Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-16-2006, 09:00 AM

From witchcraft a history (above) p 98

By late 1400's

Quote:

.....tended to divide magic into three types: natural, demonic and deceptive. The last was what we would call conjuring tricks and stage illusion. The second was the type we have been discussing, magic which depended for its efficacy on the cooperation of evil spirits. The first, however, encompassed aspects of a multiplicity of disciplines - engineering, physics, chemisty, biology. It explored the hidden ("occult") laws of nature, seeking to discover how they worked and what practical applications, if any, might be made by human beings as a result of these discoveries. Entirely religious in its intention, the study of natural magic wanted to find out a little more about the mind of God... invoking good angels..(such as planetary angels)....Agrippa, Dee.....

Of course there was theological danger in this activity. Natural magic might easily slip over into demonic magic, which is why Saint Thomas Aquinas condemned it..

Jesus (IHE)?

Possible evidence of all three types (in proto forms) - healing is classic natural magic - spittle, clay are classic tools.

Tale of Satan taking him to a high point could be construed that he was in league with Satan....

Magic tricks - walking in water.

I don't know the Morton Smith book, but could these tales be futher evidence of myth - if he was the son of god he ought to be able to do magic - which was a large part of their "science" then.

Arthur C Clarke's rules are probably correct!

Quote:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke, "Technology and the Future" (Clarke's second law)
At the present rate of progress, it is almost impossible to imagine any technical feat that cannot be achieved - if it can be achieved at all - within the next few hundred years.

Arthur C. Clarke, 1983
I'm sure we would not have had men on the Moon if it had not been for Wells and Verne and the people who write about this and made people think about it. I'm rather proud of the fact that I know several astronauts who became astronauts through reading my books.

Arthur C. Clarke, Address to US Congress, 1975
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's first law
- More quotations on: [Science]

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Arthur_C._Clarke/

(If you think I am off topic I think I am proposing the New Testament as very early science fiction!)

Thomas II · 03-16-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I would reverse the question and ask about the influences of magical thinking on the invention of Jesus.

Couple of examples, virgin birth, raising of the dead, bread into flesh, wine into blood, God becoming man.

Alchemy!

Yes, both questions are valid...and different.
The question about the possibility of Jesus being a magician appears on the screen when we admit Jesus was NOT a god, among other things because being a human-god is a mythological concept, not an actual one.
But then, once we admit he was not a god, what was he, doing all these turning water into wine, and walking on water, and calming storms,and healing people, and casting demons, and raising the dead, and and multiplying bread and fish for hundreds of people,etc...?
He seems to have power over some forces of nature...
When he heals he seems to do a certain activity, like spiting on the ground and making a bit of mud and then applying the mud over the part to be healed... That could be considered as magical.

Thomas II · 03-17-2006, 03:54 AM

Whatever extraordinary thing Jesus did he learned it from someone. He just didn't pop up a water into wine deal out of his sleeve.
While Jesus was reticent to perform his abilities in public, in private he had shown Mary "Ma! Look what I can do! Look what I can do", because she is the one pushing him to do it, and like any proud Jewish mother she wanted the friends and neighbours to see what her kid was able to do, specially the bastard one, you know, the "son of God" one...He would vindicate her by proving that God was his father instead of some guy who Mary had sex with out of wedlock...

So Jesus learned his arts from someone during those years from age 12 to age 30, and surprise!,surprise! there is not a single piece of paper talking about those years...hmmm...
Could it be that the Church did not want us to know what went on those years or the associations Jesus developed during that time? I would say "Aye,aye!".
The image,or persona, of Jesus has been polished so much, that by now it probably has little to do with the actual person involved...
We still have indication of an actual peronality,one of them being the argument with the money lenders at the Temple, other the cursing of the fig tree...What kind of spell did Jesus put in a tree to even kill it? Is this something he had just made up that day, or did he know how to cast a spell just like he knew how to void them?
And wouldn't you say THAT is the quality of a magician?
I am not saying that in a negative way. Moses is also said to have learned the magic arts, and he was said to be so good at it that he could beat the court magicians,or priests of Amun, who in turn were said to be the creme de la creme as magic goes...
The reason I am saying this is to give dimension to the person we are trying to find as the REAL Jesus, if there is such a thing...My inclination is that there was an actual person...I just don't buy the Jesus persona sold to us by the Church...In fact there is little I would buy from them these days...

PhilosopherJay · 03-17-2006, 05:53 AM

As I explain in my book the Evolution of Christs and Christianities, in the original story at the Cana Wedding, there is no Magician's trick. There is only a drinking-wedding joke.

Here is the whole passage.

3: When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
4: And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
5: His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6: Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7: Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8: He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
9: When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
10: and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Note the line of the stewart, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." Jesus is giving water, but it tastes like wine to the stewart.

If you analyze the lines 6-8, you will see that there is no mention of Jesus doing anything magical.

He orders the ritual stone jars (which hold 20-30 gallons) filled with water. The water is than drawn and most certainly put into a krator (mixing bowl). The stewart tastes the water, but to him (probably because he is drunk) it tastes like fine wine. He doesn't know where it comes from, so he assumes it is good tasting wine.
The point of the story is not that Jesus performed some magical trick, but that if you give people water when they are drunk, they will believe it is wine. It is probably related to the point that the words of Jesus are like living (flowing) water and cause people to get drunk and ecstatic. It may also be seen as representing the character as anti-Dionysian, a giver of pure water, rather than wine.

This incident is related as a joke with a clever cynical point about human nature, and a subtext about Jesus' persuasiveness, not as a magician's trick.

We should remember that ancient wine was generally quite weak. (From http://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot...and-water.html)

It was the function of the master of the drinking (Greek symposiarchos, Latin magister bibendi) to decide the proportion of water to wine. The master of the drinking was elected by his fellows (Xenophon, Anabasis 6.1.30) or chosen by lot (Horace, Odes 1.4.18 and 2.7.25-26).

Three parts water to one part wine is the proportion recommended by Hesiod, Works and Days 596, although the proper proportions were a matter of much dispute in antiquity....

Alcaeus, fragment Z 22 (tr. Denys Page) favors more wine than water:

The son of Semele and Zeus [Bacchus] gave wine to men for oblivion of sorrow; mix one of water to two of wine, pour them full from the brim down, let one cup jostle another.

The additional line at 3:11 comments upon the story: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

It is a sign of his glory that he could trick people into believing that the water he gave them was wine. In other words the text is saying that the character was a great con-man. It is not telling us that he was a magician.

So it is a waste of time trying to reproduce a magical trick that was simply a wedding joke and not a magical trick. We need to get a correct understand of the meaning of the text, rather then accept the meanings that theologicans have attached to the text for 1800 years.

I make this point in my book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities,
https://xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdi...p?bookid=29224. I have started a website regarding the book at http://evocc.com

Warmly

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dargo

Especially considering that the formations of legends could have greatly exagerated the original simple illusions. The feeding of the 5,000 might have started out as simple slight of hand trick that eventually grew into this absurd story.

A similar example is the legendary Indian rope trick. A Hindu holy man supposedly climbs a rope floating in the air and then completely disappears. Magicians today believe the stories are perhaps based on a real trick but highly exagerated.

Julian · 03-17-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Note the line of the stewart, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." Jesus is giving water, but it tastes like wine to the stewart.

If you analyze the lines 6-8, you will see that there is no mention of Jesus doing anything magical.

He orders the ritual stone jars (which hold 20-30 gallons) filled with water. The water is than drawn and most certainly put into a krator (mixing bowl). The stewart tastes the water, but to him (probably because he is drunk) it tastes like fine wine. He doesn't know where it comes from, so he assumes it is good tasting wine.
The point of the story is not that Jesus performed some magical trick, but that if you give people water when they are drunk, they will believe it is wine. It is probably related to the point that the words of Jesus are like living (flowing) water and cause people to get drunk and ecstatic. It may also be seen as representing the character as anti-Dionysian, a giver of pure water, rather than wine.

This incident is related as a joke with a clever cynical point about human nature, and a subtext about Jesus' persuasiveness, not as a magician's trick.

I think this is a very interesting observation, however, how do you explain the words the water now become wine which seem to me to explicitly say that the water had become wine? Part of me thinks your conclusion far too clever for the relatively dense gospels.

Julian

Thomas II · 03-17-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

As I explain in my book the Evolution of Christs and Christianities, in the original story at the Cana Wedding, there is no Magician's trick. There is only a drinking-wedding joke.

Here is the whole passage.

3: When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
4: And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
5: His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6: Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7: Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8: He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
9: When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
10: and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Note the line of the stewart, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." Jesus is giving water, but it tastes like wine to the stewart.

If you analyze the lines 6-8, you will see that there is no mention of Jesus doing anything magical.

He orders the ritual stone jars (which hold 20-30 gallons) filled with water. The water is than drawn and most certainly put into a krator (mixing bowl). The stewart tastes the water, but to him (probably because he is drunk) it tastes like fine wine. He doesn't know where it comes from, so he assumes it is good tasting wine.
The point of the story is not that Jesus performed some magical trick, but that if you give people water when they are drunk, they will believe it is wine. It is probably related to the point that the words of Jesus are like living (flowing) water and cause people to get drunk and ecstatic. It may also be seen as representing the character as anti-Dionysian, a giver of pure water, rather than wine.

This incident is related as a joke with a clever cynical point about human nature, and a subtext about Jesus' persuasiveness, not as a magician's trick.

We should remember that ancient wine was generally quite weak. (From http://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot...and-water.html)

It was the function of the master of the drinking (Greek symposiarchos, Latin magister bibendi) to decide the proportion of water to wine. The master of the drinking was elected by his fellows (Xenophon, Anabasis 6.1.30) or chosen by lot (Horace, Odes 1.4.18 and 2.7.25-26).

Three parts water to one part wine is the proportion recommended by Hesiod, Works and Days 596, although the proper proportions were a matter of much dispute in antiquity....

Alcaeus, fragment Z 22 (tr. Denys Page) favors more wine than water:

The son of Semele and Zeus [Bacchus] gave wine to men for oblivion of sorrow; mix one of water to two of wine, pour them full from the brim down, let one cup jostle another.

The additional line at 3:11 comments upon the story: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

It is a sign of his glory that he could trick people into believing that the water he gave them was wine. In other words the text is saying that the character was a great con-man. It is not telling us that he was a magician.

So it is a waste of time trying to reproduce a magical trick that was simply a wedding joke and not a magical trick. We need to get a correct understand of the meaning of the text, rather then accept the meanings that theologicans have attached to the text for 1800 years.

I make this point in my book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities,
https://xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdi...p?bookid=29224. I have started a website regarding the book at http://evocc.com

Warmly

Jay Raskin

Jay,
thank you for your observation.
So the whole "miracle" was a trick after all!
I'll buy that...

So Jesus starts his career as Messiah with a trick and a joke?
I find that more plausible than turning water into wine.
Jesus was then an ILLUISIONIST!
I can buy that too...

What about walking on water?
And multiplying fish and bread?
And casting demons into pigs?
And healing people?
What is your take on all these, and other, said "miracles"?

Clivedurdle · 03-17-2006, 09:41 AM

The interesting comment in this excellent analysis is about the cynics views of human nature. Wasn't Seneca an important cynic? (Thought it was about time we brought the Romans back on stage!)

PhilosopherJay · 03-17-2006, 09:43 AM

Hi Julian,

Thanks for bringing up this point.

I think the King James Bible probably translates the greek word gegenemenon better as it has "the water that was made wine." It was the simple action of putting the water into the wine mixing bowl that made the purified water into wine. We may assume that the krator being used earlier in the wedding would have some dregs of wine, at least enough to impart the flavor of wine to the water.

The important thing to note here is that Jesus says no magical words and performs no magical actions on the water. It is just the drawing of the purified or holy water (into the krator) that makes it into wine.

We should compare this to the changing of the water into wine in the Bacchae by the followers of the God Dionysius:

Then one of them, taking a thyrsus, struck a rock with it,
and water gushed out, fresh as dew. Another, using her
thyrsus, scraped the ground. At once, the god sent fountains
of wine up from the spot.

There is no question in the Bacchae that the power of the God is creating the wine. Conversely, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus has actually made the water into wine other than putting it into a wine mixing bowl.

The key to understanding the text is really the punchline that Jesus has saved the best wine for last. The joke is that it is not wine at all but water and the taster doesn't know it. If Jesus had actually performed a magic trick and turned the water into wine, the joke would be pointless and also, the action would be pointless because nobody knows about it. Unless somehow you want to construe that getting people at a wedding who are drunk, more drunk, is a miracle.

It is true that the Gospels are relatively dense, but in The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, I demonstrate that there is an early layer of text that was actually a rather brilliant satirical play. It was in chopping up and changing that play that the gospel writers made the narrative relatively incoherent and dull.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I think this is a very interesting observation, however, how do you explain the words the water now become wine which seem to me to explicitly say that the water had become wine? Part of me thinks your conclusion far too clever for the relatively dense gospels.

Julian

Thomas II · 03-17-2006, 10:39 AM

Fine, I am convinced that the water into wine trick is just an ILLUSION performed by Jesus. The water NEVER really turned into wine, but people THOUGHT they were drinking wine. So Jesus performed an act of ILLUSIONISM
I would agree that it makes more sense than any other explanation, so I'll buy your take on that. (There was a guy called The Amazing Kreskin on TV who could do similar things. He was a MENTALIST. Seems like that is what Jesus did at the wedding)

www.castproductions.com/kreskin.html

Next: What about the CURSING of the fig tree? Jesus is said to have cursed the tree so badly that the tree whithered (it died).
Was that another act of ILLUSION? Because that sounds to me like a SPELL...
I will be more than glad to hear your take on that...

:wave:

Julian · 03-17-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I think the King James Bible probably translates the greek word gegenemenon better as it has "the water that was made wine." It was the simple action of putting the water into the wine mixing bowl that made the purified water into wine. We may assume that the krator being used earlier in the wedding would have some dregs of wine, at least enough to impart the flavor of wine to the water.

The important thing to note here is that Jesus says no magical words and performs no magical actions on the water. It is just the drawing of the purified or holy water (into the krator) that makes it into wine.

So the dregs of wine could be what flavors the water. But couldn't it be considered that Jesus's persuasive power convinced the steward that he was drinking water? Or better yet, the steward not wanting to admit that it was water and convincing himself that he was really drinking wine, sort of how hypnosis works, i.e. people are compelled to play along? That last one seems like such a good cynic anecdote which fits well with Jesus' legacy from the cynics.

As for the translation of γεγενημενον, I am not sure how I would translate this. It looks like a middle-massive neuter perfect participle which I cannot see immediately how to render into English. I would probably translate as having been made, although I hate to use made here for this word.

I, myself, is cautious about ascribing too many layers to the gospels since I have no immediate problem with the gospel writers having some ability to write creatively. I don't wish to derail this thread, however...

Anyways, good observation on your part. Any chance your book will make it onto Amazon? I am having a hard time finding it anywhere...

Julian

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

03-17-2006, 03:54 AM	#33
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	Whatever extraordinary thing Jesus did he learned it from someone. He just didn't pop up a water into wine deal out of his sleeve. While Jesus was reticent to perform his abilities in public, in private he had shown Mary "Ma! Look what I can do! Look what I can do", because she is the one pushing him to do it, and like any proud Jewish mother she wanted the friends and neighbours to see what her kid was able to do, specially the bastard one, you know, the "son of God" one...He would vindicate her by proving that God was his father instead of some guy who Mary had sex with out of wedlock... So Jesus learned his arts from someone during those years from age 12 to age 30, and surprise!,surprise! there is not a single piece of paper talking about those years...hmmm... Could it be that the Church did not want us to know what went on those years or the associations Jesus developed during that time? I would say "Aye,aye!". The image,or persona, of Jesus has been polished so much, that by now it probably has little to do with the actual person involved... We still have indication of an actual peronality,one of them being the argument with the money lenders at the Temple, other the cursing of the fig tree...What kind of spell did Jesus put in a tree to even kill it? Is this something he had just made up that day, or did he know how to cast a spell just like he knew how to void them? And wouldn't you say THAT is the quality of a magician? I am not saying that in a negative way. Moses is also said to have learned the magic arts, and he was said to be so good at it that he could beat the court magicians,or priests of Amun, who in turn were said to be the creme de la creme as magic goes... The reason I am saying this is to give dimension to the person we are trying to find as the REAL Jesus, if there is such a thing...My inclination is that there was an actual person...I just don't buy the Jesus persona sold to us by the Church...In fact there is little I would buy from them these days...

03-17-2006, 09:41 AM	#37
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The interesting comment in this excellent analysis is about the cynics views of human nature. Wasn't Seneca an important cynic? (Thought it was about time we brought the Romans back on stage!)

03-17-2006, 10:39 AM	#39
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	Fine, I am convinced that the water into wine trick is just an ILLUSION performed by Jesus. The water NEVER really turned into wine, but people THOUGHT they were drinking wine. So Jesus performed an act of ILLUSIONISM I would agree that it makes more sense than any other explanation, so I'll buy your take on that. (There was a guy called The Amazing Kreskin on TV who could do similar things. He was a MENTALIST. Seems like that is what Jesus did at the wedding) www.castproductions.com/kreskin.html Next: What about the CURSING of the fig tree? Jesus is said to have cursed the tree so badly that the tree whithered (it died). Was that another act of ILLUSION? Because that sounds to me like a SPELL... I will be more than glad to hear your take on that... :wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.