120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

A "copy of a copy of an earlier source" reporting an event is EVIDENCE that the event did happen.

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.

We have the same kind of evidence for the miracles of Jesus that we have for many/most historical events before modern times. I.e., it's written in documents from the time that the events happened.

It would blow the premise away.

Perhaps your phrase "some actual evidence that the miracles happened" just means evidence that ANY miracle events ever have happened. Anywhere, by anyone. And your premise is that there is no evidence ever, from any time, or from any source of any kind, that any such event has ever happened.

But all such reports of any events are evidence that those events happened. Obviously some are more credible than others, and some "miracle" claims get low credibility. But others are credible. In addition to the Jesus miracles, reported in documents of the time, we have the accounts of Rasputin healing the Czar's child, and also claims about Edgar Cayce, which have credibility, even if you think they fall short. Some miracle claims are on a level of credibility high enough to be included as part of history, at least as possibilities.

Of course you can just pronounce ALL such claims as not credible, so that, by definition, you rule out all claims of miracles as having any value as evidence.

In which case, how can you demand "evidence" if you first rule out any such possible evidence by imposing the condition that NO miracle event can ever be credible and that ALL such claims are automatically ruled out and disqualified as evidence?

If you define "evidence" out of existence, then obviously there can be no evidence for it.

Many claims of history are subject to doubt, not just miracle claims. Obviously there are claims that are doubted, and some are given low probability, but even in those cases it's incorrect to say there is "no evidence." There is still some small amount of "evidence" if a written source from the time says it happened.

There are some respectable sources which say that some such events did happen or seem to have happened. Like the History Channel, which presents the claims on either side and leaves open the possibility that the "miracle" event did happen. They say Jesus did "heal" people, but the meaning of this is ambiguous. The H.C. says that Edgar Cayce successfully diagnosed illnesses, and prescribed remedies which worked, even though it was not part of medical science at that time.

So there are reports of events in the past, presented by credible sources, which are "evidence" of miracle events (though you can quibble about the "miracle" word, if you want to get bogged down in semantics), and so these events or reports are "evidence" of such miracle events, even though there is doubt. So it's incorrect to say there is no "evidence" for any miracle events. There is such evidence, even if you insist that in all the cases it must be bad evidence or insufficient to make it a credible claim. Which is your conclusion, but not everyone draws the same conclusion. The evidence is there, and some find it convincing but others not. Just because you're not convinced does not mean it isn't evidence.

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.

Then throw out MOST of our sources for ancient history. It's only stuff people wrote with little/no "corroboration."

ALL writings are evidence, regardless whether it's "anonymous." There is no historian who says that "anonymous" writings are excluded as evidence.

There are other anonymous writings, outside the gospels, which are accepted as evidence for historical events. E.g., most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are anonymous, and these are used to determine what events happened. Some of the history taught has been changed or added to in order to bring it into line with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

. . . copied from other anonymous writings, . . .

Not "copied" but quoting the earlier writing, you must mean.

There is nothing wrong with quoting from an earlier writing. The source is no less reliable just because it quotes phrases from an earlier writing. You are making up your own criteria for "evidence" when you throw out all writings which contain quotes from earlier writings.

Do you believe the claim that a Christian Roman Emperor (Jovian) ordered the burning of a pagan library? There is such an anonymous claim, in a Byzantine writing (the Suda) of the 11th century, quoting an earlier 6th-century writer (John of Antioch) making such a claim about a 4th-century event. This is a "copy of a copy" of an earlier lost writing saying something happened. It's questionable, probably confused, not too reliable, but it is "evidence" that the event happened. This "evidence" is believed by many historians, even though it's from one source only, from the 11th century, quoting a 6th-century source.

It's believed by some because it's "evidence," despite failing your standard for "evidence" which excludes anything which quotes an earlier source. Your standard is your own subjective impulse and nothing more. Historians do not accept your standard which would force them to throw out of the historical record any source which quotes an earlier source. You can't name any historian who throws out all sources which quote an earlier source. You're "making up shit" here.

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, ei . . .

Overruled! The debunker will answer the question!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why did all the gnostics and other cults have to adopt Jesus as their Teacher-mouthpiece? (Hint: He performed miracle acts.)

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?

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, . . .

Whatever you mean by this, the same is true of all the other sources for historical events. There are no original manuscripts of any historical events prior to 1000 AD. All the manuscripts that exist are copies of earlier copies. And virtually all sources for historical events are based on oral sources.

So, whatever they're based on, or however many copies were made, the fact is that we have multiple sources for the Jesus events. The 4 gospels and Paul epistles are separate sources. That Mt and Lk used Mark, copied some parts, doesn't change the fact these are separate sources or separate documents. They added their own parts separate from Mark, and these added parts are separate sources from Mark. Mark obviously didn't know of much of the content of Mt and Lk, which makes these latter separate sources, or separate documents, from Mark.

. . . people telling each other stories about what they heard about a miracle worker called Jesus (Yessua Ben Joseph) . . .

But that's what ALL historical documents are. I.e., they are "copies of copies which are based on oral [and written] sources, people telling each other stories about what they heard about" the events being reported by the writer. How does this contradict the point that the Jesus events are from "multiple" sources confirming each other?

There is no other miracle legend from antiquity for which we have such evidence, i.e., multiple accounts from the period, appearing in less than 100 years after the reported events. So, what's incorrect about the phrase "confirmed in multiple sources, within decades of the reported events"?

. . . 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 . . .

And yet they all took this one Jesus person, the same one described in the gospel accounts, and interpreted (or reinterpreted) him according to their "god" concept, instead of offering some alternative hero figure or alternative personality or deity or guru or prophet object. Why? Why only this Jesus figure and no alternative to him?

All the Gnostic gospels give their own interpretation of the same Jesus person, defining him differently and giving him their mystical symbolism. Nothing about this contradicts or undermines the gospel accounts, other than possibly some reinterpretation of the language to promote their (gnostic) symbolism. Nothing contradicts any of the historical-factual content of the gospel accounts.

The gnostics' focusing on this one Jesus figure is strong evidence that there was no other miracle hero figure they could attach to, i.e., none that was credible. There were plenty of charlatans, messiah pretenders, phonies, etc. But only one person who stood out as the one they could choose, the only credible one, the only one to be taken seriously.

(Gnostics believing that the god of the bible was an evil Demiurge) . . .

So some of them rejected the Yahweh of the Torah and other O.T. ideas. But they were all plugged into the same Jesus figure of the gospel accounts. They differed from the gospel writers on points of Hebrew prophecy and Creation-Genesis etc., but they seized upon the Jesus person who appears in Galilee at around 30 AD and made him their spiritual version of the Incarnate God, or the Logos, etc. Why did they do this instead of using some other person or other hero symbol?

Why is this Jesus person the ONLY one who is deified by so many different types? Why didn't they adopt a different God-man than this one? What other God-man was adopted by any cults and published in multiple documents, or mythologizd into a miracle-worker? Why is there only this one?

. . . or the nature of Jesus, the version that won the lottery as a world religion . . .

What other version was there? What other God-man or hero figure was there than this Jesus person we find in the gospel accounts and also in so many other documents, like the Gnostic gospels and apocryphal gospels and epistles? Why does none other pop up during this period, or these centuries, than this one only who is made into a miracle-working God and Messiah/Savior etc.?

Shouldn't we see some alternative saviors or messiahs or deity heroes who also got mythologized into gods? Why only this one? If such a new deity/Savior could emerge so easily, with miracles attributed to him, should there not be a few others also, who also had a following with story-tellers and writings to describe him and make him the object of their cult?

Why did all the new cults popping up have to converge on this one only instead of each having their own separate hero figure, with a different name and identity and background?

. . . 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) . . .

Only in the sense that he's unaware of ANYthing about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest. Before that point -- arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection -- Paul mentions NOTHING about Jesus. Nothing about his life leading up to this point, nothing biographical.

. . . and the work of Constantine.

There was no "work of Constantine" having anything to do with the written accounts of Jesus appearing in the 1st century. The facts (and fictions) of Jesus were established long before Constantine.

 

[DBT]

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?

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, . . .

Whatever you mean by this, the same is true of all the other sources for historical events. There are no original manuscripts of any historical events prior to 1000 AD. All the manuscripts that exist are copies of earlier copies. And virtually all sources for historical events are based on oral sources.

Not the full picture. You appear to overlook the methodology for sorting fact from fiction, myth from it's kernel of truth (if it is present).

Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.

Gilbert J Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:[1]

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism.''

Procedures for contradictory sources

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3]

If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.
Core principles for determining reliability

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Eyewitness evidence

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[5]

Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?
How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?
Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?
Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?
Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6]''

There was no "work of Constantine" having anything to do with the written accounts of Jesus appearing in the 1st century. The facts (and fictions) of Jesus were established long before Constantine.

I made no mention -or suggestion- of ''Constantine" having something to do with the written accounts of Jesus appearing in the 1st century'' - that is your assumption. A false assumption.

I was clearly referring to the establishment of Christianity as a world religion. Paul being the Promoter, Constantine the Patron, sanctioning Christianity as His (with the encouragement of his mother) state religion.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the Jesus miracles meets the standards required for historical facts.

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?

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, . . .

Whatever you mean by this, the same is true of all the other sources for historical events. There are no original manuscripts of any historical events prior to 1000 AD. All the manuscripts that exist are copies of earlier copies. And virtually all sources for historical events are based on oral sources.

Not the full picture. You appear to overlook the methodology for sorting fact from fiction, myth from it's kernel of truth (if it is present).

Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.

Gilbert J Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:[1]

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism.''

Procedures for contradictory sources

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3]

If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.
Core principles for determining reliability

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Eyewitness evidence

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[5]

Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?
How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?
Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?
Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?
Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6]''

Based on the above criteria, the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is stronger than the evidence for many/most of our accepted facts of ancient history. Many accepted facts of history fall farther short of the above standards for evidence than the reported miracles of Jesus. (Unless you add to the above criteria that all reported miracle events are automatically disqualified from meeting the criteria.)

There was no "work of Constantine" having anything to do with the written accounts of Jesus appearing in the 1st century. The facts (and fictions) of Jesus were established long before Constantine.

I made no mention -or suggestion- of ''Constantine" having something to do with the written accounts of Jesus appearing in the 1st century'' - that is your assumption. A false assumption. I was clearly referring to the establishment of Christianity as a world religion. Paul being the Promoter, Constantine the Patron, sanctioning Christianity as His (with the encouragement of his mother) state religion.

Let's not quibble over what you intended.

Your original point, that Jesus must have been a charismatic breakaway rabbi or lay preacher, does not explain why we have 4 (5) accounts from the period identifying him as a miracle-worker. There were hundreds of such rabbis and preachers, but only this one person for whom we have written accounts attributing miracle acts to him.

That he actually did perform those miracle acts explains why the accounts were written and later persons, including Constantine, made him into a god. But that he was only another charismatic rabbi or preacher explains nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Based on the above criteria, the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is stronger than the evidence for many/most of our accepted facts of ancient history. Many accepted facts of history fall farther short of the above standards for evidence than the reported miracles of Jesus. .

Such as?

I mean, really, if the miracles performed by Jesus had reached a level of historicity to match those in history books, I'd have to think that Jesus himself was even MORE firmly established as historical, thus there would be absolutely no discussion about whether or not he ever existed, or when.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Again, the only evidence that the Jesus miracles did not happen is the premise that miracle events by definition cannot happen.

Based on the above criteria, the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is stronger than the evidence for many/most of our accepted facts of ancient history. Many accepted facts of history fall farther short of the above standards for evidence than the reported miracles of Jesus. .

Such as?

There's all kinds. Almost every page of Josephus (and many others) contains facts which are probably true, and yet there's no corroboration for them, other than this one source.

I already gave an example (maybe in the other thread) from Josephus, which I'll cite here also (though there are many others) for you to analyze, and you can explain why this one fact from Josephus is more credible than the resurrection of Jesus. I.e., Josephus tells us that it was at Machaerus where John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded.

How do we know this is true? There's nothing else anywhere to confirm it. And the same could be said about many/most of the thousands of facts in Josephus. All these thousands of facts are taken as probably true, and yet there are a few "facts" in Josephus which are NOT true, plus he contradicts himself on some of the facts. He has flaws, judged by the above standards, just as much as the gospel accounts. But most of his facts are probably true, despite the lack of any proof. All we have is this one source saying it one time.

But because the gospels contain several miracle stories, they are put on a lower level for credibility. And it's ONLY because of this that they are ranked lower for credibility. Or rather, miracle stories per se are set aside and not presented as fact.

So, there is more evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus than there is for millions of other facts of history which are accepted as standard. That extra evidence for the Jesus miracles makes them more credible than all the other ancient miracle claims for which there is little or no evidence.

I mean, really, if the miracles performed by Jesus had reached a level of historicity to match those in history books, . . .

They don't reach that level, but only on this one criterion -- that they are MIRACLE acts. No miracle stories reach that level. All miracle stories per se are expected to attain to a higher level, or to be corroborated or verified beyond normal events. They are not presented as facts in the history books.

Some history sources do assume Jesus had some kind of healing power -- psychic or psychological, hypnosis etc. The History Channel had a documentary describing him as a "healer" and suggesting that there were others also. He's sometimes called a "healer" without calling it superstition.

Usually it is left open whether the miracle claims have any truth to them. There aren't any legitimate history books which say outright that the miracle stories are false. You don't know any ancient history books, taught in schools, which say those stories are fictional and fabrications. They don't present them as fact, but also do not pronounce them as fiction.

So those events, because they are miracle events, are not presented as fact. They are either omitted, or referred to as beliefs about him, and it's left an open question whether they are true or not. Whereas the millions of facts in Josephus and other historians are routinely accepted as probably true. But even those millions of facts are not actually proven to be true, with certainty. I.e., only a few major facts, like the Caesar assassination, are proved with certainty. Most of the millions of facts are just probable, assumed to be true, but still can be doubted. With only one source, no other verification, there has to be some doubt.

But where certain facts are verified by extra sources, the probability is increased. It's more likely to be true.

. . . I'd have to think that Jesus himself was even MORE firmly established as historical, . . .

He is more firmly established as historical. I.e., that he did exist. The evidence for his existence is greater than for Zoroaster and King Arthur and others, maybe even Confucius, who probably existed but about whom there is doubt.

. . . thus there would be absolutely no discussion about whether or not he ever existed, or when.

"absolutely"? There is discussion about whether the world exists. Whether the moon landing really happened. Whether history really began 5 minutes ago. Whether Lincoln and Washington or anyone more than 5 minutes ago really existed.

Whether Jesus existed, literally, is not a serious question of discussion among historians. It's assumed that he existed, just like 98% of the historical figures we learn from history.

Nor WHEN he existed.

There are some maniacal claims that Jesus really existed 100 years earlier, etc., but this kind of babble is no more serious "discussion" than the babble about the moon landing being a hoax.

Your phrase "absolutely no discussion" makes your statement meaningless.



All this can be easily simplified:

If one automatically rules out any miracle events as impossible, despite any evidence, then those alleged events did not happen.

But if you leave open the possibility of such events, then there is evidence that the Jesus miracle acts really did happen, and it's reasonable to believe it.

No one ever gives any evidence that these events did not happen. The only counter-evidence to the evidence we have from the gospel accounts is the dogmatic premise that miracle events ipso facto can never happen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I already gave an example (maybe in the other thread) from Josephus, which I'll cite here also (though there are many others) for you to analyze, and you can explain why this one fact from Josephus is more credible than the resurrection of Jesus. I.e., Josephus tells us that it was at Machaerus where John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded.

How do we know this is true? There's nothing else anywhere to confirm it. And the same could be said about many/most of the thousands of facts in Josephus. All these thousands of facts are taken as probably true, and yet there are a few "facts" in Josephus which are NOT true, plus he contradicts himself on some of the facts. He has flaws, judged by the above standards, just as much as the gospel accounts. But most of his facts are probably true, despite the lack of any proof. All we have is this one source saying it one time.

Um...when you ask, how do we know this to be true? Shouldn't the first question be 'do we know this to be true?'
Does any historian actually SAY that 'this is the truth of what happened?' Or do historians say things like 'this author reports' and 'traditionally held to be' and 'while this story is included in Luke, it does not include the detail of....'???

I think you still have work to do to support your claim that historians actually take these stories as evidence of historical events.

No one ever gives any evidence that these events did not happen. The only counter-evidence to the evidence we have from the gospel accounts is the dogmatic premise that miracle events ipso facto can never happen.

And you're still wrong on that. WE don't need counter-evidence. We just keep saying that for magic, the threshold for evidence has got to be a lot higher than anything you've managed to offer yet.

 

[Barbarian]

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

Miracle stories are implicitly treated as false for quite some time. There's no need for an explicit decree: it's as implicit as the rule followed by car makers which would say, if made explicit, that cars don't just float up into space so there's no need to shield them for re-entry. The proof for the implied existence of such decrees is that you still could not present a miracle story accepted by historians, or a car mass-produced with proper heat shields.

Most of what we know - and keep inadvertently checking every minute we use modern technology - about the world would have to be false for miracles to happen. Against that huge pile of facts stands a collection of badly mangled versions of a story from an extremely superstitious age, an age which believed for instance that salamanders don't burn in fire despite Plinius reporting that he tried it and they do. Imagine what stupidity might those people have believed about stuff they could not have checked, if they believed falsehoods they could have verified easily (but note here that I don't condone the wanton burning of amphibians).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If the extra evidence exists (beyond the minimum required for normal events), then the miracle claim is more credible.

. . . you can explain why this one fact from Josephus is more credible than the resurrection of Jesus. I.e., Josephus tells us that it was at Machaerus where John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded.

How do we know this is true? There's nothing else anywhere to confirm it. And the same could be said about many/most of the thousands of facts in Josephus. All these thousands of facts are taken as probably true, and yet there are a few "facts" in Josephus which are NOT true, plus he contradicts himself on some of the facts. He has flaws, judged by the above standards, just as much as the gospel accounts. But most of his facts are probably true, despite the lack of any proof. All we have is this one source saying it one time.

Um...when you ask, how do we know this to be true? Shouldn't the first question be 'do we know this to be true?'

Yes, in the sense that we know millions of historical facts which are dependent on one source only, and it's accepted as probably true, though this does not mean it's absolutely certain, or that it's "proven" beyond doubt, but rather, it fits Will Durant's description of "history": "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

I.e., it's a good guess that this fact from Josephus is true, and we "know" it like we know all that other history which is probably true because it's a good guess of what happened. And of course if the same fact is reported in a dozen other sources it's more likely, or it's "proven" or is certain in a way that most other historical facts are not.

Does any historian actually SAY that 'this is the truth of what happened?' Or do historians say things like 'this author reports' and 'traditionally held to be' and 'while this story is included in Luke, it does not include the detail of....'???

Yes, they say this is what happened, and don't always say "according to . . ."

Here's a wiki page on the siege of Jerusalem in 63 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(63_BC) , the taking of the temple by Pompey.

Two major sections of this page -- "Background" and "Siege" -- give information taken straight from Josephus and are dependent on that one source only. Some are footnoted, but others are not. Some modern authors also are cited, but these too are dependent on Josephus.

Most or all of it is dependent on Josephus. None of the text mentions Josephus, other than one direct quote. All the facts are given without saying "according to Josephus" etc. Yet this is the only source for it. The footnotes make it clear that Josephus is the only ancient source, but the text doesn't mention him. And not every sentence is footnoted, even though Josephus is the only source for some sentences.

The text names the first Roman soldier to climb over the wall, Faustus Cornelius Sulla, who was the son of the earlier dictator Sulla. This is from Josephus only.

Another wiki page about this Cornelius says the same thing: "Faustus accompanied Pompey on his Asian campaigns, and was the first to climb over the walls of the Temple of Jerusalem when it was stormed by Pompey in 63 BC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_Cornelius_Sulla_(quaestor_54_BC)

You see the wiki author does not say "according to Josephus" etc., but just says this is the case. It's assumed that this is accurate, even though this is from Josephus only. The Josephus source is named in the footnote, but not in the wiki text.

Plenty of facts from history are like this, from one source only, and routinely presented as being fact, because there's no reason to doubt it. It's probably true. But isn't there a risk of error in some of these cases? Maybe anywhere from 1% to 5% of these are inaccurate.

I think you still have work to do to support your claim that historians actually take these stories as evidence of historical events.

What is the evidence they use, if not "stories" from writers who said the event happened? Name an historical event claimed by historians which they did not take from "stories" written by someone near the time saying that it happened. You can't name any.

No one ever gives any evidence that these events did not happen. The only counter-evidence to the evidence we have from the gospel accounts is the dogmatic premise that miracle events ipso facto can never happen.

And you're still wrong on that. WE don't need counter-evidence.

Yes you do, to establish that the event did NOT happen, or that the claim is false, you do need more than simply your dogmatic premise that no miracle event can ever happen. It is OK to leave the claim off to the side as uncertain, or doubtful. But you can't put it into the "disproved" or "false" or "fiction" or "did not happen" category. It is put into the "doubtful" or "unknown" or "uncertain" category only.

You can't name any reputable history source, like a textbook, which puts the Jesus miracles into the "false" or "fiction" or "did not happen" category. For that, you DO need counter-evidence, which does not exist.

We just keep saying that for magic, the threshold for evidence has got to be a lot higher than anything you've managed to offer yet.

"got to be" in order for what?

There is no official quantity of evidence established as the quantity necessary, i.e., the HIGHER standard required, IN ORDER FOR a miracle event to be confirmed, or corroborated as factual, or to be allowed as a possibility, or to be believed. They are generally set aside as uncertain, which doesn't mean they are false.

There is no judgment in history that they are false, but it's reasonable to require extra evidence for such events, or to consider the probability to be lower unless there is extra evidence. DBT's criteria included:

Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

This means miracle claims require extra evidence, not necessarily that they are absolutely excluded. Without the extra evidence, they are less probable because of the dubious elements.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um...when you ask, how do we know this to be true? Shouldn't the first question be 'do we know this to be true?'

Yes, in the sense that we know millions of historical facts which are dependent on one source only, and it's accepted as probably true, though this does not mean it's absolutely certain, or that it's "proven" beyond doubt, but rather, it fits Will Durant's description of "history": "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

I.e., it's a good guess that this fact from Josephus is true, and we "know" it like we know all that other history which is probably true because it's a good guess of what happened. And of course if the same fact is reported in a dozen other sources it's more likely, or it's "proven" or is certain in a way that most other historical facts are not.

Okay, so, that's a no. You can't point to any actual historian saying 'this is what happened' instead of 'this is what someone says happened.'
They always put those qualifiers in when there's only one source for an event.

And they always, always, always put in those qualifiers when there's magic involved.
Always. Each and ever miracle is treated the same way as an uncorroborated, no-better-than-rumor, 'story' that was told by someone. Doesn't matter who or how many.

And no historian says that these things are history. They say the story is told historically. They say that the opinion is held traditionally.
But they don't pony up corroborating accounts. They don't show the archaeological evidence. They don't talk about the OTHER THINGS historians use that seem to escape your understanding.


So magic, miracle, occult, or sorcery accounts in history do face quite an uphill climb to be treated as history. Like rumors.
So when you say that the evidence for Jesus' miracles is 'just as good' as that of 'the rest of history,' aside from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, you're crippling your own argument. Your miracles need an ASTOUNDING amount of evidence in order to be as good as the stuff we consider to be true history.
Kind of like the first women in the workforce had to be so much better than their peers, just to compete as if they were equals?
Or the first blacks in industry, 'equal' meant they had to be far superior.
Or the first robots to run for public office? THey'll need to be much, much better at politics to get an equal chance.

You, on the other hand, consistently and quite happily put your trust in a story told in a way that's about as compelling as Paul Bunyan. Or Prestor John.

 

[DBT]

This means miracle claims require extra evidence, not necessarily that they are absolutely excluded. Without the extra evidence, they are less probable because of the dubious elements.

Sure, extra evidence they don't actually happen to have...there lies your problem. Plus miracles like walking on water contradict the laws of physics, so things like that don't appear to be possible. Only apparent in the form of illusions and Hollywood special effects, but not in the real world.

 

[Learner]

This means miracle claims require extra evidence, not necessarily that they are absolutely excluded. Without the extra evidence, they are less probable because of the dubious elements.

Sure, extra evidence they don't actually happen to have...there lies your problem. Plus miracles like walking on water contradict the laws of physics, so things like that don't appear to be possible. Only apparent in the form of illusions and Hollywood special effects, but not in the real world.

In the context that Jesus is said to be the son of God. He would then have the ability to do such things regardless of laws of physics.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the context that Jesus is said to be the son of God. He would then have the ability to do such things regardless of laws of physics.

That doesn't help, Learner. The thing is, the laws of physics DO NOT allow what he's said to have done, so the threshold for evidence for this event is going to be high.

IF he did it, and it can be shown that he did it, it's a big step towards proving he's the son of one or another god.
OR, if he can be shown to be the son of one or another god, it'd be a big step to rationalizing his ability o break the laws of physics.

But the claim that he walked on water is NOT made more credible simply because there is ALSO a claim that he's a demigod. Rather, that's two claims that need a hell of a lot of support.

 

[Learner]

That doesn't help, Learner. The thing is, the laws of physics DO NOT allow what he's said to have done, so the threshold for evidence for this event is going to be high.

IF he did it, and it can be shown that he did it, it's a big step towards proving he's the son of one or another god.
OR, if he can be shown to be the son of one or another god, it'd be a big step to rationalizing his ability o break the laws of physics.

But the claim that he walked on water is NOT made more credible simply because there is ALSO a claim that he's a demigod. Rather, that's two claims that need a hell of a lot of support.

If it was shown and proved he was the son of God and to record these acts people would write about them.

What would people make of the writings of Jesus today , given that they were true? The writings (without footage etc) would be treated just as it is with the bible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If it was shown and proved he was the son of God and to record these acts people would write about them.

People told stories that were eventually written down. That's not evidence the stories were true.

What would people make of the writings of Jesus today , given that they were true?

Jesus left no writings, Learner.

The writings (without footage etc) would be treated just as it is with the bible.

The fact that people accept stories is not evidence FOR the stories' factuality.

People accept all sorts of stories. Just look at the last presidential campaign. nd the last 50 days of Trump's presidency.

So, anyway, you can't use an unsupported claim (demigod) as evidence for another unsupported claim (miracle). The best you could do with that is try to prove that the story is internally consistent.

 

[Learner]

People told stories that were eventually written down. That's not evidence the stories were true.

There are true and untrue stories. Some seemingly true ones we do take as historical having less literature than that on Jesus (Lumpy better points out).

Jesus left no writings, Learner.

My bad .. I mean't writings about Jesus by those that said they saw him.

The fact that people accept stories is not evidence FOR the stories' factuality.

People accept all sorts of stories. Just look at the last presidential campaign. nd the last 50 days of Trump's presidency.

No problem with that ... ALL SORTS in one thing or some another thing.

So, anyway, you can't use an unsupported claim (demigod) as evidence for another unsupported claim (miracle). The best you could do with that is try to prove that the story is internally consistent.

I go along with this - consistent.

 

[Atheos]

That doesn't help, Learner. The thing is, the laws of physics DO NOT allow what he's said to have done, so the threshold for evidence for this event is going to be high.

IF he did it, and it can be shown that he did it, it's a big step towards proving he's the son of one or another god.
OR, if he can be shown to be the son of one or another god, it'd be a big step to rationalizing his ability o break the laws of physics.

But the claim that he walked on water is NOT made more credible simply because there is ALSO a claim that he's a demigod. Rather, that's two claims that need a hell of a lot of support.

If it was shown and proved he was the son of God and to record these acts people would write about them.

What would people make of the writings of Jesus today , given that they were true? The writings (without footage etc) would be treated just as it is with the bible.

This reminds me of Monty Python's opening scene in "Quest For The Holy Grail" in which King Arthur tries to argue "coconut migration" by suggesting that perhaps they are carried by swallows. One incredible claim is backed up by appealing to another even more incredible claim. It's also no different from explaining Superman's incredible strength by appealing to the fact that people from Krypton are highly energized with the radiation from a yellow sun. As Keith pointed out it only harmonizes the internal story line. It does nothing to breach the barrier of credibility.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are true and untrue stories. Some seemingly true ones we do take as historical having less literature than that on Jesus (Lumpy better points out).

No, Lumpy does not point it out better. Lumpy exaggerates wildly and does not understand how historians actually work.

Jesus left no writings, Learner.

My bad .. I mean't writings about Jesus by those that said they saw him.

Ah. But none of those that WROTE about Jesus were actually eyewitnesses. At beast they wrote about people who told them about seeing Jesus do something. Or wrote about something they read about someone who was told a story about people who saw some shit.

 

[Learner]

This reminds me of Monty Python's opening scene in "Quest For The Holy Grail" in which King Arthur tries to argue "coconut migration" by suggesting that perhaps they are carried by swallows. One incredible claim is backed up by appealing to another even more incredible claim. It's also no different from explaining Superman's incredible strength by appealing to the fact that people from Krypton are highly energized with the radiation from a yellow sun. As Keith pointed out it only harmonizes the internal story line. It does nothing to breach the barrier of credibility.

Credibility in context with Monty Python and Superman. How many followers of these comic(al) entities would be willing to be persecuted?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This reminds me of Monty Python's opening scene in "Quest For The Holy Grail" in which King Arthur tries to argue "coconut migration" by suggesting that perhaps they are carried by swallows. One incredible claim is backed up by appealing to another even more incredible claim. It's also no different from explaining Superman's incredible strength by appealing to the fact that people from Krypton are highly energized with the radiation from a yellow sun. As Keith pointed out it only harmonizes the internal story line. It does nothing to breach the barrier of credibility.

Credibility in context with Monty Python and Superman. How many followers of these comic(al) entities would be willing to be persecuted?

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!


Why would someone's willingness to be persecuted speak to the validity of the thing they're being persecuted for? It means that they think it's correct. That's very different from it actually being correct. Many people were willing to suffer and die to keep the original Norse faith alive when their leaders demanded that everyone convert to Christianity, but their willingness to be persecuted for their beliefs doesn't mean that Odin is a real dude.