Miracles

[truthreality]

What are the atheist explanations for the miracles in the Bible? Particularly the miracles committed by Jesus. Are all of them fraud?

[Jack]

I submit most if not all are the result of stories about Jesus being orally transmitted for years before someone wrote them down. During that time they were enlarged and elaborated upon. Some were invented out of the whole cloth. At that time and place there was no easy way to corroborate stories told about someone already dead. If I said I saw Jesus touch a sick man on the shoulder and later the man got better, eventually, after many retellings, that simple story could easily turn into "I saw Jesus heal a man from a horrible disease with a single touch". Those who want to believe the enlarged tale will, and they'll retell it and it will grow even more fantastic. It's a reasonable explanation for something we still see happen today. It also explains the god of the Old Testament.

[truthreality]

I submit most if not all are the result of stories about Jesus being orally transmitted for years before someone wrote them down. During that time they were enlarged and elaborated upon. Some were invented out of the whole cloth. At that time and place there was no easy way to corroborate stories told about someone already dead. If I said I saw Jesus touch a sick man on the shoulder and later the man got better, eventually, after many retellings, that simple story could easily turn into "I saw Jesus heal a man from a horrible disease with a single touch". Those who want to believe the enlarged tale will, and they'll retell it and it will grow even more fantastic. It's a reasonable explanation for something we still see happen today. It also explains the god of the Old Testament.

So what you are saying is the Gospel's were not written by eye witnesses? Do you have evidence for this assertion?

[Jack]

So what you are saying is the Gospel's were not written by eye witnesses?

Correct. That's my opinion.

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

No. I've offered a personal opinion based on past reading on the topic and experiments I'm familiar with that show how stories passed around orally suffer changes as they pass from person to person. This far removed in time from the actual events I don't see how we can ever establish beyond a reasonable doubt the authenticity of the gospels. The primary if not only source we have is the Bible and citing the Bible as evidence of what's recorded in the Bible is unacceptably circular. We have no idea how many changes and "corrections" have been made through the centuries by scribes and church leaders to the text of the gospels. I have read a number of theologians and Biblical scholars who cannot agree on the sources or authenticity of the New Testament but I don't have citations at hand.

[truthreality]

No. I've offered a personal opinion based on past reading on the topic and experiments I'm familiar with that show how stories passed around orally suffer changes as they pass from person to person. This far removed in time from the actual events I don't see how we can ever establish beyond a reasonable doubt the authenticity of the gospels. The primary if not only source we have is the Bible and citing the Bible as evidence of what's recorded in the Bible is unacceptably circular. We have no idea how many changes and "corrections" have been made through the centuries by scribes and church leaders to the text of the gospels. I have read a number of theologians and Biblical scholars who cannot agree on the sources or authenticity of the New Testament but I don't have citations at hand.

I find it hard to just dismiss the authenticity of the Bible. For example, Jesus's crucifixion:

"The latest investigation, reported in the journal International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open."

I linked you the article in case you wanted to dig deeper into it as you probably have a better eye for science and truth then I do.

I really feel like this really sort of validates the Bible and it's reliability in a way.

What do you think?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

What are the atheist explanations for the miracles in the Bible? Particularly the miracles committed by Jesus. Are all of them fraud?

We dont have to offer an explanation, because you christians have done nothing to actually prove that any of the reports of miracles are actually accurate.

Why do you guys seem to shift the burden of proof so often? is it because you know you cant actually evidence you claims?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I find it hard to just dismiss the authenticity of the Bible. For example, Jesus's crucifixion:

"The latest investigation, reported in the journal International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion:And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open."

I linked you the article in case you wanted to dig deeper into it as you probably have a better eye for science and truth then I do.

I really feel like this really sort of validates the Bible and it's reliability in a way.

What do you think?

So, you want to correlate an earthquake that cannot be pinned down to any specific time within a 10 YEAR frame and somehow say that it coincided with another event that you cant even demonstrate happened?

THIS is what you call supporting evidence?

[truthreality]

We dont have to offer an explanation, because you christians have done nothing to actually prove that any of the reports of miracles are actually accurate.

Why do you guys seem to shift the burden of proof so often? is it because you know you cant actually evidence you claims?

So, you want to correlate an earthquake that cannot be pinned down to any specific time within a 10 YEAR frame and somehow say that it coincided with another event that you cant even demonstrate happened?

THIS is what you call supporting evidence?

I am sorry I am laughing my ass off. You just went on a rant against me even though I am an innocent bystander. I am not a Christian. I am just curious about the topic. No harm done I think it's funny.

On a more serious not I feel intimidated by Christians when they provide reasons as to why these claims are true. It gives them power to say that if I don't believe in their divine God who did miracles I am going to hell.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I am sorry I am laughing my ass off. You just went on a rant against me even though I am an innocent bystander. I am not a Christian. I am just curious about the topic. No harm done I think it's funny.

You arent just a curious bystander. you started the topic AND defended it.

Im simply pointing out where the point of the original post and the defense are both ridiculous. Athiests dont have to debunk christian mysticism claims, because those claims are not supported with good evidence. Therefore, there is nothing to debunk.

Its the same as if someone offered up a question about the "atheist explanation for the existence of leprechauns' pots of gold". we dont have anywhere near enough evidence to support the claim that leprechauns, or their pots of gold, exist, and therefore disbelievers in leprechauns dont need to explain them.

[Jack]

I really feel like this really sort of validates the Bible and it's reliability in a way.

In a way? The same way that using this reasoning we'd have to say the Da Vinci Code is "valid and reliable" since it mentions events and places that we can verify as actual events and places? The Sun rose this morning and I turned into a vampire. Well, I can prove the Sun rose this morning. Does that prove that I also turned into a vampire?

Sure the Bible contains factual information. I certainly wouldn't say that describes the majority of the Bible's content. And I'd further say that doesn't at all describe the various "miracles" mentioned in the Bible.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

In a way? The same way that using this reasoning we'd have to say the Da Vinci Code is "valid and reliable" since it mentions events and places that we can verify as actual events and places? The Sun rose this morning and I turned into a vampire. Well, I can prove the Sun rose this morning. Does that prove that I also turned into a vampire?

Sure the Bible contains factual information. I certainly wouldn't say that describes the majority of the Bible's content. And I'd further say that doesn't at all describe the various "miracles" mentioned in the Bible.

Spiderman comics depict at least one real city and some actual events in history. Does this make spiderman comics accurate and true?

[truthreality]

You arent just a curious bystander. you started the topic AND defended it.

Im simply pointing out where the point of the original post and the defense are both ridiculous. Athiests dont have to debunk christian mysticism claims, because those claims are not supported with good evidence. Therefore, there is nothing to debunk.

Its the same as if someone offered up a question about the "atheist explanation for the existence of leprechauns' pots of gold". we dont have anywhere near enough evidence to support the claim that leprechauns, or their pots of gold, exist, and therefore disbelievers in leprechauns dont need to explain them.

Actually I don't find the accusation funny anymore. In fact I find it insulting now. Are you trying to say that I am deceiving you into thinking I am not a Christian to strengthen my "argument". I didn't defend the original post to strengthen my point of view as a pseudo Christian but for the sake of argument.

I brought it up because it is a legitimate persuasion technique used by many Christians to validate the validity of their claims. You can't tell me that billions of people are not swayed by this tactic.

You have four Gospels describing 37 miracles in which many of the miracles overlap. You have geologists saying that the environment of the crucifixion of Jesus described in the one of the Gospels concords with their findings of an earthquake. That they also confirm that Jesus was crucified.

I am just saying I find it hard not to take their claims seriously. That's why I am coming to atheists for help. Why are you getting defensive about this instead of feeling honored?

I am asking you to refute the accuracy of the claims about the miracles made in the Gospels. I am asking you to refute their authenticity. Is there historical secular information that refutes this?

The Christians always brag about the Bible being 99.6% accurate in terms of it's documentation which is more than any other ancient documentation.