it is doubtful that the miracles really occured according to scholars:
THE "JESUS SEMINAR"
Liberal theologians investigating the life of Jesus
Overview:
The Jesus Seminar is a group of academic theologians who study Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd century CE, from a religiously liberal perspective. They are composed of members with "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and independent" backgrounds. 1 Their initial goal was to determine what Jesus really said. Their second goal was to describe what Jesus really did.
In the past, liberal and mainline religious academics have lectured, written articles in specialist journals, attended conferences and debated among themselves. They have taught generations of mainline and liberal divinity students. But their conclusions have rarely filtered down to the public.
"The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed." 2, Page 34
2, Page 5
Many, if not most, of the miracles described in the Gospels did not actually occur. There was no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding of thousands with a few fish and loaves. Jesus did not bring Lazarus back to life. Jesus' bodily resurrection, walking through walls, transfiguration, ascension into heaven, etc. are myths. There are no such entities as indwelling demons. Jesus probably healed mental and physical illnesses in the same way that religious healers work today.
Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar:
Most fellows would probably agree with the following conclusions: The four canonical gospels were written chronologically in the order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John over the interval from about 70 to 110 CE.
The Gospel of Mark and the sayings gospel of Q were two independent sources which the authors of Matthew and Luke used as the basis of their gospels. Both Matthew and Luke also incorporated material from their own sources.
The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. It was part of a Gnostic Christian library which was apparently buried during a time of persecution of the Gnostics by Pauline Christians. It contains 73 sayings that are duplicates of those found in the canonical Gospels. It also has 65 sayings (or parts of sayings) that are unique.
The Gospel of John represents a religious tradition that is independent from the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke). They differ so much that either John or the Synoptic Gospels must be largely abandoned in the quest for an understanding of Jesus' actual sayings and acts. The Seminar has largely rejected John.
Many of Jesus' followers had previously followed John the Baptist.
Jesus rarely spoke of himself in the first person. The many "I am" statements in John originated from the Gospel author, not from Jesus.
Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah.
Jesus did not claim to be God.
Jesus did not believe that his execution was necessary in order for those who trust in him as Lord and Savior would be saved from eternal damnation.
Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God had already arrived in 1st century Palestine and was visible in the way that he and his followers treated each other. On the other hand, John the Baptist and Paul viewed the Kingdom as coming at a time in their future, sometime in the 1st century. 2 Page 137
Jesus probably talked to his followers and preached in Aramaic. The books in the Christian Scriptures are written in Greek. Thus, even those parts of the Gospels that Jesus is believed to have said, are actually translations into Greek of his original words.
About 18% of the sayings of Jesus recorded in the 4 canonical Gospels and Thomas rated a red or pink rating (Jesus definitely or probably said it). The remaining passages attributed to Jesus were actually created by the Gospel writers.
In Mark, only one saying (Mark 12:14) was given a red rating; many are pink.
Matthew contains many sayings of Jesus which have been rated red or pink. But all of the words attributed to Jesus from the description of the last judgment in Chapter 25 until the end of the Gospel, were rated black (definitely not said by Jesus).
Luke also contains many pink and red ratings. But all of the sayings attributed to Jesus from his comment that the earth will pass into oblivion within a generation (Luke 21:32) to the end of the Gospel are all rated black.
The Gospel of John was unique among the canonical Gospels: none of the words attributed to Jesus were rated red. There was only one pink passage. One was gray (Jesus did not say this, but it contains ideas similar to his). The vast majority of sayings were rated black.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I was hoping you'd ask. 
I believe it's different and let me explain why. In the case of a modern Muslim, he dies a quick and easy death attacking innocent people.
In the case of these early Christian leaders, many suffered gruesome, longsuffering deaths where all they had to do was recant or just go back to their old occupations. Others moved their families into hostile lands with no hope for material or other reward in order to an almost certain obscure death away from friends and family.
That's what is unique about the Christian faith. There is a Christian saying: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." And it's true. All the great Christian movements are begun non-violently through many deaths of innocent men who simply go and share the gospel.
But, anyway, what I'm getting at is that these men were peaceful men who died incredibly courageous, "long" deaths because they loved and cared about the people they were going to.
Nothing could be more the opposite than what you see with modern Islamic extremists. And that's why you can actually draw the opposite conclusions...
