120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

If a source says the weird event happened, that is evidence that it happened, and more sources = more evidence.

Well, yeah. There's also the Roman account explaining that early Christains covered a baby with raw bread dough, stabbed it to death, then partook of the bloody dough as a sacrament.

There really is no such "Roman account" of this. Find the text and post it here if it exists.

There may be some references to someone believing such things, but there is no "account explaining that early Christians" did such things. And some paranoid Christians circulated rumors about Jews killing Christian babies or torturing Christians. But there are no accounts we have making these charges and saying it actually happened. The educated persons who wrote of these things knew the stories were paranoid and delusional.

if someone wrote that down, it should be treated as an eyewitness account until someone can prove that it wasn't.

But no one DID write it down, i.e., no one wrote down that such things did happen. Which is why claims of this kind should be treated as paranoid delusions. The only accounts about this are from educated persons who knew these stories were untrue.

If there are accounts which say it happened, claiming it's true, then the possibility of it increases, i.e., it becomes more credible. If there are accounts reporting actual events of this, saying someone was there who participated in it or was a spectator to it, then the credibility of it increases further. If there are MULTIPLE accounts of such events, saying it did happen, then it starts to become credible. Such as we have in the gospel accounts attesting to the miracle acts of Jesus. These become credible because we have multiple accounts, written by educated persons, saying it happened. This makes the stories more credible.

There are also legitimate accounts of political persecution of heretics or Jews which are credible accounts, because we have multiple sources. But not of private religious services where Jews tortured Christian babies or Christians tortured Jewish babies or cannibalized them, etc.

That's the easiest explanation for anything written down way back when.

But it was NOT written down. Other than those reporting that some paranoids believed such things. There are no accounts attesting to such events, i.e., saying this was actually happening.

If it wasn't an eyewitness account, why would they have written it down?

They did NOT write it down. Or rather, the only written accounts of this are ones which report these as delusions held by some uneducated paranoids.

There are virtually no writings we have which report these as anything but paranoid delusions. A possible exception is Thomas of Monmouth, in a document making charges of this kind against Jews. Maybe this document does exist -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_of_Monmouth , but if so this is an extremely rare case, and none of the claims is supported by any other source. There is virtually no written record of such things, other than from those who reported such rumors as false and delusional.

Most horror stories of this kind, about baby killing, cannibalism, blood libel, etc., are reported not as true accounts about Jews or Christians killing each other, but about false rumors of such things which were believed by some who were deluded.

If you can find multiple accounts of the same or similar events, so there are multiple sources attesting to it, then we have real evidence and the reports become credible, such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts. But for the reports to be credible, the sources must say the events really happened. Otherwise the stories cannot be taken seriously. The Jesus miracle stories are to be taken seriously because they are reported as actual events, believed by the writers, not as a description of some deluded paranoids spreading false rumors.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why will you not post one of the Joseph Smith miracle stories? How can you claim it's credible but won't post it here?

Only some of his direct disciples who were greatly influenced by his charisma over a period of several years. Like a church member claims to have recovered after the pastor prayed for him/her.

And you have no evidence to suggest it is any different for your favorite Miracle Max, just the claims of those anonymous devotes shrouded in a dense fog of history where only the religious writings survived...

Just taking the stories at face value, it's clear that the Jesus miracle stories did not originate from his direct disciples and that the victims healed were not his direct disciples. Most of the onlookers were outsiders not from among his group of disciples.

Also, the editors who provide us with the accounts were obviously not his direct disciples and so were not inspired by his charisma to invent these stories.

If you claim these reports must have come from his direct disciples, you have nothing in the accounts themselves to support this. The accounts clearly say otherwise. But meanwhile, the Joseph Smith stories clearly originated from his direct disciples only, taking the accounts at face value, and the victims healed were his direct disciples only, all heavily influenced directly by his charisma.

There's only one exception to this: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles/Fanny_Stenhouse_accounts
This is from someone claiming to be an EX-Mormon and thus more objective or neutral, as she wrote this years later after leaving the Mormon Church. However, her accounts appear to be a bit nonsensical.

If you claim this account is credible, go to it and copy the best part and post it here. But really it's so silly as to not be worth wasting time on it. Or post a story you have found which you think is most convincing.

This one, the Stenhouse, is the closest I find to anything to take seriously, being from someone claiming to have rejected the new cult.

You have to post one of the stories here if you think there's anything about it to be taken seriously. If you don't, then you are acknowledging that these stories are not serious.

You are too embarrassed to present any example of a Joseph Smith (healing) miracle, because you know those anecdotes are not persuasive. All you can quote is a 21st-century Wikipedia article but never the original text. It's there, but you know it's too silly to present as a serious example.

You have been provided direct evidence on the Joseph Smith miracle paper trail leading back right to his lifetime, with scanned images of his own writings and of his direct followers on 01-28-2016, 02-05-2016, and 02-11-2016. I also chased down one of the miracle claims all the way down to the page, and image right from the time period in question, but of course you ignored it like most everything else... Below was just the most recent time I called you on your BS:

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

The original sources aren't hidden...you just seem to be too busy going . You were provided links to the original scanned documents twice now. First here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817

And later here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=253658&viewfull=1#post253658

Here is a copy of just one image page of one of the early 19th century Mormon document (Obviously I am not going to post the hundreds of page images). The links also the documents in typed text on the side.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834
View attachment 5691

If you're serious about the credibility of these anecdotes, you will post it here. I've read some of this and it's silly stuff, and you know it's silly, and that's why you won't post it.

You can't pick out one example? What's your problem? It's not because it's hundreds of pages. The anecdotes tend to be lengthy, but not hundreds of pages.

Quit pretending that you found credible stories about healing miracles. You know these are not serious accounts. They can easily be posted here if you want to select out the healing miracle stories only.

Pick out just one -- the one you think is most convincing. They're not too long. Quit making up excuses why you won't post one of the stories here.

The best one I have found is somewhat long, again: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles/Fanny_Stenhouse_accounts , but not any "hundreds" of pages. Get serious and post it here if you really think it's convincing. Or pick out any one from the source you claim to have found.

The source you're citing does not give any clear examples like the one I found above, which lists a few anecdotes, though they're long-winded and clumsy and read like some kind of psycho-babble. I'm not posting it here because it's just too silly. As probably also any example you have is too silly.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle stories are concise and to the point. It says where the event happened, who was there, etc. Not a long romantic reminiscence giving the author's feelings and -- oh well, here's an excerpt:

A stranger [at a Mormon priesthood blessing for healing] would at once have been struck with the prevalence of that peculiar magnetic feeling which evidently influenced all present. Even those who, as the poet says, came to scoff, felt the same influence, as many afterwards acknowledged. The elders surrounded the bed, and after a brief but most earnest address from one of them, we all engaged in prayer. The subject of the prayer can readily be supposed ; but the earnestness the intense, anxious pleading of the supplicants no one could comprehend who had never been present at such a scene. [p. 81]

The patient, however, was patient indeed. To her it was no idle form. She was newly converted and her heart was burning with zeal and faith. Perhaps the reader may think that this had much to do with the success of the operation, as probably it had. However this might be, the elders, who while they anointed her had mingled prayers and benedictions above her head, now once more united in fervent supplication, and then laid their hands upon her, according to the letter of the Scripture.

There was something peculiar about this laying on of hands. It was not a mere gentle touching, but a thorough manipulation. The two hands were placed firmly on the top of the head and then drawn energetically down the . . .

And so on and so on. I won't dirty up this message board with any more of it. This is the best I can find of something that might have some credibility, because this writer was an EX-Mormon and so might be more objective.

All the rest is from direct disciples of Smith only. And all the victims, including this one, were his direct disciples only, under the spell of his charisma.

That you can't come up with a better example than this only proves my point. By the 19th century there was vastly more publishing, so we should see something better than this.

What we need is something written by someone other than a kook, like the above writer, and someone who was not a direct disciple of Joseph Smith. Anyone who says the miracle healing event really did happen, but who was not influenced by Smith's charisma. Probably someone before 1900, but even a little later would still be OK.

There's not one such source?

For starters, even a Mormon would be OK. Preferably an outsider, but if you're telling me there's not even one Mormon up to 1900 who wrote that Joseph Smith did miracle healings, other than a half dozen direct disciples who were inspired directly by his charisma, then you're not serious. You don't have a case.

But if there's an account sometime up to 1900, not from an original direct disciple, saying he did these acts, then it begins to be more credible. Such a person would have received several reports, or known of them, or known of a witness or two, etc.

The trouble with the original direct disciples, even though they were contemporary, is that it can't be limited to only them, because it shows that it was only the charisma of the guru that moved them, and not the actual healing event.

If no one else believed it, it shows that no one else really took it seriously, because no one else saw any real evidence that a healing took place. People generally dismiss such stories unless they know of several witnesses or several reports of the events.

If the events really happened, there would be several reports of them spreading out to more than only a few direct disciples. With all the newspapers and journals etc. being published, we should have something else that reports it.

 

[Barbarian]

If a source says the weird event happened, that is evidence that it happened, and more sources = more evidence.

So, it's Superman, then. And Joseph Smith. And Muhammad, splitting the moon as he was. And many others.

Multiple sources do mean more evidence, but multiple zeroes still result in zero. A document claiming a miracle is not a source for the miracle, because so much what we know about the world and miracle claims would have to be wrong for miracles to occur. A document claiming a miracle is a source for the author and propagators of that document having an interest in making that claim.

Why will you not post one of the Joseph Smith miracle stories? How can you claim it's credible but won't post it here?

You even quoted the post where the miracle story was substantiated.

But the bigger issue is that I don't see anyone here claiming those stories are credible. Is it possible that you don't understand the difference between us finding a conman's "miracles" credible and us pointing out that by your so-called standards it's you who should find them credible?

OTOH so far this thread is a credible documentation of your quest to find "criteria" which would allow exactly for the miracles claimed by mainstream Christians, exclude everything else but not say so directly. It would be a bona-fide miracle if you succeeded.

 

[funinspace]

And you have no evidence to suggest it is any different for your favorite Miracle Max, just the claims of those anonymous devotes shrouded in a dense fog of history where only the religious writings survived...

Just taking the stories at face value, it's clear that the Jesus miracle stories did not originate from his direct disciples and that the victims healed were not his direct disciples. Most of the onlookers were outsiders not from among his group of disciples.

Also, the editors who provide us with the accounts were obviously not his direct disciples and so were not inspired by his charisma to invent these stories.

If you claim these reports must have come from his direct disciples, you have nothing in the accounts themselves to support this. The accounts clearly say otherwise. But meanwhile, the Joseph Smith stories clearly originated from his direct disciples only, taking the accounts at face value, and the victims healed were his direct disciples only, all heavily influenced directly by his charisma.

I don’t claim to know from whom the stories originated. What I said was that you have no evidence that the stories didn’t come from the devotes of this new Christ cult, not withstanding your silly hand waving claims of clarity. As the authors (or editors as Lumpy has become fond of stating) are anonymous, we can only assume that they are devotes of this Christ cult, that is no longer quite so new. Taking the Jesus miracle stories at face value, no solid conclusions can be drawn as to how they got repeated over the years, even assuming (which I don’t) they came forward from real events. It is possible they were repeated by outsiders as you say, but it could have been from the very disciples you think were there for those 1-3 years. Or the stories could have been slowly added in the first decade or two, as the inerrant and killed heretical preacher faded into the growing mystery cult that Paul was constructing with his devotes. That is the conundrum, there is so little to work with IRT who did pass these tales along. However, whoever kept the stories going over the following decades were most certainly devotes of this new Christ cult as they first emerged into the Gospel of Mark some 30 plus years after the claimed events…practically a lifetime for many.

You are too embarrassed to present any example of a Joseph Smith (healing) miracle, because you know those anecdotes are not persuasive. All you can quote is a 21st-century Wikipedia article but never the original text. It's there, but you know it's too silly to present as a serious example.

You have been provided direct evidence on the Joseph Smith miracle paper trail leading back right to his lifetime, with scanned images of his own writings and of his direct followers on 01-28-2016, 02-05-2016, and 02-11-2016. I also chased down one of the miracle claims all the way down to the page, and image right from the time period in question, but of course you ignored it like most everything else... Below was just the most recent time I called you on your BS:

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

The original sources aren't hidden...you just seem to be too busy going . You were provided links to the original scanned documents twice now. First here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817

And later here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=253658&viewfull=1#post253658

Here is a copy of just one image page of one of the early 19th century Mormon document (Obviously I am not going to post the hundreds of page images). The links also the documents in typed text on the side.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834
View attachment 5691

If you're serious about the credibility of these anecdotes, you will post it here. I've read some of this and it's silly stuff, and you know it's silly, and that's why you won't post it.

You can't pick out one example? What's your problem? It's not because it's hundreds of pages. The anecdotes tend to be lengthy, but not hundreds of pages.

Quit pretending that you found credible stories about healing miracles. You know these are not serious accounts. They can easily be posted here if you want to select out the healing miracle stories only.

Pick out just one -- the one you think is most convincing. They're not too long. Quit making up excuses why you won't post one of the stories here.

You know if you didn’t spend so much energy on verbal diarrhea, you might actually have more time to comprehend what other people post. I have already done so, and you have ignored this reality numerous times so far. From the first link 01-27-2016, is one explicit quote of Mormon Miracle Max:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...mber-1805-30-august-1834?p=561&highlight=heal

David <W.> Pattin [Patten] has just returned from his tour to the East, and gives us great satisfaction as to his ministry, he has raised up a church of about eighty-three members in that part of the Country, where his friends live, in the State of New York; many were healed through his instrumentality, several cripples were restored, as many as twelve that were afflicted came at a time from a distance to be healed; he and others administered in the name of Jesus, and they were made whole,

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat:

If a source says the weird event happened, that is evidence that it happened, and more sources = more evidence.

If an anonymous source says someone he never met let go of a lead weight and it floated off into the sky rather than plummeting to earth that's evidence that someone is lying. If someone who also never saw this for himself rewrites that story ten years later claiming it was true it's evidence that someone possibly believed it happened, but it is not evidence that it happened. If 500 people who never saw it for themselves wrote this down it would be the same thing. Evidence that numerous people were convinced by someone of an outright lie. This sort of stuff is common. Lead weights floating skyward is not only uncommon it defies the laws of gravitational attraction which are so well established a team of rocket scientists can literally use it to calculate the exact path a spacecraft has to use to slingshot off a massive planet.

So to fix your claim, "If multiple sources say something impossible happened, that is evidence that the writers are deluded or lying."

It is impossible to walk on storm tossed water as if it were solid ground. It is impossible to take food barely sufficient to feed 12 people and instantly turn it into enough food to feed thousands with barrels of remnants left over after the meal. It is impossible to give sight to a blind person, to make make a paralytic capable of walking (even if one had the technology to generate the neural pathways walking would still be a skill that would take months of rehabilitation for the individual to be able to master). It is impossible for a man to command a storm to stop, although it is possible if he had access to modern Doppler-assisted radar to know when it was going to stop and pretend he was causing it to.

The point is that GMark doesn't tell us about unusual events. GMark includes impossible events. What we know from observing masters of illusion such as Penn and Teller is that it is much easier to do magic tricks than it is to actually do magic.

Which circles us right back to the much more plausible explanations available to us about how the stories of "Jesus the Magic Jew" started.

• It is entirely possible there never was such a man; that he started off as a folk hero like Paul Bunyan and eventually got placed into recent history
• It is entirely possible that there were several itinerant preachers from which the inspiration for this character emerged, one or more of whom were martyred for his beliefs
• It is entirely possible that a magician named Jesus managed to wow a few people and in an effort to make themselves seem less stupid for believing his magic tricks they exaggerated them in the retelling

This list could go on for a long time. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of scenarios are completely consistent with all the evidence we have about this figure. The least likely scenario of all is that GMark presents an accurate portrayal of an actual character.

And once again I find it absolutely hilarious that you keep using GMatt and GLuke as "corroboration" for GMark when the very first thing these writers do is lie to us by fabricating birth narratives and bogus genealogies. The writers start off lying to us but we're just supposed to ignore that because they copied and redacted a story written by someone 10-20 years earlier.

Just makes me want to find a nice, quiet place and lay down and roll and laugh for awhile.

Finally, you seem to think that some of us think we've found "credible" sources for the miracles of Joseph Smith. I can't speak for anyone else, but I absolutely do not think I've found credible sources for the miracles of Joseph Smith. I am absolutely certain, however that I've found sources which make claims (which I do not even for a moment believe) that Joseph Smith performed miracles of healing.

These sources are of higher credibility than the sources claiming Jesus performed miracles, I'll give them that. At least we have actual names and dates on some of them. But that's not saying much. The sources for the Jesus miracles are about as pitiful as it's possible for a source to be.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The raising of Lazarus: in John's Gospel only. Really? REALLY? A miracle supposedly carried out in public and seen by the family and their neighbors -- a miracle which would have created a rolling, metastisizing crowd around Jesus -- yet the first 3 gospel writers never heard of it?? It would have been Jesus' headline miracle -- and the Sanhedrin "trial" would certainly have focused on it. If you're looking for a written account of Jesus that simply invents mountains of stuff about the guy within 50-60 years of his death, look no further than John. Not to mention that John's gospel also provides Jesus with yards and yards of poetic dialogue that sound nothing like the synoptic Jesus (but sound an awful lot like John's metaphoric style in his opening.) Also a Jesus that abandons his most idiosyncratic style marker in the synoptics: teaching by parable. John's Jesus teaches by lyric poetry. (BTW, sources of miracles? Elijah makes a little food go a long way in I Kings. Both Elisha and Elijah demonstrate the power to resurrect the dead. These stories would've been well known to the gospel writers, who climb all over the OT looking for proof texts about their messiah.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

There really is no such "Roman account" of this. Find the text and post it here if it exists.

That's funny.
Why would I do this?

Any effort I go to will be met with silence. Look at the title of your next post:

Why will you not post one of the Joseph Smith miracle stories? How can you claim it's credible but won't post it here?

I have read the accounts of the Joseph Smith miracles, and their documentation, in this thread. The fact that you're insisting, now, that such things don't exist AND that no one here will post them is just your go-to position on anything that's problematical.

All the rest of your posturing in this post is the same old fingers-in-ear denial.
You claim you want proof, we offer proof, you claim we never offer proof.

It's old.
And pathetic.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's funny.
Why would I do this?

Any effort I go to will be met with silence. Look at the title of your next post:

Why will you not post one of the Joseph Smith miracle stories? How can you claim it's credible but won't post it here?

I have read the accounts of the Joseph Smith miracles, and their documentation, in this thread. The fact that you're insisting, now, that such things don't exist AND that no one here will post them is just your go-to position on anything that's problematical.

All the rest of your posturing in this post is the same old fingers-in-ear denial.
You claim you want proof, we offer proof, you claim we never offer proof.

It's old.
And pathetic.

I call it the "shovel effect". Those who unquestionably accept any thoughtless and authoritarian belief system are like someone who has been smacked in the back of the head with a shovel. They become dazed, unable to recognize or comprehend anything except that one singular belief that has been beaten into their head.

It can even be seen in some new Marine recruits when they first emerge from boot camp... oorah! until they recover their orientation.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Miracle claims are much less credible if all the sources are from the guru himself or from his direct disciples only, and from no one else.

Just taking the stories at face value, it's clear that the Jesus miracle stories did not originate from his direct disciples and that the victims healed were not his direct disciples. Most of the onlookers were outsiders not from among his group of disciples.

Also, the editors who provide us with the accounts were obviously not his direct disciples and so were not inspired by his charisma to invent these stories.

If you claim these reports must have come from his direct disciples, you have nothing in the accounts themselves to support this. The accounts clearly say otherwise. But meanwhile, the Joseph Smith stories clearly originated from his direct disciples only, taking the accounts at face value, and the victims healed were his direct disciples only, all heavily influenced directly by his charisma.

I don’t claim to know from whom the stories originated. What I said was that you have no evidence that the stories didn’t come from the devotees of this new Christ cult, . . .

Of course our sources for them are the later writers/editors beginning with Mark, who were believers/"devotees". But these were not DIRECT disciples, so they were not influenced by the charisma of the healer. My claim is not that they weren't "devotees" or believers, but that they were not DIRECT disciples, as is the case with the Joseph Smith miracle stories.

So in the latter case it was the charisma of the prophet which influenced those disciples to promote the miracle claims.

. . . not withstanding your silly hand waving claims of clarity. As the authors (or editors as Lumpy has become fond of stating) are anonymous, we can only assume that they are devotes of this Christ cult, that is no longer quite so new. Taking the Jesus miracle stories at face value, no solid conclusions can be drawn as to how they got repeated over the years, even assuming (which I don’t) they came forward from real events. It is possible they were repeated by outsiders as you say, but it could have been from the very disciples you think were there for those 1-3 years. Or the stories could have been slowly added in the first decade or two, as the inerrant and killed heretical preacher faded into the growing mystery cult that Paul was constructing with his devotes. That is the conundrum, there is so little to work with IRT who did pass these tales along. However, whoever kept the stories going over the following decades were most certainly devotes of this new Christ cult as they first emerged into the Gospel of Mark some 30 plus years after the claimed events…practically a lifetime for many.

The point is that the stories are not from his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma, which is the case with the Joseph Smith stories. We have reason to doubt the Smith stories because they come only from his DIRECT disciples, and also the victims healed were all his DIRECT disciples.

Obviously we don't know precisely when and from whom the Jesus stories originated. But the internal evidence from the stories themselves clearly points to the onlookers and the ones healed as the main initiators of the stories, and not the small group of disciples around him. You can discount this evidence, but there is no reason to discount it, other than to promote your premise that no miracle event can ever happen.

One who does not start out with this dogmatic premise might reasonably believe that the origin of the stories was the onlookers, including the victims healed (or believed to be healed), because this is what the gospel accounts suggest, and there is no reason to reject that possibility other than the dogmatic premise that no miracle healing can ever happen.

You have been provided direct evidence on the Joseph Smith miracle paper trail leading back right to his lifetime, with scanned images of his own writings and of his direct followers on 01-28-2016, 02-05-2016, and 02-11-2016. I also chased down one of the miracle claims all the way down to the page, and image right from the time period in question, but of course you ignored it like most everything else... Below was just the most recent time I called you on your BS:

Do they? They seem to want to keep the original sources for these stories hidden away. Why can't we find those original source texts telling of the Smith miracles?

The original sources aren't hidden...you just seem to be too busy going . You were provided links to the original scanned documents twice now. First here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=250817&viewfull=1#post250817

And later here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-Christianity&p=253658&viewfull=1#post253658

Here is a copy of just one image page of one of the early 19th century Mormon document (Obviously I am not going to post the hundreds of page images). The links also the documents in typed text on the side.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834
View attachment 5691

If you're serious about the credibility of these anecdotes, you will post it here. I've read some of this and it's silly stuff, and you know it's silly, and that's why you won't post it.

You can't pick out one example? What's your problem? It's not because it's hundreds of pages. The anecdotes tend to be lengthy, but not hundreds of pages.

Quit pretending that you found credible stories about healing miracles. You know these are not serious accounts. They can easily be posted here if you want to select out the healing miracle stories only.

Pick out just one -- the one you think is most convincing. They're not too long. Quit making up excuses why you won't post one of the stories here.

You know if you didn’t spend so much energy on verbal diarrhea, you might actually have more time to comprehend what other people post. I have already done so, and you have ignored this reality numerous times so far. From the first link 01-27-2016, is one explicit quote of Mormon Miracle Max:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...mber-1805-30-august-1834?p=561&highlight=heal

David <W.> Pattin [Patten] has just returned from his tour to the East, and gives us great satisfaction as to his ministry, he has raised up a church of about eighty-three members in that part of the Country, where his friends live, in the State of New York; many were healed through his instrumentality, several cripples were restored, as many as twelve that were afflicted came at a time from a distance to be healed; he and others administered in the name of Jesus, and they were made whole,

Why are you re-posting this after I pointed out earlier that this is NOT a Joseph Smith miracle act? You can't find a Joseph Smith miracle event?

Do you want to rescind your claim that Joseph Smith reportedly did miracles?

Do you want to replace this with a different claim, i.e., that David Pattin performed miracles?

Your above quote is from Joseph Smith himself, who is not an acceptable source for this. These are all claims like we hear from many congregations who claim someone in their church family was cured after having been prayed for.

What is your problem that you claim Joseph Smith reportedly did these acts and yet you cannot give us one example, but instead give us a claim about someone else who Joseph Smith claims was doing it?

Where is the good example of a Joseph Smith miracle act which you claim we have evidence for? Not from the guru himself but from someone else, and also from someone who was not a direct disciple of his?

How about a report from a believer who was NOT a direct disciple. I.e., maybe even contemporary, but not someone in personal contact with Smith, or at least who had not been his direct disciple for a long time.

And if not very early, then even later, like 1860 or 1880 or 1900 or so. Anything. Anything other than a claim by one of his direct disciples, or from Joseph Smith himself.

Why shouldn't there be any such source? Maybe even an ANONYMOUS source. Why is it that ALL the sources are ones which we KNOW are only his direct disciples or Joseph Smith himself?

And yet after all this, if you finally do come up with a real example, which is as credible as the gospel accounts of the Jesus healing acts, then OK -- then maybe Joseph Smith (or David Pattin) REALLY DID perform 1 or 2 healings.

So what is your point? Again, there is nothing about Christ belief which requires that no one other than Christ ever performed such a miracle act. Probably Rasputin the mad monk did heal that one child who had a blood disease. If so, it does not refute Christ belief in any way.

So you're coming a long way to accomplish nothing, with your claim that someone else also might have done a miracle healing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Miracle claims are much less credible if all the sources are from the guru himself or from his direct disciples only, and from no one else.

EXACTLY!

Good point!

Which is why we have to treat ANONYMOUS accounts with more than a little suspicion, right? Clearly, if we don't know who wrote it, we can't be sure if they were an independent, objective observer of facts or someone who would profit from spreading some bullshit.

See, you keep getting the ideas, but you keep misapplying them when your miracle claims come up for review.

 

[Atheos]

Maybe part of the problem is that Lumpenproletariat has been so conditioned to believe in miracles that he has no idea just how unlikely they are. I suppose if one believe in a miracle-working god this is a reasonable expectation.

Lumpenproletariat, I would encourage you to consider where we are coming from. The miracle acts reported to Jesus in these anonymous documents are no more likely to have occurred than the sun moving backwards in the sky (or the sun rising in the West and setting in the East). We have countless examples of people making up stories about miracles, but in every instance either (A) the miracle is not falsifiable and the only "evidence" for it is testimony; or (B) the miracle is falsifiable and it turns out that it was false. If you can present me with evidence of a miracle-working god I'm more than willing to revise my worldview. But until such time I am going to continue filing reports of miracles into the same bin I file reports of UFO abductions.

I think it is bizarre that you believe miracle claims that can be traced to identifiable "disciples of a guru" (and from no one else) are less credible than miracle claims from someone anonymous. At least with the identifiable "witnesses" you have testimony with a chain of custody. With the other you have no means to determine what agenda the claimant has. None whatsoever.

But here's the kicker: Miracle claims are by definition not credible. Miracle claims are extraordinary. Awhile back I presented you with this analogy:

Without more data it is impossible to ascertain exactly what happened. So what sensible historians do is look at what is more likely.

It's exactly like mom walking in on her kids with cookies in their mouths and an open cookie jar nearby. Usually the cookie jar sits on a high shelf but now it's on the counter. One kid says that Jesus miraculously appeared, levitated up to the cookie jar, floated back down with it in his hands, handed one to each child and said, "Take, eat, for this is my body which is broken for you." The kid explains that it would be a sin not to finish eating the cookie.

Another kid says, "No, what happened was that Brian climbed up on the counter, got the cookie jar down off the shelf and put it down here were we could get to the cookies."

One explanation involves the miraculous. The other does not. Mother refuses to believe the levitating cookie thief story for the exact same reason sensible people are skeptical about the Jesus myths.

You need a more realistic example than this. In any real scenario such as this, "Mother" would know that the first kid is just pulling her leg. Give us a real example of a miracle claim to use for comparison. Give an example where the miracle claim is serious and there are some who really believe it and it's not just a joke.

My point is that "Mother" would know the first kid was lying for the same reasons we know GMark was lying. Your attempt at goalpost shifting was annoying as hell but I just let it go. I've decided you've got some explaining to do. Exactly why does Mother know which story is the real explanation. No smoke and mirrors, no "I don't like this story." Just answer the damn question.

 

[skepticalbip]

Maybe part of the problem is that Lumpenproletariat has been so conditioned to believe in miracles that he has no idea just how unlikely they are. I suppose if one believe in a miracle-working god this is a reasonable expectation.

Lumpenproletariat, I would encourage you to consider where we are coming from. The miracle acts reported to Jesus in these anonymous documents are no more likely to have occurred than the sun moving backwards in the sky (or the sun rising in the West and setting in the East). We have countless examples of people making up stories about miracles, but in every instance either (A) the miracle is not falsifiable and the only "evidence" for it is testimony; or (B) the miracle is falsifiable and it turns out that it was false. If you can present me with evidence of a miracle-working god I'm more than willing to revise my worldview. But until such time I am going to continue filing reports of miracles into the same bin I file reports of UFO abductions.

I think it is bizarre that you believe miracle claims that can be traced to identifiable "disciples of a guru" (and from no one else) are less credible than miracle claims from someone anonymous. At least with the identifiable "witnesses" you have testimony with a chain of custody. With the other you have no means to determine what agenda the claimant has. None whatsoever.

But here's the kicker: Miracle claims are by definition not credible. Miracle claims are extraordinary. Awhile back I presented you with this analogy:

You need a more realistic example than this. In any real scenario such as this, "Mother" would know that the first kid is just pulling her leg. Give us a real example of a miracle claim to use for comparison. Give an example where the miracle claim is serious and there are some who really believe it and it's not just a joke.

My point is that "Mother" would know the first kid was lying for the same reasons we know GMark was lying. Your attempt at goalpost shifting was annoying as hell but I just let it go. I've decided you've got some explaining to do. Exactly why does Mother know which story is the real explanation. No smoke and mirrors, no "I don't like this story." Just answer the damn question.

That is a good question. If Lumpy unquestionably accepts the Jesus miracle stories of walking on water, feeding thousands by multiplying food, converting water into wine, raising the dead, etc. why would he have any doubt that Jesus appeared to give the kids a cookie?

ETA:
Assuming that Lumpy accepts that Jesus answers prayers, would he believe that Jesus gave the cookie crumb covered kid the cookies if the kid said he prayed for a cookie?

 

[James Brown]

This is why John Loftus developed the OTF, the Outsider Test of Faith:

• "The best way to test one's adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths."

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Mormons have, in the last ten years, contrived an apologetics for the B.o.M. based on literary form -- sort of like the "miracle stories take centuries" argument in this thread. Mormons expect us to gasp in wonderment as they discover a previously undetected Hebrew literary form (the chiasmus) in the B.o.M. (that is, the part not lifted directly out of Isaiah et al. by Joseph Smith.) Yeah, like a pattern in the prose makes up for the glaring insanities in the text -- Indians were Jews, etc. The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Jesus visited Central America. Sixteen centuries before Columbus, the New World had "anticipatory" churches where Jesus was worshiped before his birth over in Palestine. Fine. You found a chiasmus, I guess I better believe all this.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it.

The miracle acts reported to Jesus in these anonymous documents are no more likely to have occurred than the sun moving backwards in the sky (or the sun rising in the West and setting in the East).

The latter is much less likely. The "sun moving backwards" would be something that everyone everywhere would witness (assuming it happens somehow without killing everyone) and so the truth of it would have to be apparent to everyone. It could not happen without everyone knowing it happened.

So we know that kind of event has not happened, but we don't know that there has never been any miracle event.

We have countless examples of people making up stories about miracles, but in every instance either (A) the miracle is not falsifiable and the only "evidence" for it is testimony;

ALL historical events are in this category. None of them is falsifiable, because there is no time machine yet to take us back in history to verify that something did or did not happen. The assassination of Caesar is not falsifiable. The 9-11 attack cannot be falsified, because all we have is testimony in one form or another.

or (B) the miracle is falsifiable and it turns out that it was false.

No, a past event is never "falsifiable." There is no way to verify that the event did or did not happen except through some kind of testimony. All they can prove is that the "miracle" could not be repeated, e.g., a miracle-worker was unable to perform when tested. But this does not disprove that he did that act earlier.

"Falsifiable" and "verifiable" refer only to testing something that is repeatable and can be made to happen again in the present or future. You can disprove that a miracle-worker has power now, and then conclude that he probably also didn't have it earlier. But that's probability -- we don't know for sure.

But it's not true that "in every instance" of any miracle claim it has been proved that it never really happened or was "falsified"or that all those tested were "falsified" by the debunkers, etc. Rather, many have been debunked when tested or investigated, but there are many others which remain unresolved or could not be explained.

Again, Rasputin the mad monk appeared to have the ability to cure the child with a blood disease, and no one has explained this case.

If you can present me with evidence of a miracle-working god I'm more than willing to revise my worldview. But until such time I am going to continue filing reports of miracles into the same bin I file reports of UFO abductions.

Yes, the correct place to file most of them is the "probably not, but we don't know for sure" bin.

I think it is bizarre that you believe miracle claims that can be traced to identifiable "disciples of a guru" (and from no one else) are less credible than miracle claims from someone anonymous.

Fictitious miracle healing claims are usually from the disciples of the guru who want to believe him because of his charisma. In such cases it's easy to see how the claims are made even though there was no miracle. It's normal mythologizing. Whereas such reports coming from someone other than the direct disciples are more credible because they did not originate from the delusional charismatic appeal of the guru.

The charisma of the guru is a very powerful influence on them which can produce delusions.

At least with the identifiable "witnesses" you have testimony with a chain of custody.

If the witness is a direct disciple we can explain how the story originated even though it's false.

With the other you have no means to determine what agenda the claimant has. None whatsoever.

No one has ever proposed an insidious plot or conspiracy about the Jesus miracles that makes any sense. With no coherent theory about any such plot, there's no reason to suspect there is one. What would the plot be? Who would profit? Alien invaders taking over human bodies, making duplicates of humans to serve Jesus? Raising the humans for food, and making them believe the miracles gives their flesh a juicier taste?

Or was it the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati or the Rothschilds who planted the miracle stories to get people to invest in junk bonds or something?

What might the hidden "agenda" be?

But here's the kicker: Miracle claims are by definition not credible.

You could claim LESS credible, or less probable. Requiring extra evidence.

Miracle claims are extraordinary. Awhile back I presented you with this analogy:

Without more data it is impossible to ascertain exactly what happened. So what sensible historians do is look at what is more likely.

It's exactly like mom walking in on her kids with cookies in their mouths and an open cookie jar nearby. Usually the cookie jar sits on a high shelf but now it's on the counter. One kid says that Jesus miraculously appeared, levitated up to the cookie jar, floated back down with it in his hands, handed one to each child and said, "Take, eat, for this is my body which is broken for you." The kid explains that it would be a sin not to finish eating the cookie.

Another kid says, "No, what happened was that Brian climbed up on the counter, got the cookie jar down off the shelf and put it down here where we could get to the cookies."

One explanation involves the miraculous. The other does not. Mother refuses to believe the levitating cookie thief story for the exact same reason sensible people are skeptical about the Jesus myths.

You need a more realistic example than this. In any real scenario such as this, "Mother" would know that the first kid is just pulling her leg. Give us a real example of a miracle claim to use for comparison. Give an example where the miracle claim is serious and there are some who really believe it and it's not just a joke.

My point is that "Mother" would know the first kid was lying for the same reasons we know GMark was lying.

No, we/you do NOT know that GMark was lying, while "Mother" does know that the kid is lying.

Your attempt at goalpost shifting was annoying as hell but I just let it go. I've decided you've got some explaining to do. Exactly why does Mother know which story is the real explanation?

Because the kid is giggling at her and is having so much fun. Whereas GMark is not giggling as he presents his account of the Jesus miracles. "Mother" can recognize the kid's motive by his giggling, or, even if he holds it in, she can see that he's having trouble holding it in. She recognizes by his sarcasm that he does not really believe the story he's giving her.

It makes a difference whether the one telling the story really believes it.

If there is something in your scenario that makes it clear that the one reporting the story does not really believe it, but is joking, this makes the story much less credible. And we can detect this joking element even if we do NOT see the storyteller giggling etc. If the story is that Jesus offered a cookie to the kid and said, "Take, eat, this is my body, . . ." etc., this tells us that the storyteller does not believe the story he's telling.

You score a point for humor, but not for logic at proving that miracle events cannot happen.

Either way, it is not possible to turn back the clock, or go back in a time machine, to replay the event to see what really happened. We only have the reports from someone, and it makes a big difference if we're getting these from someone who is serious -- really believes it -- or someone who is playing a practical joke. This attitude of the storyteller is itself part of the evidence we have to determine what the truth is, or what really happened.

If we had 1 or 2 accounts of Jesus and the disciples and a cured leper giggling and slapping each other on the back afterward and saying, "Alright! good show! Boy we sure pulled that one off -- Did you see the look on that guy's face? Wow!" etc., then your example might be a legitimate analogy to the Jesus miracles.

If the creativity or personality or talent for humor of the storyteller comes into play, this has an impact on the credibility of the story being reported, because it tells us that the story being told is not believed by the one telling it.

Why are you unable to offer an analogy to the miracles of Jesus other than one which contains sarcasm or giggling by the storyteller? If you claim this entertainment element is irrelevant to the logic of your argument, then why can't you offer an analogy/example which leaves out this element?

No smoke and mirrors, no "I don't like this story." Just answer the damn question.

"I don't like this story" is NOT my response. My response is that the sarcasm and giggling of the kid is the reason "Mother" knows the story is a lie, because if the storyteller himself does not believe the story, that is evidence that the story is false, and so she rejects the story based on this evidence.

So then, why don't you get serious and give us a real analogy in order to make your point. If you cannot, it indicates that your point is not legitimate.

Part of the evidence for the Jesus miracle events is that serious educated persons reported it, like our evidence for most historical events. That it's reported as true, without being a spoof, is much of our evidence for it and gives us reason to believe it. Whereas if we can detect the giggling going on somewhere -- a practical joke being pulled off -- that undercuts the value of the report and gives us reason to disbelieve it.

Whether to believe it is not just a question about the actual event being reported, but about the report per se of the event. Is this report believable? not just Is this event believable?

Suppose the reported event is fictional -- in that case could we explain why we have this false report? If so, it's more likely fictional. But if we cannot explain how the report came about without assuming the event really happened, then the event is more likely true rather than fictional.

The reports of the Jesus miracles in the gospel accounts are difficult to explain if those miracle events did not happen.

But if there is sarcasm and "giggling" contained in the reports of the event, then the reports can be explained as a product of creativity done for entertainment value. Anything indicating that the storytellers themselves don't believe it is evidence against it which makes the reported events less probable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it.

So if my uncle goes off his meds for an afternoon and reports that he made love to a large purple and gold dragon with neon tiger stripes on her wings, we're honor bound to consider that evidence that it happened?

If someone who is NOT under a doctor's care makes a similar report, and we have no reason to suspect that he's schizophrenic, is that report more or less credible than my uncle's?

 

[skepticalbip]

The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it.

I would say that is a silly basis to accept a story.

There are thousands of people who believe they have been abducted by anal probing aliens. So by your standard, there is a hell of a lot more evidence for anal probing aliens than there is for Jesus' miracles.... Hmmmm, never mind. Maybe you have a point.

 

[Atheos]

There are myriads of problems with the approaches and contortions Lumpenproletariat has to go through to create a sharpshooter fallacy specific enough to allow his favorite myth to pass without allowing thousands of others across the threshold. Most of us participating in this thread know that. His latest attempt, titled "The report of the event is evidence that the event happened -- IF the one reporting it believes it." is once again a non-starter from the get go.

First of all we have no idea who actually wrote the various gospels so venerated by Christians today. We have no way to ascertain what agenda they had, where they got the information they included, etc. For this reason it is impossible to know if the original writers actually believed what they were writing or if they were simply creating myths in hopes of seeing their efforts become well accepted. Modern day graffiti artists as well as modern day virus writers hope to see their anonymous works gain fame but have no desire for anyone to be able to trace their works back to themselves. Their reward is the spread itself. For all we know the anonymous writers of these early gospels got little reward from their efforts than to giggle as they watched religious people eagerly lap up the insane stories they penned. Truth is that would explain a lot. Especially GMatt's insane tale of the night of the living dead. I can just see him and his buddies at a bar yukking it up that people actually swallowed that one hook, line and sinker.

Lumpenproletariat has absolutely no means to demonstrate that this is not what actually happened. Poe's law may be a modern contrivance but it is merely an observation of human nature that can be traced back as far as history can be traced.

Baseless assertions du jour:

Fictitious miracle healing claims are usually from the disciples of the guru who want to believe him because of his charisma.

Okay, show us some evidence of this baseless assertion. Also, show us how we can separate fictitious miracle healing claims from genuine reports of actual miracles. I have seen thousands upon thousands of claims of healing miracles where I am certain no miracle took place. Having spent part of my childhood in a Pentecostal church I personally witnessed "healing miracles" that I am certain were nothing of the sort. I saw people "speak in tongues" and get "slain in the spirit." I know it was all show, and that it remains a show even though these people actually believe this is what is happening. Mass hysteria, delusions, etc. Not miracles. Restore a missing limb and I'll retract everything I've said by way of observation. Until then I can honestly say I have never seen any example of a miracle claim where the only possible explanation is a miracle. That includes the ones penned in your favorite fairy tale.

No, we/you do NOT know that GMark was lying, while "Mother" does know that the kid is lying.

Sure I do. For the exact same reasons. The stories GMark tells are impossible. Just like the story the kid tells.

"I don't like this story" is NOT my response. My response is that the sarcasm and giggling of the kid is the reason "Mother" knows the story is a lie, because if the storyteller himself does not believe the story, that is evidence that the story is false, and so she rejects the story based on this evidence.

So now you're just making up new details behind the scene of the story itself for no other reason than to give yourself a way to wriggle off this hook. Having authored this scenario I recall not giving any details about the body language of the kids telling the story of the levitating cookie thief. My story has anonymous kids sounding quite sincere as they make this claim. Just like those lepers you made up additional details about. Mother is not, in this instance, a mind reader. Since I am the author of this story I hereby amend my tale to say that the kids in the story telling of the appearance of a levitating liberator of cookies have straight faces and give every appearance that they believe what they are saying. Mother in this case is not a mentalist. Does she believe the story backed by 4 witnesses, the story told by only one witness, or does she decide it's just a toss up? Are you really going to sit there and try to sell us on the idea that you don't see her taking the plausibility of the story into account?

 

[Keith&Co.]

. My response is that the sarcasm and giggling of the kid is the reason "Mother" knows the story is a lie, because if the storyteller himself does not believe the story, that is evidence that the story is false, and so she rejects the story based on this evidence.

So now you're just making up new details behind the scene of the story itself

We can also see that Lumpy does not have children.

Children of a certain age craft a whole new reality in their heads.
1. The historical facts, if discovered, will lead to my being punished.
2. Therefore I will search for a different history in which I am blameless.
3. It's not my fault if (miracle) happened.
4. Therefore i must believe that (miracle) happened.
5. And I will be quite convinced, thus quite sincere, when i report on (miracle).
6. I just won't be very convincING because Mom is not also actively seeking a story that will absolve me of all guilt.

...But there's no sarcasm or giggling involved. The kid NEEDS this story to be accepted as true, so to him it IS true.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's the best example of a reported miracle-worker for whom there is evidence equally credible as the evidence for the Jesus miracles?

If your example is from modern times, then give us 2 examples, with one having lived prior to 1500 AD, in order for the comparison to be more realistic.

Multiple sources do mean more evidence, but multiple zeroes still result in zero.

But each source is NOT zero. Each source saying the event happened is some evidence that it happened, i.e., a quantity of evidence GREATER THAN ZERO. There are historical events we believe based on ONE SOURCE ONLY.

And each additional source increases the quantity of evidence.

If the gospel accounts are not evidence that the Jesus events happened, then there is no evidence for ANY historical events.

It's debatable HOW MUCH evidence it is, whether it's enough. But to say it's ZERO evidence is to say we cannot believe in ANY historical events at all.

A document claiming a miracle is not a source for the miracle, because so much what we know about the world and miracle claims would have to be wrong for miracles to occur.

No, you can't give an example of something "we know about the world" that would have to be "wrong" for some miracles to occur. You could just as well say: Nothing unusual can ever happen.

A document claiming a miracle is a source for the author and propagators of that document having an interest in making that claim.

So also is a document NOT claiming a miracle. Any author or publisher had some interest.

Were the gospel writers driven by some hidden interest to make the miracle claims? If so, surely there were other miracle cults who had a similar interest to make similar claims about their mythic hero. Why was ONLY THIS ONE cult driven by such an interest to publish its miracle "gospel" in multiple documents?

Why will you not post one of the Joseph Smith miracle stories? How can you claim it's credible but won't post it here?

. . . I don't see anyone here claiming those stories are credible. Is it possible that you don't understand the difference between us finding a conman's "miracles" credible and us pointing out that by your so-called standards it's you who should find them credible?

Here's what's credible:

Matthew 8:1-13

Jesus Cleanses a Leper
When Jesus had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him; and there was a leper who came to him and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.’ He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’ Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. Then Jesus said to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’

Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying at home paralysed, in terrible distress.’ And he said to him, ‘I will come and cure him.’ The centurion answered, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, “Go”, and he goes, and to another, “Come”, and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this”, and the slave does it.’ When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ And to the centurion Jesus said, ‘Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.’ And the servant was healed in that hour.

2 healing miracle stories. The leper story is also in Mark and Luke, while the Centurion story is in Mt and Lk only (from the Q document).

These are different documents, with Mt and Lk using Mk for the leper story and the Q document for the centurion story. All these writers/editors believed this and other Jesus miracle stories.

We have more evidence for these events than we have for many historical events which we assume happened, which are based on only one source document.

(That Mt and Lk used Mk does not change the fact that these are 3 different sources. There's nothing about their use of Mk that negates the credibility of the accounts. The extra accounts show us that these stories were believed by a wider segment of the population than would be the case if they appeared in one source only.)

There are no other miracle stories from the ancient world for which there is any evidence comparable to what we have here. Nothing within 100 years of the actual alleged event. Almost nothing even within 300 or 400 years.

But moving ahead to 1800 years later when mass publishing/printing has emerged, there is a vast array of new kinds of publications, including that of new cults and religions and philosophies etc., and miracle claims. Now, what are the equally credible accounts of miracle events? Here are the best sites I have found, for Joseph Smith, which might have something credible. Yet these are pathetic by comparison to the above 2 miracle stories from the gospel accounts.

But maybe I'm biased, so you look at the following stories (or any other Joseph Smith example you can find) and see what is as credible as the 2 accounts above. Pick out the best from it, post it for us to read and compare, and explain why you think it's just as credible.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles/Fanny_Stenhouse_accounts

If you think they're just too whacked-out to be posted here or to make any sense out of, then you make my point. By contrast, the above 2 gospel miracle accounts, even if you doubt them, are clear enough and dignified enough to be posted here to be considered for their value as reports of alleged miracle events.

Is there any better site for the Joseph Smith miracle stories? These are the best ones I could find, and yet they are very low-class, shabby, incoherent, unclear about who is healing whom, and full of psycho-babble nonsense. Unlike the 2 gospel account examples I gave above, which simply state what happened, clearly -- and of course one still might disbelieve the alleged event, but at least the accounts are coherent and straight to the point, even though the centurion story contains a brief sermon, which one can skip over or put up with for 5 seconds or so, unlike the above Joseph Smith sites which the reader has to slop through for hours looking for something that makes any sense.

If you disagree and think the Smith stories are just as coherent and straightforward and credible, then find the best example and post it here for comparison. (I could be wrong, but I believe the Mormon Church does not endorse any of the Joseph Smith miracle sites and tries to avoid any promoting of these miracle claims. If they did support such efforts, they would publish something more respectable and higher-class than these trashy sites on the Joseph Smith miracle claims.)

Some important differences:

• One is that the Smith miracle claims are obviously copycat miracles based on the Jesus miracle stories. All the believers were part of the already-established Jesus miracle tradition going back many centuries. This makes it easier for a faith-healer charismatic to persuade his followers. They fit into an already-established religious belief system. This explains how the mythologizing took place.
  
  
• Granting that Joseph Smith had a somewhat short career, nevertheless, he had at least 15 years of active preaching and recruiting disciples and influencing them, and also establishing his public reputation and gaining notoriety, which drove the mythologizing process.
  
  
• And all the Smith miracles originated from his direct disciples only, who were influenced by his charisma and personality, and all those healed were his direct disciples only.

OTOH so far this thread is a credible documentation of your quest to find "criteria" which would allow exactly for the miracles claimed by mainstream Christians, . . .

No, my "criteria" exclude the miracles in the Book of Acts, for which there is only one source and which are obviously copycat miracle stories based on the Jesus miracle acts. Whereas mainstream Christians believe in ALL the Bible miracles. By my "criteria" many other Bible miracle stories are excluded. So you're not identifying correctly which miracles my "criteria" would "allow" and which ones not.

. . . exclude everything else but not say so directly.

No, not everything else is excluded. Probably there have been miracles other than the Jesus miracles. There's evidence that Rasputin the mad monk had power to heal that child. And there are probably some other cases where someone had a limited healing power. Edgar Cayce seems to have had an uncanny ability to DIAGNOSE illnesses (not cure them), and produced some results that amazed the medical establishment.

But maybe I do "exclude" other alleged miracle-workers as being inferior in terms of the extent of power which they demonstrated. But if there's another one for which we have evidence and was equal to or superior to Jesus in this regard, based on the evidence we have, give us the example.

I can't make up the facts about who had how much power. Find an example of another healer for whom there is evidence, give us the written record or other evidence, so we can compare them.

There is nothing arbitrary or selective about the evidence I'm citing. There are other writings beside the gospel accounts, and maybe some of them present evidence for other miracle-workers which is better than the Jesus evidence. Nothing prevents anyone from providing this evidence.

If there are other equally credible miracle-worker examples which I'm excluding in my "quest to find 'criteria' which would allow exactly for the miracles claimed by mainstream Christians, exclude everything else" etc., then you can name those examples and present the evidence based on better "criteria" than mine. I can't shove my "criteria" or arbitrary evidence down your throat. Nothing prevents you from offering us a better example based on scientific "criteria" and superior evidence. Or an equal example based on equal evidence.