Literal miracles in the Bible?

TLK Valentine · Jun 19, 2020

bling said:
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.

Apologies, but I think I missed the explanation. You did mention humans becoming like God, but most of the early Biblical stories are themed around God preventing this, so that certainly can't be the objective.

They are not to help make this world a better place.

This is certainly true in the Moses-Joshua arc... most of those miracles were lethal in nature. The world was certainly not a better place for most of the people on the business end of those miracles.

The objective drives everything.

Then we had best state it in no uncertain or ambiguous terms.

Again, apologies if I missed it the first time around.

Like I said the only "Miracle" that counts is Jesus rising from the grave.

And that, too, must be questioned.

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.

Agreed -- something major happened around Jesus of Nazareth... but what?

Remember that Jesus was thought of as the "Messiah," and the Gospel writers worked long and hard to frame his story along those lines... But what was the Messiah's purpose?

Some thought he was to be a great king or general who would restore God's land to power -- "Make Israel Great Again," as it were.
Others thought of him as a priestly figure whose coming would signify the End of the World as we Know it (...and I feel fine...)
Still others conflated these prophecies and thought the Messiah would manage to be both and do both.

The problem?
Jesus came and went without accomplishing any of these things. The world kept on spinning, and Israel was right where it was before -- firmly under Rome's boot.

Conclusion? As the (Jewish) Messiah, Jesus was a bust. But you are correct... the people saw something in him that completely redefined their relationship with God... their God. Remember, for the first fifty or so years after the Crucifixion, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, not a separate religion. That's important: for the period covering Paul's letters and the first three Gospels (the synoptics), the authors, regardless of what they thought of Jesus, still thought of themselves as Jews.

It would be near the end of the first century AD when war and politics made the split official... but I digress. I'm interested in what that "something" was, and what caused the first-century writers to be so awed by it that they depicted Jesus of Nazareth as they did.

bling · Jun 19, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
Apologies, but I think I missed the explanation. You did mention humans becoming like God, but most of the early Biblical stories are themed around God preventing this, so that certainly can't be the objective.

This is certainly true in the Moses-Joshua arc... most of those miracles were lethal in nature. The world was certainly not a better place for most of the people on the business end of those miracles.

Then we had best state it in no uncertain or ambiguous terms.

Again, apologies if I missed it the first time around.

And that, too, must be questioned.

Agreed -- something major happened around Jesus of Nazareth... but what?

Remember that Jesus was thought of as the "Messiah," and the Gospel writers worked long and hard to frame his story along those lines... But what was the Messiah's purpose?

Some thought he was to be a great king or general who would restore God's land to power -- "Make Israel Great Again," as it were.
Others thought of him as a priestly figure whose coming would signify the End of the World as we Know it (...and I feel fine...)
Still others conflated these prophecies and thought the Messiah would manage to be both and do both.

The problem?
Jesus came and went without accomplishing any of these things. The world kept on spinning, and Israel was right where it was before -- firmly under Rome's boot.

Conclusion? As the (Jewish) Messiah, Jesus was a bust. But you are correct... the people saw something in him that completely redefined their relationship with God... their God. Remember, for the first fifty or so years after the Crucifixion, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, not a separate religion. That's important: for the period covering Paul's letters and the first three Gospels (the synoptics), the authors, regardless of what they thought of Jesus, still thought of themselves as Jews.

It would be near the end of the first century AD when war and politics made the split official... but I digress. I'm interested in what that "something" was, and what caused the first-century writers to be so awed by it that they depicted Jesus of Nazareth as they did.

This takes lots of explaining to make it logical to a skeptic.

All organizations need a simple, “Mission Statement” and Man’s “Mission Statement” is given as a command, paraphrasing: Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.

The problem with fulfilling this command is the need for this overwhelming all controlling unnatural unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial Love.

People do want to be like a “god”, but not totally unselfish and sacrificial toward others, which is the way God is. There in lies the problem, you have to obtain and keep Godly type Love (be like God) to enjoy heaven.

Heaven is like one huge Love Feast, but the only type of Love in heaven is this unselfish type Love, so if someone does not like to be Loved unconditionally and Love other unconditionally, they would not be happy in heaven.

Most people want to be “loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be, so they would not be happy in heaven.

This Love can only be obtained for humans while on this messed up earth.

33AD

If thinks actually happened the way the Bible describes it that would explain the rapid exponential growth of the early church, if it did not happen the way it was described it is not only do we have to come up with another way, but we have to explain why there is not a multitude of explanations, as you would expect if people were just making stuff up.

TLK Valentine · Jun 19, 2020

bling said:
This takes lots of explaining to make it logical to a skeptic.

All organizations need a simple, “Mission Statement” and Man’s “Mission Statement” is given as a command, paraphrasing: Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.

The problem with fulfilling this command is the need for this overwhelming all controlling unnatural unselfish, unconditional, sacrificial Love.

IOW, John 13:34. -- of course, what would come easily to God is psychologically impossible for ordinary humans... and therein lies the problem.

So far, so good.

People do want to be like a “god”, but not totally unselfish and sacrificial toward others, which is the way God is. There in lies the problem, you have to obtain and keep Godly type Love (be like God) to enjoy heaven.

Heaven is like one huge Love Feast, but the only type of Love in heaven is this unselfish type Love, so if someone does not like to be Loved unconditionally and Love other unconditionally, they would not be happy in heaven.

Still with you...

Most people want to be “loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be, so they would not be happy in heaven.

I suspect a lot of Christians are going to be bitterly disappointed in heaven... but I digress.

This Love can only be obtained for humans while on this messed up earth.

This is where it gets a bit odd... In order to be ready to experience heaven in... well, heaven, we must first experience it here, starting with ourselves.

Perhaps that is what Jesus meant in Luke 17:20-21? "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

IOW, if you want to find heaven, stop looking up and start looking in. Maybe if you start seeing the world the way He sees it, it doesn't look all that "messed up" at all.

33AD

If thinks actually happened the way the Bible describes it that would explain the rapid exponential growth of the early church, if it did not happen the way it was described it is not only do we have to come up with another way, but we have to explain why there is not a multitude of explanations, as you would expect if people were just making stuff up.

Ah, but there were a multitude of explanations -- and for 300 years after the crucifixion, the believers in those different explanations argued and debated among themselves and each other, until finally in AD 325, Emperor Constantine gathered up the bickering factions and said (more or less), "Now look, we're all going to sit down and sort through all this until we've decided on the 'official' story!"

...and that's what they did.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

But back to the OP... where do "miracles" fit into all of this?

John Helpher · Jun 19, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
Now, for this thread, I want to define "miracle" as "The overt suspension of natural laws by the divine or agent of the divine in order to achieve a divine purpose."

This is not a logical definition of the miraculous. From our limited perspective, miracles seem supernatural. But, from someone with greater understanding of how reality works, it would not be supernatural, but rather just the an application of what really is quite natural in a way that we do not yet comprehend. People hundreds of years ago would probably look at the technology we have today and think it magical or supernatural.

I believe this explanation of the miraculous is not only accurate, but a more humble way of exploring what the truth may be, i.e. rather than assuming the supernatural is beyond comprehension, we express some humility by recognizing that it is we who lack the comprehension to understand what really is natural.

In other words, just because you don't understand how something words doesn't mean it is either impossible or beyond what is natural.

TLK Valentine said:
God rains manna from the heavens to feed the Israelites.... today, millions are starving.

If a kid owns a goldfish as a pet he's required to feed it. That does not mean that he's required to, for the rest of his life, go around feeding every gold fish he ever sees or else risk being a hypocrite. If you're really concerned about the suffering of others, why not act on that concern yourself by either addressing the problem directly or encouraging others to do so? If God intervened every time suffering happened, there would no longer be any human choice.

TLK Valentine said:
God -- either personally or through His prophets -- heals the sick and infirm and even raises the dead... today, millions suffer and die.

Why do millions suffer and die? Do you really believe it will help you, spiritually, for God to do all your thinking and acting for you? Would it really be better for God to step in and say, "No, TLK, I will not require any sincerity or integrity from you; let ME do all the work for you"? This is just using you as the example to help the lesson hit home, but the spirit behind your comments is that God should be saying this for all humanity, in which case there would be no point to giving humans any kind of choice at all.

TLK Valentine said:
God -- again either personally or through His prophets -- commands the forces of nature... today, drought, storms, earthquakes, etc... kill millions.

Death is not the end of life; if the lesson you get from an event like an earthquake is to blame the creator of all truth, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and understanding, then you're doing it wrong.

TLK Valentine · Jun 19, 2020

John Helpher said:
This is not a logical definition of the miraculous. From our limited perspective, miracles seem supernatural. But, from someone with greater understanding of how reality works, it would not be supernatural, but rather just the an application of what really is quite natural in a way that we do not yet comprehend. People hundreds of years ago would probably look at the technology we have today and think it magical or supernatural.

You're talking about invention and technology... which I agree, can accomplish things which, to the uninitiated, would appear miraculous.

A man can ascend into the heavens... with a helicopter.
A man can cure a leper... with a six-month treatment of dapsone, rifampicin, and clofazimine.
A man can even revive the (very recently) dead... with a shot of approximately .03 mL of epinephrine.

Obviously, I am talking about accomplishing these things without the use of such tools -- doing them in such a way that the only explanation is that the natural laws of the universe were temporarily suspended.

I believe this explanation of the miraculous is not only accurate, but a more humble way of exploring what the truth may be, i.e. rather than assuming the supernatural is beyond comprehension, we express some humility by recognizing that it is we who lack the comprehension to understand what really is natural.

In other words, just because you don't understand how something words doesn't mean it is either impossible or beyond what is natural.

Oh, I agree -- but the miracles as they are depicted in the Bible are clearly meant to be understood as "supernatural," in that they are the direct manipulation of the natural world by a Being who exists above and beyond it, and as such, is not bound by its laws.

You know... "God."

If a kid owns a goldfish as a pet he's required to feed it. That does not mean that he's required to, for the rest of his life, go around feeding every gold fish he ever sees or else risk being a hypocrite. If you're really concerned about the suffering of others, why not act on that concern yourself by either addressing the problem directly or encouraging others to do so? If God intervened every time suffering happened, there would no longer be any human choice.

Why intervene at all, then?

Why do millions suffer and die? Do you really believe it will help you, spiritually, for God to do all your thinking and acting for you? Would it really be better for God to step in and say, "No, TLK, I will not require any sincerity or integrity from you; let ME do all the work for you"? This is just using you as the example to help the lesson hit home, but the spirit behind your comments is that God should be saying this for all humanity, in which case there would be no point to giving humans any kind of choice at all.

Actually, I don't believe it will help, but it does lead me to wonder why -- if we are to believe in these miracles as actual historical events -- God suddenly and arbitrarily decided to start playing around with the natural laws, and then, just as suddenly and arbitrarily, decided to stop.

If I were a believer, that would be quite the puzzler. As I said, why intervene at all?

Death is not the end of life; if the lesson you get from an event like an earthquake is to blame the creator of all truth, knowledge, wisdom, justice, and understanding, then you're doing it wrong.

I'm not talking about blame; I'm talking about responsibility. Why -- again, if we are to assume that miracles are real -- save a select few and leave the vast majority to the whims of chance?

And if I'm "doing it wrong," then what, pray tell, is the right way to do it?

John Helpher · Jun 19, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
Obviously, I am talking about accomplishing these things without the use of such tools -- doing them in such a way that the only explanation is that the natural laws of the universe were temporarily suspended.

This supposes that the only way to ascend into the air is with the use of a tool which you create. It's an assumption based on your current understanding of how reality works. In order to say that a person cannot ascend into the air without the use of a self made tool, you must conclude that something which you personally cannot do must therefore be impossible.

In other words, your way of reasoning is to limit the possible explanations to that which you are currently able to understand. That is not rational thinking, though I understand why such a position is so attractive; you want control. Acknowledging power and intelligence beyond your comprehension puts you in a position of (at least perceived) weakness. This is the essence of what humility is; we acknowledge there is a power, a wisdom, an entity of integrity and justice far beyond us who, as a result, has the right to tell us what to do because we lack that same sense of understanding.

TLK Valentine said:
Oh, I agree -- but the miracles as they are depicted in the Bible are clearly meant to be understood as "supernatural,"

No, the information recorded in the various testimonies, histories, and letters which we collectively recognize as "the Bible" are depicted according to the understanding and comprehension which the authors had at the time of writing. The people of that time did not know how a person could levitate into the air so they described it as miraculous, but from the creator's perspective it is not miraculous at all; it is the manipulation of matter in a way that we do not yet understand.

TLK Valentine said:
Why intervene at all, then?

Think about it like parents and children; parents are smarter, more experienced, wiser, and more knowledgeable than their children (at least at the start). This just rationally presumes that the parent knows better than the child. As a result of the disparity between the two, the parent takes on a responsibility to teach the child how to become wise, responsible, and to act with integrity.

But, this becomes impossible if the parent never allows the child to make any choices of their own. The parent must learn to balance guidance with personal growth. That's what wisdom is; understanding when it is appropriate to intervene and when it is not.

This kind of decision making happens in every aspect of life; lets say your friend is making what you believe to be a wrong life choice. You have a decision of your own to make; do you intervene and try to stop your friend, or do you let him make his own choice? There could be a hundred different pros and cons for such a dilemma.

You want to say that God either should always intervene or never intervene; such a black/white perspective may seem soothing to lazy thinkers who just want a "gotcha" moment to make themselves feel better about their own foolishness, but it is not rational thinking.

TLK Valentine said:
If I were a believer, that would be quite the puzzler.

God forbid that you should be expected to think about why things happen the way they do. My goodness... *eye roll*

TLK Valentine said:
I'm not talking about blame;

Of course you are. Look at your previous comment:

TLK Valentine said:
if we are to believe in these miracles as actual historical events -- God suddenly and arbitrarily decided to start playing around with the natural laws, and then, just as suddenly and arbitrarily, decided to stop.

You're blaming God for being arbitrary which results in people being confused. It is dishonest to say you're not assigning blame while assigning blame. I guess you have this idea that you want to be a nice guy who's not judging anyone, and yet this nice guy act only creates more confusion not only in others, but in yourself, too.

Just be straightforward about what you're saying and why you're saying it.

TLK Valentine · Jun 19, 2020

John Helpher said:
This supposes that the only way to ascend into the air is with the use of a tool which you create. It's an assumption based on your current understanding of how reality works. In order to say that a person cannot ascend into the air without the use of a self made tool, you must conclude that something which you personally cannot do must therefore be impossible.

Well, I'm open to any suggestions regarding how the event described in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9-12 was done... assuming of course that it was done at all.

No, the information recorded in the various testimonies, histories, and letters which we collectively recognize as "the Bible" are depicted according to the understanding and comprehension which the authors had at the time of writing.

Agreed. And where natural explanations failed them, they turned, naturally (pun intended) to the supernatural.

The people of that time did not know how a person could levitate into the air so they described it as miraculous, but from the creator's perspective it is not miraculous at all; it is the manipulation of matter in a way that we do not yet understand.

Well, as neither you nor I are the Creator, that leaves us with the miraculous...

....unless, of course, you've figured out the art of levitation.

Think about it like parents and children; parents are smarter, more experienced, wiser, and more knowledgeable than their children (at least at the start). This just rationally presumes that the parent knows better than the child. As a result of the disparity between the two, the parent takes on a responsibility to teach the child how to become wise, responsible, and to act with integrity.

and levitate?

But, this becomes impossible if the parent never allows the child to make any choices of their own. The parent must learn to balance guidance with personal growth. That's what wisdom is; understanding when it is appropriate to intervene and when it is not.

Which is why even the wisest of parents teach their children that people cannot levitate -- preferably before the child dons a Superman cape and takes a running leap off the roof... which would turn make-believe into an unfortunate tragedy.

This kind of decision making happens in every aspect of life; lets say your friend is making what you believe to be a wrong life choice. You have a decision of your own to make; do you intervene and try to stop your friend, or do you let him make his own choice? There could be a hundred different pros and cons for such a dilemma.

Not disagreeing...not seeing the relevance, but not disagreeing.

You want to say that God either should always intervene or never intervene; such a black/white perspective may seem soothing to lazy thinkers who just want a "gotcha" moment to make themselves feel better about their own foolishness, but it is not rational thinking.

No, I don't -- I just want to know if we're expected to accept those miracle stories as actual events which allegedly happened in history.

God forbid that you should be expected to think about why things happen the way they do. My goodness... *eye roll*

Of course you are. Look at your previous comment:

You're blaming God for being arbitrary which results in people being confused. It is dishonest to say you're not assigning blame while assigning blame. I guess you have this idea that you want to be a nice guy who's not judging anyone, and yet this nice guy act only creates more confusion not only in others, but in yourself, too.

It's lazy thinking that conflates blame with responsibility.

Just be straightforward about what you're saying and why you're saying it.

I thought I was.

Are we supposed to accept miracles as actual historical events?

John Helpher · Jun 19, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
Well, I'm open to any suggestions regarding how the event described in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9-12 was done... assuming of course that it was done at all.

The point is that a lack of explanation (or in this case, comprehension) does not mean the act is either impossible or beyond what is natural. It just means you (or we) lack comprehension. I don't understand how electricity works, but I don't think my computer is either magical or supernatural.

What you're attempting to do is to use your lack of explanation as evidence for a lack of some behavior or concept. Rather, it would be more consistent with the sincerity of a truth seeker to accept that while you doubt the possibility of something like levitation, you do not dismiss it outright since you cannot prove that it is not something which can happen as a result of physics. It's fine to say you are skeptical; it is not okay to use that skepticism as evidence as that is circular reasoning.

TLK Valentine said:
Well, as neither you nor I are the Creator, that leaves us with the miraculous...

Nope. There's some person in a lab or office somewhere working on tech or information which I would be hopelessly lost to understand; that does not lead me to conclude that such tech is somehow miraculous. The way to greater understanding is greater humility, meaning that recognizing what you do not understand will lead you to greater understanding.

TLK Valentine said:
Which is why even the wisest of parents teach their children that people cannot levitate

Nah, what you're referring to is indoctrination. It would be foolish for a parent to teach a child something is impossible just because that parent lacks direct, personal experience with the thing in question. Once again, it's fine to be skeptical, but it's not okay to push that skepticism on to others as though it should be common sense that they should think the way you do; this is especially true for parents who have a responsibility to raise their kids to be free thinkers. I would have thought a skeptical agnostic would be more open minded.

TLK Valentine said:
Not disagreeing...not seeing the relevance, but not disagreeing.

You took issue with the creator not intervening every time a human makes a mistake, but you don't see the relevance in parents sometimes holding back from doing so with their kids? I think you're trying too hard to be a skeptic, here.

TLK Valentine said:
No, I don't -- I just want to know if we're expected to accept those miracle stories as actual events which allegedly happened in history.

You're expected to seek out the truth with all your heart, soul, and mind. It's find to be skeptical; a bit of honest doubt is an important part of wisdom and sincerity, but so many skeptics view their skepticism not as a means to greater truth, but as a part of their identity, thus creating the unfortunate situation where accepting any kind of truth which works against their skepticism becomes an attack on their identity, which usually results in them becoming the opposite of what it means to be sincerely skeptical.

TLK Valentine · Jun 20, 2020

John Helpher said:
The point is that a lack of explanation (or in this case, comprehension) does not mean the act is either impossible or beyond what is natural. It just means you (or we) lack comprehension. I don't understand how electricity works, but I don't think my computer is either magical or supernatural.

Allow me to assist you. Electricity - Wikipedia

Now you know... and as they say, knowing is half the battle.

Interestingly enough, back when electricity (specifically lightning) was considered supernatural, A great man by the name a of Benjamin Franklin drew no small amount of criticism from the religious community for his intention of the lightning rod. As lightning strikes were seen as God's preferred means of smiting the wicked, and as rival ('heretical") churches were often the primary target of lightning strikes, religious leaders were quite displeased that Franklin would dare deny God His primary means of announcing his displeasure at a particular religious building.

(Of course, the fact that church steeples were the most common targets of lightning strikes because they were often the tallest buildings in the town, with a 500-pound cast-iron bell on top of them to boot, relied on information that the local church leaders didn't have at the time. But hey, you live, you learn....)

What you're attempting to do is to use your lack of explanation as evidence for a lack of some behavior or concept. Rather, it would be more consistent with the sincerity of a truth seeker to accept that while you doubt the possibility of something like levitation, you do not dismiss it outright since you cannot prove that it is not something which can happen as a result of physics. It's fine to say you are skeptical; it is not okay to use that skepticism as evidence as that is circular reasoning.

Well, the alternative explanation -- that Jesus' ability to ascend and levitate into heaven is a perfectly natural ability which he knew how to do back in AD 33, and any person, then or now, with the same knowledge could repeat, is an... interesting... theory to say the least.

Now it certainly is possible that for Jesus, ascending into the heavens was as simple and mundane a mode of transport as riding on a donkey, and that, in time with a little study and some practice (preferable over water or something quite soft) we, too, could learn this useful mode of transportation, and flight -- sans wings or rotors -- will become the norm.

Should that happen, conventional air travel will, of course, be rendered obsolete, and as that is a 1.7 trillion dollar industry, the financial implications will be catastrophic... but that is an issue for another time.

That said, we are still left with the question: Did these seemingly miraculous events actually happen?
If so, how are we to interpret them?

You have offered up an interesting theory: that the Church's traditional interpretation -- that these are supernatural events meant to illustrate the power of God working through humanity -- is wrong, and that these are instead perfectly natural and possible deeds which (with proper and complete knowledge of physical laws) any human being could, with effort and practice, eventually accomplish.

I like it; it has a certain Jonathan Livingston Seagull feel to it. It is, as I said, an interesting alternative to the traditional explanation... and I thank you for it.

TLK Valentine · Jun 20, 2020

bling said:
I understand what you are trying to say, but I am talking about a commitment which can and should grow when challenged. If those hypocrites were really thinking about the brevity of life, they might not have gone to the strip show and listened harder to the preacher. I very much agree with you that this is more the norm in the West than the exception. I see the Church needing severe persecution in the West to weed out the hypocrites, strengthen our commitment and allow people to see what Christ is really like

I wanted to come back to this briefly.

I can only speak for the United States, but having seen people come utterly unglued over the inconvenience of having to wear a face mask at the local Walmart, I really don't think anyone around here is up for actual persecution...

bling · Jun 20, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
I wanted to come back to this briefly.

I can only speak for the United States, but having seen people come utterly unglued over the inconvenience of having to wear a face mask at the local Walmart, I really don't think anyone around here is up for actual persecution...

I got thrown into (volunteering if needed) with the youth (13-21 age) prisoners program teaching Bible (one hour on Sunday morning to a group of 14 with three other Christians teaching groups of 14) and I was teaching three groups of “Christians”. The first group were guys (going to school it is called) that start out causing trouble and getting thrown in the tank. Then they start increasingly attending the Bible services, carrying their Bible, being nice, eventually being baptized and saying they are Christian. By the time the parole board meets they have this glowing report showing continued improvement tied to their increased spirituality and are released and they were fun to teach. These guys still carry weapons, are members of a gang, and every prisoner knows they just “went to school” to get out. The second group were converted before they went to prison (grandma conversions), but would the first day watched raunchy TV, hung with a loss group, laugh at off colored jokes, were not always talking about Jesus and were not trying to convert others. Their first day in prison the snitches see this, the snitches talk to the Bulls that approach these “Christians” saying you are not a Christian (doing everything Christ would do) and make them a slave (often sexual) or at best a gang member. They still come to Bible study on Sunday, good students, so they can tell Granny (who visits them Sunday afternoon) what they learned, but they are slaves (sometimes sexually) to some bull. The third group is fanatical, they stick close to each other, they: study, pray, witness to everyone, and avoid even a hint of insincerity that the snitches could see. They carry no weapons, but step between those that are being beaten especially persecuted. This group had grown over the last 3 years from just a couple of guys to now 42, but it came at a high price. Each convert had on the day he was baptized given up the protection of his gang membership, turned over his weapons along with all his possessions (the gang owns everything including them), they were beaten if not by the gang they left, then by other gangs looking for payback and then they were watched constantly looking for any sign the snitches might interpret as weakness (anything less than what Christ would do in the situation, would result in a beating and it could be to death). There is absolutely no privacy and these Christians never wanted to be found alone. They slept in barracks where at least one stayed awake all night praying over the others, so they could sleep without the fear of being smashed in the head in the middle of the night. These guys believed and counted on power from the Holy Spirit, I did not know existed. They come battered and bruised each week hungry for some real meaningful Christ like lesson that goes beyond their group study of 40+hours that week on the same subject, which I could not provide. They mostly helped me with my poor example of Christianity and lack of knowledge and lack of wisdom. They mentored me even though they were only Christian for a few months, but I was a poor disciple and could not keep up with them.

John Helpher · Jun 21, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
You have offered up an interesting theory: that the Church's traditional interpretation -- that these are supernatural events meant to illustrate the power of God working through humanity -- is wrong, and that these are instead perfectly natural and possible deeds which (with proper and complete knowledge of physical laws) any human being could, with effort and practice, eventually accomplish.

You have misrepresented my point of view here (i.e. suggesting that God is not the one behind these events just because I say they are natural from his perspective), which I'm not quite sure how to deal with as it seems we're not making much progress in terms of actual discussion. What I think God really wants to see is we humans sincerely exploring what it means to learn and grow.

It is not immoral to refer to something (currently) explainable as supernatural, I'm only saying it is inaccurate to call it supernatural. A sincere person may think of what really is quite natural as supernatural as an expression of their ignorance. They're not doing it as an argument for something which is impossible, but rather just struggling to accurately define what the thing is.

Neither is it inaccurate to refer to something as miraculous, as this does not presume that the miracle is beyond what is natural, but rather just uncommon or beyond what we've come to expect as normal. When Jesus performs a healing, he's not doing something unnatural. The body is already designed to heal itself; speeding up that process (or guiding it in a way) beyond what we've come to view as normal is not beyond what is natural or possible.

TLK Valentine said:
Now it certainly is possible that for Jesus, ascending into the heavens was as simple and mundane a mode of transport as riding on a donkey, and that, in time with a little study and some practice (preferable over water or something quite soft) we, too, could learn this useful mode of transportation, and flight -- sans wings or rotors -- will become the norm.

Should that happen, conventional air travel will, of course, be rendered obsolete, and as that is a 1.7 trillion dollar industry, the financial implications will be catastrophic... but that is an issue for another time.

This is an example of what I view as cynicism interfering with sincere exploration. Honest doubt is fine, but there's an edge to your comments, a sense of sarcastic rebuff which indicates that you're not being genuine with your consideration. You view my responses as something to ridicule because you've already made up your mind.

The original issue was, is something like levitation possible in terms of natural physics that we simply do not understand at the moment, and is it rational to use that lack of comprehension as evidence for the impossibility of levitation or debunking eye witness testimonies of someone who did levitate.

My response, what seems sincere to me, is that we should not use our lack of comprehension as evidence for what is or is not possible. We should not say, "Because I have not seen it, I declare it is impossible or beyond what is natural". We should keep an open mind, presuming that the issue being discussed isn't outright ridiculous or self-contradicting, like a spaghetti monster or a square with round corners.

If what you're looking for here is an opposing view to tear down, then you'll probably find it, but I don't think that will be any benefit to you personally. You may find some of your itchy frustrations scratched by sarcastic response here and there, but you won't learn or grow as a person.

TLK Valentine · Jun 21, 2020

John Helpher said:
You have misrepresented my point of view here (i.e. suggesting that God is not the one behind these events just because I say they are natural from his perspective), which I'm not quite sure how to deal with as it seems we're not making much progress in terms of actual discussion. What I think God really wants to see is we humans sincerely exploring what it means to learn and grow.

Is not the "nature" as it were, of God that He exists above and outside our "natural" world and as such, is not bound to its rules?

Surely what is "natural" to Him would indeed be "supernatural" to us, would it not?

It is not immoral to refer to something (currently) explainable as supernatural, I'm only saying it is inaccurate to call it supernatural.

And yet, unless you're suggesting that God operates on the same level as we do, "supernatural" is the only way we can describe it.

Sure, it's "natural" to God... but we are not gods, right?

A sincere person may think of what really is quite natural as supernatural as an expression of their ignorance. They're not doing it as an argument for something which is impossible, but rather just struggling to accurately define what the thing is.

True, but irrelevant. The miracles described in the Bible were impossible (via natural human means) at the time, and they are still impossible (again, via natural human means) today.

Perhaps at some point in the future we will discover the means to perform them, but until then...

Neither is it inaccurate to refer to something as miraculous, as this does not presume that the miracle is beyond what is natural, but rather just uncommon or beyond what we've come to expect as normal.

True, the word "miracle" can and has been used to describe the highly improbable.

I have absolutely no skill whatsoever in the sport of basketball... if I were to stand at the half-court line, and, eyes closed, no less, successfully sink a basket, that would certainly be a one-in- million "miracle" shot... Was that God, or just a very lucky shot?

However, such improbabilities are not the focus of this discussion... the events I'm referring to are ones which, at the time the Bible was written, and by and large to this day, are considered impossible according to the laws of nature as we understand them today.

When Jesus performs a healing, he's not doing something unnatural. The body is already designed to heal itself; speeding up that process (or guiding it in a way) beyond what we've come to view as normal is not beyond what is natural or possible.

Nevertheless, there are certain feats of healing that the human body simply cannot perform on its own.If you choose to discount the healing miracles of the Old and New Testaments, that's your business.

This is an example of what I view as cynicism interfering with sincere exploration. Honest doubt is fine, but there's an edge to your comments, a sense of sarcastic rebuff which indicates that you're not being genuine with your consideration. You view my responses as something to ridicule because you've already made up your mind.

Indeed I have already made up my mind. If you choose to reject the concept of "miracle" as defined in the OP, you're not only rejecting the premise of the thread, but also the Church and the Bible's concept of the phenomenon. I fail to see how a productive discussion can come from this.

The original issue was, is something like levitation possible in terms of natural physics that we simply do not understand at the moment, and is it rational to use that lack of comprehension as evidence for the impossibility of levitation or debunking eye witness testimonies of someone who did levitate.

That might have been your original issue, but it certainly was not mine. My issue was simply: "should we accept these phenomena as having actually happened?"

You do, apparently because you believe they are physically possible. I wish you the best of luck in proving that.

My response, what seems sincere to me, is that we should not use our lack of comprehension as evidence for what is or is not possible. We should not say, "Because I have not seen it, I declare it is impossible or beyond what is natural". We should keep an open mind, presuming that the issue being discussed isn't outright ridiculous or self-contradicting, like a spaghetti monster or a square with round corners.

Then the onus is on you to establish that these things are physically possible.

Open mindedness is not a licence for credulousness.

If what you're looking for here is an opposing view to tear down, then you'll probably find it, but I don't think that will be any benefit to you personally. You may find some of your itchy frustrations scratched by sarcastic response here and there, but you won't learn or grow as a person.

Except that I have already benefited from (most of) the discussions on this thread. With one or two exceptions, I've found interesting counterpoints to discuss.

John Helpher · Jun 21, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
The miracles described in the Bible were impossible (via natural human means) at the time, and they are still impossible (again, via natural human means) today.

How do you know they are impossible?

TLK Valentine · Jun 21, 2020

John Helpher said:
How do you know they are impossible?

Because I live in a world where human beings cannot:

ascend into the heavens
revive people who have been dead for four days
part massive bodies of water to walk on the dry land beneath
freeze the Earth's rotation in order to secure more daylight under which to slaughter one's enemies
feed a crowd of 5,000 hungry people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread
call down invisible spirits to kill the firstborn males of an entire nation

without technological or supernatural aid.

Now, either your world is quite different from mine, or you are arguing the premise of this thread for the sake of arguing.

Neither of which bodes well for a productive or interesting discussion.

John Helpher · Jun 21, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
Because I live in a world where human beings cannot:

I'm asking how you know this.

TLK Valentine · Jun 21, 2020

John Helpher said:
I'm asking how you know this.

I'm beginning to wonder why you don't.

John Helpher · Jun 21, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
I'm beginning to wonder why you don't.

This is a sidestep. How do you know?

TLK Valentine · Jun 21, 2020

John Helpher said:
This is a sidestep. How do you know?

Seriously?

I grow weary of humoring this line of discussion, so look at the list again:

ascend into the heavens
revive people who have been dead for four days
part massive bodies of water to walk on the dry land beneath
freeze the Earth's rotation in order to secure more daylight under which to slaughter one's enemies
feed a crowd of 5,000 hungry people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread
call down invisible spirits to kill the firstborn males of an entire nation

and tell me these things are normal human endeavors.

John Helpher · Jun 21, 2020

TLK Valentine said:
and tell me these things are normal human endeavors.

Normal was not the issue in question. You're saying these things are impossible. My question to you is how do you know that?

Literal miracles in the Bible?

I've already read the books you want burned.

Regular Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Regular Member

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

I've already read the books you want burned.

John 3:16

Similar threads