So far, the best hypothesis is that these events actually did happen, while most other reported miracle events did not.
There is a point in reading the miracle stories in the sources we have, suspending judgment on whether they are fact or fiction. We have the Jesus miracle events in the Gospel accounts and those of Joseph Smith written during 1840-1900. For purposes of analysis, or criticism, why isn't it relevant to compare them as to the details they contain?
I'm saying there is a difference, consistent throughout these written accounts, between how the Jesus alleged miracles are reported and how the JS alleged miracles are reported. Why isn't it appropriate to make this comparison? Why can't such a difference give us a clue -- not proof -- but an indication of the credibility of the claims in each case?
Is it your basic rule that we should not even read the accounts, but we have to condemn ALL miracle claims per se as fiction, ignoring any details in the accounts making the claims? or any differences between them? never comparing them, to look for any subtle differences which might offer a clue as to the credibility of the claims?
Clearly you do not get the point. I agree that it is significant that we know that it was key players in the emergent LDS sect that wrote of the miracles.
No, the point here is not about WHO WROTE of the miracle claims decades later, but about how the original story got started and became circulated -- in particular, whether any NON-disciples were present at first who then told others about the event. NOT who wrote about it later, but who saw it originally and then told someone else, early, before it was written down.
If only you had anything that made it probable that it was any different for your holy writings.
There is a difference how the alleged miracle acts are described in these two different cases. This difference in what the final accounts tell us is evidence for what happened and is relevant to the credibility.
And what these tell us is that there were non-disciples who witnessed the Jesus miracle acts, while the JS miracle stories tell us that only JS disciples were present at the JS alleged miracle events.
I.e., if we take the later written stories at face value, doubting only the actual miracle claim, these clearly tell us that at the JS alleged miracle events it was ONLY JS disciples who were present and who were healed, while at the Jesus miracle healing events it was NON-disciples who were healed and mostly non-disciples who were present and who then told others so that the word spread to the surrounding region. While the direct disciples were usually a minority of those present at the scene.
No, the point here is not about WHO WROTE of the miracle claims decades later, but about how the original story got started
What a curious distinction.
Why? Even if the particular miracle element is fictional, still something like the event might have happened, earlier, before the later writer recorded it. Isn't it reasonable to seek out the original scene, rather than worrying about the later writer's motives? i.e., the setting in which the event happened?
Not that the writer's bias is unimportant, as a separate question. But what's wrong with searching out the original event itself to identify what happened?
We're asking what the stories themselves claim happen. Why couldn't the non-miracle part be true, even if we set aside the miracle part per se as being dubious? Why can't we take the stories as being possibly true, on the non-miracle details, and distrusting only the particular miracle claim? Why is it wrong to analyze the writings that way, instead of condemning everything in the stories as fiction? Why do you insist on forcing everyone to reject everything in these stories as false, when there are parts of them which are not miracle claims? such as who was present at these events?
The stories as they exist in published form were written decades later after the actual events. Those events may have happened. You can't dogmatically insist that no such event whatever could have possibly happened. Why isn't it possible that something really did happen, earlier, where someone was present and thought a miracle took place? Why can't we consider that possibility, rather than be forced to accept your dogmatic pronouncement that there could not possibly have been any earlier event before the story was written down years later?
If all we have of the miracle claims is one account (and some johnny-come-plagiarists), . . .
We have more than one. We know for a fact that there are 4 accounts of these events, not only one. You can keep pretending that 4 documents are really only one, but you can't impose that dogma onto everyone. The scholars and historians are virtually unanimous that we have 4 "gospel" accounts relating what happened, not only one.
That two of them quote from an earlier account does not magically turn 4 into 2 or 1. Many documents quote from an earlier document. That does not erase the later document from being in existence as a document. It still exists despite the fact that it quotes from an earlier document.
And if it's just the Resurrection event we're considering, then there are FIVE documents attesting to it. You cannot wave your magic wand and suddenly change 5 objects into only 1 or 2. Five is five, and four is four, regardless of your theories and wishful thinking that they could not exist.
. . . one account (and some johnny-come-plagiarists), then who wrote it and why they wrote it and when they wrote it is a crucial part of determining how the story got started.
Go ahead and speculate who and why and when. Which you have not done.
You're starting from the premise that the events never happened but were all invented decades later by writers. Go ahead and assume that and draw your conclusion from it.
But that's not the only premise to start from. We can also consider the possibility that real events happened, later recorded in writing, and those events have some resemblance to the later written account, even if we set aside the miracle part as dubious. There is nothing wrong with doing this speculation based on a different premise than yours.
And meanwhile, you have not completed your speculation, other than your premise that the events never happened but were invented by the later writers. So, instead of raging against anyone who considers a different premise than yours, why don't you follow through on your speculation that the writers made it all up. Are you embarrassed to tell us what you conclude about the writers' motives? the who and why and when?
Be sure to include your explanation why they chose this Jesus person as the object of their storytelling. Why didn't they choose John the Baptist or some other hero or prophet to perform these miracle acts? You have to answer this question as part of the "why" which you claim is important.
You're saying they wrote it decades later, but you can't show that.
We can show that they wrote the Gospel accounts we now have somewhere from 70-100 AD, and also that they claim these events happened sometime around 30 AD. And we can show that Paul wrote of the Resurrection about 20-25 years later, after the alleged event happened according to the 4 Gospel accounts.
Your theory has to explain if the later writers made up ALL of it, or only the miracle claims. You also have to explain the "Rejection at Nazareth" story which says he could not perform a miracle at Nazareth on one occasion but could do such acts at other places. Why did the writers make up this story?
Let us know when you finally get serious and start addressing such questions as these. Meanwhile, the best explanation so far is that the events really happened, meaning people in 30 AD believed such events actually happened, and the stories, or rumors or gossip about it, were going around at that early point.
You can't show that they didn't just make it up when they wrote it down.
And you can't show that half our historical record for those times was not made up by the writers, often 50 or 100 years later. I'm planning to make the trip back in time to find the answers to these questions, but right now I can't because my time travel machine is in the shop, so I plead guilty to not being able to show you what you're demanding here.
There's no other case of different writers (or redactors reporting from earlier sources) making up such miracle stories and attributing this to a recent historical figure -- all of them attributing it to the same recent historical figure. There's nothing remotely close to this. Which makes this an unlikely explanation.
Or that they were recording an oral history that was made-up only a few years before.
In the case of the Resurrection event, it had to have been "made-up" 20 years earlier, no later than 50-55 AD, when Paul first mentions it.
If this is the speculation, that such an event was "made-up" within 25 years of when it allegedly happened, you need to explain why no one else ever "made-up" such a story. This is part of the "why" you say is important. Why did several persons make up and believe such a claim about a person returning from the grave, and write it down and copy and recopy it for others to read and believe, and yet no such thing had ever happened before (or since)?
You have to explain the who and why and when.
You are assuming the miracle claims are true IN ORDER to show that the miracle claims are true.
No, but it's reasonable to LEAVE OPEN the possibility that it's true, rather than to dogmatically rule it out as impossible, as you're doing, regardless of any evidence.
It's appropriate to seek an explanation for the claims being made, the reports of these events, and allow the possibility that they really did happen as one possible explanation. Rather than automatically rule out that possibility as you're insisting without offering any other plausible explanation.
The possibility that the claims were "made up" cannot be ruled out either. But every possibility has to be questioned. If they were "made up" you need to answer the questions, such as why all these "made up" miracle stories are attributed to one person only and not to any other prophets or heroes or messiah figures. Why is there ONLY ONE person to whom such "made-up" miracles are attributed? As long as you keep running away from such reasonable questions, it makes other possibilities more likely, such as the possibility that the events actually did happen.
This isn't history, this is masturbation.
No, nothing that important.
