‘Jesus’ miracles demonstrate that he was the Son of God.’ - Discuss
Jesus was a historical figure in the first century AD who is believed to have been the
Son of God, meaning to have a unique relationship with God and to have been sent
down to Earth as God incarnate in order to allow salvation to take place. Through his
ministry, Jesus could be seen to inhabit many roles: a teacher or wisdom, a political and
religious liberator, the Messiah, or the Son of God, and this was shown through many
events throughout his lifetime, such as his teachings to many disciples, his controversial
actions in Jerusalem leading up to his crucifixion, and a number of miracles which he
performed. Whilst the miracles themselves do not act as substantial evidence that
Jesus was divine, it is clear that Jesus knew of and fulfilled his purpose of salvation; in
other words, it is clear that Jesus was the Son of God.
The miracles themselves are wholly insignificant in the search for evidence of Jesus’
divinity. Whilst they prompt consideration of his authority over the world and his
relationship with God, they do not act as compelling evidence that Jesus was God
incarnate for a number of reasons. Firstly, many prophets in many religions, including
Old Testament prophets, have performed similarly impressive miracles, for example
Moses was able to split the Red Sea. Therefore whilst the miracles may suggest Jesus
had a special relationship with God, as a prophet would, there is nothing to suggest that
their relationship was entirely unique and that Jesus was divine. Secondly, and more
significantly, many philosophers, such as Hume, would argue that the miracles cannot
be accepted as true outside of faith - in other words, the miracles do not validate Jesus’
divinity, but rather Jesus’ divinity validates the miracles. Even Jesus’ most impressive
miracle, his self-resurrection, is incredibly difficult to accept as truth from a perspective
outside of Christianity, and is therefore unhelpful in demonstrating Jesus to be the Son
of God, despite the clear divine nature of the act should it be believed. Particularly in a
post-enlightenment society, the lack of empirical evidence challenges blind acceptance
of the miracles and thus many choose to understand such extraordinary events by their
metaphorical meaning (for example curing the blind man suggests enlightening him to
Jesus’ wisdom, calming the storm suggests the peace and stability found through faith).
This is a far more successful understanding of the miracles, as a base-level
understanding of them as a random event to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity is not only
empirically questionable, but also teaches us nothing of Jesus’ nature beyond ‘Son of
God’ (such as his wisdom, love, and forgiveness). Therefore the miracles fail to
evidence Jesus’ position as Son of God.
Nevertheless, other events throughout Jesus’ ministry act as very compelling evidence
that Jesus was the Son of God, most significantly his crucifixion. Whilst Jesus is
appreciated by many philosophers and theologians, such as Dawkins, as a teacher of
Jesus was a historical figure in the first century AD who is believed to have been the
Son of God, meaning to have a unique relationship with God and to have been sent
down to Earth as God incarnate in order to allow salvation to take place. Through his
ministry, Jesus could be seen to inhabit many roles: a teacher or wisdom, a political and
religious liberator, the Messiah, or the Son of God, and this was shown through many
events throughout his lifetime, such as his teachings to many disciples, his controversial
actions in Jerusalem leading up to his crucifixion, and a number of miracles which he
performed. Whilst the miracles themselves do not act as substantial evidence that
Jesus was divine, it is clear that Jesus knew of and fulfilled his purpose of salvation; in
other words, it is clear that Jesus was the Son of God.
The miracles themselves are wholly insignificant in the search for evidence of Jesus’
divinity. Whilst they prompt consideration of his authority over the world and his
relationship with God, they do not act as compelling evidence that Jesus was God
incarnate for a number of reasons. Firstly, many prophets in many religions, including
Old Testament prophets, have performed similarly impressive miracles, for example
Moses was able to split the Red Sea. Therefore whilst the miracles may suggest Jesus
had a special relationship with God, as a prophet would, there is nothing to suggest that
their relationship was entirely unique and that Jesus was divine. Secondly, and more
significantly, many philosophers, such as Hume, would argue that the miracles cannot
be accepted as true outside of faith - in other words, the miracles do not validate Jesus’
divinity, but rather Jesus’ divinity validates the miracles. Even Jesus’ most impressive
miracle, his self-resurrection, is incredibly difficult to accept as truth from a perspective
outside of Christianity, and is therefore unhelpful in demonstrating Jesus to be the Son
of God, despite the clear divine nature of the act should it be believed. Particularly in a
post-enlightenment society, the lack of empirical evidence challenges blind acceptance
of the miracles and thus many choose to understand such extraordinary events by their
metaphorical meaning (for example curing the blind man suggests enlightening him to
Jesus’ wisdom, calming the storm suggests the peace and stability found through faith).
This is a far more successful understanding of the miracles, as a base-level
understanding of them as a random event to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity is not only
empirically questionable, but also teaches us nothing of Jesus’ nature beyond ‘Son of
God’ (such as his wisdom, love, and forgiveness). Therefore the miracles fail to
evidence Jesus’ position as Son of God.
Nevertheless, other events throughout Jesus’ ministry act as very compelling evidence
that Jesus was the Son of God, most significantly his crucifixion. Whilst Jesus is
appreciated by many philosophers and theologians, such as Dawkins, as a teacher of
