WaPo published a heretofore private letter from Ronald Reagan to his dying father-in-law, Dr. Loyal Davis. The letter strikes me as a heartfelt attempt on Reagan's part to help Davis find peace through faith. Davis was not a believer.
Reagan's faith strikes me as both childlike and childish. It has the miracle/epiphany element common to so many conversion stories that are meaningful to the folks who don't need converting. And it urges Davis to just ask God for help, reminiscent of Nancy Reagan's "just say no" to drugs, easy peasy.
As someone raised without faith by unbelievers myself, I have to say that admonitions to "just ask" don't work. They make faith seem facile and and illogical (though faith, in the end, does come down to "just ask"). Neither are stories about miracle cures persuasive. You can be happy for the cured, but when you've seen suffering that goes unnoticed by a merciful God, you tend to be skeptical that the Lord has much to do with it.
Reagan also sets up an argument I have heard a lot from would-be saviors of my soul: Everything the Bible says about Jesus is true, or he was a huge fake, and if he was a fake, why would he die as he did? To many converts, though, it is Jesus's words and actions, not his divinity, that makes the first inroads into our hearts. Even if Jesus was a fictional character, what he said about how to treat each other is worth exploring if only to make a better world. For lots of us converts, the first act of faith is deciding that maybe we'd feel better if we stopped acting so sh*tty. Belief in the whole enchilada comes later.
As a work of evangelism, Reagan's words would not persuade a lot of people. I've been exhorted by the mildly irritating to the infuriating. None of it made a dent.
And yet, Reagan's letter is a persuasive bit of evangelism because of its tone. What tugged at my heart was the humility in the opening line, "I hope you'll forgive me for this ..." Hard to be closed to an opening like that. And it struck me in reading the letter that perhaps humility is the only key that truly unlocks hearts.
A good reminder that caring and humility are better evangelistic tools than dogmatism.
ReplyDeleteJean, you say you were raised by unbelievers, but if I understood correctly, your family were Unitarians. They are believers of a sort, aren't they? Or maybe not? You don't have to answer, but I was wondering what kind of creed Unitarians do adhere to, other than I know they don't believe in the Trinity.
There is no creed beyond the implicit directive that every person has the right and responsibility to seek the truth as he or she understands it.
DeleteMy dad believed you should give your neighbor the shirt off your back because God wasn't going to. I found some things he wrote when I was clearing out my mother's house that make it clear he was motivated by gratitude for the kindness of others.
My mother believed in arguing.
Thanks Jean. "Gratitude for the kindness of others"; there are worse things to be motivated by.
DeleteYes. Dad's Jewish friend Mr. Bernstein was a faithful weekly visitor when Dad was in hospice, and he was kind of Dad's unofficial spiritual advisor. Dad would ask questions, and Mr. Bernstein would say, "You never know, but you can hope."
DeleteRonnie had something better than an argument. He had a miracle story. Actually, the story about being cured of his ulcer is what a friend of mine calls a Godincidence. Could be just a coincidence. Can be explained. But still, when you allow for coincidence and explanation, something still happened there.
ReplyDeleteCome at Dr Davis with the virgin birth, and you have an argument. Give Dr. Davis a Godincidence, and nobody has to prove anything. We can get to the virgin birth much later. Maybe my suspicion that the Great Communicator wasn't that great at communication was wrong. And I found out from the Washington Post. Strange, but I am not claiming anything.
Miracle stories persuade believers. They make unbelievers roll their eyes. What makes the difference is Reagan's humility and his clear care for his father-in-law. IMO.
DeleteWhat I like about the story is that you can come at it from a variety of religious (or not) perspectives and see something in it.
God can, of course, work through anyone.
Jean, I'd argue that Ronnie's miracle story is one that does not make one roll one's eyes. You can come at it from a variety of perspectives. He just told his story and implied his perspective. (I'm not going to fight my way back into WaPo, but I believe he just left it at the "That's really something" stage.)
DeleteWeeping statues make me roll my eyes. God holding me in the hollow of his hand make me roll my eyes. (Frank Bradley used to say, "Yeah, and some rainy night a bolt of lightning comes through the window, hits your metal bedstead and knocks you on the floor. What then?")
Of course, Godincidences "prove" God only to people who don't need proof. Stories don't convert people; people convert people when "the Father wills it"(John 6:44). Just possibly Pascal's wager has changed a few minds; otherwise conversion is something only the converted can understand, and most can't explain it
Yes, weeping statues make me roll my eyes. As well as the liquifying of the vial of St. Januarius' blood being able to predict anything. And while we're at it, visionary accounts such as those of Maria of Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, that go on for hundreds of pages like a sacred reality show.
DeleteFor some reason the Washington Post isn't letting me link to its content. It's tetchy that way for me.
ReplyDeleteMiracles persuade us when we witness them. When they're relayed to us second- or third-hand, their believability depends on the credibility of the person telling the story. Nature miracle stories, like medical cures, are tough sells these day, because we're more scientifically literate, and because we know there is a long line of charlatans and gullible fools out there.
I spent the week staying at a bed and breakfast, which means we had communal breakfast every morning with a group of strangers - every morning slightly different as guests came and went throughout the week. One morning the conversation turned to diet. Diet plans are a bit like miracle stories: bold claims are made about them; they are spread via word of mouth; and whether or not we believe the claims depends on what we think of the person telling us. Several folks on this particular morning were insisting on the near-miraculous outcomes of cutting out dairy and processed sugar: it makes inflammation go away, allergies and food intolerances disappear, and probably other things besides. I've heard similar things from family members. But I've been skeptical, probably in part because of self-interest: every morning at home, my breakfast is a big bowl of cereal with sugar and milk on it, and I like it. On the morning in question this past week where the topic was discussed, one of the proponents was a medical doctor (an anaesthesiologist). To my way of thinking, that gives the claim an extra jolt of credibility because doctors are supposed to know about this stuff. I'm not ready yet to face a future of almond milk on my cereal. But I suppose that's how sinners always feel when confronted with the necessity of reforming their lives.
Try this link?
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-lost-letter-from-ronald-reagan-to-his-dying-father-in-law-shows-the-presidents-faith/2018/09/14/5aaab8c0-b140-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html
I dunno. Was Loyal Davis, or anyone, a sinner because he could not believe? He seems to have been a good family man and neurosurgeon. If Reagan opened up his spiritual vistas, that's great, but it wasn't because the.president had special credibility as an evangelist.
But my general point is that those who believe often can't connect with those who don't, and why that's so might bear thinking about.
I've always understood sin to be an act of the will. I don't think you can will yourself in or out of faith. My 1st and 2nd grade teacher said it was a gift; and I don't think she was far wrong. The reasoning being that not everyone is able to receive the gift. I believe if you "walk the walk" even if unable to confess belief, that God takes that into account.
DeleteOne of my husband's uncles was turned off of organized religion early in life. But he was unfailingly kind and generous in all his interactions, and honored the ten commandments, as far as anyone could see. My Evangelical mother in law was worried about his salvation. I didn't think she needed to be, though we pray for all the dead.
Jim, I feel for you. Nothing is more of a crashing bore than being stuck listening to someone's account of their "miracle diet", especially one scantily based on science.
DeleteUgh. Cancer support groups can attract diet-shamers in spades. Hard to listen to "survivors" blabber on about how they were cured because all those antioxidants they ate gave them a leg up. I always find myself feeling sorry I didn't bring a cheeseburger to eat while listening to their spiel.
DeleteIt seems to me that when it comes to people who attempt to evangelize, one of the first thoughts that comes to my mind is, "Would I want to be one of these people?" I spend a lot of time over at Strange Notions, which is basically devoted to apologetics, and a number of times I have mentioned that in Catholic grade school, we were taught that those of us who had "non-Catholic" parents or other relatives could best influence them by good examples, not by proselytizing. (My father was not a Catholic, and although he went through the then-required instructions before marrying my mother, he declined to convert. He resented the word "non-Catholic," and although it occasionally comes in handy, I too find it somewhat offensive.) I would have to say that a great many evangelizers fail to present themselves in such a way that would make me want to sign up for their version of Christianity. I agree with Jean about Reagan's letter. Its arguments wouldn't sway me, but he does show a genuine, touching concern for the man he is writing to. The message I often get from Catholic apologists is, "If you don't believe what I believe, you're going to hell, and frankly, I hope you do."
ReplyDeleteAs for miracles, Reagan's ulcer may have gone away, but he spent his last ten years dying of Alzheimer's.
We all die of something.
Delete"Would I want to be one of these people?" seems like a basic point in evangelization. I confess that I find apologetics sites a huge turn-off. Maybe Strange Notions is different. But some of them wield their arguments like a cudgel.
DeleteAs an exercise in theodicy modulated by my opinion of Reagan, I am tempted to say that between the ulcer miracle and the death from Alzheimer's he $%#&ed up my country but good.
DeleteYes, "would I want to be one of these people" is the jackpot question. Which speaks to Stanley's question obliquely; as active Christian churchgoers seem to be majority Republican now, how well can they evangelize us leftists? To what extent does partisan politics drive people away from church attendance? Especially now that Trump policy is not to go after churches that contribute to campaigns and endorse candidates? Maybe fodder for another post.
DeleteI agree that "would I want to be one of these people" is what evangelization should trigger. I question whether apologetics enterprises should be classified under the category of evangelization. In my my observation their primary function is to generate Internet arguments.
DeleteThe Divine Renovations book I've mentioned previously has this to say about evangelization: a couple of generations ago, the expected pattern would have been "belief -> behavior -> belonging". Which means: in our grandparents' day, virtually everyone in the US belonged to a church, and the identity of each denomination was marked by strong doctrinal definition. Catholics were different from Lutherans were different from Methodists were different from Presbyterians were different from Baptists and on and on; and each denomination's adherents was taught the denomination's doctrinal identity and why it was different than the surrounding churches. Moving to another denomination meant signing on to the new place's distinctive doctrinal set of beliefs as a condition of membership. That was one's ticket in the door and gave one a formal sense of belonging.
The book's author, Rev. James Mallon, argues that the pattern is the reverse today: today it is "Belonging -> Behavior -> Belief". Many people, especially young people, don't come from a starting point of having a strong denominational and doctrinal identity. But they are feeling isolated, anonymous and disconnected. They long to be part of a community where they can be someone, where they have friends, maybe (if they are single) have a chance to meet someone compatible. They long to belong. Mallon uses the old "Cheers" television show theme: people long to belong to a community "where everybody knows your name". That is what they're seeking. Once they have been accepted in the community - as they are, with all their foibles and irregularities and idiosyncrasies - then as they become immersed in worship and faith activities, they grow into a real relationship with God, and they'll begin transforming their behavior and, ultimately, their belief.
Personally, I think this accords much more with what evangelization should be. The Good News is that Jesus loves each of us and wants us to follow him - to be his disciples. There are many gifts from the same Spirit, so different disciples may follow him in different ways: some by focusing primarily on the spiritual well-being of their families; some by serving the poor and needy; some by study and teaching; some by taking on faith community leadership positions; some through the arts and music; and so on.
Jim, I agree with you about the "apologetics enterprises". Their function seems to be to generate clicks. And arguments.
DeleteThe description of evangelization from your book about starting out from connection and community sounds like a project our parish is doing. Two Monday evenings a month we are hosting an informal prayer and music gathering, with an open ended discussion time. Anyone is welcome, there are no expectations. We limit it to one hour. It is lay led, clergy can show up if they want to. This is our second month of doing it. So far we have had one or two newbies, with mostly the "usual suspects" showing up. One guy is passing out printed cards to people he encounters. That's not my style, but whatever.
We'll see where it goes, our goal is not to convert people, but to be a source of connection.
Katherine, that sounds like a great program! Inquirers is such a jolt with the "how are your marriages" question coming right out of the gate.
DeleteKatherine, Please keep us informed on how it goes.
DeleteWell we had a meeting of our gathering last night. Just before they wrapped things up they opened it up to prayer petitions that anyone had. Most were things such as "for those fighting cancer", "for those dealing with addictions", "for reconciliation of estranged family members", etc. But someone had to get in a political one, "for Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed". I didn't say, "Lord hear our prayer", to that one.
DeleteSigh. I think this permanent men's group I hang with started about 60-40 for MAGA, based mainly on dislike for Mrs. Clinton, and now is 80-20 against MAGA based mainly on what it's getting.
DeleteAs I always say to the sacristan with the red baseball cap, "Budeshchengo Net," which I read means "there is no hope here" in Putin's language.
Katherine, I suppose you could translate the Kavanaugh prayer into a general anti-Roe prayer, but ... We Democrat Episcopalians (pretty much us and.Fr. Les) used to joke that ECUSA was aka the Republican Party at Prayer, but that's pretty much all denominations now. I keep my head down and my mouth shut.
DeleteTom, interested in what your men's group thought they would get from MAGA that they're not.
Katherine, it might be a good idea to set some rules for prayer intentions. IF the idea is to attract and keep new members, voicing political desires as prayers might very well drive people away if not corrected. As Jean said, praying for "an end to abortion" is one thing, praying that a particular individual be put on the Supreme Court is another. The next time the person might pray that the GOP retains control of Congress.
DeleteIt was a very nice letter, and seemed unquestionably sincere. But I doubt that it persuaded Dr. Davis. It wouldn't have persuaded me. But, I am not a believer in miracles.
ReplyDeleteDavid: My father was not a Catholic, and although he went through the then-required instructions before marrying my mother, he declined to convert. He resented the word "non-Catholic," and although it occasionally comes in handy, I too find it somewhat offensive.
Even if it "comes in handy", resist the short-cut. It IS an offensive way to refer to those who are not members of the RCC. When I was young, and first married, I was surprised to learn from my Protestant husband that "non-Catholic" was perceived by our "separated" christian brothers and sisters" as a somewhat arrogant and offensive term, as if those who aren't Roman Catholic are a different species. Not real christians, but members of an inferior sub-group who do not recognize their own lesser-ness, that they aren't part of the "one, true" christian. I really had never thought about it, having grown up with the term, but my husband opened my eyes as to how it might come across to those who aren't members of the RCC. Imagine people still referring to Catholics as papists and not either as a joke or in reference to an earlier era of history.
The term should be retired, along with "fallen away Catholic", about which I have already written.
My mother called us papists (or papes) until the day she died. And not as a joke. As far as she was concerned, I checked my brain at the stoup when I turned Catholic.
DeleteJean, I know a couple of former Catholics, now Episcopalians, who say the reason they left the RCC and joined the EC is because the Episcopalians don't require you to check your brain at the door.
Delete"one true" church.
ReplyDeleteOne definition of miracle is "an extraordinary event in a religious context." Reagan interpreted his ulcer disappearance with a serious of religious events. A physician looking at it in the context of non religious aspects of Reagan life, and other patients might not see it as an extraordinary event at all.
ReplyDeleteJesus life can certainty be regarded as a series of "extraordinary events in a religious context" at least that is how it is portrayed in the Gospels. A secular person might see him as another example of a series of executed religious leaders such as the Baptist. Not very extraordinary.
I would not be offended by Reagan's account of his own extraordinary event. I respect it as his experience even though I might be skeptical.
I find his recounting of the life of Jesus as offensive. The same words could be used by Evangelicals for us Catholics who have not had a personal religious conversion of being born again.
It is one thing to share one's religious experience, quite another to impose them on other people. That is attempting to make them to our image and likeness, which is a form of idolatry. I think it is one of the things that Francis regards as "spiritual worldliness,"
i.e. using religion to gain status, power, or money.
Which of these miracles would persuade you - and why?
ReplyDeleteA charismatic preacher is found to be a danger to the authorities, is executed, buried in a cave/tomb. His tomb is found to be empty a few days later, and decades later those who chronicled his life and death claimed that his body was resurrected and that he appeared to his followers many times after his death until he ascended to heaven.
A religious prophet was taken to Jerusalem on a flying animal. From there, the flying animal took him to heaven, where he conferred with the prophets. He was then returned to Mecca where he wrote down what happened and defined the prayers and knowledge he received while in heaven.
From Wiki: Before dawn on 21 September 1995, a worshiper at a temple in New Delhi made an offering of milk to a statue of Ganesha. When a spoonful of milk from the bowl was held up to the trunk of the statue, the liquid appeared to disappear, apparently taken in by the idol. Word of the event spread quickly, and by mid-morning it was found that statues of the entire Hindu pantheon in temples all over India were taking in milk.[1]
By noon the news had spread beyond India, and Hindu temples in the United Kingdom, Canada, UAE, and Nepal among other countries had successfully replicated the phenomenon, and the Vishva Hindu Parishad announced that a miracle had occurred
The Miracle of the Sun ..was an event that occurred on 13 October 1917, attended by a large crowd who had gathered in response to a prophecy made by three shepherd children. The prophecy was that the Virgin Mary would appear and perform miracles on that date. Newspapers published testimony from reporters and other people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity, such as the sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors. According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.
In 2003 a little boy had an emergency appendectomy. He was never clinically dead during surgery. Several years later, his father, a pastor at a small christian church published a book describing what his son told him had occurred during his surgery - that he had gone to heaven, seen his grandfather, Jesus and Mary, among others.
In the 1990s, a young Hindu woman in Hong Kong was near death and underwent surgery. She was not expected to recover, but she did. She was estranged from her family in India - her father had disowned her when she broke her engagement (arranged marriage), and went to Hong Kong. Her father died without forgiving her and there was no reconciliation. During her surgery she had experiences that included a long dark tunnel,before experiencing beautiful light, and an overwhelming feeling of love. She met her father there, and they reconciled. Her recovery was considered miraculous.
In 2011, a woman who was partially paralyzed from an inoperable brain aneurysm, told she had not long to live had a vision of John Paul II. She said she was cured on that day.
In 2011 also, an Indian businessman in Hong Kong had a massive heart attack. During his surgery, his heart stopped for two minutes. His condition worsened when he began hemorraging and the doctors did not believe he would survive. But he experienced a miracle: On the morning of May 25, at exactly 4:10 a.m.,” recalled Daswani, “Sathya Sai Baba walked through the wall of the room and sat on the bed. He showered vibhuti all over me. The vibhuti came pouring out of his hand in a never-ending flow. With the vibhuti bath I suddenly felt a surge of strength all through my body. Sai Baba was a guru who was said to be the reincarnation of an earlier guru, who was the reincarnation of the god Shiva.
Well, the first one in your series. Because of the witnesses who saw him after the resurrection; Thomas touching the wound in his side; and the Road to Emmaus. And the ones who left it all behind and followed him.
DeleteHowever I'm not going to discount the other miraculous happenings, either. They were real to the people who experienced them, whether or not they have a natural explanation. I think our idea of what we call a miracle can be somewhat subjective.
People have said, would it really matter if the resurrection of Jesus were a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one? To which I would answer, if that's the way God had chosen to do it, it wouldn't matter. But a cover-up would matter, a lot. It would mean basing faith on a lie, and a pointless one at that. It would mean all but one apostle going to their deaths in witness to a lie, which seems pretty counterintuitive.
DeleteOne of the teachers at our seminary says that if there was a body in that tomb he has wasted his whole life.
DeleteBut even when the Gospels were written "everyone" knew where the tomb was and that it had turned up prematurely empty. Some of the Gospel writers sound as if they are afraid of being accused of stealing the body, which would not be a concern if there were a cadaver for authorities to point to.
DeleteFrom the two people who responded, I get this. Katherine believes miracle number 1, because "there were witnesses". But the gospels and were not written by witnesses, but by unknown individuals who never personally witnessed Jesus in action. They wrote down stories that they had been told, sometime between 30 and 70 years after Jesus' death, making the reliability somewhat questionable. Nobody commented specifically on the miracles of Fatima, allegedly witnessed by thousands, nor on the Hindu miracle of the milk.
ReplyDeleteKatherine says that the people in the other stories "believed" they were healed by divine intervention. But Katherine, you do not say whether you believe they were healed by divine intervention. The young woman whose "miracle" led to the canonization of JPII attributed her healing to divine intervention at the request of JPII. Is her healing by divine intervention more convincing than that of the Hindu man? Or the Hindu woman?
Nobody ventured an opinion on the miraculous journey of Mohammed to heaven and back to earth.
Christians believe that Jesus’ body was raised from the dead, that he walked through doors and walls to talk with his disciples, and that eventually he ascended into heaven. Devout Muslims believe the miracle stories related to Mohammed.
Catholics accept cures allegedly due to the intercession of deceased human beings who happened to be Catholic, but perhaps do not accept the miracle of the healing of the Hindu man in Hong Kong (his diabetes disappeared at the same time) because he wasn't Catholic, and the intervention was done by a dead Hindu guru, rather than a dead Catholic.
Many christians believe the tale of a visit to heaven by a small boy during surgery but probably would reject the similar experience of a Hindu woman. The boy did not "remember" what happened for several years. His father was a pastor (so the boy had imbibed bible stories and stories of heaven since he was born), and his father just happened to be broke. The book and movie changed all that. The Hindu woman remembered her experience as soon as she was awake after surgery. I was clinically dead for two minutes during surgery when I was 10. No tunnels or lights. But my mother believed that St. Therese “saved” me, as it was her feast day and my mother had prayed in the hospital chapel with her picture on the wall.
Did Jesus' body really rise from the dead? Skeptics claim that Jesus' body was taken to a different place. Some believe it was removed by some of his followers to protect it from abuse by anti-Jesus people, some say it was taken by the Romans and hidden in order to prevent the tomb from becoming a rallying place for would-be protesters. Since the sightings of Jesus involved him appearing suddenly, including in rooms with locked doors, they did not see a physical body. So what did they see? And where was his physical body?
People believe mostly what the tradition they were born into taught them to believe. These beliefs are internalized and thoroughly ingrained before the child has reached the "age of reason". Years later, the struggle may begin. This is what I was taught, this is what I always believed, but now I don't know. Do I have to believe ALL of it, or should I just focus on what seems most important? The message, not the details?
I would suggest that belief or lack of belief in any or ALL of the miracles - including the first - is essentially determined by what faith system one is born into, reinforced by living in a family and even wider culture which shares the same faith system.
Re the man who says that he will have wasted his life if there was no body in the tomb - I would say that he is focused on the wrong things about Jesus. It was Jesus life and teachings that are important. The way he died was a consequence of living up to what he taught. If Jesus taught Truth, describing "The Way" we ought to live as humans, it really doesn't matter if the tomb was empty. IMHO
I don't believe or disbelieve in any miracles. I have never witnessed a miracle of biblical magnitude, but that doesn't mean I reject them. I am merely skeptical. I am willing to concede that, say, if God wanted Jesus born of a virgin, then he was, and I'm not interested in booting that bit out of the story just because it strikes me as farfetched.
DeleteI also think people want faith and hope in their lives, and when a miracle seems to have occurred, they are going to hang onto it and not play devil's advocate with it too much.
Jean, I agree that people want miracles - somehow they provide comfort to many.
DeleteMy comment was made simply to point out that people only tend to believe in the miracles that are part of their own religious traditions. And say the others could not be real because they happened to Muslims or Hindus or others who aren't christian. Catholics only attribute post-Jesus' era miracles to Catholics it seems.
Anne - I agree with you that people are more likely to accept miracles from their own faith traditions. I guess that makes sense: by definition, a miracle is something that can't be explained by the sorts of evidence admitted by the scientific method, so faith fills the gap.
DeleteI accept the miracles reported in the Bible because I accept what the church teaches about the Bible. In other words, it's more than a book of history or poetry - it's sacred scripture.
This is just my personal outlook: I don't view the holy writings of Muslims and Hindus as sacred scripture. But I wouldn't claim that God doesn't intervene in the lives of people other than Christian and Jews. In other words: I don't discount the possibility that God has performed miracles that aren't recorded in the Bible, or that haven't come down to us via a pious Christian tradition. At the same time, I don't check my brain at the door. I think we're all permitted to be skeptical about any reported miracles, even those that come to us from the Christian tradition.
Anne C., Your dismissal of the Gospel authors as "not witnesses" is two bridges too far. I, and everyone else, accept Thomas Jefferson as an authoritative commenter on the Constitution, even though he was in France when it was written. (In correspondence with James Madison, but the actual Gospel writers were in correspondence with people who knew Jesus). I believe in the extinction of dinosaurs, even though no one caught it on a cell phone. The question of authorship is a footnote.
ReplyDeleteI think God works miracles all the time. Catholics see Catholic miracles because they are educated/trained to be aware of that specific kind. Muslims see Muslim miracles for the same reason. Atheists don't see miracles because their minds were not formed to see them.
I agree with Jim and Tom that I don't deny that God intervenes in the lives of people other than Christians and Jews, sometimes in miraculous ways. I would also note that sometimes miracles are wrought through people; the skill of surgeons, ect.
ReplyDeleteI do believe in the Resurrection because the church teaches it, but also through the word of witnesses, which was an oral tradition before it was written down. I don't dismiss oral tradition as fabrication; anyone who has researched their family history has relied on oral tradition to an extent.
Yes, it is Jesus'life and teachings that are important; but also that he conquered death. And if the resurrection didn't happen, we are still left with a massive cover-up which makes no sense.