"Is it apocryphal or did a Tea Party Republican politician say, when lamenting the rise of Spanish as language, that if English was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for Americans. "

It was a politician in Texas more than 50 years ago (46 years before the tea party) as per a story I heard on a PBS panel discussion last night. Knowing a little of the history of Texas at that time, she may well have a Democrat speaking tongue in cheek.

Aside from the childish name calling Ian has made a good point. On the scale of Ian to Pete in belief in Biblical miracles, I think, I am somewhat more a believer than Little Hawk's friend. But I am not qualified to analyze the events of 2013 years ago. I can't question the veracity of events I didn't witness. Yes the Romans as a society were experienced and presumably competent executioners. But there were a hundred possible ways that particular one could have been botched or faked. But clever Ian, that would preclude a miracle having happened, wouldn't it? But we don't know what the nature and technology of Jesus' miracles. We do know that people who talked to the disciples who witnesses the miracles seemed to believe in them.

Do I believe in the miracles of Jesus? Of course I do. I am a great fan of Lord Raglan and Joe Campbell and their discussions of the powerful myths and a social consciousness that bind nearly all societies together. Jesus is a part of that. To some, to me the very apex of that.

Do I believe that any or all of the miracles actually happened as described? I wasn't there as Ian and LH have pointed out there is the possibility of observer bias and second hand information degradation.

But for me, pete, that misses the point. The question I as is what can I learned about the miracles to apply to my own life?

He turned the water into wine? Drinking alcohol is not inherently wrong?

He healed the lame and cured the blind? Charity is rewarding?

He rose from the dead after humiliation and torture? Persevere. There is hope for us all?

I don't recall his name but there is a theologian up I40 in Chapel Hill who writes about the authors of the Gospels. I don't remember his name. If he is right the recent discussions here has been vindicated but has also sold them short. According to a talk I heard by him the basic points of the Gospel were well known in Christan circles of the time, both in word of mouth and probably in writings and letters that did not survive. But he also describes different theological beliefs influencing the style of writing and the details included.

His controversial assertion is that they were authors with their own version of the story to tell.