What can we make of Christ's miracles?

[marco]

If Christ had restricted himself to making outrageous claims: I'm a shepherd in charge of human beings; I am the way to Paradise; my dad is the proprietor of heavenly estates with many mansions; before Abraham was born there was me! I can call on many legions of angels to help me - if I wanted, but I don't ..... we could dismiss him as insane, as his family thought.



But then there is the little matter of the miracles. At the wedding party Mary asked her son for money to buy more wine - or did she ask for a miracle to be performed? Maybe getting Jesus to part with his cash was seen as a miracle. But the star event is surely the raising of the corpse of Lazarus, reported to great accalaim by his biographers. Except .... despite the enormity of this miracle, Matthew, the man who spoke of walking dead, Mark and Luke do not mention it. John does. The original event was Christ making Lazarus see sense, raising him up. In the Prodigal parable the father declares his son was dead and was now come alive. So death, in the bible, can be metaphorically overcome.


Are the miracles necessary for people to accept Jesus? If we dismiss them all, do we therefore dismiss the claims of Christ?

[Zzyzx]

.

But the star event is surely the raising of the corpse of Lazarus, reported to great accalaim by his biographers. Except .... despite the enormity of this miracle, Matthew, the man who spoke of walking dead, Mark and Luke do not mention it. John does.

The lone biblical account mentions the body had begun to smell bad -- indicating decay AND indicating that the account was speaking literally, not figuratively.

Did Jesus miraculously bring a long-dead body back to life?

If he just caused a change in attitude of a living person there was no 'miracle'.

If there was no 'miracle', what indicates that Jesus was anything more than a wandering Jewish preacher (who was later glorified and deified by religion promoters)?

[marco]

At the wedding party Mary asked her son for money to buy more wine - or did she ask for a miracle to be performed?

Neither, if we restrict ourselves to what was writtten. She told him of the problem and in doing so was evidently implying he should provide a solution. We cannot read her mind so we can but guess what exactly she expected him to do.

Very wise - we cannot assume the wine was provided miraculously.

My comment was regarding Mary's expectations (since that is what your question focused on). Are you suggesting there was something in my comment which dealt with the question of whether the wine was provided miraculously or not?

I cannot read Mary's mind and though you are addressing yourself to "Mary's expectations" I don't think you can read Mary's mind either.

It is generally thought that Mary expected Jesus to help and the most reasonable expectation woudl be that he got up and procured some wine from somewhere, or offered money so that wine could be bought. You are wise not to assume a miracle, if that is indeed what you are doing.

[marco]

That would depend on what they want to accept Jesus as. If they want to accept him as presented in scripture, in line with the plain meaning of the words in the text, the answer to the question is yes !

The writers are picking up stories and rumours, possibly based on some true event. Jesus was at a wedding feast. The writers supply actual speech from individuals at the party, and this after many years have elapsed. Nor is the writer necessarily one of the wedding guests. I think we can accept a figurative interpretation placed on Jesus supplying drink, if he ever did so.

[marco]

The lone biblical account mentions the body had begun to smell bad -- indicating decay AND indicating that the account was speaking literally, not figuratively.

John guesses the body was in a state of corruption and adds colour - or smell. Despite Jesus already declaring he knew Lazarus was dead, and he had every intention of reversing nature, we are told "Jesus wept." This is touching, but silly, for the cool-headed, hard-hearted Jesus was there to demonstrate or show off, not to make an emotional scene. Perhaps John got confused about Jesus being "the word" and accorded him some human emotion.

[Tcg]

We can accept Jesus went off, dutifully, and got more wine. We need not of course accept the biographer's explanation that God sent it with his blessing. It may have been that someone, on tasting it, remarked: "God, this is good." And so the rumour started.

That is certainly possible especially given the amount of time that passed between the event and the telling of the story. Having the servants fill jugs with water and then drawing out a bit of wine for the master of the banquet sounds like a slight of hand gag to me. Like something you'd see in Las Vegas.

Perhaps this is just my modern eyes reading an ancient tale. Or maybe not, maybe Jesus intended it to appear as a miracle.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.
The illusionist trick of water into wine was evidently known in ancient times (and is easily / repeatedly done presently)

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

The illusionist trick of water into wine was evidently known in ancient times (and is easily / repeatedly done presently)

The magical conversion of water into wine has always seemed like a complete waste, even an abuse, of godly powers to me.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

The illusionist trick of water into wine was evidently known in ancient times (and is easily / repeatedly done presently)

The magical conversion of water into wine has always seemed like a complete waste, even an abuse, of godly powers to me.

I agree. It's a bizarre story where Jesus' mom, the Holy Mother, goads him into performing a trick before he is ready. You'd think a being who possessed divine power would have a bit more self-control.


Tcg

[marco]

We can accept Jesus went off, dutifully, and got more wine. We need not of course accept the biographer's explanation that God sent it with his blessing. It may have been that someone, on tasting it, remarked: "God, this is good." And so the rumour started.

That is certainly possible especially given the amount of time that passed between the event and the telling of the story. Having the servants fill jugs with water and then drawing out a bit of wine for the master of the banquet sounds like a slight of hand gag to me. Like something you'd see in Las Vegas.

Perhaps this is just my modern eyes reading an ancient tale. Or maybe not, maybe Jesus intended it to appear as a miracle.

[/quote]


I was reading something that suggested, when you hear hoof-beats, think zebra. When one hears miracle, think fraud. I don't actually believe Christ played a trick; I think he was instrumental in getting more wine. Since we don't know anything of his background or resources we cannot say how he did it, but going out and buying some doesn't seem too bizarre. We can be sure that he didn't say abracadabra over a vat of water.

[marco]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

The illusionist trick of water into wine was evidently known in ancient times (and is easily / repeatedly done presently)

The magical conversion of water into wine has always seemed like a complete waste, even an abuse, of godly powers to me.

Jesus came down from heaven to provide the means of getting people more intoxicated. As years passed intoxication came to mean redemption or some such thing. It is a strange story. One cannot imagine that the lugubrious Jesus would be a particularly good companion at a drunken party.