patrick.net

I think Christians need to start seeing the light. Humans are nothing special, but about 100k, maybe more years ago when we mastered the art of making a fire, the food became very safe and easier to eat/digest, this helped populations grow, and humans were then able to disperse around the planet, insuring them against extinction.

Even all apes show the ability to imagine what others are thinking, they have complex languages, and understand the communications of many other animals. They use tools, groom themselves of life sucking parasites, show emotion, grief, etc.

Most Christians I know are very self-serving, they don't care about or want to know anything that might challenge their narrow beliefs, this close minded approach to life and our shared planet will eventually doom humanity.

I wrote: "First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD)."

Thunderlips replied: ""(Bas-relief of the colossal temple built by Antiochus I. of Commagene, 69-31 B.C., on the Nemrood Dagh, a spur of the Taurus Mountains. T. et M., p. 188.)"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm

While this Mithras lacks some of the other details, his name is inscribed along with King Antiochus'."

The hierostheon at Nimrud Dagh contains statues, which have inscriptions beneath them. Each status has two names, one or more Greek, one Persian. So one status is labelled Zeus-Ormazd. Another is labelled Apollo-Mithra. And so on. There is, in other words, nothing relating to the cult of Mithras at all. Everything relates to Zoroastrianism. In that part of the world, where Mithradates of Pontus had led his armies, the semi-Persian states like Commagene naturally faced both ways.

The reason that you made this mistake is that you used a book from 1903, written by the great Franz Cumont as a popularisation of his major work on Mithras, and translated (badly) into English. Cumont was the founder of Mithraic studies. He gathered all the data, in volume 1 of his "Textes et monumentes", and weaved a narrative around them in vol. 2, thereby creating Mithraic studies. He believed that Roman Mithras was the same as the ancient cult of Mitra or Mithra in Zoroastrianism, mainly because the literary sources call Mithras "the Persian god", and Plutarch talks about Cilicians worshipping him.

But that was 1899. Over the next 50 years, there was a lot of archaeology. Now Mithras is best known from the characteristic underground temples or Mithraeums. Not one of these exists outside of the Roman empire. How can that be, if Mithras is a Persian cult? The same applies to the central cult myth, of Mithras killing the bull. It's not known elsewhere. The archaeology all centres in Rome, and spreads out, over time. There's no Mithras archaeology worth discussing in Cilicia.

In 1971 they held a big conference, and Cumont's theory got deep-sixed. These days every scholar treats the two as distinct. This does not mean that there might not be some vague link -- sometimes called Neo-Cumontian ideas -- but basically there's not much beyond the name of the god. It's probably rather like the pseudo-Zoroaster literature in Greek. It has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism; rather someone decided to place Greek ideas in the mouth of a legendary "oriental". "Eastern" ideas have been fashionable in other eras, you know? How truly eastern those ideas are is sometimes questionable.

No reason why you should know all this, I know. Few people do. Ancient history is my hobby, and especially primary texts. I got interested some time back in Mithras, after one too many "Jesus is really Mithras! Har! Har!" taunts from some troll or other, and I read around the subject and looked up all the primary texts. I gradually realised just how bad the stuff online was -- and how does that help anyone? --, which is why I look out for this stuff.

You wrote: "From looking at various sources, the bulk of definite Mithras-Cult artifacts is from the 1st Century AD, but there are debatable artifacts from Crimea and elsewhere that could be 1st Century BC that fit some of the descriptions of Mithras (Phyrgian Cap) but not others. If we're finding Mithraic stuff all over Pannonia, Germania Inferior, and the Crimea by mid-late 1st C. AD, then I don't think it's a stretch to push it back to the 1st Century BC to allow for time for it to develop and transmit over all this large distance."

The stuff from Kerch isn't certainly Mithraic. The idea that it belongs to the 1st century BC appears to be a typo in one modern book, which itself says that Mithras originates in the 1st century AD.

I agree that if we did find stuff all over Pannonia, Germania and the Crimea by 50 AD, we might reasonably suppose it was earlier by some decades (not a century, tho -- not for a cult known mainly by archaeology?). But we don't. The earliest archaeology is in Rome, ca. 100 AD.

You said: " I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence."

I've gradually become really sceptical and cynical about all these sorts of theories. To each of them, I think we should say, "Show me proof positive of 'influence', from ancient testimony and define your terms in such a manner that it doesn't give false positives."

Generally what we find is people desperately trying to show similarity; from similarity, they insinuate connection; and from connection they insinuate derivation. But of course all sorts of things look "similar" if you play with categories enough; and loose similarities are evidence of nothing.

The best example of this is the Atlantis theory. There are pyramids in Egypt. There are pyramids in Mexico. This proves, say the cultists, that Atlantis existed and that the Egyptians (or Mexicans) sailed the Atlantic in stone boats. In reality it proves only that the law of gravity tends to make people cutting blocks pile them up in similar looking heaps.

Christianity is a Jewish heresy. We may speculate that the theology of Paul has something to do with the fact that Greek was the language of his time. Perhaps so, although evidence is lacking. But the evidenced fact is that his thought was hostile to Greek culture, sometimes markedly so, to the point of martyrdom for refusing to observe its shibboleths; and his focus was on Jerusalem, not on Athens. As one of his early disciples (Tertullian) remarked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? We don't want any clever-clever enquiries ... away with this bastardised religion". Those who really did want to absorb influence from contemporary cults did not enjoy a welcome in the early church, as the heresiological works bear witness.

I hope that helps. I'm on a rotten internet connection, so I can't contribute much (I suspect).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

Yeah, agnosticism is basically atheism for pussies. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to rock the boat. I know; I used to be one when I was in high school.

You shouldn't project your own motivations on others.

Here's Wikipedia's entry

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

It's pretty easy to meet the first definition of an atheist. To be an atheist in the more strict sense, you have to move away from probability and statistical arguments to something more concrete. I prefer more tractable problems, so at a certain point, it just seems like mental masturbation to me.

wthrfrk80 says

CL says

Prove that to the skeptics then. Where is the archaeological proof that Jesus walked the earth?

I'm not qualified to do this. I'm not a professional historian or achaeologist.

Fair enough. At one point I thought you were endorsing that as having been proven.

Didn't Roger say as much? Mr. Pearse, can you expound on "Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed"?

thunderlips11 says

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

Roger, this is a major stretch.

Please provide some Facts about the real, historical (not necessarily supernatural) Jesus that are consensus among historians and/or archeologists - not Bible Scholars.

Glad to. It will cost you $5,000, and for that I will write to a few of them and ask.

You WERE proposing to pay me, to do what you could perfectly well do yourself, weren't you? :)

But this demand isn't really an answer to what I said. It's basically this, I think, and I presume you saw it elsewhere (any idea where?): "We can't deny that every qualified scholar believes that Jesus existed, so what we'll do instead is deny that all of them believe the same things, and then fudge it so that it looks as if it means much the same thing." It's not good, is it?

That sort of chicanery is one of the reasons why educated people don't think much of the "Jesus myth" nonsense. It's all like that, through and through.

Christianity may or may not be true. But that a bloke named Jesus of Nazareth was wandering around preaching "I am the way", acquiring a reputation as a miracle-worker, and eventually ending up dead, and founded a major ideological movement based on his teachings ... that isn't doubtful. Why? Because that is how every ideological movement tends to start -- with a bloke with a beard on a soapbox preaching "follow me". (The soapbox is optional; the beard, apparently, is not!) If Christianity had perished in the 5th century, and was known to us only by a single sermon of the same period, we would accept that quite happily as evidence.

Until, that is, someone with a vested interest found it inconvenient, and started to complain. :-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

CL says

Fair enough. At one point I thought you were endorsing that as having been proven.

Is it possible to "prove" that any figure of ancient history actually existed? I thought it was a matter of probability. There's no experiment we can run to prove historical events, is there?

Roger Pearse says

You said: " I wouldn't say like Murdock that Mithraism (or Horus) was THE model for Christianity, but I do believe that Savior and Mystery Cults in the Early Roman Empire era had an influence."

I've gradually become really sceptical and cynical about all these sorts of theories. To each of them, I think we should say, "Show me proof positive of 'influence', from ancient testimony and define your terms in such a manner that it doesn't give false positives."

Why the skepticism? Very little human endeavor starts from scratch and then it is usually just on the individual level. I don't think that "ancient testimony" is required to make the jump to believe that christianity was -- probably heavily -- influenced by other preexisting beliefs around the time.

Judaism certainly influenced chrstianity and in turn they both influenced islam. Even today mormonism was influenced by christianity along with many other thoughts of the time (the big one being that Native Americans were a lost jewish tribe).

Even an almost entirely made-up religion like scientology has beliefs based on ideas in the surrounding culture. Do you think that 2000 years ago a religion would have a figure that is a evil galactic overlord named Xenu?

The trick is not if but what influenced christianity.

The only reason to believe that christianity was uninfluenced is if it was indeed created through divine inspiration and that is an extraordinary claim and as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Roger Pearse says

But that a bloke named Jesus of Nazareth was wandering around preaching "I am the way", acquiring a reputation as a miracle-worker, and eventually ending up dead, and founded a major ideological movement based on his teachings ... that isn't doubtful. Why? Because that is how every ideological movement tends to start -- with a bloke with a beard on a soapbox preaching "follow me".

Well... yes and maybe... I think that you are totally correct about movements starting with some guy -- usually motivated by sex and money -- who acquires a supernatural reputation.

However, for christianity, we don't have any direct evidence that his name was indeed Jesus and everything attributed him (all the non-supernatural stuff) is true. Yes, there was some guy at the beginning of christianity and he probably did teach at least some of the things in the bible and most certainly claimed super powers and connection to god(s).

Roger Pearse says

(The soapbox is optional; the beard, apparently, is not!)

Ah, haha -- actually the beard is optional...

Mormon founder:

Scientology founder:

leoj707 says

The only reason to believe that christianity was uninfluenced is if it was indeed created through divine inspiration ...

I can't say that I see why (unless we define "influence" so loosely that includes things like speaking and eating and watching One Tree Hill). It is likely that you (or I) are very little influenced by movements that take place in cultures other than our own. How often do you or I eat snails? Yet millions of Frenchmen do every day. And I guarantee that, if you did, it wouldn't be because you were influenced by the French! (It would almost certainly be because of the influence of alcohol)

Sorry, but I don't see it. Believe this if you like, of course!

and that is an extraordinary claim and as you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Do they? Why?

I never demand extraordinary evidence of anything, and nor should you. It's a rubbish way to investigate. What we should demand is *evidence*.

Consider: how are we to know whether a claim is extraordinary until we have investigated it? Who decides that something is "extraordinary"? You? Me? Someone reading an autocue on TV?

Is there any practical difference between demanding "extraordinary evidence" from something, and simply demanding higher standards of evidence for things that we are predisposed not to believe? I can't see one; and the normal English term for the latter is "prejudice".

It's not a scientific principle, at any rate.

Curiously, I have never heard anyone demand "extraordinary evidence" for anything they want to believe in. :)

But while we're discussing levels of evidence, I should say that I find that those who make these exaggerated demands tend to be rather shy about subjecting themselves to the same test. I usually start by asking such people to state the position *they* believe in (not what they are opposed to). Within a very few minutes they are telling me reasons why they don't have to put their beliefs on the table. Such people usually live -- talk aside -- by some subset of the values of the time and place in which they happen to live. But they can't state that, won't admit it, won't put their own view up for the examination they expect of others, and won't offer any evidence for it.

I mention this purely because I see a few posts in here from people doing just this -- shouting demands while keeping their own beliefs off the table. It's tedious. We all know that these people live by values they got from their society, and which they live in conformity to. That's not a rational position; and it must be the default in any society (even supposedly religious ones), I'd have thought.

Gotta go.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

I've gradually become really sceptical and cynical about all these sorts of theories. To each of them, I think we should say, "Show me proof positive of 'influence', from ancient testimony and define your terms in such a manner that it doesn't give false positives."

First, thank you for this meaty post, which I'm still digesting.

Historians accept influences on Roman religious belief from the Greeks, the Persians and others. We know that religious Jews like Josephus and Philo were capable of incorporating Hellenistic and Roman philosophies into the Jewish religion, for example Philo and Logos.

So I think the opposite. Those who argue that Christianity wasn't influenced by the various memes of the day have the burden of proof.

leoj707 says

Why the skepticism? Very little human endeavor starts from scratch and then it is usually just on the individual level. I don't think that "ancient testimony" is required to make the jump to believe that christianity was -- probably heavily -- influenced by other preexisting beliefs around the time.

Here's a great audio presentation by Richard Carrier that speaks about some of the memes spreading through the Early Roman Empire in terms of both religion and philosophy.
http://freethoughtfestival.org/audio/FTF120428Carrier-ed.mp3

wthrfrk80 says

Is it possible to "prove" that any figure of ancient history actually existed? I thought it was a matter of probability. There's no experiment we can run to prove historical events, is there?

We have evidence for Pontius Pilate, both near-contemporaries Josephus and Philo, as well as an inscription from Israel:

(Inscriptions were the 1-800 Flowers of the day, people commissioned them to celebrate accomplishments, deaths, promotions, etc.)

We have no inscriptions or any other kind of physical evidence for Jesus. Or Paul, Peter, Mary, etc. Now, should we expect a poor preacher to have them? Or would they survive? Probably not I guess. But we still don't have them.

Roger Pearse says

Glad to. It will cost you $5,000, and for that I will write to a few of them and ask.

You WERE proposing to pay me, to do what you could perfectly well do yourself, weren't you? :)

Roger, I have asked HJ'ers to tell me what the consensus is on Jesus' birth, life, and death, and have never gotten an adequate answer, other than a vague idea that he existed.

If somebody existed in history, there must be some facts about him that can be widely agreed upon.

Does Ned Ludd exist? What are the facts of his birth, life, death? We don't know, yet he lived in a time far closer to ours than Jesus. His first mention is in a British magazine around 1811, and was believed to have smashed knitting frames around 1779. Was it a story told to a son who told it to somebody else? Maybe dad was telling his son about his frustrations at work using a fictional character, the way parents make up stories about the good children who wash their plates or don't talk to strangers?

Jesus has more in common with Ned Ludd, Paul Bunyon, Robin Hood, etc. than he does with Pilate, Caesar or even Mohammed.

leoj707 says

The trick is not if but what influenced christianity.

Certainly Christianity was influenced by Judaism. Jesus was Jewish as were his first followers. Indeed, Jesus claimed to be the God of the Jews. Why else did Caiaphas charge Jesus with blasphemy? I don't think Christians or mainstream churches try to hide that fact.

thunderlips11 says

Jesus has more in common with Ned Ludd, Paul Bunyon, Robin Hood, etc. than he does with Pilate, Caesar or even Mohammed.

What makes you say that? Why isn't it possible to believe that Jesus existed but wasn't God and didn't do miracles?

wthrfrk80 says

What makes you say that? Why isn't it possible to believe that Jesus existed but wasn't God and didn't do miracles?

It's entirely possible that Jesus existed.

Ned Ludd might have really been a guy who smashed machines in fury of his falling wages and freedom. But he could also be just the personification of frustration of textile workers, like Uncle Sam is the personification of America. We don't know and can't say.

My beef is that many assign more confidence to an HJ than the evidence merits.

wthrfrk80 says

Indeed, Jesus claimed to be the God of the Jews.

I thought he said, "It is you who say I AM", at least when addressing the Jews he did (It's a play, on I AM, or Yahweh).

He refers to himself as the "Son of Man". I don't recall him referring to himself as the Son of God, unless you count references to Abba.

CL says

I thought he said, "It is you who say I AM"

Ned Ludd was proclaimed "King of the Luddites", "King Ludd" or "General Ludd" in various tales and stories that grew up around him. He even has a birthplace - the village Anstey near Leicester, UK.

thunderlips11 says

"King of the Luddites"

No....I know that guy! :)

CL says

He refers to himself as the "Son of Man". I don't recall him referring to himself as the Son of God, unless you count references to Abba.

Jesus constantly claims to have the authority to sit in judgement of the entire human race (living and dead) on the "day of judgement." He clearly think's he's god. I don't know if there are references to him saying the exact phrase "I am God" but it's implied pretty strongly. The charge against him (that got him crucified) was blasphemy, i.e. claiming to be God. I suppose today we'd call him a madman suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia.

wthrfrk80 says

CL says

He refers to himself as the "Son of Man". I don't recall him referring to himself as the Son of God, unless you count references to Abba.

Jesus constantly claims to have the authority to sit in judgement of the entire human race (living and dead) on the "day of judgement." He clearly think's he's god. I don't know if there are references to him saying the exact phrase "I am God" but it's implied pretty strongly. The charge against him (that got him crucified) was blasphemy, i.e. claiming to be God. I suppose today we'd call him a madman suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia.

My personal feeling is that a lot of those words were inserted later. He really makes a concerted effort to say that he and God are NOT one (as is evident in the Our Father, or in the Agony in the Garden. "Your will, not mine be done").

CL says

He really makes a concerted effort to say that he and God are NOT one (as is evident in the Our Father, or in the Agony in the Garden. "Your will, not mine be done").

"Myself to the other third myself, let this cup pass away from this third of myself. But my own other third part's will, not my own third part's will, be done."

How nonsensi---, I mean, what a mystery that is ;)

YesYNot says

You shouldn't project your own motivations on others.

Life experience and projection are two different things. From what I've observe about so-called agnostics is that their uncertainty that there might be some kind of god is in direct proportion to the emotional vocalization of theists in their immediate vicinity proclaiming that there is a god.

If these agnostics were living in say, Russia, where everyone is an atheist, I suspect they would be too. Of course, no one would be talking about a god just like here no one talks about the invisible pink microscopic unicorns that live in your butthole and make farts out of rainbows. We're all disbelievers in that, so we never even bother thinking about it.

YesYNot says

Dan8267 says

Yeah, agnosticism is basically atheism for pussies. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to rock the boat. I know; I used to be one when I was in high school.

You shouldn't project your own motivations on others.

If you think that agnostics are pussies because of some life experiences with atheists being political in mixed company that is one thing. But if you assume that agnostics are pussies, because you used to be a pussy in high school and could not admit to being an atheist, then that is projection :). Maybe you misspoke?

Roger Pearse says

How often do you or I eat snails?

A couple times a year, and being that it is at a French restaurant it is absolutely due to French influence. It used to be more frequently but the French restaurant near my home closed a few years ago.

FYI, the very best snails I have ever had was at La Folie in San Francisco. They are cooked in a bone with a marrow gratin. DELICIOUS

Not my favorite restaurant in SF, that would be Gary Danko, but the best thing I have had at La Folie.

Roger Pearse says

I can't say that I see why (unless we define "influence" so loosely that includes things like speaking and eating and watching One Tree Hill).

Hmmm... not really. There are plenty of stories, rituals and memes (yes they existed before the internet) that clearly existed in B.C. and were common at the time time christianity began. There are such striking similarities between christianity and other beliefs (e.g. Osiris, etc.) it is a little silly to think that christianity did not "borrow" ideas.

Roger Pearse says

Do they? Why?

I never demand extraordinary evidence of anything, and nor should you. It's a rubbish way to investigate. What we should demand is *evidence*.

I am the true christian god and as a test of your true devotion to me I command that you send me all your banking information and passwords.

You have just been granted the power of flight. Immediately launch yourself from the tallest building you can find and you will be soaring through the clouds in no time.

Scientology is the one true faith, it is very scientific. Proceed to the nearest testing center to have your engrams analyzed.

So, you weight the above statements the same way you would rate a suggested restaurant for lunch? OK...

Yes, if somebody makes an extraordinary claim I most certainly apply a more rigorous "proof" than for mundane claims. You however are free to do as you wish.

Roger Pearse says

Is there any practical difference between demanding "extraordinary evidence" from something, and simply demanding higher standards of evidence for things that we are predisposed not to believe?

For mundane claims we immediately have a frame of reference.

I can bake you a delicious cake...

I can build you a cold fusion reactor...

So is there a higher standard of evidence that you would require for each of those claims? Or does your prejudice make you want to doubt by skills in cold fusion reactor construction?

Roger Pearse says

It's not a scientific principle, at any rate.

Once again I suggest you brush up on your basic scientific knowledge.

"Evaluating Scientific Research: Separating Fact from Fiction" I highly suggest it if you are actually interested in how the scientific method works not the creationist straw man explanation of science.

Roger Pearse says

Curiously, I have never heard anyone demand "extraordinary evidence" for anything they want to believe in. :)

Yes, very often people who use circular logic -- and other logical fallacies to articulate their opinions -- are of this vein. They don't care about evidence extraordinary or otherwise.

Roger Pearse says

...I find that those who make these exaggerated demands tend to be rather shy about subjecting themselves to the same test...they can't state that, won't admit it, won't put their own view up for the examination they expect of others, and won't offer any evidence for it.

Why should they? You are the one making a claim the burden of proof lies with you. I am sure that changing the focus to their beliefs is a clever response, but in doing so you are just committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Can you support your position without resorting to logical fallacies?

Roger Pearse says

We all know that these people live by values they got from their society, and which they live in conformity to. That's not a rational position; and it must be the default in any society (even supposedly religious ones), I'd have thought.

So living by the christian values, provided to you by society, is irrational?

Hmm... perhaps we agree on something.

YesYNot says

Maybe you misspoke?

I don't mind being a pussy. You are what you eat.

In any case, my comment was to show that I empathize with closeted atheists. However, I still stand by my original statement that if it weren't for the cultural pressure to be "open" to a "higher power", most agnostics would be as agnostic about god as they are about unicorns.

Come to think about it, agnostics really aren't that agnostics about gods. Certainly not gods like Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Flidais, Shango, or Quetzalcoatl. Seems like it's only the gods that their next door neighbors, their coworkers, and the people at the local supermarket believe in that warrant some plausibility. I have yet to hear an agnostic say, well maybe Quetzalcoatl exists. And to deny that god while saying that the god of Abraham might, sounds like a big "fuck you" to the Native Americans.

What, you steal our land, kill our people, but you can't be agnostic about our gods? Yet, you can be agnostic about some Bronze-Aged dessert dweller's god? That's racist.

If you're going to be agnostic, at least be consistently agnostic and hold the belief that it's just as likely that the Olympians were real as it is that the Holy Trinity is.

CL says

My personal feeling is that a lot of those words were inserted later.

Personal feelings are always considered great scholarship.

thunderlips11 says

"Myself to the other third myself, let this cup pass away from this third of myself. But my own other third part's will, not my own third part's will, be done."

How nonsensi---, I mean, what a mystery that is ;)

Hence the doctrine of the Trinity...God in three distinct persons. Was there a lot of controversy in the early Christian church? Absolutely. Various "alternative theories" about the nature of Jesus/God existed but were declared heretical.

I'd like to answer generally questions asked by leoj707 in post # 107.
I agree that using Bible references is not a proof. My thinking was that if the God of the Bible exists then the Bible should be coherent and internally consistent. If the Bible is shown to be materially incoherent or inconsistent, then I would conclude the God of the Bible does not exist. Therefore, I searched the Bible for answers that can shed light on these 3 questions. Mark 11:23 would show God in action, giving observable results. And yet the general Christian community does not report these observable results. I thought perhaps it is not material, not useful to answer these 3 questions. To my surprise, Mark 11:23 shows up everywhere in the Bible.
Some more examples: God created the world using Mark 11:23: Genesis 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:11,1:14-15. A variant of Mark 11:23: Moses initiated the plagues by raising his rod. David used it on Goliath: 1 Samuel 17:37,45-47. Elijah stopped the rain: 1 Kings 17:1. Elijah called down fire: 1 Kings 18:24, 37. Joshua stopped the sun and moon: Joshua 10:12-13. These are all observables. For the Christian readers: Paul prayed Mark 11:23 endlessly for the church in Ephesians 1:15-20, 3:14-21, Colossians 1:9-11. And Psalms 91, which many use as basis for protection, is chocked full of Mark 11:23 statements.
So, why are these observables not seen? So, I searched for consistent answers to when God leaves the scene. I gave 2 answers earlier. The primary reason in the Bible is that when people doubt or challenge God's word/position, then God leaves them alone for that topic. Adam and Eve doubted God's word and chose the serpent's word over God's word before they ate the apple. When the Israelites doubted they could take the promised land, God called that an "evil report" (Numbers 13:32) and let them stay there until they died. For God said in Numbers 14:28: "as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you." Moses doubted God (Numbers 20:12) and could not go into the Promised Land.
Like you say, these prove nothing except consistency that does not materially contradict observable data today.
However, the positive side of Mark 11:23 can be tested and observed. Therefore, my 19 years of testing using sickness/healing as the venue and statistical bias as the observable result. I stopped taking notes after the first 2 years. By then, I was getting near 100% success when success is defined as surprisingly fast recovery, miracle, or near mirable. For example, when I was focused on getting my bum left knee healed so I can run again, I went through that Spring hay fever season without any hay fever symptoms.
If so, then why don't Christians report more successes? If you ask around, you'll find most mainline Christians don't know their Bible, don't know about Mark 11:23, or are trained to be hostile to applying Mark 11:23 even though it runs all through their Bible. So, by omission or commission, they have, in this aspect that is designed to give them results, gone against their foundation book.
If you look for those who support Mark 11:23 and ask about their track record, you'll learn how it works for common folks.
We will not resolve God issues by trading opinions. I offer my experience and a verifiable Bible trail, that while is no proof, will show internal consistency that is also consistent with observed data both ways.
Here is a convenient internet Bible: www.biblegateway.com.
You can get God healing without being a Christian. God deals with people in independent aspects. I got my dad healed/restored many times using Naaman, the centurion's servant, Syrophoenician's daughter as the foundation.
Good luck.
PS. I got my BS, MS, and PhD in EE from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I research novel solutions in various aspects of electronics.

wanderer01 says

I agree that using Bible references is not a proof.

OK, but you use a lot of bible references to prove your point.

wanderer01 says

My thinking was that if the God of the Bible exists then the Bible should be coherent and internally consistent. If the Bible is shown to be materially incoherent or inconsistent, then I would conclude the God of the Bible does not exist.

Yes, it should first be coherent and internally consistent for one to consider the possibility of a christian god. However, internally consistency does not prove the existence of a christian god. The Harry Potter series of books is coherent and internally consistent but that does not mean Harry Potter is real.

Also, the bible is not internally consistent or consistent with knowledge of our natural world gained over the last 2000ish years. The bible is riddled with literally hundreds of incoherent inconsistencies that christians have developed long winded, anemic, complicated and/or inherently flawed answers to.

I am not going to waste space here. If you are truly interested in these inconsistencies then there is plenty of information on them through Google and they are well documented.

And, yes I agree that these inconsistencies are a good reason to believe that the christian god does not exist.

wanderer01 says

The primary reason in the Bible is that when people doubt or challenge God's word/position, then God leaves them alone for that topic.

Or kills them or sends people who do listen to kill them.

wanderer01 says

If so, then why don't Christians report more successes?

Because it does not work.

wanderer01 says

However, the positive side of Mark 11:23 can be tested and observed. Therefore, my 19 years of testing using sickness/healing as the venue and statistical bias as the observable result. I stopped taking notes after the first 2 years.

OK, first off of you can scientifically test Mark 11:23 you have a million dollars coming to you.

Second it is not a "test" if other treatment is being used at the time.
wanderer01 says

60 days and 1 brain operation later Mom could do everything again.

emphasis mine.

Third, many things -- cancer included -- are known to get better on their own.

HINT: This is why christians don't "report more success". The bible healing method does not work better than a placebo. Look into some very strong believers, the christian scientists, they have a third world infant mortality rate. Yes, exactly what you would expect for a group getting no medical care.

If you truly want to be convincing in your position that Mark 11:23 is "true" then use it to heal things that are not known to get better on their own.

Try healing this person back to perfect health (limbs and all):
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/girl-flesh-eating-disease-faces-horror-depression/story?id=16350982#.T9dvtnjvZBk

Once you have demonstrated that you can get a "near 100% success" rate in healing amputees then there is going to be a lot of good works for you to preform. Can you think of a better way to exhibit christian values that traveling to war torn areas and restoring the limbs of children caught up in conflict?

wthrfrk80 says

CL says

My personal feeling is that a lot of those words were inserted later.

Personal feelings are always considered great scholarship.

That's why I prefaced it as such, to distinguish THAT from the other items I've talked about which were learned in Christian Academics.

Factually, there were words added much later. In fact, all of them were.

They would have the motivation and history to add words into "Jesus'" mouth, to support the theology of the day.

CL says

Factually, there were words added much later. In fact, all of them were.

Really? How do you know that?

Are you talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? St. Paul's epistles?

wthrfrk80 says

Really? How do you know that?

The books were written several decades after Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. You know that! :)

There are zero eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life. Nobody was writing down the things he said as he said them, and the people he surrounded himself with were likely illiterate. He himself never wrote or read anything, even in the Gospels (unless you count when he was scribbling on the ground).

St. Paul wasn't really even an Apostle, unless you believe that Jesus called him on the road to Damascus.

CL, many suspect there's a sayings gospel, a lost text, consisting only of the alleged words of Jesus. The words of Jesus are pretty consistent across all 4 Gospels.

However, the narrative and detail of Jesus' life, is inconsistent.

Now, that could be evidence FOR an HJ, but then again we can compare with Daoism, where many philosophers were conflated into Lao-Tsu and the stories of his life are mish mashes of various persons with a large dollop of myth.

CL says

The books were written several decades after Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. You know that! :)

Of course they were written about two decades after Jesus' death. But how is that relevant?

CL says

There are zero eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life.

The gospels are eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. To claim otherwise is to admit you are not familiar with the gospels.

CL says

Nobody was writing down the things he said as he said them, and the people he surrounded himself with were likely illiterate.

Of course they weren't writing it down as he said them. Jesus' teachings were "oral tradition" (a common practice at the time) until it was written down two or three decades later.

CL says

St. Paul wasn't really even an Apostle, unless you believe that Jesus called him on the road to Damascus.

The early Christian church considered him an Apostle, which is really all that matters. The opinion of someone 2000 years later doesn't matter.

I really don't understand all of these "conspiracy theories" regarding early Christianity.

If you don't like Christianity, it seems that Occam's razor would suffice to refute it. I'm skeptical of Christianity because of the miracle accounts. Guys rising from the dead? That's about a 10 out of 10 on my "weird-shit-o-meter."

wthrfrk80 says

Of course they were written about two decades after Jesus' death. But how is that relevant?

Given that life expectancy was quite low, and the New Testament was written over the next 7 decades, it follows that the eyewitnesses would have long been dead. Some were martyred.

You say that they were oral tradition, written down decades later, AND EYEWITNESS Accounts? Maybe we only differ on what constitutes "eye-witness"? I don't know of any mainstream historian or Church that believes they were eyewitness accounts whatsoever.

Then you say that Paul, who never walked with Jesus, but had a miraculous encounter with Jesus, is the same as someone who was physically approached by him? Yet, miracles give you pause?

wthrfrk80 says

To claim otherwise is to admit you are not familiar with the gospels.

I've read them countless times and taught them professionally. I was the President of the Theologically Honor Society, studied the material in Graduate School in Rome. I'm pretty familiar.

Occam's razor would dictate that the most obvious answer for the Gospels was that they wrote down what was commonly accepted at the time into texts. Faith would say that that process was divine, guided by the Holy Spirit, inerrant.

Why were some Gospels considered heresy, while others were accepted as Canon? Was the Council divinely inspired? Are the subsequent translations inspired too? Why are there so many contradictions? Why is so much missing from Jesus' life?

Did Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple? Or was Mark written after 70? What do you think?

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark13a.htm

CL says

You say that they were oral tradition, written down decades later, AND EYEWITNESS Accounts? Maybe we only differ on what constitutes "eye-witness"?

I simply meant that the people who interacted with Jesus (the eye-witnesses) remembered the events and teachings surrounding his life and passed down those things in an oral tradition. Eventually the tradition was written down. Some scholars speculate there might have been a "Q" source (an actual written document of this tradition) from which the gospels came.

Do you think that the Torah is an eyewitness account, too? Or like Dan said, are any other religious stories eye-witness accounts? Zeus? Mithra? Zarathustra?

If you think that Jesus was historical, what is your reasoning? Where is the proof?

What reasoning did the early Church have for believing Paul's account? Was it empirical?

thunderlips11 says

where many philosophers were conflated into Lao-Tsu

You mean there wasn't really a man named "Old Boy" who road a water buffalo out of town, stopping only to write down his pithy wisdom?!?!!?!

Now, I don't know what I can believe! :)

Do you think Chuang Tzu was historical? I tend to think of him as the "St. Paul" of Taoism.

CL says

Then you say that Paul, who never walked with Jesus, but had a miraculous encounter with Jesus, is the same as someone who was physically approached by him?

Where did I say or imply that?
I simply said that the early Christian community considered him an apostle. He was considered an apostle even though he did not interact with Jesus directly (except for the miraculous account). Paul himself states that he did not deserve to be an apostle since he persecuted the early Christian movement. Rather, he received the basic tradition of the early Christian movement: that Jesus died by crucifixion, was buried, and then rose from the dead. See his first letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 15, 1-11 as a reference.

CL says

Occam's razor would dictate that the most obvious answer for the Gospels was that they wrote down what was commonly accepted at the time into texts.

I agree. That's all I'm saying.

CL says

Why were some Gospels considered heresy, while others were accepted as Canon?

Maybe because those writings didn't line up with the beliefs of the early Christian movement? I wouldn't expect Libertarians to incorporate the writings of Karl Marx into their "canon" of writings either.

CL says

Was the Council divinely inspired? Are the subsequent translations inspired too?

I have no idea. How should I know? What does that have to do with anything? Seems like a "red herring."

CL says

Why are there so many contradictions?

Can you give examples? Sure, if you take things out of context you can find all sorts of supposed contradictions. For example, Jesus says we hate is equivalent to murder. But he also says "a man must hate is father an mother" to follow him. Is that a contradiction? Or are we just missing the intended meaning by "proof texting"?

CL says

Why is so much missing from Jesus' life?

What else would you like to know about Jesus' life? Do you want to know what toys he played with as a child? There are plenty of things I might like to know about Julius Caesar beyond what is written about him, but it's just not in the cards.

CL says

Did Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple? Or was Mark written after 70? What do you think?

Good questions. I have no idea.
You say you have these theological credentials but direct me to an atheist website?

RE: Paul, I think modern science would recognize that he likely had a need to be considered a valid expert on Jesus. Whether he had an episode or an epiphany depends on your perspective. I, personally, don't find his writings inspiring. He probably felt guilt for his persecutions and felt the need to make amends somehow. But, you're right--most Christians hold him up as though he was called.

RE: Canon: The Church had no central authority and so the traditions developed in isolation in many respects. I suspect that politics played a role in what was allowed into the Canon. But were those who did the deciding inspired? Why would you trust them, since they didn't have the science we do today? If they threw some of it out today, would you agree with that?

RE: Contradictions: An easy one is the legend of Akeldama, the "field of blood". Acts and Matthew give entirely different reasons the Potter's field was named Akeldama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akeldama

The apologists try to explain inconsistencies and contradictions away by saying, "What if Judas gave the money back, and then fell headlong and his guts spilled out?". They do this whenever the Bible contradicts itself.

wthrfrk80 says

What else would you like to know about Jesus' life? Do you want to know what toys he played with as a child?

For the most part, we aren't told what happens in his life between birth and the age of ~30. He has a story at 12 years old, and I think that appears in only one Gospel. The birth narrative is the same way. We've taken a bunch of stories an blended them together, and filled in the gaps with myth and legend.

Kind of weird for an eye-witness biography?

wthrfrk80 says

You say you have these theological credentials but direct me to an atheist website?

There's nothing particularly atheistic in that link. Still, you miss the point. Modern Theologians pursue the discipline as an academic discipline. They aren't threatened by science, history or archaeology. Further, they wouldn't discount any Pagan source as corroboration that Jesus existed, would they?

Would the Jews disregard Canaanite writings if they described Jericho?

If science shows anachronisms in the Bible, you can do cartwheels explaining them. Or, you can come to the logical conclusion that none of it is historical.

Which is okay--they weren't writing historical documents. The Hebrew Scriptures are written in the same way.

They are filled with jokes, eponymous writings, parables. In some cases, accidents and inaccuracies. They change the name of God, alternate between a transcendent unapproachable God, and an anthropomorphic one. Every other sentence. It's not a problem except to uninformed Westerners.

CL says

If you think that Jesus was historical, what is your reasoning? Where is the proof?

I'm not the only one who thinks Jesus was historical. It's possible to believe that Jesus existed and not believe everything (like the miracles) attributed to him. Heck, doesn't Michael Shermer even believe that Jesus existed as a wise philosopher or religious teacher, but not as the "Son of God."?

wthrfrk80 says

Heck, doesn't Michael Shermer even believe that Jesus existed

Then what is his proof?