What makes the bible true

[Maddhattter]

That proof will be provided to all, skeptics or not, at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore some of the skeptics will simply have to wait, because God will do the things He said He will do in His own time and not on ours.

Once again, a wholly unsupported claim.

[stephen4785]

That proof will be provided to all, skeptics or not, at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore some of the skeptics will simply have to wait, because God will do the things He said He will do in His own time and not on ours.

I agree with that. However my intent is not to win or say I am better than someone, if I can get one person to actually do more research than just believe someone on here who says "there is no scientific or any other evidence the bible is true"...then I'm glad I did it. Most of you, no matter what I say or solid evidence I give will never believe. You harden your heart and for whatever reason do not want to give God a chance. That is your choice and in the end God will give you exactly what you want, a place without God. This will be your choice, not His.
Whoever posted about about he knew where I was going with the argument...I understand those people were not claiming to be God and Jesus should have more evidence than lets say Alexander the Great...but again I need to know what level of proof is necessary.....anyone? Anyone answer....what proof do you need?

[stephen4785]

I would argue that you’re putting the cart before the horse with your supporting evidence, but that’s not the topic at hand.



No, the only way you could win all other arguments is to prove Christ’s divinity. There have been numerous reports of people believing someone to be dead, only to discover that said dead person was in a coma/hypothermic/ etc.

Why is it that proving Christ’s resurrection would prove everything? There are plenty of other things that the bible claims he has done. Proving that he could be dead for three days and spontaneously reanimate does not indicate that he could duplicate matter, perform ocular restoration, or restore the functionality of extremities. The supernatural is not an all or nothing deal. It’s handled on a claim by claim basis. However, if you could prove his divinity, it would stand to reason that the other miracles attributed to him would be possible.



I would need enough evidence to show that Jesus existed, and was the son of God, beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem I see you having here is proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the supernatural. The supernatural has never been proven to exist and is, by definition, impossible. Not to mention that every time science and the supernatural have come into conflict, science has won, giving no indication that the supernatural is even a possibility.

You’ll also run into the problem of certainty. I could only agree to tentatively accept the God hypothesis, should you prove the existence of a divine Jesus, if I were to be intellectually honest. As science is constantly learning, supernatural explanations are getting harder and harder to justify without you coming off sounding like BrianC or Dewayne6243. So, if science discovers how something like naval travel could be done on the surface of the water without a sea faring vessel, that would detract from the possibility of the biblical depiction of Jesus being accurate.



I’m sorry to hear that. The ‘Jesus Gone Wild’ film series was one of the most outrageous series of events ever caught on film.


I wouldn’t want a holy grail. Immortality would suck when the reality of things sets in. Why would anyone like the idea of surviving the heat death of the universe? You’d be all alone, no light to read with, and no one to keep you company. You’d have to live on while all your friends and family die around you. I can’t imagine why anyone would want immortality.



I’m not sure if this was only supposed to be aimed at Racrguy, but it’s statements like this that make me keep going back to requesting that you either concede my points, or explain how they are wrong. I explained why someone who has no science experience could not be trusted to use good science as a source. I also explained why, from a scientific perspective, it was irrelevant to even read the book, as what scientists publish in novels makes zero difference to the scientific world. It is publishing said finds in respectable, established peer-reviewed scientific journals so that other scientists will attempt to show that the findings are incorrect.

The question about medical care that Racrguy asked you, in regards to seeking medical care from you or Dr. Dave is valid here. You may know how to diagnose and treat what ails poor Racrguy, but there is no reason to believe that you could even identify that bleeding him will not cure his genital warts(Please don’t ask me how I know this, it’s a terribly humiliating story that involves a nearly unbelievable accident with an electron microscope, and I don’t wanna talk about it.) So, if the science in those books is sound, you should only have to cite the science. The rest of the book would be useless filler and a waste of everyone’s time as the author has no credibility in the realm of science.

Your poor attempt at discrediting the book because YOU do not believe the author is valid is getting old. Don't read it if you think this. His science/evidence is from the "Mainstream" community....remember he started out an atheist when writing this book...he was just like you, seeking evidence to 100% disprove God to shut up the Theists. But the further he investigated the more he realized the evidence pointed toward God. In the end he became a Christian, wrote a book, made a million bucks....maybe you will too. Again "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is too vague. Very subjective as I am not able to read minds and know what you or anyone else on here finds reasonable. I want a quantifiable answer...such as " I need writing from 10 different sources from up to 100 years from the birth of Jesus stating they were eye witnesses of said event with no opposing writings from witnesses from the same time frame ". Or whatever suits you. Again, I have to know specifically what you need...not a vague answer as you continue to give.

[racrguy]

Your poor attempt at discrediting the book because YOU do not believe the author is valid is getting old. Don't read it if you think this. His science/evidence is from the "Mainstream" community....remember he started out an atheist when writing this book...he was just like you, seeking evidence to 100% disprove God to shut up the Theists. But the further he investigated the more he realized the evidence pointed toward God. In the end he became a Christian, wrote a book, made a million bucks....maybe you will too. Again "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is too vague. Very subjective as I am not able to read minds and know what you or anyone else on here finds reasonable. I want a quantifiable answer...such as " I need writing from 10 different sources from up to 100 years from the birth of Jesus stating they were eye witnesses of said event with no opposing writings from witnesses from the same time frame ". Or whatever suits you. Again, I have to know specifically what you need...not a vague answer as you continue to give.

Verifiable, testable evidence. The same kind that any peer reviewed paper goes through. If it can withstand the test that science puts itself through, that's good enough for me. And, like Maddhattter said, not of the resurrection, of his divinity.

[stephen4785]

Verifiable, testable evidence. The same kind that any peer reviewed paper goes through. If it can withstand the test that science puts itself through, that's good enough for me. And, like Maddhattter said, not of the resurrection, of his divinity.

What is testable evidence? If ur online now....if you care to debate a Christian apologist....go to carm.org and make a log in....the owner of the site is on now and debating in the chat room. I will come back to this discussion later...

[Maddhattter]

Your poor attempt at discrediting the book because YOU do not believe the author is valid is getting old.

I’m not attempting to discredit anyone or anything. I don’t have to. The source invalidates itself, regardless of who believes anything. Perhaps once you’ve actually performed a research thesis and had to defend it to those more qualified than you, you’ll understand how picking a valid source works.

Don't read it if you think this.

The two books that I haven’t read, those you recommended from Mr. McDowell, I don’t have to read to discredit. I’ve already explained why. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. I’ve already stated that they could be right. There is just no reason to think they are due to the author’s lack of credentials in the subject matter. The fact that you don’t know how to identify a valid source when doing research is no reason for me, or anyone else, to accept that Mr. McDowell has any competency when it comes to science. His credibility in this topic has nothing to do with what I believe or who he agrees with.

His science/evidence is from the "Mainstream" community

I said nothing about “Mainstream” anything. If his “science/evidence” is valid, then you can cite the scientist, the scientific paper in regards to the experiment, or someone who has the credentials to imply that he should know what they are talking about in order to recognize good science/evidence.

....remember he started out an atheist when writing this book...

Irrelevant. Science cares not for anyone’s beliefs or faith.

he was just like you, seeking evidence to 100% disprove God to shut up the Theists.

I’m not trying to disprove any god, bigfoot, faerie, or alchemic hypothesis. I’m just trying to ensure that information is passed in the most honest way that it can be. I don’t care what you believe. I don’t care if you believe in Krishna, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti monster, or the little gremlins that tangle the wires of your electronics every time you turn away for more than a few minutes. However, when you attempt to support your claims with evidence, I’m going to apply skepticism to it. If you claim a source for your findings, I’m going to scrutinize the source for its academic and/or scientific validity. I apply the same criteria to all things. Just because the man has a degree doesn’t mean that he is a valid source. I wouldn’t believe what Dr. Dave said to me about string theory, because he is not a theoretical physicist. Not because I agree or disagree, not because he is right or wrong, but because he is not qualified to speak on that topic. I’ve explained and given examples of this already. It’s starting to seem like you can’t even comprehend what is being posted.

But the further he investigated the more he realized the evidence pointed toward God. In the end he became a Christian, wrote a book, made a million bucks....maybe you will too.

Again, irrelevant. What a journalist, or an apologetic minister, has to say about science makes no difference during research as they are not qualified to speak on the topic. Nor is the amount of money they make. However, millions of dollars is a good motive to lie, ask any politician.

Again "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is too vague. Very subjective as I am not able to read minds and know what you or anyone else on here finds reasonable.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

So, let restate this to put it into the current context:
The standard that must be met by your evidence in this discussion: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the Jesus is the divine son of God, thereby overcoming the presumption that Jesus is not the divine son of God.

Took me about 2 seconds to do that. Sorry, no vagueness here. Simple, defined terms, used in the proper context.

Quit looking at me like that, V8tt. He made me break out the dictionary. He could have looked up himself.

I want a quantifiable answer...such as " I need writing from 10 different sources from up to 100 years from the birth of Jesus stating they were eye witnesses of said event with no opposing writings from witnesses from the same time frame ". Or whatever suits you. Again, I have to know specifically what you need...not a vague answer as you continue to give.

You had one. However, I did you a favor and did the work to explain the context. So, now you have it again.

[The King]

I agree with that. However my intent is not to win or say I am better than someone, if I can get one person to actually do more research than just believe someone on here who says "there is no scientific or any other evidence the bible is true"...then I'm glad I did it. Most of you, no matter what I say or solid evidence I give will never believe. You harden your heart and for whatever reason do not want to give God a chance. That is your choice and in the end God will give you exactly what you want, a place without God. This will be your choice, not His.
Whoever posted about about he knew where I was going with the argument...I understand those people were not claiming to be God and Jesus should have more evidence than lets say Alexander the Great...but again I need to know what level of proof is necessary.....anyone? Anyone answer....what proof do you need?

There neither are or will be winners or losers. There simply are or will be those who are with God and those who are or will remain estranged from God. To be with God in this life, one must hear His Word and willingly accept it as the truth.

[racrguy]

What is testable evidence? If ur online now....if you care to debate a Christian apologist....go to carm.org and make a log in....the owner of the site is on now and debating in the chat room. I will come back to this discussion later...

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

[stephen4785]

Ok you are scared...I understand. It is easy to come on here and bash Christians, not give specific answers and just keep saying " I need evidence that can not humanly be provided".
So, since this is going nowhere I will play both sides:
Atheist- Prove Jesus was the Son of God and I will believe.
Theist- OK...lets start with prophecy of Jesus birth, death and resurrection

Isaiah 7:14 written between 701-681 BC, fulfilled 700 years later or around 5 BC with the birth of Jesus Christ from the Virgin Mary.

Michah 5:1-2 written 750-686 BC, fulfilled 5 BC 700 years later. This prophecy narrowed down from all the cities in the world to one small town called Bethlehem.

Genesis 49:10 written around 1400 BC, fulfilled 5 BC 1400 years later. This prophecy said Jesus would come from the tribe of Judah.

Jeremiah 23:5 written 626-526 BC, fulfilled 5 BC This prophecy state Jesus would be a descendant of King David. Jesus genealogy is traced back in the books of Matthew and Luke.

Isaiah 40:1-5,9 701-681 BC, fulfilled around 27 AD, The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger from the wilderness (John the Baptist) Matthew 3:1-2

Isaiah 35:4-6 701-681 BC, fulfilled 27-31 AD. He would perform miracles.

Deuteronomy 18:15-18 1400 BC, fulfilled 5 BC-31 AD. Prophecy states Messiah will be like Moses. Both were delivered from death as infants. Both were prophets. Both performed miracles. Both were leaders. And both were intermediaries between God and man. Moses offered to die, if necessary, if God would forgive the sins of the people that Moses was leading ( Exodus 32:30-33).

Zechariah 9:9 520-518 BC, fulfilled 31 AD. Messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey.

John 4:19-26 1st century Jesus proclaims to be the Messiah...25 The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
26 Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

Isaiah 53:1-3 701-681 BC Messiah would be rejected.

Daniel 9:24-26 530 BC
1. There would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem.
2. Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt.
3. Then an anointed one (Messiah) would be "cut off" (an idiom for "rejected" or "killed").
4. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again.
All of these events later happened, in the same order in which they are described in Daniel 9:24-26:
1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the neo-Babylonian empire about 2500 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2400 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.
2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
3. Then, about 2000 years ago, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and he was crucified by the Romans.
4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then). Source George Konig, Ray Konig and 100Prophecies.org

Daniel 9:24-26 this is a fascinating prophecy but too long to get into. Basically Daniel predicts, to the day, when several events will happen...here is a link http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

Psalm 41:9 1000 BC, fulfilled 31 AD. Jesus would be betrayed by a friend.

Zechariah 11:12-13 520-518 BC Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

Isaiah 50:6 701 BC, Jesus was spat upon and beaten...

Isaiah 53:7 BC, He would be silent before his accusers...

Zechariah 12:10 520-518, Jesus would be crucified

Isaiah 53:9 701-681 BC, Jesus would be buried in a rich mans tomb.

The resurrection of Jesus is challenged today on evidentiary grounds. Therefore, to be fair, the evidence should be judged like any other historical event. Based on standard rules of evidence, consistent eye-witness testimony from multiple credible witnesses would be considered the strongest form of evidence available to a litigant. Therefore, if we find such testimony present in credible accounts of the historical record of Christ’s resurrection, we have satisfied a major evidentiary challenge under traditional rules. In fact, we do have multiple eye-witness testimonies regarding the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6. Manuscript studies indicate that this was a very early creed of the Christian faith, written within a few years after the death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it’s dramatic that Paul ends the passage with “most of whom are still living.” Paul was inviting people to check out the facts. He wouldn’t have included a statement like that if he was trying to hide something like a conspiracy, hoax, myth or legend.

Jesus was seen by women fist... Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), to other women (Matthew 28:8-10) In that time period women were not considered reliable witnesses and could not be so in a court proceeding. Why would they include this if the Christians were "Faking" the resurrection? A male witness would have been the logical choice.

Other eye witnesses...Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:13-32), to eleven disciples and others (Luke 24:33-49), to ten apostles and others (excluding Thomas) (John 20:19-23), to the apostles (including Thomas) (John 20:26-30), to seven apostles (John 21:1-14), to the disciples (Matthew 28:16-20), and to the apostles on the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50-52 and Acts 1:4-9).
Why die for a lie? Why would they say these things? WHat did they gain? Eleven of the 12 apostles, and many of the other early disciples, died for their adherence to this story. This is dramatic, since they all witnessed the alleged events of Jesus and still went to their deaths defending their faith. Why is this dramatic, when many throughout history have died martyred deaths for a religious belief? Because people don’t die for a lie. Look at human nature throughout history. No conspiracy can be maintained when life or liberty is at stake. Dying for a belief is one thing, but numerous eye-witnesses dying for a known lie is quite another.
Stephen, James, Phillip, Matthew, James, Mathias, Andrew, Mark, Peter, Paul, Jude, Bartholomew, Thomas, Luke, Barnabas, Simon, John (John was cast into a pot of boiling oil by authorities but escaped).

Atheist- Ummm, all of this is from the bible. Apparently is is a trick that spans 2000 years where these people collaborated through the ages to put all this together, fulfil the prophecy in some random guy named Jesus, who just happened to meet all the criteria. Then all the martyrs that died...did so that they could be part of this fun group called Christians. The fact this religion has survived milllenia and no evidence from any ancient text can be found to disprove any of what you said doesn't matter. It's still not "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
Theist- OK non biblical text supporting Jesus etc...
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD)
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. ... For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. ... it became a body."

"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. ... He draws himself down to death through life. ... eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."

The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD)

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD)

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD)

Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD)

ETC ETC ETC....

Atheist- None of this counts. It's all a hoax. The bible can't be proven. There is no evidence. God Himself would have to come down in a flaming chariot and turn all the grass into golden french fries...then I would...maybe... believe.
Theist- 2 Corinthian 4:4, " The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

note* I referenced several sources for this but my computer erased my log before I got to the end. I will be happy to find anything for you if you are interested in something specific.

[The King]

Stephen4785,

You have an impressive understanding of Scripture......thanks for sharing it.

[Maddhattter]

Ok you are scared...I understand. It is easy to come on here and bash Christians, not give specific answers and just keep saying " I need evidence that can not humanly be provided".
So, since this is going nowhere I will play both sides:
Atheist- Prove Jesus was the Son of God and I will believe.
Theist- OK...lets start with prophecy of Jesus birth, death and resurrection

Isaiah 7:14 written between 701-681 BC, fulfilled 700 years later or around 5 BC with the birth of Jesus Christ from the Virgin Mary.

Michah 5:1-2 written 750-686 BC, fulfilled 5 BC 700 years later. This prophecy narrowed down from all the cities in the world to one small town called Bethlehem.

Genesis 49:10 written around 1400 BC, fulfilled 5 BC 1400 years later. This prophecy said Jesus would come from the tribe of Judah.

Jeremiah 23:5 written 626-526 BC, fulfilled 5 BC This prophecy state Jesus would be a descendant of King David. Jesus genealogy is traced back in the books of Matthew and Luke.

Isaiah 40:1-5,9 701-681 BC, fulfilled around 27 AD, The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger from the wilderness (John the Baptist) Matthew 3:1-2

Isaiah 35:4-6 701-681 BC, fulfilled 27-31 AD. He would perform miracles.

Deuteronomy 18:15-18 1400 BC, fulfilled 5 BC-31 AD. Prophecy states Messiah will be like Moses. Both were delivered from death as infants. Both were prophets. Both performed miracles. Both were leaders. And both were intermediaries between God and man. Moses offered to die, if necessary, if God would forgive the sins of the people that Moses was leading ( Exodus 32:30-33).

Zechariah 9:9 520-518 BC, fulfilled 31 AD. Messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey.

John 4:19-26 1st century Jesus proclaims to be the Messiah...25 The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
26 Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

Isaiah 53:1-3 701-681 BC Messiah would be rejected.

Daniel 9:24-26 530 BC
1. There would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem.
2. Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt.
3. Then an anointed one (Messiah) would be "cut off" (an idiom for "rejected" or "killed").
4. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again.
All of these events later happened, in the same order in which they are described in Daniel 9:24-26:
1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the neo-Babylonian empire about 2500 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2400 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.
2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
3. Then, about 2000 years ago, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and he was crucified by the Romans.
4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then). Source George Konig, Ray Konig and 100Prophecies.org

Daniel 9:24-26 this is a fascinating prophecy but too long to get into. Basically Daniel predicts, to the day, when several events will happen...here is a link http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

Psalm 41:9 1000 BC, fulfilled 31 AD. Jesus would be betrayed by a friend.

Zechariah 11:12-13 520-518 BC Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

Isaiah 50:6 701 BC, Jesus was spat upon and beaten...

Isaiah 53:7 BC, He would be silent before his accusers...

Zechariah 12:10 520-518, Jesus would be crucified

Isaiah 53:9 701-681 BC, Jesus would be buried in a rich mans tomb.

The resurrection of Jesus is challenged today on evidentiary grounds. Therefore, to be fair, the evidence should be judged like any other historical event. Based on standard rules of evidence, consistent eye-witness testimony from multiple credible witnesses would be considered the strongest form of evidence available to a litigant. Therefore, if we find such testimony present in credible accounts of the historical record of Christ’s resurrection, we have satisfied a major evidentiary challenge under traditional rules. In fact, we do have multiple eye-witness testimonies regarding the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6. Manuscript studies indicate that this was a very early creed of the Christian faith, written within a few years after the death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it’s dramatic that Paul ends the passage with “most of whom are still living.” Paul was inviting people to check out the facts. He wouldn’t have included a statement like that if he was trying to hide something like a conspiracy, hoax, myth or legend.

Jesus was seen by women fist... Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), to other women (Matthew 28:8-10) In that time period women were not considered reliable witnesses and could not be so in a court proceeding. Why would they include this if the Christians were "Faking" the resurrection? A male witness would have been the logical choice.

Other eye witnesses...Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:13-32), to eleven disciples and others (Luke 24:33-49), to ten apostles and others (excluding Thomas) (John 20:19-23), to the apostles (including Thomas) (John 20:26-30), to seven apostles (John 21:1-14), to the disciples (Matthew 28:16-20), and to the apostles on the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50-52 and Acts 1:4-9).
Why die for a lie? Why would they say these things? WHat did they gain? Eleven of the 12 apostles, and many of the other early disciples, died for their adherence to this story. This is dramatic, since they all witnessed the alleged events of Jesus and still went to their deaths defending their faith. Why is this dramatic, when many throughout history have died martyred deaths for a religious belief? Because people don’t die for a lie. Look at human nature throughout history. No conspiracy can be maintained when life or liberty is at stake. Dying for a belief is one thing, but numerous eye-witnesses dying for a known lie is quite another.
Stephen, James, Phillip, Matthew, James, Mathias, Andrew, Mark, Peter, Paul, Jude, Bartholomew, Thomas, Luke, Barnabas, Simon, John (John was cast into a pot of boiling oil by authorities but escaped).

Between your tautologies, arguments from incredulity, and lack of contemporary sources with no accompanying physical evidentiary support for the character, you perform a great big circular argument. As you stated……

the entire reason I believe the bible (And most Christians) is because we believe Christ rose from the dead.

Your words, not mine. This means that to you(and most Christians) the presupposition of Jesus’ divinity must be had before the bible could be used as a source for Jesus’ divinity, discrediting the bible as a source at all. However, for the sake of argument, we’ll assume that the presupposition clause is not relevant to this discussion. You still make the claim that Jesus proves the bible true in the above quote, at least you state that is why you believe. Leading me to the next problem….

If the way the bible is proven true is Jesus’ divinity, and the bible proves Jesus’ divinity, you are engaging in circular reasoning. If you would like examples of any of the other fallacies, please let me know. The only reason I don’t go into them is because your entire circular reasoning problem outshines all the others, as even if all the others were not there, the circular reasoning would still cripple the bible as a source.

[Maddhattter]

Atheist- Ummm, all of this is from the bible. Apparently is is a trick that spans 2000 years where these people collaborated through the ages to put all this together, fulfil the prophecy in some random guy named Jesus, who just happened to meet all the criteria. Then all the martyrs that died...did so that they could be part of this fun group called Christians. The fact this religion has survived milllenia and no evidence from any ancient text can be found to disprove any of what you said doesn't matter. It's still not "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

I lol’d. If, however, this was intended as you trying to “play both sides”, you present a wonderful example of a straw man fallacy.

See? No fear here. No need for any. I’m not even required to put in an effort here. And, while I agree that I do occasionally bash people who are Christian, I don’t bash people because they are Christian. I bash people like you because they are uneducated to the point that simple research cannot be performed to the point that it would pass a high school teacher’s criteria, let alone any more grueling standards.

Theist- OK non biblical text supporting Jesus etc...
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD)
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. ... For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. ... it became a body."

"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. ... He draws himself down to death through life. ... eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."

The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD)

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD)

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD)

Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD)

ETC ETC ETC....

Ok, first of all, none of these people would meet your own historical criteria, as none of them could be considered “consistent eye-witness testimony from multiple credible witnesses would be considered the strongest form of evidence available to a litigant”, as the average life expectancy about 300 years ago was 35. With a life expectancy that short a mere 300 years ago, there is no supporting evidence that it was longer ~2000 years ago. In fact, it indicates quite the opposite. The difference in life expectancy in the last 300 years indicates that life expectancy would be shorter. This of course gives the indication that anyone who would have been alive at the same time as Jesus, would have been dead, thereby making all these sources hearsay, at best.

Atheist- None of this counts. It's all a hoax. The bible can't be proven. There is no evidence. God Himself would have to come down in a flaming chariot and turn all the grass into golden french fries...then I would...maybe... believe.

Again, I lol’d. Seriously? This is all you could muster? When I received notice that you had responded, I had high hopes for the caliber of the response. Especially when considering your impassioned defense of taking the word of someone with no credentials. I had hoped that your response would lend any kind of indication that, perhaps, you had an example of when one should, not that you would come back and actually be the perfect example of why one shouldn’t.

Your entire post exemplifies what I’ve been trying to tell you. When you don’t have the education and experience to be considered a credible source on the topic, there is no reason to listen to any claims you make, as there is no reason to believe that you are capable of telling the difference between good sources and bad. You can’t even keep your own criteria straight.

Again, your claim of Jesus’ divinity may be right. But considering that your research practices are shit, there is no reason to think that you could recognize the right answer, even if Cthulu was devouring your legs.

Theist- 2 Corinthian 4:4, " The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Same response I gave to all your other bible verses above.

note* I referenced several sources for this but my computer erased my log before I got to the end. I will be happy to find anything for you if you are interested in something specific.

Given that you can’t even keep your own standard of evidence straight, again, there is no need at all to see any of your sources. No matter who wrote your sources, the fallacies would still be there.

Stephen4785,

You have an impressive understanding of Scripture......thanks for sharing it.

I refuse to believe that Stephen4785 has “impressive understanding of Scripture”, as I have met many intelligent Christians, and read the work of more intelligent Christians, who could perform better research than Stephen4785.

And considering I’m surrounded by Christians all the time, and most of the people running our government are Christians , I would like to think that “an impressive understanding of Scripture” would reflect some capability of analytical thinking, which is not evident in the post above.

I refuse to accept that the inability to properly apply skepticism to anything is a common trait among the Theist community.

[YALE]

2 Corinthian 4:4, " The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

I was trying to stay out of this discussion, but Stephen, this piece of circular logic doesn't help you. This quote, if it reflects your position, is a dismissal of non-believers. Taken on its own, it means that god wouldn't give non-believers a chance anyway, since his blinding of their hearts would be dependent upon their initial refusal of his divinity. Basically, he wouldn't give them a chance. Corinthians is a bad book to try to establish a logically valid position from, too, since it's a big charismatic bunch of fluff. It's sad and strange that the modern protestant churches are so hung up on it, though, since its basis for validity is and arguments for its invalidity are almost identical to the same for the Book of Mormon. Before you get upset at me rebutting your position, though, remember that I'm not mentioning my own beliefs, or telling you to believe one way or another. I really don't care. I'm just speaking to the logical validity of the position you're taking. Choose better sources.

[The King]

I was trying to stay out of this discussion, but Stephen, this piece of circular logic doesn't help you. This quote, if it reflects your position, is a dismissal of non-believers. Taken on its own, it means that god wouldn't give non-believers a chance anyway, since his blinding of their hearts would be dependent upon their initial refusal of his divinity. Basically, he wouldn't give them a chance. Corinthians is a bad book to try to establish a logically valid position from, too, since it's a big charismatic bunch of fluff. It's sad and strange that the modern protestant churches are so hung up on it, though, since its basis for validity is and arguments for its invalidity are almost identical to the same for the Book of Mormon. Before you get upset at me rebutting your position, though, remember that I'm not mentioning my own beliefs, or telling you to believe one way or another. I really don't care. I'm just speaking to the logical validity of the position you're taking. Choose better sources.

Yale,

You do realize that the "god of this age" quoted from 2 Corinthians 4:4 is not referring to God I assume. The god of this age being referred to is Satan, the deceiver. Given that, non-believers are in no way dismissed as lost with no chance of redemption.

[YALE]

Yale,

You do realize that the "god of this age" quoted from 2 Corinthians 4:4 is not referring to God I assume. The god of this age being referred to is Satan, the deceiver. Given that, non-believers are in no way dismissed as lost with no chance of redemption.

That's what I mean. The quote by itself doesn't work.