What is wrong with separating historical fact from fiction?
introducing: the
MHORC
FYI...you are dealing with Lumpy [hereafter "L."] and his Mythological Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC), with its set of random puzzle piece requirements.
Here's what the "Requirements Checklist" means, to use a concrete example:
The legendary hero St. Nicholas did exist, and we have enough evidence about him to believe that he was generous and gave lots of gifts to children. This much is confirmed by applying the "requirements" of this "checklist."
But for MIRACLE claims, e.g. in the case of a legendary hero, the "requirement" is that we need more than only one source, and we need these sources to be dated near to the time the hero allegedly did the miracle(s) -- not centuries later. We have miracle claims about St. Nicholas, but only from sources centuries later, not near his time in history, so these miracle claims are set aside as unlikely. But that he gave lots of gifts to children is not a miracle claim, so the requirements are easier for establishing this as likely -- so we just need some ancient source saying it, which we have, so it's believable.
By contrast, we have many miracle stories from St. Augustine who claimed to have witnessed these miracles personally, so the source is near the time the alleged miracles happened. But St. Augustine is the ONLY source for them, which fails the test requiring more than only one source. Doesn't it make sense to require at least 2 sources?
So the "requirements checklist" gives criteria for judging whether some unusual claim is credible or should be dismissed as fiction. The more unusual the claim is, the more strict are the requirements, e.g. maybe at least 3 sources needed. The premise of the "checklist" is that unusual claims can be put to a kind of test for credibility rather than be summarily dismissed as fiction without regard for any evidence. Rather, the "checklist" assumes that evidence matters, even in the case of unusual claims made, whereas rejecting the "requirements checklist" means that ALL unusual claims must be dismissed as fiction, regardless of any evidence, because if the claim is unusual, it is automatically false or fiction, no matter what the evidence might be.
That's what the "Requirements Checklist" is essentially, and what rejection of such a "checklist" means.
We apply the "checklist" to all the ancient heroes, or to anyone who stands out as unusual, who is said to have done some amazing or mighty deed, especially something superhuman or miraculous. Must we automatically reject any such claim as fiction, regardless of any evidence that it might have really happened? Don't unusual events sometimes happen? Aren't there cases of some great deeds which were done in unusual cases? What is there in science or logic which says there can never be any great deed or unusual act performed by anyone, ever?
There are documented cases of savants who perform acts which normal humans cannot perform, and some other cases where there is enough evidence to allow some credibility even though the claim involves something very unusual or even "miraculous" according to some reports of it. And there have been some heroic or mighty deeds performed, such as Alexander the Great single-handedly killing dozens of enemy soldiers in one battle.
For the "miraculous" category are there any documented cases at all? In modern history there is the case of Rasputin "the Mad Monk" who apparently was able to cure a sick child, according to all the evidence from the period of the Russian Revolution. This evidence, that he apparently had some power to heal at least that one child, has not been refuted.
So the "checklist" is used in those cases where there's doubt, because the evidence could be more than the minimum required to make the claim credible. To insist that there can be no such "Requirements checklist" is to say that no unusual acts can ever happen, or no unusual event can ever happen, even if there's evidence that it did happen. So instead of this
a priori exclusion of all such claims, the "Requirements Checklist" (MHORC) says there are criteria for checking any particular case to see if there's legitimate evidence, similarly as for normal historical events, asking how strong the evidence is, and where the evidence is unusually strong, even stronger than for normal events, then there's a credibility threshold beyond which the particular claim becomes credible, rather than something to be automatically rejected with the
"aaaaaaaaaaa they just made up shit!"(ATJMUS) outburst.
So whenever you come across miracle claims or other unusual claims which are hard to believe, you can respond to it with either the MHORC inquiry into the facts or evidence, or with ATJMUS outburst. So you can choose the reasoning and questioning and fact-checking approach (MHORC), or the dogmatic outburst approach (ATJMUS).
. . . with its set of random puzzle piece requirements.
These are not "random" requirements. "Random" would mean that the requirements are chosen arbitrarily, or are chosen not out of need to separate fact from fiction but only out of momentary whim or spontaneous response to something unrelated to determining the truth and distinguishing between the relevant vs. irrelevant facts/evidence. "Random" requirements could be anything which pops up in one's mind, arbitrarily, to use for that moment as criteria, and could just as easily be replaced by anything else which might pop up into one's mind, with no special criteria recognized as standard for all cases, such as evidence permitted in a court case, or evidence for identifying phenomena observed in a scientific experiment.
For historical facts it is standard to consider what are the written sources from the time of the alleged event -- that's not a "random" requirement. And more sources is better than fewer or only one.
And here's another "requirement" or standard for judging the credibility: If there's a reported unusual event ("miracle"?), it matters if there is a normal explanation for it, or if no normal explanation can be determined. As the normal explanation becomes more difficult, then the possibility that the event really happened becomes more credible and is more difficult to rule out.
E.g., if there's a reported miracle done by Alexander the Great or other popular hero celebrity, even in an early source, it's much easier to explain (as fiction) than a similar reported miracle done by Jesus Christ (reported in our 1st-century sources). We can easily explain as fiction a "miracle" claim about a famous powerful military hero recognized across many nations by millions of subjects whose lives are impacted by that famous powerful celebrity. But we cannot easily explain a similar reported miracle attributed to someone of no power and unknown during his life outside his limited region and whose public career was only 1-3 years. So the reported miracle of Jesus has more credibility because it is so much more difficult to explain as fiction.
This also is not a "random" requirement or condition to use in judging the credibility of the "miracle" claim. It's reasonable to ask if there is an easy way to explain the miracle claim as fiction; and if there is such an easy explanation, then that is more likely the explanation; whereas if there is no such easy explanation, then the unusual claim being made becomes more credible, despite being so unusual or having "miracle" content in it.
So the "requirements" of the MHORC are not "random" but are reasonable criteria for judging between fact and fiction when unusual events or "miracles" are claimed. And also there is the possibility of
partial truth combined with fiction in the claim being made, in which case it's appropriate to determine which part of the claim is true and which part fiction, by applying the MHORC test. And in fact this test is applied by historians and others seeking the truth, whatever it's called or even if there's no name for it.
Here is a tolerable summary from a few years ago about the basics of L. Theology apologetics, as it doesn't really fit within normative conservative Christian theology.
Yes it does. Traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus was crucified at about 30 AD, and the written sources of the 1st century are recognized by them and are treated as evidence that this event happened, including the Resurrection, and also the miracle acts he did. This evidence is commonly cited for their belief that the Resurrection is a real historical event. Many of them accept the modern critical dating of the writings, as 50-100 AD, with the first Gospel being Mark written around 70 AD. But some conservative theologians date the Gospels earlier, because they recognize the stronger credibility of the written accounts if they are closer to the actual event of about 30 AD. So they adhere to the MHORC test by trying to put the evidence closer to the events, thus making the evidence stronger.
So conservative Christian theology does harmonize well with the MHORC apologetics of evidence and historical fact vs. fiction. However, conservative theology also includes other events which don't fit well with this, such as the virgin birth and the Bethlehem story, which MHORC puts in the improbable category. So MHORC differs from "normative conservative Christian theology" on some points, while agreeing on the reported miracle acts of Jesus, especially the Resurrection as a physical event which happened.
He also makes a lot of hay about 4-5 sources for his Miracle Max, but then conveniently ignores the Two Source Hypothesis.
No, that hypothesis agrees with the fact that there are 4 (5) sources. Our main sources for the historical Jesus are the 4 Gospels and the epistles of Paul. These are 5 sources, not only 2 or 3. Nothing from any scholars or from the "Two Source Hypothesis" says that the Gospels are less than 4 sources.
All the Two Source Hypothesis says is that 2 of the 4 sources, Matthew and Luke, quote from Mark and from the hypothetical Q document, which then are 2 sources used by Mt and Lk. But that doesn't mean that these 3 are not 3 separate sources. Rather, if there really is a Q document, then that makes one additional source for the historical Jesus, and so we have 5 (6) sources for the miracles of Jesus. Contrary to some popular misconception, the Q document does include reference to the miracles of Jesus (unless you
define Q as a sayings document only, in which case it's only a tautology to say it excludes miracles). So if this document is included as another source, then we have 5 (6) sources for the miracles of Jesus, making the evidence a little stronger.
However, Q is only hypothetical, so it is not included as a source we have, even if it might have existed back then, as many or most ancient documents of that time did not survive to our time. And it's better to rely on "sources" we have today which originated from that time.
He also ignores his own criteria when he states 4-5 sources for his Miracle Max, as Paul never met Jesus, . . .
This seems to assume falsely that a real "source" must be a writer who knew personally the historical character he's writing about. Which is hardly the case for any of our ancient history, which comes mostly from writers 50-100 years later than the reported events and who never met the actual person(s) they wrote about. As exceptions we have a tiny amount of autobiographical sources, and a very few cases of a writer who knew the historical figure in question, such as Plato knew Socrates. Those are the rare exception. Most of the historians and other writers were not contemporary to the historical characters they wrote about. It was typical for them to write about events that happened 100+ years earlier, long after the historical character was dead. So that the writer "never met" the historical character does not disqualify the writer as a legitimate source.
But further, Paul was a contemporary to Jesus and so knew those times, around 30 AD, which is a closer connection of the writer to the actual events than we have for most of our ancient history record.
. . . and the GoJ doesn't really repeat the required miracle healings of the synoptics gospels (but for 1 or 2 of them).
Not the exact same miracle healing events, but similar ones, making John a 4th source for this along with the Synoptics.
The healing miracles in John are legitimate evidence, along with the Resurrection, being similar to those in the Synoptic Gospels. The discrepancies are problematic only for determining the particular details of what happened, but not the general fact of Jesus demonstrating superhuman power. This makes 4 1st-century sources reporting miracle healings by Jesus, and 5 reporting the Resurrection. Certain miracles reported in one source only, like the resurrection of Lazarus, or like the rising of the dead bodies out of graves (Mt 27:52-53) at the moment Jesus died, are less credible, being from one source only. However, the raising of Lazarus is credible because it resembles different but similar examples from the other gospel accounts, whereas the rising of the dead bodies in Matthew is less credible because it's too incompatible with the other accounts. John's story of the water changed into wine also is less credible because there's nothing else resembling it in the other accounts.
Where John conflicts with the other accounts, it's less credible, being later, and also being only one source vs. three. This is another area where MHORC may conflict with "normative conservative Christian theology" which tries to totally harmonize all 4 Gospels even though there are obvious discrepancies. MHORC puts priority on the facts of what happened, based on the evidence, without the need to make all the accounts harmonize and to uphold the doctrine of scriptural infallibility.
That a few miracles might be fictions added later is easily explained, but only if Christ's reputation as a miracle-worker had been already well-established, to which then later stories might be added as embellishments. But without his earlier reputation established first, as a miracle healer, there is no explanation how fiction miracles got added.
L. is really a rather eccentric version of a Christian...He has in the past pretty much thrown out much/most of the OT, along with other parts of the NT. Back in 2018, he even suggested that his Miracle Max healer could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl, if the timing was right or sum such noise...
No, he might have been given that title if he had made his appearance in the land of the Aztecs. Titles like "Son of God" or "Messiah" or "Son of David" etc. are just reflections of the culture where he was. Had he been in a different culture, they would have given him a title fitting that culture's traditions instead of the Jewish traditions of the culture where he was located, in Galilee-Judea.
Mormons claim he appeared in the Western Hemisphere also. Whether such a claim is true or not doesn't change what happened in Galilee-Judea in about 30 AD. But we can hypothesize what title he might have been given had his location in the world been a different place. Meaning that we should not become obsessed with such titles. What matters are the facts of what happened, not the religious terminology or symbols which the culture attached to him.
A minor reminder of L. and his mysterious/hidden MHORC (his MHORC is much like the paisley sofa in the Hitchhikers Guide, where one . . .
What's mysterious or hidden about a requirement that an unusual historical event should be attested to by more than only one source? or that the source(s) should be dated somewhere near to when the event allegedly happened?
That's most of the MHORC, plus also 1 or 2 other common sense standards. Like the rule that if there's a normal explanation, as in the case of Alexander the Great or other famous powerful hero figure, then that explanation is more likely than the claim that the "miracle" event really happened. So, if there's a normal explanation like we see hundreds of times in history, that normal explanation is more credible than simply that the "miracle" event actually did happen. Whereas if there is no normal explanation as seen in some other cases, then it becomes more likely that the "miracle" event actually did happen, or at least something like it actually happened.
What is "mysterious" or "hidden" about such a straightforward analysis to apply in cases of miracle claims, or claims of anything highly unusual? Why instead must we always say that a claim of something unusual has to be rejected, no matter what, without any analysis like the MHORC which applies certain rules for testing the claims and checking the facts? Why is fact-checking ridiculed as something "mysterious" and "hidden"?
. . . paisley sofa in the Hitchhikers Guide, where one can't see . . .
Where is this going?
. . . where one can't see it if one tries to look straight at it): Yeah, L. also requires his idea of a viable god to be some sort of miracle max healer. And it has to be possible that the people being healed and the witnesses were not followers of said cult at the time, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith still fits this narrative no matter how much L. disassembled.
"disassembled"?
It is significant if the only ones reportedly healed by the miracle-worker were his disciples. This makes the miracle claim less credible, because his disciples are already mesmerized by his charisma and easily believe anything he says, and easily confirm his miracle power even if nothing unusual happened.
If you look up all the Joseph Smith reported miracle healings, which actually are very few, in every case the one healed was a disciple of Joseph Smith and a Christian who worshiped Joseph Smith as a Christ prophet, before the miracle healing was performed. This same pattern holds for almost all miracle healing stories, in all the literature. This was true for the reported healing by the Emperor Vespasian, where the ones seeking him were worshipers of Serapis the healing deity, and also loyal fans of Vespasian who they believed had power to heal them if he would perform the traditional Serapis ritual, which he did for them. This is also what the Asclepius miracles were, performed by Asclepius priests only on disciples who already worshiped Asclepius and went to the Asclepius temple to have the prescribed rituals performed on them.
In all conventional cases of reported healers, the miracle ritual is performed in the name of the ancient healing deity and according to the prescribed ritual procedure. But the Jesus miracles in the Gospel accounts are not done according to any ritual tradition or in the name of any ancient healing deity. In a couple cases the term "the Lord" is used in the account, but no deity or ancient healing legend is invoked by Jesus when he performs the healing act, and the one healed is not a disciple of his, unlike virtually all reported healings in the other miracle legends. The pattern of an ancient religious healing tradition or ritual is part of the explanation why those people believed in their healing deity and would credit their religious tradition in cases where a victim did recover from an illness.
Of course, from the NT no one can really know about the people who purportedly witnessed these events as any outside details are lost in the dust bin of time;
Of course we don't have absolute 100% certainty about this or any other historical event(s), with all details totally provided. But we have evidence, the written accounts reporting it, and we have to go by the evidence that we have. You can provide any other evidence you think is relevant. It's reasonable to believe whatever is told in the evidence we do have and which is not contradicted by other evidence.
The NT accounts of this describe people who were healed by Jesus, and they were not disciples of his or worshipers at a temple like the Asclepius worshipers were. Nothing shows them as already being his disciples as the few accounts of Joseph Smith miracles identify the ones healed as already being his disciples. All we have is these written accounts, and this is what they say. We have no other evidence than these accounts, which it's reasonable to accept as long as it's all the evidence we have, just as with any other reported events. That we don't have 100% of all the details doesn't mean we should not believe what evidence we do have.
No one insists that you must believe the evidence we have. We have this evidence, these written accounts from the 1st century. If there's any other evidence, nothing prevents you from digging it out and quoting it here. It's reasonable to believe these accounts, or any others dated near the time of the reported events, as long as they are not contradicted by other evidence, which they are not. Or at least no one has presented any other evidence contradicting these 1st-century accounts. What's wrong with insisting that it's OK to believe the evidence we have and which is not contradicted by any other evidence?
But L. never explained why a god needs to be a miracle max.
L. never said "a god needs to be a miracle max."
But if someone shows up who performs instant healing, like instantly curing leprosy and blindness and other afflictions, even raising the dead back to life, and then gets killed but rises back to life after that and is seen alive by witnesses, that's good news, isn't it? If those things really happened it explains where the term "good news" (
euangelion) came from. Whereas if it did not happen, no one can explain why this term suddenly became important from about 50 AD and after -- this and the new term ζωὴν αἰώνιον and the offer of eternal life which is prominent in Paul and in the Gospel of John. It is significant that this "eternal life" theme is so prominent in these two sources, and yet they are very far apart as literature. When two different sources converge on the same idea, it indicates that something was actually there which neither of them invented.
It's reasonable to ask where the term ζωὴν αἰώνιον ("eternal life") came from, and also the term εὐαγγέλιον ("good news"). These both appear prominently in the Christian writings, beginning about 50 AD, before which neither term was prominent. Why?
This is a legitimate question, and the best answer, explaining both these terms, is that something happened prior to 50 AD which caused Paul and others to believe Christ had resurrected, which made eternal life now possible, and they thought this was good news which should be told to others. There could be other explanations also, but so far no one has offered any.
It's all in his Mythical Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC)...
Yes, based on the evidence from the 1st-century written accounts reporting what happened. Unlike pagan and other miracle legends for which there is no evidence from written accounts dated near the time when their miracle events reportedly happened.
Nothing in this wiki page contradicts the MHORC. Nothing in it denies that there are 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus. Nothing in it says that the 4 Gospels are less than 4 in number. Nothing in it denies that Matthew and Mark and Luke are 3 sources, regardless that Mt and Lk quote from Mk. Nothing in it says that Mt and Lk are any less credible as sources just because they quote from Mk.
Says the religion famous for burning books.
That Catholics and Protestants sometimes burnt books after 1400 AD is not relevant to what happened in 30 AD. The only clear documented case of Christians burning books before 500 AD is that of Acts 19:19 where some Christian converts in Ephesus burned their books on divination. Divination books were sometimes burned for good reason because they were dangerous, sometimes causing explosion accidents which killed people. There's no evidence that "the Church" or Christian "Establishment" or Empire of Constantine and Theodosius destroyed books, but only that they destroyed pagan temples, and in those attacks it's possible some books could have been lost along with the statues and other pagan objects targeted for destruction, like the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, but not targeted, in the wars of Julius Caesar in 48 BC (
https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/burning-library-alexandria ).
Though L. really isn't so much a Christian, as he is sort of a deist who is enthralled by Jesus as the mono miracle max god.
What's wrong with being "enthralled" by the evidence which says something good happened? If we had evidence of some other historical person doing such acts of power, it wouldn't be wrong to be "enthralled" by that person either. But we don't have any other cases of this, for which there is evidence. No one is giving any other examples and citing the evidence and quoting the text which reports it, such as there are many such texts quoted which narrate the Jesus miracle acts.
L. even said that he could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl...
No, he could have been called that if he had appeared in Mesoamerica rather than in Galilee-Judea. Had he instead visited the region of the Aztecs or Mayans, and had he performed the same acts of power, and if then he got killed but then rose back to life, then in that culture he might have been given the title "Son of Quetzalcoatl" rather than "Son of God."
The point is that it's not the name or title that matters, but the facts, or the events, i.e., the deeds that he performed, and this is what made him important.
And the fact that he was given these titles -- "Son of God" and "Son of Man" and "Messiah" and "the Logos" and "Lamb of God" etc. -- all during a period less than 100 years, indicates that he must have done something very important and unique (or at least people believed he did), to distinguish him from all the other hundreds or thousands of gurus and prophets and rebels and revolutionaries and charismatics etc., over many centuries, more famous in their time than Jesus was in 30 AD, and who never received such recognition.
