Family dies holding hands, praying

[_Hoops]

My point here is not that one ought to believe in miracles because Bede records them. It is, rather, that in evidential terms there is just as good a case for believing in miracles around the 7th century AD as there was in the first century AD, and perhaps better.

Why?

Or, one might say that if one disbelieves the 7th century miracles, one has an even better reason to disbelieve in the 1st century ones.

Why?

Hoops, as I understand it, only feels able to privilege the latter over the former because she thinks there was a special reason for miracles pre AD 350, and that after that date they did not happen any more, because they were no longer necessary. The evidence of Bede - and of those who preceded and followed him - seems to count quite heavily against that.

Except I have a list of early church fathers who agree with me, and that would seem to count quite heavily for it.

[_Hoops]

The Bible is very clear regarding who can hold the office of apostle.

I'm not sure what you're asking about the Old Testament miracles. I take them at face value. I don't know how else to take them. But it's important to recognize that most of the Old Testament is pointing toward Christ. To preserving Israel for Jesus. And that it was written from Israel's perspective "looking up," so to speak.

I don't think that answers you but maybe?

Hi Hoops,

I'm not entirely clear on the non-LDS view of apostolic succession. I understand that some people contend LDS are wrong to claim it is/was a priesthood office passed via other men holding keys, which is clear enough as a statement. But I'm not clear on the biblical support for this view. For example, how did Paul gain the apostolic mantel? Is it clear in the Bible? I'm not sure it is. But perhaps you can help here.

As to the Old Testament, I wondered because it seems to give examples that differ from your explanation re: the purpose of early Christian miracles. So they seem to require some explanation, otherwise why couldn't a person wonder that a modern miracle be performed for the same purpose? i.e. - to point toward Christ, "looking up" so to speak?

There's no such thing as apostolic succession. The Bible speaks of no mmechanism by which the authority of the apostles to establish the church can be passed on to another. However, the Bible is very clear about who can be an apostle. There are 3 criteria, seen the risen Christ, travelled with him during His 3 year ministry, and... I can't remember the third. I'll find it.

I realize that this is where I part company with my RCC friends, but I'm of the view that the apostles had a specific mission and were given special power to accomplish that mission. In fact, this is why we can call Paul an apostle. When their mission was complete, there was no need for that power.

[_Buffalo]

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Psych! What a scamp!

[_Chap]

My point here is not that one ought to believe in miracles because Bede records them. It is, rather, that in evidential terms there is just as good a case for believing in miracles around the 7th century AD as there was in the first century AD, and perhaps better.

[A}Why?

Or, one might say that if one disbelieves the 7th century miracles, one has an even better reason to disbelieve in the 1st century ones.

{B}Why?

Hoops, as I understand it, only feels able to privilege the latter over the former because she thinks there was a special reason for miracles pre AD 350, and that after that date they did not happen any more, because they were no longer necessary. The evidence of Bede - and of those who preceded and followed him - seems to count quite heavily against that.

[c}Except I have a list of early church fathers who agree with me, and that would seem to count quite heavily for it.

I see that you are slipping back to the old monosyllabic mode. Ho well, I tried to dialogue, so don't complain if I point out your disinclination to engage in substantive argument.

First, I assume that the reader has seen the detailed evidence in my earlier post, showing the clear evidence that Bede of Jarrow claimed to have good evidence of miracles in his own day (7th-8th century AD), and that Pope Gregory wrote to his missionary in England in AD 601 about the miracles that the missionary in question (Augustine) was working.

Now I answer Hoops first "Why" (marked [A]": in evidential terms there is just as good a case for believing in miracles around the 7th century AD as there was in the first century AD, and perhaps better, because the accounts of 7th century miracles come from sources that are at least as well attested as the 1st century sources, and are in some respects better, as well as being closer to us in time period.

Now "Why" [B] if one disbelieves the 7th century miracles, one has an even better reason to disbelieve in the 1st century ones, because the evidence for the 7th century miracles is better than that for the 1st century ones.

Finally, Hoops says: "I have a list of early church fathers who agree with me, and that would seem to count quite heavily for it." Some church fathers thought that miracles of certain kinds may have ceased after the apostles. This does not however eliminate the continuous evidence that Christians after AD 350 (Hoops' cut-off date) continued to state that miracles were occurring. If you don't believe them. why believe anybody who makes such claims at an earlier date?

[_Hoops]

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Psych! What a scamp!

What a brilliant contribution! Your biblical expertise is simply astounding.

[_Buffalo]

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Psych! What a scamp!

What a brilliant contribution! Your biblical expertise is simply astounding.

I didn't see a refutation anywhere in there. I suspect that, as is often the case, you aren't capable of offering anything more substantive than sarcasm.

[_Chap]

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Psych! What a scamp!

What a brilliant contribution! Your biblical expertise is simply astounding.

I didn't see a refutation anywhere in there. I suspect that, as is often the case, you aren't capable of offering anything more substantive than sarcasm.

Your point being that Jesus' promise was not time limited in any way, like with a fine-print clause saying:

"The above promise ("The Offer") is only available during the time that the said religious organisation ("The Church") to be established under the name of the party of the first part ("The Savior") is in course of establishment, and while the said collection of authoritative religious texts ("The Canon") is in course of agreement." -

was that it?

Don't be nasty to Hoops, by the way, or Mr Ceeboo will come out and write doggerel about you. Then you'll be sorry.

[_Buffalo]

Your point being that Jesus' promise was not time limited in any way, like with a fine-print clause saying:

"The above promise ("The Offer") is only available during the time that the said religious organisation ("The Church") to be established under the name of the party of the first part ("The Savior") is in course of establishment, and while the said collection of authoritative religious texts ("The Canon") is in course of agreement." -

was that it?

Don't be nasty to Hoops, by the way, or Mr Ceeboo will come out and write doggerel about you. Then you'll be sorry.

I suppose it's possible I missed the fine print. Perhaps the escape clause is written in Hoops' copy of the Bible. Possibly in crayon.

[_Hoops]

The position I am explaining is the reason why we don't see the kinds of miracles as described in the Bible and one which would have moved the tornado. The question is NOT whether or not the early church fathers should be believed more or less than the Biblical accounts. That's a different issue - one I'm willing to address, by the way. But the point remains. The question: why wasn't the family's prayer to be saved from the tornado answered?

I offered 1) that we, as human beings, are not prepared nor do we really want that kind of overt interference by God. Primarily because the consequences would be too dramatic.

2) that the purpose of miracles was to establish the authority of the apostles in order for them to develop scripture and establish the church. I think I'm on sound biblical ground here.

To add further: the purpose of miracles is NOT for God to become some sort of manager at Walmart where we can pick from a shelf what miracles we would like to happen that day. I'll freely grant that God certainly can do whatever He wishes. Assuming there is a God (a stipulation, that, it would seem, is necessary to explore this question) by definition He is morally capable to decide when to intervene and when not to. The obvious counter to that is that it would seem morally suspect for not intervening for the people in the tornado. I am offering that it would be at least equally morally corrupt to intervene this time and not next time. Or this time and next time but not the time after that. Leaving aside the slippery slope that intervention would travel, I can hear the aah's now, "You had no right!" "We can handle our own affairs." etc.

So the question is not who to believe - the early church fathers or the biblical record - the question is why would miracles happen during the establishment of the church and not now. I have offered a reasonable explanation for that. What is the criticism of THAT position?

[_Hoops]

I didn't see a refutation anywhere in there. I suspect that, as is often the case, you aren't capable of offering anything more substantive than sarcasm.

I offered exactly what your post deserves.