Why was Jesus the only INSTANT MIRACLE HERO? Why are there no other examples?
Can't you get it straight? What they couldn't do was make up stories and get those stories widely circulated, believed, taken seriously, such that in only 30 or 40 years they were being written, copied, published -- and even in multiple documents in less than 100 years.
There were no other examples of miracle stories which achieved this broad extent of circulation and acceptance. None that even come close.
We have the one example and that's enough to show it can be done.
No, there are no examples.
What could not be done was to create FICTIONAL accounts of miracle events, believed to be real, and get them published in multiple documents and circulated in less than 100 years, or 50 years, from when the alleged events happened. There is no example of this, unless you're stupidly using the Jesus case as your example, assuming the Jesus miracle stories must be fiction and making this the only example of a miracle legend fraud which got spread and published so soon.
But that only proves my point that this case differs from all the others as being the one case where the alleged events must be true, which then explains why these were recorded and copied and published as no other miracle legends were.
You've yet to demonstrate anything impossible about people accomplishing this.
It is highly unlikely, because it makes no sense that this could happen ONLY ONCE over the many centuries, from the earliest writing up to the modern age of printing. About 2500-3000 years or so. Only once? It's just as reasonable to assume those miracle stories are actually true because the events really happened. And that miracle legends (fictional) did NOT just pop up suddenly, with people believing it and recording it and copying it, because there's no other case of it happening, probably because such a thing was impossible. I.e., people did not believe in instant miracle heroes which pop up suddenly.
Rather, it required many generations/centuries for the legends to emerge, and/or it could happen only in the case of a widely-recognized celebrity who had status and a long distinguished career in which he impressed people with his personality or talents. Except for this, instant miracle legends could not emerge. There are no examples of it, so it must have been impossible.
If it were possible, we should see many cases of it, rather than only one.
This entire argument rests on an appeal to popularity until you get your hands on the solid evidence that convinced these people of the truth of these tales.
But in this same sense ALL historical facts rest on the "appeal to popularity" in that the reports that are more credible are the ones for which there are more sources. If the more sources and wider acceptance among readers and writers is stronger evidence for normal historical events, as it is, then why not also for claims of miracle events?
The "appeal to popularity" is not fallacious as you're insisting. The increased sources and more widespread circulation of the reports among a larger number of believers is an indication, or evidence, that the reports are true, or partly true. You can't disqualify this form of evidence only because the events in question are a kind you have a bias against. This "popularity" or wider circulation of the claims, initially oral rather than written, explains why people believed them more readily, whereas they usually rejected miracle claims as not credible, i.e., instant miracle heroes who suddenly popped up out of nowhere.
Since other historical facts are established on this basis of "popularity" of the sources and circulation of oral reports, why can't the Jesus miracle stories also be based on this same "appeal to popularity" as long as we have the extra sources and the added condition that the accounts are reasonably close to the alleged events, unlike the other miracle legends?
Is God at fault for not providing us with twice as many gospels/epistles for evidence?
You can complain that it would be better if we had still more sources, instead of only these 4 (5) early accounts, and it's true that it would be better if we had ten gospel accounts instead of only 4, and some early epistles from 2 or 3 apostles other than only Paul. But then the excess supply of accounts would make it a very extreme case in history, for that era, in which virtually no events got such attention in written accounts. To insist on so many additioal sources is to demand that this one event in history had to be documented way beyond any other, even the most famous historical events.
You can't insist that claims of this nature absolutely require this extra overkill of evidence or early accounts and wide circulation.
In that case the evidence would be so overwhelming that virtually everyone would believe this event and the whole world would be "Christian" sort of by brute force. We would have to believe it almost like we have to believe the earth is round. The public career of Jesus was short, 3 years or less, and so the impact was limited to this small area on the planet and to this short time interval. This puts limits on how far the reports could circulate while he was still there and contact to him could be made by travelers from far away.
You might complain that it's only fair for any self-respecting "God" trying to contact humans to necessarily have generated such an excess of evidence in order to make sure everyone would be accosted by it and forced to believe it. Is that the point?
There's no reason to insist that our evidence or sources for the events must be unusually overwhelming, as you're demanding. What we have is similar evidence as for mainline historical events, but some extra sources beyond what's necessary to establish normal events. Except for the miracle claims, the gospel accounts are easily more than sufficient to be accepted as credible accounts for these events generally (not every detail), because of the extra supporting sources and their relatively close proximity to the reported events.
I.e., just as with accounts for normal events, these accounts are far more than enough, setting aside the miracle claims. But taking into account the miracle claims, there is no "scientific" or objective or logical criterion prescribed by the "experts" for establishing what is the extra quantity of evidence required for "certifying" the truth of such claims.
ONE SOURCE ALONE is generally sufficient for normal events. There are many cases. For the Jesus miracles we have the 4 (5) sources, which stands out conspicuously beyond anything known for miracle legends prior to modern times, with no close second. To reject this as insufficient requires an explanation why there is no other example even close.
Until then this argument is just as effective as "There are no other examples of Civil War Historical Fiction that achieved the broad extent of circulation and acceptance as Gone With The Wind. None that even come close." Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara didn't have to be real for this to happen.
Yes they would have to be real -- IF this story (i.e., similar story, or comparable) had been written 1000 years earlier (before mass printing), and appeared in 4 or 5 separate sources, published within 50-100 years of the reported events and circulated to thousands of readers. Yes, in that case we'd have to figure the characters and events were real, i.e., based on real persons and events, on which the writers based their accounts. That would be the best explanation for the widespread circulation of the separate accounts and acceptance by so many believing the events really happened.
To argue that people believed it is silly.
No, in large numbers and also writing or copying the accounts -- this is different and indicates that the events really happened and that it's not fictional, because this did not happen in the case of fictional accounts, or instant miracle hero fictions, which were not widely believed or written and copied and published in such a short time lapse after the alleged events. There are no examples of it.
People believe lots of things you know to be false.
But MOST people did not (99%), and they did not rewrite the accounts and make multiple copies of them to circulate. That a tiny few believed such miracle claims in minor cases (mostly lost to history) cannot explain how the Jesus stories spread and were being written again and again (within a few decades) and being copied and copied for distribution to thousands of readers (or listeners to whom they were read).
To say a tiny few gullible ones believed this or that oddball cult here and there can't explain any of this, i.e., it's not analogous at all. Fiction stories from a charlatan maybe got a favorable response from a tiny few, but no one took them seriously enough to spread the stories to others and to write them and copy them. There are no examples of it. I.e., no instant miracle-worker heroes/legends. Nothing even close.
Again you fall back on this modern example which benefited from modern mass publishing technology, making it totally dissimilar. But also this one is based on the previous Christ legend which served as the model for its miracle claims, all done in the name of Jesus, which fits the general pattern of miracle legends relying on an earlier established miracle hero, which makes it credible and attracts believers/followers, thus explaining how the mythologizing was possible.
All these miracle heroes developed over several centuries of mythologizing before appearing in any written account. These are not examples of INSTANT miracle heroes who appeared suddenly, where the earliest written record is less than 100 years from when the events allegedly happened.
. . . Scientologists, Ramtha fans.
There's no similarity to these, both of which got their stories mass published by modern technology, without hundreds of copyists, actually with no copyists at all, as the entire copying enterprise could be carried out by one person only, or a tiny clique. There is no analogy of this to the Jesus instant miracle legend which spread by means of hundreds of writers copying and copying the manuscripts centuries before any mass publishing technology.
All it takes to get people to believe stuff is a convincing person.
If that were true then we'd have more than ONLY ONE example of this prior to modern mass publishing. There's nothing even close to another example, achieving a fraction of the same spread or distribution of their miracle legend through written accounts copied and published for mass distribution. Not even 1/10 the same distribution.
Why did no other miracle hero cult emerge in the written record promoting its claims?
It's laughable to suggest that St. Paul could have pulled this off. The story was already circulating before him. He mentions the other believers before him, in Jerusalem, who obviously were not "convinced" by him but were building their own Jesus movement separate from him. This story could not have come from one whiz-bang charlatan who conned multitudes into believing in his instant miracle resurrected hero.
There was no other case of such a thing. But there would be if all that was necessary was a "convincing person" to get people to believe in the fiction stories.
One Joseph Smith or David Koresh explains the believers.
Only over a period of 20 years or longer preaching to them, and with the aid of publishing/printing their "gospel" to thousands of readers in order to recruit a few hundred over 10 or 20 years of crusading and finding the few who are the right target, with the help of modern technology which makes it possible to reach the the mass target audience.
A nicely fabricated story line explains the popularity.
There were easily hundreds, probably thousands, of such attractive story lines competing for attention throughout the period of the Greeks and Romans and into the Christian era. There's no way to explain how ONLY ONE became published if all it required was the "convincing person" with a good "story line" that would gain popularity. There's no peculiar "nicely fabricated" story line in this one miracle legend only to separate it from all the other instant miracle heroes popping up and disappearing overnight.
A good supply of trained scribes explains the copying and publishing.
That explains nothing. All other instant-miracle cults had the same access to the necessary scribes. These were everywhere and in plentiful supply to meet the demand.
It really is that simple.
But if it was so simple, why could no others do the same? Why ONLY ONE?
Where are all the other miracle cults which could easily do all the above and yet did not? When there were easily hundreds of would-be miracle cult founders with charisma and talent and resources to do all this, and it was so simple to win over a multitude of followers and copyists to spread the word, why was there ONLY ONE which took advantage of the opportunity to pull off something so simple?
Your favorite fairy tale is still just a fairy tale no matter how difficult it is for you to accept this simple fact.
All you have to go on is this fundamental premise you start out with -- that the whole account of this has to be fiction regardless of any evidence, but based only on your fundamental dogmatic premise that all miracle stories must be fiction.
Once more, by the numbers:
Nobody was talking about this great miracle worker when he was supposedly around
There's no reason to say that. You mean nothing
in writing about him in the '30s? nothing "contemporary"? But that's true of virtually EVERY historical figure in the record. There's virtually NO historical figure, from before 1000 AD, for whom we have any "contemporary" written record. Virtually every written account is from decades or even generations later, even long after the historical figure had passed from the scene.
Once again, you're demanding evidence for this one historical figure which you do not require for any others.
Nobody was talking about this great miracle ministry for at least 30-40 years after he was supposedly around
Again,
in writing you mean (you need to clarify this -- of course people were talking about it, just not writing and copying it in a form which would survive to future generations).
"Nobody was talking about this"?
Nor were they "talking about" anything else. Virtually nothing was recorded that close to the actual events. There are a few high-profile exceptions, like some military compaigns and major political events. 2 or 3 major events in Philo, very high-profile political events involving the rich and powerful. You keep forgetting that Jesus and his followers were not part of the 1/10 of 1% top elite rich and powerful of high status. These are the only ones who got the kind of "talking about" coverage in the historical record you're demanding.
Just because the only ones they were "talking about" were the rich and powerful does not mean that no one other than these elitists existed.
GMark appears with a biography for this hero of the christian faith roughly 40 years after he was supposedly around
There's virtually no other character in history, prior to 1000 or 1500, for whom there is any surviving "biography" so soon after the character was around. You might find 1 or 2 exceptions. For 3 or 4 biographies in less than 100 years there is probably no other case (of course this would partly depend on your definition of "biography").
But it's really amazing that we have a "biography" of Jesus this soon after he was around. It's an extreme exception to the rule, to which there are virtually no exceptions.
Copycat gospels proliferate wildly over the next several decades.
This also is amazing. How many other characters in history (before 1500 AD or so) were copied and "improved" upon and reinterpreted and made over and over and over by later copycats and me-too crusaders who wanted to get in on the act? within 100 years? and 200 years?
This is not something that happened to fictional characters or even to real characters who did not do something special. So, what did he do that was special?
You can name some hero figures who got made over and mythologized, but in all cases they were special persons who did something very high-profile, always as elitist persons of power and status, with long colorful careers. But what power or status did Jesus have? What colorful career lasting only 3 years or less?
The extra "gospel" accounts and make-overs of Jesus during the following generations only adds further evidence to support the likelihood that he actually did perform those miracle acts, because there is no other explanation how this could have happened. You have given none.
Popular? Yes. Real? Hardly. Evidence? None.
(You left out the exclamation points.)
With this kind of rhetoric, you could make the case that Julius Caesar is just fiction. You could easily dismiss anything in history you wish did not happen.
(It's usually better to avoid the comparison to Caesar, for whom there is more evidence, but if you can say the evidence for Jesus (or the miracles) is "None," then that's also the case for Caesar, or any other historical figure you can name. You can always dismiss anything with a wave of the hand and say "Real? Hardly!" It's all B.S. They just "made up shit!")
