Historical Jesus

[steve_bank]

Jesus spke in a Jewish temple. I would think that to follow Jesus one would attend a Jewish temple.

What is a "Jewish temple" to you, Steve?

More hand waving and avoidng the issue.

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus went to temple. it is in the gospels so it must be true. Jesus did not reject Judaism and start something new.

To follow Jesus go to a Jewish temple aka synagogue and worship as Jesus did.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus spke in a Jewish temple. I would think that to follow Jesus one would attend a Jewish temple.

What is a "Jewish temple" to you, Steve?

More hand waving and avoidng the issue.

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus went to temple. it is in the gospels so it must be true. Jesus did not reject Judaism and start something new.

To follow Jesus go to a Jewish temple aka synagogue and worship as Jesus did.

Thing is, you're missing some very, very important information about the relation of the Second Temple, the synagogue, and the church.

Nobody has ever denied that Jesus was a Jew, to my knowledge. But not everyone agrees with your rigid views of the Scriptures and how they should be applied.

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus spke in a Jewish temple. I would think that to follow Jesus one would attend a Jewish temple.

What is a "Jewish temple" to you, Steve?

More hand waving and avoidng the issue.

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus went to temple. it is in the gospels so it must be true. Jesus did not reject Judaism and start something new.

To follow Jesus go to a Jewish temple aka synagogue and worship as Jesus did.

Thing is, you're missing some very, very important information about the relation of the Second Temple, the synagogue, and the church.

Nobody has ever denied that Jesus was a Jew, to my knowledge. But not everyone agrees with your rigid views of the Scriptures and how they should be applied.

Rationalization. I have given up on your ever saying what it is you actually do believe and why.

As you know in the first centuries non Jew followers developed a separate identity from Jews and co opted the bible as their own, and the enmity towards Jews began.

Paul said on circumcision I believe what makes a Jew a Jew is what is in his heart. Modern Christianity has nothing to do with the way Jesus would have lived as a Jew. Assuming there actually was a single HJ.

The early writers created a Jesus that fit their narrative. The mystical esoteric Jesus. Today it is the universal Jesus who god sent to save all humans. The liberal Jesus that despite scripture loves al including gays, Christian gay weddings.

I see you have gone from agnostc to jedi wayseeker. What's next?

 

[Politesse]

I have given up on your ever saying what it is you actually do believe and why.

This has never been either mysterious or relevant.

As you know in the first centuries non Jew followers developed a separate identity from Jews and co opted the bible as their own, and the enmity towards Jews began.

More or less true. Judaism itself was in a state of considerable confusion and disarray at this time, with the priesthood and Temple that had once unified it violently destroyed, and the surviving Diaspora divided into many competing factions, from which emerged both those communities that solidified into modern Rabbinic Judaism, and Jesus' "Way" which evolved or was co-opted into the various bishoprics of early Christianity.

I see you have gone from agnostc to jedi wayseeker. What's next?

Whatever comes. I see no value whatsoever in adapting a single ideology or ritual practice and refusing to change for the rest of one's life. That's nothing but a recipe for brain atrophy.

I haven't "gone from" agnosticism, that has always been and still is my position on epistemological matters.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sometimes it "tickles the funny bone" to hear pontifications by alleged "experts"!

The crucifixion is one of the very few facts of Jesus' life that can be inferred with near-certainty. And crucifixion had to be ordered by the Roman governor.

Near certainty.
...
At that point, Jesus had a choice to make. He knew it and so did His followers.
... He deliberately chose an incredible self sacrifice for His buddys. Torture and crucifixion, but only for Himself.

That made Him a Hero!
When no Roman soldiers came out arresting His friends and compadres, they all knew the sacrifice Jesus had made for them. They started referring to themselves as "Brothers of Christ", Christ meaning Jesus the Messiah. No praise was too high. No legend too flattering.
And the Legend began.
...

... That came later, after the fall of Masada 70AD.

Masada fell in 74 AD. You seem to be conflating it with the destruction of Zerubbabel's Temple.

Pointing out a 4-year error in events almost 2000 years ago may seem like nitpicking. But anyone actually familiar with those important historic events is well aware of the heroic story of Masada. Dating its fall to 70 AD is like imagining that Japan surrendered a month after Pearl Harbor was attacked!

No its not. Its ridiculous nit picking about some irrelevant. The point is to show which events came before what, to stick them on a time line.

In a big picture conversations, where exact dates doesn’t matter, it's always ok to round years up or down. Right?

 

[steve_bank]

I have given up on your ever saying what it is you actually do believe and why.

This has never been either mysterious or relevant.

As you know in the first centuries non Jew followers developed a separate identity from Jews and co opted the bible as their own, and the enmity towards Jews began.

More or less true. Judaism itself was in a state of considerable confusion and disarray at this time, with the priesthood and Temple that had once unified it violently destroyed, and the surviving Diaspora divided into many competing factions, from which emerged both those communities that solidified into modern Rabbinic Judaism, and Jesus' "Way" which evolved or was co-opted into the various bishoprics of early Christianity.

I see you have gone from agnostc to jedi wayseeker. What's next?

Whatever comes. I see no value whatsoever in adapting a single ideology or ritual practice and refusing to change for the rest of one's life. That's nothing but a recipe for brain atrophy.

I haven't "gone from" agnosticism, that has always been and still is my position on epistemological matters.

I am interested in why you would consider Jesus to represent a superior morality.

 

[Politesse]

I have given up on your ever saying what it is you actually do believe and why.

This has never been either mysterious or relevant.

As you know in the first centuries non Jew followers developed a separate identity from Jews and co opted the bible as their own, and the enmity towards Jews began.

More or less true. Judaism itself was in a state of considerable confusion and disarray at this time, with the priesthood and Temple that had once unified it violently destroyed, and the surviving Diaspora divided into many competing factions, from which emerged both those communities that solidified into modern Rabbinic Judaism, and Jesus' "Way" which evolved or was co-opted into the various bishoprics of early Christianity.

I see you have gone from agnostc to jedi wayseeker. What's next?

Whatever comes. I see no value whatsoever in adapting a single ideology or ritual practice and refusing to change for the rest of one's life. That's nothing but a recipe for brain atrophy.

I haven't "gone from" agnosticism, that has always been and still is my position on epistemological matters.

I am interested in why you would consider Jesus to represent a superior morality.

I wouldn't. What do you even mean by "superior morality"?

 

[Swammerdami]

It's fun to read posts by people so proud of their atheism that their behavior emulates the very religious cultists they like to ridicule. I think if Richard Carrier invited them to Jonestown, they'd be delighted to drink his Kool-Aid!

I can't spend all day playing Whack-a-Mole but let's at least refute the canard that the earliest Gospels were composed entirely in Greek rather than a Semitic language.

Upthread I gave two arguments for the Aramaic claim — well-known arguments clearly presented in Ian Wilson's book IIRC. Would you care to argue against that evidence?

• No

[The Criterion of Aramaic Context holds that] if there is evidence of an “Aramaic-language based unity between the participants, the events depicted, and concepts discussed” underlying the extant Greek text, then this suggests the account goes back to the original Jesus, who most likely conversed in Aramaic.

The first difficulty with this criterion is that it isn’t easy to discern an “underlying Aramaic origin” from an author or source who simply wrote or spoke in a Semitized Greek.
. . .
Many early Christians were also bilingual (as Paul outright says he was), and thus often spoke and thought in Aramaic, and thus could easily have composed tales in Aramaic (orally or in lost written form) that were just as fabricated as anything else, . . .

I've reddened two parts of your (or Carrier's) response to call attention to them. I'm not familiar with Semitized Greek, but I doubt it provides the rich rhyming, punning, and metrical forms that support the Aramaic hypothesis. The next reddened comment is a way to "hedge bets" — It replaces "No, not Aramaic" with "Yeah, probably, but who cares!" Debating with this Carrier is like trying to catch an eel with one's bare hands!

Although you will claim that possible bilingualism of Greek Gospel writers allows you to ignore the evidence that many Gospel sources were Aramaic, I'll answer briefly here, to cater to the remote possibility that someone is reading this thread with an objective mind-set.

1. Unlike "Semitized Greek", Hebrew and Aramaic are very close. Rhymes and puns in one language are likely to work in the other.
2. The Sermon on the Mount becomes poetry when translated into Aramaic, much as "On the bridge at Avignon" becomes two perfect rhyming amphimacer (cretic) feet when translated into French. (This is Ian Wilson's claim, but the thesis was developed by Burney: see below)
3. The Aramaic word for 'to cleanse' /dakkau/ mutated into 'give alms' /zakkau/. This explains why Matthew 23:26 is rendered peculiarly in Luke 11:41. Does anyone think the dakkau/zakkau orthographic conflation is plausible in Semitized Greek? Did bilingual Gosepl writers insert the error deliberately to "prove" there was an Aramaic source?
4. There are other examples similar to #3. Why does Matthew's Sermon on the Mount become the Sermon on the Plain in Luke? Again, the cause is similarity between two Aramaic words.
5. Matthew 11:7 "And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?" The Hebrew word for "reed" strongly resembles the Hebrew/Aramaic word for "zealot." Pun?
6. "When C.F. Burney translated the sayings of Jesus back into Aramaic, he was struck by the degree to which they had a rhythmic shape, like so many of the prophetic sayings in the Old Testament." Burney's book was published in 1924 — has copyright expired? — but I cannot find a copy on-line. This source summarizes some of Burney's arguments. When translating the Gospel's Greek back to Aramaic, Burney finds rhymes, puns, alliteration, meter and especially verse patterns that resemble those found in Hebrew Psalms. The rhythm, rhymes and puns are all lost in the Greek rendering. Therefore the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, etc. were all composed in Aramaic and NOT in Greek, whether the writers were bilingual or not.
7. Although most of these examples apply to Matthew and Luke specifically, there is also evidence that Mark's and John's Gospels also had some Aramaic sources.

Sometimes it "tickles the funny bone" to hear pontifications by alleged "experts"!

... That came later, after the fall of Masada 70AD.

Masada fell in 74 AD. You seem to be conflating it with the destruction of Zerubbabel's Temple.

Pointing out a 4-year error in events almost 2000 years ago may seem like nitpicking. But anyone actually familiar with those important historic events is well aware of the heroic story of Masada. Dating its fall to 70 AD is like imagining that Japan surrendered a month after Pearl Harbor was attacked!

No its not. Its ridiculous nit picking about some irrelevant. The point is to show which events came before what, to stick them on a time line.

In a big picture conversations, where exact dates doesn’t matter, it's always ok to round years up or down. Right?

Wrong again. Of course it would be nitpicking to ask which came first, the Battle of Castillon ending the Hundred Years War or the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Unrelated events thousands of miles apart (though both victories were won by cannons, an important weapon just becoming dominant).

But what about the Admission of Texas to the United States, and the Battle of the Alamo? It would be laughable for a self-proclaimed expert on American history to get the order of those events wrong.

Your blunder is of the latter type, not the former. The Fall of Masada came years AFTER the Destruction of the Temple. A.F.T.E.R. And it's literally impossible to discuss the New Testament without the year 70 AD being as familiar as 1492 or 1066.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not proud to be atheist, maybe some are. That there is no god or gods for me is a logical consluion.

Of the forum my self identity is member of the human race, not atheist. I identify as atheist on the form because it is convenient to do so.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

historical facts/evidence
vs.
"objective reality" metaphysics​

You're giving no example of a miracle-worker human in history described in any source near the time he lived.

It occurs to me why you and I are talking past each other. You are comparing unbelievable stories from the New Testament to other unbelievable stories from old literature.

No, it's not about "unbelievable" stories. It's about comparing hard-to-believe stories which are true (the Jesus miracle acts for which there's evidence) to other hard-to-believe stories which are fiction (the pagan myths for which there's no evidence). You need to address the evidence presented, which shows that some stories are true and others are fiction, and the need is to distinguish the more credible from the less credible, because we can judge the credibility of the claims, regardless whose Holy Book or scroll it's from.

There are good reasons to believe the Jesus miracle stories because of the evidence that they did happen and so are believable. But most miracle stories are not true, and there's reason to disbelieve them. All these "miracle" stories could be called "hard-to-believe" stories, but there's a difference between the ones which are credible and the ones which are not.

The alternative to this is to judge that ALL reports in any ancient literature are fiction if there's anything unusual in them, or condemn as "fiction" everything in (ancient) history which claims anything unusual happened. But the truth is that something unusual can happen, and it's appropriate to consider that possibility, rather than condemning as "fiction" anything unusual in the literature regardless of evidence that it might be true.

So, not every difficult-to-believe story has to automatically be banned to the "fiction" category -- Unless you admit that you're closed-minded and refuse to look at the evidence in individual cases.

I'm comparing them to objective reality. All of them.

But your "objective reality" jargon might just mean your prejudice, and anything not in line with that is relegated to the "fiction" category. You need to explain what your "objective reality" label comes from. I suggest the following:

historical "objective reality" = all the reported facts/events from the past, from all the sources we have from the respective times those events happened, and where possible harmonizing the sources (if they conflict with each other) and arranging them into a consistent "story" of what happened, also harmonizing them as much as possible with the natural sciences.

Our "historical record" is mostly from the recorded events told to us in the written accounts from near the time the events happened (not centuries later), with the natural sciences adding some extra information, from geologists, archaeologists, etc. We need writings close to the time and confirmed or at least not contradicted by other sources.

Where a reported event seems to conflict with science or is highly unusual, contrary to our already-existing knowledge of history etc., we must require extra evidence, or extra sources reporting it.

E.g., for the historical Jesus, about 30 AD, we have 5 sources near the time, and it's reasonable to believe them when they agree and are not contradicted by other sources. For the unusual events, the "miracle" events, it's reasonable to believe them because of the extra sources reporting them = multiple attestation. They are credible where they agree, but dubious where they disagree.

Earlier source vs. later source: Preferably the source is dated less than 100-200 years later than the reported event(s).

You could add that the source must also be close to the event geographically -- this too should be taken into consideration, or cannot be disregarded. But this factor might be less important than the chronological closeness of the source to the reported event:


the geographical closeness of the source

This matters mainly if there's a discrepancy between one source and another and one is geographically closer than the other and so is regarded as more trustworthy. But in the case of the Gospel accounts we can't easily judge this because there's not enough consensus as to which account was written where, to distinguish which source was closer. Plus, they all agree on certain points anyway, so we can trust the credibility on those points of agreement, while setting the sources aside or doubting the part they disagree on, putting that part into the unknown category.

But on the main points the sources agree: Jesus did the miracle acts and he resurrected back to life after he had been crucified. On that the sources all agree and there's no source which says otherwise. We have at least 4 1st-century sources which confirm this (5 agreeing that the Resurrection happened), which meets a very high standard for multiple attestation for ancient history events. By contrast we have no evidence like this for the pagan legends.

So for the minor details the geographical location might matter, but not for the main points.

So when you say "I'm comparing them to objective reality," ("them" = the stories in the sources) that's fine, if your "objective reality" is similar to the above meaning of "objective reality." But if you mean some other abstract principle of science which automatically rejects anything unusual in the written accounts, and thus bans all of it to the "fiction" category, then your "objective reality" only means your personal prejudice against anything unusual. The Jesus miracle acts admittedly are something unusual, but that doesn't make them fiction.


Whose "objective reality" is the Real McCoy "objective reality"?

So, what you're doing is subjecting everything to your formula "objective reality" which you've not yet explained. If there's really an "objective reality" we can compare those "stories" to, must it not be the facts of history or science, something verifiable, something about it reported in the writings, where there is some consensus on what happened back then, dating the manuscripts, comparing all the different sources? looking for discrepancies and/or agreements between them?

The right approach is to take ancient "stories" or reported events from various different literature sources, over many centuries, ALL sources included (nothing excluded that's a close source to the time/place in question), and compare them to each other and to everything we know, recognizing that some of these "stories" / reports are fact while others are fiction, and others are a mixture of both. All the history sources -- Herodotus and Josephus and Tacitus etc. -- are a mixture of fact and fiction.

And what you label "unbelievable" stories should instead be labeled "difficult-to-believe" stories, meaning we leave open the possibility that some of them are true, not condemning as "fiction" all of them in advance without consideration of each one in terms of the evidence.

We must at least start out assuming that there are some real facts from history in the many written sources. I.e., one cannot claim that ALL reported facts / "stories" / reports from antiquity are fiction or "unbelievable" -- to say that is to put oneself into the nutcase category. There are real historical facts reported to us in the ancient world -- it's not all fiction or "unbelievable" or myth or superstition etc. Some is true and some is fiction (and some in between). And we need rules for determining the difference, how to judge the fact/fiction in individual cases. And one good rule is that the claims tend to be true where there is agreement among the sources and . . .

We interrupt this post for the following
Special Announcement:

In reality, . . . fully dead corpses don't come back to life. Ever.

Except when they do, in this or that exceptional case. There are many reported cases of bodies reviving after being pronounced "dead" and all normal procedures had been followed before making the pronouncement. Some later woke up at the morgue, even in a coffin, and even at a funeral.

So your startling Announcement needs definitions for 2 loose terms: "fully dead corpses" which doesn't look like a medical term, and "Ever" which looks like an emotional outburst of no meaning other than to compensate for a lack of substance.

You can add the "ever" all you want -- "ever ever ever ever" -- it doesn't change the fact that in the case of Jesus in 30 AD it DID happen, according to the evidence, despite your Divine Revelation that it can't ever ever ever ever happen. Ever. Super-Ever! Even if you add an "Amen" to the "Ever" it still doesn't change the fact that this did happen in about 30 AD, according to the evidence. Refusal to consider the evidence is a big part of the problem.

Even if it's only one in a million, or one in a billion cases, that doesn't change the fact that it happened this once. Whether there have been other cases or not makes no difference -- it did happen this one time. And maybe something similar happened at some other time, maybe, if someone wants to present the evidence. Some "dead" bodies have been revived. After several minutes, hours, after a day. There are many reports of something, probably some hoaxes -- let's look at individual cases if necessary. But there's nothing to debunk the Resurrection of Jesus in about 30 AD, for which there is abundant evidence. No one has offered anything that debunks this.

No doubt there were many cases historically of "dead" bodies on the battlefield which later woke up, or some which were just reviving as their bodies were being bulldozed into the mass grave, etc., and maybe in a few cases the poor wretch managed to scramble out of the way just in time. This is a huge topic, which we can't solve here with pompous Announcements about what "fully dead bodies" (or half-dead ones) do or don't do. And let's not pretend that some "experts" have surveyed the thousands of cases and have made a determination in all cases which ones were truly truly truly "fully dead" and which ones were in some other category. If we're honest, we just admit that we don't know generally. But we do know, because of the evidence, that Jesus in about 30 AD resurrected after being killed.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

historical facts/evidence
vs.
"objective reality" metaphysics​

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

But people have told stories about such things for all . . .

But apparently none which are comparable to that of the Jesus Resurrection in about 30 AD. The fact that no one ever offers an example is proof that there really are no other serious cases of this -- nothing comparable -- even though there are some legends offered by debunkers who don't really take them seriously. But if there's a serious case to consider, for comparison, let's have it.

It's interesting that at this point the debunker simply just drops the argument completely and refuses to deal with it any further, thus indicating that the Jesus case must be unique, distinct from any other alleged similar belief (about a pagan deity/hero etc.). If there really were other comparable cases of resurrection events, the debunker would be glad to cite the ancient text telling of it, and we could do the comparison of them. But the debunkers run away from this honest approach.

Our sources for the Jesus Resurrection are the 5 1st-century accounts, 20-70 years from the reported event. What are the sources for other "stories about such things"? The only source ever given is a modern debunker-guru-scholar who rattles off a list of ancient gods/heroes who allegedly "resurrected" from the dead. But this guru-debunker never reads the ancient text telling of the alleged resurrection event. In most cases it doesn't exist, or whatever is cited is laughable. There's never a source for it near to the time the event reportedly happened.

But if you're serious, give us the example -- the text -- telling of someone who reportedly resurrected back to life after being killed (or performed miracles). It's not good enough to recite a name like Osiris and think you've proved anything. You have to give the ancient text about it, from the time the event happened (within 200 years, even 300 years, after the reported event -- this is a very generous criterion, by which the reported miracles of Elijah/Elisha are close enough for comparison, but even so it's not good enough, because there's still ONLY ONE SOURCE for this miracle legend. Certainly there must be at least 2 sources.).

Of course you can offer any example, ancient or modern. There are some cases that debunkers like to name, but not for which they offer a written account, other than a modern guru-scholar-debunker ideologue preaching against the Resurrection of Jesus.

Most of the examples you might offer are from ancient legends appearing in the culture 1000+ years later than the event allegedly happened. Maybe 500 years in some cases.

For modern times there are probably some crazy stories on YouTube. And there are resuscitation stories of one kind or another. Take your pick, and we'll compare. But the truth is that no one wants to ever cite other examples. They just want to claim there are hundreds/thousands of other cases, which somehow undermines the Jesus Resurrection belief, and then drop the whole thing, because the facts about it are not the point. All that matters is the orgasm one gets by giving the outburst that the Jesus Resurrection is not unique. It's only the feeling one gets by saying this, the adrenalin surge, not anything about facts.

. . . stories about such things for all of human history. It's called fiction.

translation: let's not consider the evidence in individual cases, but just dismiss all such claims as fiction, because the facts in this or that case don't matter. E.g., that in some cases the "story" is credible because of the evidence while in other cases it's not -- NO! taboo! Don't go there! We must not let facts get in the way of our ideological bias to conflate all the "stories" into the fiction category. Ignoring the particular facts in each case and just sloshing all the "stories" into the fiction category is what give us our HIGH, our FIX for today, and so stick to the script: ALL reported miracle-worker cases are fiction -- period, exclamation point, end of conversation -- ignore any facts about individual cases.

There are billions of stories about something strange -- every single one of them is "fiction"? Most of them are not debunked. Maybe those which were rigorously investigated got debunked -- usually. Maybe most of them, or many --

But not all!

Maybe there are others than only the Jesus Resurrection. If there really are some others which are credible, this probably does not undermine the Jesus Resurrection belief. Nevertheless we can't know for sure until someone offers another example for comparison. So we need to look at the examples first, and then only can we consider if the Jesus case might be just one more hoax. And yet no one ever gives another individual example to consider and compare.

There are plenty of "weird" cases which were investigated and could not be debunked, or could not be explained or given a "natural explanation." So a truly "objective" truth-seeker has to conclude that in many cases we just don't know what happened, and it's better to leave it in the doubtful category, without certainty one way or the other.

And doubt does not conflict with belief. One can have doubt and also believe at the same time, because there is some evidence -- in the case of Jesus 30 AD the evidence is better than for most of the ancient historical events.

If "It's called fiction" means ALL reports of anything doubtful must be fiction, that's prejudice and is not "objective reality" other than just your own dogmatic self-assurance that your prejudice is the Absolute Certain Truth which you "know in your heart" regardless of any evidence. But "knowing in your heart" is not objective. The only "objective reality" that we can all know is the one we can all question and submit to examination according to the evidence in each case, rather than lumping them altogether conveniently into the "fiction" category without trying to distinguish one "unbelievable" claim from another.

Sometimes the impartial investigation leads to "We don't know," and not to "It has to be fiction."

. . . has nothing to do with the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker described in writings of the period when he lived.

Most figures of legends were fairly to extremely famous at the time. Kings and warriors and people like that. Jesus, by contrast, lived and died causing less than a ripple in the stormy world of 1st century Judea. Other people could make up almost anything, add it to the Legend, and nobody important would notice.

Sort of, but there has to be "the Legend" in the first place to which they could add something. What was that original "Legend" to which the "Other people" could add something? No one can identify what this was. Why didn't those "Other people" add something miraculous to the John the Baptizer Legend, or to the James the Just Legend? Why was only the Jesus Legend something they added miracles to?

So, maybe "Other people could" do this, but in reality they did not, i.e., they did not "add" miracles to anyone other than to Jesus 50 or 100 or 200 years later. You could make a good argument that Luke-Acts added to the Jesus Legend by inventing new miracles for Peter and Paul, who are reported doing their own miracle acts which very much resemble the earlier Jesus miracle acts.

However you analyze it, the development of these accounts all attests to the original miracle acts which Jesus did, at the beginning, to cause the Legend to get started in the first place, and without which there could never have been any "Jesus Legend" of miracle acts to which anything could have been added.


The evidence: Jesus is the only documented miracle-worker.
But can the evidence sometimes be wrong?

Maybe there are exceptional cases in history where "the evidence" is actually wrong, or rather, misleading. If so, it probably means we must consider whether new evidence could turn up. And we should always be open to new evidence turning up. And for the historical Jesus there has been some new evidence, over the last 100 years, and some of it does undermine certain Christian beliefs, but not the belief that Jesus did the miracle acts.

This is how the Jesus case appears historically: There are no other cases of someone (writers? religionists?) making up and publishing miracle stories which attribute miracle acts to a recent hero. All the miracle legends in the ancient literature were added only after centuries had passed, not during a period only 50-100 years from when the reported hero lived.

(The above starts to change going into the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, as stories of the "Saints" appear more and more, as more about their "miracles" gets published. So this post is mainly about the ancient legends, prior to about 100-200 AD, and the situation evolves with the eventual explosion of publishing.)

How do we draw these lines? what about 120 years, 140? There's no black-and-white point where the "line" is crossed -- e.g., Apollonius of Tyana in the 1st century, but even here there's still ONLY ONE SOURCE. Mythologizing always took place over a passing of many generations, and in rare cases there's a single source maybe less than 100-200 years from when the miracle reportedly happened.

Also, in extremely rare cases of a famous celebrity, like an emperor, or like Alexander the Great, there might emerge a miracle claim about him while he was still alive. But in these cases the miracle hero had to be a vastly popular powerful celebrity, worshiped by millions during his lifetime. But if a nobody charlatan got worshiped by a half-dozen disciples he mesmerized and 2 or 3 hallucinated a miracle, it certainly got no serious attention from anyone and was not recorded in writing. This could not be what happened in 30 AD and led to the 4 Gospels and Paul epistles being written and copied and circulated, all because a disciple or two had a delusion -- if that could explain it, then there would have been 100 Jesus-like miracle-worker religions instead of only one. Or 1000 of them.

Especially, when that happens far from Judea. Out in the Greco-Roman world, the Legend developed along the lines of a Greek epic hero.

No, there's no example of any such thing. Greek epic heroes emerged only through a long process of mythologizing over 500-1000 years. There's no case of such a (miracle) legend evolving in only a few decades. Or again, you could claim this is the one single example of a "Greek epic hero" who popped up in a short time, and there's not a single other case of it. But then in that case, this "Greek epic hero" explanation doesn't answer how the Jesus miracle-worker in 30 AD was produced in the written record and yet no other could be produced the same way. I.e., it's a case which cannot be explained in terms of another example of the same, when no other such example exists to exhibit how such a miracle legend can pop up.

Because people like Paul had transplanted it there, and then . . .

No, wherever he "transplanted" it no one would have believed it, i.e., not a fiction miracle-worker invented by someone. Paul's Jesus was no kind of "Greek epic hero" because such heroes did not pop up suddenly in the current history like Jesus did. There's no reason for anyone to believe Paul, unless there were real facts he offered, based on reports from witnesses, and so separating this from the "epic hero" type of miracle legend.

People such as the ones Paul encountered and converted did not believe claims about someone in recent history doing miracle acts, but only about an ancient legend already widely recognized in the culture (Hercules, Perseus, etc.). Paul must have won converts by telling them of the crucifixion and Resurrection and the appearances, of reports from witnesses he knew, also claiming to be a witness himself. And probably there were some other reports of this which they would compare with Paul's claims. Unless there were claims like this, and reported witnesses (if not direct then indirect, 2 or 3 or 4 removed indirect witnesses, etc.) -- REAL EVIDENCE, etc. -- Unless there were such claims circulating, no one would have believed Paul. But Paul had enough evidence that many of his hearers came to believe it. Which explains how the story spread and was credible to many. But without this, no one believed in such claims, about instant miracle-workers popping up in recent history.

. . . and then any more realistic versions of the Jesus story got trashed by the Romans (along with virtually everything else in Judea.

You can pretend any scenario you want, making up your own stories about the Darth Vader Romans suppressing this and that, filling in whatever makes it fit your fantasy of what must have happened instead of the facts which we have. But whatever you fabricate to make it come out as you wish, there's no evidence for it, and you're not explaining how such a hoax happened ONLY ONCE, in the case of this one reported 1st-century miracle-worker and no other.

If miracle legends could suddenly pop up in (ancient) history like this, in only 40 or 50 years or so, why don't we have any others? Clearly there were many Messiah-cults of one kind or another, all trying to win disciples to their cause, trying to start a Revolution, having a charismatic Leader inspiring them -- why didn't any of these others get published? gain recognition for their Messiah? publish accounts of his miracles and sayings? and of his fulfillment of ancient prophecies?

So to produce your explanation you not only have to make up stories for which there's no evidence at all, but you also have to leave unexplained why there exists in all the written record ONLY ONE such miracle-worker Messiah figure rather than several or even dozens or hundreds, for which we should have other "Gospels" and "Epistles" written near the time and relating his miracle acts.

A few centuries later, the Roman elite hammered out The Creed. After that, anything that didn't match it was . . .

No no, not centuries later. The Jesus miracle-worker story was final by about 100 AD, without any need for the later Church to hammer out anything. All we need to know to see that this "legend" was different than the others is that all the facts about this are published and circulating by about 100 AD (or 105 or 110), regardless what anyone later hammered out in a Creed. Our evidence, mainly the 4 Gospels and Paul epistles, predate "The Creed" that was "hammered out" 200 years later. All the sources are early, 1st-century, near to the reported events, unlike other ancient miracle beliefs.

. . . anything that didn't match it was marginalized into oblivion.

But if it was "marginalized into oblivion," this had to happen before 100 (or 150) AD. How did all those things "that didn't match it" get marginalized into oblivion 200 years before Constantine and the powerful Church? In 100-150 AD the "Church" hardly existed, and whatever "Church" there was had no power to marginalize anything. "The Church" itself is what was being marginalized during this time, such as it was, in those early years, with no power or status.

Unless -- Unless you believe there was a secret Conspiracy at Rome to ferret out and destroy all the other religious cults which had a reported miracle-worker savior, and destroy all their writings, their scrolls, scriptures, Gospels, Epistles, etc. Is that it? An insidious Conspiracy to wipe out all the other miracle-workers, the writings about them, all traces of their existence? Is this the explanation? So, let's get this straight --

Somehow at Rome there was a Conspiracy to establish Christianity as the only one true Religion, exclusively to have one-only savior-Messiah and all others suppressed and crushed with no trace left, because the Emperor-Pope coalition-juggernaut sent out their book-burning squads, like in the movie Fahrenheit 451, to gather and destroy all the writings of other competing Messiah-cult religions festering here and there, each having its own miracle-worker legends --- all of them wiped out in this massive extermination campaign to eliminate all the competition to Christianity.

Work on it.

So now we've got what we've got.

But what we've got, the Jesus story, dates back to about 100 AD and earlier, long before any Romans hammered out that Creed or created a Jesus story. Why wasn't there any other "story"? Why is this one the only that "we've got" rather than several other similar ones, each having its own miracle-worker "Messiah" or "Savior" or "Son of God"? What's to prevent several other "Messiah" or "King of the Jews" or "Sons of Light" or "Son of Man" cults from also fulfilling the ancient prophecies and inventing impressive miracles, resurrecting their martyr-hero from death, and getting quoted in Scriptures the same as Jesus is quoted extensively?

Why not a John the Baptizer story, or a James the Just story? Or why not a Rabbi Hillel story? There were many other popular rabbis and prophets just as important as Jesus in 50-100 AD, or in 100 BC - 100 AD. We need an explanation why there is only this Jesus story and no others during this period, and why the apocalypticists would use only Jesus as their mouthpiece and "Son of Man" hero rather than choosing others who were more famous and popular than Jesus was at that time.

Why did all the apocalypticists get together and agree that only this one Galilean in about 30 AD was to be published as the Messiah, and no one suggested anyone else? even though there were several other popular prophets and rabbis who had more recognition than Jesus had at that time? Why wouldn't each apocalypticist go his own way instead of uniting with all the others, like in a convention, to nominate one only for them all? Why aren't there several other such Messiah or miracle-worker cults to be found?

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy

If you need medical attention would you go to a Christian faith healing centerr or a nedical center with doctors practicing objective medical science?


Science is not netphysics in that it is based on abstract metaphysical consructs. It is based on quanrtfiable physical measurements and experiments, not subject to subjective reception. If I measure 10 volts there is no subjective perception involved.

Measurements and experiments anyone can duplicate and see.

 

[TomC]

No, it's not about "unbelievable" stories.

Yes it is.
You can go on and on, but the fact remains. The stories are unbelievable.

And can be easily explained. It's easy to see why the stories were created.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But what we've got, the Jesus story, dates back to about 100 AD and earlier, long before any Romans hammered out that Creed or created a Jesus story. Why wasn't there any other "story"?

Good question. Why wasn't there any other written account of a dude born of a virgin, could walk on water, turn water into wine, dies causing Earthquakes, comes back to life.

Yeah, why are there virtually no independent reports of any of this?

Why did Judas need to point out this person to the authorities? Why didn't anyone know who Jesus was? Why is it that there are no records of his existence from when he was alive? Why are the only references to him actually ever existing decades after he allegedly died?

Yes, these are all very good questions?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Are the gospel stories facts?

All I can do is continue giving you specific facts in response to your non-facts.

An example of Christian 'evidence based' reasoning, the gospel stories are facts.

Obviously the gospel stories contain fact mixed with fiction.

The Gospels are sources for the facts just as all other written accounts which tell us what happened. The gospels and ALL the ancient writings contain both fact and fiction. The only argument against using the gospel accounts as sources would be that NO ancient written accounts can be used as sources for the events, in which case we have NO evidence for anything happening 1000 or 2000 or 3000 years ago, about any historical facts. How can the Gospel accounts be excluded as sources for the events of that time? It makes sense to read them critically, doubting the parts which contradict some other source, but in general they should be accepted as credible sources for what happened in the 1st century when they were written.

It's fine to say we should be more skeptical of these or certain other particular sources, but even so they are sources for what happened in the 1st century. ALL the ancient sources contain bias and propaganda, but that doesn't disqualify them as sources to determine the facts. We can figure out the erroneous parts -- usually.

That the Jesus miracle acts are reported in 4 (5) different sources is good evidence that those events did happen, even though there is bias. No one has given any argument why this is not good evidence, compared to the evidence we have for all the other facts of ancient history. It's this fact, the multiple attestation in written accounts of the period, which makes these claims (or any ancient history claims) credible, or probably true.


Are the gospels true?

That the specific details of the supernatural . . . may have never been claimed before does not make the gospels true.

What makes "the gospels true" is not the point. They're both true and false -- they're normal human writings which contain fact and fiction. They are written accounts claiming some events happened, and we have no reason to reject them as sources for those events, because they qualify as legitimate sources just as any other ancient writings are sources for the events happening near the time they were written. And we can believe them insofar as they agree on what happened. They're not 100% "true" because there are discrepancies. But they agree that Jesus did the miracle acts, being multiple sources for this, and the only disagreement is on minor details, which is normal for multiple sources reporting the same events.

And the Gospels are confirmed by a 5th source, the epistles of Paul, as to the Resurrection of Jesus. So this is good evidence for this event, and so what is "true" here is the report of Jesus doing the miracle acts including the Resurrection after he was killed. So in a sense this does "make the gospels true," but only insofar as there is the agreement, or corroboration between the sources, the same as for any other reported events, such as normal history events.


Judge the Gospels by the same critical standards as other writings,
not separate standards for the Gospels only, to debunk them = prejudice.

The standard for what is "true" should be the same for the gospel accounts as for any other writings. Why should the gospels not be "true" in the same sense that other writings, such as for mainline history, are considered "true" if they meet reasonable critical standards for judging what is true and what is fiction? So these writings are "true" as long as they are verified or confirmed by other sources of the period and not contradicted. Where they are contradicted or we see discrepancies, then they are NOT "true" but contain error.

So there's considerable corroboration of the miracle acts of Jesus, with some discrepancies only on minor details, and so those details are likely erroneous, or we can judge which source is "true" about it and which source is incorrect. But none is "true" completely, about every detail reported, because there are many doubtful parts. Especially the theology can be erroneous, because this is not objective fact but interpretation only. It's fine to understand the theological part, for clarification of the whole picture, but on this the Gospels conflict and don't agree on much, and so the truth about it is doubtful.

So the question to ask is not whether the Gospels are "true" in some total or abstract sense, but whether the events reported in them are true, and the answer is that some are true and some are fiction -- the same as with all other written sources for ancient history.

Why the Resurrection is probably true: Name something else in ancient history which is rejected as fiction even though it's reported in 5 different sources near the time (less than 100 years later than when it allegedly happened). You probably can't give a single example of it. (For ancient history events, a source less than 100 years from the reported event is good evidence. The Apostle Paul was contemporary to the Resurrection event, and his written report of it is only 20 years later, making his account strong evidence that this did happen.)

And the miracle healings also are well documented, reported multiple times in 4 accounts, so it's reasonable to assume Jesus really did perform these acts -- and the minor discrepancies in detail are irrelevant. Most scholars today, even the non-believers, are open to the possibility that Jesus did actually perform such acts. Several scholars just assume it's true, or probably true -- however, they usually qualify this by saying there were several other "healers" also going around the region and doing such acts, which if true would mean this is not special or unique to Jesus.

On this point -- was Jesus unique? -- most of the scholars are confused and cannot get their story straight, because there's no evidence of other miracle-workers actually healing anyone -- the various written accounts only report of some holy men performing rituals, or they enumerate the prescribed rituals, but they don't report victims being cured, especially no instant cures such as the Gospel accounts describe Jesus doing. This uniqueness of Jesus, reported as doing several miracle cures, is what makes him stand out as noteworthy and without which there's no way to explain why Jesus was thought to be important and was made into a messiah or divine figure.


Critical Scholars affirming the healing acts

E.g., two non-Christian scholars who concede that Jesus did such miracle healing acts are Reza Aslan and Paula Frederiksen, though both of them try to explain this by saying there were also other miracle-workers who did this (though not giving evidence for this). Two Christian scholars, Phillip Cary and Luke Timothy Johnson, who are critical scholars (rejecting strict Bible inerrancy) are adamant that Jesus did perform the miracle healing acts, and both claim this is mostly undisputed now by scholars.

Bart Ehrman dismisses the Resurrection as non-historical, but he affirms that the original disciples directly connected to Jesus believed the miracles, especially the Resurrection -- so much so that the Resurrection claim was absolutely essential in the faith of the first believers and without which they would not have organized to spread "the Gospel" to non-believers -- which makes the Resurrection to be part of the original belief, and not something added later. Another scholar who dismisses the physical Resurrection as non-historical, Dominic Crossan, says definitely that Jesus did the healing acts, though he too suggests erroneously that there were other "healers" running around somewhere doing this (for which there's no evidence). Most scholars groping around for examples cite names like Honi the Circle-Drawer, Apollonius of Tyana, etc., as other miracle-workers, but these are not honest examples -- there are no legitimate sources for these.

So there's a definite trend among critical scholars, even those skeptical of miracle beliefs, to concede that Jesus must have done some kind of healing acts, since this was so widely believed and therefore is difficult to dismiss as fiction.

But even so, IF it's really fiction only, what other example is there like this, in the ancient history writings, where we're given a general fact about a historical person, about something he did regularly, many times -- in four sources reporting this, and yet it's really fiction? -- How is it judged to be fiction? What's another case of this, where the evidence is wrong? Obviously a single author saying it can be wrong, but 4 (5) sources all reporting the same fact?

Usually, in a case where the corroboration is this strong, we assume it's true. Why single out this one case as an exception, insisting it has to be fiction, when there's no other case where a reported and corroborated event is rejected as fiction?


Is this the singular case -- the Jesus miracle acts -- where the only argument against it is --

Aaaaaaaaa, people make up shit!

--- and no other reason than this can be given? So everyone agrees that this outburst is the only reason to disbelieve the Jesus miracle acts, and this is the only case in all the examples of "miracle" claims where the only reason to disbelieve it is that "people make up shit!" ???

So, in all other cases we can give other reasons to disbelieve it, based on facts, but in this one case alone there's no reason other than this "people make up shit" outburst.

Maybe it's true that most/all pagan miracle claims are rejected as fiction, but maybe the reason they're rejected is that they're not corroborated or they're not reported in any source near the time of the alleged miracle event. Maybe it's this lack of legitimate evidence that's the reason why they're rejected and not because it's a "miracle" claim.

Where is there a claim in the written record -- multiple sources of the time saying something specific about a historical character (hero, Teacher, Prophet, king, etc.), not contradicted in any source, and yet it's rejected as being fiction rather than fact? There's probably not any other example of it.


4 sources = therefore it MUST be true?

Despite the above, it's possible some fiction could also get into the 4 Gospel accounts, in the process of a few decades. But if so, we need a special reason to reach this conclusion, because the same event reported in 4 separate sources is good evidence.

So, for example, there's reason to doubt the "walking on water" story -- it could be an embellishment, though it's in all 4 accounts. As a possible fiction this can be explained as something which became believable only after the original miracle stories had circulated and created the general reputation of Jesus as a miracle-healer, which itself was true. But once his miracle-worker reputation had become established, it became possible for exaggerations like the walking-on-water to get added to the original story. There had to be true (miracle) stories in the first place, believed widely, for the original "legend" to get started, but from that point on it became possible for some fiction stories to become added and also believed. There's reason to suspect that only the miracle healing stories are factual, and also the Resurrection.

Also, the fish-and-loaves story seems to be a copycat story borrowed from II Kings 4:42-44. Such a conspicuous resemblance to an earlier legend casts doubt on the credibility of this story appearing several centuries later. This one story -- multiplying the fish and loaves -- is the only case of a Jesus miracle act strongly resembling a previous miracle legend in the earlier Jewish or pagan culture. This is the "exception that makes the rule" -- i.e., the rule that the Jesus reported miracle acts are not based on previous miracle legends and do not resemble the earlier legends.

The add-on stories can be recognized as different because of their very UNtypical nature in comparison to the other Jesus miracle acts (mainly the healing miracles). They are best explained as symbolisms easily added to the accounts once the Jesus miracle reputation had become well-established, and so as something which never would have been believed except for this already-well-established reputation of Jesus as a miracle-worker.


Did Jesus do something "unique"?

That the specific details of the supernatural . . . may have never been claimed before does not make the gospels true.

What has "never been claimed before"? This is about the point whether Jesus was "unique" in history, or whether there was anyone earlier claimed to have done similar miracles or "supernatural" acts. If there were others who did the same, then Jesus was not "unique" in history, it would seem.

Earlier this was ridiculed, by saying that every individual person is "unique" or also that every event, no matter what, is totally "unique" because no two events can be exactly alike, since each happens at a particular point in space and time which necessarily has to be a one-time phenomenon in the Universe, impossible to ever duplicate. So then "unique" is semantics only, meaning nothing of substance.

The UNIQUENESS of the 1st-century Jesus event refers to what he did which was not done by any others. And of course you can claim that every individual anywhere at anytime was "unique" in their individuality. So you reading these words at this moment is also a totally UNIQUE event in the Universe which can't ever be duplicated.

But, however you might dismiss it semantically saying "uniqueness" means nothing, the facts indicate Jesus was "unique" as follows:

1) uniqueness of Jesus as a reported miracle healer
The historical Jesus in about 30 AD is the only case in ancient history (possibly all history) of someone who reportedly performed miracle healing acts (i.e., "healing acts" like instantly healing a leper or a blind person, raising a dead person back to life, etc. -- healings such as cannot be performed by conventional medical methods) and whose healing acts are reported in multiple sources in the written record of the time when these miracle acts allegedly happened.

2) uniqueness of the Jesus reported Resurrection
The historical Jesus in about 30 AD is the only reported case in ancient history (possibly all history) of someone who rose back to life after being killed, re-appearances witnessed by observers, reported doing this in multiple sources in the written record of the time when it allegedly happened.

And, neither of the above two events is contradicted in any source from that time.

These are 2 points of "uniqueness" about the historical Jesus. Now if you want to claim that someone named Nicholas Botwinkle is equally unique for being the only person at a certain point in space on a certain date and time and having the name Nicholas Botwinkle, you can claim that also is just as unique.

But this "uniqueness" of Jesus means something and is important, as similarly in some other real cases of uniqueness, like some famous historical figures, where they did something that stands out as more important, or especially noteworthy. But this uniqueness "does not make the gospels true." So when you say

That the specific details of the supernatural . . . may have never been claimed before does not make the gospels true.

you may be right, that this "does not make the gospels true," but in saying this you are granting (not disagreeing) that Jesus is unique, as described above, having reportedly performed those miracle acts, confirmed in multiple sources from the time, a singular case in the written record of history, but you're still insisting that this "does not make the gospels true."

Beyond what's answered in the above Wall of Text, it's not necessary to hammer away further on whether "the gospels are true" in some abstract sense. It's clear that they're not infallible and are a mixture of fact and fiction, like all other writings from which we derive the facts of history.

More needs to be said about the "uniqueness" point. The question whether there actually were others than Jesus in the 1st century who did the same things he did, or similar things, needs to be addressed in another separate Wall of Text.

I grew up believing there was factual evidence for the King Arthur stories, that there was an historical Arthur. People still believe it true even though there is no historical or archeological evidence.

This example is not analogous to the case of Jesus in the 1st century for whom we have multiple written sources from that historical period. For Arthur there are no written sources until several centuries later. For the miracle claims we need sources near the time of the alleged events.

King Arthur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He first appears in two early medieval historical sources, the Annales Cambriae and the Historia Brittonum, but these date to 300 years after he is supposed to have lived, and most historians who study the period do not consider him a historical figure.[2][3]

Even so, it's not an overwhelming consensus that Arthur is 100% fiction. Some scholars conclude that he did exist, while dismissing the stories as mostly fiction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are the gospel stories facts?

All I can do is continue giving you specific facts in response to your non-facts.

An example of Christian 'evidence based' reasoning, the gospel stories are facts.

Obviously the gospel stories contain fact mixed with fiction.

The Gospels are sources for the facts just as all other written accounts which tell us what happened. The gospels and ALL the ancient writings contain both fact and fiction. The only argument against using the gospel accounts as sources would be that NO ancient written accounts can be used as sources for the events, in which case we have NO evidence for anything happening 1000 or 2000 or 3000 years ago, about any historical facts. How can the Gospel accounts be excluded as sources for the events of that time? It makes sense to read them critically, doubting the parts which contradict some other source, but in general they should be accepted as credible sources for what happened in the 1st century when they were written.

It's fine to say we should be more skeptical of these or certain other particular sources, but even so they are sources for what happened in the 1st century. ALL the ancient sources contain bias and propaganda, but that doesn't disqualify them as sources to determine the facts. We can figure out the erroneous parts -- usually.

That the Jesus miracle acts are reported in 4 (5) different sources is good evidence that those events did happen, even though there is bias. No one has given any argument why this is not good evidence, compared to the evidence we have for all the other facts of ancient history. It's this fact, the multiple attestation in written accounts of the period, which makes these claims (or any ancient history claims) credible, or probably true.

This is a wonderful statement of double speak! It does a great job at implying being critical, without an ounce of criticality at all. Some fact, some fiction, but because there are multiple versions that makes the claim "credible" or "probably true". These two claims are not adjacent. Credible implies that the claim being made is a reasonable one to believe. Rising from the dead isn't usually a "credible" claim. If a statement is not credible, it requires more evidence. Pointing back to the claim is not "more evidence". Then the above jumps straight from "credible" (it's not) to "probably true", when all this time, you've been arguing that there is virtually no doubt as to the veracity of the claims, because the claim is repeated. And don't worry, we don't need to weed out the fiction from the fact. That is just to handwave away inconvenient incongruencies of the gospels.

Are the gospels true?

That the specific details of the supernatural . . . may have never been claimed before does not make the gospels true.

What makes "the gospels true" is not the point.

It is quite the point, because you are arguing that their mere existence in multiple form, makes the claims of them "credible", wait no "probably true". You don't actually reference any other sources to justify this, just the religious ones, which, as you note, have a bias. So you admit at least part is fiction, you admit they are biased accounts... and then you pretend that it doesn't matter.

They're both true and false -- they're normal human writings which contain fact and fiction. They are written accounts claiming some events happened, and we have no reason to reject them as sources for those events, because they qualify as legitimate sources just as any other ancient writings are sources for the events happening near the time they were written. And we can believe them insofar as they agree on what happened. They're not 100% "true" because there are discrepancies. But they agree that Jesus did the miracle acts, being multiple sources for this, and the only disagreement is on minor details, which is normal for multiple sources reporting the same events.

And the Gospels are confirmed by a 5th source, the epistles of Paul, as to the Resurrection of Jesus. So this is good evidence for this event, and so what is "true" here is the report of Jesus doing the miracle acts including the Resurrection after he was killed. So in a sense this does "make the gospels true," but only insofar as there is the agreement, or corroboration between the sources, the same as for any other reported events, such as normal history events.

And as long as we ignore that the later gospels are written implying Jesus's significance as being godly has an earlier and earlier origin, we can neglect that the writers were trying to cover something up. And we can also forgive and forget that Jesus is fulfilling an unwritten prophecy over saving the people over an event of no significance.

 

[Swammerdami]

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

I want to address Lumpen's comments.

He's absolutely correct that the worship of Jesus was a very unusual and unique event. But this did not come about because Jesus was a supernatural messiah who worked real miracles. Instead he was just a charismatic and talented man who was in the right place at the right time.

First, Judaism is very different than other religions of the time. Jews tend to be intensely religious; they ask questions; they await a messiah. Other religions had very different characters. Second, the Jews were very upset that their country was controlled by Gentile Romans. Other people might figure one dictator was as good as another (or even that Roman rule was better than the alternative) but this proud religious people resented their heathen rulers, and the corruption of their own religious authorities.

These factors meant that many people in Judaea, Samaria and Galilee had anger, anxiety, neuroses, and felt deprived spiritually. They yearned for a messiah. This isn't disputed: That the Jewish lands abounded with would-be messiahs at that time is well known.

Note, by the way, that neurotic Jews would have been prone to psychosomatic illnesses. In fact -- Citation for this, anyone? -- these people 2000 years ago might have been particularly prone to certain psychosomatic diseases, e.g. apparent "demonic possession." Conditions may have been ripe for a charismatic healer to perform cures that seemed miraculous. (In modern times, hypnotists sometimes astound with their cures.)

Lumpen asks why there weren't many different messiahs with small followings, rather than a single "messiah" whose popularity escalated dramatically. I think natural clustering explains this. ("I think Jared is a nifty messiah, but my brother likes George. Too many to choose from! You still going with Rudy?" "Nahh. Everybody in the next village is going with some guy named Jesus. I'm going to their next meeting to see what all the fuss is about.")

The rapidity with which Christianity spread was phenomenal. It was a strong and growing movement even before Paul's conversion. Why? The promise of everlasting life appealed, as did the Resurrection myth (with sightings possibly due to mass hypnosis). But especially important was the technique of "accepting Jesus into one's heart", i.e. personal conversion. Is there a special name for this technique? Is it unique to Christianity? I think such personal conversions involved forms of hypnosis or self-hypnosis and could themselves seem almost miraculous.

Jesus seems to have been a very gracious and charitable man, a charismatic healer, and perhaps a clever preacher. But his popularity soared after his death when he was no longer healing or preaching. He had trained the Twelve so they could duplicate some of Jesus' success. Is Paul perhaps given too much credit? The techniques of men like Simon Peter led to Christianity's early success.

 

[steve_bank]

I disagree.

Greek gods and demigods with supernatural powers.

Roman empresses were eelvated and venerated as gods in their own right, or descended from gods.

The narrative of somebody being descended from a god historically is more routine than exception.

The gopspel Jesus myth was obviously adapted from mythical precedents.

Buddha predated Jesus by several centuries.

Hinduism goes back further than that.

In Chinese and Indian traditions there is chi and pranja, loosely translated as life force. In Chinee traditions chi can be a form of 'faith healing' as Christians would call it.

Taoism predates Jesus by centuirees.

In the 70s New Age culture some made claims Jesus traveled India.

What is the chi energy in Taoism?
Taoism teaches that all living creatures ought to live in a state of harmony with the universe, and the energy found in it. Ch'i, or qi, is the energy present in and guiding everything in the universe.Jan 30, 2023

Christians think their narrative and focus of worship is unique, but that is out of wilful ignorance of history and culture.

To Jews of the day any Jew claiming to be related to god was very serious blasphemy.

 

[steve_bank]

We could have the same debate on an historical Krishna.

Krishna - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Krishna (/ˈkrɪʃnə/;[12] Sanskrit: कृष्ण, IAST: Kṛṣṇa [ˈkr̩ʂɳɐ]) is a major deity in Hinduism. He is worshipped as the eighth avatar of Vishnu and also as the Supreme God in his own right.[13] He is the god of protection, compassion, tenderness, and love;[14][1] and is one of the most popular and widely revered among Hinduism divinities.[15] Krishna's birthday is celebrated every year by Hindus on Krishna Janmashtami according to the lunisolar Hindu calendar, which falls in late August or early September of the Gregorian calendar.[16][17]

The anecdotes and narratives of Krishna's life are generally titled as Krishna Līlā. He is a central character in the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, and the Bhagavad Gita, and is mentioned in many Hindu philosophical, theological, and mythological texts.[18] They portray him in various perspectives: as a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and the universal supreme being.[19] His iconography reflects these legends, and shows him in different stages of his life, such as an infant eating butter, a young boy playing a flute, a young boy with Radha or surrounded by female devotees; or a friendly charioteer giving counsel to Arjuna.[20]

The name and synonyms of Krishna have been traced to 1st millennium BCE literature and cults.[21] In some sub-traditions, like Krishnaism, Krishna is worshipped as Svayam Bhagavan (the Supreme God). These sub-traditions arose in the context of the medieval era Bhakti movement.[22][23] Krishna-related literature has inspired numerous performance arts such as Bharatanatyam, Kathakali, Kuchipudi, Odissi, and Manipuri dance.[24][25] He is a pan-Hindu god, but is particularly revered in some locations, such as Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh,[26] Dwarka and Junagadh in Gujarat; the Jagannatha aspect in Odisha, Mayapur in West Bengal;[22][27][28] in the form of Vithoba in Pandharpur, Maharashtra, Shrinathji at Nathdwara in Rajasthan,[22][29] Udupi Krishna in Karnataka,[30] Parthasarathy in Tamil Nadu and in Aranmula, Kerala, and Guruvayoorappan in Guruvayoor in Kerala.[31] Since the 1960s, the worship of Krishna has also spread to the Western world and to Africa, largely due to the work of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).[32]

Death and ascension
Main article: Mausala Parva

It is stated in the Indian texts that the legendary Kurukshetra War led to the death of all the hundred sons of Gandhari. After Duryodhana's death, Krishna visits Gandhari to offer his condolences when Gandhari and Dhritarashtra visited Kurukshetra, as stated in Stree Parva. Feeling that Krishna deliberately did not put an end to the war, in a fit of rage and sorrow, Gandhari said, "Thou were indifferent to the Kurus and the Pandavas whilst they slew each other. Therefore, O Govinda, thou shalt be the slayer of thy own kinsmen!" According to the Mahabharata, a fight breaks out at a festival among the Yadavas, who end up killing each other. Mistaking the sleeping Krishna for a deer, a hunter named Jara shoots an arrow towards Krishna's foot that fatally injures him. Krishna forgives Jara and dies.[130][7][131] The pilgrimage (tirtha) site of Bhalka in Gujarat marks the location where Krishna is believed to have died. It is also known as Dehotsarga, states Diana L. Eck, a term that literally means the place where Krishna "gave up his body".[7] The Bhagavata Purana in Book 11, Chapter 31 states that after his death, Krishna returned to his transcendent abode directly because of his yogic concentration. Waiting gods such as Brahma and Indra were unable to trace the path Krishna took to leave his human incarnation and return to his abode.[132][133]

 

[lpetrich]

Lord Raglan's hero profile | Atheism | Fandom

1. Hero’s mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. And becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill,
20. His children, if any do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchres.

This average biography must be interpreted rather loosely, or else hardly anyone will fit. "A god" can be some only god or one of several gods. A "king" can be any sort of great leader. "A far country" can be some very different community in the same nation. "Laws" are sets or rules or instructions that the leader gave. Etc.

Also, we don't usually get many details of people's childhoods, if we learn anything at all, but that is significant when contrasted to some villain trying to kill the baby hero. That happens very often to legendary heroes but very rarely to well-documented ones, and never to any recent ones:

• King Herod vs. Jesus Christ
• Pharaoh vs. Moses
• King Kamsa vs. Krishna
• King Amulius vs. Romulus
• King Laius vs. Oedipus
• King Acrisius vs. Perseus
• Pelias vs. Jason
• Tantalus vs. Pelops
• Hera vs. Hercules
• Hera vs. Dionysus
• Hera vs. Apollo
• Kronos vs. Zeus
• The Roman Senate vs. Augustus Caesar
• Lord Voldemort vs. Harry Potter

Why aren't there ever any stories like these about recent ones?

• Southern plantation owners vs. Abraham Lincoln
• Fundamentalists vs. Charles Darwin
• Rabbis, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Marxists vs. Adolf Hitler
• Psychiatrists vs. L. Ron Hubbard
• Oil-company executives vs. Muammar Gaddafi