the history of miracles

[Resha Caner]

I'm curious whether people accept any of the "big" events of history as an intervention by God. I'm directing this question more toward those who also accept the miracles of the Bible. If one thinks that Moses parting the sea is only a metaphor, allegory, or something of that ilk, it's not surprising one would also question other miracles.

But for those who do accept such things, what about the big events outside the Bible? For example, do you think Constantine was really sent a vision by God, or did God really tell Joan of Arc to free France, or did God inspire Martin Luther?

If so, given Christ's words that his work was finished (John 19:30), why would God continue with these epic interventions?

 

[ebia]

"it is finished" signifies the ultimate defeat of death, and that the old creation was finished. On Easter morning new creation begun. But quite clearly that new creation is not fully complete. There is still suffering in the world. There is still putting right to happen; for us to be involved in. We are in a different part of the story, but the story carries on.

To biblical events, the stories don't need to be "exactly what you would have seen if you'd been there", but just as the resurrection is not a gospel unless it actually happened its hard to see how the exodus could function as a gospel unless it happened in some form.

Is God involved in much of what has happened since - definitely. The success of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission in bringing about change in South Africa without the bloodbath everyone expected springs to mind.

 

[Resha Caner]

A pretty good answer, though I can tell you're hedging here and there. You can probably see where this is going, but my next question would be: Are there epic events which God did not initiate?

 

[ebia]

A pretty good answer, though I can tell you're hedging here and there. You can probably see where this is going, but my next question would be: Are there epic events which God did not initiate?

Yes

 

[Albion]

I'm curious whether people accept any of the "big" events of history as an intervention by God. I'm directing this question more toward those who also accept the miracles of the Bible. If one thinks that Moses parting the sea is only a metaphor, allegory, or something of that ilk, it's not surprising one would also question other miracles.

But for those who do accept such things, what about the big events outside the Bible? For example, do you think Constantine was really sent a vision by God, or did God really tell Joan of Arc to free France, or did God inspire Martin Luther?

If so, given Christ's words that his work was finished (John 19:30), why would God continue with these epic interventions?

I don't doubt that God inspired Luther, but that doesn't seem "miraculous" in the way that the sign in the clouds was to Constantine, assuming that it was as represented. Of course God did not tell Joan to free France; why would he favor the French over the English, or vice-versa? And it didn't result in freeing all of France, anyway.

IOW, it's hard to answer the question categorically, given the differences between these examples. But I do think God intervenes in ordinary events. Probably not by creating a genuine miracle, a suspension of the natural law, like Moses experienced, however.

As for Christ's words about "it" being finished, I don't think that refers to God withdrawing from all involvement in Earthly affairs, just to the accomplishment of the purpose for the Crucifixion, i.e. paying the price for the sins of mankind.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't doubt that God inspired Luther, but that doesn't seem "miraculous" in the way that the sign in the clouds was to Constantine, assuming that it was as represented.

Yes. I suppose I should expand on Luther. Maybe his inspiration doesn't seem as epic, but the resulting changes that swept Europe do seem epic.

Of course God did not tell Joan to free France; why would he favor the French over the English, or vice-versa? And it didn't result in freeing all of France, anyway.

An excellent question ... basically because it's one I've asked myself and great minds think alike ... anyway, I'll play devil's advocate for you a bit.

God favored Israel, why not France? If the English were doing something evil at that time, why shouldn't God intervene on behalf of the French? With respect to freeing all of France, no she didn't do that personally, but then she didn't win all those battles personally, either. Her acts certainly set the stage for freeing France, and she never claimed credit for what was accomplished while she was alive. She always gave the credit to God.

Further, she claimed God told her what to do. If that is not true, then it was a lie, an evil. Therefore, her victories were an evil. I can't quite bring myself to say that.

I should clarify that Joan never claimed God told her to free France - that was a paraphrase on my part. She claimed two parts to her mission: 1) to raise the seige of Orleans, 2) to take Charles VII to Rheims for the coronation. Most of her military and political accomplishments were necessary to achieve #2, and the result was to put France on a path of independence from the English.

As such, I've pondered why God would want that. Why would he favor France over England? There are several possibilities. It could have been necessary to set the stage for something later: Luther, Napoleon, who knows? Or, it could have been that God's desire was to end the Hundred Years War. There might be other reasons as well.

IOW, it's hard to answer the question categorically, given the differences between these examples. But I do think God intervenes in ordinary events. Probably not by creating a genuine miracle, a suspension of the natural law, like Moses experienced, however.

First of all, I wouldn't define a miracle as a suspension of natural laws, but rather as interference with them. But, second, this is where I was headed with the follow up questions to ebia.

Are there aspects common to all epic miracles?

 

[Albion]

An excellent question ... basically because it's one I've asked myself and great minds think alike ... anyway, I'll play devil's advocate for you a bit.

God favored Israel, why not France?

Well, we know for a fact that God favored Israel, at least if we accept the Bible. There is no similar information regarding France. And we have a history of not only favoring Israel as a people and having made explicit promises to them, but of his spiritual intentions worked through them. With France, nothing comparable.

If the English were doing something evil at that time, why shouldn't God intervene on behalf of the French?

What would that have been?

The English monarchy was as Christian as the French but guaranteed more human rights to its people AND the Church.

What's more, and going back to the Norman conquest under William, parts of England had been controlled by them, then parts of France passed under their descendents, all the while segments of France were under the rule of third parties, such as the Burgundians. In other words, this was far from a clearcut matter of who should own what, even if such was a concern to God.

With respect to freeing all of France, no she didn't do that personally, but then she didn't win all those battles personally, either. Her acts certainly set the stage for freeing France, and she never claimed credit for what was accomplished while she was alive. She always gave the credit to God.

All right, but that is about the character of Joan, not a verification of any theory about God's intentions concerning the emerging French nation-state. She seems like a well-intentioned person, but again...

Further, she claimed God told her what to do. If that is not true, then it was a lie, an evil. Therefore, her victories were an evil. I can't quite bring myself to say that.

If she was mistaken, so what? That doesn't make her a liar or her actions evil. On the other hand, there is some evidence that she was not the unknown girl pictured in memory, but rather was put up to the job by the would-be king in order to give his soldiers the idea that God was on their side. And do not overlook that which is usually overlooked by history students: the English will and ability to fight on virtually collapsed at this time for internal reasons (yet we like to think the turn from French defeats to victories was due solely to Joan.)

Are there aspects common to all epic miracles?

Not that I see.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, we know for a fact that God favored Israel, at least if we accept the Bible. There is no similar information regarding France.

I think your distinction is too simple. If one digs into the canon, one can find reasons to question it just as easily as one could question post-Biblical claims. I'm not saying that I question the Bible, nor am I saying that establishment of the canon was not a unique thing.

Rather I'm asking for opinions. I know you've already given an opinion, but I'm trying to dig deeper. Do you think establishment of the canon is so unique as to say God will never make clear to us such things again? Is it impossible to know when God intervenes in an epic way?

What would that have been?

The English monarchy was as Christian as the French but guaranteed more human rights to its people AND the Church.

I don't think I would state it in that way. Circumstances forced the English crown to concede more rights than the French crown had. But those rights were not universal for all Englishmen and the crown constantly maneuvered to rescind them.

In theory the Church was not subject to either the English or the French crown. It was on that theoretical technicality that Bishop Cauchon based his trial of Joan. Had she been tried as a combatant, burning her at the stake would not have been legal punishment. In fact, she might well have been ransomed by the French.

The whole trial is indicative of the rottenness of the state of affairs: the English government for so shamefully violating the laws of chivalry they claimed to uphold, the French government for failing to intervene, and the Church for allowing itself to be used as such a political pawn. Might not this have been signs of the evils that led to the Reformation?

If you think it's not, I would ask whether Wycliff and his Lollards had any legitimate complaints against the decay the Wars of the Roses had wrought in England? And if not that, was the English claim so properly justified as to warrant the cruelties of the seige of Orleans that Joan lifted?

Again, I'm not trying to justify the French state as holy. But it certainly seems possible God was using the French state to put an end to what had been a century of bloody turmoil.

If so, can't we look for the same features in these events that led us to add to the canon the stories of the conquest of Palestine by the Hebrews, etc.?

For example, if we agree that God did not care whether it was the French or English state that ruled a particular province, is there some other spiritual aspect (reformation of the church, a revival, etc.) or some relief to human suffering that would justify such things, or some denial of personal glory, some appeal to God's grace, some affirmation of Christian doctrine that we can look at?

I would further ask what purpose it would serve. Would it serve as a witness, or is it simply none of our business to know such things?

If she was mistaken, so what? That doesn't make her a liar or her actions evil.

Of course it's a possibility that she knew it all to be a lie, but that's not what I meant by my comment. If she believed in a falsehood, then she believed in a lie - whether by the hand of the French court, by demons, or by someone else. Somewhere an evil occurred.

Of course God could have used what others intended for evil (Gen 50:20), but that's not what I'm talking about here.

On the other hand, there is some evidence that she was not the unknown girl pictured in memory, but rather was put up to the job by the would-be king in order to give his soldiers the idea that God was on their side.

I think it an overstatement to say there is evidence for that. There are opinions based on some hints of the character of Tremoille, etc. To be honest, those opinions often come off to me as attempts to dismiss Joan by people who simply can't believe that an illiterate teenage girl could accomplish such things - and indeed she probably couldn't have without some kind of supernatural intervention. The conundrum is exactly the one faced by the church of the time: was that supernatural intervention divine or demonic?

Not that I see.

I guess if this is your final answer, then OK. I didn't come into this thinking I could explain it all, but I'm looking for some discussion on the matter. So, I hope to prompt a bit more from you.

 

[Albion]

I think your distinction is too simple. If one digs into the canon, one can find reasons to question it just as easily as one could question post-Biblical claims. I'm not saying that I question the Bible, nor am I saying that establishment of the canon was not a unique thing.

Rather I'm asking for opinions. I know you've already given an opinion, but I'm trying to dig deeper. Do you think establishment of the canon is so unique as to say God will never make clear to us such things again? Is it impossible to know when God intervenes in an epic way?

We seem to be moving into a different area of inquiry. I don't think that we can equate Israel with France when it comes to a chosen people or how he has revealed himself to all mankind (through Israel). But, he can, of course, choose to intervene on behalf or in reply to the actions of any people or individuals as he chooses, and I don't doubt that he has. Identifying the particular instance of that happening, however, is quite another thing, and I don't feel that any of the examples you used (Luther, Constantine, Joan) can be said, with certainty, to even be miracles.

I don't think I would state it in that way. Circumstances forced the English crown to concede more rights than the French crown had. But those rights were not universal for all Englishmen and the crown constantly maneuvered to rescind them.

Maybe so, but I don't see anything that would suggest that France was more Godly than England and, therefore, a likely benefactor of God's special intervention in the Hundred Years War. At bottom, I don't see any reason to attach the word "miracle" to Joan's career at all, even if others disagree.

Might not this have been signs of the evils that led to the Reformation? If you think it's not, I would ask whether Wycliff and his Lollards had any legitimate complaints against the decay the Wars of the Roses had wrought in England? And if not that, was the English claim so properly justified as to warrant the cruelties of the seige of Orleans that Joan lifted?

It seems to me that you aren't talking about miracles at all. You are talking about God directing the course of everyday affairs instead. In either case, I don't see anything particularly compelling about the Hundred Years War, and certainly it's not logical that his intervention occurred after a hundred years of it had already passed and only when it was about to wrap up with or without Joan. As you know, it became the Wars of the Roses on the English side almost immediately, so how does all of that show God making a special point of intervening to stop warfare?

I didn't come into this thinking I could explain it all, but I'm looking for some discussion on the matter. So, I hope to prompt a bit more from you.

I'm afraid that all I see here is speculation that ordinary events might be part of some longrange scripting by God, which of course is possible but virtually impossible to identify event by event as you are attempting. Sorry, that's my considered opinion.

 

[Yarddog]

I'm curious whether people accept any of the "big" events of history as an intervention by God. I'm directing this question more toward those who also accept the miracles of the Bible. If one thinks that Moses parting the sea is only a metaphor, allegory, or something of that ilk, it's not surprising one would also question other miracles.

Good question. Some I would say are metaphors or allegories but I believe that others are factual. I have to accept the Mosaic miracles as factual but those before may be a mixture of the these.

The flood, IMHO, represents baptism. The water, the Holy Spirit washing away the sins of the world. The Ark, Jesus Christ, carrying the children of God to salvation. The various animals are the different peoples of the world.(the Gentiles)

We must remember that God revealed, to Moses, what to write about the creation and the book of Genesis.

But for those who do accept such things, what about the big events outside the Bible? For example, do you think Constantine was really sent a vision by God, or did God really tell Joan of Arc to free France, or did God inspire Martin Luther?

I wouldn't know.

If so, given Christ's words that his work was finished (John 19:30), why would God continue with these epic interventions?

I know that many people think that people who make claims of personal revelation are nut cases, but, this is the case with myself. God began revealing "some" of the hidden mysteries of Genesis to me over the past few years.

The creation story is about Jesus Christ coming into the world among with several other things, plus many things that I am clueless about, of of now.

The verse from John 19:30 corresponds to Genesis 2:
1 And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

On the 6th day(Friday) God was finished with his work. On the 6th day(Friday) Jesus Christ said, "It is finished" and he(God the Son) was finished with his work. God rested on the 7th day in both Genesis and the Gospels.

If we understand that God gave Moses the revelation of Genesis, which was about Jesus and other future events, then we can see that what God was finished with, was any works which can lead to justification and not his miracles amongst mankind.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think that we can equate Israel with France when it comes to a chosen people or how he has revealed himself to all mankind (through Israel).

I agree, and so I think you misunderstand me on several points. I tried to make it clear that I think Israel, the Bible, etc. are unique as to the role they played in God's plan.

But you seem to convey an attitude that somehow we know the miracles of the Bible are miracles simply because it's the Bible, and we can't know if anything else is a miracle simply because it's not the Bible. If that is not correct, please clarify.

But, if I were to press you on how you know the miracles of the Bible are actually miracles, I imagine your reply would be something to the effect of: because God revealed it to be so. If that is the case, I am asking if you think such revelations have ceased. IOW, has God chosen not to reveal all post-Biblical miracles as such?

Identifying the particular instance of that happening, however, is quite another thing, and I don't feel that any of the examples you used (Luther, Constantine, Joan) can be said, with certainty, to even be miracles.

This is an example of why I interpret your reply per my above statements. It is also why I tried to clarify that when I said "miracle" I was referring to the intervention of God in history on an epic scale. As such, given the epic consequences of those 3 events, if God initiated them, they are miracles as I use the word here. I realize you may think of "miracle" as something different, but we're using my definition for the purposes of this thread. If you want to put a different label on my definition going forward to help keep things straight, I guess we can do that.

Maybe so, but I don't see anything that would suggest that France was more Godly than England and, therefore, a likely benefactor of God's special intervention in the Hundred Years War.

Again you misunderstand me. I explicitly said that I wasn't claiming anything special about the French state. I'm not saying ending the Hundred Year's War would only benefit Frenchmen. I imagine it benefited many Englishmen as well. And as to why God might choose to end one war and not another ... shrug ... not for me to judge.

I'm afraid that all I see here is speculation that ordinary events might be part of some longrange scripting by God, which of course is possible but virtually impossible to identify event by event as you are attempting. Sorry, that's my considered opinion.

You may be right. But it may also be that God wants us to take heed of such things. That was one of my questions. Is there a reason God might want us to know about his interventions in the past? Or, is there nothing for us to gain from an awareness of his past interventions?

Using the Bible as an example, I could ask why the canon needs to include multiple examples of Israel disobeying God and falling away. Isn't one enough? I get it. Israel was sinful. It wasn't they who accomplished God's will, but God through them. In truth the OT seems a bit repetitious at times. So why so many stories with the same theme?

Well, because each one, though similar, is also subtly different. Each has a unique lesson. In addition, the repetition also shows us something. People may try to solve problems through purely human means, they may try over and over, they may make adjustments to overcome past failings, but people will always be people - they will always fall short and will always need a Savior.

 

[Albion]

I agree, and so I think you misunderstand me on several points. I tried to make it clear that I think Israel, the Bible, etc. are unique as to the role they played in God's plan.

But you seem to convey an attitude that somehow we know the miracles of the Bible are miracles simply because it's the Bible

No. I never said that and that is not my view.

But, if I were to press you on how you know the miracles of the Bible are actually miracles, I imagine your reply would be something to the effect of: because God revealed it to be so.

Then you'd be mistaken.

 

[Resha Caner]

I take it you're not interested in continuing. OK. Thanks for discussing it with me a bit.