Figurative Miracles?

[Knowing Thomas]

I am beginning to have trouble again, this time with Jesus' miracles. I mean, couldn't they have been figurative miracles attached to regular teachings and lectures? Revisionism and the like? Or even outright lies and fabrications?

For example: I encountered a poster talking about the healing of the Bethsaida man.

One other miracle story Evans draws attention to is Mark’s narrative of the time Jesus healed a blind man in two stages. Evans takes this as “two attempts” by Jesus to heal and something that would not have been recorded unless it were true — since it shows the Jesus’ power to have been less than absolute (p. 141). Evans does not, however, seem to see any significance that the other gospel authors apparently did choose not to tell the story! Did they find it too embarrassing and therefore omitted it? If so, then why could they not have simply omitted the baptism story too? Of course, the most obvious reason it is omitted from the other gospels, and why it is told in the Gospel of Mark, is because Mark’s gospel alone used it as a symbolic act for the reader to interpret. The two-step healing follows the two miracles of mass miraculous feedings, each followed by the failure of the disciples “to see” their meaning. That a beggar could be healed after two attempts but not the disciples is Mark’s way of highlighting with an added punch the spiritual failure of the disciples. The two step healing act is a literary artifice. Not an historical truth so embarrassing that only one evangelist could be found with the courage to narrate it.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Or maybe its just the process Jesus wanted to go through... He's already proven he could heal deafness, blindness, paraplegics, and even death itself. Do you really think this man stumped God?

I don't know WHY it took "two steps" but it doesn't prove God's supposed ineptitude.

Of course, the most obvious reason it is omitted from the other gospels, and why it is told in the Gospel of Mark, is because Mark’s gospel alone used it as a symbolic act for the reader to interpret.

Or maybe the other authors just didn't want to write it down because they wanted to focus on other things Argument from silence isn't a very good argument.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The ancients could write something in a unique literary fashion that pointed to a great spiritual truth while it was literally true. Each did according to their own style. Mark is a very chiastic account and the central focus is on Peter's great confession of faith.

Sounds like you have an either/or where none exists.

[RBerman]

Thomas, if I may say so, you seem to spend an awful lot of time reading the opinions of skepticsand taking what they say at face value. Do you believe this is a productive use of your time? If you want to learn apologetics, consider reading Christian works on the topic.

[nikolai_42]

I am beginning to have trouble again, this time with Jesus' miracles. I mean, couldn't they have been figurative miracles attached to regular teachings and lectures? Revisionism and the like? Or even outright lies and fabrications?

For example: I encountered a poster talking about the healing of the Bethsaida man.

If the miracles were figurative, then I would have to believe that all the followers Jesus had because of those miracles were figurative as well (there were very few - if any - who followed Him simply because of the miracles). And so were the numerous death threats uttered by the Pharisees on account of the miracles. But most critical would have to be the confession of the disciples (via Peter) who continued to follow Him even after everyone else turned away:

Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 6:49-51

Is Jesus being figurative there? If not, that is quite a miracle.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:53-63

Jesus is being so literal that it turns people away. But we know that if He was being figurative, then His whole teaching was just an illusion. The miracles (the flesh - the eyes and the senses) will profit nothing in the end, even if you see Jesus arise to heaven. So we get to the crux of the issue :

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 6:66-69

Either He is/was what the disciples confessed Him to be or He was a fake. If He was who He claimed to be, then those words of eternal life are far more miraculous and significant than any miracles. But at the same time, if He does have the words of eternal life, then His testimony has to be true. So if we allow the miracles to be figures or allegories, then we are doubting the very Son of God. You have to either take it all at once or none of it at all.

So, does Jesus have the words of eternal life? If so, you can bet that He is well able to do (and indeed has done) any physical miracle.

[Sparko]

or maybe the blind man just got some spit in his eyes and Jesus cleaned it out so he could see better.

[hedrick]

See also Luke 5:17, which implies that Jesus' ability to heal wasn't uniform.

I agree that the Gospel writers probably chose what they talked about to demonstrate points they wanted to make. That kind of choice is inevitable for any writer. I don't see why it would upset you.

In the section you quote, I don't see how the conclusion follows. I agree with the author that Mark probably chose to tell the story because it supported some point he wanted to make. Would you prefer Mark had given you a blow by blow account of Jesus' whole life? Or chosen incidents at random?How does that support that he made it up? Authors have to choose what they are going to talk about intelligently.

[Knowing Thomas]

Thomas, if I may say so, you seem to spend an awful lot of time reading the opinions of skeptics and taking what they say at face value. Do you believe this is a productive use of your time? If you want to learn apologetics, consider reading Christian works on the topic.

Well, I often have a feeling that I'm wrong about something, and I try and look and see if I am or not. I have a worry that someone has debunked my previously held arguments, and I don't like the idea that someone has made a deathblow argument while I'm blissfully unaware it exists...

So yeah, it makes me seem a bit gullible (for example, believing in JP's screwballs), but I just want to be sure (or at least make the opposition's position to seem as absurd as the swoon theory)..

[RBerman]

Well, I often have a feeling that I'm wrong about something, and I try and look and see if I am or not. I have a worry that someone has debunked my previously held arguments, and I don't like the idea that someone has made a deathblow argument while I'm blissfully unaware it exists...

So yeah, it makes me seem a bit gullible (for example, believing in JP's screwballs), but I just want to be sure (or at least make the opposition's position to seem as absurd as the swoon theory)..

OK. There's literally no end to the game of whack-a-mole that you'll be playing if you feel obliged to respond to every single objection to Christian belief that you can find on the internet. Ground yourself in the truth. Study the Bible a lot. Be involved in a good church, one that teaches the Bible. And study the objections that real-life people make to you personally. Don't bother worrying whether you're equipped to deal with every single question that's ever come up about the Bible. There are other things that God has for you to do.

[Kabane52]

Have you read Glenn Miller's series on the miracles of Jesus?

[lee_merrill]

I have a worry that someone has debunked my previously held arguments...

It's fine to check the rebuttals, only do (as RBerman mentioned) continue to read arguments too, balance is important. It can also save you time--imagine believing a rebuttal, when a perfectly good answer lies in a book unopened on your desk.

Blessings and peace to you,
Lee