The Stuff Jesus Never Did.

Turtwig

Firstly, apologies if a similar thread already exists. I would have searched but alas there's no option to search

Anyways,

One thing that always puzzled me about when God decided to come to earth in human form. He didn't really do anything 'Godlike'. The God of the Old Testament had no reservations in showing his power. Not only that but his actions were witnessed by thousands, even if only recorded by a few. Jesus on the other hand did comparatively nothing. Sure he walked on water, changed water in wine, calmed a storm but all these were done in front of a small select group of people. He was the God who created the world and yet that was all he did, stuff which, if it were performed today, nobody would actually believe.
Why not do something that couldn't be questioned, such as tell us about what diseases actually were,the dinosaurs, the stars, how to cure cancer, how to predict earthquakes, status of women, indicate when the next eclipse would be,or the next sky-time 'fireball', fertilize a desert, show some cool physics trick that defied common sense at the time etc etc?
Instead He insured that there would be ambiguity and doubt, by preaching stuff which was already preached a thousands times over by the various other religions. If He were the creator of the heavens and the earth then surely He would have actually shown us something beyond any reasonable measure of doubt?

Go on tear me apart

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

One thing that always puzzled me about when God decided to come to earth in human form. He didn't really do anything 'Godlike'.

Hmmm. Raised Lazarus from the dead. Made blind men see. Made lame men walk etc etc etc. Then, was beaten whipped and tortured to death, BUT came back to life. Now if these are all things your GP does, please, send me his number!


Also, he came as a lamb. Humbly to serve, not in glory. The second coming is when he returns as a conquerer in Glory and might.

You seem to be like the rich man in the parable who asks for someone from the dead to be sent to his household so they will believe. His answer was, they have Moses and the prophets.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmmm. Raised Lazarus from the dead. Made blind men see. Made lame men walk etc etc etc. Then, was beaten whipped and tortured to death, BUT came back to life. Now if these are all things your GP does, please, send me his number!

For an all powerful God these things were pretty petty, compared to what He could have done.

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

For an all powerful God these things were pretty petty, compared to what He could have done.

Haha. Fair enough. He done what he came to do, so, 'meh' for the rest.

smcgiff

Malty_T wrote: »

For an all powerful God these things were pretty petty, compared to what He could have done.

If he did all the wonderful things you say then there would be no requirement for belief, it would be simply be a fact. My understanding of the Christian faith* is that there must be some doubt. Otherwise all would be good for the sake of it, and that's not what was intended - hope this makes some sense.


* as an agnostic

Slav

Malty_T wrote: »

Why not do something that couldn't be questioned, such as tell us about what diseases actually were,the dinosaurs, the stars, how to cure cancer, how to predict earthquakes, status of women, indicate when the next eclipse would be,or the next sky-time 'fireball', fertilize a desert, show some cool physics trick that defied common sense at the time etc etc?

What would be the purpose of that show?

If He were the creator of the heavens and the earth then surely He would have actually shown us something beyond any reasonable measure of doubt?

If you read Christian or Gnostic apocrypha you can usually find all sorts of miracles there. But all these books were filtered out by orthodox Christianity. How do you explain this fact?

smcgiff

Slav wrote: »

How do you explain this fact?

Explain what fact, exactly?

Turtwig

Slav wrote: »

What would be the purpose of that show?

Firstly, it would be easily confirmed by empirical evidence, and secondly it would have saved humanity from alot of trouble,violence,needless deaths and mistakes.

If you read Christian or Gnostic apocrypha you can usually find all sorts of miracles there. But all these books were filtered out by orthodox Christianity. How do you explain this fact?

I'm afraid you're going to have to help me here because I simple don't know what they were?

Slav

smcgiff wrote: »

Explain what fact, exactly?

That early Christians saw too many miracles in Jesus life either heterodox or at least not worth to be included into canon.

Turtwig

Slav wrote: »

That early Christians saw too many miracles in Jesus life either heterodox or at least not worth to be included into canon.

Negative evidence doesn't make a fact. If you go down that territory then anything becomes a fact.

smcgiff

Slav wrote: »

That early Christians saw too many miracles in Jesus life either heterodox or at least not worth to be included into canon.

That's not a fact - that's a supposition.

Slav

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly, it would be easily confirmed by empirical evidence,

How exactly that would support the mission of Christ as it's seen by Christians?

and secondly it would have saved humanity from alot of trouble,violence,

How?

needless deaths

A cure from cancer would probably prolonged days for many but Christians understand death differently. You can be alive and even look very healthy but in fact be dead; or you can be decomposed in your tomb but be alive. In this sense the matter of death was fully addressed by Christ.

and mistakes.

I'm not sure to be honest.

Slav

Malty_T wrote: »

Negative evidence doesn't make a fact. If you go down that territory then anything becomes a fact.

Who told you that it's an evidence? I said only what I said: I'm interested in your interpretation of the fact that Christians composed their canon from probably the most 'boring' books (from the number and the scale of miracles perspective). Excessive miracles were often considered by them as one of the reasons to be skeptical about a certain scripture. So if they filtered them out on purpose then do you have an explanation for their logic behind it and if you do - what is it?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly, apologies if a similar thread already exists. I would have searched but alas there's no option to search

Anyways,

One thing that always puzzled me about when God decided to come to earth in human form. He didn't really do anything 'Godlike'. The God of the Old Testament had no reservations in showing his power. Not only that but his actions were witnessed by thousands, even if only recorded by a few. Jesus on the other hand did comparatively nothing. Sure he walked on water, changed water in wine, calmed a storm but all these were done in front of a small select group of people. He was the God who created the world and yet that was all he did, stuff which, if it were performed today, nobody would actually believe.
Why not do something that couldn't be questioned, such as tell us about what diseases actually were,the dinosaurs, the stars, how to cure cancer, how to predict earthquakes, status of women, indicate when the next eclipse would be,or the next sky-time 'fireball', fertilize a desert, show some cool physics trick that defied common sense at the time etc etc?
Instead He insured that there would be ambiguity and doubt, by preaching stuff which was already preached a thousands times over by the various other religions. If He were the creator of the heavens and the earth then surely He would have actually shown us something beyond any reasonable measure of doubt?

Go on tear me apart

He did the most God-like thing of all. He sacrificed Himself for a bunch of ungrateful underserving wretches. He bore the weight and punishment of every sin and crime that every human being ever committed, or ever will commit, and concentrated that suffering into an unimaginable torment for the few hours that He hung on the Cross.

The Pharisees wanted the kind of show that you are looking for. They wanted Him to perform a mighty conjouring trick by coming down off the Cross. They would have believed in Him if He had done that. But we believe in Him because he chose to stay on the Cross.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

The Pharisees wanted the kind of show that you are looking for. They wanted Him to perform a mighty conjouring trick by coming down off the Cross. They would have believed in Him if He had done that. But we believe in Him because he chose to stay on the Cross.

No I'm not. If He came down off the cross it would still have only been 'witnessed' by people. Why didn't He state clearly when a certain earthquake would occur, the next eclipse, skytime fireball, tell us about antibiotics etc etc?? If He had done just one of these then there would be far less doubt.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

He sacrificed Himself for a bunch of ungrateful underserving wretches.

Hey! I object to the use of the word "bunch" :pac:

I think what Malty means is that Jesus didn't go anything that couldn't be mistaken with the acts of a con-man manipulating people and/or the mistaken accounts of his followers.

I watched a very interesting doc about Jim Jones and the People's Temple. His followers believed he was performing miracles, but it was trickery and mass delusion. Shows how easy it is to make people believe you are doing something or have done something miraculous.

Though possibly this is a discussion better suited to A&A (ie Why I am not convinced at all by Jesus)

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Why not do something that couldn't be questioned, such as tell us about what diseases actually were..

He went one better and cured them

Malty_T wrote: »

....status of women...

He did.

Malty_T wrote: »

show some cool physics trick that defied common sense at the time etc etc?

Like walking on water, and controlling the weather... how many people need to see something before it's acceptable now?

Malty_T wrote: »

If He were the creator of the heavens and the earth then surely He would have actually shown us something beyond any reasonable measure of doubt?

Wouldn't that negate everything He said about faith and belief? I'd recommend Rowan Atkinson's "Amazing Jesus" sketch, if you haven't seen it already btw.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

I'd recommend Rowan Atkinson's "Amazing Jesus" sketch, if you haven't seen it already btw.

Brilliant:D

He went one better and cured them

For only a few people though, and He revealed nothing about the origin of simple diseases that we no longer worry about today.

[Status of Women]
He did.

Cool! Apologies, I never knew that, what exactly did he say??

Like walking on water, and controlling the weather... how many people need to see something before it's acceptable now?

That's just it though, all there was present for all these things was a select few individuals. But if you want to be really pedantic, insects walk on water and under the right conditions humans can too. Cloud seeding is something humanity has done before
When our computers get powerful enough controlling the weather and predicting it will be a breeze:D. (Pardon the pun:o)

Wouldn't that negate everything He said about faith and belief?

It may, then again it might not. Imagine if He simply made simple predictions for, say, the movement of the planets or the weather on such a date at such a time..or if He caused a supernova, or told us when one hit the earth in the past. His case would have been far more convincing.

As it stands now, He created us so that we may worship Him, He came to earth to save us from our own sins, but we are only saved if we believe He did????


P.s Is this the same 'prinz' that spent so many posts on the European Union defending Lisbon? If so, I bow my hat to you good sir/madam.
Fair Play

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Cool! Apologies, I never knew that, what exactly did he say??

Jesus allowed women to travel with him on his ministry, at a time when women were usually at confined to home doing domestic duties Luke 8, 1-5 Jesus frequently spoke with women which at the time I think was a bit of a novelty for religious Jewish types; the woman at the well, Samaritan women, he also taught women in theology Luke 10, 38-42, education for women wasn't a strong point in Jesus' day (especially when it came to religious studies). He defended the woman about to be stoned for adultery (the punishment for the woman was death, the punishment for the man was....er nothing)..., and the fact that so many women appear in the Gospels themselves is testament to the fact that they were given a special responsibility. IIRC in the times that were in it women were not allowed to give evidence because their word was not as worthy/valid as that of a man. However we see women appearing frequently in the Gospels, and it was women who brought the news of the resurrection to the disciples, seems an odd choice in a world where womens opinions and integrity was routinely questioned. Also in those days a man was allowed to divorce his wife for any reason, but Jesus evened up the score on that front with regard to adultery. In the early Christian churches men like St Paul continued in this vein of thought, by preaching respect, equality of the sexes etc. Fairly revolutionary stuff when you consider the world that He was living in.

Malty_T wrote: »

P.s Is this the same 'prinz' that spent so many posts on the European Union defending Lisbon? If so, I bow my hat to you good sir/madam.
Fair Play

It sure is. Sir would do nicely . It was an interesting few days :pac:

wolfsbane

As has been pointed out by others, Jesus' purpose was not to stun the world into belief that He is the Messiah. Rather, it was to do the work of Messiah (make atonement), and call His people to belief by means of the preached word:
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Matthew 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. 42 The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

Jesus allowed women to travel with him on his ministry, at a time when women were usually at confined to home doing domestic duties Luke 8, 1-5 Jesus frequently spoke with women which at the time I think was a bit of a novelty for religious Jewish types; the woman at the well, Samaritan women, he also taught women in theology Luke 10, 38-42, education for women wasn't a strong point in Jesus' day (especially when it came to religious studies). He defended the woman about to be stoned for adultery (the punishment for the woman was death, the punishment for the man was....er nothing)..., and the fact that so many women appear in the Gospels themselves is testament to the fact that they were given a special responsibility. IIRC in the times that were in it women were not allowed to give evidence because their word was not as worthy/valid as that of a man. However we see women appearing frequently in the Gospels, and it was women who brought the news of the resurrection to the disciples, seems an odd choice in a world where womens opinions and integrity was routinely questioned. Also in those days a man was allowed to divorce his wife for any reason, but Jesus evened up the score on that front with regard to adultery. In the early Christian churches men like St Paul continued in this vein of thought, by preaching respect, equality of the sexes etc. Fairly revolutionary stuff when you consider the world that He was living in.

Awesome stuff, my positive opinion of the guy has risen even more:)

It sure is. Sir would do nicely . It was an interesting few days :pac:

Ok sir . Twas indeed, some of it was somewhat depressing though.:(

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

No I'm not. If He came down off the cross it would still have only been 'witnessed' by people. Why didn't He state clearly when a certain earthquake would occur, the next eclipse, skytime fireball, tell us about antibiotics etc etc?? If He had done just one of these then there would be far less doubt.

To answer your question, I have no idea why Jesus didn't speak of these things. Perhaps edifying a bunch of back-water Jews and Gentiles on the finer points of microspocy wouldn't have been the most fruitful of cources to take.

If the reported miracles aren't good enough for you, then I'm not sure why you think there would be far less doubt if Jesus worked almost exclusively in the predictions business. The predictions Jesus did make - for example, the distruction of the Temple in Jerusalem - are a distinct second to the cross, and even then they are usually contested as being later additions etc. by non-believers.

chozometroid

smcgiff wrote: »

If he did all the wonderful things you say then there would be no requirement for belief, it would be simply be a fact. My understanding of the Christian faith* is that there must be some doubt. Otherwise all would be good for the sake of it, and that's not what was intended - hope this makes some sense.


* as an agnostic

This is a statement I see at times which I totally disagree with. People in the OT saw many of God's great miracles, but then turned away to false gods like within the hour. I don't see how faith requires some doubt, because faith is not about what what you see, nor what you don't know, it's about the future and "believing in" who God is. Faith is trusting in God for what is ahead. Even if you see Him raining fire and parting seas right before your eyes to save your behind, your knowledge that He is doing these things does not make faith meaningless or less required. You still must have faith to believe God is going to be with you for "the next time," and to trust that He will always be there for you.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As has been pointed out by others, Jesus' purpose was not to stun the world into belief that He is the Messiah.

The issue with that is that this is exactly what cult/religious leaders who claim miraculous power say when pressed to perform a miracle that is actually clear cut miraculous.

"I could make a mountain appear out of the ground in the shape of a perfect right angle triangle, but that is not why I am here"

Well ... do it anyway :P

Also Jesus did perform miraculous feats, feats that you guys are happy to believe happened and take as sign of his divinity. So why not perform a miraculous feat that stands up to more critical scrutiny?

The idea that Jesus would only perform miraculous feats that could (and often are) appear similar to the result of easily faked acts or mistaken witness, and not perform miraculous feats that would be very difficult if not impossible to fake or be mistaken by, seems odd to say the least.

If he is going to do miracles why not do miracles that actually stand up better, not miracles that every two bit con-artist cult leader has been "doing" since then?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue with that is that this is exactly what cult/religious leaders who claim miraculous power say when pressed to perform a miracle that is actually clear cut miraculous.

"I could make a mountain appear out of the ground in the shape of a perfect right angle triangle, but that is not why I am here"

Well ... do it anyway :P

Also Jesus did perform miraculous feats, feats that you guys are happy to believe happened and take as sign of his divinity. So why not perform a miraculous feat that stands up to more critical scrutiny?

The idea that Jesus would only perform miraculous feats that could (and often are) appear similar to the result of easily faked acts or mistaken witness, and not perform miraculous feats that would be very difficult if not impossible to fake or be mistaken by, seems odd to say the least.

If he is going to do miracles why not do miracles that actually stand up better, not miracles that every two bit con-artist cult leader has been "doing" since then?

So, which two-bit con-artist cult leaders do you know of who have walked on water, fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes, turned water into wine, healed the blind, raised the dead, caused a withered arm to return to normal, stilled a storm by speaking to it, and re-attached a severed ear?

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue with that is that this is exactly what cult/religious leaders who claim miraculous power say when pressed to perform a miracle that is actually clear cut miraculous.

"I could make a mountain appear out of the ground in the shape of a perfect right angle triangle, but that is not why I am here"

Well ... do it anyway :P

Also Jesus did perform miraculous feats, feats that you guys are happy to believe happened and take as sign of his divinity. So why not perform a miraculous feat that stands up to more critical scrutiny?

The idea that Jesus would only perform miraculous feats that could (and often are) appear similar to the result of easily faked acts or mistaken witness, and not perform miraculous feats that would be very difficult if not impossible to fake or be mistaken by, seems odd to say the least.

If he is going to do miracles why not do miracles that actually stand up better, not miracles that every two bit con-artist cult leader has been "doing" since then?

That's not really my issue, my issue is that He knew there would be doubters yet he didn't say anything that could be tested today. All we have is personal testimonies of observers. It's just far too convenient.....

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So, which two-bit con-artist cult leaders do you know of who have walked on water, fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes, turned water into wine, healed the blind, raised the dead, caused a withered arm to return to normal, stilled a storm by speaking to it, and re-attached a severed ear?

Without wishing to cause undue offense by the fact of the comparison, the activities of the DPRK's Great Leader are not significantly different in tone.

In the DPRK, I saw his incorrupt body and the enormous salt crystal formed from the tears of the women of the DPRK on hearing of his death, and some of the libraries devoted to his frankly miraculous exploits in just about every field of human endeavor. It's almost entirely fiction, but an entire nation believes it, or seems to.

Closer to home, the christian preacher Peter Popoff was exposed as a fraud in 1987, but nationwide exposure didn't do much permanent damage to his reputation. See here for how it was done.

As House says, people lie -- for all kinds of reasons -- and it's worth bearing that in mind.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, which two-bit con-artist cult leaders do you know of who have walked on water, fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes, turned water into wine, healed the blind, raised the dead, caused a withered arm to return to normal, stilled a storm by speaking to it, and re-attached a severed ear?

Don't you mean which two-bit con-artist cult leaders have convinced some of their followers that they have walked on water etc

Imagine if Chris Angel had done something similar to this in 35 AD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA

PDN

There you are Malty. While Wicknight and Robin have tried to change the subject of the thread in order to attack the veracity of the miracles of Jesus, they actually end up answering your question for you.

It wouldn't matter how spectacular or unique the miracles of Jesus were, because those who are determined to remain in unbelief would simply say that they never happened, that people lied, that Jesus was a liar etc.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

There you are Malty. While Wicknight and Robin have tried to change the subject of the thread in order to attack the veracity of the miracles of Jesus, they actually end up answering your question for you.

It wouldn't matter how spectacular or unique the miracles of Jesus were, because those who are determined to remain in unbelief would simply say that they never happened, that people lied, that Jesus was a liar etc.

Hey, you asked me a question don't get pissy with me because you didn't like the answer.

It is rather dishonest to say that me and Robin wouldn't care "how spectacular" the miracles of Jesus would be. We have already given examples of miracles that would actually be miraculous and cause us to stop in our tracks.

As it stands Jesus did nothing that hundreds of other cult leaders have managed to do though out the ages. There is nothing spectacular or unique about what Jesus or his followers got people to believe. Magicians like Chris Angel or David Blane get people to believe they are actually performing supernatural feats and people know they are magicians!

This to me would make the claims of Jesus' abilities on par with most other cult leaders such as Jim Jones, or the examples Robin gave. The tick here is not that Jesus walked on water, the trick is that Jesus or his later followers got people to believe he walked on water. That is not that hard. There is a famous cause in Europe (Holland I think) where a zoo put out a warning that a red panda has escaped. Soon after the warning they found the poor panda dead just behind a fence. Hundreds of people rang in to the local police station saying they had seen the red panda. Hundreds. It is easy to make people believe something has happened that hasn't actually happened, the zoo wasn't even trying that hard.

God, in his infinite wisdom, would not limit his miracles to cheap tricks.

Anyway, like I've already said (and since you are now getting ratty about this being off topic) I'm more than happy to discuss this in a different thread even on A&A. I'm sensing another classic PDN moment of asking me questions about what I've said and then give out that I've dragged the thread off topic, so I would kindly ask you if you have follow up questions or comments to this post to either allow the discussion in this thread or move the discussion to another thread, but don't ask me the questions in this thread and then complain that when I answer them I'm going off topic.

philologos

OP: Jesus' primary motivation wasn't to perform miracles

Mark 1:38 wrote:

And He said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.”

That's probably the simplest and most straightforward answer I can give you. He was here to instruct us as the God of the Old Testament was:

Psalm 119:26 wrote:

When I told of my ways, you answered me;
teach me your statutes!

Psalm 25:5 wrote:

Good and upright is the Lord;
therefore he instructs sinners in the way.

Jesus came to show us the way, this is infinitely more important than miracles.

MrPudding

chozometroid wrote: »

This is a statement I see at times which I totally disagree with. People in the OT saw many of God's great miracles, but then turned away to false gods like within the hour. I don't see how faith requires some doubt, because faith is not about what what you see, nor what you don't know, it's about the future and "believing in" who God is. Faith is trusting in God for what is ahead. Even if you see Him raining fire and parting seas right before your eyes to save your behind, your knowledge that He is doing these things does not make faith meaningless or less required. You still must have faith to believe God is going to be with you for "the next time," and to trust that He will always be there for you.

This si another difficulty, which is more likely, hundreds or thousands of people witnessed incredible miracles and basically when "meh, seen better," or the miracles weren't really that miraculous?

MrP

mark renton

Im not (I used a word the mods don't like) happy - wheres me post gone?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue with that is that this is exactly what cult/religious leaders who claim miraculous power say when pressed to perform a miracle that is actually clear cut miraculous.

"I could make a mountain appear out of the ground in the shape of a perfect right angle triangle, but that is not why I am here"

Well ... do it anyway :P

Also Jesus did perform miraculous feats, feats that you guys are happy to believe happened and take as sign of his divinity. So why not perform a miraculous feat that stands up to more critical scrutiny?

The idea that Jesus would only perform miraculous feats that could (and often are) appear similar to the result of easily faked acts or mistaken witness, and not perform miraculous feats that would be very difficult if not impossible to fake or be mistaken by, seems odd to say the least.

If he is going to do miracles why not do miracles that actually stand up better, not miracles that every two bit con-artist cult leader has been "doing" since then?

Jesus' miracles stood up for those who witnessed them. In fact for most of the witnesses, the miracles were a witness against them - a further proof of their depraved nature, a nature that would dismiss such infallible proofs of Christ's authority.

For the few, the miracles confirmed His messiahship and led them to true faith in Him. After His ascension these men carried the gospel message to the nations. It is the message God has ordained to be the means of saving men, not miracles in themselves.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly, apologies if a similar thread already exists. I would have searched but alas there's no option to search

Anyways,

One thing that always puzzled me about when God decided to come to earth in human form. He didn't really do anything 'Godlike'. The God of the Old Testament had no reservations in showing his power. Not only that but his actions were witnessed by thousands, even if only recorded by a few. Jesus on the other hand did comparatively nothing. Sure he walked on water, changed water in wine, calmed a storm but all these were done in front of a small select group of people. He was the God who created the world and yet that was all he did, stuff which, if it were performed today, nobody would actually believe.
Why not do something that couldn't be questioned, such as tell us about what diseases actually were,the dinosaurs, the stars, how to cure cancer, how to predict earthquakes, status of women, indicate when the next eclipse would be,or the next sky-time 'fireball', fertilize a desert, show some cool physics trick that defied common sense at the time etc etc?
Instead He insured that there would be ambiguity and doubt, by preaching stuff which was already preached a thousands times over by the various other religions. If He were the creator of the heavens and the earth then surely He would have actually shown us something beyond any reasonable measure of doubt?

Go on tear me apart

"An evil generation asks for a sign but none shall be given it save the sign of Jonah."

chozometroid

MrPudding wrote: »

This si another difficulty, which is more likely, hundreds or thousands of people witnessed incredible miracles and basically when "meh, seen better," or the miracles weren't really that miraculous?

MrP

Well, if the miracles were not that miraculous, why would it have been recorded, along with what the people did after? You're saying the miracle account was made to sound better, but the people turning away from God account was left untouched?

I don't really get the point of your post at all.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

"An evil generation asks for a sign but none shall be given it save the sign of Jonah."

Whales are my friends:)

Em..I Had a long winded reply written but it's gone missing somehow:mad:

Will post back sometime again..

MrPudding

chozometroid wrote: »

Well, if the miracles were not that miraculous, why would it have been recorded, along with what the people did after? You're saying the miracle account was made to sound better, but the people turning away from God account was left untouched?

I don't really get the point of your post at all.

Not really something we can get into in this forum, but I would have thought it would be pretty obvious.

MrP

chozometroid

MrPudding wrote: »

Not really something we can get into in this forum, but I would have thought it would be pretty obvious.

MrP

The only thing obvious from this post:

This si another difficulty, which is more likely, hundreds or thousands of people witnessed incredible miracles and basically when "meh, seen better," or the miracles weren't really that miraculous?

..are the two questions posed. Basically you are giving two options, neither of which is acceptable nor make sense considering the Biblical record. You can say the Bible is false, and then avoid asking the questions altogether. That might make more sense for your position.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Whales are my friends:)

Em..I Had a long winded reply written but it's gone missing somehow:mad:

Will post back sometime again..

Well even if you take the story of Jonah as being mythical you can still understand the point Jesus was making in relation to signs. The only "sign" that God has deemed to give the whole world in general in relation to His power is the sign of Jonah. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish (not necessarily a whale) so shall the Son of man (a title for Messiah) be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. After that He will be raised.

Jesus' generation was an evil generation just like ours is today because they asked for signs as some sort of prerequisite for them believing in God. They will not believe until they see a sign that satisfies them. And God on the last day will say to them, (I’ll paraphrase shall I?) “To hell with you, I gave you enough signs and wonders both in the general revelation of creation and in the fullest revelation of my Son, and if you refuse to believe then that’s your problem not mine. You’re the one missing out not me.”

We want signs and God wants faith. If God wins this battle of wills with us then we will also win but if He looses this battle with us then we will be the ones who loose out the most in the end not God.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well even if you take the story of Jonah as being mythical you can still understand the point Jesus was making in relation to signs. The only "sign" that God has deemed to give the whole world in general in relation to His power is the sign of Jonah. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish (not necessarily a whale) so shall the Son of man (a title for Messiah) be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. After that He will be raised.

Jesus' generation was an evil generation just like ours is today because they asked for signs as some sort of prerequisite for them believing in God. They will not believe until they see a sign that satisfies them. And God on the last day will say to them, (I’ll paraphrase shall I?) “To hell with you, I gave you enough signs and wonders both in the general revelation of creation and in the fullest revelation of my Son, and if you refuse to believe then that’s your problem not mine. You’re the one missing out not me.”

We want signs and God wants faith. If God wins this battle of wills with us then we will also win but if He looses this battle with us then we will be the ones who loose out the most in the end not God.

Your post above is probably the single most reason I don't believe in your version of events.
God created me, just so I could believe in Him?
I wonder does Barrack Obama care if I believe in Him or not?

Shatner

PDN wrote: »

So, which two-bit con-artist cult leaders do you know of who have walked on water, fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes, turned water into wine, healed the blind, raised the dead, caused a withered arm to return to normal, stilled a storm by speaking to it, and re-attached a severed ear?

Mmmmm... I think any theologian worth his salt would tell you that none of these miracles actually happened and that they are metaphors and that they are very much of their time (where people were more likely to believe in superstition and the 'powers' of pagan gods).

I'm not a believer, but when I did, I believed that disease/poverty/death etc. were all part of the test of faith. If they were eliminated, we would all be in heaven, right? I also believed that these things exist as the other side of good. We SEE people as having done good work when they strive to improve the hardships of others.

I do think that Jesus is a great philosopher - "love they neighbour..." etc. His parables show us the way we should be. The Christian philosophy is great. I just don't believe in all the magic.

This is just my opinion and I don't believe that I am off-topic. I hope the post is not deleted just because I may not agree with your opinions. I don't mean to offend anyone either.

PDN

Shatner wrote: »

Mmmmm... I think any theologian worth his salt would tell you that none of these miracles actually happened and that they are metaphors and that they are very much of their time (where people were more likely to believe in superstition and the 'powers' of pagan gods).

And, as one who has studied, and taught, theology at postgraduate level, I would tell you that you are wrong. Theologians 'worth their salt' disagree as to whether the miracles actually occurred. But only a few on the fringes of biblical studies or theology would claim that they were metaphors. The literary structures of the Gospel clearly demonstrate that the Gospels were intended to be taken as historical narrative not as metaphor.

This is just my opinion and I don't believe that I am off-topic. I hope the post is not deleted just because I may not agree with your opinions. I don't mean to offend anyone either.

Nobody's post would be deleted because they disagree with my, or anyone else's opinions. They get deleted if they contravene the forum Charter, and your post is perfectly consistent with the Charter.

However, I think we have gone off topic (not your fault, Shatner, it was already off-topic before you beamed up here). Malty's OP was asking why Jesus didn't do more impressive miracles than the ones recorded in the New Testament. Now it seems like non-Christians just want to voice their opinions about the historicity of the miracles that are recorded in the NT.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Malty's OP was asking why Jesus didn't do more impressive miracles than the ones recorded in the New Testament. Now it seems like non-Christians just want to voice their opinions about the historicity of the miracles that are recorded in the NT.

:oActually,

My OP wasn't referring to grandiose miracles as, no matter what the miracle was, it could still be disputed. Everything He did depends on the personal testimonies of others: I was asking why Jesus didn't simply leave behind testable stuff..e.g why didn't he state quite clearly when Hale-Bopps Comet's would come round for a spin, or when Jupiter would be the star that would scare some people sh1tless, or simply what the atomic number of Uranium or something would be, or the fact dinosaurs roamed the planet.. you know stuff we could actually test to help decide whether he's telling the truth or not.

Shatner

Malty_T wrote: »

:oActually,

My OP wasn't referring to grandiose miracles as, no matter what the miracle was, it could still be disputed. Everything He did depends on the personal testimonies of others: I was asking why Jesus didn't simply leave behind testable stuff..e.g why didn't he state quite clearly when Hale-Bopps Comet's would come round for a spin, or when Jupiter would be the star that would scare some people sh1tless, or simply what the atomic number of Uranium or something would be, or the fact dinosaurs roamed the planet.. you know stuff we could actually test to help decide whether he's telling the truth or not.

Faith?

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

:oActually,

My OP wasn't referring to grandiose miracles as, no matter what the miracle was, it could still be disputed. Everything He did depends on the personal testimonies of others: I was asking why Jesus didn't simply leave behind testable stuff..e.g why didn't he state quite clearly when Hale-Bopps Comet's would come round for a spin, or when Jupiter would be the star that would scare some people sh1tless, or simply what the atomic number of Uranium or something would be, or the fact dinosaurs roamed the planet.. you know stuff we could actually test to help decide whether he's telling the truth or not.

Yes, that is a very pertinent point.

As I indicated before, the gospel is the means God chose to convert the lost. Not power or wisdom. Not indisputable material proofs. For, as Jesus pointed out, even if one's closest relative rose from the dead to confirm the existence of God and the world to come, our natural mind would not believe them.

Any scientific proof Jesus would have left for us would be written off as no more than the insight of a fortune teller or the insight of long-lost Babylonian science. Do you think you would bow your knee to Him as Lord on the basis that He foretold quite clearly when Hale-Bopps Comet's would come round for a spin?

No - it takes God Himself to change sinful hearts, no matter the evidence. He does that by His Spirit revealing the truth of God to us in the gospel. Not merely us hearing the gospel - for we naturally will reject it as just another creation myth. But hearing and understanding it; knowing in our hearts it is true and gladly embracing it.

That is the work of God the Holy Spirit, without which no one can be saved.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do you think you would bow your knee to Him as Lord on the basis that He foretold quite clearly when Hale-Bopps Comet's would come round for a spin?

Yes, if He told us quite clearly where, when and how it would come round then it would be very hard to question. If He did this for quite a few things then it would be even harder, if He did this for a lot's of things then the results would speak for themselves.

As of now, though believers will no doubt go down my throat over this, your belief is essentially blind.

argosy2006

its hard to know whats real,,, if david blaine was alive back then,,,,then he would be known as son of god, ,, if u get my point,,,
or if jesus came to earth today he would be locked up in a mental hospital,,, because today we thing we know it all, and anyone who claimed there were son of god would be laughed at and put in straight jacket,

Fanny Cradock

argosy2006 wrote: »

its hard to know whats real,,, if david blaine was alive back then,,,,then he would be known as son of god, ,, if u get my point,,,
or if jesus came to earth today he would be locked up in a mental hospital,,, because today we thing we know it all, and anyone who claimed there were son of god would be laughed at and put in straight jacket,

Being put in a straight jacket and placed in a padded cell seems to me to be preferable to crucifixion. 2000 years ago the claims of Jesus and reports of his resurrection were no more palatable to many (for reasons of heresy or plain old disbelief in such things) than they are to sceptics today.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

As of now, though believers will no doubt go down my throat over this, your belief is essentially blind.

Disappointing, Malty, in that you've previously been prepared to discuss Christian beliefs in this forum in a relatively fair-minded way without such trollish comments.

Our belief is based on the testimony of eye witnesses, which makes it no more blind than believing in many historical events.

Our belief is also based on our own experiences of God (answered prayer etc), which makes it no more blind than many other beliefs that are shaped by our experiences.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Disappointing, Malty, in that you've previously been prepared to discuss Christian beliefs in this forum in a relatively fair-minded way without such trollish comments.

A little unfair for you to chastise Malty for his (?) “blind” reference when you're avatar does the same thing, no?

PDN wrote: »

Our belief is based on the testimony of eye witnesses, which makes it no more blind than believing in many historical events.

I find it interesting to find that Christians are willing to let the veracity of Jesus' miracles, and the resurrection in particular, to be assessed as historical facts like any others. It is easy to forget in the modern world, where we occasionally hear tales of “resurrections” of those who were wrongly thought to be dead, what a momentous assertion is being made in relation to the resurrection of Christ. It was an absolute violate of our understanding of how the universe works. It would be akin to a plate in several pieces falling to the floor and assembling itself into a single unit as new, or time flowing backwards bringing a mature plant back to a seed. It is literally incredible. When we assess historical events, or any other kind for that matter, we do so in the framework of how we understand the world works. When we contemplate how an ancient army might have crossed a river we don't consider the possibility that they suddenly spouted wings to assist them. Any interpretation of an event has to plausible. And it is for this reason I would suggest, that a contemporary claim for a resurrection would be simply dismissed out of hand, no matter how many witnesses there are. Surely a much more plausible interpretation of the fact that there were some who testified to the resurrection of Christ, is that they believed they witnessed a resurrection? I would think a Christian would be on much firmer ground if they profess to believe in the resurrection even though it is far from the most plausible interpretation of the events (I always understood this to be the essential point of the doubting Thomas story).