|
The relative role of miracles, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins in the rapid spread of Christianity
Whereas the fame of Jesus as a healer quickly spread throughout all parts of Palestine, Syria, and surrounding countries (1668), the ability of his apostles to sustain this reputation quickly faded following Jesus' death and resurrection. The probable reason may be found in:
"When the Creator himself was on earth, incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, it was inevitable that some extraordinary things should happen. But you should never approach Jesus through these so-called miraculous occurrences. Learn to approach the miracle through Jesus, but do not make the mistake of approaching Jesus through the miracle. And this admonition is warranted, notwithstanding that Jesus of Nazareth is the only founder of a religion who performed super-material acts on earth." (1671)
Regarding the reality of Jesus' miraculous healings, there was no way at that time that 10 lepers could be healed of their incurable ailment (1827; Luke 17:11-19) or the blind could regain their sight (1811) except through some form of miraculous divine intervention. Both the Urantia revelation and the biblical accounts are such that we either must admit that Jesus performed real miracles of healing or else take an impossibly biased disbelieving attitude towards the evidence..
This incident of the ten lepers is also illustrative of the aberrant peculiarities of human nature. Nine of the lepers were Jews. But only one returned to thank Jesus--and that was the Samaritan.
Likewise at the trial of Jesus before Pontius Pilot when Pilot offered to release either Jesus or the criminal Barabbus, the crowd chose Barabbus--despite the fact that there must have been many in that Passover crowd who had either witnessed healings by Jesus, knew of them, or been actual recipients. Yet they failed to make themselves heard--apparently from fear for their own skins.
It would seem then that miraculous cures do not make a solid foundation for a new religion. But they could, and apparently did, help to firm up the resolve of close followers, such as Jesus' apostles.
With Jesus' resurrection it is a different story. Firstly, could it have been a figment of the imagination? Paul provides the earliest surviving written account--one that was written within 20 years of Jesus' death:
"he was buried, and rose again on third day…and was seen of Peter, then of the twelve. After that he was seen by more than 500 at once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present, though some have died. After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. Last of all he was seen by me. (1 Corinthians 15:4-8)
Paul says that, besides the apostles, there were around 500 still living eye witnesses to the resurrection. Then he goes on to challenge the Corinthian audience to verify the resurrection for themselves by asking eye witnesses.
If we make a careful study of the accounts about the behavior of the apostles in the gospels, in Paul's epistles, and in Luke's Acts of the Apostles following on from the crucifixion and Pentecost we can hardly doubt that the successful establishment of the early Christian movement was very much dependent on the veracity of these eye witness assertions about the resurrection.
|
|
