Replies

You presume that the definition written there is "God's definition" because it fits your worldview. You presume to tell us that your definition is ipso facto God's definition. I don't accept that.

Please don't take my word for anything in this discussion. After all, I'm just a man. Instead, accept what is found in the Scriptures, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's look further at what the Scriptures tell us about miracles. In Acts 1:8, we find Jesus' promise to His apostles repeated and elaborated:

"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

So we see they were assigned a task ("be witnesses to Me"), and were promised the equipping needed for that task. In the next chapter, we find the fulfillment of that promise, and the carrying out of the task.

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Was this a miracle, this speaking in other languages? The large crowd who witnessed it certainly thought so:

"And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, 'Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.' So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'Whatever could this mean?'"

They didn't see "a hundred million miracles every day" (unlike Hammerstein), but they knew one when they saw one. And Peter uses that fact when referring to the purpose of the miracles Jesus did while He was on the earth:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know..."

Then he uses that fact in explaining why a similar thing is happening that day:

"This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear."

Later in the chapter we find a summary of the situation of the church:

"Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles."

Which explanation of miracles do you like better, Peter's or Hammerstein's?