John Henry Newman's "Miracles of Early Ecclesiastical History"

[Symeon]

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miracles/index.html

I commend Essay II of John Henry Newman's Essays on Miracles. This was a very valuable find for me as apologetical material on early church history (let alone of this caliber) is rare. The entire essay is fascinating, but I found Sections 5.4 and 5.5, devoted to St. Constantine's Vision of the Cross before the Battle of Milvian Bridge and St. Helena's discovery of the True Cross to be especially valuable, as both of these miracles are frequently derided. I hope it proves edifying.

[Philosophickle]

Thank you friend, John Henry Newman is amazing.

[shunyadragon]

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miracles/index.html

I commend Essay II of John Henry Newman's Essays on Miracles. This was a very valuable find for me as apologetical material on early church history (let alone of this caliber) is rare. The entire essay is fascinating, but I found Sections 5.4 and 5.5, devoted to St. Constantine's Vision of the Cross before the Battle of Milvian Bridge and St. Helena's discovery of the True Cross to be especially valuable, as both of these miracles are frequently derided. I hope it proves edifying.

I advise - Take a cold shower and read Constantine's Sword by James Carroll

[Symeon]

I advise - Take a cold shower and read Constantine's Sword by James Carroll

From what I've seen of that tome, I don't think it will be necessary. :wink:

[Anoetos]

I've read "Constantine's Sword" and while the historical facts he relates are true and reprehensible, his manner of doing so amounts to little more than handwringing and gentile-guilt.

[shunyadragon]

I've read "Constantine's Sword" and while the historical facts he relates are true and reprehensible, his manner of doing so amounts to little more than handwringing and gentile-guilt.

Manner aside, his accounts are more than handwringing and gentile-guilt, but this typical of tempts at justification no matter how weak for the Roman believer. Nonetheless they are well documented and accurate, which is more real than the cleansed rather bland 'accounts' of early miracles presented above.

Given the reality of the history portrayed in 'Constintine's Sword' I question James remaining a a member of the Roman Church or a Christian for that matter.

[Symeon]

Manner aside, his accounts are more than handwringing and gentile-guilt, but this typical of tempts at justification no matter how weak for the Roman believer. Nonetheless they are well documented and accurate, which is more real than the cleansed rather bland 'accounts' of early miracles presented above.

Given the reality of the history portrayed in 'Constintine's Sword' I question James remaining a a member of the Roman Church or a Christian for that matter.

Like I said above, I'm not impressed with what I've seen of the book. The notion that Christian focus on the cross is inherently anti-Semitic is ludicrous, as is the notion that St. Constantine is somehow responsible for this.

Second, most of these litanies of Christian crimes against Jews are a little one sided, to say the least. For instance, it is many times recounted how St. Cyril expelled the Jews from Alexandria (and I understand this can be found in Carroll's book). What is less frequently mentioned is that this was in response to a premeditated massacre of the Christians on the part of the Jews. If this is mentioned, it is usually misleadingly called "rioting."

As for the miracles (which are by the way, what this thread is about), I think Newman does a very fine job of defending them.

[Anoetos]

Manner aside, his accounts are more than handwringing and gentile-guilt, but this typical of tempts at justification no matter how weak for the Roman believer. Nonetheless they are well documented and accurate, which is more real than the cleansed rather bland 'accounts' of early miracles presented above.

Given the reality of the history portrayed in 'Constintine's Sword' I question James remaining a a member of the Roman Church or a Christian for that matter.
It's very tiring having to wade through an author's personal moral conflicts while trying to absorb actual history. You end up with a forest and trees situation.

The author of "Constantine's Sword" spends so much time apologizing and chiding the Church for inadequately apologizing or failing to apologize that by the time you get to the actual record of events, you want to smack him and send him home to mommy.