. Less than 1%. Less than 1/10 of 1%.

There has to be an object to begin with who attracts this mythologizing process. Where did this object come from? He can't just pop up out of nowhere.

Actually scientists have demonstrated that BS can materialize out of thin air…

No they have not. Not BS that attracts large numbers of believers.

A wish (aka “has to be”) is not a requirement.

Your incoherent use of the word "requirement" gets lost in the shuffle.

Let's say the "BS" has to be accepted by at least 1% of those who are exposed to it. Maybe even .1%. Some significant number then indicates a certain level of gullibility among people generally. Any comparable BS on the internet today is probably rejected by 99.99% of viewers. And the same was true 2000 years ago. The vast majority do not fall in line behind an instant charismatic figure who had nothing other than his charisma.

I have no problem with there being an initial object that got the “mythologizing process” going. My problem is that you want the mythos to only begin after your sacred miracles are accepted as facts, as you find this the easiest thing to believe.

This is the best explanation in the case of Jesus. How else did the mythologizing process begin? What was the initial Jesus object to whom the fiction stories could be attached? Why to him? Why not to any of several other attractive figures, like John the Baptist, e.g.? What was that initial Jesus object they got attached to? He was not a famous figure in 30 AD (unless the miracle accounts of him are true).

Again a lot more wishing… John the Baptist got his own cult following, but it just took a different path, just as so many of the other 173,139 religions took their own path.

Being credited with miracle acts is not just a "different path" among many random paths a mythic figure or cult could take. It is common for famous gurus to be credited with miracles.

You have no answer why miracle acts were not also attributed to other hero figures in documents near to when they lived, who had equal status with Jesus to become an object of mythologizing, and as several did become mythologized over a long period, in some cases after a long career of impressing their disciples and becoming a famous celebrity, or in most cases over many generations or centuries after their time.

The best explanation is simply that in the case of Jesus the miracle stories are actually true. You can't explain why we have a record of these acts in his case ONLY and not in any other cases. You can't explain why there was no other cult or religion or miracle mythic tradition etc. where a contemporary written record of the acts exists.

There were easily thousands of hero figures of one kind or another to whom miracle stories could have become attached and written accounts left for us, and yet no one saw fit to write them and copy them and provide such a record. The only explanation that makes any sense is that in this case the miracle acts really happened. That explains why we have written accounts in this case only.

Some borrow more than others, some less...

ALL of the successful cases were ones who were entrenched in a well-established religious miracle tradition dating from centuries earlier. All faith-healer cults of any wide repute (since the first century AD) are patterned after the Jesus healing miracle stories.

The pagan healing cults were all entrenched in a centuries-old religious tradition going back to ancient healing gods 1000+ years earlier. No miracle healing stories exist which were not based on an ancient healing god, borrowing from the ancient god-myth, performing the acts in the name of that ancient god. The case of Jesus being the only exception.

I see no reason for the mythos to start much earlier, . . .

Even if the Jesus stories are fiction, they must have started emerging by the 50s AD. At least the resurrection stories, and the healing stories by 60 AD at latest.

Yeah, the kernel of the mythos seems to have begun with the Jesus human-god resurrection narrative, probably in the late 40’s or early 50’s, so what?

So, in this case there's reason to believe that the reported miracle events really happened.

It's the only case where the stories were circulating so soon after the alleged events happened. It's difficult to explain how the stories emerged and circulated so quickly if the events did not happen. A LONG time lapse from when the hero lived until the first published reports of his alleged miracles generally explains how the mythologizing happened.

There is the odd exception of the Vespasian story of a miracle healing reported about 50-60 years later. But there's virtually no case where the mythologizing happened so soon (before modern publishing), less than 100 years after the alleged event(s).


(end of current wall of text, to be followed by another)

 

[DBT]

The Major Evidence: Apollonius, Peregrinus, and Alexander

''Apollonius, Peregrinus, and Alexander are three rather interesting religious founders about whom we know even more than we do of Jesus. The first, Apollonius of Tyana, is often called the "pagan Christ," since he also lived during the first century, and performed a similar ministry of miracle-working, preaching his own brand of ascetic Pythagoreanism--he was also viewed as the son of a god, resurrected the dead, ascended to heaven, performed various miracles, and criticized the authorities with pithy wisdom much like Jesus did.

Naturally, his story is one that no doubt grew into more and more fantastic legends over time, until he becomes an even more impressive miracle-worker than Jesus in the largest surviving work on him, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written by Philostratus around 220 A.D. This work is available today in two volumes as part of the Loeb Classical Library, published by Harvard University Press, a set that also includes the surviving fragments of Apollonius' own writings (if only Jesus had bothered to write something!) as well as the Treatise against him by the Christian historian Eusebius. There were other books written about him immediately after his death, but none survive.

Even Eusebius, in his Treatise against Apollonius, does not question his existence, or the reality of many of his miracles--rather, he usually tries to attribute them to trickery or demons. This shows the credulity of the times, even among educated defenders of the Christian faith, but it also shows how easy it was to deceive. Since they readily believed in demons and magical powers, it should not surprise us that they believed in resurrections and transmutations of water to wine.

We also know that the cult that grew up around Apollonius survived for many centuries after his death. An inscription from as late as the 3rd century names him as a sort of pagan "absolver of sins," sent from heaven (Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1996). The emperor Caracalla erected a shrine to him in Tyana around 215 A.D (Dio Cassius, 78.18; for a miraculous display of clairvoyance on the part of Apollonius, see 67.18). According to one account, the ghost of Apollonius even appeared to the emperor Aurelian to convince him to stop his siege of Tyana, whereupon he also erected a shrine to him around 274 A.D. (Historia Augusta: Vita Aureliani 24.2-6).''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was Jesus only one of several mythic miracle folk-heroes? Who were the others? What's the evidence?

(continued from previous wall of text)

So what was the mythic hero figure in 50 or 40 AD to which the mythologizing took place? Why did they make Jesus into this god figure for attaching miracle stories to? You cannot find any mythic hero in the historical record who became transformed into a god in such a short time. The best explanation is that the mythic hero in this case . . . already was recognized as a powerful miracle-worker at that early point. That must be what really got him started.

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat…. Several whole gods, with their own special holy books, have appeared in one human lifetime and have already been mentioned.

The only examples you can offer are modern cult figures/charismatics, who have the advantage of widespread publishing to promote themselves. So yes, there's widespread publicity, but none of them is believed except by a tiny percent of those who hear of them -- probably less than .01%.

And it's only their direct disciples who claim they did any miracles. In all the reported healings, the victims healed are ALL direct disciples of the guru, and it's only direct disciples who report the miracle acts. This gives us good reason to doubt the stories, because the only ones reporting them are disciples who had been strongly impacted by the guru's charisma and who want to promote the guru.

You keep wanting to require god(s) to only partake from your random special requirements from this mysterious Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist, why?

They are not "random" requirements, but rather are facts which explain how the mythologizing took place, because myth-making did not take place at the whim of one person or a small clique who decided to invent an instant miracle-worker.


APOLLONIUS OF TYANA -- Obvious case of normal mythologizing

• Celebrity Status: He had a very long and outstanding career and was popular in his lifetime, widely recognized as a normal but talented person of distinction; and
  
• Long Time-Gap from event to first written report: The earliest reports of any miracles do not appear in the record until about 150 years AFTER his life, illustrating again the point that fictional miracle stories could evolve around a popular hero figure over many generations, BUT NOT IN ONLY 40 or 50 or 60 YEARS.

These mythologizing elements occur again and again and are not "random requirements" but are obviously necessary conditions which lead to normal mythologizing which we see repeatedly in all the examples of miracle myth heroes. (Jesus Christ being the only exception.)

It's not true that miracle myth heroes could be invented instantly and become published and widely believed. Rather, there were conditions which led to certain historical figures becoming mythologized, and it's only when these conditions were present that such mythologizing took place.

If this is not so, and there were instant miracle myth heroes, then name an example. The actual examples from history are what dictate what the conditions were which led to the myth-making. And there are no cases, at least prior to modern printing/publishing, of any instant miracle-myth hero figures, where the legends were being written and copied and published within only 1 or 2 generations from when the events allegedly happened.

And the original historical person who became mythologized was always a famous public figure who was recognized for something of distinction, not an unknown or obscure figure such as Jesus was in 30 AD. These are facts about mythologized hero figures, not "random" requirements.

Joseph Smith is such an interesting example, partly because it happened not during some ancient fuzzy period and place from which we have so few records.

There are many modern similar examples which were able to promote themselves with the help of modern publishing. And with today's internet the ease of mass promotion is even greater, and there are better examples than Joseph Smith.

What is impossible to explain is how the Jesus legend got published and spread so quickly in a period when there was no such widespread publishing. There are no other examples of a miracle myth hero from 2000 or even 1000 or 500 years ago who was recorded in documents and published. Why is there no other case of this, if it's true that there were lots of other messiahs running around, and people were gullible and would believe anything? Why did they invent ONLY ONE such miracle myth hero and not dozens or hundreds?

Further, Joseph Smith's status as a prophet was based entirely on the centuries-old Jesus Christ tradition, including the miracle claims which are all patterned after the Jesus miracles. Any successful acclaimed miracle prophet was possible only by being entrenched into a previous long-established religious tradition in whose name the prophet performs his wonders before a believing audience. This is another "requirement" for a mythologized hero who manages to gain some kind of superhuman status within his own lifetime.

[LDS] happened in spite of the large supply of 19th century media sources.

No, not "in spite of" but BECAUSE of the vast media sources which publicized him. Without them, he and hundreds of other guru figures would have been totally lost to history. Similar figures like him 1000 years earlier are totally lost and forgotten and omitted from the record.

It happened in spite of great hostility by the communities his new cult tried to establish themselves in.

All new cults face similar hostility, and this hostility generally does as much to help promote the new cult as to hinder it.

It happened in spite of a long history of Christian theological development.

You know better than that. It happened BECAUSE of the long Christian religious tradition going back centuries. Without that earlier tradition, there could never have been any Mormon religion.

And especially without the earlier Jesus miracle stories in the gospel accounts there could never have been any Joseph Smith miracle stories. All the JS miracle stories are copy-cat stories patterned on the Jesus miracles, and ALL his alleged healings were done in the name of Jesus. No one would have believed he did anything miraculous except for his claim that he did it in the name of Christ.

It happened in spite of many people no longer seeing daemons and gods under every rock.

All those who believed him were believers in demons and held the same ideas about these and about God or Jesus casting out demons.

And still this goofy new theology took root, and eventually grew strong.

There was fertile ground for it -- which partly explains it. Many Christians were receptive to Smith's idea that Jesus had made an appearance in the New World to offer salvation to Native Americans. There was 1800 years of Christian tradition leading up to this new version of Christ belief which extended the Jesus Christ narrative further, keeping the earlier beliefs overall but adding some new elements. This is the formula for starting something new -- i.e., you build on something earlier which has credibility and recognition, and then add the new desired elements.

Take this saga back 1800 years in time, squeeze it between the Egyptian pantheon, the Greco-Roman pantheon, and the pantheons of the east.

There are no miracle healing stories in those traditions which have any resemblance to those of Jesus in the gospel accounts. There's virtually nothing in the Jesus narrative, in its early form, which has any resemblance to these earlier traditions. You could just as easily compare the Egyptian and Greco-Roman myth heroes to Siegfried or Hopalong Cassidy or Superman or Sinbad the Sailor. There is no unique similarity between the Jesus Christ figure of 30 AD and those earlier pagan heroes.

Add in foreign-Roman occupation, . . .

But Roman occupation was everywhere, not just in Judea. Why don't we have a Jesus-like miracle hero arising in PERSIA or SYRIA or ASIA MINOR or EGYPT or GAUL, etc., where there was just as much Roman occupation?

. . . a latter rebellion that pissed off the Romans so much that they destroyed the Jewish Temple . . .

But the Romans destroyed hundreds of temples and cities. Why don't we see a Jesus-like miracle hero arising in Carthage and many other places which were destroyed by the Romans?

And all these other places also had their religious traditions and relics, scriptures in some cases, and shrines and temples and other sacred items which they could turn to for inspiration and Power to repel the alien forces of evil or to give them consolation.

. . . and much of Jerusalem along with driving the Jewish diaspora.

That was AFTER the Jesus legend was already developing and the Jesus miracle stories were being published. The cause of the Jesus miracle stories has to be something happening EARLIER than these were being circulated.

And one has a rich and bubbly cauldron, and a virtual blank slate, for creating gods.

But there were DOZENS of such rich and bubbly cauldrons and blank slates for creating gods. Yet ONLY ONE miracle-myth legend emerges from all of them and becomes published and spreads and is believed by large numbers. You've explained nothing here.

Yes, you make my point. We should have many new Jesus-like "gods" emerging here in this bubbly cauldron, and yet there's only one that has made any showing. Only one for whom we have multiple sources, and sources within 50 years after the events.

There are others? Who? Why doesn't anyone name them?

Wish, wash, rinse, repeat…. Lots of gods have already been named.

What? Zeus, Perseus, Horus, Mithras? None of these were published except maybe 1000 years after the hero figure existed, if he existed.

Yes, lots of gods have been named, and in ALL cases there is no evidence for any of their miracle acts, except some tradition 1000+ years old which provided all those centuries for myth-making or legend-building, which is common in the case of a popular hero figure, who may have been a real human folk hero at one time and became popularized and mythologized into something superhuman over all those centuries.

And Apollonius of Tyana? Simon Magus? etc.? In these cases the written reports about the alleged miracles are closer, like only 100 or 200 years after the events. Isn't it interesting that just after the Jesus miracles appear, at around 100 AD and later, we suddenly have this explosion of new miracle stories? Why do they suddenly happen at this time? Even the odd Vespasian story fits this pattern.

"Lots of gods have already been named"? And in all cases there is no real evidence for any of the miracle claims. In all cases the miracle stories are obviously a result of normal mythologizing, evolving over many generations or centuries.

You seem to refuse to leave your Mythological Heroes Official Requirements Checklist mantra swamp to ever notice.

All the examples offered have been debunked several times, as clear cases of normal mythologizing.

And what is your "Requirements checklist"? You're not so stupid as to need me to explain to you how historical figures sometimes got mythologized into something exaggerated or superhuman.

King Arthur, William Tell, Alexander the Great, St. Nicholas, and others. Or maybe Hercules and Perseus were real persons before the written historical record.

You can figure out what factors were at work to cause heroes like these to become changed in later legend. You don't need me to create the requirements "checklist" for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Long Time-Gap from event to first written report: The earliest reports of any miracles do not appear in the record until about 150 years AFTER his life, illustrating again the point that fictional miracle stories could evolve around a popular hero figure over many generations, BUT NOT IN ONLY 40 or 50 or 60 YEARS. .

And there's your failure, Lumpy.
If there's no written record, you have absofuckinglootely no way to show how long it took for the orally-transmitted story to change, or how much it changed in the first 40 or 50 years after the events (if ever there were actual events).

ALL you can do, and all you have done, is assert that it takes a lot of time. But you've given fuck-all for a reason to believe this to be true.

You've certainly never established what prevents anyone from making shit up in a short time period.

So, hey, not accepting your authority on this topic. You just make shit up so your favorite story has more credibility (by your standards) than anything you don't want to believe in.

And as a point against you, the last time you accused me of making shit up, you MADE SHIT UP about what I was saying, to more clearly mock me, by mocking what I was not actually saying.



People make shit up, Lumpy. It's a tenet of historical analysis.

 

[funinspace]

Hey Lumpy, I won't be spending much time around here for a while as I have some complications to deal with. So I thought I would just make a few brief comments.

Your MHORC seems to include a magical decade limit conveniently right below the timespan that most scholars put down for the development of a large portion your particular holy texts. However, there is nothing to support your time limit. In fact it has been shown over and over that mythos can develop within very short periods of time. Also, there is no reason to limit such examples to miracle max workers, that is just your special pleading trying to pigeon hole your faith as the only valid one (aka random puzzle piece).

Your MHORC seems to include your god doing parlor tricks as a pre-requisite for being a valid theology (aka random puzzle piece). Why?

Your MHORC seems to require the miracles to be recorded by someone(s) not currently part of the cult (aka random puzzle piece; which you conveniently leave out the fact that you CLEARLY have no evidence to support that your cult’s parlor tricks weren’t recorded by participating cultists). You simply want them to be that way, so therefore it must be true. It could be true, but that is very different than solid evidence that it is true. Though it is obvious that this is the source for the LDS miracles, ergo your special pleading argument...

Your requirements are not only random, but you also ignore them when you pretend that your version of Christianity fits, as you pick and choose them to make your cult sound somehow more plausible. You have no evidence to show that it wasn’t a “small clique who decided to invent (or embellish a small kernel) an instant miracle-worker”, you just wish it is so.

You conveniently avoid the reality that your miracle worker was written up to believe in all the Tanakh BS; even though you admit that the Deluge, Joshua’s day the sun stood still, the Exodus, et.al. are largely BS. You acknowledge that the miracle birthing narratives are most probably BS. “But hey pay no attention to all that, but believe the miracle max part, cuz I like that part”.

Without the earlier Yahweh tradition, there could have never been the Jesus cult tradition….never mind the various other borrowing that was done during the Jesus construction that has been shown over and over. As you use all sorts of silly excuses to dis the development of the LDS.

I don’t have a special checklist. But I’d say what would be reasonably impressive from a god, would be a holy book that it helped make sure wasn’t chalk full of BS fables, nor had people latter forging changes into it. It would be more impressive if the holy texts were more definitive as to who wrote them and that they actually knew the people they were talking about. Islam has that part going for it, but little else. It would be more impressive still, if it had guidance that clearly couldn’t have possibly have been known in its day. It would also be far more reasonable if so much of the Bible didn't talk in terms of how little goat herders knew. For example, just how far was Jesus supposed to see when Satan took him up to the mountain top, when we are on a spherical planet? And if there had to be parlor tricks, then it would be even more impressive if such an event was noticed by other peoples and written down and preserved. For example, if somehow there was a 24 hour day in Canaan, then it would be fascinating to have the Egyptians writing about it in absolute panic; or maybe the Chinese writing about a night that never seemed to end. At a smaller level, just imagine if Pilate had written back to Rome about a rather odd character, that the Jewish rabbinical leaders insisted had to be executed. Since Rome did keep good records, it certainly wouldn’t have been hard to manage…for a REAL god. Instead we get stories about the purportedly worldly renowned King Solomon cuz he was so damn wise. Yet, the world never seemed to notice. Yahweh did so many massive magic tricks as part of the Exodus, in part, to make sure the Egyptians would know he is the Lord. Yet, all we know is Yahwehwho...

If this purported Christian God of the eternal torment and heaven type, really was interested in helping humans make the right choice, it has certainly done a really shitty job of it. Today, even the percentage of Christians is probably down to 28-30% of the world population. The Christian population probably peaked out around 1900, with roughly 34% of the world population. In 1800, it was only 22% (see below linky)
http://christianityinview.com/religion-statistics.html

Even if we assume that all of Europe was Christian in 1500AD, that would put Christianity only at 18% of the population. And in 1000AD Europe was only 15% of the world population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#By_world_region

So for a god that purported exists and cares about his little ant farm, he sure never did a good job getting the word out...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

REASON #16 -- Did God need a "better game plan" before sending Jesus here to save us?

(16) God has an important message for mankind, but fails to clearly deliver it

So, after waiting 200,000 years after modern humans evolved, God decides to deliver an important message to mankind.

The phrase "200,000 years after modern humans evolved" is meaningless. You could just as easily say "modern humans" evolved 50,000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 500,000 years ago.

Arguably 2000 years ago was just the right time in history, when humans reached the right level of development, and prior to this we hadn't evolved far enough out of the earlier lower level and weren't worth saving yet.

But there's no way to judge the precise ideal time for this and saying God waited too long or not long enough.

All we can do is look for whatever evidence might give us the indication of the "something more" we're seeking -- or some of us are seeking. Whether that evidence exists is what matters, not conjecturing about how long it should have taken God to "deliver his important message" to us.

You would think it is essential that all of the people on earth receive this vital message and that it is clear and unambiguous.

In other words, the "message" should have been delivered in such a way that history would have been disrupted, all humans blasted with a spectacular Revelation to immediately convert them all and slam them into the instant "Kingdom of God" -- this would somehow make more sense than letting history continue playing out.

But what is wrong about the "message" being presented and promulgated by ordinary human communication, even though there's some "ambiguity" or it falls short as far as reaching 100% of the targeted audience? The choice to use normal human communicating methods could easily be a necessary part of the plan.

Maybe something vital is lost by having the message delivered by a Booming Voice into everyone's ear simultaneously and a Giant Fist pounding down everyone who doesn't immediately submit.

Human communication is a marvelous phenomenon in the universe, on a higher plane than other phenomena. Something important about the "message" could easily be lost if it's not transmitted by means of human language, even though this involves an "ambiguity" element and requires a time span for the "message" to travel.

Let’s see how that worked out:

Jesus is sent to the earth, but he only interacts with a small tribe of Jews in the Middle East, leaving Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, North America, and South America in the dark.

But how should he have interacted differently with humans? Was the geographical location chosen the wrong one? Or should the interactions with humans have taken place in several different locations simultaneously? Should there instead have been some series of events which would have synchronized to each other in some mystical "harmonic convergence" of some kind?

However you tinker with the schedule of the interactions with humans, it changes the nature of the interaction and so might nullify the basic point of the interactions.

The Jesus Event which the gospel accounts present assumes a one-time one-place Event of some great importance which is relevant to everyone everywhere, and it's important for this to be reported as far as possible and to as many as possible, and this does assume some limits as to time and distance. What is fundamentally wrong about such an Event, or about God choosing to interact with humans by means of such an Event?

The message of Jesus doesn’t even reach all of these continents until 1500 years later.

Aren't there many "messages" or truths which don't reach to everyone everywhere? or which take a long time to arrive at some places? including some that are important? There may be a reason why the "message of Jesus" has to be this kind of message. A message which has to be spread through normal human communication is an important kind of message, probably on a higher order than the kind of "message" which is infused into us directly without human interaction.

If we say "God has an important message for mankind," this doesn't have to mean something God injects into us directly from nature or from a spiritual source separate from human communication. This "important message" could very well be something that is expressed and distributed to us by means of human language, which is a very high-order phenomenon in the universe.

This "message" doesn't have to be one which is equally spread everywhere so everyone has an exactly equal access to it. There is a chance element in finding it. The "Kingdom of God" is described in Mt. 13 as something which one acquires partly from luck, by "finding" it, and it's something which one might miss:

44 The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

There's no reason why the "important message" would not be one which spreads through human effort, making it something to search for or to stumble upon if you're lucky and which you may or may not find.

We can't judge whether the "message" should have been this or that kind, which might spread slowly or quickly, or would reach a certain quota of destinations or a certain required number of recipients.

The "message" is inherently something which does not get to people until the communicating process extends out and reaches them, and even new technology becomes an agent to improve the process, speeding it up so it can reach a larger number.

The obstacle, or hindrance, or space/time through which the "message" must spread is an inherent barrier that is part of the process. If this barrier is eliminated by a cosmic power and every human is instantly confronted with the "message" by some direct psychic or mystical encounter, this negates an essential element of the "message" such that there really IS no "message" or any substance to it.

The process of the "message" traveling over some space/time barrier is actually part of the essence of the "message" or is contained in the substance of it, as with much of the truth that we acquire. This truth is something separate from us, entering us from the outside. That truth exists whether we individually exist or not, and we can make contact with it, or maybe not. And reaching such truth, contacting it, upgrades our life or puts us on a higher plane.


Why can't God's "important message" to us take the same form as normal human knowledge?

This is simply what much of our knowledge is. It's not something already inherent within us, that we spin out from ourselves and which outside communication has no inherent connection to. Rather, the outside communication constitutes an inherent part of the knowledge by playing a necessary role in bringing our mind into contact with the "message" or truth as we take it in or apprehend it. Such mental contact with the truth fits the Greek pisteuo or pistis of the New Testament. It is similar to episteme, knowledge or acquaintance.

We can't say what form the "important message" from God has to take. We have the evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus had power, and we can consider that evidence. But we can't say that there must be something wrong with this evidence because no self-respecting God would choose this method of imparting his "important message" to us.

Rather, what a denier might logically do is suggest OTHER claims of an "important message" from God which are more convincing than the Jesus "important message" and show that some of those claims are more logical than this one, because the evidence is stronger.

So the Christ "important message" can be questioned or doubted and tested on its claims, but only by looking at the evidence, along with evidence for any other claims that "God has an important message," and determining what truth there is to the claims.

But the "important message" is not refuted by complaining about the communicating process that transmits it and demanding that it reach everyone equally or that it be infused automatically into everyone without human communication or language, or that it has to be instantaneous rather than passing through a time span. Our language communicating which travels over time and space is a normal process for spreading much of our knowledge, including important truths, and there's no basis for saying that God's "important message" could not rely on this same process for being transmitted to humans.

Jesus did not write anything down so we can’t be sure of his real message.

There's a lot we're not absolutely "sure" about. Having a pretty good idea, while not being absolutely certain, is mostly what life is about.

We have a pretty good idea what Socrates taught, but no writings from him. It doesn't matter if there is some doubt.

Also, the "real message" might be something simple enough that extensive writings are not necessary, and it could easily be transmitted to us from others who only derived it indirectly instead of directly from Jesus.

It's clear from both Paul and from all four gospels that Jesus wanted us to "believe" or have "faith." The words pisteuo and pistis are by far the most common words of significance in the New Testament, distinguishing these writings from all others. And also the word euangelion ("good news") has a peculiar significance. The "important message" could be something so simple that not much of writings was needed.

"Your faith has saved you" is perhaps all that is necessary. If he said this only, and also performed the miracle healing acts, and also returned to life after being killed, what more is needed in "writing" to convey the "important message"?

Neither Jesus’s disciples nor anyone who directly witnessed Jesus’s mission wrote down anything . . .

Yes they did, probably. It's likely some of them did write something down. Just because we don't have it today doesn't mean it wasn't written down. Easily 99% of everything written down perished (probably 99.9%).

(all of the apparent references to them are forgeries).

The gospel accounts are not "forgeries." They don't say, "This is the gospel according to the Apostle . . ." or "This was written by the Apostle . . ."

I.e., those who wrote them did not attribute their account to someone else. Someone later attached the name of an apostle to it. If you attribute an earlier document to someone who did not really write it, that does not make the document a "forgery."

When someone finally started to document Jesus’s life, it is at least 40 years after he died and is based solely on hearsay, or what people seem to remember.

Yes, like Plutarch's Lives. In fact, virtually ALL documentation of ANYthing that long ago comes from 50-100 years after the events and is based solely on hearsay and what people seem to remember. Like the assassination of Caesar and so on. Someone said it happened.

Some of the "hearsay" (e.g. Caesar assassination) is more widespread and thus more credible, but in many cases there is only one source for an event, based on "hearsay" and accepted and published and taught generally as history. 50-100 years after the event(s), based on what someone seemed to remember, standard history, and yet less documented than the Jesus events in the gospel accounts.

Even given that, we don’t have the originals of what these authors wrote, but only copies of copies of copies.

As with ALL historical facts before modern times. Good luck trying to find the "originals" of ANY authors more than 1000 years ago! ALL our history of the Greeks/Romans is based on copies of copies of copies -- no originals.

We have direct evidence that many errors were made in the copying process.

Again, as with ALL documents. The number of NT discrepancies, or variant readings, is greater because of the vastly greater number of manuscripts. When there are thousands of manuscripts of the same text, more discrepancies pop up than if there are only a dozen. For some documents there is ONLY ONE manuscript known.

Showing that the documents contain the normal phenomenon of copying errors or variant readings does not prove anything of significance. Why is there such an obsession on this, as though this is a problem for NT documents ONLY?

We have direct evidence that some stories were added to the originals, i.e. deliberate forgeries.

In the Gospel accounts? No, the "forgeries" come later, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when documents were written and attributed to 1st-century apostles.

It might be appropriate to term the epistle of 2nd Peter a "forgery." But later additions to the gospel accounts are not "forgeries."

Even if you claim the added item was done out of deceit, this doesn't make it a "forgery." Adding something to an earlier document to make it appear as an original part of it is not "forgery." The "forgery" is the whole document claiming falsely to have been written by the earlier author, not an addition to an earlier document.

It's normal for a translator to inject a point of clarification into a book. This is done without saying this is the translator's note rather than original text of the author being translated. Right in the text, with no advisory to the reader. This is frequent in translations. And yet this is not a "forgery" by the translator.

Obsessing on the word "forgery" or getting a thrill or an orgasm from this word does not add anything of substance for determining the credibility of the accounts.

We have direct evidence that some of the translations from Hebrew to Greek to English were in error (this is how the Hebrew term for ‘young woman’ became a term in Greek implying a virgin).

This is not an error of substance. Christ belief is not founded on a quibble over the meaning of this Hebrew prophecy.

We have multiple translations in English and other languages that over time modernized the terminology but also inserted subtle changes in meaning.

And?

Virtually all Christians of all denominations know of this and understand that the original Greek text -- or earliest we have, or closest to the original -- is the more reliable. And yet some modern translations also have value, even with some "subtle changes" in the meaning, and there's little insistence on the idea that there's an original inspired text which is the absolute truth while everything else is heresy and is to be condemned as Satanic, etc. Those ideas no longer have much relevance.

We have direct evidence that some of the most obviously fictional elements of the Bible were edited out in later editions, for example the reference to various monsters.

Not early NT editions. For these, any "obviously fictional elements" were later ADDITIONS, not something edited out. There was no editing in order to sanitize the scriptures, like removing something distasteful. There is embarrassment over some passages, and believers have to decide if they want to be practical and downplay them -- even discount them -- or try to defend them to the death, no matter how embarrassing it may be. No one seriously proposes to censor them out. Some Bible inerrancy defenders will exclude a passage like the Mark ending, saying it's not part of the original inspired scripture.

But editing out such embarrassing passages is not an option, if that passage is based on the earliest known manuscripts.

We have thousands of interpretations of scripture authored by holy men, religious experts, or lay persons, each with a different idea of the truth. We have 40,000 denominations of Christianity, each with a different interpretation of the truth.

Actually we have MORE than "thousands" or 40,000. We have 7 billion people who do not all think exactly the same. This is supposed to prove something?

We have no external evidence of anything in the gospels, least of which the very existence of an actual preacher named Jesus.

Yes we have such evidence. At least Josephus and Tacitus. Christ is mentioned by both of them. And Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and James. Josephus confirms Matthew/Mark that John the Baptist was executed by Herod Antipas.

So we have a small amount of "external evidence" confirming the gospels.

We have no contemporaneous miracles to provide any evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Contemporaneous to what? It's hard to figure what is being demanded here.

The evidence we do have about miracles is this: There are virtually NO miracle stories in this period, i.e., from 100 BC to about 50 AD, up until the Jesus miracle stories in the gospel accounts. Nothing in any written record we have of any miracles during this period, written before 100 AD, other than the gospel accounts.

But then, at some point beginning around 100 AD, we have an amazing onslaught of miracle stories, beginning with the Book of Acts, then on into the 2nd century, in the Talmud, and in other writings, and in non-canonical "gospels" and other Christian writings -- the miracles, mostly healing stories, come pouring out from many different sources.

Even the miracle story about Vespasian fits this pattern, written after 100 AD.

What caused this sudden onslaught of miracle healing stories, whereas there is nothing like it prior to 50-100 AD?

The exception: the Aesclepius (and 1 or 2 other Greek-Roman deities) miracle healings, inscriptions on temple walls and statues. These are part of an ancient religious tradition going back centuries. These are not anything new, but a continuation of praying rituals dating way back into prehistory. Other than these inscriptions, there is nothing in this period about any healing miracles. All accounts of any miracles allegedly happening in this period are written later than 100 AD.

So, this sudden onrush of new miracle stories, beginning around 100 AD, indicates that something odd happened in the 1st century AD to cause this new flurry of miracle stories, which pop up suddenly with no precedent to explain them, and out of character to anything else we can see as a context in which they emerged.

This is evidence which helps to give credibility to the Jesus miracle stories as something real which happened. Otherwise it is difficult to explain what caused this sudden outburst of new miracle healing stories at this point in history.

We have an avalanche of scientific discoveries that refute many assertions and stories in the Bible.

There's some of that -- not an "avalanche" -- but most of the "assertions and stories" in the Bible are not refuted. And though there is doubt cast on the miracle stories generally, there is nothing to refute the Jesus miracle stories or even to cast doubt on them. Of course one might doubt them, but there are no "scientific discoveries" which cause any doubt.

But after all of this, God will judge us if we don’t believe his message, whatever the hell it is, and send us to a place of eternal torture.

Perhaps. But these ideas of eternal torture predate Christianity and might be something the NT writers picked up from their culture rather than something taught by Jesus.

This is Christianity in a nutshell, . . .

No, even if there is a negative element, like punishment of some form, the "nutshell" has to include the positive part which is eternal life. The hope for eternal life and escape from "death" is the "nutshell" or the basic Christ "message" for us. If there is "punishment" of some form, this is not the "important message" to us, being nothing new taught by Christ, but rather it's the escape from this punishment which is the "message" and the "good news" or euangelion.

. . . and it is the nail in the coffin for its believability to any sane, objective, critically-thinking person.

No, the believability, or non-believability, has to be based on the evidence and on reason, not on a gut-level emotional outburst against the "important message" because it doesn't conform to one's mystical instincts about how God ought to communicate to humans. We don't know for sure what happens after death or what God is thinking or feeling.

If Jesus actually did perform those miracle acts and actually did rise from the dead, it is evidence of a higher power which offers life and the possibility of resurrection. It's a reasonable hope, based on evidence, and one can reasonably believe or not believe it based on critical objective consideration of that evidence, regardless of what is happening in God's mind or what someone thinks should be happening in his mind or what schedule or protocol someone thinks he should be following.

 

[Atheos]

Aren't there many "messages" or truths which don't reach to everyone everywhere? or which take a long time to arrive at some places? including some that are important? There may be a reason why the "message of Jesus" has to be this kind of message. A message which has to be spread through normal human communication is an important kind of message, probably on a higher order than the kind of "message" which is infused into us directly without human interaction.

If we say "God has an important message for mankind," this doesn't have to mean something God injects into us directly from nature or from a spiritual source separate from human communication. This "important message" could very well be something that is expressed and distributed to us by means of human language, which is a very high-order phenomenon in the universe.

This "message" doesn't have to be one which is equally spread everywhere so everyone has an exactly equal access to it. There is a chance element in finding it. The "Kingdom of God" is described in Mt. 13 as something which one acquires partly from luck, by "finding" it, and it's something which one might miss:

44 The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

There's no reason why the "important message" would not be one which spreads through human effort, making it something to search for or to stumble upon if you're lucky and which you may or may not find.

Christian apologists sure are an accepting lot. If this message were true it would not be just any old bit of information that a concerned person might just leave to happenstance that the word would get out. Many denominations have rationalized out the unappetizing bits but gospel narratives put words into the mouth of their fictional hero depicting Hell as a place of eternal punishment with no chance for parole. Infinite punishment. The story of The Rich Man and Lazarus is not told as if it were a parable. It is related as if things actually did happen exactly as described. This depiction makes it clear that the saved can see and hear the anguish of the damned, and the damned can see and be tormented by the comfort of the saved. That the damned live forever with horrible thirst that is never quenched, and that they are constantly being burned in an eternal flame.

The message also says that the prime condition for avoiding this eternal flame is belief. Mark 16:16, while not part of the original text, is certainly reflective of the understanding of early christians: "He that believes and is baptized will be saved. He that doesn't believe will be damned." Hebrews 11:6 agrees by saying that "Without faith it is impossible to please him. For he that comes to god must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."

Belief. It's not so important how you behave, it's only important how you think. Serial child rapists, ax murderers and people who drive too slow in the fast lane can all be forgiven of these behaviors if they believe and accept Jeezus into their heart. But people who did none of these things, whose primary crime is the crime of being skeptical about these claims that a god exists and these spurious tales of a magic Jew living in the Mideast 2000 years ago will burn in endless flame with this great gulf fixed for eternity.

Eternity. Not 10 years, 15, 20, or 30. Not even the mercy of a "lifetime" sentence to be terminated by death. No chance of parole, ever for an infinite amount of time.

If this message is true it is the single most critical piece of information human beings need. Infinitely more critical than to avoid swimming in piranha-infested waters. Infinitely more critical than care and treatment of diabetes. Infinitely more critical than any piece of health and safety information. The effects of failure to know this vital information would trump any other bit of information we could possibly know.

It's like a large company dug a huge pit for a toxic waste dump in a crowded neighborhood. The pit meanders all through the neighborhood, making it very difficult to get around without encountering it. There is no fence around it. They then blindfold all but about .00001% of the population and watch with video cameras as thousands upon thousands of people fall into the pit and the few without blindfolds frantically try to warn others not to walk in the direction of the pit.

No, it's not like that at all. It's much worse. At least the people who fall in the pit die eventually and their suffering ends.

Nobody but nobody would apologize for the behavior of this large company's callous treatment of humanity. But christian apologists don't even flinch when they kiss the ass of the monster who engendered an infinitely worse scenario.

The only "Good News" about any of this is that it's a lie.

 

[Brian63]

Belief. It's not so important how you behave, it's only important how you think. Serial child rapists, ax murderers and people who drive too slow in the fast lane can all be forgiven of these behaviors if they believe and accept Jeezus into their heart. But people who did none of these things, whose primary crime is the crime of being skeptical about these claims that a god exists and these spurious tales of a magic Jew living in the Mideast 2000 years ago will burn in endless flame with this great gulf fixed for eternity.

Also, it is only significant what you believe on this one particular issue, at the one particular moment of time when you happen to die. As long as you accept Jesus into your heart at the split nano-second when you also happen to die, then you will spend all eternity in heaven. If you are a morally great person for all your life and just have a moment of doubt when you die, then you will be in hell forever afterwards. It is a very shitty, shitty arrangement worked out there, but it is a very popular one too.

Brian

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Lumpenproletariat, we already have evidence the story of Jesus is a sham.

I posted from your favorite source and it says the story of Jesus is a sham.

Lumpenproletariat, quit trying to bury the truth by posting the same argument in paragraph after paragraph in your posts, it is time to come clean: The story of Jesus is a sham, and we have evidence, it says so right in the book that the stories come from.

the earlier post:

Pretty much deflates good old Lumpenproletariat's argument of why the stories were written, they were written not because they were true but because they were intended to cause belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

They were written because they were true AND to cause belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

John 20:30-32

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

It says so right frikken there^

What's the "sham"? And where does it say "not because they were true"?

I.e., it doesn't say: "But these are written not because they are true but that you may believe . . ."

So now I guess you have to prove that the miracles that weren't recorded happened, good luck.

I'll get right on it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They were written because they were true AND to cause belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

Except the OT makes it clear Jesus is NOT the messiah.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why did anyone think Jesus was "the messiah"?

They were written because they were true AND to cause belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

Except the OT makes it clear Jesus is NOT the messiah.

But the miracle stories were true, which is what really matters.

Meanwhile there's a million theories about what "the messiah" is supposed to be and who is or is not supposed to be "the messiah." No point in getting bogged down in that quagmire.

The truth of the miracle stories is what explains the obsession to identify Jesus as "the messiah."

The chronology was: first, people believed the miracle claims; second, groping for an explanation for these, many of them took Jesus to be "the messiah."

The reverse chronology makes no sense, i.e.: first, they believed he was "the messiah," and then they made up miracle stories to promote this belief. This makes no sense because there's no reason for them assume a need for "the messiah" to do miracles, and so they would not think the scheme of inventing miracle stories for him to serve as proof.

But the miracles-first chronology makes sense: They are struck by these unusual events, so they go searching for some explanation, and the best they can find is the "messiah" prophecies, which seem to promise a coming superhero, and they adapt this "messiah" promise to the Jesus events.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They were written because they were true AND to cause belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

Except the OT makes it clear Jesus is NOT the messiah.

Only the true messiah denies his divinity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except the OT makes it clear Jesus is NOT the messiah.

But the miracle stories were true, which is what really matters.

Somehow, i knew that was your argument, though you tried to deny it.

The problem is, the OT prophecies that foretold the messiah didn't mention magical super powers to heal or raise the dead.

Meanwhile there's a million theories about what "the messiah" is supposed to be and who is or is not supposed to be "the messiah." No point in getting bogged down in that quagmire.

No point?
You're wagering your soul on the idea that Jesus was the messiah. That's not a meaningless footnote.
Your whole point is that Jesus did miracles and he could only have done that if his promise of everlasting life was also true.
You pick and choose scripture based on keeping your faith in Jesus and his promise and ignoring anything that says Jesus wants you to do anything complicated or uncomfortable.

The truth of the miracle stories is what explains the obsession to identify Jesus as "the messiah."

Wrong.

The chronology was: first, people believed... second, groping for ...

I have seen you make too much shit up to accept that you have a foggy fucking clue about the timeline here...

The reverse chronology makes no sense,

And your 'argument from incredulity' is also duly noted and discarded.

The NT Jesus was crafted to be acceptable to a wider range of believers, incorporating bits and themes from other stories they were already familiar with and comfortable with.

The biggest problem is, though, that the messiah was supposed to be fully human, not a demigod.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Our evidence for the Jesus events is the same kind of evidence we have for most historical events.

The "Christ" belief is not supported by evidence.

Yes it is, by the same kind of evidence that most of our historical facts are supported by, i.e., someone wrote that it happened.

All you have ever offered is the fact that there are multiple variations of the original myth . . .

That's the same kind of evidence we have for most of our historical facts. You've never shown any difference between these 2 kinds of evidence, i.e., for general historical facts and for the Jesus events from the gospel accounts.

For some historical facts -- the main ones -- there is a GREATER QUANTITY of the written documents, making those facts more definite, but for many others there is only a small quantity, and these facts are no more established or proved than the Jesus facts.

. . . (which is true for many ancient myths) . . .

Not the pagan myths. What are the multiple variations you claim we have? You can't name any examples other than myths for which the written accounts appear only centuries later, even 1000+ years after the alleged event(s).

These stories appearing 1000+ years later are not "evidence" such as we have for general historical events and also for the Jesus events, for which the written evidence is less than 100 years later, or only a generation or two later.

. . . and that it is a popular myth (which is nothing more than an appeal to popularity, another horribly flawed method of argumentation) . . .

No, the "popularity" of the belief is what our general historical facts are based on. The appeal to popularity is the basis for most or all historical facts, for 2000 years ago (if not even for modern historical facts). What makes it more credible is the larger number of sources attesting to it.

Name an historical fact that is not based on the greater number of sources attesting to it. How is this not the same as saying that the claim is more "popular"? How is it not this "popularity" which is the basis for believing that the alleged fact is true?

If the sources are fewer, or only one, isn't that a basis for considering it less credible?

The evidence for every other religious tradition is either equal to or better than the evidence supporting the Jesus myth.

Not for other claims of miracle events having happened. You can't give any example for comparison, especially no example before modern times. All you've offered is Joseph Smith, which is a modern case benefiting from the widespread publishing industry and in whose case all the miracle stories originated from his direct disciples only. This is the best you've been able to offer as an "equal to or better than" example for comparison.

I say "evidence" when in fact that is not an appropriate appellation.

It's the same as the "evidence" we have for historical facts in general. You can't say what the difference is. You just arbitrarily put "miracle" events into a separate category and dictate dogmatically that these can't happen and so there can't be any evidence for them. And other this, you can't identify any difference between the evidence we have for the Jesus events and our evidence for historical events generally.

Other than citing your guru Richard Carrier because he shares your dogmatic premise that miracle events cannot ever happen and therefore all reports of them are automatically disqualified as "evidence" for events.

There is no evidence.

I.e., no evidence for any historical facts, which your criteria rule out.

Why is it that all your criteria for ruling out the Jesus Christ evidence also ends up ruling out ALL historical facts whatever? Why do you keep having this problem? Maybe something's wrong with your criteria?

The "Christ" belief is not supported by evidence.

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence. You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence.

IN a courtroom, unreliable evidence is DISMISSED rather than used to convict.

Written documents saying something happened are not "unreliable evidence." In some cases they might be strong enough to get a conviction. And even in cases where they are not strong enough to convict, they are still evidence. It's reasonable to believe this kind of evidence, just as we believe it for historical events, even if there is doubt about the conclusion.

It's often reasonable to believe the accused is guilty even though the evidence was not strong enough to convict. It was still legitimate evidence even though the case was not proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In a lab, unreliable observations are NOT USED to formulate a conclusion.

Who's dictating what is "unreliable"?

Reports in documents saying that something happened are evidence that it happened. It's not automatically "unreliable" because you dogmatically rule out miracle events. Rather, such reports have to meet a higher standard, such as having more than one source, but they're not automatically "unreliable" simply because some philosopher or debunker-crusader preaches that a "miracle" event can never happen and that therefore any such report is automatically "unreliable."

It's not dogmatic, it's HOW THINGS WORK.

No, branding something as "unreliable" because you have this dogmatic premise that miracle events can never happen is NOT how things work. Being more skeptical than for normal events is how things work, but not automatically ruling out something because it's contrary to your ideological premise about whether miracle events can happen.

And if that testimony is 'this other guy told me what happened' it's dismissed as hearsay, not a separate, eyewitness account.

Much of our standard history, published in books and taught in history classes, is based on "this guy told me what happened"-type evidence. It's from writers who relied on the testimony of others. Most of our ancient history comes from writers who did not experience the actual events, and usually were separated from it by decades and generations, and from anyone contemporary to the event(s).

 

[Keith&Co.]

We have accounts of the miracle acts he performed. These are evidence.
You can dispute how reliable this evidence is, but it is evidence.

IN a courtroom, unreliable evidence is DISMISSED rather than used to convict.

Written documents saying something happened are not "unreliable evidence."

If we don't know who wrote them, or why, or when, and we cannot be sure that the author is an eyewitness, it's unreliable.

In some cases they might be strong enough to get a conviction.

Oh, sweet motherfucking Jesu, stop this lie.

I will donate $50 to any charity you care to name IF you can show me one US court case where a conviction was based upon a written account of the defendant's guilt, WHERE that account's provenance is unknown. No one knew who wrote the account, nor when it was written, nor how the author came to know what the defendant's actions were. Yet this mysterious, anonymous account was accepted as evidence AND the conviction was based entirely on that, not on corroborating testimony or corroborating evidence.

Seriously, Lumpy. Stop depending on these lies you tell.
They do not strengthen your argument, that people don't make shit up, when you DEMONSTRATE that people make shit up all the time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In a lab, unreliable observations are NOT USED to formulate a conclusion.

Who's dictating what is "unreliable"?

Reports in documents saying that something happened are evidence that it happened. It's not automatically "unreliable" because you dogmatically rule out miracle events.

Have i ever said that it's unreliable exactly and only because it describes a miracle?
Stop lying.

Rather, such reports have to meet a higher standard, such as having more than one source, but they're not automatically "unreliable" simply because some philosopher or debunker-crusader preaches that a "miracle" event can never happen and that therefore any such report is automatically "unreliable."

And that 'higher standard' includes knowing who made this report.
It includes knowing that the reporter actually witnessed the event.
It includes INDEPENDENT sources, a concept that seems beyond your grasp. I assume that's intentional, because you really, really NEED this written record to be true and cannot stand it to be unreliable.

But what you're referring to as 'higher standards' are more like 'the bare minimum standards' for evidence in determining history.

Denying anonymous tales that copy from each other and didn't come to exist until a generation or more after the fact is not a standard which is also going to erase the bulk of what we consider the historical record.

 

[Atheos]

I think this part is hilarious:

The evidence for every other religious tradition is either equal to or better than the evidence supporting the Jesus myth.

Not for other claims of miracle events having happened. You can't give any example for comparison, especially no example before modern times. All you've offered is Joseph Smith, which is a modern case benefiting from the widespread publishing industry and in whose case all the miracle stories originated from his direct disciples only. This is the best you've been able to offer as an "equal to or better than" example for comparison.

This is a textbook "Sharpshooter Fallacy." Draw an arbitrary circle around something that means absolutely nothing.

There are countless myths about miracles. There are countless myths about hero-gods. There are countless tall tales about people who can be validated in the historical record. There are countless religious myths out the wazoo, each with at least something unique that sets it apart. There are countless hoaxes being perpetrated all the time. There is absolutely zero evidence that a person can heal blindness with a touch, walk on water, turn water into wine, turn morsels into food for thousands, raise people from the dead and levitate off into the sky never to be seen again. It is reasonable to expect better corroboration for such claims than simple anonymous testimony.

Historians work from the mundane to the extraordinary. They do not start with the most incredible claims and try to force-fit everything else around that. Your suggestion that the fantastic elements of the Jesus myth are as well corroborated as - say - Napoleon's ill-fated campaign against Russia is laughable.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There is evidence, not proof, that the Jesus miracle acts did happen.

I say "evidence" when in fact that is not an appropriate appellation. There is no evidence.

Yes there is. Just because you don't agree with the conclusion I draw from the evidence doesn't mean the evidence does not exist. You can disagree with my conclusion, and I could even be wrong, but still that does not negate the evidence.

I.e., there is evidence that Jesus Christ did the miracle acts. You and some others reject that conclusion, and even if you're right -- i.e., that this evidence is insufficient -- it does not change the fact that this evidence exists. It does exist, and a reasonable person might conclude from it that those events did happen, though another might reasonably reject it as insufficient.

But no matter which conclusion one draws, that evidence does exist!

Many people accept reports as evidence, and then consider that evidence critically and sometimes reject it as insufficient, but they still consider it as evidence.

Not once they reject it as insufficient, they don't.

It is still evidence. The advocates on either side don't change their mind just because the jury renders a verdict against them. The evidence exists on both sides. In court one side loses, but that doesn't mean the evidence for that side is cancelled. It exists.

One has to be a real bonehead not to recognize that there's often a strong case to be made on either side of a question, because both sides have evidence. That evidence is not snuffed out just because one side wins and the other side loses. The wrong side (loser) has evidence, but maybe it's not sufficient, or it's offset by the greater evidence for the other side. But it is still evidence.

And for most disagreements there is no final "verdict" handed down which settles it once and for all. Both sides still think they're right because of their evidence and reasoning, and this is not negated just because one side or the other claims to have won the debate. The evidence continues to exist for both sides.

Your problem seems to be that you think "the book is closed" on the Jesus question, your side "won," and so therefore all the evidence and reasons for that side are nullified for all time, because they were vanquished by some Great Supreme Court in the Sky which resolved the case forever.

Your 'evidence' has been considered. It's been rejected.

We have evidence, in the form of written documents, from about 30-70 years after the events, saying Jesus performed the miracle acts. This evidence is rejected by some and is accepted by others. But no Supreme Court of the Universe has handed down a final absolute Verdict which is binding on all creatures.

Which leaves us with no evidence to support your claims.

So what happens to those who continue to believe the evidence and the claims? excommunicate them? pack them off to re-education camps?

The evidence does not disappear simply because your faction "rejected" it. Does the evidence for evolution or for global warming disappear because there are some who reject it?

Are you a magician who can make things disappear by "rejecting" them?

If you just automatically toss out reports you don't like, because of your prejudice against certain kinds of reports, that is just your own personal subjective definition of "evidence,"

You mean, the way YOU discount Joseph Smith's miracles?

You mean the accounts which you will not post here because you are too embarrassed to offer them because they are so silly? Pick out the best example and post it here so we can discuss the credibility of it. Not just the link, which I then must search through to find what you claim is the "miracle" he did. Post the text giving the best example. As long as you cannot see fit to provide such an example, then yes, I discount it. YOU are discounting it yourself by not posting it here for us to consider.

(And stop claiming that you already DID post them. I responded to each supposed example. Post one more example, the very best one, and let's look at it in detail. Even if you really did post an example, there's nothing wrong with posting it again. Cite that earlier example, repeat the details of it and demand to know why they don't prove your point. Instead of continuing to insist that the examples were posted and so the issue cannot be discussed further. There's nothing wrong with repeating the same point from before in order to re-examine it. Progress is possible if the point is considered again, whereas it's a dead-end to insist that the discussion is over because it was all settled earlier.)

It makes a difference that all the JS miracle claims come only from his direct disciples. And actually 80-90% of them come from one disciple only. We know there are thousands of modern gurus whose direct disciples attribute miracle acts to them after they've been overwhelmed by his charisma over many years.

Which you didn't even know about until after you'd started saying that Jesus' miracles were 'unique?'

They're "unique" only in that they cannot be explained as a product of mythologizing. For all the other cases, miracle claims are explained as a result of the hero-guru's widespread reputation or notoriety-- during his long career or over centuries of tradition -- also his charisma or influence on his direct disciples over a long time period; it's these obvious factors which set the myth-making process in motion.

Give us an example you think is more credible than the Jesus miracle accounts, which is not explained by the normal mythologizing process. Post the text of it and explain why it's more credible. You don't prove your point by just claiming there's a million other examples just as good as this one. What you have to do is give one good example, providing the details, the text it comes from, etc.

For JS, give us an example for which the source is someone other than a direct disciple, and not something current -- some account or text from about 1900 or earlier.

You really should examine your own standards, Lumpy.

The standard is: If normal mythologizing factors are obviously at work, that explains how the miracle stories originated and spread. But where those factors are lacking and so cannot explain it, there is an increased likelihood that the miracle acts really happened instead of being fictional.

You're stepping on your dick, here.

Was this intended for the Anthony Weiner topic? You must have clicked the wrong button somewhere. Or was it Donald Trump you're looking for? I think this was one of his important issues a few months ago.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're stepping on your dick, here.

Was this intended for the Anthony Weiner topic? You must have clicked the wrong button somewhere. Or was it Donald Trump you're looking for? I think this was one of his important issues a few months ago.

No, it's for you. You and your posts of more-than-a-year-behind attempts at rebuttal.

You're being a hypocrite. You're pretending to being an expert when all you do is vary between Texas sharpshooter fallacy, confirmation bias, and just flat out making shit up while maintaining that the Jesus stories can't be explained as 'people making shit up.'

When you make shit up to show that something can't be made-up-shit, you're stepping on your own dick, Lumpy. It's a metaphor.
Your inability to pierce the complicated nature of the comment does not stand you good stead in your ability to determine if something is evidence or not.





















And, still waiting for you to claim the $50 donation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The evidence does not disappear simply because your faction "rejected" it.

It's not a matter of factions, Lumpy. It's not rejected because we're married to a particular conclusion.
It's rejected as historical evidence, because it doesn't qualify. No historian can identify the author, or when it was written, or what their purpose was in writing it.
You've admitted that it would make a difference in interpreting the historical value if it was written by disinterested bystanders, as opposed to the reports of Joseph Smith's miracles attested to by his followers.

But you have no way of showing who wrote it or their purpose.
It's not evidence for the miracles as historical fact.