Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 937 by Claire Evans]

It's just that you think it should take the form of a miracle.

It would have to, by default, so that I would be able to differentiate it from a hallucination, sudden onset of madness, or my imagination.
Or are you saying that when God 'communicates', us humans are just not to differentiate it from those three things?

I said listen to the small voice of God, not things that resemble hallucinations. I speak for myself when I say God communicates with me through events that happen that I only see later how it benefited me spiritually. Another thing is through feathers. When I'm afraid of something, unsure or grieving, feathers appear in the most unlikely places. When there is a death in the family, feathers are dropped. It even happens with pets. Birds are always associated with the supernatural. So seek God in the small things and stop seeking grand revelations.

[Claire Evans]

It matters not where you apply your faith, because faith is needed in order to believe in false things. That is the point. How is a mechanism that leads to false beliefs a good thing?

So you can't differentiate between the context of the two faiths?

How did you arrive at this? I clearly stated, "How is a mechanism that leads to false beliefs a good thing?"

Faith that leads to a false belief is obviously destructive but that is not always the consequence of faith.

You seem to think that it is only possible to have faith if you start off not being sure He exists in the first place.

False. I happen to know that you, myself, and all others are born atheists. [/quote]

Obviously. Babies can't believe in anything. They don't have the ability to appreciate the concept of God.

In my case it was not brainwashing because I was never forced to believe.

You're describing coercion, not brainwashing. Brainwashing is subtle and works best on those whom are unaware or convinced that what they are being brainwashed to believe is needed (to be happy, or to see their loved ones again, or to have some eternal bliss after death).

Then why do I not believe everything in the Bible? A brainwashed person would believe the Bible is the infallible word of God.

A lot of people stay with a religion because they are frightened of the repercussions of leaving it so they just convince themselves that their God exists.

This is true, but I'm not sure what the point is.

I'm saying this is the type of thing that leads to false beliefs.

You are also assuming that all beliefs are false.

False. I am only aware of false religions, but I am open to being shown that any are true. You yourself I'm sure could come up with hundreds if not thousands of false religions, and yet yours is chosen to believe, and the mechanism you use to believe is the very mechanism needed in order to believe in the false religions you and I both know exist.

Okay.

I do not see the point of worshiping a god one is not sure exists unless they are obliged to.

Here is the thing, you don't 'know' any gods exist. You only have 'faith' (something used to believe in false things) that your chosen god is real.

You assume that.

There were fallible people who wrote the Bible. You could argue, why did God make a perfect world? As I said, since when does knowledge beyond human understanding at the time automatically would be accredited to Jesus? Or inspired by God? That knowledge could be from the occult which many of the Pharisees practiced.

There is a lot more logical conclusion you are avoiding. You and I both know that man has invented religious ideas, (not yours though, that just happens to be the one example that a god was really behind), so rather than inventing ghosts, demons, the occult, we could just admit that man invented religions and accept the fact that it is logical that man also invented the one you prefer.

The truth is not always logical. I'm not saying my beliefs are fact because I'd have to prove it then with empirical evidence.

That's Yahweh you are talking about, not the Father.

Do you not serve the god of Israel? If not, who is Yahweh when compared to this 'Father'. When I was a Christian, I was taught to pray to my 'Father god', the god of Israel. Thus my confusion.

No, I don't.

What? You don't worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The Old Testament being just a re-write of Canaanite god concepts is known to me, but now I struggle to understand which god concept is going to provide you with eternal bliss after you die. I don't care what you name you choose to use as most Christians cannot agree on that, so can you just clarify if you serve the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or not? Call it El for all I care.

In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name should be pronounced "Yahweh."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... or-jehovah

Do you agree that the Father doesn't resemble Yahweh? We have Jesus who did not behave the way Yahweh did. Yahweh was a god of war, yet Jesus said those who live by the sword, die by the sword. So what if Jesus came to earth to testify to the truth that the Jews did not have?

When you truly research who Yahweh is, you see that he is a physical being, a Canaanite God, the son of El, who was approached by Moses by joining the Midianite tribe and was originally the god of the Kenites. So Yahweh adopted Israel.

You just described ancient, nomadic, human god beliefs to justify saying that one of them was true and adopted the nation of Israel. Did I get your reasoning right?

I'm not saying that those people just have beliefs that those gods existed. They interacted with them. Gods could very well be extraterrestrials. The literal translation of the OT suggests this. Remember that Yahweh was described as a literal being.

Exodus 33:18-23

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.�

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,� he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.�

21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.�

I bet you that you didn't know this.

You don't give me enough credit. I have been a part of many debates that show how the Old Testament god came about from Canaanite beliefs. It's no secret where Abraham was from after all.

So how could you not see that the Father is not Yahweh? Why do you assume that just because the OT is pagan based, that suddenly makes Jesus not the Son of God?

Can you point to anything in the Bible that we cannot imagine a human coming up with?
An actual divine book written by Jesus is truly needed, otherwise what is special about the current 66? Nothing that I can see.

Why would that be needed?

I'll take that as you saying, "no, I cannot come up with anything in the Bible that a normal human being could have come up with".
As for why, I'll leave that up to the readers to decide.

It's irrelevant in my opinion.

Why!? Simple, you believe that there is a god concept behind the scriptures. The scriptures themselves betray you. That is why it is needed.

Does the betrayal of the OT dent my faith in the slightest? Absolutely not. I do not base my faith on the scriptures. You do understand my belief that once one knows the Teacher, whatever is written in the scriptures is not that important. If you are looking for perfection in the scriptures to have any sort of faith, you are wasting your time.

I agree that the scriptures can be a waste of time (though there is some good).
Now kindly show us that your claim is true that you know the Teacher.
Is he all knowing? Can he tell you what I have written on my desk, or let me guess, your god is just another god that cannot be tested? All false god concepts that I'm aware of don't like to be tested it seems.

It's a bit odd that you think God can be proven especially over the Internet. If Revelation is to be believed, Jesus will come again and prove He is the Son of God.

There are many prophetic things in Revelation that indicate the supernatural. I'm going to bring your attention to Revelation 13: 17-18

You should start a thread on Revelations if you would truly desire to argue for it being supernatural. Here I'm trying to deal with your claims about faith and this 'knowing the teacher' business you claim.

You asked.

Now watch this:

Now read this:

Apophenia: The experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

Why do you automatically assume that? Is it not logical to assume that dumping tons of radioactive water into the Pacific indefinitely will eventually cause the death of the Pacific Ocean?

Does that Revelation passage seem more plausible now?

No, it contradicts 1 Corinthians anyways. Can't have you cake and eat it too.

Please elaborate.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 937 by Claire Evans]

It's just that you think it should take the form of a miracle.

It would have to, by default, so that I would be able to differentiate it from a hallucination, sudden onset of madness, or my imagination.
Or are you saying that when God 'communicates', us humans are just not to differentiate it from those three things?

Why can others have a relationship with God without seeing miracles but say you should? As I said, you have a ego in this regard. You can't demand God do anything. Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen.

[Claire Evans]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Firstly, miracles have not been shown to be real and secondly, faith is needed to believe in all the false god concepts out there. Sure, you can feel like you just so happen to be applying your faith to an actual god concept, but that makes you no different than any other believer of any other religion.

We are talking about miracles according to the Bible. You'd need to know everyone who has ever claimed to have experienced a miracle and debunk it to say for a fact that miracles aren't real. Blind faith, as in just believing without evidence, is needed for some people to be part of a religion. Faith as in trusting the Lord knowing He exists is different. That is the part of the Christian faith I subscribe to.

That's not how this works.
You claim miracles are real. Can you show that you speak the truth or not. Please show me that you are not some fool who is willing to lie for their religion. Something I also know happens, unlike miracles.
My point is, I am only aware of people lying about miracles. I have witnessed said lies personally.

I believe miracles in the Bible are true. However, how do you expect me to prove anything over the Internet?

People saw Jesus' miracles and some believed. Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same. That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

You don't give enough credit to god concepts if you think they can create universes, but can't write a book that is anymore special that what a human can write.

Well, Revelation has been written yet no one claims Jesus wrote it. You don't seem to understand that a book by Jesus is not required to have faith. I said the Holy Spirit is more effective than a book.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that you claim your god inspired a book that is no more special than what a mere human can do.

Is Revelation not supposed to be a book given through a vision? I think anything that is prophetic as it is being shown now must have some supernatural element.

Please show that you speak the truth in regards to there being a Holy Spirit. Provide the mechanism that the Holy Spirit uses to provide you with faith. I can still speak in tongues myself by the way.
Bottom line, can you show that you have not been duped to believe in such a being, or at least show that you are not a lair for religion?

Prayer is the way to reach the Holy Spirit. However, as you should know, that is a deeply personal thing. It can only be proven to oneself, not by others. So therefore you shall never know whether I am deceived or not.

You are referring to glossolalia. That's talking gibberish. That is not speaking speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues means speaking in languages one doesn't know. If you did do that, you'd have no doubt it's supernatural.

Anyway, Jesus could do miracles to kingdom come yet that didn't make everyone believe or repent:

Quite the claim. Before you evidence such a thing, can you point to anything outside your religious promotional material that would suggest that Jesus was real? I'm just curious. Not that I don't think he was, but I would like to illustrate that this claim has you putting the cart in front of the horse.

I don't think there is any serious historian that disputes the existence of Jesus. What is in contention is His claims of being the Son of God and resurrecting from the dead.

"CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

The historian acknowledged Jesus' existence but scoffed His divinity as superstition.

Great, so you at least provided a possible reason for there being an actual Christus that might have been Jesus, but you are not yet justified to say these words: "Jesus could do miracles"

Let us look outside the Bible:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged. For forty days before
the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to
be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.’
(Sanhedrin 43a)"


One of the most detailed allegations of magic is the charge made by Celsus, a pagan philosopher writing in the late second century

‘After she [Mary] had been driven out by her husband and while she was
wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus…
because he was poor he [Jesus] hired himself out as a workman in Egypt,
and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians
pride themselves; he returned full of conceit because of these powers, and
on account of them gave himself the title of God.’[12]

If the claims of miracles by Jesus were mere rumours, why write that He did?

Blind faith leads to false religions and some Christians have blind faith also.

Please address what I said. Faith leads to false religious beliefs.

Therefore, why do you continue to talk about faith as if it were a positive quality to have?

Blind faith, I meant.

It's a deeply personal thing but you were asking what Christians believe faith is.

Born again, spirit filled Christian for 20 years here! I have no need to ask a Christian as to what faith is.

You obviously weren't spirit-filled because then you would not doubt that Jesus is the Son of God.

I've always wondered if the average Muslim actually believes they have a two way relationship with Allah.

Sure they do. And they use the same made up mechanism that you do for your Holy Spirit. Faith.

Allah could be real. The devil can impersonate anyone.

There are some who believe that if things go their way, it is from Allah. If it is not, then it is not from him. It is not necessarily the case with the Christian God.

This is not a competition about who thinks who's religion is better. I'm just pointing out that both require faith and that means that faith leads to false beliefs.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

And we need to ask, "Who is Allah?"

I see no need. I have my answer, but we both know that those who believe on faith will have a totally different answer. You know, like Christians do for their god concept.

No really, do you know who Allah is? Could he not be a spirit impersonating God to deceive?

[Claire Evans]

However, if they receive the peace that Jesus gives that makes the bitterness go away, the cancer won't return because they have been healed emotionally.

Please show that you speak the truth and that you really have a cure for cancer.

I have some Christian friends that lost loved ones to cancer that would love to know how this cure should have worked. Two young daughters specifically that would love to know why their mommy died from cancer. The whole church was praying for crying out loud. Her healing was being claimed for months before these girls lost their mother.

Should I tell them that according to you, their mother was just never healed emotionally?

Did I say I have a cure for cancer? I said if the cancer is brought on my bitterness and was treated and it was deemed gon and the person survived.

"Cancer (not all)! is caused by the suppression of toxic emotions; primarily anger, hate, resentment and grief. Suppression of these toxic negative emotions increases stress hormone cortisol levels, which directly suppress immune system function. When the immune system is not functioning properly, normal cells mutate into cancer cells as revealed in the 6 phases of cancer. The below worldwide studies show the link between cancer and unexpressed anger."

http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/ ... -link.html

Admittedly, although I said it would not return, I cannot be sure. Other factors could play a part in the return of the cancer. However, I think it greatly reduces the chance of the cancer returning.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 948 by Claire Evans]

I believe miracles in the Bible are true. However, how do you expect me to prove anything over the Internet?

I believe there were thirteen original colonies who first formed the United States of America. To prove this, have a gander at his
(rattles off reams of evidence, such as books from the time period in question, the US flag, documents from both sides of the conflict, etc).
Wow...and all done through the internet. If I'm able to do that, why can't you?

Prayer is the way to reach the Holy Spirit.

Have to remind you, never worked in my case. Imagine if this were a debate about the sciences, imagine if someone kept saying to me "Mix hydrogen with oxygen, and you'll get milk" only for me to constantly say "I did that, repeatedly for years, and never got milk".

So therefore you shall never know whether I am deceived or not.

So...even if I were to pray, and somehow reach the Holy Spirit, this spirit CANNOT divulge to me whether or not Claire Evans has been deceived?

You are referring to glossolalia. That's talking gibberish. That is not speaking speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues means speaking in languages one doesn't know. If you did do that, you'd have no doubt it's supernatural.

Provide evidence to support your above statement. Certain brands of Christianity disagree with you. Who am I to believe?

If the claims of miracles by Jesus were mere rumours, why write that He did?

Can you give us links or quote where exactly you got those two paragraphs? It looks like you copied and pasted them from somewhere but you don't say where.
Also, you have to be aware, people can WRITE DOWN that Person X did 'magic' but that doesn't mean that the magic is real, that supernatural forces are actually at work.
To drive home this point - you are quoting the supposed expertise of people from close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS ago as to whether not people did 'magic', exercised actual bona fide supernatural powers.

Allah could be real. The devil can impersonate anyone.

Well there we have it. The 'devil' can impersonate anyone. Are you now going to provide a reason why suddenly he can't impersonate the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God?

No really, do you know who Allah is? Could he not be a spirit impersonating God to deceive?

No really, do you know who the Holy Spirit is? Could it not be the devil impersonating the Holy Spirit to deceive?
If you answer with something like using faith to figure it out, this answer will not be satisfactory. If I'm wondering whether or not a person I'm talking to is in disguise, I use evidence, not faith, to try and find out. For example, when I'm serving a person alcohol, I don't have faith that they are over 18. I ask for evidence, such as a driver's licence or a passport (or I look to see if they have features typical of a person over 18 years of age).

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 869 by Claire Evans]

There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

Then explain the apostles, and the other people who knew Jesus. The people who walked and talked with Jesus, just like you walk and talk with your family/friends/loved ones. Do you say about your family that you only know through faith?

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus. It is only after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples finally realized what Jesus had come for. They didn't really understand Him when Jesus was on earth.

Please explain to us how you acquired this knowledge?
Thank you.

Please don't ask me to prove this. This is not part of the debate. This is you asking about my experience.

It has taken many years. One of the ways to know the Holy Spirit really exists is to know the existence of the devil. I was introduced to evil spirits at age 12. Praying to banish them demonstrated the power of the Holy Spirit. To me, only knowing the horror of evil can one appreciate God. I have always known God exists. I didn't know the devil always. One has to invite the Holy Spirit in one's life to make His presence known. However, many stop seeking because they didn't like the answer they received from Him. They think it is because He doesn't exist. Yet when one assumes that it is not a refusal, you begin to see a pattern in one's life which can only be appreciated in retrospect. There are no such thing as coincidences in my opinion. It is a deeply personal thing. I am by no means unique.

Thanks for the detailed explanation about how you were indoctrinated. It's interesting, but something I am familiar with.

I had hoped you could show how you came about such information like, 'the disciples didn't understand Jesus when he was on earth'.

Luke 18:34

33They will flog Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.� 34But the disciples did not understand any of these things. The meaning was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend what He was saying"



"A short while later, Jesus offended the Pharisees by criticizing their obsession with ritual cleanness (Matthew 15:2, 11). When the disciples asked Jesus to explain what he meant, he asked, "Are you still so dull?" (verses 15-16). This doesn't seem like a very nice response, but Jesus said it, and one of the disciples wrote this down because it can help us. I find it encouraging to learn that Jesus doesn't require us to be extra-brilliant scholars. When it takes me years to learn things from the Bible, I take comfort in the fact that it also took years for the disciples to learn things even when Jesus was with them in the flesh.

One of the most dramatic stories of misunderstanding begins with Jesus asking his disciples, "Who do people say I am?" (Mark 8:27). And Peter said, "You are the Christ" (verse 29). Peter understood this much correctly — not because he was extra clever, but because God had revealed it to him. Even so, he understood only part of what he needed to.

Peter had the right word — Messiah or Christ — but he had a woefully incorrect idea of what a Messiah would do. Peter wanted a conquering hero, but Jesus talked about suffering and death (verse 31). Peter, with zeal greater than wisdom, began to rebuke his own Teacher, as if he could teach the Messiah a thing or two. Jesus rebuked him sharply because he was thinking like a human (verse 33)."


https://www.gci.org/gospels/disciples

This gets me to thinking though. If the disciples didn't understand Jesus, and they didn't write the gospels, how is it reasonable to think that the unknown authors of the gospels understood Jesus any better than his very own disciples?

"Consider the big difference which the experience of Pentecost brought about in the lives of Peter and the other disciples. They were transformed from powerless, prayerless, doubting and faltering witnesses of Christ into bold and effective servants in His kingdom. What was responsible for this change? The enduement with power from on high:

“Then He said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high� (Luke 24:46-49).

In Acts 1:8 He said, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth� (Acts 1:8).

Peter, who at an earlier stage was not even able to admit to a lowly servant that he was a follower of Jesus, humbled himself with the other disciples for ten days to confess his sinfulness and fleshliness, to put his trust completely in Jesus Christ and to wait for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost they were filled with the Holy Spirit and Peter proclaimed the gospel with great boldness to an agnostic Jewish nation. He brought a powerful message and in one day moved 3000 people to accept Christ as their Saviour. That was the early beginnings of the Christian church on earth."

http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Peter.htm

Now the apostles, especially Paul, could now teach the early Church.

If you think you can just use the Holy Spirit scapegoat, I will have to ask you to once again describe the mechanism he/she/it uses before such a statement can even be considered.

Again, I said prayer.

[Claire Evans]

Obviously we need the Bible to tell us who Jesus is and what He did

And in order for us to believe what the Bible tells us about who he is and what he did, the Bible cannot be suspect. If you suspect some parts of the Bible to be untrue, how can you be sure the whole story about Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren't untrue as well?

Because the Holy Spirit is not dependent on the Bible. The details don't have to be flawless from start to finish. You are speaking from the stance that someone doesn't know the Holy Spirit and is being skeptical because suspect things are there and they don't know what else to believe. That is actually understandable. Yet it is the Holy Spirit that is the Teacher, not the Bible. Else they are just words. I say know the Holy Spirit first then study the Bible.

Since the Holy Spirit is a character in a specific book, how would any person get to know the said character without reading the book itself?

It's like asking someone to know Harry Potter, but without the books/movies. How can such a thing be done?

I didn't say that we didn't need the Bible. However, it is not what teaches us about who Jesus really is. They are just words then. It should not be the most important thing in one's life. Some people preach the Bible till kingdom come yet don't understand what they are saying.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 948 by Claire Evans]

I believe miracles in the Bible are true. However, how do you expect me to prove anything over the Internet?

I believe there were thirteen original colonies who first formed the United States of America. To prove this, have a gander at his
(rattles off reams of evidence, such as books from the time period in question, the US flag, documents from both sides of the conflict, etc).
Wow...and all done through the internet. If I'm able to do that, why can't you?

See claims by Celsus.

Prayer is the way to reach the Holy Spirit.

Have to remind you, never worked in my case. Imagine if this were a debate about the sciences, imagine if someone kept saying to me "Mix hydrogen with oxygen, and you'll get milk" only for me to constantly say "I did that, repeatedly for years, and never got milk".

Ego is the barrier.

So therefore you shall never know whether I am deceived or not.

So...even if I were to pray, and somehow reach the Holy Spirit, this spirit CANNOT divulge to me whether or not Claire Evans has been deceived?

Well, if you had the Holy Spirit, then you could. If not, you would not be able to.

You are referring to glossolalia. That's talking gibberish. That is not speaking speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues means speaking in languages one doesn't know. If you did do that, you'd have no doubt it's supernatural.

Provide evidence to support your above statement. Certain brands of Christianity disagree with you. Who am I to believe?

This is actually not directed at you. Clownboat made the claim that he can speak in tongues and I said that is called glossolalia. In the Bible, speaking in tongues referred to speaking in languages not understood by the speaker.

If the claims of miracles by Jesus were mere rumours, why write that He did?

Can you give us links or quote where exactly you got those two paragraphs? It looks like you copied and pasted them from somewhere but you don't say where.
Also, you have to be aware, people can WRITE DOWN that Person X did 'magic' but that doesn't mean that the magic is real, that supernatural forces are actually at work.
To drive home this point - you are quoting the supposed expertise of people from close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS ago as to whether not people did 'magic', exercised actual bona fide supernatural powers.

I'm going to discard the Sahderin 43a claim as factual.

"It seems to me that the passage about the execution of Jesus (b. Sanhedrin 43a) derives not necessarily from the actual events but from Jewish and Christian dialogue & polemics."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html

I think it is a mash of what I believed happened and just made up things to attack Christianity.

As for Celsus, we have his claim in the works of philosopher and theologian Origen.

"Origen set out to refute many of the central tenets of Celsus’ True Doctrine in his apologetic work Contra Celsum and since he generously quotes from Celsus’ text it is possible to reconstruct his argument from Origen’s citations alone. A fervent critic of Christianity, Celsus did not doubt that Jesus was a miracle-worker but he attempted to reinterpret his life as that of a magician, referring to him as a γόης (1.71) and claiming that Christians used invocations and the names of demons to achieve their miracles (1.6)."

http://wasjesusamagician.blogspot.co.za ... magic.html

We have to why Celsus would have written this if we didn't know of claims of Jesus' miracles. He also tries to explain this away by saying it's just an illusion:

‘‘who for a few obols make known their secret lore in the middle of the
market-place and drive out demons and blow away diseases and invoke the
souls of heroes, displaying expensive banquets and dining-tables and cakes
and dishes which are non-existent, and who make things move as though
they were alive although they are not really so, but only appear as such in
the imagination.’ And he says: ‘since these men do these wonders, ought
we to think them sons of God? Or ought we to say that they are the
practices of wicked men possessed by an evil demon?’’[13]

Then he kind of contradictions himself and says these wonders are due to wicked men being possessed by demons.

The Quran also speaks of Jesus doing miracles and being a miracle Himself.


http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/3 ... -of-jesus/

Allah could be real. The devil can impersonate anyone.

Well there we have it. The 'devil' can impersonate anyone. Are you now going to provide a reason why suddenly he can't impersonate the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God?

It would not make sense for the devil to drive out the devil.

No really, do you know who Allah is? Could he not be a spirit impersonating God to deceive?

No really, do you know who the Holy Spirit is? Could it not be the devil impersonating the Holy Spirit to deceive?
If you answer with something like using faith to figure it out, this answer will not be satisfactory. If I'm wondering whether or not a person I'm talking to is in disguise, I use evidence, not faith, to try and find out. For example, when I'm serving a person alcohol, I don't have faith that they are over 18. I ask for evidence, such as a driver's licence or a passport (or I look to see if they have features typical of a person over 18 years of age).

Why would the devil deceive people to go to the Holy Spirit, which would mean those people would reject him? A kingdom divided cannot stand.

[Neatras]

Why would the devil deceive people to go to the Holy Spirit, which would mean those people would reject him? A kingdom divided cannot stand.

You're still framing the entire scenario from the assumption that your religion is true.

If Jesus was a deceiver, then that would mean the Holy Spirit isn't a reliable concept, and may in fact be a deception on its own.

I think it's very telling that you weren't even able to consider this notion; you haven't actually come into this debate with any notion that you might be wrong.