Peter,

Why must you impose your liberal theological views on Jesus' miracles. You stated:

<<But did not Jesus do miracles? It is interesting that in the gospel according to John, miracles are denoted as signs pointing to another reality. In a world in which miracle workers abounded, the miracles of Jesus point to the work done by the Word in healing a broken world..... The miracles of Jesus are signs that the action of God in the world occurs through His presence in the world as the Word made flesh i.e. they illustrate what happens in that presence. To understand these miracles as the actual healing of individuals of medical conditions is to relegate them to events that happened in the past, but in our experience, happen no more.>>

Who said so? Peter Sellick!

The seven signs in John's Gospel were:

+ Turning Water into Wine (John 2:1–11)
+ Cleansing the Temple (John 2:12–17)
+ Healing the Nobleman’s Son (John 4:46–54)
+ Healing the Lame Man (John 5:1–15)
+ Feeding the Multitude (John 6:1–15)
+ Healing the Blind Man (John 9)
+ Raising Lazarus (John 11).

The biblical text espouses a different view to yours. John told the reason for his signs and they were not for an allegorical meaning of 'healing a broken world' or what happens in the presence of God (the view you stated).

Instead, "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:29-31).

The physical miracles pointed to the person of Jesus, Messiah, Son of God, and the One through whom belief in his name brings (eternal) life.

I wish you wouldn't invent what the text states through allegorical interpretation.

You are fond of quoting John. Here is one for you:

When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people.

Belief based on the miraculous has very shallow foundations. It requires a rewriting of theology to incorporate an interventionist god and the destruction of two thousand years of trinitarian theology that tells us, since Augustine, that the persons can only act together. The primary act of God in the world according to trinitarian theology is that God acts through the Son in the Power of the Spirit. This is where we get our high ecclesiology. The Church is the body of Christ acting in the world in the Spirit. These theological principles should be taught in theology 101.
Anything else constructs a monument to superstition and nonsense and is the main reason that the Church is failing to influence the modern world.

The (non-Christian) Spiritual Gospel of Saint Jesus of Galilee Retold
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm

An expanded version of this reference http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html is featured as section 17 of the above reference.

I have to say I have absolutely no faith whatsoever, never have had. In view of how things are reported now I have zero faith in any of this nonsense. It does chill me that "Faith" has been responsible for so much violence, repression and wholesale murder and I am glad I am not part of any of it. Seeing so much "Fake news" now is bad but thinking of the reporting of thousands of years ago is very depressing.
Good luck anyway but try not to be so obsessed because in the long run it helps no one, including you.

JBowyer,

After reading your response, I asked myself: 'What do these comments have to do with the content of the article to which you responded?'

I found nothing directed at the article's content but I did find some of your loaded presuppositions:

* 'I have absolutely no faith whatsoever'. Faith in what?

* 'Never have had'. Can I presume you have never had any faith in the Christian faith?

* You have 'zero faith' in 'how things are reported'. What does that mean? To what reporting do you refer?

* 'This nonsense' is an ad hominem logical fallacy. It would be better for me if you gave your reasons why the 'Faith' was nonsense for you, then we'd have some basis for discussion. But labelling like this prevents a logical discussion.

* '"Faith" has been responsible for so much violence, repression and wholesale murder'. In my article I demonstrated that any violence associated with that faith is an aberration and not the real thing, e.g. The Crusades, Calvin with Servetus, support of slavery. To that we could add the Inquisition. All of these oddities are defects that deviate from the Christian norm. The norm as spelled out by Jesus is, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God' (Matthew 5:9).

Christianity has spread through peaceful means and not through violence. Who are the ones doing violence to the Christian church today through persecution? Try the Communist Govt in China where there are approx. 100 million Christians. They have not multiplied by violence but by careful proclamation of the Gospel.

* History demonstrates that 'wholesale murder' has NOT happened through proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ but through oppression by other religions.

* What is the 'fake news' you hear about the Christian faith?

* Are you an ancient historian who knows how to assess history from thousands of years ago? It's depressing when you shower us with your anti-Christian and anti-faith presuppositions.

I urge you to have a rational conversation with us instead of what you did in your comment.

How can you have faith when no less a person than a Cardinal of the Catholic Church has been found guilty in a court of law of crimes against alter boys.
Just another aberration? One of many?

David