How much evidence for the Jesus miracles is required? Do Christ-believers need to be deprogrammed?
The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard
Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?
Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?
- There's more than one source for them.
[*]The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.
[*]It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true. If they're stories about a sage who taught disciples for several decades, it is much easier to explain how they could have been invented and attached to the master. Or if the stories don't appear until centuries later, then it's easier to explain how they could have emerged over that time lapse. And in other ways it can be easy in some cases to explain how the stories originated but more difficult in other cases. If it's more difficult to explain how the stories could have been invented, then it increases the chance that they're true.
- There is specific information in the stories about the event, such as when or where it happened and who was present and what the setting was. We can assume that such detail might be partly fictional but also partly factual. The presence of such detail makes the story more credible.
There's more than one source for them.
How does that establish historicity?
It helps. It makes the Jesus miracle stories more credible than other miracle stories for which there is only one source. E.g., the miracle stories in the Book of Acts are less credible because they are dependent on this one source only.
More sources increases the credibility. But it doesn't ensure historical accuracy.
But it doesn't ensure historical accuracy.
I don't see how it even helps historical accuracy.
Just read a Snopes page. Stories are described by when they first showed up, and some noted changes (like changing president Carter to President Obama, or adding a pet cat, or changing the name of the dog). Humans make shit up.
So the judge doesn't want any extra witnesses to support your story? He'll just say, "Oh, these extra witnesses are just making shit up."?
Again, and again, and again, Lumpy.
The NUMBER Of people repeating a story is not the same as overwhelming evidence.
Still the fact remains that the increased number of accounts attesting to the same event(s) does constitute increased evidence and credibility of the reported event(s). Whether it's "overwhelming" or not, that increased evidence sets the gospel accounts apart from other cases of miracle accounts, i.e., makes the Jesus miracle accounts more credible than other reported miracle events.
Even if there are discrepancies between the accounts, and some details got changed -- even so, the additional accounts add to the total evidence and the credibility. It's perfectly normal for multiple accounts of the same event to contain discrepancies. That ideal perfect consistency/harmony might be preferable does not negate the benefit of having the additional accounts.
THE NUMBER of people agreeing to a story is not the same as having eyewitnesses.
But it is increased evidence. Eyewitness accounts are not the only form of evidence. Most of our evidence for historical events is not from eyewitness accounts.
You have not established that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts, so the number of non-witness accounts you provide is fucking meaningless.
No, this extra evidence is important, just as extra accounts for any other event(s) are taken as increased evidence for those events, even if the evidence is not that of eyewitnesses. Each additional account attesting to the same event(s) is important and increases the credibility.
Finding popular stories told and retold is not a quality that differentiates historical from mythical.
I think it does help differentiate them.
Only for the stories you want to be true.
No, for any reported event, if there are extra accounts of it, that increases the credibility. In some cases it might still be fictitious, but the extra accounts increase the credibility and reduce the likelihood that it's fiction.
I notice you're not trying to say that having George Washington's Cherry Tree story in many different books makes it credible.
It does make it more credible than if this was reported in one source only, especially if the date of the "many different books" is close to the reported event. I see no reason to absolutely rule out the possibility that he did chop down a cherry tree. Maybe it's improbable, but those extra accounts do increase the odds that the legend is true. (Plus, what's the difficulty of believing he might have cut down this tree?)
And aren't there a million other examples of the same? Isn't the popular story made more credible by the fact that a separate source relates the same event, or makes the same judgment about it? And don't several more separate sources increase the credibility even more?
You're stretching the use of 'separate source' into illegibility.
The gospel accounts are "separate" sources. The fact that Lk and Mt copied from Mark and also from another document does not change the fact that they are separate sources. There is nothing about quoting from an earlier document that makes the account less reliable. It is appropriate to quote from a previous source.
The gospel accounts are separate sources despite the fact that they sometimes quote from an earlier account, including an earlier gospel account.
What does the term "a second opinion" mean? Isn't that similar?
No, it's not similar. That's asking an expert to question the evidence.
But that's SIMILAR to having a 2nd account of the same event(s). That 2nd account reduces the probability that the 1st was a mistake or a hoax.
You're opposed to an actual historian's evaluation of the gospels, if it doesn't collaborate your desires.
If it doesn't "collaborate" my desires? yyyyyyeah. I think you got something there.
Just about every culture on Earth has a tradition of vampires. Does that mean vampires are real?
What sources are you talking about?
Oral traditions. Almost every human language has a word for a creature either expressly a vampire, or something very similar, with similar tastes, needs and weaknesses.
Off hand I think the existence of these stories increases the possibility that the myths or legends or reports are true, i.e., that there could be some truth in them, and if there are such reports throughout all those cultures, this prevalence of such reports or myths or stories does increase the possibility that "vampires" do exist.
However, this leaves open what is meant by "vampire" and whether there are misinterpretations about these creatures, and psychological effects such creatures might have on people which would lead to confusion about them. If they don't exist at all, or there's absolutely no truth to it, then some explanation is needed as to why the stories exist so widely. If no explanation can be found, then it's better to assume some degree of truth to the stories.
So, the mere number of reports of vampires is not enough information for you to conclude whether or not they actually exist. Good, that's very good, Lumpy.
Unfortunately, it's counter to your stance on the gospels.
No, the increased number of the "vampire" reports increases the possibility that they are true, or that there is some truth to them.
Extremely weird claims or supernatural claims are less likely to be true, but still if there are many similar claims, or many reports of the same crazy event, it increases the chance that there is some truth to it. The crazier it is, then the more likely that there is some mistake, or misinterpretation, but even so, the reported event could be true while at the same time the actual event that happened might be somewhat different than what the witnesses thought it was.
The increased number of reports increases the credibility of the event being true, despite the possible problem of interpretation or confusion about what the actual event was. The wide prevalence of such stories or reports definitely does increase the possibility that some such creatures do exist. Even so, we still don't know.
You'd have to give more information about the particular events that were witnessed and written down by someone.
Now, wait a minute. You're quite content with the gospels being sourced by oral tradition over a long time, and finally written down in anonymous accounts, and calling that history, but to offer any comparative tradition, i need to nail down eyewitness stories, written down by 'someone?'
You know what my sources are, which are part of the public record. So, why can't you do just that much? You don't need to know the author's name. Just name the document in which the events are recorded, as I have identified my sources to you.
Where are there accounts of the doings of these "vampires"? You need to have an account which comes from someone reporting the events as really happening. It cannot be an account which says that it's just folklore and nothing more. It has to report the events as having really happened, not just as some local popular myths that we like to chuckle at.
If there is a clear pattern of such reports, even if there's only 2 or 3 sources, I would take it seriously and begin to consider if it might not be true that these "vampires" really have existed and do the things described.
If they are supposed to be popular in every culture going back for centuries, then there really should be more than only 2 or 3 sources that report them. The events in the gospel accounts cover a period of perhaps only one year, and a maximum of 3 years. So it's not to be expected that we'd have dozens of sources. But for something that has been going on for a thousand years or more in all regions of the world, there should be several sources reporting on the events.
Okay, so you're a fan of special case fallacies, i see.
I'm only asking you for the same kind of evidence I'm offering to you. I have named the sources, which are available to anyone. Events are described in those sources. So why can't you do the same and name a source, anonymous or whatever, which describes the events you're talking about?
I don't rule out that "vampires" exist, if there really are sources that report on them. If there is some evidence for it, then I would start to believe that some kind of creature resembling vampires might exist, or did exist at the times reported. Or, I might try to find some "natural" explanation, like someone pretending to be a ghost, or someone hallucinating or having a nightmare. It depends on what the sources claim happened.
But if you won't give me the sources which report the events, as I have given you for the events I believe happened, then I can't take your claim seriously that these "vampire" events really happened.
You know what my sources are, . . .
No, that's just it, we do NOT know what your sources are.
Yes you do. You have those accounts, called the 4 "gospels" in the New Testament writings. You can check them or look up quotes from them. We know they are from the 1st century, or at least mainly from the 1st century. Despite the problem of identifying who wrote them, you know of these documents.
So name the documents you claim are evidence for "vampires." Let's look at those accounts and judge what is the veracity of them. I am questioning whether there really are these "vampire" accounts you claim exist. I suspect they are not serious claims from someone that these events happened or that someone witnessed them. Rather, they are obvious scary bedtime stories, or halloween-type stories, for entertainment.
I know the sources for the miracles of Jesus, just as anyone else knows them, despite the problem of identifying who wrote them. These sources are available to you. So for comparison, what are the sources for the "vampire" stories you're talking about? Give a source that we can look up and read, so we can see what the claims are about these "vampires" for which you say there are accounts that are similar to the gospel accounts as evidence for the reported events.
If you can't give any such source, then you cannot make the claim that we have accounts of these events.
The gospel authors are anonymous, just tradition attributes them to people.
OK, the sources are problematic, but they exist. So give a similar source for the "vampire" beliefs you say are held in most cultures worldwide. Even an anonymous source. You say the accounts exist, so give an example.
It cannot be an account which says that it's just folklore and nothing more.
Why not? That's what you're saying the gospels were.
No, I'm not the "source" for anything. We're talking about the original "source" for the claimed events. The gospel accounts do not say this is just popular folklore. Your "source" for your "vampire" story cannot be some commentator centuries later who calls the stories just popular folklore.
Cite for us the original literature that reported the "vampire" events, like I've cited the gospel accounts as the original literature reporting the Jesus miracle acts. This original literature cannot say this is just popular fictional legend or folklore, but must be something that reports that the events actually happened.
They can be anonymous documents, or whatever, but they claim the events happened. And they have to be dated from some point reasonably close to the actual reported events. Let's say 100 years or less.
Oral accounts handed down until they were written down.
Written or oral, the accounts claim that the events did happen. Give us an example of the "vampire" reports you claim are common to all cultures. I.e., reports that claim the events really happened, like the gospel accounts claim that the Jesus miracle acts really happened.
Once again, you special case the superstition you enjoy.
Give the other cases you claim exist or are just as likely to be true because they have similar evidence attesting to them. Show us that the example of Jesus doing miracle healing acts is not special but is just one more example of dozens or hundreds of other miracle claims, all claiming evidence from witnesses and accounts of them written down within 50 or 100 years after the events.
Give the example of another case, if the Jesus case is not special.
You're partly right, actually, because there are some other miracle claims, but if you give an example you run into the problem that in some cases the claim is actually true, or some weird event really did happen, or the example, though interesting, is probably fiction and in any case is not really comparable to the case of Jesus, who healed probably hundreds of victims, maybe thousands, and so really stands out as very different or distinct from the examples you would offer.
This is probably why you won't give any example -- you can't find anything that is comparable. You also are making a "special case" of Jesus by not giving any real example of other cases of a "miracle" event for which there is credible evidence as we have in the case of the Jesus healing acts.
Okay, so you're a fan of special case fallacies, i see.
I'm only asking you for the same kind of evidence I'm offering to you.
No, you're not. You pretend that these are separate accounts . . .
By every objective standard they are separate. Your only argument is that 2 of them quote from Mark, which does not change the fact that they are separate. There is nothing wrong with a document quoting from another document.
Some books of the New Testament quote from the Psalms or the Hebrew prophets, but this does not mean that they are the same document or the same source as those Hebrew writers. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls quote from the Hebrew scriptures, but this does not change the fact that these scrolls are
separate from the Hebrew scriptures. The Book of Enoch quotes from the Book of Daniel, but it's a
separate document. And H. G. Wells, in his
Outline of History, quotes at length from Edward Gibbon, but these two are not the same but
separate sources.
You have no basis for insisting that the 4 gospels are not separate documents. It is only your emotional instinct that compels you to conflate them into one source, because they are all part of the "New Testament" you grew up believing was one single book produced by a monolithic "Church," when the truth is that it is a collection of writings from different sources.
. . . and treat them as eyewitnesses, but they're nothing of the sort.
Again, the vast amount of our accepted historical record is from writers who were not eyewitnesses to the events. The accounts are valuable as historical evidence, based on earlier reports possibly from eyewitnesses. That they were not written directly by eyewitnesses does not negate their value as evidence for the reported events.
We are on firm ground believing the accounts even if the writers of them were not eyewitnesses, just as most of the historical record we believe, prior to 1000 or 1500 AD, is from NON-eyewitnesses. There's good reason to believe the record, or most of it, even though it's not from eyewitnesses.
I have named the sources, . . .
Only the traditional names.
You know the sources, as part of the public record. They are identifiable documents that you can look up yourself and read the accounts. You're claiming we have similar documentation for "vampire" events -- OK, identify this documentation. Give one example, telling of the "vampire" events that are reported. Why aren't you able to do this, if the source exists as you claim?
You can't pin down when they were written, where or by whom.
The "when" and "where" can be identified just as easily as for many historical documents that are accepted as sources for historical events.
Not knowing the exact details of its origin or the author's name does not invalidate the document. No document is excluded from the historical record for this kind of reason.
There's plenty of reason to suspect the motives of most historians prior to 1000 AD. All of them were in a tiny top 1% elitist wealthy class with close ties to the powerful. Knowing their names doesn't change the fact of their bias and our uncertainty of their honesty.
The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.
How does that impact the estimate of their historicity?
Name your mythical hero. All of them required that long time period in order for the legends to accumulate around the hero figure. Name one that did not require such a long time period.
Bald assertion. They may have taken a long time for legends to accumulate, but that does not mean that long periods of time were
required for them to fabricate stories.
Since there's no example of a miracle legend emerging in a short time, we can assume that the long time period is necessary. If it were possible for the miracle stories to emerge suddenly, in less than 50 years, we would have many examples of this.
We do have some examples of miracle legends that we know evolved gradually, over many generations or centuries. But we have no known cases of instant miracle legends, where the mythical hero emerged suddenly or the miracle stories all appeared within a short time period, like less than 50 or 100 years.
One miracle legend that we KNOW evolved gradually is that of St. Nicholas or Santa Claus. The original mythic hero did not fly all around the world in a sleigh during one night. The modern Santa figure did not appear suddenly but evolved gradually, over centuries.
You would have to show that no one COULD fabricate a story in a short time.
They could not do it and also attract believers to the story. People don't generally believe miracle claims. The one claiming it has to give the listeners reason to believe that it's really true. The idea that people in the 1st century were extra gullible and believed anything spooned out to them is rubbish. There was no market for miracle stories that someone just made up for people to slurp up without any evidence.
Give an example of such miracle stories being fabricated instantly and marketed to believers on a large scale.
And you can't since there is ample proof that people make shit up all the time. Especially in election years.
Not miracle stories. These do not get fabricated and then bought by a gullible public, other than over a long period of time, like generations or centuries.
Name a mythic hero who was mythologized in a short time span. (Prior to the age of printing, which has speeded up the process of mythologizing in some ways.)
George Washington's Cherry Tree was a myth.
No, we're talking about
miracle legends. Claims of some superhuman act.
But also, I've acknowledged some cases of a hero figure with a wide reputation becoming mythologized during his lifetime. Probably some faith-healers who had a long career became credited with some healing miracles while they were still alive. The public celebrity example could be one where the mythologizing occurs more rapidly, during his life. But at least the long career and widespread reputation is a prerequisite. So this would account for the George Washington example, if he had been credited with some miracle act, which the cherry tree example was not.
The myth was made up shortly after his death.
He was a recognized famous public figure with a long career behind him. But also, chopping down a tree was not a miracle act. Two reasons why this example is not analogous.
The 'age of printing' is meaningless, since print is not required to fabricate a myth.
Printing makes it much easier to publicize the hero figure and spread the myth much faster. So the mythologizing patterns in modern times are different than 2000 years ago.
It just needs someone to make shit up.
No, you need believers. And people do not believe miracle stories from someone who just made it up the day before. Or a year before. They need some evidence or reason to believe. It's not true that people typically believe miracle stories without any evidence. Obviously a tiny few are extra gullible, but we're talking about a myth that becomes widespread within a generation or so. You need an example where there are hundreds or thousands of believers in less than 50 years from the reported miracle events.
But other than a famous public figure, there is no example of someone becoming mythologized in a short time, within his own life, or in less than 50 years.
You're not able to establish this fact other than insisting.
Until someone can give an example that shows otherwise, it's probably true. Ask your favorite Jesus-debunker celebrity scholar to give an example of such a mythic hero who was mythologized into a miracle-worker in less than 50 years and was not a famous public figure.
This would not stand up to peer review.
So you think a "peer review" of this would show that there was no event that led up to this person's execution?
No, i'm saying at best, a 'peer review' of your argument would ask where the hell is your bibliography?
"bibliography"? Remember this woman I referred to earlier:
A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak. She said to herself, "If only I touch his cloak, I shall be cured." (Mt. 9:20-21)
She speculated that she would be cured, probably because she heard that he had cured others. Would a "peer review" say to this woman,
"Hold it lady, where the hell is your bibliography?" Did Jesus demand her "bibliography" as a test of her competency to conjecture about his power to cure? No, he said: "Your faith has saved you."
It wouldn't be unreasonable to question the reliability of the reports that he had this power, that the rumors might be false -- there are many points of doubt. But it's unreasonable to demand a "bibliography" from someone before they are properly authorized to make a reasonable judgment about something.
So a legitimate "peer review" would not demand a "bibliography" but would ask some reasonable questions, and where there is some doubt, it would recognize reasonable hope as playing a proper role in one's judgment. In some cases we make decisions that are based on even a less-than-50% probability, in hopes of a good outcome. There is a reasonable basis for judgment in many cases where there is limited evidence and hope is a legitimate part of the thinking process.
They'd ask you to support your wild logical leaps and how you present 'evidence' by just asking questions of people who question your lack of evidence.
What are the "leaps"? That Jesus had some power to heal is hardly a "leap" at all because there is good evidence that he did. The real question is: how much power? What was the limit, if any? To say he had 100% success, curing every single victim brought to him, would be a "leap," but it's not clear how large this leap is.
There's no indication that he failed in any case. And if he had many failures, he would have been in the same category as all the other "healers" or practitioners of the time, who had as many "misses" as "hits" and did not get mythologized into a savior or miracle-healer god, because people were not convinced and won over to some new unrecognized unestablished figure whose power was limited to just "hit-and-miss" and coincidence.
And the only other real "logical leap" is from healing/curing to the possibility of "eternal life" or salvation beyond death, which is suggested by his power to raise the dead and also by his own resurrection. There's not "proof" of this possibility, but if he had this power it's not an unreasonable "leap" from this to resurrection or the power to restore us to life.
No "bibliography" can settle the truth of this, but rather, it is a hope that is based on the evidence shown by his power, and the only doubt is whether he did have this power, and how great was this power or how far it extended.
They'd point out holes in your claims and conclusions . . .
I.e., "holes" = non-certainty and the possibility that the desired end result may not be the reality, because of all the other possibilities. So this is not proof, but reasonable hope based on evidence, and reasonable people can dispute whether the evidence is great enough. Most judgments are based on reasonable expectations and evidence that is less than absolute certainty or 100% probability.
. . . and say 'Even if this is all completely true, you've failed to actually establish that you have evidence to support it.'
There is evidence, though not all the evidence one could wish for, and thus the belief is a reasonable hope based on this evidence.
And send you back to your classroom to learn the basics.
Does "the basics" include indoctrination into the dogmatic premise that no miracle event can ever happen, even when there is evidence that it did? I don't think a genuine "peer review" process would include the deprogramming you're suggesting and the downloading/installing of proper thoughts and doctrines by your certified academy of credentialed Jesus-debunker mythicist overlords with authority to impose onto us its "bibliography" and catechism of approved thinking and doctrines.
