Sheshbazzar

The actual content of the NT is not particularly theologically significant?
Error built upon error, fabrication built upon fabrication, lie built upon lie,
but that little problem is not particularly theologically significant?

Perhaps not to you.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

The narratives include Matthew 4:23-25. If Matthew 4:23-25 is not "particularly theologically significant," in your opinion, which narratives are theologically significant regarding the miracles that Jesus performed?

Johnny Skeptic

Do you mean except for Matthew 4:23-25? Consider the following:

Sheshbazzar

'critically examined using criteria such as multiple attestation'?

In Matthew 9, among other 'miracles' allegedly witnessed by a 'multitude', he raises a ruler's daughter from the dead;
"And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land." (Mathew 9:1-26)
If you discard v.26, by what rationale do you retain or accept anything appearing within the previous 25 verses?

And having allegedly restored the sight of two blind men, "But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country." (Mat 9:31)
and "the multitudes marvelled," (v.33) and he "went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."
But your implication is that this did not really happen as it is reported. Are we to just ignore what the 9th chapter of Matthew plainly states?
Would it be acceptable scholarship to simply eliminate that entire chapter from the bible?
Luke also writes along these same lines;

"And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about."
And he "taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all." (Luke 4:14-15)

and "the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about. " (4:37)

"But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities. " (Luke 5:15)
This alleged fame, and the 'multitudes' that 'pressed upon him to hear the word of God' was a result of those wonders that are recorded in the 4th and 5th chapter of Luke.

But your implication is that this did not really happen as it is reported. Are we to just ignore what the 9th chapter of Matthew, and what the 4th and 5th chapters of Luke also plainly state? Would it be acceptable scholarship to simply eliminate these multiply attested entire chapters from the bible?
Then there is Luke14:25
"And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, .."
Were there 'great multitudes' with him? If there were not, then the rest of this entire chapter is equally suspect.

Funny how it is, that those things often accounted of by believers as being 'theologically significant', even to the extent of the 'disfellowshipping' of, (or in earlier times, the extermination of) those holding a differing view, have far less text supporting them.
Personally, I find it very 'theologically significant' that most Christians are willing to lend much willing 'lip service' to such things as they also admit to as being errors, falsehoods, and lies.
If the true Elohim is ethical, it is honest men (and women) that would be justified, not the self-incriminating 'liars for religion'.
Wouldn't it be funny, if the contents of the Bible proved to be a test of men's true character, the unethical and the liars ready and willing to swallow and repeat tall tales 'hook, line, and sinker'. While honest and ethical men resist, and stand fast in defense of what is really true.
Who then would be found, to 'have the love of the truth', religious liars or honest men?
Oh yes, as a Hebrew I DO believe in YHWH.
Not however in that anthromorphised old-man cartoon character that majority Judaeo/Christian religions have long attempted to foist off upon the gullible.
Not all Hebrew's believed in or accepted that mythical 'Moses', or the rest of the murderous tribe of Judah's fabricated religious 'history' and 'heritage'.
But 'The Book' will well serve its purpose to condemn the ra'sha and to justify the tah'meem.

Johnny Skeptic

Do you mean except for Matthew 4:23-25? Consider the following:

If Matthew 4:23-25 may be unreliable, which narratives that claim that Jesus performed miracles are more reliable, and why?

andrewcriddle

Multiple attestation means (obviously) that a claim is attested more than once and (usually) that it is attested in at least two apparently independent sources.

Hence if a claim (that Jesus' fame spread throughout all Syria) occurs only in one pasage in Matthew it is not multiply attested and hence may be unreliable as evidence for the Historical Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I did not say that Matthew 4:23-25 is "not particularly theologically significant". I made the much narrower statement that if the claim in Matthew 4:23-25 that Jesus' fame spread throughout all Syria was unreliable as evidence for the Historical Jesus this would not be particularly theologically significant.

This exchange with you started as a discussion about whether or not there was early and widespread tradition that Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker. Unless your posts in this thread return to this issue I probably won't reply further.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Following is my first exchange with you in this thread:

Please note "I think that you understand the difficulty in claiming that there is reasonable evidence that Jesus said and did everything that the Gospels say that he said and did." That proves that your statement that "This exchange with you started as a discussion about whether or not there was early and widespread tradition that Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker" is not correct since what Jesus "said and did" applies to what actually happened, not just to tradition.

As far as a widespread tradition is concerned, it probably was not backed up with facts since if Jesus performed many miracles in many places, and performed many more miracles that were not recorded, his exploits would have been unprecedented in human history, and he would easily have been the biggest celebrity in the Middle East. Non-Christian, first century history does not indicate that that was the case.

Johnny Skeptic

In your opinion, what is reliable as evidence that Jesus performed miracles? What good is a historical Jesus to Christians without miracles?

andrewcriddle

I don't think that we can establish by the methods of secular critical history that Jesus actually performed what we would regard as miracles. There are too many uncertainties with the evidence, eg was Jairus' daughter really dead or just unconscious ?

However there seems multiple attestation for the claim that Jesus in his lifetime was regarded (and regarded himself) as a miracle worker. I have tried to explain in this thread why I think this. If I haven't so far made myself clear I'm not sure what more I can do.

Andrew Criddle