Literal miracles in the Bible?

[TLK Valentine]

Unless you see it with your own eyes, it's not possible...

Perhaps the "T" in TLK stands for Thomas?

That is not how truth works, but you took it even further; you said people who believe something is possible which you believe to be impossible are psychopaths. You said that. Now you want to move on?

Not psychopaths... psychotic. Don't conflate the two terms the way popular culture does... assuming your error was indeed accidental (which I am not necessarily assuming).

A psychotic is someone who is losing their grip on reality and has difficulty telling truth from fiction, fantasy, dream, delusion, etc...

A psychopath is a person who, due to lack of empathy and poor impulse control, regularly manipulate and hurt other people without remorse or concern for the consequences.

No. You should be accountable for what you say; otherwise what you say isn't worth hearing.

And you should be careful about twisting other people's words -- if you persist, what you say isn't going to be worth hearing.

 

[John Helpher]

Perhaps the "T" in TLK stands for Thomas?

That would make sense. While Thomas believed because he had seen, Jesus gave a somewhat gentle rebuke to him, but saying rather blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen; the implication is that those who are willing to consider truths that they have not been given dfinitive evidence of are better than those who need to be slapped in the face with irrefutable truth before they can be convinced of anything.

Meaning, if you're only willing to believe because you've been left no other choice, then you're not sincere. That is the place from which you argue at the moment, but not only that; you include this bitter edge of resentment that anyone who thinks differently to you must be psychotic for doing so.

A psychotic is someone who is losing their grip on reality and has difficulty telling truth from fiction, fantasy, dream, delusion, etc...

A psychopath is a person who, due to lack of empathy and poor impulse control, regularly manipulate and hurt other people without remorse or concern for the consequences.

This is semantics. You applied the term in the context of those who think differently from you. If someone disagrees with what you believe to be impossible, then that person is a psychotic. Accusing those who think differently to you of being psychotic is narrow mindedness. I know that you would not appreciate it if someone who disagreed with you accused you of being psychotic because you think differently, and yet here you are, doing that very thing to those who disagree with you; shame on you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That would make sense. While Thomas believed because he had seen, Jesus gave a somewhat gentle rebuke to him, but saying rather blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen; the implication is that those who are willing to consider truths that they have not been given dfinitive evidence of are better than those who need to be slapped in the face with irrefutable truth before they can be convinced of anything.

Meaning, if you're only willing to believe because you've been left no other choice, then you're not sincere. That is the place from which you argue at the moment, but not only that; you include this bitter edge of resentment that anyone who thinks differently to you must be psychotic for doing so.




This is semantics. You applied the term in the context of those who think differently from you. If someone disagrees with what you believe to be impossible, then that person is a psychotic. Accusing those who think differently to you of being psychotic is narrow mindedness. I know that you would not appreciate it if someone who disagreed with you accused you of being psychotic because you think differently, and yet here you are, doing that very thing to those who disagree with you; shame on you.

If you will not accept correction, so be it. Believe what you wish about me.

Meanwhile, I'm still looking to an answer to a Biblical hermeneutic question, and I've lost far more time on this rabbit trial than it has merited.

Good day.

 

[John Helpher]

If you will not accept correction, so be it. Believe what you wish about me.

I'm not believing what I wish. You said people who think differently to you are psychotic. You said that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not believing what I wish. You said people who think differently to you are psychotic. You said that.

Actually, I didn't, and if I were concerned with your opinion at this point, I'd demand evidence and/or an apology. Since I don't, and shall receive neither even if I did, I shall shake the dust off my feet and move on.

So... miracles in the Bible: historical or literary?

 

[John Helpher]

Actually, I didn't, and if I were concerned with your opinion at this point, I'd demand evidence and/or an apology.

Here's what you said in post #105

Because I understand the basics of the laws of physics, and, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not psychotic.

I was asking how do you know that levitation is impossible. The implication in your response is that people who do think levitation could be possible via a correct (albeit as of yet unknown) manipulation of the laws of physics (nothing super-natural required) take a position which is radically different to what you understand to be possible and therefore they are psychotic.

You said that; You do not believe levitation is possible because you are not psychotic; obviously those who do are psychotic. That is the intent behind your comment; people who believe levitation is possible (a position different from your own) are psychotic.

Now, you want to pretend like that's not really what you meant but take a moment to just slow down and ask yourself why you said it if that's not what you meant? Maybe you really did mean it that way, and having it pointed out like this is embarrassing. Maybe you talk like that often and you just never really notice it; maybe you really do have a narrow mind in some of these areas but it doesn't register because you think the best about yourself.

I mean, that's why you're backpedaling on this psychotic thing now; you clearly said it and yet you're acting like you didn't. The narrow-mindedness implicit in the comment doesn't fit with the image you have of yourself as an intellectually open-minded person so you're just blatantly denying it.

I don't think this is the kind of thing that should define you, though. We all say silly or inaccurate things in the heat of the moment or based on a rote way of thinking. You can acknowledge that it's not a good way to discuss issues (i.e. to imply that people who disagree with you are doing so because they're crazy) and the problem will be fixed and you'll actually increase your credibility. This stubborn denial that you didn't say what you clearly said will have the opposite effect; the more you do that the more it will damage your credibility.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here's what you said in post #105


I was asking how do you know that levitation is impossible. The implication in your response is that people who do think levitation could be possible via a correct (albeit as of yet unknown) manipulation of the laws of physics (nothing super-natural required) take a position which is radically different to what you understand to be possible and therefore they are psychotic.

You said that; You do not believe levitation is possible because you are not psychotic; obviously those who do are psychotic. That is the intent behind your comment; people who believe levitation is possible (a position different from your own) are psychotic.

Now, you want to pretend like that's not really what you meant but take a moment to just slow down and ask yourself why you said it if that's not what you meant? Maybe you really did mean it that way, and having it pointed out like this is embarrassing. Maybe you talk like that often and you just never really notice it; maybe you really do have a narrow mind in some of these areas but it doesn't register because you think the best about yourself.

I mean, that's why you're backpedaling on this psychotic thing now; you clearly said it and yet you're acting like you didn't. The narrow-mindedness implicit in the comment doesn't fit with the image you have of yourself as an intellectually open-minded person so you're just blatantly denying it.

I don't think this is the kind of thing that should define you, though. We all say silly or inaccurate things in the heat of the moment or based on a rote way of thinking. You can acknowledge that it's not a good way to discuss issues (i.e. to imply that people who disagree with you are doing so because they're crazy) and the problem will be fixed and you'll actually increase your credibility. This stubborn denial that you didn't say what you clearly said will have the opposite effect; the more you do that the more it will damage your credibility.

I don't believe people can fly because I understand the laws of physics and I don't suffer from psychosis.

You do believe people can fly, and I'm sure there are several non-psychosis related reasons for it. However, given the amount of time already spent and the increasingly condescending tone of this conversation, I'm long past the point of caring what they are.

So... miracles in the Bible: historical or literary?

 

[John Helpher]

I don't believe people can fly because I understand the laws of physics and I don't suffer from psychosis.

Which is a passive-aggressive (dare I say sleazy) way of implying that those who disagree with you (at least on this issue, but probably in other areas, too) are crazy. You said you didn't do this, (you even demanded an apology that I would dare to suggest you had done this) but here you are doing it again.

You refer to the condescending tone of this conversation, and yet you're the one implying people are crazy if they disagree with you; you've also resorted to ridicule on a few occasions (like with the superman bit and goading me to fly as proof for your doubt).

I'm not being condescending toward you; what's really bothering you is that my responses highlight a genuine problem with the way you reason; this problem does not fit well with the image you have of yourself so you perceive my comments as some kind of attack on you, but is it really? I mean, I'm only saying it's not good to accuse people of being crazy just because they disagree with you. Doesn't that make sense? Why should that make you feel attacked?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which is a passive-aggressive (dare I say sleazy) way of implying that those who disagree with you (at least on this issue, but probably in other areas, too) are crazy. You said you didn't do this, (you even demanded an apology that I would dare to suggest you had done this) but here you are doing it again.

You refer to the condescending tone of this conversation, and yet you're the one implying people are crazy if they disagree with you; you've also resorted to ridicule on a few occasions (like with the superman bit and goading me to fly as proof for your doubt).

I'm not being condescending toward you; what's really bothering you is that my responses highlight a genuine problem with the way you reason; this problem does not fit well with the image you have of yourself so you perceive my comments as some kind of attack on you, but is it really? I mean, I'm only saying it's not good to accuse people of being crazy just because they disagree with you. Doesn't that make sense? Why should that make you feel attacked?

That's nice.

So... miracles in the Bible: historical or literary?

 

[ChetSinger]

Wow, I did not expect such a lengthy reply. I'm impressed by your effort and I'll try to respond with what I know, but I will likely not have the time to continue much further in such detailed conversations.

"Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures"

Seems to me a question of whether Josephus was vying for historical accuracy, Biblical faithfulness, or painting the Jewish people in a more favorable light.

The question is, did he consider "the Hebrew Scriptures" to be history or myth? I think history, as he repeatedly ties events in the scriptures to the history of other lands.

This is off-topic, and I promised myself I wouldn't pursue it, but I do have to ask: As you are clearly referring Adam, Eve, and the doctrine of Original Sin, what exactly was the nature of that rebellion, and how precisely were A&E expected to understand the consequences of that rebellion when they would be unable to conceptualize it until after the very act?

There's also the issue of that subtle serpent; where'd it come from?

And of course, leaving two utterly innocent and naive creations unsupervised with a clearly malicious reptile and the one thing in all of existence which can send the whole thing sideways is just catastrophe waiting to happen.

Even more so than the awkward questions raised by literal miracles, a literal Garden of Eden does not make God look good. Granted, the serpent, Eve, and Adam have to take their share of responsibility (and so they do), but so then does The Boss.

And there's no way around it in a literal Garden of Eden: God dropped the ball.

And why women have pain in childbirth, and why snakes crawl on their bellies, yes... God was quite explicit.

God doesn't owe us anything whatsoever... but, if the Bible is to be believed, He does occasionally deliver.

So whenever God -- either on His own or via a human agent of His choosing -- does do something extraordinary, it's going to raise a few questions.

Except that, again, if literal miracles are to be accepted, He already demonstrated that He can do that.... centuries earlier.

First via Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), and then again with Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37).

And not counting his own resurrection, Jesus had already raised at least three people from the dead... There are five such resurrection miracles recorded in the Gospels, but three of them are clear retellings of the same event: The daughter of Jairus in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Add the widow's son in Luke's Gospel and Lazarus in John's, and Jesus has clearly already proven that point.

It's an inspiring story, but the problem is that it's been 2,000 years and God's curse seems to still be very much in effect. Everything and everyone still dies. Now it may very well be that at some point in the future that may change... which will raise no small amount of questions.

Yes that is off-topic, and also too broad for a single reply. There's just one thing I want to draw your attention to regarding those resurrections, though: they were temporary because all of those people died again. The resurrection God is offering us now, by believing the gospel, is an eternal one.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wow, I did not expect such a lengthy reply. I'm impressed by your effort and I'll try to respond with what I know, but I will likely not have the time to continue much further in such detailed conversations.

Fair enough. To be honest, I was not expecting to give such a lengthy reply, but the topic of both Original Sin and Atonement Theology came up, which I have some rather strong (and unflattering) opinions about... which are best left for another thread.

The question is, did he consider "the Hebrew Scriptures" to be history or myth? I think history, as he repeatedly ties events in the scriptures to the history of other lands.

He certainly chose to present them as history, which I'll agree is a strong indicator that he considered them to be history.

Once we acknowledge how the people of the era chose to interpret it, the next question becomes: does that interpretation still hold up in a postmodern world in light of everything we've learned in the 2,000 years since then?

Yes that is off-topic, and also too broad for a single reply. There's just one thing I want to draw your attention to regarding those resurrections, though: they were temporary because all of those people died again. The resurrection God is offering us now, by believing the gospel, is an eternal one.

I would expect that -- any time God acts miraculously, it's understood that this is but the tip of the iceberg. Jesus calming a storm doesn't mean that we can laugh at the weatherman; it means that God has power over nature, because... well, duh, he's God.

It stands to reason that any time God raises someone from the dead(and as noted, He does it quite a few times), it has a bigger meaning... it would have to, wouldn't it? If all it meant was "yay! this person is alive again!" There'd be no shortage of grieving relatives waiting for Elijah, Elisha, or Jesus to show up at their door... and possibly feeling a bit cheated when they didn't.

 

[cloudyday2]

So... miracles in the Bible: historical or literary?

This question was addressed to @John Helpher rather than to me, but why do you keep asking this? You asked a different and more interesting question in your opening post. You asked whether different problems arise if the author intended the miracles to be historical versus literary.

It seems that you are derailing your own thread? Or maybe I misunderstood your OP?

 

[ChetSinger]

Fair enough. To be honest, I was not expecting to give such a lengthy reply, but the topic of both Original Sin and Atonement Theology came up, which I have some rather strong (and unflattering) opinions about... which are best left for another thread.

Got it.

He certainly chose to present them as history, which I'll agree is a strong indicator that he considered them to be history.

Once we acknowledge how the people of the era chose to interpret it, the next question becomes: does that interpretation still hold up in a postmodern world in light of everything we've learned in the 2,000 years since then?

In my mind, yes. And also in the minds of most people in my local church and my denomination, yes: we are the creations of a God who is above us, perhaps in a higher dimension, and who can manipulate this one as he wishes.

I suppose this is somewhat on-topic, so here's a thought experiment: if a fourth spatial dimension exists, then many of the miracles described in the bible aren't "magical" but are the expected abilities of someone who resides in that higher dimension. For example, consider the feeding of the 5,000: every time a loaf was removed from a basket an additional 3D loaf could be "dropped" from 4D space into it. To our own eyes the loaf would suddenly pop into existence, as if by magic. But there would be no actual magic involved; just extra-dimensional mechanics.

I didn't invent that concept, but long ago I was educated as a physicist (although I've never worked as one) so perhaps my mind just turns that way.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This question was addressed to @John Helpher rather than to me, but why do you keep asking this? You asked a different and more interesting question in your opening post. You asked whether different problems arise if the author intended the miracles to be historical versus literary.

It seems that you are derailing your own thread? Or maybe I misunderstood your OP?

I wasn't necessarily asking if different problems arise, I was stating as a given that different problems arise.

Now, assuming that there is a God, and assuming that He can manipulate the laws of nature to His liking, He can do so overtly or covertly.

Covertly means in such a way that it can still be explained by natural means:
A cancer patient goes into remission, a depressed person gets a phone call from a friend at just the right time, a wicked man gets struck by lightning... these things could be coincidental, or they could be the hand of God; it's a question of faith.

But when large bodies of water get parted, people rise from the dead after four days, and people rise bodily into the heavens, either with the help of a fiery chariot (Elihah), or without (Jesus), it would be considerably difficult for a skeptic to come up with a plausible explanation...

My focus for this thread was the overt miracles... we don't see them in this day and age; I was wondering if people actually saw them in the Bible, and if so, does accepting them as real bring people closer to God in a postmodern world?

Apologies if I didn't make the first part of that question clear enough. Sadly, I got sidetracked for far too long in an argument over whether a person flying into the sky is, indeed, a miraculous event, or rather a mundane one that can be explained by hitherto unknown laws of physics.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Got it.


In my mind, yes. And also in the minds of most people in my local church and my denomination, yes: we are the creations of a God who is above us, perhaps in a higher dimension, and who can manipulate this one as he wishes.

Which, as I mentioned in my previous post, He can manipulate in subtle ways, or... not-so-subtle.

The Bible is loaded with numerous stories of God taking the heavy-handed approach; the 2,000 years since have been relatively subtle.

I suppose this is somewhat on-topic, so here's a thought experiment: if a fourth spatial dimension exists, then many of the miracles described in the bible aren't "magical" but are the expected abilities of someone who resides in that higher dimension. For example, consider the feeding of the 5,000: every time a loaf was removed from a basket an additional 3D loaf could be "dropped" from 4D space into it. To our own eyes the loaf would suddenly pop into existence, as if by magic. But there would be no actual magic involved; just extra-dimensional mechanics.

It would certainly appear magical to us... and the laws of nature in our universe only allow us to move in three dimensions, not four, such an act would be coming from a source outside "our" universe, who was not bound by the laws we are subjected to.

That would certainly fit my definition of "miracle."

I didn't invent that concept, but long ago I was educated as a physicist (although I've never worked as one) so perhaps my mind just turns that way.

There's actually a literary precedent... ever read Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott? Same concept, just one less dimension. The inhabitants are geometric shapes living on a two-dimensional plane. When a three-dimensional object (a sphere) visits Flatland, it's able to perform some amazing (to the flatlanders) feats by simply moving in and out of the plane...

 

[cloudyday2]

My focus for this thread was the overt miracles... we don't see them in this day and age; I was wondering if people actually saw them in the Bible, and if so, does accepting them as real bring people closer to God in a postmodern world?

I had some weird experiences, and one of them was pretty close to an "overt miracle". My reaction was not to grow closer to God. Instead I began questioning Christianity with its overt miracles and troubling theology. I lost faith rather than gained faith.

EDIT: To clarify, I could not digest the overt miracle. I felt that something was very wrong, so I began to reexamine things. I began to reexamine the covert miracles that I had digested more easily. If the overt miracle wasn't real then maybe the covert miracles weren't real. If I had not actually experienced any real evidence of God then why was I a Christian when I didn't find it very plausible? ... The overt miracle was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[ChetSinger]

There's actually a literally precedent... ever read Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott? Same concept, just one less dimension. The inhabitants are geometric shapes living on a two-dimensional plane. When a three-dimensional object (a sphere) visits Flatland, it's able to perform some amazing (to the flatlanders) feats by simply moving in and out of the plane...

Yes, I am aware of it and began reading it but never finished. I think the abilities and interactions between its 2D and 3D realms can be readily mapped to 3D and 4D to explain how many Bible miracles could have happened. Including even the parting of the Red Sea, imo. It's not magic, really; it's just that there are innate abilities that a higher dimension brings to the table.

There's also a more contemporary book called "Spaceland" which take the concept upward a dimension (to between the third and fourth). I haven't read it, but apparently the protagonist is given a 4D "eye" so that while playing poker he can spy on his opponents hands.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, I am aware of it and began reading it but never finished. I think the abilities and interactions between its 2D and 3D realms can be readily mapped to 3D and 4D to explain how many Bible miracles could have happened. Including even the parting of the Red Sea, imo. It's not magic, really; it's just that there are innate abilities that a higher dimension brings to the table.

Well, depends on how you define "magic," I suppose. if a four-dimensional entity is responsible, then the laws of our (puny 3-D) universe are being manipulated by an outside force not bound to its rules... perhaps not "magic," but certainly "supernatural."

And there is a literary precedent for that, as well...

In the Superman comics, Mr. Mxyzptlk was a being from the fifth dimension, who indeed possessed unlimited reality-altering abilities in this world... of course, while his powers were certainly godlike, his ambitions were not... all he ever wanted to do was annoy Superman with practical jokes.

 

[ChetSinger]

Well, depends on how you define "magic," I suppose. if a four-dimensional entity is responsible, then the laws of our (puny 3-D) universe are being manipulated by an outside force not bound to its rules... perhaps not "magic," but certainly "supernatural."

I think "supernatural" is a well-fitting word.

And there is a literary precedent for that, as well...

In the Superman comics, Mr. Mxyzptlk was a being from the fifth dimension, who indeed possessed unlimited reality-altering abilities in this world... of course, while his powers were certainly godlike, his ambitions were not... all he ever wanted to do was annoy Superman with practical jokes.

Wow, I had completely forgotten about him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think "supernatural" is a well-fitting word.

Which brings us back to the subject of miracles: a four-dimensional being puttering around in a three-dimensional universe would certainly be capable of "miraculous" deeds.

For theological reasons, I think it best to rule this out, however, as an explanation for God.
1. Such an extradimensional visitor need not have created this universe in order to have the power to alter it, and certainly would have no moral authority to do so.
2. If what we call "God" is just a traveler from the fourth (or fifth, or sixth...) dimension, it raises the question of... is He the only one? If so, how is it that He came to be the only one of His kind? If not, how can we be sure that all these "miracles" are His handiwork?
3. This explanation of miracles still leaves a crucial question unanswered: why did the miracles stop?

Wow, I had completely forgotten about him.

In the early comics (and again in the animated series), Mxyzptlk claimed that not only had he been visiting Earth off and on for thousands of years, but that he was the source of human myths and legends about faeries, genies, and leprechauns.

Had he ever shown any ambition beyond cheap laughs, he might have ended up the source for angels, demons... and gods.

(or perhaps one of his buddies beat him to it?)