> Miracles

It's interesting to look through the Bible and notice how the miracles never seem to convince too many people. People seem to make their decisions about spiritual things apart from the working of wonders. When Moses did miracles for the Pharaoh, he stubbornly resisted Moses' demands. When God did one miracle after another for the people of Israel after they left Egypt, they all still fell away in rebellion. When Elijah did a great miracle on top of Mt. Carmel, the people still continued in their sin. And when Jesus did hundreds of miracles, one after another, people just wanted more of the show and weren't really motivated to consider his claims to deity. People nowadays say, "God should just show himself to us," or "If he did miracles now (in the era of video and scientific proof), we'd be convinced." I don't buy it. People are generally not convinced by miracles, but by truth. The miracles are just signs, not convincing proof, so it seems. They justify them in their minds to be other things (magic tricks, sleight of hand, natural occurrences, whatever).

> Jesus should have been a huge figure at the time, with tons of historical evidence and records in Roman emperors journals and diaries, don't you think?

Rome only cared about Rome. It was an astounding center of cultural pride, philosophical skepticism, legalism, and power. The universe revolved around Rome. A messianic claimant in a dirty corner of the empire was of no import to Rome; Jesus was just another candidate in a long list of religious exhibitionists in a land known for religious obsession, as far as Rome was concerned, and they couldn't have cared less. As far as Rome was concerned, Jesus was only of local political concern to Pilate, trying to keep peace in what he considered to be one of the worst places in the empire. Later, Jesus only enters the writings of Roman historians because the Christians are perceived as unpatriotic because they won't worship the emperor.

> About the old testament and the prophecies, how would you respond to the claims that the main promises weren't delivered, so it's not reasonable to state that he was the true messiah?

I would have several responses to those claims. The first would be that there was a great misunderstanding of the messiah in that most thought he was only coming once, when in reality he was coming twice, with each coming having certain characteristics. His first coming was in humility as the suffering servant (Isa. 53), and his second coming was in power, as per the "messianic prophecies." My second response is that people don't understand that the entire OT is a messianic prophecy, not just the snippets traditionally identified as such. Jesus shows up on virtually every page of the OT.

Fair enough, specially the last comment makes tons of sense. But about the miracles, I often wonder: if they were so bold and impressive, how come everyone in the region who saw it didn't immediately convert? Jesus should have been a huge figure at the time, with tons of historical evidence and records in Roman emperors journals and diaries, don't you think?

About the old testament and the prophecies, how would you respond to the claims that the main promises weren't delivered, so it's not reasonable to state that he was the true messiah? Like the jewish people still not being united in one region, or the tremendous suffering they have gone through.

> Is there any historical evidence for such claims?

There are good reasons to take the Gospels as historical documents. Jesus' miracle-working ability is also mentioned in Josephus, in the Testimonium Flavianum.

> but no more than your average magician/trickster at the time

Now this is where you are lacking in historical evidence. There is no reason to take Jesus' miracles, by any recording of them or even any imagination of them, as magician tricks. They are not of the same sort or like any sleight of hand tricks a magician would do. Your suggestion of this makes me consider that you are biased and not looking objectively at the evidence at hand.

> About the prophecies: Jesus was jewish, right? So he knew about the old testament, or at least the culture surrounding it? So why couldn't he just adapt those into his teachings?

There is actually a theory out there that Jesus read up on the prophecies and orchestrated his life to match them. It has been resoundly discredited because so much of his life was outside the possibility of such manipulation (such as where he was born, the flight to Egypt, how people treated him, how he was killed, the events surrounding his death, etc.).

> One more, if you have the patience: if God wanted people to know the word of God and follow it, why couldn't he just do it automatically?

God is love, and his interesting us is a love relationship. A relationship that automatic is robotic and determined and has nothing to do with love. Love can only truly be exercised if it is entered into freely and executed willfully. Anything else is just tyranny.

Is there any historical evidence for such claims? We have some evidence about a Jesus figure that made quite the impression, but no more than your average magician/trickster at the time. If those miracles were true, why isn't there historical evidence about a superstar curing blind people? He seems more like an underground politician with appealing ideas to his followers. The poor and rich dichotomy, specially.
About the prophecies: Jesus was jewish, right? So he knew about the old testament, or at least the culture surrounding it? So why couldn't he just adapt those into his teachings?

One more, if you have the patience: if God wanted people to know the word of God and follow it, why couldn't he just do it automatically?

> I'm not sure how you reconcile the above two contrary claims.

They're not contrary at all. Jesus was neither a man nor a special kind of man nor a superior man, but God. He did those things not as a human, but as God.

Other people through history have been able to do miracles, but they were by other spiritual powers than that of God. Yes, I believe in spiritual beings and spiritual forces. They don't do these miracles by their own power because they are "special" or "superior", but by ungodly spiritual forces they gain access to. That's why just the doing of miracles doesn't prove "I am God." Jesus miracles were signs of his deity but not proofs of it.

> John 10.22-42.

The high point is in verse 30 where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." The word he uses for "one" here doesn't mean one person (in which case he would have used a different Greek word), but one essence.

> Again, your interpretation makes sense, but it's really not all that straightforward or obvious.

Right. Not everything in the Bible is completely straightforward or obvious. Sometimes (often) we have to look below the surface and do a little research.

> Daniel 7.13-14

The Ancient of Days is God. "One like a son of man" approaches him. Who is this son of man? You're right that there are various interpretations:

- Jesus
- The Jewish people
- The Messiah
- Judas Maccabaeus
- An angel
- Michael the archangel
- the kingdom of the saints as opposed to the 4 empires

Jesus, however, takes this moniker to himself, and uses it more than any other self-identifying label. This "son of man" is both divine and human, yet distinguished from the Ancient of Days. He "comes with the clouds of heaven" (a mark of divine authority and majesty); he is given authority, glory and sovereign power; he is worshipped and given an eternal kingdom. The argument that this is Jesus is strong and substantial.

> Walking on water, healing the blind, raising the dead—just a special kind of man?? I think you're being a little disingenuous here. No human can do that stuff, not even a superior one.

> The Bible makes no bones about other people being able to do miracles ... The miracles he did were signs of his deity but not proofs of it.

I'm not sure how you reconcile the above two contrary claims.

> John 10.22-42 is very clear that Jesus considered himself to be of the same essence and being as God the Father.

It's not clear to me. I'm not saying the standard interpretation is implausible; but I'm saying that it's not all that obvious.

> This is the message of Job 9 and of Jesus walking on the water.

Again, your interpretation makes sense, but it's really not all that straightforward or obvious.

> John 9.32-33. "Only a person from God" = "Only God"

I was typing in a hurry and wrote "=" instead of "≠", so thanks for looking past that. As for the Son of Man, I don't see how it's an obvious claim to deity, since it's not clear that Daniel meant it as such. Or the claim that "I and Father are One": maybe it's a claim to deity, maybe it's not. Again, it's not that I'm convinced Jesus isn't God; it's just that it's not clear to me one way or the other.

> It's an aorist tense in the Greek, more precisely translated, "Your sins at this moment are forgiven."

That still doesn't preclude the interpretation that Jesus is merely informing the forgiven one (though, I agree, that's probably a less likely interpretation).

The Bible makes no bones about other people being able to do miracles, and not even all miracle-doing had God as its source (Rev. 13.13-14; Mt. 7.21-23). Jesus isn't God because he was able to do miracles; Jesus is God because he was God born in the flesh. The miracles he did were signs of his deity but not proofs of it.

> or about the miracles confirming that he's God's son

John 10.22-42 is very clear that Jesus considered himself to be of the same essence and being as God the Father. They were one in divine action, though separate persons (Father and Son). The designation as God's Son doesn't mean he wasn't God himself (Jn. 1.1).

> Job 9.8

One of the things that Job 9 is about is the vast superiority of God (so much so that he is set apart from all the rest of creation), and man's insignificance by comparison. It speaks of his wisdom, power, sovereignty, transcendence, and capability to do miracles.

The specific context of Job is that God, in walking on the water, is competent to judge the people of earth. It was a picture of subjugation and defeat, a "God is sovereign over all" image. This image carries through to Jesus walking on the water in the Gospels. He was completely sovereign over all nature, and therefore also of all humanity. God's power and authority is so total that all (especially in the OT where the seas were mythologically considered to be a force of chaos and disorder) forces must submit to his supremacy. This is the message of Job 9 and of Jesus walking on the water.

> John 9.32-33. "Only a person from God" = "Only God"

Notice that it was the beggar man who expressed these words, but Jesus follows it up with stronger language. In v. 35 Jesus self-identifies as "the Son of Man," a moniker indicating his deity (Dan. 7.13-14. It's a claim to deity that Jesus continues to support in John 10.1-18 (especially v. 11), where the shepherd imagery follows the OT images of God as shepherd (Genesis 48:15; 49:24; Psalms 23:1; 28:9; 77:20; 78.77; Isaiah 40:11; Ezk. 34.11-31). Such talk riles the people up, and they demand clarity about what he is claiming (Jn. 10.24), and so Jesus says it clearly: "I and the Father are one," the most clear statement Jesus made about his equality to God the Father—one in essence and being.

> Yeah, I think this is one of the stronger arguments for Jesus' deity, but it could well be that Jesus is not forgiving sins, but informing that sins have been forgiven.

Except that's not how the religious leaders who were there understood it, and Jesus never correct them as if they were seeing it wrong. It's an aorist tense in the Greek, more precisely translated, "Your sins at this moment are forgiven."

> Walking on water, healing the blind, raising the dead—just a special kind of man??

Moses parted the Red Sea, Elisha healed leprosy, Elijah raised the widow's son.

> John 10.22-42 is about the miracles confirming Jesus' deity

... or about the miracles confirming that he's God's son

> In poetic form, Job 9.8 says that God is the only one who can walk on water.

That's one interpretation, and not that obvious a one either.

> John 9.32-33: Only a person from God can heal the blind.

"Only a person from God" = "Only God"

> Healing the lame: Isa. 35.4-6. Compare with Matthew 11.5.

This seems perfectly compatible with God working through Jesus.

> And obviously also places like Mark 2.5-7.

Yeah, I think this is one of the stronger arguments for Jesus' deity, but it could well be that Jesus is not forgiving sins, but informing that sins have been forgiven.

Well, if you think Peter walked on the water on his own power, then you assume it's a do-able thing. So I challenge you to go do it. If it's that normal and easy, put your money where your mouth is.

> Ananias

Yes, Paul did have temporary blindness from his experience. That's a very different thing than a person born blind.

> Elijah and Elisha

Yep, they did. Raising the dead doesn't make Jesus God. It's a demonstration of supernatural power. It's one of many things that were a confirmation of who he was. But, frankly speaking, it's not anything Jesus did that made him God. It was his nature and character that made him God. The things he said and did were signs of who he was. When it comes right down to it, it all rests at the incarnation. If Jesus was God in the flesh, then he was, and if he wasn't, then he wasn't. All the great words and amazing actions were signs of his person, not what made him God.

Peter also walked on water, and Jesus even scolded him when Peter's faith wavered and he started to sink. If Jesus scolded someone for not being able to do something, it must therefore be something they should be able to do.

Ananias restored sight to Saul in Acts7-18.

Elijah and Elisha raised the dead.

Just sayin.