In a recent thread Tassman stated that while the majority of contemporary historians accept the historical Jesus, they do not "accept the magic bits...miracles, resurrection etc, because there’s no substantive evidence supporting them. Including no eye-witness reportage!"
I refuted this claim (and not for the first time) by reposting a snippet of an article I had cited for Tassman on a number of other occasions.
The full article can be found here: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/chri...-of-jesus.aspx
I'm being accused of quote mining the article, because Borg goes on to state that while the majority accept "mighty deeds" committed by Jesus which include healings and exorcisms, they do not accept the second set of mighty deeds labeled "nature" miracles (which, as you can see above, he defines as non-healing type miracles and include walking on water, turning water into wine, and stilling storms).
Borg goes on to explain that while he does not accept Jesus' "nature" miracles, he views Jesus' healings and exorcisms as actually paranormal in nature.
I actually pointed out Borg's distinction to Tassman in previous posts, so for instance, here I pointed out, "Borg, who doubts the historical veracity of nature miracles (non-healing miracles), does believe that Jesus historically cured people and did exorcisms."
I've decided to put this to an anonymous vote. I think regardless whether or not historians accept some rather than all miracles in the Bible, this demonstrates that they still accept more than NO miracles in the Bible. What do you think?
I refuted this claim (and not for the first time) by reposting a snippet of an article I had cited for Tassman on a number of other occasions.
Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
I'm being accused of quote mining the article, because Borg goes on to state that while the majority accept "mighty deeds" committed by Jesus which include healings and exorcisms, they do not accept the second set of mighty deeds labeled "nature" miracles (which, as you can see above, he defines as non-healing type miracles and include walking on water, turning water into wine, and stilling storms).
Borg goes on to explain that while he does not accept Jesus' "nature" miracles, he views Jesus' healings and exorcisms as actually paranormal in nature.
I actually pointed out Borg's distinction to Tassman in previous posts, so for instance, here I pointed out, "Borg, who doubts the historical veracity of nature miracles (non-healing miracles), does believe that Jesus historically cured people and did exorcisms."
I've decided to put this to an anonymous vote. I think regardless whether or not historians accept some rather than all miracles in the Bible, this demonstrates that they still accept more than NO miracles in the Bible. What do you think?
Comment