Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Cheerful Charlie]

Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from. It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this. Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate. Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus. Who likewise didn't have much to write about. All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that. The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate. This tells us a lot. After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?" Of maybe they did and it was rather disappointing. Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King. The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's the EVIDENCE (reports that it happened) which make it believable, more than theories about "the laws of nature" etc.

You want to scrap thousands/millions of facts from the historical record because they are reported in one source only? Do you propose doing away with millions of history textbooks containing such historical facts?

No. Just the claims that go against the laws of nature.

Again, Rasputin caused a child to recover from a blood disease, without any medical training. Does this go "against the laws of nature"? Your phrase "the laws of nature" is meaningless if you cannot apply it to all cases, like this one actually documented in the history books. Why can't you explain this subjective phrase? Why don't you know what it means? Why is it that you can only throw it around here and there, meaninglessly, unscientifically, subjectively, and only PRETEND that it means something?

A savant suddenly knows how to play piano without ever having had any lessons or practicing or learning how to play. Or suddenly knows how to solve complicated math problems without ever having studied any math. Why doesn't that contradict "the laws of nature"? The only way we can believe these really happened is that they are reported to have happened. Humans cannot normally do such things. You can't play piano without ever taking any lessons or LEARNing to play, or do complicated math without ever having studied math. Abilities like these are not possible without having spent years learning how to do them.

You believe such things happened only because they are reported to have happened. Except for this, you have to DISbelieve it. If your neighbor tells you his 1- or 2-year-old kid has just suddenly started playing Chopin or Liszt, like a concert pianist, never having had any lessons, you have to DISbelieve it. You cannot believe it unless you hear it yourself, or if witnesses confirm it. Only then can you believe it, because it goes against "the laws of nature" to do such a thing without ever going through a learning period of lessons and practicing, FOR YEARS.


The reports that it happened are evidence.

The reality is that we believe something happened IF IT IS REPORTED by sufficient sources that it happened, no matter how "impossible" it's supposed to be, or that it contradicts the supposed "laws of nature." According to the "laws of nature," we learn to do math or play the piano through a process of brain cell activity where these skills are acquired over years of discipline, training, repeating and improving techniques needed in order to play the right notes or solve the math problems. It contradicts the "laws of nature" to suddenly be able to do these better than a professional who studied it for 20 years.

If these cases don't contradict the "laws of nature," then there are no "laws of nature" governing anything. How can we know what additional "laws of nature" might also be violated, if the natural "laws" governing how our brain operates can be violated? All our common sense and logic and understanding and 99.99999% of our experience dictates to us that acquiring skills requires TIME and cannot happen suddenly in only one day. But we're told in reports that this happens, for one out of every half a billion (or so) humans.

The only answer to this is that SOMEHOW it must be possible for this to happen, because IT IS REPORTED to have happened, despite our instincts about "the laws of nature," which instincts have to be overruled in those cases where we have sufficient sources/evidence telling us that it happened.


How much evidence is "sufficient"?

There's no scientific determination of how many sources are needed, how many witnesses, how much access we must have to the information. All sources of information are doubted at some point. Maybe a TV documentary or Nightly News show is false, even fraudulent. We can't be absolutely certain. If we have evidence, it's reasonable to believe it. Or disbelieve it if we personally find the evidence "insufficient" to satisfy us. You can't expect everyone else to rely on your subjective feelings and outbursts about "the laws of nature" as a standard for expunging anything from the history books that you don't like.

Some events do happen which cannot be explained and contradict our instincts about "the laws of nature." You can't dictate that they did not happen because you don't have an explanation for them. You can only choose personally not to believe it because you demand additional evidence, while someone else can reasonably believe the claim because of the evidence.

Like the resurrection of dead people, their unaided ascent into space, . . .

There's evidence that these happened in at least one case, 2000 years ago. Theories about "the laws of nature" cannot erase this event, for which there is evidence. If your theories about "the laws of nature" contradict the observed events which are reported from the time, why should we believe your instincts or abstract theories instead of the reported facts? The reason you know these events don't happen is lack of serious evidence/reports that they happened, not theories about "the laws of nature." Except in one case 2000 years ago, for which there is evidence -- but otherwise, such events don't happen, and that's the main reason to disbelieve such claims generally.

But when there's real evidence that such an event happened, it cannot be ruled out as impossible. It's the evidence, or the lack of it, which tells us what happened, not meaningless theories about "the laws of nature" which cannot be applied to real cases.

. . . talking snakes and bushes, and so on.

There's no serious evidence that these ever happened. That's why they're not believable. We need multiple sources near the time of the alleged event.

Since modern historians do not routinely consider supernatural claims to be factual (as you continue to imply), no . . .

Where there's evidence, they don't rule it out as a possibility. The history books do not state that the miracles of Jesus did not happen. They leave open the possibility that the Mad Monk Rasputin did heal the child with the blood disease. They consider as factual that the child did recover as claimed by the witnesses. There is too much evidence that some kind of recovery did happen.

. . . no rewriting of the history books will be required.

Meaning ALL the alleged facts reported in the historical record are accepted, even if there is one source only, and if the reported event does not contradict other sources and is a normal (e.g., non-miracle) claim.

Whereas the non-normal claims, miracle claims, require additional evidence (more than only one source), like we have for the Jesus miracle acts, which are then put into the doubtful category and are not rejected as false.

Why are you so scared to discuss the story of Jesus's resurrection and his ascent into heaven?

The report that this happened, from 4 (5) sources, is evidence that it happened. The bodily ascent has fewer sources, but it fits in with the rest, so is reasonable to believe. The stories from one source only (e.g., Mt. 27:52-53, the rising of corpses from graves) does not fit with the other accounts and should be rejected as unlikely (because I'm "scared" of it).

Do you secretly doubt the story?

Do you secretly believe the story or wonder if it might be true after all?

It's reasonable to have doubt about the miracle stories. Most believers (maybe all) have doubts, but they hope it's true and try to suppress the doubts. It is genuine FAITH to hope it's true, though still having doubts. Most miracle stories are false, so it's reasonable to require extra evidence in a particular case thought to be an exception, and the doubt is then reduced by the extra evidence. Especially if the would-be debunkers like you keep trying but fail to debunk this evidence.

Is that why you keep repeating your absurd arguments, to try to convince yourself?

You help to convince me, by failing to show how the Jesus case is like all the others for which there is no serious evidence. By failing to debunk the evidence. And by always falling back on your theories and instincts and feelings that it cannot be true, despite the evidence.

 

[Atheos]

Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims? There is no evidence that Jesus did these things. There is only evidence that people began telling stories about Jesus doing these things, all of which comes to us by way of biased religious people with an agenda to pimp their favorite god-myth. It's absolutely the worst form of "evidence" imaginable, no different from the evidence that Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon from golden plates containing Reformed Egyptian writing. Hell, it's not even that good since we actually have the signatures of witnesses who claim to have watched Smith do it and saw the golden plates themselves (before they were miraculously taken up into Heaven). And I'm equally certain all the Joseph Smith crap is bullshit too.

You keep walking this tight wire where Jesus was so obscure that he was never noticed by any of the contemporary secular historians of his day -- you know, people who had the ability to write things down, and would certainly have written extraordinary things down. But at the same time the acts of Jesus were so universally known that everyone everywhere was talking about him so much that nobody doubted any of this stuff was true.

You just can't have it both ways. Was he this obscure preacher who not one single secular historian of his era noticed? Or was he this massively well-known person whose wonderful deeds were so well received everywhere that nobody could deny that these incredible things were happening?

it is obvious to anyone who isn't engulfed in confirmation bias that the gospels are nothing but re-worked mythology, taking older Roman, Greek, Assyrian and even Egyptian mythology and mixing it in with Jewish traditions of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc. Justin Martyr recognized the similarities and theorized that the devils had purposefully tried to deceive people by inventing those older myths before Jesus came along. We've been over this in the past and it gets old.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from. It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this. Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate. Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus. Who likewise didn't have much to write about. All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that. The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate. This tells us a lot. After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?" Of maybe they did and it was rather disappointing. Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King. The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.

And, again, if we go by Lucian, then all we have as late as 165 CE is a group of splinter Jews who worshipped a man named Jesus who was crucified (not resurrected).

 

[skepticalbip]

Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims?

... snip ...

It is much easier to make asinine claims than it is to refute them. Many, many of these asinine claims strung together in one post is intended to overwhelm the opposition. It is a technique used by religious apologists called "The Gish Gallop", named after the creationist Duane Gish who is known for using this technique.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Damn how long are you going to keep making these incorrect claims?

He evidently has no choice, which is endlessly ironic, because the whole point of a religion is that you believe on faith in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Clearly he's having a crisis of faith, or else he wouldn't be torturing logic so blatantly and insisting on standards that he knows he would never accept for any other religion (like Mormonism) or anything really. All it takes to write a myth is the first time you write a myth. It's not like Stephen King novels only turn into fiction after twenty years. They're fiction the second his pen hits paper.

 

[Atheos]

A savant suddenly knows how to play piano without ever having had any lessons or practicing or learning how to play?

No. It's amazing that Avett Maness was able to play "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" when he was only 11 months old. I'd be interested in seeing a video of that since it's dead certain mom should have had access to smart phones with which to bolster this claim. Alas, all we seem to have is a picture. But if you'll do some research on the subject you'll quickly see that young Avett learned to play other, more sophisticated music as time went by. He did not drag himself up to the piano at first and start playing Bohemian Rhapsody. We have no idea how much he had observed from others on his way to that first claimed recital in front of mom. Had someone else held the little guy while playing those same notes so he could watch how it was done? We don't know and he probably lacks the ability to recall. One thing is for sure: Just like every other incredible thing that we've ever found the answer to how it happens or happened, there is a perfectly rational explanation for this that does not require any intervention from any god or gods.

Let me rephrase that:

Humanity has a rich history of solving mysteries. Uncovering the mechanisms of things that once were only explainable as "God did it." Not once in the history of all that discovery has the actual answer been "God did it." Not once. "God" has the most impressive ongoing "0-fer" in the history of 0-fers, and the misses just keep on coming. I think it's really sad that in this modern age and with the tiniest nooks and crannies into which the God of the Gaps has had to recede, that there are people who apparently will never give up.

And there is a perfectly rational explanation for the Jesus myths: People made it up.

 

[atrib]

If it was not unusual, why did writers make him into a miracle-worker and identify him as the Messiah? Why do we have these accounts at all, if he was an ordinary rabbi or priest? What's another example of an ordinary person being reported by 5 writers as the Messiah, and by 4 of them as a miracle-worker who healed victims and even raised the dead?

What is it with Christians and making up shit?

The only somewhat contemporaneous account of Jesus comes from Paul, who apparently received telepathic communications from a cosmic angel named Jesus. Paul does not place Jesus on Earth or ascribe any earthly deeds to him.

Then comes Mark, dating to at least 40 years after Jesus, possibly much later, who does a complete 180 from Paul and creates a story of Jesus as a flesh and blood human. Serious scholars who are not fundamentalists agree that the stories in Mark are likely meant as parables, not as descriptions of historical events. Mark is pretty much all fiction, and it is impossible to determine any historical elements in this gospel. Turning Jesus into a flesh and blood human complete with a resume of made-up miracle claims is necessary to win over the largely unwashed masses, who would be much less likely to accept a cosmic superhero who only communicates via revelation.

Later we have other gospels dating to the second century which are obvious copies of Mark, and full of even more made-up shit. And then there are the many forgeries, attempts by the "historical Jesus" cult to place Jesus in history.

So at best we have two accounts within a hundred years of the alleged miracles of Jesus, and they contradict each other dramatically. And notably, there are no writings to be found about Jesus the celestial entity (Paul's Jesus) as these were likely systematically destroyed in the second and third centuries by the zealous Christians who wanted to sell their version of flesh and blood, miracle-performing, rising up from dead personal savior Jesus. And what we have today are copies of copies of translations of copies of copies of copies.

That is the evidence. There is not enough to establish Jesus as a flesh and blood person, much less attribute any credibility to the miracles claims of the fan-fiction gospels. You can polish this turd as much as you like, but the stink ain't goin' away.

Why do we have these accounts at all, if he was an ordinary rabbi or priest? What's another example of an ordinary person being reported by 5 writers as the Messiah, and by 4 of them as a miracle-worker who healed victims and even raised the dead?

Other examples of dead-and-risen, miracle performing, personal savior mythological characters that were turned into fictional flesh and blood characters to increase their fan following:

Osiris
Adonis
Romulus
Zalmoxis
Inanna
Mithra (did not rise up from dead, but underwent terrible suffering/passion)

Small list of personal savior gods predating the Jesus myth who had been resurrected from the dead or suffered through a passion. And these are just the ones that can be authoritatively documented. Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth, and every cult had one.

You use this term "supernatural" as if no such events can ever happen even though such an event is reported to have happened, and so the report has to be rejected, no matter what. You're saying the report is automatically repudiated as false as long as you label it as a "supernatural" event. You're demanding everyone submit to your authority to designate any claim you don't like as "supernatural" and therefore false, regardless of any evidence that it's true.

Dead people don't rise up from the grave and wander around in the streets, or fly off into the sky under their own power. This has been explained to you in depth and I am not going to repeat myself again. And it is dishonest to pretend that you don't understand what the word supernatural means, or how historians evaluate historical records.

I am still waiting for you to provide sources for the gospel stories. We know where the authors of Luke and Matthew got their stories from (Mark and their imaginations), but how did the author of Mark come upon these stories and how did he go about verifying their credibility? Why did no contemporary historian ever write anything about this famous messiah who was performing miracles left and right? Why won't you touch the resurrection story? All reasonable questions, but likely impossible for you to answer.

 

[Kharakov]

Dead people don't rise up from the grave and wander around in the streets, or fly off into the sky under their own power. This has been explained to you in depth and I am not going to repeat myself again. And it is dishonest to pretend that you don't understand what the word supernatural means, or how historians evaluate historical records.

I don't think you realize. Christians are unwilling to distinguish between the God of their imagination (brain generated God that runs stuff in their head) and a real God.

They give their brain God free reign.

What does this mean? They have full blown hallucinatory scenarios, in which people die, raise from the dead, etc. They attribute this to God... instead of the entertainment center of their brain (which is quite overdeveloped in the majority of Christians).

They need to be killed off. Make the world a good place for intellectually honest people. Just say "we're sending you to your maker". They always come up with an excuse though (their brain God knows... even if they don't... the clock is ticking).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't you give the evidence, citing the text and its date, claiming what miracle acts were done?

Why is there no evidence for any other miracle-workers, such as we have for Jesus in the Gospel accounts? Why are there only empty claims with no specific evidence to offer?

Was it at Trump University where you learned this scientific method?

Other examples of dead-and-risen, miracle performing, personal savior mythological characters that were turned into fictional flesh and blood characters to increase their fan following:

Osiris
Adonis
Romulus
Zalmoxis
Inanna
Mithra (did not rise up from dead, but underwent terrible suffering/passion)

Small list of personal savior gods predating the Jesus myth who had been resurrected from the dead or suffered through a passion. And these are just the ones that can be authoritatively documented.

Why are you unable to do anything but give a meaningless laundry list?

This is no better than just citing the Library of Congress, having virtually every book ever published, and just saying: It's all there -- this source refutes everything you're saying!

If you want to get serious, just take the best example from your above laundry list of alleged personal savior gods who did miracles, and give us the text for it, citing when the text was written and what it claims about the particular historical figure in question.

When you try to do this you will find there is no evidence for any of the above characters showing that they performed miracle acts.

"Evidence" means sources near to the time of the alleged miracle events, not traditions written down centuries later, or legends about ancient gods who did not exist as humans identified to a particular historical time and place. And it means explicit claims by the writer that the miracle acts were done by the person in question, not just a reference to some belief held by others who your source thought were naive.

That you cannot give a serious example, citing the evidence, is further indication that there are no other examples. Especially that in exasperation you keep repeating that there are other documented examples, and yet you never give one, citing the evidence, presenting the text saying that the historical figure in question did perform such acts.

Just quoting your favorite modern Jesus-debunker guru, without questioning him but just copying-and-pasting his laundry list and believing him because he's infallible, does not qualify as evidence.

Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth, and every cult had one.

Why are you so emphatic to regurgitate this falsehood from your guru-pundit celebrity but are unable to give one example, citing the particular text, showing the claim of particular miracle acts done by the supposed resurrected messiah?

I will help you out, since you won't do your own homework: The only cult then claiming reported miracle acts was the Asclepius cult. They prayed and claimed cures, just as faith-healers do today, always attributing their miracles to an ancient healer deity, not to any current historical figure. And this cult was dying out, leading up to the 1st century AD. There are no reported miracles from this cult after about 200 BC. The reported miracles were DECREASING until they virtually disappeared by about 200 BC.

But then, out of nowhere, the cult suddenly revived at around 100 AD, along with a new explosion of miracle claims and cults from that point and later. You can't name any miracle reports from before this time (except Jesus in the Gospels), going back to about 200 BC. But at about 100 AD the new miracle claims appear conspicuously and increase to far more than anything earlier.

So, what happened earlier, in the 1st century, which inspired this unprecedented upsurge in miracle stories beginning around 100 (90) AD?

If you believe in science and cause-effect, you must look for something which happened in this period, before 100 AD, to cause this new pattern of miracle stories appearing in the literature, which is an undeniable historical fact of this period. Your guru-debunker-pontiff loves to cite examples of miracle claims appearing from 100 AD and later, but is totally silent on the period earlier.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from. It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this. Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate. Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus. Who likewise didn't have much to write about. All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that. The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate. This tells us a lot. After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?" Of maybe they did and it was rather disappointing. Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King. The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.

And, again, if we go by Lucian, then all we have as late as 165 CE is a group of splinter Jews who worshipped a man named Jesus who was crucified (not resurrected).

The more I think about James and his followers, the more I think this is all a case of "The dog that didn't bark in the night". James and his followers should have loomed large in any real history of the life and times of Jesus. Instead, James and his followers and the surviving apostles at Jerusalem left us nothing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Matthew Ferguson, a historian with a PHD, describes ancient history. Ancient historical writers who wrote history and why they are historians, and the gospels, why the writers of the gospels are not considered historians by modern day historians.

Well worth the read.

https://celsus.blog/2013/08/18/anci...compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Basically because Mark was the first gospel that the other gospels cribbed their "facts" from. It is odd that Paul left us so little details about any of this. Which strongly suggests there wasn't much to relate. Despite his claims to have visited James and the surviving disciples of Jesus. Who likewise didn't have much to write about. All of which hints that the gospel tall tales were just that. The people at Jerusalem who lived through all of this and followed Jesus had no great tales to relate. This tells us a lot. After James was executed, and the "Ebionites" abandoned Jerusalem, nobody cared to ask them, "What really happened?" Of maybe they did and it was rather disappointing. Jesus lived, was executed, and his disciples were waiting for his return as a messianic King. The remaining Ebionites were later adjudged as Jewish/Christian heretics. They left no writings.

And, again, if we go by Lucian, then all we have as late as 165 CE is a group of splinter Jews who worshipped a man named Jesus who was crucified (not resurrected).

The more I think about James and his followers, the more I think this is all a case of "The dog that didn't bark in the night". James and his followers should have loomed large in any real history of the life and times of Jesus. Instead, James and his followers and the surviving apostles at Jerusalem left us nothing.

Well, someone sure made sure of their leaving nothing and all that remains is Paul's Christianity. Paul, a Roman citizen (and likely Roman agent) that none of the OG disciples trusted and thus relegated him to the gentiles and "hellenized" Jews (iow, not Jews as far as the OG were concerned).

Why? Because the original "movement" was quite clearly an insurrectionist movement and Jesus was their Bin Laden equivalent who was captured by the Romans and crucified by the Romans to stand as an example (and thus martyred by the Romans).

It's all actually spelled out in GMark, which is why GMark is Roman propaganda. You can see every element of it (keeping the first rule of propaganda as perfected by Romans; that it be as close to the truth as possible). The only real problem comes with spinning Jesus' death and thus you have the patently ridiculous "tradition" of Pilate freeing a convicted murderer/seditionist (named Bar Abbas, no less, just to really rub it in) AND THEN appeasing a crowd he was there to subjugate by torturing and murdering a man he supposedly found had committed no crime.

No such ludicrous events ever could have taken place--and only a Roman would make that up and think he could get away with it--but most importantly, once you take that idiotic part out of the story, none of it makes any sense. If Pilate had ever even attempted any such thing as releasing someone who was convicted of murdering Roman citizens and Roman soldiers to appease a crowd of Jews, he would have been immediately killed--by his own soldiers most likely--if not carted off to Rome to be publicly executed for treason.

GMark is very clearly the story of what we would call a "terrorist cell" today, at the very least, being blatantly spun so that a martyred Jewish leader against Rome is instead turned into a betrayed Jewish messiah killed by his own people, being disseminated (in written form no less) right at the time of those people coming into open revolt.

It's exactly what we did in places like Vietnam; disseminated propaganda pamphlets before finally sending in the troops (and the napalm) and it's something the Romans practically originated and practiced on a regular basis.

Paul was obviously a Roman agent sent in to infiltrate a nascent revival of the original insurrectionist movement that was temporarily destroyed twenty or so years ago (from Paul's perspective) with the crucifixion of the leader. His soldiers scattered (as instructed, which is also retained in the story and makes no sense unless one reads it in this light) and slowly started to rebuild the movement, only now using the Jesus martyr mythology.

The movement grows bolder and bolder (culminating in the burning of Rome in 64 CE and their expulsion), so either Pilate or higher ups send in an undercover agent (Paul) who no one trusts and they keep busy with irrelevant crap like tending to the crazy gentiles/barely Jewish faction.

Paul tries to usurp the movement and spin the martyr mythology into a betrayal/messiah mythology. He's the one that claims it was the Jews that are to blame for killing Jesus, not Pilate--not the Romans--and it's his version that survives since all the Jews were killed in the revolts.

Basically. There's more to it, of course, but I've spelled this out so many times in different threads over the years (primarily at Sec Cafe and IIDB) that I'm getting lazy at going into the details again. Suffice it to say, if you read GMark from this perspective, then shit like this:

12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”

And this:

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

Make perfect sense. Secret codes and preparations and a signal of who the leader is (when they all readily knew who Jesus was from the many times he supposedly taught in the Great Temple and that time he got mad for no justifiable reason and turned over the necessary money-changing tables and the like).

Jesus was supposedly just another Jew with twelve simple fishermen who talked about love and life after death and Jewish shit that nobody would give a tiny fuck about amongst all the other thousands of Jews talking about love and life after death and Jewish shit all day long in Jerusalem. There were literally thousands of others all spouting the exact same things and all at odds with each other--the Essenes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc--all arguing every day about what this passage meant or when the moshiach would come, etc.

So what the hell is with the secret codes and hidden spaces and a kiss to mark the already well-known Jesus, not to mention the fact that one of the humble, simple fishermen cuts a soldier's ear off and nothing happens.

The author of GMark even has Jesus say out loud, "Am I leading a rebellion?" Oy gevalt.

Yes, you are. Hence the clearly Roman soldiers that Judas leads to the secret camp of insurrectionists hiding from the Roman soldiers and the "kiss" that marks the leader, whose identity was also being kept secret from the Romans for obvious reasons.

And why you all "deserted him and fled." Why else? As Jesus asked, "Am I leading a rebellion?" No, supposedly, so why would any of his disciples (armed no less) have a reason to desert him and flee? That part ONLY makes sense if, in fact, Jesus is leading a rebellion. If these men are just Jews sent by the San Hedrin to "arrest" Jesus for blasphemy, then why would any of his disciples do anything other than stay with him and follow them to see where they were taking Jesus? None of them had blasphemed. They weren't the ones the "group of men" wanted. And Jesus somehow put a stop to any bloodshed, so why desert him and "flee"? Where are they fleeing to and why?

And then, of course, Pilate publicly tries him, finds him guilty, orders him to be publicly tortured--with a crown of thorns no less, because that makes sense for an insurrectionist leader and NO sense for a carpenter Rabbi just teaching love of Romans and turning the other cheek and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's etc.

Jesus wasn't a literal King of anything, so why in the fuck would Romans dress him up like one; particularly when their leader just proclaimed him innocent and was only ordering his torture and murder to make a crowd of Jews happy?

Again, had Pilate freed an actual leader of an insurrectionist movement convicted of murdering their fellow soldiers to please a crowd of Jews, every Roman soldier in that arena would have instantly slit Pilate's throat.

But instead they are just suddenly all on board with the crowd of Jews and torturing, mocking and murdering an innocent man to make the Jews happy. No. Very clearly not what could have ever happened.

What did happen, however, had to be spun--if possible--to undermine a resurgent insurrectionist martyr cult that had evidently grown and influenced many others in Jerusalem--so that's GMark and Pauline "Christianity" and thousands of years of brainwashing from a slave owner's revisionist history.

 

[atrib]

Why is there no evidence for any other miracle-workers, such as we have for Jesus in the Gospel accounts? Why are there only empty claims with no specific evidence to offer?

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt - Richard Carrier, 2014.
Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus - Richard Carrier, 2012.
These texts describe some of the well documented claims of dead and risen, personal savior messiahs who had miraculous powers, along with analyses of the historicity of these myths. The texts are very well documented with exhaustive citations of the sources upon which the analyses are based. Your claim that there is no evidence for messiahs in the time and place the Jesus myth was started is false.

Was it at Trump University where you learned this scientific method?

I learned the scientific method at Auburn (BS), Georgia Tech (MS), and UC Berkeley (PhD). Where did you learn science and history? And what does that have anything to do with the topic?

Other examples of dead-and-risen, miracle performing, personal savior mythological characters that were turned into fictional flesh and blood characters to increase their fan following:

Osiris
Adonis
Romulus
Zalmoxis
Inanna
Mithra (did not rise up from dead, but underwent terrible suffering/passion)

Small list of personal savior gods predating the Jesus myth who had been resurrected from the dead or suffered through a passion. And these are just the ones that can be authoritatively documented.

Why are you unable to do anything but give a meaningless laundry list?

You asked me for examples of myths similar to the Jesus myth, that were contemporary to and/or predated the Jesus myth, and I provided you with examples. Are you denying that these mythologies ever existed? A simple search on Google, coupled with a more rigorous research effort involving sources for these myths will give you everything you could ask for. I don't believe that you are going to do any such research, but I put it out there since you asked.

This is no better than just citing the Library of Congress, having virtually every book ever published, and just saying: It's all there -- this source refutes everything you're saying!

Another falsehood. I did not provide sources for the other mythical figures because you did not ask me for sources. You simply asked me for an example. Go back and read your post.

If you want to get serious, just take the best example from your above laundry list of alleged personal savior gods who did miracles, and give us the text for it, citing when the text was written and what it claims about the particular historical figure in question.

I am not going to write a dissertation to demonstrate scholarly knowledge of all these myths that I do not possess. You asked me for examples of myths similar to the Jesus myth and I have done that. Other people in these forums have also done that. I have no confidence that you are actually interested in discussing these myths because you have ignored everything that has been posted so far.

You also need to note that I am only making the claim that these myths existed in roughly the time and place of the origin of the early Jesus myth, and that they share striking similarities to the Jesus myths. The myths would begin with stories of some celestial being and would later be transformed into a story that placed these beings on Earth as a flesh and blood person that could perform miracles, and act as a personal savior through an act of baptism. Exactly mimicking how the early Jesus myth evolved. I am NOT claiming that the figures headlining these similar myths were actually real people who could perform miracles; just that the claims existed that they could.

You have repeatedly made the claim that:

1. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person.
2. Jesus could perform miracles.
3. That the evidence to establish Jesus in the historical record, along with his alleged miracles, far outweighs the evidence that these are made up stories.

Your claims rise far beyond my contention that similar mythologies can be found in the historical record. You have been told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and why. You have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence to support your claims. You have been asked to provide your sources, describe what sources these sources used to make up their stories, and what analyses you performed to establish that your sources are more likely to be factual than not. You have not done anything like that. Why the fuck not??? What is holding you back? You spend countless hours creating walls of text that say nothing, but you can't spend a little time talking about the fucking history of the Christian cult?? I wrote about the huge divergence between the epistles of Paul and the gospels of Mark in my last post, and you fucking ignored everything I said. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, say so or hold your tongue. But don't keep pretending that you have something to say, or that what you have to say has merit.

Just quoting your favorite modern Jesus-debunker guru, without questioning him but just copying-and-pasting his laundry list and believing him because he's infallible, does not qualify as evidence.

He is not my guru. But I do find his arguments persuasive. If you disagree with Carrier's extremely well supported thesis, explain why. But you won't do that because you can't. That is my prophesy.

Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth, and every cult had one.

Why are you so emphatic to regurgitate this falsehood from your guru-pundit celebrity but are unable to give one example, citing the particular text, showing the claim of particular miracle acts done by the supposed resurrected messiah?

I did what you asked, which was to provide a list of similar myths. The existence of these myths firmly establish the fact that dead-and-risen, miracle working, flesh-and-blodd personal savior myths were a dime a dozen in that part of the world at the time the Jesus myth was invented. Every cult with any self respect had one. There is nothing remarkable about the origins of the Jesus cult. All you have to do is explain why the Jesus myth should be treated differently, and it has been over a year of playing "where can I hide my Jesus" game and you haven't done that.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

Can we get serious? Here's a REAL example of a claim which no one knows the "natural" explanation for, and this was reported on NBC News. (click forward to 19 minutes into the video)



___________________________________ 19:00 _____

Here's a kid who began playing the piano and singing at the age of 11 months. This has to defy the "laws of nature" as much as a claim about a miracle healing. Yet it's credible because it is reported on a mainline news source. Someone says it happened and so we believe it. We don't believe it if one character alone makes the claim, but we believe it if there is some corroboration, such as extra sources claiming it, or it's from a source which has extra witnesses reporting it and checked enough to ensure it's not just one wacko saying it.

... snip ...

I found a similar 'miracle'. This little dog is also a self taught singer and piano player... miraculous. :::

 

[atrib]

You could say the same about this child playing the piano at age 11 months. Such a thing is "impossible," except that we have reports saying it happened. It's "impossible" and yet it's reported by a reliable source as having happened. According to your logic, the claim is "false" because it's "impossible," and yet it's reported as true. Sometimes the evidence that it happened has to overrule your theories about what is "impossible" or contrary to "the laws of nature."

No, you couldn't. A child learning to play the piano at a very young age is an unusual event, but it doesn't defy the laws of nature, nor is it impossible. According to my mother, I learned to swim before the age of one; does that make me a messiah? Get back to me when the child rises up from the grave after three days, wanders around on the streets, and then flies off into the sky under his own power. Or at least learns to walk on water.

I also wanted to add that comparing the alleged miracles of your god to a young child who plays the piano speaks more for your conception of god than you appear to realize. Your god has the power to create an infinite universe, but the only thing you can say about him is that he is at least as smart and as talented as a one-year old. Wow!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is there no evidence for the ancient miracle-workers, other than --

-- redacted summaries from a modern debunker-crusader guru whose job is to reassure you that they must have existed?

And because you think it's unfair for Jesus to be the only reported ancient miracle-worker?

Why are you so scared to discuss the story of Jesus's resurrection and his ascent into heaven? Do you secretly doubt the story? Is that why you keep repeating your absurd arguments, to try to convince yourself?

Note that all along, he has wanted a streamlined ticket to salvation.

First class luxury liner, breakfast-in-bed, the works.

Minimum effort, so he doesn't have to change his behavior, . . .

Yes, like this woman's minimum effort:

Mark:5 -- 25 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." 29 And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. . . . 34 And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."

So, you'd have said to her: Hey lady, you can't get what you want that easily. You have to first change your behavior, go and do alms and rituals and chant "Hare Krishna" 1000 times and do some good deeds to prove your worthiness, and only then are you entitled to be saved or healed.

No, our evidence from 2000 years ago, this account of a Jesus healing, tells us there's a power to save us, or heal us, which is free and requires "minimum effort" from us. So, how far does this life-giving power go? Could it even extend to resurrection to life beyond death? She had "heard the reports about Jesus" and figured "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." And we know "reports" of him bringing the dead back to life and of his own resurrection, indicating the possibility of eternal life. So it's a "leap of faith" similar to hers, a bigger "leap of faith," more difficult philosophically, but based on the evidence, or "reports" about him.

So it's a reasonable hope like hers, and the extra "leap of faith" for us is not really so great if this event and the other reported healings really happened, as historical facts. If our evidence is really the truth, the "reports about Jesus" which we have, then the philosophical "leap of faith" to the eternal life possibility is not so difficult.

. . . and reasonable in that there are other stories of similar nature.

I.e., there are some known cases of events which seemingly defy "the laws of nature" or have a seeming miracle element, or which cannot be explained by current known science. Perhaps in all cases there's really a "natural explanation" anyway -- who knows? That doesn't change the evidence of the "miracle" event. So there are some cases of events which science cannot explain, with the Jesus miracle acts as a conspicuous example. The event is not disproved just because current science has no explanation. The evidence is that the events did happen, and they're not debunked by just saying they're "impossible" or contrary to "natural law" etc. Rather, there's the element of doubt, as also with many normal events.

That's why he's willing to dismiss lots of Jesus speeches and some of the more outlandish miracles as fictional.

More correctly, it's good to distinguish what really happened from what was added later, and there's no way to establish whether it's "lots" to be dismissed or only few. With other writings or accounts of historical figures don't we try to figure out what really happened and determine what part is more credible and what part less? What's wrong with treating the Gospel accounts and the historical Jesus this way? and trying to separate fact from fiction?

Virtually all our ancient written accounts contain both fact and fiction. You insist in this one case it's ALL fiction or ALL fact? no in-between? Why only in this case? We must believe everything written as infallible? or we must reject it all as fiction? Only for these writings must we follow this all-or-nothing standard? and no others? Why?

But tales of faith healers are as old as religion.

No they're not. Depending on what "faith healers" means, such tales are almost non-existent in the literature before Jesus in the Gospels. At that point, in the first century AD, we see something new appear, like the following:

Mt 9:28-30 -- . . . the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." And their eyes were opened.

There's nothing else like this in all the known literature. Nothing even close, other than Jesus in the Gospels (and 3 Elijah-Elisha stories from one source only and dating more than 200 years later than the alleged events). Our only other "tales of faith healers" are from debunkers claiming there were other reported miracle-workers or healers around the ancient world doing the same miracles Jesus did, and yet they cannot give any example of a healing event, showing the text which we can read for ourselves. No, all your Jesus-debunker guru can offer you is his authority that the stories exist, and you must take his word for it.

The Asclepius stories are not really about "faith-healers," though they're about worshipers claiming to be healed by praying to their ancient healing god. The earliest of these stories might date a bit earlier than 600 BC, not "as old as religion."

So there was belief in ancient healing gods, mainly Asclepius, and rituals or praying for healing, like religious people today pray to be healed by an ancient healer. The only victims reported to be healed were worshipers of the ancient healing deity, and the only claims of healings come from these worshipers and priests at the temple doing the rituals, at a private location only for disciples of the healing cult.

Except for Jesus in the Gospels, there are no "tales of faith healers" where NON-disciples were the ones healed, or where there were non-disciples present, as with the Jesus healing events where the ones healed were non-disciples and there were non-disciples present, at a public location not dedicated to the ancient healing deity and where no ancient healing ritual was being practiced by worshipers of the ancient healing deity.

Almost all miracle healing stories date from Jesus in the Gospels and later, except some cases of worshipers praying to their ancient healer deity at the temple and claiming to have been healed after performing the ritual prescribed by their priest, according to the popular traditions of the culture. For these popular entrenched religious traditions it is easy to explain why some worshipers claimed to have been healed by the ritual, as loyal devotees of the cult.

And all the miracle healing stories can be separated into two categories: 1) those for which there's evidence, like Jesus in the Gospels, and 2) those for which there is no evidence, which is 99% of miracle claims.


Here is a lengthy study on ancient miracle claims:

https://www.academia.edu/36021940/Greco-Roman_Healing_Miracles

(I've not completed reading this lengthy dissertation.) The pattern seems clear that there are many claims of pre-Christian miracle healings, and yet there is no text offered of an actual healing event. This seems to be the way the non-Biblical healing stories are promoted, as claims that the stories exist, but without giving the original text of the reported event. There are citings of text, but no quotes from it of the actual healing event, like our text for Jesus in the Gospels, where the text describes the scene and narrates Jesus healing the victim of blindness or leprosy etc.

If the actual healing event is somewhere in the ancient Greek/Roman text, why is there never a quote from the text, in a clear-cut case stating the miracle healing?



There are examples in the famous Edelstein book on Asclepius, which relates stories of worshipers praying and claiming to be healed at the Asclepius temple. These actual examples of healing stories are numerous in the early period, from 500-200 BC, but by 200 BC the stories fade away, with almost nothing after 200 BC. But then, the stories begin again suddenly after 100 AD, as the Asclepius cult revives about that time and becomes popular again for another 100-200 years.


Stories in Edelstein's Asclepius collection -- the empty space 200 BC - 100 AD:

In the period 200 BC to 100 AD, there are references to Asclepius, but virtually no miracle healings. The references/inscriptions appearing in this period are non-miracle claims, like various statements of adoration toward Asclepius, which is what most of the Edelstein book is about, paying respect to the ancient healing god.

The healing claims are from inscriptions on Asclepius temples, showing that worshipers prayed and claimed to be healed. But none of these appear from 100 BC to 100 AD, and virtually nothing from 200 BC to 100 AD. The miracle claims date from the earlier period, disappearing after about 200 BC. But then there's the revival of such miracle events after 100 AD when the cult comes back to life. This cult was virtually dead in the first century when the Jesus miracle claims appear.



The search for "tales of faith healers" before Jesus:

Greco-Roman Healing Miracles

Freya Burford

Submitted for MA Ancient History (Rome)

University of Kent 2017​

This source should serve as a good test, to verify if it's true that "tales of faith healers are as old as religion." Some of those tales should be in this website. There should be actual quoted text somewhere here, giving the accounts of healing events, or healing acts by these "faith healers," assuming they really existed and anything was recorded. The author states explicitly the goal of presenting pre-Christian or non-Biblical miracle healing stories, claiming there are many examples of it.

https://www.academia.edu/36021940/Greco-Roman_Healing_Miracles

If you want to claim there were non-Christian miracle healings in the Greek/Roman culture, it should be found in this source, claiming to do an exhaustive study of the Greek and Roman healing miracle events, and claiming there is a large number of such events or claims. But there seems to be no quoting of any text of actual miracle events. There was obviously belief in ancient healing gods, especially Asclepius and Serapis, and praying to them and doing rituals for healing from sickness. But where are the reported events of someone being healed? There has to be quoted text from an original source. Not just continued repetition that such stories exist without any original text.

At best there is only ancient healing cult tradition, where worshipers practice the established rituals honoring the ancient healing god which is revered in the popular culture.

It's obvious that Jesus-debunkers want to claim there were many other miracle-workers at the time, running around here and there doing the same miracles. These debunkers must cut out the phoniness, quoting only modern authors, and must find the original text, from the ancient sources, showing these alleged ancient events. It's easy to quote some modern Jesus-debunker, or a compendium of ancient miracle-worker listings, without any substance to verify the evidence or documentation for those claims.

Here is one text quoted, to show the power of a statue (p. 28):

Comparatively, there is evidence which suggests other statues made quite substantial impressions on those viewing them. The famous statue of Zeus at Olympia appears to have had a clear influence on those who viewed it:

‘men, whoever is sore distressed in soul, having in the course of his life drained the cup of many misfortunes and griefs, nor winning sweet sleep — even this man, methinks, if he stood before this image, would forget all the terrors and hardships that fall to our human lot’

(D. Chr. 12. 51)

Is this what we mean by "tales of faith healers as old as religion"? This is a speculation about the power of a statue to impress the viewer and cause him to forget his pain or suffering. Is this the same as Jesus reportedly healing a leper or a paralytic or demoniac? Is this a reported case of a victim being healed, gaining his vision or being made whole?

Is this a text of a miracle event? Is this statue here described as performing a healing act on a victim? like that of Jesus curing the woman with the bleeding condition who touched his garment and was cured?



______________________________________________

So, not too much of a stretch to think Jesus did that regularly. The flying into heaven, he only did that once, and there aren't many stories of faith flers.

Would you elaborate more on the "faith flers" (before you totally pass out).

Even Rasputin never claimed to be able to fly.

After another vodka or two you'll be claiming you had many flights with him.

Lumpy's whole approach is easily understood when you realize he wants the line-of-least-credulity faith, . . .

No, what I want is not lyrics from a beer-drinking song, or wherever you found that phrase, but serious evidence that miracle acts were performed, indicating the possibility of eternal life, recorded near the time of the reported event, in more than one source, and not just ancient ritual practices entrenched in the culture to worship an established centuries-old deity routinely revered by most of the population. What I want is evidence that the miracle acts really happened rather than just being part of the established ritual traditions and automatically believed by everyone out of respect for the ancient gods.

. . . with little demands on his time or energy.

So you're demanding a Jesus who kicks butt and makes people go faster and burn more calories? rather than giving them eternal life?

Meaning your approach is more demands on someone, more expenditure of time and energy, more dissipation of energy, more huffing and puffing.

Nah, this lazy bum prefers the Jesus who said:

Mt. 11:28-30 -- Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

I know there are quotes of him speaking differently than this. Demanding sacrifice, etc. Those are the quotes added by later preachers trying to instill discipline in the believers, when the Christ believers were threatened with persecution.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"NATURAL" or "SUPERNATURAL" -- either way, the evidence is that Jesus did those miracle acts, and it's important.

My questions were asking what gave them grounds to believe that a supernatural event had occurred, but your . . .

Maybe you're right that they did not have grounds to believe it was "supernatural," and maybe they did NOT believe it was a "supernatural" event. The Gospel writers never say the events were supernatural. They say that Jesus performed those healing acts, whether these are described as "supernatural" or according to some other terminology. Also that he resurrected from the dead. So they're saying he had some special power, but they don't identify his power as "supernatural."

The Greek word dunamis is used, which can just mean a powerful act, possibly divine, and likely beyond normal human power. But it's pointless to nitpick what this word has to mean precisely.

A reader of the gospel accounts and Paul's epistles can believe Jesus had that power, which is a life-giving power, special, important, perhaps very consequential, but not necessarily put the label "supernatural" onto it. Obsessing on this term could get one bogged down in philosophical exercises which aren't necessary.

There are probably some Christians who do insist on the "supernatural" language, but they might be mistaken. All that really matters is that those acts of Jesus are important, or consequential, demonstrating the power he had. Explaining it as something "supernatural" is optional, not mandatory, in order to believe.

The "argument from miracles" doesn't necessarily have to include this or that philosophical notion of "supernatural" in order to be a legitimate argument. The argument can simply be that the unusual event(s) took place, and that it was something important. A Christ believer recognizes the power that was demonstrated in these "miracle" acts he did, and sees in it the possibility of eternal life, which is a term much used in Paul's epistles and in the Gospel of John. It isn't necessary to explain the exact nature of the "miracle" acts or the power. This is obviously a power far beyond anything normal to ordinary humans, and understanding it exactly isn't necessary in order to believe it exists.

. . . but your arguments are about whether superhuman events were occurring, which is a much lower bar to meet.

It's OK if it's a lower bar. It still matters, or it's important whether Jesus did have this power, as the evidence indicates that he did. It's reasonable to believe or hope it's true, based on the evidence.

Again I ask---how they would have been justified in believing that a supernatural event occurred, rather than . . .

Maybe they were not justified in believing that. And in fact maybe they did not believe it.

They never said it was "supernatural." But they were justified in believing that it was important and that people should know of it. And perhaps they had ideas about "supernatural" or whatever, but they did not include that philosophical idea in their account. They did try to make connection in some way to the Jewish prophets and traditions about Yahweh, etc. But the NT writers did not all think alike on the connection to "God" or "Yahweh" or "Torah" or the nature of the Universe and so on. So all they had in common is reporting that Jesus had that power, reporting the acts he did, not on the interpretation of it.

. . . rather than a natural event that they personally just did not know the natural explanation for?

It's not clear what they thought was the explanation or cause of the events. They probably did not all have the same explanation for them. They didn't give their explanation, if they had one.

It could be that the miracle acts of Jesus were "natural" events which they did not know the explanation for. It isn't necessary to insist that these were not "natural" acts. They were not "natural" for normal humans to perform, but it's clear that Jesus was someone with power beyond that of normal humans, so maybe they were "natural" acts for him to perform. It isn't essential that the term "natural" or "supernatural" be attached to the events in order to believe they happened, based on the evidence, or to believe that they were important.

 

[Brian63]

Maybe you're right that they did not have grounds to believe it was "supernatural,"...

Well that seems an understatement. I do think we can sustain a stronger position than "maybe" they did not have the grounds to believe that. Let's just say it flatly---they *would* not have had any grounds to believe that (setting aside if they did actually believe that or not).

The "argument from miracles" doesn't necessarily have to include this or that philosophical notion of "supernatural" in order to be a legitimate argument. The argument can simply be that the unusual event(s) took place, and that it was something important.

Saying that an event that is unusual and important is much lesser than saying it is an outright miracle event. What we humans perceive as unusual and important is very much subject to our own cognitive biases, comprehension limits, etc. Planets crash into each other, stars explode, species become extinct, new species are derived, occasional massive disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.) occur and they will be perceived as unusual and important to others, especially to those most directly impacted by them. In the geologic and astronomic perspective and timescale though, they are more ordinary events.

When someone says that a law of nature has occurred though, i.e. a supernatural or miracle event, that is a much stronger claim than some unusual/important event from our very narrow and limited perspective.

Again I ask---how they would have been justified in believing that a supernatural event occurred, rather than.

Maybe they were not justified in believing that. And in fact maybe they did not believe it.

Something about your take on this is unclear to me. If some event really was a miracle, do you think that necessarily implies that it was a supernatural event? Or are you saying that miracles occur which are completely in accordance with the laws of nature? Or something else? Can you elaborate on that please?

They never said it was "supernatural."

Did they ever say it was a "miracle?" I am not familiar with the stories, and especially not of the original languages, to know myself.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

a Google definition of "miracle"

Where does the word miracle come from?

A miracle is generally defined, according to the etymology of the word—it comes from the Greek thaumasion and the Latin miraculum—as that which causes wonder and astonishment, being extraordinary in itself and amazing or inexplicable by normal standards.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc.....0..35i39j0j0i22i30j33i21j33i160.IjmmgX_Ws8s

This wouldn't necessarily include "supernatural" as essential to the meaning. It fits what the Gospel accounts describe as the healing acts of Jesus, and the Resurrection.

No doubt there are other definitions also, and some including "supernatural" or "against the laws of nature" etc. And requiring divine power.

An "Argument from Miracles" need not be forced to conform to any one definition, but to any of several standard definitions, including this one. Nor should it exclude any standard definition as "wrong" and try to impose another as the "right" definition.