Book of Acts: When did the Christian miracles cease?

[Shermana]

According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

Modern "Liberal Christianity" may try to assert that they never happened in the first place....but then how do they explain the drastic expansion of the Christian religion? And if such writing is mere "poetry" and didn't happen, what was the "poetry" supposed to mean? Does the very basis of what happens in Acts refute the positions of "Liberal Christianity?"

And "Conservative Christians" who maintain that they did happen....don't exactly have miracles happen in public like in Acts or as Paul supposedly described in Corinthians (another difficult issue for Liberal Christians to explain why Paul was talking about miracles and prophecying).

Some "Charismatic" movements may have "gift of tongues" events, but they go completely against what the "gift of tongues" is supposed to be, it was meant to be a miraculous showing that enabled believers to actually communicate with others of a foreign tongue, not just babbling away. Paul even forbade using the gift of tongues if there was no interpreter.

Paul was even apparently to raise people from the dead and heal the sick just like Jesus. In fact, according to the Gospels, Jesus said that the disciples would be able to do works greater than him. What happened since?

According to Acts, there is indeed supposed to be an actual showing of who is a "True Christian", in the form of miraculous happenings. What happened? When did they cease?

Did the early church spread so fast because of the word of these miracles? If not, what caused the Christian religion to spread so quickly?

Were the NT scriptures indeed saying that true believers would be able to perform miracles on a scale like Jesus did? Does it not say that all church members will receive some kind of gift, including prophecy? If believers don't have these gifts, are they, in scriptural terms, lying when they say they have the Spirit then? Is Christianity supposed to be a miracle-based religion in its original form? Are those who claim to believe in Christ but don't perform such miracles therefore not filled with the Spirit and thus not true members of the church? Or is there an explanation why there are no raisings of the dead and healings of the sick like in the days of Paul and the disciples (faith healing shows don't count).

Is it fair to conclude that the original point of the scriptural "Church" was to be a part of an organization that actually performed amazing miracles? When did the healing of the lame and raising of the dead cease and for what reason?

(Note: This thread is in discussion of the scriptural definition, there is no need to establish that said miracles are possible or that the events actually happened, it is a discussion of the relevance of such to modern and historical "Christians".)

[pax]

Miacles have not ceased. I live about 1.5 hours drive away from the Martyr's Shrine in Midland, Ontario. There in the Shrine is the Wall of Crutches left behind by all those who were miraculously healed. Miracles still happen at Lourdes and Guadaloupe. There is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. There is the Miracle of Lanciano, Italy. There are the incorrupt bodies of Saints. There is the blood of certain Martyrs which liquifies on their Feast Days and then returns to its congealed state afterwards. Miracles have not ceased -- at least miracles have not ceased in the holy Catholic Church.

[Artie]

Miacles have not ceased. I live about 1.5 hours drive away from the Martyr's Shrine in Midland, Ontario. There in the Shrine is the Wall of Crutches left behind by all those who were miraculously healed. Miracles still happen at Lourdes and Guadaloupe. There is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. There is the Miracle of Lanciano, Italy. There are the incorrupt bodies of Saints. There is the blood of certain Martyrs which liquifies on their Feast Days and then returns to its congealed state afterwards. Miracles have not ceased -- at least miracles have not ceased in the holy Catholic Church.

That is correct. For example, more than 6 million people visit Lourdes every year. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie ... 800794.htm. Out of those untold millions who have visited Lourdes over the years 67, yes 67 cures have been recognized as miraculous by the Catholic Church. http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_app ... cles1.html.

[sleepyhead]

Hello Shermana,

>>> When did the healing of the lame and raising of the dead cease and for what reason?<<<

In the OT all of the miracles ((bgab) both good and bad) happened in the vicinity of the Ark of the Covenant. Before Moses built the ark we don't have any miracles except for those in and around Abraham. Then miracles happened near Moses. When the ark was built miracles (bgab) centered around the ark. When the Ark was captured and taken to a non Israelite city miracles (mostly bad) happened in that city.
Moving on to the book of acts, Miracles (bgab) happened around the original apostles who had been trained by Jesus for three years. They then started happening around Paul for reasons I don't have an explanation for. The point here is that the miracles would need something or someone to center on. Someone or something that actually represented God.

[wonderer]

[quote="Shermana"]According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

And "Conservative Christians" who maintain that they did happen....don't exactly have miracles happen in public like in Acts or as Paul supposedly described in Corinthians (another difficult issue for Liberal Christians to explain why Paul was talking about miracles and prophecying).

Some "Charismatic" movements may have "gift of tongues" events, but they go completely against what the "gift of tongues" is supposed to be, it was meant to be a miraculous showing that enabled believers to actually communicate with others of a foreign tongue, not just babbling away. Paul even forbade using the gift of tongues if there was no interpreter.

Paul was even apparently to raise people from the dead and heal the sick just like Jesus. In fact, according to the Gospels, Jesus said that the disciples would be able to do works greater than him. What happened since?

According to Acts, there is indeed supposed to be an actual showing of who is a "True Christian", in the form of miraculous happenings. What happened? When did they cease?

Were the NT scriptures indeed saying that true believers would be able to perform miracles on a scale like Jesus did? Does it not say that all church members will receive some kind of gift, including prophecy? If believers don't have these gifts, are they, in scriptural terms, lying when they say they have the Spirit then? Is Christianity supposed to be a miracle-based religion in its original form? Are those who claim to believe in Christ but don't perform such miracles therefore not filled with the Spirit and thus not true members of the church? Or is there an explanation why there are no raisings of the dead and healings of the sick like in the days of Paul and the disciples (faith healing shows don't count).

Is it fair to conclude that the original point of the scriptural "Church" was to be a part of an organization that actually performed amazing miracles? When did the healing of the lame and raising of the dead cease and for what reason?

(quote]

When I was a Christian I went through various churches. In the non charismatic ones it was said that the miracles and gifts of knowledge and tongues ceased when the Apostles passed away and the Bible was complete, that the miracles etc were no longer needed because we had the written Word of God. John Macarthur had that well argued from the scriptures. It was said that the happenings mentioned in the book of Acts didn't apply to us today, but what was in the Epistles following Acts did apply, as we were part of the church those epistles were addressed to. That was the dividing lline.

During my time with charisimatic churches I felt that they tried desperately to produce miracles and signs from God, but it wasn't genuine. I found it amazing how among church circles, even non charismatic, there were so many reports, verbal, or through, for example, church literature or missionary newsletters, of miracles of physical healing. Even rasing of the dead seemed common! I went to lots of meetings, wanting to experience something miraculous, but never even saw one miraculous happening. Everyone else around me, Christians of all denominations, seemed to have experienced or seen or knew about healings. I was relieved when I ended up at very conservative church which didn't require miraculous happenings every week to be assured that the Holy Spirit was working amongst them!

One thing that didn't fit was that it was said that after the book of Acts there weren't mention of miracles in the NT, and everything in the Epistles was meant to still apply to all Christians in modern days. Yet in the book of James it mentions calling in the elders to pray and annoint a sick person with oil, and the sick person would get well, yet this didn't happen in the conservative church. They explained it by saying that it referred to 'spiritual' healing, ie. the forgiveness of sins, not to physical healing. There's a way around everything!

In the charismatic churches also, if someone was prayed for and not obviously physically healed, they would say there'd been a spiritual healing! In fact, some people would actually think you needed to 'claim' your healing, ie praise and thank God for healing you even though you weren't yet obviously healed, as a sign of faith, because God requires that faith in order to heal you. Something like that. I might have the theory a bit wrong.

[Student]

According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

Modern "Liberal Christianity" may try to assert that they never happened in the first place....but then how do they explain the drastic expansion of the Christian religion?

As far as I can ascertain, the dramatic growth in Christianity came after Constantine legalised Christianity in 313CE.

Estimates vary but the total population of the Roman Empire during Constantine’s reign is considered to have been between 80 million and 120 million, of which the total number of Christians is estimated to be between one ninth and one twentieth of the total population. This means that the total Christian population in or about 313CE would have been between 4 million and 13.3 million.

If we accept the higher figure, and based upon a starting figure of 5000 Christians at the time of the crucifixion (pure guestimate on my part based upon the feeding miracles) then the average growth in Christian population to the year 313 was 2.85% per annum, which can hardly justify the term of being a “drastic� expansion.

If this estimate of growth is correct, and depending upon when Acts was written (80CE to 130CE), then, the maximum number of Christians when Acts first circulated would have been no more than 75,000.

Miracles might not have been the great crowd puller you assume.

[pax]

According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

Modern "Liberal Christianity" may try to assert that they never happened in the first place....but then how do they explain the drastic expansion of the Christian religion?

As far as I can ascertain, the dramatic growth in Christianity came after Constantine legalised Christianity in 313CE.

Estimates vary but the total population of the Roman Empire during Constantine’s reign is considered to have been between 80 million and 120 million, of which the total number of Christians is estimated to be between one ninth and one twentieth of the total population. This means that the total Christian population in or about 313CE would have been between 4 million and 13.3 million.

If we accept the higher figure, and based upon a starting figure of 5000 Christians at the time of the crucifixion (pure guestimate on my part based upon the feeding miracles) then the average growth in Christian population to the year 313 was 2.85% per annum, which can hardly justify the term of being a “drastic� expansion.

If this estimate of growth is correct, and depending upon when Acts was written (80CE to 130CE), then, the maximum number of Christians when Acts first circulated would have been no more than 75,000.

Miracles might not have been the great crowd puller you assume.

If this estimate of growth is correct

Where did you get those figures from? Your starting figure of 5000 Christians in A.D. 33 is allowable (and probably not far off the mark). How many people in the Roman Empire were Christians in A.D. 313? You need to have that number in order to ascertain the average rate of growth.

[Shermana]

Yeah I want to see those figures too.

So apparently all Constantine had to do was legalize Christianity and then the membership shot up so high he decided to make it the state religion, stamping out all others? Something ain't logical with that.

What do you suppose even caused 4-13 million people to convert in the first place? How would such a tradition maintain such a strong foundation and not just be one of the many small time cults? 10% of an entire empire is pretty dang significant. That would be like 30 million Mormons today in America alone.

And then there's the question of why Constantine even legalized it in the first place. How much pressure was he under by this so-called "10%" of his population. Heck, why would Constantine even convert? Do you think he actually had a conviction? Do you believe he actually saw a miraculous sign in the sky?

As for 80,000 believers by the time of Acts, that's a HUGE rate regardless. Why would anyone even convert in the first place? The book itself even states that the miracles were what caused many to believe.

And that doesn't answer the main question of the OP either, of why Paul was able to raise people from the dead but modern believers can't. And the whole gift of tongues and proof of the Spirit and such.

[AdHoc]

According to the book of Acts, the very reason why the Church spread so fast...was because of straight up miracles.

Modern "Liberal Christianity" may try to assert that they never happened in the first place....but then how do they explain the drastic expansion of the Christian religion? And if such writing is mere "poetry" and didn't happen, what was the "poetry" supposed to mean? Does the very basis of what happens in Acts refute the positions of "Liberal Christianity?"

And "Conservative Christians" who maintain that they did happen....don't exactly have miracles happen in public like in Acts or as Paul supposedly described in Corinthians (another difficult issue for Liberal Christians to explain why Paul was talking about miracles and prophecying).

This is a really good question, one possible answer could be to look at the modern church and compare it side by side with the church of the bible are their other differences other than the lack of miracles that might be correlated?

Some "Charismatic" movements may have "gift of tongues" events, but they go completely against what the "gift of tongues" is supposed to be, it was meant to be a miraculous showing that enabled believers to actually communicate with others of a foreign tongue, not just babbling away.

What is this belief based on?

Paul was even apparently to raise people from the dead and heal the sick just like Jesus. In fact, according to the Gospels, Jesus said that the disciples would be able to do works greater than him. What happened since?

According to Acts, there is indeed supposed to be an actual showing of who is a "True Christian", in the form of miraculous happenings. What happened? When did they cease?

Did the early church spread so fast because of the word of these miracles? If not, what caused the Christian religion to spread so quickly?

Were the NT scriptures indeed saying that true believers would be able to perform miracles on a scale like Jesus did? Does it not say that all church members will receive some kind of gift, including prophecy? If believers don't have these gifts, are they, in scriptural terms, lying when they say they have the Spirit then? Is Christianity supposed to be a miracle-based religion in its original form? Are those who claim to believe in Christ but don't perform such miracles therefore not filled with the Spirit and thus not true members of the church? Or is there an explanation why there are no raisings of the dead and healings of the sick like in the days of Paul and the disciples (faith healing shows don't count).

Is it fair to conclude that the original point of the scriptural "Church" was to be a part of an organization that actually performed amazing miracles? When did the healing of the lame and raising of the dead cease and for what reason?

(Note: This thread is in discussion of the scriptural definition, there is no need to establish that said miracles are possible or that the events actually happened, it is a discussion of the relevance of such to modern and historical "Christians".)

I've heard it said that there is no need for the faith to move mountains when the technology exisits to do it for you. Alot of christians today trust their wallets more than they trust God.

[revelationtestament]

"And then there's the question of why Constantine even legalized it in the first place. How much pressure was he under by this so-called "10%" of his population. Heck, why would Constantine even convert? Do you think he actually had a conviction? Do you believe he actually saw a miraculous sign in the sky?"

Constantine wanted to consolidate his power, so legalized christianity in order to win over the eastern part of the empire. Do I believe he saw a vision of his victory? Probably not, but possibly God wanted him to do certain things - this does not mean God was pleased with Constantine. Did he actually have a conviction? Does a true Christian murder his wife and all possible threats to his power? Constantine ruled as the Pontifex maximus of the Roman pagan religion. This was the highest office of the college of the Pontiffs, one of several pagan colleges in in the Roman religion. He was not even baptized until he was on his death bed. Thus all his actions as emperor were done not as a baptized Christian but as an ordained Roman pagan of the highest order - an office the Roman bishop actually took later. I humbly submit no true Christian apostle would ever take this office - more recently even the roman bishops have refused it. Constantine put up a statue of himself with the twelve apostles in one of his churches, and presented himself as the 13th apostle (nevermind Paul, Barnabus etc.) He was also largely responsible for the beginning of the doctrine of the trinity in the formulation of the Nicean creed. He called together a meeting of the bishops of the various cities, because many of the bishops believed there was a time and place that Jesus was not the Son of God (before He was begotten), and the western bishops wanted to present the appearance of being on Constantine's side.