[Havoc]

Yes, and that statement pertains to trust in God, not in parents, and cannot be interpreted to contradict my statement. Indeed, Jesus gave his disciples plenty of evidence to believe in him, in the form of miracles, to prove his authority. In like manner, Peter an Paul worked miracles before the Gentiles to prove their authority. "Believe it because I say so," is a legitimate appeal only after authority has been established.

There were sorcerers of the day that performed 'miracles'. Signs are not proof. And signs were not used as proof. Authority is established on the Word of God, not in what a man can do. For there is nothing that one can do that the devil cannot fraudulently reproduce. On such things people are decieved for they look not to God but to outward appearances. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the like. What the Apostles did, they did from authority through Jesus, not to prove they had any. Their fruits bore them out - the souls they led to Jesus. Wow, did a light just come on at home - possibly. The aim is to grow the kingdom, If the kingdom is souls, then those souls are the fruits. A tree of souls may have miracles for leaves, but, the fruits are the important part of the tree. Good fruit does what it's supposed to - ie it knows the word and will of God and follows them!

Believe it because I say it is never a legit argument. It must be proven - thus 'test every word' appears in the scriptures, 'discern the spirits' is written in scripture, 'Trust no man' and so on. Jesus established his authority through scripture and sticking to it, explaining it and showing it at work by living his life fully in the will of God. Jesus performed miracles only in fulfillment of faith, never to build it. Check every miracle he performed, 'as your faith is, so be it unto you.' Not to build faith, but to fulfill faith. Not to prove himself, but to prove those who relied on him. And he didn't do parolor tricks.

[Pelayo]

A tree of souls may have miracles for leaves, but, the fruits are the important part of the tree. Good fruit does what it's supposed to.

Interesting analogy, but would the tree have fruit if it was barren of leaves?

[malakhi]

Signs are not proof. And signs were not used as proof. Authority is established on the Word of God, not in what a man can do

I'm with you in part, but I have a question. If signs are not proof, then why would Jesus have performed any signs at all? If it were in fulfillment of faith, rather than to show authority or inspire faith, then it were unnecessary. Only people who have no need for a sign can get a sign?

Believe it because I say it is never a legit argument.

Let me ask you the same question I asked Becky: how do you know that the Christian scriptures are divinely inspired?