Originally posted by robbie carrobie well its the integrity of the account, for what else is there, all the details are solid,
religious, cultural etc etc why should we dispute that water was turned into wine?
simply because it was supernatural? look at the account, there is not one hint of
anything sensational at all, its pure matter of fact. The motive as well is interesting ...[text shortened]... hout any basis, that it could not have been supernatural, the
account doesn't make any sense.
Rob, that paragraph goes into the 'crack-a jack' category for utter nonsense.
I'm still having trouble with the leap you've made from - the writer of the text was well versed in the marriage customs of the day so therefore it stands that the water was turned into wine.
Originally posted by Agerg We don't...we may use the fact that disasters happen to undermine your notion of God, but we don't actually *blame* imaginary things for anything!
Amen. But since we Christians believe God does exist.
We give thanks to God when something good happens to us,
especially if it out of the ordinary, just in case He had something
to do with it. Atheists would call it just "good luck" and go on
about there business of doing evil in the world and whatever else
they do for fun.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Rob, that paragraph goes into the 'crack-a jack' category for utter nonsense.
I'm still having trouble with the leap you've made from - the writer of the text was well versed in the marriage customs of the day so therefore it stands that the water was turned into wine.
it goes like this, ninety nine point nine percent of the text is not only believable but it
has the hallmarks of an eye witness account, the only area that is in dispute is the
supernatural element, on what basis is it disputed, hard to say.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie it goes like this, ninety nine point nine percent of the text is not only believable but it
has the hallmarks of an eye witness account, the only area that is in dispute is the
supernatural element, on what basis is it disputed, hard to say.
That's right, as i've told you all along, it's the miracle bit.
I could write you a nice story about a wedding i've gone to. The correct dates, people who were there, the name of the band, the name of the venue, the food that was served, i could even tie in something which happened in the news that day to give it some accuracy. If i then told you that my mate Steve managed to turn 10 pints of water into 10 pints of Staropramen at last orders just by clicking his fingers, because the rest of the story is 99.9% is true does that mean that Steve's miracle had to have happened??
Originally posted by Proper Knob That's right, as i've told you all along, it's the miracle bit.
I could write you a nice story about a wedding i've gone to. The correct dates, people who were there, the name of the band, the name of the venue, the food that was served, i could even tie in something which happened in the news that day to give it some accuracy. If i then told you that ...[text shortened]... st of the story is 99.9% is true does that mean that Steve's miracle had to have happened??
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes but Steve is Steve and Jesus is Jesus.
Same counter as you provide with mine - kind of makes the whole other events were reasonable line a red herring. It all boils down to whether you believe Jesus performed miracles or not.
9,999 factual details + one magic detail associated with an entity that is not Jesus = garbage
9,999 factual details + one magic detail associated with an entity that is Jesus = obviously true for all observers! 🙄
Originally posted by Agerg Same counter as you provide with mine - kind of makes the whole other events were reasonable line a red herring. It all boils down to whether you believe Jesus performed miracles or not.
9,999 factual details + one magic detail associated with an entity that is not Jesus = garbage
9,999 factual details + one magic detail associated with an entity that is Jesus = obviously true for all observers! 🙄
nope it boils down to whether you believe that Jesus did or Steve, Noobsters mate did.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie nope it boils down to whether you believe that Jesus did or Steve, Noobsters mate did.
So your logic is as follows:
1. You believe Jesus performed miracle A.
2. There is a story describing Jesus performing miracle A.
3. All the other elements of the story appear to be factual.
4. It must be true that Jesus performed miracle A because of 1. 2. and 3. but most especially 1. You just threw 2. and 3. in for the fun of it.
Or was it really that you started off arguing that 2. and 3. lead to the conclusion, but then somebody pointed out the stupidity of such logic and you decided to throw 1. in.
Originally posted by Proper Knob What happened to the challenge -
therefore i am giving you homework, research a miracle of Christ any one and i can guarantee that the details of the gospel accounts lend themselves to the conclusion that not only was Christ real, but so were his miracles.!
John 1-12 was read 3 days ago and then you disappeared.
Why did you stop at John 1:12? Read on down through verse 14 at least.
There is where the Miracle starts.
Originally posted by ChessPraxis I heard Rob won a game with the Colle. That IS a miracle!!
I guess that depends on who he was playing.
Is it that you think Robbie is not good at chess or
do you mean you don't think the colle is a good
opening?
Originally posted by RJHinds I guess that depends on who he was playing.
Is it that you think Robbie is not good at chess or
do you mean you don't think the colle is a good
opening?
It was a joke. Rob's a good player, the Colle however is not the best opening, for me anyway.
Robbie's Miracles
20 Apr '11 18:35
Back to Top