spamandham

This isn't true. Several plausible scenarios have been presented as to how it *could have* happened. What you seem to really be interested in, is a historical proof that the miracles were attached after the fact.

No-one knows how Christianity formed. It's doubtful we ever will know. The official stories are grossly implausible (and thus *speculative*). In the end, we are left with arguments from parsimony.

Given the choices:
A. The miracles really happened
B. The miracles didn't really happen

B, is the most parsimonious. We don't really even need to go into deeper analysis than that.

Although the details of how Christianity formed are certainly unique (as are the details of all other religions), the human tendency to idolize leaders and and form religions from their icons, is not.

Lugubert

That's a view the authors were afraid of, so to stress the violation aspect they inserted

aa5874

Actually there is at least one other choice.
C. Miracles were believed to happen.

It is known that, even now, people believe miracles have happened or can happen.

The Jesus stories appear to have been written to be believed and the church writers seemed to have believed the Jesus stories.

The Church writers claimed that it was true Jesus died and was resurrected, and further the Pauline writer wrote that if people did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead they were still in their sins.

It would appear that a miraculous resurrection was believable.

This is the Pauline writer in Romans 10.9 Which other religion was started by a man, who existed previously as God, and then later the man was worsipped as a God after being executed for claiming to be divine?

It was not Joseph Smith. It was not Mohammed. It was not Moses.

Even when Roman Emperors were deified, the Roman people still worshipped their mythical Gods.

freetrader

Responses to spamandham:


Let's look at each specific:

"a reputed faith healer or miracle worker of the period" -- We hear again and again that there were many others running around all over the place, and that Jesus was just a copy of these others, so he was just a product of the imagination of the time, where such miracle-workers were conjured up in people's minds to serve whatever purpose. "Just go read Josephus" we're told, there's dozens of examples, Jesus was no big deal, etc. etc.

So I'm asking for one example. I'm tired of hearing the broad-brush claim that these messiah figures were all around. I'd like to get just one example, one case we can use to compare to the Jesus case. I don't think they are analogous. There's no comparison.

In the few cases where some wise sage or wonder-worker had a reputation, it took him decades of working his "magic" (whatever it was) in order to amass his following. And there don't seem to be any healers with any reputation closely resembling the Jesus example. Even if we assume the examples of Apollonius and Vespasian somehow bear any resemblance, there is the huge difference that these two figures had a very long public career of building their reputation and gaining a fan club to promote them.

This long career can explain how the hero figure was able to acquire his reputation of performing miracles which might not really have happened. The absence of such a time span indicates the greater likelihood that the reported miracle stories are actually true, because it is more difficult to explain how they became attributed to a figure who had no reputation.

"a large number of healings which were witnessed (according to the accounts)" -- There has to be the claim of a large number of healings and that these were witnessed. Just the claim, which could come from several decades later -- there's no way to prove the claim is true -- let's just look at any other such claims. Where are there other examples of documents claiming that someone performed such acts? Let's consider all such other examples.

If it turns out that there are no other examples, then this greatly undermines the popular notion that there were other messiah figures and miracle-workers running around who were similar to Jesus and so he's not unique. On the contrary, if we cannot come up with such examples, then it seems the Jesus case is unique and has to be considered separate from these other alleged examples and that he is not a part of some pattern of mass delusions about imagined miracle-workers.

"eventually recorded within 100 years" -- We need to separate the Jesus case from gods like Apollo and Juppiter and especially the healing god Aesculapius or Aesclepius, who, if such figures ever existed, go way back into prehistory and were not written about until centuries after they existed.

Over centuries any legends can build up -- of course there are stories of miracles done by the gods over centuries and intervening into human affairs and striking people dead or raising them up and giving superhuman powers to certain mortals. We need a time frame -- you could make it 200 years, if you want. Jesus is a special case, that he came from nowhere, with no reputation, and accumulated this reputation in the written record in such a short time frame.

This time limitation also distinguishes the Jesus case from that of Krishna and other eastern figures, whose legends required centuries to develop the miracle stories. Such stories can be explained by the practice of attributing such feats to ancient heros who have an established reputation after such a long time, and so it can be assumed they are mostly or entirely fiction.

So there are reasons why the examples must be this specific. It is because of these specific differences that the Jesus case cannot be compared to the other cases and dismissed as just another case of a mythical hero. These differences are not chosen arbitrarily.

Your implication is that it is possible to take ANY mythical miracle-worker and prove that he is different than all the others and so must be just as special or unique as the Jesus case, and so we have no more reason to believe the Jesus miracle stories than these others. And this is false. The Jesus case is unique and stands apart from all the other examples.

If you think there is another example which stands out just as clearly as the Jesus example, because of its unique features, then give us that example. Give any example of another reputed miracle-worker, and tell us what the important differences are which make that figure stand out in history and distinguish that figure from all the other examples, in such a way as to make those miracle stories more credible than the others.

The differences in the Jesus case are ones which make it more probable that the stories are true. All of them make it more difficult to explain how these miracle stories got invented and attributed to the Jesus figure.

So give us another example where there are clear points of distinction about the reputed miracle worker which make it more likely that the stories attributed to him are true, i.e., which make it more difficult to explain how the stories got invented and attributed to him.

There is nothing arbitrary about asking that you find such an example. As long as your claim is that the Jesus case is just one more example of a legendary hero who became mythologized and that this case is no more credible than the others, then you must come up with other examples which have unique features that make the hero figure and the miracle stories about him more credible or more difficult to explain, in other words, come up with an example which stands out just as uniquely as the Jesus case stands out. The Jesus case stands out in the ways I've outlined -- it is true that these factors make the Jesus case distinct from all the others and more credible.


This is gibberish. The same piece of evidence cannnot both increase and decrease the probability of something being true. The accounts of Jesus performing miracle healing acts are evidence that he did in fact do those acts -- but no, they are not proof. A claim at face value serves as evidence for the event, but there are many possible ways to explain how that claim could exist and still not be true.

But the existence of the claim per se increases the chance of the event being true. If there are many sources making the same claim, then the chance of it being true is increased. Though it still is not proof, it does increase the probability to have multiple sources.

The primary argument here is that whereas we can usually explain the existence of miracle stories without the stories actually being true, in this one case (not to rule out the possibility of others) it is very difficult to explain the existence of the stories if Jesus really did not perform any such acts. Claims that they are fiction are unable to give an explanation how the stories came to exist and to spread as they did.


All cultures have their miracle stories, their superstitions, their mythic heroes. Or most of them do -- certainly most of the cultures of the region of the world where Judaism emerged. The existence of these previous myths and superhuman figures does not explain the Jesus phenomenon. The Jesus case stands apart from all the other mythic hero legends and cannot be explained in the same way.

The other hero legends required centuries to develop, or they began from a real historic figure who rose to fame through a long public career in which he acquired his following and earned his reputation.


The model from the Jewish scriptures requires a recognized Prophet who struggles for decades to earn his reputation and become revered enough that Jews begin to attribute miracle stories to him, and recognize his sayings as authoritative.

Or they require a king who is annointed and then reigns for decades and wins battles against the pagan tribes and extends the boundaries of the Kingdom. The Jesus case shows no resemblance to this and is totally out of character with the Jewish prophetic tradition. There's nothing in the Jewish scriptures to explain how this unimportant Galilean should be made into a messiah figure or given any credence as any kind of hero or leader or authority figure.


Yes, if you start out with the dogmatic premise that all miracle stories must be fictitious no matter what, then it is difficult or impossible to show that any such accounts could be credible.

But reason does not dogmatically and absolutely rule out the possibility of miracle events -- it only demands stronger evidence in order to establish the same probability as other claims not including miracle events, i.e., lower probability is assumed, all else being equal, in the case of claimed miracle events.

Explaining the existence of the miracle claims per se is part of the process -- if this cannot be explained, then the probability that the events really did happen is increased. So that miracle stories that cannot be easily explained have a higher probability of being true than ones which are easily explained.

At some point of increased difficulty in explaining the stories, or the account of the claimed events, a point is crossed where the likelihood of the account being true is greater than the likelihood of it being false, even though it contains the "miracle" element in it.


Everyone sets their own standard of what evidence "would be required". A very strict standard would be that no amount of evidence could ever be sufficient to justify believing a "miracle" took place, or that anything unique or unusual ever took place. Everything that can possibly happen must be like other events that happened, and nothing that breaks the usual pattern or strays outside the norm can ever happen and must be myth.

But reason does not dictate such a strict standard. Obviously the more unusual or unique an event is, the lower is the probability or the more skeptical one is and the more demanding of evidence.

But there is also a uniqueness or unusualness about a belief system which claims a miracle element happened but does not follow the normal pattern of such myth-creating or myth-spreading.

If a particular example departs radically from this normal pattern, as the Jesus case does, then at some point the probability that the reported events are fictional becomes less likely than the probability that they really happened, because of the highly unprecedented manner in which the reports originated and were spread.

No one can dictate to others what the standard of proof is, but it can be shown that the Jesus case is unique and has a higher probability of being true than other reputed miracle claims or mythologies, and those theorists are wrong who dismiss the Jesus case as just another fiction which fits in with the usual pattern of myth-making and hero-inventing, because they ignore the extreme differences which set the Jesus case apart from the others.

spamandham

I have not claimed there were miracle workers by the dozen in Josephus, and so I feel no need to present such an example.

Instead, I am asking why you do not allow for human creativity. It just doesn't make sense to pretend that people can not make up new ideas.

Given these two options:
1. Jesus really was a miracle worker
2. Even though no-one had ever heard of miracle workers, someone invented the idea and attributed it to Jesus

...the second one is plausible, whereas the first simply is not.

I don't think there's any point to discussing other potential wonder workers, as they are a distraction to the real meat of the discussion, which is that the concept is a priori implausible and requires extraordinary evidence before it makes sense to take it seriously.

Amaleq13

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire

Pay specific attention to the section entitled: The Minor Evidence: Messiahs and Miracles Galore

You seem to me to be confusing "This guy is just like Jesus" (nobody's claim) and "The claims made about Jesus are not actually remarkable for the time".

Carrier's article conclusively supports the latter.

aa5874

It is completely untrue and illogical to say claims serve as evidence when the very claims can be false.

Zaphod

The irony of freetrader's quixotic quest to somehow buttress the historicity of Jesus by asserting the plausibility that he really performed miracles may not have yet been addressed.

1) A real miracle worker who performed spectacularly and repeatedly in public would certainly have been an enormous sensation, and could not have failed to gather enormous crowds of admirers, as is claimed in the NT. Unfortunately, if this is in fact true, you run into the Very Large Problem of the argument from silence. Todays shrewdest apologists are all relegated to the premise that Jesus did not generate huge crowds or notoriety in his time, and therefore concede that any miracles were just myths added to the story later.

2) By asserting that Jesus performed miracles on Earth 2000 years ago, all you are doing is increasing the doubts of believers today, who really have to be wondering why the fellow who did spectacular card tricks for shepherds won't do anything for all the suffering humans we see today. Especially since he promised to be back right quick to heal everybody.

All you are doing is helping to show that god really IS dead after all, freetrader. Thanks, from this atheist.

freetrader

Responses to Amaleq13:


I'm waiting for an example of a reputed miracle-worker from history who is comparable to the Jesus example.

Virtually all the examples given so far -- actually, every example without exception -- is of a person who had a long career in which to build up his reputation.

It is easy to explain how fictitious miracle stories are invented over a period of time during the life of a renown figure who has impressed many people with his charisma and perhaps the ability to perform a magic trick or whatever. Or, how someone with great power, like the Caesars, could acquire a widespread reputation and be honored as a god and then be credited with having performed great deeds.

All the examples, whether of great wise men or sages, like Sai Baba or Ramakrishna or others, had the benefit of a long career in which their followers were taught that this person was some kind of god incarnate and so on, and with this reputation as a premise upon which to build, the stories then emerged.

So a "substantive response" to my argument would be to offer an example of a reputed miracle-worker who did not have a long career in which to amass a following and earn a wide reputation.

The problem with giving this argument today is that we are born into a Christian culture in which Jesus is the most famous of all the reputed miracle-workers, and we have difficulty understanding that in 30 AD he had no such reputation and was a nobody, if he did not perform these acts. He was nothing more important than a miserable sidewalk preacher, if he had no power such as the miracle stories depict.

Apparently it is difficult for some of you responding to this to grasp this original nothingness which this Jesus figure represented back at the period in question.

Which "substantive response" have I ignored? I have asked for examples, and I get Apollonius and Vespasian and Sai Baba.

Simon Magus was mentioned -- we have recorded that he made fantastic claims, but there is no story of an actual miracle he performed. He did acquire a following over many years of doing something -- perhaps he had charisma, and perhaps he performed some tricks, though none are mentioned. His only talent seems to have been an uncanny ability to escape out of getting captured, so that he was sort of a 1st-century Houdini perhaps.

We've had examples of unusual mythical heroes who might have been fictional characters, like Robin Hood or King Arthur or William Tell. But these examples all prove the point that it usually takes centuries for a legend to develop, i.e., centuries after the period of the alleged historical figure. And actually all these figures probably really did exist in some original true version, and then the myths were added 100 years or more later.

All I can do is invite more examples, hopefully better ones. So far nothing offered shows anything comparable to a reputed miracle-worker made into a legend less than 100 years after his time and whose public career was less than 3 years. No one yet has given us anything comparable as a parallel example to illustrate how such fiction stories can become attached to a figure who performed no such acts.


I.e., better than the explanation that he actually did perform such miracle acts. All the explanations involve the acknowledgement that the Jesus case is unique in history and has no precedent, i.e., he has to be a one-of-a-kind unique case unlike any other before or since.

A one-of-a-kind case totally unlike all others in history is just as improbable as the explanation that the reputed miracle acts are really true and that he really did perform them. Either way we are asked to believe something that goes against common experience and precedent.


What? "revered" who? for what? You must have something or someone there to begin with. How did this nobody get "chosen" by anyone for anything? Whatever "wisdom" Jesus taught was likely put into his mouth by later writers who took it from Greek gnosticism or from the pharisees and Essenes and Qumran community.

At most he only repeated some things already spoken or written earlier by various rabbis or pharisees or maybe some anti-Roman dissidents. Why should he become "revered" any more than these others who said the same things earlier? And in only 1-3 years -- no teacher becomes "revered" by a following of disciples in such a short time.

If any group really "revered" him it couldn't have been all the different rival camps we see expressed in the teachings. Some of them preached obedience to mainline Judaism and toward Roman rule, while others promoted rebellion against these. How can we say which of the several conflicting groups "revered" him or if really any of them did?

He could only have been revered by one camp (the one that agreed with whatever he was really teaching) and hated by the others. And these other camps also had their own teachers who were just as "revered" as Jesus, if not more so.

So why did the later "creators of Christianity" choose out this one obscure teacher with no standing to make him into a god? There were other teachers or prophets who were "revered" by their following. Why didn't they choose John the Baptist, who had more recognition at the time than Jesus did?

So what is this unidentified group who first allegedly "revered him as a source of wisdom," and how do we leap-frog from that point to the later "creators of Christianity" making him into a miracle-worker? You say the latter ones "chose" him because of a hypothetical obscure band of fools who "revered" this unknown fly-by-night Galilean for no reason -- why this choice? This is not the way messiah figures are "chosen" or miracle-workers created.

We're not talking about the modern Christ who is preached on Sundays and adored during the Christmas season and so on. In AD 30 this was a nobody nothing figure of zero importance or significance to Greeks, and even to Jews he was no one of any standing or repute. You can't just casually say they "chose" Christ the way we understand it today in a Christian culture where this name and this language is common.

To say they "chose Jesus because he was already chosen by those who initially revered him" is really a put-down which depicts them in insulting language for which you'd be accused of racism if it were said of a minority group today, as if they are incapable of making their own choices but instead have to submit to someone else making an arbitrary choice for them.

It's not true that the 1st-century "creators of Christianity" or their Greek and Roman audience were such imbeciles as this suggests -- that they needed to have someone else choose a messiah figure for them or that they would accept an arbitrary designation of a nobody figure spoon-fed to them from an alien culture which conflicted with their own traditions, such a nothing figure with no merit or accomplishment to offer and no credentials or recognition, yet to be honored or made into a god for them to worship, and they're supposed to swallow it like mindless hogs grunting and slurping whatever is put into their trough -- where's the evidence that 1st-century Greeks and Romans were such inferior mindless fools as this?

You can't show anything else from the history of the period to demonstrate a precedence for such mental incompetency and inferiority of that culture. Yes, they had their gods and mythic heroes, but these were based on long-established tradition or were chosen for their great deeds and long-established reputation in which they demonstrated their courage and strength, and only after generations or even centuries were they mythologized into deities.

Why would the "creators" of Christianity let their choice be dictated by these ones who "revered" him initially? What was the connection between these two -- the "creators of Christianity" and the ones who "initially revered him"? Who are they revering? And why should their revering him be of any interest to the "creators of Christianity"?

He was a nobody. He did and said nothing that was of any interest to the "creators" of Christianity (assuming he did no miracle acts), nor was he of any interest to their Greek and Roman audiences or readers. It is a nonsensical string of words: they "chose Jesus because he was already chosen by those who initially revered him" -- yes, and Joe the Plumber's cat voted Republican because Mary Magdalene strangled Howdy Doody. You can't just string a series of unrelated words together with a "because" in the middle and pretend you've explained something.


You're contradicting others in this forum who say neither Jesus or his direct followers made any claim for his divine authority.

Whenever the claims of divinity began (no later than Paul, probably before), such claims made no sense without the premise that he actually did perform the miracle acts such as described in the gospel accounts.

It is not true that Jews or Greeks or Romans arbitrarily deified people for no reason. If they made someone into a god figure, that person must have done something special or must have been a person of very high standing and of long reputation as a wise prophet or as someone having power.

For Jesus to be made into a god by only 20 years after his death, and having been a nobody with such a short public career, is inexplicable by comparison to any other example of someone who became deified, ever. Any honest truth-seeker must admit that this is uniquely irregular in the history of religions and gods and heroes.

If the reported miracle acts actually did happen then we have an explanation for this, and in particular, an explanation how the earliest believers in his divinity became convinced and how they were able to convince others.

Whereas without assuming the miracle acts as actual events, there is no explanation how anyone became convinced of his divinity, and we are left with a one-of-a-kind irregularity in history which stands alone and for which no one yet has offered a plausible explanation.


You can pretend to explain anything by saying it "managed" to happen or someone "managed" somehow to do it. But you are explaining nothing with this language.

You have not explained how anyone was convinced that Jesus was divine or that he resurrected. It makes no sense that anyone had such beliefs, including Paul, if it's not because they believed claims that he performed the miracle acts or that he physically resurrected from the dead.

Without those actual events, or the belief that they happened, it makes no sense that anyone believed in the "risen Christ" or believed in his divinity or made him into a god figure. You can show no other example ever of people being convinced of such things, or convincing themselves of it, where the historical person they deified was a minor figure whose public life was so short, as in the Jesus example.


The term "magical powers" sounds like yours rather than Paul's.

Where claims of miracle acts exist, there is a need to explain how those claims emerged. In the case of the Jesus miracle acts, the claims of them cannot be easily explained without assuming that the acts described were actually performed by him.

However, in most claims of miracle acts or powers to do such acts, we can easily explain the claims without assuming they are true. So we can recognize how such claims arose and why people believed them, without those alleged events actually having occurred.

But it is unreasonable to condemn all such stories per se as false.


We have to distinguish here: 1) the healing acts of Jesus, and 2) alleged miracle acts performed by his followers (believers). These are separate and not to be confused.

1) We cannot easily explain why he was believed capable of performing the healing acts without assuming that he actually did perform such acts. You have not explained how the miracle stories of Jesus emerged, nor has anyone else in this forum given a plausible explanation.

You cannot show any other case of such stories arising and circulating which is analogous to the Jesus case. In all examples of fictional accounts emerging, there had to be a hero figure or recognized deity or authority with a wide reputation to become made into a healing god figure. Jesus was not such a figure in 30 AD.

2) Once a healing power or deity figure is established, then yes, fictional miracle stories can emerge. Claims that the followers of Jesus themselves performed miracles are mostly fictional. They arose after the Jesus legend became established and it was believed that anyone could do the same acts by invoking the name of Christ.

Such belief was possible, even if such acts did not really happen, because the earlier belief in the healing Christ figure had become established, and we see examples from history of fictional healings or other miracles being attributed to an established deity or hero figure.

We don't have to believe all claims of miracle acts. When we can easily explain them without assuming they are true, then we assume they are fictional. But the healing stories of Jesus cannot be explained easily without assuming they are true.


The degree of likelihood, or probability, is virtually impossible to calculate. Silence or failure to produce a good hypothesis does not prove that one doesn't exist or couldn't exist.

However, the following logic is absolutely beyond reproach:

Failure by anyone to offer a good hypothesis how the miracle stories could exist as we have them without the events actually having taken place increases the probability that those events actually happened.

Because, assuming such an explanation does exist, then someone should be able to find it, or it is reasonable to expect that someone could come up with it. Failure by anyone to put forth such an explanation which is plausible gives us added reason to believe there is no such explanation, though it is still not proved one way or the other.


Again you are contradicted by most of the other contributors to this topic, who say Jesus was not believed by his direct followers to have any special miracle power. I.e., all those ideas came later.

You apparently think his direct followers BELIEVED he had some miracle power, though he really didn't have any such power and did not do any miracle acts.

That raises the question of whether they believed he actually performed a miracle act or only that he had the power but did not use it. Did they imagine to see him perform a miracle when he really did not?

What you're supposing again is something unique in history. The public life of Jesus was probably only one year. (Some believe three.) A teacher who is made into a miracle-worker or is believed by his disciples to have miracle power requires more than three years to establish such a reputation.

It is not true that disciples always imagine their guru has miracle power. This kind of faith in the guru builds up over several years of being under the guru's spell and becoming obsessed with the guru.

For any example you can give of a prophet or guru or wise sage figure who is revered by his disciples and believed to have miracle power, it is always the case that this guru figure enjoys a long public career of teaching and recruiting disciples, and over time, he succeeds in convincing some to believe he has miracle power.

Perhaps the reason is that so few disciples are willing to believe such a thing, and so it requires many years of exposure to enough would-be disciples, so that finally after 10 or 20 years or so, a few disciples of this kind come into the fold and the guru finally acquires a group of such devotees.

You won't find examples of a guru with many disciples who believe he has miracle power unless he has been at it for many years.

So the case of Jesus would have to be a singular case in history, i.e., the only one who acquired such disciples in such a short time span.

We have to clarify that we're talking about special miracle power, or power pretty much exclusive to the guru or the cult leader. We're not talking about a case where the cult believes everyone has miracle power, or everyone in the cult.

It is better to speak in terms of reported miracle acts, rather than just a belief that the guru has miracle power without actually demonstrating it. Also, there's a semantic problem with the "miracle" word. Sometimes it is applied to almost any event where something good happened.

When such ambiguous examples are filtered out, the generalization holds up that gurus who truly have reputed miracle power are always ones who have enjoyed a long public career in which to accumulate a large following.


I.e., the mere BELIEF that he had miracle power does not prove he actually did have such power. That's obviously true. But the belief does increase the probability by at least a small increment.

If the belief is widespread, then the probability is increased further. The probability increases greatly if there are reported events which were witnessed by a large number. But even still you could claim it's less than 50% probable.

The probability increases significantly in a unique case which breaks with the identifiable patterns for such reputed events.

That Jesus was an unrecognized figure of no importance and was publicly active for such a short time period makes it highly unlikely that he would be made into a fictional miracle-worker hero like all the other known cases. And so the probability that he really did perform those acts is greatly increased.

Amaleq13

Of course you are! And you use the weasel-word "comparable" to avoid acknowledging that alleged miracle-workers like Jesus is purported to have been were not unusual at the time.

You haven't read the Carrier article, have you? The ease with which Paul is described as being considered a god in Acts or the ease with which various knuckleheads managed to convince folks they were divinely inspired in Josephus is sufficient for any rational individual to recognize that the Gospel claims about Jesus' powers were not unusual for the time.

Paul and Barnabas had no reputation in Malta but were immediately considered gods after seeming to survive a snake bite. Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertion, Simon Magus is not described as having this long, building career, either.

There is no indication in Josephus that the weaver, Jonathan, who attracted a following by claiming prophetic powers nor is Theudas described as one with a long career prior to convincing folks of his power.

There is simply no good reason to assume that a long career or existing fame was necessary to obtain a magical or divine reputation in the first century. You've been given more than enough evidence to drop this silly line of argument.

The same sort of charisma you are willing to grant Simon Magus, obviously.

False dichotomy. And a rather obviously simplistic one at that.

Those who Paul persecuted are the group. Paul's conversion provides the leap-frog point. But you already knew that and you're just pretending to be ignorant. Stop wasting everyone's time with this charade.

And you would know. Read Josephus. It was not difficult to obtain a following.

I am baffled by the depth of ignorance involved in this paragraph. It is entirely incoherent and in no way relates to what I've proffered.

Paul didn't accept a messiah someone else had chosen before him? Have you read the Bible? It might help you arguments, if you did.

Obviously, they became convinced or convinced themselves that the original reverence had a legitimate basis.

Paul tells us his initial connection was adversarial. You really need to read that Bible of yours, amigo.

Oh, no!!!

There is no need to assume or argue a mythical Jesus to refute your silly argument.

For "no reason"? No. For ridiculously incredible reasons suggesting considerable gullibility from a 21st century perspective? No question about it. The evidence is overwhelming.

No, only believed to be special. There continues to be no good reason to assume such a figure really was magical.

You need evidence to support this contention.

We also have one if we just assume he was believed capable of miracles while refraining from pretending such powers are real. That makes it a better explanation, if you didn't understand.

Golly, when you put it that way it seems so easy!! Either there really was magic or we can't explain it. Folks don't believe in magical powers unless they're true!! :banghead:

Yes, I have. It was the same gullibility that convinced a bunch of people that Jonathan the weaver was a prophet or that Criss Angel really can levitate or that Michael Jackson faked his death.

No, there is nothing "unreasonable" about recognizing incredible claims for what they are.

Your effort to differentiate between them rings hollow. There is no significant difference.

Well, I've certainly repeated it enough to you so I'm glad you finally appare to understand it.

No, it doesn't. It makes no sense.

:rolling:

It certainly does not. What you describe is a logical fallacy called Ad Populum or an Appeal to Popularity. There is no actual connection between the number of people believing a claim and the truth of the claim.

Well, this was a fun waste of time but I've got to be off to Vegas. I hope your argument has improved by the time I get back. :wave: