Why didn't Jesus perform miracles?

[MikeMcK]

Great point.

Some folks will never believe. They just continue to find "reasons" why they should not.

Fred

It reminds me a bit of the old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he tells Yosemite Sam, "I dare you to step over this line". "OK, now I dare you to step over this line" and so on.

 

[epistemaniac]

It isn't even slightly possible that someone made that stuff up? No one could have said "Hey, curing leprosy sounds pretty savior-like. Let's add that in there." Maybe all Jesus did was show kindness to lepers, and someone else embellished it to say he cured them completely.

I know that faith leaves no room for doubt, because I used to be a Christian and I never doubted those things. But once I took a step back and tried to look at the whole thing in an unbiased way, I couldn't help but doubt most of it.

Luke 16:27-31 (ESV)
27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.' "


blessings,
Ken

 

[Jesi]

Luke 16:27-31 (ESV)
27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.' "


blessings,
Ken

using the Bible to prove the Bible's validity doesn't really help me understand the problem.

 

[Brucea]

Dear Jesi:
It is only the Word that can be trusted! There are 333 prophecies about Jesus Christ Himself in the Old Testament. The time frame for these prophecies is roughly 4,000 years. In one man's life of 33 years all 333 prophecies were fulfilled. If you are looking for facts to back up the validity of Jesus Christ. There are there in front of you. You have 500 witnesses that say they saw Jesus rise from the dead. You have 11 Apostle that went to their death without recant. Some of them dying for the truth they held on to. I know of no one who would die for a known lie. Yet, these men testimony did not waver!

Coming to Jesus boils down to faith. If you do not believe in Him you will perish, separated from God forever. Every one has faith in something. It take great faith to believe we came from monkeys. However, there is only one kind of faith that can bring you from death to life. Jesus said if you would believe on Him you could have everlasting life. You my friend are free to believe whatever you would like; however they is only one way to life and it is found in Jesus Christ.
I pray that you will gain a revelation that Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. Secondly, I pray that you will gain a revelation that Jesus is the baptizer of the Holy Spirit. It is a great life!

 

[PhilosopherD]

Why didn't Jesus perform REAL miracles? I know the Bible says he turned water into wine and made a few loaves of bread and fish feed a bunch of people. I know the Bible says that he raised Lazerus from the dead and healed the sick. And I know the Bible says he died and rose again 3 days later.

But each and every one of these miracles are disputtable. If they cannot be performed by a clever magician, they can be fabricated in some other way.

So why didn't he do something we couldn't argue with? Like moving a mountain. I mean, he said that if you have even the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains...seems to me like that would've been a perfect time for a demonstration.

If Jesus had moved a mountain from one place to another, there would be no denying his power and divinity. Moving a mountain would've validated everything he claimed to be.

Some might say that if he had done this, then it would leave no room for free will, because we would not be able to question whether or not he was genuine with such hard evidence.

If that is so, why did he bother doing any miracles at all? If he was not trying to prove who he was, then why turn water into wine? Just to keep the party going? Why heal a few sick people when were thousands of sick people who could've used a helping hand?

He just did it to show off? But he couldn't do anything of real significance, like move a mountain?

Please, explain this to me. I really cannot get passed this one.

How is moving a mountain more significant that raising a man from the dead? I believe that your usage of the word 'significant' is a bit loose.

I know what you are intending to say. "Why didn't Jesus do some kind of empirical feat that is irrefutable"?

Well. Is moving a mountain irrefutable? Let's see

Let us hypothesize that Jesus moved a mountain. Who were the witnesses? Even if many witnesses were present, everytime the story is related in the future, it will still be questioned, even seen by many who WERE NOT THERE as a fabrication. Many people will still ask, "Did Jesus really move the mountain? " Ad infinitum. And, then we are back at square one.

 

[vanilla8]

If Jesus has moved a mountain from Israel to Egypt, how many books do you think there would now be, denying that the mountain was ever in Israel in the first place? With maps to prove their point!

 

[*Rob*]

if you honestly believe jesus didnt perform great miricals its time to pick up on mathew, mark, luke and john

 

[Jesi]

if you honestly believe jesus didnt perform great miricals its time to pick up on mathew, mark, luke and john

using the Bible to prove the Bible doesn't help me.

 

[prophecystudent]

I suspect further "discussion" on this thread is useless. Those who will not believe, will not believe no matter how substantial the evidence.

Then there are those who simply pose questions to generate responses. Usually heated ones.

Fred

 

[MikeMcK]

using the Bible to prove the Bible doesn't help me.

Last year, I was asked to be on a jury in which we were asked to decide whether or not a patent was a legal document.

How did we do this? We examined the patent.

In the same way, the only reasonable way to demonstrate that the Bible is legit is to examine the Bible.

 

[Jesi]

Last year, I was asked to be on a jury in which we were asked to decide whether or not a patent was a legal document.

How did we do this? We examined the patent.

In the same way, the only reasonable way to demonstrate that the Bible is legit is to examine the Bible.

but I can't consider the bible valid because of the obvious bias it has. the people who wrote it wrote it explicitely in favor of what they believed, and without facts to back it up. I treat the bible like any other book. The idea that it is "divinely inspired" holds no weight in my mind, so I cant simply take it's word for it.

 

[Jesi]

I suspect further "discussion" on this thread is useless. Those who will not believe, will not believe no matter how substantial the evidence.

Then there are those who simply pose questions to generate responses. Usually heated ones.

Fred

I pose questions to generate different ideas and viewpoints, which I then hold up against my own in order to either form new ideas or get rid of old ones.

I do not do this just to be a jerk. I am an honest seeker of answers. I don't expect these discussions to change my mind about god or religion or any of that, but hopefully it can shed more light on my understand of why Christians believe what they believe.

Understanding is all we can hope to achieve between people of different faiths. Not conversion.

 

[Rolande]

Jesi you do not have substanstial proof to say otherwise, that's like saying "well your evidence is useless because you MIGHT be lieing, so I am going to disregard it anyway". That is a form of bias itself, so in reality you are not looking at things from an unbiased point of view after all, as that form of bias is called 'omission bias'.

 

[MikeMcK]

but I can't consider the bible valid because of the obvious bias it has. the people who wrote it wrote it explicitely in favor of what they believed,

By that logic, how can I believe that anything you say is true? I mean, obviously, you're posts are biased toward what you believe.

Funny, but that patent I was telling you about was biased toward the idea that the invention was legit and that the ownership of the idea behind it belonged to the inventor.

But in spite of all of that, the only logical and legally sound way to determine it's truthfulness was to examine it and see whether or not it's claims were true.

What you're doing is a huge logical mistake. You're making a decision based on the fact that you don't like the conclusion of the Bible, rather than examining the claims of the Bible on their own merits.

One of my professors in college was a man named Hal Moore.

You've probably never heard of Hal Moore, unless you're into military history.

However, you might be familiar with his account of the formation of the Air Cavalry and the events that took place in the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam in 1965, as a result of his book, "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young" and the resulting movie, "We Were Soldiers", starring Mel Gibson.

Now, LtGen. Moore wrote that book biased to the idea that the events he was describing were true.

That he wrote a book, in itself, means nothing. Anybody can write anything.

Just look at the untruths found in Al Gore's book, "Earth For the Unbalanced" or that fellow who had the big controversy with Oprah Winfrey a few months ago.

There is nothing at all to stop someone from writing a work of fiction and passing it off as fact.

Because Hal Moore was the man who created the Air Cav, and led the mission on Ia Drang, he has a certain authority to write about it and his words have a little more credibility.

Because there were witnesses, his words have a little more credibility.

Because his claims have been comfirmed to be true by outside sources, we can assume that they were true.

Because we can examine the claims for ourselves and examine the many accounts of the Ia Drang mission, we can know beyond a reasonable certainty that they are true.

In the same way, the men who wrote the Gospels were with Jesus. They saw His miracles.

They had witnesses. They had outside confirmation that their claims were true.

We can examine the Gospels and the claims of Jesus Christ and see beyond a reasonable certainty that they are true.

and without facts to back it up

Actually, there is a ton of evidence to support the claims of the Bible. Many other posters in this thread have already presented you with them.

I treat the bible like any other book.

Somehow I doubt that. Are you saying that you don't trust any book?

The idea that it is "divinely inspired" holds no weight in my mind, so I cant simply take it's word for it.

No one's asking you to take anyone's word for anything. I'm asking you to examine the claims of scripture, specifically the claims of Jesus Christ, on their own merits.

But that would require an open mind on your part and you've shown us that you don't have an open mind.

 

[Jesi]

[quote] But that would require an open mind on your part and you've shown us that you don't have an open mind.[/quote]


and you obviously have not read my posts, where I say that I am not here looking for some huge spiritual revelation. I just want to hear opinions.

I'm sure your mind is just WIDE open, isn't it?

And yes, I do treat the Bible like any other book. You say the Bible's authors witnessed Jesus firsthand, but the only proof you have of that claim is that they said so in their books.

Any book that claims to know something has to prove it to me. That's just how I understand things. We don't all have the luxury of faith.

I don't ever expect us to agree about the Bible, because you believe its stories represent actual events, and I think it's just a story. It's a good story, and even as a non-Christian, I can appreciate the things Jesus says in the story.

I just have a few questions about it, that's all.

 

[solarwave]

and you obviously have not read my posts, where I say that I am not here looking for some huge spiritual revelation. I just want to hear opinions.

I can see what you mean, as if I was talking to someone from another religon I would just want questions answered. But if your gunna ask questions, but except answers that don't make sense, then........

I'm sure your mind is just WIDE open, isn't it?

Can I ask do you fully know in your heart that you are right that there is no God?? Thats a lot of faith if you are.

I don't ever expect us to agree about the Bible, because you believe its stories represent actual events, and I think it's just a story. It's a good story, and even as a non-Christian, I can appreciate the things Jesus says in the story.

Considering we have proof nowdays about what we belive, and scientists have to talk about things years ago to prove evolution. Something that can be seen today is the more reliable one. I have seen people healed, just trust that I or the person healed wasn't lying. Theres things to see if you look, and look in the right places.

 

[Jesi]

Can I ask do you fully know in your heart that you are right that there is no God?? Thats a lot of faith if you are.

of course not, that's why I'm agnostic

 

[hlaltimus]

Why didn't Jesus perform REAL miracles? I know the Bible says he turned water into wine and made a few loaves of bread and fish feed a bunch of people. I know the Bible says that he raised Lazerus from the dead and healed the sick. And I know the Bible says he died and rose again 3 days later.

But each and every one of these miracles are disputtable. If they cannot be performed by a clever magician, they can be fabricated in some other way.

So why didn't he do something we couldn't argue with? Like moving a mountain. I mean, he said that if you have even the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains...seems to me like that would've been a perfect time for a demonstration.

If Jesus had moved a mountain from one place to another, there would be no denying his power and divinity. Moving a mountain would've validated everything he claimed to be.

Some might say that if he had done this, then it would leave no room for free will, because we would not be able to question whether or not he was genuine with such hard evidence.

If that is so, why did he bother doing any miracles at all? If he was not trying to prove who he was, then why turn water into wine? Just to keep the party going? Why heal a few sick people when were thousands of sick people who could've used a helping hand?

He just did it to show off? But he couldn't do anything of real significance, like move a mountain?

Please, explain this to me. I really cannot get passed this one.

Your saying, basically, that Christ's miracles were disputable as being truly unique and may be copied by ordinary people and means. Well, when have you ever seen a child born by a woman totally without the aid of the opposite gender? I haven't seen one yet, nor ever will. The virgin birth of Chirst puts Him quickly into the catagory of being truly Divine and that makes Him very special.

 

[Jesi]

Your saying, basically, that Christ's miracles were disputable as being truly unique and may be copied by ordinary people and means. Well, when have you ever seen a child born by a woman totally without the aid of the opposite gender? I haven't seen one yet, nor ever will. The virgin birth of Chirst puts Him quickly into the catagory of being truly Divine and that makes Him very special.

I've read that many scholars and theologians believe that "virgin birth" was a mistranslation of a similar word that means "young woman" which does not contend that she was a virgin.

To me, that is reasonable doubt.

 

[MikeMcK]

[quote] But that would require an open mind on your part and you've shown us that you don't have an open mind.

I'm sure your mind is just WIDE open, isn't it?

Sure. If you can make a reasonable argument to show me why you believe that I'm wrong, I'll consider it with an open mind.

And yes, I do treat the Bible like any other book. You say the Bible's authors witnessed Jesus firsthand, but the only proof you have of that claim is that they said so in their books.

That's right. And the fact that, although they all wrote their letters independently of one another, in different places and times, their letters are in perfect harmony with one another and describe the same events in strikingly similar detail, I believe their claim is credible.

Again, are you saying that you don't trust any book?

Any book that claims to know something has to prove it to me. That's just how I understand things. We don't all have the luxury of faith.

I don't ever expect us to agree about the Bible, because you believe its stories represent actual events, and I think it's just a story. It's a good story, and even as a non-Christian, I can appreciate the things Jesus says in the story.

So then, how do you explain the fact that so many of the "stories" detail real, historical events?