Board index ‹ Paul the Apostle

[The Ruler of Judah]

Why didn't Paul reference any of his own miracles, or any of Jesus'? According to Acts, Paul performed miracles. Now, what do Christians say about miracles? They point to someone being from God. In the Christian school I attended, they said that Jesus' miracles were signs of who he actually was. Whatever.

Anyway, Paul never mentions these. In his letters, Pual is trying to persuade various groups of people to believe in him and his message. Well, why not cite these miracles? Why not cite your own miracles (that Acts said you did)? I mean, this is what miracles are for, right?

What is most likely is that none of them ever occurred. That's why they're not cited. Paul lived before the gospels were written. The gospel writers made up stories about Jesus performing miracles, something Paul didn't know about. And Paul, of course, never did a miracle himself. That's why he never mentions them in his letters.

We know that people made up stories about Jesus. They're in the "gnostic" gospels. They're things that people made up 100 years after Jesus died. So we know that people made up such things to persuade people of Jesus or whatever.

So why is it hard to believe that none of them ever actually occurred?

[jimwalton]

Wow, a little jumping to conclusions there, that because Paul didn't mention his own miracles, they most likely never occurred.

There are certainly other choices. The most clear is that Paul was a humble guy and didn't like to blow his own horn. Check out 2 Cor. 12.5, 9; 1 Cor. 15.9; Eph. 3.8. It is widely thought that the person who had the visions in 2 Cor. 12 was Paul himself, but he was too humble to speak of it.

Paul also directly speaks of such matters briefly in Rom. 15.19 & 2 Cor. 12.12. So we have direct writings from him that he didn't like to speak of his spiritual experiences and powers, but he did admit to performing them. That's an argument from evidence. Yours is an argument from silence: He didn't say it so it didn't happen. The weight of evidence is against your interpretation.

But why didn't he mention the miracles of Jesus? Jesus' miracles were a sign of Jesus' identity as Messiah, signs that were confirmed in his death and resurrection. The death and resurrection of Jesus, then, is the only miracle to mention that supports Paul's thesis that through Jesus' death comes forgiveness of sins, and through his resurrection comes freedom from sin for those who will believe. And Paul does mention the death and resurrection of Jesus repeatedly. It isn't Jesus' miracles that confirm who he was in Paul's era (20-30 years after Jesus' death), but his resurrection from the dead.

[The Ruler of Judah]

He didn't like to speak of his "spiritual experiences and powers" because he didn't actually have them or could do them. If I could heal people and bring people back to life, I'd be doing that every day, everywhere. People wouldn't doubt whether I was an "apostle" (which they did in Galatia). They'd be pretty damn sure that I was something, at the very least.

[jimwalton]

> he didn't actually have them or could do them

First of all, this is clearly an opinion, and a biased one at that. You have no evidence contrary to the evidence we have. The evidence we have, as I gave you, is in Rom. 15.19 & 2 Cor. 12.12, and that is evidence in direct contradiction to what you are saying. In other words, you are contradicting Paul's own words that "he didn't actually have them or could do them." You are making up what you are saying with no evidence to back up your position.

You say that if you could heal people and bring people back to life, you'd be doing it every day, everywhere. So would Paul if that power were under his control. He only had the power as it was granted to him, since it was God's power, and not Paul's. He didn't have power at his disposal on his schedule, but only as God gave it to him. This was the case with all the miracle workers, except Jesus, in the Bible.

[The Ruler of Judah]

You really think that Paul saying that he could do signs and wonders is proof that he could? It doesn't even say what signs and wonders he's talking about. Are you not skeptical of anything or do you basically believe everything you read?

[jimwalton]

Of course I'm skeptical of things. We have to be, or we're complete idiots. The issue at hand is this: Luke says that Paul did miracles, and Luke is considered to be a reliable historian. Paul says that Paul did miracles, and those are in books that are widely, if not universally, regarded as books that Paul did indeed write. You have no evidence to the contrary, but only a skeptical opinion that denies the two pieces of evidence we do have. On what evidentiary basis do you deny that Paul did what the writings claim he does? It would seem to me it's on the unfounded presupposition that such things are impossible. Again, that's not a logical stance but an opinion. You have no leg to stand on.

[The Ruler of Judah]

According to whom is Luke a "reliable historian?" To Christians? Go figure. I wonder why that is. You know what actual evidence I could give that would refute that? Josephus. Josephus was a reliable historian and he does not mention Jesus' miracles or the miracles of anyone else (at a time when, supposedly, according to the NT, they were happening all over the place).

That's a reliable historian. Not someone who's out to convince you to believe in Jesus.

[jimwalton]

Luke as Reliable Historian:

Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. … Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."

Regardless of how many quotes I can reference, there are biblical minimalists who will claim the opposite. Aside from the quotes, one must merely study the text of Luke's gospel to verify his historical acumen. We could go through the gospel piece by piece, but that's tedious. It will lead us to confirm what I'm saying, but it would take us a long time.

You discredit any "Christian" evidence, which is odd. Is it illegitimate to have a Democratic write a biography of Barack Obama? Is it illegitimate to have an American write a history of America? Of course not. But you seem to want a person who saw Christ's miracles, heard him teach, saw him after the resurrection, but says "It wasn't real". That's what doesn't make sense. If we had a person who said "I saw Christ after his death, he definitely rose from the dead, and I talked to him, but I don’t believe any of it," we'd think he was a moron. But if we have someone who has examined the evidence and becomes convinced, you won't accept anything he says. That's ridiculous.

Is Luke biased? Of course he is. He has an explicit agenda. John is explicit about his bias as well. Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you’re wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don't come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus' claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins, for example, also has an objective, an agenda, a bias. Luddeman has an agenda. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased.

But if you want a quote from Josephus about Jesus' miracles, here's an excerpt that should suffice: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_ ... _Flavianum

[The Ruler of Judah]

Most people believe that Christians edited Josephus' writings. This is what Christians did back then: they made shit up.

[jimwalton]

Well, you're the one who mentioned that Josephus would be a credible and reliable source, and then when I mention him, you discredit your own writings. There's something fishy going on here.

As you are well aware, the works of Josephus have been gone over and over with a fine-toothed comb, analyzed and evaluated. In the Testimonium Flavianum, there are phrases that are widely regarded as authentic, and others that are widely regarded as edits planted in later by Christians. I will quote the Testimonium Flavianum, and bold the suspicious readings that are considered to be additions/edits by Christians after the fact:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

You should know that all surviving manuscripts of the Testimonium Flavianum contain the same versions of this passage, with no significant differences. So we have three options:

1. Josephus wrote all of it.
2. Josephus didn't write any of it.
3. Some of it is his, and some of it was edited later.

Nobody of any merit agrees with #1 or #2. What is most intriguing, pertaining to our conversation, is that the line about Jesus doing miracles is one of the lines that is widely considered to be authentic Josephus., and not a later addition by Christians.

From another source I read that, even though Josephus was not a witness to these events (and many events about which he wrote), but used sources, that he handled his sources according to the best standards of his day, and is by-and-large considered a good Hellenistic historian.

So, at least in the conversation before this one, you yourself considered Josephus to be a reliable source. Many historians respect his writing, but they are fairly well aware of where he diverged from the truth. It is also fairly well established where later Christians added to what Josephus had originally wrote. Given these analyses, it seems quite safe to say that Josephus stands as a reliable extra-biblical witness that Jesus was known for his miracles, affirming the very real possibility that he did them.