The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?

[Annie]

We do not have good historical records for a lot of things, because PhD-level records were not established until recently. It has only been in the last few years that we have built a presidential library for George Washington!

For me, Catholicism is true because it all fits together. I was a generic Christian for a couple of years before I came to Catholicism, but none of those really seemed thorough and consistent, nor did they really get profound. I felt like I was getting only a wavery sort of surface until I found Catholic teachings.

 

[AlNg]

I never, not once, asked for PROOF as if it was an issue of geometry or metaphysics. I asked what evidence is there that makes this case more credible than other cases. And nobody is giving an answer, other than naming books.

Hello Mr. Blindseeker! I notice that you have been bringing up a lot of questions about Christianity, religion, etc. Before addressing any question about Christianity, or even any religion, do you believe that it is possible that the universe is pure matter, i.e., purely material, and that there is no spiritual element at all? Many atheists are pure materialists. The question that seems difficult from this materialistic POV is how does one explain consciousness, self-awareness, and human creativity? Supposing that everything began with a materialistic quantum fluctuation in a background void, how do you go from that and pure materialism to the magnificient concert music creativity of Tschaikovski? Is it possible that this music evolved as a purely materialistic complex nonlinear emergence from the production of hydrogen atoms at the time of the Big Bang?

 

[poche]

Here is something that might be related;

flesh and blood at Lanciano.

On August 18, 1996, Fr. Alejandro Pezet had just finished distributing Communion when a woman told him there was a discarded host in the back of the Church. Fr. Pezet recovered the host, placed it in a container of water, and placed the container in the tabernacle. On August 20th, he discovered that this host appeared bloody, so he informed the auxiliary bishop, Jorge Bergoglio.

Bishop Bergoglio decided to have the host photographed. The photographs, taken on September 6th, show that the host had grown in size and had the appearance of a piece of bloody flesh. After three years, when there was no decomposition of this apparent flesh, Bishop Bergoglio decided to have it scientifically analyzed. The testing began in October of 1999.
In 2005, Dr. Frederic Zugibe, a cardiologist and forensic pathologist, announced his findings:

The analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle, close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. The left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflamed state and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. I affirm that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism; they require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicated that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.

The tests were witnessed, but Dr. Zugibe did not know the origin of the sample. After he submitted his findings, he was told that the sample was taken from tissue found in 1996. Zugibe responded:

You have to explain one thing to me: If this sample came from a dead person, how could it be that while I was examining it, the cells of the sample were moving and pulsating? If the heart came from someone who died in 1996, how could it still be alive?

It was only at this point that Zugibe learned that the sample came from a consecrated host. He exclaimed: “This will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence.”
Note that similar statements have been made about the liquefied blood in the regularly recurring miracle at Lanciano. That blood has been clinically determined to react in tests the same way as does the blood in living persons. An extensive study of the Lanciano material was released in 1976, after being confirmed by a scientific commission appointed by the World Health Organization.

Since then, several experts have compared the lab reports relating to the samples from both Buenos Aires and Lanciano, and have determined that the two samples came from the same person. We also know that the blood type in both cases is the same as that of the blood which soaked into the Shroud of Turin.

A Eucharistic miracle when Bergoglio was an auxiliary bishop | Catholic Culture

 

[Cathoholic]

Blindseeker04 . . .

What makes Jesus’ story more credible? That’s all I’m asking.

Cathoholic’s reply? Right here . . .

The Resurrection of Jesus.

Blindseeker04’s reply?

That’s circular. Jesus story is credible because he was resurrected and we know that he was resurrected because his story is credible.

Cathoholic pointing out Blindseeker04 is creating a straw man to reply to (here) . . .,

The problem with this is, you are not articulating an argument that I made.

The reason it is “circular” is you are making it circular.

Blindseeker04 follows up (here) . . . .

. . . So, again what makes his story, including the Resurrection credible? What more evidence does it have than other miracle stories in history?

Cathoholic (here) . . .

The testimony of reliable witnesses.

Blindseeker04 (right here) . . .

How is it more credible than thousands attesting to Sai Baba’s miracles today?

.

WHAT “miracle” from “Sai Baba” are you talking about?

.

For readers of this thread, here is a description of presumably the guy who Blindseeker04 is talking about. A man who passed away back in 1918.

Sai Baba of Shirdi - Wikipedia

I didn’t see ANY miracles here that the Church would accept as authoritative.

“Bilocation, levitation, mindreading, materialisation, exorcisms”? A demon could help a person out on all of these things and make it look like a real “miracle” even when it isn’t.

Resurrecting from the dead, never to die again, having many people see you, and bear TESTIMONY by giving up of their lives to support this assertion is a miracle, testified to by reliable witnesses.

And the Church CONTINUES to have martyrs testifying to this fact (beyond the original witnesses) in EVERY AGE, to this very day! (Which embodies and illustrates the GRACE they receive.)

Testimony to the Resurrection in blood. Constantly throughout history.

Reliable witnesses.

Jesus’ Resurrection.

Miraculous.

Entirely unique and unparalleled both in event and in testimony.

Jesus Christ, True God and True man.

Jesus who gives grace to affirm these things to those who WANT the fullness of these truths.

 

[EndTimes]

Cathoholic pointing out Blindseeker04 is creating a straw man to reply to (here) . . .,

Straw Man - Et Cet… False Argments

Yep…

Don’t feed the Lonely For Whom the Bell Trolls…

_

 

[MPat]

Good job at shooting down this imaginary argument that none gave.

You know what “implicit argument” means?

I would never accept the 3d for example. It’s more like I’ve found the evidence to be insufficient so I’m asking to see if it can be shown not to be so.

Let’s see what you asked:

Are there any miracles that you consider really defensible?

It sure looks like you are asking for more evidence and not for hints to use evidence you have better.

As for the second, which is your way of justifying the ad hominem, I won’t bother.

I would be making “ad hominems”, if I would argue that, let’s say, since you are bad at evaluating evidence, miracles are real. But I am not.

I don’t talk about people, but about arguments.

In this very sentence you talk about people (yourself) and not arguments.

To offer an explanation for the facts, I must first have facts and that’s what I’m asking. What are the facts and how do we know them.

You already have facts. I am saying we should not give you any more facts until you demonstrate that you are able to work with the ones you already have.

And how many of them were in position to know if the miracle is genuine, and died rather than deny that?

No, they haven’t written Gospels about it, neither have they died for it, but nobody is trying to kill them for believing in his miracles.

So, the difference is not in the fact that one had witnesses and the other didn’t, but that the first’s wrote the Gospels.

As you can see, by now you misrepresented my point beyond recognition.

There are no excuses.

How do you know?

Judges and scientists have many procedures to catch a bias to the dangerous side, and they still fail often. Have you done anything to catch a bias?

EndTimes and everybody, please don’t feed the troll. He only wants to play with us. I was dumb enough to feed the troll. Don 't repeat my mistake. Peace.

Well, we rarely get atheists who genuinely want to learn something, so we work with the ones we get…

There are still useful things we can achieve. For example, readers can see atheism looking badly (and an atheist, who was suggesting that apostles could be lying or mistaken, being offended at a suggestion that he might be lying or mistaken himself, is pretty effective at it, when pointed out).

The first hint that he is not likely to be here to learn is the very original post, claiming that he found some miracles unconvincing and asking for more.

After all, if you wanted to see examples of miracle claims from a different religion, would you ask in such way?

 

[MPat]

My point is that there are three possible explanations:

1. The sun physically changed orbit violating the laws of physics.
2. There was an illusion of some kind (physical or psychological), but no laws of physics were violated
3. It’s not true

But this list does not exhaust the possibilities. There are at least three more possibilities, all miraculous:

1. There was a miraculous “optical illusion” - God caused rays of light to change their paths in an extraordinary way.
2. There was a miraculous “psychological illusion” - God caused people to see a vision.
3. There was a miraculous prediction - the events themselves were not miraculous, but three shepherds wouldn’t have predicted those events without God’s help.

Given those possibilities, your options 2 and 3 are pretty much impossible.

 

[Cathoholic]

EndTimes . . .

Don’t feed the Lonely For Whom the Bell Trolls…

Yeah. I thought about that EndTimes before my initial response but I decided to answer anyways.

Why?

1 - Even people trolling need Jesus Christ as there is no other name by which we are saved.

2 - Lurkers may have some of the same questions and perhaps the answer regarding The Resurrection (which is so central to the Christian faith) can help them too.

 

[Annie]

Imagine if you heard about me from my children, my parents, my co-workers, my husband.

Do you think that those views would differ?

Or, imagine each of the above talking about me with different audiences: do you think my husband talking about me would differ if he were doing so with my children, my boss, my parents?

Yes, the gospel account have some differences, because they were written or dictated by different people speaking with different audiences.

It was not like they were witnesses to a crime being questioned by the police… altho if the witness stories are too similar, the police suspect collusion.

Can’t win for losing, right?

 

[Cathoholic]

jan10000 . . .

What frustrated me was the realization that there is not one “single” story of Jesus. . . .
The Gospels do not describe the same story.

They describe exactly the same story (through different eyes). I was talking to an attorney who said WITHOUT variation between witnesses, it suggests the story is hokey.

It suggests “collaboration” of a story line instead of reporting an event.

If all the Gospels were identical, people would just dismiss them as contrived.
Or imperfect “copies” of manuscripts of one another.

The Gospels are just what you would expect with authentic witnesses.

Go out and do something with a friend. Then without telling your friend, go home and each of you write about your day.

Then read the accounts of each and see that you will emphasize different things. (If this difference is stark for one measly afternoon, how much MORE for a three year ministry?)

It is almost pride to think it wouldn’t be that way (“My friend MUST emphasize EXACTLY the same thing as ME, otherwise her or his message must be dismissed as irrelevant compared to MY EXCELLENT perspective”).

Think of the early martyrs.

“Hmmm. Let’s see. The Gospel stories are so different they cannot be true. Besides although I was here for some of those stories . . . I was not there for other ones . . . . so they couldn’t be true.
But I am going to lay my life down for Jesus anyway.”

This does not make sense.

The early martyrs KNEW that the differing perspectives yielded a “yes/and” and not an “either/or” scenario.

 

[EndTimes]

1 - Even people trolling need Jesus Christ as there is no other name by which we are saved.

2 - Lurkers may have some of the same questions and perhaps the answer regarding The Resurrection (which is so central to the Christian faith) can help them too.

Agreed… Some (not all) are on their way to Hell.

The Golden Rule? LOVE and TRUTH?

The only Viable Way for any Joyful Society to be …

That said, yes, AntiChristian wolves and those who follow their lead - are always lurking about.

As for the juvenile trolls? Putting them in their place has its potential positive place within them

 

[EndTimes]

Yes, the gospel account have some differences, because they were written or dictated by different people speaking with different audiences.

Yes.

Then too, we always have the kind of sly lurkers
who do nothing more than sift about
seeking an undotted i or an uncrossed t
in their non-stop Epic Fail quest to destroy Christianity

 

[Annie]

Maybe so, but God may be working even in them, no?

Peace be with you!

 

[EndTimes]

Maybe so, but God may be working even in them, no?

Peace be with you!

Yes…

 

[JSRG]

jan10000 . . .

What frustrated me was the realization that there is not one “single” story of Jesus. . . .
The Gospels do not describe the same story.

I feel this link is worth pointing out regarding the alleged contradictions in the Gospels:
http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.php

But what’s especially interesting is this portion (a separate page, but linked to in the above page):
http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln02.php

In a parody of how people point to alleged contradictions in the Gospels, this takes four biographies of Abraham Lincoln and points to all the alleged contradictions in them and concludes that this means we cannot trust details of his life. For example:

Look at the following contradictions and absurdities in these accounts:

• Oates and Donald have Booth wearing spurs; Oates also has him in a black hat - undoubtedly an attempt to invoke an “Old West” image of Booth as a villain, as well as providing a way for Booth to injure himself in his fall. The idea of spurs is itself ridiculous; spurs would jingle, alerting Lincoln and keeping Booth from approaching him noiselessly.
• Did Booth shoot Lincoln through the door (Masters), from six inches away (Oates), or from two feet away (Donald)?
• Was Lincoln unguarded (Masters), or was there a careless guard (Donald)? The latter is probably a creation of Donald, made to make Lincoln look less careless and irresponsible in going out unguarded.
• That must have been some derringer Booth had. The smoke from it was around until long after he had escaped (Donald).
• Did Mary scream incomprehensibly, and before Booth escaped (Oates) or did she scream something distinctly, after he escaped (Donald)? Or was it not Mary but Mrs. Harris who shouted about the President being shot (Oates)?
• Did Booth yell something before stabbing Rathbone (Oates) or not (Donald)?
• Did Booth break his shinbone (Oates) or a bone just above his ankle (Donald)?
• Did Booth shove Rathbone aside (Donald) or not (Oates)?
• What exactly did Booth yell after falling to the stage? He probably did yell ‘Sic semper tyrannis,’ and that gives us the clue to why he shot Lincoln - he considered him a tyrant. But for the rest of his words - was it ‘The South shall be free’ (Oates) or ‘The South is avenged’ (Donald)? Donald’s appeal to the mixed memories of the audience is an amusing misdirection to the fact that no one really knows what Booth said at all.

Thus it is that even in his most tragic moment, President Lincoln’s life story is muddled.

 

[Justin_Mary]

My point is that if #1 is true, EVERYONE would have witnesses it, not just those in a specific location. Therefore, it is either #2 or #3.

Again, you’re presuposing nothing happened.

We know something happened. Thousands of people saw it.

We don’t know what or how. We know what they witnessed, they reported what they saw. We don’t understand how they all saw what they saw.

Even the idea of some kind of illusion doesn’t make sense.

 

[Cathoholic]

The witnesses of the Resurrection (witnesses by grace in this case) continues.

Nigerian martyrdom continues World News

NIGERIAN MARTYRDOM CONTINUES by Paul Murano • ChurchMilitant.com • December 20, 2019 West largely ignores Muslim attacks on Christians ABUJA, Nigeria (ChurchMilitant.com) - While the Western world has heard of the atrocities occurring in Nigeria, one Frenchman, frustrated with the inaction, decided to do something about it. Bernard-Henri Lévy, influential philosopher, recently took a trip to the African country and documented what he saw. At the beginning of December, the author publishe…

@Blindseeker04. Would you mind linking to two or three links where people are dying like this today for Sai Baba because they refuse to capitulate to the demands DENYING Sai Baba’s “miracles”?

Since you put Jesus’ miracle of the Resurrection on
the same ah hem “plane” with Sai Baba levitating
(etc.), surely you can find such testimony of witnesses for Sai today. Right?

Greek word for witnesses = martus (martyrea plural [translaiteration]).

Martus Meaning - Greek Lexicon | New Testament (NAS)

I am not talking about ONLY testimony at the time of the event, but ONGOING testimony that passes the proverbial baton from generation to generation.

Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

The Resurrection. The central event in history.

Infinitely more valuble than a train car load of gold Blindseeker04.
And these gifts of grace are available to YOU!

 

[Espere]

I was raised Catholic. Grew up believing miracles. It is my roots. I’d been told over and over that they happened and I accepted them, perhaps mostly because I was a child and my family believed. Though it wasn’t until I became an adult and I truly tried to grow in my faith and prayer that God began to really “work” in my life. What he’s done for me personally is far more convincing than miracles I’ve learned of. Though I do believe them. My personal experiences are outwardly minor or insignificant in comparison but to me he’s done the impossible. He has change me internally from one moment to the next through prayer. And I’m talking about issues I have struggled with for a lifetime. Those internal flaws that make up who I am that I always wanted to change. I’d ask for a change in a situation and end up with a change in myself that did indeed change the situation but in an an unexpected shocking way. In hindsight it was exactly what was needed. Leaving me to sit in aw and quiet KNOWING ‘That didn’t come from me. I didn’t change that. I don’t know how it happened. If I could have changed it I would have don’t it years ago.’

I am not trying to make you believe anything. But in your persuit of why people believe. From me. When I experience that feeling of smallness and KNOWING on a personal level that no one else can understand fully understand because they haven’t lived my life, it’s all I need. Why do I stick with Catholicism. Many logical reasons but these personal miracles continue the more I grow.

 

[poche]

There is also the host of the more recent occurence where there are witnesses.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Every miracle that is investigated and vetted by the Vatican in recent decades for a sainthood cause is defensible. Saints generally require at least one miracle to be canonized, and non-martyr saints generally require two miracles. The Vatican only makes exceptions to these requirements in rare circumstances, and as late as the 1970s it was requiring three or four miracles in order to canonize someone. All the miracles must be medical miracles and are investigated by teams of doctors; many cases presented are rejected.

Typical miracles include a baby who appeared stillborn suddenly coming to life and living a healthy life after being born with no vital signs and remaining that way for over an hour; another baby whose eyes were destroyed by a nurse mistakenly putting too high of a concentration of silver nitrate in his eyes, thus destroying the eyes, suddenly after several days having his eyes restored and having perfect vision; a woman whose chronic skin diseased suddenly sloughed off and left her with healthy skin after praying at the tomb of a venerable (who was beatified based on the miracle); and the recovery of a man who tried to commit suicide by jumping off a balcony and landing on his head, causing major injuries that the doctors first said he would not survive and then said would leave him a vegetable if he did live.

It’s not a case of “defensible” - you make it sound like there is something questionable about them. They happened and were thoroughly investigated, usually over the course of years. I have no reason not to believe any of them.