Evidence for God from Science

One little question for you to consider, who does miracles? I mean, if an apostle "does a miracle", is it actually the apostle doing it? No, of course not, apostles are just men, and men do not have the power to do miracles (just ask Peter when he tried to walk on water). This means the one with the power, God, actually DOES the miracle. And God has a WILL, he is not a tame God, he does what he wants Dan 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" Because God has a will, HE decides when to do, or not do, miracles, based on the EFFECTS, the CONSEQUENCES, of what doing or not doing that miracle will be. And usualy, the consequences are bad, people get all miracle crazy, they seek after the miracle rather than the miracle giver, or worship the person who it may have happened aroud (like they did to the apostles at times).

The consequences of miracles around Jesus where that some people recognized that he was The Son Of God, and later, with the apostles, they recognized that these men were appointed by Jesus as apostles and had special authority to speak in his name. When this was established, then God did not need to do any more miracles to show that. Thus, the miracles were much less, because God considered the consequences of what each individual possible miracle would do, and saw bad consequences of a continued stream of lots of miracles, and so did not do them. I mean, think about it, if you become a Christian, and thus you get to do miracles, are you becoming a Christian because you love God, see that God is good and you are not, and want God to forgive you and change you, or are you just in for the miracles, the goodies? Sure, God can bribe you with miracles, but then who will love God when all are just in it for the goodies they get out of it? Think about the consequences if all people who "became Christians" could always do miracles all the time. Who would NOT want to "be a Christian"? And so, how many REAL Christians would there really be? Now, are you sure you want all Christians to "do miracles"? Is it worth it to God, or you, to go to hell, just for the thrill of "doing a miracle" or being around a lot of miracles? Hell is forever, miracles aren't.

Just remember the lesson of Dan 4:35 which is 1.There is a God 2.Your not it. You can't have miracles when you want them, because you can't do miracles. Only God can, and He will do them ONLY when He wants to do them. If you do not accept that, you do not beleive in God as God, you are not a believer.

jlay wrote:The problem is that this verse also says that "he who believes in me," which implies that more than just the disciples in attendance would have this power. But that this power would be for future generations. Yet, where is that power today? IMO, this is a good indication that something dramatically changed in regards to this program. Replacement theology says that what we call 'the church' has replaced historic Israel. Yet, it is pretty clear that this isn't the case. We do not see 'the church' operating in this authority. No offense to our RCC participants, or charasmatics. But the simple truth is that this kind of activity has ceased. If you disagree, then you are welcome to present your evidence. As a 'believer' you shouldn't have to rely on 2nd hand testimony or YouTube videos.

So, as a "believer", you shouldn't have to rely on "2nd hand" evidence, but you insist that YOU should be able to "do miracles"? Those miracles of Jesus, and the apostles, well, THEY were just "2nd hand testimony" (rather a lot of it), weren't they? As it was written Luke 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" Soooo, I guess Jesus was, you know, lying, and stuff, right? I mean, you are saying that you will beleive only if YOU see the miracles, which Jesus himself says is not true. Plus, if you will only beleive if YOU see miracles, which are you following after, the miracls, or the God who did them? And didn't Jesus specifically deny that people would following him if they saw miracles? And aren't you doing exactly what Jesus said you WOULD do above, denying the miracles, just because they are " 2nd hand testimony or YouTube videos"? Did you actually LISTEN to the one I provided?

Then you come up with an excuse for not having as many miracles as you insist should happen. First, where is it written that, just because miracls are possible long after Jesus and the apostles are gone, that they always WILL happen, to everyone, and in great quantity? Unless "it is written" somewhere in the bible that miracles will stop because of something or other, than your saying exactly that, and thus denying the evidence I supplied above, is unbiblical. If it doesn't say it in the bible, you shouldn't either, as it is written Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. I see in the bible that miracles WILL be possible, but it says nothing about how many miracles or how often. Thus, I would expect to see SOME miracles today, but not a lot or all the time, and that is exactly what I do see.

Your excuse for not seeing as many or as often of miracles as you seem to insist on is that the 'Kingdom Age' for Israel ended. Well, that is another thing NOT seen in the bible, I just did a search, whole bible, phrase "kingdom age", nope, not in there, read Rev 22:18 and Rev 22:19 again, your not allowed to just make stuff up for the bible and say it is in there (because, as I mentioned above, you are not God). Not only that, but "he who believes in me" says nothing about whether the beleiver is Jewish or not. In fact, God specified from the time of Abraham that in him ALL of the kindoms of the earth would be blessed, not just the Jews. And this was not the only old testiment place where it was said that the messiah would be for aeveryone, not just Jews. Not only that, but God specifically commanded that his temple should have a court of the gentiles, so that non Jews could worship long before Jesus ever appeared. And then Jesus himself said John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. Jesus said that well before any stoning of Stephan or anything like that, so we see that it was His intention all along. Thus the excuse of making up "kindom age" or some other artificial construct to explain away stuff just doesn't cut it.

In short, I see nothing in the bible either denying that miracles can and will happen at any time, or specifying how many or how often they will happen. Since only God has the power to actually DO a miracle, I expect that they will only happen when and only when God thinks that it is a good idea for them to happen. If you would actually LISTEN to the video I linked to above, at the time God actually DID a miracle, this is EXACTLY what the guy was saying as it happened. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is not a coincedence...

BTW, there may be a problem with the original idea that stated this thread, that is, the basic premise that there were a lot of miracles in the early church, and that since then they have largly gone away. I don't see it, I first see a lot of miracles done by Jesus, then I see a lot of miracles done BY THE APOSTLES, and thats IT. I DO NOT se a lot of miracles done by the early church, just Jesus and the apostles. Thus, the basic premise that there were a lot of miracles and you wonder why they have gone away is wrong. The miracles din't go away, the apostles did. If we were all apostles, well, then maybe we would see a lot of miracles. We are not apostles, who God shows miracles around to prove their authority to speak for God, so that aint happening.

The only way to prove me wrong on this would be to show me that a lot of miracles happened in the early church that were done by people other than the apostles.

Leg,

There are so many areas here where you misrepresent my position I hardly no where to start. I say this with the most sincerity. I am baffled at these distorted conclusions.

Well, that is another thing NOT seen in the bible,

Do a word search and see how often the term Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom appear in the NT. Hint, it occurs 52 times just in the book of Matthew. What was the disciples last question to Jesus before He ascended? (Acts 1:6)
This doesn't even begin to address how the word Kingdom is used in the OT in relation to the earthly Kingdom established by God through Israel. And the word Trinity isn't in the bible either, so I guess the trinity doesn't exist?

You throw Rev. 22 at me as to imply that I am adding to the scriptures, yet you say, "Thus, the miracles were much less, because God considered the consequences of what each individual possible miracle would do, and saw bad consequences of a continued stream of lots of miracles, and so did not do them." This is a completely speculative statement in which you report to know the thoughts of God. Thoughts which most certainly are not expressed in scripture.

Soooo, I guess Jesus was, you know, lying, and stuff, right? I mean, you are saying that you will beleive only if YOU see the miracles, which Jesus himself says is not true.

1st, this is absolutely NOT what I am saying. Blessed are those who have NOT seen, yet believe. 2nd, what you imply here is that I am calling Jesus a liar. This is offensive and a dirty debate tactic. If you wish to discuss the issue of miracles with me, please leave out such rhetoric. Next, take a little time to study up on dispensational theology regarding the "Kingdom."

I can't properly reply to your post, because I will not defend a position I do not hold.

The issue is why are there less miracles. I am providing a theological position that explains why things are so different today than they were in the Apostolic age. Not the position that miracles aren't possible. (Matt. 19:26) Or, the position that believers can produce miracles under their own power. (Acts 1:8) That is absurd. This is important IMO, because of how many profess that nothing has changed.

Apologies if it came off sounding harsh, but some of what you said is different than some of what you are saying now, as the below shows (or at least it seemed that way at the time).

The problem is that this verse also says that "he who believes in me," which implies that more than just the disciples in attendance would have this power. But that this power would be for future generations. Yet, where is that power today? IMO, this is a good indication that something dramatically changed in regards to this program. Replacement theology says that what we call 'the church' has replaced historic Israel. Yet, it is pretty clear that this isn't the case. We do not see 'the church' operating in this authority. No offense to our RCC participants, or charasmatics. But the simple truth is that this kind of activity has ceased. If you disagree, then you are welcome to present your evidence. As a 'believer' you shouldn't have to rely on 2nd hand testimony or YouTube videos.

You seemed to be denying that miracles happen at all today, as show by this statement "the simple truth is that this kind of activity has ceased". You then say that "you shouldn't have to rely on 2nd hand testimony or YouTube videos", this makes it look as if you are denying that miracles happen at all today ever ("ceased" makes that pretty clear), and that therefore you did not even bother to check out the "YouTube videos" because you have decided that such things have "ceased". You then go on to a theological reason why such things would "cease", which involves the artificial construct of "the kindom age" ending. It is that apperent total denial that any miracles happen after the "end of the kindom age" that I am responding to. Such a denial would make Jesus words not true. The actual evidence of those "YouTube videos" (as well as other evidences) shows that that is not true, miracls still happen today, not in bunches, but they happen. If Jesus said it would happen, and it does happen, what should one believe, that "this kind of activity has ceased"? You may not have meant that, but that is what it looked like above. Perhaps you where merely saying that quanities of miracles had ceased, and allowed an occasional miracle today, rare enough that one would need "2nd hand testimony or YouTube videos" since it was not common enough to see yourself, however, statements like "the simple truth is that this kind of activity has ceased" seem to suggest that you believe NO miracles happen today, or after the death of Stephen, after the end of this "kindom age".

A second problem is that during this "kindom age", shouldn't there have actually been a LOT more miracles than there actually were? I mean, I see the miracles of Jesus, and I see the miracles of the apostles (and at most maybe 1 or 2 others), where are the miracles of all the non apostles? If, between the time that Jesus left and the stoning of Stephan, there was some "kindom age", shouldn't there have been bunches and bunches of miracles done by EVERYONE during that time? But no, we see it done by apostles, and that is pretty much it. This shows that the reason the miracles ended (actually, just slowed down) had something to do with WHO the "miracle workers" were, rather than the ending of some "age".

And why did the miracles happen? Well, we could ask Jesus:
Mat 11:2 When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples
Mat 11:3 to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
Mat 11:4 Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see:
Mat 11:5 The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
Mat 11:6 Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
This was to show that the old testiment prophecies of the massiah were being fullfilled.
John 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
John 10:38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

This is why I said that there was a REASON for the miracles Jesus did, both himself and later through the apostles (and some specifically selected others, such as Stephen), because Jesus said so. When that reason was no longer needed, when the position of both Jesus and the apostles (including, later, Paul) was verified by the miracles, one would expect that they would largely go away, being no longer needed for that purpose, and so they did. We also see that they did not entirely go way, as seen here, examples of miracles AFTER the death of Stephen:
Acts 8:6 When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. Acts 8:7 With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. (only 4 verses after the buriel of Stephen)
Acts 9:40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up.
Acts 12:7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists.
Acts 13:6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, Acts 13:7 who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Acts 13:9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, Acts 13:10 "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:11 Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun." Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. Acts 13:12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.
Acts 19:11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, Acts 19:12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
Acts 28:7 There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief official of the island. He welcomed us to his home and for three days entertained us hospitably. Acts 28:8 His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him. Acts 28:9 When this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured.
From this we see that miracles did not cease after the stoning of Stephen, and Paul, the non "kindom age" "apostle to the gentiles" did it, and at times, in great quantity, such as all the sick on an island cured, or all who even touched anything which had touched Paul. if miracles tapered off so much after the stoning of Stephen, one would not expect "extraordinary miracles" as reported, in quantity 9all one one island), even miracles that Jesus never did, such as only having to touch something that Paul had touched to be healed. This echoes what Jesus said, that they would do greater miracles than he did, and it happened well after the end of this "kingdom age".

As for my saying that there are also bad consequences to miracles, once again, I point to Jesus, here
John 6:14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." John 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
Which was followed by a reason, given by Jesus himself, for why miracles can have bad consequences, and people seek after the miracle rather than the God who did it:
John 6:26 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
There were also Acts 28:3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. Acts 28:4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, "This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live." Acts 28:5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. Acts 28:6 The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
From this we see that miracles did indeed have bad effects on people then, and if we check out modern times, we see the same thing, with televangilists stirring up excitment about "miracles" (fake ones, in this case) and actually charging money for "miracle services" where God is supposed to show up on command and do miracles between 7:30 and 8:30, and their messege which is more and more about miracles and less and less about the miracle doer (and a LOT about money and how you should give them some of course). This is where I came up with bad consequences of miracles, not from my imagination, but from The Word and from actual observation, often first hand.

As for this "kindom age" which supposedly ended, we see this:
Luke 1:30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.
Luke 1:31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
Luke 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
Hmmm, "kingdom will never end", that seems pretty clear.
Heb 1:8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
Hmm, "last for ever and ever", that seems pretty clear to.
Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
Hmm, "we are receiving a kingdom " PRESENT TENSE, not a kindom that had ended previously.
Col 4:11 Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me.
Hmm, people who are fellow workers for the kindom yet wll after the end of this "kingdom age", well after the stoneing of Stephen, who are both Jews and NONE JEWS.

And about this earthly, Jewish kindom that was supposed to end with the ending of some "kindom age", well, check it out, is there any earthy kindom planned?
Acts 1:6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Acts 1:7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Shouldn't Jesus have said "yes" in answer to their question, if there was some "kingdom age" in Israel. And if it was jewish, what is this about "to the ends of the earth"?
And then thare is:
John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
So much for a "kindom age" on this world, Jesus himself specifically denied it. He also talked again and again about "the kindom of heaven", not some earthly kindom, that was an idea of the Jews which Jesus specifically denied by both his actions (going away when they tried to make him king) and words. I see no reason to make it some ewarthly, jewish kingdom, I see no reason to continue beleiving mistakenly as the Jews did when Jesus said differently.

This "kindom of heaven" is also here and now, as seen here (all well after Stephen was gone):
Acts 19:8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25 "Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.
Acts 28:23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Acts 28:31 Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
If the "kingdom age" had ended, why would he talk about it at this time, after Stephen was dead?
And then there is teaching about this kingdom, such that it clearly had not ended:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,
1 Cor 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
Col 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, (note the "brought us", present tense)
It is to be noted that partly, this "kingdom of God" is present tense, because once you are in you are in, but also future tense, usually seen with the word inheritence, as in you will inherite the kingdom (of heaven).

The reality is that what we call 'the apostolic age' was in reality the 'Kingdom Age' for Israel. Just as Christ had been preaching and teaching. Jesus hadn't been preaching about the Gentile church. Not even a bit. Israel was the chosen people. Chosen and commissioned to preach the Gospel of the KINGDOM to the ends of the earth. But something happened. Initially we see a reception of this Gospel. Acts 2. But then things take a bad turn. Arrest and persecution. From who? Israel. Specifically the religious authority. This culminates in the stoning of Stephen. An outright rejection of the Messiah. Which results in Stephen seeing Christ, not seated as King, but standing. What happens? The church is scattered. Chronologically what happens next? Paul is called. Does that make sense? The 12 were called to go and make disciples. Yet Paul is picked directly by Jesus. As we continue through Acts we see the emphasis move more from Peter and the other 11 to Paul's minsitry. Accompanied by a new revelation to Peter in Acts 10. Something that Jesus did NOT reveal in His earthly minsitry. Something new. Something different.

Perhaps most importantly, this idea that there was a "kingdom age", of Jews, that Jesus did not preach about the Gentile church, is false. See here
John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
And this is not the only place where Jesus talked about bringing in others, those not Jews, and it is spoken of long before this as it was spoken to Abraham, where he was told that through him ALL the people of the earth would be blessed, and when we see that even in old testiment times, the temple was ordeed by God to have a "court of the Gentiles" so that Gentiles could also worship. Unless you can actually show a place that clearly states that there was to be a time when Jews and only Jews would do all the preaching of the gospel, then It aint there. Jews were obviously to start that preaching, Jesus was Jewish and it was through the Jews that Jesus and the old testiment prophecies of him came, all the apostles were Jewish, but even in the apostles time, not all who preached were Jewish, nor was it ever commanded or even mentioned that all who preached would be Jewish. Indeed, even in the story of Stephen, we see this, here
Acts 6:5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. Acts 6:6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
Here we see "Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism", which means he was a Gentile, as one would never say this of a Jew. And that is not the only place, for the penticost event, there were also who saw it " Acts 2:11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" the converts are gemtiles who had converted to Judiasm and so where there for the feast, including "Cretans and Arabs". And it is then written about this Acts 2:17 "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Note the 'all people", not just Jews, ALL PEOPLE, Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved', not just Jews, EVERYONE.

In short, I see nothing in the bible where it was ever said that there would be a time when there was some "kingdom age", where the entire Jewish people would all believe, and would all then witness to the rest of the world. Where is it written that ALL Jews would beleive, or all would witness, and that these witnesses would only be Jewish? The only people who talked about such an earthly kindom of the Jews were the Jews themselves, Jesus was constantly, if rather gently (since they could not eccept it yet) talking about how others would be brought in, "sheep not of this flock" and such like (he usually used parables like that since they were not yet ready to accept it). Nor do I see anywhere in the bible where it said that if all the Jews beleived, there would be great quanities of miracles, or if they did not, there would be far less quantities. Indeed, the only thing Jesus talked about, miracle wise, was the QUALITY of the miracles, that they would be actally greater than what he did. Thus, we should not be suprised if they still happen after Stephen was stoned, after you say this "kingdom age" had ended, or if they should sometimes happen in quanity after that (as with Paul), or of even higher "quality" then Jesus'es miracles. Nore is it suprising that they taper off a lot after all the apostles were gone, and/or after miracles had certified the apostles (and a few others) as Gods spokesmen.

Thus, we see that since Jesus only talked about the QUALITY of miracles after he left, and NOTHING about the QUANTITY, we see that some miracles after he left being of higher quality than he did, and, after the apsostles are all gone, a far lesser QUANTITY of miracles, fits exactly what he said. There is no need to make up some "kingdom age" ending to explain away less miracles, since neither Jesus nor anyone else said HOW MANY miracles there would be later. What Jesus said has turned out to be exactly correct, without any need for some reason for it to be changed. And miracles still ahppen today, not a lot, but they happen. If you don't believe me, listen to the link I showed, this is axactly what the guy you can hear the miracle happen to was saying as he was healed. Thus, God veridfied, by a miracle, that he was speaking the truth that yes, miracles still happen, but no, they only happen when God wants them to, when HE thinks it is a good idea to do it. That is usually a LOT less often then when WE think it is a good idea.

And yes, there are a lot of fakes, usually by those who demand quantity (despite God never promising it), usually because quantity stirres up cash flow (as was true with fake miracle workers even in the apostles day ( Acts 8:9 Acts 8:10 Acts 8:11 Acts 8:12 Acts 8:13 Acts 8:14 Acts 8:15 Acts 8:16 Acts 8:17 Acts 8:18 Acts 8:19 Acts 8:20 Acts 8:21 Acts 8:22 Acts 8:23 Acts 8:24 ). Just because there are fakes, then and now, does not mean there are not real miracles. I can buy a fake of an expensive watch, that does not mean the real one does not exist.

I hope this was clearer this time, and I hope I am clearer about that you ment to say, as well as what I mean to say.

gah, double post

Oh, BTW, LUKE, as far as I know, not jewish.

You seemed to be denying that miracles happen at all today, as show by this statement "the simple truth is that this kind of activity has ceased".

Let me clarify. Apostolic annointing has ceased. Do miracles happen? I would say, yes, there are cases. In fact I discussed this very thing on another recent thread. Do we see people who are genuinely annointed and walk in the authority of the apostles today? No.

The Kingdom age is about what the disciples were asking about. When Jesus would restore the earthly kingdom of Isreal. The crux of Jesus earthly ministry was teaching about the "Kingdom." Check it out.

which involves the artificial construct of "the kindom age"

The fact that Jesus and the apostles speak of a restoration of the Kingdom, and the fact that the OT prophecies a time as well is overwhelming evidence. Your apparent problem with the terminology doesn't negate what the scriptures reveal.

A second problem is that during this "kindom age", shouldn't there have actually been a LOT more miracles than there actually were?

Excellent point. Let's see what Jesus says about this keen observation. (Matt. 13:58)

This is why I said that there was a REASON for the miracles

We agree that there was a reason for the miracles. I've made that point clear in my original post. So, are you agreeing that miracles, as we saw them in the apostolic period, have ceased? (By that I don't mean that no miracle has never happened since then.)
The point of my challenge is that there are many today who think that nothing has changed. My challenge is NOT that a miracle can not happen today, or hasn't in the last 1,930 years. But that one can be baptized by the HS exactly like those in the upper room were, and that they can operate in the same authority as the 1st century church. So, since this was the point of my challenge, what is your position of this modern claim?

This is why I said that there was a REASON for the miracles Jesus did, both himself and later through the apostles (and some specifically selected others, such as Stephen), because Jesus said so. When that reason was no longer needed, when the position of both Jesus and the apostles (including, later, Paul) was verified by the miracles, one would expect that they would largely go away, being no longer needed for that purpose, and so they did. We also see that they did not entirely go way, as seen here, examples of miracles AFTER the death of Stephen:

I never said the stoning of Stephen represented the cessation of the Apostles authority. Only a transition to a new revelation. That being the mystery (secret) God would reveal through the apostle Paul. (Eph 3) I would actually say the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. combined with the execution of the apostles was the end, or I should say the beginning of a long interruption. The Earthly Kingdom will most certainly be restored.

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

Where was the throne of David?
Again, why did the disciples ask Jesus, when He would restore the Kingdom to Israel?

Do you understand the basics of dispensational theology?

Well, I have looked up "the basics of dispensational theology", the basic idea, that God treats different people in different times differently is a no brainer. The dispensational part (which there seems to be many varients on) is to divide these different time periods into hard rules that God is said to follow for those different peoples in different times. Much of it seems harmless enough, and at least somewhat true. However, harmless to start with often turns into harmfull when people beleive more in dispensationalism (or any ism) more than they do in the actual main messege of the bible. Example, the LDS church took dispensationalism to an extreme, and so divided the bible up into God treating different peoples differently that they divided themselves right out of it. I tend to look with extreme skeptisism on any ism, or at too much artificial theology, like putting names on these artificial "dispensations" and fighting over whether their were five or seven of them.

The only real "dispensation" I see is pre or post Jesus. The bible was wiritten in the form of a 4000 year old covenant between a king and his subjects. That requires it to contain certain things, and it contains those things. One of them is that when the kings son comes along, they renew the covenant and show any changes in it. That was done. The people before Jesus looked forward to him, and it was counted to them as rightousness, the people after him look back and are also counted as rightous (even though they are not). The real question is, what is YOUR dispensation, do you look to the massiah? For that matter, what is the dispensation of your neighbor, are they right with God through his son, or not? YOUR dispensation, and the dispensation of YOUR neighbor, HERE AND NOW, is the only dispensation that counts, any other dispensation, either in the past or the future, is, comparitivly, bunk. If you, or your neighbor, find themselves in heaven or hell, forever, I don't think you will be worried about whether either of you got your dispensations correct, the dispensation you will find yourselves in will be all that matteres. And so it will be today, the only dispensation you should be spending time and affort on is yours right here right now, and that of your neighbor. It is a trap of Satan to be spending too much time and energy on anything else.

About apostolic anointing, well, of course it has ceased, since there is a distinct lack of aposltes around today to do any anointing. Jesus did miracles, and the apostles did miracles, and Jesus said why he did them, to show that he was The Son of God, and for the apostles, to show that they were the ones with authority to speak for Jesus, especially to certify what went in the bible and what did not, and thus speak for Jesus to us today. My point was, if people back then were anointed by the apostles, shouldn't all those anointed have been doing bunches of miracles, if it was the anointing that did it? I mean, look at Stephen, for instance, Acts 6:5 , they did not just choose Stephen, but also 6 others, once a convert to Judiasm, ( a non jew, a gentile), however, Stephen did miracles, and the others did not, why didn't they ALL do miracles, in fact, why didn't the entire early, pre stoning of Stephen church also do many miracles? Perhaps we can see here Acts 6:8 , Stephen was "a man full of God's grace and power", in other words, God chose him to do these miracles, and did not choose the others, for Gods specific purpose (one of which was to later choose Paul, who was involved with this). If it was just that you recieve an "apostolic anointing" you get to do miracles, they ALL would have done them, yet they did not. Thus, we see that God had specific reasons for some to do miracles and for others to not do them. Also, as I have already pointed out, there were also miracles, bunches of them in Pauls case, after the stoning of Stephen, which shows that God wanted them to happen after that for God's specific reasons (such as to certify Paul as an apostle), and God clearly had not decided to stop all such mass miracles due to the ending of some "age" or other.

The idea that Mat 13:58 is a reason for these people in this early church to not ALL do miracles, first, is irrelevant, no such lack of faith is stated for them, and these included the 120 earliest diciples, hardly people with lack of faith (ALL of whom were at at Pentacost and anointed by the Holy Spirit then). The lack of faith is simple, they (in lMat 13:58 ) lacked the faith that Jesus could even do miracles, since they had grown up with him before he started all that, and so they did not show up and, say, asked to be healed, and so of course they were not healed. It also assumes that God NEEDS faith to do miracles (want, yes, need, no), God doesn't NEED anything, ever. I mean, look at Abraham, after waiting 24 years, God comes to him and tells him that next year he would have a son, and he laughed so hard he fell down, and then stated exactly why ,Gen 17:17 Gen 17:18 because the idea of a 100 yearr old man and an 90 year old women having a son was so ludicrous that it was funny. Yet a year later the son came along anyway, faith or no faith, and so they LEARNED faith, which was why God had waited so long in the first place, to teach that faith. And see here, Acts 3:5 So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Here was a man who did not expect to be healed, he expected to recieve alms, thus, he did not have faith to be healed. Yet, he was healed anyway, and thus both he and many others LEARNED faith. From this we see the simple fact that God does not NEED your faith to do ANYTHING, which is obvious, YOU don't have the power to do miracles anyway, only God does, and so God doesn't need anything from you to do anything he wants. And how much faith is needed anyway, occording to Jesus, the size of a mustard seed, ie. pretty small. This makes sense, since it is not how many "faith units" you have that assures the miracles, but only Gods power and will, since only God CAN do the miracle anyway. of course, if you lack the faith to believe that God can do miracles, or lack faith in God period, you will never ask for one, and are pretty unlikely to get one. Conversly, if you have many "faith units" (how exactly do you measure it?), God still may not do a miracle if, as is common, God sees that the result of doing it would be bad, or that you are after the miracles and not the God who does them (very very common). And if you are told you need to "prove" your faith to God by, oh, say, sending a large amount of money to some faith preacher or other, there is a name for that, it's called "grand theft by means of deception". It should also be noted that the apostles themselves did many miracles at first, but then those miracles largly went away when the reason for them, to show that they had the authority as apostles, was established. This is true of Paul as well, who, well after the stoning of Stephen, did many miracles, but then later did not. Clearly, it was not because of the apostles lack of faith that the miracles stopped (or slowed down), nor was it because of the ending of some age, since Paul did his well after that.

When Jesus spoke of the kindom, he usually said something like "the kindom of heaven". mainly, he did not seem to be talking about the earthly kingdom, but the kingdom anyone could be in simply by following him, who was it's king. And this makes sense, if you simply realise that Jesus is God. As God, he has all knowledge, and thus knew that the whole Jewish people would not follow him and be converted during the time of the apostles. It was not Jesus who beleived that when he spoke of his kingdom he ment ONLY his earthly one, only his disciples made that mistake, I see no reason to keep making the same mistake. This also explains his constantly alluding to things like John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. You will note that he did not come right out and say he would be letting Gentiles in, because at that time the disciples could not have accepted it, in fact, when later God told it to Peter (in Acts), and Peter told it to the other apostles, they were flabbergasted (which is why Paul also called it a mystery). There are many such sayings about the kindom, often as "the kingdom of heaven", by the apostles later as well, often as present tense, meaning you can be in the kingdom now. It is also true that there is a future time prophecied when Jesus would rule an earthly kingdom, but clearly neither Jesus nor the apostles (after pentacost) believed that it would be immediate, and they did (after Peter told them) know that Gentiles were allowed in, at least to "the kingdom of heaven". I see much, probably most, of this new testiment mention of kingdom as the kingdom anyone can be in if they follow the king, Jesus. There is also some overlap with the eartly kingdom, even if you are jewiish, and live in Israel, you won't be in the kingdom unless you are first in "the kingdom of heaven", ie you must first follow the king, Jesus, to have any part of either. I see no reason at all to insist that all new testiment mentions of the kingdom must mean Jesuses' earthly, jewish kingdom. In fact, to beleive such would make much of what both Jesus and the apsotles said meaningless. This is why it is usually called "the kingdom of heaven", to show that, for most people, it will not be earthly. Unless you are jewish and living in Israel, it is irrelevent anyway, and the bible was clearly written knowing that most people are neither.

In other words, the idea that Jesus planned to set up an earthly kingdom immediatly during the time of the apostles, and was suprised when this did not happen, and thus put off setting up this earthly kingdom ("interruption") is a false idea, God, who is all knowing, cannot be suprised, and thus could not have planned this. Jesus, who is God, specified that when he talked about the "other sheep", he planned for there to be a time when gentiles would be allowed in, and planed for it to last as long as needed till all who are to be in are in Rom 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. Only after all who are in the plan are in will Jesus set up an earthly kingdom Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Also, I see no reason to spend all this time and energy thinking only of Jesuses earthly kingdom, that only effects Jews living in Israel. Are you Jewish? Do you live in Israel? If not, this does not effect you, so why do you spend so much time on it? And why would God mention the kingdom so many times in the new testiment if he was only talking to a very very small minority of people?

My specific beleifs on this are as follows:
Yes, we do not do bunches of miracles as the apostles did, because, well, we are not apostles, and do not need to be established as such by miracles.
The reason bunches of miracles do not happen today is because of a distinct lack of apostles.
We cannot expect bunches of miracles like happened to the apostles, because this was never promised.
We can expect some miracles, because this WAS promised ("some" may mean rare).
We cannot expect churches full of miracles, or full of speaking in tongues, because the bible specifically denies this 1 Cor 12:30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? The specific Greek word used here ONLY allows an answer to this question of NO.
The above shows that the idea that we should, today, always have pentacost like happenings, where all speak in tongues, is false. Pentacost was a one off, even back then.
However, we should also not deny that it ever happens, or that there is a Holy Spirit who can and sometimes will do such things (see First Corinthians the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters).
You can ask for power from the Spirit, but you are never told to ask for, or that you will always get, any specific thing, like tongues, or miracles, or suchlike.
If you do not get the miracles or tongues you expect, it probably is not your lack of faith, and you won't get it by having more faith (all you need is faith the size of a mustart seed).
If you do expect it to always happen if you have "enough" faith, you need to stop expecting what God did not promise, and start realising that it is only God who decides what God will do or not do Dan 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

As for my beleif in an earthly kingdom:
Most of what Jesus and the apostles said about "the kingdom' was speaking of "the kingdom of heaven", not an earthly kingdom (there is some overlapp, since if you are not in the kingdom of heaven you won't be in the earthly one either).
The formation of this kingdom was not 'interrrupted", it was never planned to start almost 2000 years ago.
To say that it was planned, but did not happen, is to say that God was suprised, and is not all knowing, which is impossible.
It will come when "the full number of the Gentiles has come in", that WAS planned (note, full number, that means the number is known, thus, planned).
There will be an earthly kingdom.
It is of little relevence to you, unless perhaps you are both Jewish and living in Israel, and are alive when it happens.
Speculating about the time or specifics of this earthly kingdom is above my (and your) pay grade, and won't change anything anyway.
The importance of being in the "heavenly kingdom", here and now, is so much more important than this earthly kingdom that there is no comparison.
Doing what you can to see that others also get in this heavenly kingdom is of equel importance, and is a direct command of Jesus, it's king.

In other words, the idea that Jesus planned to set up an earthly kingdom immediatly during the time of the apostles, and was suprised when this did not happen, and thus put off setting up this earthly kingdom ("interruption") is a false idea, God, who is all knowing, cannot be suprised

Your method of argumentation is full of false dilemmas. The dispensational view doesn't say God is "surprised." This implies that I think that God is not omniscient, which certainly is NOT the case.

However, when we study the words of Jesus we can't ignore that as a man, He concealed things even from Himself, and for good reason. Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Please feel free to explain how this agrees with what you state? Let me use your tactic. I guess Jesus was a liar.....

The fact is that the disciples, after being taught, visited and having the scriptures opened to them by Christ Himself, ask, "When will you restore the Kingdom to Israel." Did Jesus rebuke them or correct them? No. He said that it was not for them to know that time. Did Jesus open the scriptures to them or not? (Luke 24:45)

Also, it is apparent that you are applying your own context of "heaven" to the term Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, there is a heavenly realm and an earthly realm. (Gen 1:1) However, why are you so certian that your 21st century definition of heaven is comparable to that of 1st century Jews? Proper exegesis requires us to grasp a historical grammatical hermeneutic. In other words, what is literally being communicated.

The only real "dispensation" I see is pre or post Jesus.

You are welcome to see that, but you are ignoring obvious facts in the Bible.

The real question is, what is YOUR dispensation, do you look to the massiah? For that matter, what is the dispensation of your neighbor, are they right with God through his son, or not? YOUR dispensation, and the dispensation of YOUR neighbor, HERE AND NOW, is the only dispensation that counts, any other dispensation, either in the past or the future, is, comparitivly, bunk. If you, or your neighbor, find themselves in heaven or hell, forever, I don't think you will be worried about whether either of you got your dispensations correct, the dispensation you will find yourselves in will be all that matteres. And so it will be today, the only dispensation you should be spending time and affort on is yours right here right now, and that of your neighbor. It is a trap of Satan to be spending too much time and energy on anything else.

Not sure what you are trying to prove in this statement. As Paul instructed Timothy, we are to rightly DIVIDE the word of truth.
For someone who just "looked up the basics," you sure seem to have it all figured out.

I tend to look with extreme skeptisism on any ism, or at too much artificial theology, like putting names on these artificial "dispensations" and fighting over whether their were five or seven of them.

I have no issue with skepticism. I guess you assume I just fell off the turnip truck and landed in the dispensational patch. Another fallacious argument. It's like asking, "when did you stop beating your wife?" You are saying, "how do you defend your artificial theology?" Let's get real here. I don't want the dialogue to degrade into me having to continually point out fallacies in your reasoning and arguments.

The idea that Mat 13:58 is a reason for these people in this early church to not ALL do miracles, first, is irrelevant, no such lack of faith is stated for them, and these included the 120 earliest diciples, hardly people with lack of faith

That is not what you asked. You asked,..

A second problem is that during this "kindom age", shouldn't there have actually been a LOT more miracles than there actually were?

Moving the goal post is another logical fallacy. Quoting Matt 13:58 isn't arguing that this is a reason why some believers did miracles and some didn't. Although I think you are overlooking the fact that more than the 12 were empowered. The reality is that the Bible just doesn't cover much on it. Luke 10:17. This shows that miracles are not arbirtrary. They always serve a specific purpose in advancing the Kingdom.

Hey guys, sorry but I've been away for a few days. Legatus, those are some GREAT responses! Thank you so much for your insight, these things you've said have helped a lot and I hope to think more deeply on them in the future.

One of the other things I was going to specifically ask you and generally ask everyone else, what all do you know about something called the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit", or more specifically, would you emphasize what all you know about the Holy Spirit's inner witness?
For example, William Lane Craig says that even if one day, all the traditional arguments and evidences for God's existence were to be shown to be false, a Christian can still have evidence and reason for his or her faith via the Holy Spirit's inner witness. Alvin Plantinga says that along with the traditional arguments and evidences for Christian Theism, a believer's inner witness of the Holy Spirit makes them have "double warrant" for their faith. Even more importantly, Christ in the New Testament refers to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit as the "comforter".

Now then, if this is the case and this is indeed a real phenomenon, how do we as believers, tap into this inner witness or become more aware of it? Currently for me, the closest thing I have had as far as an experience which COULD be (or could not be) the Holy Spirit's inner witness was times while praying I experienced feelings of warmth and peace. Now was that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? I guess, if indeed God does exist and we live in a universe where Christian theism is true, then certainly, it is very likely that God was at work in that experience. But if we don't live in such a universe, than those were just random feelings my brain was producing. Who knows for sure?

Now this is a very crucial question, from your all's perspectives is your experience with the Holy Spirit's inner witness much like the warm feelings of peace and love during prayer like mine OR (and this is a big or) are your experiences and most other Christian's experiences with the Holy Spirit much more distinct and much more real and vivid?

This is crucial since if you all seem to be experiencing something more real than I may need to re-evaluate my relationship with God if this is the case. I mean if it is different, what kind of emotional, mental, or sensory signals am I supposed to experience? Plus, when you sense the Holy Spirit's inner witness, (unlike with my feelings of peace and love while praying) is the Holy Spirit's inner witness something you can "control" as in fine tune how much of the HS you experience or is it something you cannot control kind of like how you cannot control what a total stranger says to you while are meeting and talking with for the first time?

Answer to jlay

The original question was, why are there less miracles now that in the time of the apostles. Your original answer seemed to say that Israel rejected the messiah, and that thus this was the end of the "kingdom age", that all the jews were to accept Jesus, and that they would then preach the "KINGDOM" (your capitalization). My idea was, first, that there was a reason for those miracles, and that reason ended (having been accomplished). In other words, what I was saying was " This shows that miracles are not arbirtrary. They always serve a specific purpose in advancing the Kingdom." As far as I can tell, the only point of difference is your meaning you attach to the word 'kingdom". In fact, we agree on quite a number of points, as I will list below.

We agree that God has treated people differently through time, the only difference being that you put names on these times, and I do not. I don't see that this means our views are much different, since what happened back then is told, and will not change depending on if we put names to it or not, and also that was then and this is now, and how God treated people back then has much less effect on us than how God treats us now.

We agree basically that there was a reason miracles are much less than formerly. I say that the reason is because we have a distinct lack of apostles, you say it is because the age of apostles has ended, both are functionally the same, since you can't have an age of apostles without apostles.

We agree that miracles are not arbitrary, that those miracles were there for a reason, and we basically agree on the reason, as a witness about Jesus being the messiah, that the apostles were Gods chosen witnesses of that, and to "jump start" the early church. We therefore basically agree on why those miracles happened, and why they largely went away.

I also agree that Jesus, and the apostles, at first, were sent to the Jews Mat 10:5Mat 10:6 (Jesus certainly said that while he was here he was sent to the Jews). This makes sense, it had to start somewhere, and it was from the Jews that the messiah and all the apostles came, and it was to the Jews that God gave the old testiment, and so it makes sense that if God is going to choose his first witnesses to the messiah, he would choose those who could understand him, and in context. If God chose some other people at first, we wouldn't even understand who Jesus was, he would have appeared out of the blue, unexpected and unlooked for. The Jews were thus the only real choice as first witness. The Gentiles would have probably wanted to build a temple with Jesus statues next to say Zeus statues or something.

I also agree that there were some things that Jesus, sort of, concealed from himself. I believe the reason he did not know when the end time would come were twofold. First, he was here to act as an ordinary man, to have only the capabilities of a man. As such, what he could know (in his earthly form) was only what could be known by physical brain cells. To know when the end of the time of the Gentiles was over, he would have to know exactly how many Gentiles, and who, were going to come in. That is actually quite complicated, knowing exactly how the interplay between all the peoples interaction between themselves (effected by their cultures, the climate, historical happenings etc), the Spirits callings (nudges, suggestions) and the Devils counter callings would play out, to assure that all who God chose (or planned) would be saved. No human brain cells could handle that (Jesus as God knew it, of course, but did not "tell" Jesus the man since it simply could not fit in a mans head). Also, God simple doesn't want us to know. If we know that God is coming at midnight, we may decide to sin and then repent at the eleventh hour, only to die at 10:30. God wants it to be a suprise so that we will always be ready for his coming, always be doing the right thing. Jesus himself said so in parables like the parable of the virgines and the bridegroom (Mat 25:13 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. Mark 13:33 Be on guard! Be alert ! You do not know when that time will come. )

What we do not agree on is that Jesus expected that ALL the Jews after the ressurection would accept Jesus, as a kingdom, and that it was the their failure to ALL eccept him that caused God to turn to the Gentiles. I beleive that I can easily show that Jesus never expected ALL the Jews to accept him, and that he said so, and that he also told the apostles and diciples that Gentiles would be invited in, although he started with the Jews for obvious reasons. You will note that the same result is true either way, if I am right or you are right, either way, the answer to the original question about miracles is pretty much the same, and Gods actions concerning the Gentiles, the Jews, and miracles are also pretty much the same.

This is why I was asking how dispensationalism effects what you beleive and do now. I mean, it seems like a lot of extra work, how does it help? How does it effect what you beleive and do NOW. I mean, look at the bottom of your psts, your signature, how does it effect that?

As for this idea that Jesus expected that ALL the Jews would accept him after the ressuraction, that is easily seen to be not so. First,we see stuff like this Mark 13:1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" Mark 13:2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Now, if the Jews, all of them, had accepted him as messiah, would they have revolted against the Romans? Clearly, they would have been changed, and thus this prophecy would have not been true. However, more importantly, and much more pointedly, is this Mat 10:7 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. Flogged in the synagogues, who would do that, answer, only Jews, therefore Jesus did not expect all Jews to accept his disciples words about him. And he gets even more pointed, see here Mat 21:43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. And we can see that the Jews (some of them) present knew exactly what Jesus was saying Mat 21:45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. But Jesus did not stop Mat 22:2 Mat 22:3 Mat 22:4 Mat 22:5 Mat 22:6 Mat 22:7 Mat 22:8 Mat 22:9 Mat 22:10 Mat 22:11 Mat 22:12 Mat 22:13 Mat 22:14 of which the most important part for this question is this Mat 22:8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Mat 22:9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'. Clearly, Jesus did not expect all the Jews to accept him here, and then he goes till further, so that we cannot possibly miss it Mat 23:29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. Mat 23:30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' Mat 23:31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! Mat 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Mat 23:34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. Mat 23:35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Mat 23:36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. There we have it again, Jesus said that the apostles and diciples would be flogged in synagogues, he was clearly saying here that some at least of the jews would reject him, that is absolutely clear when he mentioned their forefathers. Note that this could not have happened if only a few Jews rejected him, one cannot flog anyone in a synagogue without cooperation of many of the Jewish people (the scribes knew this, as seen here Mat 21:46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet).

We therefore see that Jesus did not expect that all Jews would accept him at this time (during the time of the apostles), and also tells of a "times of the Gentiles" here Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (he is answering the same question as in Mark 13:2 ). We also see this here Rom 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. You note the same basic idea, that there was a time, clearly planned by God, called "the times of the Gentiles" which would be fulfilled when "the full number of the Gentiles has come in". Clearly, this was prophecied by Jesus first, so we see that Jesus knew that not all of the Jewish people, or even most, would accept him, and paul explained why it was to be so.


But I think the difference of opinion of about when Jesus was going to save the whole Jewish people is around this one verse Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Well, first, this was in answer to this question Mark 13:1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" Mark 13:2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Mark 13:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?" Now, if, as seen above, it lookes like Jesus did NOT expect that all the jewish people would accept him, then he would not have been talking about just one time, AD 70 when the temple really was ordered to be torn down stone by stone (to get at the gold melted in a fire during the siege of jerusalem, the words "not one stone is to be left on another were actually used by the Roman general), Jesus would have been talking about TWO DIFFERENT TIMES when he answered the question "when will these things happen". Clearly, this would have been a false prophecy if he was just talking about one time, since we have not seen things like Mark 13:25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' or
Mark 13:26 "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. However, did these people, from that geration, see these things? Well, actually, yes. First, we know that they did indeed see the seige of jerusalem (having been warned what to do, all the Christians excaped it). As for seeing things like Mark 13:26 , for that generation to see it, it only takes ONE person from that generation to see it for that to be true. That person was John, and he wrote about it in a book we called revelations. This was prophecied by Jesus here John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") John 21:21 When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?" John 21:22 Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."
John 21:23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Here we see that Jesus said that John would see what he said in Mark 13:26 , and John was the last of that generation, the last of the apostles alive when he wrote Revelations.


Note also, if Jesus knew that he would be returning when, during the time of the apostles, all the Jews turned to him, then "the full number of the Gentiles" would not have come in, because he also said Mark 13:27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. Clearly, that is the end of all things there (for this universe anyway, further shown here Mark 13:20 Mark 13:24 Mark 13:25 Mark 13:31 ), and that would have meant that all those gentiles would never have been born, and so "the full number of the Gentiles" would never have come in. In fact, this would have ment that Jesus would leave, and then show up again shortly quite soon afterwards. He might have not, while he was on earth acting as a man, known the exact date, but he surely knew some approximates, he knew it would not be soon, not "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled".


Anyway, that is why I believe that Jesus never expected that ALL the jews would accept him during the time of the apostles. Note again that this merely means our reason for giving what is in effect the same answere to the question of why there are less miracles today is different, or partially different. I am not certain what this difference means in terms of what you or I believe or do different NOW, so I would like to ask two basic questions:
1. How does believing in dispensationalism effect what to believe or do now? Does it help in any way?
2. How does it effect what you expect to happen in the future?


Personally, if dispensationalism is partially wrong (and it cannot be fully wrong since God has clearly treated different people differetly at different times), the only danger I see is if you believe so much in dispensationalism itself that you lose track of the main messege of the bible. This has happened, with the LDS church for example, a sort of hyper dispensationalism where they made up their own dispensation for themselves. It doesn't look like you are doing that, so even if dispensationalism is partially wrong, it doesn't hurt anything ( I mean, you won't go to hell or anything by believing something slightly wrong, if you did, we would all end up there). From what I know, there is one danger to dispensationalism, and that is in the future. You may decide, as many charismatics also do, that there will be a secret rapture. This may be wrong, and if no such thing happens when you expect it to, you may decide that that means this whole Christianity thing is false, and give it up. I persoanlly don't think a secret rapture will happen, since I don't beleive there will be a third coming, and the second coming is described with things like the sign of the Son of Man in the heavens, him being seen from east to west, the sound of a trumpet, the voice of an archangle, etc, not very secret sounding to me (I think our being caught up into the air, snatched out of a field etc, will be right before resturning to earth with Jesus and the angels, ie seconds or minutes, not 7 years). Now, if I am wrong, and there is a secret rapture, all that that means is that I will be pleasantly suprised. However, if someone insists on a secret rapture, and if it doesn't happen their faith is shattered, well, it would be wise to decide, beforehand, that the secrecy of this rapture is optional, that if it comes between belief in a secret rapture (possibly associated with dispensationalism or charismatic beliefs) or belief in Jesus, you should decide now that if you are shown wrong by that, that you will drop the belief in a secret rapture and keep the belief in Jesus. As far as I know, this is the chief danger of dispensationalism to your Christian faith, a danger that will only show up if you are present at a time when your specific beliefs demand a secret rapture. Thus, between now and possibly then, you may believe in such a secret rapture, however, you need to keep the option of dropping that belief open.

As for the question of DRDS, I can post more later, but the main idea is, there is no one way that the Spirit manifests to anyone. One cannot nessissarily say that others have it any different, or the same, as you. Also, sometimes God will deliberatly NOT manidfest inwardly, so as to get you to stand on your own two feet without God carrying you by making you feel better.

Thank you Legatus, from what little you provided, it sounds like that does indeed make very good sense. I hope when you get time to explain it in more detail, if you can demonstrate that this is indeed how God operated at times in the Bible. Because at first glance, especially with the disciples and the early early church God or at least through the Holy Spirit, seemed to be more than eager to talk to and comfort individuals. But if there are instances where God held himself back it would give a very good reason as to why He seems to be doing that almost in full blast mode in our current day and age.

What we do not agree on is that Jesus expected that ALL the Jews after the ressurection would accept Jesus, as a kingdom, and that it was the their failure to ALL eccept him that caused God to turn to the Gentiles.

1st, I think one of your main issues is that you are making assumptions about my beliefs and about dispensational theology and then making arguments that don't actually dispute what I am speaking about.

For example, does Jesus expect all individual Jews to accept Him as Messiah? I wouldn't and couldn't say that. They obviously didn't. Only that those who did would be part of the part of the restored Kingdom. When would the Kingdom be restored? Well we don't rightly know, because Jesus said, "It isn't for you to know the times." What we do know is that the apostles where promised power, were given power, and we're commissioned to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the ends of the earth. This happened just as Jesus said, but then after the stoning of Stephen we see this plan essentially begin to wither, and the ministry of Paul arrise and take the forefront. Israel, instead of being restored is completely destroyed. As such, all the apostles with perhaps the exception of John, are killed off.

We also know there was a hidden program that was later revealed through the apostle Paul. We know this because Paul writes.
"How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." Eph. 3:3-5,8,9

Mystery just means, secret. And this secret was hidden since the beginning. That is why it also had to be revealed and confirmed to Peter. If Peter didn't know it, and yet had all the scriptures opened to him by Christ himself, then I struggle to see how you extract it from the four gospels. Since the ministry of Paul was NOT revealed.

Jesus obviously knew that Israel would reject Him in His earthly ministry, as He foresaw this and His death and resurection. I'm not fully in agreement as to the conclusions you draw regarding carrying Jesus' assesment over to the apostolic age. Again I think you are making some assumptions and then arguing against positions I don't hold, or positions that aren't accurately represented. So, I can't and won't defend a position I do not hold.

1. How does believing in dispensationalism effect what to believe or do now? Does it help in any way?
2. How does it effect what you expect to happen in the future?

1. That obviously depends on what faction of dispensational theology you follow. There are many off shoots, and fringe elements. I think the core of DT is to focus on rightly dividing the Word of Truth. That is knowing not only what is written, but to whom it applies and for what purposes.
It will effect what we do now. For example, I see a lot of people who claim promises from the scriptures that simply they have no scriptural grounds to claim. Promises to Isreal and promises to the apsostles. People prooftext scripture and attempt to hi-jack it for themselves.
2. I try not to get too caught up in the eschatology. Many so called dispensationalists get all wrapped up in the Israel thing going on today. I saw one group on TV which had like 100 people blowing shofars. Obviously tryingt to replicate Jewish traditions, thinking these things would have some spiritual manifestation.

the only danger I see is if you believe so much in dispensationalism itself that you lose track of the main messege of the bible.

Of course anyone can make the mistake of letting their theology get out of wack. Scripture should always shape our theology, and not vice versa. This is one of the reasons I was attracted to DT. I was growing frustrated with exactly what you are talking about. The reason I don't get wrapped up in the eschatology is exactly for the reasons you state. I'm not going to be so cocky to say that I can't be wrong or haven't been in the past. I can only pray that if I am in error that God will reveal that to me. Everyone has a starting point. Even people who claim to simply "follow the bible." So, it would make sense to me to start with a framework that enables the reader to rightly divede the word. Yes, there are implications as you point out. And yes, there are many who would fall under the DT heading who've done such.

I don't think I've ever heard Mormon described as hyper dispensationalism. Don't know if you came up with this criticism on your own, or found it reading criticisms of DT, but I think that is a very off-track assesment.

and that would have meant that all those gentiles would never have been born, and so "the full number of the Gentiles" would never have come in. In fact, this would have ment that Jesus would leave, and then show up again shortly quite soon afterwards. He might have not, while he was on earth acting as a man, known the exact date, but he surely knew some approximates, he knew it would not be soon, not "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled".

No, it would not have meant that. It would only change the methods by which they were evangelized. Up until the great commission, Israel had been inwardly focused. They didn't proselytize or seek out converts. The GC was to continue the earthly ministry of Jesus and then to preach this Gospel, 1st in Jerusalem and then to the ends of the earth. This really was an out there concept considering Israel's history. Israel was to accept their commission, become the city on the hill, and announce Christ to the world. By 70 AD Isreal was scattered and essentially wiped off the map. And yet the apostles really hadn't made it out of Judea.

Some examples of times when God did not seem to be doing much in the way of miracles:

God did miracles and spoke around the time of the patriarchs,Abraham,Isaac and jacob,as well as Joseph to some extent. Then...400 years and no miracles.
You will note that this was the time of basically the founding of the jewish nation that was to result in the messiah, thus the miracles are quite likely to be of the type to attract our attention to these people so that we will know that God is up to something important here.

God did miracles and spoke a LOT around the time of Moses.
You will note that Moses wrote the law, as well as wrote a large part of the early old testiment, including parts of Genesis where only God, speaking to Moses, could have known of those events since they were long before Moses was born, in some cases way way before Moses was born, even at the start before anyone had been born. It was thus important that God do these miracles and speak since this stuff was the foundation of the bible and God wants us to see that.

God did some miracles and spoke around the time of the prophets, to the first kings, and later to following prophets, although following prophets there was more speaking than miracles.
The time periods between miracles was sometimes quite long, and usually coencided with someone whome God wanted people to REALLY listen to, even to our day.

There was a 400 year period of dead silence and no miracles between the last prophets (who people largly ignored) and Jesus. This was not because there were no beleivers then, since there were some even around the time of Jesus's birth, which shows that some beleived even during that 400 years of silence.

There was a world record of miracles during the time of Jesus and the apostles, which stopped when all the apostles had been verified by those miracles as such.
You note here that this was something God wanted us to REALLY notice, and people whome God wanted us to REALLY listen to.

The conclusion from that is that when God wants us to notice someones words, God will often use miracles to show us that God is the one behind those words, to show that this is my chosen prophet, or Son, or apostle, basically to act as a witness . When God has finished what God had to say, and it is written down and thus available to all, God will stop doing miracles in bunches since the purpose of those miracles was to act as a witness and that has been accomplished. There may be an occasional miracle here and there, as there are still to this day, but not in bunches, not enough to attract our attention that something special is going on like a major prophet, the messiah, or an apostle, someones whoes words should be added to the bible. The bible having been finished, we can expect no more bunches of miracles.

As for individuals, the previous quote from The Screwtape Letters (in this thread) is appropriet, from the following examples:

Abraham, God spoke, then it was years before he spoke again to Abraham, so many years that Abraham had given up hope for a son.

Jacob had one dream, it was then 14 years till God actually met him (during which time there were years of hard work, being cheated on a wife and wages, etc), it had been so long that Jacob actually tried to wrestle with God since it seemed God had abandoned him and his brother Esau was coming to kill him (God then dislocated his hip to prevent him from running for the hills and never being seen again). Note, one dream (was that really God??) followed by 14 years of silence.

Joseph had a dream, and then spend 13 years as a slave in a foriegn country, some of it in jail, before anything actually happen (then, it happened all at once).

Moses was miraclulously saved from being killed in Egypt as a baby, and then was a prince in Egypt for 40 years, and was sure that with his military prowess (he had rallied the Egyptial army successfully versus the Ethiopians) he could then start a Jewish revolt. Instead, he had to run off into the desert and tend someone elses sheep for 40 long years before God spoke to him for the first time. Note, he was raised as an Egyptian, and Egytians considered shepards as the lowest of the low, and Moses wasn't even a shepard of his own sheep.

David was anointed by a miracles doing prophet as king of Israel, killed Goliath, and spent time in the current kings palace, even marrying the kings daughter. He was then run off and spent many years hiding, sometimes having to be fed by his family coming out to keep him from starving. He eventually despaired of his life in Israel and ran off to the Philistines. Shortly after that he sudenly (relativly speaking) became king of Isreal. Being anointed, seening good things happen, then many long years of Gods silence and bad things happening, I begin to see a pattern here...

The apostles, lets take John for example, Jesus does miracles, John does miracles, lots of miracles for a while, then they slow to a crawl, and John eventually finds himself a slave in a salt mine for a long time, while God is silent. Only after a while of that does God show up and send the Revelation (to show John that God still had things under control, knew what was coming, and was coming again to set things right). First, lots of miracles, then dead silence and John in a salt mine.

Paul the apostle, lots of miracles, then, they slow and basically stop, and Paul is eventually not rescued by God when he is executed (as he had been earlier).

We see a regular pattern here, as seen in Screwtape, of God often starting off with speaking and even miracles, followed by years of dead silence.
For bunches of miracles, we see God doing them only when God wants to point our attention to someone God wants us to REALLY listen to, like the patriarchs, Moses the lawgiver, the prophets, and Jesus and the apostles. When those sorts of people are not around, there is an accasional miracle and nothing more, never bunches of miracles.

And as for a miracle that God did (only one) to point us to something that God wants us to listen to, see my link earlier in this thread to the audio of "Breaking the Silence" originally released as a tape by "Focus on the Family". In this tape, just (and I mean JUST) as the miracle is about to happen, the speaker talks about how yes, God CAN do miracles, but he may not, and just as he was saying that often God would allow "pit" experiences (very bad, no miracles, silence), when it seems God had abandoned him, yet he had accepted Gods will anyway, his voice was healed right on the word "pit". I think this is something God was pointing us to, that we should accept God even if he seems silent and not doing anything (that we can see).

umm...how are you all so sure about miracles and their happenings, the reason we do have gaps in the performing of miracles may be because they were happening but weren't documented. Even if you do not agree, the probability still exists. As we often say, absence of proof is not proof of absence. You have times when miracles happened, just at some point if they are not mentioned, doesn't necessarily means they didn't happen.

I have to reiterate what neo-x is saying here. It's a logical fallacy to appeal to the lack of references in Scripture for miracles in a particular time frame. Scripture doesn't record every miracle ever performed. This is clear by the fact that not everything Jesus did is noted in the Gospels.

John 21:25 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

That includes, or at least doesn't exclude the possibility or likelihood of other miracles Jesus performed.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. All that can be said about the lack of reference to miracles or other events is that God's purposes in inspiring Scripture from that period of time may not have included any reference to paticular miracles that may (or may not) have been performed. To attempt to draw any conclusion beyond that is a logical fallacy.