Clearly in respect to the generation of natural, unconverted men, Christ did not say seek after a sign before you can believe.
Why don't you show me who in this forum is saying you should seek a sign before you believe? I don't remember anyone saying that.
I do see in the Bible that God is merciful. There are unbelievers who won't believe until they see something supernatural. That doesn't mean it is right for unbelievers to be that way. It was not right for prostitutes to ply their trade. But John the Baptist and Jesus helped bring such people to repentance. That happens through the mercy of God. It was also through the mercy of God that Jesus did signs and wonders while ministering to those who would not believe unless they saw signs and wonders.
The law not subject to change remains the same. I would think we would work from that premise rather than trying to make it without effect as did the Jews who did required a sign before they would believe.. .Why would you ignore the warning?
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
I am not ignoring a warning. I suspect that you are reading something into the verse, maybe some of these false pronouncements you keep making about signs, that is not actually in that verse.
There was no direct sign in Mathew 24.It was the beginning of Jacobs trouble, the last days.
No direct sign? There are lots of things that, when they are fulfilled, are a sign. Jesus even called one sign a sign, the sign of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven....
Without a parable /allegory Christ healed not .Every healing represented a unseen work of the gospel .Christ did not heal people for any other reason.
We can find different reasons Jesus healed in scripture. I can find a reason Jesus healed in Matthew 8, that the scripture might be fulfilled.
And in another case, that a man might know that the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sin. Jesus was also moved with compassion before the feeding of the five thousand.
There are no instant healing , they served their purpose.
You are just making stuff up again. The Bible doesn't teach that, and some people's experiences contradict it.
We walk by faith(believing) , not after we see something happen (no faith) .
Hebrews 11:11
11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.
Sarah had faith. And then, she saw, felt, and experienced the results of conceiving seed. She believed, and then had the experience of it. She never saw all the descendants Isaac had, or all of the spiritual implications. But she did conceive seed in her lifetime. We can pray and believe God, and then experience, see, feel, hear, etc. the results of our prayers after God answers them. God actually answering our prayers is not contrary to faith, even though answered prayer is actually an evidence that the Christian faith is real.
You seem to reason backwards, over and over. If you only believe God if you see the answer to your prayer, for example, what kind of faith is that? You believe God, and then you see the answer to your prayer. If you said you believe God answered prayer, and I responded as if you were saying you would only believe in God if He answered your prayer, you would think I was confused?
But you make the same argument concerning miracles. Those who work miracles have faith first, and then the miracle happens. That is different from this idea you seem to have that people want to work a miracle so they can believe God. You keep making a straw man argument. You do the same with speaking in tongues, and it does not make sense in the context of the conversation.
That would be what the Jews did, they would not believe without a sign and developed their own kosher signs and wonders through the oral traditions of the fathers ,Christ’s nemesis
Straw man argument. Who is arguing for this? Why do you keep repeating this idea when it is not relevant to the conversation? Fortunately, you seem to be backing away from the confused unbiblical idea that stuff actually happening after we believe is contrary to faith.
Tongues was a witness against the Jew who walked by sight and not after the hearing of Christ's faith.
And divers tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit given to the body of Christ for the common good. And speaking in tongues edifies the speaker. And speaking in tongues, if interpreted, edifies the congregation. We should not believe just one verse of scripture on the subject, but all of them.
Signs are for those who believe not prophecy .Prophecy for those who do believe the word of God. .
Signs are also for believers, like the apostles who wanted to know the signs of Jesus' coming. Again, let's believe the other verses, and not just pick one verse, read something into it that isnt' there, and bel
Yes, evidence of things not seen.Moses did not see a sign before he would believe God .He walked by faith, the unseen.
Moses did ask for a sign at the beginning of Exodus when he was called. God gave him a sign.
Exodus 3:12
He said, “But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain.” (ESV)
So Moses did get a sign. The sign here was a fulfilled prediction. When it came to pass, it was a sign to Moses that the LORD had sent him. First Moses had to believe God and obey Him, and go get the children of Israel and bring them back to the mountain. After all this happened and they served God on that mountain, that fulfiled prediction was a sign to Moses that the LORD had sent him.
So there was a sign for Moses to, but one that required him to believe God first. That does not do much for your implied argument that signs are only for unbelievers.
The law means what it says. Sign are for those who rebel (no faith) Prophecy for those who believe God. (have faith)
You don't have the authority to write the law. Why don't you stick with what the verses you quote actually say? You quote a verse that says that tongues are a sign to them that believe not. It does not say that signs are for them that believe not. I assume you are trying to imply that signs are only for them that believe not, an idea that contradicts scripture.