That Jesus performed the miracle acts is supported by the established facts.
No one's claiming that the JB cults were more popular than Jesus' cults.
In the year 30 AD the John disciples probably were more numerous.
The question is: Why didn't they mythologize John into a miracle-working hero like they did Jesus? Why this difference between Jesus and John?
And the answer is: Jesus actually did perform miracle acts, whereas John did not. That's the best explanation why Jesus is a reputed miracle-worker and John is not. You've given no reason why John should not have been raised to miracle-worker status the same as Jesus. If the way it happened in the case of Jesus is that people "make up shit," then they should have made up similar "shit" about John. And dozens of other charismatic figures.
But they did not. So the mindless slogan that "people make up shit" explains nothing.
Just the fact that they existed kinda poo-poos your arguments that try to portray the earliest Christians as all sharing the same beliefs.
The only belief they shared is that Jesus had power and performed the miracle acts. They differed on all else. Which is evidence that Jesus did perform the miracle acts.
Because, what can explain how these opposing squabbling Jesus cults all converged onto this one Jesus Christ person from Galilee and made him into a god? How would communities which oppose each other happen to come together on this one hero figure? all choosing the same one for their god?
So your observation that the earliest Christians opposed each other is actually evidence that Jesus probably had power such as shown in the miracle acts, because the fact of his power is the only way to explain how these opposing groups happened to converge on him as the choice for their superhuman hero figure.
It's striking that up until the Council of Nicaea, people were still insisting that Jesus was God, was LIKE God, was of the same material as God, was as a different material as God, was merely a prophet, . . .
And yet they all adopted this one figure, making him into an object of veneration, instead of each cult having its own separate cult leader. How do you explain this? If he performed the miracle acts, we have the explanation. They all recognized his power and adopted him in one form or another, but they each had their own interpretation and rejected the other interpretations. This is very difficult to explain if he had no power -- if he was just another dime-a-dozen preacher.
. . . and was a false prophet. They were also arguing about whether Jesus (god) died on the Cross or replaced himself with Satan and let the Deceiver get the nails pounded in.
But all this only proves the point that the real person, the original Jesus Christ in 30 AD, must have done something highly irregular and unprecedented, setting him apart from every other diety or hero figure of antiquity. Otherwise, why did all these squabblers unite around him as their hero object? The miracle acts are the best explanation of this. That gave him the status or the recognition from them that made him important and needing to have theories invented to explain him.
You're right (that the Christian cults were diverse, opposing each other), and this fact is further evidence that the real historical Jesus in Galilee/Judea, from whom it all originated, probably displayed superhuman power. You are giving good arguments that Jesus must have had power like the miracle stories indicate.
The books of the Bible were selected AFTER such councils, for their agreement with the articles of faith, . . .
No, the books of the New Testament were selected mainly for their early origin. Virtually all the ones included predate the books that were omitted. The 1 or 2 exceptions were included in the canon mostly by mistake, in the belief that they were early.
By the time of the official selection, the books had become well recognized and there was little choice left but to just confirm what was already established by tradition.
. . . which hammered out what Christian beliefs were going to be . . .
But the major beliefs were dictated by the writings which were already established. E.g., the councils had no choice to pluck Jesus out of Galilee and put him somewhere else, etc. The basic facts were dictated to them -- and from this they developed their theology.
From a wide-ranging selection of dogmas held by people who considered themselves christians, though they thought nothing at all like what you were taught.
They all thought Jesus had life-giving power and had risen from the dead, because those are the basic facts from which the "gospel" began. Without this, they would not have identified with this Christ person at all.
As long as you ignore how the whole "legend" got started in the first place, you have not explained what happened. Who were "people who considered themselves Christians"? Were there such people? How do you know there were such people? Who are you talking about? Answer: they were people who believed this historical Christ person of about 30 AD had superhuman power, such as the gospel accounts describe. That is the starting point.
Without this starting point, the whole thing makes no sense. You have made no sense of it.
So it's kind of silly that you're pounding the gospels as proof of what happened.
All the documents existing from that time, especially the earlier ones, are the best proof of what happened. Your theories today, and those of your Jesus-debunker guru celebrities, are not evidence of what happened. The documents from the period take precedence over your 21st-century theories. Writers from that time knew more about what happened back then than you are able to contrive in your imagination today.
The best you can support is that the Church selected the gospels that told the approved story.
No, what it selected were the earliest documents. They chose the earlier because the earlier record is closest to the actual events. With only 1 or 2 exceptions, this was the basis for their selection, and/or there was also a process of the earlier ones having been popularized, so that the official selection simply followed this already-established practice of preference for the earlier documents.
You have no evidence of any alternative "story" to that which is outlined in the 4 gospel accounts. You are concocting your own history.
Even the Gospel of Thomas, which is the ONLY one that might possibly be earlier, contains nothing that contradicts the narrative of the 4 standard gospel accounts.
Which was the product of politics as much as theology.
But EVERY document in existence from antiquity "was the product of politics" and/or theology.
The question is: What happened in the 1st century? What do these accounts tell us about what happened prior to 50 AD? The answer is: They tell us that there was a person who displayed life-giving superhuman power. All the evidence we have leads to that conclusion.
Anything different was burned a long, long time ago.
Paranoid delusions, nothing more. Again, that's like a Creationist claiming that all the proofs of evolution were planted by Evolutionists, and all the evidence for Creation was destroyed by the Evolutionists in a massive Conspiracy to deceive everyone into believing in Evolution.
There's no evidence that anything from 200 AD and earlier was burned by anyone. This paranoia can be a basis for your faith, but you cannot expect others to rely on your paranoid delusions as a basis for choosing what to believe. It's not true that there were book-burning squads hunting down alternative "gospels" to destroy.
Once again -- I'll keep repeating this offer -- If you can provide any evidence that Christians burned other accounts of what happened, other "gospels," or accounts of other "messiahs" or miracle-workers etc., I will pay a $50 donation to this website. I'll simply accept any claim you make, as long as you cite any document/text prior to 300 AD as part of your source (excluding Acts 19:19), also evidence of the later Church destroying 1st- or 2nd-century documents. Even if you're wrong in your claim, as long as you cite the evidence, I'll cough up the $50 no matter what.
This offer is good to anyone offering evidence for this claim of early Christians destroying evidence/documents about differing beliefs or alternative messiah figures or "gospels" outside the NT.
That no one gives any evidence of this shows that these claims are delusional and paranoid.
So, let's see. You've never read Pascal's Wager, but you'll lecture us on it.
I plead guilty to delivering lectures on Pascal's Wager without proper authorization. This is not our topic.
You don't understand science, but you'll bounce between appealing to it and dismissing it.
I plead guilty to knowing nothing about science. Would you please address our topic instead.
You don't know much about other religions but feel confident that you don't need to in order to figure Christianity is the most likely to be true.
You've told us nothing about other religions to indicate which one is more likely to be true. If you know of something from other religions that casts doubt on whether Jesus Christ had power, then you need to tell what you know about that instead of wasting web space here obsessing on what I don't know. Tell us which other belief system is more likely true and why it's more credible than the Christ belief.
You know practically nothing about the history of Christianity, . . .
Obsessing on what I don't know does nothing to address our topic.
. . . but you'll insist any criticism of your claims about it are "hysterical."
Your hysterical claim is your repeated delusions about early Christians burning books or destroying the records of other "gospel" accounts or accounts of alternative "messiah" figures or rival Jesus-like cult figures.
If you continue to make these claims and fail to give any evidence, what can a reasonable person conclude other than that you are deluded? You're accusing some unidentified Christian conspirators of engaging in a massive cover-up crusade to destroy the truth contained in other accounts that are similar to the gospel accounts but which give an alternative version of the truth, which you claim the 1st- or 2nd-century Christians set out to eliminate from the record.
If you have no evidence for this, then don't whine about being labeled "hysterical."
You're not really presenting a good case for Jesus, the magic healing false prophet who failed to qualify as the Jewish Messiah . . .
I may be making a poor case, but you're making the case for me. Everything you say that makes any sense actually gives more support to my claim that he must have had superhuman power like the gospels describe.
Where do you get the "Jewish Messiah" theme? Who said he was this "Messiah"?
You're saying he "failed to qualify" as this Messiah. So then, why are you bringing it up? Where does this idea come from? Why is it contained in the gospel accounts and other writings? Why did anyone think this? If he obviously failed to "qualify" as this "Messiah," then why does this suggestion come up?
Why did anyone think Jesus was the "Messiah"?
What made anyone suggest that he was this "Messiah"? Doesn't there have to be an answer to this question?
Until someone comes up with a better answer, the best answer is: He performed superhuman acts which drew attention, and as a result many started making this "Messiah" suggestion, even though he did not technically qualify to be this Jewish prophetic figure. But because he was so unusual and stood out so uniquely and appeared to have power from a superhuman Source, they could not help but to seek some special Divine Status for him.
That's not the answer?
So then, what's a better answer? Answer the question why anyone ever suggested that this person might be the "Messiah." E.g., in John 7:41-42 this question is raised, and some said he could not be the "Messiah" because he did not come from Bethlehem but from Galilee. So then, why was the question even raised?
So, when you point out that Jesus "failed to qualify" as the "Messiah," you are helping to make the point that he did have superhuman power, because otherwise there's no explanation why anyone would raise this "Messiah" question.
You have made two good points: 1) The earliest Christian cults were very diverse and opposed each other, and 2) Jesus was labeled by many as the "Christ" or the "Messiah" of Jewish prophecy.
And both of these legitimate observations lend credibility to the miracle stories of Jesus as real historical events. Because those miracle acts best explain the two phenomena that you've pointed out, i.e., that he was believed to be the "Messiah" and that widely divergent cults were all united in deifying this one person instead of adopting separate hero figures as their god.
