People love conspiracy theories, none moreso than in the case of Jesus Christ, it seems

Aga

Most medical scientists and many Christians would not accept the Lourdes “cures” as miraculous. There are plenty of plausible natural explanations for these phenomena. And even if science could not explain them, so what? Yours is a classic ”God of the gaps” argument, confining God to the shrinking domain of things than cannot (yet) be explained by science, on the spurious logic that what science cannot explain must be due to divine intervention.

I have never been comfortable with faith grounded in the supposed “proof” of long-ago (or recent) demonstrations of God’s supernatural powers.

We do not have, and will never have, forensic evidence that would objectively prove that the body laid in the tomb came to life again. The experience of Jesus’ early followers led them to believe that, though Jesus died on the cross, his life continued beyond the tomb. We do not know what happened in the tomb, nor do we have words or science to explain precisely the phenomena that led them to that conviction. I do not believe that those experiences entailed encounters with Jesus’ former body brought back to life, or indeed that the resurrection was an event in history in the same way that the crucifixion was an event in history. The empty tomb is a powerful metaphor, and we diminish its power when we insist it must be taken literally.

I have to admire the way you dismiss other people's views, Trav, using the most contentious and tenuous of interpretations as your evidence.

If I were Jewish, I'd call it Chutzpah.

>> how do you explain away the gospel accounts, tacitus, josephus, and also paul, who was writing 20 years after the event, and says he was passing on an earlier tradition that says Jesus "died for our sins"?<<

This is the classic litany of the believer.

The gospel accounts? Were all written well after the events they "record", and differ in many key areas. As you well know.

Tacitus? He mentions "Christus", once. He had not independently verified the story, or the existence of "Christus". It was just a story that he passed on. But you know this.

Josephus? Testimonium Flavianum is "hotly contested" as a reliable source, given that there is clear evidence of tampering with the text. Hardly the most reliable of sources. Which of course you already know.

Paul? Writing 20 years after the event? I guess at least you don't claim that Paul "met" Jesus, which many do. But you would have to agree that anything he wrote was primarily designed to support his own mission, and therefore disqualifies him as objective evidence.

I'm a little surprised that you didn't bring up Tertullian. But I guess that even you realised that this would be a step too far from credibility.

But this is the beauty. Even knowing all the above, you still have the cheek to write:

>> In other words, followers were reporting Jesus death within a few years after it happened<<

"In other words..."

Chutzpah, indeed.

On the road to Damascus Paul is temporarily blinded by the resurrected Jesus...

We all know to dip our high beam at night as not blind drivers coming in the opposite direction. One would have thought the God of all the universe would have realised that super-luminousity would have hurt/disorientated Paul.

Given range from the darkest black and the brightest light of the super nova, why would the light given off by Jesus be "just" within the upper tolerance of human vision? So Paul can, "Linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty (Petual Clark)?

Or is it, a tale doesn't sound as good, without a few bells and whistles? And, yes, of course, lights.

Rhia,

With great kindness, who are most scientists? What statistics do you have? Secondly, tell me your scientific proofs for Lourdes miracles? Panels include top atheists and non-believers. I personally know an individual spontaneously cured at Lourdes of a tumour. It was not subjective for her doctor.

There is no "God of the Gaps"...You simply doubt every possible miracle out there, or even new ones we come across every day. Doubting every miracle in the Bible without scientific evidence, is irrational. So is doubting everything, everyone ever said, as a lie...New and different miracles also happen, so how is a gap created?
How is science gaining? What statistics do you have?

I seriously doubt, like many on this thread, that you have ever REALLY investigated miracles at all. I suggest you study Vatican approved miracles. You might be surprised. You doubt from a distance. That's gutless. This stuff goes on everyday. Study the image of Guadualapue, or miracles of modern day saints. Have you an open or closed mind? I also challenge you to go to the US and be present at a real excorcism. You might change your tune at one of those.
Non-believers have done this. Conversion came on the spot.

As for doubting every author in the first century about the resurrection of Christ. The apostles must have been pretty dumb to die for this myth. Whoever died for a lie? Nearly all were marytered. They all had first hand experience of resurrection. It could not have been group psychosis. Over several years? Ridiculous.

Disprove the Shroud too. Show us the money...You might be surprised where they are at now. As Atheists always say, the onus is on you...We'd like to know if its real or not?

I think many people on this thread are behind the times on religious issues....I sense a sixties/seventies religious education everywhere. Its a pity. We reaped what was sown.

aga, you wrote 'I suggest you study Vatican approved miracles.' That is just the trouble, the Vatican is the only body that investigates miracles (and 'approves' them!), and the Catholic church has a huge financial interest in the proving of miracles and the making of saints. People are so hoodwinked that when an image of sorts appears anywhere it is assumed to be Jesus if male and Mary if a female. A shape that looked remarkably like the silent screen star Mary Pickford popped up on a piece of toasted cheese a few years ago and was immediately claimed to be Mary and sold for ten of thousands of dollars on eBay.

In relation to spontaneous remission of tumors, why should we be any more surprised at that than at the development of the tumor in the first place? The last time I discussed the origin of brain tumors with an oncologist he said that the trigger and mechanism for the development of cancers cells is still not understood, so it makes sense that we don't yet understand why one might spontaneously shrink or disappear. No-one shouts 'Its a miracle, I've got a brain tumor,' so why attribute the reverse to divine intervention?