The Mythical Titanic

Continuing with my retrospective theme (pay attention, "Anonymous") I have this piece I wrote in 2011 which is thematically still relevant as I released an update to part of Shattering the Christ Myth.

 **

My current “Reads for Fun” book isn’t much fun right now – it’s The Oxford History of Ireland, and the authors are a pretty boring lot who could use some habanero peppers to spice up their writing. But there’s an interesting lesson for apologetics in one essay I’ve read, titled “Ireland After 1870” by David Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick goes on and on rather like a dentists’ drill about the clashes between Catholics and Protestants, labor, employment, World War 1, etc etc etc. But there’s something he doesn’t mention at all: The Titanic disaster.

Um, you’re asking, why should he mention THAT?

I agree that he didn’t need to. But if we follow the logic of “silence” mythicists like Earl Doherty, this is a huge sign that the Titanic never existed. After all, we could see them easily saying the following, which includes information derived from several reliable online sources:

***
The Titanic was said to be constructed at the Harland and Wolff Shipyard in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1912. At the time it was supposedly the world’s largest boat, unmatched in both size and luxury. This project, had it existed, was surely a monumental boon to the economy of Ireland in general and Belfast in particular, as its construction employed hundreds of men in the Belfast area. It was also tried out in Belfast Lough, which was surely a remarkable enough spectacle that Fitzpatrick should have reported it in detail.

Additionally, the Titanic disaster represented an immense loss of life that allegedly made world headlines. Among the 1500 plus killed were 123 Irish citizens.


Surely if any of this were true, it would have warranted a mention by Fitzpatrick in his essay, but instead he remains preoccupied with such trivialities as labor unions!

***
All of which just goes to show that even in a modern, low-context society, there are people who can (and do) manage to overlook events and things which other people think are “too important” to not receive a mention. The problem with mythicists like Doherty is not an uncommon one -- they assume that their values and priorities are everyone else's, so there must be something wrong with you if you don't do what they would do.

Comments

im-skeptical said…
I think your argument is not only unsound, but utterly vapid. It completely misses the point of the arguments it is trying to counter.

You mock the point by noting that some particular guy fails to write contemporaneously about the Titanic, as if that is equivalent to idea that a historian at the time of Jesus fails to write about him. Well sure, my grandfather was alive at that time, and he didn't write about the Titanic, either. But the point is that there ARE records of its existence (not to mention that actual ship, which can be found today on the floor of the Atlantic - I've seen the pictures). Various people wrote various things about it. Take this, for example. Now compare that to the situation with Jesus. Aside from the stories in the bible, there is an astonishing lack of contemporaneous records or historical documentation of his life.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
I think your argument is not only unsound, but utterly vapid. It completely misses the point of the arguments it is trying to counter.

the point of all Jesus myther stupidity is "I hate God." "God can't make me stop screwing"

You mock the point by noting that some particular guy fails to write contemporaneously about the Titanic, as if that is equivalent to idea that a historian at the time of Jesus fails to write about him.

yes it is,I have demonstrated that none of the historians they use such as Philo had any real reason to write about
Jesus.That's the whole issue there they don't evaluate the reasons the guys would have for writing about him.


Well sure, my grandfather was alive at that time, and he didn't write about the Titanic, either. But the point is that there ARE records of its existence (not to mention that actual ship, which can be found today on the floor of the Atlantic - I've seen the pictures).

There is a great deal of evidence that Jesus existed, The idea that if he existed historians x,y,must haven written about him is totally fallacious. I have posted many times on the Jesus stuff. I've dealt with the Philo argumnet anddestoryed it.


Various people wrote various things about it. Take this, for example. Now compare that to the situation with Jesus. Aside from the stories in the bible, there is an astonishing lack of contemporaneous records or historical documentation of his life.

an astounding lack is a gap. that is argument from the gaps,It's fallacious because there's a great deal of evidence to support Jesus' existence and this is all we need; it doesn't prove squat if some particular person didn't write about him
Joe Hinman said…
these are linked to articles see this page




The Historical Jesus
under construction

(don't forget to cross reference with Gospel pages)

Prologomina To Any Future Discussion of Jesus' Historicity.
Discussion of the criteria to be used for discussion of Historical Jesus.

My Debate With Bradly Bowen on Historicity of Jesus*NEW*
Bowen is an atheist philosopher posts on the secular outpost blog.
This debate was held over two different blogs over several months. Several posts
very long. I think I demonstrate the historical trustworthiness of Papias and Josepjus
the historical Jesus.

Richard Carrier's Standard of Historical Proof
Carrier's startegy of using Bayes theroum for Jesus Myth
theory is examined. This really more of a cirticism of his
publisher. It's cross referenced in Mythological section.


Arguments for Historicity of Jesus

The web of Jesus' HistoricityNew

No Alternate Versions of the Jesus Story.New
Myth always proliferates, that there is only one version of the Jesus story is a good indication that it was known by all to be true.


Historical NT figures and early church writers with historical links to flesh and blood Jesus living in history: Paul met several Apostles, Philip was part of the infant church and knew all the Apostles and Jesus. Clement knew Paul and Peter, Papias and Polycarp studied together with John.
*Paul
*Philip
*Papias
*Clement of Rome
*Polycrap

Secular and Jewish Historians.

*JosephusNew
Page 2, Page 3 (the James passage)*New!*
Peter Kirby's Straw Man:Josehus *New!*
*Thallas New
*Phlegon New


*Talmud (part 1)
,.....( part 2: Answering Peter Kirby)*NEW*

*CelsusNew<

Nazareth Inhabited in Jesus' Day part 1
An oft repeated Myther argument is that Nazareth was not
inhabited in Jesus' day, thus Jesus could not have lived there.
Jesus' town was inhabited at the time in which he lived and
a wealth of archeological excavation proves this.

part 2New
I go through Humphrey's site and show that his arguments against Pfann don't work,

Nazareth Question Heats up.
This was done in 2012 while the previous was done in 2010. More
info on the same issue.

Answering the Philo Argument
yoshua said…
@Im_skeptical : Ironically, You're missing the point of the article. The article is not intended to pull a comprehensive and detailed reply to the mythicist argument.

It's more like a mock of 'Argument By Silence'by mythicist, which is the most foolish arguments ever. Just because some document does not mention someone, that does not add or negate the historicity of that person.

Gamaliel is one of the example. His mention is quite scarce apart from Talmud. But that does not mean he did not exist. The purpose of the article is just to show that when people did not write something about A, you dont just go assume he does not know about A. (Or think A does not exist)
im-skeptical said…
Just because some document does not mention someone, that does not add or negate the historicity of that person.

You're absolutely right. Just because a couple of guys wrote fantastic stories about superman doing feats of wonder does not mean it's true. Turns out they had something to sell, and superman was the vehicle for making those sales. But the fact remains the we know superman didn't actually exist because history tell us that. Aside from those stories and other stories that were written about the stories, we have no historical record of any actual person who was this person. True enough, the character might have been modeled on an actual person, or perhaps it was a composite of more than one, but there was never a real superman.

It seems to me that Jesus is no different. A character who is designed to be appealing for the purposes of selling a new faith. May be there was some magician or faith healer who inspired some part of the stories. Maybe there was some charismatic preacher like David Koresh who had a small band of fanatic followers, and when he died, they turned him into superman in an effort to preserve their cult.

One thing is fairly certain. If the remarkable person depicted in the gospels had actually existed, it would have been a sensational story. There would have been some historical basis outside the gospels that would give us an independent account of him. Surely, when Jesus raised people from the dead, that would have made the 5 o'clock news, so to speak. And yet we hear nothing. Aside from the gospels, nobody thought it was worth mentioning. Once again, it's not that a particular author failed to mention this. It's the fact that NOBODY mentioned it in their writings.
Joe Hinman said…
just because some document does not mention someone, that does not add or negate the historicity of that person.

You're absolutely right. Just because a couple of guys wrote fantastic stories about superman doing feats of wonder does not mean it's true. Turns out they had something to sell, and superman was the vehicle for making those sales. But the fact remains the we know superman didn't actually exist because history tell us that. Aside from those stories and other stories that were written about the stories, we have no historical record of any actual person who was this person. True enough, the character might have been modeled on an actual person, or perhaps it was a composite of more than one, but there was never a real superman.

Now you have shifted the argument from a gap argument to an genre argument, but you are still argument from analogy. Just because one thing is fictional doesn't mean another is.
The hidden premise in the argument both share deeds by the main character which are impossible for the average person so therefore they must both be fictional. That is a total fallacy. Superman was invented by people looking to write fiction,Jesus was not.



J. P Holding said…
As usual, IMS gives us a great parody of an ignorant fundy atheist! Very funny! He even goes so far as to pretend to be stupid enough to buy into the "Remsberg's List" argument. It doesn't die; stupid people keep bringing it up! The latest update to STCM includes an expanded chapter on it. Thanks, IMS, and keep up the good work!

Joe Hinman said…

It seems to me that Jesus is no different. A character who is designed to be appealing for the purposes of selling a new faith.

that is just circular reasoning and question begging,you have no knowledge that Jesus was deigned you are assuming so because few the miracles. You have no evidence that all miracles are fictional. That is ideological.


May be there was some magician or faith healer who inspired some part of the stories. Maybe there was some charismatic preacher like David Koresh who had a small band of fanatic followers, and when he died, they turned him into superman in an effort to preserve their cult.

Of course you assert that the kinds of real life models you can have are cult leaders and wirdos. Your reasoning is argument from analogy,

One thing is fairly certain. If the remarkable person depicted in the gospels had actually existed, it would have been a sensational story.

again circular reasoning.We know empirically that's BS there are people all over the world who make such claims they are not famous no one cares,the world does not stop becauseof them. I know a reporter who covered a story on such a person.

There would have been some historical basis outside the gospels that would give us an independent account of him. Surely, when Jesus raised people from the dead, that would have made the 5 o'clock news, so to speak.

there is. The Talmud, several sometimes and in Josephus in two mentions, and the Apostolic fathers. see my debate with Bowen, listed above.


And yet we hear nothing.

wrong I've been talking about it for years

Aside from the gospels, nobody thought it was worth mentioning. Once again, it's not that a particular author failed to mention this. It's the fact that NOBODY mentioned it in their writings.

that is just BS you don't even know the basic issues. Obviously people did think so because otherwise there would have been no rarely church. We know of at least 35 Gospels some of which pre date the canonical and they all assume Jesus was a real flesh and blood man.you can read about all of these in the links I provided above where I list the articles on the page,
Joe Hinman said…
Here is my Debate with Bowen

this has the evidence on apostolic fathers who Knew apostles and Jesus in Talmud and Josephus' second Jesus passage.
Joe Hinman said…
I am back on carm
im-skeptical said…
He even goes so far as to pretend to be stupid enough to buy into the "Remsberg's List" argument

WOW. I read about your Rensberg argument. It is amazing the way you can come up with so many excuses for the absence of historical records about the one you think is the single most important person who ever lived. I don't know much about Remsberg's list, but it doesn't matter. Whether it is reasonable or not, you will certainly dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your superstition. And the same goes for every reasonable argument that has ever been made.
im-skeptical said…
there is. The Talmud, several sometimes and in Josephus in two mentions, and the Apostolic fathers.

And let's not for get the gospels. We have that. too. OK great. And how many INDEPENDENT sources ate there? Two mentions in Josephus that most historians believe were added some time later by dishonest Christians apologists. Well, sure. What other kind of Christian apologist is there?
Anonymous said…
im-skeptical- Point of order- only one out of the two references is considered to have been tampered with by later interpolators.

From Wikipedia's Josephus on Jesus article:

"Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum." [sources: Paul L. Maier (2007), Heinz Schreckenberg & Kurt Schubert (1992a), Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata, eds. (1987)]

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[Feldman has a footnote here] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity."[sources are: Robert Van Voorst, 2000, Feldman and Hata, 1987, Maier, in his 1995 edition of Josephus, Bauckham, 1999, as quoted in Evans and Chilton, John Painter, 2005 and the last source is a footnote with quotations. Of interest is Feldman, the Orthodox Jewish professor].

I am very aware that this is sort of a distraction from your main point.
im-skeptical said…
Thank you for that.
Joe Hinman said…
I meant that metaphorically I am not really back on carm,
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Thank you for that.

Skep do you not get that he disproved your argument not mine? I claim the both are genuine but the brother passage is not questioned that proves Jesus existed.

skep says:--And let's not for get the gospels. We have that. too. OK great. And how many INDEPENDENT sources ate there? Two mentions in Josephus that most historians believe were added some time later by dishonest Christians apologists. Well, sure. What other kind of Christian apologist is there?

I named them all above and each one is linked on y page that I also linked to here/ there's a page on each one.

*Paul
*Philip
*Papias
*Clement of Rome
*Polycrap

Secular and Jewish Historians.

*JosephusNew
Page 2, Page 3 (the James passage)*New!*
Peter Kirby's Straw Man:Josehus *New!*
*Thallas New
*Phlegon New

plus two virtually proved references in the Talmud and a bunch of other possibles,

In addition to all of that Selsus admits that he got his info on Jesus from the Jews which means Talmudic references are really of Jesus.
Joe Hinman said…
WOW. I read about your Rensberg argument. It is amazing the way you can come up with so many excuses for the absence of historical records about the one you think is the single most important person who ever lived. I don't know much about Remsberg's list, but it doesn't matter. Whether it is reasonable or not, you will certainly dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your superstition. And the same goes for every reasonable argument that has ever been made.

you are still begging the question,you speak as though you have a sure defense of your view but it;s based upon circular reasoning,the premise is still fallacious. argumet from gap.If it was a God argumnet it would be God of the gaps atheism of the gaps
im-skeptical said…
Skep do you not get that he disproved your argument not mine?

- No, he corrected my mistake on one point, which is the authenticity of the short passage in Book 10 where Josephus mentioned the name of Jesus. That passage contains no glowing words, and no description of the man or his deeds. Of course Josephus was no Christian, and the longer passage about Jesus is inconsistent with what we know about Josephus - it was obviously written by a Christian.


you are still begging the question,you speak as though you have a sure defense of your view but it;s based upon circular reasoning,the premise is still fallacious. argumet from gap.If it was a God argumnet it would be God of the gaps atheism of the gaps

- I'm not sure how you can make such a claim. I was commenting on JP's indiscriminate dismissal of any and all evidence that doesn't support his beliefs. How is that circular reasoning? Or is this just something you say to atheists like me, regardless of the point we are making?
Joe Hinman said…
Skep do you not get that he disproved your argument not mine?

- No, he corrected my mistake on one point, which is the authenticity of the short passage in Book 10 where Josephus mentioned the name of Jesus. That passage contains no glowing words, and no description of the man or his deeds. Of course Josephus was no Christian, and the longer passage about Jesus is inconsistent with what we know about Josephus - it was obviously written by a Christian.

that passage identifies Jesus as the Messianic claimant and the brother of the leader of the Jerusalem church,that proves he's the same guy in the Gospel and he existed,


you are still begging the question,you speak as though you have a sure defense of your view but it;s based upon circular reasoning,the premise is still fallacious. argumet from gap.If it was a God argumnet it would be God of the gaps atheism of the gaps

- I'm not sure how you can make such a claim. I was commenting on JP's indiscriminate dismissal of any and all evidence that doesn't support his beliefs. How is that circular reasoning? Or is this just something you say to atheists like me, regardless of the point we are making?

the argument that if Jesus existed x,y,z would have talked about him"is an argumet from gaps,it's saying X is true because if it was not true there would be something we don't find now,that is a gap. we don't have positive evidence like someone saying this Jesus guy did not exist. It's so amazing how badly you reason

7/18/2017 05:05:00 AM Delete
J. P Holding said…
As usual, a brilliant parody by IMS! Not answering arguments except with empty labels; admitting total ignorance of the subject he is addressing; narrow-minded tunnel vision. Absolutely a perfect parody of a fundy atheist!
J. P Holding said…
Anon did a good parody this time too. Quoting Wikipedia! That's quality parody of an ignorant fundy atheist.
Anonymous said…
No, JPH, I'm not an atheist; I'm Christian and disagree with mythicism. My point is that the relevant scholars are only concerned with one of these passages. Even though Book 18's passage is of concern, Book 20's is not.

I made sure to sort of expand the Wikipedia citations for you guys with the brackets, so you can see which scholars they are using. I was considering mentioning what books they sourced, but I was worried that the result would be too long.

im-skeptical said…
we don't have positive evidence like someone saying this Jesus guy did not exist. It's so amazing how badly you reason

- By your logic, we should accept that Superman is real. It's so amazing how badly YOU reason.


As usual, a brilliant parody by IMS! Not answering arguments except with empty labels ...

- And as usual, you do a fair job of pretending to be a scholar, with your degree in library science in hand, and your thorough indoctrination with religious belief that leaves not the slightest pinhole for the light of reason to penetrate. As for answering arguments with empty labels, one need look no further than your own comments here.
JBsptfn said…
I see how it works. According to Skep, everyone who believes in Christ is indoctrinated. How cute!!! It doesn't matter if they use reason. According to you, they are wrong by default because they aren't an atheist.
Anonymous said…
IMS- I'm a bit confused as to your current view. You now concede: "No, he corrected my mistake on one point, which is the authenticity of the short passage in Book 10 where Josephus mentioned the name of Jesus. That passage contains no glowing words, and no description of the man or his deeds."

It's true- I was correcting your mistake. And this statement is agreeable, as it is basically a side-mention, and really just explains who James is in the context of the Sanhedrin bringing James in to trial...

But what I see here is that you agree that the passage talks about:
-A man who was the brother of Jesus
-Josephus distances himself by saying that people "called" Jesus the Messiah.

So, do you agree that this is historical evidence for Jesus existing?

I know that you keep using this example, because it's kind of how you relate to miraculous events, so here's a thought: If we had a real-world historian give a dead-serious out-of-universe description, say, a relative of Superman (whom we would normally consider a pretend character) going to jail, and suppose the passage said, verbatim, "Locals call Superman a hero from space" or something. How would you feel about it as evidence for the character?

--------
Can I just give you another thought?
If Josephus is using Jesus to establish who James is, wouldn't that imply that Jesus was kind of notable at the time?
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
No, JPH, I'm not an atheist; I'm Christian and disagree with mythicism.

we have another regular who goes by anonymous but he always signs his posts "Pixie"
Joe Hinman said…
JB I need your help will you send me an IM through the message board?
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...

me
we don't have positive evidence like someone saying this Jesus guy did not exist. It's so amazing how badly you reason

- By your logic, we should accept that Superman is real. It's so amazing how badly YOU reason.

how does that follow? we know superman is not real by virtue of it being a comic book, we also have words from his creators talking about how they got the idea.there is no content in which the gospels are understood as fictional,non e, not one, not one single example.

my logic it would seem says follow the evidence isn't that what atheists say?



As usual, a brilliant parody by IMS! Not answering arguments except with empty labels ...

- And as usual, you do a fair job of pretending to be a scholar, with your degree in library science in hand, and your thorough indoctrination with religious belief that leaves not the slightest pinhole for the light of reason to penetrate. As for answering arguments with empty labels, one need look no further than your own comments here.

you have no idea what a scholar is do you?you have no idea what people do to gt an MLS degree do you?

according to Webster


Definition of scholar
1
: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2
a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b : a learned person
3
: a holder of a scholarship
im-skeptical said…
Anonymous,

Yes, I agree it is evidence. By the time that historical account was written there was a fairly wide-spread story of the man Jesus. If you recall what I said earlier, there are a number of possibilities as to how the legend of Jesus-as-superhero arose. I think it is likely that there was some kind of preacher with a small following that was the primary basis for the legendary stories. I think that various attributes were blended in from other sources, and then expanded and exaggerated. I think it's pretty clear, even from the biblical texts themselves, that the legend became more and more exaggerated over a period of several decades. But something else is also evident: the Jesus that Josephus mentions is not the legendary figure who performs astounding miraculous feats as the biblical legends describe. If that were the case, surely it would have been noted. The fact is, it wasn't.
im-skeptical said…
Joe,

By the definition you provide, I am a scholar, too (on all three counts). Please stop trying to pretend that I can make no pretense to any kind of intelligent discussion. My advanced studies happen to be in science. That's why I get irked when you pretend to have some kind of expertise in areas of science that you really don't, and then just assume that you can get away with it, because you lay claim to being the educated one.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Joe,

By the definition you provide, I am a scholar, too (on all three counts). Please stop trying to pretend that I can make no pretense to any kind of intelligent discussion.

where did I say that you can't be thought of as a scholar? I did not say that about you.I think you do make intelligent contributions to discussion.



My advanced studies happen to be in science.

where did you get your masters degree? you don't have knowledge of a subject if you didn't go to gradate school in that subject.


That's why I get irked when you pretend to have some kind of expertise in areas of science that you really don't, and then just assume that you can get away with it, because you lay claim to being the educated one.

I'm a historian, that's all I've ever climaxed to be. My knowledge which, might be called expertise with a slight streak of the imagination, is knowledge of history and philosophy of science. I have a BA in sociology and worked satisfied Masters retirement I'm History of ideas and worked in Ph,D. program mi history of ideas passing qualifier exams with flying colors,So I am officially qualified in history and philosophy of science.

I know think you know all about science because you read a bunch of atheists whipping up on creationists you think that makes you a scientist,

In everyone of these exchanged I;'ve cleaned your clock,you have not the intelligence or knowledge to even know how badly you lose,

the pathetic thing is you know absolutely nothing about history philosophy of science,

Joe Hinman said…
a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field

==that doesn't mean read a bunch of atheists on an website talking about stupid Christians are.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Anonymous,

Yes, I agree it is evidence. By the time that historical account was written there was a fairly wide-spread story of the man Jesus. If you recall what I said earlier, there are a number of possibilities as to how the legend of Jesus-as-superhero arose.

they did not have superheroes, the first superhero was superman in 1928, about 2000 years after Jesus' time,


I think it is likely that there was some kind of preacher with a small following that was the primary basis for the legendary stories.

there's the thin end guys, just keep arguing next they will say I think it's likley that some sorties of this real figure were the basis of the gospels,


I think that various attributes were blended in from other sources, and then expanded and exaggerated. I think it's pretty clear, even from the biblical texts themselves, that the legend became more and more exaggerated over a period of several decades. But something else is also evident: the Jesus that Josephus mentions is not the legendary figure who performs astounding miraculous feats as the biblical legends describe. If that were the case, surely it would have been noted. The fact is, it wasn't.

Just because Joe leaves out the kind of propaganda his followers said about him doesn't mean he's not the same guy,
im-skeptical said…
You call yourself a historian, and you claim that the world's first superhero was Superman, in 1928 ???
im-skeptical said…
I did not say that about you.I think you do make intelligent contributions to discussion.

In everyone of these exchanged I;'ve cleaned your clock,you have not the intelligence or knowledge to even know how badly you lose

I know think you know all about science because you read a bunch of atheists whipping up on creationists you think that makes you a scientist


- You're not listening, Joe. Not to me, and not to yourself.

Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
You call yourself a historian, and you claim that the world's first superhero was Superman, in 1928 ???

obviously a typo.Obviously i meant 38. Action #1.I don't study popular culture as a historian,but I am a collector,
im-skeptical said…
Actually, Superman first appeared in print in the January 1933 issue of Science Fiction magazine.

The word superhero dates to 1917.
Joe Hinman said…
I know supes was in funnies before comics but I was dating the start of the golden age of comics. I know there were figures who some call super heroes pre dates Spmes but I disagree that they were super heroes, they include the phantom (the ghost who walks,the jungle guy) among others.
Joe Hinman said…
before superheroes we had mystery men. N powers.
Joe Hinman said…

Skep I am sorry to give the impression that I have no regard for your intellectual abilities, that is not the case. But it's just a habit of internet message boards acrimony.I was impressed with your knowledge of science but there's a distinction between science and philosophy of science.
yoshua said…
@Im_skeptical : Wow... that's actually quite stupid. You comparing Jesus to Superman? Superman is fiction because it's marketed as fiction. That analogy by itself is faulty. Maybe you should compare it to more historical figure like Apollonius of Tyana.

I already said that Gamaliel or even the Apostle Paul reference is quite scarce apart from the Jewish sources like Talmud. (And Gamaliel is quite famous by standards) but why people like Philo, Appian, or Plutarch would mention him?

Your view of Jesus being famous is problematic. Actually no, not really, he's not really that famous at all, at least not in the eyes of historians at that time. It's like you expecting a national document at that time to mention someone as obscure as say, apostle paul and peter, or in modern sense, demand Chinese government to mention 'Watchman Nee' (don't know who he is? Google it.).

Actually what's interesting is, aside from Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus and Tacitus probably would not mention Jesus at all. Jesus' mention by tacitus is quite accidential, because he is writing about Nero and wants to explain (and correct) the origin of the name 'Chrestians'. While Josephus' small reference is just because James the Just killed. If two of this didn't happen, they would not mention him at all.

Oh and i may add, beside most of people dislikes Christianity at that time...the amount of writings survived is...well, very low.
Joe Hinman said…
I have pointed out the fallacy of using superman for comparison. He would get more milae from using King Arthur.
im-skeptical said…
There have been many legendary heroes - King Arthur, Robin Hood. What makes Jesus more like Superman is his supernatural powers. And I think it's quite appropriate to compare the two. Superman saves the day from the bad guys. The original concept of the messiah was quite the same - someone who would rescue the Jews from the Romans.
im-skeptical said…
Your view of Jesus being famous is problematic. Actually no, not really, he's not really that famous at all, at least not in the eyes of historians at that time.

That's actually the point. Not very famous, except for the fact the he was said to be the founder of this growing little community of Christians. But why wouldn't he be famous if he actually did the things that were claimed of him? It seems a real person with superpowers like that would be the most famous person of the time. Curious.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
There have been many legendary heroes - King Arthur, Robin Hood. What makes Jesus more like Superman is his supernatural powers. And I think it's quite appropriate to compare the two. Superman saves the day from the bad guys. The original concept of the messiah was quite the same - someone who would rescue the Jews from the Romans.\

O please ask this question! Please???Pretty please???

what am I doing?

I know miracles are false because I don't believe in them,
Joe Hinman said…
Your view of Jesus being famous is problematic. Actually no, not really, he's not really that famous at all, at least not in the eyes of historians at that time.

That's actually the point. Not very famous, except for the fact the he was said to be the founder of this growing little community of Christians. But why wouldn't he be famous if he actually did the things that were claimed of him? It seems a real person with superpowers like that would be the most famous person of the time. Curious.


that is bull shit. In Jesus' day there were lots of faith healers and everyone beveled init, JP has written a lot on why those things would not be noticed, That;s a really cheesy Argentine;disastrous assumption and atheist snake it all the time,,
im-skeptical said…
I know miracles are false because I don't believe in them

- I believe miracles don't ever happen because ... because they don't ever happen.


In Jesus' day there were lots of faith healers and everyone beveled init

- Yes, there were hucksters then and there are hucksters now. And there have always been people who believe in it.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
I know miracles are false because I don't believe in them

- I believe miracles don't ever happen because ... because they don't ever happen.

tautology ,circular reasoning


In Jesus' day there were lots of faith healers and everyone beveled init

- Yes, there were hucksters then and there are hucksters now. And there have always been people who believe in it.

you on't get the point, that refutes the stupid idea that any kind of miracle would make one world famous,

7/21/2017 04:56:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
that refutes the stupid idea that any kind of miracle would make one world famous

- No, it does not refute the idea. Hucksters don't actually perform miracles. Only a subset of the population is taken in by their trickery. If someone was performing actual miracles, they would be famous for that.
Joe Hinman said…
that is on par with voting for Trump. The assertion that all miracles reports are due to fakery is sheer stupidity. Science worship propaganda.

We had miracle in our living room that about 8 ER guys witnessed, their machines were hooked up they saw my father' vitals change as we prayed. One atheist among them got real up set and started crying and shouting "it didn't happen!It didn't happen!" but it did,they all knew and they all said it, in amazement "I've seen a miracle!" The previous millrace mu Dad had his doctor said "I have never used this word in my practice before but this is a miracle"I pressed him omit saying:Is this really a miracle you mean it literally?" He said "it has to be!" He was not a believer.
Joe Hinman said…
we are not world famous
im-skeptical said…
Joe, if your definition of a miracle is someone recovering from a life-threatening medical condition, then it's no wonder you can't distinguish between natural reality and supernatural fantasy. This is a topic that I addressed just recently, here. Why is it that modern medical miracles can always be explained without resorting to anything supernatural? Back in the good old days, miracles were real miracles. Rotted corpses rising from the dead and whatnot. If you want to sound convincing, you need to show something more than a medical recovery.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Joe, if your definition of a miracle is someone recovering from a life-threatening medical condition, then it's no wonder you can't distinguish between natural reality and supernatural fantasy. This is a topic that I addressed just recently, here. Why is it that modern medical miracles can always be explained without resorting to anything supernatural? Back in the good old days, miracles were real miracles. Rotted corpses rising from the dead and whatnot. If you want to sound convincing, you need to show something more than a medical recovery.


listen up little ignoramus, try to learn something stop pretend in you know it all dumb ass.,

First, if was my father's atheist doctor who said it was a miracle.stop trying to pretend like it was just my idea. The doctor said it.He didn't just get better child, he was clinically dead for 11 minutes. at age 89 he came bounding back from sever heart arrhythmia with a strong stead y heart beat having been dead for 11 minutes. The really amazing thing is that about that same time I was at home asleep dreaming that the Pope brought father tome he was in good shape a in a new suit and he said "he's going to be with you while longer," I had no idea of the danger he was in at that time.

Secondly , here is why I have to just think you are really very stupid,I told you in the second story they saw his vital signs change on the machines, does that happen?Is that normal? no it's not and it append right as we prayed,ignoramus. It is not normal,why would the lot of the ER guys Stand around my living room and saying "wow this is so freaky this doesn't happen" if it was normal? you didn't did you? see what you miss by not reading?
JBsptfn said…
IMS Back in the good old days, miracles were real miracles. Rotted corpses rising from the dead and whatnot. If you want to sound convincing, you need to show something more than a medical recovery.

Moving those goalposts again, I see. No evidence is good enough for you.

And, what rotted corpses rose from the dead? I don't know what you are talking about (if you are referring to Jesus, I don't think that his was in the tomb long enough to rot).
im-skeptical said…
First, if was my father's atheist doctor who said it was a miracle.
- It doesn't matter who said it. A bad argument is a bad argument. (And it could be the case that he was appealing to the superstition of the family members.)

he was clinically dead for 11 minutes
- By that, you mean that some machine didn't detect a heartbeat during that time. It does nor mean that he was genuinely dead. Death is permanent.

they saw his vital signs change on the machines, does that happen?Is that normal? no it's not
- It happens. And every time it does, people like you claim it's a miracle.

and it append right as we prayed,ignoramus.
- That happens. too. You might think it's freaky, but there's absolutely nothing unusual about it. Sometimes, the outcome is consistent with the prayers. Often, it's not. What would be freaky is is the outcome was always consistent with the prayers.

im-skeptical said…
No evidence is good enough for you.
- Show me an actual miracle - as in something that defies the laws of physics. Medical recoveries happen all the time, and they are perfectly natural.

And, what rotted corpses rose from the dead? I don't know what you are talking about (if you are referring to Jesus, I don't think that his was in the tomb long enough to rot).
- Jesus is supposed to have raised a number of dead people. And the process of rotting begins within minutes (provided the body is actually dead). Rigor mortis sets in within a few hours. Show me a body in rigor that rises from the dead, and I'll happily agree that it's a miracle.

Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
No evidence is good enough for you.
- Show me an actual miracle - as in something that defies the laws of physics. Medical recoveries happen all the time, and they are perfectly natural.

that shows the complete lack of sophistication in your understanding of philosophy of science.You don't even know that the concept of laws of physics is in dispute, at least among philosophers of science.Laws of physics are now seen as descriptive rather than prescriptive and that kin itself opens the door to miracles.Moreover, the variables may be to complex to make those kinds of judgement.

When something does happen ,it does all the time,which seems as dramatic and clear cut as violating so called "laws off physics" atheists will never admit it, they will always resort to sheer obfuscation and incredulity rather than to admit something they can't explain has happened.


be that as it my Charles Ann in the early pat of the 20th century I thin (1923?), dying of TB. His lungs were ravaged,He prayed to a catholic figure who was not even a saint and the next day x-rays showed his lungs were prefect no ta race of disease and he was breathing fine. That is well documented by the saint making committee of the RCC because it was the second miracle that put over St Theresa of Lisieux (Lis-ee-u) as a saint.



And, what rotted corpses rose from the dead? I don't know what you are talking about (if you are referring to Jesus, I don't think that his was in the tomb long enough to rot).
- Jesus is supposed to have raised a number of dead people. And the process of rotting begins within minutes (provided the body is actually dead). Rigor mortis sets in within a few hours. Show me a body in rigor that rises from the dead, and I'll happily agree that it's a miracle.

that's extremely stood, if he has the power to make them live again why you doubt that could reverse the decay process?
Joe Hinman said…
God can fling a million blazing stars so big a thousand earths could fit in to one of them but he sure can't reverse Rigor mortis???
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
First, if was my father's atheist doctor who said it was a miracle.
- It doesn't matter who said it. A bad argument is a bad argument. (And it could be the case that he was appealing to the superstition of the family members.)

The athyeist must always doubt the evidence, regardless of how strong the evidence is it can never be good enough because it's not about reason it's about worship. Skep worships science,no authority can ever challenge it. A mere doctor what does he know? He must be lying because the Hinman family is f****** stupid he can't deal with them rationally,how do we know? why because nothing can ever challenge atheist ideology..science will be done!

he was clinically dead for 11 minutes

- By that, you mean that some machine didn't detect a heartbeat during that time. It does nor mean that he was genuinely dead. Death is permanent.

now he's going to second guess the scientific findings he would otherwise use to destroy the faith, it all proves religion is crap unless it counts against his view then it's wrong.Nothing ca ever count against his view any science or data that says he's wrong has to be a lie.

they saw his vital signs change on the machines, does that happen?Is that normal? no it's not
- It happens. And every time it does, people like you claim it's a miracle.

no it does not ignoramus l that is stupid,l do you really thin a heart attack would stop in the middle and just be suddenly ok? no that does not happen, why just when we prayed,?TE ER GUY SAID IT DOES NOT HAPPEN! WHY WERE THE ER GUYS FREAKED OUT ABOUT IT? WHY DID THEY SAI IT DOESN';T HPPEN?

the machines are wrong
the experts are wrong
the practitioners are wrong

science is god and it frees us from religion but when it starts saying atheism is wrong then it's not good nothing works the experts don't know,


and it append right as we prayed,ignoramus.


- That happens. too. You might think it's freaky, but there's absolutely nothing unusual about it. Sometimes, the outcome is consistent with the prayers. Often, it's not. What would be freaky is is the outcome was always consistent with the prayers.

so when you asked for a "miracle: that convenes the laws of physics, what could ever fill that bill? Atheist doubt can ever be falsified, do you understand what that mean?do you understand the importance of being able to falsify an hypothesis?
Joe Hinman said…
so when you asked for a "miracle: that contravenes the laws of physics, what could ever fill that bill? Atheist doubt can never be falsified, do you understand what that means? do you understand the importance of being able to falsify an hypothesis?
im-skeptical said…
You don't even know that the concept of laws of physics is in dispute, at least among philosophers of science.Laws of physics are now seen as descriptive rather than prescriptive and that kin itself opens the door to miracles.

- It's a shame you have no idea just how moronic that is. No scientist EVER said the laws of physics were prescriptive. Only an idiot would think such a thing. See my article It's a Miracle.


that's extremely stood, if he has the power to make them live again why you doubt that could reverse the decay process?

- Why do I doubt it? Because I've never seen it happen. And neither have you.


The athyeist must always doubt the evidence, regardless of how strong the evidence is it can never be good enough because it's not about reason it's about worship.

- You've got it backwards, Joe. What I doubt is your STORIES. The way to remove doubt is to show me evidence - not just more stories, but actual evidence. And you're a fine one to be talking about reason vs. worship. You never met a miracle story that you didn't believe, provided it was approved by the church you worship.

now he's going to second guess the scientific findings

- What scientific findings. All I heard was yet another STORY from you. Show me the scientific findings.


so when you asked for a "miracle: that convenes the laws of physics, what could ever fill that bill? Atheist doubt can ever be falsified, do you understand what that mean?do you understand the importance of being able to falsify an hypothesis?

- This is another trope that militant Christians love to spread in the hopes of making themselves seem reasonable. The fact is that you believe in things that are not supported by objective evidence, and you are frustrated that I require evidence in order to believe. All you can show me in the way of evidence is a bunch of STORIES about miracles, or a bunch of claims about miracles that are in fact nothing more than natural events. And if I ask you to show me a REAL miracle, you resort to the old trope "nothing will ever satisfy you", because you know as well as I do that you can't show me a REAL miracle. See my article Heads I Lose, Tails You Win.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
You don't even know that the concept of laws of physics is in dispute, at least among philosophers of science.Laws of physics are now seen as descriptive rather than prescriptive and that kin itself opens the door to miracles.

- It's a shame you have no idea just how moronic that is. No scientist EVER said the laws of physics were prescriptive. Only an idiot would think such a thing. See my article It's a Miracle.

you are so ignorant, that's so childish ignorant, they did say it, why do you thin they called it :law"stupid. because they said God established it, Newton said it that;s why e called them laws


that's extremely stood, if he has the power to make them live again why you doubt that could reverse the decay process?

- Why do I doubt it? Because I've never seen it happen. And neither have you.

are you so stupid you understand the statement?IF? IFIFIFIFIIFI(FIFI(FIF dumb dildo!


The athyeist must always doubt the evidence, regardless of how strong the evidence is it can never be good enough because it's not about reason it's about worship.

- You've got it backwards, Joe. What I doubt is your STORIES. The way to remove doubt is to show me evidence - not just more stories, but actual evidence. And you're a fine one to be talking about reason vs. worship. You never met a miracle story that you didn't believe, provided it was approved by the church you worship.

you doubt any and all evidence, I also talked about well documented miralces in the Catholic saint committee you doubt that too,a you will always express doubt in anything that counts against your ideology like Trump. it's all fake news,

now he's going to second guess the scientific findings

- What scientific findings. All I heard was yet another STORY from you. Show me the scientific findings.

you can pretend it;s not real just because I said it that does not undo the reality I nowise true, the scientific aspects were the er people the doctors thiat;s real you can;t cchange it, it opened,screw you stood. you are just like guy in the living room ;It didn;t happen I refuse it it deidj;t" but it did,it did!!!!


Joe Hinman said…
so when you asked for a "miracle: that convenes the laws of physics, what could ever fill that bill? Atheist doubt can ever be falsified, do you understand what that mean?do you understand the importance of being able to falsify an hypothesis?

- This is another trope that militant Christians love to spread in the hopes of making themselves seem reasonable. The fact is that you believe in things that are not supported by objective evidence,

I was there. the doctor (and the surgeon too actually, the ER guys all their equipment all of that is objective evidence it happened you can't make it un-happen,I saw it, i don't care that you weren't there that's your problem you are not making my objective evidence go away. just because you play these little doubt games,


and you are frustrated that I require evidence in order to believe.

ahahahaahhaah why the hell would I care weather you believe or not? I don't need your approval to belief, I;ve been a Christian 40 years what did I do all time I didn;t know yo?>It si galimg that such a know nothing is so arrogant

All you can show me in the way of evidence is a bunch of STORIES about miracles, or a bunch of claims about miracles that are in fact nothing more than natural events. And if I ask you to show me a REAL miracle, you resort to the old trope "nothing will ever satisfy you", because you know as well as I do that you can't show me a REAL miracle. See my article Heads I Lose, Tails You Win.

so typically missingthe poimnt/

you don';tknowwhat falifiyingis do youPLor why matters.

your views cannot be falsified that means they can't be proven either, there is no evidence of any kind that would make you admit it was real that means it;s pointless arguing because you are immune to reason,you not an atheist because of reason,
im-skeptical said…
IMS:No scientist EVER said the laws of physics were prescriptive. Only an idiot would think such a thing.

JH: you are so ignorant, that's so childish ignorant, they did say it, why do you thin they called it :law"stupid. because they said God established it, Newton said it that;s why e called them laws


- Religionists think laws of nature are decreed by God. Scientists observe nature and formulate laws that describe what they observe. Even Newton did that. That has always been the practice of modern science.


you doubt any and all evidence, I also talked about well documented miralces in the Catholic saint committee you doubt that too

- No. I told you, I doubt your STORIES, and I doubt the stories of blinkered religionists, even if they were appointed to a committee by the church. Show me actual evidence.


you can pretend it;s not real just because I said it that does not undo the reality

- I don't doubt that your father recovered. But I doubt your explanation of the event. You see the world through God-colored goggles that severely distort the reality. I'm sure you believe it, but it's bullshit.



Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
IMS:No scientist EVER said the laws of physics were prescriptive. Only an idiot would think such a thing.

JH: you are so ignorant, that's so childish ignorant, they did say it, why do you thin they called it :law"stupid. because they said God established it, Newton said it that;s why e called them laws

- Religionists think laws of nature are decreed by God. Scientists observe nature and formulate laws that describe what they observe. Even Newton did that. That has always been the practice of modern science.

you can only think in stereo types most of your answers involve trying to fit your opponent's views into your handy stereotypical bio totted view. Instead of knowing about history you just assume I have to be wrong because I'm a stereo type then you mis-analyze my view in order to make it fit your nonsense. Meanwhile you fail to answer my argument, you are totally ignorant of Newton and what he believed,He thought God actually wrote laws for nature to follow making them perspective, it doesn't matter what you think, that's a fact of history everyone who studies Newton knows that.

You also totally miss my real point that the concept of physical laws up for grabbes meaning your take on miracles is obsolete. Even just saying laws of physics as are descriptions of behavior opens the door to miracles.


you doubt any and all evidence, I also talked about well documented miralces in the Catholic saint committee you doubt that too


- No. I told you, I doubt your STORIES, and I doubt the stories of blinkered religionists, even if they were appointed to a committee by the church. Show me actual evidence.

I notice you carefully avoided not saying anything about Charles Anne's lungs,

you can pretend it;s not real just because I said it that does not undo the reality

- I don't doubt that your father recovered. But I doubt your explanation of the event. You see the world through God-colored goggles that severely distort the reality. I'm sure you believe it, but it's bullshit.

He recovered from 11 minutes of death,one of those things you claim no one sees but I saw it,since I did that means it;s part of the description,,
im-skeptical said…
You also totally miss my real point that the concept of physical laws up for grabbes meaning your take on miracles is obsolete. Even just saying laws of physics as are descriptions of behavior opens the door to miracles.

- It is not "up for grabbes". Science is, and has always been about observing and describing reality. Only blinkered religionists think that observed reality includes miracles. And I'd like you to show me references to any serious articles from philosophy of science that dispute that.


I notice you carefully avoided not saying anything about Charles Anne's lungs

- Show me those x-rays. (You should be aware that ate the time, the technology was quite primitive.) Show me the independent analysis of a doctor who was not a blinkered religionist.


He recovered from 11 minutes of death

- That's your story, but you said you weren't even there. Prove he was dead with real evidence.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?