Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for your reply, pb. It was highly
> illuminating.
>
> "That there were events which the community of
> believers regarded to be signs, wonders and
> miracles cannot be doubted from the text of Paul's
> letters." -pb
>
> No argument from me on that. It's the "regarded"
> part that I think is the weak link here. That
> things happened is not the dispute. It's the
> interpretation of those things that are.
To this point, I've simply presented the quote and reasonable conclusions that can be drawn for the mention of sign, wonders and miracles by Paul in this context.
> I'm sure that back in those days pretty much anything could
> be regarded as a sign or miracle if the timing was
> just right or the event rare enough. And I'm sure
> that, as your comment above alludes, Paul had no
> monopoly on them.
I don't agree that your assessment that 'pretty much anything could be regarded as a miracle' is accurate. You've done a marvellous job of receiving this historical data with openness and with respect for Paul and the early Christian community. Don't blow it now. One thing you have to take into account is that everything Christians did from early on was heavily scrutinized by the Romans and the Jews. It can't be doubted that the movement was growing rapidly and Romans and Jews each had their own reasons to fear it.
I say that to make the case that if it was easy to call these so-called miracles into question, there were many people around who would be glad to do it. Most people today think Benny Hinn's a joke and still, his miracles are easily exposed as being, at the very least, questionable. Few people thought that the early Christian movement was something to laugh at and still the conversation about miracles continued to be a part of the conversation in the early Christian community. What's more, as can be seen from that Revelation 2 passage, even within the Christian community, the authenticity of miracles were being tested. Still, Paul could still argue that he was an apostle because he performed genuine miracles.
The textual evidence doesn't support your claim. It's an easy thing to think but the data doesn't support you.
It would be an easy thing to make light of these claims--as isle and indy have done. But, the actual evidence precludes the possibility of doing it as easily as they have or as you are tempted to, based on this statement.
No, as I study these documents simply as ancient historical documents, there is something there. Something that has to be thought through and can't be easily dismissed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2009 05:24PM by pb.