Magus55

What miracle is there to believe in, if it never happened?

Gooch's dad

Magus, you're assuming that those particular miracles DID happen. What if Jesus "healed" a few people by the power of suggestion, turned water into wine using a standard magician's trick (wax seal separating water from wine in a jug) and the writers of the gospels made up the other miracles?

Magus, you have a complete double standard. You believe the miracle stories from ONE particular set of ancient writings, but not ANY other. Do you believe that Apollonius of Tyana healed people or not? Do you believe that Vespasian healed a blind man using his own spit (after all, the historians Tacitus and Suetonius both record this miracle!).

If not, why not?

Kelly

Asha'man

How many times must we repeat this: the Apostles are part of the story, and don't count as witnesses. They were written in to provide an audience. We have no real way of knowing if they ever existed, what they believed, or what they saw.

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, they were written decades later and given the names of apostles to lend authority to them.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
And again, why would they believe the ramblings of some man, if He did nothing to actually convince the apostles of what they were supposedly on to?

Well, I never claimed that he did nothing to convince them.

Why would you believe a man claiming to be God, and make up miracles because He couldn't actually do it?

First, whether Jesus personally claimed to be God or not is questionable. It's possible, if not probable, that the claim of divinity for Jesus was something added later - perhaps originally by Paul - and the Gospels (particularly the last written - John) were enhanced to support that claim.

The Apostles had no benefit or stake in believing in Christ. They spent their whole lives following Judaism, and could have easily stayed with that.

Judaism was in turmoil at the time (during the First Century), with many sects battling it out for supremacy. Judaism itself became something much different than it was previously concurrent with the rise of Christianity. It's not surprising that some Jews went in other directions.

Indeed, the earliest "Christian" beliefs were perhaps perceived as just another sect of Judaism (similar to the other Jewish sects that were prevalent at the time). Hence, as mentioned earlier, the claim of some that Jesus was a messenger or prophet, more keeping with the central tenet of Judaism that there is One God, and no other God. As the Jesus sect developed, someone (Paul, perhaps) extended that belief to incorporate Jesus the Christ into God. Jesus became God, among us (not that foreign a proposition in Judaism). However, most of Judaism rejected that claim, and so the sect became separated from Judaism, and veered off quite rapidly into more of a Gentile religion, incorporating many Greek philosophies.

It was common in this days for men to claim to be messiahs. Sure they gained followers for a little while, but when they failed to prove their messiahship, and ultimately died and stayed dead, the followers disbanded and returned to their old religion.

And Christianity, alone among them, managed to incorporate Jesus' death and resurrection myths into their beliefs. This didn't sell well in Judaism, though, as most Jews remained Jewish; it did much better among the Gentiles, however.

There is no logical explanation for why Christianity, Jesus, and the Apostles were different unless it actually happened.

Sure there is. Something happened to get the ball rolling, and embellishments (e.g. the resurrection and ascention) were added through the practice of Midrash to tie the story of Jesus into Jewish beliefs and to "add beef to the bones". Midrash was an ancient Jewish practice, and so was quite acceptable to the Jews who followed Jesus. However, most Jews of the time didn't buy into it, particularly after Jesus was made Divine. Those Jews that remained took their new religion to the Gentiles. Not long after, not understanding the practice of Midrash, suddenly the mythical accounts began to be interpreted literally. History tells the rest of the story, up to the point where you and many others still think the accounts should be taken literally.

You just can't possibily accept that it very well may have.

It's obvious that "it" did not. I believe something did happen, but not the literal accounts in the Gospels. What really did happen in Jesus' life is lost to us forever.

Mageth

Read Spong's book. I dare you.

Gooch's dad

I second that suggestion. Magus, give me a book that you think "proves" Christianity, and I'll read it, IF you read that book by Bishop Spong. Deal?

Kelly

Doctor X

No miracles, obviously.

By coincidence, I just read a nice piece on:

Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14

Essentially, Ahaz decides to submit to Assyria, but this would require acknowledgment of Assyrian dieties. Isaiah offers him a sign, which Ahaz rejects, to which he responds:


There are a number of textual issues, most involving whether or not verse 16b is original or an addition. However, whichever view one takes on that:

So much for that one. . . .

The author is Professor of New Testament and Director of the Institute of Early Christian Studies at the University of Gottingen.

--J.D.

Reference:

Ludemann G. The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Mageth

Same for me. In fact, I noticed that my wife has a copy of one of Josh McDowell's "Case for..." books on the shelf. I've been intending on reading it anyway.

BTW, Spong's book is a challenge to atheists as well, as Spong, while discounting a literal interpretation of the Bible, also discounts the modern "deconstruction" of the Bible to explain all biblical "miracles" by mundane, natural means. Spong is no atheist, and he does not present an atheistic view of the Bible. He believes something incredible had to have happened to Jesus' followers that resulted in the birth, subsequent growth, and continued existence of Christianity.

Doctor X

Folks, I long ago challenged Magus--after his denial of multi-authorship adn the like--to read Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? and argue against it.

Answer came there none. . . .

--J.D.

Mageth

Yes, that would be another good book for Magus (and other literalists) to read. I need to read it myself - in fact, that was the book I was looking for in the bookstore (but couldn't find) when I found Spong's book instead and thought it looked like a good read for this Easter season.

Spong, early in the book, points out how theological scholarship, researched and taught in seminaries, is intentionally kept from the "pew sitters". That's something I had personally noticed, and something I thought a lot about during my deconversion process when I started reading books that challenged literalism in religion and discussing belief and atheism with others, one atheist friend at work in particular. In fact, there was a show on some channel about Jesus' life, which I saw in the Fall of 2000, that brought up many questions about how his life was mythologized that was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for me. Before watching the show, I was a believer struggling with my belief. The next day, I began climbing out of the pit of "literal belief" (which the Church puts you, and intentionally keeps you, in) into the sunshine of reality.

I'm not afraid, thank the stars, to read books that seriously challenge my beliefs, or even my lack of belief in God. But the literal interpretation of mythologies such as Christianity, insisted on by many such as McDowell and Magus, no longer has any power over me. Non-literal, more mythological approaches, such as those of Joseph Campbell and Spong, I find much more challenging.