Hex

Because 'literists' look to take those myths as the exact truth, even when they go against science and documented historical fact.

Supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"

Johnny Skeptic

By supernatural accomplishments I am referring to accomplishments that God did that humans are not able to do.

The following is from another post:

Regarding the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you believe that it was any different back then? Even if a man named Jesus rose from the dead, that is not nearly sufficient grounds for anyone to become a Christian. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead, you most certainly would not worship him. Rising from the dead only proves one thing, that you had the power to raise yourself from the dead, or that someone else had the power to raise you from the dead. Power alone is not sufficient grounds to accept anyone. Since you do not have sufficient evidence that Jesus performed miracles, and since you do not have sufficient evidence what he said, why are you a Christian? None of the anonymous Gospel writers ever claimed that they witnessed a miracle, or ever claimed that they heard Jesus say anything, and as far a I know, they never revealed who their sources were.

Larsguy47

You mean besides JOHN who wrote John? He was with Jesus when these miracles happened. That is, everything in John plus when Jesus appeared after his death is all first-hand. Some exclude the "Synoptic Gospels" from John; were you excluding John when you say "gospels"?

LG47

RED DAVE

Stuff and nonsense. There is no evidence that anhy of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who had access to eyewitnesses.

They were written decades after the events that they were allegedly chronicling, in a different language.

RED DAVE

Johnny Skeptic

But which John wrote John? Consider the following from the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004:

"John, Epistles of, three books of the New Testament. Ecclesiastical tradition has ascribed them to Saint John the Evangelist. Today, however, considerable disagreement exists over the authorship of the five books ascribed to John: the three Epistles, the Gospel of John, and Revelation. Thus, for example, despite close similarities in language, literary style, and theology between the three Epistles and the Gospel, some scholars attribute the Gospel and 1 John to John the Evangelist, and 2 and 3 John to another author, perhaps 'the elder' (a church official) named in 2 John 1:1 and 3 John 1:1. Other scholars attribute all four works to the same person, possibly 'the elder,' instead of to John the Evangelist. Still other scholars, making no mention of the Gospel, attribute 1 and 2 John to one author and 3 John to another. A view favored by many commentators is that one author, who may have been 'the elder,' wrote all three Epistles and the Gospel. Scholars generally agree that the letters date from about the turn of the 1st century ad."

Regarding "Scholars generally agree that the letters date from about the turn of the 1st century ad," do you generally find writings written that long after the supposed facts to be convincing?

Wikipedia says "There is no scholarly consensus with regard to the identity of the author, even after centuries of debate. Scholars usually date John to c. 90 and consider it anonymous."

In your opinion, now many alleged eyewitnesses are reasonable for people to believe that a certain supernatural event happened? If your best friend told you that he saw a pig sprout wings and fly, would you believe him? If not, how many other eyewitnesses would it take for you to believe that he saw a pig sprout wings and fly?

Is it your position that Jesus literally did everything that the New Testament said that he did?