Your use of Matthew 23 about prophets is wrong, Jesus did say there would be prophets but prophets don't equal physical supernatural abilities, Agabus is not mentioned as having these abilities. Few prophets had this ability.
I don't know whether Agabus could work miracles or not. The ability to work miracles and be a prophet doesn't signal that someone is a false prophet. John was given authority to heal and to perform the miracle of casting out demons, but he also received a rather lengthy prophetic revelation. Barnabas and Saul (Paul) were either prophets or teachers, or both, and they performed signs among the Gentiles. There is no scripture that says a man cannot operate in multiple gifts of the Spirit.
You have no excuse to be ignorant of the scriptures. I have already pointed you to Mark 16, where those who believe the apostles' message heal and cast out demons. In I Corinthians 12, we see that gifts of healing and the working of miracles are for the saints, not just false prophets. From the end of the chapter, we can expect that there are those who are not apostles who function in these gifts.
Peter warned about false teachers. That doesn't mean every teacher is false. Jesus warned about false prophets performing signs. The doesn't mean everyone who prophesies and performs signs is false.
You are certainly part of the group that is attempting to divert people from having a faith in Christ without sight to a false gospel of Christ by "signs and wonders".
Is your gospel the same as the gospel the apostles believed in? Paul performed signs and wonders, and he was the one who wrote 'we walk by faith and not by sight.' Did Paul performing miracles divert people 'from having a faith in Christ without sight'? What about men like Sergius Paulus, who believed the message Paul preached after he saw a sign that Paul performed. Did he have 'faith without sight.' It was Elymas who could not see when that passage was over, not Sergius Paulus.
If your gospel, or your understanding of the Gospel, isn't the same as what the apostles taught, then you need to re-examine your beliefs.
"There is Christ just believe the YouTube videos, There is the Messiah just believe the claims of this 1200 page book."
Do you have no fear of God, to twist Christ's words like that? A book about claims of God performing miracles in people's life is not the same thing as supporting a false messiah and claiming he is in the desert. Early Christians believed in miracles. Historically, Christianity has accepted that God worked miracles. The problem with you is that you hold to a belief system that isn't Biblical. Your ideas about miracles as being contrary to the Gospel don't hold up in the light of scripture. You have to twist scripture like you have in the two quotes above to come up with a weird argument to support your view.
No calls for faith without sight, since the miraculous is everywhere.
Quit getting your ideas about religion from TV and from ignoramuses who don't know the Bible. The idea that seeing some evidence for the faith is contrary to the faith is patently unbiblical. It is also contrary to the idea of apologetics. We Christians believe in historical facts which were supported by the testimony of witnesses. But God may work a miracle, and some people believe after they see a miracle. If someone is only able to believe after he sees a miracle, that may speak poorly of his spiritual condition prior to conversion.
Thomas missed out on a blessing because he would not believe a specific miracle occurred without seeing evidence with his own eyes. He should have believed based on what had been revealed already, the Old Testament scriptures and the testimony of Christ, and the testimony of witnesses.
Who is this more similar to in this discussion, me or you? Let's apply it to God working miracles through believers. I believe God does it because the Bible says so. I have also seen evidence of gifts of the Spirit with my own eyes, but I believe in miracles I have never seen also, because of the Bible.
But you do not believe miracles occur even though the Bible teaches that the Spirit gifts individuals to do miracles. I have challenged you to answer why our beliefs contradict I Corinthians 12. I keep seeing you dodge the question. Instead, you twist Jesus' words in a way that He clearly did not mean. If testifying of miracles were akin to saying 'lo, here is Christ, or there' in Matthew 24, then Paul and Barnabas would have been guilty of it at the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 when they testified of the signs and wonders they had done among the Gentiles.
Your beliefs on this issue do not hold up under the light of scripture.
You are purposely making a simple issue complex.
The issue is quite simple. The same Gospel as the New Testament. The same doctrine as the New Testament. The same God as the God described in the Bible. The scriptures of the New Testament written for the church are still for the church.
No redefining phrases in passages of scripture to mean something they obviously did not mean in context. It is very simple. You are the one who is confused.
Regardless of the subject, you are attempting to convince people that physical supernatural and miraculous events are occuring today. A claim that books or videos cannot prove.
If you treat the idea that miracles cannot occur today as an axiom, then no evidence will convince you otherwise. At the very least, based on scripture, you should acknowledge that it is within the Holy Spirit's rights to grant believers the gifts the scripture teaches he does as He wills.
You label those of us who live by faith without sight as "clearly ignorant non-believers with heart issues".
Show me where I said such anything. I didn't call you a 'non-believer.' You clearly have an issue with believing certain scriptures are true. This phrase of yours 'live by faith without sight' shows a clear misunderstanding of scripture based on a false dichotomy that exists in your might. Believing in or experiencing miracles is not in opposition to living by faith.
Saul of Tarsus who wrote, 'for we walk by faith and not by sight' has his physical sight removed in a supernatural experience, and got it back when God used another man to heal him. He was also a miracle worker, by the grace of God. He did miracles, and he walked by faith and not by sight.
Peter provides a good illustration of walking by faith and not by sight. He was walking on water, a miracle. But when he doubted, looking at the winds and the waves, he sank. Jesus asked him why he doubted. He was only able to perform the miracle while he was believing.
I believe the Bible describes a very active age of the miraculous during the 1st century. I also believe the miraculous will again return. Just as the people of the New Testament used their senses to confirm the miraculous claims were real, so do we use our senses to confirm the lack of evidence of the modern day claims of the miraculous.
If you believe miracles will return, then it does not make sense to dismiss claims of miracles out of hand. You also do not have any basis for rejecting all of the historical claims to miracles and other spiritual gifts and manifestations throughout history. A famous example of a reputed miracle worker is St. Patrick. I'm not talking about the legend of the snakes, but the numerous reports of healings and resurrections reported in his ministry. But even the two documents from him that historians except as genuine tell of the vision and later the supernatural voice that got him out of Ireland and back into Ireland. Historically, Christians have not rejected the belief in miracles and other spiritual gifts. Christians in the early centuries did not and wrote of them. Cessationism is post-Reformation. You may argue that miracles were rare, or that they are rare based on your observations. Biblically, you have no basis for saying they do not occur.
We can tell the natural from the supernatural. In other words, don't splash water in my face and claim it is raining.
Don't splash water in your face and claim that it never rains anywhere and that no one has ever seen rain.
Labeling the things called miraculous today as physical supernatural acts of God, which they are clearly not, is heresy. You and your ilk
'Heresy' has to do with being divisive. That is a lot better example of heresy than your first sentence. I don't think calling a baby being born a 'miracle' is a useful definition of the term 'miracle.' But those who say so are not heretics. And there are plenty of 'supernatural acts' that have occurred throughout history. That's not heresy. You are not omniscient, and you either haven't done your research, or you just reject the evidence because it doesn't fit with your view of miracles ceasing.
But the thing is, you have not presented a shred of Biblical evidence that genuine miracles would cease. You try to cancel out scriptures like I Corinthians 12 based on.... what exactly? Nothing as far as I can see. Just because you think miracles have ceased, a passage of scripture for the church isn't supposed to be valid.
These gifts are given as the Spirit wills. It is presumptuous of you to claim they are not given just because you say so. You have no authority to declare what the Holy Spirit may and may not do. You have no authority to restrict God.
will be called to account when you truly see how powerful and awe inspiring the Holy Spirit can be.
The dead will rise, the blind will see and the lame will walk and you will be ashamed of the weak and debatable acts you called miracles.
What are you talking about? We haven't talked about 'debatable acts.' I don't think we've even talked about specifics of what miracles are. You've just been insisting they don't occur. Other posters have had really 'soft' definitions of miracles. We have not discussed that.
Your beliefs do not seem consistent with each other. You reject miracles, and attribute them to false prophets. Now, you seem to be arguing that genuine miracles will occur. Maybe the problem is you haven't wrapped your mind around the idea that if you haven't seen something for yourself, it could still occur. God is allowed to do things without telling or showing you. Why must he? Plenty of centuries of Christianity passed before your parents were even married. Do you have any reason to reject all the testimonies of miracles throughout church history as false? Why treat the idea that miracles stopped as axiomatic when you have no scripture at all to back up the idea?
.
