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:
Feb '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mormonism does raise some interesting questions, but that is why if a claim for the miraculous is made, reason and evidence must be brought to bear.
I do not believe in the LDS Church because I think the account of its miraculous origin and the subsequent outflow of theology from the account of their founding history is inadequate to overturn my understanding of Christian orthodoxy and at points is in conflict with it and with the historical record of the early life of Joseph Smith.
Their reasoning and their evidence seems lacking, and I'm willing to wager my soul on it; but if it is as he claimed, it raises more problems in it's relationship to the biblical account of the New Testament church than it answers, and the accounts of life in ancient America that is contained in the Book of Mormon is unrelated to any known history or archeological understanding of pre-Columbian America, that is accepted outside Mormonism, which I think is another huge problem. For while many archeologist and historians argue about the relationship of the Bible to the historical record there are endless parallels and points of congruence between Christian and nonreligious historians.
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 8:00pmJun '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
If only we hadn't lost Tacitus's Capricornus I.
Feb '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Additionally about other miracles. There are other beings in the universe than God, spiritual beings, and there are other forces at work (some surely materialistic that we are still mightily ignorant of), and as Hamlet said,
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
So that there may indeed be miraclous beyond those recounted by Christians that are true - but what their signifigance may be - that is another matter.
I realize as well to a materialist my views are as fallacious as I feel Joseph Smith's were, and somehow I'm ok with that.
Oct '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
IMHO, an excellent book on the subject is Bruce Vawter's 'This Man Jesus.' Later, when I've more free time, I will offer some quotes.
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Fred Cole:
And, not for nothing, but when you think about it, 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? · 3 hours ago
Skepticism is great, but let's not be vulgar.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Re: Paul Sniveley's #63/65. I am rather of the opinion that the word "miracle" ought to be reserved precisely for those incidents in which God clearly does violate His own natural laws for His own purposes. I say this for two reasons; I'm not sure which is more important.
First, God clearly bestows His blessings on all; He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. So, to me, a spontaneous remission of a cancer, while clearly from God, is part and parcel of His normal work in creation. That it is His "normal" work does not make it any the less His work.
Second, the clear violations of His natural laws, at their pinnacle, bookend the greatest conceptual miracle of all: that the Omnipotent Creator of all would step into His creation as a creature. Virgin births violate His physical laws, and resurrections violate His physical laws. God gave us monumental roadsides to the fact that He was doing something astounding. We ought not denigrate the really monumental by lumping them with the merely amazing.
The best reason for being a Christian, is seeing something astounding and knowing Who to thank.
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 9:58pmMar '12
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity," makes the following statement about Jesus: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Attempts to relegate the miricles to a place other than historical fact are defacto attempts to Jesus something other than God.... and as Lewis says "He has not left that open to us".
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
A conversation like
"That's impossible!"
"I know. That's what's so wonderful!"
is not going to yield much fruit.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
St. Salieri:
I do not believe in the LDS Church because I think the account of its miraculous origin and the subsequent outflow of theology from the account of their founding history is inadequate to overturn my understanding of Christian orthodoxy and at points is in conflict with it and with the historical record of the early life of Joseph Smith.
Their reasoning and their evidence seems lacking, and I'm willing to wager my soul on it;
But ultimately isn't their reasoning and evidence irrelevant to you? That is, if you believe you are a Christian because God elected you and gave you irresistible grace, then any evidence or reasons you cite are ultimately just rationalizations and not the real root cause of your belief, correct?
Or have I entirely misunderstood your liberal-Puritan Anglican Calvinism?
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Michael, you are absolutely correct.
One person looks around at all of the qualities of the world around them, and reasoning from the sum total of their experience, makes a small but reasonable leap of faith and assumes that for the existence at all, and the complexity to boot, there must be a Creator.
Another person looks around at all of the qualities of the world around them, and reasoning against the sum total of their experience, makes an enormous, and I would say illogical and unreasonable, leap of faith and assumes that for the existence at all, and the complexity to boot, there could only be random chance....notwithstanding the fact that, in life, nothing, especially nothing complex, ever happens by pure random chance.
But you are quite correct; we are both making leaps of faith to assumptions that are not supported by incontrovertible evidence.
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 10:00pmMay '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I don't know why you thought my post was so provocative, but I didn't mean to cause offense. I was just pointing out that you are others are talking about different things when you say "miracle".
Please don't read into my post that I'm attempting to put requirements on God, or make presumptions about him, or to impugn your beliefs about what you consider miraculous.
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Crud, I'm late in this conversation! So much to read, but worth it.
Since Lewis has come up, I'll cite him as well as he has my favorite definition of Miracle: That is it the actions of Supernature upon Nature. Or more specifically in the case here, it is the actions of the Creator upon his Creation. There's a reason many of us Christians come back to C. S. Lewis, I suspect.
Miracles, as it is, points back to the Creator, but from what I've seen rarely are miracles as proof, but used as backing when the Word is doubted. Frequently in the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as being reluctant to perform "parlor tricks", and uses them only to back up his claims to divinity.
Nor is seeing believing. There were eyewitnesses to all these things, but only a fraction believed in Christ. If those who saw miracles when performed can doubt their experience (which is entirely natural), I can't blame anyone for doubting.
I think I'm rambling.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Since it is an affiliated site, it is worth pointing out here that this Prager video is relevant to the topic at hand.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I don't think this can be overstated. Perhaps the greatest miracle of all, after Christ, is the miracle of a changed worldview. Another facet of the problem of faith, especially for modern man, is one that was recognized centuries ago. "Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but to believe that you may understand." – Augustine of Hippo
I think this is why those of us who have taken that step of belief find it unfathomable that others can't see it. And, undoubtedly, why we look to them like credulous 'maroons'.
Nov '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Joseph Stanko
Fred Cole:
Other then eyewitness accounts, there's no evidence of miracles happening ever.
But thatisthe 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." · 4 hours ago
That's the thing: Eyewitness accounts (and, no, the Gospels don't count) aren't reliable evidence. Travis Walton and Betty Hill were eyewitnesses too.
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I'm a little surprised by this--or are you using Damascus road experience fairly loosely? Because I know a number of people (my husband is one) who went through a lot of their lives as militant unbelievers, and were suddenly converted and changed their minds completely. Are you calling any sudden conversion a Damascus road experience?
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Dave Molinari
Well, I happen to be partial to miracles, but you've really hit me square between the eyes on this comment. An Al Sharpton/Christopher Hitchens debate? I can't even watch, but if Hitchens didn't make mincemeat out of Sharpton, then surely THAT is a miracle, right? · 16 hours ago
The use of the name "Al Sharpton" and the word "debate" (even considering the popular sense used here) in the same sentence, is itself, a miracle.
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 11:33pmJun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Fred Cole
That's the thing: Eyewitness accounts (and, no, the Gospels don't count) aren't reliable evidence. Travis Walton and Betty Hill were eyewitnesses too.
Depends entirely on the reliability of the eye witness.
But if you set aside all witness testimony, what does that leave? What sort of evidence would you accept as conclusive proof of a miracle?
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Wow, this has gone around in circles a bit! As I sense we're getting "nowhere" I offer a famous parse-o-gram as a commentary on faith and the beholder's eye (note legal use of caps, CoC enforcers!):
GOD IS NOWHERE
GOD IS NOW HERE
On a different note, I felt C.S. Lewis' poem, long a personal favourite, on the subject adds a subtle but important commentary on miracles in a perfectly natural world (one particularly beautiful metaphorical line has an unfortunate reading in today's urban slang):
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I remember recently (about 3 years ago) there was a large national survey taken (by Pew Research if memory serves) on superstitious beliefs. They found that practicing Christians were significantly less superstitious than the rest of the population. I think that says something significant toward this subject. Christian beliefs are often considered to be a form of superstition. But generic superstitious beliefs and attitudes do not correlate well with belief in Christian doctrines. Obviously drawing conclusions from this sort of data is something to be approached with caution, but it does suggest that there isn't a straight line connection between fear of the dark and wearing lucky underwear to job interviews and accepting as a matter of historical fact that Jesus walked on water.