Rasasthali pisze:Mithrandir pisze:Mówi?c ''cuda'' mam na my?li wszystko to, co człowiek nimi nazywa i nie jest w stanie wyja?nić.Jeszcze
.
Bardzo interesujaca definicja. Purna, wierzysz w jakies cuda? Cud to chyba pojecie chrzescijanskie?? Ktos wie?
Nie tylko, o czym nizej w definicjach, z ktorych wyraznie wynika, ze judaizm, islam, buddyzm i ogolnie pojete religie wschodnie znaja pojecie cudu, choc roznie moze byc ono rozumiane. Ja moze tylko dodam, ze rowniez w strozytnym swiecie greckim cud byl znanym pojeciem - np. Dionisos wiazany byl z przemienianiem wody w wino.
Oxford English Dictionary pisze:1. a. A marvellous event not ascribable to human power or the operation of any natural force and therefore attributed to supernatural, esp. divine, agency; esp. an act (e.g. of healing) demonstrating control over nature and serving as evidence that the agent is either divine or divinely favoured.
to work a miracle: see WORK v. B. 1. Formerly also to do (also make, show) a miracle (obs.).
b. Miraculous agency. by miracle: amazingly, wondrously. Now chiefly poet.
2. a. A story of a miracle; a legend. Obs.
b. = MIRACLE PLAY n.
3. A relic or concrete result of a miracle or legendary event. Obs.
In quot. 1577 supernatural powers are ascribed to nature rather than to a personified divine agent.
4. A remarkable, wonderful, or (in weakened sense) very surprising phenomenon or event; an achievement or occurrence seemingly beyond human power; an outstanding achievement.
In later use sometimes with modifying word prefixed, designating a remarkable development in some specified field.
5. A wonderful object, a marvel; a person or thing of more than natural excellence; a surpassing specimen or example of some quality.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions pisze:Miracle. A striking event brought about (usually by God) for a religious purpose, against the usual course of nature; for example, the resurrection or the instantaneous healings recorded in the Christian gospels. The modern mind (post- Hume tends to ask of miracles, did they really happen; and, if so, what do they show? But religiously, miracle stories have also to be evaluated in the contexts in which they are told, in order to discern their meaning for those transmitting them: they are usually regarded as signs of God's power, or as vouching for the authority of a revelation, prophet, or holy person.
Among Jews, belief in miracles rests on the biblical descriptions of the interventions of God, beginning with creation itself. In the Hebrew Bible, such events as the Ten Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea are understood as interventions by God. The medieval Jewish philosophers found it difficult to accept the supernatural element in the biblical understanding of miracles, but this way of thinking has been condemned as ‘Hellenism’ by such thinkers as S. D. Luzzatto.
In Islam the Qur'n speaks of the ‘signs’ of Allh (yt, singular y) as proofs of the divine power: natural phenomena, and extraordinary events. The term used in Islam for ‘miracle’, though not occurring in the Qur'n, is mu'jiza (that which could not normally be achieved; cf. i'jz, from the same root). This is a sign given by Allh to prove the authenticity and truthfulness of a prophet, in particular Muammad. Although the sole ‘miracle’ of Muammad is said to be the Qur'n, yet in the sra, adth, and legend many miracles are attributed to him, some of which are reminiscent of New Testament narratives.
In E. religions, miracles are extremely common—so much so that they almost cease to be objects of wonder (Lat., miraculum). They surround the births of teachers or holy people, and are particularly associated with siddha and iddhi powers. Such powers would be expected of a living manifestation of the divine ( avatra), as, e.g., in the contemporary case of Satya Sai Baba. The Sikh Gurs condemned appeal to miracles, mainly because they saw them as exploitation of the credulous. Nevertheless, many miracles are told of the Gurs themselves.
The concise Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church pisze:miracle. According to the traditional view, a miracle is a sensible fact produced by a special intervention of God, transcending the normal order of things, usually termed the Law of Nature. The possibility of miracles began to be questioned with the rise of modern science and its growing tendency to regard the world as a closed system. The miracles of Scripture and history were then normally regarded as facts within the sphere of natural explanation, misrepresented by credulous contemporaries. On the other hand, it is argued that if God is held to be the supreme First Cause responsible for, and not subject to, the Laws of Nature, it is likely that He should, from time to time, act directly without the intervention of secondary causes.
Whereas Protestant orthodoxy normally confines itself to belief in the miracles recorded in the Bible, Catholics claim that miracles have occurred throughout history; the reputed cures at Lourdes are among the best known. Proof of a miracle at the intercession of the candidate is a necessary element in the current RC procedures for beatification and canonization.
A Dictionary of the Bible pisze:miracles. Surprising events regarded as caused by God either directly or indirectly by means of a chosen human intermediary. Writers of the Bible believed that God who created the world could and did intervene in the lives of people and in the course of nature. Mighty acts of power were performed by God at vital moments in the history of Israel—as at the crossing of the sea during the Exodus (Exod. 14), which was seen as a confirmation of God's promise to his people. Healing miracles were wrought by God in response to the prayer of prophets (1 Kgs. 17: 20–2).
In the gospels the miracles of Jesus continue this tradition of healings by servants of God, who were inspired by the Spirit. There are resemblances between the miracles of Jesus and those recorded by various charismatic figures in the Hellenistic world, including the Galilean Hanina ben Dosa, in the 1st cent. CE, before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, though the earliest records give descriptions of them which are very different from the gospel narratives about Jesus. Characteristic of the miracles of Jesus (called ‘signs’ in the gospel of John) is the framework of eschatology in which they are related; they are indications of the coming of the kingdom of God; they are fulfilments of expectations of the OT as when the Feeding of the 5,000 (Mark 6: 30–44) echoes the miraculous feeding of Israel in the wilderness; they are done in a context of faith and prayer; they represent the conquest of evil. But it is recognized that others besides Jesus performed exorcisms (Matt. 12: 27).
The mechanism by which the healings were effected (and there is no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus' healings, which are told with sobriety and restraint) may well be explicable. For there are no accounts of restorations to wholeness such as the replacing of an amputated limb (unless it is the slave's ear, Luke 22: 51). The readers of the gospels at any rate saw healings as authentic works of God in which believers received the power of the Kingdom which had begun to come already in the person of Jesus. Modern readers might argue that human bodies are more than machines which can be manipulated by medicines and surgery, and positive spiritual and mental influence from Jesus could have been therapeutic.
The ministry of healing continued in the apostolic age. Peter and Paul healed the lame and the sick (Acts 3: 6; 14: 10; 16: 18 ). Because they were taken out of a lonely and desperate environment and shown friendship and love, it is not surprising if some who were ill felt better.
Miracles of Jesus other than healings may be symbolical rather than historical. For example, the Feedings of the 5,000 and 4,000 (Mark 6: 30–44; 8: 1–10) with the significant numbers of loaves and fish and baskets may point to symbolism—of Jesus as God's agent of compassion for both Jews and Gentiles; the enormous quantity of water available at Cana for Jewish purification ritual and changed by Jesus into wine (John 2: 1–11) may be designed to teach that the Church of Christ has superseded restrictive Judaism and the synagogue in the purpose of God. The 120 gallons are as symbolical as are the 153 fish of John 21: 11 or the number, 666, of the beast (Rev. 13: 18 ).
A Dictionary of Buddhism pisze: miracles. The display of a wide range of miracles is described throughout Buddhist scriptures. The ability to perform such miracles is said to derive from the attainment of supernatural knowledge ( abhijñ) and psychic powers ( ddhi) as a culmination of lengthy practice of meditation ( samdhi). In the earliest Buddhist sources, the display of one's miraculous abilities is discouraged or even forbidden by the Buddha. Later textual sources, however, especially those emanating from Mahyna circles, take a different view and regularly commend such miracles, particularly when said to be performed by the Buddha, as an appropriate means of demonstrating his unlimited powers and bringing beings to salvation. Many accounts of miracles are also mentioned in connection with the lives of the tantric adepts ( siddhas). See also Pihriya; ddhi.
Merrian-Webster OnLine pisze:Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy pisze:miracle (Latin, miror, I wonder at). Augustine propounds a subjective definition of a miracle: it is ‘whatever is hard or appears unusual beyond the expectation or comprehension of the observer’. It is only our habits of mind, therefore, that prevent us from seeing the entire cosmos as the miracle that it is, and that it would appear to be to someone who could see for the first time. In the medieval period the idea arises that a miracle is something special, ‘contra consuetum cursum naturae’ (contrary to the usual course of nature). The rise of the concept of hard, mechanical laws of nature in the 17th century set the stage for the definitive account of Hume in his famous essay ‘On Miracles’ (1750): ‘A miracle may be accurately defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.’ Hume argues that it can never be reasonable to believe in such an event on the evidence of human testimony, at least when that testimony is being used in support of a system of religion. For a miracle needs to be quite outside the normal run of things, whereas human ‘knavery and folly’, the kind of thing that leads to false or misunderstood reportage, is a recognized and regular natural occurrence. So the chance of any report being due to knavery or folly is always greater than the chance of it being due to an event that is quite outside the normal run of things. Hence, they provide the better explanation of the testimony. Hume was aware that a consilience of independent and otherwise creditable testimonies might reasonably lead to people supposing that something they would have regarded as miraculous has actually happened, but he thought the condition was never met in religious contexts, where enthusiasm, piety, and other emotions clouded judgement.
