Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
Are the Jesus healing miracles just copies of earlier pagan legends common in antiquity?
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
If there are sources telling of the earlier pagan miracle healings, why can't anyone quote from them?
But did actual "miracle" healings reportedly happen? Do we have written accounts reporting such miracle healings? This is not about normal recovery from a cold, etc. It's about instant healings, like healing blindness or leprosy, etc., in seconds, such as we see in the Gospel accounts.
Where are the written accounts reporting such miracle healings (not just that someone "would expect a miracle healing," but that it happened, and the event is reported)?
Also, it's not true that ancient doctors used magic only, because there were many remedies based on scientific beliefs, regardless whether the science was flawed. They believed that natural herbs and other substances contained healing qualities. In these cases it was not "miracle" healing which took place or which they thought took place. Just because they also had religious beliefs does not put these treatments in the "miracle" category, anymore than modern medical treatments are in the "miracle" category simply because someone prays for the patient to recover.
You'd go to get healed. A patient is not demanding ONLY "miracle" healing. Their belief is mixed, trusting the healer, allowing that it's magic, hoping for ANYTHING THAT WORKS, no matter what, including that the healer is smart and knows some tricks that work for whatever reason.
They didn't believe it was NOT science. And in some cases there was some science, even though it was mostly religious. What the worshipers/patients believed is that the healer had some power or talent to heal them, regardless what the power was. And they were partly right, because there were some who had more talent than others and knew ways to get a good outcome.
No, they just believed the healer had some power to heal, and this is what they wanted, regardless what kind of power it was. They did not rule out that the healer might have had normal knowledge, or rather, special knowledge that was learned, because the healer was a practitioner who became experienced in the art, and having superior talent. In some cases this is "science" rather than "magic" or "miracle" -- patients who recovered did not get upset to learn that actually some "science" also played a part, which sometimes it did.
If it's well known, then provide the written accounts of cases where a "miracle" healing actually took place. It's not enough to say that they "would expect" a miracle. Where are the cases of instant healing of leprosy or blindness, etc.? If it is well attested, then you should have some examples in the literature reporting such cases.
Do you mean the case of King Pyrrhus and his magic toe? That's based on one source only, several centuries later. But there are no "well attested" cases of such miracle healings, in sources near the time of the alleged event. Or, if there really are any such cases, you will come up with them. You should mention the Asclepius stories/inscriptions, which might be the best example, but those are largely in the medical science and psychology category, rather than in the "miracle" category. Just because the ancient gods are worshiped and rituals followed doesn't change the fact that there was some science also, in the practice.
You refute yourself if you refuse to cite the particular examples and provide the narrative accounts of the alleged miracle events. Anyone can prove their case by just saying it's "well attested and well known" but not provide the individual examples and quote the original source for them.
Then why don't you provide the source or written account reporting a case when this was used to cure a disease, where witnesses saw it used to bring the victim back to health? There are many objects "intended" to do this or that. But where is the evidence, or written accounts reporting that the intended result actually happened?
Why are you so good at providing "documentation" of magic objects, which proves nothing? Where is your source for a "miracle" healing event? Why not take as much trouble to provide an ancient source, written account, reporting an instant healing act by a "doctor" who did "miracle" healings, if Google has many of them and they are "well documented" and "well attested" and "well known"?
No, not healing -- only praying and religious rituals at shrines and temples, where worshipers were hoping for a "miracle" to happen. And in many cases a victim recovered from their ailment, as they generally do anyway, and the god would usually be credited with healing the victim.
But what was not all over the ancient world were actual instant healings, of victims suffering from long-lasting incurable illnesses, and suddenly cured such as we see described in the Gospel accounts. Where are there other ancient accounts of such miracle healings? Why do we see this in one place only and nowhere else?
Yes, there are religious rituals and praying, and occasionally a victim recovers from something and believes the praying caused it. Everyone knows this, so virtually none of these are reported in published accounts of it, because everyone knows that recoveries happen anyway, and when the patient does not recover, despite the praying, it's just forgotten. So these religious experiences are not written down or published or recorded as anything noteworthy to report as "good news" people don't already know about as being the norm.
But in the 1st century something different happened -- reported instant healings which were recorded, because it did not fit the usual pattern. If there were other similar cases, where is there some written record of it?
If they are "traditional" for those divine beings and heroes, where are the accounts reporting some cases, attributing those same "magical things" to them which are attributed to Jesus?
Then there are also many written accounts of all those other beings and heroes who did similar miracles? Why are you keeping these a secret? Why can't you give one source narrating a miracle healing?
Oh, I know ----- The Catholic Church sent its book-burning squads all around the ancient world confiscating everything written about the non-Jesus miracles going on everywhere. They sent their black helicopters around everywhere to pluck out any other miracle-workers or their disciples and anyone promoting those divine beings and heroes competing with Jesus.
And the Council of Nicaea sent back their own "Terminator" to the 1st century and earlier to wipe out a "Sarah Connor" here and there in order to prevent those miracle-workers from even being born, erasing history using retroactive abortion so they could actually create the Jesus-only-miracle-worker history to be taught to later generations, for thousands of years into the future. They probably even sent a Terminator back 600 years to snuff out those claiming their spleen was healed by King Pyrrhus and his magic toe, and to confiscate any written accounts about these miracles, destroying all (or almost all) the evidence.
You can always prove your case is the truth by arguing that the evidence to prove it was suppressed by the other side somehow, or suppressed even by nature and accidents of history and geography, all conspiring to promote the other side's evidence and suppress only yours.
But, whatever the purpose, why are such miracles added by only these Christ cult(s) and no others? If the Christ cult(s) could see the purpose for adding them, why couldn't any of the others see it also and gain the same benefit of having such miracle legends of their own to promote their crusade?
But didn't other cults also want their miracle-worker hero to be special? So why wouldn't they do the same? and also jack into the earlier preconceptions, etc.?
Why was it only the Christ-believers who made any effort to record the miracle events? or, only the Christ-believers who got the idea to wipe out all record of the many other miracle-workers who were standard and traditional and just as well-known and believed as the Christ miracle-worker? -- until the Council of Nicaea decided to exterminate all trace of them and rewrote history, artificially creating all the documents we have now, doctoring them to promote this one miracle-worker only and obliterate all trace of the others?
Why did only the Christ cult(s), or the Catholic Church in 325 AD, think up such a scheme to wipe out all trace of its competitors? and find the technology to return 300+ years into the past to confiscate all that earlier evidence, written accounts. None of the other miracle cults were able to think up such a scheme?
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
If there are sources telling of the earlier pagan miracle healings, why can't anyone quote from them?
But you cannot cite any earlier pagan or Jewish sources narrating any resurrection event or miracle healings which resemble the miracle acts of Jesus. And it's these which are related to the "good news" eternal life claim which appears in the 1st century AD and cannot be explained unless something unusual happened at this time to cause this new belief in the possibility of eternal life.
OMG. If you'd go to ANY doctor in the ancient Middle-East you would expect a miracle healing.
But did actual "miracle" healings reportedly happen? Do we have written accounts reporting such miracle healings? This is not about normal recovery from a cold, etc. It's about instant healings, like healing blindness or leprosy, etc., in seconds, such as we see in the Gospel accounts.
Where are the written accounts reporting such miracle healings (not just that someone "would expect a miracle healing," but that it happened, and the event is reported)?
Also, it's not true that ancient doctors used magic only, because there were many remedies based on scientific beliefs, regardless whether the science was flawed. They believed that natural herbs and other substances contained healing qualities. In these cases it was not "miracle" healing which took place or which they thought took place. Just because they also had religious beliefs does not put these treatments in the "miracle" category, anymore than modern medical treatments are in the "miracle" category simply because someone prays for the patient to recover.
That's why you'd go.
You'd go to get healed. A patient is not demanding ONLY "miracle" healing. Their belief is mixed, trusting the healer, allowing that it's magic, hoping for ANYTHING THAT WORKS, no matter what, including that the healer is smart and knows some tricks that work for whatever reason.
They didn't believe that healing powers was a science.
They didn't believe it was NOT science. And in some cases there was some science, even though it was mostly religious. What the worshipers/patients believed is that the healer had some power or talent to heal them, regardless what the power was. And they were partly right, because there were some who had more talent than others and knew ways to get a good outcome.
They believe it was ALL magic.
No, they just believed the healer had some power to heal, and this is what they wanted, regardless what kind of power it was. They did not rule out that the healer might have had normal knowledge, or rather, special knowledge that was learned, because the healer was a practitioner who became experienced in the art, and having superior talent. In some cases this is "science" rather than "magic" or "miracle" -- patients who recovered did not get upset to learn that actually some "science" also played a part, which sometimes it did.
Why this demand to find sources for something this well attested and well known?
If it's well known, then provide the written accounts of cases where a "miracle" healing actually took place. It's not enough to say that they "would expect" a miracle. Where are the cases of instant healing of leprosy or blindness, etc.? If it is well attested, then you should have some examples in the literature reporting such cases.
Do you mean the case of King Pyrrhus and his magic toe? That's based on one source only, several centuries later. But there are no "well attested" cases of such miracle healings, in sources near the time of the alleged event. Or, if there really are any such cases, you will come up with them. You should mention the Asclepius stories/inscriptions, which might be the best example, but those are largely in the medical science and psychology category, rather than in the "miracle" category. Just because the ancient gods are worshiped and rituals followed doesn't change the fact that there was some science also, in the practice.
You refute yourself if you refuse to cite the particular examples and provide the narrative accounts of the alleged miracle events. Anyone can prove their case by just saying it's "well attested and well known" but not provide the individual examples and quote the original source for them.
Are you truly this ignorant, or do you think that I don't have access to Google?
[unnecessary graphic deleted]
In the meantime, enjoy this picture of a Roman flying penis. Yes, it's a real thing intended to ward off disease... magically.
Then why don't you provide the source or written account reporting a case when this was used to cure a disease, where witnesses saw it used to bring the victim back to health? There are many objects "intended" to do this or that. But where is the evidence, or written accounts reporting that the intended result actually happened?
Why are you so good at providing "documentation" of magic objects, which proves nothing? Where is your source for a "miracle" healing event? Why not take as much trouble to provide an ancient source, written account, reporting an instant healing act by a "doctor" who did "miracle" healings, if Google has many of them and they are "well documented" and "well attested" and "well known"?
Faith healing was all over the ancient world.
No, not healing -- only praying and religious rituals at shrines and temples, where worshipers were hoping for a "miracle" to happen. And in many cases a victim recovered from their ailment, as they generally do anyway, and the god would usually be credited with healing the victim.
But what was not all over the ancient world were actual instant healings, of victims suffering from long-lasting incurable illnesses, and suddenly cured such as we see described in the Gospel accounts. Where are there other ancient accounts of such miracle healings? Why do we see this in one place only and nowhere else?
. . . all over the ancient world. As it is today, in the modern world.
Yes, there are religious rituals and praying, and occasionally a victim recovers from something and believes the praying caused it. Everyone knows this, so virtually none of these are reported in published accounts of it, because everyone knows that recoveries happen anyway, and when the patient does not recover, despite the praying, it's just forgotten. So these religious experiences are not written down or published or recorded as anything noteworthy to report as "good news" people don't already know about as being the norm.
But in the 1st century something different happened -- reported instant healings which were recorded, because it did not fit the usual pattern. If there were other similar cases, where is there some written record of it?
That's as long as I got reading your message. My eyes are straining from all the eye rolling.
All the evidence suggests that all the magical things attributed to Jesus are attributed to him because those are traditional for divine beings and heroes in the pagan tradition.
If they are "traditional" for those divine beings and heroes, where are the accounts reporting some cases, attributing those same "magical things" to them which are attributed to Jesus?
There is NOTHING special or unique about the Jesus miracles.
Then there are also many written accounts of all those other beings and heroes who did similar miracles? Why are you keeping these a secret? Why can't you give one source narrating a miracle healing?
Oh, I know ----- The Catholic Church sent its book-burning squads all around the ancient world confiscating everything written about the non-Jesus miracles going on everywhere. They sent their black helicopters around everywhere to pluck out any other miracle-workers or their disciples and anyone promoting those divine beings and heroes competing with Jesus.
And the Council of Nicaea sent back their own "Terminator" to the 1st century and earlier to wipe out a "Sarah Connor" here and there in order to prevent those miracle-workers from even being born, erasing history using retroactive abortion so they could actually create the Jesus-only-miracle-worker history to be taught to later generations, for thousands of years into the future. They probably even sent a Terminator back 600 years to snuff out those claiming their spleen was healed by King Pyrrhus and his magic toe, and to confiscate any written accounts about these miracles, destroying all (or almost all) the evidence.
You can always prove your case is the truth by arguing that the evidence to prove it was suppressed by the other side somehow, or suppressed even by nature and accidents of history and geography, all conspiring to promote the other side's evidence and suppress only yours.
They're so standard and traditional, that to me, it's pretty obvious that they're added in order to . . .
But, whatever the purpose, why are such miracles added by only these Christ cult(s) and no others? If the Christ cult(s) could see the purpose for adding them, why couldn't any of the others see it also and gain the same benefit of having such miracle legends of their own to promote their crusade?
. . . pretty obvious that they're added in order to jack into earlier preconceptions about divinity to convince pagans of his godly specialness.
But didn't other cults also want their miracle-worker hero to be special? So why wouldn't they do the same? and also jack into the earlier preconceptions, etc.?
Why was it only the Christ-believers who made any effort to record the miracle events? or, only the Christ-believers who got the idea to wipe out all record of the many other miracle-workers who were standard and traditional and just as well-known and believed as the Christ miracle-worker? -- until the Council of Nicaea decided to exterminate all trace of them and rewrote history, artificially creating all the documents we have now, doctoring them to promote this one miracle-worker only and obliterate all trace of the others?
Why did only the Christ cult(s), or the Catholic Church in 325 AD, think up such a scheme to wipe out all trace of its competitors? and find the technology to return 300+ years into the past to confiscate all that earlier evidence, written accounts. None of the other miracle cults were able to think up such a scheme?