Board index ‹ Miracles

[Baggins]

Are there any documents outside of the Bible that contain information about Jesus’s miracles? How do we know he didn’t fake them?

[jimwalton]

• Josephus, in a text parts of which are considered to be historically reliable (Testimonium Flavianum), mentions "Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds."
• A bowl recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dates to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) "*dia chrstou o goistais*," translated by the excavation team as "through Christ the magician." It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for His miracles.
• The Paris Magical Papyrus, dated to about AD 300, describes an elaborate exorcism ritual that begins with, "I beseech you by the god of the Hebrews," and then lists a number of mystical names, of which Jesu is the first one listed. The papyrus then continues with numerous other references to biblical events and persons, some of which are undecipherable. It is yet another evidence from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known as a worker of wonders, a successful exorcist, and called "the god of the Hebrews."

> How do we know he didn’t fake them?

We have to consider alternative explanations, since most of Jesus's miracles were in very public settings before crowds of people. Card tricks can be sleight of hand. Enabling a lame man to walk or a blind man to see is beyond trickery. This is not the stuff of David Copperfield. But let's talk about it.

[Krilling]

I'm sure you're familiar with the same kind of faith healing videos I've seen of televangelists healing people who haven't walked in 20 years and such. While neither one us can know for sure, it's likely that some of those people were much more motivated to try standing (peer pressure and mind over matter), could have felt less pain due to adrenaline (summoning the power of the holy spirit would be exciting), and may have not been as debilitated as they appeared to be (the audience plant or convenient actor).

Would it be possible that within the crowds that gathered around the famous healer, someone could be brought up and "healed" without anyone questioning that they didn't know the person? Or if the person healed wasn't planted and from the area, could they be engaging in the "game show effect" of playing along more than they otherwise would?

I'm wondering if this could be explained by some common circumstance we wouldn't find believable today, or if it is not possible for these miracles to have been misunderstood?

[jimwalton]

> I'm sure you're familiar with the same kind of faith healing videos

Yes, I'm familiar with those. I happen to think most of them are quacks and fakers. Imho, they're staged. I don't buy it.

> Would it be possible that within the crowds that gathered around the famous healer, someone could be brought up and "healed" without anyone questioning that they didn't know the person?

With the lame, I guess we'd have to consider it a possibility, except...

• What about blind people? That can't just be mind over matter.
• Jesus healed one guy who was blind from birth. That has nothing to do with adrenaline.
• Jesus brought some back from the dead who had been dead 4 days.

These things just can't be "game show effect." We have to deal with the whole story of Jesus and the claims of the Gospels. He healed people from leprosy (incurable in those days), a man with a shriveled hand, the blind and the deaf. These are different scenarios than the quacks of today.

[Obvious]

I remember learning about first and second century art in which Jesus also has a magic wand, which shows that people believed to have supernatural powers. From what I understand, it was relatively common for people in the first century to believe that Jesus was a magician, since his miracles were one of the things he was most famous for.

[Silk Fiji]

No, every miracle is based on the LXX and Paul's letters.

For example, Jesus emulating Moses in feeding multitudes in the desert and manipulating the sea is based on 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.

[jimwalton]

You have no evidence of this. We have talked many times before, and your arguments consistently hold no water.

You have NO EVIDENCE that the Gospel narrative of Jesus feeding the 5000 is contrived from and derived from 1 Cor. 10.1-4. Similarity doesn't indicate derivation. Just because Paul and the Gospel writers both perceived the same connection of Jesus being the "new Moses," the real deliverer of His people, doesn't mean "every miracle is based on the LXX and Paul's letters." It's an unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable case, yet you persist in them.

The Gospels, and Matthew in particular, often show how Jesus was superior to Moses in every way, that He was the "new Moses," the genuine liberator of people, the authentic one who leads to the real promised land. The Gospel writers perceived this connection, as did Paul. And that fact doesn't mean that the Gospel writers are fabricating connections because they read it in Paul. There is no justification and no evidence for such a position, other than that they both perceive similar themes: Jesus is the new Moses, the "real Moses," the true deliverer.

[Tarnished]

> Josephus, in a text parts of which are considered to be historically reliable
Are you referencing the historically reliable parts? And do those parts reference Jesus miracles? No, the reliability of his writings about Jesus are not dependable and can't be counted as documents outside the bible that corroborate anything about Jesus.

> We have to consider alternative explanations, since most of Jesus's miracles were in very public settings before crowds of people.

You don't know that.

> It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for His miracles.

You cite a bowl that has been translated by someone to have the word Jesus, then you reference a speculation that the bowl was used in magic tricks, and this to you is evidence that Jesus preformed miracles?

[jimwalton]

> Are you referencing the historically reliable parts?

Yes, I am. The parts of the Testimonium Flavianum that are generally regarded as redacted later are the parts about "He was the Christ," and his resurrection.

> No, the reliability of his writings about Jesus are not dependable and can't be counted as documents outside the bible that corroborate anything about Jesus.

This is a matter of scholarly debate and not a settled conclusion, as you portray it. I find it a bit disingenuous that critics are more than glad to dismiss Josephus completely in his claims about Jesus, but when they want to use Josephus to dismiss Luke's reference to Quirinius, then Josephus is a sterling resource. Now, granted, you have not made this point, but I have observed this general tendency among critics.

The truth is that no one accepts the full Testimonium Flavianium as authentic, but no one disregards it in total, either.

>> most of Jesus's miracles were in very public settings before crowds of people.
> You don't know that.

My point is based on the evidence we have at hand. The Gospel accounts have not be proved wrong at any point, so we have reason to give them credibility. There is no evidence to the contrary, and no competing hypotheses from antiquity. The evidence we have says that Jesus did his miracles in public settings before crowds of people. Until you have evidence to the contrary and a rebuttal case, we follow the evidence where it leads.

> You cite a bowl that has been translated by someone to have the word Jesus, then you reference a speculation that the bowl was used in magic tricks, and this to you is evidence that Jesus preformed miracles?

It has more than the name Jesus; it also says "o goistais"—"the magician." It doesn't take much speculation to bridge to an artifact pertaining to magic. It shows from an extrabiblical source that Jesus had a reputation for special powers, and that's the point.

[Tarnished]

> Yes, I am. The parts of the Testimonium Flavianum that are generally regarded as redacted later are the parts about "He was the Christ," and his resurrection.

Yes, which are the only parts about Jesus and miracles.

> The truth is that no one accepts the full Testimonium Flavianium as authentic

Especially the parts you're trying to cite here.

> > You don't know that.
> My point is based on the evidence we have at hand.

Right, which means that "You don't know that.". You can speculate it, but you don't know it. The evidence we have at hand is insufficient given the extraordinary nature of the claim.

> The Gospel accounts have not be proved wrong at any point

You're shifting the burden of proof here. The gospel accounts have never been proved correct. They have never been demonstrated to be true. They haven't met their burden of proof.

> "The Gospel accounts have not be proved true at any point, so we have no reason to give them credibility."

Fixed it for you.

> There is no evidence to the contrary, and no competing hypotheses from antiquity.

Man, you really went all in on this shifted burden of proof fallacy. Do you think that a court room would find someone guilty because there's no competing hypothesis?

One hypothesis isn't correct until another one replaces it. Each hypothesis that doesn't meet its burden of proof must be discarded, not raised up as the answer because we haven't found the right answer yet.

> The evidence we have says that Jesus did his miracles in public settings before crowds of people.

The evidence you have is a story in a book, a story that was verbally passed along verbally for decades before it was written down. When it was written down, it was written in a now dead language. We don't even have the originals, we have copies of copies of translated copies of copies. We don't even know who wrote them.

> Until you have evidence to the contrary and a rebuttal case, we follow the evidence where it leads.

Nice, but that evidence doesn't lead anywhere, because it hasn't met its burden of proof. It rises to the level of speculation, but even then it's problematic it's speculating on very extraordinary claims. And it's asserting that the conclusion is that Jesus is a god, or Yahweh is a god, and can do miracles. But nothing in there can show that its all not just a story.

> It has more than the name Jesus; it also says "o goistais"—"the magician."

Oh, sorry, my bad.

> It shows from an extrabiblical source that Jesus had a reputation for special powers, and that's the point.

Does it? I mean, how is that different from any of his followers, including you, saying that he can do magic? The point is that its not contemporary. There is no extra biblical writings about Jesus that are contemporary. In fact, there are no writings about Jesus at all that are contemporary. Even the bible writings, the earliest of which happened decades after his death.