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".)

[His Name Is John]

I have not heard one good argument by an atheist against those miracles, and I don't expect to. Even raging atheist fanboy Dawkins admits that the miracles do probably take place, just that 'there must be another explanation' or in other words supporting a 'naturalism-of-the-gaps'.

So it is actually the Christian God who is responsible for the miraculous healings the Hindus attribute to their gods because they have faith?

Yes, that is what I believe.

Hindus are actually monotheists (or at least a lot of them are) the different 'Gods' are different representations of the one God. So yeah it could be that the teachings of Islam or the Hindu holy books are correct, and the 'God' they pray to is causing the Christian healings.

We all believe in one God, and that God (in my view at least) is the same God, it is just that some people haven't got the as full a revelation of that God as others.

[The Nice Centurion]

I have not heard one good argument by an atheist against those miracles, and I don't expect to. Even raging atheist fanboy Dawkins admits that the miracles do probably take place, just that 'there must be another explanation' or in other words supporting a 'naturalism-of-the-gaps'.

So it is actually the Christian God who is responsible for the miraculous healings the Hindus attribute to their gods because they have faith?

Yes, that is what I believe.

Hindus are actually monotheists (or at least a lot of them are) the different 'Gods' are different representations of the one God. So yeah it could be that the teachings of Islam or the Hindu holy books are correct, and the 'God' they pray to is causing the Christian healings.

We all believe in one God, and that God (in my view at least) is the same God, it is just that some people haven't got the as full a revelation of that God as others.

No, Hindus are NOT Monoheists and hinduism was created by the english to have the indish religions conceptually stuffed under one roof.

"Hinduism" is a christian lie first place. Since christians were unable to convert them, they wanted at last to be able to control a name.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Shermana in post #1]

One would have to establish that they ever happened before one could determine when they stopped. If they never started, they of course would have no cessation date.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

At the risk of drifting too far of -topic, I have gleaned that there is a lot claimed about Constantine that is arguable.

While Christianity had become popular, it had not been Legitimised in his time. It was like the cannabis of the Roman world Coming from York (Eboracum), in Britain with his legions, he won the battle of Milvian bridge and became emperor.

The story is that he had a vision of Jesusgod promising he would win. But the arch he put up has no Christian symbol. None. Not one. Therefore the evidence is that he was not Christian at that time. The crosses on the shoulders is a Christian propaganda lie. That is my belief. He did legitimise Christianity and that would probably have come in time, but I think it was because his mother was a Christian and her religion had to be decriminalised of course.

And yet all the indications are that Constantine himself did not convert, but his cult was the Imperial worship identified with Helios, the sun. All his iconography is about that, not about Christianity. He passed rules about Christianity as a politician, not as a believer. Eusebius...I really don't know about him. I can't shake the idea that he wrote Luke (based on the synoptic original) and Acts (based on Paul) and inserted the Flavian testament into Josephus, AND removed the blood of the Galileans and any Extra Biblical references to what Jesus Really did from any history, but I could be wrong,, there.

But I have no reason to think that Constantine's New Rome was any more Christian than the old Rome, which was rapidly being gobbled up by the new Popes, pressuring the Western Emperors to suppress the Rival religions (Mithras, Isis, Attis and Cybele). Maybe Constantine converted to Christianity when he died. Maybe not. That Christianity claims that he did is not compelling. It was claimed that Darwin 'recanted'on his deathbed. Evidence is that he didn't. I've even seen the claim tried about Hawking converting to Christianity after his death.

Any lie is justified if it props up the crumbling edifice of Christianity.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]
Put up something that can't speak back and tell:
"That one is on our side now!"

It's the Argument from Stone Fallacy.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]
Put up something that can't speak back and tell:
"That one is on our side now!"

It's the Argument from Stone Fallacy.

Now that is something I can't parse. Anyone is welcome to explain it, including yourself.

Internet says: Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation.

I think you just dropped that one on your own foot. Or are you a Bible - skeptic doing a false flag operation?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]
Put up something that can't speak back and tell:
"That one is on our side now!"

It's the Argument from Stone Fallacy.

Now that is something I can't parse. Anyone is welcome to explain it, including yourself.

Internet says: Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation.

I think you just dropped that one on your own foot. Or are you a Bible - skeptic doing a false flag operation?

You are confusing the Argument from Stone Fallacy with the Argument to Stone Fallacy.

Now sorry when this from you landed on your foot.

False Flag operative was rather evangelical SiNcE_1985, also going by We_Are_VENOM, wo decided to see the Genetic Fallacy everywhere.
Where is he now?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]
Put up something that can't speak back and tell:
"That one is on our side now!"

It's the Argument from Stone Fallacy.

Now that is something I can't parse. Anyone is welcome to explain it, including yourself.

Internet says: Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation.

I think you just dropped that one on your own foot. Or are you a Bible - skeptic doing a false flag operation?

You are confusing the Argument from Stone Fallacy with the Argument to Stone Fallacy.

Now sorry when this from you landed on your foot.

False Flag operative was rather evangelical SiNcE_1985, also going by We_Are_VENOM, wo decided to see the Genetic Fallacy everywhere.
Where is he now?

Hardly. What I posted is the Argumentum ad lapidem. Argument from the stone or to the stone is apparently the same. One might be mere dismissal as 'absurd' and the other as 'over - generalisations'. and the like. That is not what I was doing, but rather you appear to be contesting my arguments with invalid responses.

you posted: "Put up something that can't speak back and tell:
"That one is on our side now!"

It's the Argument from Stone Fallacy."

Whether you were denying the Arch of Constantine (made of stone ) conveying (negative) information as much as a history (it is better as it comes from Constantine himself - not a hint of Christianity) or accusing me of dismissal or false arguments (from or to the stone), it is not what I did, but it is rather your arguments doing that. The stone seems to fall on your foot.

To make a proper argument, you would have to do better than dismissing the (negative) information of the arch, and the question of whether Constantine used other than the symbolism of Emperor as sun -god to represent his cult and authority.

As to what happened to former posters, I have no information on that. I don't know why you are asking me. Could you really be suggesting that Venom and SiNce were me doing false flag posting? That's wild. When I put on my theist hat, I tell everyone I'm doing it.