Jesus: Miracles and Magic - Therefore Divine?

Historically, there's no way to prove Jesus existed.

Even if we could prove Jesus existed;

-there's no way to prove the immaculate conception (born of a virgin) but parthenogenesis isn't unheard of.

-there's no way to prove his divine miracles (healing at sundown, walking on water, water to wine)

-there's no way to prove the ressurection - And ressurection (rising from the dead) seemed to be a common phenomenon the time:

Matthew 27:52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

So what makes Jesus special?

Even if all the above miracles (and magic) is true;

- it still doesn't prove he was the son of God
- it still doesn't prove that his ethical and moral preaching was the best

We can't prove Socrates existed either, but his wisdom doesn't come with supernatural strings attached, or bizarre magic tricks that we are supposed to believe are special powers, we don't have to believe Socrates is the Son of God.....

but God being the Father.....arn't we ALL his children?

And one more question:

If a man was preaching on the street, was sentenced to death, and doctors couldn't explain a consecutive ressurection....... Would you believe this man was divine? Would you start a religion over him?

Peace.

What is divinity? It is a phenomenon of unimaginable proportions which cannot be performed by humans. This word called 'divine' is laughable. There is no 'divinity'- only unexplained. If Jesus existed and if he performed miracles, they are no divine- they are 'unexplained' phenomenon. And whats the difference between divinity and Science? I bet both are same. Divinity is just advanced Science that we cannot get a grip onto.

reply to post by radkrish

All thats out there is the Wizard of Oz and his minions who deal with advanced technology,black magic and occult powers which is merely applied quantum physics and mechanics,Jesus is a character available in a playstation game,a game where all the joysticks are in the hands of the criminally insane-if people knew what they prayed to they'd be mortified.

I believe Josephus the Jewish Historian, and Tachius, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius (Roman Historians) are non biblical contemporary with Jesus and his miracles who wrote about him during the time of Christian persecution.

Tachius based his writings on Roman bureaucratic records and letters between bureaucrats of Jesus time, and although this was after 64AD it does indirectly offer some evidence. Motives for this writing are unlikely to be part of the Christian control conspiracy people here love to claim, as his writings where both critical of Jesus and it was still 300 years before Rome Assimilated Christianity.

I also believe that Jesus was the only historical figure of this kind who was able to grant his powers to others, I could be wrong of course.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Even if all the above miracles (and magic) is true;

- it still doesn't prove he was the son of God
- it still doesn't prove that his ethical and moral preaching was the best

It does, seeing how Goes not walk about the planet being a known human person, so it would have to be His Son, exhibiting the abilities of God.

It does because God, or the Son of God, representing God, defines morality, as a divine prerogative (noun: 1. an exclusive right, privilege, etc., exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like: the prerogatives of a senator.) .

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


I expect that you would have to personally witness Christ's miracles to believe in His divinity and I pray that you seek His peace and understanding as you begin the most exciting adventure in the history of the universe.

Originally posted by GeoSorosReptilian
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

I expect that you would have to personally witness Christ's miracles to believe in His divinity and I pray that you seek His peace and understanding as you begin the most exciting adventure in the history of the universe.

And so as not to completely loose grip of rationality, it would correspondingly be recommendable, if 'miracles' etc. were considered on a broad comparative basis.

They (the 'miracles') are allegedly manifested from most, if not all, religious/semi-religious directions. Sometimes also completely outside theist or metaphysical associations.

Strongly indicating that the phenomenon doesn't need any specific ideological or doctrinal adherence. Not even trans-cosmic positions.

Originally posted by Gravity215

I also believe that Jesus was the only historical figure of this kind who was able to grant his powers to others, I could be wrong of course.

Should there not be apostles for their lives then?
If they could also perform miracles what made Jesus so special? The fact he spouted the bend to the will of God fascism so is seen as the tip of the pyramid so suited to politics?
As to contemporary accounts.

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts. - Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

Also with respect to the historians of the time.

The following is quoted from: www.jesusneverexisted.com... "Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times. Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death. With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2). "

Pliny the Elder (~23 CE - 79 CE) wrote a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; he even writes about the Essenes in Natural History, section V, 15 . Yet nowhere in his works is any mention of the Jesus phenomena described in Mark.

Seneca the Younger (ca. 4 BCE–AD 65) Seneca was a philosopher and statesman, who wrote both philosophical works and papers on morality. He lived during the purported time of Jesus, in the general area of Jesus, and would have had contact with Roman authorities who in turn would have had contacts with Jesus. More importantly, he was interested in matters of morality and religion very similar to the concerns of later Christians. Yet, he does not take note of any of the miraculous events reported in the gospels.

Logic itself tells us that had Josephus written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History! You can't mention the Jewish messiah in passing in a book dedicated to a history of Judaism. You might as well write a book called "The Solar System" without mentioning the sun, except in a footnote on page 474.

Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian. His two surviving works: Annals and The Histories form a near continuous narrative from the death of Augustus in 14 CE to the death of Domitian in 96. Interestingly, I cannot report on the silence of Tacitus concerning Jesus, because the very years of the purported existence of Jesus 30, 31, are suspiciously missing from his work(!)

Anybody on this site who does not see conspiracy in that the only pages missing from that continuous history are the ones pertaining to the very years the Jesus figure is supposed to have lived are perhaps on the wrong site. Create a tabla rasa and fill it in with whatever you want. Book burning much?



Source

Originally posted by Gravity215
Tachius based his writings on Roman bureaucratic records and letters between bureaucrats of Jesus time, and although this was after 64AD it does indirectly offer some evidence.

The translation of Annals your speaking of is this. Tachius is referencing how Nero fastened the blame of Rome burning to the Christians to incite more hate against them. We see a references to Jesus, a proper time given for his lifespan (Tiberius' reign) and the mention of Pontius who authorized his execution.

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Quite clearly we have proof from this and from the brief mention Josephus made. Josephus was not a Christian and most likely thought Jesus to just be a rogue prophet worth little attention.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
-there's no way to prove his divine miracles (healing at sundown, walking on water, water to wine)

-there's no way to prove the ressurection - And ressurection (rising from the dead) seemed to be a common phenomenon the time:

Of course there's no proof. What proof do you have that you ate lunch yesterday yet we demand proof for something that happened 2000 years ago? Jesus' disciples were his witnesses and first hand viewers of his miracles. Now why would they continue to preach Jesus was alive after his public execution and death? They didn't do it for power or prestige. To the contrary they were hunted down and executed one by one for their professions but yet they stuck with their story none the less. They had no other ulterior motive but for the fact that they believed all of this to be true.

If God were to remove all reason of doubt they would you really have a choice? You will see with your own eyes eventually but until that time the choice is yours to make. Paul the apostle did receive the proof that you're demanding while travelling to Damascus but the majority of us are required to take it as a matter of faith. If you can't accept that then you can't accept that. You have perfectly valid reasons for not believing in Jesus. There is no doubt of that.

reply to post by dbates


You wrote:

["Of course there's no proof. What proof do you have that you ate lunch yesterday yet we demand proof for something that happened 2000 years ago?"]

a/ An often monopoly-seeking, brutal and invasive religion will naturally be met with different evidence-requests than a private individual's eating habits.

b/ A historical non-proof attitude should consequently put all religions on equal footing, and pastafarians can take their place amongst christians, muslims, hindus etc. in that respect.

Quote: ["Now why would they continue to preach Jesus was alive after his public execution and death?"]

A few years ago I had one of my non-missionary clashes with a surviving hard-core stalinist. Now why would he continue to preach his ideology? The missionary mindset perhaps.

Quote: ["If God were to remove all reason of doubt they would you really have a choice?"]

Sure, it's a 'test'.

Quote: ["You will see with your own eyes eventually...."]

You mean, that that's what YOU believe.

Quote: ["Paul the apostle did receive the proof that you're demanding while travelling to Damascus but the majority of us are required to take it as a matter of faith."]

And imo Paulus was the greatest known scam of all times; a person I wouldn't trust with anything.

reply to post by dbates

Of course there's no proof. What proof do you have that you ate lunch yesterday yet we demand proof for something that happened 2000 years ago?

My lunch claims wouldn't be extraordinary, or supernatural.

Many are amazed by magicians (David Blaine, Penn, Teller or Harry Houdini) but I'm confident that most people don't over-attribute it to divine powers, or being sent on a divine mission from the creator of the universe (or of all that is, and will be)

Now why would they continue to preach Jesus was alive after his public execution and death?

Maybe he had been a key figure in a revolution or a different way of thinking, people write books about people who inspire them. I'm sure there's people who adorn Saddam Hussein too. Figuring out biasm is near to impossible regarding the writers of the biblical documents.

(There are 40 authors, many of which, are anonymous.)

The accounts of Jesus were written about a long time after his alledged death (e.g Matthew around 70 AD)

They didn't do it for power or prestige. To the contrary they were hunted down and executed one by one for their professions but yet they stuck with their story none the less.They had no other ulterior motive but for the fact that they believed all of this to be true.

People will fight for what they believe in, people will die for what they believe in. It doesn't add credibility to what they believe in, it doesn't make it true. In other words, that is NOT an argument for it's truth or credibility.

You have perfectly valid reasons for not believing in Jesus. There is no doubt of that.

I never said i "i don't believe in Jesus"- He could have been a historical figure, I just don't believe the extraordinary claims regarding miracles and magic, and being on a divine mission that would turn out to save an entire species from percieved "sin".

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
I never said i "i don't believe in Jesus"- He could have been a historical figure, I just don't believe the extraordinary claims regarding miracles and magic, and being on a divine mission that would turn out to save an entire species from percieved "sin".

Then there you have the answer you seek. Arguing against Christianity is simple. Just state that you don't believe and you're free and clear of it since it makes no secret that faith is required to follow this religion. I can't, nor can any Christian offer you any proof that the miracles happened or that they were divine. You are your own agent of truth.

reply to post by dbates

Then there you have the answer you seek.

I don't. There are no answers, that's why there is a great debate. I'm arguing against strong faith in something that has no basis.

Arguing against Christianity is simple.

It can be but it can also be very difficult, there are many proliferating schisms of Christianity, each with minor adjustments to the belief, ritual, or even reformation of scripture.

I can't, nor can any Christian offer you any proof that the miracles happened or that they were divine.

Indeed, that's what I come here to highlight.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


I will, as I have done before elsewhere, suggest a compromise.

While there's is no conclusive hard-science evidence available (and won't be for a long time), there is a, though fumbling, growing soft-science approach to anomalies.

It's ofcourse not about extra-ordinary feats like negating gravity or raising the dead, but lesser anomalies, which don't trangress natural laws to such an extent. The 'science of an enhanced mind's potential' possibly.

Slowly lessening the distance between faith and facts wouldn't be such a bad thing, especially after having clearly defined what's what and sorted away the worthless approaches.

reply to post by bogomil


Could you name some examples of such anomolies, or anonomies that give credence to concepts put forward in biblical doctrines? or that allude to a divine creator?

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil

 

Could you name some examples of such anomolies, or anonomies that give credence to concepts put forward in biblical doctrines? or that allude to a divine creator?

Sai Baba's sand materializations (instead of fish-'n-chips, sorry bread), the 'sleeping prophet' Edgar Cayce, abductees taken aboard 'celestial' vehicles, my own 'healing' of a terminal cancer.

(An emphasized) BUT:

1. I don't give a fig if ALL or some of this..... is debunked, is a result of psycho-somatic processes, is 'para'-normal turning out to be unknown normal, or really is 'trans-cosmic' (real miracles).

I just want it examined neutrally.

2. And I doubt, that no matter what of the options in 1 are correct, that it will 'prove' any religion. It may give some credibility to some religions, and take away credibility from other religions.

Small steps.

reply to post by bogomil

1. I don't give a fig if ALL or some of this..... is debunked, is a result of psycho-somatic processes, is 'para'-normal turning out to be unknown normal, or really is 'trans-cosmic' (real miracles).

I just want it examined neutrally.

I completely understand your point. If something's worth investigating, investigate it. If it concerns an extraordinary phenomenon, then why not investigate it.

But is there such thing as "para"-normal or does it usually turn out to be the "unknown normal" as you said?

Define miracle? I wasn't aware miracles were related to "trans-cosmic".

2. And I doubt, that no matter what of the options in 1 are correct, that it will 'prove' any religion. It may give some credibility to some religions, and take away credibility from other religions.

Small steps.

Unfortunately.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


You wrote:

["Define miracle? I wasn't aware miracles were related to "trans-cosmic"."]

It's a kind of homebrewed definition. For me a 'miracle' is something completely transcending cosmic (='natural) laws.

Step one: Is there such a 'situation', where this is possible? Answer: Quantum entaglement (i.e. faster than light communication) seems to indicate that. But done without sleight-of-hands or 'gods' needed for making tricks (I'm just baiting theists for the 'intelligent design' proto-type answer now.)

PS There's still a lot of 'unknown' around, potentially being 'para'.