Did only the Ancient World "make up shit"?
We should also add that in the ancient world, just making shit up to make someone look better was normal and acceptable.
Perhaps, but not anymore so than today. In fact it's even MORE acceptable today, or is practiced more, because we have so much better publishing technology to be able to reach a much wider audience for whatever shit we're trying to sell.
So saying Jesus was a product of "making shit up" in the ancient world explains nothing about how we got our ancient written record of Jesus the 1st-century miracle-worker. If "making shit up" explains it, then we should have dozens or even hundreds more Jesus-type miracle-workers in the "ancient world" written record. So, where are they? Where do we find these in the literature? either today or in the history of recent centuries or way back thousands of years?
Why doesn't anyone ever produce the other cases of these documented miracle-workers, to be found in the literature, or even modern media? Surely today there should be some cases on YouTube or some modern platform -- from the modern world, or from the ancient world. Even if it's impossible today (which it's not) with modern technology, still we should have dozens of cases at least from the ancient world, before 1000 AD or so. And yet there are no other cases.
What's the closest other example of this? that is, a reported miracle-worker, attested to in the written record or media of the time when he lived, telling of multiple miracle acts he did, described as witnessed by large numbers of onlookers -- AND -- a reported miracle-worker who is NOT "DEBUNKED" by other writers or sources from the time in question?
What's another example? ------ Zilch.
We got a different relationship to stories and facts following the invention of the printing press and the Enlightenment. This is not that long ago.
This seems to mean (translation): If a Jesus-type would-be miracle-worker had shown up
at a much later date, after 1500-1600 or so, or today, the relation of stories and facts is now so much different than 2000 years ago that there would result from this no conspicuous Jesus miracle-worker in the written record, or in the media, such as we had (and still have) from 2000 years ago when this one case appeared and attracted believers and was made into something special by the situation ("relationship to stories and facts") of that time.
This is total conjecture, meaning yes, it's possible, or "anything is possible" if only things were different. So if the same Jesus of 2000 years ago should show up today instead, and do the same things he did back then, the whole thing today would be debunked as a hoax, laughed off the stage and forgotten, whereas back then it wasn't possible to debunk it. There may be no way to refute this conjecture with certainty, just as it's impossible to prove it.
But there is still the question: If this hoax was possible 2000 years ago (and also 3000 or 4000 years ago, and also possible up until 1500 AD), why is it that it happened only once? only that one time at about 30 AD, throughout all those centuries?
Where are the other cases? other reported miracle-workers? You're not being serious if you don't present an example and quote the ancient written record of it. If that historical period so easily cranked out this miracle-worker hoax, it should have produced others also, and there should be many others in the written record.
Were there not many other times and places where it would have been profitable to "make up shit" about miracle-workers and get them publicized and published, to promote a new cult, or whatever the purpose was?
What were the special conditions in 30 AD which made such a thing possible ONLY ONCE, and also in a way that there'd be ONLY ONE such miracle-worker messiah-savior-hero appearing, rather than several? Why did all the Messiah-seekers together pounce upon this one case only, this Galilean figure of about 30 AD, and agree to make this one the Expected Savior-Messiah who was needed for that one particular time?
We can't see anything in the facts about this one person which singles him out uniquely to fill this special role, as opposed to any other candidate for the job ---
"We can't see -- " = no one is giving any such facts, at least not so far. Even though the appeal for someone to do so has been posted many times. Won't someone who has the facts answer the call, come out of hiding and provide us with those "Jesus-parallel" miracle-workers we keep hearing about -- including the quoted ancient texts which relate their miracle deeds (i.e., don't just regurgitate to us a laundry list of names fed to you by your favorite debunker-guru-crusader-celebrity claiming to be a scholar you have to believe because he's a credentialed "expert" who can't be questioned -- no, quote for us the ancient writings which identify the reputed miracle-worker and his deeds.)
How was Jesus any different than 100 other prophets, heroes, wise men?
There were plenty other martyred-crucified heroes and prophets who were doing good things and rallying disciples and preaching and causing disturbances. John the Baptizer obviously was one, but there were many others also --- why not any of them instead of Jesus? or others in addition to him? Why not James the Just who also got martyred? Some of these others definitely were more popular than Jesus, in their preaching and attracting large audiences. What made all the educated writers ignore these other ones and instead choose Jesus only, selectively, to be made into the Hopeful Messiah Redeemer of Israel, or of mankind, or of whatever oppressed people were wishing for a Savior?
So, it's not enough to say that the conditions of that time made it easier for a miracle-hoax cult to get started, even if that case can be made. It's also necessary to explain why there was ONLY ONE such miracle-hoax cult which got attention and was published, while no others achieved any recognition in the writings.
A Conspiracy - Cabal? by whom?
Why did they choose Jesus instead of someone else more recognized?
THE BEST LIKELY SCENARIO: The best argument to explain this would be that one cult among many got some kind of "head-start" over the others, by random chance, and members of this particular cult very aggressively (and secretly?) went to war against all the others and wiped them out, destroying their writings and any trace of these other cults, each cult having its own particular Messiah-Savior-Redeemer-Miracle Hero to put forth (and each planning to eliminate the other rival cults), but this one aggressive cult striking first and eliminating the others very quickly (murdering the followers or witnesses?), each one crushed before it had time to sprout forth any crop of disciples to carry on its crusade. Wow! the greatest Conspiracy in history, great headline-grabber if the researchers can ever come up with the evidence to expose it.
In support of this conspiracy theory it can be said that even the new Christ cult(s) required maybe 10-20-30 years to get publicity and establish their Messiah figure into popular circulation, in oral or written forms. So possibly the Jesus conspiracy alone emerged, by 50-60 AD, as the only cult (or group of cults) having enough followers for promoting its hero over the many others which got suppressed and blotted out, and thus becoming the cult of the ONE TRUE ONLY Messiah religion being offered to the masses.
(One refutation of this theory is that the "disciples" were uneducated peasants, who are totally untypical as ones who could carry out such an elaborate conspiracy. Also the original Christ cults were too diverse to unite into a cohesive conspiracy.)
Still no evidence of the other Messiah cults?
By now something of these other miracle cults should have been discovered. Even if some sense can be made of the above Conspiracy Theory scenario, through other conjectures and manipulation of the facts, it's virtually refuted by today's ongoing research and discoveries, archaeology etc., into the period (centuries of new discoveries of manuscripts, about 300 BC - 300 AD), the findings, the new scrolls uncovered, etc. -- surely something eventually has to turn up to tell us of the other miracle-worker cults similar to that of Jesus in about 30 AD. It is virtually unthinkable that any such cults of that time could exist, like the Jesus cult(s), and yet not leave any trace whatever. The Dead Sea Scrolls, gnostic Gospels, Apocryphal Gospels and others have turned up -- so why not something from one of these suppressed cults which the earliest Christ cult(s) crushed? why nothing mentioning another Jesus-like miracle-worker raising the dead etc. and his cult of followers, recruiting converts, publishing his sayings, etc.?
Interestingly, the best example is the Book of Acts, which has other miracles, but not from a different miracle-worker (Jesus parallel), but from the Disciples or Apostles of the same Jesus, who surprisingly perform still further miracles similar to his, and doing it by his power, the Book of Acts claims.
More has already been discovered in recent centuries, thousands of manuscripts, through much digging, research, etc., to add further facts and shed light on what happened. And even the Dead Sea Scrolls research has turned up nothing of any other miracle-worker cult similar to that of Jesus in 30 AD. Why has no other such person been discovered, in the many records, artifacts, scrolls, etc. which have been found?
As long as the research continues to find nothing resembling the Jesus miracle-worker of 30 AD, leaving this as the only one, we must assume that this is the only case of a reported miracle-worker who is documented in the writings of the time -- or any time, whenever such a person may have appeared in history. So far none other has been discovered. And thus, claims that there were others also must be rejected as probably false.
(There are other legends and cults in some literature, but no cases of multiple sources reporting the same miracle-worker, narrating miracle acts he did in history near the time when the sources are dated.)
The Catholic Hagiographies about their saints is pure propaganda.
Those are much later, and are easily explained as copycat stories derived from the recognized Jesus miracle-worker stories of the 1st century. By far most of the "saints" stories are less documented, dating from much later than the miracle-worker saint lived, and in only 1 or 2 sources. In at least one case the only source is the saint himself, i.e., St. Patrick.
But maybe in a few cases the source(s) date near to the life of the saint and are similar to that of Jesus in 30 AD. But these are cases of a saint who had a long career of preaching and influencing disciples, recruiting and inspiring them over a period of 20 years or longer. And also these saints had the long religious tradition and ancient miracle legend prior to their time to fall back on, and the official Church promoted them and indoctrinated the flock to believe in this Holy One sent to inspire them, being divinely appointed for them as a leader and spiritual guide, and so they have to believe the miracles being reported about him.
This also explains the popularity of the earlier Asclepius healing cult, which built upon the legend of Asclepius from 1000 years earlier, a religious cult and priesthood becoming established in his name and coming to exert much influence over the population, similar to the Christian Church from the 4th-5th century AD and later.
Of course, nothing rules out the possibility that there could be some truth or historical fact behind some of the "Saints" miracle stories. Or even some of the Asclepius healing stories, where some legitimate therapies might have been practiced. So not all "miracle" stories are automatically fiction (or 100% fiction). We can assume that most are fiction, without demanding that 100% of it has to be "shit" that was made up.
So this kind of popular belief in the miracle "saints" -- which are likely fiction -- is very easy to explain, whereas the belief in the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker cannot be explained -- Jesus being a nobody in his time, recognized by no one of any power or influence over anyone, having no ancient tradition behind him or instituted rituals for him to follow or ancient gods to invoke as the source of his power. No, he had none of that, and was more opposed by those wielding power rather than having any sanction from them.
They'd make up all kinds of stuff only to endorse someone important for their political wing of the church.
Yes, with the support of the accepted traditions and institutions, the political power of the time, dominating for centuries -- in that environment of power and organized structure imposed onto millions of subjects, it was easy to "make up all kinds of stuff" which the masses had to believe and accept as being true, from those empowered "to bind and to loose" according to the needs of the social power structure.
But none of that can explain how Jesus appears in the 1st-century written accounts as a miracle-worker witnessed by onlookers and not debunked in any writings of the time, like several miracle charlatans were debunked in some of the writings.
For example, Saint Nicholas was famous for burning down pagan churches.
No, that's not what he was famous for -- there are no sources for that. Some legends are that he prayed outside some of the pagan temples and then the demons in them decided to depart out of fear, and they were picked up and cast into the Lake of Fire.
It could be he did actually set fire to the temples, but he was not "famous" for this, and there's no historical evidence that he did this -- it's only conjecture.
If you Google "St. Nicholas," you get mostly the popular legends about him doing some good things, including charity acts, especially for children, and almost nothing about burning pagan temples. Even the praying outside the temples is not significant and goes mostly unmentioned.
Though it's all legend and virtually none of it historical, some "debunkers" delight in pouncing on this or that negative claim about him, for the sensationalism.
What we can use the St. Nicholas legends for is to prove that
the later legendary heroes are usually derived from real historical persons who did something significant in their time, or having some resemblance to what the historical persons really did in history. The legendary miracle heroes are real people in history, usually, and they must have done something significant in order to be mythologized later into such unusual hero figures. And the later legend, if it includes miracles, did not emerge until centuries after the real person lived in history -- so it could not evolve over a generation or even 2 or 3 generations. Rather, the character required 100+ years to become the eventual miracle hero legend believed by millions.
Which was cool at the time. But which got frowned upon later. So they simply just changed the story and added miracles to him.
No, this is not what happened. The later "miracles" are based on the earlier legend coming from the actual facts which originally happened, and then the original facts -- not miracles -- evolved into something more over centuries of storytelling. This can be proved in many cases, with real historical evidence. Though in other cases there is only conjecture, for lack of good evidence -- St. Nicholas might go into this category. In any case there are many other better examples for which there's strong evidence, and so we should prefer them over St. Nicholas to indicate how legends evolve, and they all illustrate that the later legend evolves mainly from the original facts about the historical person -- and so new fictions are added to the original facts, and so it's false that "they simply just changed the story" and made up something new.
All totally just made up. Not even based on rumours.
This is false. The later miracle legends were not "totally just made up" but always developed from the original facts, which spread and became distorted/exaggerated into fictional stories. There were rumors, including false rumors, but not anything "just made up" from nothing earlier.
Of course the negative legends of St. Nicholas may also be partly true. But there's no historical evidence showing that this was the REAL St. Nicholas while the later "nice story" legends are fiction only. That is ideological bias only, with no historical evidence for it. Which is why we're given no citation for this.
You can read the Wikipedia page on St. Nicholas,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas which largely contradicts the above, saying certain of the pious legends have more credibility, though all of it is non-historical. Also it omits anything about St. Nicholas burning pagan temples, meaning this is as likely to be fiction as anything else about him.
All totally just made up. Not even based on rumours.
No, this is disproved even by the example given us here, of St. Nicholas burning down pagan temples. This is legend only, not fact, and yet theoretically his burning the temples may be what really happened, or fact -- i.e., St. Nicholas really did burn down the temples -- perhaps. But what is the legend we have in the actual writings? It's not that he burned the temples, but rather that he prayed outside the temples, and then, after he prayed, some kind of judgment came, or repentance by the demons in the temple, which decided to leave, but who were then grabbed by some divine spirit and cast into the Fire of Hell. That's the legend contained in the writings -- not that St. Nicholas himself directly set fire to the temples, but only that he prayed outside the temples, and the demons were cast into Hell.
This legend, then, is interpreted to mean that the real event, in real history, is that St. Nicholas did burn down these temples, and then supposedly the storytellers cleaned up the story by having him only pray outside the temples and see his prayers answered by God who takes the demons coming out and casts them into the Eternal Flames of Hell. So the only evidence that he burned the temples is the legends of him praying at the temples and then the Hell fire the demons are cast into.
So if this is the truth, that St. Nicholas really did set fire to the temples, this just illustrates how the real event becomes the origin of the later legend of God answering the Saint's prayer, i.e., by seizing the demons and casting them into the Fire of Hell.
So to say
All totally just made up. Not even based on rumours.
is refuted here in this example, where the later legend IS based on fact, or rumor about it, i.e., about the temples being burned, so that the story of St. Nicholas praying and God punishing the demons by casting them into the Fire is derived from the original fact that St. Nicholas had set fire to the temples, assuming that really happened (but is not reported in any accounts).
So even this example, of a negative St. Nicholas legend, itself actually illustrates the principle that the later legends, or miracle legends, originate from real facts, and not from something fabricated by someone "making up shit" out of nothing. No, the later storytellers always start from the earlier stories, the rumors, the claims being made, which are about something unusual or noteworthy, some special act done by a hero, etc., and those stories evolved from earlier claims, maybe rumors, something sensational that is claimed from earlier and going back to the actual original event(s) which really happened.
The most certain conclusion to draw is that we need a better legend example than St. Nicholas, because there aren't enough known facts about this Saint to use him as a model for explaining legends, or especially miracle legends. You can speculate that ALL the pious legends are fiction, and only the burning-pagan-temples legend is true. But there's no evidence for that. There's no evidence to show that he became popular because he burned pagan temples.
The later legend had to evolve from original historical facts.
So even if Nicholas did burn those temples, or we accept that hypothesis -- even then, it still illustrates the point that the later storytellers relied on the earlier claims or the reported facts/rumors for their story, and that they did not just "make up shit" out of nowhere. And there are many other legend examples to use, i.e., better examples (where there's more evidence) -- Columbus, Davy Crockett, George Washington, Charlemagne, a long list -- which all show that the original facts are reflected in the later legend, because elements of the historical facts are contained in the later legends which got exaggerated from the earlier stories or rumors. How about the Babe Ruth legend -- it originates from the original facts that he did hit home runs.
So them making up this stuff wasn't a problem back then. It's only with modern eyes [that we] think it's lying.
No, it's the same today as it was back then. People did not usually believe miracle claims -- they rejected them as fiction -- unless there were certain conditions the stories met, which we can identify:
⬤ The stories emerged as part of the widely-held religious beliefs which were based on ancient traditions and religious rituals instituted by those in power, including religious authorities;
⬤ The hero miracle stories emerged in response to a real hero figure, who really did perform something important or great deeds in history, like Alexander the Great and others, and these real heroes in history eventually got credited with supernatural deeds which were fictional;
⬤ And although the supernatural heroes usually evolved over many generations or centuries, still in rare cases their miracle reputation began to emerge already during their actual lifetime, but this due only to their unusually vast reputation and popularity and fame and power they held at the time.
So the statement
making up this stuff wasn't a problem back then
is false --
making it up was a big "problem" -- because it's not true that made-up miracle stories could be passed on to a gullible population which easily slurped up whatever was served to them or "made up" for them to consume. No, this did NOT happen. The population was not gullible then anymore than today. The only made-up stories they believed were those which met the above conditions -- that the miracle hero had to be someone famous and socially powerful, or that the "saint" figure had to be ordained by the widely-accepted religious institution of the time, imposing its traditions onto the population, which mostly was submissive and already believed in the instituted teachings and practices.
The case of the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker does not fit into any of the above explanations for miracle-worker stories in history and literature, such as St. Nicholas and the others, and so "making up stuff" containing miracle claims was a "problem" back then just as it is today, because people won't believe it -- they are suspicious of charlatans who make up stuff in order to con them. The most common reaction among the masses, today as well as 2000 years ago, is/was to scoff at made-up miracle stories and mock anyone making such claims, maybe even get violent with them, or call 9-1-1 to have them locked up.
