Friday, August 11, 2006

The Miracles of Jesus

On Sunday evening I recorded the first part of this new three part BBC One docudrama: The Miracles of Jesus. I was very impressed. Rather than trying to give other explanations for the miracles it actually looked at what the miracles would have meant to the people of the first centaury. I felt that it was very cleverly scripted so that it would appeal to those of us who believe that the miracles were historical fact but at the same time not to alienate those that didn’t. But it was not the denouncing of the fact of the miracles that I feared it would be. Interestingly, the presenter said that the scholarly emphasis is moving away from this towards what he was presenting that was really a biblical exposition of the miracles that was very evangelical in its approach. Jesus miracles were references to or re-enactments of many of the miracles that had already occurred in the Bible. The feeding of the 5000 echoed the manna in the desert. The walking on water echoed Joshua crossing the Jordon. But other miracles like the calming of storm said even more pointing to Jesus actually being divine. I’m setting my video again to record part two this week.

Technorati Tags:


Steven Carr said...

The feeding of the 5,000 is a copy of the story of Elisha feeding a crowd of people with some bread left over.

I wonder why the people around Jesus rushed to their Old Testaments to see how they were supposed to react to miracles.

If Old Testament characters were amazed by a raising of the dead, people in the New Testament were amazed by a raising of the dead.

But if Old Testament characters were afraid when they saw a miracles (say , a stilling of the storm), then the New Testament characters remembered to be afraid, not amazed.

And if an Old Testament character fell at the prophet's feet before a raising form the dead, a person in the New Testament just knew that Jesus would not raise the child unless somebody fell at his feet first.


There are other coincidences in religious works.

Take the Book of Mormon.

The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before a king and decapitation followed.

Aminadi, like Daniel, deciphered handwriting on a wall, and Alma was converted after the exact fashion of St. Paul.

The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath slew six sheep-rustlers with his sling.


Or did Joseph Smith take Old Testament stories and rewrite them to become stories in the Book of Mormon?

The Gospel writers took Old Testament stories and rewrote them to become stories about Jesus.

We know this because we can see whole sentences being copied out word-for-word.

The miracle stories are not historical.

They are not even original to Jesus.

They are just warmed-up rewrites of Old Testament stories, as false as the stories in the Book of Mormon and the Koran.

See Miracles and the Book of Mormon

David Derbyshire said...

I find it interesting that in this documentary Rageh Omaar said that there had been a shift in scholarship away from asking if the miracles happened to looking instead at their meaning. So even if you don’t believe the miracles actually occurred these accounts still shed important light onto who Jesus was originally believed to be. As I understand it, this is the main focus of the series.