Who is the founder of Christianity?

[M.I.A.]

allah is the founder of christianity.
jesus as is the messenger of christianity. peace and blessings be upon him.
and the quran tells you of the people of the book,
muslims
christians
and jews
*
although your liking of either and or all three might flip like switches sometimes.

although "christianity" is just a word, nice to impose little boxes on your world... makes the intolerance a little easier.
next we should devide the humans into neat little groups to discriminate against, maybe strike humanity from the dictionary.

 

[Hiroshi]

you CLAIM as much, but MOST translations DO NOT HAVE "by divine providence." so, which Greek manuscripts use the word you bring up? and of the thousands of Greek manuscripts, how many have it and how many don't? and how many EARLY Greek manuscripts have it?

can you back it up, or are you cherry picking to make your point?

peace

The Greek word is there, early manuscripts or not, but it depends on how it is translated.

The book "Insight on the Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses says this on page 440:

The Greek word khre‧ma‧ti′zo as used in the Christian Greek Scriptures is always associated with something supernatural, oracular, or divine. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, p. 78), defines it as “to utter an oracle . . . i.e. divinely intimate.” Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon (1885, p. 786) gives the meaning: “Spoken in respect to a divine response, oracle, declaration, to give response, to speak as an oracle, to warn from God.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889, p. 671): “to give a divine command or admonition, to teach from heaven . . . to be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed . . . to be the mouthpiece of divine revelations, to promulge the commands of God.” Thomas Scott in his Explanatory Notes on this text (1832, Vol. III, p. 419) says: “The word implies that this was done by divine revelation: for it has generally this signification in the New Testament, and is rendered ‘warned from God’ or ‘warned of God,’ even when there is no word for GOD in the Greek.” Concerning Acts 11:26, Clarke’s Commentary says: “The word [khre‧ma‧ti′sai] in our common text, which we translate were called, signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate, by Divine direction. In this sense, the word is used, Matt. ii. 12 . . . If, therefore, the name was given by Divine appointment, it is most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name Christian is from God.”—See Mt 2:12, 22; Lu 2:26; Ac 10:22; Ro 7:3, Int; Heb 8:5; 11:7; 12:25, where this Greek verb occurs.

 

[YusufNoor]

Acts 11:26 says:

"the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians." (Young's Literal Translation)
"and it was first in Antioch thhat the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (New World Translation)

THIS "translation" of the bible is rejected by over 95% of Christians and is ONLY used by Jehovah Witnesses

The Greek word in this verse "krematisai" literally means: "to style divinely". This shows that God himself wanted Jesus' followers to be called Christians and so be identified with him. Christianity began with these early Christians.

The Greek word [khre‧ma‧ti′zo] is there, early manuscripts or not, but it depends on how it is translated.

let's review some translations, shall we:

New Living Translation (NLT)

26 When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers[a] were first called Christians.)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26and when he had found him, he brought him to (A)Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and (B)the disciples were first called (C)Christians in (D)Antioch.

The Message (MSG)

25-26Then Barnabas went on to Tarsus to look for Saul. He found him and brought him back to Antioch. They were there a whole year, meeting with the church and teaching a lot of people. It was in Antioch that the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

Amplified Bible (AMP)

26And when he had found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For a whole year they assembled together with and [a]were guests of the church and instructed a large number of people; and in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

King James Version (KJV)

26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Common English Bible (CEB)

26 When he found him, he brought him to Antioch. They were there for a whole year, meeting with the church and teaching large numbers of people. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first labeled “Christians.”

New King James Version (NKJV)

26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

English Standard Version (ESV)

26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called(A) Christians.

New Century Version (NCV)

26 and when he found Saul, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year Saul and Barnabas met with the church and taught many people there. In Antioch the followers were called Christians for the first time

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

26He found Saul and brought him to Antioch, where they met with the church for a whole year and taught many of its people. There in Antioch the Lord's followers were first called Christians.

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

26After finding Saul, Barnabas brought him back to Antioch. Barnabas and Saul met with the church in Antioch for a whole year and taught a large group of people. The disciples were called Christians for the first time in the city of Antioch.

Darby Translation (DARBY)

26And having found [him], he brought him to Antioch. And so it was with them that for a whole year they were gathered together in the assembly and taught a large crowd: and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

26and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

26 and when he found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught large numbers, and the disciples (A) were first called Christians in Antioch. (B)

American Standard Version (ASV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

26 He found him there. Then he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church. They taught large numbers of people. At Antioch the believers were called Christians for the first time.

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

26 and when he had found him, he led to Antioch. And all a year they lived there in the church, and taught much people, so that the disciples were named first at Antioch christian me

Today’s New International Version, ©2005 (TNIV)

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

26When he found him, he took him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with all who believed in Jesus Christ. They taught many people. Antioch was the first place where the disciples were called Christians

New International Version 1984, ©1984 (NIV1984)

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

and so, how many of these translations agree with Young's Literal Translation? let's count, shall we? let's see, there's...


NONE!

you should be more honest and admit that you are taking the view of an EXTREME minority.

and the commentary on this verse:

The disciples named Christians, Relief sent to Judea.

Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without

the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true

Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind.

you see, it is not until AFTER Paul comes along claiming to be a Prophet and preaching a NEW gospel that adherents to this NEW RELIGION are called Christians and if ANY of those translations could have claimed this NEW TITLE was divinely inspired, i'm sure they would have!

Peace

 

[Mohamed Issa]

By Paul the devil for Isa (jesus) (PBUH) Says in The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary: 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! Also in Surah 5 Al Mâ'idah: 5:14 From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. 5:17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." 5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

 

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum/Peace,

Watch this -

The man explains this stuff very well. I didn't know alot of things the guy mentioned, I'm sure some Christians didn't know either.

 

[MustafaMc]

allah is the founder of christianity.
jesus as is the messenger of christianity.

I rather seriously doubt that Allah (subhana wa ta ala) is the founder and Prophet Isa is the Messenger of the religion we know as Christianity today.

 

[جوري]

Asalaamu Alaikum/Peace,

Watch this -

The man explains this stuff very well. I didn't know alot of things the guy mentioned, I'm sure some Christians didn't know either.

I love Dr. Brown, but I must say that I disagree that the word 'Muslim' came only with Islam. See this:

Luke 6:40 "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." Also see this http://dialogtube.com/being_like_the_teacher.pdf some contend that the word Muslim is a new and can't be applied prior to the adevtn of Islam but, in fact found in Aramaic and Hebrew.. see original texts above..

from my thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/56395-word-muslim-new-quran-only.html

 

[Hiroshi]

and so, how many of these translations agree with Young's Literal Translation? let's count, shall we? let's see, there's...


NONE!

you should be more honest and admit that you are taking the view of an EXTREME minority.

I commend you for your diligent research here YusufNoor. But take a look at something else. Notice how this same word is translated each time it occurs in just the King James Version:



Matthew 2:12 “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.”

Matthew 2:22 “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:”

Luke 2:26 “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.”

Acts 10:22 “And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.”

Romans 7:3 “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

Hebrews 8:5 “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”

Hebrews 11:7 “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”

Hebrews 12:25 “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him [Moses] that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:”


In the NT the word always has some association with something divine. Even in Romans 7:3 where the word is just rendered “called”, the reference here is to what a woman would be called in accordance with God’s Law given to Moses.

It is surprising, but not unusual, that only two modern translations of the Bible seem to show this in the rendering of Acts 11:26. Sometimes a lexicon, commentary or scholar will give a deeper understanding of a scriptural expression that a translator may overlook. And there is plenty of authoritative commentary to support the view that “khrematizo” means divine declaration. I don’t believe that Young’s and the NWT are in error in their translation at this verse.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I stand by my answer on the first page of the thread. Christianity's core principles were nothing new, and came from various earlier precursor religions, including those of Egypt, Rome, Babylon, and of course the Jews of that time (who were an intermediary). In reading the bible and reading these other religions there is surprisingly little new in the bible.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I stand by my answer on the first page of the thread. Christianity's core principles were nothing new, and came from various earlier precursor religions, including those of Egypt, Rome, Babylon, and of course the Jews of that time (who were an intermediary). In reading the bible and reading these other religions there is surprisingly little new in the bible.

Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that "only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations". You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game...Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating The Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question". To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge—to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or your behaviour—this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to our Father and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as the most ignorant mechanic who holds that "history is bunk".

12 characters

 

[gmcbroom]

Yahya Sulaiman, I never read the screwtape letters. C.S. Lewis is supposedly a good writer. Do you agree?
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

 

[IAmZamzam]

He's a very good writer and occasionally a competent theologian. Then again I am no longer a Christian so my opinion of the latter may be skewed or biased or out of my element.

 

[Martinz]

In the poll, I chose Jesus.

It is the most simple and straightforward answer.

Christianity is about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (to bring people to God). Without Jesus, Christianity would not exist. However, without Paul, the Catholic church would not exist. Without God, nothing would exist!!!

OK, Ok, God is the ultimate founder of all monotheistic religions. But, to differentiate the founding of each religion, we need to look at the prophet who carried Gods' message...

Thus Prophet Mohammed, inspired by Angel Gabriel (and ultimately by God), founded Islam, for example.

So, if Jesus founded Christianity, and the disciples founded the first Christian church (before they were called Christians = fishers of men), then Paul founded the second Christian church - for the gentiles as well as the Jews.

Since that time, hundreds of people founded hundreds of Christian churchs. And I am both the founder and pope of my own church (in a manner of speaking), of which there is only me (and God) as a member.

And in my church, Trinity does not exist and the "Son of God" is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God - not somebody to be worshipped. And in this context, Prophet Mohammed, and every other prophet, is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God, also.

And in my church, Mother Mary was probably raped by a cousin-in-law when she went to visit relatives in Moab before she got pregnant with Jesus. But, of course this can't be confirmed.

Christianity is not necessarily what Christian dogma dictates: Christianity can only be defined by an individuals experiance, understanding and faith - regardless of whether they belong to any particular church or not; regardless of whatever ideology they may adhere to or not.

In my Christianity, I Submit to God by following the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:36-40) and that is the core of my faith.

 

[MustafaMc]

Christianity is about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (to bring people to God). Without Jesus, Christianity would not exist. However, without Paul, the Catholic church would not exist. Without God, nothing would exist!!!

I agree that Christianity should be about the life and teachings of Jesus, but I have read Christians write that what Jesus taught and how he lived was not as important as what he supposedly did on the cross. If this is in fact what Christianity is then Jesus can't be the founder because he did not teach that doctrine.

OK, Ok, God is the ultimate founder of all monotheistic religions. But, to differentiate the founding of each religion, we need to look at the prophet who carried Gods' message...

Thus Prophet Mohammed, inspired by Angel Gabriel (and ultimately by God), founded Islam, for example.

I agree with this.

So, if Jesus founded Christianity, and the disciples founded the first Christian church (before they were called Christians = fishers of men), then Paul founded the second Christian church - for the gentiles as well as the Jews.

Actually, Paul claimed to have received a revelation from God that ultimately developed into the religion we now know as Christianity.

And I am both the founder and pope of my own church (in a manner of speaking), of which there is only me (and God) as a member.

And in my church, Trinity does not exist and the "Son of God" is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God - not somebody to be worshipped. And in this context, Prophet Mohammed, and every other prophet, is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God, also.

This is not far from Islam. Yes, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a role model and he was a messenger of God. We Muslims follow his example and pattern our lives after his.

And in my church, Mother Mary was probably raped by a cousin-in-law when she went to visit relatives in Moab before she got pregnant with Jesus. But, of course this can't be confirmed.

I disagree, as I believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was born to the virgin Mary without a human father. God said "Be!" and he was. I see your belief here to be disrespectful towards Jesus and Mary, although you probably didn't intend offense or disrespect.

It will be interesting to read what else you believe.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

in my church, Mother Mary was probably raped by a cousin-in-law .

mg:

what's the basis of this concept ?

 

[Martinz]

Originally posted by MustafaMc
I agree that Christianity should be about the life and teachings of Jesus, but I have read Christians write that what Jesus taught and how he lived was not as important as what he supposedly did on the cross. If this is in fact what Christianity is then Jesus can't be the founder because he did not teach that doctrine.

Greetings MustafaMc. In my previous post, the point I was making is that there is a distinction between 'Christianity' and the 'Christian church'. What Jesus supposedly did on the cross and that he died for our sins, etc, is a doctrine of the Christian church. And the emphasis of Jesus dying on the cross being more important than his life and teachings is one possible interpretation of Christianity. But, it is not my interpretation of Christianity. In order to define 'Christianity', we need to concider many other points of view as well as the predominating Christian doctrine. Because I strongly oppose 'Christianity' defined by this predominating Christian doctrine and that is the main reason I have responded to this thread. To me, Christianity can only be about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ - including how he died on the cross!

Yes, I know most Christians disagree my point of view concerning Christian ideology and God bless them all!

42 years ago, I became a Christian when I was 10 years old, at a Christian camp organised by the Scripture Union. A volunteer asked me if I wanted Jesus to come into my heart. And I thought: Why not? So, I said this prayer asking Jesus to come into my heart. but it wasn't Jesus who came into my heart but Gods' Holy Spirit! It came out of nowhere and I had never felt so much joy in my life! I call myself a Christian because that is how I came to God; Jesus was my gateway to the kingdom of heaven. To me, Christianity is not about conforming to Christian doctrine, but about my relationship with this One God that burns with love and light at the very core of my being. I hope that this clarifies what my point of view is.

Dear Muslim Woman. Blessings to both Jesus and Mother Mary! And I apologise to anybody who may be offended by my remarks, because I did not intend to be insulting.
I honestly don't believe in the virgin birth. God created the laws of nature. One of these laws of nature is that babies are created out of the union of a sperm and the egg. I'm sorry, but someone had to have supplied that sperm. I know that just before Mary got pregnant, she visited her relatives in Moab. My speculation is that someone supplied that sperm in Moab. Now Mary is not the type of girl to commit adultery. So, she must have been raped. In those days, even if a woman is raped she can be accused of adultery - so it was all hushed up. But, we will never know. Better to believe in the virgin birth; to go along with this explanation. But, I just can't believe in the virgin birth. I'm sorry!mg:

Anyway, since I believe that Trinity is a heresy, I'm off to check out that Trinity thread...

 

[MustafaMc]

Greetings MustafaMc.

Thank you, and greetings to you, Martinz

I strongly oppose 'Christianity' defined by this predominating Christian doctrine and that is the main reason I have responded to this thread. To me, Christianity can only be about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ - including how he died on the cross!

In a similar way Islam is about the life and teaching of Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salam) as he also brought a message from God to teach proper belief and worship of God. In Islam, we believe that Jesus was born super-naturally to the virgin Mary and that he did not die on the cross, but ascended without dying to return near the end of Time.

To me, Christianity is not about conforming to Christian doctrine, but about my relationship with this One God that burns with love and light at the very core of my being. I hope that this clarifies what my point of view is.

Yes, I too believe in One God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

I honestly don't believe in the virgin birth. God created the laws of nature.

Since I am a cotton breeder and a geneticist, I apply the 'laws of nature' to my work. However, God created those laws (as you said) and can also super-naturally override them. I believe that, through God's will, Moses was able to turn a staff into a serpent and to part the sea for safe passage. I also believe that Jesus was born without a father and that he raised the dead to live again.

I am certainly interested in discussing more with you and learning more about your perspective.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

Dear Muslim Woman. Blessings to both Jesus and Mother Mary! And I apologise to anybody who may be offended by my remarks, because I did not intend to be insulting.[/COLOR]
I honestly don't believe in the virgin birth. God created the laws of nature. ...

as br Mustafa already stated Moses pbuh performed miracles , don't u believe in that ? Muslims also believe some others messengers performed miracles by the will , power and permission of God Almighty.

Some miracles took place in the lives of the Prophets pbut like Adam pbuh was created without parents , fire did not burn Abraham pbuh , Jonah/ Yunus pbuh was alive when he was swalloed by a whale .

Birth of Juses pbuh was also a miracle.

Verily, the likeness of Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #59)


Why it is so hard to believe in miracles ? At least it's much more comfortable than believing in a story that Mother Mary ra was .........may God forbid .

 

[truthseeker63]

Paul is the founder of Christianity.

 

[Martinz]

as br Mustafa already stated Moses pbuh performed miracles , don't u believe in that ? Muslims also believe some others messengers performed miracles by the will , power and permission of God Almighty.

Greetings to both sister Muslim Woman and brother Mustafa. I appreciate you sharing your points of view and that makes me feel glad. Although I have some skeptism about miracles in general ...

(Just as I said this, my lightbulb explodes and drops out of its socket...hmmmm^o)..."God, are you trying to tell me something? But, God, please don't explode the other lightbulb to answer - find something else -like a hundred dollar bill blowing into my backyard!")

I don't know! Just knowing that what the prophets say is the truth and that God is real is a miracle enough. (Thank God I have a spare lightbulb in my cupboard)

I have lived a life full of weird coincidences, so I guess I do believe in miracles to some degree. So, how do I differentate between real miracles and religion in general trying to pull wool over my eyes?

I mean, I do believe that the Red Sea parted before Moses and company, but that there has to be some scientific basis for that miracle to happen. And if there is some scientific basis, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is any less of a miracle. Let me give you an example: when Joshua led the Israelites to the river Jordan to cross it to enter the promised land, the waters parted that allowed them to cross. However, in scientific research, it has been found that at that time there was an earthquake, where debris temporarily created a dam upriver which held the water back long enough for the Israelites to cross the river. The fact that this happened just when Joshua's people needed to cross is a miracle enough.

Whatever...