Should Christians challenge supernatural claims.
- Thread starter DJ2
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Once again, I was addressing a post by preacher4truth about disputed scripture, then you came along with your straw man arguments and BTY, the gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16).
You are not fooling anyone (except the already fooled) with your false gospel of "water baptized or condemned." It's you who is blind to the simple message of scripture. The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).
You are not fooling anyone (except the already fooled) with your false gospel of "water baptized or condemned." It's you who is blind to the simple message of scripture. The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).
In post #47, preacher4truth mentioned Mark 16:20 and BTY it's actually Mark 16:9-20 that scholars have argued the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20 yet the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts. That seems to be the dispute that preacher4truth was getting at when he said that he was not quite certain it was in the original autographs. I still accept Mark 16:9-20 as scripture, so don't shoot the messenger. How is the cause of Christ advanced by all of your straw man arguments?
Baptism and the validity of the original text were not part of this thread. You but saw an opening to spew your false gospel into a unrelated subject.
What you and Mr. Robertson believe about the validity of the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark has nothing to with this thread. Your remarks on post# 60 about baptism and calling me a Campbellite are clear examples of interjecting your obsession with water baptism. I will not bite.
What you and Mr. Robertson believe about the validity of the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark has nothing to with this thread. Your remarks on post# 60 about baptism and calling me a Campbellite are clear examples of interjecting your obsession with water baptism. I will not bite.
The conclusion of the matter is that the claims of supernatural events are not intended to be conclusively proven nor can they be conclusively disproven. They are to remain in the realm of what is broadly considered to be faith. Now to question the veracity of that faith is best avoided.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
A supernatural display of divine power is not an arguable proposition; it is a dramatic, demonstrable fact. No where in the New Testament is there a record of a divine spokesman arguing for the validity of miracles. No logical scheme is needed to establish such a case. Miracles either happen, or they don’t.
When Jesus performed signs, even his enemies did not deny the effect of such; they merely attempted to attribute his power to some other source (as in it being Satan; ref; Matthew 12:24). The leaders of the Jewish community did not doubt that Peter and John had performed a notable miracle when they healed the lame man at the temple; rather, they sought to mute the sign’s impact by threats of violence ( Acts 4:14).
Is anything being done today of such compelling nature as to elicit this type of reaction?
In biblical times, miracles always had a worthy motive. Signs were not done for the purpose of personal aggrandizement. Though Jesus’ miracles established the validity of his claim of being the Son of God, that designation was not assumed out of personal interest. Rather, the documented claim was motivated by a love for man’s salvation.
Those performing wonders in the first century did not do so for the purpose of enhancing themselves financially—unlike the wealthy “faith-healers” of today. When Peter encountered the lame man of Acts 3, he had no money (v. 6).
As a general rule, the miracles of the Bible era were done in the presence of a multitude of credible witnesses—even hostile observers. When the Lord multiplied the loaves and fishes, possibly some ten thousand or more people were present (John 6:10). Truly, the signs validating Christianity were not “done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).
Genuine miracles were not slow, progressive processes; rather, they produced instantaneous effects. Note: “And straightway he received his sight” (Mark 10:52); “And immediately his feet and his ankle bones received strength” (Acts 3:7).
In the New Testament, one never reads such statements as this: “Paul prayed for him, and within three weeks he was cured.” Yet, such testimonies are common among the devotees of modern charlatans; (people falsely claiming to have special knowledge or skill)..
True miracles must be subject to sense perception. The water that Jesus turned into wine could be tasted (John 2:9); Thomas could feel the prints in the hands of the resurrected Christ (John 20:27), and the restored ear of the high priest’s servant could be seen (Luke 22:51). The wonders of the Bible were objective demonstrations, not subjective speculations!
Actual signs must be independent of secondary causes. By this I mean there must be no possible way to explain the miracle in a natural fashion.
One is reminded of the boy whose cat gave birth to kittens. When the lad noticed the kittens were blind, he prayed for them. Sure enough, in about nine days they all could see! Hardly a miracle.
Can the miracles of Christ be explained in any natural fashion? They cannot. For instance it cannot be argued that the blind man of (John 9:1) was psychosomatically afflicted, for the gentleman had been born in that condition. How can a perfectly restored ear, that had been amputated, be explained by current processes (Luke 22:50-51)?
A genuine miracle will generate more than a superficial and temporary interest. It will have an abiding effect. The miracles of Christ were never denied during the apostolic age, nor even in the immediate ages beyond.
Even ancient enemies of Christianity, like Celsus and Porphyry, admitted that Jesus did certain extraordinary deeds; they suggested, of course, that it was mere “magic.” Their charges, however, are indirect testimony to the supernatural works of Christ. But who can remember a single “miracle” that Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart is supposed to have performed?
We submit, therefore, that so-called modern miracles do not meet the criteria suggested above. They, thus, must be rejected and explained upon some other basis.
When Jesus performed signs, even his enemies did not deny the effect of such; they merely attempted to attribute his power to some other source (as in it being Satan; ref; Matthew 12:24). The leaders of the Jewish community did not doubt that Peter and John had performed a notable miracle when they healed the lame man at the temple; rather, they sought to mute the sign’s impact by threats of violence ( Acts 4:14).
Is anything being done today of such compelling nature as to elicit this type of reaction?
In biblical times, miracles always had a worthy motive. Signs were not done for the purpose of personal aggrandizement. Though Jesus’ miracles established the validity of his claim of being the Son of God, that designation was not assumed out of personal interest. Rather, the documented claim was motivated by a love for man’s salvation.
Those performing wonders in the first century did not do so for the purpose of enhancing themselves financially—unlike the wealthy “faith-healers” of today. When Peter encountered the lame man of Acts 3, he had no money (v. 6).
As a general rule, the miracles of the Bible era were done in the presence of a multitude of credible witnesses—even hostile observers. When the Lord multiplied the loaves and fishes, possibly some ten thousand or more people were present (John 6:10). Truly, the signs validating Christianity were not “done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).
Genuine miracles were not slow, progressive processes; rather, they produced instantaneous effects. Note: “And straightway he received his sight” (Mark 10:52); “And immediately his feet and his ankle bones received strength” (Acts 3:7).
In the New Testament, one never reads such statements as this: “Paul prayed for him, and within three weeks he was cured.” Yet, such testimonies are common among the devotees of modern charlatans; (people falsely claiming to have special knowledge or skill)..
True miracles must be subject to sense perception. The water that Jesus turned into wine could be tasted (John 2:9); Thomas could feel the prints in the hands of the resurrected Christ (John 20:27), and the restored ear of the high priest’s servant could be seen (Luke 22:51). The wonders of the Bible were objective demonstrations, not subjective speculations!
Actual signs must be independent of secondary causes. By this I mean there must be no possible way to explain the miracle in a natural fashion.
One is reminded of the boy whose cat gave birth to kittens. When the lad noticed the kittens were blind, he prayed for them. Sure enough, in about nine days they all could see! Hardly a miracle.
Can the miracles of Christ be explained in any natural fashion? They cannot. For instance it cannot be argued that the blind man of (John 9:1) was psychosomatically afflicted, for the gentleman had been born in that condition. How can a perfectly restored ear, that had been amputated, be explained by current processes (Luke 22:50-51)?
A genuine miracle will generate more than a superficial and temporary interest. It will have an abiding effect. The miracles of Christ were never denied during the apostolic age, nor even in the immediate ages beyond.
Even ancient enemies of Christianity, like Celsus and Porphyry, admitted that Jesus did certain extraordinary deeds; they suggested, of course, that it was mere “magic.” Their charges, however, are indirect testimony to the supernatural works of Christ. But who can remember a single “miracle” that Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart is supposed to have performed?
We submit, therefore, that so-called modern miracles do not meet the criteria suggested above. They, thus, must be rejected and explained upon some other basis.
Last edited: