The written accounts of the Jesus miracle acts are evidence that he did those acts.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
. . . we still find within [these accounts] strong evidence not of a miracle, but of natural events that were either mistaken for miracles or . . .
No, with the Resurrection accounts we have evidence of a miracle, and no evidence of a natural event which could have been mistaken for a miracle.
Of course you can insist that it was a "natural event" which was mistaken for a miracle. You can conjecture this for ANY miracle claim, no matter what, even for a NON-miracle claim, or any claim at all, of any kind. But in this case there is no "evidence" for your conjecture. The 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes does not constitute evidence for your conjecture that he did not die.
. . . mistaken for miracles or simply got embellished over time to be turned into miracles that actually were not.
No, the Resurrection belief was too early to claim it developed "over time" and didn't exist at an early point. Far more likely is that it was a very early belief, from the beginning, because this explains what inspired the earliest followers to start this new cult/religion and make Jesus into the "Messiah" and "savior" and "risen Christ" we find in Paul's writings in the 50s AD. All the indications are that the believers at the beginning, the direct disciples, did believe the Resurrection happened, as Paul said they did, as they had witnessed the appearances afterward, believing obviously that he had died and then returned to life. So there's nothing in the accounts to indicate that the Resurrection belief evolved gradually "over time" through embellishment, even though some other parts of the story may have developed that way.
The real meaning of "strong evidence not of a miracle, but of natural events that were either mistaken for miracles" is: There can never be any evidence for a "miracle" event, because we can imagine the possibility that the evidence might be incorrect or mistaken.
That's the only "evidence" you have found. You can find that kind of "evidence" to debunk not only a miracle claim, but any historical fact you want not to have happened. You can always come up with something, with any account of a past event, and inject your own "facts" into it which contradict a part of the account which you want not to have happened.
The only "evidence" you've cited is the 75 pounds of "myrrh and aloes" brought by Nicodemus. It's not certain that the quantity was really this much, but even if it was, all the evidence is that this was done in accordance with Jewish burial custom for dead bodies, with no evidence that its purpose was medical. Large quantities of spices were sometimes used for Jewish burials. At the funeral of King Herod we're told by Josephus that 500 attendants carried spices (
Jewish War I.33.9), and at the death of rabbi Gamaliel a large quantity of balsam was consumed:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3842-burial
Spices and Plants at the Burial.
Embalming, practised in Egypt (Gen. 1. 2, 26) and in the case of Aristobulus in Rome (Josephus, "Ant." xiv. 7, § 4), was unknown, or at least exceedingly rare, in Judea. But—undoubtedly with the view of removing the odor—spices were put on the coffin or otherwise used at funerals (Ber. viii. 6; John xii. 7, xix. 39), and myrtles and aloes (in liquid state) were carried in the procession (Beẓah 6a; John xix. 39). In honor of dead kings "sweet odors and diverse kinds of spices" were burned (Jer. xxxiv. 5; II Chron. xvi. 14, xxi. 19), together with the bier and the armor (see 'Ab. Zarah 11a), or carried along in the procession (Josephus, "Ant." xv. 3, § 4; xvii. 83; idem, "B. J." i. 33, § 9). Onkelos (Aquila), the proselyte, burned 80 manehs of balsam in honor of R. Gamaliel the Elder (Sem. viii.; 'Ab. Zarah 11a). Later practise added an infusion of the spices to the water with which the dead was washed (see Ṭaharah).
(Most accounts seem to have the maneh being a heavier unit than the pound.) In all this there is no indication that the purpose of the spices is to treat the body for wounds or to heal it.
Why would such spices be used in this one case only, the death of Jesus, for medical purposes, when there is no such case in all the other burials, in which it was common practice to include the spices as part of the burial custom? If an account is of a physician treating a patient, that might be the purpose in some cases. But there is no evidence in the Gospel accounts that this was for a medical purpose.
Yes, you can start out with the premise that ALL evidence for any "miracle" event is automatically disqualified, because there is no evidence, for ANY event, which is immune to the possibility of error. So, we can pretend that ANY evidence for an apparent "miracle" event must be erroneous, and so you have the automatic UNIVERSAL MIRACLE REFUTER for any miracle claim whatever, no matter how strong the evidence might be that the event did happen.
But a reasonable person is not required to start out with such a premise. It's not unreasonable to leave open the possibility of a miracle event, if there's extra evidence. It's not required by logic to start out with the PREMISE that any miracle claim must necessarily be based on mistaken evidence. It's only by imposing that special dogma that you can then disqualify the evidence for the Jesus miracles in the Gospel accounts.
Just being an intelligent adult is all that is necessary to see into the actual accounts we do have how easily such natural events could be mistaken for something else, particularly among . . .
If such natural events could be easily mistaken for something else, we should have a few other examples of it, in the written record, e.g., where an apparent resurrection miracle really did not happen. But you can't give any example of it. Your best shot is your claim that Jesus really did not die, and this explains the apparent "resurrection" event. But all the evidence is that he did die, and there's nothing to show otherwise. You can't explain how such a mistake happened ONLY ONCE in all the known historical record. Why is there no other case of a crucified victim surviving and "resurrecting" later, after being taken down prematurely? If there's no other case of such a thing, we should not assume that it happened in this one case only, as a single one-of-a-kind case in history. Nothing requires a reasonable person to assume that this happened this one time only in all the known historical record.
You can believe this goofy theory if you choose, as there are many oddball theories about historical events, which contradict the evidence we have. But a reasonable person is not required by logic to adopt this goofy theory contradicting the clear evidence and testimony, in the written record, saying that Jesus did in fact die when he was crucified. You have to come up with something better than this goofy theory in order to show how the reported event is contrary to what really happened.
Oddball theories about Jesus
Is there EVIDENCE, or not?
There are many oddball theories about Jesus, for which usually there is no evidence. But in some cases there might be evidence for the theory, in which case it might be taken more seriously.
• There's no evidence: The theory that he did not really die, that he was taken down prematurely and awoke and was healed by the oils or spices, has no evidence for it. The mere existence of a large amount of the spices is not evidence for this theory, as this is just as easily explained by the need for them for the burial custom, to counteract the unpleasant odor. That healing wounds was also sometimes a use for them, in other cases, is not evidence for anything here, as the only use for them reported here was for the burial custom, never for healing. So this theory is a conjecture only, with no evidence.
• There is evidence: Here is an example of a theory for which there is some evidence: The person who "cleansed" the temple by casting out the money-changers was not really Jesus Christ, but Jesus Barabbas, the criminal mentioned at the trial, who was released to the crowd which demanded that Jesus Christ be crucified.
The story of the casting out of the money-changers makes more sense if it was Barabbas who did it, rather than Christ. Because in all likelihood anyone who would do such a thing would be arrested immediately by the police.
(Mark 11:15) -- And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; 16 and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple.
It's not likely anyone could commit this violence without being arrested immediately, because it likely would lead to a riot, and in fact this might have been the intention of the perpetrator. If it was really Barabbas who committed this violence, the whole scenario makes much more sense:
(Mark 15:7) -- And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab'bas.
So for this theory there is at least some evidence. It's an "oddball" theory, because it contradicts the Gospel claim that it was Jesus Christ who committed this violence. But there's "evidence" for this theory: I.e., the whole story makes much more sense if it was Barabbas and not Christ who perpetrated this criminal act. Barabbas was in fact arrested, as the instigator surely would be. And that both had the same name "Jesus" helps explain how the two got confused with each other, and how Christ might have got blamed for a crime Barabbas had committed.
But the theory that Jesus did not die when he was crucified has no evidence for it. There's nothing in the Gospel accounts which is explained by replacing the dead Jesus with a Jesus still alive and being healed with the spices. Other than just the need to eliminate the miracle of the resurrection. But that's the only need for this oddball theory. There's nothing else, in any written record, suggesting that crucified victims were ever taken down prematurely by mistake and then healed with spices or oils or ointments. Or taken down by someone knowing the victim was still alive, as a conspiracy to thwart the executioners. Rather, everything suggests that such a scenario could never happen against the intentions of those in power.
We need an example of something which was mistaken for a miracle, even though there's a plausible explanation of what really happened. But it's not plausible if it requires us to believe that a one-of-a-kind event, the only one in history, happened in this case, and never in any other case historically. That a dead body was taken down earlier than usual is not unlikely, if the victim was dead. But if a live body was taken down early, thought to be dead, and then later awakened, we should see some other example of it, reported in the record as something unusual, and happening in defiance of some precautions taken to prevent such an act. Those who performed these executions did not let the victims be taken down if they were still alive. They had motivation to leave them in place for the symbolism and also to continue the suffering as long as possible.
. . . particularly among people who already believed in such things as gods and resurrection from the dead and the like.
No, those people, or people generally, did not already believe in such things as are reported here. There are no earlier examples -- no miracle reports, no resurrections they believed in. The only "miracles" believed in were ancient myths from centuries earlier, not any recent events. The only gods believed in were the ancient deities with their priests practicing the ancient prescribed rituals.
There were no beliefs in a recent historical person doing miracles, healing people, or rising from the dead. There are no other examples of anyone believing such things. There was only belief in the ancient gods whose worshipers prayed for healing and did the prescribed rituals, and when they sometimes recovered from an illness, they credited the ancient gods. The same as today, and throughout history.
But what's reported in the Gospel accounts -- the Jesus miracle acts, the Resurrection -- are not something already believed in by anyone, at that time or earlier. Whatever claims there were of recent miracle-workers, of "Messiah" figures doing superhuman acts, other than ordained priests or prophets practicing the ancient religions and standard rituals, were ignored or rejected by virtually everyone, especially by writers, or the educated, so there is no written record of recent alleged miracle acts. I.e., "recent" meaning acts which happened less than 50/100 years earlier than the written record reporting them.
So it's not true that people believed in "such things as gods and resurrection" etc., other than the popular ancient deities, heroes, etc., passed on in legends from centuries earlier. Unlike the Gospel accounts which report a recent event, or recent reputed miracle-worker, of which there is no other example in the written record. Any recent miracle claims were NOT believed or taken seriously, outside of a few nutcase cult members, and so were not reported in written accounts and are thus totally forgotten.
If it were true that people believed in "such things as gods and resurrection" such as Jesus in the Gospel accounts, we'd have some indication of it in a written record near to the time of the alleged event. But there is no other case of such a thing.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
It's because your logic relies too much on asserting what others 'really mean'. It's a legitimate complaint.
