120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Can't you come up with a serious source for the Joseph Smith miracle stories?

The reported miracle healings of Joseph Smith, such as they are, all originate from his direct disciples, and all the victims reportedly healed were his direct disciples only. All of them had been under the influence of his charisma for several years. Or maybe in a few cases the victims were children of his direct disciples.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle healings were of people who were not his direct disciples, and the stories originated from onlookers who were not his direct disciples.

This pattern holds up throughout the accounts, with virtually no exceptions, though presumably there were some. Or there's ambiguity in a few of the cases.


Jesus vs. JS miracle stories / How did the stories originate?

The miracles begin at Mark 1:21

21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

The "they"/"them"here is a group not identified with certainty, but most likely there were many others present than only Jesus and his disciples. The demoniac who now appears is obviously not one of the disciples:

23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How could his fame spread like this if it was only his disciples who were present and told others? This must have been a large group of locals other than his disciples.

And how did these “others” know Jesus and his band “immediately on the Sabbath” did XYZ?

Probably they didn't know this. This wasn't part of the story they told when they left. We don't know how the Mark writer pieced this together. He probably had more than one source.

The question here is about how the story first began to circulate. It says "at once his fame spread everywhere throughout . . . Galilee."

Just taking the account at face value, it is saying this story began spreading mainly by means of these onlookers who were not his disciples. Because it could not spread so widely so soon unless the others present are the ones who spread it. The context has these disciples being the first 4 only, and they remained with Jesus without going out all around the region.

This is not PROOF as to what happened, but clearly the story as we have it is saying that his reputation for doing these acts was carried out into the region by the onlookers. So this is Mark's impression, i.e., that it was not the disciples but the onlookers and the victims healed who got the rumors started.

The context of the story, where it fits in with the other Jesus events, the chronology, etc., obviously are not from those onlookers or non-disciples. Perhaps it's the Mark writer/editor/redactor who put together the chronology, saying how the pieces went together. It doesn't matter whether this chronology is totally accurate in detail. The 3 synoptic gospels may conflict with each other on the exact order, even when it's the same events being reported.

The general point is that the stories taken at face value show this clear pattern, that it's the onlookers or the victim healed who generally report the story. But in the Joseph Smith reported miracle healings, taking the accounts at face value, those who report it and the victims healed are always direct JS disciples.

And nothing in this passage suggests it was passed on by a outsider, never mind clearly so.

Yes, it had to be the onlookers, if we take the story at face value. The small number of Jesus disciples present could not have passed this story "at once" and throughout the region.

The Mark writer is presenting this picture of the onlookers being the ones who spread the story, even if you don't believe it. But that is what the writer/editor believed. You have to assume he had a false impression of what really happened to insist that it was only the disciples who spread the stories.

It could have been in theory, but that is it.

It had to be, unless Mark's impression was incorrect. You can just say that this writer/editor in 65-70 AD simply had a false impression. That's OK. But his understanding is that there were onlookers present, and these ones went out and told it and got the rumors started. And also the victim healed, who was not a disciple.

Or you can believe that this Christian editor/writer in about 65-70 AD was a conniving deceitful schemer who thought, "Ah, I'll 'make up shit' to create the false impression that it was the local folks, non-disciples, who spread the story. I'll falsely claim it was witnessed by this crowd of non-disciples who then started the rumors going, and that way we can fool all those idiots centuries later, especially the skeptics and debunkers in the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, so they'll believe these miracles we're making up really happened -- boy, aren't we clever!"

Yes, that's also a possibility. But the accounts we have, if taken at face value, say clearly that the way the stories began to spread was by word-of-mouth mainly from the onlookers, and also the ones healed, who were not Jesus disciples.

What fame? The new Christ cult was a flop in Judea.

The "fame" does not mean that millions heard of it. It was a local fame, confined mostly to the region of Galilee, probably also spilling over into the bordering areas.

In the following episode, the one cured, Simon's mother, is not a disciple, but the others were his disciples, so in this case they are the ones who spread the word about this healing. But this is the only case where it was his disciples who told it to others:

29 And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.

And how did the mother know that they came straight from the synagogue?

Obviously in this one case it must have been Peter and the others who originated the report.

Also, it is far from the only case, as Jesus calming the water and walking on water were private affairs with his disciples.

For virtually all the healing stories there were the onlookers who were not his disciples. And the one healed was a non-disciple. This pattern runs throughout with almost no deviation.

I cut it down to just these 2 examples until you deal with your lack of clarity with them.

There are virtually no examples of healing stories which do not fit this pattern. You might claim it's ambiguous in 1 or 2 cases.

If anything, it is more likely that these stories were created/propagated by the disciples of who ever was building up this Jesus cult, whether it was someone vaguely like the Jesus of Gospels or Paul.

Of course you can believe that, but it's not from the accounts themselves that you derive this conclusion, but from your premise that such miracle events cannot happen. Someone not starting out with this dogmatic premise has to take into account the setting as it is presented in the accounts.

And you can believe in the tooth fairy… Either way, you still haven’t shown anything that provides any clarity that someone other than the followers of this new cult passed along these stories.

The pattern is clearly there. You can claim the Mark writer/editor is simply wrong, had a totally false impression about what really happened. We can't prove it one way or the other. Maybe he was scheming with other conspirators to mislead the scholars and skeptics and debunkers of the 20th century. That's also possible.

One interesting aspect is just how this new cult doesn’t appear to have had much of any success exactly where all these amazing miracles happened. Churches grew early on in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Corinth. But in Judea? Yeah, whatever. Those 5,000 fed from a few loaves didn’t seem to get the word out too well. We can pick on the LDS, as they have a real and solid paper trail, so their foibles are more self-evident.

This is why we need a reputed miracle-worker much earlier than 1800 for a good comparison to Jesus in the 1st century. Why isn't there any other example?

Almost certainly a Joseph Smith at around 100 AD or earlier would not have been recorded in any document at all and would have been totally forgotten by history.

Your hobby horse not mine…and I was using JS as my example, as it has more clarity than most.

Then why isn't there any decent website presenting the JS stories clearly? All those sites are sloppy and incoherent.

You offer this one respectable LDS website:
https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...-sent?lang=eng , which seems to have nothing to say about the Joseph Smith miracle stories. Why is it that the good quality LDS sites don't want to talk about this? They have many links to everything of interest about Mormonism. Why not the JS miracles?

Am I wrong? Is there something of quality that presents these stories? That's what we need before we can take the JS miracle stories seriously.

And all the healed people were clearly NOT all JS DIRECT disciples.

Yes they were, either direct disciples or the children of direct disciples. According to the accounts offered so far

No the example I provided were family member of a ferryman, unrelated to the Mormon cult. You just decided that you now don’t like indirect healing (much like Jesus did a few times).

Why aren't you giving us one example here? Why is it you keep saying you gave us a good example way back there somewhere?

Why can't you come up with one good example, the original text, probably back to 1900 or earlier? Give us one report of the Prophet himself doing the miracle healing act, not a disciple of his, and something not written by one of his direct disciples.

Why is this so difficult?

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?

Not that it should matter one wit, but when I talk about the JS miracles, his band of disciples were pretty much included in the package. Unless of course you want to toss out the miracles performed by Jesus’ disciples mentioned multiple times in the NT?

They are mentioned only in the Book of Acts, and they seem to be a copy-cat kind of story, based on the Jesus stories. The Jesus miracle stories appear abruptly in history, somewhere between 30-100 AD, for which there is no precedent. But then, soon after, there is an explosion of miracle stories which is hard to explain other than as a reaction to the Jesus miracles. The Book of Acts is probably the beginning of this new explosion of miracle stories, which are rooted in the reported Jesus miracle events. Even the Vespasian story may be part of this new miracle story explosion, along with the Simon Magus and the Apollonius of Tyana stories.

So these later stories can be explained as resulting from a normal mythologizing process, and are fiction, whereas the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained as a product of mythologizing, because we can't identify the original miracle traditions or context in which they popped up like this out of nowhere, as we can identify the origin of the later stories, which are copy-cat stories patterned after the original Jesus miracle reports.

Anyway, here is one JS miracle as written by Wilford Woodruff (yes a disciple), published within a book (from his journals) in 1882 some 4 decades after the events in question. This is much in line with the assumed dates for the (missing) original manuscripts of Matthew and Luke by the anonymous authors.

Leaves From My Journal; Third book of the Faith-Promoting Series; by President W. Woodruff; 1882; page 65. And “The Prophet” is JS, which is clear when reading more of the passage from the book.
https://archive.org/stream/leavesfrommyjour00woodrich#page/64/mode/2up/search/ferry

While waiting for the ferryboat, a man of the world, knowing of the miracles which had been performed, came to him and asked him if he would not go and heal two twin children of his, about five months old, who were both lying sick nigh unto death.

They were some two miles from Montrose.

The Prophet said he could not go; but, after pausing some time, he said he would send someone to heal them; and he turned to me [Wilford Woodruff] and said: “You go with the man and heal his children.”

He took a red silk handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to me, and told me to wipe their faces with the handkerchief when I administered to them, and they should be healed. He also said unto me: “As long as you will keep that handkerchief, it shall remain a league between you and me.”

I went with the man, and did as the Prophet commanded me, and the children were healed.

Why is it so difficult for you to offer one simple example of Joseph Smith performing a miracle healing?

Again, you are splitting hairs. The text clearly posits that JS was channeling his God’s woo woo, to heal people.

But either way, 2 pages before offers this on Page 62:

On the morning of the 22nd of July, 1839, he arose reflecting upon the situation of the Saints of God in their persecutions and afflictions, and he called upon the Lord in prayer, and the power of God rested upon him mightily, and as Jesus healed all the sick around Him in His day, so Joseph, the Prophet of God, healed all around on this occasion. He healed all in his house and door-yard, then, in company with Sidney Rigdon and several of the Twelve, he went through among the sick lying on the bank of the river, and he commanded them in a loud voice, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come up and be made whole, and they were all healed.

Good -- this is even better than Rev. Moon marrying 50,000 couples simultaneously.

But how about something not from a direct disciple of JS, as this one is. Why is it impossible to find one person in the world, in all the 19th century, and maybe even up to 1950 or so, who actually believes JS did these miracles? Isn't there ANY writer, or publisher, or whatever, who says these things happened, who was not a direct disciple of JS? i.e., not someone heavily impacted by the Prophet's charisma? Why is it so difficult to find such a source?

From the earliest time, 1820 or so, right up to the 20th century -- through all that time, isn't there just one person who will say, "Yes, Joseph Smith did perform those miracle healings. I've investigated all the reports, and they are credible -- I believe it."

When we have something like this, it will begin to sound more serious. Those trashy websites are not good enough, and all they have are stories from his DIRECT disciples only. If you claim there's something from any other source, then post it here. You have not done that.

It could even be a contemporary observer, who sees it directly, but not someone who is obviously one of the disciples who worships the guru. How about a believer or disciple who did not experience JS directly.

LOL…yeah, how about you providing a contemporary observer, for your magic Jew.

No, I'm not demanding it be someone contemporary. But I'm saying that's OK, as long as it's not one of his DIRECT disciples. The problem is that those mesmerized by his charisma are not reliable. There is good reason to believe that the Jesus miracle stories did not originate from disciples of his who were mesmerized by his charisma.

That's why the Jesus case is more credible. And also the case of Rasputin the mad monk is credible, i.e., that he had power to heal that one child. Because the ones reporting it were people hostile to him, not his disciples.

It's difficult to take the Joseph Smith stories seriously.

Et tu, Brute.

Is there anything serious? How about finding something from that website
https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...-sent?lang=eng which has many links to good quality LDS articles and videos. Come up with something credible, where someone has investigated it and thinks JS really did perform such healing miracles.

I didn't click through everything there -- maybe there is something. But my suspicion is that Mormons today do not believe the JS miracles, such as we find in those trashy sites, but maybe I'm wrong.

The Jesus stories are credible, because educated persons had these accounts and believed them and wrote them down for us, obviously because they were convinced. They were not wackos. They might have been wrong -- We don't know for sure. But serious-minded educated persons believed the reports they had and took the trouble to record those events for us, because they believed it was true and that it mattered.

There are no other such cases, though you keep claiming there are. But you cannot give any serious examples. The JS case does not appear to be a serious case. You can't come up with any serious reports attesting to his miracle acts, except possibly from a small number of his direct disciples ONLY and which no one sees fit to publish in any form other than these very sloppy and incoherent websites. You can't find anything better?

 

[skepticalbip]

Can't you come up with a serious source for the Joseph Smith miracle stories?

Yeah, The Joseph Smith miracles weren't documented in the Bible so they obviously couldn't be true. Besides he wasn't Jewish and didn't even speak Aramaic.

 

[Atheos]

The Jesus stories are credible, because educated persons had these accounts and believed them and wrote them down for us, obviously because they were convinced. They were not wackos. They might have been wrong -- We don't know for sure. But serious-minded educated persons believed the reports they had and took the trouble to record those events for us, because they believed it was true and that it mattered

Wilford Woodruff was educated.

Everything else you said about what is "obvious" is mere conjecture. I can just as easily say "The Jesus stories are implausible, because educated persons had absolutely no accounts and made all of it up by taking elements of Jewish culture (miracle-working prophets) and combining them with elements from Greeko-Roman culture (god-men who were mythic heroes) in order to promote their agenda of getting less educated people to give them money and do as they wanted them to do." The evidence is completely inconclusive as to the intentions and any resources these people had.

My version has the overwhelming favor of mountains of evidence. We have countless examples of people making up scams in order to deceive people and get money from them. We have countless examples of religious claims for that very purpose. We have countless examples of people believing all kinds of really insane stories. We know the Jewish culture contained stories of many miracle-working prophets, and we know the Greek/Roman cultures contained examples of god-men such as Asclepius, Hercules, Perseus, etc. We know that the purveyors of these Jesus myths extracted money from the people they convinced to believe these tall tales. We know that they also used these myths to gain political control over large numbers of people (and still do to this day).

Your version suffers from the fatal weakness that of all the times people have foisted lies on other people in the name of some god or another this is the one instance in which they were actually telling the truth. Of all the times people have gained the confidence of impressionable others and gotten them to give them money in the name of some god or another, this again is the one instance in which there was actually a god on the other end of that transaction smiling upon the transaction. Of all the incredible tales of monsters, miracles, etc., this is the one instance in which people weren't just making it up.

You choose to believe your version because it is what you want to believe. All this handwaving about "normal mythologizing" and your attempts to somehow extricate your favorite fairy tale from the thousands of others mankind have invented over the centuries pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of the claims you're trying to promote. Voice-activated weather control, complete defiance of the laws of gravity and physics, Alchemy, giving sight to blind people, etc. People who want to believe the Jesus mythos are going to believe it for the same reasons millions of people believe the Joseph Smith mythos, millions of people believe the Mohammad mythos, millions believe the L. Ron Hubbard mythos, etc. In every case someone convinced them it was true in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is not. In this case it is you who is trying to continue this chain of convincing people something is true in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is not. That is how every religion spreads.

 

[funinspace]

The reported miracle healings of Joseph Smith, such as they are, all originate from his direct disciples, and all the victims reportedly healed were his direct disciples only. All of them had been under the influence of his charisma for several years. Or maybe in a few cases the victims were children of his direct disciples.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle healings were of people who were not his direct disciples, and the stories originated from onlookers who were not his direct disciples.

This pattern holds up throughout the accounts, with virtually no exceptions, though presumably there were some. Or there's ambiguity in a few of the cases.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to show any evidence that the stories originated from onlookers…hand waving doesn’t cut it.

The miracles begin at Mark 1:21

21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

The "they"/"them"here is a group not identified with certainty, but most likely there were many others present than only Jesus and his disciples. The demoniac who now appears is obviously not one of the disciples:

23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How could his fame spread like this if it was only his disciples who were present and told others? This must have been a large group of locals other than his disciples.

And how did these “others” know Jesus and his band “immediately on the Sabbath” did XYZ?

Probably they didn't know this. This wasn't part of the story they told when they left. We don't know how the Mark writer pieced this together. He probably had more than one source.

The question here is about how the story first began to circulate. It says "at once his fame spread everywhere throughout . . . Galilee."

Just taking the account at face value, it is saying this story began spreading mainly by means of these onlookers who were not his disciples. Because it could not spread so widely so soon unless the others present are the ones who spread it. The context has these disciples being the first 4 only, and they remained with Jesus without going out all around the region.

This is not PROOF as to what happened, but clearly the story as we have it is saying that his reputation for doing these acts was carried out into the region by the onlookers. So this is Mark's impression, i.e., that it was not the disciples but the onlookers and the victims healed who got the rumors started.

The context of the story, where it fits in with the other Jesus events, the chronology, etc., obviously are not from those onlookers or non-disciples. Perhaps it's the Mark writer/editor/redactor who put together the chronology, saying how the pieces went together. It doesn't matter whether this chronology is totally accurate in detail. The 3 synoptic gospels may conflict with each other on the exact order, even when it's the same events being reported.

The general point is that the stories taken at face value show this clear pattern, that it's the onlookers or the victim healed who generally report the story. But in the Joseph Smith reported miracle healings, taking the accounts at face value, those who report it and the victims healed are always direct JS disciples.

Again, you fail to show anything, but what you wish for. NOTHING in the story provides evidence that it is sourced from these mysterious “onlookers”. Your certainly correct when you say your blather isn’t proof. However, it is simply wishful thinking. Again, the only evidence within the confines of the story is something that suggests that the story was carried forward by a disciple/follower. We know nothing of this “fame” spreading throughout, and like the story it could be simply made up. Yeah, it is just terrible…we know who wrote the JS miracle healings claim, where they wrote it generally, and when they wrote it. In the Jesus tales, we only know they were committed to paper (at least the ones in Mark) some 3 decades after claimed events, and we aren’t really sure who wrote nor where they wrote it. But somehow this lack of information makes it all the more worthy as evidence…

And nothing in this passage suggests it was passed on by a outsider, never mind clearly so.

Yes, it had to be the onlookers, if we take the story at face value. The small number of Jesus disciples present could not have passed this story "at once" and throughout the region.

The Mark writer is presenting this picture of the onlookers being the ones who spread the story, even if you don't believe it. But that is what the writer/editor believed. You have to assume he had a false impression of what really happened to insist that it was only the disciples who spread the stories.

Again, no it doesn’t have to be the “onlookers”, and your rambling not withstanding you haven’t parsed the words of the story to show anything about it that suggests “onlookers” carried the story forward.

(It being anonymous onlookers, recorded in an anonymous book)

It could have been in theory, but that is it.

It had to be, unless Mark's impression was incorrect. You can just say that this writer/editor in 65-70 AD simply had a false impression. That's OK. But his understanding is that there were onlookers present, and these ones went out and told it and got the rumors started. And also the victim healed, who was not a disciple.

Or you can believe that this Christian editor/writer in about 65-70 AD was a conniving deceitful schemer who thought, "Ah, I'll 'make up shit' to create the false impression that it was the local folks, non-disciples, who spread the story. I'll falsely claim it was witnessed by this crowd of non-disciples who then started the rumors going, and that way we can fool all those idiots centuries later, especially the skeptics and debunkers in the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, so they'll believe these miracles we're making up really happened -- boy, aren't we clever!"

The same could be said for the first few hundreds of JS followers. Yeah, there are many variants of people convincing themselves to believe the woo woo related to their emergent cut.

What fame? The new Christ cult was a flop in Judea.

The "fame" does not mean that millions heard of it. It was a local fame, confined mostly to the region of Galilee, probably also spilling over into the bordering areas.

Or we take the letters of Paul at face value, and see that the marketing of this new cult seemed to work much better almost anywhere, but where the magic Jew purportedly did his woo woo.

Then why isn't there any decent website presenting the JS stories clearly? All those sites are sloppy and incoherent.

You offer this one respectable LDS website:
https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...-sent?lang=eng , which seems to have nothing to say about the Joseph Smith miracle stories. Why is it that the good quality LDS sites don't want to talk about this? They have many links to everything of interest about Mormonism. Why not the JS miracles?

Am I wrong? Is there something of quality that presents these stories? That's what we need before we can take the JS miracle stories seriously.

WTF…do you not know how to use Google? Remember it was you that was so pissy about Wiki not being a mid 18th century document, so who gives a rats ass about these silly claims on web sites.
http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/joseph-smith-miracles/
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles
https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/2014/08/11/joseph-smith-heals-elsa-johnsons-arm/
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-33?lang=eng

And all the healed people were clearly NOT all JS DIRECT disciples.

Yes they were, either direct disciples or the children of direct disciples. According to the accounts offered so far

No the example I provided were family member of a ferryman, unrelated to the Mormon cult. You just decided that you now don’t like indirect healing (much like Jesus did a few times).

Why aren't you giving us one example here?

WTF? Do you actually start writing responses while reading a response, not bother to see what is below first, nor redacting meaningless babel after finally reading the whole post?

But either way, 2 pages before offers this on Page 62:

On the morning of the 22nd of July, 1839, he arose reflecting upon the situation of the Saints of God in their persecutions and afflictions, and he called upon the Lord in prayer, and the power of God rested upon him mightily, and as Jesus healed all the sick around Him in His day, so Joseph, the Prophet of God, healed all around on this occasion. He healed all in his house and door-yard, then, in company with Sidney Rigdon and several of the Twelve, he went through among the sick lying on the bank of the river, and he commanded them in a loud voice, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come up and be made whole, and they were all healed.

Good -- this is even better than Rev. Moon marrying 50,000 couples simultaneously.

Yes, and we know who wrote it, when he wrote it, and where he wrote it, which includes within days to months of the event. Repeating myself: In the Jesus tales, we only know they were committed to paper (at least the ones in Mark) some 3 decades after claimed events, and we aren’t really sure who wrote nor where they wrote it.

It could even be a contemporary observer, who sees it directly, but not someone who is obviously one of the disciples who worships the guru. How about a believer or disciple who did not experience JS directly.

LOL…yeah, how about you providing a contemporary observer, for your magic Jew.

No, I'm not demanding it be someone contemporary. But I'm saying that's OK, as long as it's not one of his DIRECT disciples. The problem is that those mesmerized by his charisma are not reliable. There is good reason to believe that the Jesus miracle stories did not originate from disciples of his who were mesmerized by his charisma.

That's why the Jesus case is more credible.

Again, you need to show evidence that suggests the Jesus fables had these “onlookers” as story tellers, as your hand waving is not convincing anyone. But of course you can’t as all you have are the anonymous Gospels written decades later somewhere…

 

[Keith&Co.]

The reported miracle healings of Joseph Smith, such as they are, all originate from his direct disciples, and all the victims reportedly healed were his direct disciples only.

And we know this because the miracles were clearly and well documented.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle healings were later rumored to be of people who were not his direct disciples, and the stories could maybe have originated from onlookers who were not his direct disciples.

The problem, of course, is that the accounts that survived to this day are far separated from eyewitnesses or even any possible eyewitnesses, and are third-hand accounts at best.
It's also possible that if Jesus healed, he healed only his disciples, who spread the word and altered the stories of events. Or one of their listeners altered the stories.

 

[Atheos]

And we know this because the miracles were clearly and well documented.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle healings were later rumored to be of people who were not his direct disciples, and the stories could maybe have originated from onlookers who were not his direct disciples.

The problem, of course, is that the accounts that survived to this day are far separated from eyewitnesses or even any possible eyewitnesses, and are third-hand accounts at best.
It's also possible that if Jesus healed, he healed only his disciples, who spread the word and altered the stories of events. Or one of their listeners altered the stories.

And I might add that these are only the beginnings of problems with that line of argumentation. It's funny how absent evidence of exactly what motivated the originators of GMark to write what they did an apologist feels free to fill in these gaps with declarations of absolute certainty.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And I might add that these are only the beginnings of problems with that line of argumentation.

What, that Lumpy is 'making shit up' to defend against the charge that people might have made shit up?

 

[Atheos]

And I might add that these are only the beginnings of problems with that line of argumentation.

What, that Lumpy is 'making shit up' to defend against the charge that people might have made shit up?

Well in fairness since we have such a direct paper trail to the fact that he made shit up it's completely different from the very remote possibility that people we don't know with unknowable agendas might have used unknowable sources for inspiration to make shit up. Too many unknowns. Might as well just assume it's all true.

 

[Atheos]

Concerning the unknown folks who wrote GMark, Lumpenproletariat says with confidence,

They were not wackos.

So let's get this straight: These people believed a man walked on storm-tossed water. They had never actually seen this man (or any other person for that matter) ever walk on storm-tossed water. But they believed for no other reason than someone (we have no way to find out who) told them it happened.

Or alternatively these people made up this story of a man walking on storm-tossed water with a view towards getting others to believe it.

Yet they were not wackos.

I guess it depends on how one defines the term "wacko."

 

[skepticalbip]

Concerning the unknown folks who wrote GMark, Lumpenproletariat says with confidence,

They were not wackos.

So let's get this straight: These people believed a man walked on storm-tossed water. They had never actually seen this man (or any other person for that matter) ever walk on storm-tossed water. But they believed for no other reason than someone (we have no way to find out who) told them it happened.

Or alternatively these people made up this story of a man walking on storm-tossed water with a view towards getting others to believe it.

Yet they were not wackos.

I guess it depends on how one defines the term "wacko."

Not necessarily wackos.

They could have been very imaginative fanfiction writers that some wackos thought were serious.

They could have been damned intelligent scam artists that understood human nature well enough to start an amazingly successful con that was so good it has endured almost two thousand years.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lumpy,
I was wondering if instead of the Wall Of Text responses to any and all criticism, you might make things easier for all of us by going with a buzzfeed format?

12 Reasons To Accept The Historicity of Jesus
(Number 9 will shock you!)

Or maybe

Atheists Hate This Historian!
He found actual photos of Jesus!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Another WALL of text is on the way.

Lumpy,
I was wondering if instead of the Wall Of Text responses to any and all criticism, you might make things easier for all of us by going with a buzzfeed format?

12 Reasons To Accept The Historicity of Jesus
(Number 9 will shock you!)

Or maybe

Atheists Hate This Historian!
He found actual photos of Jesus!

No, I'm going to build a WALL of text and make you pay for it!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus Christ miracle stories are more credible than the Joseph Smith stories.

The reported miracle healings of Joseph Smith, such as they are, all originate from his direct disciples, and all the victims reportedly healed were his direct disciples only. All of them had been under the influence of his charisma for several years. Or maybe in a few cases the victims were children of his direct disciples.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle healings were of people who were not his direct disciples, and the stories originated from onlookers who were not his direct disciples.

This pattern holds up throughout the accounts, with virtually no exceptions, though presumably there were some. Or there's ambiguity in a few of the cases.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to show any evidence that the stories originated from onlookers…hand waving doesn’t cut it.

The evidence is the stories as they are written, the gospel accounts. The details given clearly present examples where it is the onlookers, non-disciples, who started the stories originally. Also that the ones healed were non-disciples.

You automatically reject these accounts as totally unreliable for anything they say, and so you don't accept this as evidence. However, for someone who does not reject the accounts outright, but approaches them the same as any other documents, and allowing that they might be generally accurate, the accounts describe a scene in which it's the onlookers who got the stories started.

One can accept the accounts generally, as any other documents that report events, and at the same time retain doubt about the miracle claims.

There is nothing unreasonable about accepting the accounts generally, assuming the general description is correct, while at the same withholding judgment about the miracle claims. It is not necessary to start rewriting the accounts from the outset because one rejects the miracle claims. More reasonable is to accept the accounts as is, while at the same time reserving judgment about the truth of miracle claims.

The miracles begin at Mark 1:21

21 And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

The "they"/"them"here is a group not identified with certainty, but most likely there were many others present than only Jesus and his disciples. And the demoniac who now appears is obviously not one of the disciples:

23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

How could his fame spread like this if it was only his disciples who were present and told others? This must have been a large group of locals other than his disciples.

And how did these “others” know Jesus and his band “immediately on the Sabbath” did XYZ?

Probably they didn't know this. This wasn't part of the story they told when they left. We don't know how the Mark writer pieced this together. He probably had more than one source.

The question here is about how the story first began to circulate, at the start before being recorded decades later. It says "at once his fame spread everywhere throughout . . . Galilee."

Just taking the account at face value, it is saying this story began spreading mainly by means of these onlookers who were not his disciples. Because "his fame" could not spread so widely so soon unless the others present are the ones who spread it. The context has these disciples being the first 4 only, and they remained with Jesus without going out all around the region.

This is not PROOF as to what happened, but clearly the story as we have it is saying that his reputation for doing these acts was carried out into the region by the onlookers. So this is Mark's impression, i.e., that it was not the disciples but the onlookers and the victims healed who got the rumors started.

The context of the story, where it fits in with the other Jesus events, the chronology, etc., obviously are not from those onlookers or non-disciples. Perhaps it's the Mark writer/editor/redactor who put together the chronology, saying how the pieces went together. It doesn't matter whether this chronology is totally accurate in detail. The 3 synoptic gospels may conflict with each other on the exact order, even when it's the same events being reported.

The general point is that the stories taken at face value show this clear pattern, that it's the onlookers or the victim healed who generally report the story. But in the Joseph Smith reported miracle healings, taking the accounts at face value, those who report it and the victims healed are always direct JS disciples.

Again, you fail to show anything, but what you wish for. NOTHING in the story provides evidence that it is sourced from these mysterious “onlookers”.

It is evidence if one begins with the premise that the story is true, minus the miracle claims, which remain in doubt. One can reasonably suspend judgment about these but accept the general scene, or the setting provided by the writer.

This scene or setting has to be taken into consideration. Even if one eventually decides that the scene provided must be substantially distorted, it's not reasonable to begin the analysis with this judgment.

We don't automatically judge other documents as false in the reporting of the setting or the details of the background. We can accept the accounts provided by historians and other writers, providing accounts of alleged events, and accept the general scene they provide. Or a mistake or distortion might be discovered eventually, but we don't start out assuming such a thing.

You can choose to reject the entire document out of hand, condemn it all as lies right from the outset. But reason does not require such automatic rejection of everything in the document. It is reasonable to accept the document as generally true and suspend judgment about the doubtful elements. There is nothing unreasonable about the scene presented in any of these accounts in Mark and the other gospel accounts, except that one reasonably doubts the miracle element. But not the ENTIRE account, ALL the details.

If one begins by accepting the general scene presented in the accounts, then the story being presented is one where the persons who originate the rumors about the miracle events are the onlookers, or in some cases it's the victim who was reportedly healed.

There is nothing unreasonable about taking these accounts and also the Joseph Smith miracle stories at face value, i.e., assuming that the general scene presented is generally accurate and honest. Just because one has a theory about the miracle claim does not mean we have to reject the context or the setting provided in the account.

Reason does not dictate that everyone must automatically reject the details provided, such that onlookers were present, that there were only four disciples present, that the story then went out and spread throughout the region. It's not unreasonable to accept these details while at the same time doubting the miracle claims.

You're certainly correct when you say your blather isn’t proof. However, it is simply wishful thinking.

No, it's an obvious fact that we have this clear difference between the JS miracle stories and the gospel accounts of the Jesus miracles. It is explicitly stated, or clearly implied, in the JS stories that the ones telling the story and the victims reportedly healed were direct disciples of Joseph Smith. There's almost no exception to this, although in 1 or 2 cases it's ambiguous.

But in the gospel accounts this is not the case. It's clear in these that it's not the disciples who started the rumors going, and also that the one healed is not a disciple, but someone brought to Jesus, or who came to him, to be healed and who was not one of his disciples. This is very clear. If you cannot see this, it must be YOUR wishful thinking that prevents you from reading the plain sense of the text.

You can argue that the text is wrong and is describing falsely what happened. But what it is describing is a scene where the original storytellers and the one reportedly healed were not his disciples. Reject the description, or condemn the whole account as lies from the outset if you wish. But a reasonable person is not required to reject the whole story out of hand, even if that's what you choose to do.

Again, the only evidence within the confines of the story is something that suggests that the story was carried forward by a disciple/follower.

No, that's your conclusion as to what must have happened, but that's not what the text is saying happened. Your conclusion may be correct that only the disciples told the story to others, but that's not what the text of the story is saying.

Of course you can conclude that the onlookers quickly became followers and started telling the story. That's possible. But they were not originally from among his "inner circle" of disciples. Not according to the story. That's your judgment, for which you may have reasons. But it's not the text of the gospel account which says that. Rather, you're judging that the story presented is false and that the writer is being deceptive or dishonest and is rewriting the truth in order to mislead the readers. You might make that judgment, based on your premise, but not everyone has to adopt your premise.

We know nothing of this “fame” spreading throughout, and like the story it could be simply made up.

Yes, that's possible, and a reasonable person might conclude this. But the story itself says that the rumors spread around the region, and a reasonable person can also accept this as being what actually happened. That doesn't contradict anything we know.

If the account had said that the rumors spread all the way to Rome and that the emperor became alarmed and sent his legions swarming into Galilee to arrest this Jesus troublemaker, in 30 AD, a reasonable person would have to reject such an account.

Yeah, it is just terrible…we know who wrote the JS miracle healings claim, where they wrote it generally, and when they wrote it.

And all of them were direct disciples of Smith. Or some even from JS himself. The accounts themselves tell us this.

In the Jesus tales, we only know they were committed to paper (at least the ones in Mark) some 3 decades after claimed events, . . .

A shorter time span than for most 1st-century historical events we routinely accept as true, which typically don't occur in writing until many decades after the actual events reported.

. . . and we aren’t really sure who wrote nor where they wrote it.

This doesn't make the accounts any less credible. No one has shown any reason to reject accounts of events simply because we don't know the name of the writer or where they wrote it. Often such details are in doubt, and yet the accounts are accepted as reliable.

But somehow this lack of information makes it all the more worthy as evidence.

No more or less worthy. There are other anonymous documents that are accepted for historical events.

And nothing in this passage suggests it was passed on by an outsider, never mind clearly so.

Yes, it had to be the onlookers, if we take the story at face value. The small number of Jesus disciples present could not have passed this story "at once" and throughout the region.

The Mark writer is presenting this picture of the onlookers being the ones who spread the story, even if you don't believe it. But that is what the writer/editor believed. You have to assume he had a false impression of what really happened to insist that it was only the disciples who spread the stories.

Again, no it doesn’t have to be the “onlookers”, . . .

The accounts clearly imply that it was the outsiders, non-disciples, who started the story going initially. Of course you can reject this. But this is what the accounts are implying. You have to assume the accounts are wrong if you reject this.

. . . and your rambling not withstanding you haven’t parsed the words of the story to show anything about it that suggests “onlookers” carried the story forward.

The text clearly implies this. In the first example it says: "And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee."

There were only 4 disciples present, and these almost certainly remained with Jesus rather than going out around the countryside. So how did "his fame spread everywhere" like this if it wasn't the others who were present there who got it started, who were not his disciples? And it happened "at once," so that this had to be a short time, not several months of later travelling by the disciples. Even if this detail of the story is false, nevertheless this is what the story is saying took place.

Again, you can reject the story as false, or "made up" or a pack of lies, etc., but you cannot deny that this is what the story implies, as the text of the gospel account presents it.

(It being anonymous onlookers, recorded in an anonymous book)

OK, so you reject anything anonymous as lies. But this is what the text says. And there is nothing unreasonable about believing this, or accepting this story at face value, while still withholding judgment as to the miracle claims.

Not everyone has to agree with your condemnation of all anonymous writings or any writings that contain miracle claims. A person may reasonably accept these accounts as possibly true, believing the general description from the writer, while also maintaining doubt about the actual miracle claims. One might find a way to explain the actual miracle event as some kind of illusion or distortion or exaggeration etc., while accepting the general picture presented, about the one reportedly healed and the onlookers.

Reason does not require us to reject the account as a pack of lies, even though some do draw that conclusion. That is more an instinctive knee-jerk reaction to the stories rather than a necessary conclusion dictated by reason.

That the actual miracle events took place is something that reason requires us to question, and we should not believe it without something more than just this one claim in this one document. But to angrily cast the whole document into the flames, in an outburst of rage against any miracle claim, is not required by reason.

It could have been in theory, but that is it.

It had to be, unless Mark's impression was incorrect. You can just say that this writer/editor in 65-70 AD simply had a false impression. That's OK. But his understanding is that there were onlookers present, and these ones went out and told it and got the rumors started. And also the victim healed, who was not a disciple.

Or you can believe that this Christian editor/writer in about 65-70 AD was a conniving deceitful schemer who thought, "Ah, I'll 'make up shit' to create the false impression that it was the local folks, non-disciples, who spread the story. I'll falsely claim it was witnessed by this crowd of non-disciples who then started the rumors going, and that way we can fool all those idiots centuries later, especially the skeptics and debunkers in the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, so they'll believe these miracles we're making up really happened -- boy, aren't we clever!"

The same could be said for the first few hundreds of JS followers.

For this comparison we can just accept ALL these accounts at face value, including the JS miracle stories. To compare them, it's reasonable to just start out by accepting them as true, in general, though retaining doubt about the miracle claims per se.

And if we just accept them this way, it's clear that the Jesus stories give a scene where it's non-disciples who are healed, and it's the onlookers who go out and tell the story at first, or sometimes it says the healed victim went out and told the story. Whereas in the JS stories, it's always a direct disciple who is healed and it's only direct disciples who write the accounts of the events.

This pattern runs throughout the examples, with virtually no exception in the accounts, though we can assume there might be some exceptions to the rule, and also some of the examples are ambiguous about the identity of the witnesses and the victims reportedly healed.


(end of first "wall of text" to be followed by another)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lumpy,
I was wondering if instead of the Wall Of Text responses to any and all criticism, you might make things easier for all of us by going with a buzzfeed format?

12 Reasons To Accept The Historicity of Jesus
(Number 9 will shock you!)

Or maybe

Atheists Hate This Historian!
He found actual photos of Jesus!

No, I'm going to build a WALL of text and make you pay for it!

No. Not paying for the privilege of being that bored, nope.

 

[funinspace]

Well it is pretty evident that this parrot is dead

You keep saying this, but you have yet to show any evidence that the stories originated from onlookers…hand waving doesn’t cut it.

The evidence is the stories as they are written, the gospel accounts. The details given clearly present examples where it is the onlookers, non-disciples, who started the stories originally.

We obviously think many different English words mean different things, so there really is no reason to keep poking at this. Tell you what, why don't you provide a reference where a mainstream Biblical theologian makes the argument that "onlookers" were "clearly" the primary source for the initial miracle stories that made it into GMark.

And this way, you don't even have to serve up WALL, SPAM, & WALL....

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm going to build a WALL of text and make you pay for it!

No. Not paying for the privilege of being that bored, nope.

Hey...Lumpy actually made a decent joke...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey...Lumpy actually made a decent joke...

Oh, hey. Yeah, I guess he did.
Apologies, Lumpy. Good job.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus Christ miracle stories are more credible than the Joseph Smith stories.

(continued from previous "wall of text")

What fame? The new Christ cult was a flop in Judea.

The "fame" does not mean that millions heard of it. It was a local fame, confined mostly to the region of Galilee, probably also spilling over into the bordering areas.

Or we take the letters of Paul at face value, and see that the marketing of this new cult seemed to work much better almost anywhere, but where the magic Jew purportedly did his woo woo.

Even if you're right about this, you're talking about much later. The "fame" mentioned in the miracle stories was while Jesus was still alive. It obviously lasted only a short time, probably less than 2 years. Where the new Christ cults spread to later is a different question.

Is there something of quality that presents these stories? That's what we need before we can take the JS miracle stories seriously.

WTF…do you not know how to use Google? Remember it was you that was so pissy about Wiki not being a mid 18th century document, so who gives a rats ass about these silly claims on web sites.

http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/joseph-smith-miracles/
https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/2014/08/11/joseph-smith-heals-elsa-johnsons-arm/
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-33?lang=eng

OK, I acknowledge that these are higher quality than the earlier ones. More coherent, and not sloppy. (Though I omitted one, the en.fairmormon etc. site -- that's one of the sloppy ones.) My complaint was not about the silly claims, but about the poor quality of the websites that quote the documents. But the above are an improvement.

So I will take these sites more seriously. But the same pattern is apparent: It's only direct disciples who are healed or who report the miracle healing events. With one possible exception. And maybe it's claimed that there's 1 or 2 further exceptions, but this is not clear.


This one seems to be presented as an exception:

the healing of Elsa Johnson. http://scottwoodward.org/miracles_curingmaimedandcrippled_josephhealsElsaJohnsonsArm.html These were mostly LDS followers (the witnesses), but not DIRECT disciples, so they did not know the Prophet directly and were not influenced by his charisma. (Let's assume this, though it's not clear.) There's no reason to seriously doubt that some incident did happen in this case, and maybe the victim did have some kind of recovery. But who really witnessed it and what really happened?

We have no testimony from any of the persons named here. Not from the Johnsons or their friends. But they reacted favorably to JS, which shows that he impressed them. Probably he showed a kind of sympathy toward her that made her feel good. But there's hardly any real testimony that there was a cure.

There's only one real eye-witness account of this, not mentioned prominently in the later accounts -- He's an avid staunch JS disciple, Philo Dibble. Here's an excerpt from his autobiography, http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/PDibble.html , which contains his account of the Elsa Johnson healing. It relates his conversion to LDS:

My wife thought I was too hasty, and said if I would wait awhile perhaps she would go along with me. She was a Baptist by persuasion. I paid no heed to her, but went forthwith and was baptized by Parley P. Pratt. This was on the 16th of October [probably November], 1830. When I came out of the water, I knew that I had been born of water and of the spirit, for my mind was illuminated with the Holy Ghost.

I spent that evening at Dr. F. [Frederick] G. Williams'. While in bed that night I felt what appeared to be a hand upon my left shoulder and a sensation like fibers of fire immediately enveloped my body. It passed from my right shoulder across my breast to my left shoulder, it then struck me on my collar bone and went to the pit of my stomach, after which it left me. I was enveloped in a heavenly influence, and could not sleep for joy.

Needless to say, we'll need an additional eye-witness beyond this guy, who by himself won't be very convincing. He's obviously the type who sees a dozen miracles a day.

Even so, if there's anything else along with this one, his testimony could be considered one small piece of evidence. He said a doctor was present who explained the healing as a natural cure caused by something psychological. "He attempted to account for it by his false philosophy, . . ." but Dibble would have none of it, and left his farm and "devoted all my time to the interest of the Church, holding myself in readiness to take Joseph wherever he wished to go."

Now this healing is the most persuasive of the Joseph Smith miracle cures, if you consider the claims of non-believers being witnesses to it. In this account, http://scottwoodward.org/miracles_curingmaimedandcrippled_josephhealsElsaJohnsonsArm.html , it gives the testimony of Amos S. Hayden, who is described here as an "eyewitness non-believer in Joseph Smith," and yet it turns out that this author was not really present at the event at all. The account does sound almost like that of an eye-witness at times, but it couldn't really be, because the author never says he was present there, http://sidneyrigdon.com/1875Hay3.htm , p. 250-51, and he was such an extreme denouncer of the new Mormon cult that it's impossible to imagine how he could have been present at such an affair. He surely would have said "I saw it myself" or something to make it clear that he saw it. He says in his account:

The sudden mental and moral shock -- I know not how better to explain the well attested fact -- electrified the rheumatic arm -- Mrs. Johnson at once lifted it up with ease, and on her return home the next day she was able to do her washing without difficulty or pain.

The phrase "the well attested fact" makes it pretty clear that he's basing this on someone else's testimony.

The only other source for the miracle event is a book from two modern Mormon authors. So there is no eye-witness source other than the Dibble account.

Nevertheless, these sources give enough to believe that some recovery likely happened, and probably the victim was not a direct disciple, before the event, but only someone sympathetic and not having been influenced by JS's charisma. So something did happen and she believed she recovered, probably. The best explanation is likely the doctor's "false philosophy" which Dibble rejected.

This case is very typical of a church family where the members pray for each other and sometimes one does recover and believes the praying caused it. And in some cases there really is a psychological element that helps the victim recover.

The real question here would be: Why did the JS followers believe so firmly that he did perform miracle healings, when it was probably only something psychological? He had a strong hold on them, and they were "true believers" in him personally.

The published Hayden book http://sidneyrigdon.com/1875Hay1.htm is online and has nothing but fire-and-brimstone disdain for JS and everything about him. Though he believed JS had some kind of power:

Whatever we may say of the moral character of the author of Mormonism, it can not be denied that Joseph Smith was a man of remarkable power -- over others. Added to the stupendous claim of supernatural power, conferred by the direct gift of God, he exercised an almost magnetic power -- an irresistible fascination -- over those with whom he came in contact.

So the Hayden account might increase the credibility a little, but only to show that JS had a strong impact psychologically, and his phrase "Added to the stupendous claim of supernatural power" casts doubt on the claim of any miracle act. Or possibly JS did have some limited healing power, maybe a psychic power shown by a few "faith-healers" and occurring in a few real cases, and then others were copy-cat stories inspired partly by the real case(s).

Rasputin the mad monk also apparently had a limited healing power. And there are probably other cases.

There have been thousands of "faith-healers" since the 1st century, virtually all of them basing their practice on the Jesus miracles of the gospel accounts. In a few of these cases there was probably something real that happened, and the victim was healed somehow. But 99% of the miracle claims are probably fictional, stemming from religious instinct and wishful thinking or delusionalism of some kind, and no real healing took place.

They are partly explained as being involved with a healing religious tradition dating back to the 1st century when all this got started. Prior to about 50 AD we see none of this. But these miracle stories suddenly explode onto the scene some time after 50 or 100 AD and continue on for centuries. And Joseph Smith is just one more example.

Though most of the stories are fiction, probably a few of them really did happen, because the healer had some psychological impact which resulted in a success or "hit" in a few cases, whereas most of the healing attempts were "misses." JS does not stand out but is one more reported healer in the Jesus tradition, and maybe he did have real power in those few cases. Some psychic healing power almost certainly can be documented, as a limited ability in some cases.

For 1800+ years the Jesus miracle healing tradition had spread and become popular throughout the Western world and many other regions outside the West. Joseph Smith was one of the hundreds and even thousands of reported miracle-workers who were part of this Jesus miracle tradition. Without the prior centuries of this tradition already at work, with thousands of miracle anecdotes published, the Joseph Smith phenomenon could not have happened. He based his entire miracle belief system on the Jesus of the gospels.

Prior to Jesus in the 1st century there was no such miracle healing tradition in practice. This was a new phenomenon in history, beginning in the first century around 30-50 AD. Prior to this there was nothing like this going on.

The closest to it was a practice by some pagans of worshiping or praying at a temple or before a statue, such as the temples of Asclepius, and writing inscriptions on the walls describing their healing experience. This practice had continued from at least 1000 years earlier as a long religious tradition, making it credible to the worshipers and giving them the psychological assurance that their prayers would be answered, and of course there was a practice of recording the "hits" and ignoring the "misses" in the healing accounts. Obviously the faith of these worshipers would have been impossible without the centuries of earlier praying and worshiping at these temples and paying tribute to the ancient healing god.


Joseph Smith and these others can be explained, but NOT the Jesus Christ miracle legend.

Assuming ALL the miracle stories are fiction, how do we explain that the legends exist? We can explain how these mythologies emerged in each case, by showing the renown and charisma of the miracle hero and the conditions leading to the myth-making behavior.

But the one healer of repute who cannot be accounted for is Jesus in the 1st century. All the other legends are clearly rooted in this Jesus healing tradition, i.e., the ones from 100 AD and later, while the earlier legends are rooted in the ancient legends and practices such as that of Asclepius or other pagan dieties dating back at least 1000 years earlier or into prehistory.

There are no other healing legends except the three stories from the Hebrew scriptures, of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. You could theorize that the Jesus legend somehow arose out of these 3 stories from 5 or 6 centuries earlier, but there is little basis for that theory. Jesus never did his healings in the name of Elijah or Elisha. Nor was there any Elijah or Elisha healing cult for a new upstart charismatic to plug into.

So Joseph Smith is just one of hundreds of Jesus-inspired miracle legends, all of whose miracles are patterned on that of the 1st-century healer who is the origin of all the later such legends. And there is no original model upon which the original Jesus legend itself can be explained. It pops up out of nowhere, in the 1st century, without any precedent.

If any healer ever existed, it's obvious that large numbers would come from far away to find him and be healed, or that the physically afflicted would be brought to him from the local region whenever he came into a new community. So if there had been any other healers with extensive power, we should see stories about the townspeople coming out to find him when he arrived, or bringing the sick, or coming from neighboring communities, from miles away, to find this healer.

And yet, before Jesus in the 1st century there are NO "faith-healing" rallies or anything resembling such an event. These begin happening only with his arrival on the scene, and then later in the ensuing centuries as new Christ-evangelists appear and claim to be healing in his name.

Likewise in other cultures, in India and other non-Christian lands, the healing miracle events begin to occur only in the period after Christ, never before the 1st century AD. These other cultures picked up on the miracle healing events in the gospel accounts and began claiming similar powers for their own mythic heroes.

And all the healed people were clearly NOT all JS DIRECT disciples.

Yes they were, either direct disciples or the children of direct disciples. According to the accounts offered so far

No the example I provided were family member of a ferryman, unrelated to the Mormon cult.

OK, that's one rare case where the victims were not JS disciples. However, the source for the story is the very prolific Wilford Woodruff, the direct JS disciple who is the sole source for most of the JS reported miracles. It may be that there are a tiny few exceptions to the rule that the ones reportedly cured were his direct disciples. The normal mythologizing process can easily explain this and other cases which are dependent on this one major source, i.e., a DIRECT disciple of the healer/guru. The victims were children, whose testimony is not available, so this one direct disciple is the only source for this healing story.

It's not that the direct disciples have no credibility at all. However, it's conspicuous that virtually all the victims healed and the sources for the stories are direct disciples. Though there may be 1 or 2 exceptions, this pattern is so evident that it's difficult to take the miracle claims seriously, as the originators of them were heavily influenced by the Prophet and wanted to promote his crusade.

You just decided that you now don’t like indirect healing (much like Jesus did a few times).

These are not ruled out. However, there is reason to be more suspicious of these. The account of Jesus sending out 12 Apostles and giving them power to heal (Mk 3:14-15) is to be doubted. In the gospels there is no case where any of the disciples really performed a healing, but only a broad statement that they performed such acts, which is much less credible.

Similarly, broad statements about Jesus healings, such as, "And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons . . ." also would be less credible if these were not accompanied by the many narrative accounts of him doing these acts.

And there is one account saying that the disciples tried to heal a demoniac but could not. This is probably a much later story reflecting the inability of the early church to perform miracles in the following decades. Claims that 12 Apostles were appointed to perform these acts could easily be a later invention by the early church to establish its authority and claim power derived from Christ.

But either way, 2 pages before offers this on Page 62:

On the morning of the 22nd of July, 1839, he arose reflecting upon the situation of the Saints of God in their persecutions and afflictions, and he called upon the Lord in prayer, and the power of God rested upon him mightily, and as Jesus healed all the sick around Him in His day, so Joseph, the Prophet of God, healed all around on this occasion. He healed all in his house and door-yard, then, in company with Sidney Rigdon and several of the Twelve, he went through among the sick lying on the bank of the river, and he commanded them in a loud voice, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come up and be made whole, and they were all healed.

Good -- this is even better than Rev. Moon marrying 50,000 couples simultaneously.

Yes, and we know who wrote it, when he wrote it, and where he wrote it, which includes within days to months of the event.

But the only source for this is Wilford Woodruf, the direct disciple. All these were direct disciples of Joseph Smith, which fits the general pattern of a church congregation, or local faith community, in which the members pray for each other and believe the praying worked when a recovery takes place, and which imagines their pastor has some special healing power over his flock.

We need the examples where it's not direct disciples of the guru who are the source for the story or the ones reportedly healed. But there's hardly any of these. Maybe 1 or 2 cases.

Repeating myself: In the Jesus tales, we only know they were committed to paper (at least the ones in Mark) some 3 decades after claimed events, . . .

A relatively short time span. Most events were not written down so soon after they happened, in those times.

. . . and we aren’t really sure who wrote nor where they wrote it.

That does not affect the credibility. You can choose to reject all anonymous sources, but reason does not require this.

There is good reason to believe that the Jesus miracle stories did not originate from disciples of his who were mesmerized by his charisma.

That's why the Jesus case is more credible.

Again, you need to show evidence that suggests the Jesus fables had these “onlookers” as story tellers, as your hand waving is not convincing anyone.

The onlookers are in the accounts. You reject them because your premise from the outset is that these events did not happen and so there were no victims healed or any witnesses. And based on this premise you reject the onlookers and everything else in the accounts.

But reason does not dictate that we must automatically reject all this in the stories. It's reasonable to accept the documents as we do any others, giving them the benefit of the doubt, believing the general presentation, while withholding judgment about the miracle claims.

From this it's reasonable to accept the scenario that the onlookers were there, that they were not disciples of Jesus, and that they were the originators of the stories which decades later were put into written form (probably modified in part). This is what the accounts clearly imply, and it's reasonable to accept them as generally accurate about this, even though there's no proof that any of it is true, just as there's no such proof for most of the documents of history.

You can toss out any historical document for not having "evidence" to prove that its content is correct, if you don't like that content. Logic really does not compel you to accept any document of history as accurate. No one has ever gone back in a time machine to witness the actual events to prove that our documents are telling the true story.

But of course you can’t as all you have are the anonymous Gospels written decades later somewhere…

For most historical facts of that time we have only documents written many decades later, and often we don't know where they were written. This is not a reason to reject the accounts, though you can choose to reject them because of your absolute premise that they must be false. But one can reasonably believe them for normal details, while being skeptical of the miracle claims. Not everyone is required to conform to your premise that the documents have to be false no matter what.


Summary: Jesus vs. JS miracle claims

The Jesus miracle accounts are more credible than those of Joseph Smith, broadly because we can easily explain the Smith miracle stories as a product of normal mythologizing, though they're fictional; while those of Jesus we cannot explain this way, assuming they are fictional.

Or, the following reasons are why it's easy to explain the JS miracles as fictional, but difficult to explain the Jesus miracles as fictional:

• The JS miracle accounts originate almost entirely from his direct disciples as the source for them, and the one reportedly healed is almost always a direct disciple; whereas for the Jesus miracle accounts the ones who spread the story and also the ones reportedly healed are non-disciples and thus not influenced or motivated by his charisma.
  
  
• The JS miracle accounts fit the general mythologizing pattern of being rooted in a centuries-old religious healing tradition, where the acts are done in the name of an ancient healing god or healer savior who is worshiped by the victims reportedly healed and by the witnesses. But the Jesus miracle accounts do not fit this general pattern, as this case is the ONLY miracle healing legend not rooted in an earlier miracle healing tradition.
  
  
• The JS miracle accounts are centered on a famous/notorious figure who had a wide reputation and celebrity status in his lifetime, with a career (admittedly shorter than normal) of 10-20 years of preaching and winning disciples and influencing them with his charisma, which gave him time to become mythologized before his death. Whereas the Jesus miracle accounts are about a person of no status (during his lifetime), no wide recognition, and a career too short to be able to recruit a large following.
  
  
• The JS miracle accounts, along with other modern miracle legends, are a product of modern publishing and would not have been possible 2000 years ago. Whereas the Jesus miracle accounts were important and noteworthy enough to become recorded and published in spite of the very limited resources for publishing at that time.
  
  
• We can easily explain what drew a large number of followers to the new LDS cult founded by Joseph Smith. But there is no apparent explanation what drew large numbers to the new Christ cult(s) after 30 AD which would not also have drawn large numbers to many other cults and then produced similar "gospel" accounts of their respective healing myths. The best explanation for this higher level of belief in the Jesus miracles is that those acts were real events and not fiction as all the other miracle legends were.

Finally, on the last point above, the Joseph Smith case might be a special one, in which the Prophet stood out as a charismatic leader more conspicuously than other cases of miracle legends or gurus or prophets.

The distinguishing element is his unusual doctrine that Jesus Christ visited the Western Hemisphere in a separate form similar to his appearance in the east Mediterranean region. This belief in a special appearance of Christ in the New World had a strong appeal to many Christians, and also answered to a special complaint of millions in the Christian world -- not only of Christians, but of philosophers, atheists, non-Christian religionists, poets, social critics, etc.

The complaint, which is universal wherever Christian teaching is known, is that it's not fair that humans are required to believe in a "Savior" who is connected to one particular culture and to one particular geographical region, to the EXCLUSION of all other humans who don't know about this Savior or the "Gospel" sent out from this particular culture. Such a "gospel" is an offense to all those other humans and other cultures outside the one which presumes to offer its claims on them to have to accept their "gospel" or savior because it's the TRUE gospel while all others are inadequate and inferior to theirs.

This particularism is universally condemned in one way or another by almost everyone, including by Christians themselves, who feel guilty and repeatedly try to find ways to apologize for this particularism and modify it in some way to make their "gospel" more palatable to those who are offended.

And Joseph Smith with his Book of Mormon found a unique way to express this complaint, so that he attracted a larger following than is normal for an upstart religious cult.

So if it's true that the JS case is more noteworthy and that this cult founder attracted a greater following and a greater element of mythologizing than others, this unique doctrine of Christ visiting the New World has to be the main explanation for it. His followers were impacted by this in a way which led to a greater fascination with the Prophet than is normal for a new cult leader, and he was uplifted to a higher level of wonderment and desire to deify him as a divine Prophet on a special Mission.

 

[Atheos]

The JS miracle accounts originate almost entirely from his direct disciples as the source for them, and the one reportedly healed is almost always a direct disciple; whereas for the Jesus miracle accounts the ones who spread the story and also the ones reportedly healed are non-disciples and thus not influenced or motivated by his charisma.

Again you are merely asserting this with absolutely no evidence, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of a story. People can make up stories about anonymous and unrelated people getting healed every bit as easily as they can make up stories about anyone else. It is absurd to claim that somehow this bolsters the claims.

The JS miracle accounts fit the general mythologizing pattern of being rooted in a centuries-old religious healing tradition, where the acts are done in the name of an ancient healing god or healer savior who is worshiped by the victims reportedly healed and by the witnesses. But the Jesus miracle accounts do not fit this general pattern, as this case is the ONLY miracle healing legend not rooted in an earlier miracle healing tradition.

Bullshit. The Jesus miracle accounts are rooted in centuries old Jewish traditions of miracle prophets such as Elijah, Elisha, etc. Claims of wonder-working gods and god-men is the single most common religious claim and can be traced into nearly every religious tradition we have evidence for all the way into the most ancient history we have available.

The JS miracle accounts are centered on a famous/notorious figure who had a wide reputation and celebrity status in his lifetime, with a career (admittedly shorter than normal) of 10-20 years of preaching and winning disciples and influencing them with his charisma, which gave him time to become mythologized before his death. Whereas the Jesus miracle accounts are about a person of no status (during his lifetime), no wide recognition, and a career too short to be able to recruit a large following.

So when Matthew claims that "His fame spread abroad" what he meant was that "nobody knew of him." About one thing you are correct: If Jesus existed and lived in the areas described in the gospel accounts he certainly didn't gain any fame during that time. Contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD) never noticed him although he wrote about offshoot Jewish sects such as the Essenes and wrote about Pilate. Evidence is strong that Philo of Alexandria would have been living in or near Jerusalem at the time in question. His complete silence on this incredible miracle-worker speaks volumes. Similarly, Justus of Tiberius wrote a history of the area and time in question circa 80 AD and never mentions this incredible miracle worker. Seneca the Younger, whose lifespan definitely would have included the time in question, and who wrote extensively about ethics never mentions this man who ostensibly had a great deal to say about that very subject. Pliny the Elder, who wrote about natural phenomenons such as earthquakes, eclipses, etc., never mentions the strange phenomena GMatt and GLuke say happened when Jesus was crucified. The silence of the historical record contemporary to this time strongly attests that if this individual lived he made absolutely no (or very minimal) impression. It is veritably certain he did not heal the family members of high-profile leaders as is reported in the gospels. They were lying.

The "fame" of Jesus is easily explained by the decades of effort Paul put into selling this nebulous heavenly voice he was channeling all over hell's half acre. 10-15 years of Paul's efforts selling the dude was more than enough to create the setting for imagination to run wild appropriating miracle legends from Jewish and Greeko-Roman traditions (and make up some of their own) in an effort to create an impressive life for this character. That's what appears to have happened. There is no freaking way this man did all the incredible feats enumerated in the canonical gospels without leaving any mark in the historical record of his time. No. Freaking. Way.

The JS miracle accounts, along with other modern miracle legends, are a product of modern publishing and would not have been possible 2000 years ago. Whereas the Jesus miracle accounts were important and noteworthy enough to become recorded and published in spite of the very limited resources for publishing at that time.

So we're back to the idea that before the printing press people couldn't make shit up. It's really a rich argument. Makes me laugh every time I hear it.

We can easily explain what drew a large number of followers to the new LDS cult founded by Joseph Smith. But there is no apparent explanation what drew large numbers to the new Christ cult(s) after 30 AD which would not also have drawn large numbers to many other cults and then produced similar "gospel" accounts of their respective healing myths. The best explanation for this higher level of belief in the Jesus miracles is that those acts were real events and not fiction as all the other miracle legends were.

Well, there's no apparent explanation if you don't count the fact that Paul could have easily been every bit as charismatic as Joseph Smith.

Your arguments once again fall over like a house of cards with the slightest puff.

 

[skepticalbip]

Jesus and the disciples were a traveling entertainment magic troops

Jesus was the leading magician and the disciples played minor roles but were primarily his advance hawkers, set-up crew, and roadies. The act was a mixture of Binny Hinn's healings and David Copperfield's magic but they were only good enough at their shtick to fool some of the local yokels who had never seen a quality magic show. The small crowds were not too impressed with Paul's card tricks but seemed to enjoy the Benny Hinn imitation that Jesus gave. Eventually they ran into trouble with the local law. Apparently the disciple, Judas, was billing Jesus as "King of the Jews" on the billboards he posted before the show arrived in town not knowing that it was against the law to use that phrase. The troop was convicted. The disciples only received suspended sentences but Jesus as, the headliner, was sentenced to three days in jail. After emerging from the jail cell, reborn, he decided to leave Judea and his disciples behind since the disciples were fairly inept assistants and the Judean rabble were too fucking poor to provide much of an income. He moved to India where he had heard that they appreciated magic acts and lived out the rest of his life doing slight-of-hand tricks in bars for drinks. He was buried in Kashmir, India, dying at the ripe age of 80, after living several decades in his adopted homeland with his wife and several children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal

http://www.ibtimes.com/jesus-christ-was-savior-buried-kashmir-india-1519716"]http://www.ibtimes.com/jesus-christ-was-savior-buried-kashmir-india-1519716[/URL]

 

[Atheos]

So when Matthew claims that "His fame spread abroad" what he meant was that "nobody knew of him." About one thing you are correct: If Jesus existed and lived in the areas described in the gospel accounts he certainly didn't gain any fame during that time. Contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD) never noticed him although he wrote about offshoot Jewish sects such as the Essenes and wrote about Pilate. Evidence is strong that Philo of Alexandria would have been living in or near Jerusalem at the time in question. His complete silence on this incredible miracle-worker speaks volumes. Similarly, Justus of Tiberius wrote a history of the area and time in question circa 80 AD and never mentions this incredible miracle worker. Seneca the Younger, whose lifespan definitely would have included the time in question, and who wrote extensively about ethics never mentions this man who ostensibly had a great deal to say about that very subject. Pliny the Elder, who wrote about natural phenomenons such as earthquakes, eclipses, etc., never mentions the strange phenomena GMatt and GLuke say happened when Jesus was crucified. The silence of the historical record contemporary to this time strongly attests that if this individual lived he made absolutely no (or very minimal) impression. It is veritably certain he did not heal the family members of high-profile leaders as is reported in the gospels. They were lying.

I quoted myself because I realized there is a tantalizing observation that can be drawn from this evidence. A list can be produced of several ancient historians contemporary to the time and place Jesus supposedly lived who somehow failed to make any notice of this remarkable individual. Lumpenproletariat and an entire army of christian apologists cannot produce a single contemporary witness to this remarkable individual after centuries of combing. Instead we get demonstrably falsified artifacts such as the Shroud of Turin, the bones of St John, the "Holy Grail", falsified testimony written into Josephus, historical witnesses a century or more removed from the events in question and mounds of gratuitous bluster.