(January 4, 2015 at 1:18 am)Kulthenius Wrote: Plato, however, should be given the benefit of the doubt for existing because he was a just a normal dude. If his followers proclaimed that half his DNA came from god, he never sinned, turned water into wine, fed 6,000 people with 4 fish, bled through every pore in his body, got crucified and then resurrected after 3 days and then continued teaching in Athens although he had been executed as an enemy of the state, and you know, some government officials might have noticed him and said, 'huh, didn't we just kill him?' If that was part of Plato's legacy then there would be a lot more skepticism about his actual existence and the 'miracle's he performed.
I can understand why unbelievers would ignore all the signs, especially since none of them saw the risen Jesus. We always have modern day "evangelists" claiming to have healed people from every kind of disease, but does it get any attention from anyone other than their followers? No, because they are immediately dismissed as phonies. I do the same thing. It would have the same with Jesus. The Romans, or other non-witnesses, would have immediately dismissed the miracles, just as you do. The catholics claim miracles, such as the miracles at Lourdes or miracles attributed to the intercession of certain saints Do you even bother to look into them or do you just disregard them as fabricated signs for the faithful?
