Miracles convince, or not? Contradtiction?

[Homie]

Is this s a contradiction or not? How can it be explained. I came across this as I was looking for info to re-educate myself on some Biblical stuff in order to answer some questions posed by sanabas in another thread.

Jesus says in Matthew 11:21

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Indicating that miracles can convince people, and make them turn to God.
But in this chis chapter in the Bible, Abraham seems to indicate that seeing miracles won't make people turn to God:

Luke 16:29-31
He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

What gives?

Edit: I thought it was unnecessary to put this up, but I guess I overestimated you guys:
I am not interested in responses like
"Miracles never took place anyway"
"Do you believe in Santa too?"
"Well, that can be explained by the ignorence of people at that time of the God of Science, ehh, I mean scientific discovery"
You science thumpers are not welcome here, the thread is not about wheter miracles occured, but wheter there is a contradiction in scripture relating to wheter miralces can make people repent.

 

[George2816]

Unless i see a miracle it doesn't happen, right?

 

[Bill3000]

It's rather simple. Miracles were thought to occur more often at the time, because less things were not well known thoroughly enough to label them something else. So miracles themselves were quite common, and thus it isn't the sole factor in determining a prophet, since any damn person can be a prophet.

 

[Yuri2356]

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Maybe he's referring only to the five brothers, rather than people in general?

 

[Bill3000]

No, he's talking about the prophet.

Coincidentally, this is why Jesus is a false prophet; because he did not listen to Moses as he changed/replaced/whatever the law.

 

[sanabas]

Maybe in Abraham's time god only wanted the true believers, that were won over by the logic & reason espoused by moses & other prophets?

But by Jesus' time, and since then, god wants everyone's belief, and is prepared to use miracles or anything else that might convince them?

 

[Harbringer]

I think regardless this isn't going to sway any believers.....

 

[Nylan]

Is this s a contradiction or not? How can it be explained. I came across this as I was looking for info to re-educate myself on some Biblical stuff in order to answer some questions posed by sanabas in another thread.

Jesus says in Matthew 11:21

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Indicating that miracles can convince people, and make them turn to God.
But in this chis chapter in the Bible, Abraham seems to indicate that seeing miracles won't make people turn to God:

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

What gives?

Seeing a miracle leads to temporary "belief" or obedience, but no, miracles don't really convert. Those who were weak beforehand will eventually write off the miracle and revert to their previous state. Unless you believed beforehand, the miracle will not have any real lasting effect.

 

[Bill3000]

Seeing a miracle leads to temporary "belief" or obedience, but no, miracles don't really convert. Those who were weak beforehand will eventually write off the miracle and revert to their previous state. Unless you believed beforehand, the miracle will not have any real lasting effect.

I point out Islam.

 

[Mark Young]

No, he's talking about the prophet.

Coincidentally, this is why Jesus is a false prophet; because he did not listen to Moses as he changed/replaced/whatever the law.

Not quite true. Jesus fulfilled the law of the old Testament, he didn't change or replace it. He never spoke ill of any of the the Old Testament teachings, in fact he actually supported them.

Maybe in Abraham's time god only wanted the true believers, that were won over by the logic & reason espoused by moses & other prophets?

But by Jesus' time, and since then, god wants everyone's belief, and is prepared to use miracles or anything else that might convince them?

Miracles are for a sign. In a sense they validate the person. In Jesus' case he worked a lot of miracles not because he wanted to 'convert' people, but because he had compassion on them and cared for them. The only time we ever read of Jesus' motivation to heal people is because he had compassion on them. He never did it to impress people or try and convert them.

 

[Bill3000]

Not quite true. Jesus fulfilled the law of the old Testament, he didn't change or replace it. He never spoke ill of any of the the Old Testament teachings, in fact he actually supported them.

Fulfilling the law is the same as replacing it. If the sabbath is changed to sunday and allowed for gentiles, or if circumcision is no longer allowed for jews, that counts as replacing the law.

And that's irrelevant, as the law was permanent.

 

[sanabas]

Miracles are for a sign. In a sense they validate the person. In Jesus' case he worked a lot of miracles not because he wanted to 'convert' people, but because he had compassion on them and cared for them. The only time we ever read of Jesus' motivation to heal people is because he had compassion on them. He never did it to impress people or try and convert them.

Fair enough. But even if being impressed and/or converted are just side effects, rather than the reason the miracles were performed, does that mean people shouldn't be impressed or converted? And how come he came out with a quote like the OP has from Matthew?

How come people 2000 years ago are more deserving of god's/jesus' compassion and miraculous intervention anyway? Why's there no miraculous intervention now? Does god not care as much anymore? Are we less deserving? Or is it harder for god to perform them, as he's not walking around in a human avatar like he was back then?

 

[Mark Young]

Fulfilling the law is the same as replacing it. If the sabbath is changed to sunday and allowed for gentiles, or if circumcision is no longer allowed for jews, that counts as replacing the law.

And that's irrelevant, as the law was permanent.

I don't agree. But I would like to know what you think the Old Testament law is and what you think Jesus replaced it with?

As for the Sabbath. Gentiles were allowed to keep the Sabbath under the Old Testament Law.

The circumcision was given to Abraham as a condition of the covenant that God made with him. It was included in the Law of Moses as sign and a remembrance to the children of Israel of the that covenant.
However, circumcision is only one part of the law. As Jesus fulfilled the law, the Jews were no longer obligated to keep that part of the law.

 

[Bill3000]

I don't agree. But I would like to know what you think the Old Testament law is and what you think Jesus replaced it with?

Jesus replaced it with himself in Christian interpretations. The Old Testament law is the mosaic law, and is that of which the jewish interpretation is, since it's their religion to begin with; so that includes both the tanakh and the talmud; of which the Christians only care about the tanakh.

As for the Sabbath. Gentiles were allowed to keep the Sabbath under the Old Testament Law.

Nope. It was for jews only. Changing the day of the week that it was is even worse.

The circumcision was given to Abraham as a condition of the covenant that God made with him. It was included in the Law of Moses as sign and a remembrance to the children of Israel of the that covenant.
However, circumcision is only one part of the law. As Jesus fulfilled the law, the Jews were no longer obligated to keep that part of the law.

And this is precisely why Jesus isn't the prophet; because that's specifically REPLACING or REMOVING part of the law for the Jews. If something "no longer applies", that's specifically antinominalism, and thus proof of him being a false prophet.

 

[Mark Young]

Fair enough. But even if being impressed and/or converted are just side effects, rather than the reason the miracles were performed, does that mean people shouldn't be impressed or converted?

Not at all. Just as long as people realise that miracles aren't the be-all and end-all of what God's on about.

IMHO miracles have a dual role.
Firstly they allow God to show his compassion to people. And secondly they act as a sort of advert (for want of a better phrase). They draw people's attention to the fact that something 'miraculous' has occured.

And how come he came out with a quote like the OP has from Matthew?

How come the Pharisees knew that Jesus was from God but still had him crucified? The only thing I can say is that God/Jesus isn't important to everyone. People have their own agenda's and God doesn't fit into it.
So I'm assuming that the reason for the 2 different answers is based on the context of the recipients. Some people will hear and repent, others couldn't care less whether a miracle happened or not.

How come people 2000 years ago are more deserving of god's/jesus' compassion and miraculous intervention anyway? Why's there no miraculous intervention now? Does god not care as much anymore? Are we less deserving? Or is it harder for god to perform them, as he's not walking around in a human avatar like he was back then?

Nobody is more deserving of God's compassion today then those who lived 2000 years ago. The problem lies with the people whom God has entrusted himself with. The problem, in part, lies with us Christians.

 

[Bill3000]

How come the Pharisees knew that Jesus was from God but still had him crucified? The only thing I can say is that God/Jesus isn't important to everyone. People have their own agenda's and God doesn't fit into it.
So I'm assuming that the reason for the 2 different answers is based on the context of the recipients. Some people will hear and repent, others couldn't care less whether a miracle happened or not.

You forgot the possibility that they didn't actually think they Jesus was from God in the first place, and that the writing simply said otherwise... The new testament is meant for convincing people, it's not a history book; it can easily be fabricated for the sake of convincing people that Jesus is the Christ. It's not any more reliable than the Quran or the Book of Mormon.

 

[Mark Young]

Jesus replaced it with himself in Christian interpretations. The Old Testament law is the mosaic law, and is that of which the jewish interpretation is, since it's their religion to begin with; so that includes both the tanakh and the talmud; of which the Christians only care about the tanakh.

Okay. The only way I can explain this properly is through scripture.

The Old Testament Law was given to the Children of Isreal to show them that they have a need of a saviour. All through the Old Testament the writtings speak of a saviour. The Jews understand this and were waiting for Him. However, when Jesus appeared, they misunderstood Him. They thought the saviour would liberate them from the Romans. However, Jesus came to liberate them from themselves, and from the sinful nature inherent in all man.
Paul puts the purpose of the law succintly;

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made:
Gal 3:19

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:24

The whole purpose of the Old Testament law was to show people that they couldn't adhere to the Law, and that they needed a saviour.
However, the Jews had misintrepreted the law. They thought that strict adheance to the law would make one righteous before God. However, they forget that God imputed righteousness to Abraham because of his faith, which was 450 years before the law, and not because of circumsision.

The New Testament takes this subject of righteousness by faith, and states that only throught faith in Christ can one attain righteousness from God, rather than strict adherance to the Law.

Nope. It was for jews only. Changing the day of the week that it was is even worse.

In light of what Jesus did, it makes this issue a moot point.

And this is precisely why Jesus isn't the prophet; because that's specifically REPLACING or REMOVING part of the law for the Jews. If something "no longer applies", that's specifically antinominalism, and thus proof of him being a false prophet.

You're right. Jesus isn't a prophet. He's the only begotten Son of God.
He's the ONLY one who fulfilled the Mosiac Law. That is, he never broke it nor sinned. This is something that no-one else ever did. Moses didn't do it. David didn't do it, and neither did Mohamid the muslim prophet.

 

[Mark Young]

You forgot the possibility that they didn't actually think they Jesus was from God in the first place, and that the writing simply said otherwise... The new testament is meant for convincing people, it's not a history book; it can easily be fabricated for the sake of convincing people that Jesus is the Christ. It's not any more reliable than the Quran or the Book of Mormon.

That the Jews didn't think Jesus was from God is obvious, but read it for yourself and make up your own mind about it.
I could easily take your quote and say the same thing about you. As you could also apply it to me.

I don't believe that the point of the bible is to convince people about God or Christ. It's a testament to what God has done. It instructs the people who do believe in Christ/God as how to live in relationship with Him.
If you believe it or not is entirely up to you.
But from what I have noticed, people don't become convinced/converted etc based on a book, but from experience.

 

[Ball Lightning]

Miracles back then might possible have convinced people, if it was something which was far out there.

 

[puglover]

Maybe he's referring only to the five brothers, rather than people in general?

That's how I see it. Some can be convinced by miracles, but some will always be skeptical.