Objection: Miracles Are Mentioned Less as the Date of New Testament Books Gets Later

First, this is just patently false.  Historians believe that the Gospel of John is one of the latest-written books and possibly the last one written.  It certainly contains miracles.  The Book of Acts was written by Luke after most or all of the Epistles were written, and it certainly contains miracles.

Second, the epistles were doctrinal books, not historical books.  Unlike the gospels and Acts, their main purpose was not to document what people did (though there is a little of that) but to declare New Covenant doctrine.  The gospels tell you the physical particulars of what Jesus did, but only in the epistles is what Jesus did fully explained from a spiritual standpoint.  For example, the gospel writers document that Jesus died on the cross, but only in the epistles do we learn that He defeated Satan’s forces there and that we died, were buried and rose with Him.  So we would not expect the epistles to have the specific records of miracles found in the first five books of the New Testament.

Third, this is similar to the other objection shown below.  You can click on it for a reply to the idea that fewer mentions of certain words in the epistles mean that miracles decreased in importance since the events recorded in the gospels and Acts.

See also:

Objection: Healing and Miracle-Related Words Are Mostly in the Gospels and Acts, Not After Them