120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[James Brown]

 

[lpetrich]

For independent attestation, the wording will be different. This is easy to see in the present day, when one can easily compare what different news services' reporters write about some event.

Uncredited word-for-word similarity, however, is nowadays considered evidence of plagiarism, and I've found a lot of hits for "Gospels plagiarized".

 

[Learner]

I suppose it makes a change to the previous argument (new angle for debatable discussion) i.e. The four gospels (used to) contradict each other, not being sort of the same.

(or its both?)

 

[DBT]

There are contradictions within gospels and between gospels. There is also evidence that St Paul plagiarized ideas and concepts from Greek Philosophy, during his time in Greece.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I suppose it makes a change to the previous argument (new angle for debatable discussion) i.e. The four gospels (used to) contradict each other, not being sort of the same.

(or its both?)

The plagiarism evidence is brought up in specific response to Lumpy's regurgitated claim of the gospels being independent evidence. It's not a new argument or a change of argument.

If Lumpy were to claim the historicity of Jesus' miracles depends on the gospels being perfect, the imperfections will be showcased.

But that's not Lumpy's position nor his schtick. He's quite willing to throw the inconvenient passages of scripture to the side, as long as he gets to keep his miracles and the hope of eternal salvation based on nothing more than accepting Jesus' claim of being God's front man.

 

[funinspace]

Corroboration is useful.

Well that is kind of a 'no duh'...

However, what Lumpy is doing this time is a goal post shifting game. For a few thousand times he has made the point that the Jesus healing miracles are the primary and central important point. He even said it wouldn't matter if Jesus were the son of Quetzalcoatl or Shiva, as he threw Yahweh under the bus. He also makes a big deal about having multiple sources. Then, Lumpy wants to include the GoJ and the Pauline letters to boast his source numbers, even though neither provide corroboration for the healing by Miracle Max. But sure these other writings provide corroboration for the idea that there was a historical man at the root of this Jesus-God.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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

I see one source gradually exaggerated and expanded into what we now know as the synoptic gospels.

If it makes you feel good to "see" or pretend the number of sources is fewer than the 4 or 5 (the correct number), then no one can force the facts into you to contradict your visions. But you are fantasizing and inventing your own set of facts to suit your ideological commitment in artificially reducing the number of sources.

You are funny….pretend…LOL Yeah, Dr. Feel Good…

I feel good about pretending to agree with the 2-source hypothesis (Q & Mark) that most theologians ascribe to.

But this hypothesis doesn't say that Matthew and Luke are not separate sources, or that Q and Mark are the only sources. It does not reject the 4 Gospels as 4 separate sources, but only explains the quoted parts from Mark and the hypothetical Q. It makes Matthew and Luke partly dependent on Mark and Q, but not entirely dependent on them, as though these were the only 2 sources for the synoptic Gospels.

Then we have Paul’s letters, from a guy who never met this Jesus;

Most of our recorded ancient history is from writers who never met the historical characters they describe in their accounts.

However, what is known is that Paul’s letters that only hint at who this purported Jesus is . . .

He tells us enough that it has to be the same person described in the gospel accounts. There is enough overlap that it cannot possibly be any other person. Why does Paul speak of the "churches in Judea" and his encounter with Peter and James, who are in the gospel accounts? How can it not be the same Jesus person they knew?

. . . and he states he never met Jesus;

You mean no one can ever write about someone they never met? Once again, you have to throw out virtually ALL of our historical record if you follow that guideline. Why is it that your logic, again and again, requires us to scrap virtually ALL the historical record?

Why do you parse my statements, like each phrase is supposed to exist on its own? Each part, is part of the whole analysis. Only a buffoon would argue in such a way.

So then you agree that Paul is a legitimate source for the historical Jesus, especially the Resurrection, despite never having met him. Plus the 4 Gospel accounts are sources or evidence for the Jesus events, including the miracle acts. So these along with Paul give us 5 separate sources for the Resurrection event. So you're not denying that we have these 4 (5) sources. Only a buffoon would misinterpret you otherwise.

And you even admit that these anonymous authors embellished many parts of the Gospels.

And Josephus and Tacitus and Herodotus and Plutarch etc. also embellished many parts of their accounts -- So therefore, what? most of our history sources are unreliable? There you go again -- shit-canning 90% of our historical record! Ruthless!

And one might even speculate that the gospel accounts contain more "embellishment" than Josephus or whoever. Some writers do it more than others. But ALL are legitimate sources for the events they report. We don't throw them out because of embellishment or failure to stick to the hard facts only.

You must be debating your sock puppet again… Yes, the Gospels are very ordinary documents from history, and you demonstrate part of why that is all they should be considered, and the magic shit should be shit-canned as you suggest.

No, because we have 4 sources for the miracle acts of Jesus (5 sources for the Resurrection), making them more documented than many recognized facts of history, and far more credible than any other miracle claims in antiquity.

I’m saying that whether it is 30 years or 120 years, BS can emerge in days, so it doesn’t matter.

But you'll never give an example of a miracle story in the ancient literature which emerged in a short time, or instant miracle-worker legend. You will look like a buffoon trying to cite a case of this. Dr. Carrier tries to find examples and makes a fool of himself with the ludicrous examples he comes up with.

Ah, but again as always, you try to tie down the BS to only your special sweet smelling shit. When I say BS can emerge quickly, I don’t care if it is about UFO’s, special healing, the loch ness monster, or any other kind of fantasy.

OK, now you're giving modern examples, 20th century, where obviously there are "instant" miracle legends, due to the modern media/publishing, which allows EVERYthing to be publicized. If need be we can kick that around too but, saving that for another time -- since you have only modern examples to offer, you are admitting that "instant" miracle legends did not occur in ancient times, except this one time only. So, with that qualifier, you're admitting that the Jesus miracle legend of the 1st century is the ONLY instant miracle legend, unlike any other, with no parallel. I.e., no others having any sources near the time of the alleged events, or any more than one source, i.e., no credible evidence such as we use for historical events.

Again, I don’t care about your hobby horse…

But you do agree, without caring, that we have these 4 (5) separate sources for the Jesus miracle acts, which is a degree of evidence which is lacking for any other miracle claims in antiquity. In fact there is nothing even close to this one case.

You're saying "OK, take it and shove it!" but you don't deny it -- you admit this is true.

So, for the record, you hate it and condemn it all as BS, but still you acknowledge that we have this evidence, these 4 (5) sources, such as we do not have for other miracle legends. You're admitting this is true -- but reserving the right to dislike it and reject it as a hobby.

Clearly, you do not know what the meaning of the word “clearly” means, . . .

What I said is that if these accounts in the gospels are taken as true about everything except that of the specific miracle act in each case, then it's clear from them that there were non-disciples present.

Instead of squabbling childishly over a word meaning, why don't you explain how it's not "clear" that there were NON-disciples present at these events, if we take the gospel accounts as generally accurate on the non-miracle elements in the story, while setting aside only the specific miracle claim in each case?

I don’t quibble over words, I call you on your BS. Though I do make fun of your abuse of word meanings. You make vacuous claims and then try to move goal posts to pretend are aren’t full of it. Who the fuck even suggested that there weren’t “NON-disciples” within the tales?

So you agree these accounts are saying NON-disciples were present, while in all other miracle claims there were only disciples present. Not only the JS miracle claims, but also the Asclepius miracle events at the temples, where only the worshipper and the priest(s) were present.

Another dissimilarity of the Jesus miracles to others is that in all other cases of miracle healings, the healer performed his act in the name of an ancient healing god.

I.e., Joseph Smith did all his healing acts in the name of Jesus Christ, while the worshippers at the Asclepius temples, and the priests, did their act in the name of the ancient god Asclepius. And virtually all of the current faith healers perform their acts in the name of Christ.

But in all the Jesus healing acts in the Gospels, he never invokes the name of any ancient healing god. This is significant, because it's the authority of the ancient healing god which wins over the worshippers and causes them to believe a miracle is happening (even when it's not), and without this the victims "healed" would not believe this power to heal them existed. So even if the actual healing never happened, we can explain why the worshipper believed it, because of the ancient healing god tradition which is invoked.

But this cannot explain why the Jesus miracle claims were believed.

That is completely different than the notion of who passed on the miracle healing tales (which was your claim relative to clarity). You are quibbling as you can’t back up your claim of clarity.

What's clear is this: If we accept all miracle stories as true about the incidental details other than the actual miracle event per se, setting that aside as doubtful, then

• the Gospel accounts show NON-disciples present, and in many cases some of them do spread the story elsewhere (though probably disciples also spread the story). BUT,

• the JS miracle stories, and most others, have ONLY disciples of the healer present, so that the stories must have originated from them and at first were spread only by them rather than by NON-disciples.

It's debatable how significant this is, but it does add to the credibility if NON-disciples were present and had something to do with spreading the stories. It doesn't PROVE anything, but it is additional evidence which increases the credibility of the Gospel accounts in comparison to other miracle claims of those times.

If you didn’t abuse words, as you make arguments, then you probably won’t feel like people are quibbling when they challenge your bald assertion. Never mind that I made this painfully clear already:

OK you made it clear (whatever it was -- you're 1000% right about it), but still you're not disputing the above point that we have this additional evidence to give still more credibility to the Jesus miracle stories, in comparison to all the other miracle legends of antiquity.

And again, it's not your hobby and you think it's all horseshit. But you're not disputing this point.

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.

But it does matter, even if you don't care about it. It adds at least some additional credibility, compared to other miracle claims.

There was also most probably earth under their feet, but we don’t state it.

But that's not an important point indicating anything about the credibility, as the presence of NON-disciples increases the credibility, even if by only a small degree. It's reasonable to think this adds significantly to the credibility, because we know how disciples tend to believe blindly in the power of their Guru-hero, and thus imagine a miracle happened when it did not.

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.

But those components are not the basic miracle event per se which was known to all those present, according to the accounts.

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”, . . .

I was certainly an asshole to say anything like that.

. . . into the trash can", you assume that these side characters passed along these stories.

It's likely they did, if we accept the incidental details as true, i.e., everything but the actual miracles per se, which we set aside as dubious. And it's reasonable to consider them this way, as a reasonable possibility, though obviously we don't know for sure what happened. It's reasonable to assume some such events occurred, even if the miracle element per se is fiction, so that there was a real event and some of those details in the story are true.

That some non-disciples passed along the stories doesn't mean the disciples didn't also pass them along.

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 this answers is why the miracle healing claims were believed by later writers, editors, redactors, the final Gospel writers.

There's no other case of educated persons believing claims like this and recording them in writing, and having them copied and recopied for transmission to later generations. Why did so many educated persons believe the Jesus miracle healing stories?

This was not the norm. Writers generally did not believe such claims, though there surely were some healing cults or gurus or messiah pretenders doing alleged miracles of one kind or another. But these were generally rejected or scoffed at and not taken seriously by those who could have recorded them but chose not to.

Why did so many of them make an exception in this one case, for this one reported healer of about 30 AD, and even report that he rose from the grave after being executed?

Given these accounts of him, it's a reasonable speculation that in this one case there were many diverse reports about his miracle acts -- far more than other cases -- so that his case was different, with so many different stories circulating about him, even from those who were not his disciples. And so this case was taken seriously, in contrast to all the others, and was believed even by educated persons, who then recorded it because this was important -- "good news" -- and worthy to be transmitted widely to be learned by everyone.

So the involvement of the NON-disciples adds to the persuasiveness of the evidence, making the whole Jesus miracle "legend" more credible. This increased credibility, further accumulation of evidence, increases the likelihood that the events really did happen, indicating that the spreading "faith" or belief in him was based on evidence and reason and was not "blind" faith.

 

[DBT]

I'm not aware of any miracle claims (supernatural events), bible or in general, that meet the generally accepted standard of evidence as used in science, law or philosophy, namely, evidence that is sufficient to prove that these miracles actually happened as described.

 

[Lion IRC]

Corroboration is useful.

Well that is kind of a 'no duh'...

However, what Lumpy is doing this time is a goal post shifting game. For a few thousand times he has made the point that the Jesus healing miracles are the primary and central important point. He even said it wouldn't matter if Jesus were the son of Quetzalcoatl or Shiva, as he threw Yahweh under the bus. He also makes a big deal about having multiple sources. Then, Lumpy wants to include the GoJ and the Pauline letters to boast his source numbers, even though neither provide corroboration for the healing by Miracle Max. But sure these other writings provide corroboration for the idea that there was a historical man at the root of this Jesus-God.

I haven't seen him moving any goal posts.

Although I have wanted to ask him...

Hey Lumpy, Lumpster, The Lumpmeister, Mr Lumpenproletariat,
Since we're having this collaboration/corroboration redux, have you touched on undesigned coincidences yet here in the thread? What's your take on the phenomenon?

 

[Keith&Co.]

.

So the involvement of the NON-disciples adds to the persuasiveness of the evidence, making the whole Jesus miracle "legend" more credible.

That might be so, IFF we had independent verification from those non-disciples.

We do not.

We have a guy writing about things he says happened, including miracle healing, and witnesses being there.

If he wrote that there were twice as many people in attendance, that would add any credibility to this ONE GUY'S ACCOUNT.

 

[James Brown]

Does all this mean that accounts of miracles that don't include random anonymous bystanders can be thrown out as non-credible?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I'm not aware of any miracle claims (supernatural events), bible or in general, that meet the generally accepted standard of evidence as used in science, law or philosophy, namely, evidence that is sufficient to prove that these miracles actually happened as described.

Hume's razor. Is it more likely that the miracles happened or that the the reporters of such miracles are deluded or even lying? For unlikely events like miracles, these issues of deceit or delusion have to be eliminated.

----[FONT=arial, sans-serif]

Quran 105:1 Ayah 105:1
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]In the name of Allah, The Most Kind, The Most Merciful[/FONT]

Have you (Prophet Muhammad) not thought about how your Lord (Allah) dealt with the companions of the elephant (the army commanded by Abrahah Al-Ashram from Yemen that wanted to destroy the Kabah in Mecca Arabia?

Did He (Allah) not cause their plan (to destroy the Kabah in Makkah) to fail?


He (Allah) sent flocks of birds above them. [FONT=arial, sans-serif]Striking them with stones of hard clay.[/FONT]


[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif][FONT=arial, sans-serif] And made them (the army that included elephants) like a field of crops [/FONT]which had been eaten (by cattle with little left standing).

[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[Rhea]

Does all this mean that accounts of miracles that don't include random anonymous bystanders can be thrown out as non-credible?

I think you misspelled “Garden of Gethsemene”

 

[Rhea]

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?

My basic rule is to not believe in miracles that I have to _read_ about. Yeah.

The guy claimed to be the Son of a God who could perform miracles. Who supposedly rose from the freakin’ dead at will, and now the best he can do is his picture on a piece of toast. But really,, believe this one guy’s journal. No, really! he’s totally telling the truth!


Look, what would it look like if one of Jim Jones’s followers who lived (there are a few) got old and started telling a few people in the nnursing home how Jones raised everyone from the dead. How he did miracles. And one of the nurse’s aids believed him, and wrote it all down - we’re 30 years on now, and since no internet or newspapers - no one else knows this story, but our nurse’s aid loves it an believes it. And they tell some friends, and show them what they wrote. Those two friends copy it down and, in trying to convinve _their_ friends, pretend it was their own experience, so they put their name on it. And then a hundred more years go by and some people see the copies, plus the one written byt the subsequent nurses aid, who heard slightly different story because the survivor was much older by then and part senile. So now there are these 4 documents; they all originate at the one deluded follower of Jim Jones who claimed Jones was still alive, or, alive again. And these 4 documentts get copied, and some people exploit them for gain and hence lend them a vigorous boost in visibility. And so on...

Anyway, 2000 years later, what would it look like? It would look _exactly_ like this.

You say all these “miracles” are somehow “corroborated” by the existence of the 4 documents written decades after the fact.

Do you also believe the Heaven’s Gate crew? The Branch Davidians? The Jim Jones Cult? The Masons? The moonies? The reincarnation of the Dhali Lama? The Flying MOnkeys of China?

You must believe tham all, right? Witnesses!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do people just believe ANY miracle claim, as long as they're "receptive" to it?

It was NOT normal in the 1st century to believe claims about miracle-workers.

There's no evidence of such beliefs being popular until AFTER the 1st century, at which time people became far more gullible to miracle claims.

Gullibility cannot explain the spread of the Jesus miracle stories in the 1st century.

He [Joseph Smith] claimed to be a miracle healer, and he based this on the ancient Jesus miracle stories, healing in the name of Jesus, and this brought him credibility. This wins followers/believers even if no healing really takes place, because of the popular centuries-old tradition. Just like today's televangelist healers perform their acts by invoking the Jesus name and winning believers, whether the victim prayed for recovers or not. The followers believe anyway, because of the popular tradition, and of course the evangelist's charisma is a necessary part in combination with the ancient popular miracle tradition. That's what JS did -- not claiming to be a god, but invoking the ancient Jesus tradition, and having the necessary charisma.

So, your bottom line is that healing need not take place in order for people to believe someone has miraculous healing power.

Not as long as the hearer is receptive to a miracle story.

Yes, but only when their ancient healing god is invoked, to give credibility to the story. People believed in their ancient healing god(s), so that the power of this tradition made them believe their priest or guru performing the ritual and promising them an answer to their prayer.

E.g., worshippers at the temples of Asclepius were "receptive" because of the ancient traditions and rituals, established over many centuries, tracing back to the ancient healing deity.

But Jesus did not invoke any ancient healing god in whose name he performed these acts.

There were various freelance reputed healers or messiahs or miracle-workers, here and there, but the only practitioners having credibility were those performing the ancient rituals, e.g., priests, doing it in the name of the ancient healing god(s). Those not firmly fixed into an ancient healing tradition and invoking the ancient deity did not win significant followers and were generally rejected as charlatans, and the educated who wrote historical accounts gave no credibility to such pretenders.

'Kay.

That just pulls the rug out from under every argument you have offered for people telling stories about Jesus' healing miracles...

No, there are no such stories about any healing miracles by anyone other than those practicing the ancient rituals, e.g., the priests, and invoking the ancient gods.

There's no indication of any belief in charlatan miracle-workers, or new messiah figures who appeared on their own, outside the established ancient traditions and rituals. People did not believe in any new characters who showed up outside the traditional healing cults rooted in the ancient legends. There are no "people telling stories about" any miracles or miracle-workers outside those ancient religious practices and invoking the ancient healing god(s).

There's no reason to assume any oral or written tradition for such events MUST be based on historical events.

They must be based on ancient miracle traditions dating back many centuries, worshipping ancient miracle gods. We don't see any other miracle claims than these in any of the documents or sources. No miracle claims about any recent miracle-worker outside the standard religious practices established from centuries earlier.

There's no evidence people believed in any other kind of miracle claims than this. There are no cases in any of the literature. Still we might assume there were a few charlatans who had a very small following but were scoffed at by the population generally, including by the educated persons who chose not to waste papyrus on them. Maybe a Simon Magus is in that category. Perhaps he had a dozen kook followers.

Just gullibility.

They were gullible to believe in the ancient gods and rituals. But that's all the gullibility we see in any of the evidence. They were not gullible in the sense of believing in the latest charlatan miracle-worker who popped up. There are no cases of these winning over any large numbers of believers and being taken seriously by other than a few kooks.

It's not true that the ancients were generally sucked into fraudulent miracle hoaxes. The only examples you can find are ones which were rejected by 99% of the population and were exposed as frauds by the writers, in any accounts we have.

There were some cases of a charlatan deceiving several hundred victims in some kind of hoax, claiming something miraculous or divine. But in all such cases they were exposed as fraudulent in the accounts we have. There are no accounts actually attesting to any miracle acts performed, where the writer corroborates the claims.

So it's not true that back then people in significant numbers were fooled by miracle-worker hoaxes. There are no cases you can cite. In all cases the only accounts we have are those condemning them as fraudulent, none attesting to the claims as true.

While in contrast to this universal pattern, there is the one conspicuous exception of Jesus popping up at around 30 AD -- when miracle stories were completely out of style -- and these reported miracle events appear, confirmed in the written accounts as having actually happened, contrary to anything earlier, totally unexplained by legions of debunkers, scrambling hysterically to find Jesus parallels, but only making fools of themselves repeatedly.

 

[DBT]

There is an element of gullibility, but the ancients believed what they believed because often that was the only information available to them. So it may not be the case that they were more gullible than our generation, they just happened to be wrong because that was their prevailing world view. Their cultural and Religious conditioning.....

 

[Rhea]

It was NOT normal in the 1st century to believe claims about miracle-workers.

Sooooo not supported by the evidence

Yes, but only when their ancient healing god is invoked,
[...]

But Jesus did not invoke any ancient healing god in whose name he performed these acts.

Ooooo a thick layer of special pleading

While in contrast to this universal pattern, there is the one conspicuous exception of Jesus popping up at around 30 AD -- when miracle stories were completely out of style -- and these reported miracle events appear, confirmed in the written accounts as having actually happened, contrary to anything earlier, totally unexplained by legions of debunkers, scrambling hysterically to find Jesus parallels, but only making fools of themselves repeatedly.

completely ignoring that "confirmed in written accounts as actually happened" is totally not true, but repeating it anyway, again.



You don't have a convincing argument.
You don't even have a _new_ argument.
It's the same old christian fingers-in-the-ears-LALALALA you never refuted my really shallow and transparent claim, so I'm just going to say it again! Witnesses!!!! Watch me be one!!! Watch me fabricate the evidence I will later claim, right before your eyes!
Except we realize that this is how your original "evidence" was created in the first place. Thanks for the front-row seat.
I'm going to claim it 100 times and then tell you that nobody would just claim something 100 times if it weren't independently true!
(except we have President Trump, so... refuted, yah?)

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, what do you really have, Lumpy?

The gospels are still anonymous, written at time unknown, at unknown remove from the reported events.

Lack of dispute is not the same as corroboration. No actual historian ever said that the victors' account of a battle was accurate based on no dispute by the losers.

The authors of the gospels were clearly willing to plagiarize some parts, there's no telling how much of the rest might be:
*) passed meticulously down by oral tradition
*) passed less meticulously down
*) made up by someone along the way, including the originator
*) made up by the author
*) cribbed from stories told about some other demigod that were repurpsed to the Jesus myth



Most to the point, i think, is that you had no fucking clue the Mormons had miracle stories when you first started lecturing us about how unique the Jesus healing stories are. Now you've become adept at marginalizing those stories to fit your agenda.
You're still on about how unique the Jesus healing stories are, but i find no real reason to credit you on this matter.

So, you've got...stories.

You believe them.

More power to you, lumpy.

But you're spinning your wheels on yhese walls of text self-justifications.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why did anyone believe Jesus did the miracle acts? (if they did not really happen)

NO, it's not true that people generally believed such fraudulent claims, in the 1st century. You can't document other cases of people believing such claims, in any source prior to 100 (90) AD (unless you want to make an ass of yourself, like Matthew Ferguson, who cites a "prophecy" (prediction) which came true and calls that a "miracle").

But where there has been belief in claims of miracle healing, the practitioner always did his acts in the name of an ancient healing god. Like Asclepius or Krishna or Christ, etc. Jesus is the only reputed healer who did not invoke the name of an ancient healing deity, in all the accounts of such reputed healing miracles.

I could post pages citing the linkage between Jesus and Judaism. But let me cite this one verse that is in all 3 Synoptic Gospels (and 2 others)

Mat 22:31-32: But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

&

Matt 24:37 (Luke 17:36) "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah…

&

Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”

Of course there are such quotes attributed to Jesus in the gospels, which he may or may not have said. We don't know which quotes are really from him and which ones not.

However, in all the healing miracle stories of him, he is never quoted as performing his miracle healing acts in the name of Yahweh or Moses or Elijah or Elisha etc. He did not invoke any such names in his miracle acts.

But by contrast, all the reported miracles of Joseph Smith were done by him in the name of Jesus Christ, who was invoked by him every time. Likewise all the modern faith-healers do their healing acts in the name of Jesus, though there are a few Eastern mystics who invoke other ancient gods like Krishna. E.g., Sai Baba, who had a reputation for doing miracles and who enjoyed a very long career of winning disciples with his charisma.

Also, the ancient healing miracles at the Asclepius temples were done in the name of the god Asclepius, never by a recent miracle-worker acting on his own, a "free-lancer" as it were. They all invoked the name of the ancient healing god. There were also some other pagan gods invoked by the healers, but Asclepius was by far the most common.

So it's not that Jesus is unconnected to any ancient deity -- obviously he is put into the Jewish tradition of the land where he carried on his mission, and he is quoted citing Moses and others, but never naming them as the source for his miracle healing acts or doing these in their name, as in the case of Joseph Smith and all other reputed faith-healers. So we know these practitioners have always relied upon the already-existing traditions of the ancient healing gods, invoking them by name, without which their followers would not have believed in them.

So again, no one would have believed Joseph Smith had he not named Jesus as the source for his power or claim to be able to heal. He would not have acquired miracle healing stories in his reputation and his new religion would not have attracted followers had he not invoked by name the ancient faith healing tradition.

Ah, further disassembling of the Gospels into nothingness. Matt 22:31-32 is in all 3 of the Synoptic Gospels.

But this Matthew quote, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," has nothing to do with the Jesus miracle acts. (He also was not claiming to be the God of Abraham etc.) Even if he quoted these words from Exodus, this says nothing about the Jesus miracle stories being derived from the earlier Jewish tradition. He is not invoking Abraham or Yahweh or Moses as the source for his miracle power, like Joseph Smith invoked the name of Christ when he performed his claimed healing acts, or like the pagan priests invoked the name of Asclepius when they performed their healing rituals.

If you're saying Jesus did his miracle acts in the name of an ancient deity, you need to find a quote of him saying this at one of his reported miracle events.

If you are willing to say, 'who knows, it might not have been said', then the same thing can be said about the purported Jesus miracles.

No -- let's assume he did say the above quote from Exodus. It doesn't mean he performed his miracle acts in the name of Yahweh or other ancient deity, or claiming his power was from such a source. There's no Jesus quote in which he invokes Yahweh or other ancient authority as the source of his miracle power, as all other reputed miracle-workers had to do in order to persuade the believers.

After all only about a third of the Jesus miracle events are in all 3 texts. If the Gospels say little to nothing of reality, then there is really not much to discuss/debate.

They do say much of reality and there's much to discuss/debate. The quotes overall might reflect much/most of what he really said -- we don't know. But since there's not one which has him invoke Yahweh or Moses etc. as the source for his miracle power, we can reasonably assume he never did invoke these ancient authorities as the source of his power, as all other miracle-workers (that we know of) did invoke an ancient deity by name as their power source.

The Jesus character of the Gospels is nonsensical without its connection to Yahweh...

No, he's no more connected to Yahweh than any other Jew is. Nothing in the texts connects him anymore to Yahweh than Jews generally were connected to Yahweh. The genealogies connect him to David, and he's called "Son of God" and "Son of Man," but he's also called "Logos," making him a Greek entity of some kind.

In various ways the Gospel writers connected him to the ancient traditions in the accounts, including in quotes he might have spoken. But none of those quotes have him claiming his power was from Yahweh. Not once do they attribute his miracle acts to Yahweh or other ancient miracle tradition, or have him name them as his source.

When he "cast out demons," he never said: "In the name of Yahweh I command you to come out!" etc. This kind of language could easily have been used, but it's not there. In all the healings, he never invokes an ancient authority or says "in the name of" etc. He didn't need to do this in order to win their belief in his power, as all other reputed miracle-workers did, who won a significant following.

Why is it important whether the healer invoked the name of an ancient healing deity?

Because this reliance on the ancient miracle traditions helps explain why people sometimes believed such claims, even if no real miracle event happened. All cases where the miracle claims were believed by people conform to this pattern where the healer invokes the name of an ancient healing god as the source of his power. Without this, they never believed such claims. There are no cases where a recognized miracle healer-practitioner did not invoke the ancient healing god, claiming this as the source of his power.

Traditions going back many centuries are very powerful in persuading worshippers to believe or pretend that the alleged miracle really did happen. But in a case where such ancient tradition is NOT claimed as the source of the miracle, it becomes more difficult to explain why people believed it.

 

[Juma]

unless you want to make an ass of yourself, like Matthew Ferguson, who cites a prophecy which came true and calls that a "miracle").

What are you referring to? A ”prophecy which came true” is a miracle so how did he make an ass of himself?