Miracles

I had a conversation with a Biblican (a person who believes that every part of the Bible is true - this as compared to a Christian who trusts in the teachings of Jesus) one day, and he was spouting off about all sorts of things and I stopped him and asked him this question (people hate it when I do that):

Would your faith be as strong if none of the "miracles" revealed in the Bible ever actually happened?

What if Moses did not part the Red Sea, God did not smite those living in Sodom & Gomorrah, God did not destroy the walls of Jericho so the Hebrews could get into the city and literally massacre every living thing in the town including women, children and animals, etc, etc?
What if Jesus did not feed the masses, heal the sick, cure the deaf and mute, allow the blind to see or raise the dead?
AND
What if Jesus never died on the cross, much less rose from the dead?

Well, the immediate response was not to entertain the question. It seems to me, I said, that if your faith depends solely, or really at all, on the occurrence of miracles, then it is not all that rock solid. If your faith, instead, is based on what you know in your heart to be true, then it seems to me it follows exactly what Jesus told us it would be. Do you:

• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
• Love everyone unconditionally, even your enemies?
• Forgive even before anything is done to you?
• Always strive to do what you know is the right thing to do?
• Believe in peace over violence?

Well, if so, miracles or not, you are following Jesus' basic teachings. How about that?

But since you have chosen to tune into this heathen diatribe I write, let's delve in on the whole miracle thing, shall we.

Scientists, mostly archaeologists, geologists, climatologists and anthropologists, have crafted plausible theories for many of the physical "miracles" of the Old Testament, assuming they even occurred.

• The great flood, which is in almost every theological writing from this area, probably occurred when natural global warming caused the ocean waters to rise high enough to crest the thin land bridges at the narrow mouths of the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea. The resulting nearly simultaneous cascade into these deep long valleys, eroding the entrances even wider, resulted not only in massive catastrophic flooding of the towns located in the valleys (see ruins from this time period at the bottoms of these Seas) but then washed violently up on the other side, flooding the entire area we refer to as the Middle East. Perhaps Noah was an early climatologist and saw this tragedy coming. Sort of the Al Gore of his day.
• Sodom & Gomorrah were probably destroyed by parts of a huge meteor that scientists know flew over that area, raining debris over a great distance, the bulk of which pounded ultimately into the European continent.
• There are rocks known to nomads of the Sinai desert today that if struck by a staff will ooze water for them to drink. Certainly Moses, a denizen of that desert, knew this as well.
• I still contend Jericho was an inside job.

Ahh, good ol' Hebrew miracles. Probably just stories to explain natural things they did not understand glorified over time, but Jesus healing folks, well that certainly was real. Well, maybe . . .

What if, like most of what he did and said, these were not events but merely metaphors. Jesus' revelations about our personal connection to God, how we should treat one another, etc, certainly opened eyes that could not see, opened ears that could not hear and freed tongues that dared not speak. He changed people. He fed the spiritually hungry. He brought them to life with faith and a revelation that THEY were the sons and daughters of God. That they were important enough to have a real personal relationship with God. That they did not have to listen to the rabbi's and well heeled whoop-dee-doos at the Temples. That the Holy Spirit would guide them directly, if they had eyes to see, ears willing to hear, mouths willing to speak and a faith alive and well. While there is a great deal of repetition in Matthew, Mark and Luke about where Jesus went, there is remarkably less redundancy in terms of describing his miracles. He only ascends into heaven in one Gospel. Only one guy thought that was cool enough to make his book?

These are really amazing accomplishments. It is not every day a dead guy comes back to life, except in the plethora of zombie movies, and I sense it was not told quite that way back then. Why is there no independent or contemporaneous writing from others at the time about them? There were Greek and other scholars writing about all sorts of things at this time. Much of our current philosophy (like heaven and hell) were already being theorized and written about. We have stories about people who spoke, made a difference, did cool stuff and even performed miracle from this time period and before. Significant strides in mathematics, science and literature occurred in the 500 plus years before Jesus was even born. There were some very literate people, but no one wrote about these amazing miracles when they were happening.

This would make sense if these amazing miracles were merely metaphors from a wandering philosopher. It also explains why they were potentially converted in later writings to actual physical miracles. As time passed, the point of the moment was adjusted to fit the story-teller's needs or word of mouth, over the 30 - 50 years until the books were actually written, just changed the meanings honestly and inadvertently, as so often happens.

But certainly Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. Hmmm, was he? Today we would look at that story and say, "The most logical answer that does not involve magic is probably the right one." It reminds me of the cartoon where the physicist is showing his work to another. There are complicated equations scribbled on each side, and in the middle connecting the two are the words "And then a miracle happens." The other physicist is not impressed, nor would we be if someone walked up to us and told us he was resurrected from the dead, even if he was a really Jesus-like persona - Martin Luther King, Mohamed, or Gandhi, for example.

Consider this alternatie ending:

• Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus were huge supporters of Jesus and big wigs in the Hebrew hierarchy. They were the wealthy elite.
• Late in his ministry, Joe and Nic go to Jesus (and perhaps his trusted friend Judas as well) and tell him that the Sanhedrin is going to come down on him hard and want to have him killed.
• "This would be good for the movement," Joe notes. Jesus and Judas nod nervously. "Yes. A martyr is always a plus," Nic explains. Jesus and Judas look at one another. "It is inevitable," Joe points out. At this point, I am fairly sure Jesus asked, "Umm, excuse me guys, but while certainly good for the movement and all, do I actually have to die." The two men are taken aback. They ponder this for a moment, and perhaps speak off to the side in hushed tones while Jesus and Judas stand uncomfortably in the middle of the room. When the two powerful men return, they had crafted a relatively simple plot to save Jesus' life, AND BONUS, make him an even better martyr than the last guy! "Brilliant." Judas exclaims. Jesus breathes a sigh of relief. It still does not sound all that great to him. "We will handle everything," Joe comforts and turns with Nic to venture to the patio to work through the details, as Joe's servant escorts the two wanderers out the front door. 
• So, according to the plan, Judas dutifully arranges for the government to find Jesus and arrest him. This was, as they noted, inevitable, but they wanted it to be done in a place where they could control the situation and the story.
• They probably did not bargain for the brutal beating Jesus underwent, but they did ultimately arrange for someone else to carry his cross for him.
• They paid at least one Centurion to give Jesus a bitter tasting sedative common at the time, through a sponge at the end of a spear that knocked hm out cold and made him appear dead.
• They paid a Centurion not to kill Jesus with the spear. "Merely a flesh wound now," Joe explained, "but make it look good." Nic added. 
• Unlike the others and custom at the time, Jesus' legs were not broken so that he would die faster. Why was that? Anomalies beget good conspiracy theories.
• Joe and Nic come and bargain, probably for an additional price, to have Jesus removed from the cross before sundown on the Sabbath so that he can be buried. He is dead to the eyes of the generally uncaring and now richer Centurions there, so they take him down. There is no doctor there to verify he is dead and that good zombie play was on at the theater and they now had money for tickets and, perhaps, a date.
• He is taken, and in witness of many wailing followers, is placed in Joseph's tomb. Under the guise of burial ritual, healing ointments are placed on his wounds and they are dressed. 
• As it says at the end of Matthew, though denied as a lie by the author, Joseph, Nic and the team return that night, knowing no Jew would be out on the Sabbath, pay off the guards, roll back the stone and take Jesus away to be healed. Remember Jesus was a regular breaker of the Sabbath, so why would his followers not behave that way as well?
• Early Sunday morning, before anyone else can get there, Mary Magdalen, a probable co-conspirator, brings another woman as a witness and creates the story that an angel rolled back the stone and Jesus rose from the dead. Each story is a bit different as it evolved with the telling.
• Most of the wounds, while not insignificant, were only flesh wounds. Others, such as the nails through his hands and feet, would have healed in time. The Roman tradition was to place the nails through the wrists and ankles, often breaking bones. The Bible says the nails were driven through his palms and feet, where the damage could be less severe. Who would notice? Later "doubting Thomas" puts his fingers into the resurrected Jesus' palms, not his wrists, to feel the nail holes there.
• If the paid off Centurions held back on the spear plunge, that wound would not have been too bad either.
• He is healed through medicines used at the time, not miracles.
• He returns to appear before the uneducated disciples and many others who followed him and is deemed to have been resurrected from the dead.
• Often he is not initially recognized. Probably because being discovered would be a bad thing for Jesus and the movement.
• People scoff, so the story of his ascension is created in the region where it is required but does not evolve where it is not required.
• The plan works. A new unifying, individual-based, personal relationship with God religion is born because of a great miracle. So regardless of its truth, the story is critical to the growth of Christianity. 

That is not too far afield to have happened. There are plenty of clues in the Bible itself, which is rather interesting. But perhaps the Bible story is true. Either way, whether it happened or not is not relevant to the question!

To me, the real question is,

If NONE of the miracles in the Bible are true, even the most important one, is your faith still strong enough to believe and follow the simple teachings of Jesus, or more accurately, what you know in the honesty of your heart is right?

OK, now I really have to dodge those lightning bolts.