What explains the SUPERHUMAN reputation of Jesus, if not that he performed those miracle acts?
So, let's see if we've got this straight.
If a large group of people believe something, there must be SOMETHING to it.
Let's just say there needs to be an explanation. It's very unusual for a large number to start following the same guru, or for several new cults to spring up and make the same (fictional?) character into a god. When this happens, something must have caused it. We know what caused Mohammed and Joseph Smith and Zoroaster and Buddha and others to be mythologized into a "god" or Divine Prophet or superhuman hero. Or in the case of Apollo or Hercules etc. we know it required centuries for the legends to evolve.
But no one has identified anything about Jesus that can explain why he was deified, as we can in all other cases of someone who got deified or mythologized into a miracle hero or great prophet. In all cases charisma and a long career of preaching to followers is a main part of the explanation. And/or the one deified or mythologized must have done something unusual, noteworthy, something grand or perhaps which those followers thought was amazing or very beneficial, so that he became a celebrity, or noted public figure.
That "something" cannot be a lie or a hoax or just an exaggerated account of something because it won't have staying power in the face of time.
No, in some cases it could be a lie etc., but the one who starts it and wins over the followers must have a long-enough career in which to win these followers, plus some personal assets, or some identifiable advantage. With enough persuasive power or favorable conditions, it might be possible to perpetrate a lie or hoax.
It helps greatly if the hoaxer is telling the followers something they want to hear, something that confirms what they already believe. Charisma, oratorical skill, etc. makes a great difference. Without such assets or advantages, the hoaxer might have no success at all in recruiting followers.
So no, "That 'something' cannot be a lie or a hoax" is incorrect. It might be a lie or hoax and still succeed in taking hold of the followers. In cases where this happens, there's an explanation for it, or conditions we can identify that caused it.
Except, of course, for all the people believing in Joseph Smith, because he got his idea of miracles from Jesus, and they weren't really miracles, . . .
You mean the Christ miracles? Of course they were really miracles. They were "impossible" (for normal humans to do) or highly improbable events, or outside the norm.
Or do you mean Smith's miracles? If you mean the golden tablets, this was not a miracle, because no superhuman or powerful act was done. On the other hand, if you mean his reported healings, these might be miracles, but no one can quote the text from the eye-witnesses. We don't really know what they said. You have to do more than quote a Wikipedia page. We need the reports from the 19th century eye-witnesses.
For example, the following, which was offered, is not the evidence we need:
Healing
According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.
Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio. This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.
Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed in October 1835.
Smith related another experience, occurring in December 1835, in which he said the Lord gave him the power to immediately heal Angeline Works when she lay dying, so sick that she could not recognize her friends and family.
In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all. Among those healed were Woodruff himself, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. Woodruff also tells of how, just after these events occurred, a ferryman who was not a follower of Smith but who had heard of the miracles asked Smith to heal his children, who had come down with the same disease. Smith said that he did not have time to go to the ferryman's house, but he charged Woodruff to go and heal them. Woodruff reports that he went and did as Smith had told him to do and that the children were healed.
This is OK, but this is a recent Wikipedia article, not a 19th-century document. We need to read the original account to see what these witnesses actually claim. We need the text written near to the events. If it was 10 or 30 or 50 years later -- it doesn't matter -- we need the original documents which the above Wikipedia article is based on.
It's probably in the writings of Woodruff somewhere, but until someone produces the actual text so we can read it, we can't be sure what he really claimed to have witnessed.
Just as we have the gospel accounts, or the earliest accounts which the miracles of Jesus are based upon, we also need the original accounts about the Joseph Smith miracles. It seems that the Mormon Church knows of these documents but does not promote them or make them easily available.
Do Mormons themselves believe Joseph Smith did miracles?
The best way to assess the Joseph Smith miracle stories would be to have them presented by someone who believes they really happened. Such a person would provide the best evidence, the original 19th-century documents. The problem seems to be, at this point, that no one takes these miracles seriously enough to come forth and present the evidence for them. It seems that probably Mormons themselves do not put much stock in these alleged miracles of Joseph Smith.
We have to be suspicious when the only people who claim there is such evidence are non-believers who reject the claims, and their only purpose in making the claims is to use them as an instrument for downplaying the evidence for the Jesus miracles in the gospel accounts.
Until such a case is made and the original documents are quoted, we have not been presented with any serious claims or evidence for the miracles of Joseph Smith.
But meanwhile, we have the gospel accounts, written within 30-70 years after Jesus, the closest evidence there is from the time, during a period when only a tiny fraction of events were recorded in comparison to the 19th century and later, and when usually the closest documentation of events came many decades later, like 100 years later, after the reported events.
These "gospel" accounts are there for anyone to inspect and evaluate. To compare Jesus to Joseph Smith we need similar accounts about Joseph Smith, not just a Wikipedia article published 150 years later. We need to see the text of the writings closest to the events.
Now on the other hand, we do have the 19th-century text about the gold tablets:
Atheos: There are 8 signed witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates themselves:
BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold ; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
- Signed by Christian Whitmer, Hiram Page, Jacob Whitmer, Joseph Smith, Sen. Peter Whitmer, Jun., Hyrum Smith, John Whitmer and Samuel H. Smith
OK, this is a real 19th-century document, near to the time in question, and it gives us evidence that these witnesses saw some gold tablets. Congratulations -- someone saw some gold tablets. But what's the "miracle"? What's miraculous about some pretty gold tablets?
Nevertheless this is real evidence, from the time in question. And probably these signers did see the tablets.
So this is the kind of evidence we need for the Joseph Smith healing miracles. Once we have that written evidence to examine, to see what was claimed, then we can judge what is the credibility. The actual healing acts, if they happened, would be important. If the accounts are credible -- i.e., the events did happen -- then maybe these are
similar to the healing acts of Rasputin the mad monk in Russia who healed a child with a blood disease. The healing power could be real, though it seems to be a very limited power.
So we need more than just some interesting gold tablets, and for the healing miracles we need the same kind of 19th-century written evidence as we see above in the statement by the witnesses.
Joseph Smith can be explained -- Jesus Christ cannot be.
We can easily explain how Joseph Smith could have been mythologized into a great Prophet or even miracle-worker. The people who believed in Joseph Smith were impressed with his charisma and they liked his message about Christ visiting the New World and appearing to the natives.
Smith taught long enough, 15-20 years, to be able to recruit sufficient followers to become mythologized into a special prophet of some kind coming to reveal new truth, unlike Jesus whose public career was too short. Smith is only slightly unusual in being able to accumulate his following in a shorter time period than most gurus or prophets, who generally required 30 years or longer to acquire a large following.
However, with the advent of publishing in modern times, it became possible for a charismatic figure to acquire followers in a shorter time than could be done 2000 years ago.
. . . and miracles just mean that things are unlikely.
But in addition to that it means something that requires superhuman power. I.e., the Greek word
dunamis.
So . . . if it's unlikely for things to happen, but they still happen, that's a miracle which does NOT mean any gods were involved in the miracle, it could have just HAPPENED though "science" and "logic" tell us that it could never happen, or only happens very rarely.
No serious quibble here. Except to clarify that a "god" being involved is not ruled out.
So, Lumpenproletariat offers a logical argument that a hoax cannot have produced the massive industry that is Christianity today.
I.e., in the sense that the Jesus Christ event of 30 AD, which probably happened, could not have been a hoax. The best explanation of the event is that the initial reports, or claims about this, are true, i.e., the basic events presented in the gospel accounts really happened. No doubt there's some confusion/distortion of the particular details. But the overall narrative is true and is not a "hoax."
However, the "Christianity" that evolved over the centuries may have hoax elements in it -- i.e., later elements, not the events described in the gospel accounts. The gospel accounts probably contain some error, possibly even an incidental element of deception here or there, but the general picture presented is unlikely to be any hoax. All the hoax/conspiracy theories are highly improbable, less likely than that the basic events -- the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection -- really happened.
But if it IS based on a hoax, then its success would be .... a miracle, right?
No, again, it is possible for a hoax or fraud to be perpetrated and to be successful, if the conditions are there. I.e., the hoaxer is charismatic and has a long-enough career in which to accumulate followers. Also very helpful is if he is talented, has charisma, etc., so he knows how to manipulate people. So if there are sufficient conditions, a hoax is not so unusual, and could succeed.
I mean, he wants us to be open to the possibility of non-divine miracles, things that happen against the odds. And after he goes a long way to try to convince us the odds of a hoax Christianity are against the odds (though he never actually calculates the "odds" for or against), then one is left with either having to say that Jesus did impossible shit, and science books have to be rewritten, . . .
No, if all the miracles of Jesus did happen, no science books have to be rewritten. Your earlier statement was better: "though 'science' and 'logic' tell us that it could never happen, or only happens very rarely."
Science tells us that the miracles are not normal, or impossible in normal human experience, or highly irregular, etc. But what science cannot say is that they did not happen or could not have happened. If any science book says that a reported miracle did not really happen, it should be "rewritten" to say that such a thing is improbable and cannot be performed by humans, or lies beyond current known science.
But that Jesus did miracles does not mean science books have to be rewritten.
. . . or it's just a miracle that Christianity got as popular as it did for not being based on real events.
This isn't far off. Assuming that the miracle events in the gospels did not really happen, then it is very difficult to explain how Jesus got mythologized into a god. All others who were mythologized into a god can be explained, as part of a normal mythologizing pattern among humans.
But the case of Jesus goes contrary to the pattern, such that his case stands apart as unexplainable -- i.e., the only reputed miracle-worker who cannot be explained as a product of normal mythologizing. (If there is another which also cannot be explained, let's have the example. Krishna, Hercules, Horus, Zeus, Asclepius, Apollonius of Tyana, Perseus, Sai Baba, etc. etc. -- we've been over them -- they all fit the normal pattern.)
So the likelihood of this happening (the miracles in the gospel are fiction) is less than that of the "miracle" event(s) actually happening.
And since science dislikes having to be rewritten, esp. for events that there's no sound evidence for, . . .
No no, again, the books do NOT have to be rewritten, and there IS normal evidence for the miracle events, the same as for other events that we believe happened, even on less evidence. Just because there could be more evidence than we have does not mean "there's no sound evidence" here.
William of Ockham would say that we go with the miracle explanation.
I.e., it's a "miracle" either way -- choose which improbability to go with:
1) The alleged miracles in the gospels did not really happen, so then how or why did Jesus get deified? This itself then is a "miracle" -- a normal human made into a god but who did nothing we can identify to explain WHY, going counter to all precedent for miracle claims or hero figures who became deified;
or
2) Jesus really did perform the miracles in the gospel accounts -- it's not mythologizing that explains it, but the actual miracle acts of Jesus as real events in history.
The above two "miracles" are both unlikely or improbable by going counter to all the odds, or against all previous experience. And yet one must be the case.
You can presume that choice 1) is the less unlikely, but there's really no way to calculate the exact probability. That something happened only once, going against all precedent, as with 1) above, may be just as improbable, or more improbable, than the explanation that the miracle acts really happened.
Even if it's granted that both are equally improbable, or that 1) might be the less improbable, it is still reasonable for one to hope that 2) is the real explanation. I.e., it is reasonable to hope that Jesus did have this power and that those healing acts and his resurrection really happened, and that this same power still exists today, or will be demonstrated again in the future. It's a reasonable possibility or, you could say, it's one of the above two reasonable possibilities, both improbable and yet one of which must be true.
Surely there is no way to calculate which one is the more improbable, though one of them must be the case. It's really just as reasonable to believe 2) as 1). And there's nothing wrong with saying that you hope 1) is the correct version. I.e., you hope there is no eternal life or anything beyond this life or any indication of such a thing. But for those who hope there is something more, the Jesus Christ event of about 30 AD is the best indicator we have of such a possibility.
Especially since we're assured that believing in miracles does not have theological consequences for us atheists....
feeling "assured" -- There's nothing here to feel "assured" about. We don't know for sure. There are just some possibilities, and some are more probable than others. That Jesus really did have such power is a reasonable possibility, and one can reasonably hope it's true.
"believing in miracles" -- Many miracle stories are untrue. Probably most of them. Believing in Christ does not mean that one just "believes in miracles" willy-nillly. Being skeptical and requiring that there be some evidence, such as we have for the Jesus miracles, probably rules out 90% of all miracle stories (maybe even 99%).
"consequences" (theological or otherwise) -- The important point about "consequences" is whatever Jesus meant when he said "Your faith has saved you" and similar words when he healed someone. It seems to say that the mere belief produced a good result, or was a necessary condition for the healing to happen.
"for us atheists" -- Atheists are not a special category or "breed" of human, like a separate caste. We can't rule out the possibility that some of the persons healed by Jesus were atheists. What's clear is that they believed he possessed the healing power.
