Literal or Allegorical

[Justice]

I posted this in another thread. So that I didn't change the focus of the other thread, I decided to create a new thread so I can focus on it here:

Mark 2:

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Either you believe Jesus simply spoke and the man was healed, or you imagine some allegorical meaning that could explain this story.

I believe this is a crossroads of faith. There really are only 2 possibilities here.

1. Jesus simply spoke and the man was actually healed.

2. This did not happen literally and there is another explanation.

I believe one of the main intents of scripture is that:

John 11:

47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

John 12: 37

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

These people who did not believe in Christ, even though they witnessed many miracles, were in serious jeopardy.

Jesus spoke and caused many different things to happen:

1. Changed water into wine.

2. Calmed the wind and water.

3. Healed men of all manner of diseases and sicknesses.

4. Withered living trees.

These represent a general example, and are not inclusive of everything He did. In the Old Testament He even spoke and created the very heavens and earth.

But, the greatest miracle of all is that of forgiving sins. If you do not believe He is capable of these things, by the power of His word, then I do not believe it is possible for you to believe He is capable of the greater miracle, that of answering to eternal justice for all of your sins.

As He implies in this scripture, it is easier for Him to speak and perform miracles than it is for Him to answer to justice for sin.

I don't see how anyone can believe He atoned for sins, when those sins were logged by justice and it demanded an infinite and eternal punishement, and yet not believe He can speak and cause miraculous things to happen.

Jesus Christ is the God of creation, the God who covenanted with Abraham, the God who gave the law to Moses. If Jesus Christ can atone for sin, He is capable of doing anything else to help man, because sin was the greatest obstacle. He already proved He could command the very elements when He created the earth. By His word He can accomplish all things expedient to man.

In my opinion, there is no true faith with this belief.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Jesus actually did those things, and we are authorized to use his name to do even greater things.

[bmy-]

Why can there not be both?

[Snow]

Jesus Christ is the God of creation, the God who covenanted with Abraham, the God who gave the law to Moses. If Jesus Christ can atone for sin, He is capable of doing anything else to help man, because sin was the greatest obstacle. He already proved He could command the very elements when He created the earth. By His word He can accomplish all things expedient to man.

In my opinion, there is no true faith with this belief.

Your post is not very organized or straightforward. I assume that this "no true faith" you speak of is not the statement of faith your mention in the paragraph right above it, but rather relates to a cryptic statement you made several paragraphs above that alluding to people that do no believe that Christ is capable of producing miracles.

Is that correct?

If so, I am still confused. Who is your post directed to? Is there someone you know of that doesn't think Christ is capable of producing miracles?

As for you two options on the reading of verses 9-12, tell me who the author was and what his/her source was and maybe I can help.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Snow

[Justice]

We, as people, have a bad habit of projecting our behaviors and reasons on others.

My post is as straightforward as I desired it to be. My words are directed at anyone who may read it. It is very difficult to be any more direct when you're trying to be indirect. No, Snow, those words were not directed at you or any one individual. It has been something I have been pondering over lately. Those are some of my "unorganized thoughts." That's probably what you're seeing. I am quite confident there are people who believe the miracles spoken of in the Bible are not all actual events. I have been pondering over how one can pick and choose which ones are and which ones are not actual events. That's what leads to my "be believing" mentality. If He did one, the most difficult one, then why is it so hard to believe He did all of them? I think it's a good, generalized question that all people can ponder over.

As far as the author of Mark, there is no clear proof (I suspect you know that). However, I do believe the event happened, and even though it's possible that it's not a word for word account, it doesn't have to be to make my point. All I need from the verses is that Jesus healed the man, together with a belief that Jesus suffered for sin. The first is very possible, even likely; the second we know happened.

[Elgama]

I don't think it really matters I personally believe it did happen however even if it was allegorical its a story the Lord wanted us to know about.

[Justice]

Either you believe Jesus simply spoke and the man was healed, or you imagine some allegorical meaning that could explain this story.

When interpreting whether or not an event was real or allegorical in the Bible, are there more than these 2 possibilities?

1. It literally happened just as the Bible says.

2. It did not happen as the Bible claims.

Is there middle ground?

For instance, as far as the flood goes (example only), can someone believe that the account of the flood in the Bible was not global yet still walk away with the intent behind why God caused the flood? Why did He not cause lots of localized floods to destroy the wicked of every land and preserve the righteous in those lands? Isn't the story trying to say the entire earth was wicked except for Noah and his family?

If it was God's intent to destroy all living flash on the earth except for Noah and his family, can you understand the seriousness of the event while believing it was only local, and only "all flesh" on that land died, and not all flesh over the entire earth? If it was local, why did they have to carry different sets of every kind of animal, since those animals would still be on the earth?

After reading these scriptures:

Genesis 7:19–20 [Gen. 7:19–20] states, “All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered … ; and the mountains were covered.” These verses explicitly state that all of earth’s high mountains (“hills” should read “mountains” here; Hebrew harim) were covered by the waters. Lest one believe that the statement “under the whole heaven” is figurative and can be read or interpreted in different ways, a scriptural search through the entire Old Testament reveals that the phrase is used elsewhere only in a universal sense, as it is here; the phrase does not refer to a geographically restricted area (see Deut. 2:25; Deut. 4:19; Job 28:24; Job 37:3; Dan. 9:12). For instance, Job 28:24 also uses the phrase when referring to God’s omniscience, which is certainly not restricted to a specific geographical region on the earth.

Genesis 7:21 [Gen. 7:21] states, “All flesh died that moved upon the earth, … every creeping thing … every man.” The phrase “all flesh” refers to all land animals, creeping things, and fowls and all of humanity, with the exception of those in the ark (see Gen. 7:23). The entry every in the Oxford American Dictionary reads: “each single one, without exception.” Moses is clearly trying to let us understand that the Flood was universal.

Verse 22 [Gen. 7:22] states, “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” Again the term “all” expresses a sum total. The term “dry land” should be read literally here, having reference to the land masses of our planet.

Verse 23 [Gen. 7:23] states, “Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl.” Moses’ list of those destroyed by the Flood is inclusive; only Noah “remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”

Genesis 8:5 [Gen. 8:5] states, “In the tenth month … were the tops of the mountains seen.” After the flood, the “waters decreased” until Noah and his group were able to once again see mountaintops.

From this link:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Can a person really believe and understand the Bible, and the story of Noah, if they walk away from the story believing the flood was local, because it was *impossible* or *unlikely* and that there is no *evidence* that it was global? Isn't it more important to walk away seeing that the enitre earth was wicked except for this one family?

Please think about it seriously. Can one truly have faith in God if they cannot accept that the flood was global, relying on their understanding of the difficulty of the event and scientific evidence, and never truly stepping beyond difficulty, evidence or proof into faith?

The purpose of the story of Noah is to teach that the entire earth was destroyed because the people were wicked. It wasn't just that one nation or one land was evil, it was the entire earth. I can't help but think you have to understand the global nature of the flood to fully comprehend how serious God is about sin, and how serious He is about saving even one man and his family, from among all the inhabitants of the earth, if they keep His commandments.

I can't see how the vision of localized flooding can bring one to understand the seriousness of the teaching behind the story of Noah. I'd venture to say that if other stories are put through the same analysis, I bet something is lost by reducing them to anything other than actual events as described.

Thoughts?

[Traveler]

I posted this in another thread. So that I didn't change the focus of the other thread, I decided to create a new thread so I can focus on it here:

......

Either you believe Jesus simply spoke and the man was healed, or you imagine some allegorical meaning that could explain this story.

....

I wonder why it is not possible that when Jesus (G-d) speaks a billion or so angles go to work and make it happen?

The Traveler

[Justice]

Good point. Also, it would seem even the elements obey His voice, too. Water and earth are both elements. In the beginning, He spoke and the dry land appeared, where there was only water, why can't He speak and the water appear from where there is dry land?

[HiJolly]

When interpreting whether or not an event was real or allegorical in the Bible, are there more than these 2 possibilities?

1. It literally happened just as the Bible says.

2. It did not happen as the Bible claims.

Is there middle ground?

I think so.

Can a person really believe and understand the Bible, and the story of Noah, if they walk away from the story believing the flood was local, because it was *impossible* or *unlikely* and that there is no *evidence* that it was global? Isn't it more important to walk away seeing that the enitre earth was wicked except for this one family?

Only if you put "entire earth" in quotes. The point is expanded upon and emphasized when one looks at the story literally. This is what the Jews call the "pshat" level of meaning. But the essence, the core meaning, the iceberg beneath the water, cannot be found in literal meanings.

As an example, and please don't just dismiss this, look at Luke 2

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

"all the world" -- think about that. It's just as much scripture as the references about the flood that you've quoted. You and I look at that, and our literal view would destroy the 'real' meaning and invalidate the scripture. So, we don't take it literally, we contextualize it.

Is there a difference?

Please think about it seriously. Can one truly have faith in God if they cannot accept that the flood was global, relying on their understanding of the difficulty of the event and scientific evidence, and never truly stepping beyond difficulty, evidence or proof into faith?

Put that way, no, probably not. But I don't put it that way.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Just one example: 4 Levels of Biblical Understanding, by Eighth Day Assembly

A very good sermon:

Remember How to Study Torah—that is, not the content itself, what you usually think you should you remember from Torah, but rather remember the method: how do you study Torah? … In Midrasha, you might or not have used the traditional method embodied by the Hebrew acronym PARDES, whose letters pe, resh,dalet, samech, represent the words pshat, remez, drash and sod, …but I want to review the method with you tonight…: because, like your American Express card, I don’t think you should leave home without it. Why? Because I think this method will remind you of a host of great advice, an approach to all of your life experiences that is well worth adopting. It’s a simple system for taking stock, for asking yourself the kinds of questions that can lead you, not only to greater knowledge and deeper understanding, but hopefully and eventually to the goal of all Torah study-- to wisdom.

So here is the PARDES method in its 4 steps: Given any text:

Pshat: What is the simple surface meaning ?

Remez: Are there any hints here, any allusions to other texts, other situations?

Drash: What is the explanation? What’s the whole story? The context?

Sod: On the deepest level, what is the secret hidden here?

Let us look at the four steps as they apply to your life. According to the Pardes method, how should you meet the many experiences in your future?

Pshat: the simple meaning:

Always start at the beginning……Always strive to know first what the facts are, what was actually said, done, who are the players, what are the rules of the game.? Be observant. As we are told of Moses, “v’ha sineh, eineinu uhal” Moses saw that the bush was burning, yet the bush was not consumed. Anyone can see that a bush is burning... but, you have to start by noticing the bush at all…..So stay awake! Pay attention! Be there and be alert! Pshat means simple—Keep it simple—Wake up! Show up! Listen up! and Just do it!

Remez-A remez is a hint, allusion, or a clue.

As you confront your life, will you have a clue? Being innocent and naïve can be refreshing; being clueless is just plain annoying. So explore more fully, examine more closely, listen more intently, watch with greater focus. The details in life aren’t just decorations;… So, ... take a hint! Learn from the parallel experience of others, and give of yourself and your experience to help others connect the dots as well. Life may be a charade after all, but having any fun doing it depends on the hints we give and the hints we get. –So engage! Don’t just be a spectator; get in and play the game. Remez is a hint, a clue, an association, and they are everywhere—if you look.

Drash: Getting or making the explanation, the whole story:

Observing the obvious clues doesn’t mean just plucking the low hanging fruit. Stretch, push yourself. Reach. Get the story behind the facts, get people’s stories, notice the consequences of actions. Be inquisitive, take the time to analyze and consider, try to make meaning out of your experiences, seek to gain understanding. As you go through the world, you will find things are as they are, and the current political winds of change notwithstanding, you may or not be able to change them.

And often enough, they may change you. What is important is what you can learn from them, create from them, that is meaningful and has some enduring value. What does it mean that the bush was not consumed? Why wasn’t it? Is there an explanation for what happens? Could there be several? .…..Invest in the process.

Seek meaning and then…Articulate your own truths, your own drash, your personal interpretation.

Pshat: Get the simple facts; Remez: follow all the clues, then Drash: figure out the explanations that work for you.

And finally, Sod-Sod is a secret.

In studying Torah, this deepest level of meaning may be mystical; it will surely always be personal, intuitive, and spiritual. ….. sharing secrets, your own and those of others, makes you vulnerable. It’s scary, but brings with it the magic bonding ingredient of trust which leads to love. Exploring secrets can have a high cost; yet the reward is great too. So protect yourself, of course, but do not make of that protection an impenetrable fortress. Keep handy the keys to an inner you, keep the locks well oiled whether through meditation, prayer, or nature. Stay open to your own inner voice; stay open to others, stay open to mystery, stay open to love. Sod is a secret, and only you can know the secrets that will nourish your own soul.

So there you have the baggage I recommend, the charge I give you: PARDES, the Hebrew acronym for Pshat, Remez, Drash , and Sod, is a method, a gimmick, a traditional way to study Torah, and, I submit, also a way to encounter life. May you remember it; may you find meaning, and may you find love.

You have often sung the song Etz Chaim He—the Torah is a tree of life. Indeed. And, the study of Torah is PARDES, an acronym that spells the word for orchard. May you remember the Torah and how to study it, and may your life, like the tree and the orchard, be fruitful.

Elaine Bachrach

...brought to you by:

HiJolly

[Justice]

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

"all the world" -- think about that. It's just as much scripture as the references about the flood that you've quoted. You and I look at that, and our literal view would destroy the 'real' meaning and invalidate the scripture. So, we don't take it literally, we contextualize it.

Is there a difference?

No, I don't think there's a difference. This is a very good example of how the scripture appears to support one belief, when in fact, it actually supports another.

Let's move forward and take the text at face value, just like in Genesis where God says the flood covered the "whole earth." Where does that leave us?

Well, let's take the context of who is speaking. Caesar made the decree of "all the world." OK, to Caesar, what was "all the world?" Was it the whole earth or everything he was king over, or all of his land?

Being that the comment was made by Caesar, who was king (or emporer) over a kingdom, we can safely say that "all the world" is "all that he has dominion over." It would be illogical to assume he meant he wanted to tax individuals who were not under his throne.

Now, when God says the "whole earth" what would He mean?

So, going with the statment of "whole earth" or "all the world" I don't think it's unreasonable to consider who is speaking to get the "best" interpretation. Both do mean "complete and total" according to what they each know.

You made me think and pray about it... and that's a good thing.

[HiJolly]

No, I don't think there's a difference. This is a very good example of how the scripture appears to support one belief, when in fact, it actually supports another.

Let's move forward and take the text at face value, just like in Genesis where God says the flood covered the "whole earth." Where does that leave us?

Well, let's take the context of who is speaking. Caesar made the decree of "all the world." OK, to Caesar, what was "all the world?" Was it the whole earth or everything he was king over, or all of his land?

Being that the comment was made by Caesar, who was king (or emporer) over a kingdom, we can safely say that "all the world" is "all that he has dominion over." It would be illogical to assume he meant he wanted to tax individuals who were not under his throne.

Now, when God says the "whole earth" what would He mean?

So, going with the statment of "whole earth" or "all the world" I don't think it's unreasonable to consider who is speaking to get the "best" interpretation. Both do mean "complete and total" according to what they each know.

You made me think and pray about it... and that's a good thing.

You've got a problem. The NT scripture is not quoting Caesar. That's foundational to your point, and it isn't true.

And even though the OT is apparently quoting God, I think there is justification for editorial license. Do you remember who wrote Genesis? Do you really think Moses is quoting God's actual words to Noah? I'm not saying he didn't get a revelation as to what the words were, but I am saying the scriptures don't say that Moses did. Without the claim, I'd have to say it's not a quote.

I know this isn't a "faith promoting" course of thought. I wish it were. My problem is that I don't believe God lies in terms of what the evidence of the earth teaches us. Not in Geography (NT), and not in Geology (OT).

HiJolly

[Justice]

Understood.

I don't think it has to be a direct quote in order for Caesar to have spoken or written those words. I paraphrase things all the time for people, or even tell a story about something that happened, and never intend to actually quote someone, but end up using their exact words anyway.

I think the author of Luke read a proclamation, or heard it said, that "all the world" would be taxed so they all had to return to the land of their fathers for a census. And, God is paraphrased all the time in scripture.

So, although you make a good point, and indeed I believe you're right about being careful, I don't think it's a foundational part of my belief for it to be a direct quote.

[HiJolly]

Understood.

I don't think it has to be a direct quote in order for Caesar to have spoken or written those words. I paraphrase things all the time for people, or even tell a story about something that happened, and never intend to actually quote someone, but end up using their exact words anyway.

I think the author of Luke read a proclamation, or heard it said, that "all the world" would be taxed so they all had to return to the land of their fathers for a census. And, God is paraphrased all the time in scripture.

So, although you make a good point, and indeed I believe you're right about being careful, I don't think it's a foundational part of my belief for it to be a direct quote.

I agree.

It's clear in the story of Noah and the Flood, that the intent of the teaching is something to the effect that if we are surrounded by evil and/or error, God can clean the slate, and yet we can survive. I think a literal reading of both these texts can interfere with, if not destroy the 'lesson'.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

I posted this in another thread. So that I didn't change the focus of the other thread, I decided to create a new thread so I can focus on it here:

Mark 2:

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Either you believe Jesus simply spoke and the man was healed, or you imagine some allegorical meaning that could explain this story.

I believe this is a crossroads of faith. There really are only 2 possibilities here.

1. Jesus simply spoke and the man was actually healed.

2. This did not happen literally and there is another explanation.

I believe one of the main intents of scripture is that:

John 11:

47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

John 12: 37

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

These people who did not believe in Christ, even though they witnessed many miracles, were in serious jeopardy.

Jesus spoke and caused many different things to happen:

1. Changed water into wine.

2. Calmed the wind and water.

3. Healed men of all manner of diseases and sicknesses.

4. Withered living trees.

These represent a general example, and are not inclusive of everything He did. In the Old Testament He even spoke and created the very heavens and earth.

But, the greatest miracle of all is that of forgiving sins. If you do not believe He is capable of these things, by the power of His word, then I do not believe it is possible for you to believe He is capable of the greater miracle, that of answering to eternal justice for all of your sins.

As He implies in this scripture, it is easier for Him to speak and perform miracles than it is for Him to answer to justice for sin.

I don't see how anyone can believe He atoned for sins, when those sins were logged by justice and it demanded an infinite and eternal punishement, and yet not believe He can speak and cause miraculous things to happen.

Jesus Christ is the God of creation, the God who covenanted with Abraham, the God who gave the law to Moses. If Jesus Christ can atone for sin, He is capable of doing anything else to help man, because sin was the greatest obstacle. He already proved He could command the very elements when He created the earth. By His word He can accomplish all things expedient to man.

In my opinion, there is no true faith with this belief.

It is not an opinion when truths are presented. Justice, whether or not people believe it or not doesn't change anything about what the writer seen or hearing the account.

The Savior was not obligated to follow any physical law and had control over intelligence within this mortality. They simple gave the Savior honor as they do GOD. He was a Son of God in the beginning of his mortal life and prior to His death became a Father (meaning being GOD in manifested in the flesh). How many other prophets have done the same and recorded it? How many members follow the same example did you hear of?

It is all about receiving honor from various surrounding intelligences in this life. This is the power of GOD. Now, we are called servants and sons of GOD. But we can reach the level of being a FATHER in this life and have master over this physical creation if we choose.

Last, one thing that is quite odd with many outside and a few in the church, GOD, even Christ, cannot make anything out of thin-air. They require some substance of the same or aids of some sort to either create, fashioned, heal, and return life to its natural order.

Could we do the same? Yes! But one must live up to every obligation or oath made, obedience, and following the will of the Godhead in order to have honor. Even you Justice can stop rivers, change the weather, or move mountains just with a word. The intelligences will comply; even angels will be at your beckon call.

[Hemidakota]

I agree.

It's clear in the story of Noah and the Flood, that the intent of the teaching is something to the effect that if we are surrounded by evil and/or error, God can clean the slate, and yet we can survive. I think a literal reading of both these texts can interfere with, if not destroy the 'lesson'.

HiJolly

And how do you know it was not a literal flood?

[HiJolly]

And how do you know it was not a literal flood?

I don't. By the same token, I don't need it to be.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

It is not an opinion when truths are presented. Justice, whether or not people believe it or not doesn't change anything about what the writer seen or hearing the account.

The Savior was not obligated to follow any physical law and had control over intelligence within this mortality. They simple gave the Savior honor as they do GOD. He was a Son of God in the beginning of his mortal life and prior to His death became a Father (meaning being GOD in manifested in the flesh). How many other prophets have done the same and recorded it? How many members follow the same example did you hear of?

It is all about receiving honor from various surrounding intelligences in this life. This is the power of GOD. Now, we are called servants and sons of GOD. But we can reach the level of being a FATHER in this life and have master over this physical creation if we choose.

Last, one thing that is quite odd with many outside and a few in the church, GOD, even Christ, cannot make anything out of thin-air. They require some substance of the same or aids of some sort to either create, fashioned, heal, and return life to its natural order.

Could we do the same? Yes! But one must live up to every obligation or oath made, obedience, and following the will of the Godhead in order to have honor. Even you Justice can stop rivers, change the weather, or move mountains just with a word. The intelligences will comply; even angels will be at your beckon call.

Absolutely beautiful. It is possible to live up to our priviledges. Or, can be possible.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

It is not an opinion when truths are presented. Justice, whether or not people believe it or not doesn't change anything about what the writer seen or hearing the account.

The Savior was not obligated to follow any physical law and had control over intelligence within this mortality. They simple gave the Savior honor as they do GOD. He was a Son of God in the beginning of his mortal life and prior to His death became a Father (meaning being GOD in manifested in the flesh). How many other prophets have done the same and recorded it? How many members follow the same example did you hear of?

It is all about receiving honor from various surrounding intelligences in this life. This is the power of GOD. Now, we are called servants and sons of GOD. But we can reach the level of being a FATHER in this life and have master over this physical creation if we choose.

Last, one thing that is quite odd with many outside and a few in the church, GOD, even Christ, cannot make anything out of thin-air. They require some substance of the same or aids of some sort to either create, fashioned, heal, and return life to its natural order.

Could we do the same? Yes! But one must live up to every obligation or oath made, obedience, and following the will of the Godhead in order to have honor. Even you Justice can stop rivers, change the weather, or move mountains just with a word. The intelligences will comply; even angels will be at your beckon call.

The concept of Father and Son are in direct relationship of a covenant as seen in Ezek. 40:46. And to become a son of G-d as seen in John 1:12. The verse in John has 3 direct references to a covenantal relationship.

The idea that something is spoken first, before it is carried out is an ancient way of indicating that it was done by covenant

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Absolutely beautiful. It is possible to live up to our priviledges. Or, can be possible.

HiJolly

I attended a funeral yesterday of man I had met in the temple while doing alot of washing and anointing. What I found fascinating about this man as I attended his funeral, is this same Saint, had always had a radiant smile of love and a divine glow about him that seems to gravitate others to him. Not many attended his funeral but I can say, indeed, he reached the level of not being called a Son of God any further in this life or the next.

[Justice]

I don't. By the same token, I don't need it to be.

The difference I see is that if you believe miracles are allegorical, you miss the point that Jesus actually did them. Believing that they were allegorical because science says they are not possible (not saying that is your reason) will not allow you to exercise faith in an all-powerful Christ.

I think it is essential to believe He really did speak and demonstrate power over the elements.

Like the miracle I gave an example of where He healed the man with palsy. He offered evidence to those watching that "the Son of Man hath power to forgive sins on earth." If you don't (or maybe can't) believe He simply spoke and healed a man with the palsy, it is impossible to exercise faith in Him. This is why He condemned the Pharisees and the city of Capernaum...

Matthew 11:

23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Miracles (demonstrating mastery over the elements) were a key to Him showing who He was. This was the intent and purpose for Him performing them.

Then, if He spoke and healed a man with the palsy, why can't He speak and cause a global flood? If we don't believe He can speak and cause a global flood, how in the world can we believe He spoke and created the heaven and earth? Or, how can we believe He can speak to justice for our sins?

[HiJolly]

The difference I see is that if you believe miracles are allegorical, you miss the point that Jesus actually did them.

I don't really know of any of Jesus' miracles that I can't believe in.

Believing that they were allegorical because science says they are not possible (not saying that is your reason) will not allow you to exercise faith in an all-powerful Christ.

I'm not sure that's true. But since I'm not in that boat, I don't really know.

I think it is essential to believe He really did speak and demonstrate power over the elements.

I agree completely.

Like the miracle I gave an example of where He healed the man with palsy. He offered evidence to those watching that "the Son of Man hath power to forgive sins on earth." If you don't (or maybe can't) believe He simply spoke and healed a man with the palsy, it is impossible to exercise faith in Him. This is why He condemned the Pharisees and the city of Capernaum...

Matthew 11:

23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Miracles (demonstrating mastery over the elements) were a key to Him showing who He was. This was the intent and purpose for Him performing them.

Then, if He spoke and healed a man with the palsy, why can't He speak and cause a global flood? If we don't believe He can speak and cause a global flood, how in the world can we believe He spoke and created the heaven and earth? Or, how can we believe He can speak to justice for our sins?

The question is not what God can or cannot do. Of course God can make the earth flood to the top of Kilimanjaro, if He so chooses. *Why* He does it seems to be the point of scriptures, entire. *How* seems to be just a passing comment kind of thing, and that makes sense, since it's not the point of the scriptures.

I don't see the Bible as a guide to *how* things are done - therefore things like the Creation, the Fall, and the Resurrection - these are all involved in the *why* of things. IF there is a 'how' aspect of scripture, it is sketchy at best. Yet some people get very upset if a Biblical 'day' is not equal to 24 hours, etc. I think that's nuts.

I'm not into a view of God that describes Him as setting up an earth that has evidence within itself that is contrary to how He actually created it, either. A deceptive God = no fun at *all*.

That's why I believe in Evolution. The evidence found in the earth and in the lab is overwhelming. And there's no reason in scripture, as I see it, that God couldn't create in that manner. Now some folks go too far, yes, and that I would call 'Darwinism' - it's pseudo science and I don't believe in that.

Just in passing, I read Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species", and it was really inspiring. Loved the book, haven't loved what some people have done with it. There's a lot of misrepresentation of both sides of the debate.

HiJolly

Edited December 16, 2009 by HiJolly

[Snow]

Miracles (demonstrating mastery over the elements) were a key to Him showing who He was. This was the intent and purpose for Him performing them.

No - not exactly, at least not in Matthew.

The author of Matthew is quite clear that Jesus performs no miracles in order to show who he is. The author goes so far as to say only wicked people as for such a thing. For Matthew miracles are meant to help people in need, not show who Jesus was.

On the other hand, the author of John disagrees with the author of Matthew. For John's author, miracles are called signs and are precisely performed in order to show who Jesus is.

At least you're 50% correct... according to the Gospels/

[Justice]

I'm not against the idea that there are many reasons why He performed miracles. It might even be that different miracles (or wonders) were for different purposes, or even multiple purposes. I have no doubt that you're right about the primary reason He healed people was to help them.