week 7 discussion
Answer the following three questions: First question: Miracles Let’s just straight-up face the tough question. Is there an argument to be made that Jesus performed actual miracles, separate from the sorts of alternative understandings that Crossan provides? There are two ways to approach this: (1) looking at individual TYPES of acts the texts describe and (2) addressing particular instances described in the texts. It is probably too broad to look at miracles as a whole. That covers too many different types of phenomena, such as exorcisms, healings, and seemingly impossible things. A convincing case that Jesus conducted exorcisms (regardless of the explanation of what that actually means) doesn’t provide any support that he walked on water. The two instances are totally different types of phenomena and must be treated separately. As always, make an argument that uses evidence and applies the criteria, as well as basic reasoning. Second question: Crossan on Healing Summarize for us some SINGLE part of Crossan’s argument about the nature or meaning of Jesus’s healings. Other people can then respond to one of those parts and apply his method to our reading to see if his argument makes sense or gets us anything. Remember to cite Crossan using Chicago author-date parenthetical citations, just as you always would for secondary sources. The third question:(with one paragraph reply this post) Crossan clarifies an aspect about leprosy within the bible. He states that modern day leprosy is not an adequate exact translation to the biblical leprosy. Instead, he brings up the idea that biblical leprosy also refers to a social illness as much as the skin related disease. He goes on to further clarify that this social leprosy was more a status symbol than an actual diagnosis, social outcasts who had holes in their clothing and were barred from mingling with the rest of society. Crossan believes that biblical leprosy refers to those who were seen as unclean within society, mandated by law or social customs, which may have been a blanket term to also refer to those actually afflicted with disease, with no real distinction made.