Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-28-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Can Andrew find one contemporary of Jesus who claimed that Jesus had performed healings?

Is it too much to ask for evidence that contemporaries of Jesus thought he had performed healings, rather than evidence that within 50 years , people were claiming miracles?

Why is Paul unaware that enemies of his Jesus were saying that Jesus was in league with the devil?

As I said in my original post, mainstream Biblical scholarship leaves no question unbegged.

Like much of our evidence about the ancient world, claims that Jesus healed people are, strictly speaking, based on hearsay.

However, I do not regard the silence of Paul as good evidence of the improbable idea that such claims about Jesus were first put forward after Paul's death.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-28-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Like much of our evidence about the ancient world, claims that Jesus healed people are, strictly speaking, based on hearsay.

This may not be true at all. You cannot show that there were people who told the authors of the Jesus stories anything about Jesus.

The Jesus stories may have been written and known to be fiction by the authors and may be the reason why the authors wrote anonymously.

Toto · 07-28-2008, 03:33 PM

Getting back to the OP, if Jesus did "heal" people in the first century, I'm not sure why anyone needs to discuss how this happened. The modern phenomenon of faith healing based on psychosomatic healing, random chance, mistake, and outright fraud has been studied extensively, and there is no reason to think that Jesus did any more miracles than Benny Hinn.

Steven Carr · 07-28-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Given that we know from 2nd century evidence (Justin probably, Celsus according to Origen certainly) that later Jewish critics of Christianity accepted the reality of the purported miracles but attributed them to sorcery, it would seem simplest to assume that this situation already existed at the time the Gospels were written.

And retroject that back to 30 AD?

Even though no trace can be found in the earliest documents of a Jesus who did healings?

mountainman · 07-28-2008, 11:27 PM

Who were the healers of antiquity?

Quote:

c.20 CE Strabo tells us that the Asclepius temples at Cos and Epidaurus were always filled with patients, and along their walls the tablets were suspended, upon which were recorded the history and treatment of the individual cases of disease. One of these tablets has been found on the island in the Tiber, near Rome, at the site of an ancient temple - inscribed in Greek: "Lucius was attacked by the pleurisy, and everyone despaired of his life; the god ordered that the warm ashes of the altar be mingled with wine, and applied to his side. He was saved, and gave thanks to the god before the people."

Zeichman · 07-29-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Given that we know from 2nd century evidence (Justin probably, Celsus according to Origen certainly) that later Jewish critics of Christianity accepted the reality of the purported miracles but attributed them to sorcery, it would seem simplest to assume that this situation already existed at the time the Gospels were written.

And retroject that back to 30 AD?

Even though no trace can be found in the earliest documents of a Jesus who did healings?

This depends on when you would date Q.

aa5874 · 07-29-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

.
Given that we know from 2nd century evidence (Justin probably, Celsus according to Origen certainly) that later Jewish critics of Christianity accepted the reality of the purported miracles but attributed them to sorcery, it would seem simplest to assume that this situation already existed at the time the Gospels were written.

It could not be that Jewish critics of Christianity accepted the reality of miracles by atributing these miracles to sorcery when sorcery cannot or could NOT really make a person see who was born blind, sorcery cannot or could NOT make a person hear who was born deaf and sorcery could not bring a person back to life after being dead for four days.

If miracles are attributed to sorcery it may mean that your miracles are regarded as fraud, people are faking being healed or that Jesus was an agent of Beelzebub.

And by the way, a sorcerer could be stoned to death, it was regarded as a capital crime by the Jewish authorities.

And according to the NT Jesus was put on trial for blasphemy, not for being a sorcerer, this may indicate Jesus did no miracles or was NOT believed to be a sorcerer if he lived at all.

gstafleu · 07-30-2008, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If you wish to disagree then I think you have to provide a more plausible explanation as to why these claims about Jesus are introduced and refuted in the Gospels.

That is hardly difficult. In the example you gave the author uses the controversy to set up a parable about the nature of evil, e.g. how it cannot drive itself out.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith · 07-30-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

This depends on when you would date Q.

Circa 1838?

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 07-30-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

That is hardly difficult. In the example you gave the author uses the controversy to set up a parable about the nature of evil, e.g. how it cannot drive itself out.

Gerard Stafleu

Yes but this argument is of interest in context because it has the consequence Jesus drives out evil therefore Jesus is not evil. The author is not interested in making an abstract and rather banal point about the nature of evil for its own sake.

The simplest explanation is that accusations that Jesus had consorted with evil spirits were around and needed refuting.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2008, 03:33 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Getting back to the OP, if Jesus did "heal" people in the first century, I'm not sure why anyone needs to discuss how this happened. The modern phenomenon of faith healing based on psychosomatic healing, random chance, mistake, and outright fraud has been studied extensively, and there is no reason to think that Jesus did any more miracles than Benny Hinn.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.