Johnny Skeptic

A good deal of evidence shows that he "was" largely forgotten in the first century, which is the century that should have had the "fastest" growth because of the presence of thousands of supposed still living eyewitnesses, but that did not happen. If Jesus did not perform any miracles, it would obviously have been much easier in the second century to get away with claiming that he performed miracles since most of the eyewitnesses would have been dead.

Consider the following Scriptures from the KJV:

Matthew 4:23-25

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

John 20:30-31

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Consider the following Scriptures from the NIV:

Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

So, we have Jesus healing many people "about all Galilee," "throughout all Syria," in "Jerusalem," in "Judaea," and "from beyond Jordan," and performing “many other signs” that were not recorded in the Bible, and God confirming “the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders,” and yet history does not show that the Romans got excited at all about any of that even though Jesus’ ministry supposedly lasted for at least three years? How do you account for that?

What did Josephus and Tacitus say and believe about the miracles that Jesus performed? If Jesus really did perform all of the miracles that the texts say that he performed, and many more miracles that were not recorded, Josephus and Tacitus would have had easy access to thousands of still living eyewitnesses, and probably would have recorded a good deal of interviews with the eyewitnesses.

Do you have any literary evidence that a skeptic ever said that he saw Jesus perform miracles? If Jesus performed many miracles over a vast geographical area, surely many skeptics would have seen him perform miracles. If the Pharisees actually believed that Jesus performed miracles, but was not the Messiah, it is probable that many other people who did not become followers of Jesus also believed that Jesus performed miracles. Surely someone would have contacted the Roman government in Palestine, the Romans would have started investigations, and some of the investigations would have survived, certainly at least in some of Tacitus' writings. I mean really, who else in Palestine was doing anything close to what Jesus was supposedly doing? Probably no one. If the Gospel accounts are true, Jesus' miracles would easily have been the biggest news stories in Palestine and beyond for about three years. The Roman government would had to have known about the miracles.

Getting back to your comment “if no one saw him do anything unusual, then he would have been forgotten,” following that same line of reasoning, there is a correlation between performing miracles and not being forgotten. Thus, if you are able to perform miracles, and you do not want to be forgotten, the more miracles, the better, but then where does that leave the faith argument?

Did Muhammad do anything unusual? Was he forgotten? Did Joseph Smith do anything unusual? Was he forgotten?

Better stated, if you entertain the hypothesis that Jesus did not perform miracles, that easily explains why the Christian church was barely noticeable in the first century, and why the Romans apparently did not pay any attention to the miracles. Of course, if there weren’t any miracles, there would not have been anything for the Romans to pay attention to.

How do you account for God’s favoritism based upon geography? For example, during the first century, God tended to save people who lived closer to Palestine? If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message could only have been spread by word of mouth, just like all other religions are spread.

Today, how do you account for God’s favoritism towards women? Every year, the percentage of women who become Christians is larger than the percentage of men who become Christians? If the God of the Bible does not exist, genetics and social factors easily explain that.

How do you explain God’s favoritism towards elderly people? Statistics show that elderly Christians are much more unlikely to give up Christianity than younger Christians are. If the God of the Bible does not exist, genetics easily explains that since it is well-known that elderly people tend to get more set in their ways than younger people do.

Toto

Hi Johnny Skeptic - at his current rate, freetrader will be replying to your post in the spring or summer of 2010. If the past is any guide, he will reject any arguments that do not fit his claims and repeat all of his previous points, however many times they have been debunked and defeated.

This thread is a challenge to the whole idea of an exchange of ideas.

Johnny Skeptic

Evidence please.

What sources did the anonymous Gospel writers use?

Do you know of any examples in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where the writers said that they saw Jesus perform miracles?

The fact that skeptics do not know all of the details regarding how Christianity started does not necessarily mean that a God inspired the Bible. Historically, the vast majority of people in the world have been theists, indicating that most humans like to choose some kind of God(s) to believe in. Such being the case, it is logical to assume that religions that have the best adverstising will become the most successful. Today, Islam has over one billion followers, is growing faster than Christianity is growing, and will probably become larger than Christianity is within 100 years.

In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark says that Christianity was "a bargain," and indeed it was since, among other things, the social advantages that it offered were far better than anything that pagan religions offered. Logically, theistic minded people will choose some religion whether it is true or false. If Christianity had not come along, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people who chose Christianity would have chosen other religions. It is also reasonable to assume that before the ministry of Jesus, the vast majority of people who became Christians were followers of non-Jewish religions.

Johnny Skeptic

I suspect that freetrader is James Holding. He argues just like Holding argues. If freetrader is Holding, that is a good thing. I have wanted him to come to this forum for years.

Holding is well-known for evasiveness when he gets into trouble. When I was at the Theology Web, I had a debate with him about an article that he wrote about the Tyre prophecy. I asked him if he had any evidence that the prophecy was written before the events. He said yes. I asked him for his sources, and he told me to find the sources myself, and that he was not going to do my homework for me.

Toto

I'm pretty sure that freetrader is not Holding, but he is probably flattered to be confused with him.

Johnny Skeptic

Not according the the Bible. Consider the following Scriptures from the KJV:

Matthew 4:23-25

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

John 20:30-31

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Consider the following Scriptures from the NIV:

Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

The texts say that his fame went throughout all of Syria, and that he also performed miracles in many other places, and yet you said "within his life he had no wide reputation or status or recognition." Doesn't fame imply status and recognition?

If he did do unusual things, wouldn't doing unusual things have made him famous and given him wide reputation, status, and recognition?

Johnny Skeptic

Possibly, but it seems to me that freetrader's style in this thread is very similar to the style that Holding used in his article that is titled "The Impossible Faith." I have never previously come across a Christian who argues similar to the way that Holding argues. Freetrader has an extensive knowledge of the Bible, and makes clever arguments in Holding's style.

I suspect that freetrader is James Holding, and is testing out some arguments that he plans to use in future writings, including some rebuttals to Richard Carrier's writings.

Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, then there couldn't have been much of a market for his miracles among Greeks, Romans, or anyone else. It appears that that is what happened, reference, for example, Rodney Stark's estimate in "The Rise of Christianity" that there were approximately 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D.

Where did you get the notion that "there had to already be a tradition about Jesus, spreading among Greeks and Romans by word of mouth, which provided an audience or market for the gospel accounts......."?

If the body of Jesus was not put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb, obviously there was not a stolen body tradition until the tradition was made up years after Jesus died. Do you believe that a stolen body tradition existed soonafter Jesus died? If so, based upon what evidence?

Johnny Skeptic

A miracle-worker who did cures on a uniquely-grand scale does not agree with a person who had no wide reputation or status or recognition.

freetrader

August 9, 2009 #6050517 / #179
aa5874


There's no reason to believe the John account, written 90-100 AD or so, for such details as this. It claims that the miracle at Cana (changing water into wine) was the very first miracle done by Jesus. There's reason to doubt that this miracle really happened at all, let alone that it was the first miracle act.

It's doubtful that anything unique to the John account really happened. This is the least credible of the four gospels for any detail, especially for any discrepancies with the three synoptics.

The miracle healing acts fit into a pattern and offer an explanation how Jesus came to attract crowds and became mythologized. How do we explain this without those healing acts?

Why did those characters in John 1 believe Jesus was the Messiah? Without any miracle acts by him, what reason did they have to think he was anything special? They had none. It was the evangelist 60 years later who depicts them this way. We have no reason to believe Jesus had a following before he performed any of his miracle acts.

It normally takes 20 years or longer of teaching for a prophet or sage to attract any significant following.

The other gospel accounts also give the impression that his first disciples may have been suddenly won over before he did any miracle acts (like they suddenly were hypnotized, or perhaps their bodies suddenly occupied by an alien), but they don't say this explicitly. We need not rely on any of these accounts for exact details of when Jesus recruited his first disciples and what they were doing when they first encountered him and what conversations they had.

It is a mistake to think we can create an accurate day-by-day biography of Jesus, or a detailed account of his public activity from the point that he first launched his ministry. We cannot do it today, and neither could the gospel writers, who pieced their accounts together some 40-80 years after the events and probably did not know him directly.


These are the words of the evangelist in 90-100 AD, not the words of Simon or Andrew back in 30 AD. No one knows who the first disciples were or what they said the first day they met Jesus, especially something like "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" and so on. There was not a journalist there with pen and paper writing down such details and recording everyone's remarks.

We are discussing here the actual historical figure, the person Jesus from Galilee, who attracted a following and eventually was crucified in Jerusalem. We have only a general picture that is reliable, not day-to-day biographical detail, which is mostly fiction.