D
davidv
Guest
Official Church teaching indicates that you are wrong on the fact of the miracles.
CCC said:
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
The Congregation for the Causes of Saints would disagree:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/index.htm
There is a process that can last for years that is used to investigate miracles.
Here’s one recent miracle claim:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1003702.htm
Note that the Church is not running around yelling, miracle!, miracle!
Here is another example of how this process works:
stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2010/07/archdiocese-concludes-investigation-of.html
The secular media has no to little interest in such things. They are too busy telling us we live in ‘modern times’ and they decry supernaturalism. They think it no longer happens that real miracles occur.
Peace,
Ed
T
traillius
Guest
well, in a bible study I once attended, the leader, a nun, told us that the waters parting during the exodus from Egypt under Moses was nothing more than tidal flow on the ‘reed sea,’ which I guess was some swampy area at the north end of the red sea. I then asked how else but miraculously could could an entire army with horses and chariots, except for one single man( pharaoh) drown in a tidal swamp, while no israelites were drowned. I didn’t get an answer.
P
patg
Guest
No, there is no indication here that I am wrong or that belief in the historicity of every miracle is a dogmatic requirement. The church clearly spells out those that are. You really need to read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels.
T
The_Exodus
Guest
a) The gospels don’t have to be eye witness accounts in order to be recounting actual miracles.
b) They may indeed be eye witness acounts anyway.
c) More than just the gospels record miracles. Acts, for example, which is one of the most historically reliable documents we have from the ancient world, recounts many miracles.
d Do you think the apostles, if the Gospels weren’t eye witness accounts, would have handed on “moral fairy-tales” to their disciples? Do you think St. John or Peter would have said something like “Jesus didn’t really heal this blind man, but put that in there for emotional effect”?
If a work is intending to recount history, that is, what actually happened, then a fictional work is indeed a falsehood and a lie. The apostles were intending to convey “things they saw with their own eyes, not fables” (2 Peter 1:16).
a) Where do you see it permitted to disbelieve the literal sense, the sense in which Scripture is to be taken first, according to Church teaching, in the case of Christ’s miracles?
b) The unanimous opinion of the Church fathers and tradition, along with the Doctors of the Church and the history of Christianity, has believed in the miracles of Christ. What you are espousing is a relatively recent invention of modernity. Why do you abandon the tradition?
Please respond in point by point fashion to my points.
E
Ecoclimber
Guest
This was the very premise that cause me to turn my back on my faith and leave the Catholic Church. I was taking required theology courses at a Jesuit University where certain professors stated the same thing. It was during the time that liberation theology was sweeping through the Jesuit community. The professor stated that Jesus could not nor would not transcend the natural laws. There was no such thing as demons as he was speaking and relating in the manner of the time and culture that people would understand…so much for the purpose of the parables. He and other professors in other courses stated that the miracles from the Old Testament did not happen and that the Old Testament was a mere collection of stories and fables borrowed from surrounding ancient pagan societies that became embellished over time to form the basis of the OT. It was like a smorgasbord of belief where anyone can choose this theory over that without any relevant basis other than your own preconceived belief system. It was a precursor to the folks at the Jesus Seminar debating which particular sayings of Jesus were real which were false for the sole purpose in casting doubt if not destroying the Divinity of Christ among the faithful and to hinder those seeking Christ. I lost my faith believing that no one can really know nor can discern what is the real truth and for the most part all of this is all made up.
Thanks goodness for the grace of God leading me to the Early Church Fathers especially the writings of Justin Martyr especially his comments on early heathen societies including various later Christian passages and Irenaeus to light the way. Furthermore, consider this fact that Jesus, the very Son of God who is without sin, referred and validated various accounts, miracles and passages within the Old Testament such as Noah’s Flood, David, Moses etc. If miracles and events in the OT were not true, then the only conclusion that could be drawn would be the fact that Jesus sinned through lying or at the very least deception by validating something as true when it was in fact false which would lead one to a blasphemous conclusion.
The same could be said about the Apostles who were filled from on high with the complete fullness of the Holy Spirit. Doubting their references to the miracles and events of Christ and the prophets in the OT in their writings of the NT as though they were lying, confused or got it wrong were amount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit as they were writing under Holy Spirit’s guidance and inspiration.
It’s something to think about.
Thanks goodness for the grace of God leading me to the Early Church Fathers especially the writings of Justin Martyr especially his comments on early heathen societies including various later Christian passages and Irenaeus to light the way. Furthermore, consider this fact that Jesus, the very Son of God who is without sin, referred and validated various accounts, miracles and passages within the Old Testament such as Noah’s Flood, David, Moses etc. If miracles and events in the OT were not true, then the only conclusion that could be drawn would be the fact that Jesus sinned through lying or at the very least deception by validating something as true when it was in fact false which would lead one to a blasphemous conclusion.
The same could be said about the Apostles who were filled from on high with the complete fullness of the Holy Spirit. Doubting their references to the miracles and events of Christ and the prophets in the OT in their writings of the NT as though they were lying, confused or got it wrong were amount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit as they were writing under Holy Spirit’s guidance and inspiration.
It’s something to think about.
J
James224
Guest
This was something going around in our diocese back in the 1990’s. We had a deacon teaching these things in a huge class at our parish. I challenged him and quoted Matt 12:40 where Jesus says, " For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." I asked him if Jonah was in the belly of the whale and he said that Jesus probably didn’t say that!! This is what they call the Higher Criticism. He denied all the miracles. I would stay away from it. Don’t go and tell everybody else not to go.
P
patg
Guest
True
They may be, but the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels states that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
“one of the most historically reliable documents we have from the ancient world” - this is quite a stretch. You need to provide some evidence for such an extreme statement. I’m not aware of any independent sourced evidence supporting the events depicted in Acts. Also, I am not aware of any dogmatic requirement to accept any of the miracles in Acts as historically accurate.
Teaching the truth about who Jesus was by attributing miracles to him is not creating “fairy tales”. Most of the miracles don’t say anything special about Jesus as such stories were commonly attributed to a number of other Jewish “holy men” of the time. Attributing miracles to Jewish holy men was a common practice at that time and was used specifically to indicate the high status of these people.
Yes, writers and teachers do this all the time (and the gospels were primarily records of early preaching). Let’s take a “modern” example:
“I can’t tell a lie, Pa; you know I can’t tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.”
This quaint little story is perhaps the most famous of all the tales repeated about George Washington. It is impossible to say or prove that it never happened, but the tone of its source indicates that is was a literary composition fabricated to illustrate to young readers the virtue of honesty, a virtue thought to be exemplied in the character and life of George Washington.
(Reference: www.frankgrizzard.biz/10myths** )**
The gospels are not history as we know it. You really need to read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. And your quote in not a dogmatic statement on the gospels.
Nowhere are we taught to stop at the “literal sense” just because it is a possibiliy. There are other senses and the church teaches us to investigate those also.
There is NO dogmatic belief related to every miracle. The ones we must accept are specifically called out as dogmas. Tradition is nice but we don’t worship or base our faith on tradition, we base our faith on the dogmas of the church.
As fully supported by the church. “Recent” does not equate to “false”.
Because the church allows and encourages it. Also, it is far more supportable,
Done
E
edwest2
Guest
There is a movement to banish the supernatural from daily life. The Communists attempted it but failed, even though the State itself worked very hard to get people to disbelieve.
In the United States, some are denying miracles and denying the power of God in the process. Miracles still happen and people are still elevated to sainthood. The Bible was written by men but by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is what the Church teaches.
God knows the depth of our unbelief and how tenuous our faith is. This was always so since some men preferred themselves and the words of other men to claims about Jesus Christ who rose, bodily, from the dead. To deny this is to deny the core of the Catholic faith: the Gospels, and spreading the Gospel of Christ.
catholic.com/library/Do_Miracles_Still_Occur.asp
Be careful of those who put concepts over concrete actions. The works Jesus did showed what God can do. We do not pray to no one. We pray to a living person.
Peace,
Ed
In the United States, some are denying miracles and denying the power of God in the process. Miracles still happen and people are still elevated to sainthood. The Bible was written by men but by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is what the Church teaches.
God knows the depth of our unbelief and how tenuous our faith is. This was always so since some men preferred themselves and the words of other men to claims about Jesus Christ who rose, bodily, from the dead. To deny this is to deny the core of the Catholic faith: the Gospels, and spreading the Gospel of Christ.
catholic.com/library/Do_Miracles_Still_Occur.asp
Be careful of those who put concepts over concrete actions. The works Jesus did showed what God can do. We do not pray to no one. We pray to a living person.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Since when is the “Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels” dogmatic? Since you constantly reference “church dogma,” such a work has no more weight than my own opinion, at any rate.
Perhaps you should read conservative scholarly research on the gospels then?
From Providentissimus Deus
- "That such was the purpose of God in giving the Scripture of men is shown by the example of Christ our Lord and of His Apostles. For He Himself Who “obtained authority by miracles, merited belief by authority, and by belief drew to Himself the multitude”
- But first it must be clearly understood whom we have to oppose and contend against, and what are their tactics and their arms. In earlier times the contest was chiefly with those who, relying on private judgment and repudiating the divine traditions and teaching office of the Church, held the Scriptures to be the one source of revelation and the final appeal in matters of Faith. Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and Iying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God’s power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths"
- It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and** seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle**, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.
- "In more recent times, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.”[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, **declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church **herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and – as they contended – in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and **rightly condemned these errors **and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
- “In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal.”
T
The_Exodus
Guest
CCC 515 The Gospels were written by men who were among the first to have the faith174 and wanted to share it with others. Having known in faith who Jesus is, they could see and make others see the traces of his mystery in all his earthly life. From the swaddling clothes of his birth to the vinegar of his Passion and the shroud of his Resurrection, everything in Jesus’ life was a sign of his mystery.175 **His deeds, miracles and words **all revealed that “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
CCC 156 **Thus the miracles of Christ **and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind
patg:
patg:
CCC 156 **Thus the miracles of Christ **and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind
If Jesus did not in fact do the miracles attributed to him, then what you have is not a real story but a fictional one. A falsehood.
And if they didn’t do those miracles, such stories are unhistorical and false.
patg said:This quaint little story is perhaps the most famous of all the tales repeated about George Washington.
And our faith is not in George Washington, whether or not he told a lie. That is irrelevant. Our faith is in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, which has been handed down by the tradition of the apostles.
patg:
And your quote in not a dogmatic statement on the gospels.
The papal encyclicals I’ve cited from above condemn as heretical the view that the Gospels are unhistorical.
patg:
My question was, why do you disregard the literal sense, when it has been universally held by the tradition of the Church as true in the case of Christ’s miracles?
Further, many parts of the Gospels cease to make sense. The whole “which is easier to say, take up they bed and walk, or thy sins are forgiven thee?” would be pointless, since the viewers had not previously witnessed a miracle. The lepers being healed, the demons being cast into swine, the blind being given sight, etc. have always been interpreted literally by the Church. Your view is a product of modernity and against tradition.
patg:
That is heretical, because we absolutely do.
CCC 112 "Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”.
CCC 95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
P
patg
Guest
No, it is not a dogmatic statement but I give it far more weight than random internet posters with no obvious credentials.
That is a bit off the wall - I would hardly accept that your opinion has the same weight as that of Pope Paul VI who approved of the document and ordered its publication! Or that you are above and beyond the Pontifical Biblical Commission, regardless of their dogmatic status.
As stated by Father Witherup (reference below):
This document is significant for its acknowledgment of the multilayered traditions that are found in the canonical Gospels. It explains the threefold process by which the Gospels came into being: oral, written, and edited (redacted) traditions. Each of these corresponds to specific time frames: the time of Jesus and the apostles, the time of the preaching and collecting of traditions of later disciples, and the time of the evangelists who finally collected and edited the traditions for their individual communities. This process helps to explain why the literal meaning of the Gospels does not always represent “historical truth” as we might naively conceive of it. Careful discernment of the layers of the tradition and their theological intent is required to answer historical questions.
I have. And I have also read “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald Witherup S.S. The imprimatur, *nihil obstat, *and Father Witherup’s reputation also place this document far above the opinions of random internet posters.
Yes, I am aware of all this and I totally agree with Fr. Witherup when he states:
*"Note that the language is not that different from a typical fundamentalist position. Despite the enlightened nature of this encyclical, some ideas expressed in it were still caught up in a pre-scientific viewpoint. **In *the nineteenth century the Church was not yet making the distinction in Scripture between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth.
This nuanced encyclical presented a plan for Catholic scholars to study the Bible using some of the modern methods of biblical study that were emerging in the nineteenth century. It also warned, however, of the dangers of some scientific study and the possibility of being misled by false interpretations. It also fostered an unsophisticated understanding of "inerrancy;’ making no distinction between factual, historical issues in the Bible and religious or moral ones."
This is another step in the process - much clearer than the previous and not as clear as Dei Verbum. “This is the most important official document that inaugurated modern Catholic critical exegesis of the Bible. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals, but it also respects the human dimension of the Word of God”.
P
patg
Guest
Then we disagree on how people teach and what the gospels are records of. As emphasized in* Dei Verbum,* there are many ways of presenting and teaching truth. Just as the Infancy Narratives of Jesus are fictional accounts written to teach who Jesus was, so the miracles stories are relating the same teaching and do not become history just because someone wants them to. If you don’t accept the literary form of the story and don’t understanad the use of midrash in Jewish writings, you are likely to miss the meaning and argue for literalistic historocity when it doesn’t exist.
As Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J states concerning the Instruction:
*The most significant thing in the whole document, when all is said and done, is that the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists. *
But it is also good to recall that neither the Church in her official pronouncements on the nature of inspiration, nor the theologians in their speculative treatments of it, have taught that the necessary formal effect of inspiration is historicity. But there is poetical truth as well as historical truth, rhetorical truth as well as legal truth, mythical truth as well as the Gospel truth.
There is nothing irrelevant about demonstrating that people have taught truths throughout history using the same tools.
And the more recent papal encyclicals, in addition to other documents published by popes, can be used to totally refute that view.
Yes, and I thank God for the products of modernity whenever I study and teach the scriptures.
F
frenchbeatle
Guest
This exact debate came up in a group at my former parish. I don’t remember how we got on the topic, but somehow we all got to talking about the miracle stories in the Gospels. I was part of a youth group, and our leader was a member of the parish staff; the youth minister.
The youth minister and the rest of the group seemed to agree that there is no proof that Jesus actually performed the miracles He did in the Gospels. The youth minister even went so far as to say that maybe the Gospel writers made up those stories later on to get converts; something I have since called “apostolic propaganda.”
I left the group soon after, and I was just as shaken as the OP.
But what I always wonder about arguments like this is this: OK, so you don’t believe Jesus could multiply enough bread & fish to feed 5,000+ people. How then can you believe in Lazarus’ resurrection, or even Jesus’ own resurrection? These seem like much harder events to swallow and convince people of. But surely Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead? So why is it so hard to believe that He could also feed a multitude?
The youth minister and the rest of the group seemed to agree that there is no proof that Jesus actually performed the miracles He did in the Gospels. The youth minister even went so far as to say that maybe the Gospel writers made up those stories later on to get converts; something I have since called “apostolic propaganda.”
I left the group soon after, and I was just as shaken as the OP.
But what I always wonder about arguments like this is this: OK, so you don’t believe Jesus could multiply enough bread & fish to feed 5,000+ people. How then can you believe in Lazarus’ resurrection, or even Jesus’ own resurrection? These seem like much harder events to swallow and convince people of. But surely Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead? So why is it so hard to believe that He could also feed a multitude?
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Look, It’s been said by the church that you can look at scripture with literal, figurative and spiritual meanings.
THis means the feeding of the multitude has a literal meaning, a figurative meaning and a spiritual meaning. We must accept all three of these meanings.
Jesus literally multiplied the fish and loaves and fed all those people. THat literally happened.
However, there is a deeper meaning. It symbolizes something.
Moreover, just because it has a symbolic meaning does not mean that the event
did not literally happen. It did. Jesus fed the multitude, turned water into wine, healed the blind, sick and lame and brought Lazarus back from the dead.
Jesus is God and God can do anything.
May God bless you
THis means the feeding of the multitude has a literal meaning, a figurative meaning and a spiritual meaning. We must accept all three of these meanings.
Jesus literally multiplied the fish and loaves and fed all those people. THat literally happened.
However, there is a deeper meaning. It symbolizes something.
Moreover, just because it has a symbolic meaning does not mean that the event
did not literally happen. It did. Jesus fed the multitude, turned water into wine, healed the blind, sick and lame and brought Lazarus back from the dead.
Jesus is God and God can do anything.
May God bless you
D
DCNBILL
Guest
I, for one, would like to see citations of instances where Papal encyclicals have stated that Jesus did not perform any miracles.
T
The_Exodus
Guest
…And the history of the Catholic Church apparently.
So your point about something not being “dogmatic” is self-confessedly moot, since you seem to accept authority’s that are not “dogmatically” proclaimed.
You’re holding others to a different standard by saying “there is no dogmatic pronouncement for every miracle” and then again claiming an authority which is not dogmatic. I could just as easily say “there is no dogmatic statement about your authority” and your point would be moot by your own argument.
If what is meant by “editted” is “distorted” or “changed” or anything that alters the historic facthood and truth of the Gospels, it makes them fiction and fables. But Peter told us plainly that Scripture is not a collection of such things. Also, the tradition of the Church has always maintained that the miracles Jesus performed were literal.
The Imprimatur, etc are not dogmatic, so again, according to your own argument this point is moot.
This quotes point to the very fact that he is opposed to the Encyclical. He attempts to “explain away” the very clear teaching written therein - namely, that the document does make a distinction between these senses, and says specifically in the places that I bolded that the miracles of Christ were done to validate his authority, and a false-rationalism leads, among other things, to “elminating” such miracles.
Perhaps you should deal with the actual document and read it on your own, since it was written by the hand of the Holy Father himself, instead of having it filtered through Fr. Witherup’s interetation of “what it was *really *trying to say.”
Talk about ambiguity. No one denies that the Word of God has “human dimensions.” Indeed, the very Word itself was made flesh, and dwelt among us. And did, guess, what…? Miracles. Unless you think the Son of God couldn’t silence the roaring sea, heal the lame, and give the blind sight? Your attempt to make “human dimension” mean “unhistorical falsehood” or “inaccurate retelling” is intellectually dishonest.
On top of that, it means that at some point in the apostolic tradition, lies were instituted - call them what you like - but what really happened was replaced by what “made a better story.” To accuse the apostles and their followers of such action is against the faith. Indeed, what faith can you even say you have?
T
The_Exodus
Guest
You, apparently, do not thinkg them “records” of anything, since what occurs in their pages did not really happen, and the Jesus contained in them did not properly exist.
This contradicts the history of the Catholic faith. You here don’t disagree with me, some “random internet poster” but with St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the tradition of the Church.
patg said:The most significant thing in the whole document, when all is said and done, is that the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.
I could read the Instruction if I wanted to, but do you have an actual argument?
I listed papal documents and have drawn rational inferences, even specifically giving them, and you have not responded.
patg:
Of course there is, but not when it clearly contradicts the literal sense and makes the passage unintelligible. How does “which is easier to say, take up thy bed and walk, or thy sins are forgiven thee” make sense unless the people had witnessed an actual miracle?
patg:
And yet it would be a falsehood if it was taught that an apple “really did” hit George Washington on the head.
Christ is presented as “really doing” the miracles attributed to him.
patg:
You haven’t presented a single authoritative document, while I’ve cited at length from the Catechism and papal documents. I think it’s quite clear who is actually doing their research.
G
germangreek
Guest
From patg citing Fr. Fitzmeyer:
In these two biographers of the first century AD, we see a concern for doing careful research, evaluating sources, awareness of the possibility of exaggeration the farther one gets from one’s own time - thankfully Luke was writing about events closer to his life than Plutarch’s “Sosius” was to him - “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Roman historians didn’t do history exactly as we moderns do, but their methods were close enough for us to understand that they knew the difference between “history” and “fantasy”. Both authors cited above are clearly intent on providing what their readers understand to be a history, the events as they actually happened, for the moral instruction of their readers. Luke, in other words, understands himself to be doing the same kind of thing Plutarch understands himself to be doing. If we dispute, now, the historical accuracy of an event Plutarch describes, it is on the basis of conflicting testimony from other reputable sources. That would be the standard whereby you would dispute the historical accuracy of an event depicted by St. Luke.
Justin Martyr and Tertullian, among others moreover, twitted their pagan counterparts that they - the pagans - didn’t even believe the stories that were told about their gods. Which was true. Greek philosophers by the time of Christ had developed an elaborate system of metaphor so that the myths could be true in a moral sense without having to be true in a literal/historical sense. This is a necessary technique, of course, if your gods are the bunch of lowlifes depicted in the classical mythologies. Now you want to do the same to Jesus Christ. To what end? It’s not as if the Gospels describe a repellent being whose faults have to be explained away. We believe in the Incarnation, in the God who became a real man and performed real, humanly recordable events. None of the things you and I do daily, which could be recorded, are metaphorical actions. They are real actions by real human beings. Jesus Christ was a real man who performed real actions. If the events recorded in the Gospels are not “humanly” real, then we can no longer believe that Jesus Christ was humanly real.
And after all that, do you, according to C.S. Lewis, swallow the camel of the resurrection and strain at the gnat of the draught of fishes?
Well, fine. The necessary formal effect of “inspiration” is truth, leading to faith and a transformed life. So historicity is an attribute rather than a “formal effect” of divine inspiration. Whatever. The necessary formal effect of uninspired history - like Edward Bulwer Lord Lytton, if you’ve had the misfortune to read him - is not “historicity”, but some insight into the human condition. We don’t read history because it’s historical but because it tells us something about ourselves. The historicity of the account is necessary so that we know the insights are valid and applicable.
Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans.
Gospel according to Luke, a contemporary of Plutarch, by the way.
In these two biographers of the first century AD, we see a concern for doing careful research, evaluating sources, awareness of the possibility of exaggeration the farther one gets from one’s own time - thankfully Luke was writing about events closer to his life than Plutarch’s “Sosius” was to him - “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Roman historians didn’t do history exactly as we moderns do, but their methods were close enough for us to understand that they knew the difference between “history” and “fantasy”. Both authors cited above are clearly intent on providing what their readers understand to be a history, the events as they actually happened, for the moral instruction of their readers. Luke, in other words, understands himself to be doing the same kind of thing Plutarch understands himself to be doing. If we dispute, now, the historical accuracy of an event Plutarch describes, it is on the basis of conflicting testimony from other reputable sources. That would be the standard whereby you would dispute the historical accuracy of an event depicted by St. Luke.
Justin Martyr and Tertullian, among others moreover, twitted their pagan counterparts that they - the pagans - didn’t even believe the stories that were told about their gods. Which was true. Greek philosophers by the time of Christ had developed an elaborate system of metaphor so that the myths could be true in a moral sense without having to be true in a literal/historical sense. This is a necessary technique, of course, if your gods are the bunch of lowlifes depicted in the classical mythologies. Now you want to do the same to Jesus Christ. To what end? It’s not as if the Gospels describe a repellent being whose faults have to be explained away. We believe in the Incarnation, in the God who became a real man and performed real, humanly recordable events. None of the things you and I do daily, which could be recorded, are metaphorical actions. They are real actions by real human beings. Jesus Christ was a real man who performed real actions. If the events recorded in the Gospels are not “humanly” real, then we can no longer believe that Jesus Christ was humanly real.
And after all that, do you, according to C.S. Lewis, swallow the camel of the resurrection and strain at the gnat of the draught of fishes?
G
GuitarPlayer
Guest
Which of Jesus’ miracles were actual miracles and not “miracles”?
Do you think that Jesus really cast out demons?
- Status