REPORT: Miracle Dynamics

[Paradõsis]

Why do the Epistle’s have a scarcity of miracles? God miraculously healed every sick person introduced in the Gospels and Acts, but none in the Epistles.

Um, the period described in Acts and the period during which the Epistles were written were largely the same time. At least half (probably more) of the epistles were written during the Acts period. If miracles happened in Acts, then they happened during the writing of epistles as well. There are also many accounts from the early Church, both in the 1st and 2nd centuries, of miracles. Enyart's theory only works if you bury your head in the sand and accept few of the early extra-biblical Christian documents. That's what I thought when I was honestly giving Enyart's approach a chance (back when I was reading the Plot), and that's what I think now.


PS. Knight, Nah, I'm not "back," just came to see what was up today. Btw, I agree with what you said in Paul's thread; you know from first hand experience that I am hardly a saint.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

he he

 

[August]

Wow! Now we are so smart and sophisticated and educated that we are in a position to criticize the effectiveness of Jesus's ministry. If many rejected his teachings, it wasn't only in spite of the miracles, but also in the presence of his teachings. Of course, we don't have to blame Jesus or the miracles or the teachings. We could say that eveyone in every era has the free will to accept, or not accept, the teachings or the miracles. Or, we could say that they don't have the free will because God determines everything, including their acceptance or rejection of his work. But in either case, there is no case for criticizing miracles.
What do have that is better than what Jesus offered? Why, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, commentaries, and graduate level courses in theology, of course. If one has the option of accepting or rejecting Jesus's teachings that we would do the works that he did, and even greater works, why would anyone choose to reject it? For the same reason that the scribes and pharisees rejected his teachings: ego. We can't believe that God would bestow on those with less education gifts of the spirit that we haven't attained through education. Or, alternatively, that God would not bestow the gifts on those of us who are "chosen", the "elect", predetermined for salvation while the riff-raff is consigned to hell. In either case, it is religious elitism.
If miracles are indeed a function of the Holy Spirit, isn't it a kind of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to criticize them? And we know the consequences of that.
As for the chart of miracles - why didn't you just do a timeline distribution, and then compute the mean, the variance, and the standard deviation? How illogical can you get? Besides, the data isn't complete. Read John:21:25. And do you really think that Luke had access to all of the information about miracles performed by all of the apostles?
Benny Hinn is a subject in himself, and that controversy has nothing to do with experience of miracles by individuals like us. We can accept them or reject them - accept the HS or go with the ego. But if you go with the ego, don't expect proof that miracles exist. You are in a state of denial.

Anyone who had read the epistles should know that their purpose was primarily didactic. You would have more reason to criticize the authors if they had bragged about their miracles.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

August, me thinks you completely missed the point.

The author isn't criticizing miracles - the miracles are beautiful!!!

The author is pointing out that men generally (more often than not) reacted in a negative way to miracles.

Can you deny that fact?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

No one can deny that fact.

And signs does not equal miracles. A sign can be almost anything. I too believe that good can heal and heal miraculously. BUt I think that in this time and place, our witness to faith is not that we expect miracles, but that in the midest of trial and pain, we still look upward and give thanks to God in all circumstance.

The fact that we praise God and follow our king, even when our bodies are broken, speaks much more loudly than does a faith based on miracles.

 

[me again]

Snip...

The author is pointing out that men generally (more often than not) reacted in a negative way to miracles.

Sort of like some people have done on this board?

In Jesus's day, many people reacted negatively to miracles. Today, many scoffers react negatively to miracles. I never noticed that correlation until now.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

ummm..yeah

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by me again
Sort of like some people have done on this board?

In Jesus's day, many people reacted negatively to miracles. Today, many scoffers react negatively to miracles. I never noticed that correlation until now.

Or possibly that is why God only used miracles for VERY specific reasons, none of which are relevant currently.

Therefore.....
Those that claim physical miracles are being performed by "so called" men of God are not only frauds but turning millions away from God.

 

[Yxboom]

BR's are next where the contestant claims "Victim complex" I WIN!!!

 

[me again]

Beelzebub, the prince of devils

Beelzebub, the prince of devils

Posted by Knight
Or possibly that is why God only used miracles for VERY specific reasons, none of which are relevant currently.

Therefore.....
Those that claim physical miracles are being performed by "so called" men of God are not only frauds but turning millions away from God.

I can't judge why Jesus performed miracles, but I trust His judgement.

If Jesus is still performing miracles today in miracle crusades, then I trust His judgement for this day and age.

When Jesus walked the earth, this is how they said He cast out devils:

• The Pharisees said, Jesus doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. (Matthew 12:24)

Here on this board, some people have insinuated that modern day miracles are done by the devil.

Isn't it ironic that the allegation that was lodged 2000 years ago is still being lodged today?

 

[Yxboom]

With exception that the Pharisees blasted Jesus whereas today we blast charlatans. So it doesn't seem very ironic at all. Unless you wish to equate Jesus with today's charlatans.

 

[me again]

Which is worse:

• Being called a charlatan?
  
  -- or --
  
• Being accused of casting out demons by the power of the devil?

As far as insults go, I can’t see much difference between the two!!!

 

[Yxboom]

Again are these men you speak of Messiah or God in the flesh?

And not only based on their claims alone, because even Ken Copeland claimed to be Messiah.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

So then, for the sake of conversation, let's throw in the miracles that the disciples did, they were not Christ but only men.

 

[August]

Knight, when he writes "Miracles foster unbelief", that constitutes a criticism of miracles. And to say that his reputation for doing miracles hurt his ministry contitutes a criticism of Jesus. Besides, it isn't true. Before he came along with his miracles and message, there were zero believers in the gospel. Afterwards, there were many. Simple math prevails.
When you say
"Or possibly that is why God only used miracles for VERY specific reasons,
none of which are relevant currently."
it blows my mind.
I don't claim to be able to read God's mind, but I certainly think that Jesus healed some out of compassion, and I suspect that there are still a few sick people around today. There are probably a few other problems around, too, that have some similarity to those described in the Bible.
The article is based on a questionable premise: that the purpose of miracles is to engender faith and belief. Isn't that reversing cause and effect? Don't miracles result from faith and belief?
Personally, I have witnessed many miracles, but I have never heard anyone say they were performed by a man. The Holy Spirit is the means.
The one valid point of the article is that many are unwilling to accept a free gift, if it conflicts with their entrenched paradigm. It was true then and it is true today. You guys can have faith and belief with broken bodies, trouble and turmoil if that makes you happy. I'll have faith and belief with a healthy body, a quiet mind, and fellowship with a present God.
Love to all.

 

[me again]

Folks, I think we have a winner here!

Folks, I think we have a winner here!

Paraphrase of August

Snip...

The article is based on a questionable premise:

• The purpose of miracles is to engender faith and belief. Isn't [the article] reversing cause and effect? Don't miracles result from faith and belief?

Now that is worth re-reading!!!

 

[Pilgrimagain]

No. Miracles result from the work of God who sometimes uses faith and belief as a measuring stick.

It only a criticism of miracles if you take apriori that they were supposed to engender faith alone and not teach some other lesson. In a way, your argumenti s begging the question because you start with the assumption of what it is miracles do.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by August
Knight, when he writes "Miracles foster unbelief", that constitutes a criticism of miracles.

I am left with the thought you have little ability to think.

When someone says.... "the little boy became bitter after opening his birthday gifts." That is not a criticism of the gifts - yet of the boy.

You continue...

And to say that his reputation for doing miracles hurt his ministry contitutes a criticism of Jesus. Besides, it isn't true. Before he came along with his miracles and message, there were zero believers in the gospel. Afterwards, there were many. Simple math prevails.

A simple reading of the Bible will tell you that physical miracles more often than not turned men away or made them bitter. Which goes to show you how wicked man is! When confronted with ultimate righteousness man continually rejects it!

To reject the Bible and discern that mankind was receptive to Christ and His miracles elevates man and distorts what is written in God's word.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Folks, I think we have a winner here!

Re: Folks, I think we have a winner here!

Originally posted by me again
Now that is worth re-reading!!!

I agree! Poor August has been lead astray.

 

[August]

Knight wrote:
>I am left with the thought you have little ability to think.

When reason fails, resort to insult.

> When someone says.... "the little boy became bitter after opening his birthday gifts." That is
not a criticism of the gifts - yet of the boy.

That is true. But the two statements are not analogous.
"Miracles foster unbelief" is a direct,unequivocal statement that miracles do something undesirable. Anybody will agree that some did not respond to Jesus's teachings, and some still don't, but that is not a reason to say that the unbelief was fostered by the miracles. Can you see the difference between saying that some failed to believe despite the miracles and saying that they failed to believe because of the miracles?

> A simple reading of the Bible will tell you that physical miracles more often than not turned
men away or made them bitter.

Cite one example that someone was turned away or became bitter BECAUSE OF a miracle.

>Which goes to show you how wicked man is!
You know what Jesus said about judging.

>When
confronted with ultimate righteousness man continually rejects it!

Some do. Some don't. Your statement is too comprehensive.

>To reject the Bible and discern that mankind was receptive to Christ and His miracles
elevates man and distorts what is written in God's word.

There are a lot more Christians now than before he came along. Also, the latest surveys show that the Christian denominations that are growing the fastest are those that teach the power of prayer to accomplish miracles. The ones that are shrinking are those that don't.

Pilgrim wrote:
>No. Miracles result from the work of God who sometimes uses faith and belief as a
measuring stick.

Pilgrim, go back and read what Jesus said to those that he healed. In many cases he attributed their healing to their faith. In the case of the centurion's servant, it was the centurion's faith that did it. Now read what Jesus said about the power of faith to move a mountain. You might also check what the Book of Hebrews has to say about faith.

> It only a criticism of miracles if you take apriori that they were supposed to engender faith
alone and not teach some other lesson.

That is exactly my criticism of the article. It is based on that false premise. There were other purposes for the miracles of Jesus.

>In a way, your argumenti s begging the question
because you start with the assumption of what it is miracles do.

No, it is the article that starts with the assumption of what it is miracles do. All I'm saying is what they do NOT do: foster unbelief.