Are the miracles of Jesus proof of God’s existence, or just legends which have grown in the telling? Leave your detailed post here.
Roman aristocrats Calpurnius Piso and family claimed to have written The New Testament and invented “Jesus”!
http://www.konformist.com/blasphemy/piso.htm
I don’t buy their story do you?
In fact, the existence of a man named Jesus was claimed by
1)Josephus, the first century Jewish historian
2)Tacitus, the first century Roman historian
3)The first century authors of the Gnostic gospels
4)The first century authors of the New Testament autographs
These four sets of authors did not share a common background, philosophy or religion. Why would they independently invent or perpetuate the invention of a fictitious character who would have been a virtual contemporary for each of them? Furthermore, even if one or more of them did invent such a character, why wasn’t the hoax unmasked by eye-witnesses; why didn’t someone stand up and say, “This man Jesus never existed"? I can’t think of a good reason. Can you?
Since we’re assuming in this topic, “miracles of Jesus” we must also be willing to state that Jesus existed even to start the discussion. Most historians, to my knowledge at least, readily accept that such a man named Jesus existed. So this isn’t really worth the debate, especially in this thread.
This question could use clarification. Are we asking, “Are the miracles proof of God’s existence for us?” Or, “Are the miracles proof for the people who witnessed them?” These are likely to get not only different answers, but also different reasons behind them. I’ll elucidate.
To those who witnessed:
If a person was able to cure lepers (I hope I’m spelling that right) instantly, with no noticeable medical means, wouldn’t you consider it a miracle? It certainly goes beyond anything we know today, and considering the almost complete lack of medical capabilities at the time, it would certainly be a wonder then.
But does this prove God? It certainly proves a great power, or ability, more than any human is capable of. So a greater power (of some sort) can easily be assumed.
Possibilities however, are more than just God. We could say it’s an angel, or demon, an alien, or some mystical creature (unicorns have healing powers) turned into human form. Maybe the person is merely a magician of some sort, or a human gifted with special powers by God or some other entity.
I think the real point comes with the raising of the dead and resurrection. That is, the ability to give life and immortality, are two components we commonly associate with a deity. If we’re following this premise (that God is responsible for life, and is eternal) then this gives a much stronger case for Jesus being either God, or closely connected to God.
Thus, we can say that these people (actual witnesses) would have good reason, if not fully conclusive evidence, of believing in God.
For us:
We haven’t witnessed any such miracles. Additionally, many people by now have adopted sundry and varied conceptions of just “what” God is, and so these miracles don’t necessarily reflect their beliefs. Although the miracles might have profound affect on anyone if seen firsthand, they lose their potency when they’re textual references.
We (I am assuming) have never witnessed any such thing. And foregoing faith, have no genuine reason to believe such things are even possible. We have indeed accomplished miracles (so to speak) that even our grandparents and parents perhaps, would not have thought possible years ago. Medical science alone has made huge leaps and bounds in the last century, or even decades.
Again though, this gives us no reason to believe we can make someone immortal, that someone could be immortal, or that bringing the dead to life is possible. We have come no closer to the creation of Frankenstein’s monster, nor do we have reason to believe we ever will.
Thus, we (again, foregoing faith) are likely to relegate such tales to the realm of fiction, and put no more stock in them than we do flying elephants.
As such, I see no logical reason to assume that the miracles of Jesus can convince us, unless we are already prone to the belief initially.
— Yes! I don’t believe anyone here doubts the existence of Jesus. He existed same as Leonardo Da Vinci, The Buddha, and Confucious. You may wish to start another thread on that topic.
Shybard. Have you read Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion? He talks about miracles there. (more on that later) Hume was skeptical too. It seems convenient that every miracle remains safely secure, hundreds of years in the past, cloistered away from even the possibility of scientific scrutiny, and that miracles do not continue to happen today.
The followers of the Buddha did not believe that he would die, even on his death bed.
So basically Shybard, you are saying that miracles are not necessarily evidence of a divine nature, and that they will not convert us unless we are already heading in that direction.
I have not read that work by Hume but I’ll be sure to keep it in mind. What I’ve read of Hume has definitely been interesting. By all accounts he was one heck of a skeptic.
I’ve never heard that of the Buddha, though I do recall reading that he could have stayed living had he desired to, but since no one requested it, it was too late when he was finally dying. The wonderful thing about Buddhism is that it is in no way relient upon miracles. The Buddha merely asked that we give the Dharma a chance (if we were so inclined) and to see if it works. And what’s more, he in no way discounted other paths. I think that’s a huge credit in his favor.
True. That’s precisely what I’m saying. Miracles “can” be evidential of divine presence. However, not “necessarily” so. They would definitely be evidence of something “greater than ourselves” but what that may indeed be is anyone’s guess. And we’d have no more reason to think it’s God than we would to think it’s the Devil.
I have heard that all but one of the accounts of Jesus were written by one of the disciples (Paul?), apparantly you can tell by the writing style, and that the only other account of it (John?) was rejected by the Catholic Church cause it mentions all the places where the miracles happened but without the miracles! In other words it would seem Paul(?) added the miracles for dramatic effect.
Take all that with a pinch of salt, I can’t remember my sources and I’ve never had time to research this. 
I mention it in case anyone else know anything about this???
John’s gospel was written even farther away from the advent of Jesus than the other three(which were quite late). I have a book called the encyclopedia of biblical errancy. It’s where i’ll be drawing most of my information from. I take everything Cum Grano Salis (with a grain of salt). Bertrand Russell once wrote a piece on the healthy nature of doubt, which is what science uses, as opposed to faith, the tool of religion.
I think there are two questions here:
The first is an empirical one concerning whether the miracles actually took place or not. I don’t think we’re in a position to give a very convincing answer to his either way. I think most people will have made up their minds already and are unlikely to change them unless extremely convincing empricial evidence (I don’t even know that there is any) is presented to them.
The second is whether we can at least say “if these miracles did happen, then God exists” (which is interesting if only because it seems to make the existence of God an emprical question). I don’t think we can, if you want to make God infinite. You can’t derive the existence of an infinite ‘being’ from finite occurences, no matter how miraclulous those occurences were. A very powerful being, perhaps, but I’m not sure many Christians would settle for that.
Marshall - I hate to nitpick (because I think you write some wonderful posts) but I think you might be thinking of Hume’s ‘Of Miracles’, which is in his ‘Enquiry concerning human understanding’ rather than the DCNR, although the latter is a seminal text.
Welcome to the forum Parfitarawls.
After that elegant analysis how could i accuse you of nitpicking? He doesn’t mention miracles in DCNR? I haven’t read an enquiry concerning human understanding, but i could have, nevertheless, gotten the information from free inquiry that quoted from an enquiry… In any event, i will look that up.
I have to agree. The original post represents two questions.
Yes, Christians typically believe in an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God which then runs aground on the problem of evil. (how could evil exist if God 1.) knows about it 2.) doesn’t want evil to exist and 3.) has the power to stop evil) Yes any miracle would do little to prove such qualities. as you said,
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Thank you for the kind commments.
I’d be surprised if Hume mentioned miracles in DCNR because miracles come under the heading of revealed, rather than natural, religion and thus are out of the book’s scope. I don’t remember reading about them either.
But it’s a bigish book and he may well have briefly mentioned them. It sounds like the sort of thing Demea would say…
I looked it up on the net, you are right, they come from an enquiry concerning human understanding. On to the first question, did the miracles actually take place? We have biblical sources, testimony from Josephus, and others, but as you say it can’t be proved either way and people are sharply divided in their opinions and less likely to be objective.
From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html
there is no proof of jesus’s miricles and ther is no proof of god. its a faith thing a blind faith thing at that.
jesus made miracles happen therefore god exists.
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
pocky,
i’m not sure that’s the fallacy that’s being committed in this instance. I don’t think anyone is saying that miracles cause God’s existence which would indeed be a fallacy, since God’s existence if he exists at all, would come before the miracles.
The fallacy surely comes from assuming Jesus did perform miracles, that if he did perform miracles that makes him the son of God, and that if he is the son of God there exists a God who is both his Father and Him at the same time (in Christian doctrine). All of which are great assumptions you’d agree?
I don’t believe miracles happen. I believe that it is possible for the laws of nature to be broken, I just don’t think they are or ever have been. I also think that the allegory of miracles in the Gospels is much more powerful than the miracles themselves. The feeding of the five thousand for example, ends up with “lots of bread and fish left over”. The “feeding” is an allegory for all those who accept Jesus’ divinity being allowed entry into the Kingdom of Heaven and the leftover bread being an allegory for “there’s still lots of room left, come and join us”.
I don’t think it matters if the miracles happened or not, they hold a much deeper and more meaningful message. Consider also the healing of blind man in which Jesus messes it up first time round. Not a great advert for his divinity if you accept it as a true miracle!
- ben
If God did exist, on what basis does the supernatural establish proof?
This leads me to believe that the tales are legend. Humankind is demanding proof of God’s existence through the supernatural. How easily we could rationalize that the supernatural can occur when we desire for proof of God ONLY through such examples.
To prove God’s existence, something supernatural must occur.
Jesus’ miracles were supernatural.
Therefore God exists.
Not only is there plenty of room for fabrication due to hearsay and extensive translations, but if people are hungry for the supernatural in order to confirm their belief should it come as any surprise that something supernatural is believed to happen?
I want God to exist, therefore i look for miracles.
I want to live forever, therefore there is life after death.
I want justice, therefore there will be a judgement day and hell.
naked need and want has never posited a damned thing on this earth.
People who look only for miracles have indeed already begun to limit their search. Kind of like seeking the effect instead of the cause.
Hi y’all,
I don’t know whether the miracles were a “violation of the laws of nature” or whether they were simply signs of the fulfilment of prophecy. Something seems to have happened (a grain of truth at the root of all legends) and it disturbed enough people. But what actually happened will probably always remain concealed from our view.
I don’t see these “miracles” as proof of anything. The real miracle seems to me the fact that the Jews still exist, despite numerous attempts to wipe them out, and that we are still discussing Jesus two thousand years after the event. We have been through deeply dark centuries of ignorance and violence, we have had terrible atrocities even recently - and yet the spirit of Christ still exhorts us to change our ways.
I see miracles in the testimony of selfless love in the slums of Calcutta, in the villages of the Congo, in the towns of Kosovo and between the women of Palestine and Israel who combine their efforts for peace and healing. I see miracles in forgiveness, in peacemaking, in consolation.
Despite the savageness of our times in countries that can’t help themselves, I see people willing to intervene and risk their lives. I see miracles and signs in the wonder of life on a planet being filled with death. I believe that it is a miracle when people oppose the people in power to perform deeds of compassion on declared enemies. And when I see these signs, I believe and am ashamed of my fear.
When I see these signs I gain assurance that there is a power leading us toward the good that we would otherwise oversee. This “truth” is like the star shining brightly at night, but which is lost when the daylight comes. We are then left waiting impatiently until the next clear night, when we hope to see the star shining brightly again.
Shalom
Bob
Bob. I agree that compassion today is indeed a miracle. A hoped for, much sought after miracle, but nevertheless, a rarely occurring miracle. But i also note that when the non-believer points to the lack of modern day miracles, the champion of revealed religion typically says something similiar to what you have said. In essence, “you’re not looking hard enough, miracles are all around you.” Thus modern man is forced to look for small miracles (which can be verified) immediately in front of him, while behind him in his glorious past loom the great miracles of old (which can’t be verified). Thus i am forced to conclude that the lesser miracle (Hume) has indeed occurred and that these are legends which have grown in the telling.
Shalom,
Marshall
You may be quite right about that. But if you want the greater miracle then you have to allow yourself to be a part of it. I think that is the story of Christ and the (Post-Whitsun) Disciples - or of anybody who has been part of something wonderful. It is always trust or faith that drives this kind of occurence on, an assurance that there is a deeper meaning to all we experience.
You may notice in my use of language that I believe there is something very ‘normal’ about miracles. Something that is within the reach of mankind, but which he neglects. There is also something very ‘normal’ in the intuitive knowledge of God, in faith and assurance. I believe it is these things that Jesus points to when he talks about moving mountains, healing lepers, reconciling outcasts, soothing pain, attending the dying.
I don’t know whether there is anything measureable there, but it certainly makes life worth living. But these ‘normal’ miracles are really enough - don’t you think?
Shalom
Bob
Personally, i’m not looking for miracles, i’m looking for that which produces miracles. But anything capable of producing miracles is probably also capable of producing much harm. Just look at the environmental damage caused by the glories of modern science, for instance.
Life, for me, is enough. Why should the king of the universe have any reason to reveal himself to me? Why should i wish for assistance that i can’t see? I suspect that faith and prayer, in some instances, does a lot of good simply because of it’s effect on the person praying, much like meditation.
Man frequently neglects things close at hand, as you say.
Shalom,
Marshall