Jesus' imperfect miracles.

[Minimalist]

An idea stolen by the thieving xtians from Suetonius' Life of Vespasian.


Nothing new under the sun...especially when xtians are involved.

Suetonius Life of Vespasian (from the 12 Caesars) was written in AD 121, by which time the Gospels were finished (the synoptics a long time previously).


There are different sight-miracle-with-spit incidents. Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26) uses direct to eye spit only and is more like the Vespasian incident. Siloam (John 9) uses spit and mud.

I would also mention the deaf-mute healing with spit (Mark 7:31-37).


There's some fascinating questions all this raises. I'll work with the Bethsaida incident.

Jesus doesn't get the healing first time, and has to have a second go. He also uses saliva, and has to ask how things are going. He comes across rather like a primitive doctor/magician.

Also, there is no continuity with any practice within the Early Church or any known stream of christology. The Early Church did it differently, and this isn't a very “God as man” story.

Finally, there are none of the usual miracle garnishes- no holy choruses of glorious shock, no praising of God, no mention of faith...


Given the criteria of clear discontinuity, and of heavy embarrassment, and the particular oddities; most probably historically, some kind of incident occurred around Bethsaida which the witnesses believed was some kind of healing.


(Please note the phrasing of the last sentence carefully!)


So, it wasn't stolen.

Yes. I know all about xtian bullshit stories but the Fact remains that Justin writing c 160 Ad never heard of any of your silly gospels. He never heard of Paul either. Xtians pretend these anomalies don't exist or invent asinine excuses for them but Facts are stubborn things.

As for what xtians profess to believe well we are frequently inundated by tidal waves of bullshit.

[Vicki Q]

Those things were "signs"...they weren't intended to be permanent "fixes".

Since none of us ever saw those "signs" that Jesus supposedly did there's no reason to believe that he did them.

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between signs and miracles. The latter are a post-enlightenment innovation in which God intervenes in a mechanistic universe, breaking “The Rules of Nature”. Since scientific understanding has moved on, and theology shoulda never went there, we need to drop them as a framework for discussion.

The biblical concept of signs ('works of power' 'things we would not normally expect') is very different. Things happen within the Rules Of Nature which point us towards a better understanding of it. They point to a power not interfering with nature, but enabling it to be as it should be.

As to whether we should believe there is sufficient evidence for a change in our worldview to include God, that's a massive question. Standard historical methods, in particular multiple use of sources and forms, and the criteria of coherence, make it virtually impossible that all Gospel signs were totally made up.


Which leads to the vital question of what these people who lived cheek by jowl with Jesus actually saw.

[Vicki Q]

Yes.  I know all about xtian bullshit stories but the Fact remains that Justin writing c 160 Ad never heard of any of your silly gospels.   He never heard of Paul either.   Xtians pretend these anomalies don't exist or invent asinine excuses for them but Facts are stubborn things.

As for what xtians profess to believe well we are frequently inundated by tidal waves of bullshit.

The garnish makes it a little hard to be sure, but I'm assuming that you're putting forward some form of Mythical Jesus theory here. With apologies, but I won't be joining you, for the same reasons that I don't discuss creationist 'science' with fundies.

[Minimalist]

I didn't figure you for the type.


By all means, enjoy your fairy tales.

[Randy Carson]

To be honest, they mostly sound about as impressive (or even less so) than the kind of tricks we see magicians do all the time.

I've actually seen Dynamo walk on water. There's a shortage of people lining up to worship him though. Not impressive anymore, apparently.

In the middle of a lake? In choppy waters caused by the wind? Did Dynamo ask anyone to join him?

Dynamo Walking on Water Exposed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZULhXoyS17E

[Brakeman]

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between signs and miracles. The latter are a post-enlightenment innovation in which God intervenes in a mechanistic universe, breaking “The Rules of Nature”. Since scientific understanding has moved on, and theology shoulda never went there, we need to drop them as a framework for discussion.

The biblical concept of signs ('works of power' 'things we would not normally expect') is very different. Things happen within the Rules Of Nature which point us towards a better understanding of it. They point to a power not interfering with nature, but enabling it to be as it should be.

As to whether we should believe there is sufficient evidence for a change in our worldview to include God, that's a massive question. Standard historical methods, in particular multiple use of sources and forms, and the criteria of coherence, make it virtually impossible that all Gospel signs were totally made up. ..

Since an identifiable god does not exist in our realm of reality, there is no difference between your "miracles" and your "signs." It is simply that we now know miracles to be absurd and faked, but yet your signs are still salable to the gullible becouse they sneak the "magic WOo WOo" in the back door. For god to send a "sign" to anyone, he would need to not only be sentient (unevidenced) but also he would have to use "WOo WOo Magic" to create the energy to affect the real physical world. Even our eyes require real photons to tickle our rods and cones.
There is no difference between the two magic shows, except that "Signs" only use a pinch of magic sparkle fairy dust, whereas "miracles" use a whole handful.

[Ravenshire]

This thread would be more aptly titled "The Miracles of a 1st Century Con Man."

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Since none of us ever saw those "signs" that Jesus supposedly did there's no reason to believe that he did them.

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between signs and miracles. The latter are a post-enlightenment innovation in which God intervenes in a mechanistic universe, breaking “The Rules of Nature”. Since scientific understanding has moved on, and theology shoulda never went there, we need to drop them as a framework for discussion.

The biblical concept of signs ('works of power' 'things we would not normally expect') is very different. Things happen within the Rules Of Nature which point us towards a better understanding of it. They point to a power not interfering with nature, but enabling it to be as it should be.

As to whether we should believe there is sufficient evidence for a change in our worldview to include God, that's a massive question. Standard historical methods, in particular multiple use of sources and forms, and the criteria of coherence, make it virtually impossible that all Gospel signs were totally made up.


Which leads to the vital question of what these people who lived cheek by jowl with Jesus actually saw.

That might sound good to a gullible person.  I went to see the play "Mary Poppins" and the actress pulled all kinds of stuff out of her valise, including a living man.  A good story teller could turn those tricks into "signs" or "miracles" to sell a religion to the local hicks.  

Remember, the Bible says that people shouldn't believe Jewish fairy tales.

[Vicki Q]

Since an identifiable god does not exist in our realm of reality

I notice you state that as fact, rather than probability. Why is it a fact? If your argument is a priori, please give it, stating clearly any axioms used. If it is a posteriori, please justify not using a probability statement with an a posteriori argument.

For god to send a "sign" to anyone, he would need to not only be sentient (unevidenced)...

I would think a non-sentient God would be a contradiction in terms.

There is no difference between the two magic shows, except that "Signs" only use a pinch of magic sparkle fairy dust, whereas "miracles" use a whole handful.

Can I ask you to reread my description of the difference carefully, because the difference is not a matter of degree, but of process? Miracle requires a breaking of known scientific 'rules', signs point us to a better model of scientific understanding.


Signs are not magic tricks. They are the restoration of creation- the world aligning itself with God's purpose. As such, it is an entirely natural process.


And it means more than a better scientific model. To the first followers of Jesus, watching a blind man recover his vision after having spit in this eyes meant much more than the wonder of the cure. It pointed to God fulfilling His promise to restore creation, rescue his people and sort out the death thing.


It would take a lot more than a couple of “Miracles of a 1st Century Con Man” for them to unconditionally draw that conclusion, especially seeing as how he went and got died.

[popsthebuilder]

Just curious. What did the man Jesus con anyone out of? Of course con being a negative way to trap someone for your own benefit. Even if it was all a trick or illusions why would he do it? What would me personally gain but a death certificate?

---

He personally gain