abaddon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,332
The condition for belief isn't credible sources as the creationists claim. You'd have to include something like immortal life or a million dollars or something as the prize for believing it.
-
Features
Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles
- Thread starter Brian63
- Start date
Learner
Veteran Member
With regards to that particular scripture part - someone coming back from the dead ... well sure that's going to be unfathomable. Not quite the same and perhaps not relevant but people get the same kind of shock or disbelief when people they thought were dead or were certain they were killed, suddenly turns up after so many years.
Excellent evidence ...billions of people hmmm. If we can stick to the theology concerned (unless you want to confuse it with another, as it seems you often do) only Jesus and others within this theology are the ONLY ones mentioned to have risen again ...then in the future again in the last days. Best get it right if you're trying to make some argument here.
If like the bible theres historical facts, artifacts, names and places. Corroborations from outside sources. The types of texts that are still being studied and new findings being discovered ... the HOW the stories are written - thats describing about these very things, which'warrants interests and investigations.'
Syntax proper grammar? Ah, I see your line of "thinking" ...perhaps thats why we're not on the same "page "
Depends on the merits of your claim i.e. like the bible!!!!!
We humans have won the greatest prize the universe has to offer, the gift of sentience. Somehow, against great odds, nature has found a way for the universe to become aware of itself through us mortal minds. It is thus ironic and tragic that the same natural processes that created our magnificent minds have also implanted in us the ability and the willingness to create monstrous gods built in our own, worst image, and enslave our minds to these nightmarish creations. Religion is a curse that has afflicted our species for all of recorded history, but for those of us who have the strength to emancipate their minds from this tyranny the rewards are more precious than any material prize.
I went back and edited my post quite a bit since you quoted it. Sorry for the confusion, but perhaps you could go back and read the post again.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
As to whether or not the miraculous happened? Yes.
As to whether or not the miraculous happened? Yes.
But nice dodge on the fact that you have neither in regard to the Bible.
No, there goes your argument in favor of miracles. I don’t need an argument “against” things that someone claims happened.
Which you know, of course, which is why you always have to resort to this circular idiocy.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Even if we did have “reliable eye witness accounts by independent observers,” the only thing that would argue for is that their claim should be further examined. Since there were no forensic scientists in the first century CE, however, such claims—no matter if they were made by the most reliable person in all the world—would still only be evidence that that person saw something he or she could not readily explain, not that the impossible actually happened.
It’s always the same sophistry over and over and over and over and always in a desperate attempt to convince themselves of something they already (allegedly) believe. So fucking weird and pathetic and something that, like Trump, should simply be rejected as the obvious con job it is.
Oh well. Load up the merry-go-round for more of the exact same stupidity in 3...2......
Learner
Veteran Member
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
The word miracle is just that, a word, a sound humans make or some scribbles. All it originally meant was object of wonder, meaning something unexplained. That shit happens to me all the time. What were the people who write these stories actually saying? I ask because the word "miracle wasn't around at the time. We invented it much later. They certainly weren't saying "miracle."
Maybe someone can tell us what happens when there's one of these miracle things, other than we have a poor observer without critical thinking skills managing a few emotionally satisfying hallelujas.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
The historical evidence. Un-refuted again. And again. And again.
With this nutcase wacked-out example, you are conceding the point I made in the post you are selectively quoting from: There are no other cases, in the ancient world (earlier than 1000 AD) of any miracle-workers for whom we have serious evidence.
You are conceding this point by failing to give any example of such a case, and instead simply retreating to modern times when anything can be published in millions of copies, at minimal cost, in hundreds of sources, claiming anything imaginable, and rejected by everyone as garbage.
This is the best you can offer = you concede.
So, when the facts are considered, everyone concedes that we have this one example only, in all the ancient historical record, of a reputed miracle-worker for which there is serious evidence.
With this nutcase wacked-out example, you are conceding the point I made in the post you are selectively quoting from: There are no other cases, in the ancient world (earlier than 1000 AD) of any miracle-workers for whom we have serious evidence.
You are conceding this point by failing to give any example of such a case, and instead simply retreating to modern times when anything can be published in millions of copies, at minimal cost, in hundreds of sources, claiming anything imaginable, and rejected by everyone as garbage.
This is the best you can offer = you concede.
So, when the facts are considered, everyone concedes that we have this one example only, in all the ancient historical record, of a reputed miracle-worker for which there is serious evidence.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
The case against the Jesus miracles is simple:
Just ignore the evidence, and draw silly analogies -- like Jesus vs. Santa
In one case there is evidence, and in the other case there is no evidence.
In one case, we have the miracle claim (Resurrection) in at least one written account about 20 years later than the real person lived. Followed by further accounts 20 or 30 or 40 years later.
In the other case, we have the miracle claims in popular folklore which required more than 1000 years to appear.
No, there's more evidence that Jesus was a particular person at one point in time than the evidence that St. Nicholas was a particular person at one point in time.
https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas/real-person/early-sources
We have only one source for St. Nicholas which might be less than 100 years later than he lived. Otherwise, everything is later than that. (But he did live, as the evidence shows, and his miracle acts are the product of story-telling over many centuries.)
What's more mature than just calling people names is to look up the historical facts and look at the evidence, the sources, when they were written, and compare how long it took for the legends to develop in each case.
translation: The Jesus miracles must be false because we refuse to look at the evidence, refuse to check the facts for different miracle claims, but just pretend that all such claims are equal.
Insisting that there is no difference means to sneer at the facts and evidence.
The entire case against Jesus the miracle-worker is based on not doing this homework.
Just ignore the evidence, and draw silly analogies -- like Jesus vs. Santa
In one case there is evidence, and in the other case there is no evidence.
In one case, we have the miracle claim (Resurrection) in at least one written account about 20 years later than the real person lived. Followed by further accounts 20 or 30 or 40 years later.
In the other case, we have the miracle claims in popular folklore which required more than 1000 years to appear.
No, there's more evidence that Jesus was a particular person at one point in time than the evidence that St. Nicholas was a particular person at one point in time.
https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas/real-person/early-sources
We have only one source for St. Nicholas which might be less than 100 years later than he lived. Otherwise, everything is later than that. (But he did live, as the evidence shows, and his miracle acts are the product of story-telling over many centuries.)
What's more mature than just calling people names is to look up the historical facts and look at the evidence, the sources, when they were written, and compare how long it took for the legends to develop in each case.
translation: The Jesus miracles must be false because we refuse to look at the evidence, refuse to check the facts for different miracle claims, but just pretend that all such claims are equal.
Insisting that there is no difference means to sneer at the facts and evidence.
The entire case against Jesus the miracle-worker is based on not doing this homework.
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Says the idiot who believes in a zombie god who flew up into outer space for no fucking reason and whose only purpose on Earth was to tell slaves to be happy in their oppression, because by doing nothing to change their lot in life, a sky daddy will smile at them after they die and it no longer matters.
You know that’s both a fallacy and false. Wtf is the point of this idiotic merry-go-round you live on?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Just because discourse is polite does not make it rational. People who put credence into crazy stories must think that when they do so the craziness somehow goes away and that beliefs in same become something normal. It ain't so, the crazy does not go away. The stories are still crazy no matter how many people think the stories are not crazy.
Invisible magical space creatures that live in the sky are really simple. Nothing to figure out, nothing to measure, nothing to examine, nothing to add or take away. I guess that's why these tales are favored by the brains of some people. You can't get any simpler than a belief that requires neither observation nor thought.
What is the evidence? We have a collection of stories written decades after the alleged events. We know virtually nothing about the author(s) of these stories or their motivations, other than they wanted to propagate the Christ myth. We have no idea if these stories were invented by the author(s) or had been propagating in oral folklore for decades before they were written down. That is the sumtotal of the evidence for the Jesus resurrection story.
What we do know with a great deal of certainty is that dead people do not come back to life and fly off into space under their own power. Such an event violates the laws of the universe, and there is not a single verifiable case of such an event in the entire history of humanity. You are proposing that we set aside everything we know about how reality works and accept that such an event did happen when your personal favorite fan-fiction superhero was murdered, and then magically resurrected and transported out into space. Just because you believe this particular fairy tale. Your position is absurd and richly deserving of mockery.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
We know what would be good evidence against the Jesus miracles.
But no one yet has found any.
That conclusion cannot be disproved, except in the sense that it's obvious only to those who begin with the premise that any miracle stories must be fiction, regardless of any evidence; or, perhaps, that they must be fiction unless accompanied by an abundance of evidence greater than the evidence we have for most events in ancient history (maybe 90% of them, or more). So, the "obviously fiction" conclusion is not based on any evidence from the historical record, but on a rejection of the existing evidence, all of which indicates that the miracle acts really did happen (but is rejected anyway because it's still not enough).
So, there is no evidence from the ancient record to indicate that the supernatural aspects are fiction, as all the evidence which exists indicates that the events did happen; but, one can reasonably reject all the existing evidence on the ground that it's not enough evidence, because a certain uniquely high threshold of evidence is required for miracle claims, unlike for 90% of events generally, which are accepted on a vastly lower quantity of evidence. If this is what "obviously fiction" means, i.e., that vastly more evidence is required, beyond the already-abundant evidence (though still not abundant enough for miracle claims), then the "obviously fiction" conclusion is difficult to refute.
You could say that about almost any historical figure earlier than 500 or 1000 years ago. There are a few standouts we might KNOW were real -- perhaps 1% of all the historical figures named, or 5% of all the ones mentioned a few times. So we know Julius Caesar and Charlemagne and Alexander the Great and a few dozen others were real, but certainly the vast majority cannot be determined absolutely as real, because of legend-building and discrepancies in the record. We assume the large majority of them were real, but we have "absolutely no way to KNOW" it for sure.
So, even though this can be said about the historical Jesus, it can also be said about most, probably 90%, of all the historical figures we "know" of, and so it doesn't mean much. Because the evidence that Jesus was real is greater than for most of the ancient historical figures we "know" existed -- and yet don't really know for sure.
Obviously no one can dictate to anyone else what to care about. But there are reasons why some do care.
A good simple reason to care is that if he really existed and did perform those miracle acts, including the Resurrection, and if he promised salvation or eternal life to believers, as the accounts suggest, then it's "good news" for all those who hope there is something beyond this life. There's no reason why someone should NOT hope for this, but also no reason to insist that everyone has to hope for it if they don't hope for it. But that there is this hope does explain why some do care.
No, the evidence is not "scant" except in the sense that one can demand a vast quantity of evidence for any miracle claim, and in this sense the abundant evidence we have is still not enough, as it must be so vastly greater than for normal (non-miracle) events.
In the end, a Christ-believer willing to be skeptical has to admit that the quantity of evidence could be greater still, even though the quantity that does exist is greater than required for normal events, even much greater -- but still probably less than a believer would prefer. (Although there might be some reason for a limit to the evidence, such that if it was too overwhelming there would be something lost, i.e., "faith" = the evidence is less than one would wish. Or, "faith" inherently is diminished if the evidence is overwhelming beyond a certain point.)
But "so scant that nobody alive today will ever know" suggests the possibility of some future evidence turning up. What about the possibility of such future evidence? This can't be ruled out. What kind of future evidence might turn up?
This is a good occasion to note some evidence which already exists but is largely ignored, and about which something more could be learned in the near future.
This evidence goes mostly unmentioned by the critics and propagandists and by believers and non-believers alike. It's a piece of literature placed in the category of Greek Romance novels. The title is Callirhoe, or Chaereas and Callirhoe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariton by a Greek author, Chariton, before 200 AD, and possibly mid-first-century (or even earlier!).
If any new evidence turns up on this novel, which is able to fix its date more firmly, then it would constitute additional evidence to either help confirm, or to undermine, the Resurrection of Jesus as historical.
This novel combines elements which are difficult to explain unless it had some connection to the Jesus story in its early form. I.e., a CAUSAL connection, such that one inspired the other. It contains both a resurrection scene AND a crucifixion scene, which exists nowhere else in any earlier literature. It's difficult to find any resurrection or crucifixion scenarios in any ancient literature. There's mention of crucifixion, but no narratives telling an individual experience, of an innocent victim being crucified, or almost crucified, and somehow escaping, or being rescued.
Along with this crucifixion scene is mention of innocent persons BEARING A CROSS and complaining of their suffering. There's nothing like this to be found in any earlier literature. The only other mention of anyone "bearing" a cross is to be found later in Plutarch, written about 100 AD.
But then add to this also a RESURRECTION scenario, even including an empty tomb -- even with a stone moved away from the entrance! What is the probability of having a written narrative of such a thing, as just another random story, combining both of these two elements -- both a resurrection scene and a crucifixion scene -- in the same single narrative account?
This is not likely a coincidence.
Whichever story was first probably inspired the later one.
And yet the apparent connection of this novel to the Jesus death-and-resurrection story is mostly ignored by the scholars, both by believers and non-believers. For some reason they don't want to draw attention to the unusual parallel of these two stories. The fact that one is historical and the other fiction is beside the point.
What we can't explain are these two narrative accounts in written documents from the time (although the dating of the Callirhoe novel is more difficult), with no other literature having similar subject matter. There's nothing else known which could have inspired both of these, such as a unique interest in resurrection tales at this time, or hysteria over missing bodies. There's no evidence that crucifixion-and-resurrection tales were some kind of literary fad during this period. Other than copycat stories appearing 100 or 200 years later.
Additional evidence could turn up to fix the date of this novel more precisely. If it is even pre-Christian, such as before 30 AD, then it is very awkward for the Jesus Resurrection as a historical event at around 30 AD, because such an earlier narrative has to cause suspicion that the Jesus Resurrection belief was inspired by this earlier romance novel, known by someone who knew of the Jesus crucifixion and then combining the resurrection element in this novel to the Jesus story.
But, if the Callirhoe novel is later, such as after 40 or 50 AD, then one has to suspect that this novel was inspired by the already-existing Jesus story, which contained the crucifixion-and-resurrection of Jesus by this time, or no later than 50 AD when Paul mentions it.
The Callirhoe author lived in Asia Minor near Ephesus and other towns where Christ-belief was spreading in the first century (the 7 Churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Rev. 1-3), so he could have known the basic Jesus crucifixion-resurrection story, probably only in a rudimentary form (the Gospels didn't exist yet). However, if this author lived much earlier, then this could not be what inspired him.
So, the new evidence which could either support or undermine the Resurrection story would be something to better fix the date when this novel was written. If later than 40 AD, then it's evidence of the spread of the "gospel" at that time, in a region where early Christian missionary activity was happening; but if earlier than 30 AD, it's evidence that the Jesus Resurrection might have been inspired by this earlier story.
It is difficult to explain how the later story would not have been inspired by the earlier, whichever is the correct chronology or sequence of the two.
And, a strong possibility is that the Gospel of Mark borrowed the "empty tomb" scenario from the Callirhoe novel, if this was written in mid-century while Mark was written about 70 AD. It's reasonable to believe Mark was knowledgeable of Greek literature and used some symbolism or themes from some earlier Greek legends. However, it's not possible that Paul could have borrowed the crucifixion-resurrection idea from reading any Greek literature. His story must have been based on an earlier version of the Jesus story, whatever its origin.
Of the two possibilities, the more likely is that the Jesus event happened first -- the crucifixion and death and resurrection -- cited by Paul no later than 50 AD, and then about the same time the Callirhoe author heard of this and used the two scenarios in his novel. And then later Mark borrowed the "empty tomb" scenario which too strongly resembles a similar scene in the Callirhoe novel. Though it's also possible that the Callirhoe novel is much later and borrowed this scene from Mark.
Why do both believers and non-believers want to ignore the Callirhoe novel?
Non-believers ignore it, and even wish it would go away, because it is strong evidence that the Jesus Resurrection story was circulating pretty far west, and testifies to the early origin of the Resurrection claim and how the Christ-belief was spreading as a result of this unusual claim, or rumored event from Galilee-Judea.
However, one debunker-pundit who uses the Callirhoe novel in his crusade against the Jesus miracles is Robert Price:
His presentation of the Callirhoe novel begins at about 24 minutes in.
Price's argument is that there were all kinds of these stories sloshing around the Roman world in the 1st century, resurrecting bodies everywhere, the dead rising or being raised, empty tombs, on and on. And yet the truth is that this Callirhoe novel is absolutely the ONLY such story anywhere which might be 1st century, and might even be prior to Jesus.
There are no other such stories -- just these two only.
All the others are much later, even centuries later, and are copycat stories of either Jesus in the Gospels, or are copycat stories taken from the Callirhoe novel, which had some popularity. What all the evidence tells us is: The first resurrection story is that of Jesus in the Gospels, happening about 30 AD and first mentioned in writing by Paul. Then, after this miracle stories begin appearing, mostly after 100 AD, of resurrections and other miracles, some of them obviously copycat versions of the Jesus miracles, even lifted out of the Gospel accounts. But prior to 100 AD, there is NOTHING of it.
Except possibly the Callirhoe novel. Which is what makes this particular document interesting. Aside from this one, there is NO JESUS PARALLEL miracle/resurrection account of any kind. So, it matters when this Callirhoe novel was written.
Both believers and non-believers are embarrassed by the Callirhoe novel.
But believers also ignore it, and are uncomfortable with the existence of other literature having such elements in it resembling Jesus in the Gospels. They think any such parallels suggest that the Jesus Resurrection was a fictional story pattern of the time, common in other literature, and thus undermining the Jesus story as something produced by the general culture rather than being an actual event.
And yet, there is really NOTHING in any other literature claiming any resurrection event, prior to Jesus -- unless this Callirhoe novel dates before 30 AD -- this is the only possible exception. So it's most likely that the Jesus Resurrection was itself the inspiration for the later miracle stories, Callirhoe being the first, which began using this theme. And before this there was no such reported event anywhere -- including in fiction -- describing a person in history as coming back to life soon after his death and being seen by witnesses.
Debunker-scholars are starving, chomping at the bit, to find any such story, and yet they can come up with nothing, and it's even hilarious to see the attempts they make to produce parallels of resurrections, of "dying and risen" gods and so on, and trying to distort and paint these as being similar to Jesus in the Gospels, when there is no comparison.
There is one and only one such example of it in the Gospel accounts, which is the fish-and-loaves story, having too much resemblance to II Kings 4:42-44. That there is only this one is actually strong evidence that the Jesus miracle acts are not based on earlier legends, because if they were, there would be more than only this one.
Mark borrowing from Homer
A further indication that the Jesus miracle stories are not borrowed from the earlier culture is the fact that no miracle story in the Gospel of Mark is taken from anything earlier, such as from Homer, even though there's general agreement that Mark borrowed heavily from Homer for subject matter and symbols:
http://vridar.info/xorigins/homermark/mkhmrfiles/index.htm
And there are many other sites which give parallels of Mark's accounts to Homer, and yet not one of Mark's miracles contains anything from Homer. Why would that be? If Mark was making it up, why didn't he borrow miracles from Homer like he borrowed other elements? What was driving Mark? The only explanation: He had good evidence of miracle acts Jesus really did, he had to report this, and in his account he made use of his knowledge of Homer to help him present his account in a familiar literary style. But he didn't need to borrow any miracle stories from Homer, because he had so many already, from real events. And these must be what inspired him. What better explanation is there?
Sure he might have made up some stuff to put in his story. But what was his basic story to which he wanted to add stuff? It was the already-existing reports of Jesus the miracle-worker, to which no fiction needed to be added, from Homer or elsewhere. All he borrowed from Homer was some extra literary style stuff to help present his account of the true facts of those miracle acts which happened and for which he already had plenty of material. After all, there has to be a starting point, doesn't there? What was Mark's starting point? It must have been the many reports he received of Jesus the miracle-worker. That explains his motivation and everything he wrote, including the bits of message or theology he included as his interpretation.
On the other hand there are several later miracle stories which are copycat stories based on Jesus in the Gospels. Robert Price in the video above mentions several of them, noting the parallels, but failing to point out that these later stories must have been inspired by the earlier Jesus stories (though he wishes so desperately at times to take the Jesus miracles out of the 1st century and claim they are a product of 100 or 200 years later, contrary to virtually all the scholarship on the dating of the Gospel accounts).
We know what negative evidence would be, and there isn't any.
But what would be good negative evidence is anything casting doubt on the entire crucifixion-and-resurrection narrative, because if this were fictional, then there's not much left. If the Resurrection did not really happen, then too much is removed, and there's not enough left to believe or upon which to base the hope for eternal life. So the Callirhoe novel would be very damaging evidence, if it was written very early, like before 30 AD.
So virtually all the evidence is that the Jesus miracle acts really did happen, with nothing yet found to indicate otherwise. But for this to be legitimate, it's necessary to acknowledge what would be good contrary evidence, if it should ever exist. So here's an example: if some new manuscript should be discovered -- which is a possibility -- which would date the Callirhoe novel very early, and if it's definite, then that would be good negative evidence against the Resurrection.
But no one yet has found any.
That conclusion cannot be disproved, except in the sense that it's obvious only to those who begin with the premise that any miracle stories must be fiction, regardless of any evidence; or, perhaps, that they must be fiction unless accompanied by an abundance of evidence greater than the evidence we have for most events in ancient history (maybe 90% of them, or more). So, the "obviously fiction" conclusion is not based on any evidence from the historical record, but on a rejection of the existing evidence, all of which indicates that the miracle acts really did happen (but is rejected anyway because it's still not enough).
So, there is no evidence from the ancient record to indicate that the supernatural aspects are fiction, as all the evidence which exists indicates that the events did happen; but, one can reasonably reject all the existing evidence on the ground that it's not enough evidence, because a certain uniquely high threshold of evidence is required for miracle claims, unlike for 90% of events generally, which are accepted on a vastly lower quantity of evidence. If this is what "obviously fiction" means, i.e., that vastly more evidence is required, beyond the already-abundant evidence (though still not abundant enough for miracle claims), then the "obviously fiction" conclusion is difficult to refute.
You could say that about almost any historical figure earlier than 500 or 1000 years ago. There are a few standouts we might KNOW were real -- perhaps 1% of all the historical figures named, or 5% of all the ones mentioned a few times. So we know Julius Caesar and Charlemagne and Alexander the Great and a few dozen others were real, but certainly the vast majority cannot be determined absolutely as real, because of legend-building and discrepancies in the record. We assume the large majority of them were real, but we have "absolutely no way to KNOW" it for sure.
So, even though this can be said about the historical Jesus, it can also be said about most, probably 90%, of all the historical figures we "know" of, and so it doesn't mean much. Because the evidence that Jesus was real is greater than for most of the ancient historical figures we "know" existed -- and yet don't really know for sure.
Obviously no one can dictate to anyone else what to care about. But there are reasons why some do care.
A good simple reason to care is that if he really existed and did perform those miracle acts, including the Resurrection, and if he promised salvation or eternal life to believers, as the accounts suggest, then it's "good news" for all those who hope there is something beyond this life. There's no reason why someone should NOT hope for this, but also no reason to insist that everyone has to hope for it if they don't hope for it. But that there is this hope does explain why some do care.
No, the evidence is not "scant" except in the sense that one can demand a vast quantity of evidence for any miracle claim, and in this sense the abundant evidence we have is still not enough, as it must be so vastly greater than for normal (non-miracle) events.
In the end, a Christ-believer willing to be skeptical has to admit that the quantity of evidence could be greater still, even though the quantity that does exist is greater than required for normal events, even much greater -- but still probably less than a believer would prefer. (Although there might be some reason for a limit to the evidence, such that if it was too overwhelming there would be something lost, i.e., "faith" = the evidence is less than one would wish. Or, "faith" inherently is diminished if the evidence is overwhelming beyond a certain point.)
But "so scant that nobody alive today will ever know" suggests the possibility of some future evidence turning up. What about the possibility of such future evidence? This can't be ruled out. What kind of future evidence might turn up?
evidence against / for the Resurrection
This is a good occasion to note some evidence which already exists but is largely ignored, and about which something more could be learned in the near future.
This evidence goes mostly unmentioned by the critics and propagandists and by believers and non-believers alike. It's a piece of literature placed in the category of Greek Romance novels. The title is Callirhoe, or Chaereas and Callirhoe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariton by a Greek author, Chariton, before 200 AD, and possibly mid-first-century (or even earlier!).
If any new evidence turns up on this novel, which is able to fix its date more firmly, then it would constitute additional evidence to either help confirm, or to undermine, the Resurrection of Jesus as historical.
This novel combines elements which are difficult to explain unless it had some connection to the Jesus story in its early form. I.e., a CAUSAL connection, such that one inspired the other. It contains both a resurrection scene AND a crucifixion scene, which exists nowhere else in any earlier literature. It's difficult to find any resurrection or crucifixion scenarios in any ancient literature. There's mention of crucifixion, but no narratives telling an individual experience, of an innocent victim being crucified, or almost crucified, and somehow escaping, or being rescued.
Along with this crucifixion scene is mention of innocent persons BEARING A CROSS and complaining of their suffering. There's nothing like this to be found in any earlier literature. The only other mention of anyone "bearing" a cross is to be found later in Plutarch, written about 100 AD.
But then add to this also a RESURRECTION scenario, even including an empty tomb -- even with a stone moved away from the entrance! What is the probability of having a written narrative of such a thing, as just another random story, combining both of these two elements -- both a resurrection scene and a crucifixion scene -- in the same single narrative account?
This is not likely a coincidence.
Whichever story was first probably inspired the later one.
And yet the apparent connection of this novel to the Jesus death-and-resurrection story is mostly ignored by the scholars, both by believers and non-believers. For some reason they don't want to draw attention to the unusual parallel of these two stories. The fact that one is historical and the other fiction is beside the point.
What we can't explain are these two narrative accounts in written documents from the time (although the dating of the Callirhoe novel is more difficult), with no other literature having similar subject matter. There's nothing else known which could have inspired both of these, such as a unique interest in resurrection tales at this time, or hysteria over missing bodies. There's no evidence that crucifixion-and-resurrection tales were some kind of literary fad during this period. Other than copycat stories appearing 100 or 200 years later.
Additional evidence could turn up to fix the date of this novel more precisely. If it is even pre-Christian, such as before 30 AD, then it is very awkward for the Jesus Resurrection as a historical event at around 30 AD, because such an earlier narrative has to cause suspicion that the Jesus Resurrection belief was inspired by this earlier romance novel, known by someone who knew of the Jesus crucifixion and then combining the resurrection element in this novel to the Jesus story.
But, if the Callirhoe novel is later, such as after 40 or 50 AD, then one has to suspect that this novel was inspired by the already-existing Jesus story, which contained the crucifixion-and-resurrection of Jesus by this time, or no later than 50 AD when Paul mentions it.
The Callirhoe author lived in Asia Minor near Ephesus and other towns where Christ-belief was spreading in the first century (the 7 Churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Rev. 1-3), so he could have known the basic Jesus crucifixion-resurrection story, probably only in a rudimentary form (the Gospels didn't exist yet). However, if this author lived much earlier, then this could not be what inspired him.
So, the new evidence which could either support or undermine the Resurrection story would be something to better fix the date when this novel was written. If later than 40 AD, then it's evidence of the spread of the "gospel" at that time, in a region where early Christian missionary activity was happening; but if earlier than 30 AD, it's evidence that the Jesus Resurrection might have been inspired by this earlier story.
It is difficult to explain how the later story would not have been inspired by the earlier, whichever is the correct chronology or sequence of the two.
And, a strong possibility is that the Gospel of Mark borrowed the "empty tomb" scenario from the Callirhoe novel, if this was written in mid-century while Mark was written about 70 AD. It's reasonable to believe Mark was knowledgeable of Greek literature and used some symbolism or themes from some earlier Greek legends. However, it's not possible that Paul could have borrowed the crucifixion-resurrection idea from reading any Greek literature. His story must have been based on an earlier version of the Jesus story, whatever its origin.
Of the two possibilities, the more likely is that the Jesus event happened first -- the crucifixion and death and resurrection -- cited by Paul no later than 50 AD, and then about the same time the Callirhoe author heard of this and used the two scenarios in his novel. And then later Mark borrowed the "empty tomb" scenario which too strongly resembles a similar scene in the Callirhoe novel. Though it's also possible that the Callirhoe novel is much later and borrowed this scene from Mark.
Why do both believers and non-believers want to ignore the Callirhoe novel?
Non-believers ignore it, and even wish it would go away, because it is strong evidence that the Jesus Resurrection story was circulating pretty far west, and testifies to the early origin of the Resurrection claim and how the Christ-belief was spreading as a result of this unusual claim, or rumored event from Galilee-Judea.
However, one debunker-pundit who uses the Callirhoe novel in his crusade against the Jesus miracles is Robert Price:
His presentation of the Callirhoe novel begins at about 24 minutes in.
Price's argument is that there were all kinds of these stories sloshing around the Roman world in the 1st century, resurrecting bodies everywhere, the dead rising or being raised, empty tombs, on and on. And yet the truth is that this Callirhoe novel is absolutely the ONLY such story anywhere which might be 1st century, and might even be prior to Jesus.
There are no other such stories -- just these two only.
All the others are much later, even centuries later, and are copycat stories of either Jesus in the Gospels, or are copycat stories taken from the Callirhoe novel, which had some popularity. What all the evidence tells us is: The first resurrection story is that of Jesus in the Gospels, happening about 30 AD and first mentioned in writing by Paul. Then, after this miracle stories begin appearing, mostly after 100 AD, of resurrections and other miracles, some of them obviously copycat versions of the Jesus miracles, even lifted out of the Gospel accounts. But prior to 100 AD, there is NOTHING of it.
Except possibly the Callirhoe novel. Which is what makes this particular document interesting. Aside from this one, there is NO JESUS PARALLEL miracle/resurrection account of any kind. So, it matters when this Callirhoe novel was written.
Both believers and non-believers are embarrassed by the Callirhoe novel.
But believers also ignore it, and are uncomfortable with the existence of other literature having such elements in it resembling Jesus in the Gospels. They think any such parallels suggest that the Jesus Resurrection was a fictional story pattern of the time, common in other literature, and thus undermining the Jesus story as something produced by the general culture rather than being an actual event.
And yet, there is really NOTHING in any other literature claiming any resurrection event, prior to Jesus -- unless this Callirhoe novel dates before 30 AD -- this is the only possible exception. So it's most likely that the Jesus Resurrection was itself the inspiration for the later miracle stories, Callirhoe being the first, which began using this theme. And before this there was no such reported event anywhere -- including in fiction -- describing a person in history as coming back to life soon after his death and being seen by witnesses.
Debunker-scholars are starving, chomping at the bit, to find any such story, and yet they can come up with nothing, and it's even hilarious to see the attempts they make to produce parallels of resurrections, of "dying and risen" gods and so on, and trying to distort and paint these as being similar to Jesus in the Gospels, when there is no comparison.
copycat stories as negative evidence
It's important to point out the possibility of negative evidence -- something which would show the Jesus miracle acts as fiction. Of course it's possible to find fictional elements in the Gospels. It would be amazing if there was none. There is no ancient literature of any kind, including historical accounts, which does not contain some fiction. It's easy to explain how some legend/myth elements would be added -- i.e., added to factual accounts reporting what really happened. That's not good negative evidence, unless it can be shown that many or most of the reported miracle acts are fictional, e.g., such as showing that they are copycat stories based on earlier legends.There is one and only one such example of it in the Gospel accounts, which is the fish-and-loaves story, having too much resemblance to II Kings 4:42-44. That there is only this one is actually strong evidence that the Jesus miracle acts are not based on earlier legends, because if they were, there would be more than only this one.
Mark borrowing from Homer
A further indication that the Jesus miracle stories are not borrowed from the earlier culture is the fact that no miracle story in the Gospel of Mark is taken from anything earlier, such as from Homer, even though there's general agreement that Mark borrowed heavily from Homer for subject matter and symbols:
http://vridar.info/xorigins/homermark/mkhmrfiles/index.htm
And there are many other sites which give parallels of Mark's accounts to Homer, and yet not one of Mark's miracles contains anything from Homer. Why would that be? If Mark was making it up, why didn't he borrow miracles from Homer like he borrowed other elements? What was driving Mark? The only explanation: He had good evidence of miracle acts Jesus really did, he had to report this, and in his account he made use of his knowledge of Homer to help him present his account in a familiar literary style. But he didn't need to borrow any miracle stories from Homer, because he had so many already, from real events. And these must be what inspired him. What better explanation is there?
Sure he might have made up some stuff to put in his story. But what was his basic story to which he wanted to add stuff? It was the already-existing reports of Jesus the miracle-worker, to which no fiction needed to be added, from Homer or elsewhere. All he borrowed from Homer was some extra literary style stuff to help present his account of the true facts of those miracle acts which happened and for which he already had plenty of material. After all, there has to be a starting point, doesn't there? What was Mark's starting point? It must have been the many reports he received of Jesus the miracle-worker. That explains his motivation and everything he wrote, including the bits of message or theology he included as his interpretation.
On the other hand there are several later miracle stories which are copycat stories based on Jesus in the Gospels. Robert Price in the video above mentions several of them, noting the parallels, but failing to point out that these later stories must have been inspired by the earlier Jesus stories (though he wishes so desperately at times to take the Jesus miracles out of the 1st century and claim they are a product of 100 or 200 years later, contrary to virtually all the scholarship on the dating of the Gospel accounts).
We know what negative evidence would be, and there isn't any.
But what would be good negative evidence is anything casting doubt on the entire crucifixion-and-resurrection narrative, because if this were fictional, then there's not much left. If the Resurrection did not really happen, then too much is removed, and there's not enough left to believe or upon which to base the hope for eternal life. So the Callirhoe novel would be very damaging evidence, if it was written very early, like before 30 AD.
So virtually all the evidence is that the Jesus miracle acts really did happen, with nothing yet found to indicate otherwise. But for this to be legitimate, it's necessary to acknowledge what would be good contrary evidence, if it should ever exist. So here's an example: if some new manuscript should be discovered -- which is a possibility -- which would date the Callirhoe novel very early, and if it's definite, then that would be good negative evidence against the Resurrection.
Last edited:
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Oh, this recycled shit again...and no I'm not going to engage in a year long blather with your long winded nonsense...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-s...s that the Gospel,emerged in the 19th century.
And only 3 miracles appear in all 4 gospels.
https://jesuschristsavior.net/Miracles.html
How is the son of Quetzalcoatl doing within your strange version of Christianity?
Yes, the NT books are evidence, but what evidence do they provide besides building a religion. The Book of Mormon and the Quran are also evidence...
Take it up with the UMC, ELCA, and Episcopalian theologians that would not agree with such lame arguments. The Two-source hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-s...s that the Gospel,emerged in the 19th century.
And only 3 miracles appear in all 4 gospels.
https://jesuschristsavior.net/Miracles.html
How is the son of Quetzalcoatl doing within your strange version of Christianity?
Skepticism is the appropriate response to any claim that violates the laws of the universe. For the supernatural claims made in the Bible, the "obviously fiction" conclusion is the reasonable conclusion because in all of human history, there is not a single verifiable case of anyone being resurrected from the dead, or a single verifiable case of a human flying off into space under their own power. Not one. Moreover, there is a vast amount of evidence that speaks against such claims. We have literally billions of dead people who have never risen up from their graves. We have literally billions of people who cannot fly into space under their own power. And, our scientific understanding of how the universe behaves tells us that such events are impossible.
Therefore, your claim that there is no evidence to counter the supernatural Biblical claims is a lie.
The standards for judging supernatural claims are, and rightly should be, very different from the standards used to judge claims that do not violate natural laws. The claim that Caesar conquered Gaul and brought it under the control of Rome is vastly different from the claim that Jesus rose up from the dead and levitated off into space. The latter requires us to set aside everything we know about the universe, and the former does not. No serious history book treats supernatural claims as being factual, and your insistence on ignoring this fact speaks against your intellectual integrity.
It should also be noted that you reject every other supernatural claim regarding every other god that has ever been invented by humans, even when the evidence for such claims are of much higher quality than the evidence supporting Biblical claims. You reject the testimony of named eyewitnesses to miracles performed by the likes of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and Bhagavan Rajneesh, for no good reason that you can articulate. You are an atheist when it comes to the claims of any religion other than Christianity, and you are unable to explain why the Biblical claims should be treated differently than those other god claims. You are blinded by your bias, and have sacrificed your intellectual integrity in order to cling to your faith. You are a prime example of the corruption religion wreaks on our minds, and sadly, there are billions of humans just like you, robots that have been programmed to spread the infection.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
What "other supernatural claim" and what "evidence for such claims" are you talking about?
There is no other "supernatural claim" or "evidence" for it if no one is willing to provide the example. Give the original source, and the text making the claim, before you demand that we have to believe or disbelieve them all equally.
If that were true you would have provided us with some of that evidence, instead of just quoting talking-points from your Jesus-debunker-guru-pundit.
There are many Biblical claims, not all of which are supported by evidence. It's mainly the Jesus miracle acts which are supported by evidence. Some other miracle claims might not be. You can't give a mature response to this if you're unable to distinguish between claims for which there is evidence and claims for which there is not.
What testimony? If any existed you would have quoted for us from the original sources giving that testimony.
We've been over this a dozen times (or 2 dozen) and you (and the others) persistently shirk your responsibility to provide examples. Your argument about "claims of any religion other than Christianity" are phony if you refuse to quote for us the original source texts for those claims. What particular miracles are you referring to, in the sources -- what sentences, quotations from the sources are you relying on? Quote it for us! -- so we can read for ourselves what the miracle claim is, who it says was there and what they observed. You never do this.
You know nothing of any such claims of other religions. Except something silly, like saying they saw some gold tablets, as if there's something miraculous about a gold tablet with some goofy marks on it.
When will you stop pussyfooting around and give us a serious example, citing the original source text for it?
When "bias" is based on the facts, it's OK to be biased. It's OK to accept the facts as true. The reports are there, in the ancient writings, near the time the alleged events happened. That's evidence for what happened, and one can always wish for even more evidence. But "bias" is not blind when it is based on known facts available to everyone.
But you refuse to provide the facts for your blind-faith claim that there are other miracles for which there is evidence. You refuse to give the quotes from the sources claiming that they happened. So your "bias" is based on suppressing the facts, in which case your "bias" is invalid. It's OK to be "biased" when it's based on facts and you present those facts, but not when you have no facts, or when you have them but refuse to present them. Quoting from a modern Jesus-debunker pundit is not presenting any facts to us.
That's what you're doing when you persist in refusing to give us the quotes from the original sources for those miracle claims you repeat over and over. Intellectual integrity requires you to provide the original sources for those claims instead of continuing to cling to your Jesus-debunker-crusader pundit who feeds his talking points into your mouth and which you slurp up mindlessly and then regurgitate back in your posts.
Are you capable of doing your own thinking, by getting the original sources for those claims and quoting them here for us, or will you just cling to your faith by just regurgitating back the same talking points from your debunker-guru-pundit?
No, it's not religion, it's facts based on evidence from the ancient writings. If there's a small piece of "religion" which happens to be based on facts and evidence and reason, why does it have to be censured and banned and torched only because something religious got attached to it?
It's not from the Council of Nicea that this comes. It's the other way around: "The Church" of the 4th century took this same evidence already there -- Jesus the miracle-worker is documented from evidence of the 1st century, 300 years before the New Religion was established. It's the 1st century facts "our minds" are confronted with, not religion which came later.
What's wrong with being "programmed to spread" facts about something documented in the historical record, giving evidence for what happened? Why are you afraid of people spreading facts about what happened in history, as documented from the ancient written record, as virtually all our historical facts are documented? Which other facts of history do you want to have erased in addition to these? Why do you think it's an "infection" for people to learn the historical facts and spread them?
What debunker-guru programmed you to want to erase these facts from history and call it an "infection" for people to know these facts? and programmed you to regurgitate his own claims of ancient miracle-workers for whom there is no evidence, and for which you have no sources, and which you believe blindly only because your debunker-guru feeds it to you and sends you out to fanatically repeat claims about ancient Jesus parallel miracle-workers, repeating like a robot that "the evidence for such claims are of much higher quality" because you've been programmed to say that but have no ability to question it or seek any original source for it, like a puppet having no ability to speak any words of its own and, like you, is oblivious to any truth other than what is mouthed into it by the puppeteer?
My programming is to find the ancient sources making the claims and to give credibility to those sources, if they're not contradicted by other evidence, the same as to all the ancient writings we rely on to determine what happened in the past. And in this case the evidence tells us that something unusual did happen, which is noteworthy and "good news" to hear.
But you're driven by an obsession that this is something dangerous and unhealthy for people to know about and so should be covered up and suppressed, like an infectious disease.
There is no other "supernatural claim" or "evidence" for it if no one is willing to provide the example. Give the original source, and the text making the claim, before you demand that we have to believe or disbelieve them all equally.
If that were true you would have provided us with some of that evidence, instead of just quoting talking-points from your Jesus-debunker-guru-pundit.
There are many Biblical claims, not all of which are supported by evidence. It's mainly the Jesus miracle acts which are supported by evidence. Some other miracle claims might not be. You can't give a mature response to this if you're unable to distinguish between claims for which there is evidence and claims for which there is not.
What testimony? If any existed you would have quoted for us from the original sources giving that testimony.
We've been over this a dozen times (or 2 dozen) and you (and the others) persistently shirk your responsibility to provide examples. Your argument about "claims of any religion other than Christianity" are phony if you refuse to quote for us the original source texts for those claims. What particular miracles are you referring to, in the sources -- what sentences, quotations from the sources are you relying on? Quote it for us! -- so we can read for ourselves what the miracle claim is, who it says was there and what they observed. You never do this.
You know nothing of any such claims of other religions. Except something silly, like saying they saw some gold tablets, as if there's something miraculous about a gold tablet with some goofy marks on it.
When will you stop pussyfooting around and give us a serious example, citing the original source text for it?
When "bias" is based on the facts, it's OK to be biased. It's OK to accept the facts as true. The reports are there, in the ancient writings, near the time the alleged events happened. That's evidence for what happened, and one can always wish for even more evidence. But "bias" is not blind when it is based on known facts available to everyone.
But you refuse to provide the facts for your blind-faith claim that there are other miracles for which there is evidence. You refuse to give the quotes from the sources claiming that they happened. So your "bias" is based on suppressing the facts, in which case your "bias" is invalid. It's OK to be "biased" when it's based on facts and you present those facts, but not when you have no facts, or when you have them but refuse to present them. Quoting from a modern Jesus-debunker pundit is not presenting any facts to us.
That's what you're doing when you persist in refusing to give us the quotes from the original sources for those miracle claims you repeat over and over. Intellectual integrity requires you to provide the original sources for those claims instead of continuing to cling to your Jesus-debunker-crusader pundit who feeds his talking points into your mouth and which you slurp up mindlessly and then regurgitate back in your posts.
Are you capable of doing your own thinking, by getting the original sources for those claims and quoting them here for us, or will you just cling to your faith by just regurgitating back the same talking points from your debunker-guru-pundit?
No, it's not religion, it's facts based on evidence from the ancient writings. If there's a small piece of "religion" which happens to be based on facts and evidence and reason, why does it have to be censured and banned and torched only because something religious got attached to it?
It's not from the Council of Nicea that this comes. It's the other way around: "The Church" of the 4th century took this same evidence already there -- Jesus the miracle-worker is documented from evidence of the 1st century, 300 years before the New Religion was established. It's the 1st century facts "our minds" are confronted with, not religion which came later.
What's wrong with being "programmed to spread" facts about something documented in the historical record, giving evidence for what happened? Why are you afraid of people spreading facts about what happened in history, as documented from the ancient written record, as virtually all our historical facts are documented? Which other facts of history do you want to have erased in addition to these? Why do you think it's an "infection" for people to learn the historical facts and spread them?
What debunker-guru programmed you to want to erase these facts from history and call it an "infection" for people to know these facts? and programmed you to regurgitate his own claims of ancient miracle-workers for whom there is no evidence, and for which you have no sources, and which you believe blindly only because your debunker-guru feeds it to you and sends you out to fanatically repeat claims about ancient Jesus parallel miracle-workers, repeating like a robot that "the evidence for such claims are of much higher quality" because you've been programmed to say that but have no ability to question it or seek any original source for it, like a puppet having no ability to speak any words of its own and, like you, is oblivious to any truth other than what is mouthed into it by the puppeteer?
My programming is to find the ancient sources making the claims and to give credibility to those sources, if they're not contradicted by other evidence, the same as to all the ancient writings we rely on to determine what happened in the past. And in this case the evidence tells us that something unusual did happen, which is noteworthy and "good news" to hear.
But you're driven by an obsession that this is something dangerous and unhealthy for people to know about and so should be covered up and suppressed, like an infectious disease.
DBT
Contributor
In the Illiad, Homer describes the gods of Olympus meddling in the affairs of humans, inciting war, strife, jealousy.....does that mean that the gods of Olympus do exist and do meddle in the affairs of humankind?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
For the Jesus miracles we have the extra evidence required. But for Zeus and Apollo etc. we do not.
No, for miracle claims we need MORE THAN ONLY ONE SOURCE. (Homer is the only source for this.)
And also, we need sources near to the time of the reported events. (Homer is about 500 years later than the reported events.)
But further, we need reported events for which there were witnesses who saw something. We have to know what was seen by someone. So, did someone reportedly see the gods "meddling" in the affairs, like witnesses reportedly saw Jesus performing the healing miracles? or like witnesses saw him alive after having seen him killed a few days earlier?
So, just because someone describes superhuman entities doing something doesn't mean it really happened. For superhuman acts we need extra evidence, beyond what is required for ordinary events. Such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts: 4 (5) sources near to the time of the reported events.
No, for miracle claims we need MORE THAN ONLY ONE SOURCE. (Homer is the only source for this.)
And also, we need sources near to the time of the reported events. (Homer is about 500 years later than the reported events.)
But further, we need reported events for which there were witnesses who saw something. We have to know what was seen by someone. So, did someone reportedly see the gods "meddling" in the affairs, like witnesses reportedly saw Jesus performing the healing miracles? or like witnesses saw him alive after having seen him killed a few days earlier?
So, just because someone describes superhuman entities doing something doesn't mean it really happened. For superhuman acts we need extra evidence, beyond what is required for ordinary events. Such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts: 4 (5) sources near to the time of the reported events.
James Brown
Veteran Member
Right. That's why I stopped taking the Book of Genesis at face value.
And the Book of Exodus.
And the Book of Deuteronomy.
And the Book of Joshua...