Thinking that miracles are just misunderstood scientific phenomena is against the very definition of a miracle which is supernatural and outside of the natural order
The categories "scientific phenomena" and "natural order" are misplaced and not the dichotomy that is useful when talking about miracles. Pageau struggles to give a clear answer here because he has a more elaborate conception of mysticism which is absent in this show and most mainstream catholic discussion.
@@thewordbecameflesh6613 I agree. Using any form of the word "magic" when speaking of spiritual things, denegrates the pure Mystery of God and the spiritual realm.
Why wouldn’t a supernatural-Creator God , be able to preform miracles and intervene in man’s lives, Salvation doesn’t make sense without the supernatural!
Honestly a pretty good explanation. Jesus says that unless we become like little children we can't enter heaven. I think a part of it is believing like children too. You tell a child something crazy happened and he will believe you. We ought to learn more from them.
Yes! Modernity has almost wiped away the spirit realm and we are living under a veil right now that’s actually fading now as we speak! We are in the end times. The Creatures and beasts of the earth are coming back and like it says in revelations they will “stop the hearts of man”
Johnathan makes a great point about reading what the text actually says and neither reading things that aren't in it or leaving things out. The Exodus narrative is a prime example. For example, the " parting of the Red Sea." It didn't part, a strong wind blew all night and pushed the water out, leaving a passable seabed that the Israelites crossed the next day. Furthermore, I have seen "skeptics" try to debunk this by pointing out how deep the Red Sea is, that this would have been the equivalent of descending and then climbing back up a very steep and high mountain - as if the event happened at the deepest and widest point. But here again, if you actually read the text they arrived at a place called "Mara" when they got to the other side. Well, look on a map and you see that it is way up north where it is relatively shallow. Also, there's nothing in the text about the Israelites wandering around lost, not knowing where they were, for 40 years. ("What's the matter, your 'omnigod' doesn't know how to read a map?" I've actually seen that more than once) Once again, if you actually read the story, the Israelites appear to know exactly where they are and where they're going. It is only after their disobedience upon arriving at the Canaan border that they are punished by not being allowed to enter for 40 years. This literall level of the text is of course the container for the deeper symbolic meanings of "rescue from slavery," "crossing the sea" and "in the desert for 40 years."
Yes. And in the earliest full existent copy of the Gospels, the apostle Mark, who apparently wrote the earliest Gospel account, apparently does not know that anyone ever saw Jesus after the resurrection.
@ThatBoomerDude56 yeah but the letters of Saint Paul, all of which were written before Mark, does mention the resurrection. And does mention that if Chrsit did not rise from the dead their faith would be I'm vain.
@@baselius662 The "yeah but" is interesting. But if Mark's gospel is accurate, then *WHY* did Mark not consider the physical resurrection of Jesus and the physical meeting of Jesus with the apostles afterwards to be at all significant? If that question doesn't raise an issue in your mind, then your "faith" might be other than proper faith -- which should be consistent with Reason. This is only one of the evidences that Christians misinterpret the requirements for salvation.
@ThatBoomerDude56 firstly we do not know why Mark did not include the resurrection. The Gospel ends quite abruptly. Maybe the author did not have time to finish the work. As you said maybe he did not consider it important to detail the resurrection. We simply don't know and it's up for speculation. Now I wound not find it evidence enough to disprove Christianity on mere speculation. We have the earlier letters of Paul that emphasise the resurrection of the body of Christ as fundamental to the faith. To the point that if he did not rise to the dead their faith would be in vain. Other that Paul we have the other Gospels.
@@baselius662 I am not claiming to "disprove" anything. And I don't even know what it would mean to "disprove Christianity." I'm just raising rational questions that are part of what need to be considered if one is to consider their "faith" to be rational. What is even meant by "faith" if it is clear from the Bible that God does not even intend knowledge of scripture or the events that are recorded in it to be required for salvation?
Matt, I think your question is excellent and I love your being direct about it. As an Orthodox Christian, I don't accept a lot of hagiography about Saints, and that's okay. The lives of the Saints have often been embellished and its perfectly acceptable to question the validity of certain claims.
It's very confusing for me that he believes in the parting of the Red Sea but finds it difficult for other miracles. I mean, the parting of the Red Sea is a big miracle, like the epitome of miracles, so it's confusing for him to say that.
Matt, we find it hard to believe because of many reasons, the chief being we are too educated. We reason too much, analyze too much, THINK too much. By that time God passes us by. Stop thinking and start believing. Also maybe you have not personally experienced miracles in your life. Ask God to do some miracles in your life. You will find it much easier to believe then. Having said that remember faith is the conviction of things not seen... Stay blessed. God bless you abundantly. Shalom.
Seeking a materialist scientific explanation for a miracle at a fundamental level is limiting Gods capacity to act in a way that we’re capable of understanding mechanically. There is an implicit assertion in this desire - that we’re capable of understanding the totality of reality which, which is obviously absurd.
I would just ask you Matt: in 500 years, can you imagine a guy like yourself saying, “I know the story of the miracle of the sun at Fatima, but I just don’t believe it.”
Maybe you’ve addressed it already but what’s up with the cussing? I suppose there’s no verse that directly says not to do it but most Christians see it as vulgar talk and worldly.
I thing that everybody who say something like "yeah, I beleive in Jesus, but there must be some explanation what happened with that resurrection or miracles........" in reality they dont believe full. It is similar as Jow ROgan sain on Wes Huff episode recently, that "imagine Jesus would come now, when all AI, deep fake etc..none will believe it is true..." liek really...all powerful god, creator of everything would have problems to manifest him self...no brothers, we all will now for sure one day.
St. Thomas had doubts and questioned the Ressurection. But, what did Jesus say to him? [John 20:27-29] "Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. 29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." If a Roman soldier (Longinus) put a lance straight through His Heart, then there can be no doubt that He was definitely dead on the Cross. So, if anyone reads a story of a miracle in the Bible or in any book about a saint of the Catholic Church, they should remember the story of St. Thomas and cast aside all their doubts.
It’s like asking to prove how you know you love your spouse, or your child. Because. Be-cause: the cause is found in the fact of the existence of the Love. God tells Moses His name is I Am. And He is Creative: we and everything in the world is a story: just listen.
Jonathan, I love you brother, but your explanation did not suffice. It sounded to me like, with all due respect, you kind of undermined biblical stories to exemplify and defend Catholic traditions... I too feel that some of these stories are bologna. Whereas the biblical narrative is overwhelmingly meaningful and intentional.
Many of these saint stories are simply spiritual historical fiction. Maybe some aren't, like the very early ones, and they preserve genuine memories of the saints' lives (including some miraculous ones), but when you're writing a bio centuries after the person has gone on...how would you even know any of these details you're including in your stories if not from earlier sources or your imagination?
Love Pageau but this just seems intellectually dishonest. Jordan Peterson-esque convoluted thinking shrouded in a sort of pseudo-intellectual apathy. Apathetic to whether or not truth exists or not. A simple “I don’t know, but I believe” seems a much more honest response.
Our lack of knowledge and necessity for belief is in mirror with our sin, to know is to be absent of sin and present with God. This is why science cannot prove miracles, because science does not remove sin from our hearts
The earliest version of the Gospel of Mark doesn't even mention that any of the apostles even saw Jesus after his resurrection. It's just a little bit strange that Mark, if he was an actual apostle, would leave out the greatest encounter in his lifetime that was the greatest proof of the greatest event in the history of the world.
Like it mentions the empty tomb which strongly implies ressurection and includes the testimony of women which at that time was considered unreliable witnesses and if an author wanted to have people believe in a story the last thing you would do is have women being the primary witnesses
@@IsaiahWilson-k4o So you're saying that Peter and other apostles met with Jesus after the resurrection and (1) didn't bother to tell Mark because Peter didn't think it was important? or (2) Mark didn't think it was really interesting that Peter met with the resurrected Jesus? I'm really curious. Please tell me: Which of those two makes the most sense to you? *(There is not another option.)*
A long time ago, I didn't like this guy, Matt. I started to give this guy a chance. But only because of some of his guests on this podcast. Now I know why I never really liked this guy. 🙄🤦🏻♀️ O ye of little faith!
Thinking that miracles are just misunderstood scientific phenomena is against the very definition of a miracle which is supernatural and outside of the natural order
The categories "scientific phenomena" and "natural order" are misplaced and not the dichotomy that is useful when talking about miracles. Pageau struggles to give a clear answer here because he has a more elaborate conception of mysticism which is absent in this show and most mainstream catholic discussion.
Pageau seems to be overthinking the very basics of the Christian faith. Jesus rose from the dead bodily. Supernatural, yes. Complicated, no.
And yet he wasn't readily recognized by people who had lived with him for years. He would also magically pop in and out of places.
@@arthurdanzi404 Miracle and magic do not coexist.
@@thewordbecameflesh6613 I agree. Using any form of the word "magic" when speaking of spiritual things, denegrates the pure Mystery of God and the spiritual realm.
Why wouldn’t a supernatural-Creator God , be able to preform miracles and intervene in man’s lives, Salvation doesn’t make sense without the supernatural!
In Christianity we use reason and logic, we are to avoid superstition
Honestly a pretty good explanation. Jesus says that unless we become like little children we can't enter heaven. I think a part of it is believing like children too. You tell a child something crazy happened and he will believe you. We ought to learn more from them.
Yes! Modernity has almost wiped away the spirit realm and we are living under a veil right now that’s actually fading now as we speak! We are in the end times. The Creatures and beasts of the earth are coming back and like it says in revelations they will “stop the hearts of man”
Johnathan makes a great point about reading what the text actually says and neither reading things that aren't in it or leaving things out.
The Exodus narrative is a prime example. For example, the " parting of the Red Sea." It didn't part, a strong wind blew all night and pushed the water out, leaving a passable seabed that the Israelites crossed the next day. Furthermore, I have seen "skeptics" try to debunk this by pointing out how deep the Red Sea is, that this would have been the equivalent of descending and then climbing back up a very steep and high mountain - as if the event happened at the deepest and widest point. But here again, if you actually read the text they arrived at a place called "Mara" when they got to the other side. Well, look on a map and you see that it is way up north where it is relatively shallow.
Also, there's nothing in the text about the Israelites wandering around lost, not knowing where they were, for 40 years. ("What's the matter, your 'omnigod' doesn't know how to read a map?" I've actually seen that more than once) Once again, if you actually read the story, the Israelites appear to know exactly where they are and where they're going. It is only after their disobedience upon arriving at the Canaan border that they are punished by not being allowed to enter for 40 years.
This literall level of the text is of course the container for the deeper symbolic meanings of "rescue from slavery," "crossing the sea" and "in the desert for 40 years."
If a miracle is just a misunderstood scientific phenomena it is not a miracle
That’s not necessarily true
Is that what you think Jonathan said?
The Bible is very clear on what actually happened versus a parable.
Yes. And in the earliest full existent copy of the Gospels, the apostle Mark, who apparently wrote the earliest Gospel account, apparently does not know that anyone ever saw Jesus after the resurrection.
@ThatBoomerDude56 yeah but the letters of Saint Paul, all of which were written before Mark, does mention the resurrection. And does mention that if Chrsit did not rise from the dead their faith would be I'm vain.
@@baselius662 The "yeah but" is interesting. But if Mark's gospel is accurate, then *WHY* did Mark not consider the physical resurrection of Jesus and the physical meeting of Jesus with the apostles afterwards to be at all significant?
If that question doesn't raise an issue in your mind, then your "faith" might be other than proper faith -- which should be consistent with Reason.
This is only one of the evidences that Christians misinterpret the requirements for salvation.
@ThatBoomerDude56 firstly we do not know why Mark did not include the resurrection. The Gospel ends quite abruptly. Maybe the author did not have time to finish the work. As you said maybe he did not consider it important to detail the resurrection. We simply don't know and it's up for speculation. Now I wound not find it evidence enough to disprove Christianity on mere speculation. We have the earlier letters of Paul that emphasise the resurrection of the body of Christ as fundamental to the faith. To the point that if he did not rise to the dead their faith would be in vain. Other that Paul we have the other Gospels.
@@baselius662 I am not claiming to "disprove" anything. And I don't even know what it would mean to "disprove Christianity." I'm just raising rational questions that are part of what need to be considered if one is to consider their "faith" to be rational.
What is even meant by "faith" if it is clear from the Bible that God does not even intend knowledge of scripture or the events that are recorded in it to be required for salvation?
Matt, I think your question is excellent and I love your being direct about it. As an Orthodox Christian, I don't accept a lot of hagiography about Saints, and that's okay. The lives of the Saints have often been embellished and its perfectly acceptable to question the validity of certain claims.
It's very confusing for me that he believes in the parting of the Red Sea but finds it difficult for other miracles. I mean, the parting of the Red Sea is a big miracle, like the epitome of miracles, so it's confusing for him to say that.
If you think there's anything beyond this physical life then you shouldn't have any problem with any kind of other "supernatural" event.
finally that's an awesome little discussion starts slow but make the point very well !
Matt, we find it hard to believe because of many reasons, the chief being we are too educated. We reason too much, analyze too much, THINK too much. By that time God passes us by.
Stop thinking and start believing. Also maybe you have not personally experienced miracles in your life.
Ask God to do some miracles in your life. You will find it much easier to believe then.
Having said that remember faith is the conviction of things not seen...
Stay blessed. God bless you abundantly. Shalom.
Real faith is foolishness to those who don’t really believe . Is God real, or is He not? Who is the God you profess to worship?
Seeking a materialist scientific explanation for a miracle at a fundamental level is limiting Gods capacity to act in a way that we’re capable of understanding mechanically. There is an implicit assertion in this desire - that we’re capable of understanding the totality of reality which, which is obviously absurd.
What's the definition of a miracle?
Nice pushback question from Matt. The answer given doesn’t seem to be very strong from Jonathan’s pov. “It’s BS”…very compelling.
I love Christian men talking deep apologetics and calling bullshit bullshit
I would just ask you Matt: in 500 years, can you imagine a guy like yourself saying, “I know the story of the miracle of the sun at Fatima, but I just don’t believe it.”
Maybe you’ve addressed it already but what’s up with the cussing? I suppose there’s no verse that directly says not to do it but most Christians see it as vulgar talk and worldly.
this comment section really needs some Wes Huff treatment and explanation to all users who try to be smart or know it all..just saying.
I thing that everybody who say something like "yeah, I beleive in Jesus, but there must be some explanation what happened with that resurrection or miracles........" in reality they dont believe full. It is similar as Jow ROgan sain on Wes Huff episode recently, that "imagine Jesus would come now, when all AI, deep fake etc..none will believe it is true..." liek really...all powerful god, creator of everything would have problems to manifest him self...no brothers, we all will now for sure one day.
St. Thomas had doubts and questioned the Ressurection. But, what did Jesus say to him? [John 20:27-29] "Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. 29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed."
If a Roman soldier (Longinus) put a lance straight through His Heart, then there can be no doubt that He was definitely dead on the Cross. So, if anyone reads a story of a miracle in the Bible or in any book about a saint of the Catholic Church, they should remember the story of St. Thomas and cast aside all their doubts.
I'm more confused than ever now. 😮
Good grief I love Jonathan Pageau
There is a world of difference between miracles recorded in Scripture and attested to by history / people / martyrdom, and medieval BS stories.
Often not really. You’re also implying that people went from rationality to medieval storytellers to rationalists again. Not likely
It’s like asking to prove how you know you love your spouse, or your child. Because. Be-cause: the cause is found in the fact of the existence of the Love. God tells Moses His name is I Am. And He is Creative: we and everything in the world is a story: just listen.
Jonathan, I love you brother, but your explanation did not suffice. It sounded to me like, with all due respect, you kind of undermined biblical stories to exemplify and defend Catholic traditions...
I too feel that some of these stories are bologna. Whereas the biblical narrative is overwhelmingly meaningful and intentional.
Many of these saint stories are simply spiritual historical fiction. Maybe some aren't, like the very early ones, and they preserve genuine memories of the saints' lives (including some miraculous ones), but when you're writing a bio centuries after the person has gone on...how would you even know any of these details you're including in your stories if not from earlier sources or your imagination?
Touched on it, but too briefly. Whatever else, we DO know what the Resurrection is. Luke 24:36-43.
The God who created the Universe and everything in it logically would have no problem with your piddly little miracle Matt.
It’s so amazing that the language that’s not allowed on these comments, comes out of the guest. The religion of rhetoric.
Lol this guy sounds like Jordan Peterson "I believe in the bodily resurrection, but I don't know what that means"
Love Pageau but this just seems intellectually dishonest. Jordan Peterson-esque convoluted thinking shrouded in a sort of pseudo-intellectual apathy. Apathetic to whether or not truth exists or not. A simple “I don’t know, but I believe” seems a much more honest response.
Our lack of knowledge and necessity for belief is in mirror with our sin, to know is to be absent of sin and present with God. This is why science cannot prove miracles, because science does not remove sin from our hearts
I think he did say just that. "I don't know, but I believe".
Thats EXACTLY what Pageau is saying!
Should we take miraculous stories literally? No
The earliest version of the Gospel of Mark doesn't even mention that any of the apostles even saw Jesus after his resurrection. It's just a little bit strange that Mark, if he was an actual apostle, would leave out the greatest encounter in his lifetime that was the greatest proof of the greatest event in the history of the world.
Was Mark there? I did not think he was there. I thought he was a disciple of Peter but I could be mistaken.
@@jl4018 So Peter didn't tell Mark that he saw Jesus physically after the resurrection? That's about the strangest thing I've ever heard.
Who cares? Lol what is this suppose to prove?
Like it mentions the empty tomb which strongly implies ressurection and includes the testimony of women which at that time was considered unreliable witnesses and if an author wanted to have people believe in a story the last thing you would do is have women being the primary witnesses
@@IsaiahWilson-k4o So you're saying that Peter and other apostles met with Jesus after the resurrection and (1) didn't bother to tell Mark because Peter didn't think it was important? or (2) Mark didn't think it was really interesting that Peter met with the resurrected Jesus?
I'm really curious. Please tell me:
Which of those two makes the most sense to you? *(There is not another option.)*
A long time ago, I didn't like this guy, Matt. I started to give this guy a chance. But only because of some of his guests on this podcast. Now I know why I never really liked this guy. 🙄🤦🏻♀️ O ye of little faith!