Explain why some people should get convincing physical proof of miracles?

Question

Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.

Answer 1

THEY made all that stuff up, so why can't YOU? Go for it!

Answer 2

The bible gives itself an out in this matter.
First Corinthians chapter 13 says that when that which is perfect has come that in part will be done away talking specfically about miracles and tongues and such. It however does not explain what that which is perfect is.
This give the beleiver that can look around and use common sense and judgement an explaination of why miracles do not occur today. A lot of Christians feel it is the written word or the bible itself, and others beleive it is the perfection of faith, or the maturity of the church.
The theory being that in the early days of the church they needed miracles to prove that the preacher was from God, but then as faith matured and these things began to be written down as proof to those of us who live in the distant future, miracles began to fade away. Part of that theory is only Jesus and his chosen apostles had the power to transfer miracles to other individuals and the bible is full of examples that hint very strongly of this. One purpose of the apostles laying their hands on individuals was to transfer this power. so this theory explains why we do not have miracles today because all apostles are dead and when those who had the hands of the apostles laid on them had died, so did miracles.
Either way those today who still claim modern day miracles are left to try and convience us of miracles when there is not even a shred of evidence.
The bible itself even makes bold statements that miracles are proof that the person speaking is from God. That is one reason Jesus did many miracles so people would know he was speaking for God.
Imagine what would happen today if these self rightoues people who claim miracles and try to push their beliefe on us could heal the sick and raise the dead or even do something simple like pick up someones hand that has been cut off in an accident and restore it to normal. I think I would stand up and take notice then.
Acording to the bible definition of a miracle it is God btreaking his law of nature to accomplish something. A miracle is bringing someone back to life after they have died, or making a hand grow from a stub, something that cannot be explained any other way. but a miracle is not birth, or getting a job, or making friends or any of the things that people claim is a miracle today. If you check out miracles in the bible you will find they were raising the dead,(after rigamortise set in) healing the sick without a doctor, lepeosy and many diseses, giving the blind sight.

Answer 3

There are scriptures that tell us that the gifts (some of which are performing miraculous healings etc) should continue in the church.

And with a few people through the years it has continued, but they are usually ridiculed by those who did not see it or do not want to see it.

Yes, there should be more miracles, and its is considered a sign that we are nearing the end that miracles will become more and more frequent.

The bible says that those who believe without seeing miracles often end up stronger then those who don't.

Its up to you if you want to believe or not - but if you think seeing a miracle is the only thing that will convince you then seek that out.

Answer 4

Before I answer I'd like to ask, do you actually believe in prophets?

If you do then you would know that they were "PROPHETS" who were given special abilities in order to prove their prophesies, yet, even with their miracles people still were ignorant enough to not believe. ' give you an example, one of the miracles Jesus had was that he was able to pile up mud, shape it in the shape of a bird, blow on it, and it would be a live bird. Yet, people didn't believe that.

You're asking why we have to believe it based on faith not fact, well that goes back to not having any prophets around anymore.

Have you heard anyone stand up and say "I'm a prophet"? I haven't and if there is he/she is definitely lying. We've passed the era of prophets long ago. Yet there can still be some miracles but I don't really know how to define one now-a-days

Answer 5

You're supposed to believe in miracles, according to many religions. Since there is no such thing, they invent people somewhere else, and/or at some other time (where you can't witness them...) experiencing miracles.

The obvious answer is the right one here: the whole miracle thing is just a lie to get you interested in religion. It's not very different from some blond teenie girl singer showing her navel.

Answer 6

They were needed to get the church 'kick started' so to speak. Also James and Peter and Paul and Thomas and the rest of them were pretty special people. They were chosen
We actually get the greater part of the deal. Because we have to have faith, so our reward will be greater than theres. Not that that is the important things, its just that God promises a much greater reward for faith. "Not by sight, not by power but by my spirit says the Lord"
Also the evidence is there, if you really are looking. Miracles are not needed anyway. Would a miracle realy convince you or would you just question who it came from?

Answer 7

Some people will accept a Ouija board and a few card tricks as miracles. Now's you're chance to reap the profits of becoming a prophet.

Answer 8

Jesus exorcised demons? Probably some poor person with a psychological disorder. Sane people want proof.Sheep mindlessly follow the flock.

Jesus cursed a fig tree, walked on water, turned water to wine, & multiplied loaves. Why didn't he wipe out diseaese? What a toolbox!

Answer 9

actually the vatican requires physical proof of miracles as well. Vatican experts are sent out to investigate and confirm or deny any events that meet their qualifications as a possible miracle.

Answer 10

Because James, Peter, Paul and Thomas were either primary source evidence or secondary source evidence. That means they either got the story by seeing it with their own eyes and they got it from an eye witness.
You say, " but those eye witnesses were trying to promote their religion.....they had an axe to grind". Even if you could convince me that they had an axe to grind, it doesn't automatically follow logically that they weren't telling the truth. Many times people who have an axe to grind tell the truth just because they're honest. Besides, these disciples lived a persecuted life and then all died horribly because they refused to deny what they said they saw. It's one thing to say you saw something even though you have an axe to grind. It's another thing to go to your death refusing to deny what you said you saw.
Why do we believe that Napolean was a great conquerer. The only actual eye-witnesses who actually wrote about his battles were either british or french(concerning his european battles). The british looked upon him like he was the anti-christ. The french thought he was christ. Both of them had an axe to grind. The same was true when he fought in russia. You had basically 2 classes of eye witness reporters, french and russian. Both had an axe to grind. Yet I'll bet you believe Napolean was everything they said he was.
Why should we not believe in miracles. The people who don't believe that Jesus raised people from the dead or walked on water or rose from the dead Himself, their problem is not with the gospels. Their problem is with Genesis 1:1 "In the the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". If they can believe that they shouldn't have any problems with Jesus walking on water. If God exists, he can do miracles. If Jesus was the Son of God, you would expect miracles from him. But that's what the gospels say....that he did miracles. So where's the problem.

Here's some statement from an extra-biblical source names Josephus who was a roman historian and who didn't have an axe to grind:

Josephus
the Eyewitness


Josephus - An Eyewitness to Christianity
Josephus was a historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D. He was a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews, and was taken hostage by the Roman Empire in the great Jewish revolt of 66-70 A.D. Josephus spent the rest of his life in or around Rome as an advisor and historian to three emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. For centuries, the works of Josephus were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible. They are invaluable sources of eyewitness testimony to the development of Western civilization, including the foundation and growth of Christianity in the 1st Century.

Josephus - Biblical Accounts Outside the Bible
Josephus mentions New Testament events and people in some of his works. For many skeptics, this is viewed as significant evidence against the myth and legend theories that plague early Christianity. Here are some excerpts:

Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 2:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."

Josephus mentions Ananias, the High Priest, who was mentioned in Acts 23:2:

“Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money.”

Answer 11

i dont know but lifes a bit of a miracle matey