How can we prove that Christian miracles are divine and other religions' are not?

Jesus multiplied fish and bread and fed hundreds of people, healed the sick, read minds,

But in Buddist scripter, there were 80,000 witnesses to Vimalakirti feeding 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice, Buddha was born from the side of his mother’s stomach, could ascend into the heavens, spoke at the moment of his birth, his shadow wouldn’t follow him, there are incorruptible of Buddhist religious figures, levitation, bilocation, etc.

Lord Krishna swallowed a forest fire, they also have incorruptibles, bilocation, etc.

The same kind of miracles can be found in Jewish and Islamic scripture too.

Now a common answer to this is “God can work miracles in all religions to those who are doing the best they can with the limited knowledge they have”

But those who say that tend to think the Christian God is the only one who can do that. Would it be possible if maybe Brahman worked those miracles and WE were the ones who were doing the best we could with the limited knowledge we have?

So if the other miracles are not false/demonic/or made up, how can we discern that Christianity is the one true religion whose miracles are completely of divine orgin?

You bring up a fair question.

Outside of the mystery of faith, the best answer I can give is verifiable.

Its the same reason why the gospels are only four books.

I hope this helps.

Buddha could not grant forgiveness of sins, union with God, the Holy Spirit, with infusion of Grace and the Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity (Love or άγἀπη)
Jesus did this, and so do his disciples.
Jesus also gives his Body and Blood which his disciples consume in communion with him, every day, even today. Yet I don’t see manifest mysteries like this in Buddhism daily happening. Today, every minute, Catholics are doing acts ordered by divine virtues, but no one else in the world is doing acts ordered by divine virtues, nor are they aliens walking in the world as we are. They are of the world, trying to transcend it. We are Sons of God in the world, but not of the world.

Chesterton has a brief and very worthwhile essay which addresses your specific concern.

You don’t. That’s where faith comes into the picture.

But specifically to your point on Lord Krishna, the Hindu Scriptures aren’t really supposed to be historical in he same way the Abrahamic faiths are, nor are the myths of the ancient Greeks or the Norse, etc. They are simply of a genre which makes less of a claim to historicity.
And Catholics of course accept the miracles of the Jewish Scriptures, and since the miracles of the Qu’ran all concern Old Testament prophets, we (while the Bible puts the details differently) accept them too (contra Chesterton’s granting of his opponents premise, Mohammed doesn’t actually do any miracles in public in the Qu’ran).

So, the question is the miracles of the Buddha, and I think the article I linked deals well with the question.

Although I think it worth pointing out that (1) Buddhism is not really about a historical figure named Siddharta, in the way that Christianity is about a historical figure named Jesus, but it is a philosophy on your own enlightenment which could be true even if the Buddha never lived; and (2) those texts regarded by scholars as the earliest in the Pali canon don’t have miracles in them.
Contrast with the Bible, where miracles are always integral to the literature and oral tradition, and the whole thing is meant to be historical.

There’s an odd presupposition here: just because two religious books both make certain claims, both of those books can be taken on their word. Hm!

Well … how do you know that? How do you justify that assumption? How do you know that if a Hindu god has a story being told about him, then obviously we should take it just as seriously as the New Testament writers accounts of Jesus, or else suspect both, since both are conveniently assumed to be on even ground.

Again, how do you justify that?

I would recommend a book to you:

Although Amazon lists this as being out-of-stock, you can big up a copy from other Amazon sellers for 8 bucks with shipping.

In the meantime, listen to this:

Are you sure about that?

This wiki article claims the Pali canon does contain stories of miracles.

Other miracles and powers that Gautama Buddha is alleged to have possessed and exercised include Iddhi, Telepathy, super-hearing, divine seeing, and seeing past lives. These are described in the Mahasihanada Sutta and other suttas in the pali canon.[7]

The Pali Canon does contain miracle stories, but the earliest parts of it(according to the scholars, who always seem to be a fan of the idea that thaumaturgy is a later accretion, so, maybe take it with a grain of salt) according to them, the earliest parts of the canon were statements of the Buddha, that were later placed in a larger narrative of his life which is basically historical but contains miracle stories and that’s how you get the modern Scriptures. Granted, that’s what many secular scholars say about Jesus, but it’s worth noting that the Christian’s religion is based around a miracle and the historicity thereof (the Resurrection), and the average Theravada Buddhist (granted, I get this from personal anecdata) is more or less willing to let the miracle stuff go, since they don’t really need them for their system to be accurate.

Schuman’s “The Historical Buddha” actually presents a pretty good argument from the Buddhist Scriptures for why he believes the stories of public miracles were a later addition to the Pali from a redactor. (He thinks Buddha did publicly claim to have the ability to perform miracles, but did not want to perform them in public). This understanding is rather common among scholars, and the Buddhists I know seem to have little problem with it, because of the nature of their faith - miracles they need not.

I might also point out that even IF Buddha’s miracles were historical, Buddhism does not have a God. My understanding is that Buddhist tradition simply claims that a highly disciplined, virtuous, wise man, can perform acts impossible to most of us. It does not claim evidence of a particular God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit