|
|
|
|
|
||
Discussion on MIRACLES
The following is a discussion between Jass Singh and Rawel Singh on the topic of Miracles. This discussion is based on the articles written by these two authors which can be found at the following link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022008/miracles.htm
from Jass Singh
I state right at the outset that my article is an overview and not an exhaustive treatise. The topic is specifically on the possibility of miracles in view of philosophical objections and not on specific miracles in the Bible. In this respect, Rawel Singh has not addressed my paper whatsoever. In addition his response is full of factual errors as well as flawed logic and for this reason I give my refutation.
Mat 11:5 is not Jesus “boasting” or showing his ego. It is a fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies of Isa 35:5-6. Rawel Singh asks “What was the Messiah to achieve and if Jesus was the Messiah, how did he do that?” This is a very good question but is probably better left to a separate article. I would be glad to write a full article fort he next issue if the editor was to ask me. Christian Bibles have not twisted the original Hebrew OT (Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14) and the Greek NT (Matt 1:23). See http://www.ankerberg.com/Question-of-the-Week/question-of-the-week.htm.
You state “Clearly John the Baptist did not consider someone performing miracles to be the representative of God.” This is just one example of isogesis the clever & subtle smuggling into the text what is not there. John the Baptist did not even know Jesus was performing these “Messianic” signs (miracles). That’s why Jesus gave the reply He did for these signs were prophesied of the Messiah in Isaiah 35:5ff.
If you want to really know what Jesus came for, read, John 3: 16. In fact Jesus’ mission statement is found in Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." Jesus’ ministry was not for miracles. He did not come for miracles. Miracles were signs as to His identity. They were signposts pointing to His identity as indicated in Isa 35:5ff. In fact He specifically refused to do miracles to “entertain” king Herod when Pilate sent Him to be tried. Jesus’ miracles were acts of selfless love to meet needs of ordinary people. Even on the cross, when they were taunting Him, He could have called a legion of angels to strike everyone down (Mat 26:53) but that was not His purpose for coming into the world (Mat 26:54). Instead He asks the Father to forgive them (Luke 23:34).
I have been an active participant on SikhSpectrum and have never “quietly withdrawn” from any discussion, including the one on the “resurrection of Jesus from amongst the dead.” Finally after 2000 years Rawel Singh has refuted the resurrection of Jesus? You state that “Mary Magdalene had a close relationship with Jesus. However, when the man who had been in the tomb (after crucifixion) was later presented to her after being ‘resurrected’, she could not recognize him (John 20:14). If resurrection of Jesus were a reality Mary Magdalene could not have failed to recognize the man.”
Rawel Singh claims to be an erudite and rigorous scholar of the Bible and yet he did not bother to read the following verses? I suggest you read John 20:16-18!!! Especially verse 18 where Mary Magdalene says ”I have seen the Lord…” Where do you get the idea that she never recognized Him??? I hope you recognize the fallacious & flawed logic you have used to disprove the resurrection of Jesus. You have disproved nothing at all!
Rawel Singh quotes Luke 23:46 and concludes that Jesus does not subscribe to physical resurrection and that this was an idea started by Paul in 1 Cor 15:14. Both of these assertions are incorrect. Rawel Singh says that Christians believe that the soul is not separated from the body. This is correct but what he does not understand is that the definition of death is the separation of the spirit/soul (the immaterial incorporeal part of man) from the body. In Luke 23:46 unlike any other human being, Jesus Himself dismisses & separates His spirit from His body. He is not rejecting the idea of physical resurrection whatsoever. Once again Rawel Singh has not done his homework. Jesus says: "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17-18).
Not only can Jesus dismiss His spirit, He can unite the spirit with His resurrected body as He did 3 days later. These last two misinterpretations of Rawel Singh in John 20:14 & Luke 23:46 illustrate, the very poor level of his scholarship and truth seeking. If one is truly interested in the Truth one has to be humble and willing to learn and then adjust one’s beliefs.
Neither the Virgin birth nor the resurrection are made up stories. For the open minded unbiased & unprejudiced there is ample evidence but for anyone who has a priori made up his/her mind all the evidence in the world will not be enough. I have addressed the Virgin Birth & Resurrection of Jesus in previous issues of SikhSpectrum and will not dwell on them here. Old Testament prophecies pointed to Jesus. In fact there are over 300 prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus alone. I will list just 12:
Prediction Fulfilled
Peter W. Stoner, Robert C. Newman, Peter W. Stoner, and Robert C. Newman, applied statistical methods to the data of the prophecies of the Messiah and wrote the book entitled "Science Speaks, Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible." http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html. They took only eight of the more than 300 prophecies fulfilled by Christ and determined the odds of one person fulfilling just those eight. The results were astounding! They calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 17th power or 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000. Dr. Stoner calculated that if you spread out that many silver dollars, it would cover the entire state of Texas, two feet deep! Now what do you think the odds are if say, one of those silver dollars was painted red, the likelihood for a blind folded person to walk out on that pile of silver dollars and pick up the red one - on the first try? Certainly if one did that, it would be by definition, a miracle! The Bible is more than that. (http://thefundidriveby.blogspot.com/2007/12/315-miraculous-old-testament-prophecies.html). The probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled is 1 in 10 to the 157th power, which is practically zero (of being fulfilled by one person by mere chance) & tantamount to an impossibility.
Rawel Singh is of the opinion that Jesus’ followers have embellished the gospel accounts with miracles. Rawel Singh selects Mat 4:3-4 & Mat 8:4 and without any evidence whatsoever conjectures and asserts that “these verses represent the real Jesus,” and that “He should be accepted for what he is, for his teachings and not because of miracles,” and that “such verses have been inserted in the New Testament later by lesser mortals in order to let their preceptor be seen superior to the earlier ones.” Once again he is guilty of bad hermeneutics (interpretation) and isogesis (reading his own meaning into the text) as well as having zero historical evidence for later insertions. I have addressed the historicity of the New Testament in a previous paper on SikhSpectrum (http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112006/ja.htm ) and will not repeat myself here.
Rawel Singh quotes John 5:19 and asserts that the first part of this statement shows that Jesus is not equal to God, but the second has been inserted. Rawel Singh does not understand the nature of the incarnation and the kenosis or emptying out of the independent use of His Divine powers (Phil 2:6-9). As for the assertion that the latter part of John 5:19 was inserted, he has no evidence & once again he is making unwarranted assumptions based on his preconceptions and not internal or external evidence. Notice that Jesus starts His statement with the words, “Truly Truly” to emphasize the importance of what follows. Jesus is saying that His union with the Father in His divine nature is absolute and they are doing the same things; He never acts independently of the Father. He lays down His identity with God and in Him we see God. The mind of Jesus is the mind of God; the words of Jesus are the words of God; the actions of Jesus are the actions of God.
Rawel Singh quotes Mat 27:46 in which Jesus is actually quoting verse 1 of the Messianic Psalm 22, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” It is the only time that Jesus did not address God as Father. During the 3 hours when it became completely dark, the sinless God-man was separated from God the Father as He became sin and bore the wrath of the justice of the Holiness of God the Father on behalf of mankind. Rawel Singh is correct that Jesus was not forsaken for He was raised the 3rd day; His sinless sacrifice was accepted and satisfied the justice of God who could now shower His Grace on us sinners and offer salvation. For a full exposition see “The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew 24-28” by John MacArthur.
Rawel Singh then expounds his interpretation of Jesus healing and resurrecting the dead as allegorical and representing a moral revival. This is a gross error of hermeneutics (interpretation) and totally unwarranted and therefore must be dismissed.
Rawel Singh’s then talks about the SGGS & miracles and also about guru Tegh Bahadur in respect to not performing a miracle. This is totally irrelevant to refuting my arguments for the philosophical possibility of miracles and need not be addressed.
If one is a true truth seeker of the Truth then one must lay aside one’s preconceptions biases and prejudices and even the most cherished beliefs and examine the evidence with an open mind and be willing to adjust one’s beliefs accordingly. My prayer is that the readers have these sterling qualities and the courage to change when confronted with the Truth.
from Rawel Singh
Jass Singh's response to my article is full of contradictions.
Jass says John the Baptist did not even know that Jesus was performing miracles. The Bible says otherwise in Matthew 11:
[2] Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
[3] And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
So, John the Baptist on seeing Jesus performing miracles asks him "are you the the Messiah are shall we look for another"? This leaves absolutely no doubt why the question was asked of Jesus, and that is because John the Baptist did not think the Messiah was to perform miracles.
Jass Singh has quoted John 3:16 and Luke 19:10 to show what Jesus came for. No, we are talking about what the Old Testament says the Messiah was to come for. The New Testament is at pains to show Jesus was the Messiah but does not say what he was to do and how Jesus did it. Here is a hint; the NT does try to show something but it does not work. Jass Singh wants to write a separate article on this and I hope the Editor would facilitate that. I suggest it has to be based on the relevant OT prophecy and its fulfillment in the NT.
Next, Jass says the Christian Bibles have not twisted the translation of the original Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14. I copy and paste the two versions and Matthew 1:23 below:
Hebrew Bible in English -Isaiah 7
King James Version -Isaiah 7
King James Version - Matthew 1:23
Here is an interesting observation: None of them says Jesus. I am sure an effort will be made to derive Jesus' name from this.
Jass Singh also says he did not withdraw from the discussion on Resurrection. He may please refer to the feedback section on SikhSpectrum Issue 27.
Jass Singh has objected to my saying that Mary M did not recognize the resurrected Jesus and quotes John 20:16-18. But he has conveniently avoided reference to the earlier verses 14 and 15 which I copy and paste hereunder:
[14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
[15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Such contradictions always come forth in made-up stories. Mary M not only did not recognize Jesus but also thought he was the gardener. How did she know he was the gardener? The only conclusion one can draw from this is that it was the gardener who had been placed in the tomb and was shown to Mary M and she obviously could not have recognized him as Jesus.
I order to keep the discussion focused and I suggest we postpone responding to Jass Singh’s remarks on the New Testament having been tampered with, until after the above issues are resolved.
from Jass Singh
Once again Rawel Singh has not refuted my paper or its philosophical arguments for miracles. All he is doing is muddying the waters in a very subtle way by smuggling in a whole new set of topics. In logic it is called the fallacy of the red herring- creating rabbit trails instead of addressing my arguments against philosophical objections for miracles. But once again I will respond although I could end it right here by rendering his objections irrelevant to my article. In my 1st response, I addressed the misconception regarding John the Baptist in a short paragraph, which was direct and to the point. I will now expand on that brief summary in some details just to show the great lack of understanding, context and details. Such misunderstandings inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions. I hope this extra information will give the readers food for thought- if they are true truth seekers of the real absolute objective Truth and not mere defenders of illusory subjective “truth” manufactured by their own intellect and wishful thinking based on misinformation.
Rawelji’s mistake is that he is reading too much into the text that is not there (fallacy of isogesis). There is no exegetical evidence to suggest that John the Baptist thought that the Messiah was not to perform miracles. The Messiah was to be greater than Moses, who himself performed miracles by the power of the Living God. This isogetical error is utterly and absolutely baseless. If it was the case that the Messiah was not to perform miracles and John knew that Jesus was therefore not the Messiah, why would he send his disciples to Him to alleviate his doubts? Instead he would have sent his disciples to admonish Him and denounce Him as the Messiah, but there is absolutely nothing of the sort even hinted.
The fact is that Jesus was not turning out to be the kind of Messiah the people had expected and even John the Baptist had doubts. This was the dilemma that John faced not that Jesus was performing miracles and therefore could not be the Messiah. The one to whom he had pointed, the one who would come in blessing and judgment (3:11-12), had brought healing to many but, it would seem, judgment to none—not even to those who had immorally and unlawfully confined the Baptist in a cruel prison. Not only may the Baptist have become demoralized, but he had preached in terms of imminent blessing and judgment and that those who rejected Messiah would be baptized with fire (Matt. 3:7, 10). But instead of judgment, John heard of mercy and grace being extended to sinners. As a result the Baptist was having second thoughts.
Having confused the first and second comings of Messiah, John could not understand why Jesus, if He was truly the Messiah, was not forcibly and openly asserting His messianic claims with power and establishing His kingdom. Why too, was he himself left in prison? Even Jesus’ disciples who had spent 3.5 years with Him and seen the risen Lord were expecting a great “political” liberator who would immediately free them from the yoke of Rome and usher in the kingdom of God.
“And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).
John did not empirically observe first hand Jesus’ miracles and in this sense he did not know that Jesus was performing miracles. He had been in prison for a year; but even while he was preaching, He had no direct contact with Jesus after the baptism. In prison, John was allowed visitors, but information from them concerning Jesus was secondhand and fragmentary. If Jesus' own disciples failed to understand Him fully and demonstrated "little faith" after being with Him intimately for three and a half years, it is easy to understand why John had doubts. He was not an "eyewitness of His majesty (reference to the brief transfiguration of Jesus)," as were Peter, James, and John (2 Pet. 1:16-18; cf. Matt. 17:2), nor did he have the opportunity to see with his own eyes or handle with his own hands the Son of God as He taught, preached, and healed, as had the twelve and many others besides (see 1 John 1:1).
The information that John's disciples brought back to him was still not firsthand, but their report was based on confirming demonstrations of divine power that Jesus performed specifically for John's benefit. (References: Expositors Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, pp260-262; Every Man’s Bible Commentary-Matthew, Arthur Robertson, p61-61 and McArthur NT Commentary Mat 8-15, p242.)
Although Rawel Singh denies it, Jesus clearly defines His mission in both John 3:16 and Luke 19:10. If I am asked, I will be glad to write a paper on the role of the Messiah as prophesied in the OT and its fulfillment in the NT (I already listed 12 of them in my 1st response). I suggest that the issue of Isaiah 7:14 and its fulfillment in Mat 1:23 be addressed in that article as the main thrust of my current article is to address philosophical objections to miracles and not specific miracles in particular.
Regarding Mary Magdalene not recognizing Jesus, I have not ignored John 20:14-15. Your conclusions are non-sequiters and do not follow. It is erroneous to conclude that she thought he was the gardener because he was in fact the gardener, because John goes on to explain that it was in fact Jesus. BTW she was the first person to see the resurrected Jesus and this is an extremely powerful argument for its authenticity.
In those days a woman’s testimony did not count and if the account was fabricated, they certainly would not have chosen a woman to be the 1st witness- i.e. unless the account was narrated as it actually happened!
The fact is that Jesus could supernaturally hide his identity and reveal it at will. Why should this be a problem to the one who is the Divine Word of God and created everything (John 1:3)? There is another occasion when the resurrected Jesus hid His identity. It was on the Emmaus road when He met the two disciples (Luke 24:13-30) and then it says:
“And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight” (Luke 24:31).
Now that I have indulged and refuted the objections on topics unrelated to my article, perhaps Rawel Singh can try to refute my arguments for the philosophical possibility of miracles, which he has failed to address at all in his article or his response. Unless my arguments are refuted, they stand. I am not trying to win any debate here. I am just presenting the facts, the evidence and the arguments for my position, which I believe to be the Truth.
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).
from Rawel Singh
Jass Singh likes making personal remarks and using long winded
arguments resulting in the real issues getting masked. I base all my
comments entirely on the Bible. Let us get to the point.
Jass Singh has reiterated that John the Baptist did not even know that
Jesus was performing miracles. I quoted Mathew 11 to show that John was
referring to Jesus' works. He now says that there was no evidence to
suggest that John thought the Messiah was not to perform miracles. He
again displays lack of Biblical knowledge when he says that "If it was the case that the Messiah was not to perform miracles and John knew that Jesus was therefore not the Messiah, why would he send his disciples to Him to alleviate his doubts"?
The truth is that when Jesus asked to be baptized by John, then according to Matthew 3:14:, "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"? So clearly John recognized Jesus as the Messiah at that time. The question why John asked Jesus if he was the Messiah or "should they look for another", after seeing his works needs to be answered by Jass Singh. Instead Jass is asking me to do that.
Another very important point to consider is that John had announced the impending arrival of the Messiah (Matt 3:11) and none was more qualified than him to question if Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
Jass Singh has made another amazing but uniformed statement: "Having
confused the first and second comings of Messiah, John could not
understand why Jesus, if He was truly the Messiah, was not forcibly and
openly asserting His messianic claims with power and establishing His
kingdom". It is really pitiable that a Christian says this because Jesus says; "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist (Matt 11:11). The mention of second coming for the "kingdom of heaven" is amusing. There was no claim of second coming yet. This only referred to John having forecast it in Matt 3:2.
Jass please make no mistake that John the Baptist is really questioning
the miracles that Jesus was performing. Can you please quote what the
Bible says about Jesus' works? If a confirmation that all Jesus was doing was performing miracles it is given by himself in reply to John the Baaptist (Matt 11:4-5).
On the question of what the Messiah was to do Jass Singh has again quoted John 3:16 and Luke 19:10. I have already stated that the New Testament is at pains to prove the Jesus was the Messiah. Jass has also given corresponding references to show that Jesus was the Messiah. These do not prove what the Messiah was to achieve as per the Old Testament and how Jesus did that. Jass Singh should please answer this first.
Jesus’ messianic status unambiguously stands questioned by no less than John the Baptist.
About Mary Magdalene not recognizing Jesus, Jass singh says "It is
erroneous to conclude that she thought he was the gardener because he was in fact the gardener". I again ask him to read John 20: 15 which clearly says she supposed he was the gardener: "She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have
borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him
away". All this suggest that the gardener had been sustituted for Jesus
for the crucifixion away from the observers (Luke 23:49).
I request Jass Singh to please read your Bible carefully before responding to my specific points. As may be seen I have copiously quoted the Bible for every statement I have made. Kindly give your replies quoting the Bible and not based on anything else, much less conjectures.
from Jass Singh (Closing Comments)
As stated in my previous response, the topic is not the Messiahship of Jesus and John 3:16 and Luke 19:10 was quoted by me as Jesus’ mission statements & not specifically as definitive of “what the Messiah was to do.” Rawel Singh is avoiding the topic by creating a smoke screen of secondary matters not related whatsoever to refuting my arguments on the philosophical possibility of miracles. Rawel Singh does not seem to understand that therefore I am not obliged to answer any question that does not directly refute my paper.
Even if I were to agree to everything that Rawel Singh (erroneously) says about John the Baptist or Mary Magdalene, my arguments still stand as he has not addressed them whatsoever. My arguments for the philosophical possibility of miracles do not depend on what John the Baptist might have thought about Jesus or even if Jesus did or did not do miracles. In fact my paper refers to only 3 Bible passages and only in passing. My concluding paragraph encapsulates the essence of the paper and what Rawel Singh needs to do is address each of my main headings, namely WORLD-VIEWS AND MIRACLES, THE UNIVERSE: CLOSED OR OPEN?, IS BELIEF IN MIRACLES COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE? & THE CONTEMPORARY OBJECTIONS TO MIRACLES.
His lack of documentation whatsoever is a clear indication that he is reading his own meanings into the texts of the Bible (fallacy of isogesis). Maybe we can also add the topic of the nature & identity of the Messiah as a future topic for discussion.
from Rawel Singh (Closing Comments)
Jass Singh had written an article giving his views as a Christian trying to prove that miracles are compatible with theism. I wrote an article commenting on his views and showing that performing miracles takes one away from God. Since one of the things that stand out in the New Testament is Jesus' miracles I linked it to the discussion. There have been long exchanges on the subject.
I have studiously based all my observations in this discussions on the Bible. Jass Singh has tried to answer them mostly based on his views and he sometimes quoted from the Bible. In my last post I had shown how many of Jass Singh's observations contradict the Bible. Not being able to resolve the contradictions he wants to go back to the start. This way the discussion will lead to nowhere. Matters can only
be resolved with reference to specific cases, which he himself mentioned in his article. It appears he is not prepared to do so.
I therefore suggest that the discussion may please be closed.
Micah 5:2 Born in Bethlehem Matt. 2:1-6
Isaiah 7:14 Born of a virgin Luke 1:26-35
Isaiah 11:1 Lineage of Jesse Luke 3:23, 32
Psalm 72:10 Presented with gifts Matt. 2:1,11
Isaiah 35:5-6 Ministry of miracles Matt. 9:35
Zechariah 9:9 Enter Jerusalem on donkey Luke 19:35-37
Psalm 41:9 Betrayed by a friend Matt. 10:4
Zech. 11:12 Thirty paces of silver Matt 26:15
Isaiah 50:6 Smitten and spat upon Matt 26:67
Psalm 22:16 Hands and feet pierced John 20:25, 27
Psalm 34:20 No broken bones John 19:33
Isaiah 53:9 Buried in rich man's tomb Matt. 27:57-60
[14] Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
[14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article