The purpose of Jesus' miracles

Justin108 · Post by **Justin108** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:52 am

What was the purpose of Jesus' miracles?

a) To help people.

While this might explain some miracles, such as healing the sick and feeding the hungry, other miracles just seem unnecessary. Why turn water into wine? Was it necessary? Or did Jesus just want to be the life of the party?

If Jesus did perform these miracles to help people, why are such miracles not nearly as common today? Jesus found it important enough to intervene at a wedding that had no booze, but he won't intervene to feed starving children in Africa?

b) To prove his divinity.

If Jesus went out of his way to prove his divinity 2000 years ago when people were generally far less skeptic and far more gullible than they are today, why is it that Jesus no longer does so today? Why was proof of divinity appropriate 2000 years ago but not today? Back then we had proof. Today we need to have faith. Why the inconsistency?

c) Other (please elaborate)

Derrrpp · Post by **Derrrpp** » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:46 pm

P.S Everyone goes around and around saying I need proof! I want literal this and in my hand that. Since the OP said to assume that they occurred I ask"What the heck did Judas need?"

marco · Post by **marco** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:17 am

Derrrpp wrote: P.S Everyone goes around and around saying I need proof! I want literal this and in my hand that. Since the OP said to assume that they occurred I ask"What the heck did Judas need?"

He needed God to be on his side. Sadly he was part of God's plan for the redemption of mankind. God needed a betrayer and Judas was it. The Jews, too, were part of the master plan. The gospels tell us that the Jews shouted out that they wanted Christ's blood to be on the heads of their children. Good plan - the poor Jews suffered for centuries as a result.

So Judas, driven by God, ignored miracles. So did the Jews.

Derrrpp · Post by **Derrrpp** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:31 pm

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

If 'God made me do evil' is a legal defense that gets someone salvation then we'll have to admit it.
Perhaps it (the appearance of being part of the masterplan) is merely the reflection of good that evil has to adopt as existence was defined by the object not the mirror. In science that is polarity or symmetry, but in religion one supercedes the other in priority, because only it is capable of fulfilling the infinite position.

marco · Post by **marco** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:50 am

Derrrpp wrote:
If 'God made me do evil' is a legal defense that gets someone salvation then we'll have to admit it.

I didn't say anything about legal defences. I said that if we think the cross and its consequences were God's way of redeeming humanity, then this plan involves using people to bring it about. When we reach a contradiction or absurdity we reject our hypothesis as unsustainable.

Derrrpp wrote:
Perhaps it (the appearance of being part of the masterplan) is merely the reflection of good that evil has to adopt as existence was defined by the object not the mirror. In science that is polarity or symmetry, but in religion one supercedes the other in priority, because only it is capable of fulfilling the infinite position.

It is not clear what point you are making. There are those who see good and evil as co-existing, else we take God as the originator of evil. I suppose in most religions good supersedes bad, but so what?

Derrrpp · Post by **Derrrpp** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:57 pm

Because you used the words "God needed", "driven by God" I took it that you have the opinion that Judas was just following the relativistic spacetime and never had a true choice-- thus God puts Judas in evil shoes to accomplish good... and we must conclude that the end justifies the means. Needless, I wont agree.

-OR-

Did you mean "why is God using fallible people to accomplish something so critical?"

I will try to tread a little more carefully thru what you meant so Im not spouting off the wrong directions..

marco · Post by **marco** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:11 pm

Derrrpp wrote:
Because you used the words "God needed", "driven by God" I took it that you have the opinion that Judas was just following the relativistic spacetime and never had a true choice-- thus God puts Judas in evil shoes to accomplish good... and we must conclude that the end justifies the means. Needless, I wont agree.

I am examining the story and what people take to be God's reason for sending Jesus. I don't myself accept the redemption theory and I am pointing out the absurdity of using Judas and the Jews as the unwitting instruments of his strategy. They suffer. So I would discard the redemption plan as being inappropriate if we are to consider God good and merciful.

Derrrpp wrote:
-I will try to tread a little more carefully thru what you meant so Im not spouting off the wrong directions..

That is uncommonly considerate of you. I will, in return, try to express myself in more lucid terms to save you the trouble.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:46 pm

marco wrote:I said that if we think the cross and its consequences were God's way of redeeming humanity, then this plan involves using people to bring it about.

The whole point of this topic is moot if this premise that "the cross and its consequences were God's way of redeeming humanity" is wrong and if GOD is indeed not trying to redeem humanity at all but just a few who are elect, as most churches contend.

marco · Post by **marco** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:54 pm

ttruscott wrote:
marco wrote:I said that if we think the cross and its consequences were God's way of redeeming humanity, then this plan involves using people to bring it about.
The whole point of this topic is moot if this premise that "the cross and its consequences were God's way of redeeming humanity" is wrong and if GOD is indeed not trying to redeem humanity at all but just a few who are elect, as most churches contend.

That is fine. And testing this statement leads to the conclusion that Judas and the Jews were simply collateral damage in God's plan. That conflicts with the idea that God is merciful and does not simply use innocent people. We must obviously come to terms, somehow, with a conclusion that leads to an absurdity. I'm not sure how we do that.

Derrrpp · Post by **Derrrpp** » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:30 pm

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

Marco is the testing this statement leads to x conclusion debate available on another thread that I can review?

marco · Post by **marco** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:19 am

Derrrpp wrote: [Replying to post 28 by marco]

Marco is the testing this statement leads to x conclusion debate available on another thread that I can review?

I will take a wild stab at what your question intends to ask. You want to know about how one tests the statement that God used Judas and the Jews to fulfil his plan.

Scenario: God was offended by Adam. Adam messed things up for everyone. Something had to be done to put things right, and sacrificing a nice bull wasn't good enough. The answer was to have an incarnate God sacrifice himself for the sake of humankind and this would right the primal wrong and redeem man, allowing the locked gates of Paradise to bee opened. Jesus worked the incidental miracle to alert people to heaven's collaboration.

Instrumental in carrying out this plan were the betrayer and the accusers. The plan worked because they were put in it.

That seems to be the hypothesis and its flaw is that God is using and abusing people in order to carry out his redemption plan. ERGO, the hypothesis is flawed.