Miracles in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter fom4life
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn’t intend to go for the wry comment, but the article itself felt incredibly vacuous. I wanted them to stop repeating the words “altered state of consciousness” and actually give an explanation of the phenomenon and how it ties into the Middle Eastern culture.

Anyway, what is there to answer to the article? It just asserted something with very little argument. We as Catholics can disregard it.
 
I want to write an intelligent and charitable rebuttal to it. So I’m gathering information. So I just cant’ ignore it.
 
It’s not all that clear an argument but I think the gist of it is that it’s saying a miracle only exists because we interpret things in a particular way - as a violation of the laws of nature; but if people aren’t aware of those laws they’d have no concept of a miracle. However, that misses the fact that a miracle involves something happening which normally can’t happen - not because there’s a law which says it can’t but simply because it’s not possible. The laws of physics explain why we can’t walk on water but even someone who’s totally ignorant of physics knows that they can’t walk on water - knowing nothing about the laws of nature doesn’t alter the reality. So while those in the ancient near-East may not have been all that clued up on the laws of physics, that’s not to say that they didn’t have an understanding of the world around them and their own interaction with it. It’s a bit like saying that, because they didn’t have a modern understanding of weather science, there was no such thing as weather for them.

This is really just classic nominalism - coming at things as they are for us rather as they are in themselves - and there’s a tendency on the part of some Christians to want to try and reduce things like miracles to the point where they can be easily explained. So, the loaves and the fishes weren’t a miraculous multiplication but rather an example of common sharing; and the post-resurrection appearances were metaphorical - the disciples were so inspired and strengthened by Jesus’ willingness to die for them that it was “as if” he had risen from the dead. That though brings God down to our level, whcih is the opposite of how it’s supposed to be - God became man that man might become God.
 
@fom4life, your link says: The Synoptic Gospels, first century documents, speak of wonders and marvels, called “mighty deeds.” “John” calls these “signs” and “works.” The word miracle is not used anywhere in Scripture.

It’s a question of translation. The English word “miracle” occurs quite often in some Bible translations, where other translations use “signs” or “wonders”. I don’t now have a print copy of the King James Bible, but I have an idea it uses the word “miracle” quite often, in both the OT and the NT.
 
Last edited:
Great answer. I like it. The author’s main premise is that a lot of the miraculous stuff happens due to Altered States of Consciousness and having to understand the culture at the time. But your answer is good and i will use the information if you don’t mind in an article I’m planning on writing. Thanks again.
 
The author’s main premise is that a lot of the miraculous stuff happens due to Altered States of Consciousness and having to understand the culture at the time.
Tbh I didn’t really follow this argument - I mean I get what he’s trying to say, that miracles are basically just individual’s perceptions as a result of consciousness-altering phenomena. Certainly, this is an easy way to explain away visions but it starts to break down when we get to physical miracles, like the walking on water (did Peter’s trance enable him to walk on water or did it just cause him to believe that Jesus was walking on water and his won sinking was the result of the “dream” being interrupted?). Similarly like I said above, this is an easy way of explaining something like the feeding of the 5000. However, I’m struggling to see how it works with something like healing - a person thinking that they’re cured is one thing, picking up their mat and walking is another altogether. In the same way, no matter how much someone may think they’re cured of blindness, obstacles in their path will obviously suggest otherwise! I suppose this could be further explained by suggesting that they were never really sick or blind in the first place and that it was all just the psychosomatic with Jesus’ role as “healer” being to help the to realise this - all very Cartesian!

All that aside, the assertions regarding “Mediterranean culture” seem to be extremely broad and sweeping, especially given that, in Israel alone, there were at least four different cultures present - Jews, Greek, Romans and Samaritans - and that’s before we start considering the area of modern-day Turkey and Greece!

In the end, imho, it comes down to this. We like to think that we have effectively mastered the world around us, that nothing is completely beyond our capacity to achieve even if it might be out of reach right now. So, when something comes along that defies everything we thought we knew when tend to want to find a way to explain it away in order to make it less threatening because otherwise it challenges our assumption of control. this again goes back to the idea of perceiving things only as they are for us and ignoring the reality they have in themselves. Miracles require faith and faith in turn requires us to trust in something beyond our ability to grasp or comprehend. For seom, the leap required to do this is simply too much and so they seek alternative, easier explanations which are less confronting and help preserve their sense of comfort.
 
The OP quotes an article from Patheos.com that was rather bizarre in its skepticism and unbelief and explanations.

Christianity is built on miracles. The first miracle was “Creation ex nihilo”. God spoke and created the universe from nothing.

A central miracle was the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Jesus rose from the dead and will live forever. Similarly, all will rise and live forever.

Miracles continued as the Church was becoming established.

And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied… So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (Acts 19:6–12).
 
I was wondering how any of you would answer this… There are no miracles in the Bible,
That’s totally False… For Centuries - Neither Jesus’ Miracles nor His Existence - were denied

The only Miracle denied by His enemies was The Resurrection
 
Thank you, @CelticWarlord. Thirty-seven occurrences, no less! And that poster claimed, in his very own words, that “The word miracle is not used anywhere in Scripture.” I followed @fom4life’s link to the original webpage and posted a comment there. The tone is mildly facetious. I was unable to resist the temptation, in the circumstances.
 
Some general comments about miracles:
Miracles are not so much a violation of the laws of nature, I think that - in line with Dr. William Lane Craig - they are a situation in which the laws of nature just do not apply and therefore they do not so much violate the laws of nature but are just situations in which these laws are inapplicable. As for those who say that the Biblical miracles can be interpreted in any other way besides the miraculous, they are wrong because the stories themselves are so constructed as to emphasise the miraculous nature of these stories - any other explanations would be futile.
I think the following material may be useful:



 
Last edited:
As it is with the prosecutor in court, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

IOW, a waste of time and life energy to oppose - except with prayer.
 
Craig is always a voice of reason. I’ve seen him in debates with many people. He is always courteous but extremely well informed.
 
Trying to explain a miracle with the human conception of the laws of the universe seems completely illogical. By definition a miracle is in some way or form outside of the (expected or actual) laws of the universe.
 
Trying to explain a miracle with the human conception of the laws of the universe seems completely illogical. By definition a miracle is in some way or form outside of the (expected or actual) laws of the universe.
When any who’ve witnessed miracles witness them, they know what a miracle is…

It needs neither proof nor definition

_
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top