Originally posted by @soothfast
We don't know how J.C. is supposed to have pulled off his "miracle." Maybe he had a gob of wine concentrate concealed in the sleeve of his robe. So, he passes his hand through the water, letting slip the concentrate using the arts of distraction of any clown circus magician, and lo! -- there is wine.

Of course we do not. That is not the question since we assume in this discussion that it was a true miracle. Jesus literally turned water into wine.


Funny how people around here are unable to even admit that Jesus could possibly be God and able to perform miracles.

Originally posted by @eladar
Of course we do not. That is not the question since we assume in this discussion that it was a true miracle. Jesus literally turned water into wine.

Funny how people around here are unable to even admit that Jesus could possibly be God and able to perform miracles.

The water/wine story is a parable, not meant to be taken literally.

Originally posted by @eladar
The assumption is that the story is true.

Are you fishing for a scientific proof that it was miraculously and not conventionally made?

Originally posted by @handyandy
The water/wine story is a parable, not meant to be taken literally.

Do you know what a parable is?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Are you fishing for a scientific proof that it was miraculously and not conventionally made?

Not at all. We can't know if it was true wine or not and you always assume it is not. In this thread we assume that it actually happened. What would a scientist say about that sample if we had a sample?

Originally posted by @eladar
We can't go back in time either.

The question is if science can determine if something was made by a miracle or if it was made by natural methods.

Given the omnipotence implied in "miracle", that question is both scientifically meaningless and un-Christian.

Why are you asking whether God is so weak that His miracles cannot use natural methods and have to be separate from the rest of His creation? Is your faith so fickle that it can only survive by denigrating both God and the science that studies His creation? Be a real Christian for a change, and accept that Ge gave us science as a very part of our hearts and minds.

Originally posted by @eladar
Not at all. We can't know if it was true wine or not and you always assume it is not. In this thread we assume that it actually happened. What would a scientist say about that sample if we had a sample?

Do you assume or believe that the consecrated wine at holy communion is the true blood of Christ?

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
Given the omnipotence implied in "miracle", that question is both scientifically meaningless and un-Christian.

Why are you asking whether God is so weak that His miracles cannot use natural methods and have to be separate from the rest of His creation? Is your faith so fickle that it can only survive by denigrating both God and the science that stud ...[text shortened]... ristian for a change, and accept that Ge gave us science as a very part of our hearts and minds.

I did not say he couldn't, simply for this discussion he didn't.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Do you assume that the consecrated wine at holy communion is the true blood of Christ?

Funny how you want to change the subject.

Start that thread in the spiritual forum and I will gladly answer the question there.

Originally posted by @eladar
Funny how you want to change the subject.

Start that thread in the spiritual forum and I will gladly answer the question there.

it is very pertinent to this thread.

Originally posted by @moonbus
it is very pertinent to this thread.

Perhaps to you, but not to me.

There are many assumptions about the water to wine. In this thread the discussion concerns only one. Start other threads if you want to discuss others. Do not attempt to change the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by @eladar
I did not say he couldn't, simply for this discussion he didn't.

That's neither a Christian nor a scientific argument. What it is is Pharisaical. It is not fit to be answered, it is only fit for condemning the answerer - no matter how he answers.

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
That's neither a Christian nor a scientific argument. What it is is Pharisaical. It is not fit to be answered, it is only fit for condemning the answerer - no matter how he answers.

I didn't claim that it was either christian or scientific, just that it is the assumption.

Originally posted by @eladar
I didn't claim that it was either christian or scientific, just that it is the assumption.

And you will continue fishing till you get the answer you want. Why don't you cut out the middle man and just tell us what you are really after here? Affirmation of your religious faith? What?

Originally posted by @eladar
The question is if science can determine if something was made by a miracle or if it was made by natural methods.

Let us know when you have a miracle detector and a Tardis up and running. Until then, the question you pose is not worth considering.