Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are the Gospel accounts not evidence for the Jesus miracle acts?

I.e., written accounts, near the time, saying it happened and that there were witnesses. Why isn't that evidence? Can you erase any historical events you wish, with only an outburst that the accounts of them are not really evidence?

Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims? There is no evidence that Jesus did these things.

There are no writings from the time saying he did these things? This is the same kind of evidence we have for other historical events. Why aren't such writings also evidence for the things Jesus did? You've never answered why "evidence" changes meaning when it's these particular writings which are the evidence.

For any other writings, or any other events, you regularly accept the reported events as historical because of those writings which report them. What other evidence do you have but the writings from the time which say the events happened? (No, physical artifacts are not evidence for what happened, for 99.9% of our history, because we rely on the written accounts to tell us what the artifacts mean.)

Name any other example of reports, from the time, saying events happened, which you reject as "evidence" for those reported events? especially where there are extra sources rather than only one?

It would make sense if you simply said "Yes, it's evidence, but it's still not enough in order to believe it. We need 10 sources rather than only 4 (5) in order to believe a miracle claim." But to say there's "no evidence" at all is dishonest. These 4 (5) sources are much more evidence than we need for normal events -- so some reasonable persons believe it, based on this evidence, while others require more evidence than this for miracle claims.

There is only evidence that people began telling stories about Jesus doing these things, . . .

That's what our evidence is for virtually ALL historical events (especially ancient history). People told the "stories" about what happened, about someone doing things, and someone wrote it down.

. . . all of which comes to us by way of biased religious people with an agenda to pimp their favorite god-myth.

Virtually all the evidence we have for ancient history comes from biased sources pimping their favorite myths. That doesn't make them unreliable for the facts of what happened. We can distinguish the fact vs. fiction and figure out what happened, despite the bias and fictional element in ALL the ancient sources. And some sources are more reliable than others, which we can recognize and take into account, but even the less reliable sources are credible as evidence. We'd have to toss out most of our ancient history record if we had to restrict ourselves to only the most reliable and least biased sources. ALL the sources are legitimate and are used for determining the facts.

It's absolutely the worst form of "evidence" imaginable, no . . .

What is? anything written by someone who was biased? ALL the ancient writers were "biased" without exception. We have no documents from ancient writers who were not biased.

. . . no different from the evidence that Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon from golden plates containing Reformed Egyptian writing.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence that there were "plates," but no evidence that they contained ancient Egyptian writing. The Joseph Smith evidence is legitimate, but only to tell us that there were "plates," not that he translated from Egyptian writing on those plates.

Hell, it's not even that good since we actually have the signatures of witnesses who claim to have watched Smith do it and saw the golden plates . . .

"plates" yes, but not plates with ancient Egyptian writing on them -- for that there is no evidence and no witnesses. Perhaps there's evidence that there was some writing on them, or marks similar to letters, but no evidence that they were ancient Egyptian letters/words.

And there's no evidence that Smith's translation was a real translation of ancient Egyptian writing. Regardless what the witnesses saw, they did not see anything showing that Smith's translation was from ancient Egyptian writing. There's evidence that the "plates" existed and maybe that Smith wrote something, but not that the plates had Egyptian writing on them or that Smith's writing was translated from any Egyptian writing.

. . . the golden plates themselves (before they were miraculously taken up into Heaven). And I'm equally certain all the Joseph Smith crap is bullshit too.

The reason you're certain is that there's no evidence that he really translated anything from ancient Egyptian writing. Sure, he probably had some "plates" which looked impressive to the witnesses, and he convinced them that the marks were Egyptian writing. But there's no evidence that they were, because the witnesses saw nothing to indicate that the marks were Egyptian writing, as Smith claimed. The witnesses believed Smith, but not because there was any evidence. There was only the "plates" without any Egyptian lettering on them.

We can trust witnesses to tell us what they saw. But these witnesses had no way to identify ancient Egyptian writing, regardless what they saw. We believe them telling us they saw "plates" maybe with marks on them, but not their claim that it was Egyptian writing. We only have to believe they saw what they described, but they had no description of Egyptian lettering or any way to identify those marks as Egyptian.

The healing miracles of Jesus, by contrast, were acts which could be recognized by an average observer, seeing a victim recovering from a physical affliction. No medical or scientific or scholarly knowledge was necessary for an observer to recognize these miracle acts and the recovery of the afflicted victims.

You keep walking this tight wire where Jesus was so obscure that he was never noticed by any of the contemporary secular historians of . . .

Many important historical figures were never noticed by those historians 1000 miles away. The famous rabbis Hillel and Shammai were ignored by them. Philo the Alexandrian and John the Baptist were ignored by them. There's a long list of historical figures of the time, especially in Galilee/Judea, who were ignored by the contemporary secular historians. And especially a reputed miracle-worker would be ignored by them, because they routinely rejected any such rumors.

. . . historians of his day -- you know, people who had the ability to write things down, and would certainly have written extraordinary things down.

Yes, if they had the information, but mainline historians like Suetonius and Plutarch had little or no information about Jesus. Probably something was written down during 30-50 AD, by someone locally, but 99% of writings perished because they were not copied. And the mainline "historians" limited themselves to writing about the rich and powerful only, especially those wielding political and military power, and whatever they might have heard about the Jesus miracles they obviously did not take seriously.

The mainline historians, and even most ordinary people, did not respect claims about current "messiahs" or "prophets" doing miracles. Rather, the only form of recognition they gave to miracle claims was to pay proper respect to the ancient deities, or the traditions handed down from centuries past, not to any recent claims of "miracles" being done by the latest upstart guru coming to town, such as Jesus appeared to be.

But at the same time the acts of Jesus were so universally known that everyone everywhere was talking about him . . .

No one says that. The "his fame spread" words in the gospels refer to locally, in Judea and Galilee, and some nearby bordering regions, during the short 1-3 years period of his public ministry.

. . . so much that nobody doubted any of this stuff was true.

No, most of those hearing of this probably doubted it.

Probably most people living in those areas who heard of this did have doubts about it, including the educated, and they didn't know one way or the other about the miracle claims. But the few educated persons who checked into it apparently believed it, because all the written accounts about it say the claimed miracle events really did happen. But as to the mainline Roman historians, there's no reason to believe any of them took an interest in it. If any of them heard about it, they probably dismissed the claims without checking into it.

You just can't have it both ways.

There's no "both ways." Very few educated persons checked into it. The few who did concluded that the miracle claims were true. Locally there was much interest and many who believed, but no one (or almost no one) educated enough to investigate the rumors and document their findings.

Was he this obscure preacher who not one single secular historian of his era noticed?

He might have been "noticed" by some, 500 or 1000 miles away, but they simply dismissed such miracle claims without checking into it. The norm was to reject such claims and not waste time on it. Only if it had major impact on those in power did such a reported troublemaker have any relevance to those historians. We know from Josephus that John the Baptist existed and was beheaded by Herod Antipas, and yet no secular historian mentions him. It would require a major uprising, with military forces sent in to put it down, in order to attract the attention of a mainline historian.

Or was he this massively well-known person whose . . .

He was obscure (in 30 AD), NOT "massively well-known" outside that region where "his fame spread" locally.

. . . well-known person whose wonderful deeds were so well received everywhere that nobody could deny that these incredible things were happening?

Those who checked into it and were educated enough to leave an account ALL agree that he did perform the reported miracle acts. This harmonizes totally with the fact that very few knew enough to have a strong opinion, outside the local region, where there were no mainline historians living, and where the whole matter ended in less than 3 years, maybe less than one year, and left no impact on anything connected to the government or to anyone holding power.


(This Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Atheos]

This has been debunked ad nauseam in the other thread. That's not how history works. Nobody here buys this caricature you keep painting of the process.

It wasn't true when Lee Stroebel and WLC invented it for that ridiculous "Case for Christ" book and it's not true now. Never will be.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes Lumpy has posted this claim several times. Apparently he is a student of Vladimer Lenin who is credited as saying, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

But then that quote has also been credited to Joseph Goebbels so there is that.

 

[bilby]

Yes Lumpy has posted this claim several times. Apparently he is a student of Vladimer Lenin who is credited as saying, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

But then that quote has also been credited to Joseph Goebbels so there is that.

And Margaret Thatcher said "Whatever I say three times is true", presumably inspired by one or the other.

Of course the gospel accounts are evidence for Jesus' miracle acts.

In the same way that this piece of paper that says: "Bilby has a savings account balance of $1,562,438.32; I saw it and so did three other people. Signed The Bank Manager", written in my handwriting, is evidence for me being a millionaire.

I trust that Lumpy will accept this as solid evidence that I have the money. Now I am prepared to split it evenly with him, if he can send me 10% by Western Union, to cover the transaction costs to get the money from my account in Lagos, with the First Rural Associated Union Deposits Bank of Nigeria (FRAUDBank), to the USA.

It's very well evidenced, according to the standards of evidence he espouses, so I am sure I can expect a wire transfer of $156,243.83 very shortly, to get us started on the process.

 

[Rhea]

There are no writings from the time saying he did these things? This is the same kind of evidence we have for other historical events.

This is wrong.
This has been discussed at length.
No, I take that back. “Discussion” would mean that you engage in the info and thnk about it and reply to it.
Which you don’t.
You just state it again as if it had never been discussed.
Like a robot.


I didn’t read any more of what you wrote, assuming it is equally robotic and that you don’t read or think about the replies.

 

[Learner]

If you read it, he is responding with "clear" explanations "directly" related to these particular posts ... individually.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If you read it, he is responding with "clear" explanations "directly" related to these particular posts ... individually.

Do you just not understand that simply mechanically typing the same failed argument does in no way count as a response?

There is a bizarre blindness among theists. They seem to think that once an argument is written it is a hammer that can't ever break. So all one needs to do is to keep reposting it. It's like cult dogma. You can't see beyond the fact that just because it is written, that does not make it true.

Which is something you never would except in any other context.

When an argument is refuted, it is to be abandoned, not simply repeated over and over and over and over.

The argument: This is the same kind of evidence we have for other historical events fails for all of the many different reasons that we have pointed out over and over and over.

Yet, Lumpy just keeps repeating it as if it hasn't been addressed and the reasons why it fails--objectively, not merely in anyone's opinion--haven't been presented.

So, repeating it is NOT responding to any of the times we've shown how and why it fails.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are the Gospel accounts not evidence for the Jesus miracle acts?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)


How are these written accounts not evidence for the events, such as we have for other historical events, and such as we do NOT have for other miracle claims of antiquity?

it is obvious to anyone who isn't engulfed in confirmation bias that the gospels are nothing but re-worked mythology, taking older Roman, Greek, Assyrian and even Egyptian mythology and mixing . . .

Why can't you name which older mythologies? Why can't you cite the text for them? You really don't know of any older mythology that the Jesus miracle acts are "re-worked" from.

You like to repeat these falsehoods without ever citing any example of it. No one has shown any connection to earlier mythologies, unless you mean that ALL history is just repetition of scenarios from the ancient legends, or from earlier history, making the stories of Charlemagne and Columbus and Daniel Boone and hundreds more historical characters nothing but repetitions of the same scenarios from the early myths. Or the reported conquests by Napoleon or Hitler are nothing but repetitions, or mixing, of earlier reported conquests by Alexander and others. Other than that, there is no connection of the Jesus miracle acts to earlier legends.

Except one -- there is only one example of a Jesus miracle act being similar to an earlier legend: The multiplying the fish and loaves story resembles an Elisha miracle story (2 Kings 4:42-44). Other than this one case, there are no similarities to earlier legends. You can't give one example. You just repeat claims you take from others without checking to do a serious comparison.

[CLARIFICATION: "miracle act" does not include symbols like the virgin birth, for which you can show earlier parallels. Rather, it is the healing acts, and the Resurrection of Jesus, i.e., acts he performed in public and were witnessed, for which there are no earlier parallels.]

. . . and mixing it in with Jewish traditions of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.

You can't give one example, except the single Elisha story. One single example alone does not show any pattern in the gospels of reliance on earlier myths.

Was Jesus a repeat of Elijah/Elisha? Only the long spectacular train of Elijah/Elisha stories contains any healing miracles, not the Moses stories, which show no resemblance whatever to Jesus in the Gospels. And Elijah/Elisha were virtually unknown in the period leading up to the 1st century when the Gospels appeared. It's the rise of Christianity, or the 1st-century appearance of Jesus in the Gospels, which then led to Elijah becoming recognized as important. Without the rise of Christ belief in the 1st-century, Elijah would have remained an unimportant figure in Jewish tradition. There's no reason why any 1st-century Jews would have chosen unrecognized figures like Elijah or Elisha as a model for creating a new Jewish hero or Messiah figure.

A serious consideration of the Jewish culture and literature in the pre-Christian period, up to about 50 AD, shows clearly that these 2 prophets were nobodies in Judaism until AFTER the new Christ communities appeared, and that the new Christ belief is what caused Elijah to become important.

Justin Martyr recognized the similarities and theorized . . .

No he did not -- there were no "similarities" -- he pretended there were similarities, as I have explained earlier:

Misusing/Distorting Justin Martyr to prove "similarities" of Christ belief to earlier pagan myths

Misusing/Distorting Justin Martyr to prove "similarities" of Christ belief to earlier pagan myths

In the above 2 posts I cover all Justin Martyr's examples and show that he falsely equates the earlier pagan myths to the Jesus miracles. But none of his examples are legitimate.

There is a reason why he does this deception, i.e., he's trying to defend Christians by claiming their beliefs are essentially no different than beliefs in the Greek-Roman gods, in an effort to win sympathy for Christians and stop the persecution of them.

Once again I will do your homework for you, to deal with the Justin Martyr text you are misrepresenting, to show what he was saying, why he said it, and how he made the error of comparing Christ to earlier pagan legends. The explanation is apparent in chapter 21 of his "Apology" ( https://biblehub.com/library/richardson/early_christian_fathers/the_first_apology_of_justin.htm ):

21. In saying that the Word, who is the first offspring of God, was born for us without sexual union, as Jesus Christ our Teacher, and that he was crucified and died and after rising again ascended into heaven we introduce nothing new beyond [what you say of] those whom you call sons of Zeus. You know how many sons of Zeus the writers whom you honor speak of -- Hermes, the hermeneutic Word and teacher of all [712] ; Asclepius, who was also a healer and after being struck by lightning ascended into heaven -- as did Dionysus who was torn in . . .

I.e., Justin is trying to gain sympathy for Christians by saying their beliefs are similar to the pagan legends accepted by Romans. He's wrong in the above quote, when he says that Asclepius and Dionysus and others "ascended" into heaven. The legends say no such thing about Dionysus or the other deities, but Justin is trying to plead a case, in order to save the lives of Christians who are threatened, and he says anything to persuade his audience.

Similarly in chapter 22 he writes:

If we declare that he was born of a virgin, you should consider this something in common with Perseus. When we say that he healed the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and raised the dead, we seem to be talking about things like those said to have been done by Asclepius.

Again his point is that the Christian beliefs about Jesus are similar to pagan beliefs about Perseus and Asclepius and others, which is incorrect. (Those heroes/gods were ancient deities, not recent historical figures believed to have done miracles.) His purpose in drawing this incorrect parallel is to plead for the lives of Christians who are threatened with death because of their beliefs.

If you disregard Justin's real point, then you are only exploiting his error to use it as the source for your erroneous talking point. This is a very lengthy document, which rambles on and on in Walls of Text 50 times longer than those I have posted here. This comparison of Jesus to the pagan heroes is a small part of his document, in which he lists a series of arguments to defend Christians against numerous accusers, in which he presents all the Christian doctrines, including that of the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, such as the virgin birth and Bethlehem prophecy, and in which he tries to draw parallels to pagan legends, in order to present to his Roman audience a more pleasing image of the Christians being persecuted. All you're doing here is capitalizing on an error he makes within this lengthy treatise.

. . . and theorized that the devils had purposefully tried to deceive people by inventing those older myths before Jesus came along.

This part of the lengthy document comes in chapter 54, after several digressions, where he has transitioned to explaining the superiority of the Christian beliefs to the pagan beliefs. His original point was to defend Christians by claiming their beliefs are similar to that of the pagan legends. But along with this he also explains how the pagan beliefs are false, or that the legends are fiction, and he identifies their origin as inspired by demons.

But he is factually wrong in claiming the similarity of the Christ miracle acts to pagan beliefs, and every example he gives is incorrect. His point is not to depict the pagan myths accurately, but to persuade his readers that these myths are similar to the Christian beliefs, so the latter are not dangerous and the believers are innocent of any crimes, of which many were being accused.

. . . by inventing those older myths before Jesus came along.

But what "older myths" do you mean? You can't give one example showing a similarity to the Jesus miracle acts. Unless you mean that ALL miracle stories are the same, and every such story is simply a copy of an earlier miracle story.

Is every later reported event simply a copy of earlier ones? Are the Crusades (or accounts of them) copies of earlier reported events, of earlier wars or raids by one tribe into the territory of another? So did the Crusades never happen, because they're just a rehashing of the story of the conquest of the Promised Land by Jews led by Joshua?

The question is whether any miracle event actually happened. You don't prove it didn't happen by claiming it has some similarity to an earlier myth. The voyage of Columbus, which contains some miracle stories, has some similarity to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt. So, does this mean the voyage of Columbus never really happened?

The miracle acts of Jesus in the Gospels have no more resemblance to earlier legends than the voyage of Columbus resembles the exodus of Moses and the Jews from Egypt (-- except the one case of the fish-and-loaves story which resembles 2 Kings 4:42-44. Otherwise there is no antecedent to the Jesus miracle acts.) You can't name any "earlier myths" which are "similarities" to the Jesus miracle acts. All you can do is just refer to Justin Martyr or to a modern Jesus-debunker pundit, etc., but you can't give an example of "older myths" resembling any Jesus miracle acts.

But there are some similarities in the teachings and theologies and ritual practices, such as miracle-birth stories and prophecies and blood atonement and baptism and other symbols to be found in earlier religious traditions. These "similarities" are legitimate, and actually indicate still further that the miracles of Jesus are truly unique and singular to the Christ belief, not to be found in earlier religious traditions, even though some other elements can be found from the earlier traditions. This is important -- why is it that much of Christian symbolism can be traced back to earlier Jewish and pagan origins, but not the miracle acts of Jesus? Why was so much borrowed, but this one part -- his power to perform the miracle acts -- was not?

You can find Jesus-like apocalyptic sermons in the earlier Jewish texts, you can find the communion ritual in the Qumran Community, also baptism, and blood atonement rituals, and preaching hellfire and judgment (e.g., Book of Enoch) -- there are many "similarities" to be found, but there are no miracle acts in the earlier traditions which explain where the Jesus healing miracles or the Resurrection came from. Many attempts are made to find earlier examples of such miracles and resurrections, but when you ask for the written text or documentation for them, there is virtually nothing.

We've been over this in the past and it gets old.

So, why don't you do something new and give an example of an "older myth" resembling Jesus in the Gospels? instead of just repeating the same clichés with no examples. You claim there are the "older myths" which the Jesus stories are based on, so instead of just repeating this talking point which you said in a dozen earlier posts without naming one "older myth" example, why don't you get serious and name one "older myth" -- other than the one I named (II Kings 4:42-44) by doing your homework for you, which is the single sole example -- resembling a Jesus miracle act. I.e., provide the ancient text for the "older myth" for comparison, so we can determine if there's really a similarity.

The evidence keeps accumulating: As you continue to insist that the Jesus miracle stories are derived from something earlier ("older myths"), and yet you also continue to give NO example of anything earlier, showing such derivation, you're just adding further to the evidence that the Jesus miracles must have really happened, because nothing can be found to explain where they came from (if they are fiction), no matter how hard you try to find the "older myths" or insist that they have to be there.

So the conclusion is: the best explanation how these accounts could exist is the one which says those miracle acts actually did happen, because there's no other way to explain how we have this evidence or these written accounts saying the events happened. Unlike other miracle claims of the period for which there is no evidence or documentation in the historical record.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why can't you name ...? Why can't you cite ....?

Oh, man, you're STILL doing that? You were doing that five years ago.
A three-step version of simply declaring victory in the face of a loss.

Five years ago, everyone learned that there's just no point in putting in the effort to name, to cite, to dig up the references.
You'd make a claim. People would counter the claim with examples.
You'd make a similar claim, totally ignoring the response.
Then when people made a counter-post, you'd leap on the apparent hole. "Why can't you name these examples!!??!"
Apparently, counter examples don't count if we don't list the entire citation every single post we make.
And you ignore the posts where the counters are listed, so they still don't count.

But it becomes clear to everyone who
1) has an attention span greater than an alcoholic touring a distillery
2) doesn't have a vested interest in your side of the argument
...that you're wrong, but unwilling to actually face the facts of the matter.

The only question I have is whether this is a conscious tactic or a subconscious reflex going on.
But then, I only care enough to turn off 'ignore' once every two years or so...

 

[abaddon]

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles today
Tomorrow will be dying.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How are these written accounts not evidence for the events

ANECDOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE

 

[bilby]

If you read it, he is responding with "clear" explanations "directly" related to these particular posts ... individually.

You are absolutely correct; Although I rather suspect that you are labouring under the delusion that "inverted commas" imply emphasis. In fact they imply eye-rolling disbelief.

As in: Donald Trump is "stable", and a "genius".

In traditional English, a word to be emphasised should be underlined, though in the Internet era it has become more common to use bold for emphasis, to avoid confusion with hyperlinks, which are also denoted by being underlined. Italics can also be used for emphasis, or to indicate various other things, such as the title of a work, the name of a person being quoted, or in some cases, parenthetical remarks but without the use of parentheses (also called 'brackets').

Bold, italic and underline ADD emphasis (as do CAPITAL LETTERS, but those are used today to imply shouting). "Inverted commas" TAKE AWAY emphasis, by either indicating that they are somebody else's exact words (ie hearsay), or by implying that this is the sort of thing other people would say, but which you do not personally agree with.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The more facts = the more EVIDENCE that the Jesus miracles really happened.

Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from.

This implies falsely that the other 3 gospels were reliant on Mark and had nothing else but Mark as a source. As if they knew no "facts" other than what they "cribbed" from Mark. Yet, almost certainly there was the earlier document "Q" used by both Luke and Matthew, plus all 3 of the later gospels have far more in them than the part taken from Mark. Even Matthew which quotes the most from Mark is mostly non-Mark.

Even if some of the non-Mark matter contains error or discrepancies, there's no reason to think it comes from the later writer/editors of 80 or 90 AD instead of from their sources. There's every reason to believe they relied on their own individual sources, from earlier, some probably originating back to 30 AD. Where these are consistent with each other, it's reasonable to believe the accounts are reliable for the facts presented.

It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this.

What he left is consistent with the gospel accounts. He says that Jesus was "handed over," which can only be a reference to the betrayal by Judas, described in the gospel accounts. Whatever confusion there is about this, the betrayal idea does not originate from Mark, because Paul is earlier, so this part of the story is something independent of Mark, indicating something which really happened and which we find reported in these accounts, not fabricated, but presented in 4 different versions probably not totally consistent with each other.

Paul tells us nothing about what happened earlier than the night of the arrest. He says Jesus and James were brothers, though there's some reason to doubt this. In any case, there was a belief that they were brothers. It's mentioned by Josephus in his remark about Jesus, "who was called Christ" (Antiquities 20:1.9). So this is a detail about Jesus, found in Mark and Paul, but not dependent on Mark.

So there are many details. We have more documentation and "details" about Jesus than we have for any other 1st-century Jew or Palestinian. With the sole exception of Josephus, but our only information about Josephus is from his own writing. So there is no 1st-century Jew for whom we have more information, from 1st-century external sources, than we have for Jesus.

The problem is to distinguish the FACTUAL details from the non-factual. And for that, the miracle acts are more supported by the facts than virtually any other "details" about Jesus. Except for the ideology that miracle events can never happen, regardless of any evidence. So, you can fall back on this ideology to refute the miracle stories of Jesus, but that's all you have. There is no other "evidence" against the Jesus miracle acts than this ideology which dictates that no miracle events ever can happen.

Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate.

No, it suggests Paul wanted only to expound on his interpretation, or to explain the importance of the Resurrection, with no need to discuss the events, or Jesus biographical matter. Explaining the meaning is what was important to him. I.e., the meaning of the Cosmic Risen Christ, who ascended to the right hand of God. Paul wanted to talk only about this, not about the earthly Christ. But the two are the same, so putting the emphasis 99% on the Risen Christ does not negate the earthly Christ in history. Rather, we must have the historical person himself in order for there to be any contact to the Cosmic Christ.

The "faith" (pistis) is inconceivable without the encounter with the physical Christ in history. E.g., the ones healed by him had this "faith" based on their encounter with him, or their knowledge of him. So there are the facts or "details" about his earthly life, but Paul limits himself to only the death and Resurrection, which maybe is the only essential part to know, but that doesn't mean the rest isn't important.

Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus.

You're implying maybe he didn't really visit them. Or perhaps he had almost no contact with them, and his teachings are totally independent of them, or even contrary to what they thought.

Even if that's true, what he tells us confirms that they existed and that the Christ he is teaching is the same one they knew. In fact, it's all the more reason to believe the miracle stories, especially the Resurrection. Because if these did not really happen, then what point is there in the connection of Paul to James and the disciples? You can't say there's no connection, because Paul mentions them and says he gained their approval for his mission. Even if Paul lied in saying this, still you have to explain what is the connection of Paul to them. Why did he claim to have contacted them? What's the point, except that his Christ and their Christ were the same person? And what person was this, if not the one who resurrected? the same one described in the gospel accounts?

So who was this same Christ person being followed by both Paul and the disciples? Since they disagreed on what the teachings were, what was it in common between them? How was Paul's Christ the same as the Christ followed by James and the others? It must be the Resurrection which was in common. This common point of agreement tells us what Christ was essentially. Whatever else he was, he was the resurrected one. And if Paul had some squabble or friction with this Jerusalem church community, what they were squabbling over was the one who resurrected. No matter which faction had a better understanding, what we know for sure is that it was this one who resurrected about whom they were squabbling.

Who likewise didn't have much to write about.

We don't know what they wrote which perished. 99% of all writings from that time are lost. (There's no way to know the exact percent, but nothing survived which was not copied several times. If it was copied only 2 or 3 times, it probably perished.)

And, 99.999% of humans didn't write anything. And 99.9999% of all the events happening were never written about. Or 99.9999999%. And that's probably an UNDerestimate.

Virtually all the reporting of events in 1st-century writings are of the wars and power struggles among the political elites. There's virtually nothing else. That we have these 4 documents, the Paul epistles and others, and also non-canonical writings, all focused on this one Christ event, makes this event by far the most important event of the century not connected directly to the political power elite.

There is far more written about this event than can be explained, unless it was something "extraordinary," meaning we have "extraordinary" evidence here. The extent of writing on this event is vastly out of proportion to anything normal, and so we must look for an equally disproportionate event to explain this.

All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that.

There are "tall tales" from every generation, from every period. Why in this case only is there documentation of miracle acts, near the time of the alleged events, in 4 (5) sources? There must be something different which produced these "tall tales" which separates them from the normal tall tales encountered everywhere in every generation in every century. That the miracle events actually happened best explains this. No one can offer any better explanation.

The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate.

The gospel accounts are evidence that many of them witnessed the Jesus miracles and did tell about it. Obviously they didn't write anything, as 99% of them were illiterate. But the evidence is that they passed on these reports orally, and some written accounts eventually appeared.

This tells us a lot.

The "This" has to be something we know, not a conjecture. That they "had no great tales" is a conjecture, not a fact. The fact we have is the 4 documents or sources attesting to the Jesus miracles, 5 attesting to the Resurrection. These documents, this existing tangible evidence, is the only "this" from which we can draw any conclusions.

After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?"

We don't know that. It's just more conjecture. You have to start with what we know, not a conjecture about what did not happen, about what someone might not have asked. You don't know what they didn't ask.

Or maybe they did and it was rather disappointing.

Or maybe they believed and started spreading the "gospel" as they understood it. We have more indication of the latter than of someone being disappointed.

There are plenty of maybe's. What we need to start with are the facts. Which is that we have recorded accounts, in writing, from the time, attesting to the Jesus miracles and Resurrection. No one yet is explaining how this evidence exists if those events did not really happen. All anyone offers as an explanation is that the events could not have happened because our dogmatic ideology preaches that no miracles can ever happen. That's all the evidence anyone can offer that it didn't happen.

Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King.

And why were they doing that? Why did they do such a thing? or think such a thing? Why didn't they also wait for the return of Hillel or John the Baptist or any number of other guru figures? Again, there's no answer. Just more and more outbursts: But it couldn't be the miracles. No! Never!
Miracles can't ever happen -- it's against our religion!

There were plenty of other "messiah"-types who should also have been worshiped and anticipated for their "2nd coming" -- how do you explain that only this one got published, and in 4 (5) written sources from the time? and no others? Why not any others? Until you answer this, the most reasonable answer is that he must have done those miracle acts described in the accounts. Whatever best answers the questions is usually the right explanation.

The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.

Let's assume the following describes the Ebionites accurately:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones") is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter three; revered James, the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law. Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran who sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple.

If this is accurate, what conclusion should we draw? One conclusion would be that Jesus must have performed those miracle acts. Because otherwise there's no explanation why they regarded Jesus as the Messiah. It seems almost that their stronger devotion was really for James, not Jesus. And yet they regarded Jesus as the Messiah. Why?

It's probably because he performed the miracle acts and rose from the grave, as the gospels say he did. Even if the Ebionites rejected much of what's in the gospels, still they thought Jesus was the Messiah. What was so special about him that they thought this?

So again, as we consider the facts more and more, it becomes more evident that Jesus must have done the miracle acts described in the gospel accounts. Every question that comes up is answered by this. Without the miracle acts as real events, it's impossible to explain the Jesus person we see being revered by the Gospel writers and Paul and the Ebionites and others. Also the Gnostics. What drew all these different factions to this one Jesus person as being someone special?

These various Christ believers were not all the same, or of the same frame of mind. There were strong antagonisms between them. Even to the point of hate and violence toward each other in some cases, as they condemned each other and accused the opposing groups as heretics or apostates. As the above wiki page says the Ebionites condemned Paul, which is only one example of Christ believers condemning other Christ believers.

Yet they all came together around this one Christ Messiah person, each group worshiping him in some way, each with its own Christology or its own catechism, etc. What was it about him that such conflicting groups all identified with him and claimed him as their authority?

 

[Rhea]

Even if some of the non-Mark matter contains error or discrepancies, there's no reason to think it comes from the later writer/editors of 80 or 90 AD instead of from their sources.

Why do you think there is “no reason”? There are plenty of them. #1: people embellish existing tales all the time, and still do ti today. See “She said Yes,” the embellishment of the Columbine victim fabricated from the mind of the author and published as fact despite the witness saying it is not true.

There's every reason to believe they relied on their own individual sources, from earlier, some probably originating back to 30 AD. Where these are consistent with each other, it's reasonable to believe the accounts are reliable for the facts presented.

“Every reason”? You just state that and declare it is so and then use that to try to support the next sentence?
Feels like a house of cards...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Even if some of the non-Mark matter contains error or discrepancies, there's no reason to think it comes from the later writer/editors of 80 or 90 AD instead of from their sources.

Why do you think there is “no reason”? There are plenty of them. #1: people embellish existing tales all the time, and still do ti today. See “She said Yes,” the embellishment of the Columbine victim fabricated from the mind of the author and published as fact despite the witness saying it is not true.

You're right.

I should have said: there's no reason to think ALL of it comes from the later writer/editors of 80 or 90 AD etc.

Probably some is later, but also some is from earlier.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Probably some is later, but also some is from earlier.

Lumpy, whoever taught you English did you no favors.
'Probably' is not a contraction of saying 'what i want to believe, so i will pretend the conclusion is supportable.'

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat, you are eager to support your arguments with appeal to documents and witnesses you cannot produce and are not in any way inferred from the gospel narratives. Yet you chide those of us who appeal to solid evidence of earlier myths which formed the inspiration for the Jesus myths. You tend to deflect the witness of Justin Martyr when it comes to this very subject. You use Texas Sharpshooter fallacies to exclude similar examples of Joseph Smith, J.Z. Knight, Marshall Applewhite, etc. You demand original source documents for Asclepius, Perseus, Hercules, (e.g., the "Sons of Jupiter" to which Justin Martyr referred), yet fabricate pre-Markan gospels with a virtual wave of the hand.

You've been challenged on this before and continue preaching these gish gallop posts that do little else besides repeat the same baseless assertions over and over. There is no reason to believe that any source documents describing Jesus's life existed before GMark. "Q" (if it existed at all) could easily have come between GMark and GMatt/GLuke.

And even if such source documents did exist, they mean nothing when weighed against the deafening silence of any adversarial reaction to the alleged incredible claims made about this man. Not one critical scribe living around Jerusalem saw fit to write even a single sentence about this person who was causing all of this commotion. And you deny that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, something that means you have no common ground with me. I don't believe UFO abduction tales for the same reason I don't believe Jesus myths. Both are extraordinary claims and both are only supported by a handful of people claiming they happened with no physical evidence. At least with the UFO abduction stories we actually know who the people are making the claims. We have no clue who wrote the gospels. None.

That said, I applaud the fact that you occasionally author posts such as the one above, which actually are attempts at discussion rather than preaching. More of that and less of the other, please.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

And even if such source documents did exist, they mean nothing when weighed against the deafening silence of any adversarial reaction to the alleged incredible claims made about this man. Not one critical scribe living around Jerusalem saw fit to write even a single sentence about this person who was causing all of this commotion.

... snip ...

Yes, given that the Romans were anal about recording events, the fact that there is no record of a rabble rouser performing miraculous feats, for the Earth splitting open and the dead rising from their graves and walking the streets, etc. (except in the gospels) makes it difficult to accept as fact. More in line with Roman tactics is the theory offered in the Flavian Jesus story... just good war propaganda. The gospels paint the Jewish leadership as the evil group to be opposed and it was the Jewish leadership that Rome wanted to quash.

For example; the bible paints the Jewish leadership as the ones responsible for Jesus' crucification... Then too, Jewish leadership resented paying tribute but Jesus said give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. etc.

 

[Learner]

... snip ...

And even if such source documents did exist, they mean nothing when weighed against the deafening silence of any adversarial reaction to the alleged incredible claims made about this man. Not one critical scribe living around Jerusalem saw fit to write even a single sentence about this person who was causing all of this commotion.

... snip ...

Yes, given that the Romans were anal about recording events, the fact that there is no record of a rabble rouser performing miraculous feats, for the Earth splitting open and the dead rising from their graves and walking the streets, etc. (except in the gospels) makes it difficult to accept as fact. More in line with Roman tactics is the theory offered in the Flavian Jesus story... just good war propaganda. The gospels paint the Jewish leadership as the evil group to be opposed and it was the Jewish leadership that Rome wanted to quash.

Why would they want to invent an anti-roman-gods flavious Jesus? Or a King of Kings above Caesar?

For example; the bible paints the Jewish leadership as the ones responsible for Jesus' crucification... Then too, Jewish leadership resented paying tribute but Jesus said give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. etc.

Jesus would be against worshipping and giving tribute to other gods, but you must pay your dues if you live by their governance (Romans) because they have ways if you don't, if you know what I mean.


(Post #632 acknowledged Bilby. Sorry Lumpy, wasn't meant that way)

 

[Learner]

Why do you think there is “no reason”? There are plenty of them. #1: people embellish existing tales all the time, and still do ti today. See “She said Yes,” the embellishment of the Columbine victim fabricated from the mind of the author and published as fact despite the witness saying it is not true.

.......................................................................

“Every reason”? You just state that and declare it is so and then use that to try to support the next sentence?
Feels like a house of cards...

It looks like you're stating and declaring in the top quote, you must know which part is embellished or fabricated. But I think its in your opinion which is fair.