Gospels+Acts vs Epistles (Letters)

[LearningToLetGo]

I don't recall any of the epistles mentioning any of Jesus' miracles. I don't recall them mentioning his healing the sick or casting out demons or raising the dead. They do, however, mention Jesus' own resurrection.

I find it odd that none of the letters remind the faithful of Jesus' feats. It seems these would be the kind of thing that one would mention at every opportunity.

Am I wrong? Do the letters indeed mention such miracles?

 

[crossnote]

Colossians 2:15 KJV
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

It's just that much of his feats took place in the invisible realm e.g. propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, of mankind etc.

 

[bobinfaith]

I don't recall any of the epistles mentioning any of Jesus' miracles. I don't recall them mentioning his healing the sick or casting out demons or raising the dead. They do, however, mention Jesus' own resurrection. I find it odd that none of the letters remind the faithful of Jesus' feats. It seems these would be the kind of thing that one would mention at every opportunity. Am I wrong? Do the letters indeed mention such miracles?

Hello LearningToLetGo;

You're asking an excellent question and this may spark a long discussion. When we read of the Gospel's two authors, Matthew and John both mentioned Jesus' miracles. When we read the epistles I'll refer to Paul's letters, or Pauline epistles, he does mention Jesus' divinity and His Resurrection which were both miracles. Paul was both an apostle and disciple of Jesus when he encountered Him.

God bless you, LearningToLetGo, and thank you for starting this new topic.

 

[Major]

I don't recall any of the epistles mentioning any of Jesus' miracles. I don't recall them mentioning his healing the sick or casting out demons or raising the dead. They do, however, mention Jesus' own resurrection.

I find it odd that none of the letters remind the faithful of Jesus' feats. It seems these would be the kind of thing that one would mention at every opportunity.

Am I wrong? Do the letters indeed mention such miracles?

You are in fact correct. The question then must be WHY?

My 1st thought on this would be that Paul never mentioned the miracles of Jesus in his letters is because he knew that his converts already knew them.

Then secondly, we must remember that there were no telephones, no news, no papers and no internet. The stories and miracles were not written down until after Paul’s death. Maybe he was never in a place to hear them being told which to me seems to be the best answer.

Then thirdly, I think that we can conclude that Paul was not concerned about Jesus as a human. He wanted to stress his “vision” of the risen Jesus as the Christ. And what the Christ taught Paul was much more important to him that what the human Jesus taught his disciples.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

The stories and miracles were not written down until after Paul’s death. Maybe he was never in a place to hear them being told which to me seems to be the best answer.

What of the other authors of letters, e.g. Peter and John? They also make no mention of miracles to my recollection.

I find this very odd. If I were an apostle, I would mention the miracles at every opportunity to remind people just who Jesus is. After all, as awesome as resurrection and ascension are, they remain quite abstract to most people, but healing the afflicted and casting out demons is something everyone can viscerally relate to.

 

[BibleLover]

I don't recall any of the epistles mentioning any of Jesus' miracles. I don't recall them mentioning his healing the sick or casting out demons or raising the dead. They do, however, mention Jesus' own resurrection.

I find it odd that none of the letters remind the faithful of Jesus' feats. It seems these would be the kind of thing that one would mention at every opportunity.

Am I wrong? Do the letters indeed mention such miracles?

I think one answer lies in the different purposes of the writings. The gospels, written to prospective Christians, are a combination of history and biography intended to acquaint readers with the person and work of Jesus to prove who he was and by what power he acted in order to convince them to become disciples.

The epistles, written to Christian believers, are didactic in nature, and are intended to teach believers the things they need to know to grow in their faith.

Since believers must have already become acquainted with Christ's miracles when they read the gospels, mentioning them again would not have been necessary since the gospels represent milk while the epistles represent meat.

That's my 2 copper coins worth. God bless you.

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello LearningToLetGo;

You're asking an excellent question and this may spark a long discussion. When we read of the Gospel's two authors, Matthew and John both mentioned Jesus' miracles. When we read the epistles I'll refer to Paul's letters, or Pauline epistles, he does mention Jesus' divinity and His Resurrection which were both miracles. Paul was both an apostle and disciple of Jesus when he encountered Him. God bless you, LearningToLetGo, and thank you for starting this new topic.

What of the other authors of letters, e.g. Peter and John? They also make no mention of miracles to my recollection. I find this very odd. If I were an apostle, I would mention the miracles at every opportunity to remind people just who Jesus is. After all, as awesome as resurrection and ascension are, they remain quite abstract to most people, but healing the afflicted and casting out demons is something everyone can viscerally relate to.

 

[Major]

What of the other authors of letters, e.g. Peter and John? They also make no mention of miracles to my recollection.

I find this very odd. If I were an apostle, I would mention the miracles at every opportunity to remind people just who Jesus is. After all, as awesome as resurrection and ascension are, they remain quite abstract to most people, but healing the afflicted and casting out demons is something everyone can viscerally relate to.

You know brother, Paul did not talk about the miracles he did either.

But in reality we must consider the fact that the Jesus' miracles were a sign of Jesus' identity as Messiah and signs that were confirmed in his death and resurrection. The death and resurrection of Jesus, then, is the only miracle to mention that supports Paul's thesis that through Jesus' death comes forgiveness of sins, and through his resurrection comes freedom from sin for those who will believe.

And Paul does mention the death and resurrection of Jesus repeatedly. It isn't Jesus' miracles that confirm who he was in Paul's era (20-30 years after Jesus' death), but his resurrection from the dead was the only thing that mattered.

 

[crossnote]

If Iwere an apostle, I would mention the miracles at every opportunity to remind people just who Jesus is.

And here is the word of an apostle who wrote both, a gospel, three Epistles and an apocalyptic book…

John 20:30-31 ESV
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

And Paul does mention the death and resurrection of Jesus repeatedly. It isn't Jesus' miracles that confirm who he was in Paul's era (20-30 years after Jesus' death), but his resurrection from the dead was the only thing that mattered.

I think you are correct.

Paul wrote in the 1st century to an audience also in the 1st century. His letters are precious and we are fortunate to have them, but we were not on his mind as he wrote. I must keep remember this as I read them.

 

[crossnote]

I think you are correct.

Paul wrote in the 1st century to an audience also in the 1st century. His letters are precious and we are fortunate to have them, but we were not on his mind as he wrote. I must keep remember this as I read them.

Remember, all that Paul wrote was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We may not have been on Paul's mind but we were definitely on the Holy Spirit's mind at the time of Paul penning his words.

 

[Major]

I think you are correct.

Paul wrote in the 1st century to an audience also in the 1st century. His letters are precious and we are fortunate to have them, but we were not on his mind as he wrote. I must keep remember this as I read them.

I agree.....but as stated in post #11 by crossnote is also very correct.