Just Believe

[nPeace]

What mind reading powers do you have to know that they were not prepared to believe had they been given an authentic miracle? Jesus never gave us the opportunity to doubt the doubters by taking them up on a challenge that would have been allegedly easy for Him. If Jesus simply used unknown laws of nature as you appear to describe miracles then we still could not know if they were from God or simply a technologically advanced person, but at least we could know that it was possible for genuine miracles to occur.

What mind reading powers do you have to know that Jesus never gave us the opportunity to doubt the doubters by taking them up on a challenge that would have been allegedly easy for Him.

In John 14 Jesus says, "whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son" so I ask in Jesus name to resurrect my dead grandfather, and if my prayers are too insincere then let the sincerest Jehovah's Witnesses ask the same in Jesus name including all their governing body and even all Jehovah's Witnesses put together to do the same. That will be enough to falsify the truth of the Biblical miracles

The scriptures also say... And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that no matter what we ask according to his will, he hears us. (1 John 5:14)
We don't cherry pick one and leave out the others... unless we have an agenda, but that wouldn't be very honest, would it.

What critics accept as facts Paul's prison bonds and trial? Can you name them and quote them specifically? And more to the point can you demonstrate how Paul's persecution demonstrates his claim of miracles to be true, after all Falun Gong practitioners claim some pretty interesting stuff and they are prepared to suffer all sorts of gruesome persecution for it, so should we accept the fancier claims people make as truthful just because they are persecuted?

Read the section under the heading Luke.
This thread is not focused on evidence from one particular area - namely miracles.
Anyone who is interested in targeting or focusing on miracles, is free to create a thread under that subject.
In fact, there is one here on Jesus' resurrection. The resurrection is itself a miracle, so it can fit cozily in that thread

No it's not a strawman, for the Gospels to be true miracles must be true.

Miracles in the Gospels can be true, and one not believe them. No one is obligated to prove a miracle, for the Gospels to be true.
You said earlier... Even if the Jews were wayward stiffnecked corrupt people if they say the grass is green the grass is green. Likewise if they say that Jesus was not a scriptural authority it is true regardless of the source it came from.

For the Gospels to be true Jesus must be willing and able to do, "whatever you ask" John 14:13

Is everthing alright with you? Do you realize how that sounds... even if John 14:13 were the only text in the Gospels? No? Then may I suggest repeating it until you do.

You haven't shown evidence of the Gospel being a historical record, so far you've only made the claim that it is;
'According to Acts, Paul began his persecutions in Jerusalem, a view at odds with his assertion that he did not know any of the Jerusalem followers of Christ until well after his own conversion (Galatians 1:4–17)'

Source: Saint Paul the Apostle | Biography & Facts

'In Christian tradition, he is known as Paul of Tarsus, as this is where Luke says he was born (Acts 9:11). At the time, Tarsus was located in the province of Cilicia, now modern Turkey. However, Paul himself indicates that he was from the area of Damascus which was in Syria (see the letter to the Galatians). Luke has provided many of the standard elements in Paul's life, but most of these items stand in stark opposition to what Paul himself reveals in his letters. For instance, Luke claims that Paul grew up in Jerusalem, studying at the feet of many who would be considered the first rabbis of normative Judaism, and eventually becoming a member of the council, or the Sanhedrin. Paul himself says that he only visited Jerusalem twice, and even then his stay was a few days. What do we do about such contradictions?'

Source: Paul the Apostle

So you keep asserting, but offering no evidence of in spite of the contrary evidence.

What are you here suggesting... that we just believe the Gospels without evidence?
I hope so, because if you have particular things you want to focus on, then may I suggest you create a new thread on it, and mention me. Focussing on Paul as though that alone is evidence, is not in keeping on topic.

What evidence is there, that we can trust the Greek scriptures?
Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, Frederick Fyvie Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

In other words, the evidence in the Greek scriptures, is more reliable than any of those secular sources, no one questions. Sort of like the many historical documents people accept without question.
Is that true?
How reliable are the Christian Greek scriptures?

Since we do not take the Greek scriptures as a separated work from the Hebrew scriptures, there is more evidence to be found in combining these documents as one, both from an internal perspective, and an external. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 The strongest evidence being internal.

It is important to note, that even the critics cannot deny that Paul, actually existed and wrote many letters that form part of the Christian Greek Scriptures. They cannot even deny the fact that Jesus existed and had followers who later made up the Christian congregation.
All the critics are left with really, is the position of criticizing the texts, but there is no basis or reason to doubt that the writings are true.
Hence, I think the critics are the ones who ought to provide the evidence that the writings are not true.

 

[nPeace]

Right back at you.

Sounds like a loaded question to me.

John A T Robinson was the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, Dan Wallace is a Baptist, William F Allbright had a methodist upbringing.
I'll try and see if I can dig up a debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman, but although being one of the more interesting figures, William F Allbright and his methodology are considered outdated;

'As editor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research between 1931 and 1968, Albright influenced both biblical scholarship and Palestinian archaeology.[28] Albright used this influence to advocate "biblical archaeology", in which the archaeologist's task, according to fellow biblical archaeologist William G. Dever, is seen as being "to illuminate, to understand, and, in their greatest excesses, to 'prove' the Bible."[32] In this Albright's American Methodist upbringing was clearly apparent...

...
In the years since his death, Albrigth's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. In a 1993 article for The Biblical Archaeologist, William G. Dever stated that:

[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'[33]

Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson contends that the methods of "biblical archaeology" have also become outmoded:

[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the "balance of probability" ...[34]'

Source: William F. Albright - Wikipedia

Bart Ehrman is agnostic. For all we know he could be Atheistic in his thinking.

So long as you are going to provide some actual evidence, and take into consideration the evidence that dismisses belief as justifiable

Yes we can do that. Let's isolate the evidence, and objections to it.

There is no difference.

Let's discuss this one, also. Please provide the clear evidence and actually proof that there is no difference between a "Christian" - aka one who professes, and a Christian - one who actually is.
No personal opinions and views are allowed.

Still attached to the idea of something being true or false based on it's source I see.

What Jews, be specific and indicate their financial status. I'd imagine that financially well off Jewish conversions are few and far between.

Why? Jews become Christian fullstop. You don't need to know their financial status, so that you can inject your personal biased opinion.

Wrong, something is true or false independant of it's source.

That's not what you are saying. Thank you.
I put that there so you could see the folly in your earlier statement.

Even if the Jews were wayward stiffnecked corrupt people if they say the grass is green the grass is green. Likewise if they say that Jesus was not a scriptural authority it is true regardless of the source it came from.

You got the point. Good job.

Electrical impulse from the brain causes the lung muscles to expand and contract. If your brain ceases to function no electrical signal will be sent to the muscles to contract and carbon dioxide will build up in the lungs.

What keeps the brain functioning? Are the brain cells not fed? Isn't that circular?

I can see self replicating molecules, the first known molecules appeared in the universe 100,000 years after the big bang1 and the first known organic molecules occurred 4 billion years ago 2
1 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-universe-s-first-type-of-molecule-is-found-at-last
2 5.5: First Organic Molecules.

As such it is not a myth that there had to be either a first or a group of first self replicating molecules, it is the only logical conclusion from the fact that there was a time there were none then a time there were some.

In my opinion

You saw it? Really? Please provide the evidence that self replicating molecules, the first known molecules appeared in the universe 100,000 years after the big bang.

 

[nPeace]

Not evidence.

You don't have evidence that you were in your mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways? Ouch.
That's sad though. Makes me wonder if you really do understand the difference between evidence and proof.
Do you?

 

[firedragon]

You don't have evidence that you were in your mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways? Ouch.
That's sad though. Makes me wonder if you really do understand the difference between evidence and proof.
Do you?

Thats a tu quoque. Thats not evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Thats a tu quoque. Thats not evidence.

So do you know the difference between evidence and proof, or not?

 

[firedragon]

So do you know the difference between evidence and proof, or not?

Lol. So if I ask for proof, you ask me "why are you obsessed with proof" or something like that, and if I ask for evidence you speak of the difference between evidence and proof, it seems like some hilarious game. no escape.

So no worries, what ever you understand as evidence or proof, provide anything for "Amazing signs of Jesus".

 

[nPeace]

Lol. So if I ask for proof, you ask me "why are you obsessed with proof" or something like that, and if I ask for evidence you speak of the difference between evidence and proof, it seems like some hilarious game. no escape.

So no worries, what ever you understand as evidence or proof, provide anything for "Amazing signs of Jesus".

So you don't have evidence that you were in your mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways.
Someone asks you if you understand the difference between evidence and proof, since we do have evidence that we were in our mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways, and you resort back to circling around.

Okay. Since you have no evidence for that, and I am not circling around with you... I said what I had to say. Maybe you will slip up, and tell me one thing that there is evidence for.

Smelly socks? A wet duck? Alien invasion? Wait. I know. Mount Pelee eruption, right? There were pictures of it right?
While we are on that subject, why don't we talk about evidence for the Nebula hypothesis. Why. Let's discuss evidence for Dark energy, Dark matter. Yeah. Let discuss anything we want.

I notice how good you are at telling people what your thread is about, and what's off topic, and how they can create a new thread.
It would be nice if you were that good at applying the same standard to self.

 

[danieldemol]

What mind reading powers do you have to know that Jesus never gave us the opportunity to doubt the doubters by taking them up on a challenge that would have been allegedly easy for Him.

We don't need mind reading powers as the gospel authors told us He didn't

The scriptures also say... And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that no matter what we ask according to his will, he hears us. (1 John 5:14)

So resurrection is against the will of God? Tough luck for Lazuras then. So going into a furnace seven times hotter than a regular furnace without getting harmed is against the will of God? Tough luck for Shadrach, Meshach and Abdenego then. So miracles are against God's will? Tough luck for Paul the apostle then.

Read the section under the heading Luke.
This thread is not focused on evidence from one particular area - namely miracles.
Anyone who is interested in targeting or focusing on miracles, is free to create a thread under that subject.

Doesn't answer my questions, or at best only partly answers them, but we can't tell because you haven't cited your sources clearly, other than to reference a wikipedia article which has the text under the title "Biblical Narrative" subtitle "Last visit to Jerusalem and arrest", so of course critics agree it is part of the Biblical narrative, doesn't mean they necessarily agree that it was a historical occurence, which is what you implied.

In fact, there is one here on Jesus' resurrection. The resurrection is itself a miracle, so it can fit cozily in that thread

Your link is to the claims of the Bible, not to any evidence that Jesus resurrected.

Miracles in the Gospels can be true, and one not believe them. No one is obligated to prove a miracle, for the Gospels to be true.

Sure, it could be true that I went back in time, assumed the name Jesus and raised Lazuras from the dead, but if I expect anyone to believe such a fantastical tale then they would be correct to expect evidence of it.

What are you here suggesting... that we just believe the Gospels without evidence?
I hope so

Yes I have noticed you hope we will believe the Gospels without evidence to the contrary of the tall claims in your P{

because if you have particular things you want to focus on, then may I suggest you create a new thread on it, and mention me. Focussing on Paul as though that alone is evidence, is not in keeping on topic.

The topic is believing in the Bible with evidence, central to that is a critical examination of Paul's tall claims as a Christian minister.

What evidence is there, that we can trust the Greek scriptures?
Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, Frederick Fyvie Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

As usual instead of posting evidence, you are simply posting claims of people that you consider authorities, then expecting people to be impressed. Also authenticity is a non issue in some cases, we accept the authenticity of the Harry Potter books, but not that they contain a truthful or historical account.

In other words, the evidence in the Greek scriptures, is more reliable than any of those secular sources, no one questions. Sort of like the many historical documents people accept without question.
Is that true?

No its not true, nobody accepts the authenticity of secular sources without question. They question them and then the evidence leads to the conclusion whether they are authentic or not.

Since we do not take the Greek scriptures as a separated work from the Hebrew scriptures, there is more evidence to be found in combining these documents as one, both from an internal perspective, and an external. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 The strongest evidence being internal.

So you make a dogmatic assumption that they are not separated works inspite of them being written at different times to different people containing contradictory messages and then add more unevidenced claims.

It is important to note, that even the critics cannot deny that Paul, actually existed and wrote many letters that form part of the Christian Greek Scriptures. They cannot even deny the fact that Jesus existed and had followers who later made up the Christian congregation.

All of which are irrelevant to whether there is evidence that the Gospels are factually and historically true.

All the critics are left with really, is the position of criticizing the texts, but there is no basis or reason to doubt that the writings are true.
Hence, I think the critics are the ones who ought to provide the evidence that the writings are not true.

They do provide evidence that the writings are not *wholly* true, I even provided some evidence in post #331 which you ignored, not to mention earlier posts.

In my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence?
I don't get it.
To me, that's like one standing on the edge of a mountain, without any glider, singing, "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away."

Then jumps.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. SPLAT

Is that not idiotic?
That's not faith either. It's stupidity, imo.
The Bible does not even support such an absurd idea.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it. "

However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?
So can someone help me out here. How does a person believe in a god, without evidence? I know there are quite a number of those who call themselves Christians, who think this way. Blind faith, they call it.

Just believe because to many believing in something better gives them hope and reason to think there is something better than reality which sometimes its harsh and crappy.

 

[danieldemol]

Bart Ehrman is agnostic. For all we know he could be Atheistic in his thinking.

Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian, he became at first a liberal Christian through his study of the Bible, and later an agnostic for his own reasons. But he successfully exposes the anti-historical nature of the Bible without even reffering to it.

Yes we can do that. Let's isolate the evidence, and objections to it.

Still waiting on you to provide any evidence, I have already provided contrary evidence.

Let's discuss this one, also. Please provide the clear evidence and actually proof that there is no difference between a "Christian" - aka one who professes, and a Christian - one who actually is.
No personal opinions and views are allowed.

Ha, on this fourm you are only allowed to express things as your own opinion, so you are asking me to break forum rules.

Why? Jews become Christian fullstop. You don't need to know their financial status, so that you can inject your personal biased opinion.

It helps us determine more accurately the likely reasons for their conversion. If they were 99.9% poor Jews it would seem reasonable to assume that they converted for material reasons, not due to convincing scriptural reasons as one would expect wealthy Jews to convert for.

That's not what you are saying. Thank you.
I put that there so you could see the folly in your earlier statement.

Thats exactly what I was saying.

What keeps the brain functioning? Are the brain cells not fed? Isn't that circular?

Yes the brain cells are fed. I don't see why you think that is circular - the mechanisms of feeding the brain exist in the womb before the lungs begin to operate.

You saw it? Really? Please provide the evidence that self replicating molecules, the first known molecules appeared in the universe 100,000 years after the big bang.

Please pay attention. I said self replicating molecules are now observable. That the first known molecules (not self replicating molecules) appeared 100,000 years after the big bang. And that the first known *organic* self replicating molecules occured 4 billion years ago.

In my opinion

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans do the same.

Have you never heard of the "fight or flight response" that occurs in response to our autonomic nervous system being triggered by perceived dangers in our environment?

Sure: kicking out members who don't toe the party line is a pretty effective way to ensure conformity.

It has to do with appreciating what is being learned.

 

[firedragon]

So you don't have evidence that you were in your mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways.
Someone asks you if you understand the difference between evidence and proof, since we do have evidence that we were in our mother's womb, and came out, either one of two ways, and you resort back to circling around.

Okay. Since you have no evidence for that, and I am not circling around with you... I said what I had to say. Maybe you will slip up, and tell me one thing that there is evidence for.

Smelly socks? A wet duck? Alien invasion? Wait. I know. Mount Pelee eruption, right? There were pictures of it right?
While we are on that subject, why don't we talk about evidence for the Nebula hypothesis. Why. Let's discuss evidence for Dark energy, Dark matter. Yeah. Let discuss anything we want.

I notice how good you are at telling people what your thread is about, and what's off topic, and how they can create a new thread.
It would be nice if you were that good at applying the same standard to self.

Thats not evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just believe because to many believing in something better gives them hope and reason to think there is something better than reality which sometimes its harsh and crappy.

Hope is a very powerful emotion and thought. Faith for many is based on what the Bible teaches.

 

[We Never Know]

Hope is a very powerful emotion and thought. Faith for many is based on what the Bible teaches.

Faith brings hope and reason.
Reality, not so much.

 

[alypius]

How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence?

What does evidence mean in this thread?

 

[We Never Know]

What does evidence mean in this thread?

In my opinion evidence is what a person accepts as truth.
What one person accepts as truth may not be what another person accepts as truth.

I say that because 99.99999% of people accept what they are told is truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith brings hope and reason.
Reality, not so much.

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about when you say faith does not bring much reality. My reality is mine and yours is yours. In reference to religious thought, though, it is awesome that the Israelites were told to choose what they wanted to really do; (how their reality worked in), whether they would serve the God that took them through the wilderness or the gods around them. They had a choice.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about when you say faith does not bring much reality. My reality is mine and yours is yours. In reference to religious thought, though, it is awesome that the Israelites were told to choose what they wanted to really do; (how their reality worked in), whether they would serve the God that took them through the wilderness or the gods around them. They had a choice.

Evidently because you didn't understand my post.

Lets try again....

Faith brings hope and reason.
Reality, not so much.(many times reality doesn't bring hope and reason).

 

[YoursTrue]

In my opinion evidence is what a person accepts as truth.
What one person accepts as truth may not be what another person accepts as truth.

I say that because 99.99999% of people accept what they are told as truth.

You bring up an interesting point. In a crime, for example, if the accused is on trial, the jury may be asked to decide guilt or no guilt based on evidence, circumstantial evidence. It may appear very convincing, but the conclusions or guilty or innocent verdict can be wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

You bring up an interesting point. In a crime, for example, if the accused is on trial, the jury may be asked to decide guilt or no guilt based on evidence, circumstantial evidence. It may appear very convincing, but the conclusions or guilty or innocent verdict can be wrong.

Sure it can. That's why quite a few innocent people(some after 20+ years are being released from prison based on further evidence. That evidence being DNA.