Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[DBT]

Fantastic stories written in ancient scrolls by anonymous writers believed by some, on the basis of faith, to be true. In this day and age.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Jesus miracle stories must be rejected as fiction.

The Jesus' miracle stories were almost certainly fiction. However, there is a minuscule chance that there was an extraterrestrial alien that dropped in and used his advanced technology to perform and amaze the crowd... the stories were then written about his shows. Why they didn't mention that Jesus was 2' 8" tall, had six eyes, and twelve arms would be a mystery though.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I don't know if it has been covered in the previous 102 pages (and I don't have a spare 3 hours to find out), but the miracles of prophet Elijah, especially in I Kings 17, when Elijah visits the widow of Zarepath, bear a striking resemblance to some of the best-known Jesus miracles. Could it be that this is the reason they're not in heavy rotation in Sunday school lessons, or used much in sermons? (I'm guessing about the latter, as I haven't sat through an actual sermon in probably 45 years.) The miracles of I Kings 17:
1) The widow tells Elijah she is almost out of food, and that drought has parched the land. She has one jar of meal and one jug of olive oil for herself and her son, and now there is Elijah to feed. He tells her to have faith, and her food will not run out. The three of them live on the jar and the jug for "many days", until the rains come.
2) Then the son gets sick and dies. The widow rails at him for bringing disaster to her household. Elijah takes the dead boy to his room, prays over him, and restores him to life.
It makes me a bit curious. Do any Christians outside of the literalists take this story to be true? If they do, doesn't it detract from the uniqueness of Jesus? Or do they have some sort of formula that says Elijah didn't resurrect the child, God did, but Jesus actually could do a resurrection with his own power? I'm guessing that's a typical rationale. Since I don't believe miracle narratives in the OT or the NT, it's interesting to speculate on the gospel writers patterning their stories on what they knew about Elijah. They certainly combed through their scriptures to tie Jesus to the messiah myth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle stories must be rejected as fiction --

So the state will pay professional scholars to rewrite history for you, to erase the evidence from the 1st century -- FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)



The alleged miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, continued

[Dr. Pinocchio]: When he became an adult he left his home and went from one village and town to the other, preaching his message, that people shouldn't be concerned about material things of this world, people should be concerned with the spiritual things in life. He gathered a group of followers around him who were convinced that he was the Son of God, and he confirmed their belief by doing miracles. He could cast out demons, he could . . .

Not if you just read the biography, the only source (the only evidence). He obviously did none of the above, though he probably did have some disciples.

The most legitimate miracle claim in the source is the "having healed many" phrase (see previous Wall of Text). Along with this, there's the one raising-the-dead story plagiarized from the earlier Gospel of Luke, and two blood-curdling horror tales of humans turning into monsters -- that's all the evidence for the miracle-worker Apollonius.

Is this good evidence? Is it maybe an improvement on the case for the Magic Toe of King Pyrrhus, reported to us by Plutarch, who is a mainline historian writing 400 years later about this King and his Magic Toe? So does Dr. Pinocchio also include King Pyrrhus and his Magic Toe as one of the "miracle-working sons of God"? Is this also a "Jesus parallel" or "literary antecedent" to Jesus in the Gospels? Why not also a Magic Toe, if we're supposed to take seriously lurid stories of people turning into monsters and wedding banquets blowing up in our face?

The "having healed many" phrase has to be included here, because otherwise there's virtually no serious miracles of Apollonius in this biography account. However, there are miracles performed by other sages than Apollonius. In fact, most of the miracles told in this "Life of Apollonius" are done by sages other than Apollonius.

How can the scholar say they were "convinced that he was the Son of God" and that "he confirmed their belief by doing miracles," when there were other sages doing more miracles than Apollonius did?


5 miracles performed by Hindu sages:

It turns out that most of the serious miracles in this biography are done by a group of village "sages" in India (Bk 3, ch 38 and ch 39). Three of the miracles are reasonable enough, straightforward healing miracles similar to Jesus in the Gospels: a blind man, a lame man, and a man with a paralyzed hand -- reportedly, all three are healed on the spot and go home healthy, having been made whole. So these 3 examples of miracles are serious -- not goofy nutcase types like those of Apollonius -- but a reason still to disbelieve them is that they are reported in one source only, and this from more than 100 years later than the reported events.

These are the most legitimate miracle stories in the entire biography, telling a straightforward beneficial outcome produced by the superhuman power. But rather than performed by Apollonius, it's these other sages who did them, with Apollonius and his traveling companion present as observers only.

But there's something odd about these three reported miracles -- they are overshadowed by two more healing miracles which are given much more attention, and yet these are dubious because it's not made clear that there's any beneficial outcome:

pregnant woman having difficulty in labor: The closest to an explicit statement of the outcome is that she "suffered in labor . . . and was healed by the intercession of her husband" who was instructed to do a ritual to relieve her. So the husband had his instructions, but there's nothing saying what happened later when he carried out the instructions -- only the original promise that "the womb would be extruded together with the fetus" if the husband performed the procedure. Nothing really narrates what the husband did or what resulted. So, maybe there's a miracle in there somewhere, or maybe not. Much attention is given to the procedure, or instructions for the husband to carry out, but virtually nothing about the outcome, or beneficial result.

a mother whose son is possessed by a demon: The family is disrupted by this demon which has tormented the son for years. In this case also a treatment is prescribed, but we're told nothing about any outcome. The village sage produces a letter addressed to the demon, and upon reading it the demon, supposedly, will decide to stop tormenting this boy and leave, because the stern letter says something threatening to the demon. That's the "miracle" -- a letter addressed to the demon, threatening it. Nothing is said about the outcome.

Can you imagine Jesus described as doing a miracle like this? giving the victim's mother a letter addressed to the demon, telling the demon to cut it out or else? That's all there is in the entire Life of Apollonius about any demons being cast out. And it's the sage, not Apollonius who performs this would-be exorcism -- but even if it were Apollonius who gave her the letter, is this what our scholar means when he says "He could cast out demons . . ."? just a letter addressed to the demon demanding that it stop doing its mischief?

Except for this, there's nothing in the entire biography about anyone casting out demons. It's pathetic and fraudulent for Dr. Pinocchio to say "He could cast out demons . . ." Who couldn't "cast out demons" this way? Just give the victim a letter addressed to the demon, telling it to cease and desist from its bad behavior -- and from this Dr. Pinocchio proclaims, "He could cast out demons . . .!" This is not an honest scholar, but a crusader-propagandist on a mission.

It's Quackery for this phony scholar to shout at his audience "He could cast out demons!" when there's nothing else anywhere other than this silly story of a sage giving a letter to the mother, addressed to the demon, telling it to stop possessing the victim. The crusader-scholar-propagandist is hyping this alleged miracle-worker similarly to a shyster used-car salesman, selling a shoddy product, knowing the customer is getting ripped off. A self-respecting state-supported University should be ashamed of itself for lending its prestige and good name to fraud like this.


Is it really a reported miracle act? or only a religious ritual?

These two miracles, about the pregnant woman and the demon-possessed boy, are actually the most prominent miracles performed by the sages in the village, being given the most attention. And yet for both, the only interest is in the prescribed treatment to be done, or the miracle-worker doing some ritual or pronouncing some incantation or claim of victory over evil, and yet no reported beneficial result. It's as though the worshipers are satisfied with the priest or sage condemning the evil, cursing it, saying or doing something religious, and then this religious affirmation alone satisfies them, or gives them comfort.

But by contrast, the Jesus miracles are essentially about fixing what's wrong, i.e., making the victim healthy, eliminating the evil, which is reported in the account each time, confirming that real results are the point of it, rather than just doing religious acts per se and giving homage to the ancient deities.

When you hear of miracle claims, especially healing stories, especially from a miracle-debunker scholar pundit like this Dr. Pinocchio, you have to make sure that the victim, in the end, actually did recover or was restored, because in many cases there is no such result reported in the story, such as they're reported to us in the Gospel accounts describing the Jesus healing acts. And we can see how the revered scholar-debunkers like to make the claims of miracles which really aren't there, where there is really no beneficial outcome in the original text reporting the supposed miracle.


"casting out demons" -- in search of exorcism tales in the ancient world

This is usually the case with exorcism stories (which are very hard to find). The historian Josephus gives an example of one, in Antiquities Bk 8 ch 2. He tells of an exorcist named Eleazar, who casts out demons, and Josephus claims he witnessed it personally, so we can assume the scene is not totally fiction.

(Can anyone find any serious claims, before 100 AD, of exorcism incidents? Why do these suddenly pop up in the Gospel accounts, with nothing earlier showing any similarity? The only explanation that makes any sense is that Jesus had a unique ability to cure mental illness, instantly.)

And yet what Josephus describes is not a victim being cured, but only the exorcist performing a ritual. What happens is that Eleazar does an incantation to call out the demon, and then a container of water nearby is knocked over, presumably by the demon doing its exit from the victim's body. That's the miracle cure -- a container of water knocked over by an invisible demon. Nothing is said about the victim recovering from his sickness or mental illness.

So the Josephus miracle account is only about the ritual, and also about the Teacher Solomon who prescribed this ritual in his famous teachings. But it's not about a miracle cure actually happening, such as the Jesus miracles described in the Gospel accounts. Josephus devotes much space to this exorcist event, and to his eulogy of the ancient Wise Solomon, like the Apollonius biography eulogizes the ancient man-god Hercules, but as far as any beneficial result produced by the miracle event, what does Josephus give us? Nothing.

In fact, there seems to be NO EXAMPLE of any exorcism, in the ancient literature, describing an actual healing of a possessed victim, i.e., mentally ill victim, stating that the victim recovered and was made healthy (other than those of Jesus in the Gospel accounts).

By contrast, when Jesus is described as casting out demons, the victim who had been ill recovers, or regains his normal sane condition. It isn't really about the demon, or about the ritual to cast it out -- though that's there -- but the main point is that the victim gets cured, which we're told each time in the account.

Eleazar the exorcist-charlatan (Josephus) vs. Jesus the healer (the Gospel accounts): Why should a recognized historian like Josephus give us such an inferior account of an exorcism? if there were any such real healing events to report? Though he is on a higher plane than the Gospel accounts, as a recognized writer with credibility and status as a 1st-century historian, he gives us a pathetic exorcism story which is laughable in leaving out the most important element of any healing miracle report, which is the benefit to the victim who is healed. It's a cheap vulgar attempt at hyping his hero Solomon, but ends up giving us nothing of substance, which Josephus would certainly do if there was any substance there.

How is it that the Gospel accounts, written by non-professionals of no status, give us the ONLY exorcism stories of any substance in the ancient world, while Josephus, trying to hype his hero Solomon, gives us something so inferior?

The explanation is simple: Josephus simply had no real examples to offer -- had there been any such serious cases to report, he would have reported it. I.e., there were no cases of this. Only some ritual practices by a charlatan exorcist here or there who couldn't heal anyone, but who did have a fancy ritual and some tricks to play on an audience.

This is a small piece of evidence (one more small piece of many small pieces which keep accumulating) that the Jesus miracle acts really did happen, as real events in history which explain something which requires an explanation. It explains why we have the many written reports narrating the Jesus healing miracles, but little or no such accounts of any other reputed miracle-workers.

The ordinary people and the writers were not stupid -- they knew the difference between a charlatan doing fancy rituals, incantations, etc., and an actual recovery or cure of an afflicted victim. When the latter actually did happen, they took notice, because this was something different. This was really "good news" such as they had not experienced with other claims of miracles or rituals prescribed by the gods and performed in order to please them. No, this was something new where victims actually recovered, with little or no religious symbolism or pomp. A good example of substance vs. symbol.


the "good news" vs. the fancy religious ritual

This feature of REAL RESULTS or benefit produced by Jesus could explain the origin of the term "good news" or "gospel" or "εὐαγγέλιον" in the Gospel accounts, referring to actual healings taking place, instead of the usual religious rituals only and the nice words and assurances to pacify the supplicants, such as we often see in miracle stories, such as the two above Apollonius cases, where a religious ritual is prescribed by the sage, but no beneficial outcome is reported as a result of the ritual being followed.

And it's noteworthy that in the Jesus miracle healings there's virtually no ritual practice used, nothing requiring the victim to perform something, also no appeal to an ancient healing deity, as with most reported healing miracles, including the Apollonius miracles #1 and #3 above (attributed to Heracles) and #2 (Asclepius), where recognition is paid to the ancient Greek deity. Rather than religious symbols and deities, the Jesus healing narratives emphasize the beneficial outcomes to the victims.

So the Jesus miracles are distinguished from the conventional miracle legends by the REAL RESULTS or benefit done to the victim healed, and the rituals or ancient deities are not what's important and receive little or no mention in the accounts.


summary of the miracles of Apollonius

Now there is just one more miracle in the Apollonius biography, in addition to the ones listed earlier -- when Apollonius arrives in Egypt to philosophize with some sages there, one of them orders a tree to salute Apollonius, which it does obediently, bowing toward him and making a gesture in response to the command from the sage (Bk 6 ch 10).

The old bowing-tree gag! I think I'm gonna throw up.

This miracle might seem ludicrous, but it has to be included here, because there are so few miracle stories in this biography of Apollonius that it's necessary to include anything even slightly resembling a miracle event.

A qualifier has to be added here: Are any of the Jesus miracles also ludicrous? What about the cursing of the fig tree -- does that go into the wacko category?

(something about trees -- goofy tree stories?)

The point here is not to make sense out of every Jesus miracle act we find in the accounts. Even if 2 or 3 of them are goofy or contain something dubious, those are a small fraction of the total -- there is arguably one (only one) copycat miracle story in the Gospels, based on an earlier antecedent (II Kings 4:42-44) -- but there are more than 30 Jesus miracle acts in the Gospel accounts, and even if all the dubious ones are subtracted, there's still 30 or more remaining, whereas if all the goofy ones are deleted from the Apollonius biography, there's virtually nothing left.

The supposed miracles of Apollonius are 70% nutcase, 25% copycat, and 5% innocuous stories of something claiming a serious miracle happened which might have credibility if we had more than only one source. And it's not unreasonable to believe Apollonius might have had some psychic ability. In addition to the biography as a source, one other source reports a vision he had of the Emperor Domitian being assassinated in the year 96. Is it possible Apollonius really did possess some psychic power, and then from this he got turned into a miracle-worker by one writer 120 years later? That's one good explanation.

So now, after crossing off the 2 goofy "miracles" of Apollonius, and also the copycat raising-the-dead story lifted out of the Gospel of Luke, what's left?

There's the sudden disappearance of Apollonius at the trial, and there's the "having healed many" incidental remark -- these are all that's left for us to consider as legitimate serious cases of Apollonius doing any miracle act. And of course these are in one source only, dated at least 120 years later than the alleged events. So when Dr. Pinocchio says "he confirmed their belief by doing miracles," can we take him seriously? We have nothing other than this one biography saying anything about miracles he did, and nothing else suggesting that anyone believed it, or even knew of such claims about him.


The desperate con-artist makes up his own facts.

What our scholar-propagandist is doing here is showing his exasperation at being unable to find a legitimate example of a miracle-worker for whom we have any serious evidence. This Apollonius character seems to be his best shot. And since our charlatan-scholar strengthens his case by putting this miracle legend PRIOR to Jesus, so he can claim the Jesus story is derived from this earlier legend, he creates the deception that Apollonius is a PREDECESSOR or "literary antecedent" to Jesus, like Moses and Elijah were literary antecedents and predecessors. Is this the best he can dig up, as an example of a reported miracle-worker antecedent? falsely displacing his miracle-worker character to 100 years earlier than he really lived?

When such fraud as this is the best that an accredited professional scholar can come up with, then the conclusion has to be that there were no serious cases of reputed miracle-workers in the ancient world other than Jesus in the Gospels. Or, nothing PRIOR to Jesus, or prior to the Gospel accounts.

We have in effect a professional hit-man here, with all his tools and expensive training and ammunition he spends most of his life to accumulate, and provided with all the trappings of status and recognition a prestigious institution can provide to him for cover, to carry out his hatchet job with as much equipment and resources as possible -- and yet with all this, the best he can give us is Apollonius of Tyana, as a reported miracle-worker antecedent to Jesus. And he has to keep his fingers crossed and hope no one actually reads the only source, the biography, which explodes most of what he falsely claims about this 1st-century character who he falsely claims is an "antecedent" to Jesus.

Any others he offers are even more pathetic than this one, and for them also he can give no ancient text or written record telling of their miracle acts, because there is none, and he knows it, and so can only fall back on his credentials, his trappings, his status as a professional recognized authority on the subject, and so you must believe him on faith.

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi1eWhzxja0&t=3724s )
At the end of Apollonius' life, he got in trouble with the Roman authorities, who ended up putting him on trial. But he . . .

It's called a "trial" in the account (probably fiction), but it's mostly Apollonius preaching. After the Emperor Domitian acquits him of all the charges, Apollonius requests to deliver a very long monologue-oration, which the Emperor doesn't want to hear, so Apollonius instead decides to vanish (Bk 8 ch 5-6). The author then gives us the long oration anyway, ch 7, which lasts more than an hour (in the audiobook).

In other words, this "trial" is basically an occasion for Apollonius to deliver a long sermon on philosophy and the meaning of life. There's no threat to Apollonius, no accusers, just the sage giving speeches to the Emperor and other passive listeners. Or maybe -- "Can we talk?" -- it's just the author Philostratus delivering the speeches, like the speeches of Socrates are really from Plato.

But he ascended to Heaven, and afterward . . .

No, nothing in the biography says he actually ascended to Heaven or was seen ascending. However, it says that a choir of "maidens" sang a song to him, urging him to "hasten thou to Heaven," and "go upwards from earth." There might have been 2 witnesses. However, they didn't see him because he was in a temple and the 2 witnesses were outside, having only seen him go inside. So whatever happened, there were no eye-witnesses to it (Bk 8 ch 30).

Also the author says only that this is one version of how he died, or disappeared, or departed from earth. So according to this version he went into the temple where no one saw him, and someone sang a song to him about ascending to heaven. Other than this, there's nothing about him ascending to Heaven.

. . . and afterward he appeared alive to his followers. And . . .

No, the biography doesn't say that either. What it says is that one disciple only felt an experience or presence of Apollonius, not visual, while the other disciples present didn't see or feel anything. They heard the one disciple having this mystical experience of Apollonius, and they wondered what was happening (Bk 8 ch 31):

"Where is he," they asked. "For we cannot see him anywhere."

What is it called when only one person sees it and everyone else does not? That's hallucination!. So our evidence is that one follower had hallucinations, not that Apollonius "appeared alive to his followers," as Dr. Pinocchio falsely claims.

And then the mesmerized disciple spoke some inspiring words which were thought to have come from Apollonius speaking through him. That's it, no appearances other than one disciple hallucinating, and the others being puzzled about it, seeing and feeling nothing, though hearing the mesmerized one's voice speaking words thought to be from Apollonius.

And his followers talked about it. Some of them wrote books. One of the books survived.

There's only one source, the biography written more than 100 years later, not written by a direct follower. Other than this there is no written record reporting any miracles he did, and nothing written by anyone contemporary or near to his time.

Now if the rock-solid evidence of Jesus' Resurrection is that someone claimed they saw him alive afterwards, then I think we have . . .

But it's FIVE sources which say this, dated from 25-70 years later, claiming many witnesses saw him alive afterwards, after many saw him killed a few days earlier, plus also that his body was buried, also seen by witnesses, and that later the body was gone. That's the evidence, and there's nothing even close to that reported about Apollonius. No one saw Apollonius die or being killed, being buried, or reporting his body missing, or seeing him alive later.

. . . then I think we have rock-solid evidence that Apollonius of Tyana was raised from the dead. How is it any different?

It's different because in the one case there's obviously a lot of evidence and in the other case there's none. In other words, what's different is that in the case of Apollonius we only have to check the written record and see that Dr. Pinocchio is lying. Whereas with Jesus in the Gospels we can check the record and see the reports that Jesus was seen killed and buried and alive a few days later.

No one saw Apollonius killed or dead, no one saw him buried, and no one saw him alive afterward, in the only account we have. There's so much difference that it's laughable anyone would claim the two are similar. The only account of him does NOT say he ascended or was seen ascending, or that he appeared alive afterward -- in other words it contradicts the falsehoods spoken by Dr. Pinocchio, and there are no surviving books or writings from his followers saying such things.

No source says the above about Apollonius of Tyana. The only source saying anything about miracles doesn't appear until more than 100 years later. And even this source does not report anyone seeing him die or being alive after he died.


What about other pagan heroes who resurrected?

And it isn't just Apollonius who is a candidate for resurrection from the dead -- what about Romulus?

No -- Strike 2! there's no source saying Romulus rose from the dead. The stories of his last day say he disappeared in a storm and was never found, not that he rose from the dead. Possibly one person claimed to have seen him later, but other than this one reported sighting, there's no report that he actually was seen or did appear to anyone after his disappearance. And even if Romulus had been seen alive by this one witness, it would only mean that he didn't really die in that storm, because no one saw him die -- he only disappeared in the storm and was never found.

But what are these stories about Romulus? When are they dated?

It's only in some eulogies of Romulus 600 years later when it's suggested that he ascended to heaven, or still lived on, like some Germans believed Frederick Barbarossa came back to life 600 years later; and some Romans prayed to Romulus, like some Christians pray to the saints, who are thought to watch down upon us and bless us or grant our requests. This has nothing to do with a dying person rising back to life a few days later and being seen alive by multiple witnesses who recognized him as the same one they had seen alive earlier before he was killed, as Jesus is described in our written accounts near to the time it happened.

So the final end of Romulus is an unsolved question of history (if Romulus was a real historical figure), but no written source near the time says he resurrected. Centuries later the stories report the suspicious circumstances without saying for sure what the explanation is, though the rumor of him being murdered by his political enemies is the most probable, despite one possible sighting of him being alive. This one sighting is from only one witness (according to eulogies 500 years later), who appears from the story to have claimed this only to give psychological comfort to Romulus' followers who were dismayed at his disappearance.

But the entire scenario is dubious because none of this is reported in any written account about it until at least 500 years later. So there's no evidence whatever for a resurrection of Romulus, such as there is for Jesus in 30 AD, for which we have multiple accounts near the time giving us the evidence of his being killed and later seen alive by many witnesses. There's no such evidence or written account of Romulus resurrecting.

What about Heracles?

No, STRIKE 3! Apollonius did not resurrect, Romulus did not, and Heracles did not. No written source says they were killed and then resurrected. Just because some poetry centuries later eulogizes them saying they ascended to be with the gods doesn't mean they resurrected. There's no written account of witnesses seeing them alive in their physical bodies after they were killed.

There's no story of anyone claiming to see the body of Heracles alive after his death, or of him ascending. The only story, from centuries later, is that he was seen burned alive, and then his burned body afterwards could not be found. The accounts 1000 years later say he ascended to the gods -- so the story is that he ascended, but not that anyone saw it, or saw anything other than his body being burned and then the absence of any remains afterward.

And even all this was only ancient legend, not from any written record near the time of Heracles. There are no written records from near the time of Heracles to tell us if he was a real person in history, or, if he was, whether he had an unusual death -- no written source anywhere near to the time he lived, if he lived. A poet writing hundreds or thousands of years later, expounding on some popular mythology from earlier generations, is not any indication of the folk hero being a person in history who rose from the dead. The Jesus resurrection story is from multiple written accounts near the time of the reported event, from writers of the period reporting it within the historical chronology, having close contact to the reported events -- not writing centuries later such as the poets writing about Heracles.

A legitimate example has to be something more serious than an ancient folk myth only with no sources near the time of the reported events.

What about Cleomedes?

No, STRIKE 4! This example is even nuttier as a claim of someone dying and resurrecting back to life.

The only two sources for the Cleomedes tale date from 500 or more years after the alleged event. They're even later than the Gospel accounts. The event allegedly happened somewhere around 500-400 BC, and the only 2 accounts about it are from 100-200 AD, after the Gospel accounts were written. Why can't our scholar-debunker give an example of something earlier? Why does our revered Professor-debunker-crusader-propagandist seem oblivious to the date of his sources? Isn't he supposed to have some KNOWLEDGE of his subject matter? Why does he consistently fail to give us any sources or DATES for his sources?

And even if we assume the tale of Cleomedes has some truth to it, there is no death or resurrection reported, only an empty "chest" into which Cleomedes had hid himself, to escape some pursuers, and when they finally broke open the chest, it was empty. Then the delphic oracle was consulted, which reported that Cleomedes was no longer a mortal. https://pantheon.org/articles/c/cleomedes.html

So this legend is about a mysterious disappearance of sorts, but no one seeing him killed or risen back to life afterwards.

That Dr. Pinocchio has to resort to an example like this to prove his point actually refutes what he's saying, proving him a fraud. The only conclusion to draw, from this and other evidence, is that there are NO reputed resurrection reports in all the ancient literature, other than Jesus in the Gospels. If there were any, this scholar would offer one -- that's what he's paid to do -- it's his function to search out other miracle-workers, real or imagined, to offer as parallels to Jesus, and he spends his entire life searching for them, desperately, and this is all he can come up with. If there were any out there, he'd find it -- he'd give one clear example of it, which he's not doing. He can't find one case of someone dying and then coming back to life and being seen alive by witnesses.

What about all the other people from the Greco-Roman world who were allegedly seen by their followers after their death?

What does he mean by "other people" seen alive after their death? There are none. Maybe an occasional example of someone alone having a vision, like King Saul reportedly had a vision of the dead prophet Samuel returning to speak to him a year or 2 later, as a ghost. But that's just one person's hallucination, not evidence of a resurrection, like the case of Jesus appearing unexpectedly to groups of witnesses shortly after his death. This written evidence from the time is not just about someone alone having a vision in a seance ritual performed in order to bring back the dead one's ghost.

There are some other examples offered, by other crusaders on a mission to debunk the Jesus miracle stories. But they're all ludicrous when you check them out individually. Running off a list of several names, even 2 or 3 dozen, does not make the narrative more convincing, since each and every example blows up when one checks the original source or text.

Are they all people who have been raised from the dead?

No, they are fictions in the mind of the debunker-crusader making up stories to earn his paycheck. Where is there another reported case of someone who was seen killed and whose body came back to life within days and seen alive by many witnesses together in one place at the same time? Where is there anything even close to this? What is the written record of any such case? Obviously this scholar-debunker-crusader has no serious examples or he'd offer one.

Notice he gives no ancient text source telling of these "miracle-working sons of God" he says were common in antiquity. Why does he never give a source for it in the written record and quote from it, so we can know he's not just making up stories? Why should we believe him that these miracle legends existed if he can't give any quotes from the ancient sources, such as we have sources about Jesus doing miracle healings and raising the dead? Why should we believe these miracle legends existed? Why is there no record of them? other than the mouths of this and other Jesus-miracle-debunker pundits? 21st-century gurus pretending to know what happened 2000 years ago but never giving any source?


Is there a public need for Jesus-miracle-debunker pundits, subsidized by taxpayers?

Apparently someone thinks there's a need to pay professional scholars to make up these stories, in order to discredit the written record we have of the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker. I.e., like there's a need for public infrastructure, like public utilities, or roads and bridges, or like national defense, etc.

Let's assume there is such a need. We have many professional scholars who are biased, and scientists, etc., and it's permitted for them to take sides on controversial issues and make their presentations, not only to their students, in lectures, but also to the public, in interviews and publications etc.

But isn't there some limit on how far they can go in making up their own facts? Let's be honest -- they do make up some facts, in distorting the truth and exaggerating and omitting anything from the other side. On all sides of different issues.

But shouldn't there be some lines drawn as to how far they can go?

Shouldn't a line be drawn where a historian scholar removes an historical figure from the time he really lived and transports him to a time 100 or more years earlier (or later)? even 50 years? For Dr. Pinocchio to label Apollonius of Tyana a "literary antecedent" to Jesus in 30 AD, this Greek-Roman sage would have to be dated back to 50 BC at the very latest, probably 100 BC or earlier, with his death early enough that there'd be a written record of it by the early 1st century AD. If it's known when the historical character really lived, and this is documented in all the published record, should it not be considered a violation of the rules to remove the character from that time and transport him to a different time?

 

[Rhea]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Some questions:

1. Have we ever checked these walls of text for plagiarism or copyright infringement?
2. Does Lumpy think that "wall of text" is some sort of appealing form of discourse that will make people think, "Oh! hey! A Wall of Text! Just what I was looking for, can't wait to read it!"
3. How many times have we seen the same copy and pasted text?

 

[Keith&Co.]

1. Have we ever checked these walls of text for plagiarism or copyright infringement?

i kinda remember searching some claim of Lumpy's years back, but all i found was other places he's posted the same shit. But tge wall o' text thing seems to be unique to here. I suspect he thinks we are 'threatened' by the practice, rather than dismissive.

 

[skepticalbip]

1. Have we ever checked these walls of text for plagiarism or copyright infringement?

i kinda remember searching some claim of Lumpy's years back, but all i found was other places he's posted the same shit. But tge wall o' text thing seems to be unique to here. I suspect he thinks we are 'threatened' by the practice, rather than dismissive.

I don't think Lumpy pioneered the wall o' text. That is unless he was doing it pre Duane Gish. Whether Gish pioneered his "Gish gallop" or not, I dunno but Gish certainly made an art of long non-stop inane claims of certainty to overwhelm his opponents with verbosity rather than reasoned argument... His long spiels came to be known as "the Gish Gallop".

 

[Keith&Co.]

1. Have we ever checked these walls of text for plagiarism or copyright infringement?

i kinda remember searching some claim of Lumpy's years back, but all i found was other places he's posted the same shit. But tge wall o' text thing seems to be unique to here. I suspect he thinks we are 'threatened' by the practice, rather than dismissive.

I don't think Lumpy pioneered the wall o' text. That is unless he was doing it pre Duane Gish. Whether Gish pioneered his "Gish gallop" or not, I dunno but Gish certainly made an art of long non-stop inane claims of certainty to overwhelm his opponents with verbosity rather than reasoned argument... His long spiels came to be known as "the Gish Gallop".

No, i meant unique in Lumpy's postings.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Miracles? Resurrection? Ticket to Paradise? Why not -- if that's what the EVIDENCE shows.

Why else would they call it the "Good News"?

If it's true, everything is explained, including why they crucified him.

Besides, you presumably want us to base our lives on these accounts and pass laws based on them (e.g., banning abortion).

I don't think he does. Lumpy doesn't care that much about the politics, or the observing, or altering his behavior. His goal is the smallest amount of belief necessary to NOT DISAPPEAR at the end of his life on Earth.

He wants to believe that all he has to do is accept the healing miracles as proof of divinity, and use that as his ticket to Paradise. And he'd like someone to acknowledge that he has figured it out. To not suggest he needs to pad his religion resume with Sunday attendance, or donations to the poor, not masturbating, maybe reading a bit of actual history....

No, for him it's Jesus did miracles, i get thru the gates. The other stuff was probably later interpolations, anyway.

I plead guilty to 95% of that.

This homily is basically a statement of the "salvation by works" doctrine, which says that the correct principle of getting saved -- if there is such a thing as salvation -- is that it must be earned, or that the saved one must prove him/herself to be worthy of it, through good deeds -- like "Sunday attendance, or donations to the poor, not masturbating, maybe reading a bit of actual history" and other behaviors to prove one's worthiness, because getting saved has to be something which is basically difficult, and getting an easy "ticket to Paradise" is perverse.

In the NT writings one can find both the salvation-by-works teaching and also the salvation-by-faith-as-a-free-gift teaching. There are ways to find both of these in the "infallible" inspired "Word of God" scriptures, and you can take your pick of these two. Or of course you can reject it all and say there is no salvation because it's all bunk either way.

Each of these three -- 1. saved by works, 2. saved by faith alone, 3. it's all bunk either way -- are possibilities which cannot be proved. But a case can be made for each, and none of them can be proved or disproved with certainty (or even 98% probability (though I think 2. saved by faith alone can be "proved" with about 92.7% probability (though I'll settle for less, because I want to get to Heaven even if it's only a 60% or 50% probability))). I plead guilty of wanting my "ticket to Paradise" by whatever easy route there is to it, if there happens to be an easy route.


Why not? It's pretty basic.

The simple case for salvation-by-faith-alone as a free gift:

1. Jesus did the miracle acts, showing power, even conquering death, and thus the possibility of eternal life. We have the fact of the evidence reporting this, telling us that he had this power.

2. He reportedly said "Your faith has saved you" in several cases (usually after healing someone), and never did the saved one have to do any good deeds as a condition. And to the thief at the crucifixion he reportedly said "Today you will be with me in Paradise," and obviously that thief had done nothing other than ask for his "ticket to Paradise" with no good works or worthiness to show for it. (It doesn't matter if this actual conversation really happened, between Jesus and the thief, as a historical fact, because the Luke writer is telling us the salvation-by-faith principle with this text, even if the actual exchange of words between them did not happen.) And in addition to this, both the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John tell us many times that we can be saved just by believing, without any other condition.

3. The salvation-by-faith-alone principle is not a man-made teaching, because human teachings always make good deeds of some kind an indispensable condition. So when we find the salvation-by-works teaching in the NT writings, this is obviously the normal human teaching which is always a part of religion and which comes from the normal human wish to make us do good works for the benefit of society. So we can easily explain where this teaching (in the NT and in religion generally) comes from. But we cannot explain where the salvation-by-faith-alone teaching came from, because religion has never taught this (apart from Jesus in the NT), which is introduced into history only in the NT writings, where the only explanation for it has to be that Jesus must have taught it, by saying things like "Your faith has saved you."

4. There's no reason to insist that Jesus had to teach the normal human religion of saved-by-good-works. Just because human religion attached itself to Jesus and turned him into a salvation-by-works preacher doesn't change what he really was. And there's no logical flaw in hoping it's true. Hoping it's true doesn't make it UNtrue anymore than it makes it true. It's only the evidence, or the facts, that can tell us what the truth is, not what we hope. Nor what traditional religion imposes onto us, or what our religious instincts demand, nor any sermons requiring "Sunday attendance, or donations to the poor, not masturbating, maybe reading a bit of actual history" and other demands.

So yes, I'll take my "ticket to Paradise" -- thank you very much.

 

[DBT]

Believing something is true doesn't make it true. But if a belief brings comfort and causes no harm, it probably doesn't matter much, the Noble Lie perhaps.

On the other hand we have opposing beliefs and the division and conflict that causes.

 

[Atheos]

Thanks for the relatively readable post. So what you're saying here is that "It's not how you act, it's how you think." A Pascal's Wager theology.

Following this through to its logical conclusion, a serial child rapist who always dismembers his victims live just to enjoy their screams before they bleed to death can get a ticket to paradise if he thinks in a way that allows him to believe these cockamamie stories about Jesus and accept Jesus into his heart. But a decent citizen who never harms any fellow human but is guilty of the crime of skepticism suffers eternally in the flame that this same Jesus said was so awful that it would be better to pluck out your own eye or cut off your own hand if it took it to avoid it.

As a card-carrying skeptic I'm babbled at this insanity. I refuse to give up my intellectual integrity over it.

And of course then there's the problem that perhaps Mohammad was right and all Christians are pissing Allah off through the blasphemy of worshiping Jesus.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Both Kathryn Kuhlman and Dale Evans were rejected at the gates of heaven for not wearing chadors. (Known by faith.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Has Jesus done anything special? Something that no one had done before? I'm not aware of anything.

Jesus's super trick was his second coming... which like Godot, we are still waiting on.

If I was going for a Fantasy Team, Elijah would seem to be the #1 pick.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think he does. Lumpy doesn't care that much about the politics, or the observing, or altering his behavior. His goal is the smallest amount of belief necessary to NOT DISAPPEAR at the end of his life on Earth.

He wants to believe that all he has to do is accept the healing miracles as proof of divinity, and use that as his ticket to Paradise. And he'd like someone to acknowledge that he has figured it out. To not suggest he needs to pad his religion resume with Sunday attendance, or donations to the poor, not masturbating, maybe reading a bit of actual history....

No, for him it's Jesus did miracles, i get thru the gates. The other stuff was probably later interpolations, anyway.

I plead guilty to 95% of that.


Each of these three -- 1. saved by works, 2. saved by faith alone, 3. it's all bunk either way -- are possibilities which cannot be proved. But a case can be made for each, and none of them can be proved or disproved with certainty (or even 98% probability (though I think 2. saved by faith alone can be "proved" with about 92.7% probability (though I'll settle for less, because I want to get to Heaven even if it's only a 60% or 50% probability))). I plead guilty of wanting my "ticket to Paradise" by whatever easy route there is to it, if there happens to be an easy route.


[...]
So yes, I'll take my "ticket to Paradise" -- thank you very much.

Thank you for that concise and useful and insightful post. That right there is comunication.
And it needs no wall of text for us to understand each other..

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

WHO / WHAT was the original Jesus to whom the supernatural beliefs were added?

You have to identify what was the original part that's real, and to which the later was added, before you can pretend to know what later mythical part was added.

For many (most) of the ancient historical facts there is less evidence (fewer sources and/or less proximity of these to the reported events) than we have for the miracle acts of Jesus. I.e., 4 (5) sources 30-70 years later than the reported events.

And since we have an example in regard to the Mark to Matthew embellishment regarding just one claim (i.e., the fact that in Mark disciples only have the power to heal while just ten years later in Matthew they now have the power to heal and raise the dead) we can easily extrapolate . . .

But Matthew nowhere says the disciples actually did any miracles -- healing, raising the dead, casting out demons. The Matthew text omits Mark's claim that they did miracles and only quotes Jesus delivering a long sermon in which an instruction is given to raise the dead, plus warning them of the dangers they would face. The real "embellishment" over Mark is Matthew's omission of Mark's claim that the disciples did miracles, and also the much longer text of instructions to the disciples, which includes orders to do the miracles, but with the real emphasis on instructing and warning them and demanding that they endure persecution.

Since Matthew omits Mark's statement that they actually did go out and perform the miracles, the embellishment is to REDUCE the miracle claims of Mark, just leaving this as contained in the instructions Jesus gives to them.

The real difference between Mt and Mk is the much longer sermon by Jesus instructing them, not any addition of miracles. The only amplification is that within this extremely long sermon of instructions, there is the granting of power to raise the dead along with the healing. But that's only an incidental part of a vastly greater embellishment of the commissioning-the-twelve scenario.

Here are the three versions of the commissioning of the twelve -- in their chronological order, first Mark, then Matthew, then Luke. Notice how the Matthew version is so much longer, expanding to much greater detail, with the miracle powers granted being almost nothing compared to the rest of the embellishment, which is not a miracle embellishment but a teaching or sermon embellishment:

Mark ch. 3: 13 And he went up on the mountain, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons: 16 Simon whom he surnamed Peter; 17 James the son of Zeb'edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner'ges, that is, sons of thunder; 18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Then he went home;

Mark ch. 6: 7 And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. 10 And he said to them, "Where you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. 11 And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them." 12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

You see in these two Mark versions the only "authority" to them is to cast out demons, but at the end he adds that they "went out" and actually did perform the healing acts, which the Matthew text omits, even though expanding (embellishing) this scene to a much greater length, taking up an entire chapter:

Matthew 10: 1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. 2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay. 9 Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food. 11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart. 12 As you enter the house, salute it. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town. 16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. 19 When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes. 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; 25 it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Be-el'zebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. 26 "So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. 41 He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. 42 And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

Mt ch. 11 -- 1 And when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities.

So, what's the "embellishment" here? It's not about new miracles happening. It's the extended instructions and sermonizing. A major embellishment here is Matthew's adding the admonition to "Go nowhere among the Gentiles" or Samaritan towns, but only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." So the anti-Gentile anti-Samaritan element is an obvious embellishment by Matthew, indicating that the original mission of Jesus, in Mark, was not one of excluding Gentiles and Samaritans.

So yes, Matthew does greatly embellish on Mark, but far from adding any miracles by the disciples, this is downplayed by Mt omitting any reference to the disciples actually doing such acts and emphasizing only the instructions to them in a long expanded sermon.

And then Luke, coming later than Matthew, sticks to the Mark version, repeating that they went out and performed the miracles Mark mentioned:

Luke ch. 9 -- 1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal. 3 And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. 4 And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. 5 And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them." 6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

So if you're looking for "embellishment," it's in Luke where we should see it, because it's later than Matthew, and yet Luke only sticks to the Mark version, with nothing about raising the dead, and no added bias against Gentiles and Samaritans as we see in Matthew.

If you're claiming Matthew adds miracle embellishment to Mark, why doesn't it include Mark's clear statement that the disciples then actually went out and performed the miracle healings? Why instead does Matthew omit this?

So Matthew does not embellish the miracle claims, but rather plays them down, or just omits those claims which were in Mark, and instead expands the short instruction section in Mark to a very extensive sermon, or series of teachings and admonitions and theologizings, to which the raising-the-dead item is added as a small part. So Matthew's real embellishment is that of the teaching and instruction and warnings to the twelve, while eliminating the claim that they actually performed any miracles. So the embellishment here, if any, is Matthew's improvement of eliminating Mark's claim that the disciples did miracles, and his amplification on the sermon to the disciples, instructing and warning them in much greater detail than we see in Mark.

. . . since we have an example in regard to the Mark to Matthew embellishment regarding just one claim (i.e., the fact that . . . later in Matthew they now have the power to heal and raise the dead) we can easily extrapolate backwards forty years to know that nothing miraculous actually ever happened.

No, that's the exact opposite of what we find by extrapolating back, because Matthew omits the Mark miracles in this example. In addition to this omission, Matthew generally reduces the miracle content in favor of more teaching, as does Luke and John, showing that the claims of miracles happening gets less as we proceed from the earlier to the later accounts.

And to extrapolate back means to eliminate whatever was added later so you get back to the original unextrapolated version of Jesus before any legend-building took place, in order to explain how the legend got started, i.e., to identify the original person who later got mythologized. To explain it, you have to tell us what was the original Jesus person who got mythologized or transformed into a miracle-worker, including what was special about him that anyone would make him into a miracle-working messiah figure. So, what was special about the original actual historical Jesus, before the legend-building. If you don't answer this, your theory is worthless.

You're still ignoring the fact that there can be no "embellishment" unless you first have something to embellish. No folk hero was ever embellished into a miracle-worker unless he started out as something important. What was important about Jesus in the first place that there was anything there to embellish? You have never identified anything about this historical Jesus which made him important so that anyone would embellish him into a miracle-worker.


Origin of miracle-hero legends -- there has to be a starting point of the myth
someone special, someone real to begin with.

We have cases of mythic miracle legends which originated from an original human who was someone special and became mythologized, over many generations, into a miracle-worker. But the original hero figure had to be special at the beginning, after which he got transformed into something supernatural in the storytelling.

So, what was special about Jesus in the first place that he should get mythologized into a miracle legend? And why did this happen in only a few decades rather than many generations or centuries, as was the norm? You've not identified anything about him to explain this. We have this explanation for all other cases of a hero figure transformed into a miracle legend, so why is there no explanation in this case?

In the case of Jesus, we're starting out with a person who had no status during his life, no power or wide reputation beyond the local region, and whose career was only 1-3 years. Yet he got transformed into a miracle legend within 20 or 25 years, or published in 4 (5) written accounts in 20-70 years, unlike any other miracle legend of antiquity. This makes no sense unless you identify what was special about the real original person to cause this to happen. There's no other case of a nobody -- no one special -- getting mythologized into a god or miracle hero.

You don’t get to have it both ways. If proximity is your argument, then the Mark to Matthew embellishments alone prove that the . . .

No, there is no miracle embellishment there. Matthew omits the actual miracles from Mark and instead embellishes the teaching element, not the miracles which Mark says happened. It's only within that long expanded teaching and instructions part where Matthew adds the "raise the dead" phrase to the words Jesus tells his disciples, with no claim that they actually did any miracles. This embellishing tells us that the later writers added more sermon material, not miracle claims.

. . . embellishments alone prove that the original story must have been one in which no miracles actually occurred.

No, they "prove" the opposite, as the embellishments reduce the miracle claims rather than increasing them.

And whatever "embellishment" there is, or might be, suggesting anything special or supernatural etc., can be explained only if the original Jesus figure was someone special in some way. All the embellishment proves is that there was someone there originally who was special in some way. So you have to tell us what was this special element about the Jesus person that he would get transformed into something superhuman. And you're not answering this. Until you answer this, you've not explained how this miracle "legend" came about.

It's true that in some later writings, like non-canonical "gospels" etc., in the 2nd-3rd centuries, we see some new miracle claims getting added to the original 1st-century accounts. But those were not possible without having the original accounts and original version of Jesus as someone special, or a really-existing original hero figure to whom later legend or stories could be added. Just like there was a real Alexander the Great who did some actual heroic deeds, and then to this real person some later legends got added. So, what were the special deeds of the original Jesus hero figure? Don't pretend you have a great theory if you leave this question unanswered.

Just keep working backwards. Even though Paul is in no way a reliable source for anything, his . . .

He's a reliable source for what happened in 30-33 AD, because he was contemporary to that time. This makes him a better source than we have for almost all our standard ancient history events, about the Greeks and Romans, which come to us mostly from sources 50-100 years later rather than from anyone contemporary.

. . . his writings predate Mark by about ten years as well and in his writings we see that nothing miraculous occurred as he had to petulantly insist that Jesus resurrected, because no one believed him.

No, stop making up stories. Some believed and others did not. Read the accounts rather than rewriting them.

Just because it was controversial and was doubted by many does not mean "no one believed him."

It's only your interpolation that "no one believed" him. All the evidence says that the Resurrection was believed by many (not all), meaning they believed the Resurrection already, before Paul preached it. If no one had already believed it, then Paul would have been dismissed as a wacko, making such a nutty claim. It's very clear in Galatians and other Paul epistles that the Resurrection was already believed, or was a circulating story, not from Paul, but from the earlier events, and that Paul was only expounding on something already known. If it were not so, then Paul had to be a wacko who never would have got published.

Why did Paul's letters get published, copied over and over and read in the new church communities? This cannot be explained if no one believed in the Resurrection as a real event. It's only because Paul's resurrection claim was believed that his writings acquired any recognition. The claim was widespread, with some believing it and others not, so that it was controversial and getting much attention. But if no one at all had believed it, then Paul would have just been a nobody wacko nutcase, and we today would have nothing about him in any writings, because he would have disappeared from the record.

And why should they?

Some DID believe, and others did not. And the answer why they believed is that there were many reports saying it happened, including from direct witnesses. The ones who believed already knew of the reported event, while others had heard of it and had doubts about it. This explains why Paul's writings exist and why he successfully won some converts and got his Christ-belief communities started.

He wasn’t there. All he had was a “vision.”

A "vision" about what? He spoke of an event to which he was contemporary when it happened and which others already knew of. They had reason to believe, already knowing of the claimed event, but also having reason to doubt it as well as Paul's claims about it.

But it makes no sense to say Paul was just a loon who was not believed by anyone, like hundreds of other wackos with no credibility and who have been forgotten because they had nothing credible to say. If that were the case, then why were Paul's writings preserved, and how did he have any audience for his rantings? How do we today have these writings? 99% of writings perished without being copied, especially those of a wacko only having his private visions.

The explanation is that it's not Paul's "vision" they believed, but the same resurrection event he preached about. They knew the reports of the Resurrection, which existed regardless of Paul, and it's true that others did not believe these reports. Paul's audience knew of the Resurrection claim, independently of Paul, and some believed while others did not. Those who believed are the ones who made Paul important and preserved his writings, because they knew of the resurrection event and were persuaded that Paul understood the meaning of it.

But by your explanation, Paul was a nutcase who would have been forgotten and there'd be no trace of him today and no written account from him because it would have perished the same as all the other unimportant writings which perished.

If no one believed that Jesus resurrected as far back as circa 60 CE, then . . .

You can't impose this false premise.

The evidence is that many did believe, including Paul's audience and readers. While others did not. He was trying to convince those who had doubts. I.e., they knew of the claim but had trouble believing it. It's not from Paul that they knew of the Resurrection belief. They knew of it but had doubts, and Paul was trying to convince them, as many others were already convinced.

If no one believed that Jesus resurrected . . . then using your logic and working backwards further from there must necessarily mean the closer we get to any actual events the more it is revealed nothing miraculous actually occurred and . . .

No, you've shown no pattern of increasing miracle claims. What we see is the opposite. In Mark there is a greater emphasis on miracles, and this decreases as we go forward into the future, to John, which has the least reference to miracles. The miracles decrease gradually from Mark to John.

As to Paul, he mentions nothing about Jesus prior to the night of the arrest, at the end, so he mentions none of the earlier miracles. But he mentions the Resurrection as much as the Gospels mention it. So there is no pattern of decreasing miracle claim from Paul to John. What Paul omits is ANYthing biographical about Jesus, not just miracles he did. I.e., Paul's omission is not about miracles, but about anything biographical prior to the night of the arrest. His biographical Jesus does not exist until that moment, the night before the crucifixion, and everything earlier is omitted.

. . . nothing miraculous actually occurred and the . . .

That's just your premise, your basic dogma which you start out with, not anything to be concluded from any facts or evidence you're offering.

. . . and the whole thing was made up and/or based on misconstruing what may have actually happened.

That's your premise, yes, which you start out with based on your ideological bias that there can be no miracle event, and that all miracle claims are just "made up," as can be shown for all the other miracle legends of antiquity -- but which cannot be shown for this case where we have reports dating near to the time of the alleged events.

So you have only your premise or bias, but nothing to offer from any evidence. You're just repeating your premise that miracle events cannot happen, not giving us any evidence to contradict the evidence in the accounts which say he did the miracle acts, because you cannot show any embellishment of miracle claims from the earlier accounts to the later ones. Because it's the opposite we find in those accounts, where the miracle claims DEcrease as we go from the earlier accounts to the later ones.

There has to be something which originally happened, making Jesus special, and you can't name what that might be. There's never a case where a nobody is transformed into a superhuman miracle-worker. The only evidence we have is that he did perform miracle acts, like those described, and this is what made him special. There's nothing else you can identify as something special about him, which has to be there in order for a miracle legend to develop around him, as we can see in all the other examples of miracle legends, where the original hero figure was someone special rather than a nobody as you're saying the original Jesus was.

Aka, mythology.

No, mythology cannot happen unless there's something real to begin with, something to mythologize, and it has to be something special in order for a miracle legend to emerge in only a few decades.

Mark undercuts Matthew.

No, Mark contains more miracle element than Matthew does. Matthew moves away from the miracles and goes toward theology and sermons. So, if we give more credibility to the earlier, then the Mark miracle element is closer to the truth than Matthew's later teaching and sermonizing element which embellishes the earlier Mark version. However, there's no reason to assume Matthew had no other sources. There was almost certainly the "Q" document, of some kind, also quoted by Luke, and there's every reason to believe other sources also were used by Matthew. It's not true that Matthew is dependent on Mark alone.

Paul undercuts Mark.

No, he adds to the Mark Resurrection details. Paul names individuals who saw Jesus alive, and he says there was a crowd of 500 who saw him alive. Why didn't Mark mention this appearance to the large crowd, if this gospel was embellishing on Paul? So the relation of Paul to Mark is that both are telling us about the same historical crucifixion-and-resurrection event, and Paul gives more detail about it than Mark, probably because he was earlier and knew more about it, though there's plenty of reason to believe the Mark of 70 AD relied on earlier sources, including witnesses.

None of them were actual witnesses to anything.

99% of our ancient history events come to us from writers who were not actual witnesses. And for the Jesus event, those who witnessed it directly were probably not among the .1% who knew how to write.

Paul names some of the witnesses. Maybe none of them were in the tiny educated elite who knew how to write. Or, if there were some direct witnesses who wrote something, their writings were among the 99% of writings which perished because they didn't get copied, or copied enough times to survive. That was the fate of most writings.

(It's a possibility that the epistles of James and Jude are authentic, from direct witnesses contemporary with the original Jesus, identified as his brothers in Mark 6:3. Whatever the origin of these 2 epistles, the authors are interested in teaching only, not anything biographical about Jesus. They are typical of a pattern of citing Jesus as Lord, but saying nothing biographical about him. Whatever Jesus did, these authors assume the readers already know it, and their only interest is in using the already-recognized Jesus figure to promote their religious ideas rather than spreading the "good news" about Jesus, such as Paul and the Gospel writers were doing. Though possibly authentic, both these epistles could instead be pseudonymous, late-1st-century, using the names James and Jude in order to enhance the authority or prestige or status of these writings.)

Actual witnesses evidently worshipped a man who was killed, not a god/messiah who resurrected.

All the evidence is that it was someone who resurrected. There's no evidence to suggest otherwise, except the general pattern that miracle events evolve over generations and centuries rather than instantly as they did in this one case only. So the only evidence is that something happened in this case which otherwise never happened, and so you can claim that the evidence must be wrong in this case, because you think there could not be such a deviation from the norm as we see in this case.

But if there was no resurrection or other miracles done by him, then what's noteworthy about "a man who was killed" but did nothing special? Why does a nobody get transformed into a miracle-working superman? You're not explaining anything. You have to admit that you can't explain how this miracle legend got started. You can explain how all the others got started, but not this one.

The only sources/evidence for what happened give us an answer what was special in this case that caused them to add embellishments. I.e., he did miracle acts, which made him different than just another "man who was killed," or just another militant rebel leader who was crucified. And to this original miracle-worker there could have been embellishments added, because a real miracle-worker is someone special and distinct from others and about whom there are embellishments added, through storytelling and mythologizing, once there's someone special to begin with who is the object of the mythologizing.

So, congratulations. You’ve hoisted yourself with your own petard.

Who needs me, when you're making the point for me? You're showing that the early Jesus story was that of the Mark miracles, which Matthew reduces to less importance and to which he adds his extensive teaching embellishments, and then which Luke and John reduce even more and amplify with their own teachings and theologizings. Which pattern is continued by the later Christian writings which reduce the miracles even further.

Plus you can't name anything other than the miracle stories which might have distinguished the original Jesus and made him something special to which later embellishment could be added, such as Matthew's embellishment, which was to reduce the miracle claims and instead greatly expand the teachings, to make Jesus less of a miracle-worker and more of a teacher instructing his disciples. That's the point you've made with your example of Jesus instructing the twelve before sending them out. Your dissertation gives further evidence that the original historical Jesus must have been a miracle-worker. Keep up the good work.

 

[skepticalbip]

WHO / WHAT was the original Jesus to whom the supernatural beliefs were added?

You have to identify what was the original part that's real, and to which the later was added, before you can pretend to know what later mythical part was added.

That is a strange assumption. A better question would be if there was any such thing as an "original Jesus". Could Jesus be a fictional character like Superman, Thor, magical leprechauns, etc. that some imaginative writer just invented so he could spin imaginative, magical stories about?

 

[Atheos]

Good point Skepticalbip. I don't have to do Jack Shit. There's no reason to waste any more time trying to identify the historical Jesus than there is to identify the historical Paul Bunyan.

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back to these useless walls of text.

 

[DBT]

For all the time and effort that must go into producing walls of text, it just comes down to faith. Faith in the truth of whatever was written in old scrolls by anonymous authors.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You have to identify what was the original part that's real, and to which the later was added, before you can pretend to know what later mythical part was added.

That's incoherent. Even aside from assuming the original must be real.


You would have us to divide the fact from the fiction before we can separate the fiction from the fact?
If we had a trustworthy source for the facts, we would just use that, and ignore the embellished version.

As mentioned before, these days once we determine part of someone's testimony is a lie (or embellishment, or misunderstanding, or some other less-loaded word for dis-truth), we tend to jettison the entire testimony and look for some other source. Because we can no longer trust the testimony offered.

 

[Lion IRC]

Good point Skepticalbip. I don't have to do Jack Shit. There's no reason to waste any more time trying to identify the historical Jesus than there is to identify the historical Paul Bunyan.

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back to these useless walls of text.

I for one would be happy if Jesus Mythers packed up their conspiracy theories and went home.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Topic : Jesus Mythers - if you truly disbelieve why do you need a proof that Jesus existed?