Evidence for the Bible / God [W536; 634]

[RGacky3]

Ok I will call your bluff, show your sources.

Adult? Dude that was a childish tactic. I realize that you think that you know it all but you really dont. This thread is a good example. You are seriously trying to tell me that bible is evidence of itself by asserting that it has multiple authors.

I gave you my sources, the new testament documents (Paul, Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke-Acts), Josephus and Tacitus.

Mark-60-70 AD with earlier oral traditions.
Q 40-60 AD
Matthew and Luke-Acts- 80-90 AD which use both Mark and Q as sources as well as earlier oral traditions.
the Pauline documents 40-60 AD using sources going further back.

The dates and sources are the opinion of liberal scholarship, like Bart Erhman.

There is no such historical source as "THE BIBLE" the same way there is no historical source as "Greek philosophical writings."

 

[tecoyah]

the bible isn't one source .... for goodness sake get that into your head, it's MULTIPLE SOURCES, also historians almost always only have one source for an ancient event, the way the determine whether it is true or not is with the historical method.

There are indeed multiple sources contained within the Bible(s), yet the vast majority are unverified and purely hearsay, unacceptable in the historical method. Historians do use single source data, but it is generally used to garner further source materials...otherwise it cannot be considered as legitimate history.
Non-Theist historians do not use the Biblical texts as source material, though they may use place names and description for archeologic studies. Simply put, the brick wall of fiction stops the sciences from examining this stuff to find fact.

 

[RGacky3]

so no secular sources that support Christianity being true just that its founders existed

Had the "secular sources" supported Christianity being true they would'nt be secular would they?

Actually one good source is the opposer of Christianity Celsus, since a lot of the things christians believe he also believes but explains in a different way.

 

[RGacky3]

There are indeed multiple sources contained within the Bible(s), yet the vast majority are unverified and purely hearsay, unacceptable in the historical method. Historians do use single source data, but it is generally used to garner further source materials...otherwise it cannot be considered as legitimate history.
Non-Theist historians do not use the Biblical texts as source material, though they may use place names and description for archeologic studies. Simply put, the brick wall of fiction stops the sciences from examining this stuff to find fact.

They can verify each other.

I don't only read theist historians, infact I make it a point to read non-theist new testament historians, and you won't find ONE that thinks that the new testament sources are not to be used as historical sources for Jesus and the early christian movement.

fiction and non fiction are silly categories for ancient texts .... ALL ancient texts talking about historical events are biased and may add ideological or theological twists.

 

[blarg]

That doesn't explain why the Jews cared. Were the Jews out hunting Samaritans and killing them? No, they just ignored them.

Christianity was a new corruption of their religion to them the old testament frowns on that kind of thing

 

[blarg]

Had the "secular sources" supported Christianity being true they would'nt be secular would they?

Actually one good source is the opposer of Christianity Celsus, since a lot of the things christians believe he also believes but explains in a different way.

had they just supported miraculous events without declaring yep that guy was a god they would be secular

 

[RogueWarrior]

That's fine except you don't have scientific studies to conclusively demonstrate that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist.

All you have is your unsubstantiated bias.

Wow. Just wow.

I just, literally just, told you that an atheist does not need science to do that. An atheist does not need science at all. Science is irrelevant with respect to our non belief of any theistic claims.


If you or any other theist makes a god claim, we humans are not required to automatically believe the god claim. A human that does not believe a theistic claim is called an atheist.
The fastest way for atheists to disappear is for theists to stop making god claims.

 

[tecoyah]

They can verify each other.

I don't only read theist historians, infact I make it a point to read non-theist new testament historians, and you won't find ONE that thinks that the new testament sources are not to be used as historical sources for Jesus and the early christian movement.

fiction and non fiction are silly categories for ancient texts .... ALL ancient texts talking about historical events are biased and may add ideological or theological twists.

How can a New Testament historian possibly be considered Non-Theist?

Non fiction ancient texts have elements that have been studied and verified as accurate by multiple scientific disciplines, peer reviewed for accuracy, and submitted to the world scientific body to be torn apart and critiqued until PROVEN as reality.

Very little of these Bible(s) can be studied in science, as the majority is either ancient hearsay or impossibility and thus dismissed as fictional. On the rare occasion when someone scientifically grounded or at least logical has delved into the texts...they walk way empty handed.

While science "Could" verify these books, it has not been able to do so after many centuries.....they obviously cannot "verify Each Other", as there is nothing to verify.

 

[Logicman]

Shall I link back to all the discussions where you posted links you did'nt read and cited scriptures you didn't read?

Am I wrong that you believe that Allah is actually an ancient moon God and the Zohar talks about the trinity?

Deny all you want and make up false claims about people. The fact is you're still in the dark about who Jesus is - God.

 

[Logicman]

Wow. Just wow.

I just, literally just, told you that an atheist does not need science to do that. An atheist does not need science at all. Science is irrelevant with respect to our non belief of any theistic claims.

If you or any other theist makes a god claim, we humans are not required to automatically believe the god claim. A human that does not believe a theistic claim is called an atheist.
The fastest way for atheists to disappear is for theists to stop making god claims.

Hey - I feel bad that you guys are spiritually-challenged. It's a sad situation, but that doesn't mean you don't have the ability to learn. You do. Just keep your eyes and mind open instead of closed and I think then you can make progress.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Hey - I feel bad that you guys are spiritually-challenged. It's a sad situation, but that doesn't mean you don't have the ability to learn. You do. Just keep your eyes and mind open instead of closed and I think then you can make progress.

Typical theist bovine excrement. Ignoring what was posted to make what you probably think was a pithy comment.

Can you define atheist for us?

 

[phattonez]

Christianity was a new corruption of their religion to them the old testament frowns on that kind of thing

The Samaritans also corrupted the Jewish religion.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I gave you my sources, the new testament documents (Paul, Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke-Acts), Josephus and Tacitus.

Mark-60-70 AD with earlier oral traditions.
Q 40-60 AD
Matthew and Luke-Acts- 80-90 AD which use both Mark and Q as sources as well as earlier oral traditions.
the Pauline documents 40-60 AD using sources going further back.

The dates and sources are the opinion of liberal scholarship, like Bart Erhman.

There is no such historical source as "THE BIBLE" the same way there is no historical source as "Greek philosophical writings."

"The bible" makes extraordinary claims. "greek philosophical writings" are not describing a god, it is a horrible comparison.

The new testament no matter how many times that you try will never be able to be evidence of the new testament. "Book A are accurate! why? because book A says so!!!!!11" Or to make your point: "Book A,B,C, and D are accurate! why? Because Book A,B,C, and D says so!!!!!"

Josephus a loyal Pharisaic Jew said that Jesus was the Christ. lol now thats funny. Hearsay isnt evidence especially when it comes from someone wasnt even alive when the c;laimed events happened its just more so and so says so.

Tacitus wasnt even a glimmer in his dads eye when any of the events claimed by the new testament happened with jesus. All what Tacitus proves is that there were Christians, and well no one sane is denying that Christians exist.

Q source is not evidence for your claims in fact it works as a claim against your claims.

Bart Erhman has nothing more than a opinion. Bart isnt evidence of anything hell he wasnt even alive during the events in question.

I thought that you said that you had evidence?

 

[blarg]

The Samaritans also corrupted the Jewish religion.

in their point of view yes and given the biblical references to them im sure they suffered their share of persecution to though they might have been more numerous and powerful then the early Christian movement as well

and Christianity seems a bit more focuses on spreading itself

 

[DDD]

Somehow I missed where science had proven that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist.

Ah, that is easy. You can find this in the "appeal to the unknown" logical fallacy area. You cannot prove the unknown. Just because something is unknown does not makes good grounds to believe or disbelieve it.

No proof of God. Just some people sharing some anecdotal experiences that are magical in nature.

As for 'magic,' you guys have your own miracles you have to believe in to make your world view fly, i.e. a whole universe suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and the mathematically improbably advent of abiogenesis, just to name a few.

Recommended reading:

View attachment 67164309

Recommended method to share knowledge compared to slapping front pages of various books one can easily see in Google Books or so without the need to read them is the following:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/153227-origins-life.html

There are various articles and analysis mentioned there. You can read them all for free and you are not blocked with a front page alone that otherwise tells you not a God damn thing!

 

[DDD]

That isn't anecdotal evidence because it isn't supported by ANY of the early sources or ANY of the actual facts or ANY of the history of early christianity.

Of course they are supported. The tomb was missing, Rome was oppressing, religions clashed between Zeus and the Jewish one, various political leaders already existed, Christ used it and fought for freedom till the end.

The interpretations differ. But that is a subjective issue, something that usually tends to differ. But otherwise as far as the strength of evidence shared from the religious and mine here they are equal.

They write their experiences and subjective interpretations and expect the rest to consider them as anecdotal evidence. So do I, here: Christ was a political leader that fought Rome with magical thinking.

I presented 4 facts, from history, accepted by almost all historical scholarship, you posted you're explination, which was that Christ and his followers lied in order to beat Rome ... I dare you to go into ANY university that has new testament or early christianity scholars and present that, you'd be laughed out of the room ... you know why? because NONE of the evidence supports that theory.

Universities should not have the new or old testaments to begin with. Universities are areas of science and none of religious BS should be mixed with the rationally clear and logical promotion of ideas based on real facts not anecdotal ones.

 

[DDD]

You experience Christ nothing. You have no experience of Him. That's the problem with your "evidence".

That is entirely subjective matter. I have experienced Christ and his followers as political leaders. None of you can do anything about it.

Now, just because I have experienced it so all of you should believe it at face value on this anecdotal evidence of mine. Why? Well that is how the religious did it, so I am doing the same.

 

[ChezC3]

who said they hunted for the body

people don't always tolerate new religions or changes to existing ones that explains the persecution

A large number of apostles were martyred in the aftermath including Paul, Peter, Stephen and James


Do people you associate with martyr themselves on a known lie?

 

[blarg]

A large number of apostles were martyred in the aftermath including Paul, Peter, Stephen and James


Do people you associate with martyr themselves on a known lie?

being persecuted doesn't mean your right believing something doesn't make it true

good thing to or martyrs for mutely exclusive things would be very hard to comprehend

 

[tecoyah]

A large number of apostles were martyred in the aftermath including Paul, Peter, Stephen and James


Do people you associate with martyr themselves on a known lie?

Jonestown.....Nuff said.

 

[ChezC3]

Jonestown.....Nuff said.

They were all co-conspirators, eh? Yeah...OK:thumbs:

 

[ChezC3]

being persecuted doesn't mean your right believing something doesn't make it true

good thing to or martyrs for mutely exclusive things would be very hard to comprehend

I don't know about you, but I find the idea that people in large numbers would allow themselves to be killed for a lie they know is a lie is beyond reason.

 

[blarg]

I don't know about you, but I find the idea that people in large numbers would allow themselves to be killed for a lie they know was a lie is beyond reason.

ok but

believing something doesn't make it true

good thing to or martyrs for mutely exclusive things would be very hard to comprehend

 

[ChezC3]

ok but

believing something doesn't make it true

good thing to or martyrs for mutely exclusive things would be very hard to comprehend

To you it does. What you think and what you believe are your reality. That's the reason why that line of reasoning is unreasonable. If the apostles were in on the scam somewhere between being stoned, crucified, and beheaded, someone is gonna cave. The level of conviction alone should give one pause.

Does that make it the end all be all of the discussion? No, but it definitely puts some skepticism to bed.

 

[blarg]

To you it does. What you think and what you believe are your reality. That's the reason why that line of reasoning is unreasonable. If the apostles were in on the scam somewhere between being stoned, crucified, and beheaded, someone is gonna cave. The level of conviction alone should give one pause.

Does that make it the end all be all of the discussion? No, but it definitely puts some skepticism to bed.

if something is just true to you and not true to every one its not true

if I believe the insides of every one are purple saying its true to me only means I believe it

though it would be true for every 1 to describe me as believing that

my faith itself is not necessarily correct

im perfectly wiling to say the apostles might have all believed assuming the story's of how they die and what they died for are not false in any way