homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » All that miracle crap was added later (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: All that miracle crap was added later
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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."

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 . . .

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
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.

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?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607

 - Posted      Profile for Arminian   Email Arminian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607

 - Posted      Profile for Arminian   Email Arminian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 !

Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
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.

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.

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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! [Smile] 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.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607

 - Posted      Profile for Arminian   Email Arminian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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)?

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jade Constable
I wonder - can you give an example of something about atheism that you find to be bleak?

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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] ).

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools