That we personally don't understand how a particular thing was done/achieved does not make it a "miracle" except in semantics terms. Depends perhaps on your definition of "miracle".
The definition of a miracle (from Oxford Languages, through a quick Google search):
"a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."
In other words, you will never understand through the study of nature or the scientific laws how the miracles in the Bible were performed, BECAUSE they are super(above)-natural(nature).
You could go back in time with a box of matches and create fire at will in front of cavemen and they might deem it was a "miracle", as to them it is something not understood, but to you or I it's no miracle, just something very understandable. How you personally use that "power" over cavemen comes down to your moral compass. You could use it to pretend you were a "god" and try and subdue them, or you could explain to them how it was done and indeed how they could replicate it.
"Cavemen" were human beings. Not necessarily the brightest humans, but humans nonetheless.
I think you underestimate the genius of ancient man.
I personally interpret the Bible stories of Jesus' miracles as the description of an alchemist using the great alchemy products, elixirs, powerful substances and so on. On that basis I can certainly respect him as an alchemist, an adept, a very competent person in that philosophical/scientific discipline and see that he used his alchemical abilities for good deeds. When I read the many 1000s of alchemy texts spanning centuries and learn from them what the White and Red Stones can do, I can see the same synergy in the Bible with Jesus's miracles. It all makes sense. For me, Jesus was unquestionably an alchemist and he taught his disciples the secrets of that craft.
Laughable nonsense.
Going back to the issue of faith and with that alchemy knowledge in hand, it's somewhat difficult to believe the religious interpretations of the stories which seek to conceal or ignore Jesus's alchemy skills.
Well yeah, when you try to read the bible through an unevenly ground lens, of course you're going to have a hard time understanding what it says.
Try taking the glasses off, and reading them without your a priori beliefs in mind.
The definition is a poor one for quite obviously "normal physical processes" simple means those processes of Physics which we currently understand. Hence the apparent destructive health zapping nature of a lump of Uranium 100s of years ago would have been deemed "not normal physics" because at that time we didn't know what radiation was.
Lack of understanding of a subject currently that can be explained through physical processes does not translate to the idea that we'll someday somehow understand how miracles work as though they are explainable through the natural laws.
Miracles are by definition "super"-natural.
The only real definition of a miracle is just an event that a given witness currently can not understand due to lack of knowledge and/or intelligence.
False.
First point to note, the Stones of alchemy are not "magic" in any way whatsoever. They are science, Physics. Chemistry. They simply happen to involve parts of those sciences that have not generally been revealed to the public.
Alchemy is bunk, and the sooner you come to realize that, the better off you'll be.
That's not remotely how I see it. He was utilising high level physics/chemistry way above the people's knowledge and in the wrong hands that's incredibly dangerous, more than you could fathom.
No, He wasn't.
So he did what he did genuinely and in his own way
There was indeed purpose in everything Jesus did.
But it's not what you're claiming.
and kept the secrets for himself and his disciples.
The reason for not revealing the truth of what He was saying is literally given within scripture.
But you're too preoccupied with your alchemy nonsense to notice.
He was thus responsible with the power he had at his fingertips. So no, not a liar nor a lunatic.
If what Jesus taught was not literally true, then Jesus was a liar, and not worthy of anyone's attention.
You may think him a liar for referring to certain terms but that's because you don't understand the allegorical terms he used.
Using allegory is common when you want to teach a greater truth.
Using allegory itself as the lesson to be taught is not.
Jesus used allegory to teach greater truths, truths that would be necessary for His people in the coming trial by fire that they were about to go through.
And that's still incorrect for nothing was above or beyond the laws of nature that happened.
False.
It's just that you and many others don't yet understand what Nature can do or how it's wonders can be followed and exploited by humans.
No study of the natural laws will ever result in knowing how to turn water into wine, let alone how to raise the dead. And not just any wine, Jesus turned water into GOOD wine, the kind you serve at the BEGINNING of a party, not the kind you serve when your guests are already drunk.
Forget turning lead into gold, you'll never be able to turn water into wine, because it's simply not possible without divine intervention.
Curing blindness is not remotely supernatural.
So you can do it without any sort of medical technology? Literally just rubbing your own spit in someone's eyes?
Yeah, no, if you tried that, you'd be sued for malpractice, and probably charged with assault.
Curing disease is not remotely supernatural.
It is when you tell someone "Go show yourselves to the priests," and as they go, they're cleansed.
ESPECIALLY when one of those people who was healed returns and gives glory to God, praising Jesus for healing him.
Restoring life to a very recently (< 3 days) deceased person
Someone who is dead and decaying cannot be brought back to life, not without divine intervention.
As Clete mentioned, Lazarus was in the tomb for 4 days.
Jesus clearly stated "Lazarus is dead."
Was Jesus lying?
Martha said, "Lord, by this time, there is a stench, for Lazarus has been dead four days."
Was Martha lying 1) about Lazarus being dead, and 2) that he had been dead for four days already?
John 11:44 tells us once more that "he who had died" came forth at Jesus' call, "bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face . . . wrapped with a cloth."
is not supernatural.
I'd like to see you try going to a graveyard, and opening one of the recently installed tombs there, and to cry with a loud voice "Come forth!" and have the one who was entombed there come out of it on their own power.
Oh wait, you won't do that, because you inherently know it's not possible, not with any level of technology.
Nature is a wonderful thing.
The One who created nature is even more wonderful.
One has to wonder why you refuse to acknowledge Him, and instead worship the creation rather than the creator.
Your body is an incredibly clever thing. It knows how to heal itself.
Indeed!
But your body cannot bring itself back from being dead.
But it can't do so if its healing mechanisms have been obstructed nor if it is lacking in a particular "fuel" it needs to do its job.
Yeah, I don't care how much "fuel" you give a dead body. At best, you'll set it on fire, further destroying it.
It's call the law of biogenesis. Life can only come from life. Life cannot come from non-life.
Jesus had that "fuel" and was able to administer it to others and thereby achieve what seemed like miracles to very simple people.
Once Jesus was dead, if He was merely another human being, no matter how special, He would be out of your alleged "fuel."
He could not, ever, "refuel" Himself, because He would be dead. Non-living. And since life can only come from life, and cannot come from that which is not living, Jesus would not have been able to revive Himself.
Which is why His resurrection is irrefutable proof that He is God.
"Miracle" is a word of the English language. It's definition therefore comes from works that deal with English language, not from religious works.
So what? Concepts can cross language barriers.
If you want to know what a Dandelion is you don't go looking in the Ford Escort Haynes Car Manual!!
Supra, re: miracle definition
The definition of "miracle" is given in an English dictionary, nowhere else as it is a language term.
Again, so what?
A miracle "an event that APPEARS inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God."
No, you added the word "appears."
Here it is again:
"a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."
You can't just change the definition of a word so that it suits your beliefs.
The fact that, to you, or to any current scientist it APPEARS to be inexplicable by the laws of nature, in no ways means IT IS inexplicable.
Something that IS inexplicable by the laws of nature is, by definition, a miracle.
The things done in scripture that are called miracles are, in fact, actual miracles.
It simply means it is CURRENTLY inexplicable by a given people of a given time period. Nothing more.
There is no possible naturalistic explanation for the the miracles of the Bible, because they are, by definition, miracles.
It's completely relevant because the Stones of alchemy absolutely can cure blindness and/or raise recently deceased people. Go read any of the 1000s of alchemy texts and you'll read all about the benefits the Stone bestows on humans.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
*breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
Alchemy was disproven through the very science you claim as your authority over miracles.
Turning lead into gold is possible, not through alchemy, but through nuclear transmutation, and not in any significant amount. It requires a particle accelerator, not alchemy.
Turning water into wine, and GOOD wine, at that, however, is simply not possible, not even through nuclear transmutation, and certainly not through just telling someone to fill some waterpots with water, then telling them to draw the water and take it to the master of the feast.
Assume for one minute that Jesus was in fact an Alchemist
No, I will not.
It's such a ridiculous idea on its face, that it doesn't need to be refuted.
and did have the wondrous Stone of alchemy which gives one the ability to transmute one matter into another and which heals a man from all impurity and illness. Everything Jesus did fits with this assumption purely from the story/narrative perspective, but when you add to that the plethora of scripture verses that talk about the Stone and the processes by which it is created and the benefits the Stone bestows on man, then you have right there a solid foundation for that belief.
What a load of hooey.
Occam's Razor suggests that this simple solution is far more likely than the religious concepts of magical hocus pocus miracles.
Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
We say that what the Bible says plainly, taken at face value, is the correct interpretation.
You say that the Bible is "allegorical" for something that is hidden, that requires special knowledge to be able to handle, and that there is an alternate explanation for everything in the Bible, that somehow lines up with texts from other religions.
Do you not see the problem?
You're appealing to greater complexity and then somehow claiming that your solution is the simpler one?
According to Occam's razor, we can throw your view out, because it's far more complex than ours.
The Bible is full of allegories.
No one denies that the Bible contains allegories.
But entirely allegorical it is not.
And Occam's razor is in our favor, because you're appealing to greater complexity when it's not needed.
At some points in the Bible Jesus himself is the allegory.
Yeah, no. Everything in the Bible points to Christ. The entire book is about Him.
Which means if He is not God, then he is not worthy of the attention it brings Him, but on the other hand, if He is God, then you're in some seriously big trouble, and you need to repent of your false beliefs.
There are no alternatives.
What you believe God to be and what God actually is creates the dilemma you have there.
What we "believe God to be" has nothing to do with it.
Either Jesus is God, or He is not.
If He is not God, then He is a liar, and not to be trusted for anything.
If He IS God, then you SHOULD put your faith in Him.