Why is Jesus the only mythic miracle hero for whom there is serious evidence?
Lumpen, you keep bringing up historical documents referring to other events than those in the gospels and keep asking us why do we lend credence to those documents if we don't believe the gospels about the non-supernatural claims. You should square your position with two facts: first, that we discard any part of any document that deals with supernatural events, . . .
But there are those who prefer to keep an open mind and consider the evidence rather than "discard" something arbitrarily.
. . . including those parts which are obviously mere background setup to those events;
Some "background setup" in the gospel accounts might be fictional, but most of it is probably authentic. E.g., the Jesus events happened during the term of Pontius Pilate. But maybe the first 2 chapters of Luke are fictional "background setup." Christ belief does not necessarily require acceptance of every account or every detail in the gospel accounts.
. . . and second, that the point of the gospels does not seem to be anything else but to prop up the supernatural aspect, . . .
Or better, their point was to present something that struck those writers/editors as an amazing event, having "supernatural" elements to it, unprecedented, and for which they sought an explanation, which they found mostly in the traditions of the Hebrew scriptures/prophecies.
But they did not concoct that "supernatural" aspect -- it was there. If they intended to invent this aspect, they would have concocted miracles like that of Moses crossing the Red Sea, or Joshua making the sun stand still, or Elijah bringing down fire from Heaven.
So, maybe they did "prop up" this aspect, in the sense that they reported it and emphasized it, because it was unusual, and they added some interpretation to it.
. . . so the entire document can, in this case, be discarded.
Of course you can discard any document you don't like. But you've given no reason why it should be discarded. Even if some parts are fictional, including some "supernatural" elements, that's no reason to discard the entire document or reject ALL the "supernatural" parts.
We can judge which parts are the more credible and which parts less. Not everyone shares your prejudice against any "supernatural" claims whatever.
You have it all backwards, trying to prove the supernatural, in this case Christianity, from scripture. Even if we disregard all the fishy aspects of the Jesus story, we are still unwilling to accept that the gospels attest to supernatural events because we are convinced, based on a great shitload of other reasons, that supernatural events don't occur, . . .
Probably the gospel writers agree with you that "supernatural" events usually don't occur. There are many such claims, and most are fiction. Maybe 99% are fiction. But the Jesus case was different, probably because these writers had an unusual amount of extra reports, which gave this case more credence. Why did they report these "supernatural" claims and no others? Why is this one the only "supernatural" hero figure we have evidence for?
Are there others? Who? Why do we have 4 (5) sources for this one, and virtually no sources for any others? Why did they single out this one miracle-worker figure about whom to publish documents? There must have been something unique in this case. What was it?
. . . while on the other hand men confabulate all the time.
Exactly, and so why is it that, among all the miracle legends being confabulated, ONLY THIS reported miracle-worker is presented to us in written documents near to the time he reportedly did his acts? Why do we have a barrage of miracle stories about this one only and no others?
There are others? Who? Not reported in multiple documents, near to the time of the reputed events.
So you will sooner or later have to face the task of proving -- in the present, without reference to documents from a very superstitious era . . .
What is the evidence that the 1st century AD is any more superstitious than other eras? The period just AFTER the gospel documents appeared is the one which produced the greatest rash of new miracle stories.
But BEFORE the gospel documents appeared, there was nothing, no new miracle stories, no new miracle heroes.
It might be true that the 2nd century and later was "a very superstitious era" compared to other periods, if "very superstitious" means producing new miracle myths. And what caused this? The new explosion of miracle myths during this time was sparked by the sudden appearance of the Jesus miracle stories in the 1st century. But what caused this sudden appearance of the Jesus miracles cannot be explained.
So you will sooner or later have to face the task of proving . . . that the supernatural actually exists.
Probably no one can prove that "the supernatural" exists or does not exist. It's just a possibility.
Or, maybe Christ proved it. The evidence we have of his acts is the same kind of evidence we have for all historical events, and this evidence is stronger than what we have for much of the history we routinely believe. But it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Most historical events we believe cannot be proved with certainty.
But we do have some indication of miracle acts, or superhuman power, or supernormal power. E.g., the mad monk Rasputin probably had power to cure the child with a blood disease. There's good reason to believe he had this power, i.e., the limited power to cure this one child only. So there is some good evidence that such things are possible, outside of the Jesus miracles in the gospel accounts.
Only then can you proceed to claim and prove that the gospels describe such events.
There's no need to claim and prove to someone what the gospels describe. You can read it for yourself:
While he was saying these things to them, suddenly a leader of the synagogue came in and knelt before him, saying, ‘My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.’ And Jesus got up and followed him, with his disciples. Then suddenly a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his cloak, for she said to herself, ‘If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.’ Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, ‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.’ And instantly the woman was made well. When Jesus came to the leader’s house and saw the flute-players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, ‘Go away; for the girl is not dead but sleeping.’ And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. And the report of this spread throughout that district.
--Matthew 9:18-26
So, "the gospels describe such events" as the above. What further is there to "claim and prove"? You can call it "supernatural" if you want, but what name to call it by is not important.
There's reason to believe Jesus did acts like these, or there is evidence that he did them. And if he also came back to life, as the written evidence attests, then it gives good reason to believe in the possibility of resurrection and eternal life. It's not proof, but it's a reasonable hope, based on evidence.
Going the other way around will always run up against the fact that it is easier to imagine how your scripture came into existence via Chinese whispers and imperfect copying . . .
No, this explanation ignores the question why we have ONLY ONE case of a miracle-worker for whom there is evidence, in written documents, multiple sources, dated near to the time of the reported events.
If it can be explained as a result of Chinese whispers and imperfect copying, then there should be some other examples of miracle-worker legends for which there is serious evidence, instead of there being only one such case. Why did only the Jesus case gain the benefit of Chinese whispers and imperfect copying and as a result become published into multiple documents within only a few decades after the reported events?
. . . than to imagine that there's an entire supernatural world which does such a shitty job proving its own existence to us.
There's so much we don't know that it's not difficult to imagine the possibility of there being something more, even something beyond death, and which might contain the power source that Jesus was connected to. There is nothing in logic or science forcing us to rule out that possibility.
My proposal to you is to consider your proof of the historical Jesus accepted for the sake of argument. That does not include any miracles at all, including miracle healings. Some guy named Jesus kept walking around with a small following talking all sort of things and finally got himself crucified by the Romans.
There were easily hundreds, probably thousands, of persons who walked around talking with a small following, and getting crucified by the Romans was not something praiseworthy or meriting miracle deity status.
You have to explain why he was mythologized and why several writers decided to record this nobody into written documents during the following years.
. . . how do you propose to bridge the gap between what we have just agreed upon and what Christianity claims about the miracle aspect?
That's the point. Your scenario is the one which leaves the gap. Where did the "miracle" aspect come from? In your scenario this is left unexplained, or the gap is unfilled.
In order to explain the deification of Jesus, his being mythologized into a miracle-working god, you have to put into your scenario something that distinguishes him and makes him noteworthy. Average humans who did nothing noteworthy did not ever become mythologized into a god.
Probably Hercules was unusually strong (assuming he was a real human in prehistory). Probably all the pagan myth heroes or gods were originally persons who had singular power or high status as normal humans. And from this position of recognition or fame, and probably a long career, they became mythologized into something supernatural or superhuman.
But there has to be something which distinguished the hero figure as a real person at the beginning, before the mythologizing. So in the case of Jesus, who had a very brief career, what was this distinguishing feature? This is a gap in your scenario. Mine does not leave any such gap to fill. The distinguishing feature of Jesus was his power to do the miracle healing acts. And the final climax was his resurrection.
So it's your scenario that has a gap needing to be bridged.
Hindu Milk Miracle as an example. But when this evidence is analyzed it has always resulted in perfectly natural explanations. No supernatural intervention required.
