Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: the Temptations (not a singing group)
Message-ID: <4880@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Apr-85 22:54:15 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4880
Posted: Sat Apr 13 22:54:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 03:11:00 EST
References: <461@cybvax0.UUCP> <1191@topaz.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 83

]The fraudulent Godhead, who hasn't any powers to use to rule the world,
]must construct an excuse for why he doesn't do so.  The best explanation
]is one that embarasses the questioners, and puts them on the defensive by
]comparing them to Satan.

Well, he certainly doesn't use that device anywhere in Matthew or Luke,
which are the only gospels which count here.  And besides, your first
sentence rather baldly assumes that the purpose of incarnating God is so
that he can come down and rule the world.  Sounds to me like you're trying
to impose your notion of what a god should act like on Jesus, and then
saying he's an imposter because the shoe doesn't fit.  The explanation is
very curious indeed, being one I have never heard of before; it seems
strange that it would not have seen lots of use throughout the history of
christianity, especially considering the popularity of the passage.

There are two other problems with the above passage.  One is pointed out by
root@topaz: only one of the three temptations involves working miracles.  The
other, more serious, is that one can postulate a different sort of god, and
have an explanation which fits the event much better.  If you had a god
which did not want to rule the world, and a Satan which wanted "break"
creation by tricking him into doing so, then the temptations are perfectly
obvious.

Now, I do not doubt that Mike is going to continue to prefer his
explanation.  But given that there are some inconsistencies surrounding his,
it is immediately evident to me that the is some presupposition at work
here: namely, that no one can work miracles.

And I do think there are problems with Mike's interpretation, even taking a
very critical approach to the story.  I have never, ever heard anyone use
the kind of justification for the failure of a miracle as Mike claims is
happening here.  For one thing, Jesus even compares his diciples to Satan!
For another, the incident represents a fairly weak excuse, since Jesus is
only refusing to perform miracles as tests of his power.  The temptations
are also never referred to by Jesus either; he certainly never uses the
incident as an excuse later on.  The incident's content is so highly
allegorical anyway that its meaning isn't particularly affected by whether
it actually happened or not.

[Following quote from root@topaz:]
>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.

]> Well, Jesus certainly is within his rights not to work miracles simply
]> because people demand them.  He has every right not to be treated as a
]> laboratory specimen.

]Any fraud is within his rights not to work miracles simply because people
]demand them.  But people will get suspicious unless you concoct plausible
]sounding excuses, and learn how to quiet hecklers.  A real god might use
]these devices, but wouldn't need them.

Well, I think you'ld better come up with some evidence that the text in
question is intended as an excuse, seeing as how it is never referred to
later in that matter, and given the considerable evidence in favor of the
traditional interpretation.

]It's too late to shut the barn door once the cow's loose.  It is skepticism
]that is responsible for clearing away the worthless testimony of previous
]generations to allow new knowledge to emerge.  (Mind you I'm not saying
]that all testimony is worthless.  Some can be confirmed by first skeptically
]rejecting it and then arriving at the same conclusions.)

Sufficiently strong skepticism is strong enough to deny any historical claim.
You seem to be saying that because the evidence for the ressurection
happening in the form described in the gospels is necessarily weak by
conventional historical standards, that you will deny it out of hand.  Your
analysis of this event seems to be predicated on the notion that there are
no miracles;  before you can legitimately use such a principle, you need to
provide some justification for it.  The fact that the universe has so far
appeared to be regular as far as scientific investigation is concerned, in
no way conflicts with the reality of miracles.  Occam's Razor doesn't cut it
here, since its use is predicated on absolute uniformity.

Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe