Board index ‹ Miracles

[Osaka]

Would you accept the possibility that others, say, Buddha, who predated Jesus, performed miracles?

The Majjhima Nikāya states that the Buddha had more superpowers than any other being including being able to walk on water which is further verified in the Aṅguttara Nikāya

Would you say that the Buddhist scriptures are simply lying, and making it up, even though it was written by eyewitnesses, while the New Testament is 100% accurate and reliable historical evidence?

[jimwalton]

The New Testament admits that others besides Jesus are able to do miracles (Mt. 7.21-23; Rev. 13.13-14). Jesus also admitted that his miracles didn't always work to convince people of his deity (John 10.25-27; Luke 16.31). The miracles were signs, not proofs. Other people can do miracles, but Jesus combined miracles with what he was teaching and what else he was doing so they would be signs of the truth of who he is.

Therefore, it's possible that Buddha performed miracles, and it doesn't mean anything that he predated Jesus. It might even be possible that Buddha walked on water. It's interesting to me, though, that Buddhism doesn't believe in God or any deity, and yet somehow divine capability is attributed to him. Just a side thought.

So, in response to your final paragraph, possibly the Buddhist scriptures are telling the truth, and it's also possible that the NT is accurate and a reliable historical record. We don't necessarily have to choose one over the other.

[Osaka]

Very interesting. Thank you!

So if I understand you correctly, the miracles are not what make Jesus special, unique. What makes him absolutely unique, in terms of events? His resurrection?

[jimwalton]

Honestly, what makes Jesus unique is who he is: God who came to earth and lived here. Therefore the recognition of the incarnation is the most important piece. If Jesus was truly God on earth, the miracles, his teaching, and his resurrection are all easy steps. Jesus is not the only one who did miracles, he is not the only one who taught good things, and he's not the only person who came back from the dead. But he is the only one who was God on earth in human flesh. That's what makes him absolutely unique.

[Osaka]

What makes you believe he was God, personally?

[jimwalton]

My conclusion that Jesus was God is based on all the information we have about him.

1. His miraculous birth from a virgin after angelic visitations about his birth.

2. That so many of the elements of his life are the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah from centuries before he lived.

3. But the whole Old Testament, even beyond the specific prophecies, turns out to be pointing at the person of Jesus: who he was, what he was like, what he did, and what he taught. It's like the OT was a huge multi-laned highway leading to Jesus.

4. His teaching seems beyond mortal normality. I've heard and read many stories, but Jesus told one after another with a wisdom that was unearthly. His life matched his teaching exactly, and there was no hypocrisy or double standards in his lifestyle. He surpasses other moral and religious teachers in his wisdom and purity.

5. His miracles are signs of his power and person, but they, too, are multi-layered. All of his miracles have deeper meanings, especially when juxtaposed with his teachings (where the Gospel writers chose to position them).

6. His responses to people are amazing. He never lost his cool, never got caught up in pride, was never self-seeking, never wrongfully angry, and never greedy, lustful, or nasty. He has an air about him that was not like a normal human being.

7. His awareness of the purpose of his life, his focus in behavior, and his reference to God as His Father were stunning.

8. His resurrection that was self-generated (not by a prophet or priest) by the hand of God was a clincher, on top of everything else.

9. His ascension into heaven, lifting off from the earth and disappearing in the sky.

10. His appearances in visions to people (such as Saul/Paul) who was neither looking for a vision nor expecting one is a sign of his continuing life after his death and resurrection on earth.

11. The amazing life change that comes upon people when they turn their lives over to Jesus is another marker of his deity. The inhabitation of the Holy Spirit as a gift from Jesus is a reality that affirms the teaching of the Bible.

That's what comes to mind right now.

[Tune Smith]

1. According to the story. Why should we believe that he was born of a virgin or that angels visited him?

2. Then why do most Jews reject him as the Messiah?

3. Same as #2.

4. No it isn't beyond normal mortality. Some things attributed are good and some aren't. The good things he said had been said by others before. You could argue that he was a radical for his time, but none of his teachings require supernatural origin. There was no hypocrisy? Pure Jesus? Oh you mean sex? How do you know?

5. Do other religions not claim this as well?

6. Again, according to the story, which is the claim. But even according to the story are you sure "he never lost his cool?" The purging of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree? "Never wrongfully angry". Oh so he did lose his cool but it was justified?

7. According to the stories written decades after he died.

8. According to the story.

9. According to the story.

10. Other religions claim the same thing, why should yours be taken differently?

11. Again, other religions claim the same thing why should yours be different?

Most of these are claimed by other religions as well, why is yours different? Also, your evidence consists of further claims that need to be justified.

[jimwalton]

1. The virgin birth story harms Matthew's case. He would never had postulated it if it were untrue. (1) He was trying to present a case that Jesus was of the line of David. It hurts his case to show Joseph wasn't involved in the conception. (2) Matthew had no motive to inventing such a story. It only made his writing seem mythological. (3) Traditional Jewish monotheism would have abhorred the notions involved in such a story. If he's trying to influence the masses, this isn't the way to do it. (4) Since Isa. 7.14 was not thought to be a messianic prophecy, there was little reason for Matthew to invent it. Therefore, the only logical reason for Matthew to say it was a virginal conception is if he was convinced that's what actually happened. It goes against reason and biology.

2. Jews reject him because they interpret the Scriptures differently. The most obvious messianic prophecies refer to Jesus' second coming, so they reject him because they interpret the OT Scriptures as speaking of only one coming.

3. Same as #2.

4. I've heard plenty of Jewish midrash that was written through the centuries. None of it climbs to the height of Jesus' teaching. I've read the Qur'an. I've read Hindu Scriptures. Jesus is in the stratosphere of teachers. As far as how do I know about Jesus and sex? It is totally out of character, and there are no credible stories to the contrary. What in the world would make you think otherwise, in other words, how do YOU know any different?

5. Any religion can claim anything they want. The guy that comes back from the dead has my attention as more credible.

6. Yes, according to the story. We have to evaluate by the information we have, not by what we wish we had.

7. Yes, stories written decades after his death. But the stories of his resurrection started immediately, so this we know. Also, are you aware that everything we know about Emperor Nero was also written decades after his death. Do you believe those stories? If so, why, when "decades" is apparently too long to be reliable? Do you know that the only things we know about Alexander the Great were written CENTURIES after his death. Do you believe those? If not, we need to throw out *everything* we know about Alexander. If you believe them, why, when even decades is apparently too long to be reliable?

8. See 6 & 7

9. See 6 & 7

10. Christianity should be taken differently because Christianity is a historical religion. It's one thing to say "The butterfly speaks freedom to the winds." It's another to say, "At 9:00 a.m. in Jerusalem on the Friday before Passover, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate on the Hill of the Skull." One is pure philosophy, the other history.

11. My experience is that the life change claims by Christians are qualitatively different from anything I've heard from Hindus and Muslims.

[Tune Smith]

> The virgin birth story harms Matthew's case. He would never had postulated it if it were untrue. Matthew had no motive to inventing such a story. It only made his writing seem mythological.

People are often inconsistent in their claims. The fact that one claim undermines another is a sign that we should look more skeptically at it; it does not strengthen the claim.

> Traditional Jewish monotheism would have abhorred the notions involved in such a story.

Okay, why does that help?

> Since Isa. 7.14 was not thought to be a messianic prophecy, there was little reason for Matthew to invent it.

I'm not sure that follows. I'm also not convinced that "he invented it" either.

> Therefore, the only logical reason for Matthew to say it was a virginal conception is if he was convinced that's what actually happened. It goes against reason and biology.


But the point isn't whether he was convinced that it was true. The point is why we should believe it is true. Just because he thought it was true doesn't make it so.

> Jews reject him because they interpret the Scriptures differently. The most obvious messianic prophecies refer to Jesus' second coming, so they reject him because they interpret the OT Scriptures as speaking of only one coming.

There are other reasons as well. Which prophecies are you referring to?

> I've heard plenty of Jewish midrash that was written through the centuries. None of it climbs to the height of Jesus' teaching. I've read the Qur'an. I've read Hindu Scriptures. Jesus is in the stratosphere of teachers.

So because you haven't come across teachings that you like better, he must be God?

> As far as how do I know about Jesus and sex? It is totally out of character, and there are no credible stories to the contrary. What in the world would make you think otherwise, in other words, how do YOU know any different?

I think you misunderstand the burden of proof. You are making the claim, not me.

> Any religion can claim anything they want. The guy that comes back from the dead has my attention as more credible.

Again, that is the claim, not the evidence.

> Yes, stories written decades after his death. But the stories of his resurrection started immediately, so this we know.

How do you know that?

> Also, are you aware that everything we know about Emperor Nero was also written decades after his death. Do you believe those stories? If so, why, when "decades" is apparently too long to be reliable?

I honestly don't know a lot about Nero. What stories and sources are you referring to? If they claimed he rose from the dead I would be immediately skeptical even if they were written minutes after his death (and I think you would be too).

> Do you know that the only things we know about Alexander the Great were written CENTURIES after his death. Do you believe those? If not, we need to throw out everything we know about Alexander. If you believe them, why, when even decades is apparently too long to be reliable?

Again, what sources and stories are you referring to? Some of the stories about him probably are unreliable. But some are corroborated by Persian sources and archaeological evidence. That's how we try to figure out what happened. Again, I wouldn't believe that Alexander did anything supernatural just from a story, no matter when it was written.

> Christianity should be taken differently because Christianity is a historical religion. It's one thing to say "The butterfly speaks freedom to the winds." It's another to say, "At 9:00 a.m. in Jerusalem on the Friday before Passover, Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate on the Hill of the Skull." One is pure philosophy, the other history.

And no other religions make historic claims?

> My experience is that the life change claims by Christians are qualitatively different from anything I've heard from Hindus and Muslims.

You have also probably heard more testimonies from Christians than Hindus or Muslims. If you heard similar stories from them, would you change your mind on this particular point? If so, great. If not, why not?

[jimwalton]

> People are often inconsistent in their claims.

But Matthew is not inconsistent in his claims. A studious reading of the Gospel shows a well-thought-through agenda and argument, presenting material in a consistent and rational sequence.

> Okay, why does that help?

Matthew was writing to Jews—they were his target audience. If he wanted to connect and influence positively, he would not start off with a story that would be repulsive and heretical to them. He had no motive to write it if it were not true.

> I'm not sure that follows. I'm also not convinced that "he invented it" either.

Again, if Matthew is trying to win followers, he would not include the virgin birth and not a variation of a Scripture that was not considered to be prophetic, twisting it to his own cause. This is not how you reach your friends with effectiveness. Matthew had no motive to quote this Scripture unless it had bearing on his case, regardless of how it would hit his audience.

> There are other reasons as well. Which prophecies are you referring to?

Of course there are other reasons. I'm not stupid. Which prophecies? Ps. 2 and Zech. 14, for instance. There are dozens of them.

> So because you haven't come across teachings that you like better, he must be God?

Of course not. I gave 11 points, not one.

> I think you misunderstand the burden of proof. You are making the claim, not me.

I don't misunderstand the burden of proof. I gave you some points of evidence: (1) It is totally out of character, and (2) there are no credible stories to the contrary. Now, since I have offered a case of sorts, what is your rebuttal to the contrary, with refutation that Jesus did have a life of sex?

> Again, that is the claim, not the evidence.

There is evidence of the resurrection: (1) Jesus was buried and his burial place was known, (2) the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, (3) the stone was rolled away, (4) people investigated the site. There's more. It's not just claims, but examining the evidence at hand.

> "Stories of his resurrection started almost immediately." How do you know that?

The creed of 1 Cor 15.3-6 is identified by a wide swath of scholars, both Christian and non, both favorable and skeptical, as a creed that was already in a formula within 2-5 years after Jesus' resurrection. For the creed to have formulated that early means that the belief and the teaching of that theology preceded it, taking us for all intents and purposes back to the event itself.

> I honestly don't know a lot about Nero. What stories and sources are you referring to?

Everything. Everything we know about him was written decades later by Suetonius and Cassius Dio. We have no writings of Nero's life contemporaneous to his life.

> "Alexander the Great" Again, what sources and stories are you referring to?

Here's a short paragraph from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander ... oriography

> That's how we try to figure out what happened.

Exactly. But you seem to be quite willing to reject stories about Jesus because they are a few decades old, but willing to consider the stories of Alexander even though they are centuries removed from his life.

> And no other religions make historic claims?

Some make a few. Very little in Hinduism, a little more in Islam, but very brief and "copied" mostly from the Bible.

> You have also probably heard more testimonies from Christians than Hindus or Muslims. If you heard similar stories from them, would you change your mind on this particular point? If so, great. If not, why not?

There are stories from other religions, but they are qualitatively different. Would I change my mind? Again, remember this was 1 of 11 points, not a stand-alone reason. All my marbles aren't in one bag.