mon chi chi

I think we can't disregard that lying deal just this yet. Think of it, people usually lie if they think they can get something in return (IE: when he/she steals something and doesn't want to get caught, they'll probably lie about it; or if someone bribes him/her to lie, he/she will probably do it). Jesus didn't bribe people if they believed "such and such". For one thing, he told people almost the opposite thing by telling them to give up all they have and to follow him. So, I ask again, why would two or more people risk their lives all for a lie when they know that it actually didn't happen, they get nothing from it, and know that they could go to jail or possibly even die?
You are, however, right to an extent about determining miracles. Like, what would be considered "magic" or a "miracle" in the Middle Ages would be considered "natural" or "explainable" today (IE: gunpowder). Same goes w/what would be called a "miracle" today could be called "natural" in the future. However, then there are those miracles people haven't been able to "explain away". Say, if a miracle defies something we already know about (IE: A person all the sudden flies, and shows no physical changes inside or outside his/her body; or a person makes something out of nothing, and we see no manipulation of existing atoms), then it is effectively a miracle. Jesus did these things (except fly, but he did ascend to heaven after he rose from the dead). He even healed the sick and crippled. How can those miracles be hallucinations when the person(s) who couldn't walk was healed and can then clearly walk? Those miracles were watched by many people, both friend AND enemy, so it would be impossible to make all of them hallucinate. So, you can't say Jesus' miracles were hallucinations or unreal.
Also, I have an "assignment" and book that I'd like you to read too. Its called 'The Case For Christ' by Lee Strobel. It goes through a lot of the arguments against Jesus' existence, etc., and gives a valid answer to all of them, archaeologically and logically. The student edition is much easier to digest, and you get about as much from it as the original.

mark9950

There is not a debate with me.

If he did exist he was just a man like david koresh who proclaimed himself a a god.

Now for the few thousand years the Jews had really read the torah and the new testament.They believe and can prove from the torah that Jesus was a false prophet that was just as nuts as david koresh.

Peter Kirby

You posit, without discussion of any evidence, that Jesus did such nature-defying miracles as ascending into heaven, and conclude that Jesus was indeed existed as one who defied nature. That is known as a circular argument or begging the question.

What you are talking about here is not the existence of a historical Jesus, which is inadequate for Christian faith, but the existence of the divine man Christ, who walked on water and rose from the dead. The latter is a different and much less probable claim.

And recommending the student edition of Strobel? Are we reading at a fourth grade level here?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

LOL. The Case for Christ is a joke. Is this guy for real?

Toto

The profile for mon chi chi does not match the content of the OP. Is this a cut and paste from somewhere?

Steven Carr

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm demonstrates how the miracles of Jesus are literary devices, using the same methods Christians use to denigrate the Book of Mormon and teh Koran

Jabu Khan

Anyone else think the story of Jesus sounds a little like the life of Socrates turned into a tall-tale?

Weltall

If the OP is actually serious, he might want to check out http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/strobel.html or read Challenging the Verdict by Earl Doherty as good places to start in understanding why Strobel is, to use the technical terms, a big fat idiot.

Doctor X

Regards the smoldering pile with some amusement. . . .

Yeah . . . but . . . like . . . wasn't . . . you know . . . Strobel an ATHEIST . . . who wanted to . . . you know . . . DISPROVE Jesus . . . but found he . . . you know . . . proved him?!

. . . then . . . like . . . a bunch of science professors renounced science?

The "I-Was-a-Teenage-Skeptic" motiff is common throughout flim-flam. I have quite a few books on martial arts crapolla . . . hint: if you cut a block of ice with a hot wire and then stick the ends together it breaks more easily . . . and the proponents all swear that they did not believe "until Master of Doom showed me. . . ." I am beginning to think the the level of claimed skepticism is inversely proportional to the actual skepticism.

--J.D.

Doctor X

. . . and another thing. . . .

Since I remain an optimist and will allow myself the delusion that Mon Chi Chi is actually interested in discussion and explain his "how could all those people have seen the miracle" problem.

Of course, a scholar will simply explain that the stories were written decades after the fact, by individual who were not witnesses, and they contradict one another. The literary device of Mk's "loaves 'n fishies" miracle is rather obvious: the disciples are so stupid that Junior has to repeat the miracle for them.

Nevertheless, can people be fooled? Any magician who is ethical will respond with a resounding "yes." For this I recommend two books by James "I am NOT a Crumudgeon!" Randi--"the Amazing" [All Right Reserved.--Ed.] Randi.

The Faith Healers gives a devestating exposure of the practices of faith healers. "Many people" believed the miracles.

Flim Flam contains a story where Randi gave an interview on radio--in New York, methinks. He explains at the onset that, during his drive to the station, he saw a UFO. The board lights up and callers start describing UFOs. Long story short, they narrowed down on details such as shape, numbers, how many passes, and who got anal-probed [Stop that!--Ed.]

Then Randi revealed he made it up.

So, if you can get people to claim to see something they never saw. . . .

If you buy the books through his website JREF he will sign them for you.

--J.D.