The cornerstone of the historical accounts about Jesus' life on Earth is the miracles, He would not even be historically mentionable had it not been for the miracles, the miracles are what brought attention to Him.
How strong is your belief in Jesus from an historic point of view?
- Thread starter Google
- Start date
Unfortunately, while it is reasonable to accept that the person existed, it is not reasonable to accept that the "miracles" were as recorded.
As I said earlier, reason and miracles do not mix.
He would have been nothing to remember without the miracles, just another "blithering idiot."
Is it more rational that he performed the miracles as described, defying the laws of nature that have remained undefied before then and ever since, or that he was "just another blithering idiot" that some people wanted other people to remember and thus exaggerated what he did?
Remember, we're talking "reason" here, not truth, not actuality, but what is more reasonable.
Exactly.
God is supremely logical. So he knew that unless he told Jesus to perform miracles, no one believe in him. Jesus would have had to perform miracles to prove who he was. It wouldn't take away from his sacrifice or truthful teachings (assuming belief in Jesus).
Last edited:
It is reasonable to believe that only the Son of God would be given the power of God to perform law-defying miracles. That is why no one will be able to raise people from the dead ever again, and why no was able to up to the point of Jesus.
"Is it reasonable to believe"...
Good one.
It is never reasonable to believe - only to assess the probability on the weight of evidence.
You can start with assumptions and reach logical conclusion that only hold with those assumptions...
e.g. ASSUMING God exists, and ASSUMING Jesus is the Son of God, and ASSUMING God can perform miracles, then one could logically assume that he would bestow miracle-power on his son etc.
But that rationale is dependent upon the base assumptions.
It is, unfortunately, NOT reasonable to take those assumptions as given.
Good one.
It is never reasonable to believe - only to assess the probability on the weight of evidence.
You can start with assumptions and reach logical conclusion that only hold with those assumptions...
e.g. ASSUMING God exists, and ASSUMING Jesus is the Son of God, and ASSUMING God can perform miracles, then one could logically assume that he would bestow miracle-power on his son etc.
But that rationale is dependent upon the base assumptions.
It is, unfortunately, NOT reasonable to take those assumptions as given.
Greetings,
There are no historical accounts of Jesus.
Just anonymous legends from long afterwards.
Miracles?
The early Christians knew of NO miracles -
Paul - no miracles mentioned
Peter - no miracles mentioned
Hebrews - no miracles mentioned
John - no miracles mentioned
Jude - no miracles mentioned
James - no miracles mentioned
Clement - no miracles mentioned
Pastorals - no miracles mentioned
The first mention of any "miracles" is over a CENTURY after they allegedly occured.
Clear evidence it's all myth.
Jesus is not mentioned in history.
Jesus' miracles are not mentioned in history.
Jesus' miracles are not even mentioned in CHRISTIAN writings until mid 2nd century.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
Clear evidence it's all myth.
Iasion
There are no historical accounts of Jesus.
Just anonymous legends from long afterwards.
Miracles?
The early Christians knew of NO miracles -
Paul - no miracles mentioned
Peter - no miracles mentioned
Hebrews - no miracles mentioned
John - no miracles mentioned
Jude - no miracles mentioned
James - no miracles mentioned
Clement - no miracles mentioned
Pastorals - no miracles mentioned
The first mention of any "miracles" is over a CENTURY after they allegedly occured.
Clear evidence it's all myth.
Jesus is not mentioned in history.
Jesus' miracles are not mentioned in history.
Jesus' miracles are not even mentioned in CHRISTIAN writings until mid 2nd century.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
Clear evidence it's all myth.
Iasion
How can writings about events be "clear evidence it's all myth?"
Once again, you ignored the facts.
The LACK of writings is what shows it's a myth.
How do you explain these facts :
- no contemporary writer mentions Jesus
- no CHRISTIAN writer mentions miracles until a good CENTURY later
How come the early Christians knew NOTHING about any miracles?
YOU said the miracles are so important - yet you ignore the fact that the early Christians knew NOTHING about any miracles.
I expect you will continue to ignore these facts, and just preach on and on ...
Iasion
The Gospels were being written and circulated from 50 to 80 A.D., and no one contested the accounts therein.
What would be the point? Would this prove anything?
I don't call myself the messiah, and I don't think Jesus ever did either. Mainly because I'm skeptical that he ever existed, but also because even if he did exist, he never would have claimed to be the son of his deity. He was a good Jew, not a revolutionary trying to create a new religion.
You belong to a cult, IAC. Wake up.
No, you belong to a cult, wake up.
I believed he existed but Christianity is probably an abomination of his beliefs. I also doubt he believed he was the son of God unless he was delusional or con artist.
For those that believe he was the son of God, here's my question. Was he also illerate? Why didn't he write the Bible himself when he was here instead of allowing people he didn't know write it hundreds of years later?
For those that believe he was the son of God, here's my question. Was he also illerate? Why didn't he write the Bible himself when he was here instead of allowing people he didn't know write it hundreds of years later?
The Apostles wrote them, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Timothy, etc.
Wrong again.
The Gospels are dated by scholars to 65-120 or so - and none of them were written by the person whose name they bear - they were originally ANONYMOUS and only named in the 180s.
But no CHRISTIAN writer mentions the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century.
You ignored that and kept right on preaching.
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus - you mention Timothy, but seem totally unaware it's a FORGERY !
Incredible.
Wrong again.
I showed cases of EXACTLY that - such as
* Celsus calling the Gospels FICTION based on MYTH, or
* Porphyry calling the evangelists INVENTORS, or
* Julian saying the Gospels were FABRICATED.
You ignored that and kept right on preaching.
Iasion
Yeah, but why didn't Jesus write them...You know, God,the Holy Spirit, aka The Word Made Flesh?
Something that important seems like the kind of thing someone perfect should do....like himself...right?
Never understood that. Why Jesus left the all important task of writing out his belief to less than perfect sinners.
Yes in fact they did. You gloss over the history of the early Christians, which was much less uniform in theology than even today. Elaine Pagels tells the story.
The early Christians were compiling the Gospels and other NT books through the decades after 50 A.D., and no one contested their authorship, nor the veracity of them, except a few wack jobs cited by Iason.