Ship of Fools: All that miracle crap was added later

Thread: All that miracle crap was added later Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024584

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The view is sometimes expressed (cf. the Why Dogma? thread currently in Purg) that Jesus was a good moral/ethical teacher, but then his disciples came and layered on a bunch of miracles and crap over this simple country preacher of goodwill.

I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap. On what basis can one argue the miracles were added "later"? We don't have anything that precedes the gospels or Paul's letters that portrays the simple country preacher.

Even, as Bostonman points out in the thread linked, the Gnostic gospels (which focus on the teachings and not the miracles) are much later. Why should we think them a more accurate, let alone an earlier, portrayal of the man?

It seems that the argument runs, "I like what he said about how to treat other people; it would have made a good message for an itinerant first-century preacher; therefore that's all he was, and the rest was added later."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This reminds me of the argument that early Christianity becomes higher and higher, so we end up with gJohn, which is very high. However, you could cite Paul as a counter here, if you see Paul as high.

This is the argument made by mythicists of course, who desperately need an early high theology, so that they can show that being human was added later. Quite bizarre really.

The first argument rests on the idea for example, that Mark is basically not high, but fairly factual, and I think some scholars used to argue that Q was probably not high.

I just find these arguments really difficult to grapple with, partly because they seem to require so much knowledge of the texts.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

When some Jewish writers were trying to denounce Jesus, they never said that the miracles never happened - which would have been easy to prove if this was the case. Instead Jesus' power was said to be demoniacal - it was never doubted that the miracles actually happened.

Considering the relatively short timescale of Jesus' earthly ministry (meaning that after it ended, many who witnessed it were still alive), it would have been easy to disprove the miracles, but that didn't happen. It certainly would have been in the interests of others to do so.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I don't happen to agree with the "miracles as accretion" notion, but there is sense to be made of it apart from actual evidence in scripture.
First, we have no shortage of examples of how people add miraculous stories to the lives of people who are seen as extraordinary. So it is clearly a recognizable human tendency to do that.

Second, we have the record of the non-canonical gospels, which are filled with ever-more extravagant stories of Jesus' life -- and even of the lives of those who were close to Him.

Third, if you believe as I do that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, it is suggestive that the only story where Christ fails to get a miracle right the first time fails to appear in any other Gospel. It is not impossible to see that as the working-out of Christ's divinity before our very eyes.

So it is hardly a wild flight of fancy to impute such into the canonical Gospels. ISTM that we choose not to take that short flight, not because it is impossibly difficult, but because our faith does not require it. As always, YMMV.

--Tom Clune

[ 28. January 2013, 17:53: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But miracles by great men were widely accepted, weren't they? Thus Roman emperors were credited with them.

Plus, the idea of naturalism was not around then. It would have been difficult for a critic to argue that miracles were an affront to reason and science, since I don't think anybody made that argument then, nor indeed, for a long time.

I'm just familiar with the argument that the earlier you look, the less miraculous, as in Mark, and the later, the more, as in John. And this has been extended to the idea that very early Christians did not see Jesus as divine.

But then Paul is difficult, since he is the earliest of all.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Not enough of an NT scholar to venture a worthwhile opinion about whether "the miracle crap" was written in or added later, but this frankly seems unlikely to me. What little I have read about the NT and its compilation suggests that "later" material -- that is later than the actual events, assuming there were some -- is what the gospels & related material entirely consist of, i.e., all we've got.

Instead, I think it likely that "miracles" of some sort were probably expected of wandering preachers of Jesus' time as part of their stock-in-trade. If you couldn't pull off a few Moses-style staff-into-serpent magic tricks (or alternatively, at least persuade your audiences to believe you had), you weren't likely to attract much of a following. How could you believably (in 1st-century-Palestinian-audience terms) claim the authority to speak on behalf of God if you couldn't turn water into wine, drive out the odd demon, or stroll along the surface of the waves?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Considering the relatively short timescale of Jesus' earthly ministry (meaning that after it ended, many who witnessed it were still alive), it would have been easy to disprove the miracles, but that didn't happen. It certainly would have been in the interests of others to do so.

However, given the apparent absence of any recoverable body (something the authorities were keen to get their hands on), it might also have been in authoritarian interests to get the whole episode forgotten as quickly as possible, rather than prolong things by calling attention to the alleged "miracles."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One of the arguments, is that if you accept the hypothetical very early document Q, (which some scholars do not), then probably Q was a sayings collection, like the gospel of Thomas, which did not indicate that Jesus was divine. Thus, phrases such as 'son of God', 'son of man' and 'messiah' did not indicate divinity for Jews.

However, this argument is highly speculative, and rests on the hypothetical Q, and therefore strikes some people as very iffy. Unfortunately, it is also a very technical argument, and I usually get lost in it, since first you have to infer Q from the actual gospels, Matthew and Luke.

I think this idea has been picked up by Ehrman.

Ironically, the mythicists - those who argue that Jesus did not exist - have to argue against this line, as they argue that the early version of Jesus was 'celestial' and was than humanized.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap.

I think the view is also untenable, in that it was far more likely that Jesus was a hellfire and damnation preacher than that he was a simple teacher of love. Certainly if you take out of the Gospels everything that has a parallel in Paul the love your enemy stuff goes and the it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah stuff stays.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Tclune's explanation above makes imminent sense.

I have always thought that it is odd that certain conversations are recorded in the NT gospels -- who was there hear them, who knew which person to ask about them? Examples: Jesus' interview with Pilate, temptation by satan, who was awake to hear him pray in Gethsemane.

It has struck me that actual first hand witness statements, which are our modern way, weren't back then, with the stories designed to serve a purpose other than simple and factual truth. It is certainly understandable that once some of the miraculous things are questioned, that everything can come into question. Thus, sometimes all of it comes under scrutiny and for rejection. The question then arises: is Christianity dependent on "all that miracle crap".

I'm not persuaded that various acts of healing, for example, actually support Jesus' divinity rather than detract from it. Because they are doled out sparingly both back then and presently, they speak to a god who is frequently capricious and also plays favourites.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap.
I think the view is also untenable, in that it was far more likely that Jesus was a hellfire and damnation preacher than that he was a simple teacher of love. Certainly if you take out of the Gospels everything that has a parallel in Paul the love your enemy stuff goes and the it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah stuff stays.

I'm not following -- why do you take out the stuff in Paul?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I imagine it rests on the assumption that the incarnation and miracles are impossible. Call what's left over a great sage because he so humbly bows down to one's preconceived ethical assumptions.

[ 28. January 2013, 21:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Third, if you believe as I do that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, it is suggestive that the only story where Christ fails to get a miracle right the first time fails to appear in any other Gospel. It is not impossible to see that as the working-out of Christ's divinity before our very eyes.

I see this story as one of many Markan narratives where the disciples (and by extension Mark's church and in the Christian life in general) keep on misunderstanding Jesus' missions and need to be continually corrected by Jesus. This is a major theme in Mark that continues even after the resurrection in 16:14. The man's blindness is symbolic of our own blindness, and the fact that the treatment needs to be repeated shows how hard it is to open the (spiritual) eyes of the (spiritually) blind.

As to the miracles in general. Jesus' miracle were meant to be seen as signs that he was the one who had been hoped for by Israel. He is critical of those who just want miracles and who have faith in miracles rather than seeing Him doing the works of His Father. Miracles are a dime a dozen and are of no value unless your eyes are opened to the work of God.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I have always thought that it is odd that certain conversations are recorded in the NT gospels -- who was there hear them, who knew which person to ask about them? Examples: Jesus' interview with Pilate, temptation by satan, who was awake to hear him pray in Gethsemane.

There is a thread in Limbo that deals with the Gethsemane prayer. As far as Jesus' interview with Pilate is concerned, the accounts do not say that no one else was present. The temptation by Satan is more difficult. It's possible Jesus told his disciples about it.

Moo

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I see this story as one of many Markan narratives where the disciples (and by extension Mark's church and in the Christian life in general) keep on misunderstanding Jesus' missions and need to be continually corrected by Jesus...

I found your post both interesting and enlightening. Thank you.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

First off, thanks for opening this thread mousethief.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap.
I think the view is also untenable, in that it was far more likely that Jesus was a hellfire and damnation preacher than that he was a simple teacher of love. Certainly if you take out of the Gospels everything that has a parallel in Paul the love your enemy stuff goes and the it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah stuff stays.
I'm not following -- why do you take out the stuff in Paul?

I think why Dafyd is saying is that—in addition to your argument about miracles—the Jesus-without-Paul advocates (e.g., KHANDS) defeat themselves quite a bit because most of the love-your-neighbor stuff is found in Paul. So if one removes the Pauline influence (i.e., what KHANDS and others might suggest) then one actually end up with less of the moral teachings and more of the hellfire-and-damnation preaching.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
First off, thanks for opening this thread mousethief.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap.
I think the view is also untenable, in that it was far more likely that Jesus was a hellfire and damnation preacher than that he was a simple teacher of love. Certainly if you take out of the Gospels everything that has a parallel in Paul the love your enemy stuff goes and the it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah stuff stays.
I'm not following -- why do you take out the stuff in Paul?
I think why Dafyd is saying is that—in addition to your argument about miracles—the Jesus-without-Paul advocates (e.g., KHANDS) defeat themselves quite a bit because most of the love-your-neighbor stuff is found in Paul. So if one removes the Pauline influence (i.e., what KHANDS and others might suggest) then one actually end up with less of the moral teachings and more of the hellfire-and-damnation preaching.

I think I get it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I imagine it rests on the assumption that the incarnation and miracles are impossible. Call what's left over a great sage because he so humbly bows down to one's preconceived ethical assumptions.

A lot of this kind of theologizing starts by taking an idea of what God is "really" like and adapting scripture to fit. Christian scripture speaks with so many different voices it's eminently (immanently?) suited for such exercises. So, if you want a God with eternal wisdom and who's above pulling loaves and fishes out of a hat or turning women into salt pillars like a cheap conjuror, then all those things are just metaphors or embellishments by later authors or whatever. Likewise, if you want a God who's merciful, then all those bits about lakes of fire or how you should murder Amalekite infants is just "man's imperfect understanding" or poetic license. Ditto for a God who approves usury. Double ditto for a god who endorses racial or gender equality. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . . .

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Certainly if you take out of the Gospels everything that has a parallel in Paul the love your enemy stuff goes and the it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah stuff stays.
I'm not following -- why do you take out the stuff in Paul?

As Bostonman said, there are a crowd who want to blame Paul for everything that's wrong with Christianity. The idea seems to be that Jesus put forward some simple ethical teachings, or possibly a version of Kantianism / Buddhism / New Age paganism, and then Paul came along and corrupted it. The textual evidence doesn't seem to support any of that.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I bet there were some strongly sceptical thinkers in the time of Jesus! [Smile]

However, they would not then have had strong enough information to refute convincingly the claims of miracles.

[ 29. January 2013, 07:30: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I bet there were some strongly sceptical thinkers in the time of Jesus! However, they would not then have had strong enough information to refute convincingly the claims of miracles.

Why not just take the miracles at face value and accept them as such? There were plenty who witnessed the miracles, and who could have refuted them - but this never happened. I just genuinely do not understand the need to find 'scientific' explanations for everything - why not just accept and enjoy the fact that sometimes miracles happen and we don't understand them?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's not about information, is it? I don't see that we have gained any modern knowledge, which will tell you that miracles don't happen. Obviously, if there is an omnipotent God, they could happen; if there isn't, it's much less likely.

But how does 'information' tell us about whether God exists or not? For example, science does not tell us this.

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

1 million or so Christians dying for their faith in the Roman empire is impressive. Something must have convinced them they were right. I don't know 1 million Dawkinites willing to die for their rather bleak belief system...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
1 million or so Christians dying for their faith in the Roman empire is impressive. Something must have convinced them they were right. I don't know 1 million Dawkinites willing to die for their rather bleak belief system...

Dying for faith is certainly a sign of conviction. There are plenty of islamist extremists doing just that right now. This doesn't make their cause good or right, it just shows how very deluded and brainwashed they are.

ETA - Why do you call atheism bleak? My sons are atheists - both are happy, caring, positive young men. No, they wouldn't be willing to die for their beliefs - and neither would I (I am a Christian)

[ 29. January 2013, 08:11: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Everyone did miracles back then. All religions have tales of the fabulous. No story of a great person or battle is complete without a few miracles. In culturally different parts of the world miracles are still commonplace.

We in the West are very practised at disbelieving miracles, whether the stories come from Dark Ages Celts, ancient Romans or enthusiastic 20th Century missionaries. You can hardly engage with testimony from many times and places without running it through a few miracle and fable filters.

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

Atheism seems pretty bleak to me. Essentially you believe you evolved by accident from some pond slime and you're going to oblivion when you die.

The Christian faith by contrast says that we were designed and have eternal life to look forward to by faith in Jesus. Seems a lot more positive !

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I bet there were some strongly sceptical thinkers in the time of Jesus! However, they would not then have had strong enough information to refute convincingly the claims of miracles.

Sorry, but I really think this is nonsense, and quite insulting to our ancestors.

As CS Lewis points out, they might not have had all our knowledge of obstetrics, but the ancients knew perfectly well that women didn't get pregnant unless they had lain with men. For example. They also knew that dead people tended to stay dead and not come back to life again.

Talking about science in this way sounds like a big red herring to me.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Atheism seems pretty bleak to me. Essentially you believe you evolved by accident from some pond slime and you're going to oblivion when you die.

The Christian faith by contrast says that we were designed and have eternal life to look forward to by faith in Jesus. Seems a lot more positive !

Well, you don't need to convert me, but to call atheists 'bleak' just doesn't cut it. I know many atheists and not one of them is bleak!

I am a Christian and I believe evolution is the way we came about. Nothing bleak about that either - I was born to a caring mother, not pond slime!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Miracles in the Bible seem to have an evolution of their own.

In the Old Testament, ax-heads float, celestial fiery chariots descend from heaven, the sun stops in the sky, Moses pulls off better magic tricks than the Egyptian sorcerors. These seem to resemble the utterly fantastic and glamorous whizz-bang incidents familiar to other ancient religions.

But Jesus's miracles have a different feel. They're more immediately practical, focused and explanatory in the sense that, in the text of the gospels, they represent signs of what's happening spiritually. Contrast Jesus healing someone and bidding them keep it quiet (usually vainly), to Elijah and his Mount Carmel Fire and Massacre extravaganza.

And so many of the miracles slot neatly into the teaching. Genuine? Literally truthful? That may be debateable, but it's certainly not a coincidence. Given the times that were in it, Jesus wouldn't've had a following if he hadn't demonstrated some 'signs and wonders'. So it's easy to be cynical - though important to be skeptical maybe, too.

But the gospel authors would've had to be deeply disingenuous - and extraordinarily well coordinated and theologically sophisticated - to have created the documents they did, if there wasn't a strong reality behind it all. That's not to say there isn't a measure of all those things within the writings. But it would've had to have been at a virtually wholesale conspiratorial level to have created the effect it did - and still does on Christ's followers.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems that the argument runs, "I like what he said about how to treat other people; it would have made a good message for an itinerant first-century preacher; therefore that's all he was, and the rest was added later."

This characterization also ignores the extreme problems that inoffensive luv'n'dasies hippy Jesus would have had in getting himself hated enough for the Jews and the Romans to kill him.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems that the argument runs, "I like what he said about how to treat other people; it would have made a good message for an itinerant first-century preacher; therefore that's all he was, and the rest was added later."
This characterization also ignores the extreme problems that inoffensive luv'n'dasies hippy Jesus would have had in getting himself hated enough for the Jews and the Romans to kill him.

Yes. It's such a terrible argument that its only use is as an aunt sally to justify a desire to wilfully believe the incredible.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems that the argument runs, "I like what he said about how to treat other people; it would have made a good message for an itinerant first-century preacher; therefore that's all he was, and the rest was added later."
This characterization also ignores the extreme problems that inoffensive luv'n'dasies hippy Jesus would have had in getting himself hated enough for the Jews and the Romans to kill him.

You're not familiar with the comments section of the Daily Mail website, are you?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're not familiar with the comments section of the Daily Mail website, are you?

DS's first law: Never read the bottom half of the internet.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Atheism seems pretty bleak to me. Essentially you believe you evolved by accident from some pond slime and you're going to oblivion when you die.

The Christian faith by contrast says that we were designed and have eternal life to look forward to by faith in Jesus. Seems a lot more positive !

Upside down, I think. If you don't believe in some sort of heavenly afterlife, it may make you more inclined to value and cherish your brief mortal life. The delusional belief that we have something better to look forward to tragically shifts the focus. That all those Christians live and die with such vain hope is truly bleak in my opinion.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Atheism seems pretty bleak to me. Essentially you believe you evolved by accident from some pond slime and you're going to oblivion when you die.

The Christian faith by contrast says that we were designed and have eternal life to look forward to by faith in Jesus. Seems a lot more positive !
Upside down, I think. If you don't believe in some sort of heavenly afterlife, it may make you more inclined to value and cherish your brief mortal life. The delusional belief that we have something better to look forward to tragically shifts the focus. That all those Christians live and die with such vain hope is truly bleak in my opinion.

Either way, it's irrelevant. I care about what's true, not what's positive or uplifting.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The view is sometimes expressed (cf. the Why Dogma? thread currently in Purg) that Jesus was a good moral/ethical teacher, but then his disciples came and layered on a bunch of miracles and crap over this simple country preacher of goodwill.

I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap. On what basis can one argue the miracles were added "later"? We don't have anything that precedes the gospels or Paul's letters that portrays the simple country preacher.

Surely all that is saying is that there are no purely textual reasons for thinking the miracles came later? ISTM people generally believe or disbelieve in miracles for a variety of philosophical arguments.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Upside down, I think. If you don't believe in some sort of heavenly afterlife, it may make you more inclined to value and cherish your brief mortal life.[/QB]

I don't think one must follow from another. My life is very precious to me as I want to seee my children grow up and become happy, sucessful adults, and to spend years with my wife. Why would I want that to end? But when it does I know there is something better.

My analogy is that mortal life is like an excellent starter course before the superb main meal. Why would I race through the starter when I get huge amounts of please from it? The main course will still be just as good when it comes.

Your logic doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

mousethief wrote:

I believe this position is untenable, because the earliest documents we have contain all the miracle crap. On what basis can one argue the miracles were added "later"? We don't have anything that precedes the gospels or Paul's letters that portrays the simple country preacher.

Some textual scholars argue that Q and Mark have a much less high theology, than say, John. I think Ehrman takes this line in his books, and also other Q scholars. I suppose in Q, you end up with a no-frills Jesus, as they say, who is not seen as divine. Of course, conservative Christians will reject this line of enquiry out of hand.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some textual scholars argue that Q and Mark have a much less high theology, than say, John. I think Ehrman takes this line in his books, and also other Q scholars. I suppose in Q, you end up with a no-frills Jesus, as they say, who is not seen as divine. Of course, conservative Christians will reject this line of enquiry out of hand.

It's quite hard, of course, to use a hypothesis about Q as proof that the miracles were added in later. This line of reasoning also seems less than pertinent to the question, because a) Jesus does miracles in Mark, no matter how low Mark's Christology is, and b) non-divine, fully human people do miracles throughout the Bible. So Q could present a totally-human prophet-only Jesus (i.e., low-low-low Christology) and still have the miracles, for all we know.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, Q doesn't have the crucifixion either, so I'm not sure what that implies at all!

There are lots of similar points that can be made - for example, Paul doesn't discuss any miracles or the virgin birth, but can you conclude anything from that? I don't know. You could argue that Paul was focused on other things.

Of course, the main problem with Q is that it's hypothetical as a document, although it is inferred from Matthew and Luke.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Upside down, I think. If you don't believe in some sort of heavenly afterlife, it may make you more inclined to value and cherish your brief mortal life.
I don't think one must follow from another. My life is very precious to me as I want to seee my children grow up and become happy, sucessful adults, and to spend years with my wife. Why would I want that to end? But when it does I know there is something better.

My analogy is that mortal life is like an excellent starter course before the superb main meal. Why would I race through the starter when I get huge amounts of please from it? The main course will still be just as good when it comes.

Your logic doesn't hold water I'm afraid. [/QB]

Sure. We're all different, and I have no doubt many people who fervently believe in and look forward to the afterlife find their mortal lives to be more precious than some of us who don't believe it's a starter course.

What I was suggesting was that if you believe your starter is the main course, you might well be more inclined to focus you attention in it and savour its taste and possibly even to find it more satisfactory than if you saw it as only a starter. That's human nature, isn't it?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
1 million or so Christians dying for their faith in the Roman empire is impressive. Something must have convinced them they were right. I don't know 1 million Dawkinites willing to die for their rather bleak belief system...
Dying for faith is certainly a sign of conviction. There are plenty of islamist extremists doing just that right now. This doesn't make their cause good or right, it just shows how very deluded and brainwashed they are.

More importantly, being willing to die for a cause is not proof that someone has personally witnessed a miracle affirming that particular death wish.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
This characterization also ignores the extreme problems that inoffensive luv'n'dasies hippy Jesus would have had in getting himself hated enough for the Jews and the Romans to kill him.

Right. Because a preacher of peace and non-violence would never become the most hated man in his country. Certainly not to the extent that anyone would want to kill him.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I bet there were some strongly sceptical thinkers in the time of Jesus! However, they would not then have had strong enough information to refute convincingly the claims of miracles.
Sorry, but I really think this is nonsense, and quite insulting to our ancestors.

As CS Lewis points out, they might not have had all our knowledge of obstetrics, but the ancients knew perfectly well that women didn't get pregnant unless they had lain with men. For example. They also knew that dead people tended to stay dead and not come back to life again.

Talking about science in this way sounds like a big red herring to me.

This reminds me of a stunt that the Jesus Seminar pulled when they brought out a mortician to testify to the audience that dead people stay dead.

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

I don't think looking for scientific proof of miracles is going to work. Jesus said thank you to God the Father for allowing the poor and needy to see the miracles and not the wise. So I think we can forget about any sort of scientific proof. Besides when doctors reports of healings show up, the sceptics just move the goal posts. The Pharisees asked for a miracle for all the wrong reasons and they got told to get stuffed.

I guess the important question is why is someone seeking God ? Does this determine how God answers ? Jesus indicated in John's gospel that he who keeps my commands, I and my Father will love him and come to dwell with him. Not those who wanted 'proof' or a firework display of divine power.

If Christianity is true, as I believe, God is a heck of a lot smarter of Dawkins, Cox etc. etc. and is quite capable of remaining elusive to them if he chooses, whilst spiritually meeting with someone who reaches out in love with the right motives to help others. The assumption that if God and miracles exist we can scientifically prove it, is theologically unsound IMO.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Tclune:

quote:

Third, if you believe as I do that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, it is suggestive that the only story where Christ fails to get a miracle right the first time fails to appear in any other Gospel. It is not impossible to see that as the working-out of Christ's divinity before our very eyes.

That is a curious passage that always puts me in mind of Macbeth, but is it not an obscure prophet reference (I may be mis-remembering)?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Atheism seems pretty bleak to me. Essentially you believe you evolved by accident from some pond slime and you're going to oblivion when you die.

The Christian faith by contrast says that we were designed and have eternal life to look forward to by faith in Jesus. Seems a lot more positive !
Well, you don't need to convert me, but to call atheists 'bleak' just doesn't cut it. I know many atheists and not one of them is bleak!

I am a Christian and I believe evolution is the way we came about. Nothing bleak about that either - I was born to a caring mother, not pond slime!

I find atheism as a philosophy bleak, not individual atheists. I find Calvinism pretty bleak too, for what it's worth.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

JadeConstable asked why I don't take the miracles as tsuch, but I have always been an 'Is this TRUE?' person and I'd want to find out. Nowadays, I'd quickly find far more sensible, practical, evidenced answers.

quetzalcoatl - yes of course there is that very remote possibility that proof will be forthcoming but I certainly shall not be spending any of my remaining years looking for it. I'd rather be reading the discussions here.

Arminian As Boogie says, I don't know one bleak atheist. On the contrary, they tend to think that reality is the magic. (See RD's
bbook, 'The Magic of Reality'.) As Boogie also says, even when I believed in God, I had no doubts about evolution and nor did the Cof E.
I'm the oldest im my family now, so I suppose it's my turn to die next, [Smile]

but I have no concerns that there will be nothing afterwards. I've had a fair share of time here and, like every single other person up to now, I too will, as Michael Rosen put it very grapically once, step off the road and not be here any more.

la vie en rouge I certainly do not in any way underestimate the knowledge of our ancient ancestors. It is because they did the very best they could with the knowledge and the materials they had that we can be as we are today. It is, I might say however, a pity that they suspended their disbelief in dead people not coming alive
again.

deano To think that this life is a sort of second best is quite sad, I think.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Jade Constable
I wonder - can you give an example of something about atheism that you find to be bleak?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Why are miracles not sensible, practical, evidenced answers? Trying to shoehorn in some kind of 'scientific' answer that's not there seems far from sensible, practical or evidenced.

And the people at the time were perfectly aware that the dead did not rise. The Romans were experts in knowing whether someone was dead or not. Resurrection not related to some kind of final judgement was not part of Jewish or pagan beliefs at the time. The Resurrection was absolutely unexpected and not tied to prevailing religious beliefs at the time, aside from Jesus' small group of followers (and even then there was doubt - look at the post-Resurrection responses of those followers). People were blindsided by the truth, not hoodwinked by religion.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jade Constable
I wonder - can you give an example of something about atheism that you find to be bleak?

No hope of redemption for a failed humanity. I find the concept of limited atonement for Calvinists just as bleak. I don't believe anyone escapes God's love and redemptive power, even if they don't want it (and yes even you [Smile]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why would I want that to end? But when it does I know there is something better.

Assuming you make the cut, of course. "Not all who say 'Lord, Lord'", and all that...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What I was suggesting was that if you believe your starter is the main course, you might well be more inclined to focus you attention in it and savour its taste and possibly even to find it more satisfactory than if you saw it as only a starter. That's human nature, isn't it?

Indeed. The actual point to make here is of course not at all that Christians are going to enjoy this worldly life even more than their secular counterparts. That's just a version of the prosperity gospel, that most idiotic attempt to compete with secular offers on hedonism if not materialism.

To the contrary, for the traditional Christian this life has value only insofar as it points to and foreshadows the next. There is nothing wrong with enjoying one's earthly pilgrimage, but that worldly way is not in itself the goal. Christ is the goal, and we can only fully reach Him in death. It is this that secular people fear, and rightly so. For once the value of this life becomes conditional on the next, all the usual social controls fail. We see this in evil, as in the suicide bomber. We see this in good, as in a saint sacrificing his life for charity to strangers.

The explosive power of religion has always been, and will always be, that this earthly life need not be what this earthly life is about. This is an utterly human move. Only a human being, only a rational animal, can take a step back from life itself, and re-align its own very existence to something "higher". You may fear it or praise it, but you cannot ignore this human ability.

If there is, on occasion for some Christians, an admirable stoicism in the face of adversity and an ability to squeeze joy out of the hardness of life, then this has nothing to do with some supernatural Prozac boost. Rather, it is precisely because earthly life has ceased to have value by and in itself, but now is measured through Christ. It is the lack of assigning value to this life as such which allows some people to remain positive while facing a life that appears thoroughly negative to others.

The domesticated Christianity which tries to out-party the fun-loving and pleasure-seeking secular world is a fail of epic proportions. Even the terrorist jihad knows a hell of a lot more about real religion than such party-Christians. (There is of course a basic problem with those terrorists, they misheard God ever so slightly: It wasn't "For the sake of God, they must die!" It was "For the sake of God, you must die!" Selective hearing loss has always been the main problem of religion...)

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Jade Constable
Thank you for your answers.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Ingo, you've been posting some great stuff recently. That puts it very well - thanks.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Q doesn't have the crucifixion either, so I'm not sure what that implies at all!

Is there any basis for that conjecture at all?

If there was a Q, it's possible to argue for what it might have contained, by noting what other people might have used it as a source form, that doesn't duplicate Mark. Can one really go on to argue for what it didn't contain, rather than merely what nobody used it for?

quote:
Of course, the main problem with Q is that it's hypothetical as a document, although it is inferred from Matthew and Luke.

I agree.

Tangent alert ended

Do most of those who don't believe in the miracles, not do so because:-
1. Miracles don't normally happen (otherwise they wouldn't be miracles)?
2. They are too difficult to believe?
3. The implications of the miracles having happened would be too disconcerting for the equilibrium of their day to day lives.

It's interesting that John, who has fewer miracles but describes them in more detail, refers to them as 'signs'. i.e. He quite deliberately selects the ones he wants to use to tell his version of Jesus's life.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

As Q is by definition a supposed common source for what is not in Mark, and as we do not have it and so can only reconstruct it by subtracting Mark from what is in common between Matthew and Luke, we can say nothing at all about whether or not Q talked about the crucifixion. Or anything else that is in Mark.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[qb] I bet there were some strongly sceptical thinkers in the time of Jesus! However, they would not then have had strong enough information to refute convincingly the claims of miracles.
This reminds me of a stunt that the Jesus Seminar pulled when they brought out a mortician to testify to the audience that dead people stay dead.

And reminds me of the time there was some debate on the radio about teenage pregnancies. There was a secularist and a religionist, and it ended with the secularist screaming repeatedly about how "abstinence doesn't work*". It left me thinking they'd got their roles switched, especially as the religionist was more calm and rational.

*there may have been some rounding in my memory, but this was definitely the words and it was on pregnancy, and on radio and I heard it. The rest take with a pinch of salt.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Ken is only partly right whenn he says

As Q is by definition a supposed common source for what is not in Mark, and as we do not have it and so can only reconstruct it by subtracting Mark from what is in common between Matthew and Luke, we can say nothing at all about whether or not Q talked about the crucifixion. Or anything else that is in Mark.

Q is not made up of what is not in Mark. Thats a distortion ( deliberate?)

It is a Sayings Source.

No analysis of Q that I have seen indicates that it was constituted of more than the sayings of Jesus common to Matt and Luke but not in Mark.

It was not made up of events and doings and miracles or what have you.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

No but we only know that the sayings were not included in Marks gospel and are in Matthew/Luke.

We assume that they were all from the one source (i.e. Q) but we only *know* what isn't from Mark.

For all we know Q could be Marks expanded version, and pure Mark wasn't copied (ok that's extreme and, oddly enough effectively puts Q back as the sayings),
but there's no reason why it couldn't have included it's own crucifixion scene or whatever...(just that whatever it did include wasn't as good as Marks version).

There's moderate reason to apply occam's razor, to get a collection of sayings*. But by definition there's no evidence, we only know what Q contained**, not what it didn't, especially if Matthew/Luke actually include it (i.e. the bits in Mark)

*including if Matthew distrusted the actions, why did he trust the sayings. etc...
**well unless Matthew and Luke thought alike.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think this is the problem with a hypothetical source, or document. You can reconstruct it as the non-Markan overlap between Matthew and Luke, and you end up with a collection of sayings, as with Thomas.

But can you then say 'Q contains X, but not Y'? I suppose the X is OK, since it is extant in Matthew and Luke, but Y is dodgy, since it seems to be evidence from silence.

I think today it has become even more complicated, with ideas about layers in Q, from different periods, and with different theological perspectives. This is becoming very technical, really, and probably too much for the amateur.

But Q is supposed to be entirely made up of sayings, with no life of Jesus (like Thomas). Was there a Q community also? Depends on the scholar, I suppose.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And reminds me of the time there was some debate on the radio about teenage pregnancies. There was a secularist and a religionist, and it ended with the secularist screaming repeatedly about how "abstinence doesn't work*". ...

How not? Fecundatio per aerem? ... ab imaginatione?

Most of us have long believed that it's the one method of contraception that actually is reliable. If even that method doesn't work, that's really worrying.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

That's why it stuck in my head, it was so backwards. I was left giggling 'I thought the problem with the virgin birth was that it didn't happen naturally, not that it did!'

She meant "teaching abstinance" (and might have had a point, I'm slightly skeptical), but as I remember it, that got almost comically lost.

[ 29. January 2013, 22:50: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

If Q was a sayings source, it would not contain descriptions of actions, including miracles.

Moo

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If Q was a sayings source, it would not contain descriptions of actions, including miracles.

Moo

If.

(but as I understand it)
We're guessing what's in Q, based on what we can see of it's effects (and lack of effects) in Matthew and Luke.
Now I'm not a bible scholar and they are, so in terms of making a good guess I'd bet on their judgement. But as received truth...

I get a bit suspicious when you have single JEPD verses, and definitely assigned on the basis that X wouldn't write Y because there's no verses, provisionally yes, and if it was likely to be some actual taboo.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But can you then say 'Q contains X, but not Y'? I suppose the X is OK, since it is extant in Matthew and Luke, but Y is dodgy, since it seems to be evidence from silence.

AIUI, proponents of Q have to explain why such an important document dropped so completely out of circulation that not only are there no copies left, but also none of the extant early Church Fathers have ever heard of it.

The standard explanation is that there was no need to copy Q because its contents were already fully contained within Luke and Matthew. This means that for the Q hypothesis to be coherent, there cannot be any material in Q other than what's in the canonicals, i.e. sayings.

(FWIW I think the most parsimonious explanation is that Matthew copied Luke or vice versa, but I'm speaking massively off my subject.)

[ 30. January 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why would I want that to end? But when it does I know there is something better.
Assuming you make the cut, of course. "Not all who say 'Lord, Lord'", and all that...

Well I'm a bit of a universalist, so it's just a question of "when", not "if".
This earthly life is what is dished up by planetary formation, evolution, meteorology and economics. We get dealt it and we play it the best way we can. Sometimes that leads to a great life, sometimes to a bad life, but it’s not – in my view anyway – a life imposed upon us by God.

He has shown the way to try to live this earthly life, but He gets to give us a non-earthly life after death.

I would think atheism is more amenable to suicide than religions, given they almost all frown on taking one’s own life, even – as IngoB said –Islam. Whereas if you have a bad life as an atheist, you may be tempted towards suicide as a way of stopping the earthly pain, rather than trying to deal with it by seeking help.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And reminds me of the time there was some debate on the radio about teenage pregnancies. There was a secularist and a religionist, and it ended with the secularist screaming repeatedly about how "abstinence doesn't work*". ...
How not? Fecundatio per aerem? ... ab imaginatione?

Most of us have long believed that it's the one method of contraception that actually is reliable. If even that method doesn't work, that's really worrying.

I'm damned sure that both of you know full well that what is meant is that "advocating abstinence to young people doesn't work", because they ignore you and fuck each other anyway.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why would I want that to end? But when it does I know there is something better.
Assuming you make the cut, of course. "Not all who say 'Lord, Lord'", and all that...
Well I'm a bit of a universalist, so it's just a question of "when", not "if".
This earthly life is what is dished up by planetary formation, evolution, meteorology and economics. We get dealt it and we play it the best way we can. Sometimes that leads to a great life, sometimes to a bad life, but it’s not – in my view anyway – a life imposed upon us by God.

He has shown the way to try to live this earthly life, but He gets to give us a non-earthly life after death.

I would think atheism is more amenable to suicide than religions, given they almost all frown on taking one’s own life, even – as IngoB said –Islam. Whereas if you have a bad life as an atheist, you may be tempted towards suicide as a way of stopping the earthly pain, rather than trying to deal with it by seeking help.

While I understand where you are coming from, that's not how suicide works.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
While I understand where you are coming from, that's not how suicide works. [/QB]

Agreed. I have my own experience of it from back in the bad old days.

My point is a mile wide and an inch deep unfortunately, but was meant to show that religion doesn't make suicide any easier, which appeared to be the point Yorick was making.

Anyway, isn't this a different thread from the OP? Sorry for contributing to the hijack.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I am pretty sure that religious belief offers some protection against mental illness, and suicide, but don't have the stats to hand. Will find them later.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am pretty sure that religious belief offers some protection against mental illness, and suicide, but don't have the stats to hand. Will find them later.

OTOH, some mental health professionals don't find it a particularly helpful element in some of their clients' lives, shall we say.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And reminds me of the time....
I'm damned sure that both of you know full well that what is meant is that "advocating abstinence to young people doesn't work", because they ignore you and fuck each other anyway.

Well to be fair
a) I did give a little clue when I said

quote:

She meant "teaching abstinance"

b) There was an element where it was in the contexts of "This reminds me of a stunt that the Jesus Seminar pulled when they brought out a mortician to testify to the audience that dead people stay dead. "
So to some extent the half the point was 'Christian's think sex related to pregnancy' rather than the converse.

c) What actually are the stats, I know [eta heard] the 'silver ring' thing has a high failure rate, while conversely Catholic regions are coping much better with Hiv than they ought (and heard proposed mechanisms for both). But I'm not sure how much of that is compounding factors, lying with statistics, etc..., or unnecessary clumping (i.e. comparing A 'B 'C with 'A B C and using that to condemn aBC)*.

[end of to be fair, this is based on memories of memories. And might be quite innaccurate]

d) The more I think about it, . In a way I'm not actually sure that there wasn't a freudian slip of a sort. It wasn't a soundbite, (not long either standard news dialogue), but I don't think she quoted evidence or actually said that, while having plenty of time (she was too busy condemning whatever had been going on).**
If you asked in stages, then yes, I'm sure she knew basic biology. But I'm not sure that 'kid's ignore you and have sex' hadn't mutated to 'its impossible not to have sex' and beyond in her psyche.

*I assume the anacronym is clear in context, and the ' not signs.

[ 30. January 2013, 18:09: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am pretty sure that religious belief offers some protection against mental illness, and suicide, but don't have the stats to hand. Will find them later.

It's a little more complicated. One variable (religious belief would be just one) is not sufficient to understand it. Have a look here for a Scientific American summary. The box on the right is informative: "The latest research shows that fearlessness [of the sort that promotes suicide] can be conditioned: people who gain experience with pain, whether from abuse by others or by their own hands, gradually improve their ability to tolerate discomfort; they also get used to the idea of harming themselves." The article also implicates economic stresses.

That said, a summary article does suggest religious belief impacts suicidality at the level of a "potential insulating factor". J Relig Health. 2009 Sep "Religion and suicide.": " It is essential to assess for degree of religious commitment and involvement to accurately identify suicide risk."

Thus religion by itself is not enough. On a personal note, I know of one person who killed themself specifically because of religion, that they became of the belief that it was an inevitable wish of God. We determined that although religion was not a requirement for delusional thinking, that as potentially a delusion in and of itself (at least in part), that it certainly has potential to promote suicide, rather than protect against it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0