Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
“The majority accept that Jesus’ tomb was later found empty and/or his disciples had visionary experiences of him after he had been executed. Many (I would guess the majority) believe both.”
“Guessing” is not good evidence.
LikeLike
“The conversion of Paul is an accepted historical fact requiring explanation. Many scholars (I am unsure how many) believe he too had a visionary experience of the resurrected Jesus.”
There is an orthodox Jewish rabbi/Jewish settler, living in Israel today, who several years ago converted to Islam, and is now a radical, Jew-hating, Islamic cleric. This conversion demands an explanation. (ie. Islam MUST be the true Faith!)
LikeLike
I’ve read NT Wright’s, The Resurrection of the Son of God, cover to cover, and his entire claim for the historicity of the Resurrection is based on these two premises:
1. No Jew would believe in the resurrection of one man prior to the general resurrection.
2. No gentile would believe in a resurrection.
My response:
1. The overwhelming majority of Jews did NOT believe the Christian resurrection story…and still do not today. The fact that a small number of uneducated, superstitious, messiah-seeking, Galilean peasants did, should come as no surprise.
2. Gentiles DID believe the Christian resurrection story! And how many of those Gentiles saw a walking/talking dead Jesus according to the Bible? Answer: Zero! They believed the story because a few wild-eyed Jews convinced them that there was a new god who promised social equality to everyone, and mansions filled with gold when you died.
So poor gentiles converted in droves!
The rapid spread of Christianity should not come as a surprise to anyone. Anytime there are economic and political hard times, as there was under brutal Roman occupation, what is the most popular form of government for the lower classes in society: Socialism!
LikeLike
So, you’re okay with disregarding a theory just because you don’t like it? The followers of Allah take their beliefs very seriously and have their own miracle claims, but since none of us “like” their religion I guess it’s okay to just disregard it, right?
I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that a lot of us on this blog are sincerely interested in uncovering the truth of reality (or getting as close to it as we can). So we take our time looking at every serious claim from every possible angle. We also don’t want to be duped or misled into believing something that can be shown to be false.
LikeLike
“You choose the one that left of the miracles you can look at, poke and prod.” – So then, none.
LikeLike
Gary wrote: I would bet that Jesus did not see himself as a god. He saw himself as a human, born of a human mother and father, who believed he had been chosen by God to fulfill a divine commission: to be His prophet and maybe even the messiah to preach the coming New Kingdom.
That’s is exactly the way I see it! To view it under any other light is allowing one’s vision to be clouded by the teachings of Paul and later church fathers who wanted to make Yeshua into a divine being. And, unfortunately, they succeeded.
LikeLike
“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds[a] to all, as any had need.”
–Acts chapter 2
That’s socialism, baby!
And if I’m some poor schmuck living in Jerusalem, Ephesus, or Corinth, trying to keep my family alive, living hand to mouth every day…I’m joining THIS religion!
LikeLike
Unkle E:
I have not read Michael Grant’s book that you reference above, “An Historian’s Review of the Gospels”, although I just might, as the reviews seem very good and he seems to be an impartial historian, neither Christian nor atheist. Here is one review that I found very interesting. I will post it in sections and comment on it:
“This is an excellent work by the great classical scholar Michael Grant, a champion of Western Civilization. Writing with a deep knowledge of the ancient world in which Jesus of Nazareth lived, Grant offers a convincing naturalistic portrait of him.
The greatest strength of Grant’s book is its status as a serious and lengthy biography of Jesus written from the standpoint of an historian. Almost every other available biography of Jesus is written by a Christian theologian of some sort or another. Even liberal, skeptical, naturalistically-minded theologians or other Christian scholars harbor deep emotional bonds to Jesus, such that they occasionally describe him as “the Lord,” or allow him at least an occasional miracle, or idealize him to perfection or near-perfection. Grant steers clear of this. Moreover, unlike many liberal Jesus scholars in more recent decades, Grant does not dubiously resort to the newly discovered Gospel of Thomas, or to other Gnostic gospels, as sources for his portrait of Jesus. Nor does Grant, when examining the resurrection story, deny the probability of an empty tomb, as most liberal Jesus scholars today do. Instead, he accepts the strong tradition that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the third day. But he concludes very reasonably that someone or other “had taken the body” (p. 176).”
Notice the reviewer says that most liberal Jesus scholars deny the probability of an empty tomb. I believe this to be the truth. The majority of NT scholars are Christian, and most of those evangelical or orthodox, so the fact this the majority of NT scholars believe in a empty tomb is not surprising. You repeated assertion that most “secular” historians believe that there was an empty tomb is unsubstantiated…to date.
LikeLike
Here is the reviewer’s comments regarding Grant’s take on the miracle claims in the Gospels:
One of the best parts of Grant’s book, in my view, is a chapter titled “What Were the Miracles?” Other readers, I notice, have also found that chapter especially compelling. In it, Grant systematically analyzes the miracle stories of the gospels. He gives many persuasive naturalistic explanations for the events in question, for example, cases in which the suggestive power of Jesus, working in tandem with the superstitious beliefs of the common people, cured them of “hysterical and obsessive ailments, paralysis,” etc. In other words, hypochondria and psychosomatic afflictions were the root causes of such problems. I might add that some or most such “healings” may well have been only partial or temporary; we have no follow-up medical reports. Likewise, Grant writes that “the ‘lepers’ were not necessarily lepers at all,” but were probably people afflicted with “less serious diseases of the skin.” As for the few “resurrections” of the dead that Jesus is supposed to have performed, Grant suggests they were coma-resuscitations if anything real at all. One simply must realize that premature announcements of death were quite common in antiquity, before modern hi-tech equipment permitted the monitoring of the vital signs of sick people. Grant also wisely concludes that these “miraculous” acts of Jesus were relatively few in number, later multiplied by rumor and hero-worship to the dozens related in the gospels. As for the several non-healing, “nature” miracles (Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.), Grant lays bare their symbolic and fictional character. (See also Randel Helms’s book Gospel Fictions on the borrowing of Old Testament passages in these cases.) And finally he mentions the serious contradictions involved in the gospel accounts of the secrecy surrounding all the miracles. He writes: “This widespread disbelief [by many Jews at the time, that the acts of Jesus were really miracles] is probably the cause of Mark’s continual insistence that Jesus required his healings to be kept secret. There is obviously something wrong about these accounts, since it is incredible that Jesus, after performing his cures (as we are told) in public, should then have ordained and expected that they should be kept secret….”
This is a very good point: Jesus performs miracles in front of large crowds…and then tells everyone to keep it a secret. Something’s fishy, folks! Sounds like “spin” to me.
LikeLike
Crown, a while ago you wrote:
Please provide your source for this evidence. I have made an earnest attempt to find this and nothing I have found can be matched up. I’ve taken hi-res photos of both the shroud and the Oviedo cloth into Photoshop and scaled them to their actual dimensions and cannot see any obvious “fingerprint matches”. I found a YouTube video that shows the overlay of the two cloths, however I am unable to verify any of it. The Oviedo cloth they are looking at does not match any of the online photos of the cloth.
LikeLike
“Grant also wisely concludes that these ‘miraculous’ acts of Jesus were relatively few in number, later multiplied by rumor and hero-worship to the dozens related in the gospels.” – I don’t have time to hunt down chapter and verse, but one good example of what you say can be found in Matthew – In Mark, Yeshua heals a leper at the gates of a city, in Matthew’s retelling of the same story, he heals two.
“Jesus performs miracles in front of large crowds…and then tells everyone to keep it a secret.” – Well now THAT I can see, it’s just good psychology – tell them not to, you get to appear modest, and they’ll rush out to blab it, it’s human nature. The best way to spread a story is to begin it with, “Just between you and me –“
LikeLike
Dave, I would have to go dig it up. It will take me awhile as I looked at this stuff intensely back in the “Naughties but haven’t been back through it since.
LikeLike
Dave wrote: “So, you’re okay with disregarding a theory just because you don’t like it? The followers of Allah take their beliefs very seriously and have their own miracle claims, but since none of us “like” their religion I guess it’s okay to just disregard it, right?”
No, not right. In fact, it’s a perversion of what I said on two counts.
LikeLike
Here is another reviewer’s take on Grant’s book. Notice he says that neither mythicists who deny Jesus even existed and Christian fundamentalist will not like this book. Sounds like a good book to me! Any time both extremes trash a book, it probably means it is a fair and impartial treatment of the subject matter.
So what have we learned from historian Michael Grant (of course I am basing this on reader reviews, not having actually read the book myself…but I probably will):
1. Jesus most probably existed.
2. There is strong evidence that the miracle stories are fabrications.
3. Grant believes that the empty tomb is a probability, but due to someone taking/moving the body, not because there is convincing evidence of a supernatural resurrection of a dead man (zombie). Most liberal Christian and secular scholars deny evidence for an empty tomb.
Isn’t this what I have said all along?
And even if there was an empty tomb, what is the most likely explanation:
“Angels” moved the stone and a zombie walked out of his grave with a superhero body?
Or
The story of the Roman guards is a later fabrication/legend, so:
1. Grave robbers took the body in the middle of the night.
2. Jesus family took the body back to Galilee in the middle of the night.
3. Some of the disciples took the body in the middle of the night.
4. Joseph of Arimethea moved the body or bodies out of his tomb after Passover was over (Saturday night), and didn’t tell the disciples he had moved it to make sure the new burial site didn’t become a Christian shrine.
5. Roman soldiers took the body in the middle of the night and dumped into a common, unmarked grave to prevent the Jews from making a shrine to their “King”.
and on and on.
Only someone who desperately WANTS there to be a resurrection would jump to the conclusion that an empty tomb is evidence for a resurrection!
LikeLike
Reviewer’s comment:
Michael Grant’s work is still the best short book on Jesus the man. The basic story is quite simple. There was a Galilean itinerant preacher and faith healer named Jesus(Jeshua a not uncommon name of the time). Probably innocently he found himself in trouble with the Roman government and the conservative religious establishment in Jerusalem. He was crucified (a hideous but not uncommon fate). His body turned up missing. His followers claimed he rose from the dead. All the rest is a question of faith or the lack of it.
Grant, who espouses no religious doctrine in the work, simply subjects the earthly life of Jesus to the same historical analysis he would apply to any other figure of the ancient world, and shows how much we know about his life, placing it in the context of his times. He shows that if we apply that criteria to Jesus as we do to other personalities of his era there is no reasonable basis to doubt his historic existence. Grant marshalls the evidence in a matter of fact manner and draws his conclusions in much the same way as he would if he were writing about Socrates or Bhudda or any other figure whose message comes down to us through third parties.
On the one hand I would not recommend this work to committed Jesus deniers who,in my mind, are similar to Holocaust deniers, “truthers”, and “birthers” so dedicated to their own conspiracy theories that they have no ability to recognize simple truth. On the other hand strict religious fundamentalists will likewise not profit from a reading of this work. I am a practising Roman Catholic, one of my dearest friends is an atheist. We both found Grant’s work to be both persuasive and succinct. Fair minded persons from all backgrounds will profit from reading this work.
LikeLike
Now I will bet that some Christians reading my last comment will protest and say, “How do you know that the story of the Roman guards guarding Jesus tomb is legendary?”
Answer: “Mark” never says one word about Roman guards.
We don’t hear anything about Roman guards at Jesus’ tomb until Matthew writes his “eyewitness” account—plagiarizing much of Mark’s (a non-eyewitness) book. And Matthew has a flare for throwing in some wild details to Mark’s original Resurrection Story: Here are some of the “minor” details that Mark, for some strange reason, forget to mention:
-Two earthquakes
-the women witness an angel moving the stone
-fainting Roman guards
-dead people coming out of their graves to wander the streets of Jerusalem
Matthew is a “whopper teller”. I would love to hear him describe the size of the fish he would catch on one of the disciples’ many fishing expeditions! How about a trout that is 50 feet long!!
LikeLike
Crown wrote: “No, not right. In fact, it’s a perversion of what I said on two counts.”
Okay then. Then I guess you agree that we shouldn’t disregard a theory just because we don’t like it. This is why I cannot disregard naturalism despite my disliking it based on the argument of “no ultimate purpose”.
LikeLike
Dave, you just wrote this: “Okay then. Then I guess you agree that we shouldn’t disregard a theory just because we don’t like it.”
Nope again. You don’t seem to be comprehending what I have been saying. I’ve really tried to listen to your specific questions, and to answer them fully and clearly.
I’ll try once more.
I have predicated my arguments for belief in the supernatural upon EXAMINABLE miracle. Not mere CLAIMS of miracles, but miracles that are contained in physical objects that can then be examined and compared to the laws of physics.
I’ve presented a list: Lourdes healings, Incorrupt bodies, Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle, and Shroud of Turin, which each contains within the object or subject itself a peculiarity that is real, but that defies natural explanation.
The court is wide open for anybody to present miracles for examination. Note well, I’ve referred to the miracles I have experienced to EXPLAIN why this approach is so persuasive to me, but I have not offered my own experiences up as proof of miracle for you (or anybody else) precisely because you cannot poke, prod and test my miracles. You have only my word for it, and words are wind.
But the Muslims, the Hindus, the Pastafarians – everybody is free to come and present HIS religion’s miracles into the court for examination.
The litmus test, though, is not some claim of miracle, but the question of SHOW ME. SHOW ME the miracle? Is it something examinable? Testable? The particular miracles to which I’ve steered you: Shroud, Lanciano, Incorrupt are all tangible, forensically examinable. The Lourdes miracles are heavily medically documented.
You mentioned Islam. Well, what miracles do THEY have to present? Cloud writing. Vague images of the Arabic letters “Allah” appearing in clouds and plants. Those “miracles” are not miracles at all. One can look at the pictures and say “That’s obviously just a random pattern”, and be right. But the image on the Shroud – there’s nothing random about THAT.
And this is my point. The things I’ve put forth are real MIRACLES – complicated objects and fact patterns that, if untrue, must be frauds, because they evince intelligence and purpose. The Muslim “miracles” aren’t miraculous. They’re random patterns that are visible through association.
The same is true with the Hindus and others. ALL miracles are welcome to be presented. But if people start to do that, you rapidly realize that the Muslim and Hindu miracles aren’t “miracles” in any persuasive sense. You look at clouds that allegedly spell out “Allah” in Arabic, roughly, and you go “Meh”. You look at the Shroud, or the Incorrupt, and you stop and say “That must be a man-made fraud”, because it’s no random vague pattern in clouds and mold.
The Christian miracles are the products of a sharp intelligence. They’re not random nature-made things. But their properties defy the accusation of fraud because, actually, men can’t do those things EITHER. Bodies ROT. 3-D negative images don’t form on cloth. Ever. We can’t make them.
So, THAT, SPECIFICALLY is why, no, I don’t have to consider every rambling theory out there, every religion. Miracles are a very strong litmus test. My God does MIRACLES that anybody can look at and be puzzled and have to dive deep. The Muslim “god” does not, and THEREFORE I don’t have to spend any time at all stacking Islam up against Christianity, or Hinduism, or any other belief system.
The coin of the realm are miracles. And they are a very brutal reductionist test. My God performed miracles to me and on me. The only God out there who did comparable things is the Christian God. Shroud and Lanciano, Incorrupt and Lourdes. And that comports with the visions I had too. The Muslim “god” hasn’t left even ONE examinable miracle. Neither has the Hindu. Or any other.
And THAT is why I can casually, flippantly, discard every other religion and spend no mental effort, at all, on any of them. THAT is why I don’t have to spend time worrying about them: no miracles. I’m not interested in a “god” who does not perform miracles. Why would I believe in such a god?
The real God performs miracles, and doesn’t let anybody and anything else do so. THAT has been my point all along. Miracles act as a violent limiting function.
Ever read the Koran? I have, a couple of times. It’s universal Judaism, basically. How about the Bhagavad Gita? I got through it. Sayings of Bhudda? Ditto. Confucius? Yep. I’ve read them to know, and to see the degree to which God speaks to all mankind, through muffled forms, and they see him a glass, darkly. Hindus and Tengrists have guardian angels too, real ones, from the real God, and in their off-target worship they are still yearning for the truth.
I’ve scoured the world for miracles that make ME stop and go “Whoa!” Clouds that spell Allah and the Virgin Mary appearing in bread mold don’t do it. Vague flashing lights don’t do it. Statues sorbing milk don’t do it. Undecayed dead bodies that aren’t mummies? Whoa!
That’s interesting. 3-D negatives on linen by Maillard reactions? Whoa!
I’ve tried to show them to you, and to others,
I said at the beginning that I figured it’d be about as pleasant as a root canal, and I was right. Protestants are difficult people to get along with, whether they believe in God or have ceased doing so.
I’ve done what I could. Now, let’s please not go down the rathole of “You’re just IGNORING everything else because you don’t like it.” That’s bunk. I’m ignoring everything else because they don’t have MIRACLES. And I don’t lay out my OWN miracles as arguments for YOU to believe anything, so OF COURSE, therefore, I don’t accept handwaving “Muslims have miracles TOO!’ arguments. NO, they DON”T. Neither do JEWS. OR Hindus. OR Tengrists. They may CLAIM miracles – but they don’t have objects, solid objects, that can be studied, prodded, poked and that turn up to be striking because of their inexplicably.
They don’t have SCIENCE backing their medical claims the way that Lourdes healings do – France has a socialized medical system, and has had one for a long time. People don’t just give up government checks to perpetrate frauds.
“I was healed of paralysis”. Well, that’s true. I was. That’s one of the many miraculous reasons why I am unmovable and cannot be argued with. I KNOW God, personally.
BUT I don’t assert that YOU should believe that I was healed of paralysis. No. I proffer objects that scientists CAN examine and HAVE examined, and about which they’ve left a corpus of work. Of course those objects corroborate what I know independently to be true – precisely because they’re true.
But it’s not because I LIKE my beliefs that I discard all of the other POSSIBLE beliefs. It’s because life is short, and if you don’t have a tangible, veridical miracle to present as testimony about your god, then you don’t get to come into my court at all, because my God does miracles, so why would I bother spending precious time on some story God who doesn’t? I wouldn’t.
THAT is my point. THAT is why delving into the Koran is pointless, but delving into the Gospels is not.
LikeLike
Hindu Miracle captured on live television with tens of thousands of eyewitnesses:
Hindu gods drink milk from spoons.
From a Hindu website:
Miracle is almost another word for religion.
For once one witnesses a miracle,
The worship of God follows effortlessly.
Here we explore some of the wondrous stories
Of Sanatana Dharma and beyond.
By any measure the milk miracle which began September 21, 1995, was an unusual religious event. The experience cut across the entire social strata–the most simple of people to the most educated of doctors, lawyers and engineers. The most ardent and consistent worshippers had the experience, as did those for whom religion meant little and God was a dim concept. Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and atheists shared in having their offerings accepted by Lord Ganesha, who even obliged TV news cameras with live coverage in many countries. In Sanskrit the “milk miracle” would be called kshira chamatkara. All observed the miracle in speechless wonder. “It was like union with God,” said one engineer. This was not the result of any mere human’s entreaty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hindu miracle: Chanting Water Buffalo…with witnesses to verify it.
Hindu website: Saint Jnanadeva is revered for his Bhagavad Gita translation and commentary in the Maharastrian language. Among several miracles that established this 13th-century saint’s reputation, the most famous involved a water buffalo. Challenged by the arrogant brahmins of Paithan that he was not qualified to recite the Vedas, Jnanadeva replied, “Anyone can recite the Vedas.” He placed his hand upon a nearby water buffalo, which proceeded to correctly chant Vedic verses for more than an hour. Not only Jnanadeva but the buffalo itself was thereafter revered–its samadhi shrine is today a place of pilgrimage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with most healing claims is that the condition that is claimed to have been “healed” is something that:
1. Often heals on its own without any treatment.
2. Or, is a subjective illness such as migraines or a chronic musculoskeletal pain condition, illnesses for which there is no confirmatory blood test or xray.
Why is it that healing claims never seem to include the diseases/injuries for which there is no natural cure, such as limb amputation. And why is it that Jesus isn’t the only god in the healing business? Check out this Hindu man’s healing record. He has prominent, well-educated Indian clients who swear by his healing powers:
Man with a miraculous healing touch
By Vijaykumar Patil
BELGAUM, AUG. 7. Not drugs — its miraculously the healing touch of Mr. Mohan Joshi that provides wonderful solution to several chronic health problems that have found no permanent remedy in modern health sciences. “It has come naturally to me, but I do not have any scientific explanation as to how it works, I only know that I carry within me a strong healing power which I use in curing various chronic diseases,” is how Mr. Joshi explains this almost supernatural phenomenon. He quotes a reputed gynaecologist from Mumbai who had said that there are a few individuals, who carry in them an additional “charge” (the energy or power) that can be used for healing purposes.
The 50-year-old unpretentious Mr. Joshi from Akola has made the entire country his home. He started experimenting with his spiritual powers 18-years ago. He is an arts graduate and a former bank employee and has now dedicated himself to his new avocation, not for money or fame, but to use his powers to serve the needy for no selfish gain.
It all started when an astrologer told him that he had a rare power which he could use for healing and giving succor to the people suffering from various physical and psychological ailments. He did not believe the astrologer and was afraid of being ridiculed. Yet, when he revealed this jocularly to a close friend who had complained of pain, and as (he thought) there was no harm involved in the process, his friend asked him to try and cure him with his powers. The pain was caused apparently by abnormal growth of the ganglia. The maiden experiment worked miraculously, and his friend had no more pain. After 11 months, his friend said the ganglion growth had diminished.
Thereafter, he started trying his powers on other patients free of cost. Every time his confidence increased. So much so that he now has no hesitation to call himself a “spiritual healer” with powers to cure diseases for which modern science is no help.
Quoting from Atharva Veda, Mr. Joshi says India is the origin of spiritual powers which can be used to heal or cure diseases by applying the fingertips on the body of the patient. It can be applied even while other systems of therapy are being used. “Healing is of divine origin and transcends from one person to another where the healer is a medium through whom the care is passed to the patient in whom receptivity is awakened, and his or her diseases are healed in the process.”
One can easily verify his claims. To make one feel the highly- charged condition of the body, he can feel a considerable amount of heat emitted from his hands even if he holds them at a distance from one’s face. If he places his palms on a person’s back, he or she can feel the “charge” transcend and traverse a circular path that provides relief, at least, for a few moments initially. However, the entire treatment is a process in itself which requires repeated sittings.
He clarifies that there may not be spectacular or instant results although dramatic changes can be experienced in just one sitting spread over a few minutes. Improvement comes progressively in days, weeks and sometimes months depending on the nature of the disease, and also the receptivity of the patient. Changes for the better involve two dimensions: Firstly, the specific malady for which healing is sought and secondly, total wellbeing of the patient spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically. Thus, the cure is preventive in nature.
Not all patients are curable, yet the success rate is nearly 80 per cent. To cite a few examples, the well-known industrialist Mr.Dhirubhai Ambani, has benefited from him. The Major Irrigation Minister, Mr. H.K.Patil, is another. Then there are many eminent persons including the dramatist, Mr. Suresh Khare. Hew claims that so far, he has treated more than one lakh patients throughout the country, at least 80 per cent of them successfully. Healing is highly effective in blood pressure, asthama, arthritis, sciatica, muscular pain, slipped disc, spine disorders, swelling, paralysis, neurological disorders, heart problems (he successfully treated a young patient who had a hole in his heart), etc. It cannot work against nature yet, one may help in seeking some relief but not a cure. “Interestingly, people approach me as a last resort with diseases or illness which I have never heard, still they stand benefitted,” he said.
The Faculty of Medical Studies, Medicina Alternativa Institute affiliated to the Open International University for Complementary Medicines conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) in Colombo in December 1996.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pope John XXIII body is still in perfect condition! It’s a miracle! Oops…not anymore.
From the New York Times:
The Catholic belief of “incorruptibility” holds that if a body does not decay after death, the person is holy. It takes two miracles to become a saint; the Church once allowed a perfect corpse to count as one. Incorruptibility is no longer a miracle, however, perhaps because so many tried to help God along. Oil and herbs were inserted into the muscle cavities of some older popes, for instance.
When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, the Vatican used a wrapping technique similar to what was believed to have been applied to Jesus. It failed miserably. Only days after his death, his nose fell off, and a Swiss Guard fainted due to the stench while he was guarding the body. Pope John XXIII followed the reign of Pope Pius XII. After his death, John was treated with a simple formalin solution and placed in an airtight, layered coffin. It worked remarkably well — though the Church wouldn’t find that out until decades later.
But the Vatican has bigger problems than the bodies of popes. Across the world, the hands, heads and feet of saints are venerated — an extension of the idea of the Incarnation. Just as God became man in Jesus, so the holiness of his greatest followers adheres in the matter which made up their bodies. All these relics face the dangers of decomposition.
In 1975, Monsignor Gianfranco Nolli, director of the Vatican’s Egyptian Museum, had an inspiration. After examining the excellent state of 4,000-year-old Egyptian mummies, he believed the Church could advance its treatments of popes and saints for the same effect.
The Vatican put together a team of researchers, which worked to update and improve the mummification process. Medical surgeons, pathologists, radiologists, anthropologists and microbiologists came up with a conservation treatment and began treating the newly deceased and bodies and body parts dating back as far as the 3rd century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cont’d (this is the really good part):
The team was called by many congregations to treat bodies of saints that had not previously been embalmed at the time of death and were later found in a state of decay.Such was the case with the body of St. Clare of Assisi, who died in the 13th century and was found by the nuns working there in 1987 in a casket full of moths.
Clare, one of the first followers of Saint Francis of Assisi, founded the Order of Poor Ladies, nuns who tended to the impoverished; today they are known as the Poor Clares. She had been treated with primitive methods when she died in 1253, with some herbs inserted into her muscles and wrapped in cotton. The cotton proved to be damaging, leaving the casket damp and inviting insects. For that reason, most holy people are now wrapped in linen. The conservation team bathed the saint’s bone fragments in a series of solutions for months at a time to render her immune to parasites.
The team also was called to treat the foot of St. Teresa of Avila, a nun famous for her visions of Jesus and her devotion to the poor in Spain. Her followers were called “discalced,” or shoeless, for their habit of wearing simple sandals, not shoes. St. Teresa, who died in 1582, is an example of how obsessed earlier Catholics were with relics of the flesh. After her death, a priest cut off her left hand, from which he took a finger, wearing it around his neck for the rest of his life.
Followers later removed her heart, right arm, right foot and a piece of jaw to display as relics in various sites. Much of her ended up in Rome. But in 1984, the church she was displayed in was robbed; the glass case containing her relics was shattered and her foot was stolen. It was returned days later wrapped in a communist newspaper. The embalming team chemically treated the foot and placed it back in the reliquary, perhaps giving St. Teresa a bit of peace.
In sacristies and other back rooms of churches, the team was sometimes given a pile of bones that they had to reconstruct before the sterilization process began. The scientific process was of course not without a bit of bureaucracy. In front of the body upon the opening of each casket they had to swear and sign an affidavit in the presence of the local bishop and a lawyer that they would not ruin or destroy the sacred body.
Even so, the process was sometimes remarkably casual. At times, team members stored relics in their own homes. One doctor assigned to treat the body of St. Fernando III, King of Spain, who died in 1252, transported his sacred vestments to Rome and brought them to the local dry cleaner.
That said, an embalmer who worked on the project says it truly was God’s work. She says sometimes the deceased helped them in their work, sending them messages.
Her most memorable job was embalming St. Don Luigi Orione, an Italian priest known for his work with the poor and orphans. She tried to change his shoes as she prepared his body for burial — but every time she left the body alone, the new shoes mysteriously had been removed and replaced with his old poor man’s shoes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And lastly:
The team’s most important task was Pope John XXIII. The pope, popular for his jovial nature, was considered pivotal because of his convening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, which modernized the Mass, bringing in contemporary music and local languages instead of Latin. After his death, he was credited for curing an Italian nun, who prayed to him when she developed a stomach tumor. Her healing, with no medical explanation, was his first miracle.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II had him exhumed to be declared “blessed,” part of the progression to sainthood. The airtight coffin had left him virtually undisturbed, and the embalming team wanted to keep it that way. After the pope’s internal organs were removed and analyzed, the body was placed in a stainless-steel tub for several weeks in a solution of formalin and alcohol, then neutralized for several weeks.
His body then undertook a series of baths in assorted solutions for months at a time, including various mixtures of ethanol, methanol, phenol, camphor, nitrobenzene, turpentine and benzoic acid. Finally the body was bandaged in linen cloths saturated with a solution of mercury bichloride and ethanol. Then a second team ensconced him with wax on his face and hands. The entire process took about a year.
The Church decided not to rebury Pope John XXIII, instead putting him on display for pilgrims. More than 25,000 people visit St. Peter’s Basilica every day, and many faithful still believe the incorrupt state of his body is a miracle.
The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a legal body inside the Vatican that analyzes witness accounts and oversees the legal measures required for sainthood, failed to recognize the pope’s bodily condition as a miracle — perhaps because the airtight container does not count as an act of God.
But Pope Francis waived the second miracle requirement, believing that John’s good works were reason enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s see, which miracle is my favorite:
1. Perfectly pickled pope
2. Dead priest with reappearing shoes
3. Chanting water buffalo
I’m an animal lover. So I gotta go with the chanting water buffalo. It chanted for over an hour, don’t ya know. I doubt that Balaam’s talking donkey talked for an hour.
Hindus one, Jews and Christians zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person