Q: In Matthew 24:24, Jesus says there will be false Christs who will show great signs and wonders. But according to Acts 2:22, Jesus himself fits that description.
A: If a Secret Service officer was warning people about counterfeit currency, he could fairly describe the counterfeit $20-bills as being printed on pieces of paper about 6.7 centimeters high and 15.6 centimeters wide, with Andrew Jacksons picture on them. Just because authentic currency shares those features does not mean that the officer has said anything contradictory or absurd.
About the only difficulty that one could pose here is that in Acts 2:22, Peter offers Jesus signs as evidence that He was divinely sent, while here Jesus says that when the pseudo-saviors arrive, their signs should not be taken as such evidence. But given the premises that the true Christ appeared with true miracles, and that the false saviors will appear with true-looking signs and wonders, there's still no problem as long as neither Peter nor Jesus appeals solely to miraculous signs to vindicate Jesus' identification as the Messiah -- and neither one did that.
Jesus did not rely on His miracles alone as an apologetic for Himself. In the Gospel of John, Jesus describes the various witnesses that attest to His legitimacy, and the signs are just one of several. Similarly, in Acts 2, Peter did not appeal to the signs alone as evidence of Jesus Messiahship; Peter mentioned Jesus miracles, wonders, and signs but proceeded to appeal to other evidence as well, such as prophetic fulfillments.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: If a Secret Service officer was warning people about counterfeit currency, he could fairly describe the counterfeit $20-bills as being printed on pieces of paper about 6.7 centimeters high and 15.6 centimeters wide, with Andrew Jacksons picture on them. Just because authentic currency shares those features does not mean that the officer has said anything contradictory or absurd.
About the only difficulty that one could pose here is that in Acts 2:22, Peter offers Jesus signs as evidence that He was divinely sent, while here Jesus says that when the pseudo-saviors arrive, their signs should not be taken as such evidence. But given the premises that the true Christ appeared with true miracles, and that the false saviors will appear with true-looking signs and wonders, there's still no problem as long as neither Peter nor Jesus appeals solely to miraculous signs to vindicate Jesus' identification as the Messiah -- and neither one did that.
Jesus did not rely on His miracles alone as an apologetic for Himself. In the Gospel of John, Jesus describes the various witnesses that attest to His legitimacy, and the signs are just one of several. Similarly, in Acts 2, Peter did not appeal to the signs alone as evidence of Jesus Messiahship; Peter mentioned Jesus miracles, wonders, and signs but proceeded to appeal to other evidence as well, such as prophetic fulfillments.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
