Talk:Miracles of Jesus/Archive 1

Wikiproject

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It would be cool to link the Bible reference to a wikisource text, e.g. Jn 2:1-11. dab 16:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged Miracles

Surely this article would be more appropriately named 'alleged miracles of jesus'?

What's the point? All miracles are alleged. We have an article called List of deities, not List of alleged deities, don't we? The only way "alleged miracles of Jesus" would make sense is if real miracles existed, rather than being an archaic and intellectually lazy mythological catchphrase to avoid having to understand this amazing universe of ours. :) Keep the title as it is; it's simple and makes sense. There's a reason Alleged relics of Jesus was moved to Relics of Jesus. -Silence 12:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing I noticed in going through the acts of healing in the Gospel, such as the laying of hands to cure blindness, palsy, etc, is that there may actually a physiological basis to this. In all cases I examined, the acupuncture meridian for the symptomology presented was used, even by Jesus in many cases, as it describes fairly specifically how he touched them. It was not simply "laying of hands". Querying PubMed showed evidence and studies on the use of acupuncture, and acupressure, in treating or relieving symptoms in these cases. It's quite obvious "qi" and the meridian model is fundamentally flawed, but it is a crude approximation of physiological systems that's mostly accurate and reproducable.

The incidents in the gospel are generally more striking, but I don't think that necessarily makes *all* of them beyond the laws of physics, though some of them, such as Jesus's healing of a mother's possessed child over distance seem to be.

They may have been beyond our understanding of things for a long time, but the fact is this: touch can heal. Many of the physiological mechanisms responsible for acupressure/acupuncture have been found but it's not a full understanding.

But perhaps while some of the "healing acts" so famously noted in the gospel was of the "miracle" type, perhaps others simply reflected a greater understanding than our own in some areas of human physiology we have only begun to study in recent years.

Theologically speaking, both the healing gift (in the supernatural sense) and knowledge come from the Holy Spirit. What if some physical healing in the Gospel reflected knowledge of medical skills, human physiology, and technique as I describe above, and others, the "true" healing gift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.127.41 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 January 2006

Jesus was a masseuse? I think you may be overestimating "the healing power of touch." --Mr. Billion 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to add a section on criticisms to these miracles, or is this article more a list of Jesus' alleged miracles? ---3-24-06

Apocraphyl recorded miracles

Even in recording miracles of Jesus whether alleged or real, the Apocraphyl recorded miracles shouldn't rate a mention. These books have never been accepted as true by the faith community and an 'all-inclusive' approach to any claim of Jesus' miracles (beyond the broad acceptance by faith communities) would lead to a huge list of miracles which would make the article useless. If the table of miracles was to continue to contain the apocraphyl recorded miracles, it is not an educational and useful article to someone who is trying to learn what kind of miracles Christians believe Jesus performed. See Infancy Gospel of Thomas for a more thorough description of the reasons it is not viewed as cannonical.

Sorry, but you cannot claim to speak for the entire "faith community".

Certain people have been suppressing the apocrypha, and burning folks who read them at the stake for many centuries. They can't do that anymore here on the internet, so they still do whatever you can to make sure nobody even see them mentioned. It's called "suppression" and "censorship". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you provide evidence for any view that suggests the apocryphal accounts are any more than that - apocryphal. Without evidence, your opinion should remain that - an opinion, and not material for an encyclopedic entry. AJ 06:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but noone appointed you Pope over this wikipedia to determine what others may see or may not see. There is no need to prove that these sources exist. The fact that your crowd failed to burn every copy of them means they still exist, and it's too late now to pretend they don't. Since they exist, they can be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Again, you are not Pope over this wikipdia who determines what is canonical according to YOUR beliefs, and what may be used as a source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am exploring the Wikipedia guidelines in cases of emerging edit wars. In cases of differences in opinion to what is appropriate article material, the first step is to engage in cool logical conversation on the talk page. If this fails, users can apply for arbitration or blocking of an offending user. So let’s see if we can avoid pointless escalation. Now, I believe I had clearly stated my objections to the inclusion of apocryphally recorded miracles in the opening paragraph to this section. To demonstrate your genuine NPOV non-biased approach to this dispute, I ask you to clearly and coolly without name-calling outline your perspective on the issue.

Is your inclusion of these apocryphal accounts based on your personal belief that all miracles are alleged (see preceeding section) and hence any alleged miracles should be included? Do you recognise that the book in question is deemed by historians as not genuinely written by Thomas? Or are you claiming that some people including yourself do believe that these apocryphal accounts are genuine? Would that represent a sizeable and justifiable minority opinion? Otherwise I think it would violate the NPOV policy of ‘Undue weight’ to include it. Please let me know your logical point of view so we can seek to achieve a collaborative solution.

For your consideration: Is the gospel narrative of thomas historical?

“An historical Thomas … is very unlikely to have had anything to do with the text: whoever its initial author was, he seems not to have known anything of Jewish life except for the Passover observance, and certainly had a completed Gospel of Luke to refer to…” (excerpt from Infancy Gospel of Thomas) AJ

Instead of asking me personal questions about what I believe, the same question can be put to you in reverse: Do you seek to exclude these ancient accounts of Miracles of Jesus based on your personal belief that certain ancient accounts are "valid" sources, and others are not? Do you claim to know which sources people are allowed to read about in the article, based on which ones are considered "canonical"? Does it really matter who "historians deem" any of sources - whether the ones you personally approve of being mentioned, or the ones you don't - to have genuinely been written by? They are all definitely ancient sources, and they were all definitely written by somebody - whether it was the person they were ascribed to, or someone else. The only possible basis you have for mentioning some and not mentioning others, would be based on certain of them having been declared "frauds that must bve suppressed" by various councils of Bishops. Wikipedia is not bound to avoid mentioning them at all, just because some council of Bishops wants them to be suppressed. Bringing up what historians say is a red herring, because as you well know, plenty of historians can be found who say they are ALL frauds, hence there is nothing alongside historians to differentiate one set from the other set. The only differentiation comes from your personal beliefs, or from the declaration of some council. And please note, we are just mentioning them in the article as existing -- not stating which ones are "true" or "untrue". We've clearly stated that they aren't part of the canon. It's wrong to pretend they don't exist, and to suppress all mention of them, based on which ones you, bishops, or even historians personally might feel are "untrue". They are noteworthy simply because they are ancient. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, why not simply divide the article into 3 sections, (Taking in mind the section of the talk page below) one on miracles described in the Gospels, one on miracles described in the Apocraphyl, and one on miracles described in the Qu'ran? Then you can even go into more mention of each work, giving the article a bit more content in the process. Homestarmy 18:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Sites

Some of Jesus miracles are described in The Quran "(Remember) when Allâh will say (on the Day of Resurrection). "O ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Remember My Favour to you and to your mother when I supported you with Rûh-ul-Qudus [Jibrîl (Gabriel)] so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing, Al-Hikmah (the power of understanding), the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel); and when you made out of the clay a figure like that of a bird, by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My Permission" Al Maidah vs. 110

I added these references to the chart. --Andrew c 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias

I thought Encyclopaedias were supposed to contain facts, not nice stories?

Well it is fact that all these Miracles have been reported. Homestarmy 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-canonical miracles

I see no reason to not include the non-canonical POV. Could someone explain why it should be deleted? While this article can clearly include the mainstream Christian POV and the scholarly POV, I feel that other POVs are equally as valid (though not to the point of giving them undue weight). --Andrew c 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-canonical Gospels should not be part of a "list of miracles in the New Testament" due to them not being in the New Testament. Clinkophonist 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

At the time we had this discussion, it said "List of Miracles"... someone added "In the New Testament" specifically in order to suppress the other ones, but I'm reverting this, because it's a weaselly attempt at suppressing valid information ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We've been through all this at length already (see above) consensus is not to push pov by marginalizing or suppressing the povs of those you don't agree with. It already states they are not canonical, but evidently some don't want anyone to even be able to read that they are mentioned in the apocrypha, hmmm, I wonder why? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it was removing the thousands upon thousands of "miracles". If your Aunt Aggie (assuming you had an Aunt Aggie) said that Jesus had cured a kitten's broken foot, and then published the claim, we would have to include it in the list. That is, unless we draw a line somewhere. Now centuries ago they drew a line that was accepted by a majority, that said that the Apocrypha were, well, Apocryphal, and didn't include them in the New Testament. If we reject that ancient line, and one which pretty much every bible since has stuck to, thats about 99.9999999999999999999% of bibles in the modern world, then what exactly becomes the criteria for conclusion, and what exactly justifies us being the ones drawing the line at a specific elsewhere? Clinkophonist 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is a totally specious argument, because nobody has argued for the inclusion of your Aunt Aggies foot or whatever strawman you have just come up with. It is cited in an ancient document, you are suppressing the cite for no reason other than that some council of Bishops suppressed it. It can still be mentioned, and should not be suppressed or censored. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Define ancient. When does something count as ancient and when as not? Reports and claims of Jesus' miracles were circulated in documents whose creation spans the whole of Christian history. Apocrypha were created throughout, the Gospel of Barnabas, for example is medieval. And the bits that the Gospel of Nicodemus added to the earlier Acts of Pilate were medieval too. Which ones do we include and which ones do we not? Define ancient. Where do we draw the line? Clinkophonist 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't use a slippery slope argument like "Define ancient" to exclude things because you want to be the one to draw the line. This is intended to be where any miracle attributed to his actual lifetime may be listed, that is, between his birth and his ascension to heaven, that can be cited from any source, no matter how ancient. If 'New Testament' was the criterion, there are other miracles in the New Testament attributed to him after his ascension, for example in Acts and Revelation. Those would be in the "Aunt Agnes" category, because he is purported to have performed those miracles after his lifetime. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Clinkophonist, you really need to find something else to do, because consensus is not with you and I am going to make sure that these cited miracles of Jesus during his Lifetime are not censored just because you want them to be censored. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as the miracles from the Infancy Gospel, (Which by the way, is truly totally fake) are labelled correctly as being from the Infancy Gospel, I just don't see the problem here. I mean, as long as the article shows where the sources are that its getting its information on, its not like its trying to say "These miracles happened", just that "These various, labelled sources claim they happened". Homestarmy 23:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! There is a whole column for cites in the Quran also, it's not limited to the NT as a source, why should it be?

The Qu'ran column isn't being presented in that column as a source but as "corroboration". Clinkophonist 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we are not trying to determine which miracle reports we think are more likely to be false or authentic here. Just allowing the article to list any reported miracles from his lifetime, from any source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the non-canonical miricals per all the discussion above that happened months ago. I'm not sure why Codex Sinaiticus reverted Clinkophonist edits all those months ago, or why they have slipped back in just now. Maybe we should talk more about this before someone hits revert? --Andrew c 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with non-Canonical miracles is where we stop. What counts as valid - do we go up to mediaeval claims, or not? Once we start including non-Canonical records, we lose any clear line as to what gets excluded; we end up asking whether we should include claims from Mormon scriptures, or from scriptures of even more modern fringe cults, or from scientology should it mention Jesus. Clinkophonist 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well both of the cited infancy gospels predate the Quran, which is also cited. This is a slippery slope argument that I don't see happening. I don't see anyone trying to put in mediaeval claims, or claims from modern cults. We can specify now that this article is about claimed miracles during the alleged life of Jesus, so any post-resurrection miracles (such as appearing on a tortilla chip) are not acceptable for this article. That already rules out a larger precent of modern claims. Then we could maybe roughly establish a cut off date for the texts as well, if that would please you. That way we can compromise, we can keep the infancy gospels in the article, which is supported by a number of editors above, and avoid this slippery slope you are afraid may happen. Does that sound ok? --Andrew c 12:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think as long as this is limited to notable sources only we'll be fine, like no obscure folk tales or anything. Homestarmy 00:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Transubstantiation

Tabling the institution of the Lord's Supper as a miracle of transubstantiation is the POV of Roman Catholicism. Most Protestants who accept miracles would not classify this as one. Therefore some qualifying note should be tagged to this item in the table. DFH 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think Anglicanism believes it's transubstantiation as well. Homestarmy 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles, the Church of England denies the RC teaching about the Mass, viz. "... the doctrine of transubstantiation is unscriptural, ....". DFH 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, whatever then, I guess it's just mostly catholic. Homestarmy 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite ... Lutherans believe a doctrine of consubstantiation, and Zwingli did not accept the real presence, but rather taught that the eucharist was just a symbolic memorial. Even so, I don't know of any Protestants that think the original institution was miraculous. DFH 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the PVO of Roman Catholicism referred to above: not so. Wikipedia's own entry on Transubstantiation makes clear the Last Supper, and its re-enactment in the Catholic Mass, is precisely NOT a miracle, as external appearances, according to the Catholic church's offical doctrine, are not altered. Whatever definition of miracle is used, external appearances have to be radical changed by it, physically. The change in this case is metaphysical, concerning the substance and not the appearance. This is not, or ought not to be, a contentious point. Just a category mistake. I do not say this to denigrate the doctrine, which I personally believe. [[User: clifford longley 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural knowledge as a miracle

I've just inserted one example (John 1:48,49) for this possible type of miracle. There are other instances in the Gospels which seem to imply that Jesus possessed supernatural knowledge. DFH 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If other users think likewise, perhaps one more skilled than I at editing tables would care to insert this one into the main table of miracles. DFH 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This type of miracle is an alternative category for the "coin in the fish's mouth" miracle (Matt: 17:23-27) which is usually classified under 'controlling nature'. DFH 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How many?

To solve the {{fact}} (citation required) tag, I have just moved the summary count of recorded miracles to within the paragraph that introduces the table of miracles. Counts have been updated, because the table has grown since the sentence was first inserted. Wording has been clarified, at least to my own satisfaction. Hope this helps. DFH 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember to update these counts if anyone needs to edit the table by inserting or deleting rows! DFH 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The counts require updating again, as the table has been edited since August. DFH 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the criticism, and why first?

I assume this article is supposed to be about the Miracles of Jesus, not about how unscientific miracles as a whole are and therefore how many naturalists don't like them. I'd think such a debate would better belong in the overall Miracle article, I don't see how this increases a reader's knowladge about the Miracles of Jesus. Things like people suspecting certain verses describing miracles wern't actually what was really said are one thing, but much of that first section seems to just be a rant about how "unscientific" miracles as a whole are, which doesn't seem to educate readers much on what exactly the Miracles of Jesus were about. Also, why does it have to be at the very beginning, surely the actual content concerning the miracles should come first, and criticism somewhere near the bottom? Homestarmy 00:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the section. Sorry I didn't answer this earlier. I think its ok to have an article about the Miracles of Jesus, just like it would be ok to have an article about about the deeds of Krishna, or the travels of Bilbo Baggins. However, because it wouldn't be neutral to preface the article by saying "the miracles of Jesus refer to a number of supernatural feets describes in fiction and literature and mythology" just like it would be POV to say "the miracles of Jesus refer to a number of historical events that actually, really happened". We can't take sides. I feel having how scholars try to deal with this conflict is an important aspect to this article, and having it first help set the tone (better than a disclaimer saying some people believe the miracles are real and others not). While you may feel it is obvious that naturalists would reject miracles and Christians would accept them, I do not believe the issue is that simple, and furthermore feel that those positions are not obvious enough not to be included. I am going to revert your blanking for the time being. Maybe we can work up the section better, or maybe I am missing something, but hopefully we can reach some conclusion. I feel strongly that in order to have an article about something that is debated on whether being historical or mythical, we need some sort of qualification and explanation of this conflict in order to make the article more NPOV. Omitting this discussion seems to weigh in favor of the NT accounts being literal, infallible accounts.--Andrew c 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize you watched this article, I might of asked you earlier :/. The thing of it is, I can understand some criticism of the idea of Jesus performing miracles being in the article, but pretty much everything in the section I removed was more focused on the idea of miracles as a whole rather than Jesus's miracles specifically. In this way, I don't really see how its exceptionally on-topic. (Plus, why would criticism be layed out first, then the real information of the subject of the article be presented later?)Homestarmy 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the first and last paragraph of that section were removed. And maybe the other two paragraphs could need some work as well, but their basic points are relevent. I think spending a lot of time trying to debunk miracles in general from a natralist argument isn't well placed here, but having one sentence that is general could be helpful. I still think a section like this should go early, but maybe it could instead of being a simply critical view section, we could change it to represent more sides. We could explain how Christians deal with miracles as well. This way, it gives more balance and wouldn't tilted towards the skeptical position. Just some ideas. --Andrew c 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the new topic below with the heading The place and purpose of miracles in the teaching of Jesus. I think this has a bearing on the above discussion and may help towards an improved section order for the main article. DFH 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in the temple (aged 12)

In the Lucan passage about Jesus aged 12 in the temple at Jerusalem, there is simply no record of any miracle having been performed by Jesus on that occasion. I have therefore deleted this row from the table. Unregistered latecomers should take note. DFH 19:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Converson of Paul of Tarsus

I am slightly puzzled by the inclusion of the Conversion of Paul of Tarsus in the list of the Miracles of Jesus, but not for the reason that I would dispute it (I wouldn't), but for the fact that in a very Biblical sense, Saul's conversion is the model or exemplar for the conversion of any individual. The main differences would be that most conversions to the Christian faith are not accompanied by the voice from heaven, temporary physical blindness, and the subsequent removal of "what seemed like scales" from the eyes. To include this event in this list of miracles would thus seem to be justified primarily by these particular accessories to his spiritual conversion; otherwise, it would be stretching the meaning of miracle to include every recorded conversion in Church history. DFH 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More precise references for miracles of Jesus mentioned in the Qur'an

It would be helpful if the miracles tabled as Qur'an under Other sources could be given a more precise reference. DFH 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signs of the apostles = miracles attributed to Jesus

With the conversion of Paul, the table has already been expanded to include post-resurrection miracles attributed to Jesus. Should the list therefore be expanded even further? — to include miracles in the Book of Acts such as the healing of the lame beggar (Acts 3:1-10) which Peter attributed not to his own power (Acts 3:12) but to "the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (Acts 4:10). DFH 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The place and purpose of miracles in the teaching of Jesus

The main article lacks a section on this heading.

It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus self-consciously used his miraculous works for a purpose beyond that of the benefits that were received by the recipients. They were also a testimony to his role as Lord and Saviour, of his having been sent by the Father. See for example John 5:36, "But I have a greater witness than that of John : for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." and John 14:11, "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." DFH 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the Gospel of John, 20:30–31. In the Synoptics, people are supposed to pay attention to the message, not idolize the messenger. 75.15.192.178 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really on topic, but why does Synoptics redirect to an old computer company? :/ Homestarmy 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It no longer simply redirects there, the page has since been changed to a disambiguation. DFH 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite the strong differences in style, many scholars see no reason to view the Gospel of John in a manner which would make it disharmonious with the Synoptic Gospels. My original point still stands, the main article lacks a section relating Jesus' miracles to Jesus' own teachings. DFH 15:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would such a section be useful? Eventually, we'd need references of notable people tying in these miracles to Jesus's teachings. Homestarmy 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Miracles at Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum

In his teaching, Jesus referred to [some of] his miracles done in Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, yet the Gospels do not describe any particular miracle performed in Chorazin. The fact that such details are unrecorded in the Gospels should not mean that these miracles be excluded from the table. DFH 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse ?

The passage in Luke 23 describes a "darkness over the whole earth" at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, including the sun being darkened. The term "solar eclipse" is not used, but there again this modern scientific term would have been an anachronism in a first century document. Even so, to use this term within the list of miracles attributed to Jesus does present difficulties, viz. Attributing the cause of the darkness to being a solar eclipse (impossible at any Passover date) is merely an hypothetical reading into the text, not an exposition of the text. Certainly the darkness was intended by the evangelist Luke to be understood as a supernatural event, but it should be remembered that not all supernatural events should be called miracles in the sense of this article's title. Moreover, theologically, it would be more appropriate to regard the darkness as an act of God the Father, rather than an act of Jesus as God the Son. DFH 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have therefore inserted the words "Darkness like a ", and at the same edit, removed the "(physically impossible)" which became redundant. DFH 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a solar eclipse is physically impossible during passover (which occurs during the full moon) is what makes it a miracle. As for a reference: Luke 23:44-45 (SV): "It was already about noon, and darkness blanketed the whole land until mid-afternoon, during an eclipse of the sun. ..." Translation note: "This seems to refer to a solar eclipse. However, a solar eclipse is physically impossible at Passover, which always falls at the time of a full moon." 75.0.4.174 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agee with DFH. How is this miracle attributed to Jesus. It could be the Father's doing or something else. The text isn't explicit.--Andrew c 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why get involved in theological arguments? All of the miracles of Jesus could be attributed to God the Father, or something else, even beelzebub. This article is about the miracles of Jesus, as Jesus was the subject during the eclipse, the eclipse is one of the miracles of Jesus:

One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, ‘Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!’ But the other rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun’s light failed (Note: Or the sun was eclipsed. Other ancient authorities read the sun was darkened); and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Having said this, he breathed his last. Luke 23:39-46 NRSV

75.0.4.174 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanations

there should be a section explaining the truth about the miracles of jesus.

For instance, the miracle regarding jesus feeding 5000 people is a parable about reciprocity. The number seven is a reference to Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 11:1 Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

Ecclesiastes 11:2 Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.

When jesus gives to the masses what little he has, it inspires a wave of giving, in which everyone in the crowd gives to one another. In the end, Jesus and his disciples end up with more then they had to begin with. There are many hidden meanings like this hidden in the miracles of Jesus. Here is another example,...

Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?

Mark 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, why reason ye these things in your hearts?

Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up the bed, and walk?

Mark 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Many people interpret this as Jesus healing the sick person with magic, however, the text does not say that the man arose, it says that Jesus picked him up and carried him. read it again,.. the HE is Jesus,.. not the sick man,... this is why those watching had never seen teachings in this fashion. Jesus was not performing supernatural acts as the Pharisees preach, he just picked the guy up and helped him move. It is clear that this is the true meaning and intention of the text as you read on to mark 6:54 and 6:55,...

Mark 6:54 And when they were come out of the ship, straightway they knew him,

Mark 6:55 And ran through that whole region round about, and began to carry about in beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.

All of the miracles of Jesus in the gospel of MARK have double meanings,.. the simple minded will understand them as miracles, but the prudent will note the true meaning.

as it is written and intended,...

Proverbs 14:15

   The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Revelations 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

The two edged sword represents this style of teaching in which there is a double meaning to the parables of Jesus,... see here how Jesus describes his method of instruction:

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;

4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.

It is clear from this that the allegory of mark is written in such a way that even the simple minded who believe in magic and fairy dust will gain from it,... although they will not know how, because the true message is hidden inside of the fairy tale,... there is a double meaning, and the author of revelations saw it, which is why he describes Jesus as fighting evil with a two edge sword of his mouth.

It is clear from this that mark and his story about Jesus is big on hidding meaning in ambiguous allegory

here is another example,...

when Jesus heals the blind man,...

Mark 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.

Mark 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.

Mark 8:25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

Obviously this is not talking about healing a mans occipital lobe, or restoring his perception of electromagnetic radiation,.. it is talking about how the man sees people,.. first he sees them as trees,... then he sees them clearly,.. the whole message of Jesus is about "loving thy neighbor". Jesus is a spiritual healer,.. he has tought the man the value of other people,.. People are not lumber,.. but life. People are not resources to be used, but brothers and sister to be loved.

Also, Jesus spitting on the mans eyes is allegory. It is like saying,.. "you do not NEED your eyes to see what I have to show you,.." he is spitting on the mans eyes as if they are worthless. do you understand the allegory? this is why jesus keeps saying to people that they have eyes but they do not see, and ears, but they do not hear,.. it is becasue they do not understand the hidden meanings.--146.244.138.106 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now think about this,.. mark is the original gospel and the last paragraphs of it regarding the resurrection was added later, by the church,... investigate the matter yourself if you don't yet already know,... everything that came after mark is inspired by mark, and mark is truly the first book of the new testament,.. This is the base for the entire Christian religion,...

All through mark, Jesus calls himself the son of man,.. he also says that he is one with the father in the context that some can be one with their surroundings,... he says to love others as you would love thyself,.. and loving god is the first commandment,.. so of course he would say that he is one with God,.. he is one with everyone,.. he instructs everyone to love thy neighbor as thyself,...

God is the ultimate neighbor in the eyes of Jesus,.. and he loves god with all his heart, as he loves himself and others, and so he is one with the father,...

this is what mark wrote about him anyway,...

go read it,.. you will see the hidden meanings and the true un-supernatural nature Jesus. --146.244.138.106 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If the meanings are hidden, why would we see them? Homestarmy 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some points

Well, I read through the article, and I would like to point to the following areas as problematic / places for improvement. The article basically bends over backwards trying to give various ways to, frankly, explain away the miracles as ordinary events. As a reader I found the repetition of this a bit obnoxious. Also, the article discusses Gnostic notions, or should I say some unnamed scholar's interpretation of the gnostic texts, in elaborate depth. Conversely, there is almost no discussion of the relevance of understanding of miracles from a Christian perspective. Lastly, the article does not cite its sources. I made a few tiny edits that didn't aim to fix any of this; I just took out some over-the-top wording, and removed one inaccuracy. But I think if the article is to move forward these issues would need to be addressed. Lostcaesar 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it is unsourced, feel to free to remove whatever you like, i've wondered why the article starts with criticism myself :/. Homestarmy 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems Lostcaesar has edited it quite a bit. Homestarmy 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone back and done a little more, but its still more style than content. I am moving slowly since I seem to be the only one working, and I don't want to hijack the page. Lostcaesar 08:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RCC and demons

I cut this from the critical scholarship section:

Nonetheless, many Christians accept these exorcisms as having really happened as actual evictions of real demons: the Roman Catholic Church maintains a detailed protocol of what is to be done to perform an exorcism, and most local denominations have an exorcism 'specialist' at hand, as does the Anglican Church of England, which maintains an exorcist in each diocese.

As proposed a bit up, we should probably consider a section on how Christians theological handle Miracles, and perhaps this information could go there. I believe the lead should probably be exanded to explain the major Christian POV, and then the major critical POV (nothing much, just a summary of these sections). The lead is rather weak as it is.--Andrew c 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that was a good cut. I have been trying to move critical material into the critical section, so that the descriptions of the accounts are just that - descriptions of the accounts. I think one thing that is appearing in this is just how much of this article is dedicated to criticism. Lostcaesar 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection and recent edits

Andrew, I am glad that you are working on this article from time to time also. Obviously it needs improvement, and I am a bit afraid to be the only one working on it, because I really am not able to represent some views well. There was only one added sentence that I think we should talk about. The Resurrection is obviously going to be a delicate matter in many ways. I wonder if this sentence, then, which reads "The exact nature of the resurrection, whether physical and bodily has been disputed among Christians for thousands of years" is apt. There were some groups in antiquity that held unorthodox interpretations of the resurrection, mostly because of their Christology (believing in either a wholly divine or, less commonly, wholly mortal Jesus). But this dispute doesn't seem to have remained with any consistency among Christians. Even Arians accepted the resurrection, merely interpreting the agency in a different way. In the middle ages there were a few heresies that appeared with different views on the resurrection, but they were small and sporadic. During the Reformation there were a few theologians that went as far as to question the bodily nature of the resurrection, but the condemnation these thinkers got from all parties (which could agree on little else) shows their minority. Obviously in very recent times there has been renewed interest in the question. But I think the current phrasing, that this was questioned for "thousands of years", needs to be refined. It is also worth mentioning that ancient groups were more likely to doubt the bodily resurrection because they saw Jesus as an avatar, not an incarnate being, whereas modern doubts result more from skepticism in general about the divine's ability to actively break into history. Perhaps we could document, historically, these variant groups in a proper section. This might just be the article to add that level of detail. Lostcaesar 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Death and Resurrection article is probably a better place for that discussion. While the resurrection is technically a miraculous event, it isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind when describing the miracles of Jesus. I think mentioning the resurrection, and various interpretations is enough (and making sure to link to the other article, and maybe beefing up that article). I removed some of the discussion concerning the scholarly view on the resurrection because of this. Feel free to change the text in the article, I was just making a very rough stub (mostly using text from other sections).--Andrew c 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Brown and the JS

I'm not trying to get in an edit war, but I seriously do not see anything about miracles or exorcisms on pages 820-1 of Brown's An Intro... I assume you have a copy in front of you, but if not I could type out the passage in question to verify. I believe my version is accurate because it is mostly quoted material from Brown. Roy's version is strange because it brings up topics that Brown does not mention. Brown mentions that part of the a priori assumptions of the JS is an anti-supernatural bias. He goes into detail saying they reject the bodily resurrection and Jesus' prophecies about his fate. No where does it say that this supernatural bias attacks the miracle and exorcism stories. As shown from the text, the JS accepts many of these events as historical. Or at least that people of Jesus' time would have interpreted certain historical events as miracles and exorcisms. The fellows may personally believe that there is a rational explanation behind it, but it would be like denying that faith healers exist. We all know that faith healers are out there. Whether we believe their power is supernatural or not is another question. However, all of this is moot because Brown doesn't even mention anything along these lines. -Andrew c 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want a silly edit war either. But Brown clearly says, as you agree, that the seminar has an antisupernatural bias. And as most define miracles as supernatural, that clearly has an anti miracle bias. He then clearly says that events such as the resurrection have "no chance" of being declared historical with the group. And I know that the group believes that Jesus' healings were historical, they say as much in my copy of The Complete Gospels, but an exorcism is not just a "healing", it's a supernatural event with a demon being driven out of a person, and Brown clearly on page 821 says that the seminar presupposes the "demons don't exist" and so a REAL exorcism is not allowed by the group as historical either. A healing is not exactly an exorcism. Brown clearly says that their antisupernatural bias disallows them from declaring the resurrection or exorcisms historical. I'll quote the entire section if you wish. Roy Brumback 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read page 821 at least 3 times just now, and more times yesterday, and I have not found the word demon anywhere on the page. I did however, turn the page to 822 and saw a section describing Crossan's personal view. "There are no demons, and so Jesus performed no exorcisms in the strict sense even though he delivered inidividuals from duress that they regarded as possession." However, let me read for you from the Acts of Jesus, page 58. "John P. Meier is inclined to think [the exorcism of Mark 1:22-28] is a Christian creation. The Fellows of the Seminar came to the same conclusion, but allowed for the possibility that it reflected a particular event by coloring it gray. At the same time, the Fellows endorsed the statement that Jesus practiced exorcism with a red vote". On top that, it is repeated on page 79 "Once again, the Seminar had no trouble believing that Jesus practiced exorcism." Crossan's opinion is one thing. He is making a philosophical statement regarding his opinion of how exorcisms work. But Crossan is not the Seminar. It is clear that the Jesus Seminar accepts the exorcisms, with no a priori stipulations (unlike Crossan) as "a red vote". I believe you are mistaken when you assume Brown's criticism of Crossan should be applied to the JS, and I request that my version be reverted to, or a version that doesn't mention miracles or exorcisms.-Andrew c 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is Crossan's view, not the entire Seminar's, and is on page 822, my mistake. However, does the group conclude the exorcisms are historical in the sense that Jesus actually removed demons or simply what people thought were demons. And I agree Brown does not explicitly mention miracles, but do you agree that an antisupernatural bias is a de facto bias against miracles, which are supernatural? He clearly says Crossan concludes based on a priori considerations that no miracles actually occured. Is there any supernatural miracle the group has declared as historical, historical in the sense that a supernatural event actually occured not in the sense that people simply thought one occured? Roy Brumback 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The historical method cannot say if an event was supernatural or not. Ehrman and Meier both go into detail regarding this, so to try and single out the JS is strange because mainstream historians acknowledge as much. I will look through the Acts of Jesus further, but the sections I read today clearly did not say either way that they were supernatural or that they were not supernatural, simply that they accepted that Jesus performed exorcisms (with no further comment). Brown says that the JS has an anti-supernatural bias, and that is that. I think we should leave it as that. We do not need to be interpreting Brown for our audience. If you read Brown and thought he was referring to miracles without stating as much, can we not do the same thing here, and let our readers decide what Brown meant, instead of telling them. I believe your wording puts too many words into Brown's mouth, and the article would be equally as informative, and more accurately representing Brown if we didn't try to interpret what Brown meant by "anti-supernatural bias". On top of that, I'm pretty sure the JS, which is a majority Christian organization, with many theologians and clergy, mean what they say in the parts I quoted above. But I will browse the book further and see if there is something I missed where they discuss the nature of the supernatural further (but I doubt it because it is a history book, not a philosophy or theology book).-Andrew c 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look at the article before I wrote. I like your changes. The placement is more appropriate because it is directly in response to a JS claim regarding the resurrection. -Andrew c 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian perspective

This subsection could be considerably improved. It contains a number of unsourced statements. Not only so, but there are many different perspectives on Jesus' miracles within Christian churches. DFH 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision

It seems that some of the miracles listed here would be better classified as something else, or reworded so that they make more sense as "miracles attributed to Jesus". For example, the Annunciation and the Satanic possession of Judas currently don't make sense in this section. Paul Haymon 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Geeze

Seems like some Christian really got their thumb up the ass of this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.191.185 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 July 2007.

I'm not going to remove your comment because it seems like you are making a good faith criticism of this article. I believe what you are getting at is that you think this article has a Christian bias. In the future, you may want to consider using a little less colorful language, or at the very least present constructive criticism. If you are specific about what issues you have with the article, or if you describe your concerns in more detail, other editors will have an easier time addressing your concerns. Also, remember to sign talk page comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.-Andrew c 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is good faith criticism, what does his bad faith criticism look like? Homestarmy 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?: http://youtube.com/watch?v=J6Fqms_Iw8M 75.15.196.129 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific perspective

Since all of these miracles are scientifically possible with a crew, and mostly since technology, investigations and proof were not present at that time shouldn't there be a factual section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.16.162 (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)