Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: the Temptations (not a singing group)
Message-ID: <466@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Apr-85 23:34:37 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.466
Posted: Sun Apr 14 23:34:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 01:00:26 EST
References: <450@cybvax0.UUCP> <4644@umcp-cs.UUCP> <456@cybvax0.UUCP> <4681@umcp-cs.UUCP> <461@cybvax0.UUCP> <1191@topaz.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 73

In article <1191@topaz.ARPA> root@topaz.ARPA (Root) writes:
> I'm getting tired of this discussion.  Before anyone else accuses Jesus of
> using excuses to cover up not being able to do miracles, please read the
> Biblical texts you are commenting on.  The version of the temptation story
> which is presumably the earliest is the following "At once the Spirit made
> him go into the desert, where he stayed forty days, being tempted by Satan.
> Wild animals were there also, but angels came and helped him."  (Mark
> 1:12-13)  Note: no comment about miracles.  The versions in Matthew and Luke

You have the gall to call a lack of evidence in one version a disproof of
my hypothesis?  I can think of two possibilities: that the version
mentioning miracles was falsified, or the version without miracles is
incomplete.  Take your pick.  You can't have both.

> give three actual temptations.  They are:
> 
>   - turn this stone into bread
>   - worship me (Satan) and I will give you power
>   - throw yourself off the temple, and God will rescue you.  (No
> 	motivation for this is stated.  Presumably the idea is that
> 	this will prove that he is the Messiah.)
> 
> Note that the earliest version doesn't mention miracles at all.  Also note
> that in the ones that give the actual temptations, only one of the
> temptations would be a miracle that Jesus would work, and one of them
> wouldn't be a miracle at all.  I think this shows that the story did not
> arise as an explanation as to why Jesus didn't always work miracles.

You are misrepresenting my argument.  I hypothesize skeptics saying
"work a miracle, show your power, or show your god's power."  It doesn't
matter to me which-- skeptics would suggest all of them.  This parable
would allow JC or his apostles to compare skeptics to Satan.

> Now, as for the times when Jesus actually did refuse to work miracles.
> Typically when Jesus didn't work miracles (e.g. Mk. 8:11-13, Mt. 16:1-4) )
> he didn't give any excuse at all.  I recall one place where the narrator
> says that Jesus didn't work any miracles in a particular place because they
> didn't have faith there.  But if Jesus himself said something like that, I
> don't recall it.  Indeed Jesus was very wary of claiming anything about
> himself.  This is what has led many non-Christians to say that the whole
> business about being the Son of God was just a misinterpretation by his
> followers.  There is better evidence for this than for the (apparently
> contradictory) criticism that Jesus was a charlatan.

That no excuse is recorded provides no more evidence for your point than
mine.  Perhaps an excuse was made: but it was ignoble, and not recorded.
Do you think the press releases of charlatans like Uri Geller headline
the times he was unable to perform and left in embarrassment?

As I mentioned before, charlatans frequently use "lack of faith" or
"bad vibes" excuses.

If JC had come out and said he was the son of god, he probably would
have been subjected to much greater skepticism than he would as a prophet
reputed to sometimes work miracles.  I'm inclined to believe the
misrepresentation by his followers hypothesis.  After JC is no longer
around, it makes sense for his followers to claim he was more important.
If they made the claims after JC is gone, they have an easy excuse for
"no miracles today."

And (once again) what contradictions are you talking about?

> I have no objection to the original offhand remark that the temptations
> sounds like typical excuses of a charlatan.  People are welcome to try to
> shed new and amusing light on old passages.  However before having a long
> discussion on such an observation, I would appreciate it if contributors
> would look a bit more carefully.

How very patronizing of you.  I would appreciate a bit more politeness
and humility on your part.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh