How Did Jesus Perform Miracles?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 бер 2024
- For more information visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Follow Reasonable Faith on Instagram: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@reasonablefai...
The answer is Yes. We can see this in the resurrection of Jesus.
Gal. 1:1, "God the Father…raised Him from the dead."
John 10:17, "I (Jesus Christ the Son) lay down My life that I may take it again."
1 Peter 3:19, "Christ…made alive in the Spirit."
So who raised Jesus from the dead? The entire Triune God in a singular action that incorporates the operations of all Three.
The question addressed in the video arises when we separate the Trinity.
Ambiguous? Jesus said: But if I cast out demons *by the Spirit of God,* surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Matt. 12:28 NKJ)
In all things made like unto his brethren surely means dependence on the Spirit. (Heb. 2:17)
Why think that use of the Holy Spirit for one type of the many miracles means that he used the Holy Spirit's power for ALL miracles? I think you are stretching this passage further than what it is teaching us.
Perhaps casting out demons uniquely required the Holy Spirit since it was a spiritual being that was affecting the person versus a common illness or natural event (calming the storm / water-wine miracle) that had no spiritual being causing the event.
Also "brothers" in Heb 2:17 does not mean "only saved people" but rather "all men descending from the same first ancestor" (see Thayer's lexicon). Therefore, your argument that he was made like all men - depending on the Spirit - is not a good argument because not all men depend on the Spirit.
@@343jonnyJesus was made lower than the angels. Secondly God is a trinity. I see no issue with the Holy Spirit actuating the miracles Jesus commanded to come forth. Even if Jesus had his glory this is not an issue for it's how we see the Godhead function, from the Father through the Son by the Spirit. The trinity functions in unison and agreement, each with their role. The question isn't whether Jesus could.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeepLike, I said - I have no issue with the Spirit working miracles through Jesus either, but saying that the Bible teaches us that ALL miracles of Jesus were done through the power of the Holy Spirit is eisegeting Scripture.
@@343jonny Sorry I thought I was more clear, I think the picture of Gods nature and how he acts IS more clear in the text. Over and over and over we see God spoke and the Spirit moved. This is exactly the picture of Jesus the Word and his Spirit during his ministry on earth acting. Father>Son>Spirit acting in sequence. Even the blood(Jesus) is applied before the oil(Holy Spirit). You wash before you anoint. The ministry of Jesus was a model for us and it only started for us after Pentecost by the Spirit and through the Spirit the miracles of the Church. I would say that is a mirror of Christs ministry.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep I wouldn't necessarily agree with your model of the Trinity's function, but even according to your model, the Son is drawing on the power of the Father, not the Spirit (Father>Son>Spirit). It is the blood (Jesus) BEFORE the oil (Spirit). Thus we should expect from your model that it is the SPIRIT that draws on the power of Jesus to do HIS work - not the other way around. Again I don't see evidence for this power dynamic in Scripture. I think if this were true, then you have different levels of God and that's no longer the doctrine of the Trinity.
Again, none of the data points in Scripture you reference (for example, "God speaks and the Spirit moves" - which I can't find in Scripture) teach that Jesus worked ALL of his miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the Bible just isn't clear about it so we should not be adding to Scripture where it does not speak.
Good job with Alex !
While Craig might be right its slightly ambiguous at times, it's become a very hot theological topic because of the hypercharismatic position. They hold very aggressively to the former position: That Christ did everything through his obedience to the will of the Father empowered by the Holy Spirit and thus, an essential part of us, as Christ followers being "like Christ" is not merely to model him in humility etc, but also in his miracle working power: Thus, they see no reason why followers today should not also raise the dead, walk on water etc.
Therefore it might be helpful for Craig to unpack this issue a little more.
The bible says Jesus is the express image of God, lets not forget the Holy Spirit is also God to which Jesus is expressing.
💯
Yeshua, Jesus, was never humiliated.
He did all through his own being to glorify His Father. Even unto the cross which He undertook because of the Glory He saw before him.
His father’s spirit was from conception within him - after all He is and was and forever will be Emmanuel? God with us.
But yes He willingly left much if not all if His Godly power was n heaven so as to be fully human too.
Yeshua (Jesus) is fully human but fully God too
X
I will leave this question to the theologians. I’m thankful that Jesus performed the Miracles, and that the New Testament authors recorded these events for us. Amen.
He was the Son of God, perfectly aligned with the Father in nature and experience. Everything else is none of my business.
Jesus' Divine Nature and the Holy Spirit are the same Being. Different Persons, but the same Being. So I don't understand the question.
Because he did not use his divinity on earth, it was the Father in heaven who actually performed the miracles. Before he performed a miracle sometimes Jesus would "sigh" and look up in the sky.
Um....Jesus is God, asking how he performed miracles is kind of a moot point. That said, Jesus clearly laid aside some of His divine rights while on earth and was led by the Father and the Holy Spirit but to say "well it was this or that much we're not really told"
Exactly it's kinda a non-issue just by how the trinity functions in the first place, from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. As far as I see that remained the same when Jesus was made lower than the angels with the Holy Spirit manifesting the commands of Jesus that were the will of the Father.
It's a false dichotomy. Jesus performed miracles by the power of the Spirit and by his own power, since the Son and the Spirit share numerically one and the same power. To say otherwise would be tritheism.
nothing like baseless presuppositions from an apologist. Curiously enough, jesus didn't exist and thus no miracles. No one noticed a single thing, and WLC just has his baseless bible stories to claim as "evidence".
It's notable how this jesus also promised his true believers would be able to do miracles, healing injury and illness, etc and not one of these self-professed christains can do that at all.
Yes, a non-existent person causing historical changes in a region that are felt afterward for millenia. That's the best explanation! Hammurabi didn't exist either. Or Alexander the Great. Or Plato. All their movements were caused by people making things up, yes. That's the most logical argument.
Why is it that all historical biblical scholars agree Jesus existed? Hint: because he did.
@velkyn1
"jesus didn't exist"
Just curious, how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Why are you even commenting on this channel? Let other people have their faith.
@@conversative A complete lack of evidence. Unsurprisngly, christians do claim that they have evidence. They try to claim that mentions of christains by ancient writers is evidence that what chritians believe is true. Things dont' work out that way. They try to claim that since some scholars claim a delusional jewish fellow was the core of the jesus myth, that means their magic jesus and god exist. That doesn't work either.
They also try to claim that archaeology supports their nonsense and it does not. All it shows is that christains and jews believed in certain things, not that those things are true.
And mentions of real places and people in the bible does not mean that its claim are true either. That argument ends up making any religion true if it mentions real people and places, and thus Athena, Poseidon, Isis, etc all become as "real" as your god.
We cannot prove any of this empirically. This can only be believed with faith.
Faith is not a scientific function. So, we should be honest about using faith rather than reason concerning miracles.
//We cannot prove any of this empirically. This can only be believed with faith.
Faith is not a scientific function. So, we should be honest about using faith rather than reason concerning//
This comment assumes something called verificationism, which includes the claim that only that which can be verified empirically is rationally justifiable. The problem is that the view falls victim to its own claim, since the truth of verificationism is not something that could in principle be verified empirically. In other words, it's incorrect to think that empirical, scientific verification is the only way one can hold to a belief rationally. - RF Admin
*tips fedora*
So can you prove any of the supernatural claims of the Bible?
@@mattr.1887 What do you mean by "prove"? - RF Admin
WAS JESUS JEWISH?
Before you get to the how, you have to address the did. We have claims, but there has never been any objective evidence for miracles.
I've never seen objective evidence of a single thing Julius Caesar or Richard the 8th said . I have evidence, but according to your standard, it's not objective.
I have seen miracles in my life. I pray you will too Amet x
All historical events fall into this category. If you don't believe eye witness testimony, the testimony of individuals themselves (who received miracles), or historians such as Luke and Josephus then you're already taking the position that no amount of evidence is enough for you. In the first century this was all corroborated as was the standard for eye-witness accounts: that at minimum 2-3 eye witnesses had to attest to something (such as in Deuteronomy 19:15). Paul also writes that people of that time were literally still living with the implication that they could be asked themselves (1 Corinthians 15:6).
So if these standards aren't "good enough" then you must also consider that literally all historical events fall into these categories. You would not be able to prove as an example that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated without taking into account the things that were said about it. The assassination of Julius Caesar as an example also has a lot less documentation surrounding it than the events of the New Testament.
Similarly even if there is physical documentation, that doesn't prevent people from believing that the Moon landings were falsified or even the shape of the Earth being round.
Indeed, Luke has been called a "historian of the first rank" (-Sir William Ramsay, an Archeologist attempting to prove the Bible wrong in the 19th and 20th centuries).
Another famous Roman historian, A.N. Sherwin-White, said: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”
According to Geisler and Turek: “Luke includes the most eyewitness details. (While Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events). In the second half of Acts, for example, Luke displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.
In addition, Geisler and Turek comment: “Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke’s accuracy in the Book of Acts verse by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.”
So, if you disagree, you're welcome to go and do the searching for yourself. But it's dishonest to say that there isn't evidence. There is overwhelming evidence. The works done in the New Testament have been scrutinized more times than any other series of documents in the past 2000 years. And every generation either has to come to grips with the work that has already been done or attempt to retread it. But it's definitely not because there "hasn't been thorough research until now."
No one has ever claimed that Julius Caesar or Richard the 8th is still alive and is God. If they did, you would probably want to see proof before you would accept that. And rightly so.
There's "overwhelming evidence" for Islam, Mormonism, and a thousand other worldviews if you're game enough to talk yourself into it. And lower the bar like WLC says he does.
That may be a "controversial question" for theologians, but there is a much more pressing issue that evangelicals are not taking head-on. Legions of young people are totally ignoring religion because the preachers and their followers are not addressing the credibility issues. We live in a world of space travel, organ transplants, instant global communication and access to vast amounts of information right on our phones. We do not live in a world of miracles, angels, and demons. Young folks do not believe Adam & Eve were real people, or that because of Adam we all have to beseech a god for mercy or be punished forever, or that there was ever a global flood. My generation (boomers) are the last that is willing to gloss over the absurdities and implausible claims. You don't seem to comprehend what most young folks already know - that the vast majority of human knowledge is inconceivable in a biblical context.
WLC would rather split hairs and chase theological dead-ends.
Okay, tarp-grommet😅😂😮😢. If only you were as smart as you think, you are. Sorry that you're not, but thank you for increasing the views of this interesting video and all the other Christian videos that we see you on. Your schoolgirl crush is showing.😅😅😂😂😮😢
They aren't addressing it because they have no answer.
And yet there is still sin, evil and wickedness all of which seems to be dragging us all kicking and screaming towards a biblical apocalypse which many atheists can not see comi g and to which they themselves are contributing to and hastening.
Hmmm. Romans 1:22 might apply. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. The problem with your argument is that all of human knowledge is simply a description of the reality created by God. Without us and all our knowledge, math and physics and chemistry still exist. We are merely observers and occasionally harvesters of the knowledge to create amazing things that better our life here. But there are still many sinners. The young generations just haven't lived long enough to realize the limits of knowledge.
Jesus performed miracles by the gospel authors making it up.
And you know that must the case because you imagine all men are liars like you? If you are capable of telling the truth then they too may be granted that privilege also?
😂😂 Jesus performed miracles by creative writing skills of new testament authors and exagerrated stories of oral tradition in early christian movements, obviously. How the hell does anybody fall for this tricks which clueless apologists utter out of their ass? Damn😂