lpetrich

And there is the parallel question of why miracles don't happen anymore, or at least as much as they used to. Philosopher David Hume had noted that about 250 years ago(!), and Richard Carrier has expanded on that theme.

Compare St. Genevieve with Mother Teresa -- MT can barely work miracles, with the possible exception of presenting herself as a great humanitarian. This is evident from the controversy over whether someone's recovery from stomach cancer had been due to a picture of MT. And MT was unable to calm storms or point out monster-containing trees or make blind people see or make people who stole from her go blind. At least nobody has ever claimed that she could do any of these things.

What has happened? Has there been an Age of Miracles that has come to an end? Does miracle-working have some "shyness effect" that keeps it from happening under controlled conditions?

Or do miracles simply not happen?

lpetrich

I got the term "shyness effect" from psi research, which has had a remarkably similar conundrum -- abilities like extrasensory perception and psychokinesis have a remarkable tendency to evaporate when attempted under carefully-controlled conditions.

It is curious that nobody seems to say

"We'll show those skeptics and Doubting Thomases!!!"

leonarde

Partial post by FM: 1)I don't think I'm trying to avoid the point.
(But then we disagree about what the "point" is)

2)I think historians try to determine whether
eclipses (and other such phenomena)occurred as
recorded or not.

3)The judgement of whether an event is SUPERNATURAL or not is a metaphysical one
primarily, though it WILL be affected by scientific knowledge of the interpreters. Metaphysical judgements are made by theologians
and philosophers (or the theologian/philosopher in
each of us).

4)I see your tendency to label everything "true"
or "false" as intellectually stultifying.

5)I am at a loss to explain the simultaneous facts
that:

a) you claim that the theological overlay of 50 to
90 years which the Gospel writers exhibited totally excludes thinking of what they wrote as
history.

b)simultaneously you think a bunch of 20th
/21st Century theologians , subject to approx. 1850 MORE years of theological overlay getting together and voting once or
twice a year on the very things the Gospel writers wrote about constitutes historical judgement.

Cheers!

Family Man

You are avoiding the point and I'm getting a little tired of how you are oversimplifying what I'm saying so you can avoid it. No one here is saying that supernatural beliefs haven't had an effect on history. But the question of whether supernatural events actually occur is a legitimate question. And you are avoiding it.

Well, duh. What, pray tell, does that have to do with anything?

No kidding. Exactly where have I been disagreeing with you on this?

So?

If I were actually doing that you'd have a point. The problem is, I'm not labeling "everything" as true or false. However, whether a historical event occurred can be labelled true or false is legitimate area of intellectual exploration. What is intellectually stultifying here is your inability to tackle the question and the inane strawmen you keep throwing up so you can avoid what I am trying to say here.

Totally? I never said totally. I've repeatedly said that, where human events are described (such as the travels of Paul) history is being described. Where, however, stories that detail the alleged divinity of Jesus are concerned, that is not history. And there is considerable evidence that they are fiction.

No, I think that a bunch of 20th century theologians can get together in full awareness of the theological overlay and objectively apply scholarly standards to attempt to get at what is historical in the Bible. The problem you're having is that you don't like their conclusions.

As for "voting once or twice a year" what do you think they do the rest of the time? These are scholars and they research and write on the subject. They don't just vote; they have to explain why they are voting the way they are.

Finally, stop manufacturing differences between us that don't exist and actually try to tackle what I am saying, please.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

leonarde

Partial post by Family Man: 1)You raised/dropped their names several pages ago but haven't really said much about their conclusions. In fact you didn't much seem conversant with their backgrounds as in the early going you were claiming that they were historians.

2)Theyvote because they disagree among themselves on these questions to varying degrees (depending upon the particular question).

3)Chances are, I would agree with at least a minorityof the voters on each question raised.

4)They change their votes from at least time to time, probably more frequently than I would, so of
course one would need a scorecard to even potentially "agree" with them totally on each matter voted on.

5)Some of them must believe SOME supernatural events have occurred (but I would have to check)
and, if so, this means that you don't think
that they (a minority?) are correct on that since your a priori position is that "supernatural events don't happen".

6)I see your tortured use of the word "historical"
as an attempt to give a (secular)imprimatur to your belief that "supernatural events don't happen" and since you know that the most liberal
theologians are least supportive of the supernatural in general, the Jesus Seminar, given
its fairly liberal reputation, is the most appealing, high-profile group of theologians to you.

7)Ion also sees a "scientific history" in opposition to "superstitious religion" but, perhaps more consistently, would probably never
adhere to a "Jesus Seminar" even if he had heard of it.

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by Family Man: I posted about the eclipse 2 or 3 times by now.
If you still don't know "what that has
to do with anything" we can safely say further
pursuit of the subject would be fruitless...

Cheers!

leonarde

I feel that I've wandered far enough from Judas for enough pages to call it quits on this thread
(special thanks to the moderators for their indulgence). I thank everyone, especially Family Man and Ion for their patience with me: sometimes what I say isn't exactly what I mean. This thread has been particularly useful in that it has
prompted me to look into the Jesus Seminar more thoroughly than I would have otherwise. I thank
Family Man in particular for that.
There are many URLs dealing with the Jesus Seminar, including predictably, some which are very condemnatory of the unorthodoxy. I close my
"contribution" to this thread with something from
a website profiling the Jesus Seminar Fellow named Marcus Borg. It encapsulates Borg's concept of Jesus as a healer.
Above from: <a href="http://www.united.edu/portrait/borg.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.united.edu/portrait/borg.shtml</a>

I'll let others decide whether any of the above
qualifies as "supernatural".

Cheers!

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Vorkosigan

earliest sources contain widespread attestation

Really? Is there mention of Jesus' healing in Paul? What about the Didache?

Vorkosigan

Ion

Yes, I don't think that I adhere to the 'Jesus Seminar': their members are theologians, while me, I am scientific minded when investigating events.
To my education, reports in the Bible regarding Jesus healing people with spit and other extraordinary feats, they are about the supernatural.
In this vein, Jesus' identity as the son of God, the attributes given in the Bible to God, they are supernatural.

I believe that observation under scientific settings, or unscientific observation where wide spread independent sources would be consistent, they allow for acknowledgement of exceptional events.

No such rigorous observation happened about any extraordinary event claimed in the Bible.
History, made of rigorous observations, incorporates lots of established events from 2000 years ago, and discards the Biblical supernatural events from 2000 years ago.

Myself, I have no reason to believe in the supernatural events described in the Bible.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Family Man

Oh, I know exactly what it's about. It's about let's pretend this is a legitimate disagreement so Leonarde can avoid talking about where we really disagree and Leonarde can't make a case.