Historical Jesus

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's evidence that the Jesus miracle acts did happen -- but not for other ancient alleged miracle-workers.

The ancients did not fall for instant miracle stories. They believed in the ancient gods, not in the latest fly-by-night charlatan.

You're saying people were more skeptical two thousand years ago than they are today?

They were the same. Today hardly anyone believes in a new fly-by-night charlatan. The faith-healers today all have to perform their acts in the name of Jesus. Virtually no one believes in an instant miracle-worker who is not plugged into an ancient miracle faith tradition. If it's done in the name of an ancient god there are many who believe. But only if it's done explicitly in the name of a specific ancient deity or miracle belief tradition practiced for centuries.

In that sense -- belief in ancient miracles -- there are gullible believers, or uncritical believers, or disciples who might be misled by a modern practitioner. I.e., if that practitioner has charisma and is good in some way, AND performs the "miracles" in the name of Jesus. Or possibly in the name of Krishna, etc. In that case it's possible for a fictional story to be believed and circulated as true. Today and also 2000 years ago.

Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. --Acts 8:9-11

It doesn't say he performed any miracle acts. Nor are any of his acts described in Acts or any other source that early. The complete description of Simon in Acts makes it clear that he did not do miracle acts.

Here's the whole Acts 8 text on Simon Magus:

9 Now a certain man named Simon had previously practised magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great. 10All of them, from the least to the greatest, listened to him eagerly, saying, ‘This man is the power of God that is called Great.’ 11And they listened eagerly to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, ‘Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ 20 But Peter said to him, ‘May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money! 21 You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness.’ 24 Simon answered, ‘Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.’

(Let's ignore here whether the Book of Acts is an accurate depiction of the early church or apostles. Either way. We'll just look at the depiction of Simon, and it's clear that he is not presented here as performing any miracles or anything comparable to the healing acts of Jesus.)

It's true that someone is quoted saying "he is the power of God that is called Great" and that "he had amazed them with his magic." But whatever this means, the same character is described as being "amazed" at the acts which Phillip did, such that he (Simon) also believed and was baptized.

Then later (vss 18-24) Simon offers to pay money to the apostles if they would grant him the same power they had, and Peter rebukes him for this. So it's pretty obvious that this account does not really attribute much power to this Simon. He is only recognized as having some talent to perform magic acts which impress people.

We needn't take Acts as very credible on the events, and the miracle acts by Peter and Phillip and others, though most Christians do believe these accounts. But the point is that Acts cannot be taken as a source claiming that Simon performed miracles. None of his acts are narrated, as the Jesus miracle acts are. Nor is there any other source narrating any miracles done by Simon, except 100+ years after the alleged events, after sufficient time had transpired in which his legend could evolve.

You can find examples of miracle claims after the 1st century, after the Jesus miracle acts had been recorded and circulated, in which miracle stories are told about earlier persons, 100 years or more earlier. And Simon Magus is an example. Other examples are Apollonius of Tyana and Hanina ben Dosa.

But in all these cases there is no written account of the miracle claims earlier than 100 years after the alleged events happened, and usually there is only one account, though for Simon Magus there might be 2 or 3 accounts in the late 2nd century.

In other apocryphal Christian works, Simon was able to levitate and fly at will.

The later stories, 100+ years later, can become wild as the legend grows. That such stories require so long, several generations, to emerge, is the clear indicator that the alleged events never did happen. It is easy to explain the emergence of the fictional stories if enough time passes between the alleged events and the later written accounts of them.

But the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained this way.

We've been over these Jesus "parallels" many times earlier. I'm still waiting for one that is legitimate. There seems to be no other example of a miracle-worker who is documented, because we just keep getting these same examples over and over, and every time it's someone for whom the evidence is more than 100 years later.

There have been possibly one or two seeming exceptions to this rule. If so, there is still ONLY ONE SOURCE for it, whereas for the Jesus miracle acts we have 4 (5) sources.

When you come up with these Jesus "parallels" or alternate miracle-workers who supposedly also did miracle acts, be sure to check the details about them: When was the account written? And how many sources are there?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Donald Trump reports on terrorist attacks in Sweden the same day the occurred. What terrorist attacks, you say? There were none. He just misunderstood a guy who also was lying about it on TV. The evidence point to that fictional stories of purportedly real events only need minutes to evolve before reaching maximum spread.

I don't think you thought this through

Maybe the Jesus authors were opposed to using Twitter to reach hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide in a matter of seconds... or maybe the internet was running a little slower two thousand years ago.

I'd say it's the other way around. Without the Internet or any ability to mass produce the spread of information the corruption of information will be even faster. At each retelling there will be corruption. When retweeting something the original message is intact.

If fictional accounts of real events take minutes to appear today, they surely came to be even faster, back in the olden days.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The best explanation still is that the Jesus miracle events really did happen, while the other alleged miracles did not.

Then why don't we have any examples from recorded history, of instant miracle stories?

Because NO miracle stories are part of THE HISTORICAL RECORD!

"Historical record" here means all the documents from history. And we're talking about ancient history. Before 1000 AD.

Let's keep it simple. What's the explanation why there are no reported instant miracles, before mass publishing? Over a 3000-year span there were none. Except the Jesus miracles, in documents within 30-70 years from the time of the reported events. Why are there no others?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because NO miracle stories are part of THE HISTORICAL RECORD!

"Historical record" here means all the documents from history. And we're talking about ancient history. Before 1000 AD.

Let's keep it simple. What's the explanation why there are no reported instant miracles, before mass publishing? Over a 3000-year span there were none. Except the Jesus miracles, in documents within 30-70 years from the time of the reported events. Why are there no others?

There are reported instant miracles before mass publishing. Millions of them found in the religious texts of every religion.

In the pagan world they had the idea that miracles/magic was normal and a regular part of life. They assumed miracles/magic was constantly happening. So they saw them all the time. And this they sometimes recorded. All the prophecies of the oracles fall into this category. Those are recorded. Animist thought works the same way.

The miracles of Jesus fit nicely into the miracles/magic that was constantly being reported by the pagans. It was the same kind of things. There are theories that the miracles attributed to Jesus have been because that's what pagans expect from a god or demi-god.

You're just talking shit Lumpy. How about doing research instead of constantly making blatantly false statements that are easily dismissable?

 

[Will Wiley]

You're saying people were more skeptical two thousand years ago than they are today?

They were the same. Today hardly anyone believes in a new fly-by-night charlatan.

 

[Will Wiley]

Then why don't we have any examples from recorded history, of instant miracle stories?

Because NO miracle stories are part of THE HISTORICAL RECORD!

Josephus records some. I think Cassius Dio does too

 

[blastula]

Lumpen, you forget Elijah/Elisha? They even resurrected people.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are no ancient miracle stories for which there is credible evidence, except those of Jesus in the gospel accounts.

Then why don't we have any examples from recorded history, of instant miracle stories?

There's miracles reported all the time. People getting healed from cancer, narrowly surviving death after some accident, their candidate winning an election against all odds and so on.

Those are not miracle acts by someone having superhuman power.

But more importantly, you're making it too complicated bringing in modern Internet, modern publishing.

We were looking at the ancient history record.

Before 1500 AD, before mass publishing. We could go over all the modern examples, and there are reasons to discount most modern miracle claims. But it's better to look at a period when there was not the easy ability to mass publish. 1000 years ago these normal events -- the ones you list above -- were not published.

If you deliberately want to complicate this by bringing in a flood of modern mass publishing cases, that just shows that you can't answer the question, i.e., you're conceding the point then that there are no other cases of miracle claims for which there is credible evidence, such as we have for the Jesus events.

So if you want to prove otherwise, use examples from before 1500 AD. If you're unable to come up with any examples, then you are proving the point that the Jesus in 30 AD example is the only case in the historical record (before 1500 AD) of miracle claims for which there is evidence. This is the normal kind of evidence we rely on for historical events. I.e., it is reported in contemporary sources (not centuries later) that the events happened.

Why are the Jesus miracle stories the only ones in all the ancient historical record?

All religious myths are purportedly real events.

But there is no credible evidence for them, e.g., the pagan miracle stories, because the sources for them are dated centuries after the alleged events happened.

(My question above, more correctly, is ". . . the only ones in all the ancient historical record for which we have evidence?")

Thor slaying the Fenris Wolf with a magical hammer. That sounds miraculous to me.

You're not paying attention. That story is a modern account about an ancient hero from Norse mythology. If that hero figure really existed, it was thousands of years ago. For it to be credible evidence, we need an account of the event near to the time the alleged event happened.

The Jesus miracles are recorded in documents within 30-70 years from when the alleged events happened.

Shiva dancing around destroying the world with Earth quakes... pretty damn miraculous.

All those stories are about events which allegedly happened earlier than 1000 BC and probably much earlier than that. And yet the earliest accounts for those events are dated centuries later, like 200 BC at the earliest. That's not credible evidence. Our sources for the events have to be near to the time when the events allegedly happened.

I don't think you thought this through

I'm waiting for you to think through an example, from 3000 years of recorded history/literature/poetry/philosophy which shows any case where a miracle story is reported within only 30-70 years from the time of the alleged event.

It's extremely common. The religious world is full of miracles being reported all the time. Just google! http://www.smashinglists.com/top-ten-real-world-miracles/

Again, all you can offer are modern examples, from modern mass pop publishing.

These can all be investigated individually. But why can't you cite anything from earlier history? Obviously EVERYthing gets published today, in mass copies. It's not the same as 1000 - 2000 years ago. So you can find the multiple "sources" today which was not the case 1000 years ago, because back then it was too costly to publish everything.

Why is there no case of instant miracle stories in all the historical record, prior to 1000 or 1500 AD? Except the one case of Jesus the Galilean in about 30 AD? Why does that one alone stick out among ALL the historical documents from about 2000 BC to 1500 AD?

Of course we can delve into all the modern stories, which gets much more complicated. There's no reason to insist that there are no miracle events in modern times. There might be a few. The mad monk Rasputin probably cured the son of the Russian Czar.

But you are proving my point if you cannot come up with any example from the earlier history. You are admitting that there aren't any other examples. We have one case only, from all the historical record, from 2000 BC to 1500 AD. After that of course we start having multiple sources for some miracle claims, as everything starts getting published in multiple copies, and anyone can afford to publish any crazy stuff, which was not possible in earlier times.

The secular world of course don't report miracles. Because they are less gullible. Here's a fun statistics. Astronomers report half as many UFO's as regular people looking up at the sky. A UFO is just a phenomena that can't be explained. It doesn't mean a visitor from another planet. How come astronomers, who spend all their free time staring up at the night sky are so much worse at spotting UFO's than just random people. It's because astronomers know what they're looking at. They know the science. Since a UFO just is something that cannot be explained and they can explain it, they don't report it.

A miracle being reported doesn't mean there's been an actual miracle. It might as well be evidence of someone being uneducated.

By that reasoning UFO reports should not be investigated, and those who think they saw something should suppress it so they won't be shipped off to a re-education camp.

Actually there are some goofy claims of this, by Richard Carrier, but they are so silly as to prove the point. There are no miracle-workers in ancient history, other than Jesus around 30 AD, for which we have written documents, or evidence, reporting it within 50-100 years from when the event allegedly happened.

The long delay, usually many centuries, is the explanation how the fictional stories were able to evolve and finally become published. The ancients did not fall for instant miracle stories. They believed in the ancient gods, not in the latest fly-by-night charlatan.

The closest there is to any instant miracle stories are some war stories, during a high-profile battlefield scene, where maybe an omen appeared, or something uncanny, a sign from the gods, to thwart the enemy. Maybe reported in a document 50 years later. And probably there's only one source for it, rather than 4 (5) such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts.

WTF are you smoking? In ancient Judea, in the time of Jesus a prophet wasn't only a religious messenger, it could also be a stage magician. We have found ancient stage props for turning water into wine.

No we haven't. There's nothing found showing any magic trick for doing this.

As well as ancient manuscripts describing the magical trick.

No, you're distorting what the document describes. It's just a special wine jug which can dispense either water or wine. No evidence that it was used to do any trick to fool people, or that it was used for stage performances.

Clearly they believed the latest fly-by-night charlatan.

The wine jug invention you're referring to shows no evidence of any charlatanry by anyone. The notion that this invention had anything to do with changing "water into wine" would never have occurred to anyone except to those who first read the story of Jesus turning water into wine. The inventor, Hero of Alexandria, had no thought of his wine jug invention being used to produce an illusion or magic trick. It was never intended for that or used for it.

Just like most people of any age have.

No, they believed only in miracle stories about the ancient gods or ancient miracle heroes in the myths. They believed in the ancient healing god Asclepius, to whom they prayed at his statues or temples. Because he was a recognized centuries-old deity, they believed stories about people being healed by him at the temples. No one believed in a new charlatan showing up and performing magic tricks outside the religious traditions. There was no "water to wine" trick being played by anyone which people believed and which drew spectators and believers. There's no evidence of any such thing. The wine-jug invention is no evidence of any such thing.

The fact that a known magicians stage trick has made it into the Bible and is attributed to Jesus tells us all we need to know.

It was not "a known magicians stage trick" -- this is just a distortion by people who are familiar with the Jesus story. There's no connection whatever between that wine jug invention and the Jesus story. There's nothing in the Hero of Alexandria manuscript which suggests that this was any magic trick device. It was just a novelty wine jug with extra "bells and whistles" to impress people.

http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasPr...team/URochesterCollection/Hero/section65.html

Nothing in this document says anything about magic tricks or creating illusions. Some of his inventions might have been "toys" of a complicated sort, with cute features to create amusement or amaze the spectator. But there's nothing in any of it to try to fool people into believing in any supernatural powers. You are projecting your fantasies onto this ancient Greek inventor.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's miracles reported all the time. People getting healed from cancer, narrowly surviving death after some accident, their candidate winning an election against all odds and so on.

Those are not miracle acts by someone having superhuman power.

Of course they are. By definition! Miracles are all superhuman. That's the point of calling them miracles.

But more importantly, you're making it too complicated bringing in modern Internet, modern publishing.

Said the person who attempts to win an argument by making an ever shrinking narrow definition of which miracles count as True Scotsman miracles.

Before 1500 AD, before mass publishing. We could go over all the modern examples, and there are reasons to discount most modern miracle claims.

Why? Because in the modern world we have ways to prove how they are bullshit? isn't that just more reasons to assume that the ancient ones are probably also bullshit?

But it's better to look at a period when there was not the easy ability to mass publish. 1000 years ago these normal events -- the ones you list above -- were not published.

Any reason to ignore all the ancient Greek and Roman books published on this topic? All the Greek and Roman myths fall into this category. Every Roman emperor has a whole bunch of miracles attributed to them.

If you deliberately want to complicate this by bringing in a flood of modern mass publishing cases, that just shows that you can't answer the question, i.e., you're conceding the point then that there are no other cases of miracle claims for which there is credible evidence, such as we have for the Jesus events.

I'm not conceding anything. I'm saying that we're awash with written records of miracles taking place. The miracles attributed to Julius Caesar's are very similar to those of Jesus. There has never been credible evidence for any miracle ever taking place. Not ever. I don't know what you're smoking to think that there's any support for the Jesus account?

To sum up:
1) Jesus is credited with the same type of miracle that was common in the pagan world. He's just one among many.
2) No miracle is backed up by credible evidence. If it was we wouldn't call it miracles. We'd just call it science.

So if you want to prove otherwise, use examples from before 1500 AD. If you're unable to come up with any examples, then you are proving the point that the Jesus in 30 AD example is the only case in the historical record (before 1500 AD) of miracle claims for which there is evidence. This is the normal kind of evidence we rely on for historical events. I.e., it is reported in contemporary sources (not centuries later) that the events happened.

Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. Ovid's Metamorphosis. Epic of Gilgamesh. The recorded deeds of every damn Pharao.

We have lots.

You're not paying attention. That story is a modern account about an ancient hero from Norse mythology. If that hero figure really existed, it was thousands of years ago. For it to be credible evidence, we need an account of the event near to the time the alleged event happened.

The Jesus miracles are recorded in documents within 30-70 years from when the alleged events happened.

It's the exact same thing regarding Jesus! Who knows how long time it took for the historical Thor to become a literary figure?

Shiva dancing around destroying the world with Earth quakes... pretty damn miraculous.

All those stories are about events which allegedly happened earlier than 1000 BC and probably much earlier than that. And yet the earliest accounts for those events are dated centuries later, like 200 BC at the earliest. That's not credible evidence. Our sources for the events have to be near to the time when the events allegedly happened.

A poor carpenter in a Jewish backwater who just happens to have royal blood and starts a new religion. What more clues do you need that this in allegory?

Again, all you can offer are modern examples, from modern mass pop publishing.

I assure you that ancient pop publishing (ie the Bible) is about as trustworthy.

The wine jug invention you're referring to shows no evidence of any charlatanry by anyone. The notion that this invention had anything to do with changing "water into wine" would never have occurred to anyone except to those who first read the story of Jesus turning water into wine. The inventor, Hero of Alexandria, had no thought of his wine jug invention being used to produce an illusion or magic trick. It was never intended for that or used for it.

While historically true, you don't need many Chinese whispers to make it into history books. Which is the most likely explanation.

You are aware that people aren't able to turn water into wine? If we start with the assumption that Jesus was a regular human until proven otherwise. The first order of business would be to explain his miracles by natural causes. Since the water into wine was a known magic trick of the ancient world, the obvious conclusion is that the miracles that Jesus was originally a magical stage trick that later, through Chinese whispers became a miracle.

The fact is that even if we accept that Jesus was a historical person (which he obviously wasn't) the miracles are completely unsupported by anything but assertions and Chinese whispers.

http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasPr...team/URochesterCollection/Hero/section65.html

Nothing in this document says anything about magic tricks or creating illusions. Some of his inventions might have been "toys" of a complicated sort, with cute features to create amusement or amaze the spectator. But there's nothing in any of it to try to fool people into believing in any supernatural powers. You are projecting your fantasies onto this ancient Greek inventor.

We call stage illusionists today magicians. They did back then as well. Stage magicians were common back in the days of Jesus. It's nothing new. And even today some stage magicians claim to have magical powers. One example is Satya Sai Baba in India. He performs miracles all the time, which suspiciously, he won't let anybody investigate.

Many of the magic tricks illusions perform today existed in the ancient world. They were as amused by them as we are today.

 

[funinspace]

Because NO miracle stories are part of THE HISTORICAL RECORD!

Josephus records some. I think Cassius Dio does too

Uh, no.

First, Josephus wasn't even born until a few years after the purported events/life of Jesus. Josephus does record some stuff about Christian, showing that they did in fact exist when he wrote some 6 decades after said event. Where he is purported to talk of Jesus as 'the Christ', it is widely accepted as a forgery. Simply put, why would a person of the Jewish faith call a person "the Christ", if they hadn't converted?

Cassius Dio is a laughable reference, as he wasn't even born until 120 years after the claimed events.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

For miracle claims, remember to check: How many sources are there? and how long after the alleged events were they written?

Lumpen, you forget Elijah/Elisha? They even resurrected people.

There's ONLY ONE SOURCE for these (I-II Kings), and this dates from centuries after the reported events.

This large gap between the original alleged event and the later source reporting it is a major reason to reject most of the ancient miracle stories as literally true.

But the Jesus miracle events appear in documents 30-70 years after the reported events, and there are 4 (5) sources, not only one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Lumpen, you forget Elijah/Elisha? They even resurrected people.

There's ONLY ONE SOURCE for these (I-II Kings), and this dates from centuries after the reported events.

This large gap between the original alleged event and the later source reporting it is a major reason to reject most of the ancient miracle stories as literally true.

But the Jesus miracle events appear in documents 30-70 years after the reported events, and there are 4 (5) sources, not only one.

Biblical scholars pretty much all agree that the gospel of Matthew is the source for the other gospels. There's only one source.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that the Jesus case stands out alone from all the others?

Maybe the Jesus authors were opposed to using Twitter to reach hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide in a matter of seconds... or maybe the internet was running a little slower two thousand years ago.

I'd say it's the other way around. Without the Internet or any ability to mass produce the spread of information the corruption of information will be even faster. At each retelling there will be corruption. When retweeting something the original message is intact.

If fictional accounts of real events take minutes to appear today, they surely came to be even faster, back in the olden days.

And yet there are no accounts of miracle events, in our sources, written near to the time of the alleged events. In all cases our source for the miracle claims is from at least 100 years later. Which explains how the miracle claims evolved over time, being fictional. There are no cases of fictional miracle stories appearing in writing less than 100 years after the reported event(s).

With only one exception: the Jesus miracles in about 30 AD. Reported in 4 (5) sources.

Why not just admit that in this one case there is far more evidence than for any other case -- and yet claim it's still not enough evidence?

You can't stand it that there's one case which stands out conspicuously from all the others? That causes you sleepless nights?

 

[DrZoidberg]

And yet there are no accounts of miracle events, in our sources, written near to the time of the alleged events. In all cases our source for the miracle claims is from at least 100 years later. Which explains how the miracle claims evolved over time, being fictional. There are no cases of fictional miracle stories appearing in writing less than 100 years after the reported event(s).

I've already given you numerous examples. What's wrong with the one's I've given? Your statement is absurd considering what we know of the pagan world. For any famous person in the pagan world it was assumed they would be doing miraculous things. So the historical record is full of miracles from around the time of Jesus having been done by a huge variety of people. Everything from soldiers to sports heroes. Reports of miracles were commonplace in the time around Jesus' life. I've already given you a bunch of famous examples. But any cursory googling can reveal more.

Why do you continue this farce? Why are you continuing being so damn lazy? How about doing your homework if you're going to post here?

Why not just admit that in this one case there is far more evidence than for any other case -- and yet claim it's still not enough evidence?

Ok. Why don't you just admit you're talking shit? Your statement is blatantly false and very easy to refute.

You can't stand it that there's one case which stands out conspicuously from all the others?

Or it doesn't. Which is the truth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Definitions: "Instant miracle" and "Historical record" -- Jesus is the only instant miracle-worker in the ancient historical record.

"Historical record" here means all the documents from history. And we're talking about ancient history. Before 1000 AD.

Let's keep it simple. What's the explanation why there are no reported instant miracles, before mass publishing? Over a 3000-year span there were none. Except the Jesus miracles, in documents within 30-70 years from the time of the reported events. Why are there no others?

There are reported instant miracles before mass publishing. Millions of them found in the religious texts of every religion.

If that were true you'd give an example.

For clarity, "INSTANT MIRACLE" means a miracle claim for which we have a written source, saying it happened, and this source was written, or is dated, near to the time of the alleged event. Like in less than 100 years. Also, a claim about some new miracle-worker, not an ancient god from centuries past.

To qualify, I'll add that there are a very few possible exceptions to this, mainly into the middle ages. It's ambiguous. But even if there's 1 or 2 or 3 exceptions, there's always only one source for the claim. St. Genevieve is probably the most glaring example.

And also, the Christian saints of the middle ages who reportedly did miracles, and for which there might be an early source, all had these 2 advantages: They had a long career, recognized by millions of disciples/admirers, and they all had a centuries-old miracle tradition to fall back on as the basis for building their reputation.

But these exceptions are a tiny few, and they're doubtful.

In the pagan world they had the idea that miracles/magic was normal and a regular part of life. They assumed miracles/magic was constantly happening. So they saw them all the time. And this they sometimes recorded.

But all the written accounts/sources which we have were written centuries later than the actual event allegedly occurred. Which means centuries for legend-building to take place.

All the prophecies of the oracles fall into this category. Those are recorded. Animist thought works the same way.

These are not necessarily miracle events. I.e., not superhuman acts, or not acts which a normal human was incapable of doing.

The miracles of Jesus fit nicely into the miracles/magic that was constantly being reported by the pagans.

There are no miracle healing acts reported in the pagan mythologies, other than miracle claims by worshipers praying at statues/temples of the gods. These all believed in ancient healing gods which dated back to thousands of years earlier. I.e., not instant miracles.

It was the same kind of things.

But there are no accounts of anyone performing healing acts in any pagan sources (except prayers of worshipers at the temple of an ancient deity).

There are theories that the miracles attributed to Jesus have been because that's what pagans expect from a god or demi-god.

Then why is Jesus the only god or demigod appearing, in all our sources, to satisfy this expectation? Why aren't there hundreds of other gods or demigods also appearing, recorded in our sources, to meet this demand? Who is another example? for whom there is any written account near to the time he allegedly did this?

You're just talking shit Lumpy. How about doing research instead of constantly making blatantly false statements that are easily dismissible?

I'm too busy correcting your spelling errors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are reported instant miracles before mass publishing. Millions of them found in the religious texts of every religion.

If that were true you'd give an example.

Here you go, hundreds. A book on reported miracles performed by pagans in the ancient world many contemporary with Jesus:

https://books.google.se/books?id=O-...v=onepage&q=miracles of julius caesar&f=false

What makes your claim so absurd is that we know the reason why miracles were attributed to Jesus. The Christians were trying to pass him off as the king of Jews. And as such it would be expected of him to perform miracles. Because all kings had miracles attributed to them. It was standard. And you would know this if you could be bothered to pull your head out of your ass and just google it.

For clarity, "INSTANT MIRACLE" means a miracle claim for which we have a written source, saying it happened, and this source was written, or is dated, near to the time of the alleged event. Like in less than 100 years. Also, a claim about some new miracle-worker, not an ancient god from centuries past.

To qualify, I'll add that there are a very few possible exceptions to this, mainly into the middle ages. It's ambiguous. But even if there's 1 or 2 or 3 exceptions, there's always only one source for the claim. St. Genevieve is probably the most glaring example.

And also, the Christian saints of the middle ages who reportedly did miracles, and for which there might be an early source, all had these 2 advantages: They had a long career, recognized by millions of disciples/admirers, and they all had a centuries-old miracle tradition to fall back on as the basis for building their reputation.

But these exceptions are a tiny few, and they're doubtful.

Just google and you will find thousands of Jesus-like references of miracles! There is nothing special about the miracles attributed to Jesus.

In the pagan world they had the idea that miracles/magic was normal and a regular part of life. They assumed miracles/magic was constantly happening. So they saw them all the time. And this they sometimes recorded.

But all the written accounts/sources which we have were written centuries later than the actual event allegedly occurred. Which means centuries for legend-building to take place.

Not in the case of kings. They had propaganda departments constantly churning out claims of miracles while the king was around. The Christian pattern of attributing miracles to Jesus is clearly based on the pagan royal template. It's even the same kinds of miracles. Sports heroes had miracles attributed to them in their lifetimes. You might wonder if these were invented by the promoters of sports events to increase interest for it? You'd probably be correct.

All the prophecies of the oracles fall into this category. Those are recorded. Animist thought works the same way.

These are not necessarily miracle events. I.e., not superhuman acts, or not acts which a normal human was incapable of doing.

You cynic you. You're probably correct that these are most likely bullshit. Based on the pretty safe assumption that all claims of miracles are bullshit.

The miracles of Jesus fit nicely into the miracles/magic that was constantly being reported by the pagans.

There are no miracle healing acts reported in the pagan mythologies, other than miracle claims by worshipers praying at statues/temples of the gods. These all believed in ancient healing gods which dated back to thousands of years earlier. I.e., not instant miracles.

Oh, for fucking god. Miracle healings are the most common form of miracles reported. Have you ever read any book on history ever?

Ever heard of the "royal touch"? All kings in the middle-east, north Africa and Europe were assumed to have healing powers. And reports of it were common. This is just the European version. But they all have their version of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch

That's no doubt why Jesus was attributed with healing powers. If he was a king one way to prove it was to perform the same kind of healing miracles attributed to any king.

It was the same kind of things.

But there are no accounts of anyone performing healing acts in any pagan sources (except prayers of worshipers at the temple of an ancient deity).

Not only were there but it was common.

There are theories that the miracles attributed to Jesus have been because that's what pagans expect from a god or demi-god.

Then why is Jesus the only god or demigod appearing, in all our sources, to satisfy this expectation? Why aren't there hundreds of other gods or demigods also appearing, recorded in our sources, to meet this demand? Who is another example? for whom there is any written account near to the time he allegedly did this?

HA HA HA HA HA. Julius Caesar claimed he was the son of Mars and his earthly mother. Yet, again you show your ignorance. Anybody famous was assumed to be a demi-god. That was the only way for the ancients to explain why somebody was extraordinary. Whenever anybody got famous speculation immediately started on what god was the father.

If Jesus should be able to make any kind of splash in the pagan world he would just have to claim that he was a demigod. Just like everybody else who was famous in his day.

Books.... you should try reading them. You might learn something.

You're just talking shit Lumpy. How about doing research instead of constantly making blatantly false statements that are easily dismissible?

I'm too busy correcting your spelling errors.

At least you admitted your ignorance. Big of you

 

[angelo]

Are you being coy? Mark, of course.

I'm not aware of any plots, you'll have to fill me in.

My point, again, is that we don't know anything about the author of gMark or his motives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We might, surely, make an informed guess? Like all decent people, he wanted to spread socialism - in the terms understood in his time.

Jeezus! And socialists have still not learnt the lesson that sooner or later they run out of other people's money to spend!

 

[angelo]

Yes, your reply to the challenge had zero evidence

If we had scholars choose between Jesus having 'existed' or Malintents $1,000,000 having 'existed'. I'd place my bet on Jesus.

Which one? In those days, there were most likely dozens of Jesus like rabbi's wondering the Jerusalem countryside preaching about the coming end days!

 

[iolo]

We might, surely, make an informed guess? Like all decent people, he wanted to spread socialism - in the terms understood in his time.

Jeezus! And socialists have still not learnt the lesson that sooner or later they run out of other people's money to spend!

It's our money, as you thieves really well know. Who does the work, diabolo?

 

[James Brown]

Re-read this today:

The historicity of Jesus is the slipperiest question in all history because for centuries the question couldn’t be raised. They would hang you for asking — or burn you at the stake.

--Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein