The Bible makes a lot of claims about Jesus' miraculous feats?

Question

But if all these amazing things really did happen, why didn't reputable contemporary historians write about them?

Answer 1

It's strange that not a single person in the 5000 that were feed from a few loaves of bread thought to mention it anywhere, isn't it?

Answer 2

Isn't "contemporary historians" an oxymoron? ;)

Consider that the story of Jesus is a story of a rebel living among a priestly hierarchy. By today's standards he would be labelled "terrorist". How would one report the doings of such a person or group in a culture that did not include the right to freedom of the press? A reputable reporter would not only lose rep but find himself dangling from a cross too.

Answer 3

Yes, and worse are the ridiculous claims of his faith; Noah's Arc, Genesis, the wall of Jericho, the tower of Babel, the plagues on to Egypt, and the parting of the Red Sea. It is all part of the same tradition. Wonderful myths, but nothing more.

There was probably a rebellious Rabi named Jesus who was killed in very much the manner told in the bible. There seems no creditable reason to think he showed any supernatural powers.

Why do people hold to such a belief? We have already talked about that this morning.

Answer 4

Here is something that I like to ponder. Imagine if you are walking down the street. Some guy walks up to you and says that he is Jesus. He is with a group of guys who claim to be his biographer. They each tell stories of the miracles that this Jesus has done. However, they can only give you their stories. There is no proof and the man before you is not doing any miracles. Would you believe that the guy is Jesus?

That is what the problem with trying to use the bible as proof. Claims of miracles are worth nothing if the miracle cannot be verified. There would need to be outside sources backing up the claims of the bible. For some of the history, there is evidence backing things up. However, for the miracles and the creation stories there are none. In fact, there is evidence that contradicts those parts of the bible.

The bible as evidence is pretty shakey. It is full of errors and inconsistencies. It contradicts itself a few times. It is much more believable that it was written by humans and that there was no divine presence helping in its creation.

Answer 5

Like who? Livy? Few historians at that time made even a vague attempt to distinguish fact from fiction. Their stories are of little to no account in any case.

Answer 6

Exactly my question. It wasn't like we're talking about a period of history that secular scribes were not recording.

The bible is NOT a valid historical document, just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true!!!

It has been repeatedly proved that the Jospehus line was inserted after the fact. Why are people still claiming this as true!! Even believers have accepted this as a forgery!!

Answer 7

It is because they wrote about it that you are talking about it now.

Answer 8

They did.......

It's called the Bible.

Oh and this guy named Josephus as well......I'd say he's pretty reputable

Answer 9

And if he existed, why aren't his writings still around?

Answer 10

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith

Can Jesus' miracles be explained naturally? It is certainly possible that some might be explained with non-divine answers, but can all of them?
I offer possible explanations for various miracles
It could be said that the gospel accounts were simply altered to make it look like Jesus was performing miracles which never happened. This is a possibility, but it is not very probable. Briefly, the eyewitnesses of Jesus' miracles were still around when the gospels were written and could have easily refuted such claims. Yet, we have no record of any such refutations. The disciples died for what they believed. Remember, this is not simply dying for a principle(s) or philosophy like Buddhism. They died for their belief in the risen Lord Jesus who claimed to be God and performed miracles in front of their very eyes. This is far different than believing in something that wasn't tangible or was merely a belief for the sake of believing and being good. Therefore, I will not address the idea that the disciples were deceivers in their attempt to recount Christ's work. For further reading on this, please see Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? and Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote?
In the following outline, I have stated a miracle, then offered a potential explanation, and then rebutted the explanation.
Jesus was born of a virgin (Matt. 1:25).
It could be said that Jesus was born normally, and myth crept into the story of Christ's birth in order to make Him seem special. After all, how do you verify a virgin birth?
But, Mary, the mother of Jesus was probably still around when the gospels were written. As was James, Jesus' brother. If the gospel accounts of Jesus' virgin birth were fictitious, certainly those who "knew" the situation would have refuted it. Yet, we have no account of any such refutation.
Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10).
It is possible that Jesus switched the water for wine or had some help in doing it.
There is no indication in the account of John that would lead anyone to believe that this was the case. Given that the six jars of wine were very heavy (minimum of 160 pounds each, maximum 240 pounds each), Jesus would have had help to do this. But, if that is so, who was it and why? Did Jesus secretly arrange for a large supply of wine to be delivered to a party long after it had begun? Again, there is no evidence of this.
It is possible that the members of the party were simply mistaken about the wine running out.
This is possible, but we have the wine steward tasting the wine and commenting on how good it is. His speech displays clarity of thought so he was not drunk. Not being drunk, he was easily able to recognize the quality of the new wine. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this was a mistake regarding the water for wine.
Jesus caused the disciples to catch a large load of fish (Luke 5:4-6).
The only explanation I can come up with to account for the time when Jesus instructed the disciples to cast their net into the water and they caught a large amount of fish even though they had been fishing all night long and caught nothing is that from shore, Jesus was somehow able to see into the water and see the fish swimming there.
The problem with this is that Jesus told them to go out into the deep water. Deep water is far from shore and it is basically impossible for Him to have seen so far out into the water at any depth. Remember, many of the disciples had been life long fisherman and they knew how to catch fish. If all it took was to look into the water to see fish, they would have long ago used that method.
Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
It is possible that demons were never cast out of anyone. It is possible that the people were pretending to be sick and then appeared cured after Jesus did whatever He did to cure them.
Though this is possible, it is merely conjecture. It isn't as though this is a repeatable experiment we can do in a laboratory. After all, the existence of demonic forces is something that must be taken on faith.
Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; 8:3 Luke 6:17-19; 17:14).
Jesus had knowledge of herbs and roots that when applied to various ailments cured people. Therefore, it would not be miraculous.
This is possible, but where is the evidence of them doing that? How can Jesus cure leprosy with herbs, or heal a withered hand, or raise the dead using herbs and roots. Sure, maybe, just maybe some herbs and roots were applied to basic ailments, but such an explanation cannot account for many of the miracles accounted to Jesus.
Jesus faked the healings
I am not sure how it would be possible to fake the healing of leprosy and disease. The people of the time knew what the disease was and what it looked like. People's fingers and hands would fall off from leprosy. How it would be possible to restore hands and feet and fingers and have it all be a trick would be an amazing thing to do. I cannot think of any way to fake such a thing especially since so many of the lepers were known by the people around them and cures would have been obvious.
Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12).
In order to make it look like Jesus healed a paralytic, it would require that the paralytic be willing to appear paralyzed in order to fool those around him. This is possible since Jesus could have had enough time to employ the individual.
In the account of Mark, the paralytic is let down through the roof because there were so many people that they could not bring him in on a stretcher. Jesus then healed the man. If the paralytic was in the employ of Jesus in some way, the men who lowered him through the roof must also have been in His employ since they helped to accomplish the ruse -- if that is what it was. But, simply stating that this is a possibility does not mean that it is a reality. All the text says is that there was a paralytic who was let down through a roof and Jesus healed him. There is no information that would lead us to believe that collusion was occurring.
Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44).
Those who were dead were really only appeared to be dead. Given that the people of the time were not aware of many of the medical intricacies that can lead to people looking dead when they were not really dead.
This explanation is certainly possible, but is it really that likely. People in ancient times were far more familiar with death than we are. Our people die in hospitals away from the families. Undoubtedly, we are less familiar with death then they were. It is more probable that they knew when people were actually dead, especially since the dead were left in stasis for several days as they were washed and prepared for burial.
The John 11 account of Lazarus' resurrection
Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7).
The blind were not really blind but were working with Jesus in order to make it look like He was able to perform miracles.
This is a possibility, but it has not basis or evidence. Furthermore, how can anyone account for the man born blind in John 9:1-7. He was known, from birth, to be blind and yet he was healed by Jesus. How can anyone account for this other than to say that the man was healed?
Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35).
The deaf person was not really deaf. It was a trick, a previously arranged setup to make Jesus look good.
If this is the case, where is the evidence? Simply saying this is what happened doesn't make it so.
Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; 15:32-38).
The disciples had previously arranged a large stash of food sufficient to feed a great many people.
This is a possibility but we see no evidence of it. Also, it means that the account is, basically, a lie which doesn't fit the character of Jesus and the disciples who wrote so much about integrity.
The people had already brought their own food and were sharing it with each other at the urging of Jesus so it was written to make it look like He'd done a miracle.
This, of course, has no evidence for it either. The account simply states that Jesus fed the multitude with just a few fish and some bread. What would be wrong with simply writing the truth, if it were true, that everyone had brought food? Besides, that isn't what it says.
Jesus walked on water (Matt. 14:22-24).
There was either a ledge Jesus was walking on near shore or He was in a low profile boat in which He was standing. This way it only appeared that He was walking on water.
Matt. 14:24 says that the boat was many stadia away. A stadia is about 600 feet. So, they were way out on the lake when the storm hit. How could Jesus have gotten out into the middle of the lake during a storm and manage to find a ledge to stand on that happened to be close to the disciples' boat? It is extremely unlikely.
If Jesus was in a low profile boat out in the middle of a lake during a storm, it would have sunk long before He got out to them. So, this wouldn't work as an explanation.
Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39).
It was merely a coincidence. Jesus grew up around the area and knew when storms were coming and going. He simply knew what to look for, waited, and then commanded the storm to quite at the right moment.
If Jesus, who was a carpenter, knew when storms were coming and going, then why didn't the disciples who also grew up in the area and who were fishermen also know this? If they did, then they would have been very unimpressed by Jesus' command. In fact, they would have thought He was pretending to be able to command the storm to stop when in reality He couldn't. This would cause them to doubt Him, not to believe in Him more as the account suggests.
Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
The disciples stole Jesus' body and lied about His resurrection.
This is unlikely since the guards were there in front of the tomb. Also, the disciples later died for their belief in the risen Lord. Add to this the various persecutions they received during their lives and it doesn't make sense that they endured so much pain and suffering for what they knew was a lie.
Also, what about the apostle Paul? He claims to have seen the risen Lord as well. Was he, a heavy persecutor of the church, conned by the disciples into joining with them, loosing his place in Jewish culture and society, also suffering persecution and martyrdom all for what he knew was a lie as well? It makes no sense.
Jesus never died in the first place.
This is sometimes called the swoon theory that states that Jesus almost died. But it does not fully consider the severe trauma that Jesus had undergone before He got to the cross, let alone the actual crucifixion itself which was incredibly painful. Also, the Romans were experts at killing by crucifixion. The evidence of the water and blood coming out of Jesus' side after being pierced is evidence enough that Jesus had died since that is a sign of blood flow having stopped.
Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).
This was because Jesus had never died. He almost died.
This is sometimes called the swoon theory that states that Jesus almost died. But it does not fully consider the severe trauma that Jesus had undergone before He got to the cross, let alone the actual crucifixion itself which was incredibly painful. Also, the Romans were experts at killing by crucifixion. The evidence of the water and blood coming out of Jesus' side after being pierced is evidence enough that Jesus had died since that is a sign of blood flow having stopped.
Someone else who looked like Jesus died in His place.
This is an unsubstantiated and completely fictional fabrication. There is no evidence of this at all. Besides, the Jews and Romans knew exactly who Jesus was, along with the disciples. They'd know if a "fake" was taking Jesus' place.
The disciples lied. Jesus never appeared to them.
This has been answered here. Since the NT writers were biased, can we trust what they wrote?
Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9).
Only the disciples saw this. Therefore, they fabricated the ascension.
It is possible that they lied, but then we are still stuck with explaining why they would lie, why they would continue in the lie, why they would preach and teach honesty and truth based upon a lie, why they would suffer persecution for a lie, and why they would die for a lie. It just doesn't make sense.