Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Did I Quote Mine Marcus Borg?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did I Quote Mine Marcus Borg?

    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.


    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    This is now, I believe, the fifth time I've caught you repeating this sentiment. And again, in rebuttal, Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg:

    Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

    Jesus was known for doing "mighty deeds," according to Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus near the end of the first century. The gospels agree. They not only report many stories of spectacular deeds done by Jesus, but also that crowds flocked to him because of his reputation as a healer.

    These spectacular deeds are commonly divided into two categories. The first is healing, including exorcism. The second, often called nature miracles, includes such stories as walking on the sea, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fish, and changing water into wine.
    Mainstream scholars widely accept that Jesus performed spectacular deeds falling into the first category. More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher.

    © Copyright Original Source

    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).

    Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

    But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them.

    © Copyright Original Source



    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?
    18
    Yes, that is a quote mine
    22.22%
    4
    No, that is not a quote mine
    77.78%
    14
    Last edited by Adrift; 04-04-2017, 08:42 AM.

  • #2
    Here is the article in full,

    Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/the-mighty-deeds-of-jesus.aspx

    The Mighty Deeds of Jesus
    Are there limits to the spectacular? by Marcus Borg

    Jesus was known for doing "mighty deeds," according to Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus near the end of the first century. The gospels agree. They not only report many stories of spectacular deeds done by Jesus, but also that crowds flocked to him because of his reputation as a healer.

    These spectacular deeds are commonly divided into two categories. The first is healing, including exorcism. The second, often called nature miracles, includes such stories as walking on the sea, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fish, and changing water into wine.

    Mainstream scholars widely accept that Jesus performed spectacular deeds falling into the first category. More than 80% of the members of the Jesus Seminar, often viewed as a liberal and skeptical group, believe Jesus performed healings and exorcisms. Among other biblical scholars, the percentage would be as high or higher.

    But whether or not Jesus performed spectacular deeds in the second category is up for discussion. A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. I am among them.

    Why is there a difference in assessing these two kinds of spectacular deeds? The decision to see the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives involves two factors.

    The first is the stories themselves. Do they appear to be reporting an event, or are there signs within the stories that suggest they are to be read symbolically? This is important because often the stories of Jesus' nature miracles make use of rich symbols drawn from the Hebrew Bible.

    The second factor is a judgment about the limits of the spectacular. My shift in terms from "miracles" to "the spectacular" is deliberate. The most common modern understanding of miracles, accepted by both those who affirm and deny them, takes into consideration the modern worldview: The universe is a closed system of cause and effect operating under natural laws. Within this framework, miracles are understood as God's intervening supernaturally into an otherwise predictable system of natural cause and effect.

    Because I do not accept this way of thinking about the world and God's relation to the world, I avoid the term "miracles."

    "The spectacular," on the other hand, simply refers to events that go beyond what we usually think are possible. And so, asking whether there are limits to the spectacular means: Are there events that never happen anywhere? Or is everything possible?

    As we think about this question, it is important not to draw the limits of the "spectacular" too narrowly, as scientific minds might. More events are possible, and more events happen, than the modern worldview allows. For example, I think Jesus really did perform paranormal healings and that they cannot be explained simply as faith healings. I am even willing to consider that spectacular phenomena like levitation happen.


    But do virgin births, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fish, changing water into wine, bringing genuinely and definitely dead people back to life, ever happen anywhere?

    As a historian, I am unwilling to say that Jesus could do such things, even though nobody else has ever been able to. To do so would be to elevate Christianity above all other faiths by saying that God has acted in this tradition as God has never acted anywhere else. It would also mean that God acted in the past very differently from how God acts in the present, which violates the principle that God is never-changing.
    Thus, I regard the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives, not as history. They are, to use an insight I owe to Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan, parables about Jesus. Jesus told parables about God, and the early Christians told parables about Jesus.

    As a historian, however, I do think Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. To illustrate my reasoning, I use two factors. The evidence that Jesus performed healings and cast out what he and his disciples called evil spirits is widespread throughout in earliest Christian writing. There are stories and sayings, and both his followers and opponents accepted that he performed these acts.

    The second factor is evidence that paranormal healings happen. The evidence is ancient and modern, anecdotal and statistical. Since I am persuaded that paranormal healings do happen, then there is no reason to deny them to Jesus.

    Many modern people understand Jesus' healings as merely faith healings. It is true that some physical conditions are caused by mental states, and sometimes a physical cure can be brought about by addressing the mental state. Moreover, faith or confidence in the power of the healer can bring about a cure.

    But not all paranormal healings can be accounted for in this way. In some cases, in the gospels and the modern world, the faith of the healed person doesn't seems to be involved. We don't know how to account for them. In my judgment, seeing the explanation as either "supernatural intervention" or as "psychosomatic cure" is too much of a claim for us to make because we don’t understand the process involved in paranormal healing.

    We also don't know the limits of paranormal healing, though I think there are some. I am confident, for example, that missing limbs are never replaced. But there is an impressive range of serious conditions that have been healed by paranormal means.

    Hence, my conclusion: Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. Indeed, more healing stories are told about him than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition. In all likelihood, he was the most remarkable healer in human history.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      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.

      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).
      I followed this on the other thread - you did not quote mine. But Tass is famous for claiming this when he gets backed into a corner.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        I followed this on the other thread - you did not quote mine. But Tass is famous for claiming this when he gets backed into a corner.
        Tassman suffers from foot-in-mouth disease. He is his own worst enemy. He routinely sabotages his own point of view then spends the rest of the thread denying it and accusing the other person of various tactics and such in a vain attempt to save face.

        Comment


        • #5
          No one is disputing that Borg thinks certain miracles occurred in history. The way you quoted him however, was very deceptive, because you cut the quote just before he elaborates his views further, and states that not only does he believe that Jesus's other miracles are mythology, but that most other scholars do as well. You're always browbeating everyone with what 'most scholars' believe, so it is was very hypocritical of you to leave that statement out - especially since it directly followed your quote box. That is the very defintion of quote mining.

          Now you're back tracking and providing context in such a way to give people the impression that you upfront about all of this - when you weren't. You're also leaving out that I that noticed the quote mine, not Tassman, and I can imagine why.

          Comment


          • #6
            It appears to me that your quote, as a stand alone quote, refutes Tassman.
            The context neither adds nor subtracts from effectiveness of the quote.

            No, you didn't quote mine.
            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              No one is disputing that Borg thinks certain miracles occurred in history. The way you quoted him however, was very deceptive, because you cut the quote just before he elaborates his views further, and states that not only does he believe that Jesus's other miracles are mythology, but that most other scholars do as well. You're always browbeating everyone with what 'most scholars' believe, so it is was very hypocritical of you to leave that statement out - especially since it directly followed your quote box. That is the very defintion of quote mining.

              Now you're back tracking and providing context in such a way to give people the impression that you upfront about all of this - when you weren't. You're also leaving out that I that noticed the quote mine, not Tassman, and I can imagine why.
              I think it's useful to be charitable here: In one sense of the miraculous, Borg does believe in the miraculous--exorcisms and supernatural healings. He diverges on "natural miracles." If Borg accepts some miracles, then it is reasonable, in the context of the discussion, to note that Borg accepts miracles and believes that other secular scholars do as well. One reaction we can have to contrary evidence is to dig our heals in and deny or blame. The other is "Today I Learned!"

              fwiw,
              guacamole
              "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
              Hear my cry, hear my shout,
              Save me, save me"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                No one is disputing that Borg thinks certain miracles occurred in history.
                Some guy who goes by "Sea of red" sure seems to dispute that:


                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                He literally experiences doubt as to whether Jesus performed supernatural miracles such as walking on water and the like -- which no historian would claim has been demonstrated through history. I'm no expert on this, but I've read enough to know that historians in no way accept the supernatural miracles of the gospels. And as for the bit about healings and exorcisms, nowhere has Borg or the Jesus seminar, ever proclaimed that Jesus performed the NT miracles. All they believe was that he was basically a sage that did faith healings no different than Pythagoras or Apollonius of Tyana.
                Marcus Borg categorizes healings as miracles, but one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise from reading your description of his beliefs here.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  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'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...
                  Your supposed 'refutation' of historians not accepting Jesus's miracles was an article that explicitly states that historians do not accept Jesus's miracles, which statement you omitted from your quote.

                  That's a quote-mine.
                  Last edited by Roy; 04-04-2017, 10:38 AM.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    Your supposed 'refutation' of historians not accepting Jesus's miracles was an article that explicitly states that historians do not accept Jesus's miracles, which statement you omitted from your quote.

                    That's a quote-mine.
                    The article explicitly states that many historians, including Borg, do accept a class of miracles.

                    As a historian, however, I do think Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. To illustrate my reasoning, I use two factors. The evidence that Jesus performed healings and cast out what he and his disciples called evil spirits is widespread throughout in earliest Christian writing. There are stories and sayings, and both his followers and opponents accepted that he performed these acts.

                    The second factor is evidence that paranormal healings happen. The evidence is ancient and modern, anecdotal and statistical. Since I am persuaded that paranormal healings do happen, then there is no reason to deny them to Jesus.

                    Many modern people understand Jesus' healings as merely faith healings. It is true that some physical conditions are caused by mental states, and sometimes a physical cure can be brought about by addressing the mental state. Moreover, faith or confidence in the power of the healer can bring about a cure.

                    But not all paranormal healings can be accounted for in this way. In some cases, in the gospels and the modern world, the faith of the healed person doesn't seems to be involved. We don't know how to account for them. In my judgment, seeing the explanation as either "supernatural intervention" or as "psychosomatic cure" is too much of a claim for us to make because we don’t understand the process involved in paranormal healing.


                    You're criticizing someone for selective quotation while using selective quotation.

                    fwiw,
                    guacamole
                    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                    Save me, save me"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My advice?

                      Admit that you quote mined, apologize profusely - preferably by crying and washing Tassman's feet with your hair - and then put the idiot on ignore and spend your time with people who will learn from your efforts. You'd accomplish more for the Kingdom by picking up cans in the park and giving the money to an orphanage than by wasting your time defending yourself against screaming hoards of mind-numbed tools.

                      I think part of our task is to be on the lookout for people who want to learn.
                      Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                        The article explicitly states that many historians, including Borg, do accept a class of miracles.
                        Yes, it does, but I note that Borg does not actually refer to these as 'miracles', but as healing and exorcism. Borg also states that they do not accept another class of miracles - which statement Adrift omitted from the section he quoted. Unless there is something to suggest Tassman was not referring to the latter type of miracle - and his use of the word "magic" suggests to me that he was - Borg's article supports Tassman's claim.

                        Adrift quoted the section where Borg said that historians accepted some deeds, but omitted the very relevant section where Borg said that historians did not accept "nature miracles". He made a decision to exclude nearby sentences that are not only explicitly relevant to Tassman's point, but support it.

                        That's a quote-mine.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                          It appears to me that your quote, as a stand alone quote, refutes Tassman.
                          But that's the essence of a quote mine. The full context, where Borg differentiates between miracles and spectacular deeds, is important. That differentiation is how Tassman's statement is upheld, as SoR pointed out right after.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Tassman's claim was that all Borg and others believed about Jesus was that he was a historical figure and nothing extraordinary about him.

                            Adrift quoted Borg and proved that Tassman was wrong.

                            He was not obligated to quote everything Borg ever said. Just the relevant part showing that Tassman was wrong. Borg did believe in Jesus doing miracles like driving out demons and healing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              On a side note, it would be helpful to provide a link to the thread and posts in question when asking if what you do is quote-mining. The context of the discussion is important. Paraphrasing the discussion skips a lot of the relevant bits and opens up all the ad hominem stuff, as clearly evinced in this thread. The OP paints Tassman as the offender, and people happily jump on the bandwagon to insult him, but it wasn't Tassman that challenged it (as already pointed out elsewhere in this thread).
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              14 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X