Religious men's Miracles....

[Contrapuntal]

@Skammer

And there is no reason to assume that the stories did not originate from eyewitness accounts, unless you dismiss the possibilty of miracles occuring at all, a priori.

Which is an entirely reasonable position to hold.

[flight]

@Skammer

You know it’s unlikely that the Gospel authors “made up” the miracle stories, since there is quite an overlap between them. It is much more likely that they all got the stories from a common source. And there is no reason to assume that the stories did not originate from eyewitness accounts, unless you dismiss the possibilty of miracles occuring at all, a priori.

You are correct on the common source, but it can be from common acceptance. The stories were written by different individuals who hung out together for quite some time talking about these things. It is likely that a commonly accepted view would arise.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Walloon

How can you know?

1. Because miracles are impossible, so that means *somebody[/i made them up.
   2.Since the Gospels are the first place the miracles appear in Christian literature, it’s only reasonable to assume those authors made them up.

[Skammer]

Sure it is, but it’s good form to make your presuppostions clear. If miracles do not occur, then the ones attributed to Jesus and others were either made up or were some kind of deception. But, simply saying “they were made up” does not make it true if your underlying assumption (miracles are impossible) is not granted.

If Diogenes could prove that the stories were made up without relying on the assumption that miracles are impossible, I would retract my objection.

[Skammer]

My last post was a response to Contrapuntal.

@Diogenes the Cynic

1. Because miracles are impossible, so that means *somebody[/i made them up.
   2.Since the Gospels are the first place the miracles appear in Christian literature, it’s only reasonable to assume those authors made them up.

My answer to this is 1. (see my previous post)

2. Christian literature that predates the gospels is sparse, and what exists does not give a lot of detail about the life of Jesus (otherwise, it would be considered a gospel). To assume those authors made them up could be a reasonable assumption (given your #1); but it’s hardly the only reasonable assumption. If you assume miracles are not impossible, it is also reasonable to assume that the gospel writers recorded stories handed down (or directly told) from those who knew and witnessed Jesus.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Skammer

which is unsuprising, since the only records we have at all were written decades (“many” is debatable) after he lived. It’s just as accurate to say that the miracles are present in the earliest records of Jesus’ life.

But that’s not true. The earliest Christian writings do not contain miracle stories (Q, Thomas, the Pauline corpus). The first assertions of miracles do not appear in Christian writings until at least 40 years after the alleged crucifixion and those assertions are not made by witnesses.

You know it’s unlikely that the Gospel authors “made up” the miracle stories, since there is quite an overlap between them.

What do you mean by “overlap?” The gospels are not independent.

It is much more likely that they all got the stories from a common source.

There are no miracle stories until Mark. Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Why is it necessary to posit another independent source when Matthew and Luke could get the stories out of Mark. Of course, Matthew and Luke also added some of their own individual (and contradictory) Nativity stories and invented some miracles of their own but we know that they shared Mark as a source. It’s also instructive to note that Matt and Luke do not share any miracles in common that they did not get from Mark.

And there is no reason to assume that the stories did not originate from eyewitness accounts, unless you dismiss the possibilty of miracles occuring at all, a priori.

Of course I dismiss the possibility of miracles out of hand. There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about assuming the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. However, even if I did not make such an assumption, the assertion that any of the miracles stories came from witnesses is incumbant on someone else to prove, not for me to disprove.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Skammer

Sure it is, but it’s good form to make your presuppostions clear. If miracles do not occur, then the ones attributed to Jesus and others were either made up or were some kind of deception. But, simply saying “they were made up” does not make it true if your underlying assumption (miracles are impossible) is not granted.

If Diogenes could prove that the stories were made up without relying on the assumption that miracles are impossible, I would retract my objection.

I don’t have to prove the impossible is impossible. That’s a ludicrous demand. Can you prove that my Ford Taurus can’t fly through space? If you want to assert the existence of magic, the burden is entirely upon you.

[Tevildo]

To get this back on topic:

There are, actually, [http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=106]quite a few miracles attributed to Mohammed.

[Tevildo]

• mews *

Apologies for not previewing. Could someone fix that link? Thanks.

[zev_steinhardt]

@Skammer

I am not aware of any miracles attributed to Martin Luther, but generally in Christian history miracles are by no means exclusive to Jesus. Most hagiographies (biographies of saints) list all sorts of crazy miracles performed by Christian men and women throughout the centuries.

Well, by definition, in order to be canonized as a saint, you need to have miracles attrributed to you (or your intervention). So, the fact that there are saints being canonized shows that (at least according to Roman Catholic doctrine) miracles are by no means exclusive to Jesus.

Zev Steinhardt

[Skammer]

Diogenes, I’m not arguing with you that Matthew & Luke borrowed from Mark (that’s what I meant by overlap). They also have miracle stories that are not in Mark, as does John. And I’m not asking you to prove miracles are impossible; it can’t be done. My point is that declaring “miracles are impossible” is not proof that miracles are, in fact, impossible. And if they are not impossible, that’s at least one more explaination for the gospel stories other than they were made up out of whole cloth.

But this is turning into a GD… sorry for the extended hijack.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Skammer

Diogenes, I’m not arguing with you that Matthew & Luke borrowed from Mark (that’s what I meant by overlap). They also have miracle stories that are not in Mark, as does John.

Yes, but none of those Gospels share any miracles that didn’t come from Mark. John has several miracles which are not found in any other Gospel. So does Luke. When any of the non-Marcan gospels get away from their Marcan material, they stop sharing miracle stories. If there are no common miracles that do not come from Mark then it can’t be said that there is any evidence for a common source for these stories besides Mark.

And I’m not asking you to prove miracles are impossible; it can’t be done. My point is that declaring “miracles are impossible” is not proof that miracles are, in fact, impossible. And if they are not impossible, that’s at least one more explaination for the gospel stories other than they were made up out of whole cloth.

But this is turning into a GD… sorry for the extended hijack.

Oops, I had actually been under the impression that this was in GD. My position, quickly, is that miracles are impossible by definition. It it’s not impossible, it’s not a miracle.

[smiling_bandit]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Christian miracles were not written into the record until many decades after Jesus lived either and none of the miracle stories are attested by eyewitnesses.

That would would be why I said centuries, as opposed to decades.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

But that’s not true. The earliest Christian writings do not contain miracle stories (Q, Thomas, the Pauline corpus).

Yea, but you wouldn’t expect them to. Q doesn’t exist in any form other than extrapolation, and even putting aside the dating controversy over Thomas, it’s a sayings gospel.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Captain Amazing

Yea, but you wouldn’t expect them to. Q doesn’t exist in any form other than extrapolation, and even putting aside the dating controversy over Thomas, it’s a sayings gospel.

It still represents one of the earliest Christian writings so I think it still rebuts the assertion that the miracles were present in “the earliest Christian records.” I happen to think that when it comes to sayings gospels, the genre, in itself, is evidence that the earliest Jesus movement was based on the teachings of a wisdom teacher rather than a belief in miraculous events. Thomas and Q do not even reference Jesus divinity. I find that to be a case of extraordinary absence of evidence.

I would also pount out that Paul never speaks of any miracles (other than the resurrection) either. The Pauline corpus is fairly substantial even if it is limited only to the seven letters generally recognized as authentic.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I would also pount out that Paul never speaks of any miracles (other than the resurrection) either. The Pauline corpus is fairly substantial even if it is limited only to the seven letters generally recognized as authentic.

Well, Paul doesn’t speak of any miracles of Jesus. He does talk about miracles performed by Jesus’s followers, though. 1 Corinthians:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

and then again in 2 Corinthians, about himself:

The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance

And then Galatians:

Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

So I wouldn’t say that the Pauline epistles were “miracle free”.

[Captain_Amazing]

Also, even if the earliest Jesus miracles are Markian, smiling bandit is still right. The Gospel of Mark was written relatively early within Christianity (70-80 CE?), so the “Jesus as miracle worker” stories still are attributed much earlier in Christianity’s history than the “Buddha as miracle worker” or “Lao Tzu a miracle worker” ideas in Buddhism and Taoism respectfully.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Captain Amazing

Well, Paul doesn’t speak of any miracles of Jesus. He does talk about miracles performed by Jesus’s followers, though. 1 Corinthians:

and then again in 2 Corinthians, about himself:

And then Galatians:

So I wouldn’t say that the Pauline epistles were “miracle free”.

I wouldn’t call faith healing and speaking in tongues real miracles and those claoims still don’t change the fact that Paul never attributes any miracles to Jesus.

Also, even if the earliest Jesus miracles are Markian, smiling bandit is still right. The Gospel of Mark was written relatively early within Christianity (70-80 CE?), so the "Jesus as miracle worker" stories still are attributed much earlier in Christianity's history than the "Buddha as miracle worker" or "Lao Tzu a miracle worker" ideas in Buddhism and Taoism respectfully.

And they’re still attributed later and with more distance than some miracle stories which were attributed to Roman Emperors. So what? I think it’s a specious point. There are miracles attributed to living religious leaders today. The proximity of such attributions means very little in any case and in the case of Jesus, those attrubutions are further weakened by the lack of contemporary or eyewitness testimony. Yes, Buddhist miracle attrubutions are even later but I don’t believe those either (I don’t believe Lao Tse existed at all) so that doesn’t mean much to me.

[Walloon]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The proximity of such attributions means very little in any case

Yet you are the one who brought that up.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The proximity of such attributions means very little in any case and in the case of Jesus, those attrubutions are further weakened by the lack of contemporary or eyewitness testimony. Yes, Buddhist miracle attrubutions are even later but I don’t believe those either (I don’t believe Lao Tse existed at all) so that doesn’t mean much to me.

Well, the question wasn’t whether or not the religious figures in question actually could perform miracles…that’s irrelevant. The question was whether or not religious figures other than Jesus had miracles attributed to them, and what Smiling Bandit was saying was that the attriibution of miracles to Jesus happened sooner in the history of Christianity than the attribution of miracles to other founders of major religions by their adherents. I’m willing to accept your statement about Vespasian, but as he didn’t found any major religions, it doesn’t really seem on point.