120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[bilby]

Lumpenproletariat seems to think..

I disagree.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

through all the Mark miracle stories one by one

NON-disciples are usually present, and in some cases they subsequently report it to others.​

Your MHORC seems to require the miracles to be recorded by someone(s) not currently part of the cult (aka random puzzle piece;

[for clarification: The miracles were REPORTED by someone not currently part of the cult -- That's what the "MHORC" requires. There were reports about them from NON-disciples, mostly oral, perhaps even written much later. But this doesn't mean they were not also recorded by disciples.] Now continuing the above:

This is not "random" but is a relevant factor that increases the credibility. If the claims come only from disciples of the guru or alleged miracle-worker, then we have less reason to believe them because the disciple is intimidated by the guru's charisma and feels pressure to confirm the miracle claim being made. Or the disciple is easily deceived and can imagine seeing something that didn't really happen, or misinterpret as a miracle something that was really normal. The obsession with the guru distorts the disciple's critical judgment.

. . . which you conveniently leave out the fact that you CLEARLY have no evidence to support that your cult’s parlor tricks weren’t recorded by participating cultists).

There is evidence that the miracles of Jesus were observed and reported by onlookers who were not his disciples. For most of the Jesus miracle acts, the accounts clearly imply that observers or non-disciples went from the scene to tell others and spread the word about his healing acts. Very few of these acts were done privately with no outsiders/onlookers present. In most cases this is implied rather than stated explicitly, but it's clearly there in the wording of the accounts.

I agree that it would be a relevant factor supporting believability of a claim. However, the point is that you don’t have anything to support the notion.

The notion that the miracles weren't recorded by believers is not the point. No doubt they were. But they were also reported by others who were NOT disciples, and circulated around the local region. And these oral reports, probably even some written ones later, contributed significantly to the general reputation of Jesus as a miracle-worker, and increased the credibility of the reports, and finally contributing to the eventual formation of the gospel writings which have survived.

It was because of the numerous reports, mostly oral, circulating wider and wider, that the eventual gospel writers/editors took the miracle stories seriously and finally recorded them, with their interpretations of them included. The earlier widespread circulation of these stories or reports about him provides us the explanation why any of this was recorded, or why educated persons such as the gospel writers took them seriously, because miracle claims of this nature were generally rejected as nonsense by educated persons, and even most UNeducated persons.

That the stories were circulated early by NON-disciples is supported by looking at the plain text of the stories, as they appear in the accounts, and accepting them at face value, assuming any normal events are generally accurate while setting aside only the miracles themselves as doubtful. And we can do the same with the Joseph Smith miracle stories, believing the stories for all the normal details, but setting aside only the particular miracle events as doubtful.

Also, we did this dance already, and I went thru Mark and showed how most of the miracle accounts were most likely recorded by disciples, and then secondarily unknowable.

Of course they were later recorded in writing by believers (probably not direct disciples). But this doesn't change the fact that at the original events there were onlookers or NON-disciples present who went out and told others what happened. And the resulting stories or rumors or gossip caused general stories to circulate and become part of the oral tradition used by the later writers, as they presented their version of this in the form of a "gospel of Christ" for circulation.

Those later writers, i.e., the "disciples" you say recorded the accounts, probably were not the original disciples present, or in direct contact with Jesus, and may have had little or no direct contact with original witnesses. They had some oral and written sources they used to shape their gospel accounts, and they added their own interpretations and possibly "made up" some items -- we can speculate on that, but obviously they relied mostly on earlier sources.

How does that change the fact that there were NON-disciples present at most of the miracle events, like the first one in the synagogue? including the victim who was healed?

The one healed, and many witnesses, were NON-disciples, unlike the Joseph Smith stories, in which the one healed, and all the witnesses, were direct disciples of JS. How are you contradicting any of that in your latest rehashing of the accounts?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...t-Christianity&p=277476&viewfull=1#post277476

Let’s take a walk thru the miracles within GMark and look for internal evidence for who could have possibly or probably passed on this implausible stories. This of course assumes that the sagas weren’t made up shit from months to decades later.

THE MARK MIRACLES​

1. demoniac healed

They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach.

I’d say the first sentence gives it away, as most likely sourced from a disciple.

But there were non-disciples present who later told others about the miracle healing event (not about where Jesus and the disciples came from). The question is whether non-disciples were present -- they were, and whether some of them subsequently told others of the miracle act -- they did.

And nothing is suggestive of mysterious onlookers doing the telling.

Yes, the text clearly implies the non-disciples were present, and later makes it clear that some of them must have reported this event to others:

They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. 22 They were amazed at His teaching;

Whose the "They"? Mostly non-disciples, and the rest of the account makes it clear that some of them later told others.

(Disciples: 1; onlookers: 0)

Your scoreboard is meaningless. To correctly score these, we need to consider 2 factors:

1) Those cases where non-disciples were present vs. those where non-disciples were NOT present. I.e., in this case they were, so -- Non-disciples present: 1; not present: 0. And

2) Non-disciples tell others what happened vs. we don't know (the text does not say if others were told). I.e., in this case non-disciples do tell others, so -- Non-disciples tell others: 1; unknowable: 0.

The point is that NON-disciples were probably present and probably told others.

There's nothing about the first sentence which says there were no non-disciples present or that these did not then go out and tell others what happened, which is implied by what follows.

Of course this first sentence comes only from the disciples and was written by the later Christian writer, which is beside the point. The whole story was written by a Christ-believer/evangelist/editor at around 65-70 AD. But this writer is not the source. He took it from the sources he had, written and oral. There were different sources, some probably close to these early disciples, who said they went to the synagogue. Probably Mark's direct sources are earlier disciples, at least for the first sentence, maybe even direct disciples from the actual events.

But that doesn't mean the onlookers or NON-disciples were not there or didn't tell others what happened, after the first sentence. The story is not about the disciples coming, but what happened after they arrived. The "They went . . ." is not the story. The particular miracle event begins at vs 27, not vs 21.

They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. 22 They were amazed at His teaching;

Who's the "they"? Obviously the people gathered there already, not just the 4 disciples who went in. How does Mark know "They were amazed"? Probably from both early and late disciples and also some oral tradition of unknown origin. We don't know how "amazed" they were, but we can assume people were present who Mark says were "amazed," and they were mostly non-disciples. We can assume this from the Mark account but also withhold judgment as to whether the particular miracle really happened. Just as we can believe the Joseph Smith stories, as to the setting, but also doubt whether the actual miracle event happened.

. . . for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit;

Isn't it clear that this "man" was a NON-disciple? That's obvious. How does Mark know he was there? Again, he likely had more than one source, partly oral and of unknown origin. We have no reason to doubt that there really was this "man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit" (even if this description is ambiguous to us today), while not assuming that an actual miracle event took place. It's perfectly reasonable that the general description of the event is true, minus the miracle event itself which can be put into the doubtful category. We can be pretty sure that the event happened, which some of those present thought was a miracle, and many were NON-disciples, including the one reportedly cured.

. . . and he cried out, 24 saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” 26 Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. 27 They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.”

Obviously these ones who were amazed and debated among themselves were not the original 4 disciples.

From the information we have, there were NON-disciples present and a NON-disciple reportedly cured, whereas for the JS miracle claims there were only disciples present and the one healed was a disciple every time. It's reasonable to believe this, because we're told this in the account and this much is not miraculous, so that we can believe this part of the story given to us -- the Jesus story and also the Joseph Smith story -- taking all the accounts at face value while setting aside the particular miracle phenomenon in each case as doubtful.

28 Immediately the news about Him spread everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee.

How did the news spread? Since there were many NON-disciples present, we have to assume that some of these told others. There were only 4 disciples present, who were too few to have spread this to "all the surrounding district of Galilee."

SCORE -- So here is the correct count so far:

Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 1 (some of whom spread the story)

2) disciples only: 0


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 1

2) disciples: - - - 0


"Witnesses present" score indicates: 1) there were NON-disciples present, and 2) in cases where word of the event reportedly spreads to the surrounding region, NON-disciples probably (or must have) played a part in spreading the story. And, for comparison, this pattern shows itself in the text in such a way that's not so in the Joseph Smith miracle stories, with virtually no exceptions.

fine point: Also, "non-disciples present" means several of them and not only one (or two). Whether a large crowd of dozens or more, or a small group. So, in the Joseph Smith stories, there is a claim that an outsider was present in 1 or 2 cases (though it's ambiguous) (in one case it was an ex-disciple. But still it was not at a public location where many unknown locals are present at a non-JS gathering.

So the "non-disciples present" can simply mean a small number, like more than 2 or 3, and not just one acquaintance of a disciple (possibly a sympathizer who was invited), etc. The ambiguous JS cases can be looked at individually, if someone wants to argue that a "non-disciple" was present in a certain case.

For the Joseph Smith stories, the score is 0-10, or 0-20, etc., meaning none of the stories follows this "non-disciples present" pattern. Or rather, in ALL of them the pattern is that only JS disciples are present who witness the event and then tell others.

Whereas for the Jesus stories there is a count, like 4-1, or 8-2, etc., meaning most of the stories fit the pattern that non-disciples were present. And, included in the pattern is that non-disciples play a part in spreading the story in cases where there is mention (in the story) that word of this then spread to the surrounding region. But in most of the examples this spreading of the story is not mentioned, in which case the only question is whether there were non-disciples present who witnessed the event, whether this was reported to others or not.

This first Mark miracle is not repeated in Matthew or Luke, both of which play down the demon-expulsion stories. This omission from Mt and Lk suggests possibly a lower credibility, or less importance of the particular reported event. These omissions will be noted in later examples.

Next we'll proceed through more of the Mark miracle stories, in the order they appear.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whereas for the Jesus stories there is a count, like 4-1, or 8-2, etc., meaning most of the stories fit the pattern that non-disciples were present.

Ummmmmm.... No, Lumpy. This is not a credible analysis of the miracle stories in the Bible.
You don't have access to these hypothetical extra-biblical accounts, so you do not have corroboration of the biblical stories. Even if the biblical stories say an objective observer was present, that's NOT the same as having an objective account of the event, or external corroboration of the bible story.

You're spinning your wheels, here.

 

[funinspace]

Lumpy, why do you think extra large fonts help you with your walls of text? Hint, your walls of rambling text also don’t help your cause.

Your MHORC seems to require the miracles to be recorded by someone(s) not currently part of the cult (aka random puzzle piece;

[for clarification: The miracles were REPORTED by someone not currently part of the cult -- That's what the "MHORC" requires. There were reports about them from NON-disciples, mostly oral, perhaps even written much later. But this doesn't mean they were not also recorded by disciples.]

Except, as you have been shown over and over, it is only your wish, not fact, that the oral stories were passed on by people not currently part of the cult. It could be true, but there is no evidence to show it so. The Lord of the Rings has Hobbits talking. That doesn’t mean that Hobbits can talk.

Also, we did this dance already, and I went thru Mark and showed how most of the miracle accounts were most likely recorded by disciples, and then secondarily unknowable.

Of course they were later recorded in writing by believers (probably not direct disciples). But this doesn't change the fact that at the original events there were onlookers or NON-disciples present who went out and told others what happened. And the resulting stories or rumors or gossip caused general stories to circulate and become part of the oral tradition used by the later writers, as they presented their version of this in the form of a "gospel of Christ" for circulation.

Clearly, you also fail to comprehend the meaning of the word “fact”.

 

[James Brown]

So a believer writes, "A non-believer saw Jesus perform a supernatural miracle."

And from that, we declare the non-believer to be a reliable witness?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So a believer writes, "A non-believer saw Jesus perform a supernatural miracle."

And from that, we declare the non-believer to be a reliable witness?

It works for Jack Chick.

Littering Missionaries drop tracts off where they'll never meet the people who toss them in the trash, avoid all contact and controversy, then go tell each other "Thousands have come to Christ through our ministry!" No mention of how in the fuck they'd know...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)


continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.



2. Simon's mother-in-law healed.

And immediately after they came out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her. 31 And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she waited on them.

Yeah, you are probably right here, there was probably a peep hiding in Simon’s house trying to get sick, . . .

No, this is one case where there were no outsiders present. But you're assuming the general details are correct, as with all these examples. We are trusting the account to give us the details generally, minus the miracle event, which is the only part we treat as doubtful.

. . . and happened to onlook upon this and spread the story all the way to the Fiji.

(Disciples: 2; onlookers: 0)

Your scoreboard is meaningless. In virtually all these cases (this one excepted) there were disciples AND NON-disciples present. And usually we must conclude (from what's implied in the text) that some of the non-disciples subsequently told others about it.

This particular account clearly implies no one was present except these disciples. Whereas most/all the other healing stories imply there were non-disciples present.

So the score so far shows one case which fits the (non-disciples present) pattern and one which does not:


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 1

2) disciples only: 1

And here the victim healed is in an "ambiguous" category, being Peter's mother-in-law and thus not the same as an outsider separate from the group of disciples. So:

The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 1

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1




3. Leper healed (plus many cases of "casting out the demons")

Now just who could have been able to record the below sequence? Was a stranger with him in the morning before Jesus and the disciples woke up? Or is it far more likely that this story came right from one of the purported disciples?

In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there. 36 Simon and his companions searched for Him; 37 they found Him, and said to Him, “Everyone is looking for You.” 38 He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” 39 And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.

(The Mt and Lk versions omit any mention of "casting out the demons" at this point.)

The first 4 verses are not the miracle healing story. Vs 39 mentions "casting out" demons in "synagogues throughout all Galilee," which clearly implies that there were non-disciples present (though this text does not narrate a miracle event, but speaks only generally about "casting out" demons).

It's obvious that these ones healed were NON-disciples mainly. It clearly implies that Jesus is encountering a large number of people who are mostly NON-disciples, though maybe some disciples are also there.

It says "He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee . . ." Obviously most of those encountered, according to this text, were NON-disciples. Of course you can just assume the whole story is completely fiction and that no synagogues were entered and no people were encountered to be healed. But if we treat both these and the Joseph Smith miracle stories straightforwardly, believing the general description offered, the Jesus miracle stories obviously have large numbers of NON-disciples present, and non-disciple(s) being healed (or believed to be healed), whereas all the Joseph Smith stories are ones where those present were all JS disciples, including the victims healed.

40 And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and . . .

Here again, it's clearly implied that this was NOT a Jesus disciple. Maybe he subsequently became one -- It doesn't say explicitly. The idea of these stories is that Jesus encounters a great number of new people he hadn't seen before, NON-disciples, who are healed by him. Whereas in the JS miracle stories, all the ones healed were already his disciples.

. . . falling on his knees before Him, and saying, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” 41 Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. 43 And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, 44 and He said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” 45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that . . .

This is one case where it says explicitly that it was the one healed who spread the news about the healing miracle, which isn't to deny that disciples also spread the word -- it's not necessary to insist that it had to be only one or the other reporting the story. And the one healed in this case almost certainly was a NON-disciple, unlike the JS stories, where no one was present other than disciples, including the one healed. So the JS stories did not spread as a result of NON-disciples who were present going out and telling others.

(Disciples: 3; onlookers: 0)

The only logic of your scoreboard is simply that we must totally dismiss the Jesus miracle accounts as false -- period! By starting with that premise, that the stories are totally false, you then proceed to your conclusion that only disciples transmitted the stories and everyone knowing of them were disciples only who fabricated the story.

But the proper premise is to accept the accounts as true except for the specific miracle act itself, which is set aside as doubtful -- for both the Jesus miracles in the gospels, and the 19th-century Joseph Smith miracle stories. It's reasonable to accept the accounts generally, i.e., as reasonably accurate reports of what generally happened, or what the general pattern was for these reported events.

This one fits the pattern of at least one non-disciple being present. The earlier crowds may be included, or excluded, as part of this miracle story. The general context shows that probably other non-disciples also were present, but in this case it's not clearly implied.

So one more example fits the pattern of non-disciple(s) being in the story -- Score: 2-1.

analysis of score: at least one non-disciple is present -- the victim, who is a non-disciple -- and he subsequently tells others. In contrast to all the JS stories, in which all the victims cured are JS disciples.

. . . Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere.

This also gives reason to assume some non-disciples were present at this leper healing event, though you could argue that it's not there explicitly.

And this "coming to Him from everywhere" phrase indicates that many NON-disciples were attracted and came to see what was happening, and what drew their attention were claims from others, NON-disciples, maybe some who had been healed, or who had witnessed earlier healing miracles he did. We don't see this in the Joseph Smith accounts.



SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 2

2) disciples only: 1


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 2

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1




4. Paralytic lowered through the roof and healed

When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them.

This one isn’t definitive, but the intro modestly suggests someone close, as they know he had been home for several days, but I’ll just call this one a tossup with no real internal guidance.

Again you're assuming unnecessarily that there can be only one source for every story, and that every detail comes from this one source only without any assimilation or editing by a later writer who puts it together. Far more likely is several sources for each story, and the later editor puts it together, inserting some transition components which might be partly conjecture, to keep the narrative moving consistently.

That there are many NON-disciples present has to be assumed if we take this at face value.

(Disciples: 3; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 1)

No, much more realistic is a later editor who pieces the story together -- to produce the final gospel account here -- having oral and written sources, some earlier disciples, but also unknown rumors or oral reports circulating, originating partly from earlier direct witnesses. It was this abundance of reports which made the story credible enough to be taken seriously by the later writer, who thought it important enough to record, unlike most miracle stories which were not taken seriously.

The pointless categories "Disciples" "onlookers" "unknowable" are nonsense. All of it is basically "unknowable" in the sense of having PROOF of what happened or who started the story or spread it to others. But if we accept the accounts at face value, as generally true, as to the normal events, minus the specific reported miracle act, then it's clear that NON-disciples were present here in large numbers. Some of these probably later told others, but in this example nothing is said about reports spreading around the region.

That "disciples" reported the story to others, which is likely, does not contradict the likelihood that NON-disciples also spread the story, as the accounts imply several times.

The spiritual teaching about forgiveness of sin can be separated from the miracle claim per se, as possibly a later addition (or possibly remembered by a direct disciple) and something not likely remembered or reported by casual observers/non-disciples present:

3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the paralytic-- 11 "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." 12 And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Obviously many non-disciples are present in this scene.

But in the case of Joseph Smith, there are no outsiders present who would spread rumors of his miracle acts, which were witnessed only by direct disciples of the Prophet.

In this example there's no mention of reports going out to the surrounding region.

About the crowded room and the need to open the roof, we can assume the later writer took this from his source, and that this detail is factual. A similar detail in a Joseph Smith account would also be assumed as accurate. All such details we should accept, for purposes of comparing the stories, and not dismiss any of them as fiction because of our bias to promote our theory of what happened. Only the specific miracle event per se should be set aside as being questionable or suspect.

This one does not say explicitly that there are NON-disciples present, but IMplicitly it does, because either the non-disciples are there, or you have to assume even the "scribes" are disciples, which is unlikely. And almost surely several others of these, including the paralytic and those bringing him, are NON-disciples, because the scene is of many curiosity-seekers coming from the outside.

This is evident from the final words, "We never saw anything like this!" which would not be said by his disciples who had already witnessed his earlier healing acts. So this crowd must have had many new people present who had not seen Jesus before.



SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 3

2) disciples only: 1


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 3

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

NON-disciples are usually present,

How would the stories be any different if they were complete fabrications, Lumpy?
Are you saying that it's not possible to put a non-believer in a made-up-story?

Why not? Or how would you know this?

and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.

No, they did not. Because these never happened.

Feel free to provide actual evidence that i'm wrong.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.
​

5. Healing a withered hand on the Sabbath

Now this one was either passed on by a Pharisee (who was conspiring against Jesus) or by Jesus retelling it to someone, as only the Pharisees and the FSM would know of their “conspiring".

No, obsessing on the "conspiring" misses the point. Not every version of the story contained this element. What's important is that this is another case where there were obviously NON-disciples present, including the one healed, and this time nothing is said about the story being spread by someone.

He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. 2 They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. 3 He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” 4 And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 5 After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

As usual, Jesus enters a public place, the synagogue, where there were probably non-disciples present. Obviously there were "pharisees" present, but probably also ordinary worshipers, as this was a Sabbath day. Note by comparison that in the Joseph Smith stories, the setting is never a public place, with non-disciples or the general public present, where an unknown person or non-disciple showing up is the victim to be healed, etc.


diversion: The WICKED PHARISEES conspiring against Jesus

Obviously we don't know where the conspiracy story originates, but pharisees were not the wicked villains portrayed here, so probably some later Christian writer added this extra anti-pharisee rhetoric. Tirades against "the Pharisees" were normal, but also it's false that they plotted to kill anyone for this kind of reason.

A Jewish scholar, David Flusser, has challenged this portrayal of the pharisees:

It is most unlikely that the Pharisees would have acted in that way. The most wicked among them would never have resolved to kill Jesus because he had performed a work of healing on the Sabbath -- a permissible deed anyway. For this reason Luke's version (6:11) is preferable here. (Flusser, Jesus, p. 64)

Luke omits mention of any plot to kill Jesus.

Among other points to refute this portrayal of the pharisees, Flusser notes a mistake in most translations of the Luke account, which reads:

Luke 6: 10 And he looked around on them all, and said to him, "Stretch out your hand." And he did so, and his hand was restored. 11 But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

The word translated as "fury" (άνοια / άνοιας) is never translated this way anywhere else. I.e., the text is not really saying they were filled with "fury" or anger at what happened.

Flusser, p. 64: Few scholars have noted the distinctively different ending to Luke's account or the tendentious English translation of άνοια, "But they were filled with fury." The English translators have rendered the Greek word in light of Mark's ending (cp. Mark 3:6; Matt. 12:14). The Greek term, however, is never elsewhere translated "anger, fury, wrath." [See Liddell & R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon . . . Instead, those watching should be understood to be filled with "frustration, bafflement."

Usually the major English translations can be trusted, but for some reason most of them get this verse wrong, still using words like "enrage" or "furious" etc. for άνοια / άνοιας, instead of its correct meaning, "want of understanding, folly," (Liddell/Scott).

One major translation, the Revised English version, corrected it: "But they totally failed to understand, and began to discuss with one another what they could do to Jesus."

The mistranslation of this term, άνοια, in this one verse, shows a popular misrepresentation of the pharisees, depicting them as wicked to the point of conspiring to kill over a healing on the Sabbath, probably based on this original Mark text. There's no basis for this, even in the narrow legalistic sense when it did violate the Law, which it did not in this case.

So this is a false portrayal, regardless whether you believe this healing really took place or not. Even if it never happened, this story depicts the pharisees falsely.

But the Luke version, translated correctly, saying the pharisees were baffled or confounded by what happened, has the ring of truth. The reference to the "Herodians" (connected to Herod Antipas) might be of later origin, from a Christian writer who heard that this Herod played a role in having Jesus condemned.

There can be pieces of the story not likely to have originated from onlookers or non-disciples present, like reference to what the pharisees (or Herodians) did later, or a conspiracy, but that does not negate the general description of the event or that it was transmitted by these observers present, as the text implies they did in some of the other examples. There is nothing miraculous about these non-disciples being present and telling others what happened, so there is no reason to be suspicious of this as part of the reported event.

It makes no sense to seize on one piece of one version of the story and say this exposes who transmitted the story, or who invented it, and no one else could have known of the story or passed it on. Rather, there were several sources, or versions, circulating, most of them oral, and there would be some differences, or discrepancies, between them, and some including details omitted by others, such as transition phrases about where the disciples came from or what someone did afterward.

The usual pattern repeats, that there were non-disciples present, and the one healed was a non-disciple, because the event happened in a public place where many people gathered -- unlike the JS miracle stories, where only disciples are present, including the one healed.

And we know that Jesus had a direct line with the FSM. So I think this one would have to be passed along by one of the disciples again.

(Disciples: 4; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 1).

Your phony scoreboard is devoid of substance. Obviously disciples did pass on the stories. But that doesn't change the fact that NON-disciples also passed on the story. In virtually ALL the healing stories there were onlookers or non-disciples present.

To say it was "passed along by one of the disciples" is superfluous, as no doubt most or ALL the disciples passed along most/all the stories, as well as many onlookers or non-disciples. In some of these cases (the earliest ones) there were not enough disciples present to have passed the story throughout the region of Galilee. There were many non-disciples present -- more than disciples -- including the victim healed, and these must have helped spread the stories, and in some cases the text explicitly says they did.



SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 4

2) disciples only: 1


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 4

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.
​

6. Stilling the storm

Jesus stilling the Storm Mark 4:35-41: Yeah no need to quote this one.

Meaningless scoreboard:

(Disciples: 5; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 1)

At this non-healing miracle probably only disciples were present.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 4

2) disciples only: 2

In 4 of 6 miracle stories, non-disciples are among the witnesses.


The victims healed are (unchanged -- doesn't apply in non-healing cases)

1) non-disciples: 4

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1


In 4 of 5 healing stories, the one healed was a non-disciple, and one case is ambiguous.




7. Demoniac cured, the stampede of swine

The Gerasene Demoniac is a harder one to categorize. The first sentence suggests a person who knew where they came from:

They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him.

Where they came from is not the basic story. Of course you can say this one piece of the story probably comes from a disciple/believer who put together the story into the final version we have now.

But the story existed in many versions (unless you simply reject all the stories as your premise, insisting that only one person or tiny clique invented them, with no one else knowing anything about it, in which case, what's the point of going through these individual cases?), and the main part of it is not the sentence about Jesus and the disciples coming off the boat.

The basic story of this healing act, as related to us here, was witnessed by several non-disciples, and it's clear that some of them told others about it. And the one healed is a non-disciple who later tells others. Obviously his version of the story would not begin with "They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes," but this doesn't mean he had no version of the story which he told to others.

But the ending could easily suggest the formerly possessed man carried the story forward.

It says explicitly that he did. If we assume these stories are generally true, minus the specific miracle act, which is placed in the doubtful category, then we must accept the point made here that this man did afterward report the event to others, as the text clearly says he did.

This case fits the same pattern as all the others (except #2). There were non-disciples present, though maybe not a large crowd; the one healed is a non-disciple, and this one did spread the story. It doesn't say that others also told the story, but obviously the herdsmen told others, i.e., "The herdsmen fled, and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see . . . ," and the commotion caused by the event most likely resulted in the event being mentioned by several others of these locals and not just the one healed.

Maybe it wasn't a large crowd, but when the townspeople arrived, the number of non-disciples must certainly have grown to more than a dozen:

They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him. < snip > . . . [miracle healing event happens] 14 The herdsmen fled, and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see what it was that had happened.

Obviously there are non-disciples who see it and tell others, possibly to a large number.

15 And they came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the man who had had the legion; and they were afraid. 16 And those who had seen it described to them how it had happened to the demon-possessed man, and all about the swine. 17 And they began to implore Him to leave their region.

That the locals asked him to leave their region is something negative about Jesus in this story, which later Christian writers would not invent. They would want to present the most favorable picture of Jesus, and show the people praising him for the good deed he had done to the victim who was healed. But the scene is one of rejecting Jesus as a troublemaker, because of the damage to their herd of swine.

Regarding the "demons" entering the swine, we can easily explain what happened here without needing naughty "demons" as part of the scene. The swine, or some of them, might easily have been startled by the demoniac screaming and sent off on a stampede. Then the "demons" part of the story could easily have been added later, as supplemental to the basic facts of what happened.

The specific miracle element, or supernatural or superstitious element, can be set aside as doubtful, and instead any explanation looked for which explains the actual phenomena witnessed. So we should accept generally the scene described, the setting, etc., also the phenomena depicted, if there can be a normal explanation for it.

18 As He was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed was imploring Him that he might accompany Him. 19 And He did not let him, but He said to him, “Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you.” 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.

However, as Jesus is part of the tri-headed god, he would also know what happened in Decapolis. IMPOV, the reality is that only Jesus and his disciples could know the whole story, . . .

But ALL those present knew of the general miracle event, or the events they thought were of a demoniac being healed, or at least of Jesus instigating a stampede of their herd of swine over a cliff. At least the one cured himself did spread the story, and probably also others of the locals present.

If there had been only one person spreading this story, then no educated person/writer would have considered it worthy to be recorded. It's the wide circulation of these stories which made them more credible than most miracle claims.

This case, like the others, indicates that there were non-disciples present, unlike the JS stories, and that the one healed was a non-disciple, who in this case went out and told many others what happened. Since this pattern repeats throughout most of the Jesus healing stories, we can assume that something like this is what happened, just as we can assume from the JS miracle stories that ONLY DISCIPLES of JS were present at the reported events (plus other details in the JS stories).

Presumably something unusual happened, in all these reported cases, and someone thought it was a miracle or a demon being expelled, and the general details given are probably close to the truth of what happened, even if the specific miracle event is set aside as dubious.

This was the common scenario of these events, as circulated in the various oral reports, the rumors, the gossip. We have no reason to pretend it didn't happen, unless you have an ideology to suppress all such stories as violating your taboo on anything someone might interpret as miraculous, despite the evidence that something odd happened. You can always seek a non-miracle explanation for the reported events and allow for the non-miraculous details of the story.

If the Joseph Smith stories contained similar reports of a healing event happening in a public place, with non-disciples present who went out and told others, or with the one healed not being a disciple, we should accept that as probably true, taking the stories at face value. There is obviously a qualitative difference between the two kinds of miracle stories, in which we have more credible evidence for the Jesus miracle acts in the gospels, because these reports are not limited to only private scenarios where only the healer's disciples were present.

Any reasonable person who's not on a crusade to bash all miracle stories should be able to recognize the difference between the two kinds of evidence.

. . . but I’ll let this one slide into unknowable.

You are falling all over yourself trying to insist that there is only one person or faction who spread the story each time. There's no reason for this. Of course the direct disciples also spread the story. But in most cases there was some spreading of the story by non-disciples, as in this case; and in earlier examples the story spread far around the region -- too far for the very few disciples present to have done it. So the role of non-disciples is common in the healing miracle stories, with only one of them (#2 above) not fitting this pattern.

(Disciples: 5; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

Obviously they're ALL unknowable, because we only have clues, no proof. But the evidence is that throughout the Jesus reported miracle healing events there were non-disciples present, including the one reportedly healed, and that some of these helped cause the rumors to spread which then attracted the future crowds.



SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 5

2) disciples only: 2


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 5

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1





(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[DBT]

There is no ''score'' when all we have is what anonymous writers, who were not witnesses to the events they describe, happen to tell us.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.
​

8. A blood disease healed, and the daughter of Jairus raised.

The healing of the dead (or just a [comatose]/sleeping) Daughter of Jairus and the women who just touched his garments: Mark 5:21-43.

Once again the text contradicts your theory that there were only disciples present and that no one believed it or spoke about it other than direct disciples, i.e., your insistence that these reported miracle events are no more credible than the Joseph Smith miracle stories, despite the superior evidence:

21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him;

This clearly implies that some NON-disciples are present. What attracted the crowds has been explained several times, so that these are probably many new persons who only recently had heard reports and came either out of curiosity or seeking to be healed.

and he was beside the sea. 22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, . . .

Obviously a non-disciple. This is at a public location where non-disciples are likely to show up, unlike the JS miracle stories.

. . . he fell at his feet, 23 and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live." 24 And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him.

Clearly there are many NON-disciples present here, not to mention the two who are soon to be healed (or raised from the dead). We don't see this in the JS miracle stories. You're unable to notice this difference? many non-disciples present vs ONLY DISCIPLES of the miracle-worker present?

25 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, . . .

This one, also about to be healed, is obviously a non-disciple. How does the later writer know the details? The account, as we have it now, was written 20 or 30 or 40 years later. But it's probably based on earlier reports known by the writer. It doesn't matter if such details are precisely correct. It's OK to be suspicious of some "magic" numbers like 12. It's sufficient that she had this illness for a long time, probably several years.

. . . and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus, . . .

Clearly implying that she's a non-disciple, and that reports from someone had been going around the region.

. . . and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." 29 And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, "Who touched my garments?" 31 And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, 'Who touched me?'"

Implying again that there were many non-disciples present. Many who never had been present with him earlier, in a public place, among large numbers of people he had no previous contact with, unlike the JS stories, which all take place among his direct disciples only and who all are devoted followers of him and who had been strongly impacted by his charisma over a long period of time.

32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease." 35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler's house some who said, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?" 36 But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe." 37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.

They part from the non-disciples, but now a new group of non-disciples appear.

38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. 39 And when he had entered, he said to them, "Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping." 40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Tal'itha cu'mi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." 42 And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. 43 And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

The Matthew account adds that "news of this spread throughout all that land."

According to the story we have, it was only the parents and three disciples who witnessed it. But there were the others outside who had been excluded from witnessing it directly, so they probably saw the revived girl later and knew what happened.

If we take the accounts at face value, it's likely that some of these non-disciples present must have told others what happened. But in the JS stories, by contrast, it's only disciples who were present and knew what happened.

But the saga plays as one sequence, and only the people who were part of the whole sequence would know both of the . . .

No, there are many versions and many sources of the basic miracle event(s) here -- nothing requires us to insist that there's ONLY ONE version, i.e., some single official version or "saga" to the exclusion of any others.

This case fits the pattern that there were many witnesses, including non-disciples, and in this example some knew of one miracle event and others knew of the other. There's nothing about this which requires that the only witnesses allowed have to have seen BOTH events. There were probably dozens of witnesses, and they saw different parts of either or both scenes.

. . . both of the ill mystery woman and Jairus’ daughters healing within the saga.

All that matters is that there were NON-disciples present throughout the two miracle healing events, and some of these probably told others about it. Of course you can disregard the evidence and conjecture that no one ever knew of it or witnessed it other than disciples. But that conclusion requires that you reject the evidence that we have, i.e., that anything resembling a possible miracle event has to be rejected, and from this premise you conclude that the story was known only to the clique of disciples who invented the story.

Reason does not require that we start out with your premise of rejecting the accounts as total fiction completely invented by later writers in all the details, and thus known and transmitted only by those story-inventors. Rather, it requires that we suspend belief in the actual miracle events, or treat them as doubtful, while making allowance for the general description of the event(s). It's reasonable to accept the stories generally, outside of the actual miracle events per se, which go in the doubtful category.

I think the only reasonable choice is again the disciples.

"reasonable choice" of what? There were multiple observers of all the stories, and multiple reports of it, some from non-disciples. It's nonsensical to say we have to choose between "disciples" or "onlookers" as the sole source or transmitter of the story, and vote on which candidate is the correct choice. There is no logical necessity to choose one to the exclusion of the other, or score disciples vs non-disciples. Such a scoreboard is just based on the unnecessary premise that all the stories are fiction and no one could know them other than the "disciples" who invented them.

If your premise for the scoring eliminates the "onlookers" or non-disciples from existence, by fiat, because it's all fiction (according to the rules of the game), then obviously your scoreboard will reflect that the "onlookers" didn't report the story, or do anything else, because something which doesn't exist cannot report anything:

(Disciples: 6; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

But there obviously are non-disciples present, as in the other cases, if you allow credence to the accounts for at least the non-miracle elements. Whether the story was told to others isn't clear, though Matthew says the story did spread. If it did, then obviously some of the non-disciples present were among those who told others. The gospel-writers generally give a picture of the stories or rumors of the events spreading throughout the region, and in a few cases this is said explicitly.

But if you automatically rule out any credibility to the stories whatever, as your premise, then it's not clear why you're going through the pretense of considering the stories one by one to find clues as to how they originated and were transmitted and what the credibility is. Rather you can just impose one dogmatic "reject" stamp on them all, in one fell swoop, regardless of any distinction of one from another.

And likewise you can eliminate ANY historical events you don't like, by rejecting by fiat the written sources for them in the documents which survived. This is certainly a foolproof technique to eliminate from history any events you think should not have happened.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 6

2) disciples only: 2


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 6

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1





9. Multiplying the fish and loaves

30 The apostles gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught. 31 And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while.” (For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.) 32 They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves. 33 The people saw them going, and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of them. 34 When Jesus went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things. 35 When it was already quite late, His disciples came to Him and said, “This place is desolate and it is already quite late; 36 send them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” 37 But He answered them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred denarii on bread and give them something to eat?” 38 And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go look!” And when they found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” 39 And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass.

-- and so on.

This one’s lead in quite clearly puts the story in the disciple category, . . .

The lead-in is not the whole story. This reported event is like the others in that there are NON-disciples present, which is all that matters. It's irrelevant that some versions of the story contained this or that lead-in. It's a distortion to insist that there is only one version of each story and that every piece of the story is from that one version only and that everyone who knew of the story had to know this one version only.

. . . as it includes private conversation.

(Disciples: 7; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

The specific miracle act is not about the "private conversation" that may have happened. All that matters is that there were non-disciples present, not whether any private conversation took place.

There must have been many different versions of the story, some containing private conversations and others not. The notion that there is ONLY ONE version of each miracle event and only one person or clique who knew the story is arbitrary. For every example there were probably several versions of the story circulating.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 7

2) disciples only: 2

In 7 of 9 miracle stories, non-disciples are among the witnesses.


The victims healed are (unchanged in this case)

1) non-disciples: 6

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1

In 6 of 7 healing stories, the one healed was a non-disciple, and one case is ambiguous.



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

In 7 of 9 miracle stories, non-disciples are among the witnesses.

Okay, Lumpy, imagine you were on trial for a murder you did not commit. Your defense is based on one friend who said you were with him at the time. The prosecution's star witness said that you were at a basketball game with 500 people in the stands who saw your face on the Jumbotron.

By your logic, the judge would say that the prosecution's case was more compelling, because those 500 witnesses had no reason to lie about your whereabouts. Would you consider that a fair trial?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one​

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.




10. Walking on water

Jesus Walking on the Water Mark 6:47-56: Yeah, a private event, another onlooker fail.

(Disciples: 8; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)

This non-healing miracle event has only disciples present and is another exception to the general rule that non-disciples are present at a public location where the miracle event takes place. Note: this episode is repeated in Matthew but not Luke. However, it appears also in John.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 7

2) disciples only: 3


The victims healed are (unchanged by this case)

1) non-disciples: 6

2) disciples: 0

3) ambiguous: 1




11. Healings at Gennes'aret

At this point in Mark you omitted the following from your list of miracle narrations. The difference in this case is that the number of victims healed is very high, and all these are summed up here in this one brief description, so a great amount of detail from individual cases is passed over, and the total time expired here might be several days. Also, this one is not repeated in the Luke version, but only in Matthew. Otherwise it's just as significant as the other Mark miracle stories:

Mark 6: 53 And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennes'aret, and moored to the shore. 54 And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized him, 55 and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was. 56 And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

Of course you'd put this in the "disciples" column because of the first verse (53). But what happens here is something observed by probably dozens of non-disciples, or hundreds, and it's clear that there is some telling of his healing acts by these locals who are non-disciples. Though it says "the people recognized him" (probably from something earlier rather than that same day), it's clear that they're not among the disciples close to him who might be strongly impacted from his charisma over an extended period of listening to him preach, as in the case of the JS miracles which were attended only by his direct disciples.

And it says these locals "ran about the whole neighborhood . . . to bring sick people on their pallets . . . . And wherever he came . . . they laid the sick in the market places, . . ." etc. This has to involve many cases of these ones who "ran about" telling others about the healer, saying he had already healed many, so that they are spreading the word of his miracle activity in this region. Thus they clearly are spreading the reports about him at least to the families of these sick people, who need an explanation why their loved ones are being taken to the market places. So it's obvious that NON-disciples are spreading the word here.

Is there any case in Jewish or Greek or Roman or other ancient literature showing a scene like this? where the sick are collected from around the region, from villages or neighborhoods, to be brought to a healer who just arrived in town? Is there anything even close to this? What is the earlier context for a story like this? What earlier miracle legend could this scenario be based upon or patterned after?

Adding this to the scoresheet, the revised meaningless scoreboard would be:
Disciples: 9; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 2)


relevant SCORE

Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 8

2) disciples only: 3


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 7

2) disciples: 0

3) ambiguous: 1




12. Healing the Syrophoenician's daughter

This passage slips from the previous event, to this event, which is about the only suggestion of who would be telling the tale.

Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He wanted no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice. 25 But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs.” 29 And He said to her, “Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” 30 And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.

I guess one could posit that the woman passed on the tale of her daughter's healing, and the editor of Mark merely smoothed out the flow between micro sagas. However, there is nothing internally to suggest this is so, but I’ll still give it a weak unknowable.

(Disciples: 9; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 3)

What still makes this one more credible than the JS miracle stories is that again it's a non-disciple who was healed, and a non-disciple who appealed to Jesus to do the healing. It lacks the "crowd" or "multitude" in most of the other healing stories. But this one adds to the point that the belief in the miracle event was not caused by the victim's devotion to the charismatic guru, as in the JS miracle claims.

There's nothing saying the story spread, and only one for sure who could have spread it, plus there's nothing about others present. So we can put this into a 3rd ambiguous category, though it still shows the important pattern that it's mostly non-disciples who are healed by Jesus and also there is at least the one non-disciple witness. But so as not to "pour it on" we'll classify it as an "ambiguous" case as to who is present.



SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 8

2) disciples only: 3

3) ambiguous: 1


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 8

2) disciples: 0

3) ambiguous: 1




(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Why? It's meaningless...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one​

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.



13. Hearing & speech impediment cured

31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decap'olis. 32 And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him. 33 And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue; 34 and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, "Eph'phatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 And he charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well; he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak."

Well, here is one miracle event where it is at least unclear who would have been likely to have passed it along. Even the “they” isn’t clear as to whether it is the crowd or the disciples. But, even so, this is hardly a win for the “onlooker” category.

(Disciples: 9; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 4)

There is a clue that the "multitude" is the "they" in this example, because the multitude is mentioned while the disciples are not.

Once again this case is in Mark only and is not repeated in Mt and Lk, who seem to give less credibility to the "spit" (or "spat") healing stories as well as to most of the demon-expulsion stories.

It's OK to put this one in the ambiguous category as to who was present.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 8

2) disciples only: 3

3) ambiguous: - 2

In 8 of 13 miracle accounts, non-disciples were among the observers.


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 9

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1


In 9 of 10 miracle healing cases, the ones healed were non-disciples.



14. 2nd fish & loaves story

We don’t need to read the whole feeding of 4,000 to realize that this is also recorded by someone who was a disciple, . . .

There has never been any question that ALL these stories in the gospels were written by later "disciples" or Christ-believers. These accounts, or final edited versions we now have, were not put into these words by non-disciples or disinterested observers at the events in question.

Rather, the point is that most of the miracle acts were done in the presence of non-disciples, as our present accounts tell us, and some of these non-disciples did report the events to others to cause much of the spread of these stories throughout the region, though it's only some of the healing stories where this spreading of the reports is mentioned.

What's important is that 90% of the miracle acts were done in a public place where non-disciples were present and probably outnumbered the disciples (unlike the JS miracle claims). These acts caused reaction from everyone present, so that rumors began and word of him went around the region, started largely by the non-disciples who had been present, causing still more locals to show up. These reports eventually spread far enough that educated persons began recording this in writing, and the 4 gospel accounts emerged from this, out of a need to get this "good news" into a form which could be published or copied for wider circulation.

That's what the evidence shows, unless you just pretend that recorded documents from the time are automatically excluded as evidence if you don't like what they say. But if instead we give credibility to all but the specific miracle claims, which are set aside as doubtful, the evidence is that non-disciples were present and did spread word of these events thought to be healing acts.

But there's no proof or certainty of what happened. And it's not that our gospel accounts, or final edited versions, are directly from witnesses or observers present at the events. Those original reports, mainly oral, began an important part of the reputation of Jesus doing these acts, which influenced the later gospel writers, and without which there is no reason why those writers would have taken the miracle claims seriously and recorded them.

. . . as Jesus had a private conversation with his disciples as they were whining about what to do about food for so many.

(Disciples: 10; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 4)

The "private conversation" is irrelevant to the main point of the story which is the actual miracle event, which was witnessed by a large number of non-disciples. As usual, non-disciples are present, as these events usually happen in a public place where the general population is much greater than the small group of Jesus disciples. Unlike the JS miracle events which happen only privately in the presence of JS disciples only.

In those days, when there was again a large crowd and they had nothing to eat, Jesus called His disciples and said to them, 2 “I feel compassion for the people because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat. 3 If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come from a great distance.” 4 And His disciples answered Him, “Where will anyone be able to find enough bread here in this desolate place to satisfy these people?”

This 2nd fish-'n-loaves story is omitted by Luke, who might have thought there was only one such event which got expanded later into two. However, the general story has high credibility, being reported not only in the synoptics but also in John. It isn't necessary to establish with certainty whether there were literally two of these events or only one which later got modified or expanded into two versions.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 9

2) disciples only: 3

3) ambiguous: - 2


The victims healed are (no change)

1) non-disciples: 9

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1



15. A blind man healed at Bethsaida

And the next story: This time the “they” is clearly his disciples.

No, it's probably both disciples and villagers present. However, it's not stated clearly, so it's in the "ambiguous" category, as to who is present.

And they came to Bethsaida. And they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored Him to touch him. 23 Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he looked up and said, “I see men, for I see them like trees, walking around.” 25 Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly. 26 And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

Though this time, the story really doesn’t internally give much of any hints as to who is telling the tale, so it could have been an onlooker or a disciple.

It's obviously both. You need to eliminate your artificial "disciples" vs. "onlookers" scoreboard and just forthrightly impose your premise that ALL these stories are inventions from disciples only, who are the only ones who could have told them to anyone, regardless of anything in the text, which you quote for no reason because you reject out-of-hand everything in the text anyway.

If you give any allowance to the setting provided in the text, then it's obvious that both non-disciples and disciples relayed this story. There is no point in your pretense of going through these stories one by one as though any of them might give a clue to something. Your premise and your logic is that there can be no telling of the story except by a disciple who made it up. Why pretend you're looking for some CLUE about who passed on the story?

In this case it's not clear if there are non-disciples present. But again, it's a non-disciple who is healed, an unknown brought from the village who had not been with Jesus until this point. I.e., Jesus healed non-disciples who never saw him before, whereas Joseph Smith's reportedly healed victims were only his disciples who had been under the influence of his charisma for a long time. The accounts tell us this.

Also, this story is another example which was omitted from Mt and Lk, who gave less credibility to the "spit" healings.

Not really a Lumpy win here either.

(Disciples: 10; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 5)

SCORE (The real scoreboard):


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 9

2) disciples only: 3

3) ambiguous: - 3


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 10

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[funinspace]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Yeah, you are probably right here, there was probably a peep hiding in Simon’s house trying to get sick, . . .

No, this is one case where there were no outsiders present. But you're assuming the general details are correct, as with all these examples. We are trusting the account to give us the details generally, minus the miracle event, which is the only part we treat as doubtful.

. . . and happened to onlook upon this and spread the story all the way to the Fiji.

(Disciples: 2; onlookers: 0)

Your scoreboard is meaningless. In virtually all these cases (this one excepted) there were disciples AND NON-disciples present. And usually we must conclude (from what's implied in the text) that some of the non-disciples subsequently told others about it.

“we must…” You are funny.

This particular account clearly implies no one was present except these disciples. Whereas most/all the other healing stories imply there were non-disciples present.

You almost get close here. You are debating what the characters of a story did outside of said story. Unfortunately, we have nothing outside the Gospels to corroborate these purported side characters.

3. Leper healed (plus many cases of "casting out the demons")

Now just who could have been able to record the below sequence? Was a stranger with him in the morning before Jesus and the disciples woke up? Or is it far more likely that this story came right from one of the purported disciples?

In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there. 36 Simon and his companions searched for Him; 37 they found Him, and said to Him, “Everyone is looking for You.” 38 He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” 39 And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.

(The Mt and Lk versions omit any mention of "casting out the demons" at this point.)

The first 4 verses are not the miracle healing story. Vs 39 mentions "casting out" demons in "synagogues throughout all Galilee," which clearly implies that there were non-disciples present (though this text does not narrate a miracle event, but speaks only generally about "casting out" demons).

It's obvious that these ones healed were NON-disciples mainly. It clearly implies that Jesus is encountering a large number of people who are mostly NON-disciples, though maybe some disciples are also there.

It says "He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee . . ." Obviously most of those encountered, according to this text, were NON-disciples. Of course you can just assume the whole story is completely fiction and that no synagogues were entered and no people were encountered to be healed. But if we treat both these and the Joseph Smith miracle stories straightforwardly, believing the general description offered, the Jesus miracle stories obviously have large numbers of NON-disciples present, and non-disciple(s) being healed (or believed to be healed), whereas all the Joseph Smith stories are ones where those present were all JS disciples, including the victims healed.

40 And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and . . .

Here again, it's clearly implied that this was NOT a Jesus disciple. Maybe he subsequently became one -- It doesn't say explicitly. The idea of these stories is that Jesus encounters a great number of new people he hadn't seen before, NON-disciples, who are healed by him. Whereas in the JS miracle stories, all the ones healed were already his disciples.

. . . falling on his knees before Him, and saying, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” 41 Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. 43 And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, 44 and He said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” 45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent that . . .

This is one case where it says explicitly that it was the one healed who spread the news about the healing miracle, which isn't to deny that disciples also spread the word -- it's not necessary to insist that it had to be only one or the other reporting the story. And the one healed in this case almost certainly was a NON-disciple, unlike the JS stories, where no one was present other than disciples, including the one healed. So the JS stories did not spread as a result of NON-disciples who were present going out and telling others.

(Disciples: 3; onlookers: 0)

The only logic of your scoreboard is simply that we must totally dismiss the Jesus miracle accounts as false -- period! By starting with that premise, that the stories are totally false, you then proceed to your conclusion that only disciples transmitted the stories and everyone knowing of them were disciples only who fabricated the story.

But the proper premise is to accept the accounts as true except for the specific miracle act itself, which is set aside as doubtful -- for both the Jesus miracles in the gospels, and the 19th-century Joseph Smith miracle stories. It's reasonable to accept the accounts generally, i.e., as reasonably accurate reports of what generally happened, or what the general pattern was for these reported events.

This one fits the pattern of at least one non-disciple being present. The earlier crowds may be included, or excluded, as part of this miracle story. The general context shows that probably other non-disciples also were present, but in this case it's not clearly implied.

Within your voluminous babble is really a simple point of debate. The logic of my scoreboard had nothing to do with assuming the miracle accounts as false. Of course, there are many side characters or non-disciples in the healing stories. You belabor such obvious details ad nauseam. There was also most probably earth under their feet, but we don’t state it. My view is that in the large majority of the healing stories, the disciples had to be components of the story that only the disciple could know. In your desperation to have lots of witnesses to buttress your “believe the Miracle Max part, cuz that is what I cling to while throwing most of the Bible into the trash can”, you assume that these side characters passed along these stories. You once said something like ‘these parts where the disciples had to be the ones telling the story, the Gospel writer(s)/composer(s) were just being editors of the larger Gospel document to make it more readable but not the source of the story’. We have nothing outside of the Gospels to suggest that non-disciples were passing healing stories forward to the later decades. While this is clearly a possible explanation, it is hardly a fact, nor is it clearly the most likely explanation. What we have are stories that weren’t put into Mark until 3 decades after claimed event (Note: this doesn’t cover the theorized Q sourcing that could possibly have been written down, but this is something even less known). The other Gospels are even further removed. Nor does anything from the stories tell us that these non-disciples were necessarily the ones passing the tales on. Just as having Hobbits talking within the Lord of the Rings novel, doesn’t mean that that Hobbits talk. What none of the stories have is, the composer of a Gospel stating something to the effect of “Bob and Harry joined our commune and were gracious enough to share the following Jesus healing miracle”. That would be suggestive of an outside source. But that is not how these novelettes were written.

This emergent Christian faith seemed to even have faltered in the stories originating homeland, as it grew in other parts of the Mediterranean. Now this doesn’t prove that there weren’t thousands of people who saw Jesus parlor tricks, but it certainly is suggestive that little of it happened. It even fits with the pattern of the Yuge parlor tricks that Yahweh purportedly performed where the recalcitrant and stupid Jews quickly switched to being un-impressed. For example, after pillars of fire and smoke, parting the red sea, and many more massive magic tricks, the Jews got bored and smelted themselves a golden calf to worship as Moses was off in the mountain top for just a couple days. How the fuck do people blow off that kind of massive magic so quickly? Ah, those bad stupid humans as the Bible suggests over and over. Or far more likely, the massive magic tricks simply never happened, which solves why the stupid Jews couldn’t stay on the right Yahweh track. Now getting back to why the multitudes seemed to forget all the Jesus parlor tricks…

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Maybe you should try taking some Imodium….

And if you actually added any further thoughts into your pages upon pages of repetitive and meandering blather on this subject of who passed on the miracle healing tales, I wouldn’t know, as just reading one of these text wall posts is bad enough.

 

[lpetrich]

I'm not impressed by Lumpenproletariat's spews. I haven't seen in them anything close to a discussion of modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels. No discusssion of:

• We have no clue as to who "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" were. They don't identify themselves in the text, and those names are a later tradition.
• Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark very heavily, making word-for-word copies of much of that gospel.
• Either Matthew and Luke plagiarized an additional source, "Q", or else Luke plagiarized Matthew also.
• The Gospels are very bad at giving sources, and even worse at discussing them. To be sure, Luke has a preface in which he brags about all the work that he did, but he falls down on the job after that.
• The Gospels use lots of direct speech (lpetrich said "I am writing a post") as opposed to indirect speech (lpetrich said that he is writing a post), making them much more like fictional works than like historical works.
• The Gospels use a third-person-omniscient perspective instead of a first-person limited-knowledge perspective, also more like fictional works than like historical works.

Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.
Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος
The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod and the Gospels: Some Comparanda | Κέλσος
Lawrence Wills: “The Life of Aesop and the Hero Cult Paradigm in the Gospel Tradition” | Κέλσος
Are the Gospels Ancient Biographies?: The Spectrum of Ancient Βίοι | Κέλσος
Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel | Κέλσος
Patterns of Myth-Making Between the Lives of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ | Κέλσος
 Ancient Greek novel

 

[James Brown]

If one compares reports of miracles from the so-called synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), one will find that, as one moves from the earlier to the later Gospels, some of the miracles become more exaggerated. Consider the following passage from Mark, the earliest Gospel:

That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. ... And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. ... (1:32-34)
​

​

Now compare the same incident as reported by the two later Gospels, Matthew and Luke (who probably took the original account from Mark and amended it). Here is Matthew:

That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. (8:16)


​

And here is Luke:

Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. (4:40)
​

According to Mark, all were brought to Jesus and many were healed; according to Matthew, many were brought and all were healed; and according to Luke, all were brought and all were healed. The miracle keeps getting better all the time. As A. Robertson observes, “We are witnessing the progressive growth of a legend.”

George H. Smith -- Atheism: The Case Against God.



Of course, if we're going to use the word "all" so freely, then we're talking LOTS of non-disciples, right? Why not tally up thousands and declare yourself a victor by a factor of ten?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is superior to that for other acclaimed miracle legends, myths, prophets, heroes, etc.

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

continuing through all the Mark miracle stories one by one​

NON-disciples are usually present, and in many cases they subsequently report it to others.




16. "Dumb and deaf spirit" expelled

When they came back to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and some scribes arguing with them.
<snip>
25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again." 26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, "He is dead." 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. 28 When He came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately, “Why could we not drive it out?” 29 And He said to them, “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”

The ending gives it away, and again a private conversation; another onlooker fail. (Disciples: 11; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 5)

Again you're imposing the bone-headed notion that there is only one version of the story -- this one -- and no one knows anything other than this one version. Plus also your premise that the whole story is fiction anyway, regardless of any content -- it contains a miracle claim, so ipso facto the whole thing must be fiction.

What is relevant here is that there were many NON-disciples present, and many versions of the event told by many disciples and non-disciples. Though this one again says nothing about the word being spread beyond this location. But whatever was told about it obviously was told by some of the non-disciples present.

So again, unlike the JS stories, we have a non-disciple who is cured, and we have NON-disciples present at a public gathering of locals, including this time some "scribes" among them.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 10

2) disciples only: 3

3) ambiguous: - 3


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 11

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1




17. Blind man at Jericho healed

Not really clear internally, but the beggar immediately became one of those corrupted followers influenced by the evil charisma. But I’ll still go for unknowable.

(Disciples: 11; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 6)

Then they came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him here.” So they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you.” 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.

Here again we see the point that there were many NON-disciples present at most of the Jesus miracle events, and the ones healed were NON-disciples. In this case the one healed knows of Jesus and believes in his power, but he is not a disciple with previous contact to Jesus, but encounters him here for the first time, so it's not the charisma of Jesus which has impacted him, but his knowledge of Jesus from earlier reports. Whereas all those reportedly healed by Joseph Smith were previous disciples who had been affected by the Prophet's charisma.


SCORE


Witnesses present include

1) non-disciples: 11

2) disciples only: 3

3) ambiguous: - 3


The victims healed are

1) non-disciples: 12

2) disciples: - - - 0

3) ambiguous: - 1





The Fig Tree? There's no reason to include this in a list of Jesus miracles.

Another private conversation; another onlooker fail.

(Disciples: 12; onlookers: 0; unknowable: 6)

As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up. 21 Being reminded, Peter said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.” 22 And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God.

Meaningless. Forget the hapless fig tree example, which offers nothing of significance to our topic here.


END OF MARK MIRACLE STORIES marathon
____________________________________________

So after a tour of the Jesus miracles in Mark, I came up with 11 [12] sagas that the internal evidences is most suggestive of a disciple passing the story forward and 6 sagas . . .

No, in several of them the internal evidence requires that non-disciples must have spread the story to the surrounding region. Your conclusion comes only from your artificial requirement that the story we have in the gospel account is the ONLY version of the event, and if it contains something the outsiders did not know, it can only mean there were no outsiders or non-disciples present, and no one knew of the story other than disciples.

This requires you to first reject the whole story as fiction, demanding that it never happened as described, in the details, and so could only be a fiction invented by the disciples or later Christian writers. So with this premise, that the event never happened, you judge that only disciples could have known of the miracle claim.

But an honest inquiry into the miracle stories does not require us to start out with the premise that the reported event is fiction. Rather, the honest inquirer leaves open the possibility that the reported story is true as to the incidental details of who was present, the general setting, etc., and sets aside only the particular miracle event as doubtful.



HONEST ANALYSIS/SUMMARY OF RESULTS:


1) NON-disciples were usually present, and NON-disciples were the ones healed

There are 17 total examples, and in 11 of them there are NON-disciples present who witness the event.

And in all but one of the healing stories it's clear that the ones healed are NON-disciples, and one case only is ambiguous on this point.


2) NON-disciples played a significant role in spreading word of the miracle acts.

In some cases word of the event reportedly spread throughout the region, and there had to be some of the non-disciples involved in telling the event to cause this spreading of the stories. Probably this spreading of the news of it happened in all cases, but it's implied or stated explicitly in 5 cases: 1:28, 1:45, 5:20, Matthew 9:26 (though not in the Mark version), and 7:36 (though one might claim it's the disciples only who are the "them" ordered by Jesus not to tell others -- and yet it's only the "crowd" mentioned as present and not the disciples).

At very minimum, the first three above -- 1:28, 1:45, 5:20 -- are cases where non-disciples did spread the story to the surrounding region. You cannot conclude otherwise unless you reject what the text says, thus rejecting the whole story and basing your conclusion (about who spread the story) on this rejection of the story -- not just rejecting the particular miracle claim, but all the details in the story.

And it's reasonable to assume that the rest of the reported miracle events also fit into this same pattern of non-disciples playing a significant role in spreading the stories. In most of them this pattern fits perfectly with the respective facts given. And of course there were different versions of the same story in each case, many of them unaware of the disciples or where they came from or what private conversations they had or what other private encounters took place. And there would likely be some discrepancies between the different versions, which is normal.

So if the stories are accepted as generally true on the non-miracle details and setting, including the JS miracle stories, the conclusion is inescapable that the Jesus miracle stories were spread to the surrounding region by non-disciples, even if disciples also might have spread the story; whereas the JS reported miracle events happened in the presence of disciples only, who had been strongly influenced by the Prophet's charisma, and only these disciples initially spread the story of the event to others.

The references to the reports or rumors spreading throughout the region are not a propaganda falsehood invented by the gospel writers/editors, because if these wanted to falsely emphasize this point, to promote their messiah hero, they would have repeated it in all these miracle stories rather than only a few of them.

. . . where the internal evidence is pretty much lacking any guidance.

The evidence is that NON-disciples were present in most of the cases. Your only logic is to demand PROOF that any such events happened, and since there is no absolute PROOF for any historical events, your demand obviously cannot be met. We can only go by the limited evidence we have -- the same as for all historical events. And this evidence indicates that non-disciples were present, often in large numbers, and it was non-disciples who were healed by him.

No one denies that you can reject the only evidence and simply impose your premise that no such event could ever happen, and so this proves that only disciples were present or believed it or could have transmitted it to others.

And similarly you could dismiss any historical evidence for any events in history you'd prefer not to have happened.

And the mystery onlookers racked up zero points.

Only based on your premise that the event must never have happened, regardless of the evidence we have.

The Non-disciples "racked up" 11 points, being present for sure in 11 out of 17 cases, with 3 cases being ambiguous, and 3 cases where only disciples were present.

I'd say your "internal evidence" is clearly lacking in support of your claim about the Jesus miracle stories coming from mystery "onlookers".

It overwhelmingly supports the claim that NON-disciples were present in most cases, and that in at least some cases these ones did spread the story. Also that the ones healed were NON-disciples, and in some cases these also spread the story. In contrast to the JS miracles which were done in private locations where only JS disciples were present.

This is the conclusion we must draw if we accept the general setting/details of the stories as true and set aside only the actual miracle event as doubtful or possibly fiction. Just as we can accept the JS miracle stories as mostly true while setting aside only the particular miracle claim as doubtful.

OUIJA board suggests another major goal post shift coming up....

OUIJA boards say a lot of things that don't make sense.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)