gurugeorge

I'd be interested if somebody knew more about the term "miracles": what's the word used in the Greek? There were many "wonder-workers" and "magicians" in those days, in Greek culture, in Middle Eastern culture generally - some of the ancestors of Western philosophy, the Pythagoreans and some of the pre-Socratics (e.g. Empedocles) were reportedly also healers, magicians, "wonder-workers". (Again, somebody mentioned Appollonius of Tyana - a "neo-Pythagorean" of the day.)

But on the whole, these sorts of philosopher/magicians wouldn't have viewed their works as "miracles" in the sense of something outside the pattern of nature (indeed Empedocles, for one, wrote many poems in which he laid out the theoretical basis, as he understood it, for his ability as a magician, poems which became foundational to the Western scientific view of things). They seem to have understood what they were doing as working with the grain of nature, a nature which, for many of them, included "gods", "spirits", etc. As modern rationalists, we might have different explanations of any apparent successes along these lines (manipulation of the placebo effect, perhaps some medical knowledge, perhaps medical knowleddge of things that aren't yet fully understood in scientific terms, but are now starting to come to light, like whatever unusual properties of the fascia might be responsible for the partial success of acupuncture as an analgesic).

The problem would then be, how did the idea that these kinds of healings, etc., were "miracles" in the sense of being outside the course of nature, come about?

My feeling is that it's tied to the idea that literalist Christianity seems to have introduced, that the Divine brought an avatar into the world once and once only, in historical time. Previously, the idea (the idea in Greek esotericism, magic, the mysteries) seems to have been rather like the Eastern one, that anybody could, with the right understanding and work, become divine, become "immortalised". Then, literalist Christians came along and said: "no, this only happened once, and our priests are in the direct line of apostolic succession from the man/god it happened to". This seems to have been the unique point of difference that literalist Christians were selling. And the idea of "miracles" as being outside the normal course of nature seems to be tied in with that idea.

Diogenes the Cynic

The word used in Greek is dunamis (which can also be transliterated as dynamis). It means "ability, strength, power, might, feat." "Miracle" is kind of selective translation and not completely accurate since dynamis really means inherent ability or power (or a showing of such) and does not necessarily - or even usually - imply anything superrnatural. A miracle might be a show of dynamis but a show of dynamis is not necessarily a miracle.

Incidentally, as you've probably guessed on your own, dunamis/dynamis is where we derive English words like dynamo, dynamic, dynamite and dynasty.

noah

Then return to the question of how do they know that and how do they know the works of other religions are not that of "higher authority"

gurugeorge

Thanks Diogenes,

Well in that case, the idea of the "miraculous" as we understand it today must have come about later, probably through the connection with the idea of a one-time avatar (i.e. if that man/god's dynamis was the only allowable one, if the others - e.g. Appollonius' - were counterfeits or fictions, then you might have the idea that the power displayed was something outside the order of nature).

So the following line of argument stands: "miracles" (at least of the common healing kind) did happen, they were fairly common, witnessed by lots of people, part of the art of philosophers, healers, magicians, etc., of the day. Their genuine occurence as phenomena within the order of nature is pretty much explainable rationally. Therefore there was nothing special about "Jesus"'s "miracles" - or, the apologist has to give a reason why they are some kind of exception. (Granted we're barring from the outset such impossibilities as the earth stopping on its axis, etc., etc., for which there is no independent contemporary evidence anyway.)

Rick Sumner

Except, of course, when it's seimeion. Which means sign, wonder, etc, especially one preformed to authenticate a man as an emissary of God.

eg Lk.23.8, Act.4.16, etc.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Good to see ya. Where have you been hiding?

Rick Sumner

Eh, first got mono, then got over that, then hurt my back, so I was bed-ridden for a bit, and I'm currently in the process of moving in with the girlfriend, where I spend most of the week, who doesnt' have internet (I know, it's horrible. I come to my place and hook the broadband up to my arm to replenish.). Once I finish all the moving and whatnot, and get the 'net hooked up at the new place (Apr.30), I should be around more.

Best,
Rick Sumner

norma98026

Oh no, not Ron Wyatt! Horrors!!! Certainly his reputation for fraud is well known, but I had no idea there was any connection between him the the video, The Exodus Revealed. Since I bought it from a trusted source, I want to do some research to find out exactly what the connection is. Thanks for the input, Vorkosigan.

To be continued...,
Norma

John A. Broussard

To get back to the purpose of this thread, I would like to point out how easy it is to be misled about whether or not a person exists, even within very recent times. I recall, not so long ago, that a dog was enrolled in an Ivy League college and made it through with a C average before its true identity was revealed.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Christ figure was a total fraud. Wouldn't it have been rather simple to launch the myth and perpetuate it, with the help of the gullible of course?

Chili

Are you trying to say here that only the gullible go to school or what? Did you know that apes refuse to be domesticated in fear of having to do man's dirty work to learn first hand what education is all about?