Christians: Do you accept the supernatural and the miracles of the NT?

[17th Angel]

Yes, I've had a miracle happen in my life, Alex. And I don't mean it in the huggy-feely sense of "each day is a miracle," or "a warm summer breeze is a miracle." I mean it in the sense that something that should never have happened did happen at exactly the point that my soul was crying out for it to happen. It wasn't the raising of the dead, or the healing of someone with terminal cancer; it also wasn't getting a seat on a crowded bus, or getting the last slice of pie at the cafeteria. But it was significant for me in terms of what was happening in my life, and six years later there is no doubt in my mind that it was a miracle.

I haven't said what the miracle is because for all you know I may be making it up, just like all the other shysters and false-prophets. I am telling you the truth, but even if I wasn't I would say that I am.

Thanks for the reply.


Oh and Dondi... I think that is quite a rational avatar and You're a darn cute man!

 

[wil]

Actually what you have said is that none of it can be considered reliable as it's all hearsay and assumption, and that later editors have added material of their own fabrication, rather than pass on what they received.

The main point however is you choose to believe which bits of Scripture suit you, and you choose to ignore those bits that don't.

Tis hilarious to me the number of Christians that pick and choose as well. The ones that don't think love your neighbor as yourself is important, or love your enemy, or these things and more you shall do...tons of quotes that many wish to ignore...I am not alone.

I live in a nation of hypocrites...that will choose to make any of a number of excuses why going to war is the admirable thing...that think peace on earth is a concept that is unpatriotic. Of course your church and the crusades proves that we all are in that boat... That whole removing the log before worrying about anothers splinter is what I work on. My time here is not to be spent in judgement though, but to work on my connection to spirit.

Oh, you're going for the old 'canopy before the flood' trick.

I'm afraid you give me to much credit, I don't know the canopy before flood trick.

According to Bultman, the miracles were irrelevant to Jesus' mission and also to the Christian faith.
Theology Today - Vol 17, No. 1 - April 1960 - ARTICLE - From A Marburg Sermon.

I can agree.

 

[citizenzen]

I live in a nation of hypocrites...that will choose to make any of a number of excuses why going to war is the admirable thing...that think peace on earth is a concept that is unpatriotic.

Kisses to my peace-loving wil. We all should be so wise.

 

[lunamoth]

Netti-Netti and others, I moved our conversation about interpretation of the OT to here as it was kind of drifting off-topic:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/christian-interpretation-of-the-ot-10961.html

 

[Thomas]

According to Bultman, the miracles were irrelevant to Jesus' mission and also to the Christian faith.

Luckily, according to revised scholarship, Bultmann is largely irrelevant to Jesus' mission.

As Benoit and others have shown, Bultmann makes a huge number of suppositions which were accepted on his reputation alone ... now people are looking closer, the light is beginning to dawn that Buyltmann is not infallible.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Tis hilarious to me the number of Christians that pick and choose as well.

Well, you'll not be short of pleasant company then.

...tons of quotes that many wish to ignore...I am not alone.

So? Doesn't make you right ...

I live in a nation of hypocrites...

Is that an excuse for being one? "It's not only me, look, he's doing it too?"

My time here is not to be spent in judgement though, but to work on my connection to spirit.

Rubbish, Wil — all you do is discredit the spirit and sit in judgement upon Scripture.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Luckily, according to revised scholarship, Bultmann is largely irrelevant to Jesus' mission.

As Benoit and others have shown, Bultmann makes a huge number of suppositions which were accepted on his reputation alone ... now people are looking closer, the light is beginning to dawn that Buyltmann is not infallible.

Thomas

It is a widely held that Jesus was about communicating G-d's love in the form of his own life example and by the crucifixion. How were the miracles Jesus performed necessary to these aspects of his mission?

 

[Dondi]

I'm afraid you give me to much credit, I don't know the canopy before flood trick.

Its the idea that it never rained before the Flood, rather that there was a canopy of mist (Gen. 2:6)surrounding the earth that gave ideal conditions for biological life, sorta a greenhouse or biodome. That is the reason men were able to live so long (i.e. Methusalah 969 years). And this canopy, btw, was the reason there was no rainbow yet, not until the floodwaters opened up and the sun was about to refract.

 

[Janz]

I recently read CS Lewis' Miracles:


Amazon.com: Miracles: C. S. Lewis: Books

This book is not as easy as some of his other work, but it does a great job at pointing out the circular thinking that we all participate in and demonstrates that the supernatural is not only not contradictory to reason, but easily conceived as necessary for reason.

His argument, in short, is that the validity of reason can't be proven by reason. So, if we rely upon reason to find truth then we have already included a supernatural basis for reason. If reason is merely that which is useful, it is not reliable to find truth, so any philosophical system is underminded from the start. Actually, most philosophy has arrrived at this same conclusion, which is why we are in the post-modern period.

The only problem is that postmodernism is not the way we actually experience and live our lives. We do find meaning, we do assert truth, we do have values, and we do hold ourselves and others accountable for our actions.

As soon as the materialist asserts a truth that she asks us all to buy into, she's cut off at the knees by her own philosophy.

To some extent I understand what you are saying from a personal level. What postmodern thinkers are asking “Whose master story and which metanarrative gets to tell the 'truth' about world history? And who will be co-opted, excluded or oppressed?”

If one ever wants to read a typical modernity debate about the Supernatural and Resurrection of Jesus see:
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman
College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts
March 28, 2006

I think you can google it and still download a pdf file..anyway, that is what I did.


I want to explore my experiences, the reflections of my mind and the sensitivity of my heart when it comes to why I accept the miracles of the NT. And yes, I have experienced several "supernatural" events. And yes, I question everything. As Decartes subscribed to the methodology of doubt, so do I.

“I believe, Lord help me in my unbelief.”

Why do we believe anything at all? Which assumptions am I going to believe as true based upon a system of beliefs that do the best job of explaining what I would like to have explained? I can approach the Incarnation and Resurrection as being a true supernatural events when I think it to be true.

In fact, the assumption of atheism is just that: an assumption; and arguments for any view of ultimate reality require assumptions; there is no neutral ground that is self-evident.

The paradigm that I am advocating frankly admits that all truth claims require for their widespread acceptance the testimony of trusted and thereby authorized witnesses. This is true of the truth claims of science as well. We trust scientists, among other reasons, because they have certain credentials, because we believe that they regularly subscribe to a method that minimizes the effects of their own idiosyncrasies and because they have been remarkably successful in predicting and controlling nonhuman reality.
As Lesslie Newbigin, a Christian theologian and bishop involved in missiology and ecumenism once said:

The acceptance of {a particular] vision of reality is a personal act, an act of personal judgment to which one commits oneself in the knowledge that others may disagree and that one may be proved wrong. It involves personal commitment. But it is not therefore merely subjective. The scientist who commits himself to the new vision does so-as Polanyi puts it-with universal intent...At no stage is it merely a subjective opinion. It is held "with universal intent" as being a true account of reality which all people ought to accept and which will prove itself true by both experimental verification and also by opening the way to fresh discovery.

I believe that we can come to grasp some of the truth. We may make mistakes. We may change our mind. We also need to accept that there are others who disagree with our vision and the challenge is how to live with that tension without excluding and oppressing the "other."

~~ More later..I have a busy day ahead of me. I hope that some of these thoughts help with your Seminar, Lunamoth. I will try to return to this later this evening or tomorrow AM.
~~Jan

 

[lunamoth]

To some extent I understand what you are saying from a personal level. What postmodern thinkers are asking “Whose master story and which metanarrative gets to tell the 'truth' about world history? And who will be co-opted, excluded or oppressed?”

And a valid question it is, with tangible ramifications on many groups of people as we witness today in the debate over homosexuality.

(Oh yikes! I said it! This is an important example but please let's not divert to the topic of homosexuality in this thread. It deserves its own thread and there are already many.)

If one ever wants to read a typical modernity debate about the Supernatural and Resurrection of Jesus see:
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman
College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts
March 28, 2006

I think you can google it and still download a pdf file..anyway, that is what I did.

Thanks, will do.

I want to explore my experiences, the reflections of my mind and the sensitivity of my heart when it comes to why I accept the miracles of the NT. And yes, I have experienced several "supernatural" events. And yes, I question everything. As Decartes subscribed to the methodology of doubt, so do I.

“I believe, Lord help me in my unbelief.”

A great prayer. And I said just last night to Juan that doubt is the shadow of faith. Only eliminated in the full presence of God, when light surrounds to such an extent no shadow can be cast. I think that's why such a great understanding of faith is 'to trust.' And a breach of faith means, 'I've been hurt and so I can no longer trust, or trust easily.' Post-enlightenment there is also the fear "I don't want to look like a fool who believes in silly superstitions." But, a lot of baby then gets thrown out with that bathwater.

Why do we believe anything at all? Which assumptions am I going to believe as true based upon a system of beliefs that do the best job of explaining what I would like to have explained? I can approach the Incarnation and Resurrection as being a true supernatural events when I think it to be true.

In fact, the assumption of atheism is just that: an assumption; and arguments for any view of ultimate reality require assumptions; there is no neutral ground that is self-evident.

Yes, that is how I see it too. We all have our assumptions way down deep at the bottom of our worldview. It is not a grounds to criticize each other.

The paradigm that I am advocating frankly admits that all truth claims require for their widespread acceptance the testimony of trusted and thereby authorized witnesses. This is true of the truth claims of science as well. We trust scientists, among other reasons, because they have certain credentials, because we believe that they regularly subscribe to a method that minimizes the effects of their own idiosyncrasies and because they have been remarkably successful in predicting and controlling nonhuman reality.
As Lesslie Newbigin, a Christian theologian and bishop involved in missiology and ecumenism once said:

I think this gets back to what I said above about faith as trust. It does not mean it is illogical or irrational, and it is possible to have consistency within different mutually excelusive worldviews, but obviously not between them. When you judge one worldview from another that has different assumptions, well, you are just going to keep talking past each other.

I believe that we can come to grasp some of the truth. We may make mistakes. We may change our mind. We also need to accept that there are others who disagree with our vision and the challenge is how to live with that tension without excluding and oppressing the "other."

That is a very good way of putting it and very much how I see it as well. Not there is no truth, not that we can fully know truth, but that we can trust that we can be in touch with truth in a meaningful way.

Lots of humility required and that is pretty hard for us.

~~ More later..I have a busy day ahead of me. I hope that some of these thoughts help with your Seminar, Lunamoth. I will try to return to this later this evening or tomorrow AM.
~~Jan

Thank you. My seminar on the resurrection is actually over, although it is a topic that of course comes up all the time regardless of the subject at hand.

 

[Marsh]

I would think that God would just perform the miracles as he always did and let the chips fall where they may. You're saying that just because someone offers an rational theory, God is deciding to withhold his majesty.

Do you really think God operates this way?

Well.... yes. Jesus operated that way. When the Pharisees, who had already made up their minds not to believe in him, demanded that he show them a sign, he told them to bugger off (loose translation, again). When he went into his hometown and was met with a general feeling of disbelief, few miracles happened.

I'm not trying to criticize rationality, C; I'm criticizing the idea that rationality can make demands of God, who transcends the boundaries of what we refer to as the rational world. See, the West as a whole has set its mind to uncovering the secrets of existence, and to do it through our own devices. God's just letting us do things our way, I think. He's not withholding his majesty; God is near to anyone who chooses to seek him, and his majesty is much greater than a simple miraculous sign (again, which is greater: parting the Red Sea, or creating it?), but the general direction in which Western society is currently moving is away from God, and as we move away from God I think it's only logical that we should expect to see fewer and fewer miracles.

In contrast, the signs and wonders that were so prevalent during Jesus' time and shortly thereafter occured during a time when people were moving toward God. God's not performing for us, yeah? Miracles happen and don't happen for good reason.

 

[Marsh]

I live in a nation of hypocrites...that will choose to make any of a number of excuses why going to war is the admirable thing...that think peace on earth is a concept that is unpatriotic. Of course your church and the crusades proves that we all are in that boat...

Speaking of picking and choosing, Wil, are you aware that the Catholic church has not called for a crusade in, oh, half a milennium? And that no Protestant church I can name has ever called for a Crusade? And that churches account for billions of dollars worth of relief work annually?

So I'm wondering, why did you pick and choose the Crusades?

 

[wil]

Speaking of picking and choosing, Wil, are you aware that the Catholic church has not called for a crusade in, oh, half a milennium? And that no Protestant church I can name has ever called for a Crusade? And that churches account for billions of dollars worth of relief work annually?

So I'm wondering, why did you pick and choose the Crusades?

Namaste Marsh,

Quite simple...were they not supposedly Christians, you know loving their neighbor, loving their enemy, gathering up mass armies traveling thousands of miles to kill the infidel so they can have their place in heaven... And today we wonder and look down our collective noses at folks that do the same? (ie is the word infidel familiar).. Oh and my understanding is Muslims contribute a percentage of their networth every year to charity...

And do you realize I am a Christian who also tithes and volunteers and gives to charity... the difference? I am perfectly willing to air my dirty laundry, explore the skeletons in my closet and admit a seedy past, not ignore, mitigate, justify or bury it. So I am referring to the foibles of MY religon, MY nation, MY race...

 

[Netti-Netti]

Namaste Marsh,

Quite simple...were they not supposedly Christians, you know loving their neighbor, loving their enemy, gathering up mass armies traveling thousands of miles to kill the infidel so they can have their place in heaven... And today we wonder and look down our collective noses at folks that do the same? (ie is the word infidel familiar).

All the more interesting given that the Koran specifically says that Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters will go to Heaven:

SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in (their L-rd), and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their L-rd, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.​

PICKTHAL: Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in (their L-rd) and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their L-rd, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.


​

 

[wil]

All the more interesting given that the Koran specifically says that Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters will go to Heaven:

Exactly, my point is those that are truly Muslim or truly Christian would not act in this manner. Sorry to disrail...of course I guess that would be a miracle should we be able to act in peace and follow our tenants.

 

[Thomas]

We now know there is no virgin birth in the bible the words translated later to virgin referred to maiden and young woman...seems this will be argued forever.

Seems so ... but that's because we know nothing of the sort you claim.

Justin Martyr argued this point with his Jewish rival Trypho two thousand years ago. Trypho insisted that the Septuagint Greek term parthenos 'virgin' was an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew 'almah 'young woman'.

Before we go further, it should be noted that there is no case in scripture where the term 'almah refers to a woman who is not a virgin, and furthermore the term has the same connotation as 'maiden' and 'damsel' which, whilst not connoting virginity, would not be used of a married woman.

Also, taking the text:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"
In which case, the birth of a child to a married woman, or a woman who was not a virgin, is hardly a sign, is it?

Again, when the birth a child is a sign from God, invariably it is a child born to a woman beyond her child-bearing years ... but in this instance, that the woman is young and of child-bearing age, the sign needs must take another form.

+++

What is evident in both the Matthaen and Lucan choice of Scripture is that such texts point to Jesus as being the Messiah, that's what they believed, and that's why they made the reference in the text.

Matthew and Luke believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God, even though the texts themselves do not say that — and the Evangelists are not saying they do ... rather that the oracles points towards a future event, a sign from God, which shall make itself known, and which has come to pass.

The evidence of Matthew and Luke can equally and reasonably signify that they interpret the Isaian oracle in light of what has been revealed to them, and not what is implicit in the text itself.

They are not using Isaiah to prove the virgin birth, they have the evidence of the virgin birth which reveals the mystery implicit in Isaiah's oracle, in the same way they are not using Isaiah to claim the divinity of the Son (he doesn't) ... they are.

Mark also makes the point when he says "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3)
Why not Jesus the son of Joseph, as was the custom? Perhaps to distinguish between Jesus (the son of Mary) and his brothers and sisters, who were sons of Joseph but not of Mary?

The fact that the argument will go on and on is precisely because it is not proved either way ... it is a matter of faith ... you either believe it, or you don't.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

We accept that somehow a baby is created through the blend of male and female substances. Life is created in a mechanical way beyond our secular comprehension.

Yet the idea that life can be consciously created and intentionally manifesting as the virgin birth somehow seems ludicrous. OK.

 

[Thomas]

1 Corinthians 1:27
"But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong."

Thomas

 

[Marsh]

Namaste Marsh,

Quite simple...were they not supposedly Christians, you know loving their neighbor, loving their enemy, gathering up mass armies traveling thousands of miles to kill the infidel so they can have their place in heaven... And today we wonder and look down our collective noses at folks that do the same? (ie is the word infidel familiar).. Oh and my understanding is Muslims contribute a percentage of their networth every year to charity...

And do you realize I am a Christian who also tithes and volunteers and gives to charity... the difference? I am perfectly willing to air my dirty laundry, explore the skeletons in my closet and admit a seedy past, not ignore, mitigate, justify or bury it. So I am referring to the foibles of MY religon, MY nation, MY race...

I accept 0% responsibility for the crusades.