Literal miracles in the Bible?

[-57]

Not in the Hebrew Bible.

If you say so.

 

[bling]

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." That's not "my" quote; It's 1 Corinthians 15:26



It's not often I hear a Christian saying that the Church needs persecution -- although I tend to agree that it would come out stronger for the experience... although probably in a form unrecognizable to today.

But let's be honest -- Christian persecution in the West simply isn't going to happen. The powers-that-be know it's far more profitable to pander to the Christian base than it would be to persecute them... and the Christian political base is more than happy to gobble up whatever is offered... observe our current political leadership, and you'll see what thirty pieces buys these days...

... but I digress; all that time debating over on the American Politics forums, I suspect.

The point is that if the Church is going to change in any meaningful way, it's going to have to change itself, and not sit around and hope to be whipped into shape someday via persecution.




Which is where LaVey was going with his observation -- Sin, be forgiven, sin again... usually the exact same sin. Lather, rinse, repeat.



I thought the doctrine of "Original Sin" covered that -- not saying I believe in it, but it seems we've already covered the "sinning" part...

...besides, if Sin is disobedience, then the unbeliever has already sinned via his unbelief... no need to pile it on, is there?



Who said anything about putting faith in science? What do you mean by "faith"?

I opened this thread with a workable definition of "miracle." Let's do the same for "faith" if we're going to be using it here.



Actually, no... nothing, by definition, is not "something." "Nothing" is the absence of anything.

But let's continue.



Big Bang cosmology would disagree that it's always been here, but for the moment, we'll continue...



Indeed -- intelligence exists because there are intelligent beings... similarly, purpleness exists because there are purple things.



Granted, it would be more difficult for intelligence to form without existing intelligence... more difficult, but by no means impossible.

I sense we're drifting off topic, btw...



Well, for starters, Big Bang Cosmology would indicate that there is not an infinite amount of time... the current estimate is that there's been about 13.7 billion years.

Second, It's indeed quite possible, even probable, that we are not the only or even the first intelligence to come about -- the Universe is a pretty big place, and even with our intelligence, we only know the most minuscule fraction of what's out there.

You're a chemist -- if you studied a mole of water molecules, would you know what's in the Pacific Ocean?

Again, we might be drifting off the "miracle" topic.



The later would appear to be more likely... but then the existence of that former intelligence raises many questions... beginning with "where is that former intelligence now?"



Indeed -- I can only testify with certainty to my own existence: Cogito Ergo Sum, after all. Everything else -- you, these forums, my entire life, the entire "universe," could be a hallucination, a fever dream, or The Matrix.

In such an environment, "miracles" can indeed happen with alarming regularity. A dreamer gains control of his dream once he realizes he's dreaming. Even the laws of The Matrix are quite malleable... if you're Keanu Reeves.

(Fun fact: Will Smith was originally offered the lead role in The Matrix, but passed on it because he said the script didn't make any sense to him.)

So, for the moment, let's review:

• I know I exist: Cogito Ergo Sum.
• For the moment, I will assume until I see otherwise that the universe I perceive around me also exists.
• I have observed that that universe operates with clockwork precision according to natural laws.
• I know that throughout history, a handful of deep thinkers have studied and categorized those natural laws, making the Universe less seemingly arbitrary, and more predictable, than it was before:
  • Aristotle, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein, to name a few...
• I accept that if an all-powerful "former intelligence" exists with the power to manipulate those laws at will, He/She/It would easily be able to create "miracles" in which those natural laws would be overtly and unquestionably (albeit temporarily) broken.
• I know the Bible contains many such stories of such "miracles" occurring.
• I know that I have not seen such "miracles" happening in my own observation, nor have I heard reliable second-hand reports of such miracles happening elsewhere.
  • I accept that an argument from silence is not a solid argument, but it is circumstantial.

I therefore question the role and purpose of those "miracle" stories in the Bible.

I know we did a lot of jumping around and got off topic, but partly I wanted to know where you are at.

You are the first person I know who suggests there was no time prior to the Big Bang. I do not see science limiting itself to our known Universe, but to think outside of what we can ever know scientifically, would include God.

As far as severe persecution happening in the West, that could happen if the contrast continues to grow between Christ like people and non-Christ like people, who call themselves “Christians”. We do need to work with what we have right now.

You read about Biblical recorded “Miracles” and ask: why then, how could they happen, why not these other similar times, how do we know they even happened, which are good logical questions from your perspective. I look at these miracles and do have the same questions, but come up with Christian perspective answers. Everything that has, is and will happen is all to best help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective and I can see how they fit man’s objective. These answers will not satisfy the skeptic, but are not designed to.

Several Christian Scientist and even one I talked with have developed some “natural” way most miracles could have happened and for the most part I do not really care “how” it could have happened either by some “natural” or supernatural means. The only thing that really matters is, “Did Christ rise from the grave”?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know we did a lot of jumping around and got off topic, but partly I wanted to know where you are at.

You are the first person I know who suggests there was no time prior to the Big Bang. I do not see science limiting itself to our known Universe, but to think outside of what we can ever know scientifically, would include God.

It's been a while since I've dabbled with Big Bang cosmology, but if there was no "space" to speak of, it's certain't possible that "time" as we understand it didn't exist either.

As far as severe persecution happening in the West, that could happen if the contrast continues to grow between Christ like people and non-Christ like people, who call themselves “Christians”. We do need to work with what we have right now.

Which means that if persecution comes, it will be Christians persecuting one another -- being their own worst enemy, as has often happened before.

Funny how you say it'll be between the Christ-like and the non-Christ-like... but not who precisely will be persecuting whom... but I digress.

You read about Biblical recorded “Miracles” and ask: why then, how could they happen, why not these other similar times, how do we know they even happened, which are good logical questions from your perspective.

Actually, my first question is: Did they actually happen, or are they some sort of literary device used by the authors of the Bible? Assuming either answer opens up a different set of questions to be addressed.

This being a Christian forum with a (naturally) Christian perspective, most people assume the former. For the purposes of this thread, I'm looking at the questions raised by that assumption.

Perhaps at some point (in this thread or elsewhere) we can look at the questions raised by assuming the latter?

I look at these miracles and do have the same questions, but come up with Christian perspective answers. Everything that has, is and will happen is all to best help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective and I can see how they fit man’s objective. These answers will not satisfy the skeptic, but are not designed to.

Which would include "miracles."

Several Christian Scientist and even one I talked with have developed some “natural” way most miracles could have happened and for the most part I do not really care “how” it could have happened either by some “natural” or supernatural means.

Nor do I -- remember, for the purpose of this thread, I'm defining miracle as the overt suspension of natural law... something that "could" have happened through mundane means is not a miracle, but merely an improbable event.

Take, for example, Moses at the Red Sea. Some Biblical scholars claim that this was actually at the "Sea of Reeds," the swampy marshland where the Suez Canal is now located. The idea is that Moses led the Israelites slowly and carefully through this swamp, but the pursuing Egyptian army, wearing full armor and riding iron chariots, got hopelessly bogged down. In short, a lucky break for the Israelites which grew more and more fantastic with each retelling.

On the other hand, if it happened as traditionally depicted, in all of Cecil B. DeMille's glory:

Then we've got a bona fide miracle.

The only thing that really matters is, “Did Christ rise from the grave”?

And here's where the question gets tricky... and crucial. Because if the "miracle" stories are not historical facts, but rather literary interpretations of events that couldn't be expressed any other way, then that particular miracle also needs to be critically examined.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And here's where the question gets tricky... and crucial. Because if the "miracle" stories are not historical facts, but rather literary interpretations of events that couldn't be expressed any other way, then that particular miracle also needs to be critically examined.

And because there's conceptual confusion in all of this ....................this is when and where the issues involved in both Historiography and also the Philosophy of History, as well as Hermeneutics, become relevant. Unfortunately, they're often ignored.

 

[Caliban]

would we even have to ask these questions if we didn't assume that miracles were actual historic acts

Simple answer--No. There has been various attempts in theological circles (and here) to explain the presence of miracle in the Bible as naturalistic occurrences, legend, or, for the more conservative, a one off event that is unlikely to result in a miracle today.

There is no compelling reason to treat the miraculous claims of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament are reliable historical narratives--especially when not accepting similar claims in other holy texts. It is unlikely that Muhammed's winged horse (Buraq) was able to fly very far and unlikely that Jesus walked on water. Of course, not all see these claims as utterly silly today. But it stretches credulity to think these events happened as described in these texts and the same god would be inactive today in the face of horrific suffering and need of the miraculous. That is the question we are asked to confront in this thread, right? I think every attempt to explain away the miraculous in the Bible is related to the theological anxiety of having to answer that question and its contemporary implication.

This question is related to The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness. Any attempt to answer the OPs question by maintaining belief in a nonfigurative god will have to address these problems head on.

 

[bling]

It's been a while since I've dabbled with Big Bang cosmology, but if there was no "space" to speak of, it's certain't possible that "time" as we understand it didn't exist either.

There are scientist today proposing the idea there is no space right now, which helps explain some of what we observe.

Time has to do with change, no change no time, so was there change before the “Big Bang” if there was a big bang?

Which means that if persecution comes, it will be Christians persecuting one another -- being their own worst enemy, as has often happened before.

The worst enemy of the Jewish Christians were other Jews.

Funny how you say it'll be between the Christ-like and the non-Christ-like... but not who precisely will be persecuting whom... but I digress.



Actually, my first question is: Did they actually happen, or are they some sort of literary device used by the authors of the Bible? Assuming either answer opens up a different set of questions to be addressed.

This being a Christian forum with a (naturally) Christian perspective, most people assume the former. For the purposes of this thread, I'm looking at the questions raised by that assumption.

Perhaps at some point (in this thread or elsewhere) we can look at the questions raised by assuming the latter?



Which would include "miracles."



Nor do I -- remember, for the purpose of this thread, I'm defining miracle as the overt suspension of natural law... something that "could" have happened through mundane means is not a miracle, but merely an improbable event.

Take, for example, Moses at the Red Sea. Some Biblical scholars claim that this was actually at the "Sea of Reeds," the swampy marshland where the Suez Canal is now located. The idea is that Moses led the Israelites slowly and carefully through this swamp, but the pursuing Egyptian army, wearing full armor and riding iron chariots, got hopelessly bogged down. In short, a lucky break for the Israelites which grew more and more fantastic with each retelling.

On the other hand, if it happened as traditionally depicted, in all of Cecil B. DeMille's glory:

Then we've got a bona fide miracle.



And here's where the question gets tricky... and crucial. Because if the "miracle" stories are not historical facts, but rather literary interpretations of events that couldn't be expressed any other way, then that particular miracle also needs to be critically examined.

There is a ton of stuff we can learn from the Adam and Eve story, whether it is literal or not, so for me it makes no real difference, other than bringing everything else into question.

God, for good reason, is not going to allow us to scientifically proof His existence and we certainly cannot disproof God’s existence. God could certainly be outside the Laws of Nature.

Given man’s objective and everything in scripture plus the way things are, seems totally consistent with the Christian Loving God, so that is one supporting factor for me. How could anyone disproof the Miracles recorded in scripture?

What would it take for you to believe these Miracles recorded in scripture happened?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Simple answer--No. There has been various attempts in theological circles (and here) to explain the presence of miracle in the Bible as naturalistic occurrences, legend, or, for the more conservative, a one off event that is unlikely to result in a miracle today.

There is no compelling reason to treat the miraculous claims of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament are reliable historical narratives--especially when not accepting similar claims in other holy texts. It is unlikely that Muhammed's winged horse (Buraq) was able to fly very far and unlikely that Jesus walked on water. Of course, not all see these claims as utterly silly today. But it stretches credulity to think these events happened as described in these texts and the same god would be inactive today in the face of horrific suffering and need of the miraculous. That is the question we are asked to confront in this thread, right? I think every attempt to explain away the miraculous in the Bible is related to the theological anxiety of having to answer that question and its contemporary implication.

This question is related to The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness. Any attempt to answer the OPs question by maintaining belief in a nonfigurative god will have to address these problems head on.

....just keep thinking that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The worst enemy of the Jewish Christians were other Jews.

Most religions go after heretics worse than infidels.

There is a ton of stuff we can learn from the Adam and Eve story, whether it is literal or not, so for me it makes no real difference, other than bringing everything else into question.

Nothing wrong with questions...

God, for good reason, is not going to allow us to scientifically proof His existence and we certainly cannot disproof God’s existence. God could certainly be outside the Laws of Nature.

Why would God not want that?

Given man’s objective and everything in scripture plus the way things are, seems totally consistent with the Christian Loving God, so that is one supporting factor for me. How could anyone disproof the Miracles recorded in scripture?

What is "man's objective"?

What would it take for you to believe these Miracles recorded in scripture happened?

You said before that it didn't matter to you -- why should it matter to me?

 

[bling]

Most religions go after heretics worse than infidels.

Who gets to define “heretics”?

Why would God not want that?

Like I have said: “Everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is to help willing individuals in the fulfillment of their earthly objective.

There is tons of evidence all around us that proofs the existence of God, if the person excepts the evidence as evidence. A tree is evidence because it is alive and right now there is no other way to explain life, but you still have to believe. Believing in the existence of a God has always been the easiest thing to believe (have faith in).

Knowing God exists eliminates the need for “faith” in God’s existence, since “faith” in God is something the lowliest mature adult on earth can do it is a humbling experience and humility is needed to accept pure charity (Love) and since God’s Love for us is pure charity we need humility to accept that Love as pure charity.

What is "man's objective"?

This messed up world which includes satan roaming around is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His, thus being like God Himself.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force [Love] in all universes, since that force [Love] compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

 

[Caliban]

A tree is evidence because it is alive and right now there is no other way to explain life, but you still have to believe.

I completely disagree with that. A tree is a product of nature and we understand how it works. There is no room for inserting a supernatural explanation when a natural one will do.

 

[bling]

I completely disagree with that. A tree is a product of nature and we understand how it works. There is no room for inserting a supernatural explanation when a natural one will do.

Who or what is controlling "nature"?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Who or what is controlling "nature"?

Why should I imagine that it is controlled?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who gets to define “heretics”?

The same people who define "orthodoxy"; the people in charge.

Like I have said: “Everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is to help willing individuals in the fulfillment of their earthly objective.

Yes, you did indeed say that.

There is tons of evidence all around us that proofs the existence of God, if the person excepts the evidence as evidence. A tree is evidence because it is alive and right now there is no other way to explain life, but you still have to believe. Believing in the existence of a God has always been the easiest thing to believe (have faith in).

Actually, there are plenty of ways to explain life -- but perhaps it would be useful to define it first?

I opened this thread with a definition of "miracle"; I had asked for a definition of "faith" which thus far has not been provided; perhaps a definition of "life" would be helpful to insure we're all on the same page here?

Knowing God exists eliminates the need for “faith” in God’s existence, since “faith” in God is something the lowliest mature adult on earth can do it is a humbling experience and humility is needed to accept pure charity (Love) and since God’s Love for us is pure charity we need humility to accept that Love as pure charity.

It's an interesting notion that God's love for us is pure charity...

This messed up world which includes satan roaming around is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

According to the Bible, the desire to become like God Himself is allegedly what messed up this world in the first place.

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His, thus being like God Himself.

Why then would God require humility when clearly He has no need of it Himself?

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

I'm not so sure that there's nothing in it for Him... according to the Christian mythos, God created the Angels first... whatever He wanted, He could've gotten from them... but it wasn't enough.

This is getting away from the topic of miracles, however.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.

And if we "do" something such as reject Christ?

God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force [Love] in all universes, since that force [Love] compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

Does any of this have anything at all to do with miracles?

 

[hedrick]

That said, are the miracle stories as they are described in the Old and New Testaments meant to be interpreted as depictions of actual events?

Mostly. Jonah is an obvious satire, and some of Jesus' stories are parables, but most of them are probably meant to describe events. The OT history before the Kings is probably not very accurate, but that leaves plenty of examples from the NT.

And if so, do those depictions bring people closer to an understanding of God, or further away?

Because it seems to me that stories of a God who can miraculously bend/break the natural laws of the universe at will raise a lot of awkward questions about the countless times He chooses not to.

Perspectives have changed. I think your concern is likely a modern one. I don't recall seeing any author before modern times bringing it up. But I agree with you that it's an issue.

A previous pastor had a son who was deathly ill, but recovered. He and members of the congregation had prayed for healing. The pastor was reluctant to claim it as God's intervention because so many families had similar experiences that didn't turn out well.

It's a continuing mystery just why obvious moral questions, based on Jesus' teachings, don't seem to have been raised until recently. Like the morality of the whole scheme of damnation and salvation.

At any rate, I see in the NT at least two motivations for miracles:

• Jesus had the ability to do them. Confronted with illness, etc, how could he not?
• Jesus saw them as signs of God's presence. It was an early appearance in the middle of history of the kind of restoration expected at the end.

I also suspect that if we had been there, we wouldn't have seen as many miracles. But I'm not so sure we wouldn't have seen some.

I think both reasons I mentioned were connected directly to Jesus' person and ministry.

How about things done by people other than Jesus? I've heard people involved in certain kind of missionary work say that miracles are present there that wouldn't normally be, for basically the same reason as in Jesus' mission: as signs. This could include both a couple of cases in Acts where apostles did them and modern ones. But I have to say that again, I'm not sure whether if I had been there I would have accepted them as miracles.

There have been some investigations, primarily of healings. E.g. Nolan (a doctor, who wrote "Dear and Glorious Physician") tried to find legitimate miracles. He didn't. He found that when competent medical people investigated, it turned out (depending upon the person) to be fakery, improvements in conditions that are subject to your mental condition, and improvements that turn out not to be real once they leave the immediate situation. I have to say that I remain open on this. I know the Catholic Church has tried to investigate some miracles carefully and believes they're real.

I'm inclined to put Jesus' in a special category because of who he was and his specific mission. But it is certainly possible that specific situations arise where God believes it's appropriate to do them.

I think these situations are likely to be very rare. I think the whole point of being in a world is for it to be real, with real challenges and consequences.

 

[JIMINZ]

Maybe it is evidence that Atheists and Agnostics have developed stronger critical thinking skills and do not accept every proposition they encounter regarding religion.

When your starting point is Religion, rather than a relationship with God which was made available through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder you make comments like you have just made.

 

[Caliban]

When your starting point is Religion, rather than a relationship with God which was made available through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder you make comments like you have just made.

You are correct.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Mostly. Jonah is an obvious satire, and some of Jesus' stories are parables, but most of them are probably meant to describe events. The OT history before the Kings is probably not very accurate, but that leaves plenty of examples from the NT.

But that's just it -- the miracle stories start way before Kings -- they start with Moses.

The first miracles in the Bible are the ones God teaches Moses and Aaron to impress Pharaoh with:

• throw your staff on the ground and it'll turn into a snake.
• put your hand in your robe and when it comes out, it'll be all nasty and leprous.

(Exodus 4:3 and 4:6-7 respectively)

Unfortunately, Pharaoh's not impressed with the snake miracle (they never got the chance to do the leprous hand one; I've got a theory why) because his magicians can do it, too.

Now the miracles come fast and furious -- the ten plagues. The first two (Nile to blood, then the frogs) don't impress Pharaoh because his magicians can do those as well. For miracles 3-10, God clearly ups His miracle game and leaves the magicians in the dust.

Now, it's explicitly said in Exodus 4 that the purpose of the miracles is to show that God is indeed with Moses. That's the theme that runs through the Moses story... God is with Moses, Moses is with the Hebrews... therefore, God is with the Hebrews.

But when Moses dies, the Hebrews have got to be worried that they've lost God as well... but fear not, because God is also with Moses' successor, Joshua... and we know this because not only can Joshua do miracles too, but they're practically right out of Moses' playbook!
Moses blots out the Sun; Joshua stops it in the sky. Moses parts the Red Sea; Joshua parts the River Jordan.... you get the idea.

After Joshua, the Bible is pretty lean on miracles until we come to the father of the prophets: Elijah... and that's a big gap in the timeline. Just like Moses, Elijah is armed with miracles in order to impress a wicked king (Ahab instead of Pharaoh), just like Moses and Joshua, Elijah's successor (Elisha) proves his connection to God by performing the same (or at least close enough to be recognized) miracles as his predecessor... Elijah and Elisha even copy Joshua by parting the River Jordan to cross it (I swear, does anyone ever actually get wet in that river? lol)

After Elisha, again, the Bible is pretty scant on miracles until Jesus, another big gap... and I don't think it's a coincidence that most of his miracles are pretty darn similar to Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha.

Perspectives have changed. I think your concern is likely a modern one. I don't recall seeing any author before modern times bringing it up. But I agree with you that it's an issue.

Modern times have given us an understanding of the natural world that the "pre-moderns" lacked. As I said earlier, every time a deep thinker (Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc...) explains a little more of the natural world, the curtain gets pulled back a little more.

...and let's not forget how many of those deep thinkers were fought tooth and nail by the religious institutions... one of the reasons it wasn't discussed until modern times could be because it wasn't necessarily safe to do so... even today, Darwin's a particularly sharp pebble in the shoe of some religious types.

A previous pastor had a son who was deathly ill, but recovered. He and members of the congregation had prayed for healing. The pastor was reluctant to claim it as God's intervention because so many families had similar experiences that didn't turn out well.

Very wise of your pastor. Allow me to paste another example I spoke of a while ago:

The Sago Mine disaster of Jan 2, 2006 was one of the worst mining accidents in West Virginia history. 13 miners were trapped underground. A day later, when reports came out that 12 out of the 13 miners were found alive, well, you can imagine how much God was praised in such a deeply religious community like Tallmansville, WV. Even then-Governor Joe Manchin announced that the people should "believe in miracles" from that point on.

Now, the bad news is that the reports were incorrect -- 12 out of the 13 miners were not found alive, in fact, the truth was that 12 were dead, and Randal McCloy, Jr, was the sole survivor. Now, IMO, the fact that anyone survived an explosion two miles deep in a coal mine is pretty darn miraculous, but for some reason, all the "miracle" talk stopped abruptly once the more accurate reports were made public.

It's a continuing mystery just why obvious moral questions, based on Jesus' teachings, don't seem to have been raised until recently. Like the morality of the whole scheme of damnation and salvation.

I suspect a lot of people don't feel comfortable asking those questions... I've yet to find a satisfactory answer.

At any rate, I see in the NT at least two motivations for miracles:

• Jesus had the ability to do them. Confronted with illness, etc, how could he not?
• Jesus saw them as signs of God's presence. It was an early appearance in the middle of history of the kind of restoration expected at the end.

I'll believe the latter, but I'm more inclined to see it as a literary device, not a statement of historical fact.

I also suspect that if we had been there, we wouldn't have seen as many miracles. But I'm not so sure we wouldn't have seen some.

I take it you mean "been there" as in lived in Biblical times, as opposed to "been there" when Jesus was doing his thing. Kind of hard to miss a guy walking on water...

I think both reasons I mentioned were connected directly to Jesus' person and ministry.

How about things done by people other than Jesus? I've heard people involved in certain kind of missionary work say that miracles are present there that wouldn't normally be, for basically the same reason as in Jesus' mission: as signs. This could include both a couple of cases in Acts where apostles did them and modern ones. But I have to say that again, I'm not sure whether if I had been there I would have accepted them as miracles.

Having the apostles do miracles fits the pattern set in the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha story arcs... when the miracle worker dies, God shows that He's still there by granting miraculous power to the miracle worker's immediate successor.... but only the immediate successor; that's enough to prove the point. Jesus did miracles, so his apostles could do them too... but you'll notice that's where the miracles stop. The Apostles, AFAIK, never showed or taught anyone how to do miracles... although Simon Magus did offer to pay them (Acts 8:18).

There have been some investigations, primarily of healings. E.g. Nolan (a doctor, who wrote "Dear and Glorious Physician") tried to find legitimate miracles. He didn't. He found that when competent medical people investigated, it turned out (depending upon the person) to be fakery, improvements in conditions that are subject to your mental condition, and improvements that turn out not to be real once they leave the immediate situation. I have to say that I remain open on this. I know the Catholic Church has tried to investigate some miracles carefully and believes they're real.

Can't say I'm at all surprised... "Faith Healing" is an old con with a long and not-so-proud history, and of course the Catholic Church is going to stay open-minded on the possibility of miracles... it's kind of their job to have faith, isn't it?

I'm inclined to put Jesus' in a special category because of who he was and his specific mission. But it is certainly possible that specific situations arise where God believes it's appropriate to do them.

Not being a Christian myself, I'm a little more detached when it comes to examining Jesus more closely... clearly his miracles were on a whole other level from the OT miracle workers... but that's understandable. Someone boosted Jesus' miracle abilities to show that God wasn't just "with" Jesus as He was with Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha... God was Jesus... now whether that someone was God himself or the Gospel writers, well... that's a matter of faith.

I think these situations are likely to be very rare. I think the whole point of being in a world is for it to be real, with real challenges and consequences.

Fair enough. But in a world of close to eight billion people, many of whom are Christians and believe in some sort of miracles, and everyone and his dog has a cameraphone ready to start recording at a moment's notice, you'd think someone would have parted the Mississippi River by now... and someone else would've put it up on YouTube.

 

[JIMINZ]

Fair enough. But in a world of close to eight billion people, many of whom are Christians and believe in some sort of miracles, and everyone and his dog has a cameraphone ready to start recording at a moment's notice, you'd think someone would have parted the Mississippi River by now... and someone else would've put it up on YouTube.

You might have something there except, there are to many bridges that cross the Mississippi in the most strategic places, therefore no need for it to be parted.

If you miss one bridge, just go to the next one.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You might have something there except, there are to many bridges that cross the Mississippi in the most strategic places, therefore no need for it to be parted.

If you miss one bridge, just go to the next one.

Some people will do anything to beat rush hour traffic...

 

[bling]

T

Actually, there are plenty of ways to explain life -- but perhaps it would be useful to define it first?
I opened this thread with a definition of "miracle"; I had asked for a definition of "faith" which thus far has not been provided; perhaps a definition of "life" would be helpful to insure we're all on the same page here?



It's an interesting notion that God's love for us is pure charity...

According to the Bible, the desire to become like God Himself is allegedly what messed up this world in the first place.



Why then would God require humility when clearly He has no need of it Himself?



I'm not so sure that there's nothing in it for Him... according to the Christian mythos, God created the Angels first... whatever He wanted, He could've gotten from them... but it wasn't enough.

This is getting away from the topic of miracles, however.



And if we "do" something such as reject Christ?

Does any of this have anything at all to do with miracles?

You asked: Why would God not want that? and What is "man's objective"?

Bottom line:

Miracles are needed to help willing man in fulfilling His earthly objective and I explained the objective. They are not to help make this world a better place. The objective drives everything. Like I said the only "Miracle" that counts is Jesus rising from the grave.
Something "strange" and "big" had to happen in Jerusalem around 33 AD, since the Church grew from that time and place. If the grave was not empty, the movement would have been short lived.