The most important miracle

[nobspeople]

What do you think is the most important historical 'miracle' in the bible and why?

Some example to consider:
Virgin birth
Raising of Lazarus
Feeding with the bread and fishes
Burning bush
Global flood
Resurrection
Various physical healings (deaf mute, blind men, sick woman, etc)

Have you had a miracle you'd care to share? If not, why do you think you haven't?

[bjs1]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The resurrection.

All of Christianity hangs or falls on that one event.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The resurrection.

All of Christianity hangs or falls on that one event.

What would it take, IYO, for it to cause the collapse of christianity? In other words, what would need to happen to say 'Nope, that never happened!"?

[bjs1]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The resurrection.

All of Christianity hangs or falls on that one event.

What would it take, IYO, for it to cause the collapse of christianity? In other words, what would need to happen to say 'Nope, that never happened!"?

That seems extremely unlikely to happen at this point. All the evidence that is ever going to exist for the resurrection already does exist. We are not going to find some new piece of evidence that makes people “Wow, it looks like Jesus did rise from the dead,” or, “Huh, I guess it was all a lie.” It is up to the individual to decide if the existing evidence is sufficient or not.

That said, no one today jumps straight to the resurrection as their reason for believing that Jesus is Lord. A person is predisposed to accepting or rejecting the resurrection based on other existing beliefs.

First, a person has to decide if he believes that there is a God of any kind. Does the existence of the universe signal that there is a Creator, or is there a more reasonable explanation? Is the apparent order found in the study of physic best explained by a Designer or by time and chance?

If someone decides that a God of some kind likely exists, then he must consider the nature of that God. Is it the detached God of Deism? The panentheism of some eastern religions? Or a theistic God like the western monotheisms. A person would need to continue to work through the details of how God should be understood.

If someone, convinced that there is some kind of God, comes to the conclusion that Christianity best describes the likely nature of God, only then can he approach the question of the resurrection. His reason and his personal experience inform his understanding of the resurrection.

For Christianity to collapse, some of those foundational beliefs would have to be shaken. It would require convincing people that their own experience of reality is fundamentally wrong. Or it would require providing an understanding of God so vastly superior that Christianity is no longer a viable option. If either of those were going to happen, they would have happened by now.

As long as belief in a God of some kind exists, and Christianity remains a viable way to understand that God, then Christianity will persist. The belief in the resurrection goes along with that. And of course the resurrection is not just a single event, but something that is woven into the very fabric of how Christians understand God. I see no plausible chance of that entire system collapsing anytime soon.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #13]

Thanks for the response.
While, on the surface, I initially agreed about the resurrection, I started to wonder if it's a miracle at all.
I suppose it depends on how one defines 'miracle'. That said, the resurrection had to happen, as it was god's will to offer a sacrifice to cover man's sins. (To keep the thread lean, let's not entertain why god had to create a sacrifice for sins it knew was going to happen, or, to whom the sacrifice is offered nor why god needs it at all.)
In other words, it was destiny that there needed to be an offered death and resurrection. So could this resurrection even be considered a miracle at all?
Are things needed or necessary or destined 'miracle worthy'?

[Tcg]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The resurrection.

All of Christianity hangs or falls on that one event.

John Shelby Spong is but one Christian theologian who disagrees with that assertion:

John Shelby Spong, liberal Episcopal bishop and LGBTQ advocate, dies at 90

As a theologian, he was known for questioning some of Christianity’s fundamental doctrines, including the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of miracles. Those views infuriated Christian leaders who labeled him a heretic, although he was part of a long tradition of theologians who argued that taking the Bible literally was to miss the truth behind its teachings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ob ... story.html

Certain branches of Christianity may fall or be reformed, but Liberal Christianity wouldn't skip a beat.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The resurrection.

All of Christianity hangs or falls on that one event.

John Shelby Spong is but one Christian theologian who disagrees with that assertion:

John Shelby Spong, liberal Episcopal bishop and LGBTQ advocate, dies at 90

As a theologian, he was known for questioning some of Christianity’s fundamental doctrines, including the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of miracles. Those views infuriated Christian leaders who labeled him a heretic, although he was part of a long tradition of theologians who argued that taking the Bible literally was to miss the truth behind its teachings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ob ... story.html

Certain branches of Christianity may fall or be reformed, but Liberal Christianity wouldn't skip a beat.


Tcg

Thanks for that. I seemed to know of the works of this guy without ever knowing the specific guy! It was a good read. He seemed rather respectable. At the very least, he seemed to be living his truth as he believed. Kudos for that!

[TRANSPONDER]

But significant coincidences (good or bad) enable believers to claim convincing miracles.

This is true, but usually what we see is rare events on one end of the probability spectrum being lauded as "miracles." For instance, if someone has a serious illness that is often fatal and yet they survive, believers may be inclined to claim a miracle has occurred. It is much less likely that a death from say a common cold or some other generally survivable illness will be presented as a miracle.

Neither is a miracle, but rather an unusual circumstance where one end or the other of the probability scale occurs.


Tcg

Agreed. (what a good discussion! ) and the Inexplicable ones are going to look most like miracles. That's the name of the Game - the 'atheist -stumper'. If they don't have an explanation, God is the default explanation, from Cosmic origins and Indeterminacy (maybe) to evolution and Bible- related history (if we can't explain how Christianity caught on so well, it must be God) and of course, miracles. I may mention that UFO apologetics work the same way. It was my time in the UFO world that made me recognize Religious apologetics when I first got into it.

We then get the ones that are remarkable. Not inexplicable but the explanation isn't always too convincing. I may mention the church that collapsed in an earthquake and the Jesus statue was left standing. It was striking to see and an atheist would struggle a bit to explain it. The same with the shack that blew down and only the prayer - area was left standing. These Can be explained but they are good ones, it has to be sai,d and probably convincing for someone who wants to be convinced.

Then we get the Doctored miracle. You'll- all probably remember the apparently dead person who revived, or was revived. That soon became a tale of a 'blackened corpse' that resurrected. 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter, if some souls are saved?' We have to remember that lies are ok if they convince, because the Faith is based on...the Faith, and evidence only serves the purpose of supporting up the Faith and if it has to be manipulated, misrepresented or bloody lied about, that's ok, because the Faith is the real 'evidence'. This is the key to understanding how theists (and others ) argue.

Then we get the 'things that happen in my life', and we know these are the believers counting the hits (or anything that looks like one) and ignoring the misses. Biased sample or 'joining the dots'.

And at barrel -bottom level we get crediting God for anything: finding your car -keys, scoring a goal or indeed finding a $20 bill on the sidewalk. The 'sidewalk' apologetic or 'like a crab'.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The resurrection.

All of Christianity hangs or falls on that one event.

What would it take, IYO, for it to cause the collapse of christianity? In other words, what would need to happen to say 'Nope, that never happened!"?

That seems extremely unlikely to happen at this point. All the evidence that is ever going to exist for the resurrection already does exist. We are not going to find some new piece of evidence that makes people “Wow, it looks like Jesus did rise from the dead,” or, “Huh, I guess it was all a lie.” It is up to the individual to decide if the existing evidence is sufficient or not.

That said, no one today jumps straight to the resurrection as their reason for believing that Jesus is Lord. A person is predisposed to accepting or rejecting the resurrection based on other existing beliefs.

First, a person has to decide if he believes that there is a God of any kind. Does the existence of the universe signal that there is a Creator, or is there a more reasonable explanation? Is the apparent order found in the study of physic best explained by a Designer or by time and chance?

If someone decides that a God of some kind likely exists, then he must consider the nature of that God. Is it the detached God of Deism? The panentheism of some eastern religions? Or a theistic God like the western monotheisms. A person would need to continue to work through the details of how God should be understood.

If someone, convinced that there is some kind of God, comes to the conclusion that Christianity best describes the likely nature of God, only then can he approach the question of the resurrection. His reason and his personal experience inform his understanding of the resurrection.

For Christianity to collapse, some of those foundational beliefs would have to be shaken. It would require convincing people that their own experience of reality is fundamentally wrong. Or it would require providing an understanding of God so vastly superior that Christianity is no longer a viable option. If either of those were going to happen, they would have happened by now.

As long as belief in a God of some kind exists, and Christianity remains a viable way to understand that God, then Christianity will persist. The belief in the resurrection goes along with that. And of course the resurrection is not just a single event, but something that is woven into the very fabric of how Christians understand God. I see no plausible chance of that entire system collapsing anytime soon.

I couldn't have put it better myself. You could have begun with the Bible, but you began by wangling a god of any kind onto the table. Then you narrow it down: a deist god or a hands - on intervening god? One that favours a particular religion? Well, you skipped over that one straight to Christianity being ...how did you put it?..Christianity best describes the nature of this god. Wearing my theist hat, I'd rather argue the historical appearance of the Bible whereas the others - apart from perhaps Islam and maybe Buddhism- look just mythical. But I won't quarrel with your preferred method.

Aside your road - map to the Resurrection, I argue that the resurrection can be made very doubtful indeed, not to say debunked; and indeed then the foundation of Christianity does collapse. Whether anyone will listen or even want to, is moot, but I reckon the work has been done.

[otseng]

kissing Hank's ass

Moderator Comment

Please note profanity of any sort is not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

That said, no one today jumps straight to the resurrection as their reason for believing that Jesus is Lord. A person is predisposed to accepting or rejecting the resurrection based on other existing beliefs.

I have always maintained that on the whole people are inculcated with their religious beliefs at a young age when they do not have the capacity to critically evaluate what they are being told. It is only later that so-called evidence, gleaned from the Bible, is called upon to rationalise and shore up that belief. The belief comes first and the justification is retrofitted.