Why are some miracles credible and other not?

[Qoeleth]

It seems that some miracles are found to be believable, whereas others are not. For example, Christians readily believe in healing lepers and the blind, (possibly) feeding the five thousand, and of course, the Resurrection. Now, other miracles, such as a camel literally passing through the eye of a needle (as recorded in the Acts of Peter and Andrew), seem to be incredible. Or Jesus animating a clay bird, in the Koran?

One could argue that all the miracles of Jesus were to help people, whereas miracles done (apprently) just for show are not. But what of the staff turning into a serpent by Moses? What of Simon Magus levitating? Do people believe (literally) the story of Balaam’s talking donkey, for example?

Is there an particular crieteria for a miracle to qualify as credible or not?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

You are mistaken in stateing that the camal passing through the eye of a needle as a miracle.
Jesus was not referring to a needle as we know it today. In ancient Jerusalem, at each “gate” in the city walls there were two passageways. the first was a huge entrance, large enough to allow large freight wagons to pass through. This passageway also known as a gate, was secured by huge doors that were closed and locked at night. Adjacent to the gate was a smaller entrance that was just wide enough to admit one man at a time. It was not large enough to allow a horse or a camel to pass through. The purpose of this access was to permit access to the city without the danger of an army group or other hostile force being allowed to enter.
These entrances were known in the slang of the time as the “eye of the needle”. So, now you know what Christ was alluding to when he made the statement that it was easier for a camal to pass through the narrow enterance into Jerusalem than it was for a rich man to enter Heaven.
As for your other references, A miracle by definition is a supernatural event. It is an event that defies logic and the physical world. So, yes, the miracles you cited all happened as reported in the Bible. That is why they are called miracles, and as Catholics we are required to believe in them. That is why faith is a cornerstone of our religion.

 

[Qoeleth]

You are mistaken in stateing that the camal passing through the eye of a needle as a miracle.
Jesus was not referring to a needle as we know it today. In ancient Jerusalem, at each “gate” in the city walls there were two passageways. the first was a huge entrance, large enough to allow large freight wagons to pass through. This passageway also known as a gate, was secured by huge doors that were closed and locked at night. Adjacent to the gate was a smaller entrance that was just wide enough to admit one man at a time. It was not large enough to allow a horse or a camel to pass through. The purpose of this access was to permit access to the city without the danger of an army group or other hostile force being allowed to enter.
These entrances were known in the slang of the time as the “eye of the needle”. So, now you know what Christ was alluding to when he made the statement that it was easier for a camal to pass through the narrow enterance into Jerusalem than it was for a rich man to enter Heaven.
As for your other references, A miracle by definition is a supernatural event. It is an event that defies logic and the physical world. So, yes, the miracles you cited all happened as reported in the Bible. That is why they are called miracles, and as Catholics we are required to believe in them. That is why faith is a cornerstone of our religion.

In the Acts of Peter and Andrew, there is an account of Jesus appearing and causing a camel to pass through the eye of a real needle_;
The Saviour appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment ‘smooth within and without’, and said; “Fear not: let the needle and the camel be brought.” There was a man in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said: Nothing is impossible with God rather bring a needle with a small eye. When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried: “In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command thee, camel, to go through the eye of the needle.” The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and the camel went through again, at Peter’s bidding.

 

[St_Francis]

In the Acts of Peter and Andrew, there is an account of Jesus appearing and causing a camel to pass through the eye of a real needle_;
The Saviour appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment ‘smooth within and without’, and said; “Fear not: let the needle and the camel be brought.” There was a man in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said: Nothing is impossible with God rather bring a needle with a small eye. When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried: “In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command thee, camel, to go through the eye of the needle.” The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and the camel went through again, at Peter’s bidding.

This book is not canonical–it is not included in the works of Scripture.

 

[Qoeleth]

This book is not canonical–it is not included in the works of Scripture.

Obviously. But neither are the miracles of the saints in the Bible. My point is, some miracles we believe, some we do not. Most Catholics believe, for example, in the stigmata of St. Francis, a miracle. But maybe most Catholics do not believe the story of St. Anthony of Padua preaching to the fish.

Is this correct? So, what is the crieteria for belief, of non-belief, given that any miracle involves a suspension of the normal laws of nature?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Are you really a Catholic, or do you just want to argue?
As I stated before: It is FAITH! If the miracle is recognized by Holy Mother Church, then we are obligated to believe it. There is no rational or logic when it comes to miracles. End of argument.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Are you really a Catholic, or do you just want to argue?
As I stated before: It is FAITH! If the miracle is recognized by Holy Mother Church, then we are obligated to believe it. There is no rational or logic when it comes to miracles. End of argument.

No we are not! We only have the obligation to believe miracles that are contained in Sacred Scripture, anything else is purely devotional.

 

[Qoeleth]

Are you really a Catholic, or do you just want to argue?
As I stated before: It is FAITH! If the miracle is recognized by Holy Mother Church, then we are obligated to believe it. There is no rational or logic when it comes to miracles. End of argument.

You mention the theory that the “eye of the needle” was really a gate in Jerusalem- a theory which has been totally discredited by scholars. You completely misunderstand Catholic ecclesiology. You completely misunderstand Catholic tradition with respect to interpretation of Scripture.

It is fully compatible Catholic tradition, for example, to hold that Balaam’s talking donkey is an allegory- as I believe most Catholic scholars would. Catholics are not obliged (N.B. there is no such word as ‘obligated’- the word is obliged) to accept all miraculous stories of the saints as literally true. Do you believe, for example, the St. Patrick turned a village of people into werewolves?

Fundamentalism is completely incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

there is no such word as ‘obligated’- the word is obliged

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligate
ob·li·gate verb \ˈä-blə-ˌgāt
transitive verb
1 to bind legally or morally : constrain
2 to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

Obligate is definitely a word and definitely means what George intended it to mean.

 

[Qoeleth]

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligate
ob·li·gate verb \ˈä-blə-ˌgāt
transitive verb
1 to bind legally or morally : constrain
2 to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

Obligate is definitely a word and definitely means what George intended it to mean.

“Obligate” is a usage which orginated from a mistaken attempt to derive a verb from the noun “obligation”. In fact, the verb already exists- “oblige”. The word “obligate” is not used in English English (i.e. correct English). I believe “obligate” is commonly used in American pidgin.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

“Obligate” is a usage which orginated from a mistaken attempt to derive a verb from the noun “obligation”. In fact, the verb already exists- “oblige”. The word “obligate” is not used in English English (i.e. correct English). I believe “obligate” is commonly used in American pidgin.

No, obligate is definitely a word. It’s in the Merrian Webster dictionary and the Oxford dictionary. The Cambridge dictionary has it as an alternative spelling to oblige, and it actually even says “mainly US or formal obligate” (emphasis mine). Definitely is a word, whether you approve of it or not–and my assumption is that you are not a lexicographer, so it does not actually matter if you approve of it–and it definitely exists in English.

Also, the fact that you think there is a ‘correct’ form of English certainly says a lot about you.

 

[Qoeleth]

No, obligate is definitely a word. It’s in the Merrian Webster dictionary and the Oxford dictionary. The Cambridge dictionary has it as an alternative spelling to oblige, and it actually even says “mainly US or formal obligate” (emphasis mine). Definitely is a word, whether you approve of it or not–and my assumption is that you are not a lexicographer, so it does not actually matter if you approve of it–and it definitely exists in English.

Also, the fact that you think there is a ‘correct’ form of English certainly says a lot about you.

Thank you for verificating that for me. It is always good to look in dictionaries to confirmate these things.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems that some miracles are found to be believable, whereas others are not. For example, Christians readily believe in healing lepers and the blind, (possibly) feeding the five thousand, and of course, the Resurrection. Now, other miracles, such as a camel literally passing through the eye of a needle (as recorded in the Acts of Peter and Andrew), seem to be incredible. Or Jesus animating a clay bird, in the Koran?

One could argue that all the miracles of Jesus were to help people, whereas miracles done (apprently) just for show are not. But what of the staff turning into a serpent by Moses? What of Simon Magus levitating? Do people believe (literally) the story of Balaam’s talking donkey, for example?

Is there an particular crieteria for a miracle to qualify as credible or not?

I suppose any description shown to be an “apriori” contradiction would not be credible (e.g. three cannot be two, an immovable object cannot be moved). More subtle ones are camel through the eye of a needle type (if something can pass through the eye of a normal needle I would say it is camel jelly not a camel).

You yourself have pointed out a few other criteria already - e.g. Catholic tradition (probably half the reason the non-canonical gospels are non- canonical is because the miracles inside were considered spurious -e.g. the clay sparrows of the Gospel of Thomas coming to life by Jesus’s blessing).

The Church occassionally pronounces on private revelation (e.g. Marian apparitions accompanied by preternatural wonders etc) as worthy of belief (i.e. supernatural origin is credible).

I don’t think any miracles described in the NT have to be believed in and many scholars do not (e.g. Bultman who attempted to demythologise the Gospels). In fact quite a few are luke warm on the resurrection as well.

Personally I think christianity is a waste of time if one believes Jesus’s bones are lying in the dust somewhere in Jerusalem. Of course the apostles (and the 500? disciples) didn’t believe in the resurrection - they were witnesses so had no need for belief in it. Lucky them.

Where are you going with your question by the way?

 

[Qoeleth]

I suppose any description shown to be an “apriori” contradiction would not be credible (e.g. three cannot be two, an immovable object cannot be moved). More subtle ones are camel through the eye of a needle type (if something can pass through the eye of a normal needle I would say it is camel jelly not a camel).

You yourself have pointed out a few other criteria already - e.g. Catholic tradition (probably half the reason the non-canonical gospels are non- canonical is because the miracles inside were considered spurious -e.g. the clay sparrows of the Gospel of Thomas coming to life by Jesus’s blessing).

The Church occassionally pronounces on private revelation (e.g. Marian apparitions accompanied by preternatural wonders etc) as worthy of belief (i.e. supernatural origin is credible).

I don’t think any miracles described in the NT have to be believed in and many scholars do not (e.g. Bultman who attempted to demythologise the Gospels). In fact quite a few are luke warm on the resurrection as well.

Personally I think christianity is a waste of time if one believes Jesus’s bones are lying in the dust somewhere in Jerusalem. Of course the apostles (and the 500? disciples) didn’t believe in the resurrection - they were witnesses so had no need for belief in it. Lucky them.

Where are you going with your question by the way?

I am thinking about the criteria for credibility. It appears some miraculous events are readily believed, whereas others are not. Personally I was thinking credible miracles are things that could possibly (although extremely improably) happen naturally (e.g. a cure of leporsy, stopping of a storm)- but then the loaves and fishes do not fall into this category.

Another criteria is that credible miracles (in most cases) seem to help people- whereas the clay bird seems like just a display. But then, does walking on water help people?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am thinking about the criteria for credibility. It appears some miraculous events are readily believed, whereas others are not. Personally I was thinking credible miracles are things that could possibly (although extremely improably) happen naturally (e.g. a cure of leporsy, stopping of a storm)- but then the loaves and fishes do not fall into this category.

Another criteria is that credible miracles (in most cases) seem to help people- whereas the clay bird seems like just a display. But then, does walking on water help people?

QLTH
Now I see where you are coming from. This issue is one of the few meeting places between Faith (the christian variety) and Science (allegedly “reason”) where parties actually see a common subject matter which enables communication (that doesn’t mean agreement!). Since the birth of modern Science Religion has been seen as irrelevent (not agree, not disagree, just irrelevent) to Science, they never seem to address the same subject matter and can live together with a polite passing nod in the hallway. The strange thing is the founding “Scientists” (of the 1600s/1700s) were mostly very religious persons.

The arguments over “truth” and certainty (of concern to both Faith and Science) look to have come to the fore around the late 1600s with the huge kudos Netwon gave to what is now probably called Physics. He convincingly predicted the paths of the planets using “Science” (a completely new way of doing things that contradicted much of Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy and methods. Aristotle’s principles and use of reason (in a particular way) have been used for centuaries to support Catholic Faith).

Miracles of the Bible (and elsewhere) thus became problematic for the new “scientific” mind. The universe has been shown by Newton to run by internal clockwork - we just have to take the lid off to find the principles … then all is explicable. (“Materialism”) There is no ghost in the machine (religion).

Educated men of Faith (there weren’t many educated women) now suffered terribly from schizophrenia. How to resolve the contradiction? Go for an emotion based religion and metaphorically shoot one’s brains out? Accept the new scientific way as absolute truth and abandon relgion as superstitious (e.g. Bertrand Russel) - painful as such an existence may be to the heart that longs to worship? Or find a middle path (Deism) where God gets re-interpretted as the great Clock Maker (a very insipid rationalistic Christianity)?
And the official Church initially reacted by shutting the doors so the simple faithful wouldn’t have their minds and values polluted (it labelled everything of this ilk “Modernism”.) Unfortunately the doors didn’t get closed in time and the “infection” spread to Biblical Scholarship (e.g. Bultmann and many theologians who simply discarded the miraculous as apriori impossible, and therefore re-interpretted what the purpose of miracles in the Bible really is - a literary device). I recall being shocked at 13 when the new lay teacher (I was taught previously by nuns/brothers) suggested Jesus used psychology in the loaves/fishes to make people unselfishly share hidden food. Thankyou Bultmann.

Yes, this is a big topic and I could rave on - most people don’t realise it Christianity is still reeling from these punches. Your questions suggests you are aware of the inconsistancies of different groups, even within the Church, on these matters.

I do not believe one is a bad scientist (read “irrational”) if one believes in the possibility of the miraculous. Personally I have never witnessed one but I am open - though I am a skeptic and believe corn-circles and alien abductions are not in this class.

I do accept the existence of the preternatural order (as does the Church) and there are, for example, many convincing accounts of levitation both inside and outside of the church that cannot be dismissed easily (unless one does not believe in this sort of possibility to start with). Personally I accept that the strange goings on at Garabandal are too well documented to be denied or rationalised away (what they mean is another matter). Medjugorje on the other hand appears to have difficulties in this regard and reports of the miraculous are not as professionally documented and appear to depend on a lot of subjective experiences making them less credible from a scientific perspective (strangely the devotion here is extremely intense).

It must also be remarked, and philosophers of the scientific method largely accept, that the truths of science are not absolute - they are in the end only highly “probable.” That is why it takes only one new experiment to disprove a scientific “law” even if 100,000 before have “proved” it. Thus Newtonian Physics, held as absolute truth for 200 years or so, was found to be flawed. (It works at the macro level well enough but not at the micro level).

The real question, as you point out, is what is the purpose of Jesus’ miracles. Its about engendering faith (which is not the same as causing faith) - another very difficult topic.
But I have raved and reached my word limit!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

It seems that some miracles are found to be believable, whereas others are not. For example, Christians readily believe in healing lepers and the blind, (possibly) feeding the five thousand, and of course, the Resurrection. Now, other miracles, such as a camel literally passing through the eye of a needle (as recorded in the Acts of Peter and Andrew), seem to be incredible. Or Jesus animating a clay bird, in the Koran?

One could argue that all the miracles of Jesus were to help people, whereas miracles done (apprently) just for show are not. But what of the staff turning into a serpent by Moses? What of Simon Magus levitating? Do people believe (literally) the story of Balaam’s talking donkey, for example?

Is there an particular crieteria for a miracle to qualify as credible or not?

Christ’s miracles are all based on nature, in one way or another. The majority of them depend on speed or instantaneous creation of something that normally happens anyway.

When he fed the crowd, fish normally breed to give more fish; wheat normally germinates to give the means for more bread. Fig trees die and wither anyway, but they don’t normally wither overnight. Storms grow quiet with time, but they don’t stop instantaneously. Even the coin in the fish’s mouth could possibly have been dropped by somebody. Bodies usually heal themselves, but not when affected by leprosy. The grape draws water from the ground, and ferments to give wine, but not in an instant. Even the resurrection mainly involved the reversing of the decay of normal processes of death.

He defied gravity by walking on water, but again the miracle is based on an aspect of ordinary nature. That’s why the miracles like a camel passing through a needle, or a clay bird becoming a real bird, are outside the family style.

The Marian miracles at Lourdes, Fatima and Akita again have a natural element. Lourdes led to a healing spring being discovered, and springs are a common aspect of nature. Fatima has a dancing sun and rapidly drying ground. The sun is a natural phenomena, and ground does dry after rain, but never so quickly as it did at Fatima. The wooden statue at Akita wept human tears and shed human blood - the wood was a natural product, and the tears and blood were natural products. There was also a scent of roses - again a natural phenomena.

When God creates miracles, they follow the natural order.

But when they become the sort of thing magicians might be tempted to do, they become somewhat spurious, as least as far as divine origin is concerned.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Christ’s miracles are all based on nature, in one way or another. The majority of them depend on speed or instantaneous creation of something that normally happens anyway.

When he fed the crowd, fish normally breed to give more fish; wheat normally germinates to give the means for more bread. Fig trees die and wither anyway, but they don’t normally wither overnight. Storms grow quiet with time, but they don’t stop instantaneously. Even the coin in the fish’s mouth could possibly have been dropped by somebody. Bodies usually heal themselves, but not when affected by leprosy. The grape draws water from the ground, and ferments to give wine, but not in an instant. Even the resurrection mainly involved the reversing of the decay of normal processes of death.

He defied gravity by walking on water, but again the miracle is based on an aspect of ordinary nature. That’s why the miracles like a camel passing through a needle, or a clay bird becoming a real bird, are outside the family style.

The Marian miracles at Lourdes, Fatima and Akita again have a natural element. Lourdes led to a healing spring being discovered, and springs are a common aspect of nature. Fatima has a dancing sun and rapidly drying ground. The sun is a natural phenomena, and ground does dry after rain, but never so quickly as it did at Fatima. The wooden statue at Akita wept human tears and shed human blood - the wood was a natural product, and the tears and blood were natural products. There was also a scent of roses - again a natural phenomena.

When God creates miracles, they follow the natural order.

But when they become the sort of thing magicians might be tempted to do, they become somewhat spurious, as least as far as divine origin is concerned.

Bob
I like this approach and have not come across it before. Is it derived from anyone in particular or your own insight?

I am not sure how it would cope with things like levitation and “walls of water to left and to right” through the Red Sea where the speeding up of time doesn’t seem to help.

The other weakness may be it is a little arbitrary where we stop its application. For example, God made man from the clay/dust of the earth (OK, he sped up evolution). So this could easily be applied to clay sparrows too.

I think there needs to be more to it than simply speeding up time (efficient causality). There is a wee difficulty with material causality (i.e. where does the matter come from for the extra fish etc etc).

So it starts to get a bit ponderous and while what you say is certainly necessary it may not be sufficient to identify “family” miracles/signs. What that extra is I am not sure. But it has something to do with meaning/purpose and the sort of God-like qualities/character that those miracles are drawing our attention to.

Personally bloody weeping statues seem a bit weird/spurious to me. It may be “natural” in terms of material causality but not in terms of formal causality (blood belongs to definition of animal not definition of tree/wood). The weird mixing of natures has a sulphurious smell about it to me . However if the Church has pronounced on that one then my sensibilities may be disordered!

 

[Qoeleth]

Christ’s miracles are all based on nature, in one way or another. The majority of them depend on speed or instantaneous creation of something that normally happens anyway.

When he fed the crowd, fish normally breed to give more fish; wheat normally germinates to give the means for more bread. Fig trees die and wither anyway, but they don’t normally wither overnight. Storms grow quiet with time, but they don’t stop instantaneously. Even the coin in the fish’s mouth could possibly have been dropped by somebody. Bodies usually heal themselves, but not when affected by leprosy. The grape draws water from the ground, and ferments to give wine, but not in an instant. Even the resurrection mainly involved the reversing of the decay of normal processes of death.

He defied gravity by walking on water, but again the miracle is based on an aspect of ordinary nature. That’s why the miracles like a camel passing through a needle, or a clay bird becoming a real bird, are outside the family style.

The Marian miracles at Lourdes, Fatima and Akita again have a natural element. Lourdes led to a healing spring being discovered, and springs are a common aspect of nature. Fatima has a dancing sun and rapidly drying ground. The sun is a natural phenomena, and ground does dry after rain, but never so quickly as it did at Fatima. The wooden statue at Akita wept human tears and shed human blood - the wood was a natural product, and the tears and blood were natural products. There was also a scent of roses - again a natural phenomena.

When God creates miracles, they follow the natural order.

But when they become the sort of thing magicians might be tempted to do, they become somewhat spurious, as least as far as divine origin is concerned.

This is the direction of my own thoughts. But I have trouble seeing how turning water into wine is a speeding up of a natural process. The feeding of the four thousand also seems to defy the law of conservation of matter. If the miracles worked on the observers, i.e. the guests tasted the water as being wine, it would seem to make sense.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I like this approach and have not come across it before. Is it derived from anyone in particular or your own insight?

Er, ahem, I think CS Lewis was really responsible…

I am not sure how it would cope with things like levitation and “walls of water to left and to right” through the Red Sea where the speeding up of time doesn’t seem to help.

Levitation is mainly the negation of gravity. I’d have more of an issue with bi-location as some saints have been recorded as being present in more than one place at the same time eg. Padre Pio.

“Walls of water” - When a tsunami approaches, the sea withdraws, and people can walk around picking up stranded fish, if they don’t know that a wall of water is coming just over the horizon.

The other weakness may be it is a little arbitrary where we stop its application. For example, God made man from the clay/dust of the earth (OK, he sped up evolution). So this could easily be applied to clay sparrows too.

I’ve got a compost bin, and I can assure you that everything, from beautiful flowers to fatty tissue goes right back to common soil, although some things take a lot longer eg. egg shells, small bones. However the business of turning a pile of clay into a bird has a bit too much of the magician’s trick about it to ring true.

I think there needs to be more to it than simply speeding up time (efficient causality). There is a wee difficulty with material causality (i.e. where does the matter come from for the extra fish etc etc).

Granted, but the reality is that fish beget fish, wheat begets wheat, grapes produce more grapes etc.

So it starts to get a bit ponderous and while what you say is certainly necessary it may not be sufficient to identify “family” miracles/signs. What that extra is I am not sure. But it has something to do with meaning/purpose and the sort of God-like qualities/character that those miracles are drawing our attention to.

Yes, the miracles always had a distinct purpose.

Personally bloody weeping statues seem a bit weird/spurious to me. It may be “natural” in terms of material causality but not in terms of formal causality (blood belongs to definition of animal not definition of tree/wood). The weird mixing of natures has a sulphurious smell about it to me . However if the Church has pronounced on that one then my sensibilities may be disordered!

I’ve had too many spiritual experiences of my own to have a problem. I’ve had 3 “double whammies” which is like a breath going through you in powerful waves from head to foot. Each and every time they were used for one thing only - to highlight what someone else was saying. The first time one hit me I nearly fell off the chair I was so surprised. And I still remember what was said on each occasion, word for word, over twenty years later.

However the point is that God knew what was about to be said by the person who was speaking; exactly where to find me; and how to get my attention onto the exact words without anybody else in the area knowing that He’d contacted me.

Now I don’t know remember how long it was between first and third instance, whether it was a few months or a couple of years. However we spin around the earth about a 1600 km/hr; the earth moves around the sun about a 1.6 million km/day; the sun spins around the Milky Way at some 828,000 km/hr; the Milky Way moves 2.1 million km/hr through the universe.

So we move a hell of a long way even in a few months - billions of miles or kilometres. But God still knew precisely to find my cosmic speck of conscious dust on three specific occasions; what was about to be said, and how to highlight it just for my benefit.

So I don’t have much trouble with the miraculous. If He can do that, He’s not going to have much trouble getting a bit of blood out of a block of wood.