Effective Altruism

[Adrift]

I don't have a problem believing that his followers thought he had done some miracles. A modern parallel is the 20th century Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba whose followers believed he had done many miracles of healing, resurrections, and a boatload of other magic tricks. Does anyone in the West take Sai Baba's miracles seriously? Not really.

There are, in fact, a number of communities in the West that take Sai Baba seriously (as demonstrated by the number of Shirdi Sai Baba temples that exist here), and the cool thing about being a theist who accepts the existence of the supernatural realm is that I, myself, am open-minded enough to accept that Sai Baba may have performed supernatural feats.

[Sea of red]

If you had kept reading on you'd would have seen that I did NOT quote mine, and that Borg is, in fact, referring to his belief in actual supernatural miracles.

Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

I regard the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives, not as history. They are, to use an insight I owe to Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan, parables about Jesus. Jesus told parables about God, and the early Christians told parables about Jesus.

As a historian, however, I do think Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. To illustrate my reasoning, I use two factors. The evidence that Jesus performed healings and cast out what he and his disciples called evil spirits is widespread throughout in earliest Christian writing. There are stories and sayings, and both his followers and opponents accepted that he performed these acts.

The second factor is evidence that paranormal healings happen. The evidence is ancient and modern, anecdotal and statistical. Since I am persuaded that paranormal healings do happen, then there is no reason to deny them to Jesus.

Many modern people understand Jesus' healings as merely faith healings. It is true that some physical conditions are caused by mental states, and sometimes a physical cure can be brought about by addressing the mental state. Moreover, faith or confidence in the power of the healer can bring about a cure.

But not all paranormal healings can be accounted for in this way

© Copyright Original Source

Frankly, I'm surprised it took five times for you to actually take notice of this article.

At any rate, regardless of which category of miracle historians accept, your continued insistence that, "" is flat out wrong. It just is. The majority of NT historians DO accept that Jesus performed miracles.

No, you were taking Borg of context in the worst way. I'm not going to play this game where you play dumb and act like you didn't know what you were doing - you did. Borg could not have been more clear in stating he believed miracles like turning water into wine, raising the dead, walking on water and such are mythological. You knew this and twisted his words by taking one little snippet out of context, counting on nobody actually reading the article.

You're too smart to have been that clumsy.

[Sea of red]

I don't have a problem believing that his followers thought he had done some miracles. A modern parallel is the 20th century Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba whose followers believed he had done many miracles of healing, resurrections, and a boatload of other magic tricks. Does anyone in the West take Sai Baba's miracles seriously? Not really.

Faith healers and whatnot have always had lots of followers who believed that the person was doing miracles. Did they actually do miracles? Of course not. Duh. But the credulous and the gullible thought they did.

As you can see, you threw him a life line of reason, and he decided to hang himself with it.

There are, in fact, a number of communities in the West that take Sai Baba seriously (as demonstrated by the number of Shirdi Sai Baba temples that exist here), and the cool thing about being a theist who accepts the existence of the supernatural realm is that I, myself, am open-minded enough to accept that Sai Baba may have performed supernatural feats.

[Adrift]

No, you were taking Borg of context in the worst way. I'm not going to play this game where you play dumb and act like you didn't know what you were doing - you did. Borg could not have been more clear in stating he believed miracles like turning water into wine, raising the dead, walking on water and such are mythological. You knew this and twisted his words by taking one little snippet out of context, counting on nobody actually reading the article.

You're too smart to have been that clumsy.

Eh, no. I did not take Borg out of context. Not in the worst way or any other way for that matter. That Borg (and other NT historians) accept some of the NT's miracles while denying others does not, in any way, take away from the point. Why would I cite the article, not once but a number of times, leave the link to the article, and actually mention that Borg "doubts the historical veracity of nature miracles (non-healing miracles)" but believes "that Jesus historically cured people and did exorcisms" in those other instances, if I did not expect or want people to read the rest of the article?


By the way, didn't you rage quit the forum (again) like...last month? Why do you keep coming back here if you can't stand the place?

[Adrift]

As you can see, you threw him a life line of reason, and he decided to hang himself with it.

Where precisely did he throw "a life line of reason"?

[Tassman]

Eh, no. I did not take Borg out of context. Not in the worst way or any other way for that matter. That Borg (and other NT historians) accept some of the NT's miracles while denying others does not, in any way, take away from the point. Why would I cite the article, not once but a number of times, leave the link to the article, and actually mention that Borg "doubts the historical veracity of nature miracles (non-healing miracles)" but believes "that Jesus historically cured people and did exorcisms" in those other instances, if I did not expect or want people to read the rest of the article?

By the way, didn't you rage quit the forum (again) like...last month? Why do you keep coming back here if you can't stand the place?

...because his friends like to have him around to help counter the likes of you.

[Adrift]

I already know that's your view. That isn't at all relevant to what you said in post #145 or my reply to it in post #147 (and in about a half dozen other places).

...because his friends like to have him around to help counter the likes of you.

Well, his friends definitely need the help, but it doesn't look like he's much of it.

[Tassman]

This is now, I believe, the fifth time I've caught you repeating this sentiment. And again, in rebuttal, Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg:

And again you make rebuttal with a misleading quote mine. Why are Christian apologists so dishonest, are you trying to convince yourselves?

[Adrift]

And again you make rebuttal with a misleading quote mine.

Explain precisely how it is a misleading quote mine. You stated that historians, while accepting a historical Jesus, do not accept the miraculous. Marcus Borg, a liberal NT historian, states that most biblical scholars (including the other liberal scholars he works with) believe that Jesus did perform certain miracles which include healings and exorcisms. He goes on to state that while he, Borg, denies nature miracles (walking on the water, stilling storms, changing water into wine), he accepts that Jesus did actually do real paranormal healings that cannot be explained away as faith healings.

I did not mislead you at all. I told you precisely this last time we discussed this topic here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post422029

Why are Christian apologists so dishonest, are you trying to convince yourselves?

Someone's dishonest here, and it's certainly not me, but I realize the whole "you're quote mining" is the only card you all have left.

[Sea of red]

Explain precisely how it is a misleading quote mine. You stated that historians, while accepting a historical Jesus, do not accept the miraculous. Marcus Borg, a liberal NT historian, states that most biblical scholars (including the other liberal scholars he works with) believe that Jesus did perform certain miracles which include healings and exorcisms. He goes on to state that while he, Borg, denies nature miracles (walking on the water, stilling storms, changing water into wine), he accepts that Jesus did actually do real paranormal healings that cannot be explained away as faith healings.

I did not mislead you at all. I told you precisely this last time we discussed this topic here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post422029






Someone's dishonest here, and it's certainly not me, but I realize the whole "you're quote mining" is the only card you all have left.

So what do you think of this quote by Borg? You know, the part just after you conveniently cut the quote.

But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them.

[Tassman]

Explain precisely how it is a misleading quote mine. You stated that historians, while accepting a historical Jesus, do not accept the miraculous. Marcus Borg, a liberal NT historian, states that most biblical scholars (including the other liberal scholars he works with) believe that Jesus did perform certain miracles which include healings and exorcisms. He goes on to state that while he, Borg, denies nature miracles (walking on the water, stilling storms, changing water into wine), he accepts that Jesus did actually do real paranormal healings that cannot be explained away as faith healings.

I did not mislead you at all. I told you precisely this last time we discussed this topic here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post422029






Someone's dishonest here, and it's certainly not me, but I realize the whole "you're quote mining" is the only card you all have left.

Yes it's you. You snipped the part of the quote that didn't support your position, which is the very definition of a quote mine.

"Quote mining ...is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

[Adrift]

Yes it's you. You snipped the part of the quote that didn't support your position, which is the very definition of a quote mine.

"Quote mining ...is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

The part in the yellow is something I've already repeated to you in previous posts more than once. That's a screenshot of me pointing this out to you in previous posts. I don't need to repeat it every time I bring up the article, I've already made you aware of it. Nor does it take away from the point, that Borg (and more than 80% of his liberal peers) accept some miracles mentioned in the Bible even if they don't accept all of them. It was clearly not a quote mine, and if you don't believe me we can put it to a vote on the forum if you'd like. I don't really think you think it's a quote mine though. I think it's really the only card you think you have left to play, so you're playing it.

[Adrift]

So what do you think of this quote by Borg? You know, the part just after you conveniently cut the quote.

I think it means exactly what he said. I think he, and a majority of mainstream scholars view nature miracles, which include miracles like walking on water, stilling storms, changing water into wine as metaphorical narratives rather than historical reports, but that they do accept other miracles, such as healings and exorcism, which are NOT considered "nature" miracles. This is really not that difficult. If more than 80% of mainstream liberal scholars accept some miracles as historical rather than all miracles that still refutes the idea historians don't accept any miracles. You understand that, right? This is reading comprehension 101.

[Roy]

If you had kept reading on you'd would have seen that I did NOT quote mine, and that Borg is, in fact, referring to his belief in actual supernatural miracles.

You quote-mined.

Tassman was talking about "the magic bits...miracles, resurrection etc, ". You responded with Borg's comments about healing and exorcism, and stopped quoting Borg immediately before he wrote "But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them."

You applied Borg's opinion on healings and exorcism to miracles, while excising Borg's actual opinion on miracles.

That's a quote-mine.

[Roy]

It was clearly not a quote mine, and if you don't believe me we can put it to a vote on the forum if you'd like. I don't really think you think it's a quote mine though.

I'm voting (as a disinterested party) that it was a quote-mine, for the reasons stated above.