FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-24-2008, 10:32 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default Main stream Biblical Scholarship

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.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-24-2008, 10:55 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Given the historical likelihood that Jesus of Nazareth was believed by many of his contemporaries to have been a successful healer,
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.
spamandham is offline  
Old 07-24-2008, 11:17 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Jesus Seminar in Durham 2008

Quote:
It has become common in NT studies to avoid such questions by either declaring them inadmissible or providing supernaturalist explanations which would be unacceptable in any other discipline and are not usually considered appropriate when looking at comparable figures with reputations as healers in antiquity.
Providing supernatural explanations is common? oops.
Toto is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 02:04 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

"Jesus healed" via fictional accounts written by the Gospel writers based on passages from the "Old Testament".
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 07-25-2008, 06:10 AM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
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.
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 03:27 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

'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.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 03:48 AM   #7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The raising of Lazarus, after being dead for four days, by Jesus as written in John 11 is one of those hurdles.
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.
Helpmabob is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:14 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
'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.
IMO various pasages in the Gospels eg Mark 3:22-30
Quote:
The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "By the prince of demons he drives out demons."
Summoning them, he began to speak to them in parables, "How can Satan drive out Satan?
If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand; that is the end of him.
But no one can enter a strong man's house to plunder his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can plunder his house.
Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them.
But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit 11 will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."
For they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."
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
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 07:20 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
IMO various pasages in the Gospels eg Mark 3:22-30
Quote:
The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "By the prince of demons he drives out demons."
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.
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?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-26-2008, 07:56 AM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
'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.
IMO various pasages in the Gospels eg Mark 3:22-30

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
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.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.