Talk:Miracles of Jesus/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Apocraphyl recorded miracles 

message: 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)
thread_title: Other Sites

message: 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)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedias 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, though I think Anglicanism believes it's transubstantiation as well. Homestarmy 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Eh, whatever then, I guess it's just mostly catholic. Homestarmy 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transubstantiation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Supernatural knowledge as a miracle 

message: To solve the  (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)
replies: text: Remember to update these counts if anyone needs to edit the table by inserting or deleting rows! DFH 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The counts require updating again, as the table has been edited since August. DFH 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why the criticism, and why first?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jesus in the temple (aged 12) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Converson of Paul of Tarsus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More precise references for miracles of Jesus mentioned in the Qur'an 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Signs of the apostles = miracles attributed to Jesus 

message: :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)
replies: text: That's the Gospel of John, . 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)
replies: text: Not really on topic, but why does Synoptics redirect to an old computer company? :/ Homestarmy 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It no longer simply redirects there, the page has since been changed to a disambiguation.  DFH 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The place and purpose of miracles in the teaching of Jesus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Miracles at Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Solar eclipse ? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems Lostcaesar has edited it quite a bit. Homestarmy 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some points 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RCC and demons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Resurrection and recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Brown and the JS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christian perspective 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: 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).
: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)
replies: text: If this is good faith criticism, what does his bad faith criticism look like? Homestarmy 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this?: http://youtube.com/watch?v=J6Fqms_Iw8M 75.15.196.129 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geeze 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scientific perspective