andrewcriddle

Personally I believe that Jesus performed some miracles during his lifetime.

As a matter of critical historical inquiry the only thing worth discussing IMHO, is how strong is the evidence that Jesus was widely regarded as a miracle worker during his lifetime.

Modern investigations (like the committee that investigates the miraculous nature of healings at Lourdes) cannot IMO usually be applied to miracle claims in the ancient world.

Andrew Criddle

Ray Moscow

Andrew, I appreciate your views on this.

I'm curious: why do you believe that Jesus performed miracles?

Ray

andrewcriddle

To simplify

I believe that there is a God and that he can work miracles.
I believe that Jesus was God incarnate IE the supreme manifestation of God on earth.
Hence I am prepared in principle to believe that the Gospel miracles might well be true.

Given those presuppositions (some) of the Gospel accounts come across as plausible examples of genuine miracles. Hence I believe them. Without the initial presuppositions the Gospel accounts are much less convincing as evidence for genuine miracles.

There are obviously at least two responses.

One is that my initial presuppositions are (even as faith claims) not credible. This is liable to become an open ended debate about the plausibility of religious claims in general. (Is it credible to believe in God ? If there is a God is it credible that he would work miracles ? etc)

The other response (and the one IMO more likely to lead to a constructive debate) is that even given my initial presuppositions the evidence that Jesus performed miracles remains very weak eg that the idea of Jesus as a miracle worker is not part of the earliest tradition but say developed after the time of Paul. I do not myself find this a likely position but it would be interesting to discuss it. (Hopefully without becoming involved in the argument that in the earliest tradition Jesus had no earthly existence and hence worked no earthly miracles.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

You mentioned "believe," and "critical historical inquiry," which are very different approaches. It is interesting to note that many of, if not the majority of people who become Christians do so without any critical historical research at all. They simply believe the Bible, frequently because their parents believe the Bible. What do you think of that approach?

One problem that fundamentalist Christians have is that critical historical inquiry frequently falls well short of providing us with the evidence that we need. For instance, consider the following claims that are an essential part of fundamentalist Christian doctrine:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind.

Obviously, none of those claims are verifiable by means of critical historical inquiry, but nonetheless, they are very important claims, which invites the question "Which important Bible claims are reasonably verifiable by means of critical historical inquiry that substantially help to provide a rational basis for a person to become a fundamentalist Christian?"

Why are you so interested in critical historical inquiry? What does that reasonably prove about God?

wordy

The better way to "assess" it is to see it as John Shelby Spong suggests. As Midrash.

It is a kind of ritual art or ritual language. Even magic ritual at times.

To declare truth ritually by proclamations.

One secular way to understand it is as a show. Stage Magicians also ask us to participate in a rigged situation. We all know it is pretend. We know they are not going to saw her in two. We know it is role playing. A kind of game.

As participants we let it happens cause it is fun.

The religious let it happens cause it gives them good feelings. They are feeling cared for by the others, they participate in something collective.

They pray together and even if some of them doubt that a God really hear and care, they know the others care.

But the others would not be there for you if they had no show going on.

The ritual show is what makes it possible to stage at all. They wouldn't come if she wanted to pray without the Jesus ritual.

I've tested this myself in the Secular Humanist movement where I live.

They had no motivation to help me but the Baptist Pastor in the nearest church had cause he had that ritual relation to Jesus and I was able to show him how he could help an atheist survive if he let me give him my atheist take on Jesus and I promised to listen to his take om Jesus. We had something ritual to share, a kind of ritual dialog. The Humanists had no tool for such. They referred to Society, Therapists and Medical care. Such cost heavy price for 45 minutes and years of waiting too.

Teh Baptist Pastor was available within a week and had psychological diploma so he was no quack either, but we never did psychology. We did a respectful ritual dialog with Jesus, me as the angry atheist wanting to survive and he the friendly believer wanting to help me survive without forcing Jesus on me.

He was very respectful. A Progressive Socialist Activist helping people survive in Africa and more like my Dad the humanistic Communist. Sometimes I guess that the Baptist Pastor was very pragmatic in his faith but such is not easy to discern, he told me he really did believe in God but who knows. He was not pushy in any way. Different from aggressive the Tele-Evangelists.

Midrash maybe could be used in fundamentalistic ways too but often it is used to make progressive social interpretations. A way to survive in oppressive societies.

Supernatural things is a way to be special. Like when Sport persons do special things and all the fans cheers. It is a show!

figuer

To believe is irrational. One can observe or not. I observe the Bible contradicts itself. I observe the claims of the Bible contradict other historical accounts. I observe the Bible contradicts constant observations of reality. I observe the God depicted in the Bible acts in ways contrary to human conceptions of fairness. I observe the mechanism of Christian salvation to be illogical. I observe the only basis to consider Jesus and his acts as factual is the Bible. Thus I observe it is not a rational conclusion to consider things pertaining to Jesus as having occured.

Johnny Skeptic

Indeed, in "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark notes the social benefits of being a Christian. He says that the social benefits outweighed the burdens, and that the social benefits offered by paganism were not nearly as good. The spread of Christianity is accounted for by excellent, innovative marketing, nothing more. If God really wanted Christianity to flourish, he would have been personally, tangibly involved in promoting it. In the first century, he certainly would not have withheld the Gospel message from everyone who lived far away from Palestine. As it as, he showed a preference for people who lived closer to Palestine. That is quite odd.

Roger Pearse

This kind of retort doesn't really help your case, you know.

Andrew means no more than the kind of belief you give to your own opinions, when you (like most people) choose (or do not choose but make the implicit choice) to live in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the time in which you happened to be born.

The latter is a default position in every society, and the inability of people to examine themselves and perceive this ought to ring warning bells in anyone with a hint of self-awareness. But of course it is hard for fish to see water.

The remainder of your comments consisted of (pardon me) various second-hand excuses not to believe something. The problem, tho, is what we DO believe. Surely? Any of us can find excuses for what we do not want to believe. But listening to those excuses from people who cannot discuss or defend what they prefer to do instead is wearisome. It's one reason why atheists don't get a hearing, you know.

I'm with Andrew on this, incidentally.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ericmurphy

I hope you're not claiming atheists are incapable of explaining why they do not believe God exists. I'm pretty sure several book-length explanations for that position have come out just in the past year or so.

The principal reason agnostics doubt God exists, and atheists are sure God does not exist, is the manifest lack of evidence for the existence of God.

Is that your idea of an "inability to discuss or defend" why they don't believe God exists? Is there some detail you think that explanation lacks?

figuer

Why? It is the truth. Why should the truth be hidden.

This makes no sense, as you are mixing up two different concepts.

You are implying I don't have the ability to examine my behaviour. Based on what do you make this statement???

This is pure nonsense, even of an infantile kind. I presented no "second hand excuses". The Bible is a self-contradictory book, how is this a second hand excuse? Considering this, why should I validate it as factual? The Bible contradicts my direct observations of nature, it contradicts my sense of fairness, the mechanism of salvation contradicts my sense of logic. Where are the second hand excuses???

This is not a thread to discuss or defend what I prefer to do instead. I have done that in many other threads. Atheist don't get a hearing because most people (like you have amply demonstrated here), do not like to think for themselves. They prefer to use mental crutches, to become addicted to silly mythologies that numb their unhappiness, because they are not strong and intellectually self-respecting enough to face reality without them.

Your post was simply absurd and irresponsible.