Steven Carr

There is going to be a conference where I live in Durham (I don't have an invite)

Session 1:
Justin Meggitt (University of Cambridge)
'How did Jesus cure?'

Given the historical likelihood that Jesus of Nazareth was believed by many of his contemporaries to have been a successful healer, how did he effect such cures?


-------------------------------------

Such is mainstream Biblical scholarship. No question unbegged.

No contemporary of Jesus ever claimed Jesus had been a succesful healer.

Even Paul did not go out on a limb to say that.

As can be seen from http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm the miracle stories in the NT are as much literary creations as the Book of Mormon.

spamandham

I'm curious what this likelihood is based on.

Based on Josephus, the super majority of people called 'Jesus' were either high priests or high priests in waiting.

I wonder if the 'historical likelihood' has taken this into consideration.

Toto

Jesus Seminar in Durham 2008

Providing supernatural explanations is common? oops.

Malachi151

"Jesus healed" via fictional accounts written by the Gospel writers based on passages from the "Old Testament".

aa5874

Once a person claims that Jesus actually lived then he is faced with enormous hurdles that cannot be overcome, except through endless speculation and imagination.

The raising of Lazarus, after being dead for four days, by Jesus as written in John 11 is one of those hurdles.

Steven Carr

'Given the historical likelihood that Jesus of Nazareth was believed by many of his contemporaries to have been a successful healer, how did he effect such cures? '

Given the historical certainity that L. Ron Hubbard was believed by many of his contemporaries to be a blood brother of the Blackfoot tribe of Montana, how did he come to be a blood brother of that tribe?

It appears that mainstream Biblical scholarship learns nothing from history, yet claims to be guided by history.

Helpmabob

Hurdles shmurdles. The same God who breathed life into dead bones (Ezekiel 37) is the same one who returned Lazarus to life. It is kind of the crux of the whole thing: the dead are to be raised. It will be as natural as is waking in the morning from sleep.

andrewcriddle

IMO various pasages in the Gospels eg Mark 3:22-30
indicate that opponents of Jesus and early Christianity accepted that Jesus worked at least some cures but explained this by claiming Jesus was in league with evil spirits.

If this agreement between early supporters and opponents of Jesus is really true then it seems likely that Jesus genuinely did perform what were seen as impressive cures.

However I agree that the present forms of the healing stories have been heavily modified both in oral tradition and in redaction by the Gospel writers. This may make it unprofitable to discuss exactly how Jesus performed his cures.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

That is interesting.

I wonder why some enemies of Harry Potter in the Harry Potter books explained away why Harry was so good at wizardy.

Perhaps Andrew could come up with a contemporary of Jesus who reported that Jesus had done a healing?

Perhaps Paul? Well, obviously not Paul.

Somebody else then? Anybody?

aa5874

Your response is all circular.

If it is true Jesus did miracles, or IF it is true people saw Jesus do miracles, then Jesus did miracles.

Completely circular.

It is universally accepted that it is virtually impossible to bring a DEAD man to life, after four days, by simply talking to the DEAD.

It is IDIOTIC to talk to the lifeless, and expect the DEAD to respond.

It is virtually impossible to spit into the eyes of a person born blind and restore their sight.

And it is most laughable to TALK to a person born DEAF to make them HEAR.


A simple explanation is that the Jesus miracle stories were written very long after the fictitious miraculous events and were believed to be true by those who wanted to go to heaven.