Q about arguments for God's existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).

No, try the loaves and fishes for me? Is there anything going on in that narrative -besides- establishing the divinity of christ and the theology of christians? Doesn't seem so. I would certainly weep if I could no longer use it as a masterful example of the writers craft. I wouldn't call that narrative a "sign" - I'd call it a full page ad, in color, personally...and it sure as hell sticks out. In fact, all of the "signs" do, and could be removed.....because every time "jesus" pulls out one of these signs his apostles crow around him like a greek chorus "holy shit, how could you do that - did you guys see that, Im so surprised!" despite having seen him perform a miracle of one sort or another everytime he stops to take a piss.

Your claims aren't modest, they bend belief beyond breaking point. Am I to believe that the authors of these narratives only created the theology by passing reference to what they thought that people believed jesus had done - that christianity is an accident? I'm sorry, I can't...the stories are too good at what they do for them to have been unintentional. They are masterful vehicles for theology, while being a particularly poor representation of what people may have believed. The fact that we can't even find these people to point at them and say "this is what they believed" -outside of the NT narrative- should have tipped you off to that, imo.