Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[SkepticThinker]

You can't be serious.

"Despite the idealistic goals of (secular) liberalism, attempts to build a Utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence."

Beware of Liberal Fundamentalism

Liberal Fundamentalism

Not to mention how Sodom and Gomorrah and its same-sex debauchery made out.

Sorry, but this is hilarious.
Not to mention irrelevant, since the claim was about secularism, rather than "Liberal Fundamentalism" (or a complete distortion of it, as you've provided here).

You can't be serious.

 

[ManSinha]

For Jesus there were 9 authors from the New Testament who wrote about him in the 1st century: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

Are you meaning to imply that the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

 

[RESOLUTION]

It was an observation. Do you know who has the burden of proof? Anyone that makes a positive assertion. And I can support that if you wish. If someone makes a claim about how someone proved the existence of God that person has taken on a HUGE burden of proof.

FAITH:- Positive assertion? It is called faith because it is a position of trust in what we personally believe. Faith is not required where there is no faith needed.
GOD.... How do you prove or disprove his existence?
The reality is that neither person who believers or like yourself the person who does not believe cannot substantiate their claims about God for themselves to others hence we use the term FAITH.
There is a subtle difference between the person of faith and the person whose faith is disbelief. The person of faith has received their own reassurance from God in his promises that he exists and the person of unbelief has nothing at all to substantiate their claim of disbelief as they cannot prove God does not exist, Faith is personal - it is the willingness to act on what they believe and know about God (which may be very little) and to trust God he will not let them down. However your belief in disbelief has nothing to sustain you or give gravity that you could be right.
There is no blind belief for those who believe in God through out history God has acted for them. Your belief requires nothing but your choice and it has nothing by way of proof to sustain it.

You sound rather emotional. Relax a bit and see if you can support the claims that you make.

As you can see an empty thought and a wrong conclusion. Not emotional - just know why I believe and have my own proof to support it. Your thinking like many atheists is incorrect. Believers are under no compulsion to prove to none believers that God exists. However if atheists have poof God doesn't exist they could stop faith in God existing. Which is why faith in God exists and Atheists have nothing but empty arguments.

 

[RESOLUTION]

As pointed out in post #616 by Subduction Zone, your approach is ". . . an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is a tactic used by those that know that they have a false belief. "

As pointed out in my last post to Subduction Zone, There is no burden of proof on a believer regarding GOD.
But atheists lack any burden of proof that God does not exist they are useless arguments hence it is called faith...

As for your silly assertion that you made some kind of germane statement concerning the video (I'm assuming it would have been germane had you actually said something):

Your 1st post (610) only addressed my motives, their failure, plus some other inconsequential matters

Post number 2 (614) was an ad hom directed at Dan Mellis

Number 3 (615) was a nonsense post you made in reference to the Dan Mellis post (614)

Number 4 (618) was an ignorant claim directed at Subduction Zone that there is no burden of proof to shift, plus a pompous ad hom thrown in for good measure.

Number 5 (619) was an attempt to tap dance your way away from confronting the assertion I made about the video I presented:

"Irrelevant claims about the historical accuracy of the Bible is simply stupid stuff that fills the believer with unjustified confidence in his faith."​

All in all dear RESOLUTION,your inability to discuss/debate issues at a mature level is a bit exasperating, and your arrogance, repugnant. So I bid you adieu

Have a good day

.​

If at first you do not succeed throw as much blind science or issues not relevant into the mix to cause confusion.
But religious belief is not a science neither does it depend on science or issues from other peoples arguments based on no positive proof for the negative.

My last post to Subduction Zone 643 answers answers any issues you have above. It shows that even insults are wrongly placed and your firing dummy bullets..
Your minded is closed and therefore unable to reason anything outside that which you have chosen to believe., Truth plays a large part in the beliefs of a person of faith.
In truth you have nothing sustain your beliefs or anything you say but your own personal opinion from a closed mind. A mind which chooses to disbelieve and requires no proof not even personal proof to do so. In many ways your beliefs require a greater amount of faith and even a greater amount of self- belief but nothing which will ever prove that God does not exist. For all you read about
science and what you learn from other atheists especially people like Sam Harris there is absolutely nothing to substantiate to yourself personally that God does not exist.

Have a nice day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

FAITH:- Positive assertion? It is called faith because it is a position of trust in what we personally believe. Faith is not required where there is no faith needed.

No one is doubting that you believe. The problem arises when you make a public statement that some event occurred. Then you take on a burden of proof.

GOD.... How do you prove or disprove his existence?
The reality is that neither person who believers or like yourself the person who does not believe cannot substantiate their claims about God for themselves to others hence we use the term FAITH.
There is a subtle difference between the person of faith and the person whose faith is disbelief. The person of faith has received their own reassurance from God in his promises that he exists and the person of unbelief has nothing at all to substantiate their claim of disbelief as they cannot prove God does not exist, Faith is personal - it is the willingness to act on what they believe and know about God (which may be very little) and to trust God he will not let them down. However your belief in disbelief has nothing to sustain you or give gravity that you could be right.
There is no blind belief for those who believe in God through out history God has acted for them. Your belief requires nothing but your choice and it has nothing by way of proof to sustain it.

Sorry, but now you are contradicting yourself. Faith is blind belief. It is the reason given when one does not have a valid reason for belief. I wish you would make up your mind.

As you can see an empty thought and a wrong conclusion. Not emotional - just know why I believe and have my own proof to support it. Your thinking like many atheists is incorrect. Believers are under no compulsion to prove to none believers that God exists. However if atheists have poof God doesn't exist they could stop faith in God existing. Which is why faith in God exists and Atheists have nothing but empty arguments.

But you don't have proof. You have faith. Atheists on the other hand have something that theists don't have. They have rational thought.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Hi Dan,

Absolutely! Religious people can believe whatever they like. However, all an atheist has to say is "you're wrong" and their position is every bit as justified.

No justification required because atheists can say they are right too.
See what I did there? We have to treat everyone properly regardless of what our beliefs.

It isn't on the non-religious to disprove anything. If you want to defend your faith against people like us and the undeniable, observable rise in atheism then its on you to meet your burden of proof.

There is nothing to defend the faith of people in God against regarding atheism since atheism requires nothing but your choice to disbelieve.
I am not sure why think there is anything in atheism which has anything which would prevail against the gates of heaven. To be honest, atheism isn't a problem as it has no weapons with which to attack faith in God.

If I was to say "I can fly and move stuff with my mind, but you just have to believe me or prove me wrong" you'd expect me to demstrate it. If you make a claim about god and the bible, and try to apply it to others positions, you have to prove it or have it rejected in its entirety.

Can you move things with your mind or fly? How would you make the comparison regarding faith. You speak about things you personally might or might not do. But the example has no bearing on a persons faith in the being called God since they do not claim anything of their own abilities. Faith is personal it cannot be applied to other persons positions and neither do I apply it to the positions of others. An Athiest is not in any position to ask a believer to prove anything for they have nothing at all to substantiate their position of unbelief. There is nothing to address in a position chosen without proof.

I mightnt be able to disprove god, but you cannot prove it either - you can't disprove much in this universe, but if something exists we can usually point to some sort of solid evidence for it.

Here is the crux, I have proof for myself that is why I have faith. My faith does not require me to prove to someone whose disbelief is just a choice. I have much reason to believe. But your disbelief gives me no reason to doubt what I have. I know why I believe whereas you have nothing but your choice of disbelief. Believers have no burden of proof to anyone.

 

[RESOLUTION]

No one is doubting that you believe. The problem arises when you make a public statement that some event occurred. Then you take on a burden of proof.
/

Think on! History is written down and you believe. The bible is history written down and you don't believe it. How do you know if lying or the truth?
So public statements of faith are what? Nothing to do with atheists.

Sorry, but now you are contradicting yourself. Faith is blind belief. It is the reason given when one does not have a valid reason for belief. I wish you would make up your mind.

I have not contradicted anything... I know why I believe and why my faith is not a blind belief. You however have nothing even personally to support your blind belief in atheism.
No contradiction may be a lack understanding of faith and blind faith in the eyes of the beholder. But you have no argument when it comes to faith in God because you have no knowledge personal or otherwise on the subject.

But you don't have proof. You have faith. Atheists on the other hand have something that theists don't have. They have rational thought.

If God exists how rational is you thought. So another useless argument since human beings whether believer or not are usually rational. You are tying yourself up in knots because you assume what a believe believes and that they cannot think for themselves. We can think for ourselves and we know why we believe. We also know that atheists have nothing but their own choice and made up arguments to support their position and as I have said. Believers do not and are not required to prove anything to atheists and atheists have no weapons with which to make an argument. You don't believe in God, well that is choice. But we are not suppose to be changing your mind. You have to think for yourselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

FAITH:- Positive assertion? It is called faith because it is a position of trust in what we personally believe. Faith is not required where there is no faith needed.
GOD.... How do you prove or disprove his existence?
The reality is that neither person who believers or like yourself the person who does not believe cannot substantiate their claims about God for themselves to others hence we use the term FAITH.
There is a subtle difference between the person of faith and the person whose faith is disbelief. The person of faith has received their own reassurance from God in his promises that he exists and the person of unbelief has nothing at all to substantiate their claim of disbelief as they cannot prove God does not exist, Faith is personal - it is the willingness to act on what they believe and know about God (which may be very little) and to trust God he will not let them down. However your belief in disbelief has nothing to sustain you or give gravity that you could be right.
There is no blind belief for those who believe in God through out history God has acted for them. Your belief requires nothing but your choice and it has nothing by way of proof to sustain it.


As you can see an empty thought and a wrong conclusion. Not emotional - just know why I believe and have my own proof to support it. Your thinking like many atheists is incorrect. Believers are under no compulsion to prove to none believers that God exists. However if atheists have poof God doesn't exist they could stop faith in God existing. Which is why faith in God exists and Atheists have nothing but empty arguments.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence. You've just demonstrated that, I think.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's just how logic works. You've made a claim. The burden of proof is yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Think on! History is written down and you believe. The bible is history written down and you don't believe it. How do you know if lying or the truth?
So public statements of faith are what? Nothing to do with atheists.

I have not contradicted anything... I know why I believe and why my faith is not a blind belief. You however have nothing even personally to support your blind belief in atheism.
No contradiction may be a lack understanding of faith and blind faith in the eyes of the beholder. But you have no argument when it comes to faith in God because you have no knowledge personal or otherwise on the subject.

If God exists how rational is you thought. So another useless argument since human beings whether believer or not are usually rational. You are tying yourself up in knots because you assume what a believe believes and that they cannot think for themselves. We can think for ourselves and we know why we believe. We also know that atheists have nothing but their own choice and made up arguments to support their position and as I have said. Believers do not and are not required to prove anything to atheists and atheists have no weapons with which to make an argument. You don't believe in God, well that is choice. But we are not suppose to be changing your mind. You have to think for yourselves.

Blind belief in atheism? Atheism isn't a belief. And atheism isn't something to believe in. It's a lack of belief on a single claim - that claim being that god(s) exist.
Some atheists do believe that god(s) do not exist, and those people are actually making a claim that they'd have to back up. But the only requirement to being an atheist is lack of belief. That's it. No faith is required at all in not believing an extraordinary claim. Same way you probably lack belief in universe farting pixies, for example. Do you think you it's on you to prove that universe farting pixies don't exist, or do you think that burden of proof lies with the person declaring that universe farting pixies do exist?

 

[Spartan]

Are you meaning to imply that the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Absolutely.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[Spartan]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence.

If people think there's no evidence for God/Jesus Christ, then they are not well read. Here's a "starter" recommended reading list for those people"

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If people think there's no evidence for God/Jesus Christ, then they are not well read. Here's a "starter" recommended reading list for those people"

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

It's weird that you can't seem to present any then.

The thing about this is, if there were good evidence for god(s), we would all know about it. Like we know of the evidence for evolution, germ theory, gravity, and every other fact of reality that we all accept, based on the overwhelming evidence that is available to us. If there were good evidence for the existence of god(s), then I would have no choice but to accept it. It's just how my mind works. I have yet to see any though, despite the claims that there is so much of it.

The thing about proving Jesus' existence, is that it doesn't get you where you need to be. So let's say Jesus did exist. That still doesn't confirm any of the supposed miracles he performed, it doesn't confirm that he was divine, it doesn't confirm that he died and rose from the dead, and it doesn't confirm that a god exists. In other words, all your work is still ahead of you.

Sorry, but Christian apologetics are a waste of my time. The arguments just don't cut it. I don't want arguments anyway, I want evidence.

 

[ManSinha]

Absolutely.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

That is a Christian website created specifically for purposes of answering Islamic critics - its findings have limited value
Do a broader search - there is no agreement on the subject and wide belief that the gospels were written "as told by.." - no Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the gospels IMO - get your facts straight

1. Catholic straight answers - concedes the fact in the end line which is the summation
2. Academic studies - an admission that it is not as clear cut as some would like it to be
3. Historical reliability of the gospels - Wikipedia
4. Public interviews with religious teachers

 

[Skwim]

As pointed out in my last post to Subduction Zone, There is no burden of proof on a believer regarding GOD.

Sure there is. If I said there are pink elephants roaming the streets of New York City, and I expect to be believed, it's up to me to prove there are such elephants. Not up to you to prove there aren't. It's Logic 101.

But atheists lack any burden of proof that God does not exist they are useless arguments hence it is called faith...

My last post to Subduction Zone 643 answers answers any issues you have above. It shows that even insults are wrongly placed and your firing dummy bullets..
Your minded is closed and therefore unable to reason anything outside that which you have chosen to believe., Truth plays a large part in the beliefs of a person of faith.
In truth you have nothing sustain your beliefs or anything you say but your own personal opinion from a closed mind. A mind which chooses to disbelieve and requires no proof not even personal proof to do so. In many ways your beliefs require a greater amount of faith and even a greater amount of self- belief but nothing which will ever prove that God does not exist. For all you read about
science and what you learn from other atheists especially people like Sam Harris there is absolutely nothing to substantiate to yourself personally that God does not exist.

Have a nice day.

How sad . . . . . . but easily fixed.

Have a nice life.

.​

 

[Spartan]

That is a Christian website created specifically for purposes of answering Islamic critics - its findings have limited value

Not so. Muslims make the same bad arguments dedicated skeptics do. That website was right on the money, and offered compelling internal and external evidences for the traditional Gospel author.

 

[Spartan]

It's weird that you can't seem to present any then.

So, you haven't read those basic evidence books, i.e.

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

How are you going to know the evidences for the life of Jesus Christ, etc., if you haven't done your proper due-diligence?

So let's say Jesus did exist. That still doesn't confirm any of the supposed miracles he performed, it doesn't confirm that he was divine, it doesn't confirm that he died and rose from the dead, and it doesn't confirm that a god exists. In other words, all your work is still ahead of you.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is in the book you haven't read.

And here's a documented miracle that's mentioned in the Gospels:

Documenting a Miracle

Documenting A Miracle

Sorry, but Christian apologetics are a waste of my time. The arguments just don't cut it. I don't want arguments anyway, I want evidence.

You haven't done your homework. And there is evidence - tons of it. Which is why you refuse to look at it because you don't want your unfounded skepticism shaken to the core.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Hello Subduction,

No one is doubting that you believe. The problem arises when you make a public statement that some event occurred. Then you take on a burden of proof.[//QUOTE]
Religion:
I am what I am
↑

It was an observation. Do you know who has the burden of proof? Anyone that makes a positive assertion. And I can support that if you wish. If someone makes a claim about how someone proved the existence of God that person has taken on a HUGE burden of proof.

FAITH:- Positive assertion? It is called faith because it is a position of trust in what we personally believe. Faith is not required where there is no faith needed.
GOD.... How do you prove or disprove his existence?
The reality is that neither person who believers or like yourself the person who does not believe cannot substantiate their claims about God for themselves to others hence we use the term FAITH.

As you can see my answer is clear if you cannot address the real issues in the post, then I suggest you refrain from debating or answering my posts till you can actually answer the issues within.
Till you can substantiate your own disbelief you cannot argue about burden of proof the truth is that you don't have proof and faith is called faith as explained in original post. If you cannot argue from that position presented then what you think you know has left you shown to be wanting and only capable of repeating parrot fashion what you have learned from others. Poor Show.



There is a subtle difference between the person of faith and the person whose faith is disbelief. The person of faith has received their own reassurance from God in his promises that he exists and the person of unbelief has nothing at all to substantiate their claim of disbelief as they cannot prove God does not exist, Faith is personal - it is the willingness to act on what they believe and know about God (which may be very little) and to trust God he will not let them down. However your belief in disbelief has nothing to sustain you or give gravity that you could be right.
There is no blind belief for those who believe in God through out history God has acted for them. Your belief requires nothing but your choice and it has nothing by way of proof to sustain it.
#643RESOLUTION, Yesterday at 4:46 AM

My reply was clear and your reply shows you have been unable to take anything on board. There is absolutely nothing in your post that changes or gives you grounds for what you say in relation to the truth being made known to you. You have no argument with which to ask for proof from another since your own belief cannot be proved. Faith has been explained to you and you appear unable because of brain washing or just a closed mind to see the fact you have reached a dead end and your arguments carry no weight. You my friend make the statement that you are an ATHEIST.
By doing so you claim there is no God. However, there is the fact that as explained above faith is relevant to each of us and that faith is personal and therefore requires only the person who has to it to know why they do. Believers can receive personal proof and atheists cannot. But there is no burder on a believer to prove what they believe to those who have no positive faith just a negative.
You see even faith is negative and positive. You are the negative and the believer the positive. So until you can argue the points then in your opinion the burden of proof lies with you about the above. But the believer is not required to prove anything to anyone else. Can you actually address these issues and in previous post and make an argument, It is my belief you cannot because you are not able to address the issues so far.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence. You've just demonstrated that, I think.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's just how logic works. You've made a claim. The burden of proof is yours.

Skeptic thinker,

There is no logic in the above. Show me what I have said that requires proof and show me where it is proved I have to provide proof.
Another useless argument and proof no logic involved in what you write. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all off the people all of the time.

BURDEN OF PROOF is fallacy when it comes to GOD. I do not believe in a burden of proof in matters of personal faith. Logic tells us that until it is defined that faith no longer required
for belief in God then there is no burden of proof especially in personal faith. As you do believe in 'Burden of Proof' and you have made statements showing you do not believe in God, then feel free
to show us you proof and unburden yourself.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Blind belief in atheism? Atheism isn't a belief. And atheism isn't something to believe in. It's a lack of belief on a single claim - that claim being that god(s) exist.
Some atheists do believe that god(s) do not exist, and those people are actually making a claim that they'd have to back up.

Name the atheists and bring them here to debate and they can show us there Burden of Proof. Believers show it is a personal faith and are not required by any form of logic or manmade rules to show proof of the God/s they believe in. However you believe in burden of proof and atheism is a belief it is the disbelief in God.
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So when you are ready feel free to unburden yourself and show the burden of proof regarding your disbelief or rather belief there is no God.

But the only requirement to being an atheist is lack of belief. That's it. No faith is required at all in not believing an extraordinary claim. Same way you probably lack belief in universe farting pixies, for example. Do you think you it's on you to prove that universe farting pixies don't exist, or do you think that burden of proof lies with the person declaring that universe farting pixies do exist?

Not at all. You say there is no God the onus is on you to prove what you believe as the dictionary shows atheism is the disbelief or the lack of belief in existence of God or gods.
So show us proof there is no God.

Previous posts explained the position that there is no requirement in personal faith to prove it to others. So if you saying there is no personal faith you need to give account and prove what you
preach that there is no God.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Sure there is. If I said there are pink elephants roaming the streets of New York City, and I expect to be believed, it's up to me to prove there are such elephants. Not up to you to prove there aren't. It's Logic 101.


How sad . . . . . . but easily fixed.

Have a nice life.

.​

Running Away... The truth tends to do that to people who have no real arguments or knowledge on a subject they try to discuss./ Thank you for the ignore button. The above stands as proof you are not able to debate or discern and therefore answer the matters at hand when it comes to the subject of faith in God.