As DoctorJ has noted, current magicians do things that seem to be miracles. But, Doctor, I must protest – Penn & Teller do proclaim themselves as holy icons during their show – when they do the trick with the piece of cloth and the child (they have the child say they believe in the power of P&T, etc.).
Anyway, back to the OP:
What does it mean to “do signs”? Or “wonders”? Heal the sick? Hell, faith healers claim to do that all the time. I believe them as much as I believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Why? Because he seemed like a nice guy?
Imagine that. How could they?
This has pretty well been answered by now – but just because he did a few magic tricks doesn’t make him God.
Yeah, David, that was a great bit. (So great, in fact, that I stole the patter for my own act, although I do the trick by myself with yarn.) They were making this very point, though–just because someone owns a copy of 101 Magic Tricks You Can Do, it doesn’t mean we should believe him when he claims to have supernatural powers.
(That’s one of the reasons I love Penn and Teller–they can use a magic act to make a point without being cheesy. As a med student, I really loved Balloon of Blood.)
Sorry for the aside–back to the topic at hand.
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
I don’t think it’s an aside – I think it is the point. If P&T claimed to be gods, would Jenkinsfan believe in them? If not, why not? They perform miracles on a virtually nightly basis.
Now, now, we do recognize hues even in the seven colors we accept as the spectrum (which were chosen primarily so Newton could have seven–a “magic” number–and don’t really reflect the way our society views the major colors. I mean, who really considers indigo a major color anymore?). Anyhow, the verses I came up with (mind you, despite the name I don’t speak Latin):
et exuentes eum clamydem coccineam circumdederunt ei
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
et milites plectentes coronam de spinis inposuerunt capiti eius et veste purpurea circumdederunt eum
And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
So a different word is indeed used; “coccineam” vs. “purpurea” if I am correct. However, “scarlet cloth” and “purple cloth” were once used to mean simply a rich or royal cloth. And purple has been historically used to mean red; why do you think you get a “purple heart” when you are wounded? Blood is often referred to poetically as purple. Most convincing, in my opinion, is that the dye from the mollusc purpura is crimson; as is the dye from the cochineal. I daresay the Latin names of the colors referred to the colors of these dyes. One might question why they would put Jesus in a traditionally “royal” color, but then they were mocking Him being the “King of the Jews”.
That is about all I can get out of it without actually speaking Latin fluently. Hopefully one of our actual Latin-speakers won’t come along and embarrass me too badly.
For those of you who are wondering what the hell David and I are talking about, Penn and Teller have a bit in their act in which they discuss Uri Gellar (without mentioning him by name) and the fact that he has made millions and built a following based on lame spoon-bending tricks. This upsets them, they say, but only because they’ve been doing the same lame tricks for years, and haven’t made a dime off of them. They decide to start their own cult, and they demonstrate their powers with a stage-size version of the Cut and Restored Rope, another entry-level trick.
Magicians are very protective of their craft, and are not at all keen on those who use their techniques to take advantage of people. Houdini was very outspoken against fraudulent claims to the supernatural, and the Amazing Randi is probably better known for his work in skepticism than for his illusions. Gellar is only the most blatant example–techniques of misdirection and mentalism that have been honed for centuries by legitimate magicians have been co-opted by everyone from street criminals to faith healers.
I can’t believe that the Jesus who gave the Sermon on the Mount would use trickery to win followers. I think the miracles of Jesus were either the product of myth or the embellished account of someone else’s purported “miracles” ascribed to Jesus. (This is entirely speculation on my part.) If I had seen them for myself, I would have given them the same scrutiny I give any such claims.
Now if he took the “Randi Challenge”…
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
Hmm, “signs and wonders”, eh? That phrase seems a bit familiar…
Judaism is a form of humanism? Gee, all this time I thought it was Theistic!
Twin:
[quote
quote:
the Gospels were written well after Jesus died and the various accounts contradict each other
This is the first time I’ve heard this. Could you show me one of the contradictions?[/quote]
Are you serious? You’ve never heard of this?
Luke 24:8-9 "And they remembered his words, and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
Mark 16:8 “And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid”
While outright contradictions are rare (there are few others that I know of, but not many), the Bible are full of what I refer to as “conflicts”, that is, the most obvious interpretation of one Gospel contradicts the most obvious interpretation of another, and only through complicated convolutions is a consistent account able to pieced together; one must accept such idea as that when someone says “one angel”, what he really means is “at least one angel”; when someone says “Jesus said this, then died”, he really means “Jesus said this prior to dying, and not necessarily right before”; if someone says “Mary went to the tomb”, he really means “Mary and possibly some other people went to the tomb”.
I mean, come on. There’s a word for people who mean one thing while intending their audience to think another: weasels. Seeing as how God supposedly wrote the Bible, that kinda makes God a… (say it with me now) Divine Weasel.
Twin:
When I asked whether you had heard of “this”, “this” didn’t refer to contradiction that followed, but rather to the claims that the Gospels were written well after Jesus died and that the various contradict each other. These claims are rather common. You have never heard them?
“a consistent account able to pieced together”
should be
“a consistent account able to be pieced together”
and
“one must accept such idea”
should be
“one must accept such ideas”
**
quote:
the Gospels were written well after Jesus died and the various accounts contradict each other
This is the first time I’ve heard this. Could you show me one of the contradictions?**
No, I had never heard of them. But after several web searches, I found that it was quite common for people to claim their were contradictions between the four gospels. Are there really contradictions? I haven’t seen one yet. Let’s look at yours.
Read Mark 16:7. Jesus tells them to tell the disciples of his return. When he appears to the disciples later, he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they BELIEVED NOT THEM WHICH HAD SEEN HIM AFTER HE WAS RISEN. Gee, could that be the women at the tomb? I’m sure the women were frightened at first, but that didn’t stop them from telling the disciples.
I think I have already said this, but let’s say it again. The four gospels were written by four different guys at four different times. Different aspects of the life of Jesus impacted them in different ways. Does this make any of their accounts false? I don’t think so. Are their accounts contradictory? No. Every contradiction I have seen brought up can be easily reconciled with a little research and reading the verses surrounding the “contradicting verses”.
I’m not going to dignify this statement with a reply.
I had heard the gospels were written at different times. I hadn’t heard of any real contradictions.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, who is changeless. (Sure, first He wanted us to follow the Commandments, then the Golden Rule, but that was just an administrative simplification)
First, God inspired this one guy to write the story of Jesus. Later, He inspired another guy to write an account, but with slightly different details. God was really thinking here. See, if all the accounts made sense, more people would believe. But God doesn’t want that. If He did, He wouldn’t have spent all that time planting dinosaur bones. God wants to be followed by people who ignore scientific evidence and are distrustful of rational enquiry. He only wants those people who believe him solely on faith. That is, except for Thomas, who was allowed to investigate the wounds. But Thomas was special, so he gets a free pass into Heaven. The rest of us must have faith.
Haven’t figured out yet why God doesn’t like logical people. You gotta admit, though, He’s pretty tricky.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
If in the OP you mean that I were born and lived in that era, I can’t possibly answer that. Back then religious and superstitious beliefs seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Ordinary events from sick animals to windstorms to a boil on your butt were all commonly ascribed to the mysterious will of Jehova. Had I been indoctrinated since birth with such an idea, who am I to say that I would have ever broken free of it?
If you mean would I, with all my present day attitudes and ideas intact, believe? Unquestionably not. Sure, if I were the blind guy whose sight were miraculously given back, then that would be pretty convincing, but shy of that Jesus didn’t do anything David Copperfield couldn’t replicate. You think Christianity is big now–Just think how much bigger it could have been if Jesus had traveled about with the standard troupe of sexy assistants rather than a bunch of guys!
So, you’re going with the “They told no one” = “There was some period of time in which they told no one” explanation? So, tell me, does the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” really mean “Thou shall spend some portion of your life not killing anyone”???
So if a Gospel contradicts itself, we should just take the parts that work with the other Gospels? How convenient.
So for some Gospel writers, both of the angels impacted them, but for others, only one impacted them? We’re not talking about one writer including an incident that another ignores; we’re talking about incidents that two or more writers include, but not consistently.
**
quote:
I’m sure the women were frightened at first, but that didn’t stop them from telling the disciples.**
When the women ran from the tomb, they were running to tell the disciples. When it says they told no one, Mark is saying that they didn’t stop on the way there to spread the news. They went straight to the disciples to tell them.
**
quote:
Every contradiction I have seen brought up can be easily reconciled with a little research and reading the verses surrounding the “contradicting verses”.**
The four gospels are a harmony of one story. The author of each used specific details relevant to the point they were trying to make in their gospel. I think the fact they are not identical makes them more compelling than if they were identical. If they were, I believe people would be saying “They must have conspired together to make sure they had their story straight. They must be lying.”
**
quote:
The four gospels were written by four different guys at four different times. Different aspects of the life of Jesus impacted them in different ways.**
On the inconsistency between Luke 24:4 and Matthew 28:2,5, Matthew does not say there was “but one angel,” he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone. The Greek word in Luke rendered “stood near” also means, “to come near, to appear to.” In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as “came upon.” Thus, Luke may simply have said that angels suddenly appeared to them without reference to posture. Strictly speaking, one would be hard pressed to establish a contradiction in terms of numbers or posture even without my possible explanation.
On the inconsistency between John 20:11,12 and Mark 16:5, these are not the same incidents. John’s account is particular to Mary after she followed Peter and John back to the tomb, which was later than the account cited in Mark.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two weeks, three days, 17 hours, 11 minutes and 28 seconds.
708 cigarettes not smoked, saving $88.58.
Life saved: 2 days, 11 hours, 0 minutes.
The issue is not whether they are identical but whether they are consistent. The fact that the accounts are so confusing indicates that they weren’t really inspired by God; surely God would have been able to write four accounts that would be coherent, even when compared.
Ok, sir, give me a few minutes…being one of the few Christians in this thread I’m kinda out numbered and responding to everyone and then arguing with fellow believers on the LBMB takes a lot of time!
“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” Matthew 24:23-24
In response to the OP, the witnessing of “miracles” would give me cause to seek scientific explanation for the events in question. Viewing the execution of Jesus would not make me accept him as The Messiah. Asking god for forgiveness for the executioners does not make one a messiah; moreover, one would have to believe in god to believe in a messiah.
Given your citation from the Bible in response to the inquiry posed by David B, if a similar passage existed in text predating the Bible, would that give you cause to convert to that religion? My reason for asking is that the Bible was written by men. Why take the word of one man over another?
“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, you would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” John 5:39,45-47
