Re: Latest Israeli Air Strikes...

David Aldred wrote:
loiner2003 wrote:

Do you think that a miracle is never going to be explicable by natural
causes? That is, we may not be able to explain it now, naturally, and we
will never be able to explain it thus in the future, as attributable to
natural causes. Of course one, by definition, never be certain of this
for any given incident, but as a general understanding of miracle, does
the term imply that such a natural explanation is always going to be
impossible, in your view?

It's possible; if so perhaps we could see the miraculous as God giving us
ideas on where to research for greater understanding of phenomena we
currently consider impossible within our understanding of natural causes!

Ultimately, God is a natural cause, for there is nothing unnatural about
God; perhaps natural causes should really include spiritual causes. I
think any proposal to devote serious research time to this would, however,
be difficult to get funded!

I agree entirely that God is a natural cause. I think this may be why it is so difficult to get a usable definition of "miracle."

It is interesting that the word appears only ten times in the entire KJV; modern translations may have it either more or less often - one version I checked has it only once, in the mouth of Pharoah in Exodus.
The Hebrew word so translated is "mopheth" which literally means "sign" or "token". Eight of the ten NT uses are of the equivalent Greek word "semeion"; the other is "dunamis", meaning "force" or "power." None of these uses necessarily implies anything contrary to natural laws.

Since we count God as a natural cause - because, as I see it anyway, God both transcends and indwells nature - then I do not think there can be such a thing as an event that is, ultimately, inexplicable by natural causes. So if that or something similar is the definition of miracle then where, as you say, after exhaustive investigation (and I would add "in good faith"), a miracle is declared I would say one of two things must be the case: either
- despite all due care and good faith, the investigation must have been is some way flawed, perhaps in the observation and recording or the basic methodology; or
- our current knowledge and understanding of natural causes is still inadequate to explain the event; but in theory at least we should in time have sufficient understanding to do so.

In terms of the wonders or signs reported in the Bible, I think there are a number of categories into which events may be placed:
1. Stories that are, in the form we have them, legends, myths or fables. They might possibly have some historical and natural basis but it is now impossible to ascertain just what that was (though that doesn't stop people from guessing!) Into this category I would put the flood, for example, the burning bush, the crossing of the sea, the drying up of the Jordan, the Elijah and Elisha stories, and so on.
2. Stories that are now presented as miracles but where the natural origin is rather more discernible. I would offer the feeding of the 5000, the walking on the water, perhaps the transfiguration, as possible examples.
3. Stories such as the healing "miracles" of Jesus, where we may be looking at illnesses which were due to psychosomatic or caused by hysteria. It seems to me likely that, in general, these are actual incidents, but it is also likely that the narration of them may have compressed the time scale and exaggerated details in order to heighten the effect of the miraculous.

I understand that Jesus was not the only person in his era noted for signs and wonders. Others, of course, are claimed to have worked signs as well, before and after Jesus. Jesus himself was reluctant to perform signs to order, as it were. His healings generally seem to have arisen out of the moment, out of compassion, rather than from any desire to display his power. That display was something he specifically rejected in the temptation stories.



--

Revd. Eric Potts

"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able
to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Matthew 14
    ... albeit a reason that may be outweighed ... >>> You may say that now there is evidence against such beliefs but, if God ... we are talking about God and miracle. ... The stories are far from identical and the differences are ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Latest Israeli Air Strikes...
    ... Do you think that a miracle is never going to be explicable by natural ... for any given incident, but as a general understanding of miracle, does ... if so perhaps we could see the miraculous as God giving us ... think any proposal to devote serious research time to this would, however, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Matthew 14
    ... (Father Son and Spirit) ... lower class people think they are real stories, but we modern intelligent educated people know better than to believe any of the miracle stories are factual. ... How often I have pointed out to God that something God does or tells me is theologically incorrect! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: God, the universe and everything in it (was: Blame Bush...)
    ... organization) having made a mistake, and updating their understanding, but I find it highly ridiculous that one would do so in such a blatant way, and maintain that their "updated understanding" is *STILL* infallible, just like it was back when it said the exact opposite. ... if you're not a member of the catholic church, ... If they can develop a better understanding of psychOLOGY, why can't they develop a better understanding of theOLOGY, and get a better understanding of God and what He wants? ... believing in God was free. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: The Guardian Paradox
    ... I am going to change/interpolate Susan Maniac's post. ... When I was growing up in a Christian home, my understanding of the ... It has usually the case that those who oppose a new message from God ... becomes a mask for the genuinely evil and hypocritical. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)