The written accounts of the Jesus miracle acts are evidence that he did those acts.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
All of which, no one named "Mark" could have possibly eye-witnessed.
If he did not witness it, he's like 98% of our ancient historians, who did not eye-witness the events they reported.
Yeah, which is why we don't know who Homer actually was and . . .
Homer? He wrote of events which happened at least 500 years earlier, and he's our ONLY source for most of the reported events. But the Gospels are 4 sources and relate events 30-70 years earlier, which for ancient events was a typically short time span between the events and the later written record of them.
So it's not Homer, but Herodotus and Josephus and Suetonius and Plutarch and Tacitus etc. who are like Mark and the other Gospel writers. Virtually none of what these historians report was eye-witnessed by them. But still we believe them.
. . . and certainly don't just accept that gods named Zeus and Athena actually existed, . . .
Because those "gods" or characters either were not historical at all, or, if they did exist in history, it was thousands of years earlier than the writer, making the source unreliable. The Gospel accounts are accepted for events in the first century when they were written, being close enough to the reported events.
. . . or even if there ever actually was a "Trojan War" or "Trojan Horse."
But they (mostly) accept the characters and events reported in Herodotus, etc., even though he was not an eye-witness to the events. Written accounts of the events are credible evidence that the events happened, yet most are not from eye-witnesses and are not even contemporary to the reported events. Homer would be an acceptable source if he had been nearer to the reported events, and especially if there were other sources reporting the same events. E.g., for miracle claims we need 1 or 2 additional sources for it to be credible.
These are NOT things that are just accepted as being true by actual historians.
Because Homer is too far removed from the original events, and he's the only source. If the evidence for the events was better, there'd be more credibility, even for the miracle claims. If there were miracle events in Homer which were attested to in other documents, and if these sources were dated only 100 or 50 years from the alleged events, then the claims would become credible.
It is significant that we have NO OTHER SUCH evidence for miracle claims in the ancient world. Why shouldn't there be a few other examples of it, if miracle claims were commonly believed by people? Why wouldn't we have a few examples where there are 2 or 3 sources near to the time of the alleged events?
But even in those cases, it doesn't really matter because there is nothing fantastical in the notion that two armies went to war against each other, or that one army figured out a clever way to deceive their enemy.
You are, once again, desperately trying to equate oral history of mundane events with oral history of fantastical claims. That's just straight up nonsense.
No, there's a big difference between mundane events and miracle claims. And therefore we require extra evidence for miracle claims. Only one source 200 or 300 years later is not good enough (though it usually is for mundane events). With 2 or 3 sources the claim becomes more credible, and also if the source is less than 100 years later.
Whoever "Mark" was could not have been relating personal anecdotes; he could only have been relating what others told him about that morning at best.
Some of Mark is more likely from personal experience/anecdote.
You have zero basis to make such a claim and . . .
The following incident in Mark 14, when Jesus was arrested, is likely from personal experience/anecdote:
50 And they all forsook him, and fled. 51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
Why would a writer not near the event include a pointless item like this? Only an eye-witness would include this in the narrative. So, either the Mark writer/editor 40 years later was this eye-witness, or he got this story from an eye-witness. The original source for this must have been close to the actual event, either being there himself or at least in direct contact with someone there, and he felt at liberty to add something like this which he had personal knowledge of.
It isn't necessary to assume that the writer/editor/redactor of 70 AD was personally present at the event. But this report, or this incident, must originate from someone who was present, because only such a person would see any significance in it and have a reason to include it in his report. It makes no sense to say someone later had a religious motive to make this up and add it to the story, to make some kind of point. It must have come from someone present who is reporting impressions, anything unusual. It's normal for someone actually present to attach significance to this, but not a later religious writer or propagandist spreading the "gospel" or recruiting converts.
. . . and ample evidence from within the work that contradicts it.
No, nothing is contradicted, even if there are both personal anecdotes and other parts "relating what others told him" of the events.
There's plenty in Mark which is not from personal anecdote, but there are also elements which are more likely from someone directly present at the reported events. There's no contradiction just because there are different kinds of content. Some stories might be fiction and others accurate reports of what happened.
If I claim I am relating events I personally witnessed and then say things like, "And then Jesus . . .
Who's claiming any such thing? There is no claim by the Mark author that he personally witnessed the events. Just as most of the historical writings contain no such claim.
. . . then Jesus wandered out into the desert and had the following conversation with a supernatural being..." I have just tipped to you, the reader, that I am NOT relating events that I personally . . .
He's doing both. Or rather, he's relating some events through direct anecdotal accounts (his own or someone else's) AND ALSO events interpreted by him from the total sources he has, perhaps including some of his own conjecture of what happened. It doesn't have to be all one or the other. And some of the content can be doubted as less reliable, because of the element of conjecture by the later writer/editor. But even so, other parts are reliable.
. . . that I personally witnessed unless I actually went out into the desert night with Jesus and saw and heard everything that I then relate to you.
Obviously the Mark writer is making no such claim, and most of the account is not about events directly witnessed by him. But some of the content does originate from someone in close contact with the actual events. This is not changed by the fact that there may also be fictional elements included.
Again, all of this idiocy is something you never in a million years would ignore in regard to any other mythology, but because . . .
You have no "other mythology" to offer for comparison. Give the example so we can do the comparison and see if some "other mythology" also is supported by evidence, as the Jesus miracle acts are attested to in the historical record.
. . . because this is your pet favorite, suddenly your . . .
For there to be a "favorite," there has to be others to choose from which are less favored. What are they? You can't offer an example for comparison. How can you call something a "pet favorite" when there is only one to choose and no others? There are others? If so, you'd name them.
Here's someone supposedly naming other examples for comparison:
Jesus is a late comer to the claims of resurrected gods schtick... Kim Il Sung is the latest that I am aware of that has supposedly resurrected.
This is just a lie. There is no written account of any such resurrection.
This is the best that anyone can offer when asked for an example for comparison. This is close to PROOF that there is no other example. All that anyone can offer is to make up stories.
But earlier (earlier than Jesus) religions' resurrected gods include Osiris, Baal, Asclepius, Achilles, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Dumuzi, etc, etc.
There is no evidence for any of these. None of the accounts of these can be called "evidence" for the claimed events. In most of these cases there really is no resurrection claim at all, but only interpretations by modern Jesus-debunkers trying to prove that there were other resurrection stories predating Christianity.
If there were really any seriousness to these supposed miracle legends, those claiming it would quote the ancient texts which relate the stories of the miracle events.
Notice that EVERY time someone uses these examples they NEVER give the ancient text which relates the claimed miracle event. There is no case for any of them, and if there were any case to be made, that such miracle claims existed, the Jesus-debunker offering the example would quote to us the ancient text source for it. But the most they can offer is always a 20th- or 21st-century Jesus-debunker scholar as their source.
In effect you show no evidence that you have any idea what other religions mythology include and yet . . .
But no such "other religions mythology" is ever offered for comparison. Just giving a laundry list of names of ancient deities is not a miracle claim. Where is the written account relating the miracle claim or myth? No one ever offers this. They just parade a list of meaningless names, like the above "Osiris, Baal, Asclepius" etc. which is meaningless. There is no ancient text which says any of these did miracles. Or, at most, there might be one source claiming to relate something which happened a thousand or million years earlier.
Those claiming there are these earlier miracle claims must do their homework and cite the ancient text for them. The Christ-believer did his homework by citing the Gospel accounts, from the 1st century, which report these 1st-century events. Those claiming there are other cases must likewise do their homework and quote from the original sources making the claims.
. . . and yet you discount them because you have assumed your conclusion that . . .
No, those claiming these "other" examples exist are discounting them by not citing any original source and just asking everyone to trust them that this "other religions mythology" exists. If you won't cite the source for it, then there's nothing there to discount.
. . . that Jesus is the only god which makes the Biblical stories absolutely true for you and any other stories false even though you don't know those other stories.
As usual, the Jesus-debunker himself giving the example doesn't "know those other stories" and cannot offer any ancient source for them. If he knew of "those other stories" he would quote the ancient source for it. But they never can give the source, other than to quote their favorite modern Jesus-debunker pundit giving his redacted summary of the ancient legend, with no citation from any ancient source.
The Jesus miracle accounts are found in the 1st-century writings we can all refer to and which have been quoted many times. But no one can cite any sources for the "Osiris, Baal, Asclepius, Achilles, Melqart, Adonis," etc. miracle claims (other than slurping up a lecture by their favorite modern Jesus-debunker celebrity).
Back to the Jesus myths vs. Kim Il Sung myths: The only evidence that either have any truth is the stories in their respective tales. The Kim myths have a little edge in that they were written by people that actually knew him while . . .
This is the lying again. There are no published accounts of these resurrection myths. If there were any written accounts of this, they'd be quoted here for us.
But further, we have to get serious about what constitutes evidence. There are stories about some famous powerful persons in history, like Alexander the Great, and others, where some miracle claim is connected to the powerful tyrant/hero/leader. Obviously we can explain how miracle claims get fabricated about such powerful figures in history, and even contemporary to the historical person there might be some who make the claims. These claims are fabricated for propaganda purposes, obviously, and anyone can explain how they might get circulated and believed by some, to serve the political purpose.
Such an example, of a powerful political figure, cannot be compared to the case of Jesus Christ who had no political power and no ability to impose such propaganda onto millions of subjects, and no followers who had any such power.
And even further, it is asinine to use a modern example, in the age of modern technology, when millions can be influenced by the modern communication methods, as a comparison to the communicating capability of the 1st century. If such a comparison is to have any seriousness about it, you must inject into the comparison two additional factors:
1) How many published reports are there CONTRADICTING the miracle claims?
2) What is the ratio of the communicating capability of modern times to that of the 1st century?
So, if we take the Kim Il Sung example seriously, we have to also factor in the number of CONTRADICTING claims about him, in the modern sources, and compare this to the number of contradicting claims (in the 1st or 2nd centuries) about Jesus. For the latter, the number is zero. The contradicting sources cancel out the affirming sources at some ratio, probably 1 to 1.
Also, for a modern-day example, we must subtract from the evidence (or divide it by) the ratio of the quantity of publishing media today to the quantity of publishing media in the 1st century.
When these calculations are done, it's obvious that there is virtually ZERO evidence for any Kim Il Sung miracle acts. Any such claims in his case are obviously explained as normal mythologizing, as any fool can see, and anyone who would offer such an example as this only proves further the point that there are no serious examples which can be offered.
. . . while the Jesus myths were written by people over 2000 Kilometers away and . . .
There are theories that Mark was written in Rome, which is far, but less than 2000 km away, and the other accounts were all much closer. And even some of Mark originated from persons local to the events, even if other parts were written from far away.
Some of the events in Herodotus happened 2000+ km distant from him, in Persia.
. . . and decades after his death so by people that . . .
Most of our ancient history, which we routinely believe, was written by authors decades after the reported events. Much of it more than 100 years later. Much of our information about early Spartan history comes from Plutarch, more than 500 years later, and he's the only source.
. . . by people that could not have possibly be witnesses.
At least 90% of our ancient history comes from people who were not witnesses and were not contemporary to the events.
We can "pick-and-choose" which parts to believe.
The only reason you accept the Jesus myths and even . . .
The virgin birth is probably fiction. And some other parts also. But the miracle healing acts and the Resurrection are attested to by evidence which is credible by all historical standards, for normal history, and meet a higher critical standard than we require for much of our accepted historical record.
We should apply the same standards to ALL the sources for ANY miracle claims.
. . . though you don't even know the Kim myths you reject them is because you assume the conclusion you unquestionably . . .
Spit it out - spit it out!
How about providing the source, the written account, if there is any serious miracle claim. If you can't do that, there is no reason to waste time on such a crackpot example.
. . . accept as true... Sorta like the 9/11 truthers, flat Earthers, and Moon hoaxers.
The nutcase wackos are the ones who never give a source, i.e., the ones who say "Here's an example of a miracle claim, for which there's evidence" and yet never give any quote from a source, near the time of the alleged miracle, describing what allegedly happened, such as we have in the Gospel accounts, written near to the time of the events, like normal historical events of that time, and stating what happened.
The "flat-earth" nutcases are the ones who cannot quote any legitimate source, but can only cite a modern professional Jesus-debunker guru-celebrity who is paid a salary to prove Jesus did not exist, or that there were others who did the same miracle acts, and we have to take their word for it, on faith only, with no evidence, because they have a doctorate in Jesus-debunking.
[Koyaanisqatsi continued]: . . . suddenly your brain is shut off. Time to skip the rest of this [my] sophistry as well to:
Paul had to insist--vehemently in fact--that without a resurrection, then there was no salvation:
(1 Corinthians 15) 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
He then goes into an insistence that the resurrection is "spiritual" not physical, which . . .
No he doesn't.
Yes, he does. Here, I'll prove it:
8 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
29 Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
30 And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? 31 I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”
33 Do not be deceived:
“Bad company ruins good morals.”
34 Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
The Resurrection Body
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.
42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Unquestionably states categorically that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kindgom of God."
You went through all that to prove that the resurrection is "spiritual" and not "physical"? What do you mean by "not physical"? He never says it isn't physical. You can expound all you want on the "flesh and blood" words, to extract whatever meaning you want from it, but Paul is talking about the resurrection which was observed by others he named earlier, who were real people, in history, who saw Jesus alive, in a physical body, after he had been killed. That is not contradicted by the "flesh and blood" words you're obsessing on.
Regardless, no one believed him, which is why . . .
Again, some believed him and others did not. What's compelling you to insist that NO ONE believed him? You're saying Paul didn't win ONE convert? We could quibble over the numbers, perhaps. Maybe the scoffers are a larger percent than we thought. What's the point? Why do you want to erect a SCOREBOARD showing a greater number of points on the non-believer side than the believer side? We don't know the exact score of the believers vs. the non-believers.
Those who wrote the Gospels obviously believed it, and Paul and other NT writers. I.e., those most educated believed it. So, many believed, because of something which convinced them. Probably it was the evidence of so many witnesses, so many accounts, so many who were close to the events and said it actually did happen. Whereas for other miracle claims, or messiahs or saviors of one kind or another, there was not much evidence, or none at all, so nothing was recorded and they were forgotten.
. . . which is why he had to write the letter in the first damn place.
Because there were many who had doubts. Why shouldn't there be doubters? That doesn't mean NO ONE believed or that it must not have been true. You don't prove something didn't happen simply by showing that there were doubters.
In this case there were "missionaries" or "apostles" traveling and spreading the "good news" to a world which believed only in ancient deities and traditions rather than in recent would-be messiahs. We should expect them to encounter many doubters and scoffers. It's noteworthy that there were so many educated ones who did believe and left their written record, while no one wrote anything contradicting the miracle claims or denouncing the new Christ cult(s) as fraudulent.
And we apparently have corroboration of this fact in Lucian, who confirmed that in 165 CE "Christians" were still just a bunch of Jews who worshipped a man (not a god) who was killed (not resurrected).
No, he never says Jesus was not resurrected or was not a god. It is a fact that Jesus was a man and was killed. Identifying him as a man who was killed does not mean he was not "a god" and was not resurrected. You're attaching too much significance to this 2nd century writer. If you want to identify what Jesus was you need to rely on the sources from the 1st century, near to the time of the actual events.
ETA: I did not see any response to the fact that GMatthew embellished GMark and now, just fifteen or so years later, Jesus granted his disciples the power to raise the dead.
That's probably an embellishment. And the explanation is simple: Jesus did in fact raise the dead, and after he was gone there was a wish for it to be repeated. Once the miracle had been demonstrated by him, it was believed to be possible, unlike before when it had never happened. So now believers began hoping it could happen even without him present, and so stories emerged, the mythologizing process set in, and claims circulated that he had granted this power to his disciples.
But this embellishment could never have emerged had there not been the original miracle act of Jesus to inspire it. Once the miracle had taken place, there developed a hope for it to happen again, even without him present. That explains the embellishment. Without the original act of raising someone who had died, there could never have been the later embellishment.
Did I just miss it in all the nonsense I had to skip over?
Maybe it got lost in your lengthy exposé on the 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes used by Nicodemus and his intensive-care specialists inside the tomb where he kept Jesus alive on life support.
But it doesn't matter -- I've explained the "embellishment" above, and you can raise the point again and I'll repeat the answer again as many times as necessary.
To sum up: The evidence is that the miracle acts of Jesus did happen, and there's no evidence that they did NOT happen. There's reason to disbelieve most miracle claims, because there is no evidence, or virtually none, or also there's evidence that they did not happen. But this one case is different, because we have 4 (5) sources reporting the miracles, dated near to the time of the reported events. So it's a reasonable possibility that these events did happen, unlike other miracle claims of antiquity for which there is no evidence. It's obvious there are no other cases, because those insisting that the Jesus miracles did not happen cannot give any other examples of reputed miracle events for which there is evidence, such as we have in this one case.
If there were other cases, of miracle claims for which there is evidence and also no evidence contradicting the claims, then someone would cite these cases as examples for comparison. But no one can cite any such cases.
