The Stuff Jesus Never Did.

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).

Turtwig

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.

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.

Em, apologies firstly, I've been having an awful torrid few days lately so if this came down too hard apologies, because it is mainly my fault for not clarifying fully.

I'm not saying that you guys are blind fools in that you don't have any evidence or reasons for believing. What I'm saying is that most of your evidence is essentially blind evidence in that it's indirectly relying on the testimony of others and you have no foolproof method of testing it directly;in that sense it is blind...similar to (but not identical to) love maybe?.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter what one's religion is, the reasons they give for belief are pretty much entirely dependent on personal testimony be it their own's or someone else's.
If that makes any sense...

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter what one's religion is, the reasons they give for belief are pretty much entirely dependent on personal testimony be it their own's or someone else's.
If that makes any sense...

You really ought to read some Christian apologetics.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

You really ought to read some Christian apologetics.

I have and I intend to read more (some of other faiths too, but they seem to be harder to find:(). Trouble is that in essence every point they make all fall back to one set of books...

stevejazzx

The problem is not how big a miracles is, but why a 'God' who is also a 'creator', would have himself in front of his creation, performing miracles. There is no conceivable reason why this 'being' would want, need or desire to impress or convince the beings he created. After all, this being, who possesses complete future knowledge of everything, could simply undo the need for these miracles to be carried out. Now if these events were set in motion and had to occur for some cosmic reason, then he could have set in place an alternative 'cure' for these peoples or places, whom it is claimed he healed. What that rather complicated sentence means is that there is no reason for Jesus having to carry out these miracles personally, unless of course you think he needed to impress the people he created? If he just did it because likes praise then it makes no sense why he is so remote nowadays and relies on praise only from believers. If he did it to convince people then why stop? If he did to show off then why not an inter galactic planetary dance juggling stars traveling at the speed light while simultaneously solving math problems that he himself created when he was his own father? The problem with the miracles of the bible that Malty had trouble expressing his dissatisfaction with, is that they seem limited to be the imagination of middle eastern Arabs a couple of thousand years ago. The ultimate show was reincarnation, a feat by way, that was fairly common back then and whose origins stretch back long before Jesus.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

The problem is not how big a miracles is, but why a 'God' who is also a 'creator', would have himself in front of his creation, performing miracles. There is no conceivable reason why this 'being' would want, need or desire to impress or convince the beings he created.

So you, as a finite being (with extremely limited powers and knowledge), feel qualified to decide on what would be any conceivable reasons for an infinite, ominpotent and omniscient being to take whatever course of action He wanted? Do you at least see why nobody here is likely to share your own opinion of your fitness to make such exalted pronouncements?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

So you, as a finite being (with extremely limited powers and knowledge), feel qualified to decide on what would be any conceivable reasons for an infinite, ominpotent and omniscient being to take whatever course of action He wanted? Do you at least see why nobody here is likely to share your own opinion of your fitness to make such exalted pronouncements?

Is this your way of saying that God works in mysterious ways?

But lets say for a moment that your right you have also disqualified yourself [everyone] as representing anything in verbal/descriptive terms that Jesus did? You can't say it's OK for you to represent his ideas using relative human terms and then deny that any similar logic be used when it is to the detriment of such. This is the 'cake and eat it' syndrome I believe.
Either we're all equally ignorant or fair usage of relativism applies for both positive and negative interpretations. You'll say that yours are based on scripture, if that's the case then this contradicts your opening gambit that this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable. Your reductionist argument therefore is that Jesus is perfectly understandable through scripture yet completely unknowable through science. The problem is that this 'understandable' Jesus leaks out because no other option exists. If this scriptural element of Jesus/God is knowable, correct, understandable etc. then this data leaks out and supplies us with the possibility of speculation vis a vis said deities motives in other areas, one of which would be miracles. Ironically it is your teaching that allows me to speculate with some purpose on the propositions of the deities motives. Without your interpretation your opening gambit might indeed stand.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Is this your way of saying that God works in mysterious ways?

If an infinite omnipotent and omniscient being exists then it is logically inevitable that some of what He does would undoubtedly be mysterious to limited finite beings such as ourselves. You might as well expect a woodlouse to understand everything that Albert Einstein wrote.

But lets say for a moment that your right you have also disqualified yourself [everyone] as representing anything in verbal/descriptive terms that Jesus did? You can't say it's OK for you to represent his ideas using relative human terms and then deny that any similar logic be used when it is to the detriment of such. This is the 'cake and eat it' syndrome I believe

However, I expect even our proverbial woodlouse would see the gaps in your logic.

What I said was that you and I, as finite beings, cannot expect to understand every conceivable reason God might have for doing something.

You now want to claim that means that we cannot understand anything that God does.

Let's put that in logical form:

A cannot understand everything that B does.
Therefore A cannot understand anything that B does.

Now, think carefully before you answer. Is that really an argument you want to advance?

Either we're all equally ignorant or fair usage of relativism applies for both positive and negative interpretations. You'll say that yours are based on scripture, if that's the case then this contradicts your opening gambit that this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable.

Who said this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable? What I said was that you cannot know every possible reason the Deity may have for doing anything.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

You now want to claim that means that we cannot understand anything that God does.

Actually I don't think he was claiming that.

Your reductionist argument therefore is that Jesus is perfectly understandable through scripture yet completely unknowable through science

I actually think 'science' is the wrong term there, but I can't think of one more suitable at the moment:o

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

If an infinite omnipotent and omniscient being exists then it is logically inevitable that some of what He does would undoubtedly be mysterious to limited finite beings such as ourselves. You might as well expect a woodlouse to understand everything that Albert Einstein wrote.

But you lose context. Einstein didn't create the woodlouse and ask it to worship him. You can't offer comparisons that lose so much objectivity.
Also the woodlouse being an insect lacks the mammalian cognitive function that differs us from the rest of creation.
But lets forget that and go with your analogy - the human created by the deity can contemplate the deity even if such contemplations are hopeless and again they get much closer than the woodlouse does to understanding Einstein because they are at least aware of what they are attempting. Also, whereas we have scripture, Einstein has not provided the woodlouse with a 'relativity for idiots' manual.

pdn wrote:

However, I expect even our proverbial woodlouse would see the gaps in your logic.

Preverbial woodlouse see gaps in my logic?

pdn wrote:

What I said was that you and I, as finite beings, cannot expect to understand every conceivable reason God might have for doing something.
You now want to claim that means that we cannot understand anything that God does.

Someone once that said selective understanding to suit a predisposed bias is really just self affirmation of ones own prejudice.

pdn wrote:

Let's put that in logical form:

A cannot understand everything that B does.
Therefore A cannot understand anything that B does.

Now, think carefully before you answer. Is that really an argument you want to advance?

I can't bite on your straw man offer, it's simply not what I said.
Here's a summary - the knowable parts of God create data leakage which can be used to suppose the unknowable parts. Therefore arguments claiming some parts cannot be known at all are compromised.

pdn wrote:

Who said this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable? What I said was that you cannot know every possible reason the Deity may have for doing anything.

I agree. I said that we make estimates based on what is known, which is what theologians attempt, is it not? And this is what I did in trying to decipher why this deity performed miracles in person in front of his own creation. Then you said I/we are essentially too limited to know such things, at which I pointed out that we claim to know other things on an even grander scale like his purpose for us and his ideas in regards to moral structure (I could go on ad infinitum). Then I said that if we can know these huge things then it gives us at the very least a platform to presuppose other things about the deity. Now you're saying that the knowable and unknowable are mutually exclusive and I'm disagreeing.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Your post above is probably the single most reason I don't believe in your version of events.

Well I can only say thank God that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Malty_T wrote: »

God created me, just so I could believe in Him?

No. He created man for His purposes not man's purposes. I'm not sure what you are doing in the Christianity forum if all you going to do is respond with post like this. Well that is why I don't believe etc etc. News Flash: We don't care what you believe in. We are here to tell you what Christians believe. And if you're not interested in that then I suggest clicking on another forum that will interest you.

Malty_T wrote: »

I wonder does Barrack Obama care if I believe in Him or not?

God doesn't care if you don't believe in Him. If He exists at all then it is not Him who is loosing out if you don't believe in Him. If God exists then He is not looking for friends. He came to seek and save that which was lost. He is not taking a popular vote on it. You either recognize your need of Him and respond in the way that He wants you to or you burn - simple as. Now before you come back and say that you would never believe in a God like that let me tell you this. God doesn’t care! I’m tired of the idea from non-believers that God is begging them to believe in Him. He couldn’t care less, He only cares about those who recognize Him for who He is and trust their lives to Him.