Johnny Skeptic

If Jesus performed many miracles in many places that were seen by thousands of people, why is it such a well-kept secret among contemporary historians? For instance, Matthew 4:24 says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them." If those and other similar events actually happened, Pontius Pilate would surely have been aware of them, and so would contemporary historians all over the Middle East.

No one should play any attention to what Josephus says about Jesus' powers.

The time lag between the alleged miracles and the recording of the miracles is quite suspicious. No rational person would expect that Alexander the Great's exploits would have been first recorded decades after the fact.

Since I am not a scholarly type, maybe I have missed something. I look forward to reading comments from readers.

It is amazing that the scholarly Christians at this forum believe that they have discovered God's existence and supposed good character in copies of ancient texts without any present tangible confirmations at all. If a person has to become a Bible scholar to find God, something is wrong. I assume that most Christians who presently place great importance on Biblical scholarship became Christians before they had any interest in Biblical scholarship, in which case they are mainly trying to convince THEMSELVES that they made the right choice.

andrewcriddle

Among surviving 1st century non-Christian writers (apart from Josephus) which exactly would you expect to mention Jesus' miracles ?

(One of the historical problems about Alexander the Great is that the earliest surviving sources for much of his live were written several hundred years after his death.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

But what is quite surprising is that there is not even one single credible historical first hand eyewitness account, or a later account, of a skeptic who witnessed the miracles that Jesus performed, but rejected him, at least as far as I know. During Jesus' life, I think that you will agree that the majority of people did not become his followers, even though it would not have been difficult for curious people to see him perform miracles if they wanted to. I assume that if Jesus performed lots of miracles in many places, it would have created a great deal of interest, including from Pilate. If the miracles actually occurred, Pilate would have immediately have contacted Rome, but there is no credibleevidence that he did. As you know, the texts say that Jesus perfomed many miracles that were not recorded. So, it is probable that Jesus did not perform any miracles. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you assume that is was any different back then?

If the Ten Plagues in Egypt actually happened, they surely would have been recorded by many contemparary and future historians, but they weren't, including not by the Egyptians.

Of course, there should be no need for people to have to debate about the miracles of Jesus today. God should send Jesus back to earth to perform more miracles, that is, if he is not willing that any should persish, reference 2 Peter 3:9. It appears that God is willing that some will perish. In the KJV, John 3:2 says "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." Tangible evidence is much more convincing than spiritual evidence. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, the book of Acts says that the disciples went about confirming "the message of his grace" with signs and wonders. Some of those alleged signs and wonders were tangible. Surely spiritual AND tangible evidence is much more credible than just subjective spiritual evidence.

Do you have any evidence that today, tangible benefits are not distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics?

It is quite naturally difficult for many people to decide if God is trying reveal or conceal himself. I am not aware of any benefits that God or humans derive from God's refusal to clearly reveal his existence and will to everyone like Jesus supposedly revealed his own existence and God's will? Are you?

djrafikie

Aye egypt is the place to look for verification, as they were recording on stone tablets and clay (which, obvo is amazingly durable) and were using proper nice toilets and heated showers/in house saunas way before jesus and his followers were trudging through rat ridden streets and sharing verruca ridden public baths, shitting through stones into open sewers.
I'm betting there is'nt much to be found..

Malachi151

Because there was no Jesus....

Anonimus

[Devil'sAdvocate] Is it possible that contemporary documentation of Jesus's career as a miracle worker existed, but that it was later destroyed by people antagonistic to Christianity and/or somehow lost as ancient documents are prone to be? Or is it possible that Jesus was a true miracle worker, but that no one bothered to note him because, in those superstitious times, he was standard fare?[/Devil'sAdvocate]

Malachi151

This doesn't work, and here is why.

#1) The documents existed, but didn't make it to us:

Its not just an issue of copies the original documents not making it, but you would have to argue that none of the other Christian apologists from the 1st-5th century ever saw any of these documents either, or saw them and decided not to write about them, or that their writings about them have also been lost.

Given the nature of what has been preserved, this is EXTREMELY unlikely.

#2) The miracles weren't recorded because they were common place.

People may have been superstitious, but they never actually saw real miracles, (unless you want to argue that real miracles were taking place back then also). If someone really was healing blind people, turning water into wine, raising the dead, and floating up into the sky, then you can bet it would have been an amazing thing that people noticed.

Anonimus

Whether the miracles people saw back then were real or not is beside the point I was making. My point was that if people back then fairly often saw things that they perceived to be true miracles, then perhaps they would have found a miracle working Jesus less than worthy of note. I think a better objection to my point would've been that, even if supposed miracle workers were common back then, a lurid figure such as Jesus would have been given some sort of mention somewhere, even if only briefly, especially when you look at what it is besides miracles that the Gospels note him for.