Historical Jesus

[iolo]

I think we need very, very good reason to deny the existence of historical figures, unless somebody clearly gains by making them up, and even then we should study the evidence carefully. There is all the difference in the world - to anyone who has been trained to read - between myth-material and intended fact, as we can tell by comparing the early 'Christmas plus' bits in the New Testament with the detailed reports of Jesus' ministry. Compare a very-probably-basically-historical figure like Arthur in British history with, say, a clearly-historical one like Saint David/Dewi Sant. It's a matter of weighing up the degree of likely fact.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think we need very, very good reason to deny the existence of historical figures, unless somebody clearly gains by making them up, and even then we should study the evidence carefully. There is all the difference in the world - to anyone who has been trained to read - between myth-material and intended fact, as we can tell by comparing the early 'Christmas plus' bits in the New Testament with the detailed reports of Jesus' ministry. Compare a very-probably-basically-historical figure like Arthur in British history with, say, a clearly-historical one like Saint David/Dewi Sant. It's a matter of weighing up the degree of likely fact.

King Arthur is a good analogy to Jesus.

Just from the time king Arthur lived we can deduce that king Arthur was a Roman. Dressed like a Roman. Spoke Latin. If he ever dressed in anything non-Roman he would have dressed like a Viking. What values he possessed is anyone's guess. As what he did all day. Apart from the name and what we can, from the period, deduce we know nothing. Just like Jesus.

The image we today have of king Arthur is a wholy fictional. It was constantly evolving over the ages, always giving king Arthur, for it's day modern values and modern equipment. The image we today have is mostly a 19'th century version given us by Tennyson. It was a national romantic revival back then. Of course embodying chivalric values, (which weren't even invented in his day) as well as sporting a plate mail armour. All incredible. Just as incredible as a poor bastard carpenter would start a world religion based on ideas only a well educated aristocrat would have access to.

 

[iolo]

I'm talking about early stuff. Arthur, whatever he was, was not a Roman, because we'd seen the imperial authority off in 410 (see Zosimus), and he is supposed to have commanded at a battle very much later than that, when the historian Gildas was little, somewhere like 550. He would of course have spoken Latin, as the leadership here did. He certainly wouldn't have dressed like a Viking - they didn't get here for several centuries more. He was certainly not a king either. 'Arth' in our language means 'bear', and it is highly likely that some post-Roman general (with, doubtless, a Roman name) wore a bear-skin as a 'signum', a sign for the soldiers to recognise him by in battle. It is notable that in the generation after that several royal houses started calling their sons 'Arthur'. People, by and large, didn't want to be ruled by revolting foreign mercenaries, and he seems to have stopped the buggers for a full generation.

 

[funinspace]

I think we need very, very good reason to deny the existence of historical figures, unless somebody clearly gains by making them up, and even then we should study the evidence carefully. There is all the difference in the world - to anyone who has been trained to read - between myth-material and intended fact, as we can tell by comparing the early 'Christmas plus' bits in the New Testament with the detailed reports of Jesus' ministry. Compare a very-probably-basically-historical figure like Arthur in British history with, say, a clearly-historical one like Saint David/Dewi Sant. It's a matter of weighing up the degree of likely fact.

We? I think you'll need a poll to figure out how many posters think Jesus was purely fictional verses something else.

For myself I wouldn't claim that Jesus of Nazareth couldn't be purely fictional, but that is not my opinion. Atheos did a good right up sometime in the last year, about his thoughts on Jesus' probably life/existence which I would agree with. I would say it is something like he was some sort of religious rabble-rouser/preacher that ran afoul of the Jewish religious leaders or Roman officials an got himself killed. The Gospels are largely decades old and built up fan fiction by followers of the new cult and well pimped by Paul. The Gospels are probably less historical than the movie Braveheart. And neither's real history had miracles or ghosts/spirits.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think we need very, very good reason to deny the existence of historical figures, unless somebody clearly gains by making them up, and even then we should study the evidence carefully. There is all the difference in the world - to anyone who has been trained to read - between myth-material and intended fact, as we can tell by comparing the early 'Christmas plus' bits in the New Testament with the detailed reports of Jesus' ministry. Compare a very-probably-basically-historical figure like Arthur in British history with, say, a clearly-historical one like Saint David/Dewi Sant. It's a matter of weighing up the degree of likely fact.

So the accepted existence or non existence of historical figures should depend on whether or not someone gains?

Very objective.

 

[iolo]

I think we need very, very good reason to deny the existence of historical figures, unless somebody clearly gains by making them up, and even then we should study the evidence carefully. There is all the difference in the world - to anyone who has been trained to read - between myth-material and intended fact, as we can tell by comparing the early 'Christmas plus' bits in the New Testament with the detailed reports of Jesus' ministry. Compare a very-probably-basically-historical figure like Arthur in British history with, say, a clearly-historical one like Saint David/Dewi Sant. It's a matter of weighing up the degree of likely fact.

We? I think you'll need a poll to figure out how many posters think Jesus was purely fictional verses something else.

For myself I wouldn't claim that Jesus of Nazareth couldn't be purely fictional, but that is not my opinion. Atheos did a good right up sometime in the last year, about his thoughts on Jesus' probably life/existence which I would agree with. I would say it is something like he was some sort of religious rabble-rouser/preacher that ran afoul of the Jewish religious leaders or Roman officials an got himself killed. The Gospels are largely decades old and built up fan fiction by followers of the new cult and well pimped by Paul. The Gospels are probably less historical than the movie Braveheart. And neither's real history had miracles or ghosts/spirits.

Imagine Lenin had been shot when he got to Petersburg: would we have this sort of thing? Imagine someone had made him up! This movement was founded by some people with, for whatever reason, supreme confidence. You don't get that from made-up myth.

 

[iolo]

I think we need very, very good reason to deny the existence of historical figures, unless somebody clearly gains by making them up, and even then we should study the evidence carefully. There is all the difference in the world - to anyone who has been trained to read - between myth-material and intended fact, as we can tell by comparing the early 'Christmas plus' bits in the New Testament with the detailed reports of Jesus' ministry. Compare a very-probably-basically-historical figure like Arthur in British history with, say, a clearly-historical one like Saint David/Dewi Sant. It's a matter of weighing up the degree of likely fact.

So the accepted existence or non existence of historical figures should depend on whether or not someone gains?

Very objective.

Use your brain a moment: why should a total fantasy conquer the world? Somebody existed to inspire a movement that, in effect, revolutionised Rome, after having been, apparently, tortured to death in public. If no-one stood to gain, who was responsible?

 

[funinspace]

We? I think you'll need a poll to figure out how many posters think Jesus was purely fictional verses something else.

For myself I wouldn't claim that Jesus of Nazareth couldn't be purely fictional, but that is not my opinion. Atheos did a good right up sometime in the last year, about his thoughts on Jesus' probably life/existence which I would agree with. I would say it is something like he was some sort of religious rabble-rouser/preacher that ran afoul of the Jewish religious leaders or Roman officials an got himself killed. The Gospels are largely decades old and built up fan fiction by followers of the new cult and well pimped by Paul. The Gospels are probably less historical than the movie Braveheart. And neither's real history had miracles or ghosts/spirits.

Imagine Lenin had been shot when he got to Petersburg: would we have this sort of thing? Imagine someone had made him up! This movement was founded by some people with, for whatever reason, supreme confidence. You don't get that from made-up myth.

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I just said? William Wallace and Longshanks existed as well...neither were made-up myth.

 

[iolo]

Imagine Lenin had been shot when he got to Petersburg: would we have this sort of thing? Imagine someone had made him up! This movement was founded by some people with, for whatever reason, supreme confidence. You don't get that from made-up myth.

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I just said? William Wallace and Longshanks existed as well...neither were made-up myth.

I thought this discussion was about historical existence, not faith-healing and fantasy.

 

[funinspace]

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I just said? William Wallace and Longshanks existed as well...neither were made-up myth.

I thought this discussion was about historical existence, not faith-healing and fantasy.

That was the general inquiry of the opening post. However, I think it would be quite odd to assume that all comments, by all posters, are directly tied to that question. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that my comments (#404) toward's yours (#401) clearly stated that was not my point.

We have Lumpy here huckstering his magic Jesus. Another person suggested Cassius Dio is some sort of source for the historicity of the Jesus miracles, which was the reason for my recent posting. Then you spoke in the plurality of "we" as if "we of all commentators within this thread" are all on the same bus... And frankly, I don't think "we" are all on the same bus...so I commented on your comment. Maybe you could clarify just how historical you think this Jesus character is? There are degrees of likelihood of some vague semblance of this Jesus character existing as a real person. Once given that there was a real Jesus, then there are degrees of likelihood of just how much of the real Jesus character exists within said Gospels. And there are degrees of likelihood that Jesus is the Christ (though obviously not to those who find it not true).

 

[Horatio Parker]

Use your brain a moment: why should a total fantasy conquer the world? Somebody existed to inspire a movement that, in effect, revolutionised Rome, after having been, apparently, tortured to death in public. If no-one stood to gain, who was responsible?

Physician, heal thyself.

The question is how did a total fantasy(making that assumption) conquer the world.

But the real question is deeper. The fact is fantasies make up our profoundist reality ie our understanding, which has a large emotional or intuitive component. Marks gospel illustrated that in a very accessible way. We don't need a burning bush or a temple, the critical answers are within. And, btw, there's your revolutionary socialist aspect as well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Use your brain a moment: why should a total fantasy conquer the world?

That seems like a good question , even a convincing argument. But the fact is that it did not "conquer the world." If anything, the world conquered it, or perhaps you can tell us how the world substantively changed. To me "the world" just substituted one fantasy for another, and certainly will again. Is that meaningful in some way I'm not appreciating.

Or we could talk about Europe. How did Christian Europe differ from pre-Christian Europe? Because there was a Christ instead of other deities? Is that something substantial in your view? It certainly isn't in mine. It's like having one favorite color instead of another, how is that meaningful? Does that mean that one color is somehow more important historically than the previous? I don't get it.

But I've had this conversation before and am always listening for something new.

 

[Atheos]

Joedad hit the nail on the head. A total fantasy never has and likely never will "conquer the world." Religions, however, spread due to leadership and the efforts of their memberships to convert people. Religions that do not include a strong emphasis on converting outsiders simply do not spread, at least not as prolifically.

The "Jesus" movement appears to have begun with "Paul" who claimed to be channeling a voice he was hearing from heaven. Like Joseph Smith and other cult figures Paul was exceptionally good at selling his fantasy. We know little about how the stories of this heavenly messenger developed but what we do know without a shadow of doubt is that people were gratuitously making stories up about him. The birth narratives are patently bogus; the claims by the writers of "Peter" and "John" that they personally met this character are equally bogus and their very claim that they were those people is a lie. Someone (who is now referred to as "Mark") wrote a narrative about this character in 75 A.D. or thereabouts that included miracle acts, prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. Others took this story and rewrote it over several decades, adding details, changing others, etc., Claiming that these rewrites are independent corroboration of the original story is just horseshit.

As to what "gain" Paul might have had it is obvious that he accepted and expected money from his followers (I Cor 16:1-2). But even if that were not the case the fact that cult leaders pop up on a regular basis with batshit crazy ideas and gather crowds of followers is evidence enough that this sort of thing happens and occasionally really takes off.

None of this means there never was an historical "Jesus" who formed the inspiration for this movement. That question may never be able to be answered either way. But the evidence we have falls clearly on the side of a developing story that didn't include any biographical details for several decades. Then a slew of biographical details suddenly surfaced, safely removed in time and distance from any chance of contradiction by anyone who might have been around Jerusalem during the alleged time in question. These details were surrounded by obvious fabrications and patent fabricators. They include impossible activities. Yet we're supposed to accept them as factual as if they are no more suspect than J.Z. Knight's Ramtha bullshit. Give me a freaking break already.

 

[iolo]

I'm talking about early stuff. Arthur, whatever he was, was not a Roman, because we'd seen the imperial authority off in 410 (see Zosimus), and he is supposed to have commanded at a battle very much later than that, when the historian Gildas was little, somewhere like 550. He would of course have spoken Latin, as the leadership here did. He certainly wouldn't have dressed like a Viking - they didn't get here for several centuries more. He was certainly not a king either. 'Arth' in our language means 'bear', and it is highly likely that some post-Roman general (with, doubtless, a Roman name) wore a bear-skin as a 'signum', a sign for the soldiers to recognise him by in battle. It is notable that in the generation after that several royal houses started calling their sons 'Arthur'. People, by and large, didn't want to be ruled by revolting foreign mercenaries, and he seems to have stopped the buggers for a full generation.

Just for accuracy's sake, I was having some sort of blackout. The battle I was talking about, as I very well know, was more likely 485.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What distinguishes Jesus from the other ancient miracle legends? He's the only one for whom we have credible evidence.

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.

The point is that healing a leper or blind person etc. is a much higher category of "miracle" than these examples of coincidence or luck. Especially raising the dead, and also the resurrection. Acts of power not possible for a human to perform, or normal human.

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.

No, the modern examples also fit the definition -- "act of power" which normal humans cannot perform. There may be some modern examples of such acts. But today everything gets published, and so the claims of "miracle" events is extremely widespread, in published accounts which are widely copied at no expense by comparison to 1000 or 2000 years ago. That these get so widely published doesn't mean anything today, whereas it did mean something 2000 years ago when a particular case got published in multiple sources.

So comparing today's miracle claims to those of 2000 years ago is very complicated. How many pages of this message board do we want to consume? Let's make it simple by looking only at the centuries before about 1500. I.e., the 3000-year period from the first writings up to 1000 or 1500 AD, during which time so very little got published.

The greater number of sources, or written accounts, of the Jesus miracles, and their close proximity to the events, is what needs to be explained. But today with mass publishing it's obviously not comparable.

Easily 99.9% of today's reported miracles in the media and literature would never have been published if the claim had been made 2000 years ago.

We can argue about all the modern examples, but why does no one want to explain why we have ONLY ONE case in all the earlier literature? Isn't it strange that for 3000 years of recorded history there was only one case for which we have such evidence as this?

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?

No, not all the claims have been explained, even if most of the ones investigated were debunked. Not all have been. And in ancient times too most of such claims were not widely believed and did not get published, because they were not taken seriously. The difference is that in those days virtually nothing got published, whereas today everything gets published no matter how trivial. So, how widely something gets published did mean something back then, whereas today it means virtually nothing.

isn't that just more reasons to assume that the ancient ones are probably also bullshit?

Not all. Modern or ancient, not all have been debunked, or not all which were investigated. The same is true today: Most are probably fictional, but not all.

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?

They report no miracle acts which happened only recently, just before the document was written. In all cases the published miracles reportedly happened centuries earlier. There's virtually no exceptions. -- "virtually"

exceptions? -- There are a few battlefield scenes where a "miracle" or sign from the gods is reported, maybe happening not much earlier than the document was written. Maybe 2 or 3 cases of this in Herodotus. Written only 40 or 50 years after the event. But there's ONLY ONE SOURCE, so even in this case it doesn't compare to the Jesus miracles which are reported in 4 (5) sources.

If you know of an example, post it, giving the source, and let's compare it. There are virtually no examples.

All the Greek and Roman myths fall into this category.

None of them do. All those legends appear first in written accounts many centuries after the alleged event happened. I.e., Hercules, Perseus, Zeus, etc.

Every Roman emperor has a whole bunch of miracles attributed to them.

No, there's very little of that. There are some "miracle birth" stories, but virtually all are dated, in the existing sources, 100+ years later than the birth of the emperor. But also, a miracle birth story is a poor example of a "miracle act" by the celebrity in question.

The best case of an emperor miracle is that of Vespasian, who reportedly did a healing miracle, appearing in 2 sources about 50-60 years later. This is your best example.

It's a slight exception to the "instant miracle" rule, reported in writing less than 100 years. However, this is easily explained, as Emperor Vespasian was an extremely popular folk hero admired by millions, and so we can easily explain how gossip would take place, producing such a story perhaps even during his lifetime.

It is easy to explain how a famous celebrity might become mythologized during his long career and even become a reputed miracle hero while he's still alive. So, we have a slight exception in this case. Very slight -- Only two sources. And very easy to explain.

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.

Virtually always 100+ years after the alleged event. There are virtually no exceptions. You need to give us an example. They are few or none.

The miracles attributed to Julius Caesar's are very similar to those of Jesus.

You can't give an example. Whatever you might come up with did not exist in writing until centuries later.

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?

When the report is published in more than one source and in only decades rather than centuries later, then we have evidence. It's the same kind of evidence we have for many/most of our historical events from ancient times. It's more evidence than is required for normal events to be accepted as fact.

It's evidence, but not proof. To have 4 (5) sources meets a higher standard than is normal for many/most of our historical events from that time.

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.

Healing miracles were NOT common in the pagan world, except for the worshipers praying at temples or statues of the ancient healing god. These were always based on a belief in an ancient deity only, never on a new miracle hero appearing on the scene. No charlatan is published in any of the ancient accounts. If Jesus was a charlatan-healer, he has to be recognized as the ONLY such charlatan to get published in the ancient accounts.

2) No miracle is backed up by credible evidence.

For the Jesus miracles it's the same kind of evidence as we have for many/most of the historical facts before 1000 or 1500 or so. Only a minority of the historical facts have an equal volume of evidence for them. The evidence is the written record saying that the events did happen. This is all the evidence we have for most historical events.

If it was we wouldn't call it miracles. We'd just call it science.

No, it's historical fact, or alleged fact, or evidence of historical events, and events which science (up 'til now) cannot explain. There might be some other such events. The individual cases are debatable. There's no point in insisting that the Jesus case is the ONLY one in all history where a miracle event happened. All such alleged events can be debated or disputed. And the truth of it cannot be established with certainty, as some major historical events can be (but others not).

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.

Cut it out! In all those cases the written accounts are dated several centuries later than the events allegedly happened.

We have lots.

We have none outside that of Jesus in the gospel accounts.

We can deal with the few seeming exceptions to this, if you want to offer any. There are so few. If you can dig up an example or 2, probably there is ONLY ONE SOURCE for it.

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!

No, your example is a modern published account about an ancient deity/hero thousands of years ago (if he really lived). Do you have an earlier written account as your source?

Who knows how long time it took for the historical Thor to become a literary figure?

The question is whether the miracle acts attributed to him really happened. Someone believed it, but where did the belief come from? When such stories evolve over many centuries before being written down, we have reason to doubt them. Even for normal events we have more doubt if there's no written source until 1000 years later.

Where's a non-ambiguous example, or parallel to that of Jesus. I.e., what's an example of a miracle event, or miracle-worker, reported in writing in less than 100 years from when the event(s) allegedly happened? I.e., where we know of it from a written source near to the time of the event rather than only in folk legends 1000+ years later?

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?

But the "clues" tell us that the "allegory" or legend was attached to a real historical person. Most cases we know of, where we can trace the legends, were cases of REAL persons in history, like St. Nicholas, to whom later fictional elements got added.

So there might be some allegory added to the original Jesus story. But what is the original story, the real person in history, around whom some later legends might have developed? Let's assume there is some fiction mixed in with the factual part. (If Jesus is ALL fiction -- no fact -- then it's the single only case in all of the literature of history (of a fiction character being transformed into a historical figure). I.e., there is no other known case of this.)

We have plenty of ancient legendary characters to compare Jesus to, and there is no other such figure emerging as a miracle hero who was mythologized into a deity in such a short time, or reported as a miracle-worker in writing in less than 100 years.

There are plenty of miracle heroes and deities and prophets in the writings. But none of them are published (their superhuman powers etc.) in less than 100 years. We have Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana and Hanina ben Dosa in the first century (real historical figures), but none of their miracle deeds are reported until more than 100 years later.

You could claim St. Genevieve is an exception, reported in an early source, but if so there is ONLY ONE SOURCE, plus there are other factors, such as her very long career, to help explain this one slight exception.

In the case of Mohammed, his miracle acts are not reported until 200 years after his life, during which time the legends were able to evolve. It took time for miracle fiction legends to emerge.

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.

No, it was not normal to publish accounts about the latest charlatan miracle-worker in those times, like it's normal to publish those stories today. Today's sources are far less trustworthy, because EVERYthing gets published today, no matter how wacky. The charlatan himself can publish it, at his own expense, in a million copies, or on a video to millions of viewers. Obviously this is much less trustworthy than something published 1000 or 2000 years ago when it was very costly to publish anything, even in only 2 or 3 extra copies.

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 . . .

What is the evidence that "water to wine was a known magic trick of the ancient world"?

I just googled "water to wine" and "ancient magic trick" and guess what popped up? This very thread with your post about "water to wine" being an ancient magic trick.

Again, there's no evidence that the wine jug invention had anything to do with magic tricks or changing water into wine. You need a source for this other than your recent post here on this topic.

. . . the obvious conclusion is that the miracles that Jesus [did] was originally a magical stage trick that later, through Chinese whispers became a miracle.

No, if it was that easy for miracle stories to get circulated, we should see some other example of it, from all the literature and all the religious beliefs, i.e., of a miracle-worker getting published in such a short time gap between the original event and the later appearance in the written account. And in more than only one source.

You could make the case that there were some original miracle acts which really did happen, and then, with this as a starting point, later fiction stories could also emerge, from legend-building. But it requires the original unusual event of actual miracle acts happening, which could then spawn the later fictional stories. This would be a legitimate theory to explain some of the Jesus miracles, if you want to trim down the number of them which really happened.

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.

That's what most of recorded history is supported by. You've just given the argument for tossing out virtually ALL of recorded history, or all of it before modern publishing.

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.

Then why is Jesus the only one who got published? in multiple sources, in less than 100 years from when the illusions were staged? He's the only one who succeeded in fooling people so that they wrote accounts of his acts and made copies and copies? the only one for whom we have any accounts of his acts? Why are there no others who got published, if they were "common" in those days?

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.

I believe it's only his disciples who make the claims about his miracle acts. Also, he had a very long career to build his reputation and win thousands of followers. And modern publishing has promoted his story. We can't explain the case of Jesus as following the same pattern as this example, as the two are totally dissimilar.

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

But they did not publish them like we do today. Such amusements were not taken seriously enough to be published, to be written and then copied and copied and circulated as actual events to report as "the good news" of salvation. Such writing and copying was very laborious and not worth the effort and cost to expend on something frivolous.

So this cannot explain how we have only one miracle-worker (or illusionist doing magic tricks) getting published and being made into a god by worshipers claiming he offers eternal life to believers. This was not common, but happened ONLY ONCE.

 

[DrZoidberg]

isn't that just more reasons to assume that the ancient ones are probably also bullshit?

Not all. Modern or ancient, not all have been debunked, or not all which were investigated. The same is true today: Most are probably fictional, but not all.

The James Randi foundation offers a million dollars to anybody who can provide evidence of supernatural powers or a miracle. Why do you think nobody has managed to claim the money?

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.

Healing miracles were NOT common in the pagan world, except for the worshipers praying at temples or statues of the ancient healing god. These were always based on a belief in an ancient deity only, never on a new miracle hero appearing on the scene. No charlatan is published in any of the ancient accounts. If Jesus was a charlatan-healer, he has to be recognized as the ONLY such charlatan to get published in the ancient accounts.

Do you know what regression toward the mean is? It's a common brain failure which leads us to think that faith healers have healed us, when they didn't. This still goes on today. We have accounts in the billion. Faith healings were so standard and accepted that priests of Asclepios and Egyptian priests wrote medical manuals on how to maximise the chance of miracles occurring. At no point did they think it was science at work. They thought it was magic. And everybody accepted it as commonplace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

I think it's just so simple as you not understanding how the ancient world worked. I've produced a book of miracles in the pagan world, and you still don't get it. I don't know what more I can do.

You're just wrong Lumpy. You don't understand how the pagan world operated. Of which Jesus was a part. He's dressed up and described like a pagan hero save for one detail, his humble origins and the fact that he was a failure at life. They just had to, after the fact, add miracles to Jesus for the idea of him being the messiah would have any traction. Without the miracles he would just come across as another loser failing at life.

This makes the claim that the miracles attributed Jesus really happened unlikely.

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

Cut it out! In all those cases the written accounts are dated several centuries later than the events allegedly happened.

In the case of the pharaohs it was chiselled into stone while they were still alive. Who knows if the Gilgamesh epic was written when Gilgamesh was still alive. As for the Illiad and the Odyssey they started out as oral poems which later got written down. But the same poems were circulated all over the Greek world. They can't have been too different or people wouldn't have identified them as the same stories. Which incidentally is exactly what happened to the Jesus account.

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?

But the "clues" tell us that the "allegory" or legend was attached to a real historical person. Most cases we know of, where we can trace the legends, were cases of REAL persons in history, like St. Nicholas, to whom later fictional elements got added.

Good example. S:t Nicholas got famous and sainted because he would sneak out at night and burn down pagan temples. A thousand years later Christian monks were uncomfortable about this, so they did some historical revisionism and changed his image completely. Now he was sainted for given of gifts to poor children. BTW, which is something that all bishops did at that time.

In S:t Nicholas case they obliterated the historical person and replaced him with a wholly fictional version save for his name.

In the case of Mohammed, his miracle acts are not reported until 200 years after his life, during which time the legends were able to evolve. It took time for miracle fiction legends to emerge.

ha ha ha.

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.

No, it was not normal to publish accounts about the latest charlatan miracle-worker in those times, like it's normal to publish those stories today.

Yes, it was. You've demonstrated that you've read about the period so you must know you're just talking shit now.

But they did not publish them like we do today. Such amusements were not taken seriously enough to be published, to be written and then copied and copied and circulated as actual events to report as "the good news" of salvation. Such writing and copying was very laborious and not worth the effort and cost to expend on something frivolous.

Because the point of inventing the miracles and attribute them to Jesus was to help spread the new religion? Most often the simplest explanation is the correct one.

B(or illusionist doing magic tricks) getting published and being made into a god by worshipers claiming he offers eternal life to believers. This was not common, but happened ONLY ONCE.

Come off it. Apart from it being false, why add "claiming he offers eternal life to believers"? Why just adding irrelevant qualifications to narrow down the potential rivals?

Rama did the same for example.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Lumpy, I suggest reading up on a Christian tradition called "hagiography"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography

The Bible is a hagiography about the life of Jesus. The entire book is written as to glorify the life of Jesus. Any detail or rumour that might add to the glory of Jesus is added. Anything that detracts is ignored.

They didn't see this as lying. A hagiography is a propaganda piece. The object is to glorify the saint and God. The ends justify the means.

The writers of these weren't not in the least interested in historical accuracy.

 

[angelo]

Because NO miracle stories are part of THE HISTORICAL RECORD!

Josephus records some. I think Cassius Dio does too

Josephus was what we today would call a gun reporter. He wrote hearsay nothing more. Don't forget he started his " History Of The Jews" from Adam & Eve onward. Not one scrap of credibility!

 

[iolo]

Use your brain a moment: why should a total fantasy conquer the world?

That seems like a good question , even a convincing argument. But the fact is that it did not "conquer the world." If anything, the world conquered it, or perhaps you can tell us how the world substantively changed. To me "the world" just substituted one fantasy for another, and certainly will again. Is that meaningful in some way I'm not appreciating.

Or we could talk about Europe. How did Christian Europe differ from pre-Christian Europe? Because there was a Christ instead of other deities? Is that something substantial in your view? It certainly isn't in mine. It's like having one favorite color instead of another, how is that meaningful? Does that mean that one color is somehow more important historically than the previous? I don't get it.

But I've had this conversation before and am always listening for something new.

It got rid of crucifixion, the arena and, over rather a long time, slavery, and slowly revived democracy, so even a deeply corrupted, Romanised, Pauline Christianity changed the world very considerably. The 'deity' bit is of course the problem, but even the Paulites turned 'god' into a working person, rather than an animal, a mass murderer like Caesar or the Jewish nuttiness of imagining a Fifth-Century BC, desperately non-okay tyrant in charge of the universe.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That seems like a good question , even a convincing argument. But the fact is that it did not "conquer the world." If anything, the world conquered it, or perhaps you can tell us how the world substantively changed. To me "the world" just substituted one fantasy for another, and certainly will again. Is that meaningful in some way I'm not appreciating.

Or we could talk about Europe. How did Christian Europe differ from pre-Christian Europe? Because there was a Christ instead of other deities? Is that something substantial in your view? It certainly isn't in mine. It's like having one favorite color instead of another, how is that meaningful? Does that mean that one color is somehow more important historically than the previous? I don't get it.

But I've had this conversation before and am always listening for something new.

It got rid of crucifixion, the arena and, over rather a long time, slavery, and slowly revived democracy, so even a deeply corrupted, Romanised, Pauline Christianity changed the world very considerably. The 'deity' bit is of course the problem, but even the Paulites turned 'god' into a working person, rather than an animal, a mass murderer like Caesar or the Jewish nuttiness of imagining a Fifth-Century BC, desperately non-okay tyrant in charge of the universe.

Got rid of crucifiction and started burning people alive instead. Quite a substantial change. No more arena but built ovens to gas and burn people. Those antebellum Christian slave owners certainly aren't a problem. And the ancient world's greatest christianizer murdered members of his own family. All those wonderful new methods of torture invented by those Christians in Medieval Europe must have been the devil's work. And of course those wonderful Spanish Christian colonizers treated their new world brothers with great Christian love, as long as they gave up their gold and became slaves. Everyone needs some fantasy in their lives so continue to believe your nonsense.

But I still like the European example. As Christians they continued to bludgeon and murder each other for generations. The German example somehow forgot all about its Christian roots and took genocide to a new level. World Wars between Christian states. How does it happen that those good baptized Christians can act just like they're not so "Christian?" Oh the beauty of seeing the world through a Christian lens I suppose. Laughable and dangerous.

You should reread Dr. Seuss and the Sneetches. It's not just for kids.

I should add that a good book you might read is Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. It discusses the fates of human societies and the roots of inequality. I highly recommend it.