Miracle stories

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasmit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Dawson said:
Whether the event occurred is objectively unimportant. .
Click to expand...
I think such a statement needs to be much more careful.

Simply saying that without further qualification or explanation could quickly reduce the entire witness of Scripture to non-historic interpretations…i.e. you’re free to believe it or not but there’s no objective, historic, incarnational basis for acceptance or rejection. The Gospels’ historical character is clearly affirmed by the Church. It’s not sufficient to simply claim that a miracle story in a Gospel is an event about which we can say whether or not it occurred is objectively unimportant.
 
wasmit said:
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?
Click to expand...
The story is a typological word picture, and therefore allegory of a special sort. Allegory doesn’t necessarily equal “fiction.” The number of jars, six, says the same thing about man as the day we were created – the sixth day. We are “evil.”

I literally don’t care if the miracle occurred. At all. Viewed as a miracle story, it’s a not very important “abracadabra presto chango” story.

Viewed as a typological word picture, the story is amazing, even shocking.

In a sense, by persistently asking, “But is it non-fiction? But is it non-fiction?,” you are missing the point.

Note that the symbolic value remains whether or not the story is non-fiction.

Focus instead on that symbolic value. Mary the Woman intercedes for mankind; asking for salvation (the water) activated by the saving blood of Christ (the wine).

Christ’s response stakes out the Protestant position: How could Mary improve on God’s justice? It’s none of her business, and her timing is bad. We think, “Hmmmm. The Anti-Marian theology Protestants seem to be correct!” But then, something amazing happens. Mary the Woman interceder seems confident that divine Christ will violate His Own repudiatiuon of Mary.

And the astonishing thing is that He does! He does as Mary asks!

The six (evil) stone (Church) jars (mortal man) are the evil people in God’s Church. The potable water (salvation) turned to wine (Christ’s saving blood) is the salvation of Christ activated by Christ’s saving blood. Mary’s intercession causes that salvation to be delivered to us even though – note well – the time is not right.

Is this an implication that God may be more merciful than justice would otherwise have Him be, in response to his mother’s requests?

Those here Who viewed God as a kind of perfectly articulated equation will not like that concept.

Common sense is one tool for helping us to know what is fiction and non-fioction, where it is necessary to distinguish. For example, the crucifixion is frequently foreshadowed in OT typological word pictures. When something is reported which seems to be the thing foreshadowed, the thing forshadowed is probably non-fiction (which can still be allegorical).
 
Please Note

In regard to Post 24 – It should be remembered that we live in a country where free speech means anyone can give an opinion. Post 24 is an example of personal opinion. The following is my personal opinion which is based on a general understanding of Christianity.
Peter_Dawson said:
The story is a typological word picture, and therefore allegory of a special sort. Allegory doesn’t necessarily equal “fiction.”

Post 24 refers to Bible story of the wedding feast at Cana. It is found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 2: verses 1-12. This story is an actual recorded event. How I personally know it is actual will be detailed in a future post. In addition to recording events, Scripture is meant to teach us truths, often called God’s Revelation.
The number of jars, six, says the same thing about man as the day we were created – the sixth day. We are “evil.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Peter_Dawson said:
The story is a typological word picture, and therefore allegory of a special sort. Allegory doesn’t necessarily equal “fiction.” The number of jars, six, says the same thing about man as the day we were created – the sixth day. We are “evil.”

I literally don’t care if the miracle occurred. At all. Viewed as a miracle story, it’s a not very important “abracadabra presto chango” story.

Viewed as a typological word picture, the story is amazing, even shocking.

In a sense, by persistently asking, “But is it non-fiction? But is it non-fiction?,” you are missing the point.

Note that the symbolic value remains whether or not the story is non-fiction.

Focus instead on that symbolic value. Mary the Woman intercedes for mankind; asking for salvation (the water) activated by the saving blood of Christ (the wine).

Christ’s response stakes out the Protestant position: How could Mary improve on God’s justice? It’s none of her business, and her timing is bad. We think, “Hmmmm. The Anti-Marian theology Protestants seem to be correct!” But then, something amazing happens. Mary the Woman interceder seems confident that divine Christ will violate His Own repudiatiuon of Mary.

And the astonishing thing is that He does! He does as Mary asks!

The six (evil) stone (Church) jars (mortal man) are the evil people in God’s Church. The potable water (salvation) turned to wine (Christ’s saving blood) is the salvation of Christ activated by Christ’s saving blood. Mary’s intercession causes that salvation to be delivered to us even though – note well – the time is not right.

Is this an implication that God may be more merciful than justice would otherwise have Him be, in response to his mother’s requests?

Those here Who viewed God as a kind of perfectly articulated equation will not like that concept.

Common sense is one tool for helping us to know what is fiction and non-fioction, where it is necessary to distinguish. For example, the crucifixion is frequently foreshadowed in OT typological word pictures. When something is reported which seems to be the thing foreshadowed, the thing forshadowed is probably non-fiction (which can still be allegorical).
Click to expand...
how do you know that this interpretation of the Cana story is accurate, and other interpretations (e.g. grannymh in post 25) are false?
 
Peter_Dawson said:
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.
Click to expand...
There’s no reason to believe this didn’t happen literally anymore than there is to believe there’s no God. Now what you’ve done is turn an “unbelievable” story about the Son of God making water wine, into a figurative tale which bares no witnesses. Who can say they were a witness to this figurative act besides no one who is alive to explain how? This is just a way to reconcile poor faith, that’s all it is. The telling of the Son of God is the greatest thing ever told - human allegories don’t need to be infused, esspecially seeing as how most of them range from fantasy to hogwash.

Unequivocally, water into wine is the sign, as was always believed.
 
What I’m specifically looking for is a demonstration that this event actually occured.

Primox, in the previous post, stated that “Unequivocally, water into wine is the sign, as was always believed.”. But the beliefs of others are no reason for a rational person to adopt the same belief.

Can anyone help me with this?
 
First, you need to have faith.

Second, the tilma, or cloak, of Our Lady of Guadalupe is declared by the Church as not painted by human hands. Secretary of State Clinton viewed it recently. You, and anyone else, can run down to examine it scientifically. Others already have.

The point is you have to get right with God. Your survival depends on it.

Peace,
Ed
 
wasmit said:
What I’m specifically looking for is a demonstration that this event actually occured.

Primox, in the previous post, stated that “Unequivocally, water into wine is the sign, as was always believed.”. But the beliefs of others are no reason for a rational person to adopt the same belief.

Can anyone help me with this?
Click to expand...
I would like to. But the only way I can demonstrate that the event occurred is by sharing my personal method of demonstration. It is somewhat the same method I used to prove to myself that God existed. The difficulty is that I know this method is not scientific and probably not rational nor logical. But it worked for me. Also, since it is a subjective method, I’m not sure how to write it.:o
 
wasmit said:
Primox, in the previous post, stated that “Unequivocally, water into wine is the sign, as was always believed.”. But the beliefs of others are no reason for a rational person to adopt the same belief.
?
Click to expand...
Historians will tell you that the Gospels arn’t primary documents of events that occured per se. Nobody was sitting there with a pen and paper when these things took place. But what historians do believe is that this account is precisely a primary document of what people believed at the time - believed they actually saw these things.

I think the evidence is laid before you in sufficient lot - or at least insofar as it’s going to be. It’s really only a matter of whether you believe these were real witnesses or false witnesses. What do you think?
 
wasmit said:
But the beliefs of others are no reason for a rational person to adopt the same belief.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We do it all the time, certainly in matters of faith too. They may not always be sufficient reasons, or the only reasons, for an individual to adopt a certain belief…but they can be.
 
diggerdomer said:
I disagree. We do it all the time, certainly in matters of faith too. They may not always be sufficient reasons, or the only reasons, for an individual to adopt a certain belief…but they can be.
Click to expand...
Wasmit stated a typical atheist dogma in so many words… An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Wasmit considers himself the *only *authority.
He/She will accept no other account unless He/She decides (authoritatively) that it is acceptable.
Wasmit has already decided that either (1) Nothing too far in the past is believable because there is no ‘real’ proof (video?) that it ‘really’ occurred. or (2) we can believe most anything in the past other than the miracles in the bible (old or new testament). ← pretty selective ain’t it?
He/She is the authority to state what is and is not true.
Wasmit has decided that you do not have the backing he/she requires, and you will not change Wasmit’s mind about it.

2 or 3 witnesses … check
taken to the church (teaching) … check

heathen and a publican?

michel
 
cazayoux said:
Wasmit stated a typical atheist dogma in so many words… An appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Wasmit considers himself the *only *authority.
He/She will accept no other account unless He/She decides (authoritatively) that it is acceptable.
Wasmit has already decided that either (1) Nothing too far in the past is believable because there is no ‘real’ proof (video?) that it ‘really’ occurred. or (2) we can believe most anything in the past other than the miracles in the bible (old or new testament). ← pretty selective ain’t it?
He/She is the authority to state what is and is not true.
Wasmit has decided that you do not have the backing he/she requires, and you will not change Wasmit’s mind about it.

2 or 3 witnesses … check
taken to the church (teaching) … check

heathen and a publican?

michel
Click to expand...
Let’s not psychoanalyze; it’s a pretty hostile thing to do. In all truth, Wasmit’s concern is a legit one - most big religions speak from a position of authority and that gives us no discernment. I’m not against appealing to an authority, but one has to determine if the authority is first a worthy one - one of the ways we do that is by an assessment of it’s claims.

Wasmit hasn’t been hostile about believers beliefs and neither should we be in any case. Let’s educate if we can, encourage in the faith if we can, shed light on dark places if we can, but let’s not berate. We rebuke believers, not athiests or heathens or publicans or as I prefer to put it, those curious about the faith.

Wasmit, I don’t know what will settle the discrepency between Christian tenants and the tenants which you hold, but I have faith that with faith and through prayer, God will show you. God is wise, and wants you likewise to be so.
 
Primox said:
Let’s not psychoanalyze; it’s a pretty hostile thing to do. In all truth, Wasmit’s concern is a legit one - most big religions speak from a position of authority and that gives us no discernment. I’m not against appealing to an authority, but one has to determine if the authority is first a worthy one - one of the ways we do that is by an assessment of it’s claims.

Wasmit hasn’t been hostile about believers beliefs and neither should we be in any case. Let’s educate if we can, encourage in the faith if we can, shed light on dark places if we can, but let’s not berate. We rebuke believers, not athiests or heathens or publicans or as I prefer to put it, those curious about the faith.

Wasmit, I don’t know what will settle the discrepency between Christian tenants and the tenants which you hold, but I have faith that with faith and through prayer, God will show you. God is wise, and wants you likewise to be so.
Click to expand...
Sorry about the hostility. Please forgive.
I just don’t see that Wasmit is actually curious about the faith as you stated.
You stated that ‘one has to determine if the authority is first a worthy one’.
I agree, however, this is where I think Wasmit considers himself the authority to decide was is and is not worthy.
It is obvious that Wasmit is not hear to learn.
Wasmit has already decided that nobody here can give any ‘worthy’ proof to the miracle claims in the bible.
I don’t consider it hostility for me to recognize someone else’s obstinance.

michel
 
wasmit said:
how do you know that this interpretation of the Cana story is accurate, and other interpretations (e.g. grannymh in post 25) are false?
Click to expand...
As far as my post 25, I begin by stating clearly that my source for personal opinion “is based on a general understanding of Christianity.” I ended by stating clearly that when it comes to distinguishing fiction from non-fiction, “I go according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

While I do not know how the poster knows that post 24 is accurate, I will point out his statements which are inaccurate when contrasted with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Peter_Dawson said:
I literally don’t care if the miracle occurred.

This is a contradiction of essential Catholic teaching that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. Please refer to additional responses below.
Viewed as a miracle story, it’s a not very important “abracadabra presto chango” story.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
wasmit said:
What I’m specifically looking for is a demonstration that this event actually occured.
Click to expand...
I would like to know how Juche views science and how it validates events in history.
Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
 
Primox said:
Let’s not psychoanalyze; it’s a pretty hostile thing to do. In all truth, Wasmit’s concern is a legit one - most big religions speak from a position of authority and that gives us no discernment. I’m not against appealing to an authority, but one has to determine if the authority is first a worthy one - one of the ways we do that is by an assessment of it’s claims.

Wasmit hasn’t been hostile about believers beliefs and neither should we be in any case. Let’s educate if we can, encourage in the faith if we can, shed light on dark places if we can, but let’s not berate. We rebuke believers, not athiests or heathens or publicans or as I prefer to put it, those curious about the faith.

Wasmit, I don’t know what will settle the discrepency between Christian tenants and the tenants which you hold, but I have faith that with faith and through prayer, God will show you. God is wise, and wants you likewise to be so.
Click to expand...
I gotta say Primox, thanks for this post. You really show a lot of class and honour here. 👍
thanks for taking the question seriously, and not reading anything into it, and for the open and honest discusion based on this. The world needs a lot more like you! You da Man! Err…or Woman 😉
 
cazayoux said:
Sorry about the hostility. Please forgive.
I just don’t see that Wasmit is actually curious about the faith as you stated.
You stated that ‘one has to determine if the authority is first a worthy one’.
I agree, however, this is where I think Wasmit considers himself the authority to decide was is and is not worthy.
It is obvious that Wasmit is not hear to learn.
Wasmit has already decided that nobody here can give any ‘worthy’ proof to the miracle claims in the bible.
I don’t consider it hostility for me to recognize someone else’s obstinance.

michel
Click to expand...
Cazayoux, you can’t really know these things you say.

Wasmit doesn’t consider himself the authority, he considers an impartial third party (usually made up of quite a few people) that verified certain facts as true, to be the authority….but he is still looking for empirical evidence to submit to the third party for scrutiny.
Most Atheists are always open to new things and ideas, but they have to be verified and proven as fact before they will be accepted. Before this happens they are just that…stories or theories. We don’t just believe things because others say so….not even if 1 Billion others say so. Mass opinions doesn’t make facts.
The same as being on a quest to see if there is any truth in the water into wine story, we can be on quests to verify if there is any truth to the Roswell story, or any other claim that’s being made.

You can’t know that Wasmit’s mind is made up. His questions have been honest and open.
 
PennitentMan said:
Cazayoux, you can’t really know these things you say.

Wasmit doesn’t consider himself the authority, he considers an impartial third party (usually made up of quite a few people) that verified certain facts as true, to be the authority….but he is still looking for empirical evidence to submit to the third party for scrutiny.
Most Atheists are always open to new things and ideas, but they have to be verified and proven as fact before they will be accepted. Before this happens they are just that…stories or theories. We don’t just believe things because others say so….not even if 1 Billion others say so. Mass opinions doesn’t make facts.
The same as being on a quest to see if there is any truth in the water into wine story, we can be on quests to verify if there is any truth to the Roswell story, or any other claim that’s being made.

You can’t know that Wasmit’s mind is made up. His questions have been honest and open.
Click to expand...
You are right … I am presuming too much.
I took the leap from his ‘appeal to authority fallacy’ statement.
I read this and wondered what authority would be sufficient for him, if an appeal to authority is considered a fallacy.
I think that is the crux of the issue.
At what point is the appeal to the bible as an authority not a fallacy?

As others have stated, there were many witnesses to the miracle, including Mary.
The bible also shows that Jesus connected Mary and the apostle John in a very special way while He was on the cross.
Even if John didn’t write it down for many years, doesn’t mean he didn’t teach it to Christians before He wrote it down.
After all, the church is a teaching church before it is a scripture writing church.
It makes logical sense that what John eventually wrote down in his account of the gospel is what he had been teaching his whole life rather than penning something that nobody had even heard up until then.
It’s plausible to think that John knows of the miracle through Mary.
It’s plausible to think that John taught of this miracle and that, in the time he taught it, many other witnesses were available to refute his account if his facts were wrong.

What authority do we have for any historical event that might be acceptable other than witnesses?

michel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top