waltms

Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2000) 5-8.

The canonical, non-canonical Gospels and Talmud. What is wrong with Christian writings? Do you suggest that no writings from a religio-cultural complex can be used as evidence for anything historical within the given religion?

All sources are biased.

They agree on him working miracles.

You're repeating yourself.

Already did in a previous post.

Amaleq13

Except Paul.

waltms

Should Paul have been a source for many other aspects of Jesus' life and yet left out cures, exorcism, etc then this would indeed be suspicious and suggest that Jesus was something other than that. However, Paul seems to know almost nothing about Jesus' life in general. That being said, he still does know about his most important miracle: the resurrection.

Solitary Man

That's not true. Paul never says that he didn't work miracles. You cannot use Paul against the idea since Paul has nothing to say on the matter.

chrisengland

Hello
Been away for a few days so havn't write any replys.
Anyway a couple fo things.
First if anyone on here is a Biblical scholar if they could tell me I'd be grateful.
I'm sure your honest but if you could give me some evidence that you are i'd be grateful' I,ll still take in what you say but obviously i'll have to be more caustous if i,m not sure.

Also Toto said that skeptics wouldn't have a problem admiting Luke knew Paul because he still wouldn't be an eye witness.
Admitedly thats true but he still would have met Paul who met some of the deciples' thats not quite as good as eye witnes testimony but its still quite good.

Also I wondered' I've read that Josephus and some other historians record supernatural events' how close from the time were they recorded and were they diffinately recording them as fact' not just as rumours or something?
thankyou
chris

aa5874

The word "myth" has several meaning, one of which is "an imaginary or fictitious thing or person" which to me decribes the Jesus of the NT.

Ben C Smith

It has been pointed out that 1 Corinthians 1.22-23 appears to make more sense on the supposition that Paul did not know that Jesus worked miracles than on the supposition that he did know: Jews ask for signs, but Paul offers only Christ crucified. If Jesus had worked signs, and Paul knew it, why not offer signs?

Admittedly, there are other ways to interpret these verses (and even if Paul was not aware that Jesus had done them it would not be an absolute lock that Jesus did not do them), but I think they should certainly figure into any discussion of Jesus doing miracles.

That said, it may be that all Amaleq13 was saying is that Paul does not agree with the other sources regarding the miracles, not that he actually disagrees. If he does not mention dominical miracles at all, then he can hardly agree that the Lord did them.

Ben.

ETA: It might be objected that, strictly speaking, 1 Corinthians 1.22-23 would also argue against the resurrection, yet Paul know about it. Yet the resurrection seems to have been regarded as a miracle of a private nature, not for the general public (see Acts 10.41, for example), while the signs as portrayed in the gospel are precisely public signs.

Amaleq13

Perhaps. I'm just pointing out that Paul really offers nothing that can be said to "agree" with this depiction.

Does he consider that a miracle performed by Jesus or by God?

Amaleq13

Yet you agree with me at the end.

Straw men.

Exactly and that is why it is incorrect to characterize him as agreeing. As I said.

Solitary Man

Ok, sorry about that. For a moment, I thought you were arguing against the idea. Apologies.