The Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained as analogous to other miracle legends, pagan deities, etc.
The single most plausible explanation of the existence of the "Jesus" myth is that the character evolved from a variety of sources with extraordinary details (miracles) added as the story grew over decades of retelling.
Then why aren't there several of these Jesus myths? Why aren't there other characters, other names, in other places, where the same story unfolds and we would have several of them instead of only this one?
You know there is no evidence for them. If there is one who is comparable to the case of Jesus, then just name one.
I've named several already but will name some again:
Horus, Osirus, Perseus, Prometheus, Mithras, Hercules, Bacchus.
Each of these epic hero-god myths was around for centuries before their stories were reheated with your favorite hero-god's name inserted in place of their names.
But these are not historical persons, or alleged historical persons, who reportedly did miracle acts. My claim is that the accounts we have of Jesus performing these acts is evidence (not proof) that he did these acts, which indicates that he had super-human power. And there are no other cases of such miracle-workers in history, i.e., actual historical persons, for whom we have evidence.
So there is no evidence that Horus, Osirus, etc. were historical persons who performed miracle acts. But there is evidence that Jesus had such power because of these reported acts that he did. That's how he differs from the gods you're citing. They are not analogous to him.
That some mythic symbols also became attached to Jesus is irrelevant. Why did they choose only Jesus to attach these symbols to? Where are the other reputed historical figures who became mythologized like he did? They could find only one figure to whom they could attach these symbols?
Why did they choose only Jesus to attach these symbols to?
The only identification of Jesus is that he's the figure these symbols got attached to.
No, the identification of Jesus is dependent on the written documents, the gospel accounts, and "these symbols" (a phrase I put in perhaps a bit carelessly, somewhat ambiguous) are something incidental that may have got added to the Jesus figure we see in those accounts, an historical figure who attracted some attention, and the problem is to identify what it was that drew this attention, or why he was thought important enough to become worshiped as a god and have documents written about him. Maybe some pagan symbols got attached to him, but these are not what identifies Jesus, and it may not be clear how to distinguish the real facts about him from some possible "symbols" that might have got added.
For the moment, let's assume some "symbols" got attached to him, but these are incidental, not fundamental to identifying him.
It's not a miraculous coincidence of symbols being attached to exactly the right figure, it's a case of attaching these symbols to a figure.
No, the question is: Why did someone attach "these symbols" to this figure who is written about in the gospel accounts, and, more importantly, why is there ONLY ONE such figure, i.e., historical figure, who became mythologized into a miracle worker and about whom documents were written, i.e., multiple documents, near to the time that he reputedly lived? I.e., why are there no other such figures who have been similarly mythologized and about whom there is a written record, and to whom such symbols became attached?
If the time was ripe for such a miracle "messiah" figure of some kind, why is it that we have ONLY ONE who appears, or rather, only one about whom there is a written record?
So, over the centuries, from 2000 or 1000 BC to 1000 AD, over 2 or 3 thousand years,
we should see several other "messiah" figures or "savior" figures, i.e., mythic miracle heroes, reputedly historical persons at a particular time and location, for whom there are documents attesting to their miracles.
The pagan gods like Mithras or Hercules or Perseus etc. do not fit this description, because there are no documents about them near to the time when these persons lived (if they were real persons).
What we should be seeing are many other deity figures, i.e., historical persons who were mythologized into miracle heroes, with written accounts, near to the time of the alleged miracle events.
The question is: why do we see
ONLY ONE such historical figure (or
reputed historical figure), instead of several? If he's someone's mythic figure invention, such myth inventors were not a single monolithic clique who got together and created
only one historical person, or converged on one figure
only. There were easily hundreds of myth-makers, probably thousands over many centuries, seeking to create mythic heroes and promoting their cult project and incorporating to it some pagan symbols. There was no logical reason for all these hundreds or thousands of myth-makers to converge on this one historical figure only.
So,
Why only this one? is the question we're seeking an answer to.
If they were attached instead to an Eleazar son of Shumi, you'd be yapping here about how amazing it is that out of all people they were attached to Eleazar and not to, say, Joshua son of Joshua.
No, I'd be yapping about
WHY ONLY ELEAZAR and not several others also? And yes, in that case I'd be yapping that this Eleazar must have been someone special, maybe a superhuman. Like I'm thinking this Jesus of Galilee figure must have been some special superhuman. So far, no one can explain why it is that we have
this one figure only for whom there are written reports of his miracle acts, near to the time of the alleged miracle events.
So, why aren't you yapping some explanation for this? Is there some other historical figure you want to name, for whom we have similar evidence, which I should be yapping about instead of this Jesus figure? I'm still patiently waiting for someone to yap an answer to this.
These sources are all dated to within 100 years after his life, and some less than 50 years.
Get into your head already that you haven't demonstrated yet that he even had a life from which something could be 100 or 50 years away.
But this has been well demonstrated. We have written evidence, documents from the period, which are more than ample evidence that he did live, or "had a life" etc., and at about 30 AD. Just because there are difficulties in determining some of the details doesn't mean he did not exist. We have more evidence for his life than we have for many historical figures which we just take for granted.
Of course you can say there is doubt, and that it's not 100% certain. But this is normal for a vast number of historical figures about whom there is doubt. We can say that Julius Caesar is 99.9999999% proved to be a real historical figure, whereas some others, perhaps Jesus, is only 99.5% or 99% certain. It's impossible to calculate the exact percent probability. But we have this uncertainty problem with many normal historical figures.
You are assuming your conclusion, and not just in one way.
Your claim boils down to a) Jesus' story is unique for many reasons . . .
No, mainly one overall reason -- it's difficult to explain how the miracle stories could have evolved, such as through normal mythologizing, which does explain how they occurred in all the other cases of miracle mythic heroes. Not just that he is unique -- everything is "unique" in some way -- That's not the point. Rather, he is
uniquely unexplainable as to how the miracle events of him were produced as fiction rather than as real events. Whereas we can explain this for other miracle myth figures, like Buddha, the pagan gods, Apollonius of Tyana, and all the others. Considering that he was not famous, and there are multiple accounts near to the time of the reputed events -- This is greatly contrary to the norm. A non-famous non-celebrity who did nothing noteworthy does not get published like this (or at least not 2000 years ago).
. . . and b) those unique aspects make it more likely that it happened.
But not simply the uniqueness. Rather, the fact that we cannot explain how these miracle accounts came about, so that normal mythologizing cannot explain it. The proximity of the accounts timewise to the alleged date of the reputed events, the extra sources, the very short career of Jesus, and so on. All these make it impossible that the stories, as fiction, could have been caused by normal mythologizing.
In all the other cases, there's reason to doubt the miracle stories, because we can easily explain how they came about as fiction stories, because of the way mythologizing normally happens. But in the Jesus case this cannot explain the miracle stories.
As to a), just consider how many ways there are to make up a story; an infinity of ways, that's how many. Every story will be unique and different from the others; that's what designates it as another story.
But those unique elements do not make it difficult to explain how the mythic hero came to be mythologized. It's this difficulty of explaining how the mythologizing took place that makes the case of Jesus more credible than the others. Not just any uniqueness, but rather, that in this case we cannot explain how the mythologizing took place, because it requires a long distinguished career and/or many generations for the legends to evolve.
As for b), every single bit of your reasoning presupposes that the stories are true, . . .
No it does not. Let's assume the stories are false. The question is: How did they come to be written down within 40-70 years later, in 4 sources, or a 5th source in 20-30 years later?
It's not true that people just believe any miracle stories and publish them in documents, that long ago, before printing was invented. There are no other cases of this.
What causes a hero figure to become deified and mythologized is that he was popular over many years, having a long career, and did something noteworthy that made him famous. Only then is the mythologizing possible. His celebrity status is what causes the mythologizing to begin, usually even generations after his life; but in the few cases where it happens before his death, he must at least have been a famous celebrity with a wide reputation. This explains how the mythologizing begins. It doesn't just happen to an obscure figure who did nothing of note.
. . . from where you draw the surprising conclusion that the stories are true.
Only because this best explains how the stories came to be recorded in 4 (5) documents near to the time of the reputed events. There's no other case where such stories were believed so quickly and were published in multiple documents.
The reason such stories are usually not published is that they're not credible. Those who are educated enough to write generally just dismiss such stories. (In modern times it's different, with widespread publishing.)
My claim is that the accounts we have of Jesus performing these acts is evidence (not proof) that he did these acts, which indicates that he had super-human power.
I think that's exactly the other way around. We know there aren't such things as superhuman powers because the only 'evidence' for them are fairy tales from a stupid and superstitious age.
No, the period in question was NOT such an age. There's virtually no indication of such a thing leading up to the time of these writings. The period of 100 BC to 50 AD was NOT a more "stupid and superstitious age" than other ages, but actually less.
Rather, the period AFTER this, from about 100 AD onward, was vastly more "superstitious" than the previous period, up to 50 AD, in terms of producing miracle stories.
There was nothing extra superstitious about the age leading up to the Christ miracle stories.
Such things don't happen today.
Of course such things don't generally happen. That's the point. If they happened regularly, then it would not be something special or noteworthy. But just because it's very rare is not proof that it can never happen.
Rather, what we need is extra evidence, more than only one source. The extra sources attesting to the event add credibility.
This is why I told you you'd have to prove the existence of anything supernatural before claiming the gospels can be taken seriously.
Maybe someone somewhere has proved it, to those who saw the proof (depending on what you mean by "supernatural"). There are many claims by people who witnessed something weird -- we don't know that all these claims have been disproved. It's reasonable to doubt them, but not claim to know with certainty that they must all be false.
There's good evidence (not "proof") that the mad monk Rasputin had the ability to heal a child from a blood disease, about 100 years ago in Russia. The evidence is that he apparently did something to cause the child to recover, when the doctors had all failed.
But this doesn't "prove" the "supernatural" -- it just indicates that there might be some power to heal, without medical science -- it's evidence that such a power exists. For those who witnessed this directly, it might be "proof" of it for them, but probably not to those later. Rather, for us it is just a possibility for which there is some evidence.
And there are no other cases of such miracle-workers in history, i.e., actual historical persons, for whom we have evidence.
We have better evidence for the emperor Flavius Vespasianus.
No, not "better" evidence. We have two accounts, about 50-60 years after the alleged event, which is unusually close, so that it has to be taken more seriously than stories about the pagan gods. But the problem is that we can easily explain how this story got started, perhaps even soon, during his life, and got circulated and passed on.
And the explanation is that he was a famous and popular celebrity figure of great power, and with a wide reputation, so that he easily could have become an object of gossip and storytelling, like celebrities today become popularized in the tabloid journals. So the more likely explanation is that the gossip spread at some point, perhaps when something real happened, but still something normal and not a real healing produced in the victim(s).
So this can easily be explained as a normal case of mythologizing, which happens to some popular celebrities who had a widespread reputation. But this cannot explain the case of Jesus, who had a short public career, and was not a famous celebrity during his life.
So the case of Rasputin is really a better example. There is real evidence that he apparently did something to cause the healing of the sick child. It cannot be explained as normal mythologizing, because this man was very UNpopular and hated, and yet the Czar's family kept him and trusted him to deal with this child. Those witnessing this were very UNfavorable to Rasputin, so it's not due to him being venerated as a respected and popular faith-healer or as a normal hero figure or celebrity.
