In the flurry of debate that was spawned by my arguments from Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, one objection was that we really don't know whether Jesus' family ever saw his magic shows. The point of that stupid trifle was to give the Christian apologist a little wiggle room so that the unbelief toward Jesus by his own family could be explained in a way not opening the door to justifying a skeptical conclusion (i.e., maybe they thought him insane or didn't believe him because they never saw his magic shows).
Ok, let's discuss that. Specifically, let's discuss whether my skeptical theory (i,e., that it is highly likely that Jesus' family saw at least a few of Jesus' magic shows) deserves to be labeled "reasonable".
In John 2:11, Jesus' changing water to wine is called the first of his miracles.
In John 2:1, Jesus' mother was present when this miracle took place.
The Greek word for "sign" is "semeion", and is the same word used to describe Jesus' healing a ruler's son at a distance (John 4:54), the feeding of the 5,000 (6:14), and the resurrection of Lazarus (12:18), So apologists are ill-advised to pretend "sign" means something less than a genuinely supernatural act. Therefore, if Jesus' mother was present at the wedding in Cana, she was present when a genuinely supernatural miracle happened, not merely present when some clever trick was performed. And what bible-believing Christian would dare muse that maybe Jesus engaged in purely naturalistic "tricks"?
Let us remember that Mary urged the wedding hosts to do whatever Jesus might ask them (2:5), almost as if she had already arrived at the conclusion that Jesus was of such high authority that he should be obeyed without hesitancy....almost as if she had seen him do miracles previously.
What Mary would have thought about the water-into-wine miracle, begs the question of what her prior experience with Jesus was like. Did she experience him as a clever trickster, or something a bit more serious?
The inerrantist or conservative will have a difficult time resisting my argument here, given that they think the Nativity stories are true, thus it must be historically true that Mary experienced in real life, before and after Jesus' birth, several divine conformations that her son was divine...so that with such history, she likely would view the water-into-wine "sign" as a genuinely supernatural act.
Joseph had a vision that Jesus was conceived divinely, (Matthew 1:20 ff), and it is surely reasonable to assume he shared such vision with Mary.
Mary was present when the Magic arrived to worship Jesus (Matthew 2:11).
Joseph then has another angelic dream confirming the divine status of the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:13-14) and it is most reasonable to assume that because he fled with her in the middle of the night, he likely told her the basis for his urgency in departing, just like any husband would if he roused the family and insisted they are pile into the car and take off in the middle of the night to another country. Epsecially given that such dreams afforded them "good news" and ended up saving their lives and the life of their Son.
Joseph then has another similar dream (Matthew 2:19 ff).
Joseph then has another similar dream (Matthew 2:22).
In Luke 1:26, an angel, apparently physically, comes to Mary and announces that her son shall be divine (vv. 31-32).
Mary is specifically informed about how god will cause this without involving a male sperm donor, v. 35.
Mary then apparently believes this message, v. 38.
Mary and Elizabeth then share a divine experience, v. 39-45.
Mary then shows her trust that such things are true by reciting the Magnificat, v. 46-55
Elizabeth's neighbors and relatives believed the same things, v. 58
This became a topic of popular concern, v. 65
An angel appears to shepherds who then go looking for and find Jesus, Luke 2:9 ff
Joseph and Mary were amazed at Simeon's testimony in favor of Jesus, Luke 2:33
A female prophet similarly testified, Luke 2:38
And of course, if we indulge the fundamentalist assumption that Jesus was god, then in addition to the above, Jesus' family must surely have recognized, likely to their amazement, for the first 30 years of his life, that Jesus never sinned. What would YOU think of a brother who never sinned? Luck?
First question; is it reasonable to assume that Mary, after this wedding at Cana, would have held the opinion that this changing of water into wine was genuinely supernatural, yes or no? If you answer "no", then provide the reasons for saying such an assumption is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment