Replies

We have plenty of miracle stories of our own. Kind of an interesting dilemma from a logical point of view. Two very different views of the proper worship of God, yet both claiming miracles:

1) If you would discount my miracle stories because you think my beliefs are incorrect, what prevents me from doing the same with yours?

2) But if we both accept each other's miracle stories as valid, then we are effectively saying our doctrinal differences don't matter, and I honestly don't think either of us are willing to say that.

So by force, we are both driven back to where we started, belief in one or another claimed source of divine truth, and not the miracles.

And that is probably as it should be. You know as well as I do (I hope) that in these last days Satan will be permitted to deceive the world with signs and wonders so powerful they could fool the very elect of God, if that sort of thing were possible, which it is not.

If we are to take that warning seriously, both of us, then we cannot begin our argument with the occurrence of miracles. We must begin with divine revelation.

Even Jesus did this. The prophecies concerning Messiah, had they been unfulfilled or fulfilled incorrectly in Jesus, would have invalidated His ministry. The word of God was essential in proving Jesus to be the Son of God. The miracles were just there for the hard of hearing. Yes, that was a metaphor. :)

So we're back to basics. You have no evidence whatsoever, from the text, that a transformative miracle occurred to the bread and wine at the Last Supper. All you have is the classic form of a direct metaphor, A is B. That's it.

Don't you think it is odd that every single physical miracle of Scripture is highlighted as a miracle by the inspired writer, yet in this one case alone, the most amazing physical miracle of all slips past the Gospel writers without so much as a whisper of a mention? As CS Lewis would say, rum thing, that.

Peace,

SR