Huon

Simon Magus ?

Zeichman

Despite the willful mis-interpretation of others, Andrew has yet to make a claim about Jesus doing the supernatural. What was believed to be a miracle then and what is seen as a miracle now are wildly different things. Psycho-somatic healings, for example, would be miracles to the former but not to the latter. Please read what he says instead of projecting your own contempt for biblical scholarship onto Mr. Criddle as well.

aa5874

You mean that biblical scholars are always right. And biblical scholars cannot be challenged and if I am not a biblical scholar that I MUST accept whatever biblical scholars propagate.

I will NEVER accept such.

Now, tell me what is seen as a miracle, now?

And tell me what miracle was believed by people who lived during the days of Pilate to have been done by a person called Jesus of Nazareth whose mother was Mary?

And what psycho-somatic healing did a person called Jesus of Nazareth whose mother was Mary do?

You know what Jesus did and when he lived.

I don't know, I am not psycho.

Steven Carr

Andrew has also yet to produce a contemporary who believed Jesus was a healer.

Where is the evidence in 'mainstream Biblical scholarship' that Jesus did psycho-somatic healings?

Is it as strong as the evidence that L. Ron Hubbard was a blood brother of the Blackfoot tribe? At least I can produce evidence that many contemporaries of El Ron actually believed that to be true.

Amaleq13

He didn't say anything even approximately like that.


He asked that everyone stop misinterpreting Andrew and stop trying to force him to defend a position he has not taken.

Good to know.

Zeichman

If you think that I think biblical scholars are always right, you couldn't be more wrong. Miracles, today, are breaks in the laws of science. The rest of your post appears to be rhetorical, so I won't bother responding.

"Contemporary evidence" is a cop out and you know this. The utter dearth of written sources from antiquity is well-known. Such miracles are ascribed to many of Jesus' contemporaries by their own contemporaries. We can infer, via analogy, that this was not uncommon. You appear to still be working under the dubious conception that there was something utterly unique about early Christianity's claims.

Steven Carr

Gosh.

Ask what is the evidence for the claims of mainstream Biblical scholarship and you get your head bitten off.

Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence! This is mainstream scholarship, not wacky fringe-theories.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

Yes, the extraordinary form that the question takes is illogical enough to be disturbing. A similar question might be: "Given the historical certainty that most people in medieval times believed that witches communicated with the devil, how did witches communicate with the devil?"

Normally, for serious scientific inquiries, we present people's beliefs in order to challenge them to examine the evidence. For example; "Most people believe that eating only low-carb foods helps people to lose weigh, is this true?"

So the question starts out in the form of a serious scientific inquiry, as if it were challenging a common belief. Then it assumes the incredible idea that common belief equals reality. People commonly believed in the existence of Zeus on Mt. Olympus in the First century C.E. This belief is obviously not evidence that Zeus existed.

This is almost by definition how pseudo-sciences operate. They put nonsensical propositions into scientific form. One can well imagine an astrological association proposing a seminar with the topic, "Given that people believe that astrology is a good indication of personality, how can we use astrology to predict crime?"

It is disturbing that an organization that presents itself as doing scientific work would seriously formulate such a question in such a manner.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

storytime

But then again discussing the how of Jesus miracles just might help convince some people that decayed corpses do not rise again. For example, when John the Baptist had been imprisoned he sent a messenger to Jesus for confirmation from Jesus that he was indeed the one that should come. John seemed to be in doubt as to Jesus being the Messiah. So upon receiving the inquiry from John, Jesus replied by messenger: "Go tell John those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the DEAD ARE RAISED UP, and the poor have the gospel preached to them"

Were these physical healings or symbolic imagery that some would understand and some would not? If Jesus spoke in comparisons[parables], and his intention was to deceive "the multitudes", then should we examine the story more closely for its "fictional" (mysteries) content?

Which "mysteries" get into magic, how magic was perceived, of words that was purposed to deceive, thus magic is magic, on visual and hearing aspects?

Clutch

Everyone?

I think you need to count again.

In any case, Steven Carr's reply to Andrew is perfectly on point: the Gospels hardly count as very probative indications what Jesus' putative opponents said about him. In particular, agreement within the Gospels as to Jesus' healing abilities is not very aptly conceived as agreement between sources supportive of and those inimical to Christianity. Hence this is not a significant response to Steven's reductio of the talk abstract quoted in the OP.