120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Saying "it ain't so" cannot undo the fact that we have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracle acts.

... for the Jesus miracle events we have at least 4 (5) sources.

No we don't; in any case not 4 independent sources. We have GMark, and the other three gospels which copied from GMark.

But the others have content NOT from Mark. So that extra content is an additional source. That Mt and Lk copied some of Mark does not mean they are not also separate sources. There's nothing wrong with a separate source quoting from an earlier source. In fact it increases the credibility of the later source, because it shows that the later writer/editor relied on earlier reports and was not just inventing his own fictional version.

That's one independent source, and three non-independent sources.

No, it's four sources, two of which quoted from the earliest source. Quoting from an earlier source does not somehow make the later source disappear as a source, or turn it into something other than a source, like a magician making a rabbit disappear or become something different.

As for Paul, he makes no mention of any miracles other than the resurrection claim.

Again, Paul omits EVERYTHING about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. And most later Christian writers either omit any reference to the Jesus miracles or give only slight mention about them. Except the resurrection which is emphasized by all of them. So Paul fits into the same pattern as all the later Christian writers about neglecting the miracle healing stories.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You could put this cliché to music and chant it, but just repeating it over and over doesn't prove the Jesus miracles never happened, or that no miracle events can ever happen.

Wow. Your reading comprehension skills are right up there with a lolcat. No one is saying that the dictum proves Jesus miracles never happened.
We are saying that your efforts to claim that there is sufficient evidence FOR the Jesus miracles are lacking.

What we need for miracle claims is EXTRA EVIDENCE.

Does anyone besides you say so, Lumpy? Can you find a history textbook that doesn't demand extraordinary evidence, merely EXTRA evidence?

If not, you're just making shit up again.

 

[DBT]

No such conclusion can be made based on the information that is available.

The conclusion that can be made is that this is a case for which there is no known explanation. Which means it is false to say that no "miracle" event can ever happen. I.e., it's possible that such an event can or does sometimes happen.

We have to leave open the possibility and just say we don't know.

Because the information to determine what actually happened is lacking does not mean that a miraculous event is a fair assumption. We don't have sufficient information to determine what actually happened, so no such assumption can be made. You would need to do an autopsy on the the child's body to determine cause of death, diseases, etc, but that is not available.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I'm saying that belief in Christ is a reasonable belief based on evidence, the power shown by the miracle acts recorded in the gospels.

So...you are using the miracles for theological certainty, not phenomenological evidence.

Got it.

It's not about any "certainty," but about reasonable possibility and hope. Evidence increases the likelihood that it's true.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

But the others have content NOT from Mark. So that extra content is an additional source. That Mt and Lk copied some of Mark does not mean they are not also separate sources. There's nothing wrong with a separate source quoting from an earlier source. In fact it increases the credibility of the later source, because it shows that the later writer/editor relied on earlier reports and was not just inventing his own fictional version.

Nonsense. The extra content is simply embellishment of the legend, more often than not in order to squeeze in references to match supposed "prophecies" about the Messiah. The birth narrative is the most egregious example: Mark has nothing to say about it, starting his story with the baptism by John; Matthew gives the genealogy to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David, and mentions casually that he was born in Bethlehem; Luke adds the bogus census to skirt the problem of "Jesus of Nazareth" not being "Jesus of Bethlehem", and to "explain" why he was born in Bethlehem; John doesn't bother, because by his time the Christology had developed to the point where Jesus had always been God, from the beginning of time, and the birth at Bethlehem had become irrelevant. The credibility of the later source is not increased by being based on earlier reports; it is decreased by the addition of elements which serve to chime with supposed prophecies through means of additions which are palpably false (census, massacre of the innocents ...).

No, it's four sources, two of which quoted from the earliest source. Quoting from an earlier source does not somehow make the later source disappear as a source, or turn it into something other than a source, like a magician making a rabbit disappear or become something different.

Quoting from an earlier source does not necessarily diminish the credibility of the later writer; granted. Quoting passages wholesale and verbatim while adding in obviously fictional elementsdesigned to match supposed prophesies, OTOH, does.

Again, Paul omits EVERYTHING about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. And most later Christian writers either omit any reference to the Jesus miracles or give only slight mention about them. Except the resurrection which is emphasized by all of them. So Paul fits into the same pattern as all the later Christian writers about neglecting the miracle healing stories.

Most early Christian writers had the gospels to hand for the miracle stories, as did their readers, so there was no need for the to rehash those stories when they were already known to their readers. Paul did not have that luxury, and could easily have made use of them to illustrate how the life of Jesus showed him to be something more than just another false Messiah. He didn't; his Jesus was not of this world.

 

[Atheos]

Here's an example:

Lumpenproletariat, I happen to be the reincarnated spirit of Pontius Pilate. I vividly remember serving as procurator in the district in question for many years. I can say with certainty that I was misrepresented in these "gospel" accounts. Not once did I ever condemn a man without due cause or release a condemned man under duress from any angry Jewish mob. If such a mob had assembled in my courtyard I probably would have had the lot of them crucified. My well trained garrison would not have hesitated. The Pax Roma was mostly the result of killing people who disturbed it. I had a very great friend in Rome named Biggus Dickus who would have brought legions to defend my position if it had been needed. It never was.

It is clear that this is an extraordinary claim, but since such claims don't require extraordinary evidence you're just going to have to take my word for it. In my previous life as Pontius Pilate I never encountered this "Jesus" person of yours.

Since we know you're joking, this is pointless.

However, if you can find someone making this claim, not as a joke or as a way to contrive a philosophical point or argument, but someone who believes this, and if there's an extra source to confirm the claim, then maybe it should be looked into.

These witnesses would have to provide some information about the situation back then which could be verified, etc.

No, Lumpeproletariat, you don't get away with that this time. You tried that with the example I used years ago with the children claiming that Jesus got the cookies down for them.

I could just as easily say "Since we know that GMark was fiction it is pointless to argue with anyone who is foolish enough to take it seriously."

Deal with the argument instead of brushing it aside, or admit that you are inconsistent in your application of the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And stop already with this untruthful claim that "we have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracle events". There is one and a bunch of embellishing copycats. They are not independent.

 

[atrib]

You could put this cliché to music and chant it, but just repeating it over and over doesn't prove the Jesus miracles never happened, or that no miracle events can ever happen. What we need for miracle claims is EXTRA EVIDENCE. More than only one or two sources. And these need to be reasonably close to the time of the alleged events -- like the evidence we have for the Jesus miracles. This requirement eliminates probably 99% of miracle claims generally.

The story of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and and his subsequent ascent into an undefined place outside the natural universe, Heaven, is a central pillar of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection there is no Christianity. However, based on everything we know about the universe, such a feat is impossible. Corpses do not rise up from the dead and fly into space. Your insistence that a story written by an anonymous person many decades and many hundreds of miles removed from the alleged occurrence should be considered credible is absurd. That the story gained widespread acceptance in later times and was copied and embellished by others is irrelevant to the credibility of the original claim.

In this thread you have exhibited a level of dishonesty that is extraordinary even by Christian standards. You have dismissed every other miracle story ever written, including those documented through the sworn testimony of named eyewitnesses (miracles performed by Joseph Smith), and/or documented by multiple, sometimes hundreds of parallel sources (flying monkey god, Hanuman). You have continued to make up and repeat lies, and ignore every refutation posted to counter the shit you have made up. You cannot be shamed into changing your behavior. If your god were to actually exist, I am certain he/it would have a special place in Hell reserved for people like you.

 

[atrib]

So...you are using the miracles for theological certainty, not phenomenological evidence.

Got it.

It's not about any "certainty," but about reasonable possibility and hope. Evidence increases the likelihood that it's true.

There is nothing reasonable about a corpse reanimating itself and flying into space. You will not touch the resurrection story with a 10 foot pole because you know it is shit that somebody made up. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[Atheos]

Concerning Philo of Alexandria's lack of comment about Jesus Lumpenproletariat writes:

No, Alexandria is not the place in question.

Which is a lot like arguing that Saul of Tarsus couldn't bear witness to anything that happened in Jerusalem, since Tarsus wasn't the place in question. Guess that eliminates the (5) he keeps pontificating about.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If Philo of Alexandria wrote nothing about it, does that mean it did not happen?

I need to correct myself:

The silence of Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the time and place in question and wrote about Jewish sects such as the Essenes is inexplicable if Jesus did the incredible deeds and attracted hoards of followers and the attention of rulers such as Herod as described in GMark.

. . . and the attention of rulers such as Herod as described in GMark.

Philo never mentions Herod Antipas. It's Luke, not Mark, who said Herod was interested in Jesus. It's possible Luke was exaggerating about Herod being interested in Jesus.

No one caught my error here? You guys are failing to see the trees for the forest.

Atheos is right that Mark is the one who mentions Herod Antipas being interested in Jesus. Luke amplifies it later, but maybe both Mt and Lk got this entirely from Mark. It's also possible that Luke had some other source, like some oral reports circulating.

Mark 6
12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. 14 King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." 15 But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." 16 But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

Matthew 14
1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus; 2 and he said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist, he has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."

There's no question that Mt is using the Mk account for this, following Mark's sequence of events, and yet still Mt changes a detail, putting the words "that is why these powers are at work in him" into Herod's mouth.

The Luke account also clearly follows Mark, because in both these accounts the Herod reference follows the "Mission of the Twelve" story, plus the details are repeated.

Luke 9
6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. 7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, 8 by some that Eli'jah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen. 9 Herod said, "John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him.

But in this account, Herod rejects the notion that it's John raised from the dead.

Later Luke adds something extra to this:

Luke 13
31 At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you." 32 And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. 33 Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.'

One could reasonably assume this last remark was added much later, rather than being a prophecy from Jesus that he would die in Jerusalem.

Luke also adds the episode at the trial where Jesus is sent to Herod, Lk 23:6-12.

If we assume the worst, it would be that Herod knew nothing of Jesus, Mark made a mistake, and Luke picked up on the Mark story and added much more to it.

Philo never mentions H. Antipas, but mentions Herod Agrippa, who only indirectly succeeded H. Antipas by a 2-year interval, so does this make a close connection to Antipas such that Philo must have known of H. Antipas and should have heard of Jesus?

Philo was in contact with H. Agrippa in Alexandria in 38 and in Rome in 40. Can we assume Agrippa must have known something about the Christians at this time and would have mentioned them to Philo? or would have mentioned H. Antipas, who was his uncle and had beheaded John the Baptist and had wanted to kill Jesus several years earlier? And so should Philo have written something about the Christians and about Jesus who had been executed?

https://books.google.com.mx/books?i...onepage&q=philo the alexandrian herod&f=false (If this link doesn't work, the book is Philo of Alexandria, Jean Daniélou, p. 3.)

Remember, when Philo describes the Essenes, he's talking about a sect that had been there for more than 100 years already, and what he describes was their practices going far back. But the new Christ cult(s)? There were probably dozens of oddball cults popping up here and there, coming and going. The Zealots had been around several years earlier than the Christ cult(s), but Philo says nothing of them.

Josephus thought John the Baptist was important enough to mention, but Philo did not. Philo wrote almost nothing of events contemporary to him, other than this one major Jews vs. Romans event that he was directly involved in.

Philo says nothing else about Judea during this time, and nothing about Galilee. H. Agrippa was not tetrach of Galilee until later, not in 40, so there's no Philo connection to Galilee, except that Agrippa's uncle Antipas had been tetrach there until 39.

It's very difficult to make a connection of Philo to H. Antipas or to anything about Galilee, or to contemporary events in Judea other than this single trip to Rome to make an appeal to the emperor not to put his statues in the Alexandria synagogues or in the Temple at Jerusalem. Other than this, Philo writes nothing about Judea events during his lifetime, but rather, only about the much earlier history.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We don't know what happened, but Rasputin the mad monk appeared to heal the child, according to witnesses.

The conclusion that can be made is that this is a case for which there is no known explanation. Which means it is false to say that no "miracle" event can ever happen. I.e., it's possible that such an event can or does sometimes happen.

We have to leave open the possibility and just say we don't know.

Because the information to determine what actually happened is lacking does not mean that a miraculous event is a fair assumption.

There is some information. The child recovered, and it appeared to everyone that Rasputin caused it to happen. The mainline medical doctors were helpless to do anything and feared the child was dying. The accounts of this all come from witnesses who were NOT Rasputin devotees, which makes this totally different than the usual healing miracle stories. Some of the witnesses were very hostile to him.

This may appear similar to regular miracle claims, but the difference is that these events are found in mainline history books about the Russian Revolution, not in psychic phenomena sources.

Historians cannot recognize this as a "miracle" event, but they admit the appearance that he had healing power to cure this one child and just don't agree on any explanation. This event in itself, as a fact of history, suggests the possibility that a cure could be performed by someone without standard medical background. You can say it can't be true because of facts outside this one event, but this one event itself presents us with that possibility. If you rule out the possibility that such a cure took place, it has to be based on something separate from the facts of this event. The known facts of this event do allow that possibility.

We don't have sufficient information to determine what actually happened, so no such assumption can be made.

We do have sufficient information to say that the possibility of a non-medical cure cannot be ruled out. If you rule it out, it has to be based on something outside this case. The child was cured, somehow, and it cannot be explained by conventional known medicine. The professionals could not cure him, but the witnesses say he recovered because of Rasputin. The history sources on this just say this is what appeared to happen, or those present thought so, and we don't know the explanation.

Of course there are several explanations offered, but there is no agreement on any of them. You can say that one of the explanations has to be the truth, but there is no agreement on it and no established explanation.

Obviously debunkers reject it, but there's nothing about this recorded event which offers any explanation.

You can set a standard by which no "miracle" event could ever happen, because you can always just say we don't know the explanation, and therefore no "miracle" event is possible.

However, "we don't know the explanation" can also mean that such an event is a possibility. The healing did happen and they don't know how. Standard medicine was not the cause.

You would need to do an autopsy on the the child's body to determine cause of death, diseases, etc., but that is not available.

Which is why we have to leave open the possibility that the cure was done by non-medical means, by an ability to cure that is not known to conventional medicine. The facts indicate that the conventional practitioners had failed but that Rasputin succeeded somehow.

So we don't know what happened, but we have to leave open the possibility that he had some ability to heal the child without conventional medicine. Because that's what appeared to happen, according to the witnesses.

This wiki page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin -- is typical. Possible explanations are suggested, but the only agreement is that somehow the child was healed and there's no agreed explanation.

The d'Encausse explanation suggests that the conventional doctors themselves had caused the illness or made it worse, and Rasputin simply cured the child by having them stop their method. But this fails to explain how the condition happened in the first place, because the doctors didn't apply their treatment until after the child was already seriously ill.

This case cannot be placed alongside other pop miracle healing claims, because the healer in this case was not an attractive figure and was never promoted by a religious group, and almost everyone hated him. This is the opposite of virtually all miracle healing cults. This reputed healer had no psychological advantage or appeal or charisma to attract followers who would want to promote him to others.

So the usual explanations do not apply in this case.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Because the information to determine what actually happened is lacking does not mean that a miraculous event is a fair assumption.

There is some information. The child recovered, and it appeared to everyone that Rasputin caused it to happen. The mainline medical doctors were helpless to do anything and feared the child was dying. The accounts of this all come from witnesses who were NOT Rasputin devotees, which makes this totally different than the usual healing miracle stories. Some of the witnesses were very hostile to him.

This may appear similar to regular miracle claims, but the difference is that these events are found in mainline history books about the Russian Revolution, not in psychic phenomena sources.

Historians cannot recognize this as a "miracle" event, but they admit the appearance that he had healing power to cure this one child and just don't agree on any explanation. This event in itself, as a fact of history, suggests the possibility that a cure could be performed by someone without standard medical background. You can say it can't be true because of facts outside this one event, but this one event itself presents us with that possibility. If you rule out the possibility that such a cure took place, it has to be based on something separate from the facts of this event. The known facts of this event do allow that possibility.

We don't have sufficient information to determine what actually happened, so no such assumption can be made.

We do have sufficient information to say that the possibility of a non-medical cure cannot be ruled out. If you rule it out, it has to be based on something outside this case. The child was cured, somehow, and it cannot be explained by conventional known medicine. The professionals could not cure him, but the witnesses say he recovered because of Rasputin. The history sources on this just say this is what appeared to happen, or those present thought so, and we don't know the explanation.

Of course there are several explanations offered, but there is no agreement on any of them. You can say that one of the explanations has to be the truth, but there is no agreement on it and no established explanation.

Obviously debunkers reject it, but there's nothing about this recorded event which offers any explanation.

You can set a standard by which no "miracle" event could ever happen, because you can always just say we don't know the explanation, and therefore no "miracle" event is possible.

However, "we don't know the explanation" can also mean that such an event is a possibility. The healing did happen and they don't know how. Standard medicine was not the cause.

You would need to do an autopsy on the the child's body to determine cause of death, diseases, etc., but that is not available.

Which is why we have to leave open the possibility that the cure was done by non-medical means, by an ability to cure that is not known to conventional medicine. The facts indicate that the conventional practitioners had failed but that Rasputin succeeded somehow.

So we don't know what happened, but we have to leave open the possibility that he had some ability to heal the child without conventional medicine. Because that's what appeared to happen, according to the witnesses.

This wiki page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin -- is typical. Possible explanations are suggested, but the only agreement is that somehow the child was healed and there's no agreed explanation.

The d'Encausse explanation suggests that the conventional doctors themselves had caused the illness or made it worse, and Rasputin simply cured the child by having them stop their method. But this fails to explain how the condition happened in the first place, because the doctors didn't apply their treatment until after the child was already seriously ill.

This case cannot be placed alongside other pop miracle healing claims, because the healer in this case was not an attractive figure and was never promoted by a religious group, and almost everyone hated him. This is the opposite of virtually all miracle healing cults. This reputed healer had no psychological advantage or appeal or charisma to attract followers who would want to promote him to others.

So the usual explanations do not apply in this case.

Rasputin did not heal or cure Alexei. He allayed the symptoms of the boy's haemophilia. But the haemophilia remained, and recurred throughout his short life.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We have 4 (5) separate sources attesting to the miracles of Jesus as real historical events.

But the others have content NOT from Mark. So that extra content is an additional source. That Mt and Lk copied some of Mark does not mean they are not also separate sources. There's nothing wrong with a separate source quoting from an earlier source. In fact it increases the credibility of the later source, because it shows that the later writer/editor relied on earlier reports and was not just inventing his own fictional version.

Nonsense. The extra content is simply embellishment of the legend, more often than not in order to squeeze in references to match supposed "prophecies" about the Messiah.

Even if that's the case, the extra content not from Mark did not come from him, and so therefore Mark is not the source for it.

We have 4 (5) sources, because Mark is not the extra content in Matthew or in Luke. That extra content comes from somewhere, which is the "source" for it, and it's not Mark. So we do have 4 (5) sources and not only one.

It's nutty to keep insisting that the 4 gospels are really only ONE SOURCE. Even if a later document copied or quoted from an earlier source, that is still 2 sources. The only way they can be the SAME SOURCE is if the later one simply copied the entirety of the first source, in which case it's not a separate document but the same document.

So we have 4 gospels or sources, and 2 later ones quoted from the earliest. And even if John knew of Mark and used it in some way, that does not negate John as a 4th source. A later document is not suddenly "disappeared" because of its having made use of some earlier document. This should not have to be explained.

The birth narrative is the most egregious example: Mark has nothing to say about it, starting his story with the baptism by John; Matthew gives the genealogy to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David, and mentions casually that he was born in Bethlehem; Luke adds the bogus census to skirt the problem of "Jesus of Nazareth" not being "Jesus of Bethlehem", and to "explain" why he was born in Bethlehem;

It doesn't matter where Jesus was born. Even if the whole Bethlehem story is fictional, that's just legend-building on the real events which are not fictional. It's those real events that matter.

And whatever that extra content is in Mt and Lk, those accounts are separate sources from the Mark account. Obviously Mark is NOT THE SOURCE for those parts of Mt and Lk and other content not from Mark. So these are 3 separate sources, with 2 of them quoting from Mark but adding something more that's not from Mark.

So stop pretending that we have ONLY ONE source, which you know is playing word games. No matter what that extra content is, it's NOT FROM MARK and therefore is not the same source. So we have 4 sources for these events, despite all the sophistry to try to magically turn them into only one.

John doesn't bother, because by his time the Christology had developed to the point where Jesus had always been God, from the beginning of time, and the birth at Bethlehem had become irrelevant.

John has his own version, making this a 4th source, which seems to not know of the Lk and Mt Bethlehem stories:

John 7
40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, "This is really the prophet." 41 Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? 42 Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" 43 So there was a division among the people over him.

Obviously John is assuming Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, quoting these people who must have thought that Jesus originated from Galilee and not Bethlehem. So obviously John did not get his version from Mt or Lk, not knowing of them, and it's obvious he's not dependent on Mark and so is a 4th source, and being the last, maybe not as reliable. But also John could be aware of some reports later near Jerusalem which Mk/Mt/Lk didn't have.

The credibility of the later source is not increased by being based on earlier reports;

By using earlier sources, yes this increases the credibility, because it shows that the writer/editor is not just inventing his own story but is trying to stick to that which is already recorded. This is more credible than if he's inventing his own version.

. . . it is decreased by the addition of elements which serve to chime with supposed prophecies through means of additions which are palpably false (census, massacre of the innocents ...).

Some elements are fictional, but there has to be the original story that is real, in order for there to be something for the legendary part to attach to. The legend has to begin from a real origin or real set of events which are the basis for the later legend-building.

No, it's four sources, two of which quoted from the earliest source. Quoting from an earlier source does not somehow make the later source disappear as a source, or turn it into something other than a source, like a magician making a rabbit disappear or become something different.

Quoting from an earlier source does not necessarily diminish the credibility of the later writer; granted. Quoting passages wholesale and verbatim while adding in obviously fictional elements designed to match supposed prophesies, OTOH, does.

The fictional elements may increase doubt in any document, whether it quotes previous sources or not. But, the quoting of previous sources does not in any way change the fact that we have 4 sources rather than only 1 or 2.

We can deal with the problem of possible fictional elements, which may reduce the credibility of a document containing such content, though there is nothing unusual about a document containing both fictional and factual content. The fictional element is added for various reasons which do not necessarily negate the other elements.

The fictional part itself has to be explained, and the best explanation for it is that there is also a factual element which serves to explain how the mythologizing got started. Without that factual part, there is no explanation how the legend originated. Something believable must have been the origin, and then to this the fictional elements were added.

Again, Paul omits EVERYTHING about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. And most later Christian writers either omit any reference to the Jesus miracles or give only slight mention about them. Except the resurrection which is emphasized by all of them. So Paul fits into the same pattern as all the later Christian writers about neglecting the miracle healing stories.

Most early Christian writers had the gospels to hand for the miracle stories, as did their readers, so there was no need for them to rehash those stories when they were already known to their readers.

But then, why did they "rehash" the resurrection so much, and also the virgin birth? They repeatedly mention these. And why did they rehash the Hebrew prophecies and miracles of Moses et al.? These are repeated again and again throughout the patristic literature for many centuries later. By comparison there is virtually NO reference to the Jesus miracle healing stories in that later literature. Why was there less reason for them to "rehash" the Jesus miracles than the Moses and Elijah miracles?

Paul is silent on all miracles except the resurrection. Why shouldn't we assume that his silence on the miracle healings of Jesus is the same as that of the Christian writers for many centuries later?

All the writers, including Paul, put heavy emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus, repeating it over and over, but not his miracle healing acts, which are hardly ever mentioned.

The later writers added to the resurrection the virgin birth and the Hebrew prophecies, from Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. And also many O.T. miracle stories.

But also the miracles of the apostles AFTER Jesus, from the Book of Acts -- why did they "rehash" these miracles? They also had the Book of Acts "to hand" for the miracles of Peter and Paul, and yet they "rehash" these over and over in their writings. There's far more of the miracles of the early apostles in the Christian writings than of Jesus in the gospels.

So the avoidance of the Jesus miracle healings cannot be because they had those stories "to hand" and there was "no need for them to rehash those stories," because if that's the reason, then they also would not keep repeating the miracles from the Book of Acts over and over as they do. St. Augustine is a good example of this. It's a clear pattern.

And why do they keep repeating the "virgin birth" over and over? This too was "to hand" in Matthew and Luke, so what was the reason to keep repeating this so much, as they do constantly?

It makes sense that all of them repeat the resurrection of Jesus over and over, as this was the most important of the miracles. Including Paul. But the Jesus healing miracles are conspicuously absent from all of them. We can assume this omission in Paul is the same as for the later Christian writers.

And in the case of Paul, it fits clearly into his pattern of omitting EVERYTHING about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. He obviously had some reason to omit all that and pick up the events forward from that point in time. There's no reason to say it's because he didn't know of those earlier events or that they didn't happen.

Paul did not have that luxury, and could easily have made use of them to illustrate how the life of Jesus showed him to be something more than just another false Messiah.

No, if Paul could easily have used the Jesus miracles this way, then the later Christian writers also could have and would have made use of them to illustrate this, but they did not. Why didn't St. Augustine and all the other Christian writers make use of the Jesus miracle healing stories "to illustrate how the life of Jesus showed him to be something more than just another false Messiah"?

How could Paul have easily used them for this purpose but St. Augustine could not?

Those writers did anything BUT. They virtually ignore these miracle stories, and instead keep pounding away at the "virgin birth" and the prophecies and miracles of the Hebrew Scriptures. And also the miracles of Peter and Paul (Book of Acts).

He didn't.

For the same reason St. Augustine and the others didn't.

his Jesus was not of this world.

But he was in this world and did acts in this world. His resurrection, as Paul speaks of it, was an act in this world.

 

[Atheos]

We have 4 (5) separate sources attesting to the miracles of Jesus as real historical events.

No. We don't. If you are just going to keep repeating this thoroughly incorrect and baseless assertion I suppose the only response left is to just continue denying it.

 

[atrib]

We have 4 (5) separate sources attesting to the miracles of Jesus as real historical events

This is a lie. It has been pointed out as a lie many, many times, but you keep repeating it just the same. Don't you know Jesus hates liars?

But he was in this world and did acts in this world. His resurrection, as Paul speaks of it, was an act in this world.

Corpses do not reanimate themselves and fly up into space in the reality most of us live in, although apparently they do in yours. I wouldn't believe this story if a dozen people lined up to swear that such a thing happened in front of their eyes yesterday, much less rely on an anonymous story written many decades and many hundreds of miles removed from alleged event. It is absurd to believe in magic flying zombies, and it is likely beyond any reasonable doubt that this story is a work of fiction. People make up shit all the time; you yourself have been making up shit for over a year in this thread and continue to do so even when your lies are exposed. What makes you believe the author of the Bible was not making up shit just like you do?

 

[Atheos]

Living in denial

It has occurred to me especially of late that much of Lumpenproletariat's argument efforts are centered around denial. This has been the case for a long time. Lumpenproletariat has made such sweeping statements as "Nobody ever claimed Joseph Smith performed miracles" and other such arguments only to be refuted by actual evidence time and time again. The response to this evidence has been so consistent that it's a wonder it took me this long to realize it. It's all about denying that any evidence exists that interferes with the things he wishes to believe.

Which is fine if one simply wants to believe something. I honestly don't have a problem with it.

But I'm not interested in simply believing something, I'm interested in what is true, which is why I welcome all the evidence and give it consideration.

In that vein I welcome the evidence of GMark, GMatt, GLuke, etc. But I also welcome the evidence of the more ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman mythology. I welcome the evidence of early witnesses such as Justin Martyr, who saw parallels between the mythology of Christians and the mythology of the Roman gods. Lumpenproletariat's response to that was "Justin Martyr was wrong about this." I'm not sure what there is to be wrong about, he was simply expressing an opinion based on observation. Might as well argue that I don't see a smiley face in yon cloud. I see what I see. In order to argue that Justin Martyr was wrong about this, Lumpenproletariat has no recourse other than to suggest that he knows more about the ancient mythology of the Greeks and Romans than Justin Martyr did. A very interesting position to take in light of his insistence that GMark is reliable because whoever wrote it lived closer to the timeframe of the story.

I also welcome the evidence of Wilford Woodruff, who testifies about Joseph Smith's miracles. Lumpenproletariat denies that evidence exists. I welcome the common knowledge of the ancient Greek myths, which once again Lumpenproletariat denies exists and insists on primary written sources. This is also an interesting thing upon which to insist since he cannot produce a primary source for the Jesus miracles (e.g., someone who actually saw any of them and reported that they happened).

I welcome the evidence of the silence of contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberius, Seneca the Younger and Pliny the Elder. Each of these writers had an excellent opportunity to notice the incredible man who was drawing crowds of thousands (GMark specifies "5000 men" being fed in the first miracle of the loaves and fish, which leave the question of whether there were also women (+5000) and children. Regardless, the canonical gospels make it clear that this individual garnered the attention of vast numbers of people and even had rulers asking about him. Philo of Alexandria was aware of what was going on in Jerusalem at the very least and some sources place him in Jerusalem as a resident during the time in question. He definitely had a great deal to say about Jewish sects such as the Essenes and Theraputae, much smaller sects than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Philo could easily have written about this person. He didn't. None of these people (who also could easily have written about this movement) did.

I welcome the evidence of all the many religious beliefs that have sprouted over the years (and even in our own lifetimes) and see how easy it is for someone of charisma to sell their beliefs no matter how outlandish. L. Ron Hubbard, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, J.Z. Knight and Joseph Smith all stand as excellent examples of how commonplace this sort of thing is, and they are only the tip of the iceberg. This sort of thing goes on all the time in less successful venues.

I welcome the evidence of pagan religions that were in competition with Christianity during the formative years, and which were outlawed by Constantine in the 4th century.

To live in delusion one must deny that which would harm the delusion.

 

[atrib]

It has occurred to me especially of late that much of Lumpenproletariat's argument efforts are centered around denial. This has been the case for a long time. Lumpenproletariat has made such sweeping statements as "Nobody ever claimed Joseph Smith performed miracles" and other such arguments only to be refuted by actual evidence time and time again. The response to this evidence has been so consistent that it's a wonder it took me this long to realize it. It's all about denying that any evidence exists that interferes with the things he wishes to believe.

Which is fine if one simply wants to believe something. I honestly don't have a problem with it.

But I'm not interested in simply believing something, I'm interested in what is true, which is why I welcome all the evidence and give it consideration.

In that vein I welcome the evidence of GMark, GMatt, GLuke, etc. But I also welcome the evidence of the more ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman mythology. I welcome the evidence of early witnesses such as Justin Martyr, who saw parallels between the mythology of Christians and the mythology of the Roman gods. Lumpenproletariat's response to that was "Justin Martyr was wrong about this." I'm not sure what there is to be wrong about, he was simply expressing an opinion based on observation. Might as well argue that I don't see a smiley face in yon cloud. I see what I see. In order to argue that Justin Martyr was wrong about this, Lumpenproletariat has no recourse other than to suggest that he knows more about the ancient mythology of the Greeks and Romans than Justin Martyr did. A very interesting position to take in light of his insistence that GMark is reliable because whoever wrote it lived closer to the timeframe of the story.

I also welcome the evidence of Wilford Woodruff, who testifies about Joseph Smith's miracles. Lumpenproletariat denies that evidence exists. I welcome the common knowledge of the ancient Greek myths, which once again Lumpenproletariat denies exists and insists on primary written sources. This is also an interesting thing upon which to insist since he cannot produce a primary source for the Jesus miracles (e.g., someone who actually saw any of them and reported that they happened).

I welcome the evidence of the silence of contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberius, Seneca the Younger and Pliny the Elder. Each of these writers had an excellent opportunity to notice the incredible man who was drawing crowds of thousands (GMark specifies "5000 men" being fed in the first miracle of the loaves and fish, which leave the question of whether there were also women (+5000) and children. Regardless, the canonical gospels make it clear that this individual garnered the attention of vast numbers of people and even had rulers asking about him. Philo of Alexandria was aware of what was going on in Jerusalem at the very least and some sources place him in Jerusalem as a resident during the time in question. He definitely had a great deal to say about Jewish sects such as the Essenes and Theraputae, much smaller sects than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Philo could easily have written about this person. He didn't. None of these people (who also could easily have written about this movement) did.

I welcome the evidence of all the many religious beliefs that have sprouted over the years (and even in our own lifetimes) and see how easy it is for someone of charisma to sell their beliefs no matter how outlandish. L. Ron Hubbard, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, J.Z. Knight and Joseph Smith all stand as excellent examples of how commonplace this sort of thing is, and they are only the tip of the iceberg. This sort of thing goes on all the time in less successful venues.

I welcome the evidence of pagan religions that were in competition with Christianity during the formative years, and which were outlawed by Constantine in the 4th century.

To live in delusion one must deny that which would harm the delusion.

Do you also welcome the evidence for Hanuman, whose deeds have been extensively documented in Hindu literature? Quoting Wiki:

Hanuman (/ˈhʌnʊˌmɑːn, ˈhɑːnʊ-, ˌhʌnʊˈmɑːn, ˌhɑːnʊ-/; Hanumān in IAST),[1] also known as Anjaneya, Mahavira, Bajrangbali, is a Hindu god and an ardent devotee of the god Rama. He is one of the central figures in the Hindu epic Ramayana and its various versions. As one of the Chiranjivi he is also mentioned in several other texts, including Mahabharata, the various Puranas and some Jain texts. Vanara (monkey), Hanuman participated in Rama's war against the demon king Ravana. Several texts also present him as an incarnation of Shiva. He is the son of Anjana and Kesari, and is also described as the son of the wind-god Pawan, who according to several stories, played a role in his birth.

Following up on the links provided, I found:

Depending on the methods of counting, as many as three hundred[1][2] versions of the Indian epic poem, the Ramayana, are known to exist. The oldest version is generally recognized to be the Sanskrit version attributed to the sage Valmiki.

The Ramayana has spread to many Asian countries outside of India, including Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Mongolia, Vietnam and China.[3][4] The original Valmiki version has been adapted or translated into various regional languages, which have often been marked more or less by plot twists and thematic adaptations. Some of the important adaptations of the classic tale include the 12th-century Tamil language Ramavataram, 14th-century Telugu language Sri Ranganatha Ramayanam, the Khmer Reamker, the Old Javanese Kakawin Ramayana, and the Thai Ramakien, the Lao Phra Lak Phra Lam, and the Burmese Yama Zatdaw.

The manifestation of the core themes of the original Ramayana is far broader even than can be understood from a consideration of the different languages in which it appears, as its essence has been expressed in a diverse array of regional cultures and artistic mediums. For instance, the Ramayana has been expressed or interpreted in Lkhaon Khmer dance theatre, in the Mappila Songs of the Muslims of Kerala and Lakshadweep,[5] in the Indian operatic tradition of Yakshagana, and in the epic paintings still extant on, for instance, the walls of Thailand's Wat Phra Kaew palace temple. In Indonesia, the tales of the Ramayana appear reflected in ballet performances, masked danced drama, and Wayang shadow puppetry.[6] Angkor Wat in Siem Reap also has mural scenes from the epic Battle of Lanka on one of its outer walls.

There is no shortage of documentation for the story of Rama and his favorite flying monkey warrior, Hanuman. In fact, the support extends well beyond the borders of modern India into many other neighboring countries. Surely all these sources can't be lying? In fact, using the same standards Lumpy uses to judge the stories in the Bible, the Ramayana must be considered unimpeachable. If the Bible story scores a 1 on supporting documentation, the Ramayana scores 1,000. Yet Lumpy has dismissed Hanuman's claim to existence and supernatural acts without as much as a glance at the evidence.

Lumpy is a hypocrite and a maker-upper of shit. He lives in denial and cannot be shamed into honesty.

 

[Atheos]

I'd like to add that I neglected to mention the internal evidence of biblical scripture, which I also welcome. As has already been pointed out numerous times the fact that christian mythology was very much "under development" during the period in which Paul wrote his authentic epistles is damn near conclusive. Paul's "Jesus" was a very minimalist one, consisting of a savior god who had died and resurrected, after which he appeared to many people, but mostly only talked through Paul.

It's telling that Paul doesn't mention anyone seeing Jesus before the resurrection, only afterwards. It's telling that even when addressing doctrinal issues that Jesus supposedly addressed while in human form, Paul "commands" instead of "relays." He spoke in commanding tones about divorce and remarriage yet never referenced Jesus's teachings in Matthew 19:1-9. He commanded people to give (I Cor 16:1-2) yet never mentioned Jesus's anecdote about the widow and her two mites. There are several other examples; there is not one reference ever by Paul to any teaching Jesus ostensibly made as a human being. Not one.

Lumpenproletariat keeps insisting that the crucifixion (as mentioned by Paul) had to have occurred on earth but that's just not true. The language is quite vague and the "archons" (rulers) to whom Jesus was handed over works just as well in a spiritual realm as on earth. Paul refers to Satan as the "God of this world" (II Cor 4:4), so this is not inconsistent with Paul's interpretations. The point is that maybe Paul meant for folks to construe the crucifixion as an earthly event, but it's just as possible this was not the case. I accept the vagueness of this passage and along with that vagueness find Lumpenproletariat's desperate attempt to place Paul's Jesus on earth unconvincing.

The internal evidence of biblical scripture tells us for sure that people were busily "making shit up" about this character as time went by. The evidence of GMatt and GLuke's bogus genealogies along with their fabricated birth narratives and other sundry details we know are in direct violation of the historical record demonstrate these "witnesses" to be spurious at best and downright dishonest at a minimum. They are not corroboration and certainly not independent witness. They are known liars.

I welcome the biblical evidence about how people continued to make shit up about this character. II Peter is without question inauthentic. Whoever wrote this book was not who he claimed to be, yet he (they) made up false stories about meeting and interacting with Jesus specifically to counteract those who were claiming that the Jesus story was a "cunningly designed fable." Yes, even in the earliest days of Christianity there were reasonable people who understood that the evidence supporting the historicity of these claims was without merit.

I accept the testimony of II John 7 (again an inauthentic writing) but it bears witness that "Many deceivers are come into the world ... denying that Jesus is come in the flesh." The "Jesus as an historical person" group eventually won the doctrinal battle separating these two factions. But the factions existed and battled each other until Constantine picked a side and used the tip of a sword as incentive for others to accept that maybe he was right.

All Lumpenproletariat has is his argument that it is more reasonable to believe that a man actually walked on storm-tossed water than to figure this is a story people made up. It really is just that simple.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

That Matthew and Luke quoted from Mark does not negate them as separate sources for the Jesus miracle acts.

Since we know you're joking, this is pointless.

However, if you can find someone making this claim, not as a joke or as a way to contrive a philosophical point or argument, but someone who believes this, and if there's an extra source to confirm the claim, then maybe it should be looked into.

These witnesses would have to provide some information about the situation back then which could be verified, etc.

No, you don't get away with that this time. You tried that with the example I used years ago with the children claiming that Jesus got the cookies down for them.

You never gave any sources for that story. Besides, I admitted that maybe it really happened, if you'd just give more evidence and make it clear that you're claiming this really happened and you're not just being silly.

Why did these children say the character they saw was Jesus? So someone came into the room and got some cookies for them. Why are they saying it was Jesus? You did not explain the event or tell us what they said when they were questioned about it. If you're serious, give us all the information about the event, and if a miracle really happened, you need to provide more than only 1 (or 2) sources for it.

I could just as easily say "Since we know that GMark was fiction it is pointless to argue with anyone who is foolish enough to take it seriously."

We have more than only GMark. Extra sources make it more credible. If you can offer a similar miracle story about some cookies or whatever, with the extra sources, then it can be taken seriously.

Deal with the argument instead of brushing it aside, . . .

You're the one brushing it aside by not providing the information about the event.

. . . or admit that you are inconsistent in your application of the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, they require EXTRA sources, or extra evidence.

And stop already with this untruthful claim that "we have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracle events".

You don't make a source magically disappear by claiming they were all in cahoots with each other. The gospels are four separate sources, and Paul is a source for the resurrection event, i.e., 4 + 1 = 5. These don't vanish or get poofed into nothingness just because 2 of them quoted from the earlier source.

Eusebius quotes extensively from earlier writers, like Philo. That doesn't mean Eusebius himself is not a source. I don't know of another example offhand, but I'm sure there are many others, where a later writer quotes from an earlier one. This does not disqualify the later document as a source, as long as there is extra content in it not from the earlier source.

The patristic writings generally contain many quotes. Almost the entirety of the gospels is contained in the patristic writings in quotes, but this does not mean those writings are not sources for other content not quoted in them.

There is one and a bunch of embellishing copycats.

Whatever you call them, they are additional sources for the event(s) written about.

An example is the account about Apollonius of Tyana, which contains some content lifted out of the Gospel accounts. The 3rd-century writer Philostratus provides this biography of Apollonius, which is accepted generally as a true account, minus the miracles. That he copied (plagiarized) some content from the earlier documents does not mean he is not a legitimate source for Apollonius.

And there are probably many better examples than this, of a later writer using content from an earlier writer. In this Philostratus example the "plagiarism" is more dishonest than that of Matthew and Luke copying from Mark, since these are at least applying it to the same Jesus character, whereas Philostratus transferred some descriptions of Jesus to his Apollonius character. Yet, despite this dishonesty, the Philostratus account is accepted as a legitimate biography of Apollonius.

It's OK in some cases to say the later account should be taken with greater skepticism because of this borrowing from something earlier. But it could just be a legitimate case of using the earlier source which is trusted to be truthful, and then the later writer adds the new content to it. This is perfectly legitimate, and there are 2 sources, not only one.

They are not independent.

There's nothing wrong with being dependent on an earlier source for some of the content. This does not negate the later writer's document as a source. He's the source for the new content, and the earlier writer is the source for the previous content. Thus, 1 + 1 = 2 sources.

There can be 2 sources even if the later one is dependent on the earlier source for some of its content.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All miracle claims should be taken seriously. But you first must provide the information, like we have documentation for the Jesus miracles.

In this thread you have exhibited a level of dishonesty that is extraordinary even by Christian standards. You have dismissed every other miracle story ever written, including those documented through the sworn testimony of named eyewitnesses (miracles performed by Joseph Smith), . . .

But all the sources, witnesses, and the ones cured were direct disciples of Joseph Smith. They were strongly impacted by his charisma. We have thousands of examples of this, where the devotees swear that their guru performed miracles. There's no indication that any of the claims came from anyone other than these devotees after years of being influenced by his charisma. We need some indication of the claims coming from outside this inner circle of devout followers.

. . . and/or documented by multiple, sometimes hundreds of parallel sources (flying monkey god, Hanuman).

You've given no information about this miracle character. When did the events happen, approximately? Where approximately? And when did the first sources of information about him appear?

Just making vague claims about reported miracles with absolutely no information about them is insufficient. Obviously there are millions of miracle claims. We need some information to be able to rule out the emergence of the stories by means of the mythologizing process, such as we can do in the case of the Jesus miracle events.

E.g., if the reported events occurred 1000 years before the written accounts of it emerged, then we know these are a product of normal mythologizing. So give us the information about the sources and about when the events allegedly happened.

You have continued to make up and repeat lies, and ignore every refutation posted to counter the shit you have made up.

And you continue to not provide information about the reported miracle stories you claim are just as credible as the Jesus miracles. You give no text sources for these going back to the period when the events allegedly happened. Or any sources other than direct disciples of the miracle-worker who had been mesmerized by his charisma over several years.