Historical Proof of Jesus's Miaracles

Dancing David · 18th March 2004, 05:37 PM

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

Quote:

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 · 18th March 2004, 05:40 PM

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

Yahweh · 18th March 2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th March 2004, 05:48 PM

Find an evolutionist. Period.

Riddick · 18th March 2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th March 2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th March 2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th March 2004, 08:19 PM

I would but you're incapable of learning.

Yahweh · 18th March 2004, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Riddick
The Christians are unable to understand sarcasm.

True Christians, I'm sure...

Quote:

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, 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 · 18th March 2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

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 · 20th March 2004, 09:00 PM

Quote:

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 · 20th March 2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Riddick
Do you think its wise to place limits on our knowledge of the universe?

No, why do you ask?

Zep · 20th March 2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

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 · 21st March 2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

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.

elliotfc · 21st March 2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

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 · 21st March 2004, 02:24 PM

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

Zep · 21st March 2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

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 · 21st March 2004, 04:34 PM

Quote:

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?

18th March 2004, 05:37 PM	#1
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,902	Historical Proof of Jesus's Miaracles 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 Quote: 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.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

18th March 2004, 05:40 PM	#2
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	The statement shows that Julian's sense of humor goes right over their heads.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

18th March 2004, 05:45 PM	#3
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: 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...
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

18th March 2004, 05:48 PM	#4
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Find an evolutionist. Period.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

18th March 2004, 07:54 PM	#6
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: 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.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

18th March 2004, 07:43 PM	#5
Riddick Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Lincoln, NE Posts: 867	Quote: 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.

18th March 2004, 08:01 PM	#7
Riddick Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Lincoln, NE Posts: 867	Quote: 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.

18th March 2004, 08:19 PM	#8
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	I would but you're incapable of learning.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

18th March 2004, 09:20 PM	#9
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by Riddick The Christians are unable to understand sarcasm. True Christians, I'm sure... Quote: 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, 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 Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

18th March 2004, 09:25 PM	#10
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: 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...
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

20th March 2004, 09:00 PM	#11
Riddick Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Lincoln, NE Posts: 867	Quote: 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?

20th March 2004, 09:05 PM	#12
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by Riddick Do you think its wise to place limits on our knowledge of the universe? No, why do you ask?
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

20th March 2004, 09:05 PM	#13
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Quote: 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...
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

21st March 2004, 11:53 AM	#14
ReasonableDoubt Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 287	Quote: 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*.

21st March 2004, 12:15 PM	#15
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772	Quote: 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
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772

21st March 2004, 02:24 PM	#16
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,902	It's okay to build castles in the air, just be sure to put a trendy coffe bar under then.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

21st March 2004, 02:45 PM	#17
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Quote: 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.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

21st March 2004, 04:34 PM	#18
ReasonableDoubt Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 287	Re: Historical Proof of Jesus's Miaracles Quote: 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?