Jesus' Miracles

[frenchbeatle]

I was part of a prayer/bible study group at my last church. I ended up leaving for a few different reasons, but what follows is one of the main ones.

At one of the last meetings I went to, the group was talking about the miracles that Jesus performed during His life. The group discussed the possibility that all of His miracles did not actually happen; they were “made up” by the Apostles later on. After I picked my jaw off of the floor from disbelief, I did some research on this, and found that it is a common liberal Catholic belief. That made sense to me, as my last church was very liberal.

Has anyone else heard of this belief? It’s almost like they’re accusing the Apostles of writing propaganda!

 

[NHInsider]

It’s a pretty common approach - comes from the assumption that anything “supernatural” must have been added later as the Church went about turning “the historic Jesus” into “the theological Christ.” And yes, in addition to being heretical it is incredibly annoying.

I find it quite unlikely that people would have willingly accepted martyrdom in defense of a profession that they knew they had made up as propaganda~

 

[crazzeto]

I’m saddened that you would hear such a thing in Church, maybe discuss this with your Pastor as being a problem in the community. If they refuse to discuss it, well then you could look for a less liberal parish. I would hope though, that the pastor would feel a little more like you do about this issue, and seek to exhort his sheep to beleive.

If you’re feeling really adventurous, I would start collecting as much historical data regarding the resurection as you can. There are in fact historical accounts of it, and I would debate that with them. Once you have the facts in hand, the resurection is something very tough to debate against. If you can get them to accept the resurection, then it gets exceedingly easy to say “well, dude raised from the dead. What in the name of God makes you think he can’t clean a leper? walk on water? give sight to the blind? heal the lame?”.

 

[frenchbeatle]

I’m saddened that you would hear such a thing in Church, maybe discuss this with your Pastor as being a problem in the community. If they refuse to discuss it, well then you could look for a less liberal parish. I would hope though, that the pastor would feel a little more like you do about this issue, and seek to exhort his sheep to beleive.

If you’re feeling really adventurous, I would start collecting as much historical data regarding the resurection as you can. There are in fact historical accounts of it, and I would debate that with them. Once you have the facts in hand, the resurection is something very tough to debate against. If you can get them to accept the resurection, then it gets exceedingly easy to say “well, dude raised from the dead. What in the name of God makes you think he can’t clean a leper? walk on water? give sight to the blind? heal the lame?”.

I have left that church. I moved across town, and it was easy to find another church that is less liberal. My old church has a new pastor, who is much more conservative, so hopefully he can change this sort of thing.

The weird thing, is that they seemed to acknowledge the Resurrection! And like you said, if they believe in someone rising from the dead, why is there a problem believing that same person can cure blindness, and multiply loaves, among other things?! I just don’t get it.

 

[puzzleannie]

I was part of a prayer/bible study group at my last church. I ended up leaving for a few different reasons, but what follows is one of the main ones.

At one of the last meetings I went to, the group was talking about the miracles that Jesus performed during His life. The group discussed the possibility that all of His miracles did not actually happen; they were “made up” by the Apostles later on. After I picked my jaw off of the floor from disbelief, I did some research on this, and found that it is a common liberal Catholic belief. That made sense to me, as my last church was very liberal.

Has anyone else heard of this belief? It’s almost like they’re accusing the Apostles of writing propaganda!

of course, where have you been, there was no miracle about the loaves and fishes except that people shared their lunch with each other. The tales about the resurrection arose among “the faith community” after Jesus died to explain events surrounding him to themselves and most of all–you will always find this word wherever such twaddle is promoted–to explain their own EXPERIENCE. Nothing Jesus did or said is objectively true or really happened unless or until it was subsequently experienced in a subjective way by believers.

don’t even bother to engage such people in discussion, the inherent cascade of logical fallacies in such a system is so heavy that they will drown in their own absurdity.

that is why catechetical materials, videos, “parish renewal” programs and most of all bible studies claiming to be produced under Catholic auspices must be examined carefully before being introduced in the parish or diocese. Since at least 2 generations of people charged with this responsibility have been formed under the same system of error, the party line in most universities who use the Catholic label in their advertising, don’t expect miracles. pun intended.

 

[patg]

It’s almost like they’re accusing the Apostles of writing propaganda!

First, there is no evidence or teaching that the gospels were written by the Apostles (they are said to have “apostolic origins”, not apostolic authorship).

There is no dogmatic requirement to believe in any of the miracles attributed to Jesus (except the resurrection but then that was done to him not by him).

Actually, the miracle stories don’t tell you much about Jesus except that the authors wanted to present him as being a classical Jewish holy man. There were many other Jewish mystics of that period who performed similar wondrous deeds and their stories are recorded as well. We tend to think about how incredible the miracles of Jesus were and ignore the fact that others are reported to have done the same things around the same period in history.

You may want to read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *(available online) by the PBC and Pope Paul VI for some teachings on related subjects.

 

[DOShea]

There is no dogmatic requirement to believe in any of the miracles attributed to Jesus

Really? Then please explain why we have Sacraments in the Catholic Church? Why a Eucharistic celebration, specifically. If one is free to, as you claim, not dogmatically accept any of the miracles of Jesus, that means one is free to believe or not believe in the Real Presence. For that matter, eternal life.

I’d be interested to see the specific citation of whatever you are basing this idea on.

 

[Joe_5859]

First, there is no evidence or teaching that the gospels were written by the Apostles (they are said to have “apostolic origins”, not apostolic authorship).

There is no dogmatic requirement to believe in any of the miracles attributed to Jesus (except the resurrection but then that was done to him not by him).

Hold it right there! This is not correct. The Resurrection most certainly was accomplished by Christ. He was not simply a passive recipient.

Actually, the miracle stories don’t tell you much about Jesus except that the authors wanted to present him as being a classical Jewish holy man. There were many other Jewish mystics of that period who performed similar wondrous deeds and their stories are recorded as well. We tend to think about how incredible the miracles of Jesus were and ignore the fact that others are reported to have done the same things around the same period in history.

You may want to read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *(available online) by the PBC and Pope Paul VI for some teachings on related subjects.

Yes, I also recommend reading the PBC’s document on the Historicity of the Gospel. Frankly, though, between that and 19Dei Verbum, I fail to see how one would walk away with the impression that it’s okay for Catholics to believe that the miracle stories didn’t happen. From Dei Verbum:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

That sounds pretty straightforward to me. If the Church “firmly and with absolute constancy” has held that the Gospels “faithfully hand on” what Jesus “really did,” how could we say that the miracle stories never really happened? It seems to me that it would take some serious logical acrobatics to assert that the Catholic Church does not necessitate that we believe that Jesus really performed all those miracles.

 

[patg]

Really? Then please explain why we have Sacraments in the Catholic Church? Why a Eucharistic celebration, specifically. If one is free to, as you claim, not dogmatically accept any of the miracles of Jesus, that means one is free to believe or not believe in the Real Presence. For that matter, eternal life.

Sorry I mistakenly typed “any” when I should have said “most”. Yes there are some miracles we are required to believe actually occured but very few have anything to do with Sacraments or the Eucharist.

I’d be interested to see the specific citation of whatever you are basing this idea on.

The idea is quite evident in the fact that there is no requirement to believe water was changed to wine, anyone walked on water, or anyone was cured of a disease.

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry I mistakenly typed “any” when I should have said “most”. Yes there are some miracles we are required to believe actually occured but very few have anything to do with Sacraments or the Eucharist.

The idea is quite evident in the fact that there is no requirement to believe water was changed to wine, anyone walked on water, or anyone was cured of a disease.

Could you back that up with the Catechism, or Cannon Law?

 

[Joe_5859]

The idea is quite evident in the fact that there is no requirement to believe water was changed to wine, anyone walked on water, or anyone was cured of a disease.

“Quite evident”? Is there a specific citation on the Historicity of the Gospels that lists which miracles we are not obligated to believe actually happened? How do you reconcile this assertion with Dei Verbum 19?

 

[TheresaAnn55]

…sounds like these liberal churches are being lead and tempted by satan.
spreading doubt, and leading to blasphamy.
…As a group of Catholic brothers in NYstates, during the 60’s a group of protestants secrectly planned to overthrow the Catholic church…have men go into the Priesthood, and plant seeds of discontent in the Catholic church,well then along came Vatican II…hhhmmmm why?

…The traditional Vatican was wrong?..oh yes …Vatican II was the manor in which to keep Catholics happy, and bring back unhappy ones…
basically an attempt to destroy the Church Christ founded.

So these liberal Catholic Churches are infact laced with satan acts, along with truely good intended faithful…
…:tsktsk:

 

[Joe_5859]

…As a group of Catholic brothers in NYstates, during the 60’s a group of protestants secrectly planned to overthrow the Catholic church…have men go into the Priesthood, and plant seeds of discontent in the Catholic church,well then along came Vatican II…hhhmmmm why?

There’s a conspiracy theory I haven’t heard before.

Do you have a citation you could point me to in regards to which group of Catholic brothers asserts this and why?

 

[crazzeto]

There’s a conspiracy theory I haven’t heard before.

Do you have a citation you could point me to in regards to which group of Catholic brothers asserts this and why?

This is “conspiricy” theory is completely false, all the tennants of Vatican II were already being talked about at the turn of the 20th century. I suggest reading The Mass: A Study of Roman Liturgy for the most direct evidence of this. The author (book published in 1911) discussing “talk of mass in the venacular, among other changes being discussed”. Vatican II didn’t happen over night, it was a long process. It was badly implemented to start with, but it feels like the church has it’s footing again.

 

[geometer]

Your religion is completely vain if you do not know miracles.

It is completely obsurd to say that you do not believe that Jesus perfomed miracles.

The scriptures point this out as a sign of the end times, that there would be those who have a form of religion, but deny the power of God…

You must know that God has the power to respond to you, otherwise what does your religion mean?

It certainly could not mean much…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sorry I mistakenly typed “any” when I should have said “most”. Yes there are some miracles we are required to believe actually occured but very few have anything to do with Sacraments or the Eucharist.

The idea is quite evident in the fact that there is no requirement to believe water was changed to wine, anyone walked on water, or anyone was cured of a disease.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity - that Jesus IS God?

What do you believe in as a Catholic?

 

[DomineUtVideum]

My response to anyone who doubts the veracity of Jesus’ miracles comes from Fr. Benedict Groeschel: “Were you there? Then how can you say that it didn’t happen as recorded in Scripture?”