Miracle stories

[wasmit]

One of misunderstandings I have with christianity is the reliability of the miracle stories in the bible.

Take for example Jesus turning water into wine, and the question “Did this event occur?”.

My current knowledge is that the only evidence in favour of event is in the four canon gospels (perhaps other non-canon gospels too?). Now these were written by unknown authors, 40-80 years after jesus’ death. We don’t know if the authors witnessed this event first-hand, or heard it second-hand, or fifth-hand, or tenth-hand.

The evidence that this event is not true is that water cannot turn into wine - Carbon atoms cannot just magically appear in a contained body of liquid. (Alcohol is C2H5OH, water is H2O). Also, the gospel authors would have had a desire to hype-up the story of Jesus.

So, how can a person say that this event occured when there is no evidence to suggest that it did, and it is an “impossible” event ?

A similar thing could be said about other miracle stories, e.g. walking on water, creating a huge amount of fishes and loaves, rising from the dead, ressurecting someone, etc…

Perhaps there is some supporting information that I am missing?

Thanks for your help.

 

[diggerdomer]

One of misunderstandings I have with christianity is the reliability of the miracle stories in the bible.

Take for example Jesus turning water into wine, and the question “Did this event occur?”.

My current knowledge is that the only evidence in favour of event is in the four canon gospels (perhaps other non-canon gospels too?). Now these were written by unknown authors, 40-80 years after jesus’ death. We don’t know if the authors witnessed this event first-hand, or heard it second-hand, or fifth-hand, or tenth-hand.

The evidence that this event is not true is that water cannot turn into wine - Carbon atoms cannot just magically appear in a contained body of liquid. (Alcohol is C2H5OH, water is H2O). Also, the gospel authors would have had a desire to hype-up the story of Jesus.

So, how can a person say that this event occured when there is no evidence to suggest that it did, and it is an “impossible” event ?

A similar thing could be said about other miracle stories, e.g. walking on water, creating a huge amount of fishes and loaves, rising from the dead, ressurecting someone, etc…

Perhaps there is some supporting information that I am missing?

Thanks for your help.

The only information I think you might be missing is that only ONE of the four canonical Gospels related the event you cite, i.e. Jesus turning water into wine. That episode is only recorded in John’s Gospel.

You’re not missing any information, only faith.

Miracles by definition are “impossible” by merely rational standards. They are not impossible to faith.

Does that help?

 

[survive]

The main thing you’re missing apparently is the meaning of the word miracle. It’s a supernatural event. If it were naturally possible, it wouldn’t be a miracle. To deny miracles because they can’t exist in nature is similar to denying electric lights because a tallow candle can’t produce that kind of cool light; it’s the apples and oranges fallacy to judge one thing by the criteria of another. The whole point of reporting miracles is to show the presence of supernatural power.
The witnesses to the miracle at Cana include Mary, who lived among the Apostles during the development of the Church for many years and talked with new Christians, verifying and adding to the Apostles’ recollections. Weddings then were a big deal, involving days of festivities, parades and dances with massive crowds. There were plenty of witnesses young enough to tell of the miracle decades later. The Gospels were written in response to popular demand for the things the disciples talked about to be in writing. Many eyes, some the eyes of witnesses, reviewed the documents for years before publication and acceptance. There would have been plenty of people to correct any significant error by the time many copies were out there.
I have trouble comprehending the worldview of people who don’t accept the supernatural because my life has been filled with supernatural events, which I grew up hiding because we were atheists in my home. I have studied science and have a background in document research, among other things. Science can’t possibly explain much of what has happened to me over the years. Science is great but it isn’t the expalnation for everything that happens. Just some things.

 

[VociMike]

I’d like to apply your own question to your own conclusion. What evidence do you have that the stories of miracles in the bible are false? Surely if you reject those accounts you must be doing so based on evidence, so please share that evidence.

 

[wasmit]

I’d like to apply your own question to your own conclusion. What evidence do you have that the stories of miracles in the bible are false? Surely if you reject those accounts you must be doing so based on evidence, so please share that evidence.

The burden of proof is on the positive claimaint.

I could similarly ask you “What evidence do you have that the stories of the FSM are false?”

 

[wasmit]

The main thing you’re missing apparently is the meaning of the word miracle. It’s a supernatural event. If it were naturally possible, it wouldn’t be a miracle. To deny miracles because they can’t exist in nature is similar to denying electric lights because a tallow candle can’t produce that kind of cool light; it’s the apples and oranges fallacy to judge one thing by the criteria of another.

So how can anyone ever know that a miracle occured, if they can’t be judged by non-supernatural means?

Given that all humans are non-supernatural, are you saying that no-one (past, present or future) is qualified to judge the veracity of a miracle claim? If so, no miracles can ever be verified.

(a) The witnesses to the miracle at Cana include Mary [Jesus’ mother??]

(b), [mary] who lived among the Apostles during the development of the Church for many years and talked with new Christians,

(c) [mary was] verifying and adding to the Apostles’ recollections.

(d)Weddings then were a big deal, involving days of festivities, parades and dances with massive crowds.

(e)There were plenty of witnesses young enough to tell of the miracle decades later.

(f)The Gospels were written in response to popular demand for the things the disciples talked about to be in writing.

(g)Many eyes, some the eyes of witnesses, reviewed the documents for years before publication and acceptance.

(h)There would have been plenty of people to correct any significant error by the time many copies were out there.

I have trouble comprehending the worldview of people who don’t accept the supernatural because my life has been filled with supernatural events, which I grew up hiding because we were atheists in my home. I have studied science and have a background in document research, among other things. Science can’t possibly explain much of what has happened to me over the years. Science is great but it isn’t the expalnation for everything that happens. Just some things.

Thankyou for this information, it is very helpful. I notice you have made 8 claims (A) to (H).

How do you (Mr. Survive) know that these 8 claims are true?

How does a person with little knowledge of this area (i.e. me) know that these 8 claims are true?

 

[VociMike]

The burden of proof is on the positive claimaint.

So you have no evidence that the stories are false. So you simply reject them based on worldview and nothing more.

When you read the newspaper or watch the news, do you demand proof from the “positive claimant” that each story actually happened?

Do you believe anything reported about the world of the past? How can you, since there’s no videotape?

 

[neophyte]

…The evidence that this event is not true is that water cannot turn into wine - Carbon atoms cannot just magically appear in a contained body of liquid. (Alcohol is C2H5OH, water is H2O). Also, the gospel authors would have had a desire to hype-up the story of Jesus.

So, how can a person say that this event occured when there is no evidence to suggest that it did, and it is an “impossible” event?..

You’ve commited at least two logical fallacies here.

First, miracles are impossible only if there is no God. The question “does God exist” is on the table (because the whole point is whether or not Jesus is God), so you can’t logically presume in advance that water can’t have turned onto wine. That begs the question.

Second, there is evidence: the accounts of the Gospels. The only reason you claim there’s no evidence for it is that you reject out of hand any accounts of miracles, on the grounds that miracles are impossible. But again, that begs the question: it’s an irrational position.

 

[wasmit]

The burden of proof is on the positive claimaint.

Do you reject stories of fairies, unicorns, Loch Ness Monsters, Leprechauns, Dragons, etc? You have no evidence that these stories are false.

For news reports, if I am interested in the particular issue, I will fact-check it.

If the story is something irrelevant to me such as “Today a house burnt down in XYZ area”, I won’t bother to chek it out. I will think to myself “That event probably occured”, because there is evidence for it(news report), and none against.

Yes, I believe that particular things happened in the past. The strength of my belief that a particular event occured is equal to the strength of the evidence.

 

[wasmit]

You’ve commited at least two logical fallacies here.

First, miracles are impossible only if there is no God. The question “does God exist” is on the table (because the whole point is whether or not Jesus is God), so you can’t logically presume in advance that water can’t have turned onto wine. That begs the question.

I agree, that is why I called this particular event an ““impossible”” event, with the quotes implying that, generally, this event is impossible

Second, there is evidence: the accounts of the Gospels. The only reason you claim there’s no evidence for it is that you reject out of hand any accounts of miracles, on the grounds that miracles are impossible. But again, that begs the question: it’s an irrational position.

I disagree with the gospel’s recording of this particular event, because a person that claims “X event occured because the gospel(s) said so” is committing an appeal to authority fallacy, for several reasons - The gospel is biased, and the author is unidentified, the author does not have expertise(?) in the area of miracles. There is also the bare assertion fallacy.

 

[Th0t]

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[survive]

I’m a woman.
A) This is related in the Gospel account itself. Mary probably told the Apostles about it, or at least one of them was present; since she is featured in the account, if it were not true she or someone close to her would have quickly corrected the story.
B) The Apostle John had the official responsibility of caring for Mary in her old age, and as a public figure (to say the least) in the early Church, could not possibly have faked having her in the house. People would have inevitable clamored to interview her. She is the Mother of Jesus Himself.
C) Either she was verifying and adding to them or she was denying and exclaiming against them; there is no way to teach and publish such a large body of astonishing tales in the presence of a key player in them without evoking one of the two reactions. if she had protested the stories they would have died out as quickly as every other First-Century self-proclaimed savior’s claims did – inside the century at most. Oral tradition, like writing, was taken very seriously in the Jewish culture at that time, and free speech wasn’t a concept. Anyone who came under suspicion of publishing untruth was investigated thoroughly and exposed publicly – unless there was no untruth to expose.
D) I don’t have a day anytime soon set aside for historic refeference-checking, but it is a widely-cited historic consensus that Judean weddings were enormous festivals including the whole community, right up until the devastating attack on Jerusalem in 70 AD, and within Jewish communities this custom survives in lesser forms today. You can probably find references just as easily as I can, but it might be mentioned in Robin Lane Fox’s “Christians and Pagans” and definitely in the New American Bible, just to start off with.
E) Children were included in public life in that society, and a wedding with a teeming crowd of guests, for example, would have guests under 15 mingling and participating throughout. Most people in ancient times were under 20, perhaps under 10, I don’t remember right off the top of my head, but a 12-year-old wedding guest in 30-34 AD would be 40 (the age of wisdom) in 58-62, and one who had seen such a thing would obviously be mobbed by questioners – the curious, the sympathetic and much more so the hostile. Any such guest would be 50, and a respectable elder, in 68-72.
F) Read The Writings of the Early Church Fathers. I believe it’s either Clement or Irenaeus who mentions the demand that preceded the writing of the Gospels. If not, it’s probably addressed somewhere on the searchable CA home site. It’s also mentioned in the Little Rock Scripture Study series.
G) Ditto the above, and remember that this is what publication meant in Jewish society in ancient times. Many ancient manuscripts are preserved in flawed forms precisely because as soon as a flaw – a factual error or even a slip of the hand – came to anyone’s attention, the whole scroll or codex was scrapped and used as scratch paper or elementary reading text, not passed along to be recopied. Ironically, some schoolrooms and tinderboxes are better preserved than some of the libraries, synagogues and churches.
H) Given the public methods of teaching and reporting, and the meticulous copying tradition, and the early teaching in memorization, if a false version of a story went out, it would go out among a community that had already heard the original. The people didn’t believe in free speech, but in the responsibility to maintain accuracy. They would demand the real answer. No one in such an environment could get away with a false story of such magnitude for long with witnesses to the actual facts everywhere.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

“Miracle stories” weren’t stories to the people that witnessed them–they were facts!

Most all ancient history comes from someone’s account of it.

Most people believe what they want to believe.

Truth isn’t dependent on what people want to believe–it is!

The gospels weren’t believed merely on people having faith or not–but clearly many who did not personally see their events did believe.

The gospels were believed because there were many people who actually witnessed the events spoken of in the bible.

There were too many people who actually witnessed the events for people who had not seen the events to conclude that they were all just a bunch of liars.

 

[neophyte]

I agree, that is why I called this particular event an ““impossible”” event, with the quotes implying that, generally, this event is impossible

OK. I guess I was thrown when you said when you said “The evidence that this event is not true is that water cannot turn into wine”.

I disagree with the gospel’s recording of this particular event, because a person that claims “X event occured because the gospel(s) said so” is committing an appeal to authority fallacy, for several reasons - The gospel is biased, and the author is unidentified, the author does not have expertise(?) in the area of miracles. There is also the bare assertion fallacy.

If there was no other corroborating evidence, you’d be correct. But there’s a LOT of corroborating evidence, most of it indirect to be sure but more than sufficent to establish the reliability of the witness, and the conclusion that God exists.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

One of misunderstandings I have with christianity is the reliability of the miracle stories in the bible.

Take for example Jesus turning water into wine, and the question “Did this event occur?”.

My current knowledge is that the only evidence in favour of event is in the four canon gospels (perhaps other non-canon gospels too?). Now these were written by unknown authors, 40-80 years after jesus’ death. We don’t know if the authors witnessed this event first-hand, or heard it second-hand, or fifth-hand, or tenth-hand.

The evidence that this event is not true is that water cannot turn into wine - Carbon atoms cannot just magically appear in a contained body of liquid. (Alcohol is C2H5OH, water is H2O). Also, the gospel authors would have had a desire to hype-up the story of Jesus.

So, how can a person say that this event occured when there is no evidence to suggest that it did, and it is an “impossible” event ?

A similar thing could be said about other miracle stories, e.g. walking on water, creating a huge amount of fishes and loaves, rising from the dead, ressurecting someone, etc…

Perhaps there is some supporting information that I am missing?

Thanks for your help.

You are reading the Bible the wrong way. The story of the water-to-wine miracle isn’t about the water-to-wine miracle. It’s a symbolic story called a “typological word picture” portraying Christ filling evil men in need of salvation in His Church with the waters of salvation activated by the sacrificial blood of Christ. Whether the event occurred is objectively unimportant. Fundamentalists married to a literal-only analysis of Scripture improperly strip the story of its true ultimate meaning and instead debate nonsense.

 

[grannymh]

The wedding feast of Cana John 2:1-11.

What a marvelous way for Jesus to begin His public ministry–right in the middle of joy and celebration. This real event has me looking forward to the great feast in heaven. Remember the parable of the kingdom of heaven being like a wedding feast.

“Jesus did this [changed water into wine] as the beginning of His signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed His glory, and His disciples began to believe in Him.” John 2: 11. And this glory which He revealed is none other than He is God,

The Catholic Nicene Creed says: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, One in Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became Man"

This is God Who has power over all things, including the chemical components of water and wine. This is God Whom we love and long to be with at the eternal wedding feast.

Blessings,
granny

Praise God!

 

[wasmit]

(a) The witnesses to the miracle at Cana include Mary [Jesus’ mother??]

(b), [mary] who lived among the Apostles during the development of the Church for many years and talked with new Christians,

(c) [mary was] verifying and adding to the Apostles’ recollections.

(d)Weddings then were a big deal, involving days of festivities, parades and dances with massive crowds.

(e)There were plenty of witnesses young enough to tell of the miracle decades later.

(f)The Gospels were written in response to popular demand for the things the disciples talked about to be in writing.

(g)Many eyes, some the eyes of witnesses, reviewed the documents for years before publication and acceptance.

(h)There would have been plenty of people to correct any significant error by the time many copies were out there.

A) This is related in the Gospel account itself. Mary probably told the Apostles about it, or at least one of them was present; since she is featured in the account, if it were not true she or someone close to her would have quickly corrected the story.

B) The Apostle John had the official responsibility of caring for Mary in her old age, and as a public figure (to say the least) in the early Church, could not possibly have faked having her in the house. People would have inevitable clamored to interview her. She is the Mother of Jesus Himself.

C) Either she was verifying and adding to them or she was denying and exclaiming against them; there is no way to teach and publish such a large body of astonishing tales in the presence of a key player in them without evoking one of the two reactions. if she had protested the stories they would have died out as quickly as every other First-Century self-proclaimed savior’s claims did – inside the century at most. Oral tradition, like writing, was taken very seriously in the Jewish culture at that time, and free speech wasn’t a concept. Anyone who came under suspicion of publishing untruth was investigated thoroughly and exposed publicly – unless there was no untruth to expose.

D) I don’t have a day anytime soon set aside for historic refeference-checking, but it is a widely-cited historic consensus that Judean weddings were enormous festivals including the whole community, right up until the devastating attack on Jerusalem in 70 AD, and within Jewish communities this custom survives in lesser forms today. You can probably find references just as easily as I can, but it might be mentioned in Robin Lane Fox’s “Christians and Pagans” and definitely in the New American Bible, just to start off with.

E) Children were included in public life in that society, and a wedding with a teeming crowd of guests, for example, would have guests under 15 mingling and participating throughout. Most people in ancient times were under 20, perhaps under 10, I don’t remember right off the top of my head, but a 12-year-old wedding guest in 30-34 AD would be 40 (the age of wisdom) in 58-62, and one who had seen such a thing would obviously be mobbed by questioners – the curious, the sympathetic and much more so the hostile. Any such guest would be 50, and a respectable elder, in 68-72.

F) Read The Writings of the Early Church Fathers. I believe it’s either Clement or Irenaeus who mentions the demand that preceded the writing of the Gospels. If not, it’s probably addressed somewhere on the searchable CA home site. It’s also mentioned in the Little Rock Scripture Study series.

G) Ditto the above, and remember that this is what publication meant in Jewish society in ancient times. Many ancient manuscripts are preserved in flawed forms precisely because as soon as a flaw – a factual error or even a slip of the hand – came to anyone’s attention, the whole scroll or codex was scrapped and used as scratch paper or elementary reading text, not passed along to be recopied. Ironically, some schoolrooms and tinderboxes are better preserved than some of the libraries, synagogues and churches.

H) Given the public methods of teaching and reporting, and the meticulous copying tradition, and the early teaching in memorization, if a false version of a story went out, it would go out among a community that had already heard the original. The people didn’t believe in free speech, but in the responsibility to maintain accuracy. They would demand the real answer. No one in such an environment could get away with a false story of such magnitude for long with witnesses to the actual facts everywhere.

Thankyou for the elaboration, but I think you may have not answered my questions. As far as I can tell, you have just explained your claims in more detail (thankyou), without providing any reason for the reader (i.e. me) to accept the truthfulness what you are saying. Can you please explain why these claims should be accepted? You may have to go slowly, as I have little knowledge of the issues here.

*How do you (Survive) know that these 8 claims are true?

How does a person with little knowledge of this area (i.e. me) know that these 8 claims are true? *

Additionally:

In relation to point C, you said “Either she[mary] was verifying and adding to them[gospels] or she was denying and exclaiming against them”. However, given that the water to wine story only appears in the gospel of John, and John’s gospel was written around 90-100AD, Jesus was born 6-4BC; Mary must have been 120 years old at the time this was written. Given the average lifespan at that time, she would certainly be dead when this was written. Therefore, your point (C) is false in relation to this story.

Similarly with point (E), given that John gospel was written in 90-100, a very young wedding guest would be 80 years old(i.e. dead) at that time.

Similarly with point (H), there would not be witnesses everywhere, as they would all be at least 80 (dead).

thanks for your help.

 

[wasmit]

There were too many people who actually witnessed the events for people who had not seen the events to conclude that they were all just a bunch of liars.

how do you know this?

 

[wasmit]

I disagree with the gospel’s recording of this particular event, because a person that claims “X event occured because the gospel(s) said so” is committing an appeal to authority fallacy, for several reasons - The gospel is biased, and the author is unidentified, the author does not have expertise(?) in the area of miracles. There is also the bare assertion fallacy.

Specifically what corroborating evidence?

this is what I am looking for.

 

[wasmit]

You are reading the Bible the wrong way. The story of the water-to-wine miracle isn’t about the water-to-wine miracle. It’s a symbolic story called a “typological word picture” portraying Christ filling evil men in need of salvation in His Church with the waters of salvation activated by the sacrificial blood of Christ. Whether the event occurred is objectively unimportant. Fundamentalists married to a literal-only analysis of Scripture improperly strip the story of its true ultimate meaning and instead debate nonsense.

So, you are saying that this is an allegory? Similar to the 6 “days” in genesis, which aren’t rotational days ?

So, in your opinion, when read literally, did this event occur as written ? i.e. did this event actually occur? What information do you base your opinion on?
As an aside, (probably for another thread), how do you know which sections of the bible to interpret as allegory/word picture/metaphor, and which to accept as literally occuring as written?