@Cold Steel
Quote:
Smiddy: ...performing so-called miracles is not and should not be the criteria for believing in GOD, didn’t the magic practicing priests of Egypt also perform miracles? Exodus 7...according to the bible that is.
DeWandelaar: have you personally seen him do the miracles? Have you seen him waking the dead? No...it is “history” according to you but “history” is written by people with an agenda.
Well, that’s the issue now, isn’t it? Miracles should NEVER be used as a means of determining the truthfulness of any person or group. On the other hand, the gifts of the Spirit follow them that believe.
My reply:
John 3:2, Acts 2:22 are contradicting your statement. According to the biblical record his miracles where a proof of his devine nature.
Also... the "fact" that people were "witnesses" does not hold proof in itself. Like I stated before in a other comment there were recently 69 people that believed an angel of God was helping a girl that was almost dying in a car accident. The reason why they believed it all was that NOONE had seen the bishop and the bishop was NOT seen on camera. So 69(!!!) people were believing because they saw no evidence of the contrary. We all know NOW that they just did not notice the guy.
There are a lot of "wonders" in this world that get a label with "devine" interaction while studied more closely had a different reason. Also... the mind can be fooled big time.
Now in "Smith's" case it does not proof anything... IF he had the golden plates however that would have given everyone a sort of proof that at least the plates excisted (although even that would not give a proof of devine interaction since everyone who has golden plates can make a bogus language only HE can read).
All I ever hear from religious people is a whole lot of stories but you need to know that they who make a claim have the "proof of burden":
Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit