Do you realize that is your argument is the same one that the creationists use? If God didn’t poof those animals into existence then you might as well be an atheist materialist. As if only the abra cadabra fairy story makes Christianity worth believing in.
I guess I don’t believe in the magical Walt Disney version of Christianity any more than these people you speak of – the kind that is in opposition to science and rationality.
No the TRUTH is that the ones discrediting Christianity are those who teach it like a fairy tale and equate it with magic.
And do you drink blood at your church? I don’t.
Let me see… what did Jesus come to do?
wizardry? no.
necromancy? no.
to destroy the laws of nature? no.
to prove that science and evolution are stupid? no.
to make us believe that screaming “Jesus” will cure cancer and solve global warming? no.
If any of that were so, then I am not Christian and the Bible is trash.
What does Jesus say about why He came?
John 10 I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
John 18 For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.
And what is life and truth?
Magic? Uh… no. Life is not magic. And magic is not the truth.
The laws of nature are true. This can even be demonstrated to be true.
God is true. Even though this cannot be demonstrated.
The objective facts and the subjective experience are both true.
But wizardy and necromancy? Nope. That is not true or any part of life except as fantasy entertainment.
What is great and glorious? To break the laws of nature and do magical transformations? That is not what Jesus said. He said if you would be great then you would be a servant of servants. And that is what He did in Cana of Galilee, whether the disciples understood this or not – mostly not.
I’ve heard the context was specifically related to the Roman occupation. Roman soldiers could command Jews to carry their stuff, but only for a mile. They could commandeer clothes and they could physically assault Jews with impunity. There was an active violent resistance movement, but Jesus was advocating passive resistance (heaping coals on their heads). These passages were studied by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. specifically as a non-violent resistance roadmap.
Funny you mention this, i remember a while back someone equated jesus turning water into wine with the harry potter books, though i never read the harry potter books so i can’t really say as to what similarities there are.
I have read the Harry Potter Books. The comment just meant they didn’t believe in hocus pocus. But obviously I don’t think the story in the Bible has to be read that way at all. And if you insist on reading it that way then the book belongs in the fantasy section of the library. In fact… back in high school someone asked me what I thought of the Bible and I compared to other fantasy novels I liked. It is not an insult. I like fantasy and science fiction novels very much. But if it not one of these then it would have to about real life according the way things really happen.
The key to understanding the biblical text is to apply a hermeneutic which takes into account the historical and literary context. This can be done by employing historical-grammatical exegesis. This method presupposes that human beings are rational creatures capable of linguistic communication, and that linguistic communication is meaningful and objective. Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text. In essence, it attempts to formalize what language speakers do automatically and unconsciously whenever they read a book, watch television or engage in conversation. [Ref]
This is not reading literalistically. It takes into account the type of text being read and includes consideration of figures of speech, poetry vs prose, metaphor, allegory, and other conventions.
Any passage will have a literal meaning but may also have one or more spiritual meanings; Allegorical, Moral, or Anagological. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church para 115-119.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
107
Historical-grammatical method is almost exclusively used by conservative Protestants. The Creation International Ministry’s definition above is not objective. The assumption of the method is that the Bible is inerrant, and of course infallible, which makes it entirely circular, a very tightly closed loop. More, including total, Western Catholic churches use everything else and and but, with a soupcon of historical-critical. Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) have a more sophisticated but still traditional canonical magisterial approach.
If the irrational assumption is removed, the method seems quite reasonable. But it never is. All evangelicals have the assumption. All.
We observe Holy Communion. An important part of worship, especially for non-Evangelicals.
So there was no miracle. Jesus simply ordered water to be poured into stone jars. And then he had some of the water brought to the master of the banquet. And that’s pretty much it. The first of the signs. That’s how Jesus started his public ministry. And the disciples were very impressed, and believed in him. It’s not every day a guy orders water to be poured into stone jars.
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
I have also. It was not blood. Are you claiming that what you drank in communion was blood? Is that what a chemical test of the liquid would reveal? Are you providing a test by which your Christianity can be discredited? OR are you claiming that your Communion service is a lie and your pastor was a con man?
I refute the idea that, miracle = violation of the laws of nature. Scientific explanations do not mean that something is not a miracle. Science and the laws of nature do not mean there are no such things as miracles. You do not have to choose between science and Christianity. Miracles are just unexpected events in which the involvement of God is revealed – NOT events where God is showing off some utter disregard for the laws of nature which He Himself created for a very good reason.
There was a miracle. The water from those containers tasted like good wine to those who drank it. Life is full of miracles and God is a participant in our lives, even when the laws of nature hold true. Likewise people take communion at church and feel the grace of God in their lives, even when the laws of nature hold true.
John14:12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do
Of course part of this is that God is real and God does answer prayers. And yet we know this is not by granting demands that God violate the laws of nature for all to see. Providential timing as you like to say, SURE. Miracles do happen, even though the laws of nature hold true.
So i showed this verse to my brother to show him that miracles don’t need to be supernatural etc. He says that his version says water pots so therefore there couldn’t have been wine in there, and that if jesus just asked them to fill the jugs full of water and some wine sediment got in there than it wouldn’t be a miracle, it would be called just being smart. (Keep in mind he is a christian, but he is a bible literalist i think?) I am not sure what to think of this (as there seems to be some confliction) or as to what i should say in regards to what he said.
Like I said before to marvin, I don’t know what happened any more than anyone else. I just think there are more possible explanations than magic.
It doesn’t make sense to me that God would break the laws of nature in order to impress people who really wouldn’t know the difference anyway. Magicians can astound and impress people without breaking a single law of nature.
Christianity and the Bible is not about magic, and making it about magic leads many Christians to think God doesn’t do miracles anymore because they know that isn’t the way the world works. The result is putting such a huge gap between the Bible and reality as we experience, so that it might as well be just a fairy tale. Besides I all you have to is live your life among Christians and hear endless tales from them about the miracles in their lives – and none of them are about violations of the laws of nature. So the conflict isn’t really between Christianity and science but between the Bible and Christian life. It is bad theology pure and simple and doesn’t do Christianity any good.
This is a long debate, and certainly not unique. whether anything is supernatural or explainable should not be the main consideration.
What do you think the people who saw it thought?
What do you think the Gospel writer thought and is trying to say?
Those are the two main considerations when approaching a “Miracle” story.
It does not matter whether an action was supernatural or not, just like it does not matter whether the actions of a parable actually happened or not. What matters is what the Gospel writer is trying to tell you. (And whether you wish to believe him)
Science may like to disprove God on visible or empirical evidence but Religion is more about faith and all that entails. The Gospels are primarily written so that you will believe what the Gospel writer does.
The historical-grammatical method appeared in the eighteenth century when German scholars applied philological and the nascent scholarly historiographical methods to biblical studies, guided by the Enlightenment rationality. The founder of historical-grammatical method was the scholar Johann August Ernesti (1707-1781) who, while not rejecting the historical-critical method of his time, emphasized the perspicuity of Scripture, the principle that the Bible communicates through the normal use of words and grammar, making it understandable like any other book. Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
117
Just as I said, perspicuity of scripture is another Protestant form of the inerrancy-infallibility delusion.
I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That is the Anglican/Episcopal understanding. The bread and wine are referred to as the Body and Blood of Christ. Roman Catholics (and some Anglicans) believe in Transubstantiation-- the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Both understandings have merit. (btw, there is no need to get excited and break chairs over my head.)
So these people were fooled into thinking that the water was wine?
