Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joan of Bark · 11-08-2007, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

In The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by E.P. Sanders a similar claim is made. Miracle workers, faith healers and prophets with supernatural powers were far from unknown in first century Palestine.

In view of what you are writing, Malachi, I should point out that I don't believe anyone was really performing supernatural feats, only that they were commonly written about at the time.

David B · 11-08-2007, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhan

One possible answer is that just as Moses was shown to have superior powers to that of the Egyptian magicians, the gospel writers tried to show that Jesus was superior to both the existing magicians as well as the various deities doing the rounds.

Everything they could do he could do better.

I'd prefer '...Moses was alleged...' to '...Moses was shown....'

But yes - and Humphrey would, I think, agree.

David B

Chili · 11-08-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I'd be very interested to see what our resident experts on ancient literature make of these quotes.

I have serious doubts about the "walking on water" claim.

But Malachi, if you read 'the next line' and learn that they had caugth nothing all night until they followed Jesus' advise to cast their nets on the other side of the boat and found that there the fish were big and easy to catch one must be a die-hard literalist not to think of walking on water as being a metaphor that speaks on behalf of something else.

driver8 · 11-08-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I'd be very interested to see what our resident experts on ancient literature make of these quotes.

I have serious doubts about the "walking on water" claim.

But Malachi, if you read 'the next line' and learn that they had caugth nothing all night until they followed Jesus' advise to cast their nets on the other side of the boat and found that there the fish were big and easy to catch one must be a die-hard literalist not to think of walking on water as being a metaphor that speaks on behalf of something else.

Sounds like you're confusing stories. This is no fishing allegory, its a straight-up miracle story.

John:

Quote:

[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22] On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone.

Matthew:

Quote:

[25] And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea.
[26] But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out for fear.
[27] But immediately he spoke to them, saying, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
[31] Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?"
[32] And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
[33] And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
[34] And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret.

Mark:

Quote:

[47] And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land.
[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;
[50] for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."
[51] And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded,
[52] for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
[53] And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennes'aret, and moored to the shore.

No fish.

These "miracles" and superstitions are relevant in that they establish the beliefs and expectations of these people, not that they are an attempt to explain how a jesus did these things.

The belief in flying golden chariots and resurrecting phoenixes tells us a lot.

Chili · 11-08-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

But Malachi, if you read 'the next line' and learn that they had caugth nothing all night until they followed Jesus' advise to cast their nets on the other side of the boat and found that there the fish were big and easy to catch one must be a die-hard literalist not to think of walking on water as being a metaphor that speaks on behalf of something else.

Sounds like you're confusing stories. This is no fishing allegory, its a straight-up miracle story.

Yes but if the water in the fishing story was a metaphor it will be a metaphor in the others as well. Notice how I marked "'the next line'" to include as rest of the story now based on this metaphor.

gstafleu · 11-08-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This is what I can't understand, why are people so attached to the idea that they need to explain how everything mentioned in the Bible "really happened", instead of realizing that these are simply fictional story elements in the first place?

If what Jesus is described as doing in the gospels is indeed part of what was then known as a common suite of tricks, there is relevance in that beyond an attempt at historization of the stories.

Let is e.g. ask the question: "How was Mark trying to portray Jesus?" As a god-man, as a prophet, as a trickster? If people would recognize the "miracles" as for example appear in Mark 1--after the baptizing and desert scenes, in other words close to the beginning of the book--as well known tricks, they might from that form the idea that Mark was portraying Jesus as a trickster. What is more, if Mark is using well known tricks as Jesus' miracles, it is reasonable to think that Mark himself was portraying Jesus as a trickster rather than e.g. a god-man. Mark's gospel then turns into a tale of a failed trickster rather than a tragically executed hero.

Gerard Stafleu

DCHindley · 11-08-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

That's somewhat more understandable then, but I'd like to see what he claims is the evidence that people were performing "walking on water" tricks.

This also bring up another side point about the "walking on water" scene. Why is it that every time Jesus walking on water is portrayed in media, at least that I have seen, it is never depicted like it is in the Gospels, its always simply Jesus holding out his hands walking slowly across a calm pond or something?

I mean, in the story he swoops down off a mountain top and runs across a rough lake and gets into a boat, I've never seen that type of depiction in any media, though maybe I just don't see enough Jesus scenes....

Are you sure his isn't a sceen from one of those Hong Kong kung-fu movies? Jesus "swoops down off a mountain top"? Show me where you get *this*?! Or was it just "rightous hyperbole"?

DCH

"It is not what is that is impotant, but what we want things to be." Me.

Roland · 11-08-2007, 10:39 AM

My favorite part is in Mark where it says "He meant to pass by them..."

Was Jesus just out for a casual stroll on the water and just happened to bump into the disciples on their boat?

Chili · 11-08-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

If what Jesus is described as doing in the gospels is indeed part of what was then known as a common suite of tricks, there is relevance in that beyond an attempt at historization of the stories.

Let is e.g. ask the question: "How was Mark trying to portray Jesus?" As a god-man, as a prophet, as a trickster? If people would recognize the "miracles" as for example appear in Mark 1--after the baptizing and desert scenes, in other words close to the beginning of the book--as well known tricks, they might from that form the idea that Mark was portraying Jesus as a trickster. What is more, if Mark is using well known tricks as Jesus' miracles, it is reasonable to think that Mark himself was portraying Jesus as a trickster rather than e.g. a god-man. Mark's gospel then turns into a tale of a failed trickster rather than a tragically executed hero.

Gerard Stafleu

That is a very good observation Gerard but does that not suggest that we should abandon the synptic perspective and take the Gospels for what they present to us.

Accordingly it seems that Mark removes all of Matthew's religious inspiration that ended with the great commission while here they are left totally bewildered and said nothing to noone.

But calling it a "tale of a failed trickster" is rushing to the conclusion a bit because the young man who ran away naked was the same man who was later seen at the tomb. He was just the 'naked animal man' who's 'Jewishness' (tradition included) had been severed from him, . . . yet the tomb was empty, and Luke will tell us why and how that is done next.

In the end, one must remember that it is a divine comedy even if for Matthew it was a tragedy ("Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani" versus Luke's "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" and "It is finished" to follow in John.

Toto · 11-08-2007, 12:15 PM

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire discusses a lot of tricks, but does not mention walking on water. There is an entire wiki entry on

Walking_on_water, which claims that Horus walked on water (no referece) and that ancient Greek mythological figures, Buddhists and Hindus (also no reference) were reputed to walk on water.

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

11-08-2007, 10:39 AM	#18
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	My favorite part is in Mark where it says "He meant to pass by them..." Was Jesus just out for a casual stroll on the water and just happened to bump into the disciples on their boat?

11-08-2007, 12:15 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire discusses a lot of tricks, but does not mention walking on water. There is an entire wiki entry on Walking_on_water, which claims that Horus walked on water (no referece) and that ancient Greek mythological figures, Buddhists and Hindus (also no reference) were reputed to walk on water.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.