Honestly, I have now given 4 point blank references to similar events ( Akita, Medjugore and Garabandal )and have not had a single reply... so I'm not sure why trying now is going to change anything ... do the same thing over and over again ... expecting different results ? ... crazy ... * Mano tried on one occasion but his response absolutely indicated his pre thought on the topic but in no way addressed the actual referenced material ...Really, MoS...my response indicated my "pre-thought" on the topic? Please enlighten me then. Unless I see your miracles as you see them, then I am not being honest in my response?
Too many coincidences for me and the video will help with that statement. Please watch and report back what you think.I will watch the video, MoS, because it seems important to you that I do, but I am going through alot at work and home right now, so you will need to be patient with me. It could be a couple of weeks before I get to it.
Starting later, presumably during the [Hellenistic period], the word Magi also denotes followers of what the Hellenistic chroniclers incorrectly associated Zoroaster with, which was – in the main – the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold.<sup class="Template-Fact">[]</sup> However, [Old Persian] texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a [Magus] as a Mazdaic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest. "Thirdly, there is absolutely ZERO reason to believe the Massacre of the Innocents even happened outside of the Biblical account. There is no other historical mention of the event and, like the Magi, it is only ever mentioned in a SINGLE gospel account, this time Matthew.
I know it is a stretch for some, but these events are apparently scientifically unverifiable yet undeniably happening.That's the problem. They are scientifically verifiable. ( not to date for any of the 3 examples I asked of )There are scientific explanations for things like stigmata and beautific visions, but that doesn't matter to a man of faith because the event itself is the proof they are looking for. Am I not a man of faith who is looking for discernmet from an unbeliever, or am I too to be lumped in with "all the others" as I feel have with the events in question compared to other "stigmata's" etc...
yes but you don't have to, just look at the evidence and tell me what you think.I think that they are not signs from God. Do I know what they are? No, but I'm comfortable telling you what I think they aren't.
Finally, this is disapointing to me, as it is an admission that even if you found the reasons that may be miraculous, it wouldn't matter because you simply will not believe because of prior thought that ...Im largely trying to stay out of this particular discourse for a while, but you sir, totally missed his point. that is not what he was saying AT ALL. you didnt even ask him by what reasoning he could assert what he did, you jsut jumped the gun and spoke for him, ill let him defend his own statement but he was NOT dismissing evidence out of hand because it may contradict his world view etc.
Also, you above all have no right to speak of others putting words in someone elses mnouth ... good grief, I am not only not doing that... but correct me if I'm wrong but ... you are handling that all by yourself... within just thios post alone, and others I am aware of...all i said for mano at best was ' he was not doing this'. how was that speaking for him, i just went on to clarify the difference between thinking somehting and knowing something which is actually vital in this discussion.
Didnt know they were directed at me. And if you think i speak for other people you misunderstand me, i dont, i try hard not to, perhaps my use of words misconveys my intent and im always willing to ammend or take things back if im misunderstood, i do however give my opinion on what i think is going on, which is what i did here. the only thing in my post that spoke to the comment completely directly was the ' he isnt doing this...' i went of on a tangent to try and explain something i felt was important.
(you, by the way have never responded directly to any at all
Then why have we spent dozens of pages of this thread lending scientific credence to the Book of Genesis?Best answer you could have come up with!
Because it's fun?
I love when you say things like this, it actually makes me smile! It leaves "any semblance of reality" because it is written in the Bible... you are too much Mano!It has nothing to do with it being written in the Bible, it has to do with it NOT being written anywhere else. You are quick to point out that the Bible isn't meant to be a "science manual" but my contention is that it can't be used as a history manual either! Its historicity is no more valid than its science. Use it all you like for your base teachings and moral compass, but its not a history book.
Do you not think the Magi (traditionally believed to come from the Mesopotamia region) would have no interest in or no clue about the Jewish nation? For all me know the Magi could have been Jews that still lived in a far country - of course there is no evidence regarding that, but you can't simply dismiss the entire account because it appears in the Bible.I never said the Magi didn't know who the Jews were or that they weren't familiar with their scripture. All I said was we have no reason to believe they did. There is nothing written, anywhere, that shows the Magi having any reverence for Jewish scripture, yet this group of Magi wandered hundreds of miles to give the Jewish Messiah gifts? I suppose its not impossible, but improbable is an understatement.
I know you hate Wikipedia, but it is a convenient place to locate general information - Magi is "a term, used since at least the 6th century BC, to denote followers of [Mazdaism] or[Zoroaster]. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by [Darius the Great], known as the [Behistun Inscription].Obviously I wasn't clear, my apologies. I wasn't implying that we have no evidence the Magi ever existed, I was saying that there is absolutely no evidence that a group of Magi made a trek to Bethlehem following a great star.
Well, not being mentioned in the other gospels is irrelevent. If ALL the gospels included the story you still wouldn't believe it, so you can leave that out of your argument entirely. Unless you want to rethink your position on the resurrection?Bull!!!
Now, all that aside, the reason I mentioned anything about the star is that it was brought up by some in your camp within this thread as just another of the scientific impossibilities listed in the Bible.I know that I never mentioned it, and I don't recall reading it from anyone in "my camp", but I certainly can't refute your claim here.
However, if stellar activity matching that described in the Bible can be or has been verified, then we have another example of the Bible's writers being correct in what they recorded.Sure, but only insomuch as the bible is right about some sort of celestial event occuring at some point.
I have never said your responses were dishonest. I cannot unring that bell you just sounded. What I am saying is no one has actually entertained the events I presented with anything other than comparing them to something else and not as stand lone events.First of all...no worries, MoS, I take no offense in your words. We're good.
Also, in regards to approved apparitions as Lourdes, Fatima ... etc ... I stayed away from them because they did not have anywhere near the possible forensic and other more modern ways to verify. All three I gave earlier have had incredibly extensive study and in depth analysis... and have yet to be disproved, even with todays best measures of detective work.I wasn't talking about the apparitions at Lourdes, but the water at Lourdes and its healing power. There have been dozens of confirmed (by an independant medical board) healings of people that have drank the water at Lourdes. I am fascinated by this and just thought that if you were looking to get me to comment on "forensically verified miracles" that this would have been one of your first examples! A few ghosts seen by some kids in Garabandal doesn't hold nearly the sway for me as these medically proven miracles!!
But would you ( or why wouldn't you ) if all the participants were there for God, experiencing the unexplainable for by and with the express conditions set forth as miraculous in God's people. The events are only for the fulfillment of faith in both the believer and unbeliever ... specifically. You do not allow for the possibility, and seems archane in todays world of unimagineable information availability ... now, That's ridiculous!! Its midievel thinking at its bestMy problem with this line of thinking, MoS, is that it precludes the possibility that the same type of miracles happen to non-Christians. When a Muslim sees a vision like the ones you are describing, you wouldn't believe that it was legitimate, would you?
I don't suppose it is necessary Mano. I simply wanted to hear from a man who does not believe, his perspective on these events specifically ... but I'm not all that interested now because I know you are not.I am interested, MoS, as I am always interested in researching this topic. I just am having a hard time finding an hour to set aside for it right now. I will get to it, just have patience.
I am sorry to hear of ugly work load and whatever family issues your experiencing ... they are far more important than this and you are officially let off the hook I think you felt I am trying to hang you on. You know I am not and if you don't, then it's all been a ruse anyway.I appreciate the concern, and I may have been a bit melodramatic. Things aren't horrible or anything, just going through a lot right now and haven't had my usual amount of time to spend on this site. I don't know what you mean by that last sentence, but I didn't think you were trying to pull anything.
No, but I'm comfortable telling you what I think they aren't. Finally, this is disapointing to me, as it is an admission that even if you found the reasons that may be miraculous, it wouldn't matter because you simply will not believe because of prior thought that ...I have said on MANY occassions in this thread that if a miracle were to be proven true, that would be the proof of concept that I require to change my tune.
IT JUST AIN'T SO.