Baidarka

According to the New Testament faith healing was central to the early Christian ministry. Faith healers come in 2 types (I submit that there are only 2 types).
1- The delusional
2-Dirty lying cheats

The delusional faith healers may sometimes be able to affect some minor cures through the placebo effect but it is doubtful that many of the delusional faith healers ever succeeded in the dramatic cures necessary to acquire the devoted following necessary to generate the money and power that is the life blood of a fledgling cult. Besides delusional people are nuts and the people may be gullible but they can usually spot a nut.

Now the Dirty Lying Cheat is another thing all together. He can cure the blind. He can bring the dead back to life. He can cure leprosy. He can cure the lame. He can do this because they all work for him and then if he also cures any one by the placebo effect he can take credit for that too.

I know that we tend to put a romantic gloss on the Biblical past but I can assure you that the past was once a very ordinary present.

The people that populated the past were very much like the people of today.
Who are the successful faith healers of our time? Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts (2 Dirty Lying Cheats)
Who claims to talk to the dead? John Edward (Dirty Lying Cheat)
Who Claims to be a real magician? Uri Geller (Dirty Lying Cheat)
The point is that all of these scoundrels that I have listed say beautiful things. They preach volumes of wonderful moralisms, but these people are totally transparent in their real intent of ripping off as many people as they can and getting as rich as they can by taking advantage of the weak and gullable.

The New Testament is absolutely clear that Jesus and his disciples were all involved in a very successful faith healing ministry. If this is true then we can be sure that they were all Dirty Lying Cheats no matter how pretty their words are.

If 2 of Peter's followers died over a disagreement about money then I don't think it is too much of a stretch to suspect foul play. I am Colombo!

Vinnie

""""If this is true then we can be sure that they were all Dirty Lying Cheats no matter how pretty their words are."""""

That is ridiculous--even to some non-Christian scholars! The belief in miracles was widespread in the ancient world. As you mention the placebo effect I doubt you think every rationalist totally rejects all of the "miracle" accounts in the ancient world as deliberate falsehoods. In fact, most of them should probably not be seen as deliberate falsehoods. Modern medical science would accept pyschosomatic healings as genuine and scientifically plausible. Ancient society was more susceptible to miracles than our post-enlightenment world. At one point didn't Jesus express the idea that faith was necessary for healing? Also, to ancient people, one miracle was just as good as another. If God could heal a person he could allow a man to walk on water etc. They didn't have the same distinction as we do. From E.P. Sanders:

Some who accept that certain "miracles" are impossible will use these as basic explanations (paraphrased from Sanders, Ibid.):

1. Pyschosomatic cures or mind over body. These type of cures could cover exorcisms, healing of the blind, deaf, dumb, paralysed and possible the woman with hte haemorrage.

2. Some could have developed from coincidences. Maybe during the sotrm Jesus said something like "Peace, be still" and the stormed died out.

3. Some miracles may have been only apparent. For instance, the walking on water. Perhaps he was on land but a low mist made it look like sea or he knew where there were submerged rocks.

4. Group psychology has been often used to explain the feeding miracles. Everyone brought food but was afraid of having to share it. When Jesus and the disciples started sharing everyone saw it and did the same and there was sufficient and to spare.

5. Some may be historicizing legends like Peter walking on water. His character failings are mentioned a few times in the gospels and the account of him wqalking on water could only be a pictorial representation of his character failing. It delineates his weakness by narrating a brief legend.

Regarding number 4 it is interesting to note the crowd reaction during the feeding miracles. Great public impact was attributed to a "minor" miracle by Mark (1.28) while the feeding of a multitude drew very little response it seems from the Gospel accounts. "They ate and were satisfied."

While there certainly was Christian creativity regarding the miracle accounts, calling Jesus & co. all Dirty Lying Cheats is erroneous. The criticism ammounts to little more than saying they were not modern day protestant Christians or secular humanists. They viewed certain processes different than we do and drew lines in different spots.

Vinnie

Baidarka

If we accept the Biblical accounts of Jesus' "miracles" then we have no choice but to conclude that either he was a real miracle worker or he was a fraud.
Changing water into wine is just a plain, highly theatrical conjurers trick. There can be no misunderstanding here. It sounds like he was part of the wedding entertainment!
Multiplying the loaves also sounds like it was done in a theatrical and entertaining way. This was not some mass delusion that was exaggerated by later telling. It was a very deliberate and very professionally done magical trick.
Raising the dead, walking on water, curing deafness, curing lameness, healing leprosy.
The New Testament writers were very careful to stretch credulity to the point where we have no choice, either Jesus was a genuine miracle worker or a fraud, there is no in between unless we postulate that the magic was a later literary accretion .
Needless to say but I disagree with Sanders.