|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus's motives for performing miracles. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
honda33 Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 51 From: Antigua Joined: |
But they did believe he was the Messiah, and the miracles would have been God's authentication of that fact, just not that he was God himself, isn't that so? What a lot of the cults believe. But then with his death everything was thrown into doubt, because death wasn't in the equation for them. What the the disciples had that no other cult has is the real Mccoy. This is no Benny Hinn, Jim Jones or David Koresh. This is the the creator of the universe performing miracles that only the creator can. The point is that people latch on and believe every word that falls from these cult leaders lying lips. These quacks obviously could not perform any miracles, yet if Benny Hinn tells his followers that the government is going to kill him, they will believe him. If he tells them he will rise on the third day they all be there waiting for him. They need no earthquake, no 3 hour eclipse, and no resurrected saints. So why didn't these spectacular events impressed the disciples? Lets go back in time. On that first Good Friday . The disciples got the news that their beloved leader is going to be crucified. The disciples are hiding like scared chicken yet none remembered the 37 plus spectacular miracles Jesus performed. A couple of Roman soldiers could be no match for the Son of God. Jesus could just do one of His disappearing acts. Jesus was crucified - but this was no ordinary crucifixion - OK the earthquake could have been a coincidence, but the three hour eclipse!. Then to top it off we had resurrected saints! Now this is not something you see every day. Yet no disciple believed what Jesus told them He was going to Jerusalem to do. This is an unbelievable story that requires supernatural faith to believe. I will say that the miracles were not for the people who saw them. They were meant for the people who didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: "And Jesus didn't perfrom very many miracles there because of their unbelief." Is it then fair to say that there has to be belief for a miracle to occure and that the divine relies on the 'belief quotient' before it can actuate miracles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
b b Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 77 From: baton rouge, La, usa Joined: |
larni writes: "Is it then fair to say that there has to be belief for a miracle to occure and that the divine relies on the 'belief quotient' before it can actuate miracles?" Yes. All things are possible to him that believe. Faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains. The bible never really stops stressing the importance of faith. Faith is nothing more than the measure of how much you believe in what ever you believe. I believe that the person being healed's faith is important but also the faith of the healer. In Jesus's case, I believe his faith was so high that if he spoke it, it happened whether or not the "healee" (person being healed. lol) believed it or not. I don't claim to have all the answers, as some on this site do, but I believe that Jesus's one and only motive for performing miracleswas obeying orders from his father. Satan tempted Jesus to perform vain miracles and he refused saying don't tempt God. That would lead me to believe that miracles were not done through his own will,but through the will of.... you guessed it.... God. I also believe that the purpose of alot of his miracles were to simply show us (us is a nice way of saying ya'll) "non-belivers" or "unfaithful" the power we posses because of God. When he did miracles he told us we can also do these things if we believe. Of Course Man is so arrogant that we(again not including myself) feel if nobody walked on water yet that it's not possible. So we had to be shown a little bit(through Jesus) to see if we would believe the rest. Well.... do ya? I will admit I'm still trying to bend a spoon; but I will not give up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
b b writes: Faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains. Does it have to be faith in Jesus or your god to get the job done or is faith (directed towards which ever god) sufficient to perform a miracle? If Jesus did do the miracles (here I assume he did), did he need faith or was it chanelled directly from your god. Was it faith doing it or certainty? This is my point. The miracles are a point of certainty. Why were they needed if faith was such a metaphysical reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The miracles are a point of certainty. Miracles are not a point of certainty. Many did not believe. A miracle is evidence of a sort. Only a person who is given the (spiritual) eyes to see the miracle for what it is will take out of it what the miracle is attempting to prove. If no spiritual sight then the miricle simply cannot be seen for what it is
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Larni: What was the motive of Jesus in doing his miracles? The earliest accounts of Yeshua emphasize his gifts as a healer, storyteller and teacher. A sincere desire to heal strikes me as the most credible motive. A later generation made the miracles about demonstrations of an icon's divinity rather than expressions of a healer's compassion. The shift reflects a more polarized age when a Christian identity separate from that of Judaism was emerging. Fundamentalists repeat the shift today. They do it for the same reason: they view the universe in polarized terms and use the miracle stories as one more wedge tool to separate themselves from others. It's hard to drive wedges and talk about healing at the same time, so they push the latter subject into the background. The miracle stories become one more means to force the ultimatum: Sign onto our contract or else.
Do his miracles invalidate faith in xians because they give what many here at EVC have long asked for: evidence? Christians of a fundamentalist mindset like to think of the miracles as physical evidence. In reality their position makes the stories superfluous. Their position is self-negating. In the progress of this thread you can follow its path off the cliff. 1. First it is said that the miracles demonstrate Christ's power. They represent physical evidence in support of a proposition. The question is then raised as to why, if physical evidence of this kind matters so much, we don't see the same thing today. 2. Then it is said that an ancient written account of a miracle is supposed to be just as convincing as seeing the thing in person. Now obviously these two cannot be the same thing, regardless of the funamentalists' efforts to sweep the distinction under the rug. Hearsay is not the same thing as firsthand experience. Everyone knows this. Fundamentalist Christians would spot the difference at once if you offered the same 'evidence' for, say, the ascension of Mohammed. 3. Then it is said that, if ancient narratives by unknown authors do not seem convincing enough to you, it is because these accounts will only be convincing to a person 'of good heart' who is 'inclined to believe.' By that they do not really mean a person of good heart or a person inclined to believe, as many people in both categories do not view the Gospel narratives this way. They mean a person who is likely to suspend disbelief at the same points where they have been trained to suspend their own disbelief. Now the miracle stories become superfluous. A mind inclined to join their sect will join it and a mind not inclined to join it will not; the result is foreordained. No need exists for the miracle stories in the first place. Mature Christians, in my experience, take the miracle stories more as demonstrations of the importance of bringing healing. In the Synoptic narratives Yeshua regularly states that the only valid expression of love for God is through active compassion for others. As this is what he says, this is what he does. __ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
A later generation made the miracles about demonstrations of an icon's divinity rather than expressions of a healer's compassion. The shift reflects a more polarized age when a Christian identity separate from that of Judaism was emerging. From the gospel of John. John the apostle that is. Same generation as Jesus
quote: I think the aim of the miracles is made quite plain by Jesus. As is the fact that miracles ain't the be all and end all when it comes to belief. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thank you for that quote from the Gospel of John. It provides an excellent example of the kind of generation shift I am talking about.
If you look at the earliest Gospel accounts written (Mark) and go the latest (John) the fault line becomes evident. John differs from the three earlier Gospels in profound ways and presents a very different portrait of Jesus. To read the Gospel of John you would never know of a Jesus who told parables, gave a Sermon on the Mount, equated 'laying up treasures in heaven' with generosity and compassion here on earth, or deflected homage directed at him onto his heavenly Father or onto the poor. John's Jesus shows little interest in telling stories or helping the poor. John's Jesus talks about himself a lot and makes statements that divide his audience according to their willingness to ascribe divinity to him. He churns out metaphors about himself--the light, the life, the resurrection, the gate, the way, the sheep, the shepherd, the vine. John's Gospel has a sylopsistic quality. In the other Gospels Jesus brings a message; in John, Jesus is the message. Tellingly, John's is the only Gospel to speak of Jesus and his disciples as something apart from, and suffering at the hands of, 'the Jews.' (The other Gospels talk of Pharisees or teachers of the law.) John's is the only Gospel where Jesus speaks of his followers being 'thrown out of the synagogues.' Jesus speaks of love in John, but it's the love of disciples for one another or the love of God for the world in sending Jesus. One finds no mention here, as one does in the other Gospels, of people expressing love for God and Jewish law through generosity toward others--regardless of those others' beliefs about Christ or even their general morality. Scholars date the writing of the Gospel of John at around 90 ACE. And if you regard the author as John the disciple (the Gospel does not overtly state this, but implies it), you are still left with the early Christian legend that John lived to be 100. The date of 90 ACE doesn't change. The Gospel of John, written half a century after the crucifixion and a generation after the destruction of Jerusalem, reflects very different situations than Jesus knew in his lifetime. By now a separate religious identity called 'Christianity' had emerged. The new religion included Gentiles in faster growing numbers than Jews. It was eager, under watchful Roman eyes, to distinguish itself from Judaism, by now associated with an impressively quashed anti-Roman rebellion. Earlier documents present a different picture. Mark, dated around 60-70 ACE, is probably the only Gospel penned before the destruction of Jerusalem. A few examples of the way Mark tells it:
quote: A simple concordance search of the Gospel texts shows the other two Synoptic writers following Mark in mentioning compassion as a motive:
quote: But is there any mention of 'compassion' in John? No. By then, the story is as you quote it:
quote: _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Quote. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If you look at the earliest Gospel accounts written (Mark) and go the latest (John) the fault line becomes evident. John differs from the three earlier Gospels in profound ways and presents a very different portrait of Jesus. A portraits purpose is to provide a representation of someone. If the purpose of one portrait is to present one aspect of a person and another another then so what? You call it a "generation shift" and a "fault line". I call it stereoscopic vision.
in John, Jesus is the message. Well spotted. A look at the man from another (a not altogether insignificant angle).
One finds no mention here, as one does in the other Gospels, of people expressing love for God and Jewish law through generosity toward others--regardless of those others' beliefs about Christ or even their general morality. In the synoptics, one also finds Jesus commanding people as to what they should do. No "trying to do" invoked. Only do. Command-language. And he tells them what happens to people who do not do as he says. If someone has grasped this by the time they get to John they will be in dire need of relief. If no John then no way out of the dilema of not being able to do as they have been told. Its "Do unto others" not "try to do unto others". A soft, mushy moral teacher-Jesus? Hardly.
Scholars date the writing of the Gospel of John at around 90 ACE. And if you regard the author as John the disciple (the Gospel does not overtly state this, but implies it), you are still left with the early Christian legend that John lived to be 100. The date of 90 ACE doesn't change. I think both you and I know that this area is one over which there is much debate. Not a strong point.
But is there any mention of 'compassion' in John? No. I don't see that having compassion and demonstrating divinity must clash. Reading all 4 gospels you are left concluding a compassionate God. As well as a wrathful against sin one. Mission accomplished to my mind Besides, if Johns gospels purpose is to attentuate Christs divinity then that is the job at hand is it not? There are the other gospels to speak of his compassion. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Archer writes: They mean a person who is likely to suspend disbelief at the same points where they have been trained to suspend their own disbelief. Damn good point, that man.
Archer writes: No need exists for the miracle stories in the first place. My thoughts exactly. This leads me to believe that Jesus had a personal motive for doing what he did.
Archer writes: In the Synoptic narratives Yeshua regularly states that the only valid expression of love for God is through active compassion for others. As this is what he says, this is what he does. Could one then say that Jesus performed the miracles to 'lead by example'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5007 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
iano writes: If the purpose of one portrait is to present one aspect of a person and another another then so what? You call it a "generation shift" and a "fault line". I call it stereoscopic vision.
if you saw a portrait of Tom and a portrait of Harry side-by-side would you call it a steresocopic vision of Tom? or a steresocopic vision of Harry ? the synoptics portray Tom, John's gospel portrays Harry (Tom's mystical, hellenistic brother). "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The contention seems to be that the compassionate Jesus of the synoptics is absent in John. You are aware of the shortest verse in the Bible and in which gospel it is contained?
John 11:35 writes: Jesus wept Its an interesting miracle, the raising of Lazurus from the dead. We have the compassion of Jesus side by side with this statement regarding his motivation.
John 11 writes: 41"Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me." 43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5007 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
iano writes: The contention seems to be that the compassionate Jesus of the synoptics is absent in John. You are aware of the shortest verse in the Bible and in which gospel it is contained?John 11:35 writes: Jesus wept Reading the verses above that one, it seems that an equally valid reason for his weeping was guilt, rather than compassion. Besides, I'm not purporting compassion to be totally asbent from John's Jesus, instead that in John it's just a sidenote, a minor quirk, while in the synoptics it's the main focus of Jesus's life and teachings. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
iano: Its "Do unto others" not "try to do unto others". A soft, mushy moral teacher-Jesus? Hardly. Who said the teacher depicted in the Synoptics is a soft, mushy character? You never heard it from me. As an argument this is vintage strawman. It makes sense as a response only if one equates action to alleviate human suffering with 'soft, mushy' moral character. This is not a prejudice I hold. Given the number of fundamentalists we see whose ears perk up when the subject turns to end-time fantasies, and whose eyes glaze over when the subject turns to ending world hunger, I'd say compassionate action is a quality made of stern stuff indeed. Why else would so many professed followers of Jesus shrink from a demand he hammered on?
quote: _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Quote format. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added version note. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Strip away his divinity and that's all your left with. A great moral, compassionate teacher. Compared to what he is you are left with mush. John prevents that - unless you can find some way (which you seem to have done to your own satisfaction) of dismissing the Jesus of John (and the epistles).
Given the number of fundamentalists we see whose ears perk up when the subject turns to end-time fantasies, and whose eyes glaze over when the subject turns to ending world hunger, I'd say compassionate action is a quality made of stern stuff indeed. Why else would so many professed followers of Jesus shrink from a demand he hammered on? Why? Because they don't rip out half the pages in their Bible in order to create a god in their own image and likeness. Neither is it the either/or which you seem to suggest - a straw man of your own making. Your error is to suppose that Jesus instructions have the one dimensional purpose of exhorting mankind to the humanistic endeavor of on and ever upwards. His commands are "do or else". And man cannot do. He can only try to do. Which is not what Jesus commanded. The story of the rich young ruler is a case in point. He could not do as Jesus commanded. He could only do some of what Jesus commanded. Same as us all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024