Pash--
Well, you seem to portray Jesus, at least in the miracles category, as some kind of magician, the benefactor of Christians revisionists, or other paranormal phenomenon.
That's a little on the harsh side. It implies a greater stake than necessary.
Specifically, I consider the factors of the times; politics and religion were greatly intertwined at the time--was John the Baptist religious or political or both? When I consider Montefiore's observations, that Jesus was born to a pharisee family, and that Galilee was a home for zealots, one begins to see the tie between Jesus and the political institution.
That Jesus fed the masses is a great example here; a very simplistic interpretation of inspired generosity served as my Lutheran explanation. But if we view the event as a political rally, in which Jesus inspired those who had to offer to those who had not, he still has fed the masses, and it is, given human character, is no less miraculous an event.
But he's hardly a fraud, as such. That his ministry was great, effective, and possibly miraculous is very easy to stomach. But the divinity ... that's a matter strictly left to faith. My Catholic-school theology teacher taugh exfoliation as one of Christ's healing miracles ... it must necessarily be left to faith to assume.
Funny it's all tied to one man. Why is that people will find all these excuses to downplay the miracles, even Jesus himself, when they don't question the two first-century accounts Hannibels' unlikely crossing of the Alps with 38 elephants in tow.
A girlfriend of mine once witnessed a conversation 'twixt myself and one of my ex-gf's. We reminisced briefly about the curious amount of chaos we went through together, and smiled in retrospect because we all were still alive. Upon leaving that place, the not-then ex pointed out: "See, we'll never be that close." I had no other option but to respond, "Yes, but your dad didn't rape you and you aren't about to kill yourself."
What's the important part there? That I was "closer" to a girl than the one who was asking? Really, did the not-yet ex really want to go through that? Point being, it's all in our perspectives.
As to why not Hannibal ... well, I don't recall that the world has suffered quite as much at the hands of Hannibal's Message of Extreme and Perfect Love. Part of that is the role which Christianity plays in our lives; certes, were we to celebrate Hannibal Day, or some-such, it might be more important to us to know the actual history that occurred there.
That the tale centers on one man is a quirk of history; we must remember the conditions that existed. A powerful minister/activist of Jesus' stature could well be remembered. Hey, we pin an awful lot of importance on Julius Caesar, and don't question that he was stabbed to death. In a hundred years, though, if the official tale includes, "Et tu, Brute?", we'll see a faith transformation of Caesar. Jesus was a very important man in his time; people knew who he was, which was a far-grander statement than it is today.
I would also counterpoint your own question with a variation:
Why is it that people will find all these excuses to actualize the works of Jesus himself, when their standard of faith applies and functions nowhere else in life?
Jesus was. What came after him is the works of human beings, and necessarily imperfect. Within a century of his death, Christians were engaged in raising the status of their body political by the device of slandering their Jewish neighbors. By the time the Bible was edited and "finished" as such, what political considerations were present?
Furthermore, given that, upon Enlightenment, the Western world had to re-learn much of what the rest of the world already knew (for instance, that the world was round), we might wonder at the vernacular effect of that many generations of undereducated, politically-driven faith.
As to witness continuity:
* Mistake a dead man brought to life? Sure ... the aforementioned curare, as well as the elusive Caribbean molecule, both create deathlike symptoms. Is breathing a problem? How about psilocybin? I know that even low doses will drop respiratory rates; yes, people have checked to make sure I'm not dead when I'm tripping.
* Wine where there was none? Therein lies the question of continuity and accuracy. Flash-poof, Jesus the Juggernaut waves his magic wand wildly about and ... Abracadabra! Fish and wine! I just don't see it that way. You're talking about A) a transformation of human compassion, to incite people to share what pittances they had, or B) a violation of physics. Now, I accept B only because Christian faith requires it, so it becomes a quasi-valid point to argue against that option. But by and far, I think the Bible is much easier reconciled if we read it with a pinch of interpretive license.
* Sight where there was none? That happens these days. Ripley's records a young boxer who got smacked in a bare-knuckle match and immediately covered his ears and began howling uncontrollably; this is only significant because the young boxer was a deaf-mute. Theoretically, drugs could activate a part of the brain at random.
All made up? Tailored to fit Christianity? I'd like to think the Jews of the time would be rabid to correct those published mistakes; anything to tear Him down.
My impressions from reading Armstrong and Russell, as well as from Staniforth's edition of
Early Christian Writings, that Christian/Jew rhetoric only got bad after, well ... to put it mildly, the Christians started it.
Furthermore, there were objections by the Jewish community to some claims of Jesus-as-God. By and large, these would become insignificant a thousand years later (or thereabout) when the Spanish Jewry was expelled by the Christians after retaking Spain from the Moors. But in the interim, there was little respect shown by the Christians for anything academic the Jewish might say. Again, we see the paring of the Gospels to four, as well as political infighting which affected the development of the idea of the Trinity, as well as the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in certain creeds.
Prophecies being "made" to come true? The coming of Jesus is foretold in the Old Testament; he told of his impending death and resserection, not to mention that Peter would deny him three times, and there is more that I am forgetting.
Well, the prophecies, in order to be prophecies, were written beforehand, right? Jesus knew at least
some of them, right? That the coming of Jesus is foretold in the OT means little. To the one hand there is the fact that these prophecies ... again ... were written
before Jesus walked. To the other, I have at least one Jewish associate who mislikes the appointment of Jesus as fulfillment of the prophecies, preferring instead to view Isaiah and others as summaries and warnings for the state of the Jewish people.
The denials by Peter have literary precedent in tales of Ereshkigal and Inanna; so, according to at least one author (Esbach), does the crucifixion. Considering, then, that the Great Flood of Old Testament fame has precedent in Bablonian cuneiform, well, we see the pattern forming, eh?
I'd like to hear what you have to say about the Resurrection
Frankly, I'd like to hear what you have to say about Elvis. What's your opinion of Schroedinger's Cat ... alive or dead or both?
The resurrection has many possibilities, from Jesus not being dead at all all the way up to imposters. Propaganda, poetry, &c. We could, literally, spend our lives on it and get no closer to an answer; I'll go wherever you choose to take that aspect of it.
And, yes, actual, honest-to-God resurrection
is one of the possibilities. But right now, it's left solely to faith.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
