Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[funinspace]

In the Illiad, Homer describes the gods of Olympus meddling in the affairs of humans, inciting war, strife, jealousy.....does that mean that the gods of Olympus do exist and do meddle in the affairs of humankind?

No, for miracle claims we need MORE THAN ONLY ONE SOURCE. (Homer is the only source for this.)

And also, we need sources near to the time of the reported events. (Homer is about 500 years later than the reported events.)

Ah, fan fiction can't be written in only decades, but has to take at least 499 years...what orifice did you pull that out of?

But further, we need reported events for which there were witnesses who saw something. We have to know what was seen by someone. So, did someone reportedly see the gods "meddling" in the affairs, like witnesses reportedly saw Jesus performing the healing miracles? or like witnesses saw him alive after having seen him killed a few days earlier?

Ah, the whole 'witness' thingy. Except that anonymous writers, writing 30-90 years after claimed miracle events, and not the purported witnesses in said writing, are not witnesses. They are stories including claims of witnesses.

So, just because someone describes superhuman entities doing something doesn't mean it really happened. For superhuman acts we need extra evidence, beyond what is required for ordinary events. Such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts: 4 (5) sources near to the time of the reported events.

A large swath of Christian theologians subscribe to the The Two-source hypothesis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-s...s that the Gospel,emerged in the 19th century ). So the synoptic (3) gospels are considered by a large grouping of theologians, just 2. The Gospel of John, which was written 50 -80 years after events is incredibly unrelated to the synoptic set, and only shares 3 miracle events, so it doesn't really support the other 3. And Paul by his own admission was never a witness to events, he had 'visions'. So it is more like 2 sources by the accounts of a huge swath of mainstream theologians, or the (3) if one wants to include the psychedelic John.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, the 4 (5) sources for the miracle acts of Jesus cannot magically be reduced to 2 (3).

A large swath of Christian theologians subscribe to the The Two-source hypothesis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-s...s that the Gospel,emerged in the 19th century ). So the synoptic (3) gospels are considered by a large grouping of theologians, just 2.

That's a dishonest false representation of the Two-source hypothesis. No theologians say the gospels are just 2 sources. Everyone recognizes them as 4 sources and Paul as a 5th.

The Two-Source Hypothesis, if you read the above wiki page rather than just playing semantics with the word "source," is only an explanation for the common material found in Matthew and Luke, which is thought to come from the two sources Mark and Q. All it does is explain how Mt and Lk agree on so much and must have quoted from 2 earlier sources.

But nothing about that reduces Mt and Lk to simply copies of Mark. To the contrary, both of them have far more non-Mark matter than Mark in them. It is false and fraudulent to say this means Lk and Mt are not themselves each separate sources. It only means that each of them contains content taken from something earlier. This does not disqualify them from being themselves sources. They are not as "independent" as they would be if they had no quoted content. But merely quoting from something earlier does not somehow change them into non-sources. They are each still separate sources for the historical Jesus. All the scholars know this. Some of them say they are not "independent" sources, but they all understand that there is still much separate material in each of Lk and Mt which makes them separate sources and not identical to the earlier sources Q and Mark.

All the experts agree that we have these five separate sources (not all totally independent) for the historical Jesus. I.e., the 4 Gospels and the Paul epistles. It's nutcase to suggest that there are only 2 or 3 sources. No scholars or theologians or historians say that. All 4 Gospels are used (or each one is used) by historians of the 1st century as sources for the historical Jesus.

And even some other 1st-century sources could be added to these, such as other NT writings and also the Epistle of Clement. But the main sources are the 5, with the Gospels being the 4 sources for the non-Resurrection miracles.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I love Lumpy spends all this time making highly detailed lists of how 'we' would evaluate historical records for historicity, but never touches on the criteria actual historians use. And never sctes any source for this made-up, self-serving bullshit.

 

[funinspace]

A large swath of Christian theologians subscribe to the The Two-source hypothesis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-s...s that the Gospel,emerged in the 19th century ). So the synoptic (3) gospels are considered by a large grouping of theologians, just 2.

That's a dishonest false representation of the Two-source hypothesis. No theologians say the gospels are just 2 sources. Everyone recognizes them as 4 sources and Paul as a 5th.

The Two-Source Hypothesis, if you read the above wiki page rather than just playing semantics with the word "source," is only an explanation for the common material found in Matthew and Luke, which is thought to come from the two sources Mark and Q. All it does is explain how Mt and Lk agree on so much and must have quoted from 2 earlier sources.

But nothing about that reduces Mt and Lk to simply copies of Mark. To the contrary, both of them have far more non-Mark matter than Mark in them. It is false and fraudulent to say this means Lk and Mt are not themselves each separate sources. It only means that each of them contains content taken from something earlier. This does not disqualify them from being themselves sources. They are not as "independent" as they would be if they had no quoted content. But merely quoting from something earlier does not somehow change them into non-sources. They are each still separate sources for the historical Jesus. All the scholars know this. Some of them say they are not "independent" sources, but they all understand that there is still much separate material in each of Lk and Mt which makes them separate sources and not identical to the earlier sources Q and Mark.

WTF? First, you even have the basic Two-source hypothesis wrong. Yeah, Mt and Lk aren't copies of Mark, but no one said they were. They are melding of the mysterious Q along with Mark. And many of these theologians that I speak of, do think that Mt and Lk have largely embellished upon Q and Mark creating not so much as a new unique source, but a new narrative/story. And secondly, you should dump the word salad "all the experts" or "all the scholars" as there are lots of Christian scholar camps and almost zero 100% agreement even on basic notions of NT book history.

All the experts agree that we have these five separate sources (not all totally independent) for the historical Jesus. I.e., the 4 Gospels and the Paul epistles. It's nutcase to suggest that there are only 2 or 3 sources. No scholars or theologians or historians say that. All 4 Gospels are used (or each one is used) by historians of the 1st century as sources for the historical Jesus.

You have obviously not spent time talking to mainstream Protestant ministers as you are clueless on "all the experts" and what they think. Nor have you listened to theologians like Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan...

And Paul is not a "source" for the healing miracles (Miracle Max) as he doesn't write about them. And that is your primary argument, and is what I am critiquing, so quit trying to switch goal posts. Sure Paul's letters are evidence and placed as the earliest documents for the Jesus as god theology, but that is not the point.

And as I already pointed out John only marginally shares with the other Gospels, and only 1 of those '30' healing miracles:
https://jesuschristsavior.net/Miracles.html

Only three miracles appear in all four Gospels - his own Resurrection (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20), the greatest miracle of them all; the feeding of the 5000 through the multiplication of the loaves and fish, found in Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:30-44, Luke 9:10-17, and John 6:1-14; and, while different individuals are involved (see chart), Jesus heals the blind (Matthew 9:27-31, Mark 8:22-26, Luke 18:35-43, and John 9).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Actually, Mark is not a source for resurrection. All that happens at the end of the story is that a young man (not an angel, just a young man, presumably the same that deserted Jesus along with the disciples when Jesus was arrested in Mark 14) is just sitting in the open cave when Mary and the gals come a calling for no discernible reason (as Joseph supposedly already cleaned and anointed the body; wrapping it in medicinal bandages, no less, known then as "burial linens").

All the kid says is that Jesus has "risen" (NOT the he "resurrected"). And, no, is is not a translation issue. "Risen" in Greek is not the same thing as saying "he resurrected from the dead." If it were any other situation not ridiculously loaded with cult-imposed reverence, it would have been, "The guy they tortured and thought was dead? No, he woke up and took off and now I'm sitting here to tell people that he's down in the village eating breakfast."

 

[James Brown]

for miracle claims we need MORE THAN ONLY ONE SOURCE.

For a time, there was a period when only the Gospel of Mark was written. The other gospels hadn't been written yet, and wouldn't be for a decade or two.

Per the argument presented in this thread, no one should have believed the miracle claims of Mark, because there was only one source.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

for miracle claims we need MORE THAN ONLY ONE SOURCE.

For a time, there was a period when only the Gospel of Mark was written. The other gospels hadn't been written yet, and wouldn't be for a decade or two.

Per the argument presented in this thread, no one should have believed the miracle claims of Mark, because there was only one source.

And prior to that, there was only Paul's "vision," which no one should have believed period and none of the "disciples" did, nor did a significant number of the fringe gentiles Paul was sloughed off on as well.

So, on its face, what we really have is Paul speaking out of his ass, or an epileptic fit, which, about something he never personally witnessed and then a decade or so later someone essentially augmenting what Paul allegedly daydreamed and then decades after that other entrenched cult members writing their versions of Mark's version of Paul's "vision."

Iow, we have Paul and that's about it when it comes to any semblance of the "passion narrative" as it became over time and evidently at Paul's insistence and then only among gentiles and "Hellenized Jews" (but mainly the gentiles, aka, pagans, aka, Romans).

 

[James Brown]

We have a long line of unknown copyists, editors, and redactors who all said that Paul said that Peter said that 500 unnamed "eyewitnesses" said that they all saw the exact same thing--a person believed to be dead was standing on a hill somewhere.

But for some believers, that's not hearsay.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And somehow, "based on eye-witness accounts" (not that that is substantiated) has become "They (the gospels) are eye-witness accounts!" As if an eye-witness account is beyond question.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And we know they cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts, because they all relate events (and dialogue) that they could not possibly have been present to eye-witness.

And around and around and around it goes, with Lumpy etal simply ignoring every salient point in favor of fiating their faith for some pointless reason, since it's faith and already does not need any reasoning behind it.

 

[DBT]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Greek gods, temples were built in their honour, statues erected, people prayed to them, consulted the oracles, seeing signs and portents, philosophers discussed the will of the gods.

Which is far more than we have for the existence of Jesus and the miracles described in the gospels.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Greek gods, temples were built in their honour, statues erected, people prayed to them, consulted the oracles, seeing signs and portents, philosophers discussed the will of the gods.

Which is far more than we have for the existence of Jesus and the miracles described in the gospels.

But did they have a flag?

 

[DBT]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Greek gods, temples were built in their honour, statues erected, people prayed to them, consulted the oracles, seeing signs and portents, philosophers discussed the will of the gods.

Which is far more than we have for the existence of Jesus and the miracles described in the gospels.

But did they have a flag?

Flags, of course.....that's where the Greeks went wrong.

 

[Learner]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Greek gods, temples were built in their honour, statues erected, people prayed to them, consulted the oracles, seeing signs and portents, philosophers discussed the will of the gods.

Which is far more than we have for the existence of Jesus and the miracles described in the gospels.

Is this any different from there being materially many times more churches, statues and crucifixes worn by many millions past and present?

 

[DBT]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Greek gods, temples were built in their honour, statues erected, people prayed to them, consulted the oracles, seeing signs and portents, philosophers discussed the will of the gods.

Which is far more than we have for the existence of Jesus and the miracles described in the gospels.

Is this any different from there being materially many times more churches, statues and crucifixes worn by many millions past and present?

People build monuments as outward expressions of whatever they happen to believe in, whatever is perceived to be valuable or beneficial for their society and themselves, God, gods, Prophets, war hero's, art for arts sake.....Muslims build Mosques in honour of Allah and the Prophet, HIndus build temples, statues of their own Gods, Brahman the manifester of Worlds, Shiva, Shakti....

 

[Learner]

People build monuments as outward expressions of whatever they happen to believe in, whatever is perceived to be valuable or beneficial for their society and themselves, God, gods, Prophets, war hero's, art for arts sake.....Muslims build Mosques in honour of Allah and the Prophet, HIndus build temples, statues of their own Gods, Brahman the manifester of Worlds, Shiva, Shakti....

Sure but even those above in your quote beat the material number of the Greek gods worship items in your first quote (since this seemed to be the basis of your argument). Jesus has the best selling book (the bible) in history.

 

[DBT]

People build monuments as outward expressions of whatever they happen to believe in, whatever is perceived to be valuable or beneficial for their society and themselves, God, gods, Prophets, war hero's, art for arts sake.....Muslims build Mosques in honour of Allah and the Prophet, HIndus build temples, statues of their own Gods, Brahman the manifester of Worlds, Shiva, Shakti....

Sure but even those above in your quote beat the material number of the Greek gods worship items in your first quote (since this seemed to be the basis of your argument). Jesus has the best selling book (the bible) in history.

In my first post I was saying that a lot of people believed in the existence of their gods, believing that they had a first hand experience with them, the oracles with their visions, ordinary worshippers with the benefits and favours they got from their gods, social identity and cohesion for the state, etc.

Jesus did not write the gospels, witnesses did not write the gospels, believers did.

 

[Learner]

People build monuments as outward expressions of whatever they happen to believe in, whatever is perceived to be valuable or beneficial for their society and themselves, God, gods, Prophets, war hero's, art for arts sake.....Muslims build Mosques in honour of Allah and the Prophet, HIndus build temples, statues of their own Gods, Brahman the manifester of Worlds, Shiva, Shakti....

Sure but even those above in your quote beat the material number of the Greek gods worship items in your first quote (since this seemed to be the basis of your argument). Jesus has the best selling book (the bible) in history.

In my first post I was saying that a lot of people believed in the existence of their gods, believing that they had a first hand experience with them, the oracles with their visions, ordinary worshippers with the benefits and favours they got from their gods, social identity and cohesion for the state, etc.

Jesus did not write the gospels, witnesses did not write the gospels, believers did.

Ok, you got me on that one. Zeus and Hercules Do have more on Jesus because...

They "wrote" theirs.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He does, actually. And it was you who first implied that Jesus wrote the Bible:

Jesus has the best selling book (the bible) in history.

Hence the response:

Jesus did not write the gospels, witnesses did not write the gospels, believers did.

A conclusion—believers (i.e., biased, unreliable members of a cult) wrote the gospels, not witnesses—that you have yet to address.

Which in turn puts Lumpy’s utterly pointless walls of text into the following proper context:

1. One person’s version of events (Paul’s) based on nothing more than a “vision,” that in turn gets written down decades later by an unknown author (which then gets revised decades later by other unknown authors, with fundamental and contradictory changes made based on no verifiable source or reasoning other than to harmonize with an emerging theology, not historical reality)
2. No eyewitnesses to any of the events described
3. Anonymous authors who—at best—are already members of the cult and therefore biased and unreliable
4. Established embellishments and unknown numbers of revisions and alterations over the centuries, particularly through differing translations
5. The fact that NONE of this non-argument matters in regard to making shit up

 

[Learner]

He does what?

Consider it as dictating while someone was writing it down, where Jesus gets the credit for His thoughts.

Doesn't beat Zeus and the other gods "writing" their own though, as you (plural) seem to imply i.e. "there's more" on them than there is on Jesus.