freetrader

July 22, 2009 #6025283 / #160
Amaleq13 (continued)


You never heard of "incredible but true"? I'm not saying the claims aren't "incredible" -- I'm saying it's unreasonable to condemn all such stories per se as false. You can give no rationale why the miracle stories of Jesus have to be rejected per se as having no value as evidence. Rather, they should be weighed alongside all other evidence.

Homer's writing has value as evidence for history, i.e., to inform us what happened, even though it's mostly fiction and contains miracles. You can compare and say one source offers more value as evidence than another, but it's mindless to condemn a source as having no value whatever as evidence -- that is just prejudice. Why should any be 100% ruled out? What sense does that make?

Even a miracle story from Homer is not to be ruled out, though it might be placed very low on the probability scale. It's possible that Odysseus really existed and that he encountered some weird events. Homer's account is evidence that it happened, but the probability is still low.

It's a reasonable possibility that Odysseus really existed, maybe a probability of 50%. And although the probability of any one miracle event is very low, the probability that out of all the miracle stories of Homer, one of them is true -- that percentage is not so low. How about 20 or 30%?

There is no basis for absolutely ruling out all stories of miracle acts. All you can say is that some evidence is stronger than other evidence, and there's little PROOF for historical events outside the major ones -- for most history there is only a degree of probability, not proof or certainty, and for the miracle stories you have to factor in the lower credibility value as a kind of algorithm for calculating the probability, which is never zero.

To just blurt out "ZERO!!" because you are a fanatic crusader against any "miracle" claims is completely emotionalistic and unscientific.


There are two clear differencs: 1) We can easily explain how the later miracle stories, like in Acts, could have been invented, whereas those of Jesus in the gospel accounts cannot be explained without much difficulty; and 2) we have four (or five) 1st-century accounts attesting to the miracles of Jesus, whereas we have only one, the book of Acts, attesting to that of his followers.

On point 1) above, it was easy by 80-90 AD to mythologize the apostles who became popularized from their attachment to the original Jesus hero and were credited with miracle powers derived from him. That's the normal mythologizing process of plugging into an already-existing tradition.

As long as we have such an obvious explanation how someone got mythologized into a miracle-worker, this explanation is more probable than the possibility that the stories are true. The possibility that Jesus somehow passed his power along to some of his disciples needn't be ruled out entirely, but we need more than only the book of Acts as a source before taking that seriously.


Not the TRUTH of the claim, but the believability of it and the PROBABILITY of it being true.

Otherwise Abraham Lincoln was never President. In fact, nothing ever happened in history. All we have is the populus which makes these claims of historical events. The history books were all written by the populo, which got all their claims from the earlier populo who believed it or claimed it, so we have to throw them all out by your rule.

Even archaeological evidence has to be thown out unless you dug it up yourself personally, and then it's only you who can believe it. Those archaeologists and other experts are just more of the populi making their claims -- even a million of them or 10 million of them claiming the same thing is just more ad populum which doesn't make it any more true.

How can you explain why you believe anything from history without basing it on claims made or beliefs held by those previously who said that's what happened?

You can't rule out the claims or beliefs of others as evidence. You have to modify this principle to allow that the word of others or their belief in a claim is a piece of evidence, perhaps only incremental, in support of the claim, provided they have some reason for believing it, or you think they do, or provided they might know more about it than you or were closer to the actual event being claimed.

It makes a difference WHY they believe it or claim it, and you don't know for sure why they claim it, but you may have a pretty good idea. In some cases the belief or claim of another is good evidence, depending on why they believe it, and you may have good reason to take their word as reliable.

In many cases you don't know for sure if they believe it for a good reason, so you can't rule out the possibility that they may have a good reason for believing it -- you have to allow the possibility that it's true. Whereas if you know they have a bad reason for believing it, then you might dismiss it as false or highly unlikely.

The trouble with saying "Just because others believe it doesn't make it so" is that you cannot then tell us what DOES make it so, because the fact is that virtually everything you know about the world was something you heard or read from someone else who believed it, and that's the only reason you believe it.

If you know something about the ancient Romans or Greeks or the Bible writers that is not based on other people's claims or beliefs about them, what would that be? Give an example.

How do you know Caesar was assassinated? You have no proof of it yourself -- you just believe others who claim someone else claims to have read documents repeating what some earlier author claimed and so on, and so it's all based on beliefs you picked up from the populo.

aa5874

So, would you accept Marcion's PHANTOM JESUS as the true miracle worker?

The PHANTOM was in Judea in the days of Tiberius if you believe what the Church said about Marcion's teachings.

You have evidence that Jesus was a PHANTOM, why don't you believe Marcion?

freetrader

July 22, 2009 #6025344 / #161
show_no_mercy


His popular cause was something those followers already believed in. I have acknowledged that people will follow a popular hero they identify with and promises to lead them on a crusade they already want to go on. He doesn't need to perform any miracle to persuade them to follow him.

There is no claim here that the Egyptian actually performed any miracle deed. Show a document saying that he or someone really performed such an act, and of course you need a second document that makes the same or similar claim for corroboration.


Again, they believed in his cause, which was to fight against the Romans and win independence. No one denies that people will rally around a leader who leads a political crusade they fanatically agree with.

Furthermore, there is a difference between recognizing someone as a "king" and recognizing him as "the messiah". Josephus knew the term "Christ" and would have used it here if this is what the followers of this guy intended.

Again, if you're looking for someone similar to Jesus, who was mythologized into a miracle-worker, find a source that describes a miracle act he did, plus a second source saying something similar for corroboration -- like the four gospel accounts that relate several of the miracles of Jesus and Paul who confirms the resurrection and the 500 witnesses.

Find something like that in order to make your case that there were other miracle-working messiah figures coming out of the woodwork during this period.


I can't believe you're serious. You really think these are analogous to the case of Jesus? This guy is like all the others, leading a popular cause which many believed in already and joined him. They were on a political crusade, a revolution or insurgency against the Roman occupation. No miracles were necessary to convince dissidents to join such a cause.

Find a source that says he actually performed some miracle acts. Even just one.


Here we go again:

And this is supposed to prove that Jesus (the other one) did not do any miracle acts? I'm more worried about what you've been smoking than whatever spirit was possessing this character.

Is this the best that can be found from Josephus to prove that there were other miracle-working messiahs running around at this time who had as much power as Jesus possessed? I think Jesus can rest easy that there were no other serious messiahs around competing with him for first prize.

freetrader

July 23, 2009 #6026854 / #162
jakejonesiv


Again, these are not comparable to the case of Jesus.


Apollonius: For this one there is only one source, which is almost 200 years after the celebrated historical figure lived, if he existed. When there's only one source, the evidence is much less reliable. And when that source is so long after the historical figure lived, it is even less reliable.

Even if it's true that this person really lived, his reputation as a miracle-worker can easily be attributed to mythologizing which could have started toward the end of his life and increased during those many generations before his biography was finally written down.

He could easily have become a legend in his own time, because he lived about 85 years and must have had a very long public career in which to win a large following of admirers who would tell stories about him. There are myths that he travelled to India and was honored there as a sage, which probably isn't true, but it indicates that he certainly had a long public career, maybe 50 years.

So any comparison to Jesus is ludicrous. Jesus had no wide recognition and had only 1-2 years in which to gather any followers, and so it is impossible to explain how the mythologizing process could have occurred in his case.


Asclepius: It's virtually impossible to determine anything about the historical figure. Almost everything about him is the mythology that developed over the centuries up to the 1st century AD. We can assume he was a physician who practiced normal medicine for his time (1200 BC) and probably had a long career in which to acquire his reputation. Maybe he was unusually successful and so became mythologized into a Greek god.

There are hundreds of miracle healings attributed to him, but these emerged over many centuries of mythologizing. So they could all be easily explained as a product of mythologizing without any need to believe they really happened.

But if he did perform any miracle cures, as the legends claim, there's nothing wrong with that. If there is evidence (anecdotes dating from 1100 BC or earlier) that he did, then let's have it. More than likely there were other practitioners who were even better than Asclepius and he just happened to gain a reputation and got chosen to be the folk hero for healing and got mythologized over the following centuries.

By comparison, Jesus was deified into a miracle healer by 40 years after his life at the latest, and soon after we have the four gospel accounts which attest to his power to heal, and his public career was too short for him to accumulate a sufficient number of followers to invent miracle stories about him.


Simon Magus: The mythologizing process began no later than the Book of Acts (8:9-25), and this text might have been inspired by a legend of Simon the magician earlier in the century. He had a career of at least 20 years (from about 30 AD to some time after 50) in which to accumulate a following of admirers who could have started the early mythologizing process.

All the particular miracle stories about him are from much later (less reliable) sources. Josephus says only that he was a "magician" and Acts, written about 20 years after his life, says he amazed people with his magic. All else about him is from about 140 AD and later, making it much less reliable as evidence. There's no early corroboration of the claim in Acts that he did any amazing acts of magic.

So there's no comparison of Simon Magus to Jesus, whose public career was too short to accumulate any following and who had no reputation or recognition as anyone of importance, outside the miracle stories in the gospel accounts.

So whereas we can explain easily how Simon Magus became mythologized into a miracle-worker, the case of Jesus fits no such pattern and the miracle stories cannot be explained as a result of mythologizing.

freetrader

July 23, 2009 #6027153 / #163
spamandham


They are only less probable. All you can say about them is that they cannot be explained by current known science, and they are acts which are impossible to do in normal or familiar experience.

So one should be more skeptical of such claims and require a higher standard of evidence. But still, if there are sufficient anecdotes attesting to such events, and there is no plausible explanation how the anecdotes originated, then the greater likelihood might be that the events really did happen.

To dogmatically rule out such events as an absolute impossibility is not scientific or rational.


But no plausible explanation so far has been offered how the Jesus miracle stories could have been invented. The proposition that he actually did the acts seems more plausible. The only reason to reject this explanation is the unnecessary dogma that excludes such acts as an absolute impossibility.

Even if it has to be seen as improbable, it should still be kept open as a possibility, and instead of saying it's impossible, what's wrong with just saying, "We don't know"?

Why is there such an obsession to insist that these events cannot, must not, have happened, as though one's life depends on it? or as though one wishes to be able to stamp them out or erase them from the record, if only it were possible?

freetrader

July 31, 2009 #6039684 / #165
spamandham


But then what IS the reason he became an icon? And what prompted the mythologizers to make him into a god and attribute miracle stories to him? Such mythologizing is not done to a person of no recognition or status.


But he mentions the resurrection (1 Cor. 15), naming some of the witnesses and also claiming 500 witnesses saw Jesus resurrected and saying that most of them were still living.

That he passes over the healing acts is not surprising. The Book of Acts says virtually nothing about the miracle healings of Jesus, even though the writer surely knew of them and believed they happened. Most later Christian writers say nothing of the healing acts, even though they knew of them from the gospel accounts and believed them.

Paul's purpose was to preach and expound on the resurrection, not narrate the acts of Jesus.


That's the point -- Jesus was NOT a legendary figure at this time, that is, if he did not do the miracle acts. He was of no importance and had no recognition or status that would cause anyone to want to mythologize him.


Yes, but it was never done with an unimportant figure of no status or recognition, and unlike today, Jesus back then had no importance or status (unless he did perform those miracle healing acts). They never mythologized a nobody into a god.

freetrader

July 31, 2009 #6039841 / #166
Amaleq13


But you can't state what "reliable" evidence is other than still more anecdotal evidence. Give an example of evidence for historical events that is not anecdotal? All of it is some claim by a writer saying something happened, based on what he heard or read from some previous anecdotal source and so on back to the original events. It's all nothing but anecdotes all the way.

Name any historical evidence that is not based on anecdotes.

Even archaeological evidence (which is only a small fraction of the evidence for historical facts) is really anecdotal, because you have to believe the archaeologist who claims he dug up the artifacts, and you have no way to confirm that this anecdote he's telling you is the truth. And the fact is that you probably don't know one archaeologist who dug up any evidence you rely on, because you just trust what some book or expert claims an archaeologist dug up and have no way to confirm their claim, which itself is also a mere anecdote.

So you have no basis to claim that only certain evidence is "reliable" and the rest is only anecdotes, because you cannot say what the difference is between the "reliable" evidence and the anecdotes, and you cannot name any evidence you rely on that is not anecdotal in the final analysis.

The miracles of Jesus are reputed events which are attested to just as reliably as most evidence we accept for historical facts. Their only drawback is that they claim a miracle act took place ("miracle" = unexplained by current known science) and so have to start out with a presumption of lower probability compared to more ordinary reputed events.

But other than this difference, the miracle healing acts of Jesus are documented just as reliably as most of the facts of history that are assumed as probably true. They don't fall back on anecdotes any more than most other historical facts that are accepted, though they cannot be ranked among the most reliable known facts but at a lower level of probability.


It is logically connected to the believability or probability of the belief. If more people believe it, it increases the probability or likelihood that it is true. There may be other factors also affecting the probability which may carry greater weight than the number who believe it. But all else being equal, a higher number of people believing it makes it more likely that it's true.

You cannot give an example of a belief or truth which does not follow the above principle. When a popular belief is false, it is not false because the belief is popular, but because of other known facts which weigh heavier than the popularity of the belief.

Practically everything you believe about the world, and especially about past history, is based on beliefs and claims made by others, and you accept it because others believe it or claim it. You don't know that Washington was the first President except from the fact that so many others claim it and believe it, and it's because of the high number of others claiming it or believing it that you are so certain that it's true. And except for all those others claiming it or believing it, you wouldn't believe it, or you wouldn't be so certain that it's true.

How do you know it? Because you read it in a book? That's just one more person claiming it or believing it, and if you say "But he's an expert," you don't know that except because he claims it, or because someone else claims it, and so all your knowledge of history is really based only on the accumulation of claims and beliefs from others, without which you'd have no knowledge of anything other than your direct perceptions and memories.

So the probability of something being true is directly and logically related to the claims and beliefs of others that it is true. Even if it's not proof, it is evidence that increases the probability of the claim or belief being true. You can't give any example to prove otherwise, as I have given the example of the probability that Washington was the first President and that you believe it because of the beliefs of others.


Excluding what you know from direct perception, you cannot demonstrate with any example how an increased belief in a claim does not increase the probability that it is true. You can't claim we gain our beliefs from some source different than the beliefs or claims of others if you can't identify what that source is.

Doug Shaver

You're assuming your conclusion. The evidence is not persuasive to anyone except those with a prior commitment to believing that Jesus worked miracles.

Amaleq13

That is only one among several logical fallacies and outright false ideas (eg all history is based on anecdotal evidence ) that comprise his position but that has been pointed out several times and several times ignored. These recent posts make it very clear that he hasn't actually been reading anyone's posts but his own. He repeats questions that have already been answered and thinks I've changed my position when it's what I've been arguing from the beginning.

A waste of time to try to engage with someone either incapable of or uninterested in genuine discussion.

Willful ignorance, stubbornly held. :banghead:

freetrader

August 8, 2009 #6049471 / #168
aa5874


Any belief that someone did miracles, if it is a widespread belief, is dependent on certain conditions taking place. We know this because these conditions apply in ALL examples of any widely-reputed miracle-worker. These conditions are always the case, and they explain how the hero figure came to be mythologized into a miracle-worker.

The figure in question has to have a wide reputation and celebrity status among those who do the mythologizing. He must be respected among those people as a hero or someone having power and recognition for some perceived accomplishment or great deeds or status in the culture and a long career of performing acts or wielding power which attracted admiration and a following of worshippers.

When this condition is met, then yes, that historical individual may not have really done any miracles -- the miracle stories might all be fictional. It is a normal practice for such a widely-renowned figure to become the object of storytelling among masses of common people who pass on the stories and add to them over time.

But it is not possible for an obscure figure of no repute to become mythologized into a miracle-worker. So when the miracle stories became attached to Jesus, who had no reputation or status, the mythologizing explanation does not appy, and a more likely explanation is that the stories are actually true.

The belief that Jesus did miracles is dependent on Jesus either having actually performed the acts in question, or on having been a popular reputed hero with a long career of preaching or doing notable deeds which brought him widespread recognition, as in the case of other reputed miracle-workers like Simon Magus or Apollonius or Vespasian or Hercules or Asclepius, etc.


No, more is required. It is not true that a person could simply invent a "plausible" story about someone of no repute doing miracles and that hundreds or thousands of hearers of the stories would then believe it. Such things do not happen -- you cannot cite any examples of that. You need to stop attributing this kind of stupidity to all the people of the 1st century. This is a slander against the people then or of any time.

You have no basis for any such claim. You cannot show any case where any population, back then or at any time in history, was willing to attach themselves to a supposed miracle-worker who was a nobody of no reputation or status in the culture.

What you can give examples of are hero figures who had a wide reputation, developed over many years of preaching or performing great acts or wielding power, and who then became mythologized. It requires more than just the plausible stories about the hero -- it also requires a recognized hero figure of status to whom the stories can be attached. There is no evidence that an obscure unrecognized figure could gain a following and get mythologized as you imagine happened in the case of Jesus.


No, ANY story about healing, regardless of the method, had to be connected to a hero figure who had a wide reputation -- only then would people believe such stories. You can't name any example where an obscure unrecognized figure became widely accepted as a miracle-worker just because someone said he spit and cured blindness. People did not believe such things unless the healer in question was someone of status or recognition in the culture.

Poking fun at the spitting is good for a few chuckles, but that's all you have to offer. You can show no precedent for any other case of someone obscure and of no recognition in the culture becoming mythologized into a miracle-worker.

Out of the dozens of miracle healing acts attributed to Jesus, only three mention the spitting. The fact that there are so few examples of this is actually evidence that the reputation of Jesus as a miracle-worker is not basically fictional, because if it were fictional the number of spitting stories would be greater, as this kind of healing practice was part of the popular folklore and would have been used more frequently by the gospel storytellers if they were simply inventing a fictional hero figure.


No, he would have been rejected out of hand and would have died without even being a footnote in history if all he claimed was that angels and God told him about hidden plates. No, he claimed much more than that.

What he did was connect himself to a popular religious tradition already firmly in place for many centuries, claiming his hidden plates told of Jesus making a second appearance in the New World among the Native American tribes. He expanded upon the already-existing Christian belief system of the Bible, offering people the same Savior in a revised form.

All he needed was some charisma to help him communicate this and he was able to gather a following. Had he lived a long life, perhaps he would have become mythologized into a miracle-worker too, like some earlier Christian saints. What works well is a combination of charisma and having a long distinguished career and using an already-recognized religious tradition as a springboard.

It takes far more than just a "plausible idea" of communicating to God and angels and finding some hidden plates.

If you think this is all it takes, then go out and tell people you talked to angels and to God and found some hidden plates and see if anyone believes you and will join your new religion. The more likely response you'll get is that they'll put you in a straitjacket and pack you off to an asylum.


For belief in miracles -- for it to become widespread -- part of the plausibility is that the miracle-worker must be a recognized figure with a wide reputation and status within the culture of the would-be believers. Without this ingredient there cannot be belief in a miracle-worker. If there could be, there would be at least a few examples of such a thing -- examples of unrecognized individuals in history who became deified into miracle-workers.


No it is not plausible if that would-be Son of God was an obscure figure of no repute and no status among Romans or Greeks. They did not adopt any such deities out of obscurity and out of the blue.

Again, you cannot name one example from any culture of any time where an obscure unknown unrecognized figure of no status was accepted as a "Son of God" figure who did miracles. Such stories either were never invented at all or if they were they were rejected as nonsense.


More correctly it was the Jesus story that made Constantine Emperor of Rome. He leaped onto an already-moving bandwagon and rode it to power and fame. Its momentum was already a fact and a reality which the new power-seekers had to reckon with if they expected to succeed in establishing their power.


They believed the miracles of Jesus as presented in the gospel accounts. Without that already-existing tradition as its start-off point or base, Mormonism would have fallen flat from the beginning. Without the Christ of the New Testament as his central deity figure to build upon, Joseph Smith would have been a total flop.