Historical Proof of Jesus's Miaracles

[Dancing David]

I was bored and trolling and found this place called the BibleBeliever Archaeology where they had the following
Historical Proof of the Miracles of Jesus (http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap4.htm
)


An early mention of the miracles of Christ comes from Julian the Apostate (Roman Emperor from 361-363 A.D.) who was an enemy of Christianity, he wrote:


"Jesus . . . has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany."


This statement shows that it was commonly accepted that Jesus performed miracles in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany as recorded in the bible.

[c4ts]

The statement shows that Julian's sense of humor goes right over their heads.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by c4ts
The statement shows that Julian's sense of humor goes right over their heads.
You'll notice that a lot, there seems to be a common appeal to the denotation of words rather than their connotation. Find an evolutionist with a rather caustic sense of humor and the creationist touts this as proof that god directs evolution...

[c4ts]

Find an evolutionist. Period.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Yahweh
You'll notice that a lot, there seems to be a common appeal to the denotation of words rather than their connotation. Find an evolutionist with a rather caustic sense of humor and the creationist touts this as proof that god directs evolution...
The Christians are unable to understand sarcasm.

Your mother and father must be very disappointed in you, Yahweh.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Riddick

The Christians are unable to understand sarcasm.

Your mother and father must be very disappointed in you, Yahweh.

Oddly enough, sarcasm is one of the few things Riddick does seem to understand. I should hope that even he is smarter than the people at biblehistory.net.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by c4ts
Oddly enough, sarcasm is one of the few things Riddick does seem to understand. I should hope that even he is smarter than the people at biblehistory.net.
Teach me the ways of the world.

[c4ts]

I would but you're incapable of learning.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Riddick
The Christians are unable to understand sarcasm.
True Christians, I'm sure...

Your mother and father must be very disappointed in you, Yahweh.
It seems you latched onto one of the "silent jokes" I write into many of my posts (a "silent joke" is something only understood by myself, theres no inherit purpose behind it). In fact, I do believe I deliberately chose my words in reference to this opening post in this ChristianForums.com thread (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1562110&postcount=1), the post was written by a Catholic who merely wants Creationists to respect intellectual integrity.

And dont worry at all, my parents are proud of their Yahweh :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Riddick
Teach me the ways of the world.
Everything that exists and occurs in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, anything that does not meet those 2 criteria cannot and does not exist.

You need a bit of formal education if you intend to learn the Mechanical Physics, Vector Calculus, or how to derive formulas, but its a start...

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Everything that exists and occurs in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, anything that does not meet those 2 criteria cannot and does not exist.

You need a bit of formal education if you intend to learn the Mechanical Physics, Vector Calculus, or how to derive formulas, but its a start...
Do you think its wise to place limits on our knowledge of the universe?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Riddick
Do you think its wise to place limits on our knowledge of the universe?
No, why do you ask?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Riddick

Do you think its wise to place limits on our knowledge of the universe? We skeptics haven't. But certain religious people have. Also, we don't build castles in the air - they tend to be a bit of a failure in the practical application of architecture...

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Everything that exists and occurs in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, anything that does not meet those 2 criteria cannot and does not exist.Not "explained", described. A marginally related, but nevertheless interesting, article is found at American Scientist Online (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16363).

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Zep
We skeptics haven't. But certain religious people have. Also, we don't build castles in the air - they tend to be a bit of a failure in the practical application of architecture...

Wishful thinking on your part (not that there is anything wrong with wishful thinking).

The air analogy, or the skyhook analogy, has never made any sense for me. Theories are built on ideas and written words and beliefs and observations. This goes for all ways of thinking, and religion is no exception.

You can talk of castles in the air all you want, but wishing will not make it so. The exclusion of possibilities is not an inherently stable foundation for any way of thinking; rather, it is a pre-critical bias, and cute conjured up analogies don't make it anything more than subjectivism.

-Elliot

[Dancing David]

It's okay to build castles in the air, just be sure to put a trendy coffe bar under then.

[Zep]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Wishful thinking on your part (not that there is anything wrong with wishful thinking).

The air analogy, or the skyhook analogy, has never made any sense for me. Theories are built on ideas and written words and beliefs and observations. This goes for all ways of thinking, and religion is no exception.

You can talk of castles in the air all you want, but wishing will not make it so. The exclusion of possibilities is not an inherently stable foundation for any way of thinking; rather, it is a pre-critical bias, and cute conjured up analogies don't make it anything more than subjectivism.

-Elliot Care to read my words more closely, and I think you will find you actually agree with me.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I was bored and trolling and found this place called the BibleBeliever Archaeology where they had the following ...Since your offering constitutes proof of nothing, historical or otherwise, why did you post it?