The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Sandra Craft]

For me, the reports of healings in Acts are not that extraordinary - certainly no more so that the video someone else just posted in "Science" of an example of quantum levitation.  If that can happen (and there it is on the video), I see no reason why other "miracles" can't happen.  We don't yet really understand how wonderful the universe we live in really is.

Can it be verified -- by something other than "it says so in the bible"?  Can it be duplicated, over and over again?  That's the difference between the floating disc and miracle healings.  A better comparison for miracle healings and resurrections would be the doings of Merlin the magician. 

[xSilverPhinx]

But even though quantum levitation (and other equally weird non intuitive things that reality is made of) is weird, it's not supernatural in any way. Aren't miracles supposed to be? If not, then how do you differentiate between a supernatural event, which could only have been caused by a supernatural being or something capable of bending and breaking natural laws from just a weird natural occurance?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 8:  In I Corinthians 7:10 Paul confirms that Jesus taught against divorce.

The relevant passage in Greek: τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος, γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι;  and in English: But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.

The context of this passage is Paul teaching the Corinthian congregation some principles of marriage from his perspective.  But in this passage, he states that the teaching comes not from him, but from the Lord.  Later, in verse 12, he gives a principle and says that it is from him, not the Lord.  The simplest explanation for this is that Paul was aware of a body of teachings that came from Jesus, and he draws on that resource in his discourse on marriage in this epistle.  He was aware that Jesus taught against divorce, which supports the Q sayings in the Synoptics, such as Mark 10:11-12.  Although Paul's statement is not a quotation from any of the Gospels, the essence of the teaching against divorce is the same.

The point here is not to get into a discussion about divorce, but that Paul was aware of specific teachings by the historical Jesus.  He refers to him as "Lord" because he is writing in a post-resurrection context.  By referring to his teaching, he demonstrates his position that he was an historical figure.  The Pauline portrait of Jesus continues to develop.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But even though quantum levitation (and other equally weird non intuitive things that reality is made of) is weird, it's not supernatural in any way. Aren't miracles supposed to be? If not, then how do you differentiate between a supernatural event, which could only have been caused by a supernatural being or something capable of bending and breaking natural laws from just a weird natural occurance? 

It's common to refer to "miracles" as being supernatural, but I don't like either word, to tell you the truth.  Any advanced use of technology or the laws of nature would appear to be miraculous, supernatural or magical in the first century.  Something might have been occurring that, if we had all the information, could have been explained by physical laws.  So instead of referring to them as miracles caused by the supernatural, we could simply call them "amazing unexplained events."  "Miracles" and "supernatural" are words that carry too much religious baggage.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Can it be verified -- by something other than "it says so in the bible"?  Can it be duplicated, over and over again?  That's the difference between the floating disc and miracle healings.  A better comparison for miracle healings and resurrections would be the doings of Merlin the magician.

To my knowledge it can't be duplicated over and over at this point.  My point, however, is simply that so-called miracles may be capable eventually of being explained by natural laws.  The accounts of Jesus' works usually relate to things like healing people or otherwise giving aid to people.  He doesn't go around turning people into newts.  There is a difference between the Gospel accounts and your typical medieval wizard.

[Sandra Craft]

Can it be verified -- by something other than "it says so in the bible"?  Can it be duplicated, over and over again?  That's the difference between the floating disc and miracle healings.  A better comparison for miracle healings and resurrections would be the doings of Merlin the magician.

To my knowledge it can't be duplicated over and over at this point.  My point, however, is simply that so-called miracles may be capable eventually of being explained by natural laws.  The accounts of Jesus' works usually relate to things like healing people or otherwise giving aid to people.  He doesn't go around turning people into newts.  There is a difference between the Gospel accounts and your typical medieval wizard.

Or causing fish and bread to multiply at a ridiculous rate, and fig trees to wither and so forth.  There's plenty of silliness in the stories about Jesus' miracles.  And it seems to me that a minimum of 2,000 years is more than enough time to discover the natural mechanics of these miracles, if they are indeed natural.  The fact that they can't be duplicated, and occur only in old stories that can't be verified, means there's no more reason to consider them anything other than supernatural fairy tales then stories about Merlin.

[xSilverPhinx]

But even though quantum levitation (and other equally weird non intuitive things that reality is made of) is weird, it's not supernatural in any way. Aren't miracles supposed to be? If not, then how do you differentiate between a supernatural event, which could only have been caused by a supernatural being or something capable of bending and breaking natural laws from just a weird natural occurance? 

It's common to refer to "miracles" as being supernatural, but I don't like either word, to tell you the truth.  Any advanced use of technology or the laws of nature would appear to be miraculous, supernatural or magical in the first century.  Something might have been occurring that, if we had all the information, could have been explained by physical laws.  So instead of referring to them as miracles caused by the supernatural, we could simply call them "amazing unexplained events."  "Miracles" and "supernatural" are words that carry too much religious baggage.

Ok, I'll use your definition of the word 'miracle'...so...would you consider some of Jesus' miracles, such as multiplying food (out of thin air or was Jesus a very good illusionist?), turning water into wine ("pure"/drinkable water just doesn't go through that chemical transformation, alcohol for instance is obtained by microorganisms that ferment sugars) and walking on water (how did he overcome superficial water tension, which naturally wouldn't support a person's weight without an area larger than just two feet over it or something else to give the feet an enormous amount of buoyancy) for instance to be possibly natural? Or do you not believe in that sort literally?

[Gawen]

Miracle and supernatural are two words with too much religious baggage? How about "magic"? Maybe    marvel, phenomenon, portent, stunner, thaumaturgy, wonder?

Jesus is said to have (35)
Cured 4 blind people
11 Lepers
2 paralytics
1 bleeding woman
1 infirm woman
Peter's mother in law
1 man with dropsy
1 withered hand
1 deaf man
8 + exorcisms - seven demons out of Mary Magdalene - gJohn says he never did an exorcism
4 resurrections - one was his own

Control over nature (9):
water into wine
one transfiguration of himself by making his face shine
draught of fish
curse a fig tree
walking on water
Feeding 5000
Feeding 4000
Calms a storm
virgin birth


And another 13 miracles not in the canon:
5 Resurrections
control and purify water
Transfigure clay birds to real birds
2 Healings
held water in his cloak
Made a short wooden board long
Virgin birth

To believe in miracles, one has to believe the laws of nature were changed in the first half of the first century.

My point, however, is simply that so-called miracles may be capable eventually of being explained by natural laws.

Nice try Bruce, but I do not think that will happen.

The fact that they can't be duplicated, and occur only in old stories that can't be verified, means there's no more reason to consider them anything other than supernatural fairy tales then stories about Merlin.

That is precisely what I think.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT NO. 9:  In I Corinthians 11:23-26 Paul confirms that Jesus was betrayed at night, that he said and did specific things, and that he instituted the Lord's Supper (Eucharist).

NASB: "23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

In this passage, Paul conveys information that he says he received from Jesus (later in the letter Paul will explain that he was an eyewitness to one of Jesus' resurrection appearances).  Jesus informs him of the events that took place the night in which he was "betrayed" or delivered over to the authorities, which led to his crucifixion.  He relates that Jesus performed certain specific actions, such as taking bread and wine and saying specific things relating to the ceremony (the Eucharist) that he was instituting among his disciples. He saw the ceremony as relating to a new covenant (meaning the old covenant, or Old Testament, was superseded and no longer had any force or effect for Christians).

Whether you believe that Jesus spoke to Paul or not, the main point is that Paul is presenting Jesus here as having had an historical existence.  This is not some heavenly transaction, as it happened on a particular night, with Jesus taking specific actions and saying specific things.  Paul clearly understood Jesus to have been a real person, doing things like eating bread and drinking wine. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

ECURB'S POINT N0. 10:  In I Corinthians 15:1-11 Paul confirms that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day, and was seen by specific witnesses, including himself (eyewitness testimony).

NASB:  "1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."

Here Paul presents the core of the Gospel message, the kerygma or proclamation: Jesus dies for our sins according to the scripture, was buried, rose on the third day according to the scripture, and was seen by specific witnesses.   Paul says that he received this information, which could mean either from an appearance of the resurrected Jesus, or by information transmitted from the other apostles.  Perhaps it was a little of both.  He claims his own encounter with the resurrected Jesus, and also tells of other encounters between Jesus and others, which he probably received from those individuals or groups.  In any event, it's clear that he is presenting an historical claim - Jesus is said to have died and been buried.  This is not some spiritual, heavenly transaction, but an event that was common to all people - death and burial. 

Resurrection is not common, to be sure.  However, since it is presented in a series along with the common events of 1) death; 2) burial; and 3) eyewitness testimony, it is clear that Paul intended his readers to understand what he was saying as literal, not metaphorical.  Again, whether you believe the resurrection or not, the point is that Paul is clearly presenting what he considers to be an historical event, and his account is the earliest written account of this event.  He claims to have been an eyewitness to at least part of the event, describing his encounter with Jesus as being in the same class as the encounters of the other apostles.

By saying that the death and resurrection of Jesus were "according to the scriptures," Paul is not simply saying that he got this entire story by interpreting the Old Testament.  There is nothing about the burial being according to scripture, nor is there anything about the appearances to the witnesses being according to scripture.  Paul simply interpreted some passages, such as Isaiah 53, as foreshadowing the death and resurrection of the Messiah.  At the most, one could disagree with his interpretation.  But it's simply not valid to say that this whole passage is simply his interpretation of the OT, and not an account of events that Paul sees as historical.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the word that Paul uses which is translated as "appeared" in the above passage.  That word in Greek is ὁράω,v  \{hor-ah'-o} which can mean:
1) to see with the eyes  2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know  3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience  4) to see, to look to  4a) to take heed, beware  4b) to care for, pay heed to  5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared.  Some, such as Earl Doherty, have claimed that the resurrection was simply some sort of spiritual appearance of Jesus, not physical.  The primary meaning of this word, however, is "to see with the eyes."  A perfect example of this is found in Colossians 2:1, where the writer (possibly Paul, but there is disagreement) speaks of those who have not "seen"  (ὁράω) his face in the flesh.  It's clear there that the author is using the word to speak of seeing something physically, and that is the most common way to use the word.  Of course, insight and spiritual perception can accompany physical sight, and that could be included in the sense used in the subject passage. But from the context, it is clearly portraying a physical appearance of Jesus.  In other words, Paul was giving his account of a real event. This is the earliest account of the resurrection of Jesus in literature, and it is unrebutted by contemporary writers.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ok, I'll use your definition of the word 'miracle'...so...would you consider some of Jesus' miracles, such as multiplying food (out of thin air or was Jesus a very good illusionist?), turning water into wine ("pure"/drinkable water just doesn't go through that chemical transformation, alcohol for instance is obtained by microorganisms that ferment sugars) and walking on water (how did he overcome superficial water tension, which naturally wouldn't support a person's weight without an area larger than just two feet over it or something else to give the feet an enormous amount of buoyancy) for instance to be possibly natural? Or do you not believe in that sort literally?

I'm not discounting the possibility that any of those events could be eventually explained by natural laws.  Understand that I'm not claiming that I have any evidence of that - I'm simply saying that it is perhaps a little hasty to discount such events as being magical accounts.  Science is, after all, relatively young, and only recently have we begun to acquire the technology to truly begin an investigation of the nature of reality.  When such a series of events is presented in an otherwise seemingly historical account (such as the epistles of Paul or the gospel of Mark), perhaps the best course of action is to simply keep an open mind before making the assumption that it's another Merlin story.

[Sandra Craft]

When such a series of events is presented in an otherwise seemingly historical account (such as the epistles of Paul or the gospel of Mark), perhaps the best course of action is to simply keep an open mind before making the assumption that it's another Merlin story.

If there were any kind of proven track record if such things (and after 2,000 years, if they truly were natural occurances, I think there would be) then I'd say fine, take them into consideration.  But since there isn't, they're in the newt category.

[Too Few Lions]

When such a series of events is presented in an otherwise seemingly historical account (such as the epistles of Paul or the gospel of Mark), perhaps the best course of action is to simply keep an open mind before making the assumption that it's another Merlin story.

If there were any kind of proven track record if such things (and after 2,000 years, if they truly were natural occurances, I think there would be) then I'd say fine, take them into consideration.  But since there isn't, they're in the newt category.

I'll second that, it's a bit like saying maybe one day science will show that people can actually be turned into newts.

All myths could be said to represent 'an otherwise seemingly historical account' if we remove and ignore all the bits that clearly aren't real.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm way behind.  Very busy week.  I'll cover 4 points in one post.

ECURB'S POINT NO. 11.  In I Thessalonians 2:15 Paul confirms that Jesus was killed at the instance of Judeans, just like they had killed their previous prophets.

NASB: "14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men..."

I Thessalonians is an authentic epistle of Paul.  The available manuscripts show no significant variations in I Thess. 2:15 (some of them add the word "own" in front of prophets, but that is implied anyway). There is no manuscript evidence that would lead one to believe that Paul did not write this passage.  The OT has several instances of some Jews persecuting their own prophets, and here Paul confirms that Jesus was killed just as prophets from the OT were killed (an example would be King Manassas killing Isaiah, which is not a biblical story but was part of accepted Jewish history).   So Paul here, who would have had knowledge of the events of his day, affirms Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus.  Some argue that v. 16, in mentioning wrath coming upon the Jews, means that the verse was written after 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed.  But again, there is no manuscript evidence of this, and the verse itself does not mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem.  According to Romans 1:18, Paul saw the "wrath" of God as being expressed in the general societal degradation that he observed around him - people had lost the reflection of the image of God in their lives.  Likewise, Paul saw the Jews as having completely lost their standing as the "chosen people" because of their rejection of Jesus.  Whether one accepts this or not, it is clear from this verse that Paul felt that the historical Jesus was killed at the instance of Jews, which fits with the presentation given in the Gospels.

ECURB'S POINT NO. 12.  The vast majority of scholars, including agnostic scholars, accept the authentic epistles of Paul as having been written by him, around the 50's, and that we have a good idea of what he said from the available manuscripts (see, for example, Bart Ehrman).

My only point here is that most New Testament scholars, whether they are believers or not, think that Paul's letters were written about 2 decades after the usually accepted time for Jesus' death.  This supports the idea that Paul was a contemporary of the historical Jesus, which would have given him access to information about Jesus that is not available to us today.  This increases the historical value of his letters.

ECURB'S POINT NO. 13.  Earl Doherty is not a recognized NT scholar.

The author of "The Jesus Puzzle," who claims that Jesus was not historical but was the brain child of Paul as a result of his interpretation of OT texts (that's my summary of what he argues in his book), is a novelist.  He has a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages.  "The Jesus Puzzle" is not a scholarly work, per se, but is written as a novel, a work of fiction.  Doherty has no degrees in theology or New Testament, nor is he a Greek scholar. There's no more reason to accept his arguments on the historicity of Jesus than there is to accept my arguments regarding quantum physics. 

ECURB'S POINT NO. 14.  Josephus confirms the existence of James the Just, brother of Jesus.

Here's the quotation from Antiquities:

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, (emphasis added) and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

[Gawen]

Quoting Paul to prove Paul is not very good evidence (circular) at all and sloppy scholarship.

Josephus has been debunked.

Earl Doherty is self taught. You beat him down because he has little professional acclamation; that is like saying the Wright Brothers never really built and flew an airplane because they weren't professionals with degrees in aeronautics. You may call Doherty's work a novel work of fiction, but we call virgin births, resurrections, miracles and immaculate conceptions a work of fiction as well. Because Doherty says so, doesn't make it true, but it should get one to thinking and possibly expanding on his work.

Because Paul says so doesn't make it true either. Leaving bias, prejudice and wishful thinking out of it and using ones critical thinking skills, which work, Paul or Doherty is the more credible?

Bruce, your points fail; some miserably - stretching - to make a point or meaning and others not so bad, but fail nonetheless. Your congregation may lap this stuff up, but it doesn't work here. Hence the title of the thread should read:

The Bible: credible or fictional?