Effective Altruism

[Adrift]

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.

It isn't a quote mine. He makes a distinction between two different types of "mighty deeds", healings and exorcisms, and nature-based miracles, things like walking on water, turning water into wine, stilling storms, and the like. He goes on to tell the reader that he believes healings and exorcisms are not merely faith-based, but are actually paranormal. Unless you're making the argument that healings and exorcisms are somehow not miracles, then I'm not really sure what point you're making. Accepting some miracles, but not all miracles still refutes the idea that historians accept no miracles at all.

[Adrift]

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

That's fine. The poll is here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...379#post430379

[Sea of red]

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.

Healings are 'miracles of nature' by definition, as they usually involve proclaiming medical conditions have been 'cured' by godly powers the healer is capable of performing. How do you not understand this? I don't believe for a second that you're stupid. Please, for our sake, read a biology book or something.

[Sea of red]

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

Well, looks like really got to him. He's decided to take refuge with the populace that he knows will always rule in his favor.

What is it with him and always saying "we can put such and such it to vote! " like we all don't know how that's going to turn out each and every time he does it.

[Sparko]

When you have an eye-witness testimony, you usually use the parts you can verify and the character of the witness to determine if you can believe the parts you cannot verify. In my car example, A witness who happens to be walking by saw the defendant kick a dent in the plaintiff's car. The witness is a school principal with a good reputation in the community. His testimony will be believed even though there is no evidence corroborating his testimony.

The gospel writers had no reason to lie. They were hunted down and lived on the run the rest of their lives. They could at any time just went back to their old lives and said they made it all up. Instead they basically signed their own death warrants with their written testimonies and their actions. Makes them even that more believable. It is like if the defendant in the case admitted that she kicked the dent in the car. Who would doubt her?

[Adrift]

Healings are 'miracles of nature' by definition, as they usually involve proclaiming medical conditions have been 'cured' by godly powers the healer is capable of performing. How do you not understand this? I don't believe for a second that you're stupid. Please, for our sake, read a biology book or something.

Uh, you realize that it's Borg making the distinction, and not me, right? While I'm inclined to agree with you that healings and exorcisms are miracles of nature, the distinctions between healings and exorcisms and "nature" miracles is one made by various NT scholars. So for instance, John Meier makes just such a distinction in the second volume of his A Marginal Jew. He distinguishes between exorcisms, healings, raising the dead, and nature miracles. He then breaks down the nature miracles into four sub-categories which include "gift miracles", "epiphany miracles", "rescue miracles", and "curse miracles". Meier points out that a common way to distinguish between a "nature miracle" and other miracles like healings and exorcisms is the "miracle-worker's power over or ability to change inanimate matter, as opposed to his power over living persons." He goes on to point out, though, that this is not a very good distinction since, for instance, raising the dead can be seen as both a healing miracle and power over inanimate matter.

In fact, a review of the literature will demonstrate that these breakdowns into types of miracles is widespread. Some distinguishing between only healings/exorcisms and nature miracles (Martin McDaniel); others distinguishing between healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and resurrections (Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, Grant Osborne, Commentary on Matthew, N. Clayton Croy, Prima Scriptura, Craig Evans, Commentary on Luke); healings, resuscitations, and nature miracles (Robert A. Spivey, D. Moody Smith, Jr., C. Clifton Black, Anatomy of the New Testament); Epiphanies, exorcisms, miracle stories, and nature miracles (Robert H. Stein, Commentary on Mark), etc.

[Roy]

The gospel writers had no reason to lie. They were hunted down and lived on the run the rest of their lives. They could at any time just went back to their old lives and said they made it all up. Instead they basically signed their own death warrants with their written testimonies and their actions.

Hmmm. A bit of research suggests that Mark founded a church in Alexandria, Luke settled in Boetia and John lived in Ephesus (and may have eventually been exiled to Patmos), and all three lived to a ripe old age; and we don't really know who Matthew was. I can't find any indication that the gospel writers signed their own death warrants, beyond a later addition regarding Mark.

Can you suggest any sources?

[Sparko]

Hmmm. A bit of research suggests that Mark founded a church in Alexandria, Luke settled in Boetia and John lived in Ephesus (and may have eventually been exiled to Patmos), and all three lived to a ripe old age; and we don't really know who Matthew was. I can't find any indication that the gospel writers signed their own death warrants, beyond a later addition regarding Mark.

Can you suggest any sources?

Roy, I was using a figure of speech. Let's not get pedantic here. The gospel writers and the apostles and the Christian church basically had to operate in secret and remain in hiding from both the Jews and the Romans. They did not operate openly, every one of their lives was at risk. Not all were killed, but many were. Imprisoned, killed, tortured. Not exactly the life of luxury of someone trying to start a new religion to get rich and powerful like a lot of cult leaders do today. The leaders of the early church were good Jews before all this. If they were fooled by some charlatan who died after being hung by the Jews and Romans, the smart thing to do would be to blend right back in, or claim that they were fooled and ask forgiveness. Instead they defiantly kept preaching Jesus, and growing the church and writing the gospels and other letters. Makes them pretty trustworthy to me.

[Bisto]

Am I the only one who thinks this whole Quote Mine stuff is, all in all, stupid? While Adrift's leaving out the rest of the quote this time may have been unfortunate (or a quote mine, whatever), now that everyone's checked what the guy quoted actually meant, why not just continue the discussion? As far as I can see, the guy did mean he believed Jesus performed some kind of "miracles" like healings and exorcisms (even though he ruled out the more overt "nature miracles"), and he says he came to this conclusion from some lines of evidence he deemed trustworthy -- and if he is to be believed, a majority of scholars agree with him on that.

To me, the real question is what do the non-theists think about the guy's argument FOR those "non-nature(?) miracles"?

[rogue06]

Am I the only one who thinks this whole Quote Mine stuff is, all in all, stupid?

Quote mining is when you leave something out to change the meaning of what is said. It is like someone quoting only part of Psalm 14:1, "There is no God" in order to demonstrate that the Bible says that God does not exist when the full verse states, "To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (KJV). Context is everything.

[Bisto]

Quote mining is when you leave something out to change the meaning of what is said. It is like someone quoting only part of Psalm 14:1, "There is no God" in order to demonstrate that the Bible says that God does not exist when the full verse states, "To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (KJV). Context is everything.

Sure. I just meant this particular discussion in context (e.g. everyone involved has discussed the topic before, the quote has surfaced before, a non-theist reply would be needed either way, etc.), if I'm getting said context right. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Carrikature]

To me, the real question is what do the non-theists think about the guy's argument FOR those "non-nature(?) miracles"?

I consider it interesting. I haven't spent much time thinking about the issue, but at first encounter it seems a reasonable distinction. There's an entire realm of "not understood or explained" which doesn't necessitate divine intervention. I think Borg's idea of a miracle being something outside the closed system is a useful definition. It just leaves open the question of what's in the closed system. I agree with him that miracle is typically understood to be divine.

[Tassman]

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.

from a purely historical perspective In short, they rule out the magic bits such as miracles and the resurrection.

No doubt you will dredge up some scholars who think differently but this doesn't alter the point being made.

[Adrift]

So you agree that we can rule out the nature miracles, which leaves us with the healing/exorcism "miracles" etc.

Well, no. I don't agree that we should rule out nature miracles, but I acknowledge that Borg and his peers do.

This brings us back to my original point that these may well be explained by the power of suggestion by a charismatic figure...as per some of the examples I gave such as Franquin the stage hypnotist, or Benny Hinn healings or those kooky pastors who go around getting their flock "drunk" in the spirit, or glossolalia etc.

Not according to Borg.

from a purely historical perspective In short, they rule out the magic bits such as miracles and the resurrection.

As has been repeated to you endlessly, Brown's list was never intended to be exhaustive about what scholars accept about the historical Jesus. I've already demonstrated that with E.P. Sander's longer list like, I don't know, half a dozen or more times?

No doubt you will dredge up some scholars who think differently but this doesn't alter the point being made.

Woh The Great Franquin! Are you some sort of mind reader? Oh, no, you just remember that we've had this exact conversation a thousand times already.

[Tassman]

Well, no. I don't agree that we should rule out nature miracles, but I acknowledge that Borg and his peers do.

Why are you quoting Borg at all? I never did. This is not a discussion about Borg vs everyone else.

Not according to Borg.

So!

As has been repeated to you endlessly, Brown's list was never intended to be exhaustive about what scholars accept about the historical Jesus. I've already demonstrated that with E.P. Sander's longer list like, I don't know, half a dozen or more times?

Brown didn't provide a list at all, nor was he claiming to be "exhaustive", merely stating that most contemporary scholars don't accept the miraculous aspects of Jesus life. Historians who employ historical-critical methodology never do, because miracles cannot be substantiated.

Woh The Great Franquin! Are you some sort of mind reader? Oh, no, you just remember that we've had this exact conversation a thousand times already.

The point was the power of suggestion with the likes of Benny Hinn et al producing what are claimed as miracles. If Benny can do it then Jesus can certainly do it, especially according to the embellished accounts written 50 + years after the events by non-eyewitnesses.