120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

He's done nothing but whine about my unwillingness to engage with anything he posts.

See, that's not my impression of our exchange history.
But it IS my impression of your attempt at impression management.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is said to have occurred IS EVIDENCE for what occurred. Or, throw out most of our historical record.

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence for the possibility of returning to life after death.

Now all we need is evidence that the resurrection in fact occurred rather than what is said in the gospel stories to have occurred.

And how much else of the historical record will you arbitrarily toss out based on this standard? We have the same kind of evidence for this as we have for many/most of our historical facts from that historical period.

That someone then reported the event in a document which has survived to our time IS the evidence that the event happened. That's what most of our evidence for historical facts is based upon. If this is not evidence, then probably half of our historical record, from that period, has to be scrapped.

Name some historical facts not based on what was reported in the documents which have survived.

Since we have 5 sources for the resurrection of Jesus, within 30-70 years of the reported event, we have better evidence for this event than we have for most of our historical facts from 1000+ years ago.

Yes, I've repeated this point several times, and no one responding has shown otherwise. If the documents from the time are not our source for the events, why doesn't anyone tell us what our source is? How do you know those events 1000 years ago really happened? Is it not from the written accounts which have survived? You think the history teachers just make it up spontaneously, based on whim? based on what they ate for breakfast that day?

And by this standard for "evidence" of historical events, there are no other reported "miracle" events prior to 1000/1500 AD for which we have evidence.

I.e., saying that "evidence" for events is whatever the documents report does not open the floodgate to a deluge of ancient miracle legends as believable facts. There are no other cases of "miracle" events reported in multiple documents dated near to the time of the alleged events. There's nothing that even comes close.

 

[DBT]

Since we have 5 sources for the resurrection of Jesus, within 30-70 years of the reported event, we have better evidence for this event than we have for most of our historical facts from 1000+ years ago.

Your claim is problematic. These are not eyewitness accounts, they are descriptions based on oral stories and adaptions of 'Mark' written by anonymous authors. As for Paul's letters, Paul does not appear to have known about the miracles described in the gospels, these being later works.

 

[bilby]

It is SAID that Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Is that evidence that it is an historical event?

I say 'no'. But apparently Lumpenproletariat knows better.

Are stories only history if Lumpy wants them to be? Or is it possible that historians actually have other criteria for evidence than those he imagines?

Given the choice between accepting the Skywalker tale as historical fact, or thinking that Lumpenproletariat knows fuck all about how historians assess evidence, which should I choose?

 

[James Brown]

I'm curious what supernatural events in history outside of the Bible are as accepted at face value by historians as the supernatural events in the Bible are accepted by Christian apologists.

 

[funinspace]

Since we have 5 sources for the resurrection of Jesus, within 30-70 years of the reported event, we have better evidence for this event than we have for most of our historical facts from 1000+ years ago.

Your claim is problematic. These are not eyewitness accounts, they are descriptions based on oral stories and adaptions of 'Mark' written by anonymous authors. As for Paul's letters, Paul does not appear to have known about the miracles described in the gospels, these being later works.

Well...on a positive note, after 2 years of constant correction, Lumpy at least gets the decades about right for when those 'sources' were most probably put to parchment. At this rate, he just might get the source count down to earth by 2019...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm curious what supernatural events in history outside of the Bible are as accepted at face value by historians as the supernatural events in the Bible are accepted by Christian apologists.

Sounds like a rhetorical question. The better question - not rhetorical - is what supernatural events outside the buybull are accepted by buybull apologists.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm curious what supernatural events in history outside of the Bible are as accepted at face value by historians as the supernatural events in the Bible are accepted by Christian apologists.

Lumpy has already said that these other supernatural events are not as reliably documented as those in the Bible, and that is why he does not accept them. As for historians, they don't accept the Bible stories either, because they are evil dogmatic miracle-deniers, the lot of them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All the evidence indicates that the Jesus miracles really did happen. The gospel accounts meet the standards required for evidence.

Since we have 5 sources for the resurrection of Jesus, within 30-70 years of the reported event, we have better evidence for this event than we have for most of our historical facts from 1000+ years ago.

Your claim is problematic. These are not eyewitness accounts, . . .

Once again, there are virtually NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS for any events 1000+ years ago. If this is a criterion you apply for determining what happened in history, then you must eliminate virtually ALL the historical record we have.

Again and again when you try to debunk the accounts we have of the Jesus events you keep applying a standard to them which you do not apply to any other historical records. Why don't you ask yourself why you keep doing this? Your error has been pointed out several times in earlier posts and yet you keep doing this.

We are able to determine, with reasonable probability, what happened, even though we have virtually no eyewitness accounts of any of those historical events. And only a tiny number which were written within 20-30 years of the reported events. Even 100 years later is quite common for much of the history we know.

. . . they are descriptions based on oral stories and adaptions of 'Mark' . . .

All the historical accounts, for all our historical record 1000+ years ago are descriptions based on oral stories and adaptations of earlier accounts from someone. The other gospel accounts all have additional elements they did not derive from Mark.

So our evidence for the Jesus events is better than our evidence for most particular events in our historical record.

. . . written by anonymous authors.

That the accounts are "anonymous" does not make them less reliable.

Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls documents are also anonymous. But they are accepted as a reliable source for the activities and customs of the Qumran Community. Anonymity does not undermine the credibility of documents.

As for Paul's letters, Paul does not appear to have known about the miracles described in the gospels, . . .

He knew of the most important miracle, the resurrection, which he reported.

But as to the earlier healing miracles, Paul says nothing at all about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. So does that mean Jesus did nothing prior to the night he was arrested? or did not exist prior to this last night before being tried and crucified? That Paul omits mention of those miracles has no significance because he also omits mention of ANY events about Jesus in all that period up to the very end.

To assume Paul "does not appear to have known" about those miracles can only mean that he did "not appear to have known" anything at all about Jesus prior to the night he was arrested.

. . . these being later works.

The gospel accounts were written later, but the events described were earlier events, just like many events reported by Tacitus and Suetonius happened 100 years or more before being recorded in writing by those historians.

You could speculate that Paul knew nothing of the gospel writers and that they knew nothing of him (other than the Luke-Acts author). Which is not likely, but perhaps there was very loose connection between these different early evangelists, and they were each doing "their own thing" separately from the others, and Paul might not have known some of the events in the gospel accounts.


It's all just further evidence that the Jesus miracles really happened. Again.

But this looseness and disconnectedness between the different writers, and the different "church" leaders or "apostles" or local communities actually adds credence to the Jesus miracles, or to something which must have distinguished him in a very conspicuous way. Because -- why did they all converge onto this one person as their deity or hero figure? Since there was disunity between them, why did they all just happen to choose this one Galilean hero legend figure as the center or focus for their crusade?

What united the gnostics and the Ebionites and other early cults to the same Galilean figure? We can see indications of divisions between them, like the James author contradicting Paul. Who was Apollos? Who were the oddball cults or apostates named in Revelation 2-3, and why doesn't this writer mention Paul who had been prominent at Ephesus? There was lots of disconnect between the different groups, some not familiar with the others, or differing from them, contradicting them, or not knowing the other's version of what Jesus was about.

I can't resist tossing in a reference in Revelation ch. 11 (Apocalypse of John), about 2 "witnesses" who are killed but resurrect after 3 days and ascend up to heaven. This ascension bears an uncanny resemblance to the ascension of Jesus in Luke 24 and Acts 1. So the Revelation author likely knew of this Jesus ascension story, and yet it's not likely that he knew Luke or Acts. So where did he get the story? A good explanation would be that the story was floating around, before Luke wrote it. It's this kind of miracle reporting which seems to best explain the common connector between the different accounts, some conflicts between them, and different new Christ cults popping up here and there.

So how did this one Galilean figure get chosen by all of them to be their "messiah" or "savior" or "son of God"? If he did in fact perform those miracle acts, we have the explanation, but otherwise there is no explanation. There should have been some other "messiah" or "son of God" figures appearing in their writings, rather than all of them converging on this one only.

 

[DBT]

Your claim is problematic. These are not eyewitness accounts, . . .

Once again, there are virtually NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS for any events 1000+ years ago. If this is a criterion you apply for determining what happened in history, then you must eliminate virtually ALL the historical record we have.

Not so fast. The claim of eye witnesses accounts is not something I made up, but an actual claim being made by some Christians, which is a false claim;

Attributed Statements
''The New Testament authors repeatedly referred to themselves as eyewitnesses, even if they did not make overt statements including their names. In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, the author tells us he is testifying and his testimony is true. Language such as this presumes the author has seen something he can describe as eyewitness testimony. In addition, the authors of 1 John and 2 Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who directly observed Jesus, and were not inventing clever stories (1 John 1:1,3 and 2 Peter 1:16). While Luke clearly states he is not an eyewitness to the events in his gospel, he does tell us he is relying on the true eyewitnesses for his information (Luke 1:1). These cumulative statements are consistent with the notion the authors of the Gospels saw themselves as eyewitnesses who were recording history.''

I myself refer to corroboration through multiple independent sources. What we have is multiple writers using the same source material; word of mouth story telling.

Again and again when you try to debunk the accounts we have of the Jesus events you keep applying a standard to them which you do not apply to any other historical records. Why don't you ask yourself why you keep doing this? Your error has been pointed out several times in earlier posts and yet you keep doing this.

It is not I who made the eye witness claim, but it is a claim that is being made.

Again, I refer to corroboration through multiple independent sources. And of course the probability relating to supernatural events being real as reported, based on what we know about how the world works, physics, etc, which means: not very likely.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If there are documents from the time saying the event happened, then yes, that's evidence.

Since we have 5 sources for the resurrection of Jesus, within 30-70 years of the reported event, we have better evidence for this event than we have for most of our historical facts from 1000+ years ago.

It is SAID that Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Is that evidence that it is an historical event?

Wow! You turned up a document from the time of the event? How many documents from that time do you have? For the Jesus miracle events we have 4 (5) documents near the time and location of the events. If you have such written accounts for the Luke Skywalker event, dated from that time, then yes, that's evidence. Have you submitted your documents yet to scientists for analysis to determine the dates of them?

I say 'no'.

But why? If your documents are dated near to the time of Luke Skywalker, they should not be censored. Don't participate in a cover-up. Turn your documents over to responsible experts who can determine the authenticity.

But apparently Lumpenproletariat knows better.

Yes, it's better to disclose your evidence. Your 10-million-year-old documents from the time of Luke Skywalker, which can be authenticated by the experts, should be submitted for inspection. That's better.

Are stories only history if Lumpy wants them to be?

No, but yours are, about Luke Skywalker, if you have those documents. Where did you find them? Are you an archaeologist?

Or is it possible that historians actually have other criteria for evidence than those he imagines?

I'm sure they'll also accept your criteria if you have the documents which can be authenticated.

Given the choice between accepting the Skywalker tale as historical fact, or thinking that Lumpenproletariat knows fuck all about how historians assess evidence, which should I choose?

Any historians and scientists will want to assess your evidence, so let them decide. Always trust the experts who know fuck all.

And keep us posted on any further developments.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The gospel accounts are evidence from non-eyewitnesses. Just like most evidence for history is from non-eyewitnesses.

Your claim is problematic. These are not eyewitness accounts, . . .

Once again, there are virtually NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS for any events 1000+ years ago. If this is a criterion you apply for determining what happened in history, then you must eliminate virtually ALL the historical record we have.

Not so fast. The claim of eye witnesses accounts is not something I made up, but an actual claim being made by some Christians, which is a false claim;

Most mature Christians know that the gospels are not eye-witness accounts. Presenting a false claim by a Christian is irrelevant. Obviously you can quote false claims by millions of believers and non-believers.

I myself refer to corroboration through multiple independent sources. What we have is multiple writers using the same source material; word of mouth story telling.

We don't know exactly what their "source material" was, just as we don't know the "source material" for most of the historical accounts accepted for mainline history. There's nothing wrong with relying on "word of mouth" reports. Much of the accepted historical record is derived from "word of mouth story telling."

Again and again when you try to debunk the accounts we have of the Jesus events you keep applying a standard to them which you do not apply to any other historical records. Why don't you ask yourself why you keep doing this? Your error has been pointed out several times in earlier posts and yet you keep doing this.

It is not I who made the eye witness claim, . . .

It is you who keeps saying there's something wrong or unreliable about the gospel accounts because they are not eyewitness accounts. As if an account has to be an eyewitness account in order to be reliable.

So are you now acknowledging that this is not a legitimate criticism of the gospel accounts as to their reliability?

. . . but it is a claim that is being made.

Many false claims are being made. You prove nothing by quoting someone's false claim.

Again, I refer to corroboration through multiple independent sources.

Again, there are millions of reported historical facts which are not corroborated by any sources, i.e., are reported by one source only, and yet are accepted as true.

The Jesus miracle events are confirmed by 4 (5) sources.

And your use of the word "independent" is meaningless. There's nothing wrong with a source which happens to quote another source. The second source which quotes an earlier source is not thereby less reliable just because it quotes that earlier source.

And of course the probability relating to supernatural events being real as reported, based on what we know about how the world works, physics, etc, which means: not very likely.

You're just imposing the simplistic dogma that ALL "supernatural events" must be false, regardless of any evidence.

Not everyone needs to accept this dogma. Extra evidence is required for such reports, and we do have extra evidence in the case of the Jesus miracles.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are the Jesus miracles the only historical events which must be supported by evidence, artifacts, more than just "hearsay"?

The stories of Jesus follow the textbook definition of "hearsay." It is information received from other people that nobody can substantiate.

Like virtually all our recorded history from 1000+ years ago. Again and again your critique of the "stories of Jesus" does not distinguish them from the mainline written accounts which our standard historical record is based on.

We don't know who originally told these stories.

As with almost all of our historical events before modern times. We don't know who originally told the story of the assassination of Caesar.

We don't know who wrote them down in their earliest written forms.

Again, for almost all ancient history, we don't know who first reported the events or wrote down the stories in their earliest written form.

We have no artifacts, . . .

Virtually none of the historical facts is supported by artifacts from ancient times. But we have some depictions of Jesus which are earlier than normal (as short as 200 years later). For this point, I'll just reproduce part of an earlier post where this came up:

There is no historical evidence necessitating that Jesus had to exist or the evidence would be different.

You could probably say this about half of all the historical persons we assume existed. You could make the case; but probably they did exist, and probably Jesus existed, based on the evidence we have. There are many historical figures who probably existed but about whom we don't have certainty or there's "no historical evidence necessitating" that they existed.

Not one letter home talking about the great miracle worker, . . .

There are virtually no "letters from home" for this period talking about anything. 99.99999% of all the events that happened are not reported in any "letter from home" or any other document.

It all happened in 3 years or less, and virtually all the witnesses were illiterate. Every historical person we have writings about was active publicly for much longer than 3 years, even longer than 10 years for the vast majority. It is amazing that we have as much as we do about this person whose public life was so short.

The only "letters from home" are from a tiny minority of elitist rich people like Cicero and Pliny, etc., not from average folks.

. . . not a single pot-shard depicting the acts this person did, . . .

There are hardly any pot-shards depicting singular events.

But there are some 3rd-century depictions of Jesus:

One is of the miracle healing of the woman with the issue of blood (Mt. 9:20-22):

View attachment 5193

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg

or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus...bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg

This is identified as "From a Roman catacomb, end of the 3rd century A.D." in David Flusser, Jesus p. 116, where this picture is shown.

Another early depiction of Jesus is of the healing of the paralytic who is told to take up his bed and and walk:

View attachment 5195

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church#/media/File:Dura-europos-paralytic.jpg


Another early depiction of Jesus, of pagan origin and intended as mockery of the Christians, is the "Alexamenos graffito" showing Jesus on the cross but with the head of a donkey:

View attachment 5197

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito#/media/File:Alexorig.jpg

This carving is dated to 200 AD, even less than 200 years after the depicted event.

Is 200 years after the alleged event too long? Do you insist that any interesting event that really happened must have been depicted in carvings or paintings or on pot-shards etc. at the time of the event? or within 20 years and no later? or 50 years?

OK, then destroy all your history books and defund all the history departments at our universities -- they are teaching lies. They are teaching events that never really happened, because there are no art works depicting the historical events within 50 years or even 100 years after the events.

One event depicted early is the Alexander Mosaic, showing Alexander the Great battling Darius III. The mosaic is dated about 100 BC, so more than 200 years later than the event depicted.

The earliest depictions of the Trojan Horse are around 700 BC, several centuries after the reputed event:

There are three known surviving classical depictions of the Trojan Horse. The earliest is on a fibula brooch dated about 700 BC. The other two are on relief pithos vases from the adjoining Grecian islands Mykonos and Tinos, both usually dated between 675 and 650 BC, the one from Mykonos being known as the Mykonos Vase. Historian Michael Wood, however, dates the Mykonos Vase to the 8th century BC, some 500 years after the supposed time of the war, but before the written accounts attributed by tradition to Homer. Wood concludes from that evidence that the story of the Trojan Horse was in existence prior to the writing of those accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse

If Homer invented the Trojan Horse story (in the Odyssey), then could there be depictions of it at almost the same time or only a few decades later? No, the story must have already been circulating before Homer's mention of it.

Are there any depictions of a singular event in history, from before 1000 AD or so, which are dated less than 100 years after the alleged event happened? 200 years? Or even depictions of a fictional event produced in such a short time after the story was invented?

The gap of 200+ years from the time of Jesus to the first depictions of him in particular events, such as those above, is a very short time by comparison to other events. Virtually all other depictions of particular events are dated several centuries after the event.

There is a bust of Caesar dated from the same time as Caesar, but no depiction of any event, like the assassination. The latter are virtually all later than 1000 AD. The Caesar assassination is clearly one of the most sensationalist events in ancient times, and yet it is not depicted in carvings or engravings etc. for over 1000 years. So why should we assume that the events of Jesus would have to appear in artwork within only 100 years or so?

There is probably no archaeological find of any depiction of a singular event, like an engraving or carving of any kind, which is dated this close to the event depicted.

All the depictions of Achilles dragging Hector's body behind a chariot are dated later than 1000 AD. There are very few depictions of a singular event like this. So it's quite unusual that we have a few depictions of Jesus miracle acts even before 300 AD.

It makes no sense to insist that if the Jesus events really happened we must have art works depicting them dated less than 500 years after the alleged events happened. Even 1000 years later would be a rare case. We have virtually no depictions of any other particular events in history which meet this requirement.

. . . corroborative narratives from otherwise disinterested parties . . .

For most standard historical facts there are no "corroborative narratives" to support them dated near to the time of the reported events. Or, if you mean 100+ years later, we do have such corroboration for the Jesus events. 200 years later vastly more than for virtually all the recorded events from the mainline sources. The Jesus events are generally much more "corroborated" or "verified" than most recognized historical events. There would be some exceptions for the high-profile major events which possibly are more "corroborated" than the Jesus events. But little or no corroboration for the millions/billions of minor events.

. . . or any other evidence that would substantiate any of it actually happened.

Again, there's little or nothing to "substantiate" that our mainline historical events (from 1000+ years ago) actually happened. We have the report or account that something happened, and in a few cases there are extra sources or corroboration, to make it more definite, or virtually certain, but that's a tiny minority of the millions of standard historical facts. Many/most are not substantiated by any other evidence than one source saying it happened.

Pray tell, none, what would have to change for it to be hearsay?

Most recorded history is "hearsay" -- the Jesus events in the gospel accounts are a part of this body of recorded history. Not proven as absolutely certain, but supported by more evidence than most known events of the time.

And, again, we do not have such evidence to support other miracle legends from before 1000 AD.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Again and again your critique of the "stories of Jesus" does not distinguish them from the mainline written accounts which our standard historical record is based on. .

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
the whole point of not accepting 'stories of Jesus' as mainline history is based on the inclusion of supernatural elements.
You've yet to provide any sort of example where historians accept supernatural events as history. That's the distinguishing point.

 

[James Brown]

You've yet to provide any sort of example where historians accept supernatural events as history. That's the distinguishing point.

If only someone could have specified this point somewhere earlier in the thread.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There is no decree from historians pronouncing all miracle stories as false.

Again and again your critique of the "stories of Jesus" does not distinguish them from the mainline written accounts which our standard historical record is based on. .

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

the whole point of not accepting 'stories of Jesus' as mainline history is based on the inclusion of supernatural elements.

No one says such stories are part of "mainline history."

And you are admitting that this "supernatural" element is the ONLY element to separate the "stories of Jesus" from other facts of history which we get from the mainline sources.

In every other way these events reported in the gospel accounts are the same as normal historical facts, being reported similarly to other historical facts, having the same kind of evidence, being reported in documents near to the time of the alleged events. Unlike other ancient miracle claims, for which we do not have such evidence.

The Jesus events -- the miracle claims -- are put into a doubtful category, not proved or disproved, and not pronounced as fiction or fact by historians.

And one can reasonably believe such claims when there is evidence for them, such as there is for the Jesus miracle stories. They don't need to be officially certified by historians, as you imagine, before being in the "reasonable possibility" category.

You've yet to provide any sort of example where historians accept supernatural events as history. That's the distinguishing point.

They do not proclaim them as fiction.

I gave a "sort of example" with the case of Rasputin the mad monk. Virtually no historian says the reported healing acts of Rasputin are fiction or that those events did not happen. In general they acknowledge that the events probably did happen, but suggest possible alternatives to a "supernatural" explanation, or just leave it in the "uncertain" category as to the explanation for it.

On the History Channel there was a documentary in which an historian said that Rasputin was an exceptional case among the examples of healing miracle claims historically, and that in this singular case the claim of a healing was true and that the healer really did perform the act somehow which caused the child to recover.

 

[DBT]

It is you who keeps saying there's something wrong or unreliable about the gospel accounts because they are not eyewitness accounts. As if an account has to be an eyewitness account in order to be reliable.

No. I've said much more than that. First hand eyewitness accounts is not my claim but I have to point out that it is a false claim being made by some Christians. There is insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

I refer to corroboration through multiple independent sources. And there lies the problem with bot the historical claims and supernatural claims.

The far larger problem being the latter.

It is possible that 'Jesus' the man existed as a charismatic breakaway Rabbi or Lay Preacher.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

THE PROOF that the Jesus miracle acts never really happened: The premise that miracle acts can never happen.

That's the whole case.
Your premise is your evidence and the sum total of your case. Good job!

It is you who keeps saying there's something wrong or unreliable about the gospel accounts because they are not eyewitness accounts. As if an account has to be an eyewitness account in order to be reliable.

No. I've said much more than that.

OK, we'll look at the "more," but first, on this point, you (and other debunkers posting here) are clearly wrong on this point. The vast majority of our sources for mainline history are NOT from eyewitness accounts. So this is a false standard or criterion you are imposing onto the gospel accounts as a test of their credibility. So on that first part you're wrong. Now for the "more."

First hand eyewitness accounts is not my claim but I have to point out that it is a false claim being made by some Christians. There is insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

There are millions of false claims made by Christians and non-Christians. There's no need to list all these false claims -- it doesn't prove anything.

I refer to corroboration through multiple independent sources.

A test which many/most of our historical facts (from 1000+ years ago) fail to meet. You are fantasizing when you imply that we have "multiple independent sources" for most of our historical facts from ancient history. We do not. Again, you're imposing a criterion onto the NT writings which is not imposed onto other writings from more than 500 years ago.

Today, 20th-21st century history, we might have that kind of evidence for the major events. Totally different world than that our our topic here.

And there lies the problem with both the historical claims and supernatural claims.

The far larger problem being the latter.

The "supernatural" element in the gospel accounts is the ONLY basis for questioning the credibility. Except for this, there is no credibility problem which we don't also encounter with virtually all the other sources for history. And actually we encounter the "supernatural" element in most of the others also, but just to a lesser degree. All of them contain errors, contradictions, and fabrications.

So the point is that the only real flaw in the NT accounts, particularly the Jesus miracle acts, is that they contain the "supernatural" element. If this element is rejected ipso facto, then that premise itself (rejection of anything "supernatural") is the only flaw in the Jesus miracles. Except for this there is no flaw. There is no "smoking gun" evidence of error or falsehood. Nothing is debunked.

There are a few historical problems, e.g., the census mentioned by Luke. In every such case of a clear problem or discrepancy, it comes from ONLY ONE of the accounts, not several of them. I.e., the other gospel accounts do not contain this historical discrepancy problem in Luke's account. And there are a few other discrepancy problems you can turn up, in each case deriving from a text in ONLY ONE of the sources. This is why it's important to emphasize the rule about extra sources rather than only one.

So, e.g., we have at least 5 sources confirming the Jesus resurrection, less than 100 years from the reported event, making this credible, setting it apart from all the other claimed miracle acts of antiquity. Such confirmation, or corroboration, is untypical even for normal facts of mainline history.

It is possible that 'Jesus' the man existed as a charismatic breakaway Rabbi or Lay Preacher.

There were many of these. Maybe hundreds, even thousands. Why is it that ONLY ONE such person emerged as a deity who reportedly did miracles, confirmed in multiple sources, within decades of the reported events?

 

[Keith&Co.]

THE PROOF that the Jesus miracle acts never really happened: The premise that miracle acts can never happen
That's the whole case.
Your premise is your evidence and the sum total of your case. Good job!

If that were true, then all you'd need to do is provide some actual evidence that the miracles happened. It would blow the premise away.
But anonymous writings copied from other anonymous writings, recording an oral tradition of unknown origin with no corroboration.... THat's not evidence for anything except that people wrote stuff down.

Why is it that ONLY ONE such person emerged as a deity who reportedly did miracles, confirmed in multiple sources, within decades of the reported events?

Asking leading questions isn't evidence, either.

 

[DBT]

There were many of these. Maybe hundreds, even thousands. Why is it that ONLY ONE such person emerged as a deity who reportedly did miracles, confirmed in multiple sources, within decades of the reported events?

You keep repeating 'multiple sources' even though it has been pointed out that the gospels are copies of copies which are based on oral sources, people telling each other stories about what they head about a miracle worker called Jesus (Yessua Ben Joseph)....nor was there one encompassing account but numerous splinter religions that emerged at that time, Gnostics, etc, which did not agree with each other on the nature of God (Gnostics believing that the god of the bible was an evil Demiurge) or the nature of Jesus, the version that won the lottery as a world religion being largely attributed to Paul (who appeared to be unaware of many of the miracles found in the gospels) and the work of Constantine.