Gooch's dad

rhutchin, are you actually claiming that we should believe in the Jesus of the bible, "just in case"? That because there is a threat of hell there in the bible, that we should use that threat as part of our reason for believing in the message of Christianity?

Do you realize that that is completely irrational, to base your beliefs on some vague threat of punishment in an afterlife, when there is no actual evidence that there IS an afterlife?

I think the OP is excellent, and drives home a point that I've not seen any Christian answer on this board--why is gJohn supposedly a reliable history, but Tacitus is not, regarding this one miracle?

Steven Avery

Hi Gooch's dad and all.....

Apparently there is a little bit more to the story.
http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/m...00/11/0196.php
Re: Miracles in Tacitus

http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/m...00/11/0197.php
A story also in Suetonius with some differences. John P. Meier, in A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2, pp. 594-595, discusses this passage as part of a long and meticulous analysis of contemporary healing & miracle records. Among other things he says:

". . . In a story that is difficult to interpret, Suetonius tells us that, when Vespasian consulted the oracle of the god of Carmel in Judea, the los were very favorable (Vespasian 5 #6). Suetonius then repeats Josephus' story of his prophecy of Vespasian's rise to the imperial throne. This agreed with omens that supposedly had been observed in Rome. Legitimacy was on its way.

"But there is nothing like a miracle story to give one indisputable legitimation, which Vespasian particularly needed as he traveled from Judea via Alexandria to Rome. In Vespasian 7 #2-3, Suetonius emphasizes that Vespasian, even after he received the news at Alexandria that Vitellius had been killed, still lacked "authority and a certain majesty," since he was an arriviste of humble origins. In Alexandria, however, his entourage apparently arranged to give him what he lacked. Two men, one blind and one lame, came to Vespasian while he was seated on his tribunal. They informed him that the god Serapis had promised them in a dream that Vespasian could cure their infirmities if he would spit on the blind man's eyes and touch the lame man's leg with his heel. 9(In Tacitus' version of the story [Histories 4.81], the spittle is to be applied to the cheeks [or possible, the eyelids] as well, and the second man has a paralyzed hand instead of an infirmity of the leg.)

"Vespasian, says Suetonius, hardly believed that such an attempt at performin a healing miracle would meet with success. Indeed, he hesitated even to try. (Tacitus goes further: Vespasian laughed at the men and treated them with contempt.) But his entourage--one suspects because they had arranged the whole drama--pursuaded him to attempt both healings, not accidentally in the presence of a large crowd. (Tacitus suggests that Vespasian was moved to hope for success by the flattery of his courtiers. Physicians were brought in to give their pronosis as to whether the illnesses could be overcome by human help ["ope humana"]. The doctors thought that there was some hope for restoration of both eyes and hands by the application of the proper treatment. For apparently the eyesight had not been totally lost and could be restored "if the obstacles were taken away." The joints in the hand could be restored if proper pressure were applied to them. Vespasian finally makes a Blaise-Pascal type of wager: if he succeeds, the glory is his; if not, the two men will suffer the ridicule. Believing in his luck and smiling as the crowd went wild, Vespasian acceded to the request.) Needless to say, the two men were healed; Tacitus emphasizes that both cures are attested in his own day by eyewitnesses.

"The healing of a blind man with spittle provides an intriguing parallel with two stories of Jesus' healing with spittle in Mark (the deaf and dumb man in 7:31-37 and the blind man in 8:22-26; cf. John 9:6). It confirms what we have seen already: spittle was considered a healing agent in the ancient world. Jesus also healed the lame, though not by touching their limbs with his heel. That, however, is the extent of any parallel. The arranged street-theater of the Emperor's healing powers, not a regular part of a Roman Emperor's curriculum vitae, apparently struck even Vespasian as strange, if not comical. He tolerates the drama for the sake of the political propaganda he may gain from it. Like Vespasian, Suetonius can hardly restrain a smile. His ironic and skeptical account, as well as Tacitus' rationalizing manner of supplying a medical explanation of what happens, belongs to a different world than the Gospel miracles. Indeed, Tacitus' account is, strictly speaking, no miracle story at all. He stresses that Vespasian inquires of the doctors (conviently at hand) whether human means can effect the cure. They reply in the positive, describing the necessary treatment, which Vespasian proceeds to administer. Be our vantage point modern or ancient, this hardly qualifies as a miracle."

================================================== ==

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

gregor

Hutch

I assume it would fall on deaf ears to point out the conclusions reached so long ago that 2 Peter was probably not written until 150 or later and was not written by someone named Peter.

rhutchin

Yep. Of course, if you had the proof that would allow you to delete "probably" from your statement, I would find your comment more intriguing. Too much "probably this" or "probably that" in the field of textural criticism.

rhutchin

We are dealing with perception. The threat of punishment may be perceived as vague by one and not vague by another. One perceives that there is no actual evidence (by discounting the historical accounts provided in the Bible) while another sees much evidence (by accepting the Biblical accounts).

It may be irrational to believe something but beneficial if that which is believed is true. It is irrational to discount something just because one does not like it or agree with it.

rhutchin

Yes. Peter’s claim is that God has everything under control. Consequently, one takes it that, if he is to be saved, it is God who will save him. The person then is obedient to God in all situations and under all circumstances confident that whatever hardship which that obedience entails is inconsequential in light of eternity. Even if that obedience is all for naught (and the person has been deceiving himself in thinking that God has saved him), the person still acknowledges that God is just no matter what He does and he continues to serve and obey God.

gregor

Hutch

Please provide any scintilla of evidence that 2 Peter was written by someone named Peter and was written before 150 CE. Please provide any evidence that some early church father refers to the existence of 2 Peter before 150 ce. Please explain why challenges to its inclusion in the canon were raised in the 4th century.

Marxist

If this is meant to answer the OP, you have failed miserably. Such plausible naturalistic explanations of the account of Jesus' spit healing can made up as well that involve trickery (after all, he was in private and told this man to tell no one). You nor Meier have answered the OP on why we should believe Jesus' spit healing is anymore believable than Vespasians'.

Steven Avery

Actually I wasn't in the discussion, and didn't really analyze Meier myself at all, but I thought it curious that all the theories were being spun without the full picture.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

JPD

Even though that person might not be on the list of the elect and has no way of finding out if he/she is?