What do all mythic heroes other than Jesus Christ have in common? -- There's NO EVIDENCE for their alleged miracles.
(continued)
OH NO, not Joseph Smith again!
There is no shame in being ignorant, but there is great shame in choosing to remain ignorant when information that would avoid such embarrassing gaffes is so readily available. So I ask you again, upon what criteria should one accept the testimony of anonymous people making these claims in the bible and reject the claims made by actual, named individuals who swore and even signed documentation attesting to the miracles of Smith?
No, those tablets sitting on a table are not a "miracle" or act of power. I'm sure I could put some odd-looking tablets on a table, make them look strange or reflect light in some way, and then get 1000 witnesses to look at them and attest that they are there.
No, sorry, that is not a "miracle" -- just because something is sitting there and looks interesting.
As to the healing acts of J. Smith, which would be something to take more seriously, I don't think these are any more than the kind of occasional anecdote that worshipers experience and relate to their pastor, and are offset by all the "misses" that far outnumber the "hits."
And obviously you're much too busy to actually go read for yourself. The information is there, it's not that hard to find
and I even quoted it for you so you wouldn't have to keep appearing so completely devoid of familiarity with the subject matter and yet you still hide behind ignorance. It's perplexing.
Despite many claims made here by you and funinspace and others, the plain fact is that:
No one has posted the text of any original source relating the Joseph Smith miracles.
What is your problem? You, or Yous (plural) have posted some original text, but
not anything telling of his miracle acts. Why? If you're willing to post something original, 19th century, saying that one of his disciples did some healings, why not some such act performed by Joseph Smith?
It's obvious that you cannot find the original accounts. You did not quote anything but a 21st-century Wikipedia article. We need to see the original accounts. Or something from the 19th century, near to the time of the reported miracle events.
Nevertheless, something probably was written, by 1 or 2 of his followers, who enjoyed his charisma over 10-15 years and were impressed by him. This could explain how he would become mythologized in the normal way as occurs in other cases, with the only difference here being that the myth evolved here in a somewhat shorter period of time than usual.
We can keep going back and forth on Joseph Smith, but that the original accounts are apparently unavailable makes it impossible to take it seriously. Once again, Mormons seem to not take it seriously, probably recognizing that it's a normal case of mythologizing, of wishful thinking by those witnesses, like normal faith-healing anecdotes, and so is not to be seriously promoted as actual miracle events.
Let us know when you find those original accounts and can give us that original text and not just the Wikipedia page which you keep falling back on as your only reference.
Also, just giving a link means nothing. The links yous have given do not contain actual original source text of Joseph Smith doing any miracle healings.
Stop pretending you have provided the evidence when all you can do is give "links" to nothing. Get the text and post it here if it exists.
I believe there really is something there. Or I DID believe it, but now I'm beginning to doubt it, because you keep claiming to have presented it, and yet there is no text, from you or at the links you give. I.e., no 19th-century text saying Joseph Smith did these acts.
However, once again, if there is good evidence that Joseph Smith or anyone else really did heal someone, I would have no problem believing it. Go ahead and give the examples and show us any indication that it wasn't just that occasional "hit" among a much larger number of "misses."
In reality, you think the Joseph Smith "miracles" are silly and not worth paying any attention to. And since that's obviously what you think, why do you expect me to take them seriously? They are not in the same category as the Jesus miracles recorded in the gospel accounts. We have good reason to believe that Jesus had a high batting average, if not 1.000.
Except for his strikeouts in Matthew 13:58.
But again, if you believe that "rejection at Nazareth" story, then you're admitting that Jesus did perform miracles most of the time, as the story clearly implies. If you reject that, then you have to reject that whole story.
Whatever Jesus did, it resulted in these accounts being written, in a short time, claiming the events happened, and we have 4(5) accounts attesting to these acts. This would not have happened if he frequently struck out. If he had failed in a number of cases, he would have been discredited, and he would have passed into oblivion -- we probably wouldn't even know of him today at all.
It's probably not true that he "struck out" in this case. There's no other suggestion anywhere in the accounts that he "struck out" at any time. There is something irregular about the "rejection at Nazareth" story that requires going into it deeper than to just say he "struck out" or "was not able to perform any mighty deed there" etc. and just leave it at that.
Taken at face value the text says he did perform "mighty deeds" generally, but says he wasn't able to at this one place only. So with all its difficulty, it is still a little further evidence that he did in fact perform miracle acts.
Do you hope that by doing this somehow the process of repeating these baseless assertions will convince someone they're true?
I'm becoming more convinced that they're true by the repeated failure of anyone to give an explanation as to why this Jesus person became mythologized so greatly despite failing to meet the requirements that all myth heroes must meet in order to become mythologized.
And by some of the pathetic comparisons, like to Joseph Smith and to Horus and Perseus and Apollonius and the others. Such poor comparisons, which all fall hopelessly flat, only serve to confirm that the Jesus case is astoundingly unique and still unexplained.
And I'm becoming more convinced that you are unwilling to deal with the actual problems pointed out with your arguments. Quick appearance does not make an incredible story more credible.
It does when all the other cases of such miracle claims required generations or centuries to become established, and certainly at least a long career by the miracle-worker. That long career, of followers experiencing his charisma, and those generations or centuries of storytelling are what explain how the hero figure became mythologized even though the tales are fiction. And yet in the case of Jesus this explanation is not possible.
So, where a plausible explanation is not possible, we have to consider that something "incredible" might have happened in this case, as opposed to all the other reputed cases. So the quick appearance does increase the credibility.
An anonymous story claiming that thousands of people witnessed a miracle doesn't mean the miracle happened and it doesn't mean that thousands of people witnessed it.
Perhaps, but 4 or 5 stories claiming it happened, from different sources, does increase the likelihood of it over a story from
only one source. And even if it doesn't mean that thousands of people witnessed it, it is evidence that a large number witnessed it. We can allow the possibility of exaggeration while still accepting the general account.
Using the story to bolster the story is a circular argument.
OK, so no historical events ever happened. All the evidence for them is the story, or other stories, saying it happened. Name any example of an historical event that is not known from the story or stories saying that it happened. All evidence for any historical event is this same "circular argument" kind of evidence.
As long as the story originates from near to the time of the event, then it is evidence that the event happened. It is the instrument through which we know the event happened. Outside the story, there can be no knowledge of the event. The only "evidence" there can ever be is just further stories that the event happened.
For some historical events we have ONLY ONE story that it happened, whereas for the Jesus miracles, we have AT LEAST FOUR sources saying it happened.
We have the same kind of evidence as we have for any historical events. Even more than for several historical events that are routinely believed.
Nothing but hand waving, smoke screening and much ado about nothing.
But it's fun, and good exercise, good for the blood circulation -- all that hand waving and smoke screening and nothing adoing. And that it's also the truth is an added bonus.
The Jesus story is an adaptation of the Perseus myth with elements added from Bacchus, Asclepius, Poseidon and others.
OH NO, not again! How many times must we beat poor Perseus etc. to death? Don't blame ME for this repetition!
Once again, you never give any examples of similarities to the pagan gods. You don't give any original text from the stories. Those stories are available -- you could find the text if you made any effort.
I gave you the original text in a previous post, showing the similarity of a Homer story and a Sinbad the Sailor story. You can easily google that -- just type "cyclops" and "Odysseus" and "Sinbad the Sailor" and you can read the 2 stories and see the similarity. So now, why can't you do the same for Jesus and Perseus. Give us the text from both and tell us what the similarity is between these two legendary figures. What's your problem that you can't do something so simple? if there really is any parallel between them?
The reason you won't do it is that you know anything you find about Perseus has virtually no similarity to the "Jesus myth" story. You'd be embarrassed to offer it as evidence of the "Jesus myth" being adapted from Perseus. You know you'd just be making a fool of yourself trying to show any connection. Any supposed similarity is so trivial and petty and silly that you don't dare give one example to prove your point, and so all you can do is continue to repeat this talking point fed to you by your favorite Jesus-debunker celebrity.
It contains some elements not contained by the others but that doesn't make it any more credible than the others.
The "Jesus myth" is more credible because in this case we have evidence, i.e., recorded accounts near to the time of the reported events. More credible because reports nearer to the time are more acceptable as evidence of those events than stories appearing 1000+ years later.
The sudden appearance of the Jesus myth (if you want to call something developing slowly over a minimum of several decades as "sudden") can best be explained by the fact that it was little else besides a clone of these other popular god-myths . . .
But claiming it's a "clone" of something previous is just empty words unless you can show how this "Jesus myth" differs from other myths in being dependent upon those earlier "god-myths." Can you show this unique connection of the gospel account story to the earlier myths? E.g., how about the Star Wars mythology by comparison -- can you show that this modern myth is NOT ALSO A CLONE of those Greek/Roman popular god-myths?
Can you name ANY myth emerging later than the Greek/Roman myths that is NOT a clone of those Greek/Roman god-myths? Virtually EVERY fairy tale or every story of any kind, and probably most TRUE stories, even most historical events, can be characterized as being clones of the earlier Greek/Roman god-myths.
Name one that's not! Explain how the "Jesus myth" is such a clone and virtually any other story or even real event could not also be such a clone of those classic myths, or of any historical event. You could just as easily say that Darth Vader is a clone of Hannibal crossing the Alps, or John Wayne is a clone of Theseus killing the minotaur -- you can fantasize any clones you want to, connecting virtually any later figure with virtually any earlier figure. And the more UNlike the 2 figures are, the more you can claim that there's really a deep hidden mystical similarity, such that the later one is really in essence only a clone of the earlier.
Who's gonna prove you wrong? With such crap as this you could prove that Smokey the Bear is really a clone of King Tut, or of the "whale" that swallowed Jonah, or of the wooden horse at Troy.
. . . tidily adapted to fit the latest Johnny-come-lately god-myth.
But were there not MANY such Johnny-come-lately god-myths? So,
why only this one? What happened to all the other Johnny-come-latelys who did not also get
their hero figure mythologized into a miracle-worker and recorded in documents just like the "Jesus myth" Johnny-come-lately hoaxers were able to get theirs written into the record for posterity? Where are all the other Jesus-like cults with their "gospel" accounts whose legendary hero those early god-myths can also be tidily adapted to fit?
How did those god-myths get tidily adapted to fit the "Jesus myth" only and not any others?
You say "The sudden appearance of the Jesus myth can best be explained by the fact that it was little else besides a clone of these other popular god-myths tidily adapted" etc.
But then why didn't any other myths also appear suddenly for the same reason? They too were clones of those same god-myths. You can't show that the "Jesus myth" was unique in being such a clone. All the other legends were also clones of the same. The Apollonius of Tyana legend was just as much a clone of those god-myths as the "Jesus myth" was. So then, why didn't this legend also pop up suddenly, in only a few decades, in multiple documents, instead of being in one source only, and this not until 150 years later?
You never answer this. You never explain how the "Jesus myth" is the only one which got recorded in documents, but instead "explain" it in ways which should apply to all the other myths as well, and yet none of the others are recorded in documents near to the time of the reputed events.
The success of the myth is best explained by successful marketing.
But why were these Christ believers the ONLY ones who knew anything about marketing? How is it that such successful marketing was able to appear ONLY ONCE in history, after about 40-50 AD, in only this one place, in Galilee/Judea, nowhere else and at no other time? What is so magical or supernatural about this one-only place in all the world, and this one-only time in all of history, where such a hoax could be pulled off because of this unique once-only-in-all-history marketing power?
The dearth of competing myths is consistent with the aggressive book burnings . . .
But that's just a lie your Jesus-debunker Pontiff pounded into your head. There were no such "bookburnings" until many centuries later, like 1400 or so. There's no record of any such thing other than the dubious burning of the pagan temple at Antioch in 364, which was just a mob riot against the Christian emperor, and they burned a pagan temple. Other than this there is no record of anything like a "bookburning" event.
. . . subsequent to the council of Nicea's decision to . . .
No, there were no bookburnings following this Council, and only Arianism was outlawed, nothing else. And this philosophy could not possibly be wiped out even if there was "aggressive" bookburning, which there was not. And the thousands of other odd beliefs and cults and mythic heroes and so on were left totally untouched by this Council and any bookburnings. The "bookburnings" are only your fantasies based on paranoia and have nothing to do with the facts of history.
. . . outlaw anything other than their orthodox version of Christianity.
Only Arianism. They outlawed nothing else.
And, even though some others were eventually suppressed, generations and centuries later, this was all way past the critical period prior to 300 AD, when the new Christ cult(s) emerged and had whatever advantage it was that made their mythic hero stand out uniquely from the others, during the time when there were no alleged bookburnings whatever and no actions to suppress any heresies or pagans.
Why didn't any other new Jesus-like cult emerge in this period, with its own "gospels" and miracle hero legend, recorded in documents near to the time when the miracles reportedly happened?
If the absence of the other cults is due to suppression by the Christ cult(s) of all the others, why is it that ONLY THESE Christ cults had such an ability to suppress the others like this? How did only these Christ believers find the means to do this at a time when they had no political power?
So only this one group, the Christ cultists, knew how to burn books? how to set fires? Not one other cult group out of the hundreds existing had the knowledge to set fires? Did the Christ cults, as part of their clever marketing skills, figure out a way to corner the market on matches somehow, and contrive a shortage so only they had a supply of matches to be able to burn everyone else's "gospel" accounts?
"How do dey do datt?"
No miracles necessary, everything gets explained, all the evidence points to this.
No, it doesn't explain why there was ONLY ONE group, the Christ cults, that was able to pull off such a miracle hoax and no other. Everything you've presented in your scenario could just as easily have been done by any of dozens or hundreds of other similar cults, worshiping various other hero figures, and publishing their own "gospel" accounts and thus preserving a record of their mythic hero just as the Christ cults provided a record of their "Jesus myth" hero. You fail to explain how ONLY THIS ONE mythic figure got recorded and no others.
You're guilty of false advertising to say "everything gets explained" if you leave this essential question unanswered. You don't even
attempt to answer it.
Why don't you explain it by saying that all the cults, probably hundreds of them, got together in a secret summit meeting of the cults, perhaps in Geneva, and they drew lots to choose ONLY ONE mythic hero figure to promote as the True Savior Messiah hero for all, and they all swore in advance, before the drawing, to support the winner and each abandon their particular mythic hero, so all the miracle stories could be attributed to the one only.
It truly is the best explanation.
No, the cult summit meeting where they drew lots is a better explanation, because it answers the question you're failing to answer, i.e., why ONLY THIS ONE mythic hero got mythologized and published and no others.
Again, your explanation how it happened is just that it happened, like saying the cow jumped over the moon by taking a big leap and going over the moon, still mooing and chewing its cud as if there was nothing to it. No, your explanation has to answer how it happened, e.g., how ONLY THIS cow and no other cow was able to do this stunt.
Pretending to explain something and claiming the "best explanation" prize isn't good enough. Even if you were Donald Trump, your mere boast does not make it so.
"Where's the beef?" Your explanation has to actually address the questions.
WHY ONLY THIS MYTH?
