The Miracles: History or Myth?
Sisyphus ·
April 17, 2012 at 4:41pm
In particular, let's focus on Christ's miracles, so famously redacted in Jefferson's reworking of the New Testament. I was raised in a church that knew the miracles were historical. At a modern religious university the doctors of theology poo-pooed the miracles as cultural-religious theater, with many of the magician's tricks known and commonly practiced in biblical times. Jesus of Nazareth played by Penn Gillette and his twelve Tellers.
Pick a side. Take a stand. It's no skin off my back if you go over 200 words.
- Comment (116)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Most of Jesus' miracles were healings. We see them every day.
CS Lewis wrote a pretty good book about this.
Nov '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Isn't the whole point of faith that you're supposed to believe a thing despite it lacking evidence supporting it?
If you think faith is a virtue, then the virtue is believing despite a lack of proof and despite knowledge of science. If you're asking for proof, then that's not faith.
Oct '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Here I would encourage my fellow believers not to let the opposition frame the terms of the debate. In particular, "miracle" does not mean "an act of direct intervention by God in contravention of the laws of physics," which are, after all, also God's laws.
"If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." — The Vatican Council, Third Session, Canons
Hume introduced the linguistic legerdemain of defining a "miracle" as violating the laws of physics precisely so as to have a strawman to attack. A miracle is neither more nor less than an event of extremely low probability that has religious significance. Frankly, extremely few people are sufficiently versed in physics to know what's physically impossible vs. what's just really, really unlikely, so I'm prepared to give first-hand observation quite a bit of latitude. But to stick to the main point: God doesn't violate His own laws. He doesn't need to.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Fred Cole:
Other then eyewitness accounts, there's no evidence of miracles happening ever.
But that is the evidence.
Miracles are unrepeatable events. They are by definition exceptions to the normal laws of nature, therefore you cannot study them under laboratory conditions. The only type of evidence to support them will be eyewitness accounts.
Your statement amounts to "other than the evidence, there's no evidence."
Oct '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I forgot to add: I highly recommend Alvin Plantinga's "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" for those interested in this subject.
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 6:31pmMay '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Fred Cole:
... wouldn't a god with infinite power, after creating a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, have better things to do than parlor tricks?
Why must an omnipotent and omnipresent God do one thing and not another? It is only because we are bound by material and time that we must choose a sequence of actions. God is bound by no such limits.
More to the point, labor is not the only expression of love. Doesn't a father have better things to do than make goofy faces and noises for his year-old son?
Human beings quickly take for granted what we become accustomed to. Miracles get our attention and appeal to our sense of awe in ways normal events and patterns do not. It's like a husband surprising his wife with flowers, rather than just give her a kiss as he does every day. The rarity of the event makes it more meaningful.
Miracles rekindle are sense of wonder and our appreciation for the enormity of God's love.
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I would recommend reading CS Lewis on Miracles for an in depth analysis of miracles.
Lewis interestingly points out that most New Testament miracles seem to refer us back the the miracle of life itself. With God saying in effect; you ask for miracles, just look around.
For example: Water to wine, the "miracle" of fermentation. Loaves and fishes; miracle of food growing for us. Healing the sick; miracle of our body's immune system.
Anyway, for further reading on the subject: www.cslewis.org
Jan '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I'm with Michael in that I adopt Hume's belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have not seen -- though, as Katievs said, I am disinclined to see -- sufficient evidence in favor of Christian miracles to pass pass my threshold. My parent's decision to name me "Thomas" proved more apt than my poor Catholic mother realized at the time.
To expand on a point: much of this discussion reads as if miraculous claims are unique to orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that in order to accept Christian miracles as a Christian requires one to not only accept one's own faith's miraculous claims, but also to discount those made by other faiths. To put it simply, how does a Christian remain skeptical of claims made by, say, the LDS Church or Islam while still leaving room for their own?
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Agreed. Miracles are as natural as gravity. They are just unusual.
Faith is a conscious choice to trust.
Again, that something always happens does not mean it must happen. If someone has always lied to you, that does not mean he won't speak the truth. If someone has always been honest with you, that does not mean he won't lie to you. No amount of evidence eliminates the need for faith, but you would be a fool to ignore your experiences.
Christians meaninfully refer to "a leap of faith". Logic and evidence lead us to our beliefs and later help us to understand them, but facts cannot make the choice for us.
Like in the choice to trust a friend, our experiences are important but ultimately insufficient.
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
Lucy Pevensie
Um, no. It is not disputed that many people who actually knew Jesus went on to die as martyrs. Many (in my opinion unsuccessful) efforts have been made to try to date the biblical writings later and later, but even if you are able to make yourself believe all of that, you can't deny that within a few years of Jesus death and resurrection people were dying for him. · 4 minutes ago
Yes, it is disputed. · 2 hours ago
This strikes me as crossing an important line. We have a cornucopia of early Christian sources, Roman sources, and Jewish sources. Denying miracles is mostly a proxy for prior assumptions. Denying persecution of Christians in Christ's generation is moon landing level conspiracy theory stuff.
Feb '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Well there is the interesting comparison to be made between Josephus Antiquities, Book 19, Chap 8, sec. 2. and Luke in Acts Chapter 12, verse 20-23.
Herod is described in much the same terms, in the same setting (although the reason given by both authors for being there is different, but possibly complimentary), an event occurs following an outburst of hubris with the death of Herod.
A case of a (possible) miracle in the New Testament being described in detail by a non-Christian author. Result: the same as this argument. Josephus sees a perfectly naturalistic event, places it in a context that makes sense to him, and colors it for his audience, although he might have seen it as an outworking of God's providence, he does not invest it with a miraculous event.
The same event in Luke's account the event is substantially the same, is seen in a slightly different context, has a miraculous component (possibly), and ends in such a way as to leave a possibly more providential interpretation, but is not necessarily at odds with one detail (whether Herod died at once or lingered in pain for five days) from Josephus.
Feb '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Of course, Josephus would likely not be inclined to invest it with any significance that would be favorable to the Christians (or at least to Christians alone or in a pro-Christian theological sense), but would recount the event to suit his polemical purpose.
Did the Angel of the Lord really smite Herod, or was that just an owl and a coincidence of a collapse followed by death?
I think that it is true, that are acceptance of any evidence will be predicated on our ability, desire, willingness, pre-determined belief to accept the possibility of A. a God/divine being, force, power, etc., and B. whether or not even if we accept A., we believe that such a being can act in/on/through/by the world, universe, etc.
If I accept A. and B., then I must then evaluate as thoroughly as human reason will allow the claims of a miraculous event before I believe it.
If I reject either B., or A. and B., then of course no evidence will ever convince me, because it simply cannot happen.
Objectively presented with an event, I will find some way to understand it without A. and/or B.
Feb '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Or there is another possibility, I am given evidence of something that is could be miraculous and I reject it because of the implications it might have for my world view and understanding of life, so no matter how compelling I reject it because the consequences would be too much to bear.
Or conversely, the lack of evidence for miracles requires me to reject my world view and that is too painful so I reject materialism.
I don't think framing it in terms of God's power and control, or as events such as a smiling wife or sunset, or a tear in the fabric of the material laws of physics changes any of these consideration for an actual person.
Aside from a "Damascus" road experience there are few people I suspect who really change over the course of a life time. I think we grow into the position that we feel more comfortable with and probably already have. If I'm a skeptic in Sunday School at age 8 I will likely be a non-believer at 48; and vice versa...some people do dramatically change, but I think a true and complete change is rare.
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
James Of England
Brian Watt
Lucy Pevensie
Um, no. It is not disputed that many people who actually knew Jesus went on to die as martyrs. Many (in my opinion unsuccessful) efforts have been made to try to date the biblical writings later and later, but even if you are able to make yourself believe all of that, you can't deny that within a few years of Jesus death and resurrection people were dying for him. · 4 minutes ago
Yes, it is disputed. · 2 hours ago
This strikes me as crossing an important line. We have a cornucopia of early Christian sources, Roman sources, and Jewish sources. Denying miracles is mostly a proxy for prior assumptions. Denying persecution of Christians in Christ's generation is moon landing level conspiracy theory stuff. · 11 minutes ago
Thanks, James. I didn't have time to go back and point this out, or to ask what moon-landing theorists Brian was citing.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Tom Meyer:
It seems to me that in order to accept Christian miracles as a Christianrequires one to not only accept one's own faith's miraculous claims, but also to discount those made by other faiths. To put it simply, how does a Christian remain skeptical of claims made by, say, the LDS Church or Islam while still leaving room for their own?
I agree that this is a challenge. But Christians do not need to "discount" such claims of miracles — though even miraculous claims made by Christians are indeed often mistaken. Rather, Christians should try to understand why God interacts with different peoples in the ways He does.
Christianity proposes that God loves all human beings — both Christian and non-Christian — and extends His offer of love to all. Thus, we should not be surprised that God interacts with non-Christians in ways as numerous and wondrous as the ways by which he interacts with us.
One of my favorite non-Christian miracle stories is this one.
However, Christians also believe in Satan and demons. They, like God, are active in the world. Some "supernatural" events are real and yet not blessings from God.
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
I have another idea. Study higher Biblical criticism from those who have spent the better part of their lives delving into these issues for last 150 years or so. Just cracked open Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament. Quite well done, I must say. And he's a conservative Republican, go figure. :-)
Read whomever you like. I've read a bunch of this kind of stuff, back in the day, but don't bother any more. It's all pretty poor scholarship, often circular, and whether it was written by Republicans, Democrats, or Martians doesn't change that. But if you only choose to read people whose ideas reinforce your own, then you can't really also say that you are seeking evidence for the historicity of the New Testament.
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Fred Cole: Isn't the whole point of faith that you're supposed to believe a thing despite it lacking evidence supporting it?
If you think faith is a virtue, then the virtue is believing despite a lack of proof and despite knowledge of science. If you're asking for proof, then that's not faith.
I would argue that faith is slightly different from this. Faith is the openness to belief, the willingness to believe, if one is convinced that something is right. Thus, "I believe, Lord; help thou my unbelief." This is why you can't talk someone into faith, particularly if the person is adamantly opposed to it.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Valiuth: Let me ask a question of the group. What do we define a miracle as? Must it be the suspension of natural laws by God or can it be viewed more broadly. I have always take the view that a miracle is the opportune occurrence of the improbable.
It is very unlikely that one's cancer will go into remission on its own, it is also highly unlikely that it goes in to remission even with treatment. If it happens to you I would consider that quite miraculous. Everyone wants miracles to be fantastical displays of divine intervention why can't they be more mundane and practical. ....
In the words of Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle):
Consider belief in any specific miracle a theory. In some cases, "miracle" or "divine intervention" is the best answer until something better presents itself.
Empiricism becomes a crutch when it makes us unwilling to risk being proven wrong.
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
One theory: since our free will is our most important characteristic, God will never provide proof of Himself, so that we have the freedom to not believe in Him. As such, no miracle cannot be explained away. This means faith (an illogical state) is the only relevant factor in determining miracles, as all evidence will be inconclusive.
This may sound like cheap attempt to waive away the argument, but it is internally consistent with the Christian system.
Feb '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I think the changes to belief are wrought by God, by that's why I'm a Calvinist, albeit (in 17th century terms) a liberal-Puritan Anglican Calvinist.
There is always a danger for Christians to embrace materialistic explanations for some miracles to prove their historicity, ie an earth quake far away could have allowed Moses to cross the Red Sea, or Israel to cross the Jordan dry shod.
At the center of Christianity is the great miracle of Christ's physical and bodily resurrection from the dead to eternal life. If that miracle has no power, no other miracle matters (they may or may not be true), but no other system of religion has any claim on the human being in the same manner that Christianity does.
Mohammad's authority is not predicated on any miracles, but rather on his purity of communication from God. I know of no other religion outside the Christo-centric that requires the belief in the power of a specific miracle, one can be a fine Roman pagan and not actually belief in the gods. Also all of those other religions have more to do with the value of human action for salvation.