Miracles

[Faithofchristian]

The Gospels record miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning?

Science has established unchanging laws of nature governing the phenomenal world. Is it possible to deviate from such laws allowing an opportunity for miracles to occur?

Seeing that Christ Jesus is not bound by the laws of nature, for it was Christ Jesus who established the laws of nature himself.

Bible Mark 4:37-41--"
37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

For it was Christ Jesus who created all things.

Bible Colossians 1:16---"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"

That everything being establish with a set of laws to govern them by.

The book of Psalm 104:5---" Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever"

Psalm 119:90--"Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth"

Therefore Christ Jesus laid the foundations of the earth, thereby establishing the laws of nature himself.
Therefore Christ Jesus is not bound by the laws of nature.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'll provide some refections then.

Many of the miracle stories are purely invented or exaggerated by early Christians in the myth making process. It is the same myth making process that you can see in Hinduism, Buddhism (stories about Buddha or saintly spreaders of Buddhism). At the base though are also some stories with some historically true elements. Its very hard to say though what is historical.

While I agree with this statement to some extent, the historicity of Jesus is much stronger compared to Krishna as recorded in the 10th Canto of the Puranas. Buddhas teachings were not written down until over 400 years after His passing. Compare that with the Gospels that were written down within the century when Jesus lived.

It does not seem plausible to take some aspects of the Gospel story literally. Some of the events recorded during Christ's crucifixion, His nativity and resurrection are all good examples.

Atoms and more elemental particles are a form of consciousness temporarily frozen as it were in space and time. So the person who is at the heart of or controls consciousness, can outrun the laws of physics in certain ways such as by passing through walls, flying through the sky without wings, staying for a long time under the ground or under water, going through fire, travelling in a second over large distances. etc., etc.. Only Tantrics can develop such powers, but using them is detrimental and will make them degrade (perhaps this is illustrated in the Faust of Goethe?) especially when they use those powers for selfish puposes.

If that were true there would be documented evidence to allow verification.

I believe Yeshua may have used his occult powers to demonstrate his Tantric mastership to a few of his disciples. I think the miracles of Christian saints were largely made up for the sake of devotion. The more mystic (the more Tantric) the saint was, the more likely parts of those stories may contain historically true elements.

I prefer the word mysticism to tantric as it fits more comfortably into the an Abrahamic paradigm, whereas the use of the word tantra feels as if Christianity is being squeezed into a Hindu worldview. Perhaps its just semantics.

Simon Magus was especially called so for his use of occult powers in a demonstrative way. He is said to have concidered himself Christ in the way Yeshua did.

I had to look him up. Sounds like early Christian gnosticism, No?

Simon Magus - Wikipedia

 

[Tumah]

Laws of physics enable us to confidently predict what will happen. If I drop an apple from my hand if will fall accelerating at a set rate until it crashes to the ground. The same forces are at work should I choose to walk upon water. It would be impossible not to be immersed in the water to some extent. Depending on how much air is in my lungs determines the extent to which I float. But I will not be able to walk on water as the Gospels would have us believe Jesus did. If this really happened then He somehow changed the unchangeable. It would therefore be a miracle.

I know what you think of the miracles in the NT but what of those recorded in the Torah? Did Moses really part the sea enabling His people to be freed and then destroyed the Egyptians who tried to pursue Him?

Yes, I understood your question. What I don't understand is where your question is coming from. As I said tried to explain before, a miracle is a suspension of natural law. So it doesn't make to question whether a miracle could happen because natural law tells us that miracles are impossible. That's exactly what a miracle is describing.

 

[Regiomontanus]

...
Science has established unchanging laws of nature governing the phenomenal world....

Hello. Strictly speaking, that is not true. I think what you mean is that we do not observe any such changes now, nothing rigorously documented. But the latest research in cosmology, for example, strongly suggests they may have changed over time (from the early periods after the creation of our universe). This is not to say the 'miracles' in the bible happened (assuming a literal reading, which is, in my humble opinion, probably not the correct way to read much of the bible in the first place).


Peace

 

[Marcion]

While I agree with this statement to some extent, the historicity of Jesus....

I was however not discussing or arguing against the historicity of Yeshua (let alone Krishna, why bring Him into it?).
It is plausible that some historical data from the life of the historical Yeshua entered into the Christian mythical narrative and should mainly be sought in the first half of gMark.

I prefer the word mysticism to tantric as it fits more comfortably into the an Abrahamic paradigm, whereas the use of the word tantra feels as if Christianity is being squeezed into a Hindu worldview. Perhaps its just semantics.

Tantric is not synonymous with Mysticism, however they are very closely related. So no, you cannot just interpret my use of Tantra as meaning mystic, the two cannot be used as synonyms.
My worldview is not Hindu and Tantra is much broader than any of the many religions or world vieuws as I have explained to you quite often now, it is also much older than Hinduism or any other religion.

I had to look him up. Sounds like early Christian gnosticism, No?

Simon Magus - Wikipedia

I'm surprised that you had to look him up as he is well known in Christianity. Some believe he was the origin of a mythical apostle Paul and that his gnostic teachings inspired one or probably several of his followers to write what became the Pauline Epistles that were originally purely gnostic before they were heavily adapted, extended and adopted into the Bible by the orthodox part of the Church. Of course the Marcian Bible contained only the unadulterated letters and a more original version of gLuke and preceded the Bible version that we know best.

So the historical Simon came earlier than than his tamed version as the biblical Paul. I think you can say that Simon was a Tantric in the same way that Yeshua was. They must both have practised Tantric techniques to accomplish their spiritual statuses and yes, you may also call their teachings Mysticism (not every mystic however is equally Tantric in his/her teachings).

What demonstrations of occult power or so-called miracles prove is that consciousness rules over matter (and time) and not the other way round. We all have access to the nucleus of that Consciousness if we discipline and purify ourselves spiritually.

 

[blü 2]

The Gospels record miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning?

Miracles are a subset of magic (magic done by a god). Magic is altering reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing.

There are no authenticated examples of magic, miracles included. 'Why can't God heal amputees?' cuts to the chase.

Science has established unchanging laws of nature governing the phenomenal world. Is it possible to deviate from such laws allowing an opportunity for miracles to occur?

It's very human to think that if you wish hard enough, your wish will come true, and if it doesn't, that proves you weren't wishing hard enough. 'Oh ye of little faith!' fits in about here.

In such cases, I'd say the correct approach would be to back off and subject one's premises to skeptical scrutiny.

 

[Fool]

The Gospels record miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning?

Science has established unchanging laws of nature governing the phenomenal world. Is it possible to deviate from such laws allowing an opportunity for miracles to occur?

the word miracle itself means a wonderous work of god, or to smile, to laugh. the bible says the awe of god is the beginning of understanding.


so then in science the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.


simon the sorcerer used his power of persuasion for self-glorification
jesus the prophet used his power of persuasion for glorification of the All in all



laughter is the best medicine


http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/cultural-psychiatry/laughter-best-medicine


two taters are standing on a street corner. one of them is a tater of the evening. any idea how to tell tell which tater is the tater of the evening?

Spoiler: Answer

The one with the label, "ida-hoe."

titters

 

[sealchan]

The Gospels record miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning?

Science has established unchanging laws of nature governing the phenomenal world. Is it possible to deviate from such laws allowing an opportunity for miracles to occur?

Miracles serve in a story to invoke possibilities outside what it normally considered possible. While one is "in the story" these things are experienced as real occurrences. Once we are "out of the story" normal experience takes over and we either dream or sigh or shake our heads.

Scientists themselves know that phenomena occur that break our understanding of science but only those "breakers" that can be observed with some regularity have a chance to engage the scientific process. True, one-off, miracles are outside the scope of science unless they have been recorded in some fashion.

 

[leroy]

The Gospels record miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning?

Science has established unchanging laws of nature governing the phenomenal world. Is it possible to deviate from such laws allowing an opportunity for miracles to occur?

I would say that it can be established as an “almost certain” historical fact that Jesus performed what others interpreted as miracles. Whether if these where actual miracles or some sort of trick or illusion is an open question.

If God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, then it would be at least logically possible to break the laws every once in a while,

Mario Bros (from Nintendo) is also subjected to laws that where programmed by an engineer, for example there is a maximum height that Mario can jump, but at any given time the programmer could change the code and allow Mario to Jump higher.

Interestingly most people including most non-theist grant the existence of God is at least possible, “agnostics” and “weak atheist” claim that there is not enough evidence to establish the existence of God, but they don’t claim that his existence has been disproven. Only “strong atheist” would make such a radical claim; but as far as I know “strong atheist” represent a minority of all those who consider themselves “non theists”

So even most “non-theist” shouldn’t dismiss miracles by default, but rather they should provide positive arguments as for why the miracles reported in the gospels are lies, illusions, etc.

 

[viole]

Yes, I understood your question. What I don't understand is where your question is coming from. As I said tried to explain before, a miracle is a suspension of natural law. So it doesn't make to question whether a miracle could happen because natural law tells us that miracles are impossible. That's exactly what a miracle is describing.

Flawless logic.

Incidentally, to say that nature is greatly harmonious, predictable, inductive and ordered (evidence of a designer), while the same designer can break that order at will (another evidence of Him) is question begging.

Actually, one could argue that suspensions of the laws of nature are not due to God's intervention, but are mainly due to the false assumption that they are so predictable and ordered. Ergo, that they were not suspended at all. They are just a bit chaotic every now and then.

Even it were really true that these massive deviations from the mean happen.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ellen Brown]

I entered a Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints for the first time over the weekend. They hosted our cities interfaith gathering. One of the missionaries wasted no time in offering me a book of Mormon.

They are very nice and friendly people, and it tears at me that something that happens in their services hurts me so deeply. It wasn't until much later that I found out things that were not first told me.

 

[dianaiad]

I still hurt, not being a member.

Ellen, I don't know what happened, but if you want to tell me about it privately....

 

[dianaiad]

I entered a Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints for the first time over the weekend. They hosted our cities interfaith gathering. One of the missionaries wasted no time in offering me a book of Mormon.

Good for him/her!

Quick...how fast did s/he get to you? I think my fastest approach when I was a missionary was thirty seconds. I would have been faster, but I had to dodge around a toddler.

But yeah, an interfaith gathering would have been a good place to get one of those. I hope you also got all the goodies from every other faith that was there that day.

I remember an interfaith gathering that our own 'stake' hosted a few years ago. There were Wiccans who blessed the chapel, Methodists who sang blessings on it, Presbyterians who rang bells in it, a Muslim who called everybody to prayer in it, a Rabbi who brought his cantor to sing...that was my favorite for sheer beautiful music...(actually, my favorites were the Wiccans) and a bunch of Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists and Catholics (monks from the local priory...they were great!) pretty much everybody but Jehovah's Witnesses, who were invited but didn't come.

Lots of Books of Mormon were passed out, and we made sure that everybody else had stuff to pass out, too. A good time was had by everybody except the Muslim, who had a huff because the Rabbi came on before him (or after him? I forget) .

Everybody else had a very nice day.

 

[Beth Stitely]

I have no doubt there is Creative Force (God) that enables any miracle to happen whether literally who spiritually.

So it appears you have answered your own question.
A closer look at scripture reveals that the question was not whether Jesus performed miracles. (Even the opposition to Jesus agreed that miracles were being performed). The real question, however, was "under who's authority and power was Jesus performing these miracles?" Paul tells the Thessalonians that there will come a day when a man will again perform many great miracles, but this man will be working under evil power and authority and will come to deceive many.

 

[viole]

So it appears you have answered your own question.
A closer look at scripture reveals that the question was not whether Jesus performed miracles. (Even the opposition to Jesus agreed that miracles were being performed). The real question, however, was "under who's authority and power was Jesus performing these miracles?" Paul tells the Thessalonians that there will come a day when a man will again perform many great miracles, but this man will be working under evil power and authority and will come to deceive many.

So, technically, that man could have been Jesus, also. How do you know? Just because Paul said so?

If I had been Satan, that is exactly what I would have done. Turn a bloodthirsty and slavery-friendly God, into a meek and sweet one. In order to harvest the greatest number of deceived souls. of course. He is not called the master deceiver for nothing, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

They are very nice and friendly people, and it tears at me that something that happens in their services hurts me so deeply. It wasn't until much later that I found out things that were not first told me.

So, they wasted something. The book they gave you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So it appears you have answered your own question.
A closer look at scripture reveals that the question was not whether Jesus performed miracles. (Even the opposition to Jesus agreed that miracles were being performed). The real question, however, was "under who's authority and power was Jesus performing these miracles?" Paul tells the Thessalonians that there will come a day when a man will again perform many great miracles, but this man will be working under evil power and authority and will come to deceive many.

The greatest miracle is that people overcome the expectations that man makes for themselves and finds God in His Messengers.

The expectation that evil will appear like a Messenger from God, is one such deception of scriptures, made of man and blinds many from finding the Light of God.

Regards Tony

 

[Beth Stitely]

So, technically, that man could have been Jesus, also. How do you know? Just because Paul said so?

If I had been Satan, that is exactly what I would have done. Turn a bloodthirsty and slavery-friendly God, into a meek and sweet one. In order to harvest the greatest number of deceived souls. of course. He is not called the master deceiver for nothing, right?

Ciao

You make a good point about Satan being a master deceiver I agree!
With regards to Paul, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians after Jesus' death and was speaking of events yet to come. When reading what Paul wrote, it's quite clear Paul is not speaking of Jesus.

 

[Beth Stitely]

The greatest miracle is that people overcome the expectations that man makes for themselves and finds God in His Messengers.

The expectation that evil will appear like a Messenger from God, is one such deception of scriptures, made of man and blinds many from finding the Light of God.

Regards Tony

Tony...you have the most AWESOME beard!

 

[viole]

You make a good point about Satan being a master deceiver I agree!
With regards to Paul, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians after Jesus' death and was speaking of events yet to come. When reading what Paul wrote, it's quite clear Paul is not speaking of Jesus.

I know. But once Satan is the master deceiver, anything you believe in about Jesus could be his work. It is actually self defeating.

Little question: didn't you notice a slight change of attitude between the God of the OT and the God of the NT?

I would be worried, if I were you...

Ciao

- viole