Do all Christians believe in miracles? Is the resurrection considered a miracle?

[justforthisnewname]

I have read an article on whether Christians should believe in miracles - has all the usual stuff in it about the difference between Conservative and liberal Christians and differing views on whether miracles are literal or symbolic. It appears that some Christians do not believe in miracles. However if the virgin birth and the resurrection are miracles then I don’t see how a Christian (who I understand must believe in the resurrection and ascension) cannot believe at least in this miracle or have I misunderstood? Thanks.

The philosopher Maurice Wiles argues that Christians shouldn’t believe in miracles as works of God. He calls God ‘arbitrary’ and ‘partisan’ and a ‘debased God unworthy of worship’!

What ever a human believes in, it becomes their truth and their reality. In a religious context this belief and therefore truth gives them comfort.

I think most Christians believe that Jesus performed miracles and in the resurrection as being an act of God. But many may not believe that Saints can perform miracles or that God directly answers our prayers beyond giving us the strength to cope with our problems.

It's complicated. Traditionally Christians have believed in a bodily resurrection. At the end of John's gospel after the appearance to Mary in the garden Jesus is cooking fish on a beach. There is a physicality to this incident but Jesus' body is not like ordinary human bodies as his friends don't recognise him on the road to Emmaus. A body not a spirit, but different. Christians see this as God breaking into the world.

A mainstream view would be that Jesus' miracles that are recorded in the gospels were proof of his divinity.

In the nineteenth century there was a movement in Christianity to say that there can be no miracles so the resurrection could not have happened and must have been a metaphor rather than an actual event. Very liberal churches may still hold this view. There are members of my congregation who do but I don't. Christianity is very broad.

Ok that makes sense thank you - I know many christians do not believe in miracles but wondered how they reconciled that with the resurrection if that is considered a miracle. Thanks.

In some circles the resurrection is seen as a metaphor for the awakening of Jesus, (not dissimilar to Buddha) An over coming of the ego identity and then emerging as an enlightened spiritual being.

In some circles it is also thought that Jesus was a Buddhist monk.

I am Catholic and the teaching of the church is that miracles still happen and that the supernatural is real. I personally believe this but obviously it is down to each individual believer.

To be declared a Catholic Saint, two miracles must be attributed to that individuals intercession that cannot be explained in any way by natural means. We still are granting individuals sainthood so clearly miracles are still believed to be happening.

Certain saints are famous for the amount of miracles attributed to them during their lifetime. One from the 20th century is Padre Pio an Italian saint quietly living out his life as a Franciscan priest in an Italian backwater. If you read about his life it is full of supernatural events, and he is still credited with constant miracles.

Miracles can include such things as unexplained physical healings, natural phenomena and incorrupt bodies (when a body is exhumed and is completely intact and has not decayed - considered a sign of the resurrection).

There is no obligation for Christians to believe in miracles. There are even some who don't believe in the literal truth of the resurrection. Obviously there are some individual churches that have much stricter faith criteria. The wider umbrella of Christianity would be "anyone who centres the life and teachings of Jesus in their spiritual and moral viewpoint" and it's perfectly possible to do that whilst being agnostic on things like the existence of God and the verifiability of miracles.

A miracle is understood in different ways. There's the common modern understanding of something that is essentially remarkable, but in Christian terms, a miracle is more specific.

In the Gospels, for example, miracles are events which prove the claims of Jesus, enacted either by Him or by His Apostles. They are, most simply 'acts of God'. They require firstly an understanding of the normal, natural run of things, because a miracle is an event that only God could enact, because that's the point in Christian terms - they are supposed to be 'proof' that the claims being made are backed up by God.

Now, personally, I'm fine with believing that the things described in the new testament happened, including, fairly obviously, the resurrection. As St Paul says, if it didn't happen, then Christians are pretty pitiable.

Some people do take a more intellectual approach and a certain amount of sceptical theorizing in recent decades has gained a following, playing up the symbolic aspects of miracles over and above the physical reality of them. My own view is that it's wise to hold these things in tension.

Thank you for all these replies - I have found the answers really fascinating and feel I understand this much more now. Thank you.

Some of the most beautiful miracles are conversions and spiritual healings, when people were struggling for many years interiorly and receive interventions from God in a very personal way.

Also saints like Padre Pio were given the gift of reading hearts, when total strangers came to see him and he knew exactly why they were there before being told, he would speak first. So words of wisdom, prophecy and healing. But all to help someone grow closer to God.