News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Catholic Church "Miracles"

Started by Paolo, December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009

Quote from: Paolo on January 24, 2021, 07:15:51 AMideology like atheism
Oh really?  Care to tell us what atheists believe?

(Take care not to ascribe to atheists beliefs that they might not necessarily have in common)

Paolo

#181
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2021, 08:40:22 AM
It has been said the third time is a charm.  So, for the 3rd time--I say Jesus was/is fictional.  You say he was real--Why?

And atheism is not an 'ideology', but the lack of such.  All my atheism indicates is that I think all gods are fictional.  All gods.  That's it.

Sorry, Mike Cl, it's been busy here for me, so honestly, I have taken the easy way out and when I read the replies, I only answer the easiest ones.  :rotflmao:

So now that I feel like it, let's proceed to your answer!

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2021, 08:40:22 AMYou say he was real--Why?

It is my personal position and opinion (which I believe is backed up by [historical] evidence) that an itinerant, (street?) preacher, who was (or became to be) known by the name of Jesus/Yeshua/whatever, lived around the 1st century, had some followers, and caused quite heavy political and social turmoil around that time; for that reason, he was cruficied by the Roman Empire (I haven't done research on whether, or to what extent, the Jews were involved, to be honest) and died. His followers then started the early Christian communities, which around three centuries later would become the dominant religion in the Graeco-Roman world. That's basically it.

I can go into more detail if you want to, but even a source as secular and arguably 'biased' as Wikipedia accepts that 'Jesus' was a real historical figure. It's time for citations!  :2thumbs:

''Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded some uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus, as the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels. Jesus was a Galilean Jew, who was baptized by John the Baptist and began his own ministry. He preached orally and was often referred to as "rabbi". Jesus debated with fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables and gathered followers. He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities, turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect. After his death, his followers believed he rose from the dead, and the community they formed eventually became the early Church''.

Notice that this states as historical facts even more details than I said in my first paragraph. This very article hyperlinks to another page, where we read:

'The historicity of Jesus relates to whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, and standard historical criteria have aided in reconstructing his life''.

The contrary historical/scientific hypothesis, that of Jesus inexistence as a person, or as a myth, is unsurprisingly widely discarded:

''Scholars differ on the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels, but virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed''.

The issue is so controversial that a leading skeptic and one of the most vociferous proponents of this 'theory', the late G. A. Wells, was forced to concede late in his life:

''Among these scholars was G.A Wells, a well-known mythicist who changed his mind and ultimately believed in a minimal historical Jesus''.

Even Robert M. Price, who still is a ''mythicist'' to THIS VERY DAY, agrees that the position has problems, and that it is not accepted by most historians: ''In ''Jesus at the Vanishing Point'', Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority''. Which, strictly speaking, is true, but it would be akin to saying Young Earth Creationism is even a remotely plausible hypothesis. Most atheists I know would say no such thing. Because there is massive evidence for modern evolutionary theory, as there is arguably massive evidence for a historical Jesus (I know there is a difference between hard/physical sciences and historical sciences, but that's not the point).

Back to Price, even he admits that at the very best scenario, one is left in 'complete agnosticism': ''According to Price, if critical methodology [a textual/historical analysis method] is applied with ruthless consistency, one is left in complete agnosticism regarding Jesus's historicity''. Certainly not a certain ''he did not exist'', as you claim.

Finally, most mythicists are generally quite poor writers, held in little intellectual and/or academic steem: the late Acharya S, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, etc. Even Richard Carrier, who is at least mildly competent in other areas, and was briefly mentioned here by Cassia, is criticized where the historicity of Jesus is concerned: ''He [Carrier] is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works. Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists, and he and his theories are often identified as "fringe".

So, in short, Christ-myth is akin to Flath Earth, anti-vaccine movement, and other such nonsense.

There you go. I admit it is not too long, but it is a start nonetheless. I wasted like 3 hours to type and format all this -- so I hope it proves useful!

Now, it's your turn, Mike. I hope you will have the same fun as I had!  :biggrin:
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mike Cl

Well, Paolo, you caught me on football playoff Sunday.  So, give me some time to answer.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Here is a sort of lazy offering:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

This is a brief article from the Washington Post and it summarizes most of what I think.  It is a good, quick intro, anyway.  I just don't see any evidence offered for Jesus being an actual person, except from within the christian church--there is no other evidence from other sources.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 24, 2021, 09:14:15 PM
I just don't see any evidence offered for Jesus being an actual person, except from within the christian church--there is no other evidence from other sources.
There is no credible evidence.  Notice throughout Paolo's explanation that "all religious scholars agree that a historical Jesus existed based on evidence," but nowhere does it say what the evidence is.  Big Red Flag there.  First, when someone or even a group claims there is evidence, but fails to produce it, that says nothing of consequence (see Trump and his lawyers vs. the US Courts). 

Second, that "all religious scholars agree on the historical authenticity of Jesus" is patently false.  They don't, and even wiki immediately contradicts its own claim by naming a couple that don't. 

Third, even if wiki gave a list of all the religious scholars and their opinions, all you have at best is a majority of consensus based on the fallacy of numbers, just as was true in the flat earth, the age of the earth, creation, blood letting, and an earth-centrist universe, and all of those beliefs changed with time, without actual evidence to support them, and they all called upon religious beliefs for support, with the exception of blood letting.  Religion is a very powerful method of convincing great numbers of lay people, clergy, and religious scholars.  And medical science makes the same mistakes, although resets itself much faster.

The only truly prudent intellectual position on Jesus is "We can believe, but we don't know," and I would argue that point with both theists and atheists who claim they have actual knowledge.

Cassia

Quote from: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 02:17:59 AM
....The only truly prudent intellectual position on Jesus is "We can believe, but we don't know," and I would argue that point with both theists and atheists who claim they have actual knowledge.
Of course the believers in a historical Jesus would scoff at the historical existence of Hindu gods, but millions of Hindi speakers have all sorts of "evidence".

SGOS

Quote from: Cassia on January 25, 2021, 07:26:19 AM
Of course the believers in a historical Jesus would scoff at the historical existence of Hindu gods, but millions of Hindi speakers have all sorts of "evidence".
Christians seem to turn into logical skeptics at the drop of a hat when any of the other gods come up. No, I'll take that back.  They are most likely firmly anti-Thorist, anti-Vishnu, or anti-whatever and claim they know those others aren't real.  I listened to a radio preacher giving a sermon while I was driving, and the preacher told this story about a supposed debate he had with a Muslim Cleric, where the Muslim said they both worshiped the same god, but the Christian claimed, "We certainly do not worship the same God!"  In writing, I can't achieve the same depth of haughty disdain in the Christian's voice over what he must have taken as the ultimate insult.

A bit off topic, but this one is fun.  I listened to an NPR interview with this apparently famous fundamentalist preacher.  I can't remember his name, but his claim to fame was that he was credited with organizing the original religious right.  He was talking about his ministry, and he related that one time he was at some international conference on world religions attended by some of the global heavy hitters, one of which was the Dali Lama.  So the Dali walked by with this large entourage, kind of like the president and the secret service, and the preacher cornered one of the Lama's secretaries and told him he wanted to make an appointment with the Dali Lama so that he could tell him about Jesus Christ.  Well, it appears that the Dali's schedule was full for the next month or two, so he never got to set the Dali Lama straight.  I was laughing so hard I almost lost control of my car.

SGOS

Back to the question of Jesus' existence.  While we go on debating the question, what difference would it make if some Jewish street preacher named Jesus, but without all the bells and whistles of the Bible Jesus, actually existed?  Would that make the Gospels any more credible?  No, it would just help explain the origin of an obvious myth.  Religious scholars should stop advancing that apologetic, because it actually discredits the Gospels, and Christianity.

It seems to me that scholars need a Jesus, even if it's not the real Jesus.  And it doesn't really help their cause.

drunkenshoe

#188
Religious scholars themselves and their theological works is subject of anthropology. Like the medicine man of the Amazon tribe.

History as a disicipline uses those texts to figure out the way human thought develop in the past...not as some evidence for what happened or existed in the past.

For example, while seventeenth century historians created their kings' characters and raison d'etat histories, a lot of scholars of the time believed that history cannot be known and it is just story but nothing  else. They have used a kind of primitive 'scepticism' for lack of any other word, bordering paranoia. (Put a few smart men aside.) But then history E: as a discipline hasn't existed in seventeenth century to begin with. But they didn't know that did they? And they have produced tons of texts, inventing situations, context, the concept of context itself (after all if you are going to deny the existence of the accumulation of the past, you need to show it has no attachment to reality or too many to be true) coining words and making comparisons between situations. And these texts today has a whole different kind and level of historical value. But they are NOT historical evidence. 

Why seventeenth century example? Because it is a century that literacy relatively spread and the learned men then are some sort of a textual mind, if you will.

If you try to deal with any tradition before that, read folk tales and fairy tales. Check military and trade, art commision inventories. Other than that it is what the preacher preaches. Even the political and the law. But of course modern historians have drawn the basic lines.


You can only have an impression of the flow of human history for the specific information you are after. History is not linear. Calendars, main cults.

Michalengelo's Moses have horns because clan chefs used to wear stag horns as a headwear. He is the symbol of thousands of men, not one. Like the symbol people call Joshua is.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Mike Cl

When I first started my personal search for the historical Jesus, I was what is called an agnostic on the subject.  I did not know there was enough evidence for either side--so I began looking and studying.  Richard Carrier is the one that presents what is closest to what I think.  I am now persuaded with the lack of evidence is actually evidence of non-existence, thought.  Jesus is said to have existed in the 1st cent.  What surprised me was the number of writers/historians that were alive and writing in that time frame.  (I remember reading that a recent researcher wrote a book on that subject and came up with at least 120 authors writing in that time.)  Not one mentioned Jesus.  Not ONE!  Jesus is claimed to be, and is widely believed, to be the son of god; he is the scapegoat for all of human sins.  The redeemer!  The producer of miracles or all sorts.  Yet not one author tells of any of his life nor deeds.  That simply cannot be for the pivotal, singular point in the history of mankind.  There must be evidence of his existence all over the place!  God literally moved heaven and earth to make his point and present his son.  But, no, no evidence.  Richard Carrier in his book--On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt--Makes 48 points of fact that forms his foundation to his argument; a couple of years ago, I presented each point, one at a time, on this forum and had a discussion of each point. His book is the clearest presentation of why there is a huge amount of doubt about Jesus' actual life.  It is 800 pages and is quite heavily footnoted and documented--but for me was a quick read.

Bible scholars.  Who are they?  Mostly seminary trained, whose goal is the continue the myth.  Why?--money.  There is a huge profit, both wealth and power wise.  It's like claiming all flat-earth scholars agree the earth is flat.  So what?  I don't trust that bible scholars will give me the truth--only the truth as they see it or want it to be.  Carrier, for my money, is the closest we have come to independent scholarly work--he claims to have no dog in this fight, and simply wanted to know the facts.   

Another element that smacks of no real Jesus;  the fact that his life and story occurred on one tiny spot on earth.  And not even in the largest population center at that time.  There were many mythical gods swirling around in that area of the world at that time, as well.  The same holds true for the bible.  If the bible were found in all areas of the world, that one fact would give me serious pause and I would probably be a believer.  I mean if one could go to Asia or South America, or Sweden, or Russia, or the Pacific Islands, or New Zealand and find bible dating from the same time frame, that would seem to be proof that the bible would be true.  Or if it was shown that Jesus visited those same areas, that would be further proof of his existence.  But that is not even close to being true.  One tiny area of the world??? For me it is clear this is the folklore of one small group of people; and it is clear this particular myth was created from an amalgam of the other myths swirling around in that area at that time. 

I could go on, Paolo, but I will await your response.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

This is a post I made on Sept. 9, 2014:
An earlier book to consider looking into is The Jesus Puzzle, but Earl Doherty.  This was published in the early 2000's and was a great find for me then.  This is what Carrier had to say about it:

Summary of Argument and Overall Conclusion

Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, very different from the "deviant" sect that won the propaganda war to become the eventual "orthodoxy." The latter gained prominence in the 2nd century and achieved total victory by the 4th. According to this theory, the idea of an historical progenitor was not original to the faith even in Paul's day, but evolved over the course of the later 1st century. As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.


This work shows clearly that a real flesh and blood Jesus was not needed to create "christianity".  Jesus was added later as he was needed and the farther away from the early christian groups we go in history, the more history of Jesus was added.  What was created was not Jesusanity, but Christianity; Christ is a title, not a last name.  The mythical Jesus did not have the name Mr. Jesus Christ (no middle initial either--although I like to add an H. to it or simply say 'Jesus fucking Christ'--especially when I hit my thumb with a hammer.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 25, 2021, 09:15:58 AM
Religious scholars themselves and their theological works is subject of anthropology. Like the medicine man of the Amazon tribe.

History as a disicipline uses those texts to figure out the way human thought develop in the past...not as some evidence for what happened or existed in the past.
This seems important.  The study of Jesus and the study of the Bible gives us insight into how people processed their environment at the time.  We get to know them through their story telling.  We may not be able to know the characters of their stories, but we can understand the story tellers better.

drunkenshoe

#192
Quote from: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 11:06:13 AM
... We may not be able to know the characters of their stories, but we can understand the story tellers better.

Yes. More than that, not just that we don't need to, modern 'scientific' history does not accept that line of inquiry as a valid one.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Cassia

Nice summary, Mike Cl....
-I came to a similar conclusion...The man went completely unnoticed by the empire and I find that highly unlikely. The need to make him real later was real however. The modus operandi of the early Christian was to create fictional gospels. If Constantine I hadn't joined the cult and kicked off a series of Councils to decide what the religion should be and do, things would be very different today.

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 25, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
When I first started my personal search for the historical Jesus, I was what is called an agnostic on the subject.  I did not know there was enough evidence for either side--so I began looking and studying.  Richard Carrier is the one that presents what is closest to what I think.  I am now persuaded with the lack of evidence is actually evidence of non-existence
I'm still agnostic on this, but I agree that the lack of evidence is a very compelling argument for non-existence.  More compelling that the evidence for.

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 25, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
Bible scholars.  Who are they?  Mostly seminary trained, whose goal is the continue the myth.  Why?--money.  There is a huge profit, both wealth and power wise.  It's like claiming all flat-earth scholars agree the earth is flat.  So what?  I don't trust that bible scholars will give me the truth--only the truth as they see it or want it to be.  Carrier, for my money, is the closest we have come to independent scholarly work--he claims to have no dog in this fight, and simply wanted to know the facts.
Religious scholarship, is heavily weighted with religious men, quite often Christian.  That they agree Jesus was real should not be a surprise.

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 25, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
Another element that smacks of no real Jesus;  the fact that his life and story occurred on one tiny spot on earth.  And not even in the largest population center at that time.  There were many mythical gods swirling around in that area of the world at that time, as well.  The same holds true for the bible.  If the bible were found in all areas of the world, that one fact would give me serious pause and I would probably be a believer.   
I have wondered about this a lot, too.  It doesn't seem to trouble Christians at all, but it doesn't seem like the best way for a god to get his message to the people.  For Christians, the fact that it worked seems to be evidence of its truth, but there's a non sequitur in that.  Is the book of Mormon a truth because most of Utah believes it?

Using Shoe's lessons in anthropology, the success of these religions tell us more about the people who covet them than they do about actual truth.