What are the standards for comparing one miracle legend -- Jesus, Mithras, Perseus, Prometheus etc. -- to another?
there were quite a few events that never got mentioned by mainline historians, like about 99.9999999999% of all the events that happened. And everything they wrote was only about the rich and powerful, not about ordinary people.
Since Jesus was a person of no recognized status or repute during his lifetime, it is amazing that we have any mention of him at all in any historical document, i.e., the brief mention in Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus, who wrote only about people in high positions of power and military conflicts, and certainly about no one whose public career was less than 10 years.
There is probably not one other example of anyone ever mentioned in any history source, prior to 1500 or so, whose public career was so short.
Excellent point.
No, it's not.
It's his only point, that the details of the Jesus story could not possibly have been made up, . . .
No, more precisely, the
miracle stories generally could not have been made up. Probably some details were made up (there's no need to insist that every statement in the gospel accounts is true). It's the general picture that is true, and the miracle element has to be part of it, not fiction, because it's the only element which explains how Jesus became deified within only 30 years (probably earlier, but by 60 AD at latest).
. . . could not possibly have been made up for various justifications he will not grant to other myths and legends.
We can go over those myths and legends (again) one by one. Let's just take the 3 famous examples from the 1st century, contemporaries of Jesus -- Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Hanina ben Dosa. All of them are reputed miracle workers and thus "other myths and legends" to compare to the Jesus miracle legend.
These other miracle legends are judged by the same objective standards as the Jesus legend. The standards are:
- We need a source, written document, saying they existed and performed miracles.
- Number of sources: We need more than only one such source, for a miracle claim. For most historical events maybe only one source is enough, but it's still better to have more than only one.
- Proximity of source to the alleged miracle event(s): The source(s) should be near to the time of the event. 100 years might still be close enough for most normal events, but for miracle events it should be sooner.
- Reputation: Another factor is the fame or widespread reputation of the miracle hero, i.e., the real historical person from whom the later legend emerged (whether it's fictional or real). A short public career and non-fame or non-status of this person does make it harder to explain how he later became mythologized. All the above three Jesus contemporary reputed miracle-workers had long careers and broad recognition or status (though Apollonius is the best case of this, whereas the others are less certain). Based on the sources we have for them, each of them definitely had a public career of longer than 20 years, performing their great deeds and impressing people.
There are some other factors also, but we can look at these, and you can suggest what other factors ought to also be considered. But these are real objective factors.
For standards to judge historicity, the first 3 factors above, about the sources, are used for judging the truth of regular historical events. Do we not require sources, or documents, saying the event(s) happened, and don't we want them to be close to the events, like less than 100 years, or less than 50 years, rather than centuries later? And don't we want the
extra sources beyond only one?
So what is wrong with saying the Jesus miracle reports have more credibility, and could not have been made up (or are less likely made up) than for these other examples? And how is this not based on "justifications" that are granted to the others, or rather, by standards that are applied equally to all of them?
And so what's the flaw in saying this Jesus miracle legend could not have been "made up" in the way we can easily recognize that these others were made up? How am I committing the error of saying they could "not possibly have been made up for various justifications he will not grant to other myths and legends"? What are you babbling about? I've given the "justifications" and demonstrated how those other "myths and legends" fall short of the standards.
What are the standards or "justifications" which would have led to a different conclusion? i.e., the conclusion that one of these others was more likely real or credible than the Jesus legend? What standards or "justifications" do you apply which would lead to this different conclusion?
digression: I was thinking of helping you out by providing you with an archaeological find concerning Apollonius of Tyana, which would allow you to claim we have archaeological evidence for him from the 1st century which we do not have for Jesus. I.e.,
physical evidence, which maybe is more scientific than written documents?
But alas!
Trying to find it I discovered I had been conned again by an earlier debater (from 5 or 6 years ago) who gave me false information about this physical evidence.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/apollonius_inscription.htm
I was led to believe it was some kind of a 1st-century shrine or monument erected in honor of Apollonius. There's an inscription:
'This man, named after Apollo,
and shining forth Tyana,
extinguished the faults of men.
The tomb in Tyana (received) his body,
but in truth heaven received him
so that he might drive out the pains of men
(or:drive pains from among men) .'
--- Ancient inscription, translated C. P. Jones
This is more than just an archaeological find, but in fact is a "document" in that it tells us some information, in text, about the reputed miracle-worker. Any set of words saying something is a "document" even it's also a monument or shrine or physical object from stone. However the words got there, it's a text and a statement or written source.
So this almost appears to be an early testimony to this man's miracle power, even if the wording is vague. But -- wouldn't y'know it -- the real date turns out to be much later:
A date in the third or fourth century seems roughly right, and would accord with the content of the epigram.
Gosh Darn Double-Fudge!
There's no 1st-century monument here at all, as I was falsely informed. So I can't help you -- I was going to suggest that you have here physical evidence, an archaeological find, proving the existence of this character in the 1st century, which we don't seem to have for Jesus. I had recalled something about a memorial stone of some kind giving his name. But it turns out it's a 3rd- or 4th-century text "document" engraving.
Why do so many of these Jesus-debunker smoking guns turn out to be fraudulent? This is one of many I keep running into. After the pattern repeats over and over you have to start scratching your head.
The Mithras cult parallels turned out to be fraudulent, e.g. ALL of them are based on sources AFTER 100 AD, it turns out. Though the Mithras cult existed much earlier, there's nothing in the earlier sources showing any parallel to Christianity. All those parallels are POST-Christian. Even that December 25 date which we hear so often.
Tell us what the standards or "justifications" are for comparing Jesus to any other "religion" or "miracle legend" or "myth hero" etc. Let's make the comparison. Lay out the objective scientific standards to go by. And it's not the
existence per se of the miracle hero or legend, because these mythic hero figures probably did exist. It's the details of their miracle acts that is questioned. How do we compare the different claims made to determine which ones have greater credibility and which ones less?
I've given some standards -- are there others? What are they? If my standards are subjective or "special pleading" or "sharpshooter" standards, then offer your own standards. How would you judge these different miracle legends or religious cults or mythic heroes to compare them and judge which one is more credible than another?
I've made the comparison by the standards I've listed and found there's not even a close second to the Jesus case, for whom we do have some evidence, similar to evidence for mainline history, i.e., written testimony or claims in writing near to the time of the events. What should be the standards of "justifications" if not these ones I've listed?
This ignores humanity's great facility at making shit up, and our great gullibility to accept made-up-shit.
But this is an argument against ALL historical evidence. All of it is told to us by someone who could have "made up shit" because there's no way to go back and confirm it without relying on some other written source which might also be "made-up-shit."
If we have an objective standard for comparing one "normal" history source to another and judging their reliability or judging their claims, we can apply those same standards for "abnormal" claims to judge which are more reliable and which are less.
If you just fall back on the rhetoric that no miracle claim can ever be true, no matter what, then you're imposing a dogmatic premise which not everyone accepts or has to accept. Nothing in science or logic requires us to accept this premise regardless of any consideration of the evidence in particular cases.
only 1% 
