Miracles

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]If we can scientifically deny events of the Old Testament, I see no reason why we cannot scientifically deny events of the New. It is not a question of Dogma, it is a question of logic.[/quote]

Adam, take a step back and look at your logic here. It simply doesn't flow.

Let me provide an alternative way of looking at biblical miracles.

First, let us assume the following:

1.) Miracles exist, and involve the intervention of God to break the laws of nature
2.) Some miracles are Dogma or Doctrine, others are not

Now, the question is not, as you seem to see it. "Oh no, if science disproves a miracle, then all miracles need to be thrown out."

Science [i]can't[/i] disprove a miracle, precisely because a miracle is [i]by definition[/i] an intervention of God that breaks the laws of science. The only thing that science can do is show that something we [i]thought[/i] was a miracle is actually accounted for by the laws of nature. So the question is, what CAN and what CAN'T be accounted for by science, and what miracles are or are not Dogma or doctrine? This we need to take on a case by case basis.

We also need to understand that literal readings of Holy Scripture are a modern innovation. A thirteenth century Jewish texts says,

[quote]Alas for the man who regards the Torah as a book of mere tales and everyday matters! If that were so, we, even we could compose a torah dealing with everyday affairs, and of even greater excellence. Nay, even the princes of the world possess books of greater worth which we could use as a model for composing some such torah. The Torah, however, contains in all its words supernal truths and sublime mysteries.[/quote]

So, whenever we look at a particular miracle, here is what we need to consider:

First, is the miracle a matter of Dogma or Doctrine?
Second, is there another level of textual interpretation on which the miracle in question could teach us?
Third, can science give a viable account of the miracle in question?

If the miracle is not a matter of Dogma or Doctrine, if the story containing the miracle can be interpreted in a deeper, more meaningful way than the literal interpretation, and if science can give a viable account of the miracle in question, then there is no reason whatsoever to degrade the text, and the Faith, with a literal understanding.

So, for a perfect example: The Tower of Babel. Is it a matter of doctrine or dogma that Languge came into being when God struck down a tower? No. Is there a deeper understanding to the text? Yes, we understand the text to teach us that Pride is the ultimate divider, and that, in defying God, we not only seperate ourselves from Him, but also from one another, for unity is of God, just as God is Unity. Now, can science give an account for the origination and development of language? Yes.

Thus, there is no need to read the text literally.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 01:01 PM']Right, I understand what you are saying, essentially, science, through evolution, is the 'how", and God is the "who" and "why". I understand that evolutionists think God controls and designs the evolutionary origins of the universe, but I don't see how this system doesn't clash with the nature of God as both loving and personally concerned (the daisies of the field analogy).
[right][snapback]920512[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It doesn't clash because simply believing that evolution is true doesn't preclude God from intervening and taking an active role in history. For example, evolution neither considers nor accounts for the infusion of the rational soul in our First Parents. God took an active role. Evolution accounts for natural history, not salvation history, in which God takes an active role.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 24 2006, 02:15 PM']It doesn't clash because simply believing that evolution is true doesn't preclude God from intervening and taking an active role in history. For example, evolution neither considers nor accounts for the infusion of the rational soul in our First Parents. God took an active role. Evolution accounts for natural history, not salvation history, in which God takes an active role.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]920536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So God took no role in natural history?

[Brother Adam]

"Now, the question is not, as you seem to see it. "Oh no, if science disproves a miracle, then all miracles need to be thrown out.""

What I am pondering, if science is explaining away many of the claims the Bible makes (world-wide flood) and so on, because they are simply scienfitically implausible, and therefore the Catholics reach the stance that there must be some other stance, simply because science said it couldn't have happened, then why don't we continue to extend it to other 'miracles' of the Bible. Such as the resurrection. The "because the Church says so" answer does not sit well with me in terms of simply having a discussion on this topic. Ultimately of course, we would all bow to the Churches teaching.

[God Conquers]

Jeff is saying that Science can NEVER "explain away" miracles. It can only lead us to a deeper understanding and appreciation of God's action in the world... a la Tower of Babel exegesis he cited.

Science can only inform our faith, not deform it.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 24 2006, 02:53 PM']Jeff is saying that Science can NEVER "explain away" miracles. It can only lead us to a deeper understanding and appreciation of God's action in the world... a la Tower of Babel exegesis he cited.

Science can only inform our faith, not deform it.
[right][snapback]920601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But science does explain away the miracles of creation, the flood, and babal to this point from what many of our phatmassers have told us.

[God Conquers]

No, it doesn't.

What does the development of language have to do with Faith?

Nothing.

What does pride have to do with faith?

Everything.

Science reveals to us the true nature of this biblical event: a lesson on Pride, not a lesson in anthropology.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 24 2006, 03:00 PM']No, it doesn't.

What does the development of language have to do with Faith?

Nothing.

What does pride have to do with faith?

Everything.

Science reveals to us the true nature of this biblical event: a lesson on Pride, not a lesson in anthropology.
[right][snapback]920617[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Science also says that the resurrection can't happen. So it must be a lesson in how much God loves us.

[Brother Adam]

I'm sorry to be a total pain in the on this one, but if I don't have the answers worked out in my own mind, I won't make 10 seconds in the forum of fundamentalists that I spend time on. I have to ask every question and rebuttal I can think of.

[Brother Adam]

I should qualify that. Some of what I'm saying, I totally don't believe, but as far as believing in a special creation, that is true that I believe in that .This whole thing on the connection betwene OT and NT and if you have ot deny creation than you have to deny the resurrection is more devils advocate than anything, but I've heard it before more than once. When I explained my position to an inquirer on, that is what I truly hold.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The argument that the Tower of Babel story was used to illustrate pride and not a historical fact cannot be used to support the notion that the Resurrection story was meant only to illustrate God's love and not a historical fact. It simply doesn't follow. They are different events, different writing styles, different authors, etc. The only thing consistent in the logic is that events recorded in the Bible do not necessarily need to have happened historically as they are recounted in order for the Bible to be recording a truth...and that has already been upheld by the Church.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 24 2006, 03:26 PM']The argument that the Tower of Babel story was used to illustrate pride and not a historical fact cannot be used to support the notion that the Resurrection story was meant only to illustrate God's love and not a historical fact.  It simply doesn't follow.  They are different events, different writing styles, different authors, etc.  The only thing consistent in the logic is that events recorded in the Bible do not necessarily need to have happened historically as they are recounted in order for the Bible to be recording a truth...and that has already been upheld by the Church.
[right][snapback]920651[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Protestants don't care what the Church thinks. That's why I haven't allowed that one to fly on this thread.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 24 2006, 04:29 PM']Protestants don't care what the Church thinks. That's why I haven't allowed that one to fly on this thread.
[right][snapback]920653[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ah...I see...you're playing devil's advocate.



It still doesn't follow.

I'll edit out what's relevant to the Church...

The argument that the Tower of Babel story was used to illustrate pride and not a historical fact cannot be used to support the notion that the Resurrection story was meant only to illustrate God's love and not a historical fact. It simply doesn't follow. The only thing consistent in the logic is that events recorded in the Bible do not necessarily need to have happened historically as they are recounted in order for the Bible to be recording a truth.

And add...

However, that conclusion does not support the notion that because the Tower of Babel story was used to illustrate pride and not a historical fact, the Resurrection story also was meant only to illustrate God's love and not a historical fact, because the authors would have had different purposes for writing, different styles, and such.

[Brother Adam]

I killed the thread.

Anyways, several modes of scriptural interpretation can be applied to any given passages in scripture. John 6 is not only literal, it has symbolic meaning as well.

But humor me. When does history begin in the Bible. No, I dont mean "there really was a first man and woman." I mean, where does history begin. If the creation story is made up, who is the first real historical person in a real historical situation in the Bible?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 26 2006, 01:26 PM']I killed the thread.

Anyways, several modes of scriptural interpretation can be applied to any given passages in scripture. John 6 is not only literal, it has symbolic meaning as well.

But humor me. When does history begin in the Bible. No, I dont mean "there really was a first man and woman." I mean, where does history begin. If the creation story is made up, who is the first real historical person in a real historical situation in the Bible?
[right][snapback]922772[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This question in general shows a faulty approach to scripture. In a sense, you are asking "so at what point can I just take the Bible literally?"

But the problem is that Scripture was never, in all of its history, intended to be a suppliment for an Ancient Near East history textbook. Are there historical events in Scripture? Yes. Are there stories intended not to be taken literally? Yes. Is there a particular place where one stops and the other begins? No. That is because Holy Scripture is not the book of the history of Israel. Holy Scripture is the spiritual heart of Israel. It is a divine wellspring from which Israel (and thus the Church) draws its identity and its being.

If questions of historical accuracy are really killing you or providing some kind of spiritual stumbling block for you, I'd invite you to take a class on the Hebrew Scriptures in context. Learn about the documentary hypothesis. Learn about the Israelites at the time of Scripture. I think being able to interpret the scriptures in the context in which they were written will help a lot

Remember, a heart that desires to take Scripture at face value is a heart that is dead to Scripture.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Brother Adam]

Funny thing, is we now know to reject the documentary hypothesis as a interpretive principle to the Hebrew scriptures, it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. And the Old Testament scriptures aren't the history of the Isrealite people? Try telling that to a Jewish person. This isn't a stumbling block for me at all. I have one of the best OT profs that I know of in the country and will be taking extra courses with him next year on the Hebrew language and on the Prophets. Again, you cannot just randomly pick what scriptural interpretive principals you are going to decide to apply various passages to.

[LouisvilleFan]

After one of my first RCIA classes, I found myself asking exactly the same questions about biblical miracles. The class was about reading the Bible and interpreting Scripture, part of which is discerning when something should be taken literally and when it shouldn't. Well, I hardly knew the teachers and one of them is a former nun, so while I didn't want to automatically judge her relationship with God, at the same time I was also keeping my eye out for any unorthodox teaching. So when she noted that stories like Jonah in the whale clearly shouldn't be taken literally because it's scientifically ridiculous, I was ready to yell, "Heretic!" right there in the middle of class! (just kidding...) But hearing that did get me to wondering. After all, the Catholic Church never states as a matter of doctrine if the whole world was literally flooded or Jonah was swallowed in a whale and spit out three days later. Does it really matter, or are we influenced by fundamentalists who interpret every word of the Bible literally (except "this is my body")?

Some miracles are matters of doctrine, especially all the miracles that are specifically mentioned in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I also find it difficult to call any of the NT miracles into question. Most of them were performed by Christ among the people. Acts 5:14-15 and 19:11-12 talk about healings from Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchiefs (how Catholic is that? ). It's just silly to think that the NT writers intended any of the miracles to be interpreted figuratively.

However, in the OT the line is a little greyer. We don't profess our belief in these miracles in the creeds. Personally, I believe Adam and Eve really existed because they are in Jesus' genealogy and that Jonah really was swallowed by a whale because Jesus compared this miracle to his own death and resurrection. It's hard to imagine Pharaoh would ever allow the Israelites to leave if the plagues are only figurative. And what point is there in the story of Sodom and Gomarrah's destruction if they weren't really destroyed? However, that's just my view. If someone else sees it differently, that's fine, as long as they do believe in the doctrinal miracles, like Jesus' physical death and resurrection.

The flood is one that I'm willing to accept only occured in the small part of the world that was known to Noah's civilization. A flooding of all the known world is by all means miraculous and doesn't seem to take anything away from the overall story of salvation.

[jpamericanka]

that is interesting, thank you.

Edited March 28, 2006 by jpamericanka

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/Resources-Interpret.htm"]On the Interpretation of Scripture[/url]

A personal favorite of mine, so much so it is one of the few documents I've decided to quote in whole on my website.