The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

I understood what you mean, but how does that proof that he is the son of God? Lots of people throughout history have said a lot of things that haven't changed over time, also you have newer religions, that are spreading today, how is that possible without Jesus, and today people are probably a lot more skeptical regarding these things than they would have been back then?.
So im not denying whether Jesus said some of them or not, simply how it proofs that he is who he claim? And there are good explanations of why Christianity spread so fast across the world, First of all Paul, secondly Constantine the Great and last the monks copying the bible, making it more accessible to people.

I'm just making sure you understand.
Let me see if I have not mistaken you.
You want to know, how we prove that Jesus is whom he claimed to be - the son of God. Is that correct?

Background :
Jesus performed miracles, according to his followers, who claimed to be eyewitnesses of those things.
He gave his followers a most important work, which he claimed was his father's - that of making disciples of people of all nations. He gave them the message to preach, and the method by which to preach, and he gave them the duration. Also, he assured them, that though not present in body, he would be with them by spirit.

If what Jesus said, proves to be true, that proves that he is whom he claimed to be.

Spoiler: What Jesus said...

Jesus said, just in case you didn't read the texts... "...this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations... Also, in all the nations, the good news has to be preached first. I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:14; 28:20 Mark 13:10)

Conclusion...
Consider the wise words of a man - Gamaliel. (Acts 5:27-40)
If Jesus was not overseeing the work he started, it could not increase, and spread throughout the entire earth, especially in the face of extreme opposition. It would have been stamped out - ended. Instead, 2,000 years after, it is in every corner of the earth, and continuing to grow rapidly. The message is the same, and the method has not changed.

I also understand your argument, but some things to think about.
1. What my convince one man, does not convince another. For example, you are probably convinced that there is proof of something you believe. Others are not convinced. Their lack of belief does not make the proof you see, null. Does it?
Likewise, Christian do not need the belief of skeptics to validate the proof they have.
It is noteworthy, what the apostles said regarding those who would not believe or even see what is proof.
There are many, but one comes to mind, concerning a prophecy Jesus made in Matthew 24.

Spoiler: What Peter said...

(2 Peter 3:2-5) 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” 5 For they deliberately ignore . . .

Even though other things are true, that fact does not remove evidence proving something else.

2. Jesus also gave other prophecies, which is what you are seeing - the spread of false religion, and apostate Christianity.
So yes. You will see long-lasting religious systems... It was also prophesied.
The point is though, Jesus and his followers faced stiff opposition. The level of opposition was so great as to make Gamaliel's words significant. "If the work is from God, it cannot be overthrown."
Also, it is important to note that, the message, and methods, as well as its duration, would be evidence to those looking at it, that it is proof.
Those not interested in the evidence, or even biased, could fail to see... as is the case, imo.

So a prophecy doesn't necessarily has to come true, is that what you mean?

No. That isn't what I am saying. What made you think that?

This is definitely not the same, again I refer to my first comment at the start of the last post.
You have absolutely no facts in regards to my discussion with this person, for all you know I could be lying (Which I ain't). But you believe you have all the facts in regard to the bible and therefore feel justified to "teach" or use that as an excuse, when you say that you did so to teach me a lesson of not having all the facts. Do you not see why that is a strange way to approach someone?

That's true. That's why we examine the evidence for the reliability of the Bible before concluding that what is written is true, or fact.
Once we can verify the reliability of the scripture, then we can consider the facts it may contain.

Well you asked what gave me as an atheist the right or authority to instruct others about what is good, if I did not believe in objective morality. And I simply stated, that advising someone to do something that is not harmful to them seemed to be a good start. Rather than me pretending to know it what is best for them, even if it could cause them harm. Like when certain religious people choose to shoot abortion doctors, because they are convinced that they are commiting a crime. I doubt, they got the idea to do something like that from an atheist. So teaching people that abortion is the same as killing and causing certain people to react on it, is harmful both for the person they shoot but also themselves.

Murdering someone is criminal.
Are you saying that the religious rules are to shoot doctors who perform abortions?
Where are those rules written?

I recall, this started with your having a problem with the rules religious people are told to live by that can cause them or others harm.
So you will have to show what rules you are referring to that are harmful... and remember, we are discussing the Bible.

I haven't read the original thread you have had with others, so don't know what they are about.

To just give an example I would say the Exodus story, seems to me to be almost completely made up. There might be slight truth to some of the things, like names etc. But for the most part, I think its a story which held a lot of meaning for the ancient Jews as nation and to help them establish their identity.

Any others?

 

[nPeace]

I watch the movie and its a lot more interesting than the first one.

I will go through each of the reasons he present in why we can trust the bible.

Reason 1
- It is written early after the event -

He put forward a statement that the earlier one recollect the event the more likely they are to be accurate, which I agree with. He then go on to present the date of when the different books were written.

Which seems to be far earlier than what the majority of the scholars think (Approximately around 20 - 40 years earlier) But doesn't really say how he arrived at those or how come they do not seem to match those of the biblical scholars. He might have an explanation, but it is just not presented very clearly here.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

I think he make one mistake as he seem to treat Jesus followers as if they were unbiased spectators with the sole purpose of telling the truth, as if they were eyewitnesses to a murder. But that is not exactly what we are talking about here. We have people that are committed to Jesus and are followers of him. Yet we find lots of differences in gospels will get to that next. So I think he is partly correct, but I do not think that this is a very compelling reason overall.

Reason 2 / Reason 3
- It's being corroborated - / - Haven't changed over time -

Basically he say that things are being corroborated between the different writers and therefore the Gospels are trustworthy. So Ill quote Bart Ehrman as he is considered one of leading person's in regards to the bible on this. (I have to shorten it down, because it is very long, but ill leave the link to the whole article.)
Also Im not saying that just because he is Bart Ehrman that then he is clearly right, but rather that I think he present a good case.

According to Bart Ehrman

Let me stress here a fairly obvious point. When historians try to reconstruct what happened in the past, they desperately want to find internally consistent sources. To that extent, they are like trial lawyers. Suppose there was a court case about a murder: All the witnesses on the stand agree that there was a murder, but that’s the only thing they agree on. Everything they say — about the time, the place, the people involved, the weapons used, the events leading up to the murder, what happened immediately afterward — everything they say is different, from one witness to another, sometimes different in ways that simply can’t be reconciled.
And suppose some of them say things that simply defy plausibility. Would a trial lawyer — or a jury! — consider these to be reliable witnesses? How could they all be reliable?

So, too, with historical sources: We want independent and supportive accounts that are completely consistent with each other.

Evidence that Gospel Stories Were Changed (or Even Invented): Discrepancies in the Gospels
But how do we know that the stories have changed? That there are parts of stories — or entire stories — that are not historically accurate? We know this for two reasons: because there are abundant discrepancies among our stories, and because a number of the stories can be shown to be historically completely implausible.

First, let me mention some discrepancies — not an exhaustive list of them (that would take an entire book), but just a couple of examples to give you the idea.

In Mark’s Gospel, at his Last Supper, Jesus informs Peter that he, Peter, will deny Jesus that evening three times “before the cock crows twice” (Mark 14:30). In Matthew we have the same scene, but here Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times “before the cock crows” (Matthew 26:34). Well, which is it? Is it before the cock crows or before it crows the second time? Again, it seems like a picayune detail: but why the difference? What is more interesting (and possibly important), is that in the different Gospels Peter actually denies Jesus to different people on different occasions. So, what is going on?

But when it comes to the resurrection narratives, that’s not what we find. Here, I would encourage you again simply to do a horizontal reading of our four New Testament accounts (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21). For every detail, ask yourself if you are reading the same account or a different account.

Here are the some of the differences that you will find, some of which really can’t be reconciled with one another. There are others you will find for yourself. (Recall the setting: Jesus has been crucified and buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea; and then, on the third day.… )

- Who goes to the tomb? Is it Mary by herself, or with other women? If with other women, how many women? And what are their names? (As is true for this and all the other points I made, the answer in each case will appear to be: “It depends which Gospel you read!”)
- Do they find that the stone is already rolled away from the tomb (before they arrive) or does it roll away after they get there?
- Whom do they see there? A man? An angel? Two men? Two angels?
- Do they ever see Jesus himself there?
- What are they told there – that they are to go tell the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee? Or that they are to remind the disciples what Jesus told them when he was in Galilee?
- That is, are the disciples to go to Galilee (about a four-day walk north) to see Jesus, or are they to stay in Jerusalem to see him?
- Do the women tell anyone? (Take special note of Mark 16:8. The original Gospel ended with that verse – as will probably be indicated in your Bible. It says, “And the women said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” And that’s where it ends. If the author doesn’t really mean that they never told anyone, why does he say that they didn’t tell anyone? And if he thinks they did tell someone, why doesn’t he say so?)
- Do the disciples ever learn that Jesus has been raised (take note of Mark’s account)?
- Do the disciples go to Galilee? Or do they stay in Jerusalem?
- Does Jesus appear to them just on the day of his resurrection, and then ascend to heaven? Or does he make appearances for a period of time?
- Does he ascend on the day of the resurrection or 40 days later (see Acts 1)?

Let me explore briefly just one of those differences to show you why the accounts seem to be truly at odds with one another. Do the disciples meet Jesus in Galilee or do they never leave Jerusalem? In Mark’s Gospel, the women are told to tell the disciples to go to meet Jesus in Galilee. But they never tell them. So, it’s not clear what Mark thinks happens next: Did no one ever hear? Surely, someone heard, since Mark knows the story!

In any event, the women are told something very similar in Matthew, and there they do tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee. And the disciples go to Galilee (again, it’s about over 60 miles, and they would have gone on foot). Jesus meets with them there and gives them their final instructions, and that’s the end of the Gospel.

But how does that stack up with what we find in Luke’s account? In this case, the women are not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee; they are instructed to remind the disciples what Jesus had told them earlier when they were all in Galilee. And what happens? Here, it is very important to pay attention to Luke’s explicit chronological statements. On the day of the event, the women tell the 11 disciples what they heard from the two men at the tomb (24:8). “That very same day” Jesus appears to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (24:13–32). “At that same hour” they went and told the disciples in Jerusalem what they had seen (24:33–35). “As they were saying this” (24:36), Jesus then appears to the disciples, shows them he has been raised from the dead, and gives them their instructions, which include the injunction that they are to “stay in the city” until they receive the promised Spirit from on high (24:49). He then takes them to a suburb, Bethany, and ascends to heaven. The disciples then return to Jerusalem itself and worship in the temple (24:50–53). And that’s where the Gospel ends, on the day of the resurrection, in Jerusalem.

As you probably know, the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. It is interesting, and puzzling, to read the first chapter of Acts immediately after reading the Gospel of Luke. Even though Jesus ascends to heaven on the day of his resurrection in Luke, we are told explicitly in Acts that in fact he stayed on earth for another 40 days, convincing his followers “with many proofs” that he had been raised from the dead (Acts 1:3 — I’ve always found this one of the most perplexing verses in the entire New Testament: Why would Jesus need to “prove” that he was raised from the dead? They knew he died and now he was still with them! So, what were his “many proofs”? It’s an intriguing question!). For this entire 40 days, they have followed Jesus’s instruction, and are still in Jerusalem. He then ascends to heaven as they watch (1:9–11).

They continue to stay in Jerusalem until the Day of Pentecost (which would have been 50 days after Jesus’s crucifixion), when they receive the Spirit from on high (Acts 2). And in fact, they continue to stay in Jerusalem even after that (see Acts chapters 3–8).

I am giving this relatively detailed summary in order to make a fundamental point. In Luke’s version of the events, the disciples are told to stay in the city of Jerusalem and they do stay in the city of Jerusalem. Not for a day or two, but for weeks. This is where Jesus appears to them before ascending. But in Matthew’s version, they leave Jerusalem and travel up to Galilee (it would take some days to get there on foot), and it is there that Jesus appears to them.

So, which is it? It depends on which Gospel you read. Can they both be absolutely accurate? I don’t see how. They are at odds on a most fundamental point. I don’t see how we can accept these books as historically reliable sources of information about what happened. There are simply too many discrepancies.

(You can read the whole article here: Ehrman's Statement: The New Testament Gospels Are Historically Unreliable Accounts of Jesus)

Reason 4
- The authors lacked bias -

This one I find to be the best reason, because I think he make a good case here in regards to what exactly the apostle would get out of it, based on the only 3 options puts forward to why someone would murder, lie or steal, which are financial gain, power or sexsual benefits.

And I think he is correct that neither of the apostles seems to be gaining a lot of that through maintaining their believe in Jesus. However I do not think that he is looking at all possible reasons, one which could be conviction. Sort of like when a terrorist (Not trying to compare the apostle with such) decide to blow themself up for a cause they believe in. One would have a difficult time I think arguing that such person would get any of the three options that he is putting forward. Yet they blow themselves up anyway, so how would he explain that?

But again I find this one to be the most interesting.

Reason 5
- It matches and explain reality -

Not really anything to add here, its basically just a word salad of claims.

Thanks for taking the time.
I probably won't get back to you on this before Friday.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That question assumes that all tales have a mark on them saying, "This is a tale."

Tale, story, myth, legend, hearsay, whatever you wish to call it.

Do you believe everything anyone ever wrote just because they wrote it and believed it themselves?

Because someone does not believe something being related to them, does not mean it is a tale.
I can understand, that the person finds it hard to believe, and says, "Nah. I don't believe that. That sounds made up." However, for someone to say, the person was not making it up, but really believed what they were saying, yet they were not hallucinating, I would more believe, that someone, was telling a tale, than the one relating the story, because I don't see how someone can believe, for example, that a snake with eight heads spoke to them as a man would, if they were not hallucinating, or something like that.

Do you understand that back in the old days, telling tales was a common way of getting a message accross?
As in: stories they knew weren't true, but which held some kind of lesson? A lesson in human psych, a lesson in morals, a lesson in social conduct,.... whatevs.

Can you relate to that - someone wrote down something like that, because they believe it happened, only it didn't happen, yet the person is in their right mind?

Sure, it happens all the time, even today.
Sometimes they are delusional. Sometimes they are/were hallucinating. Sometimes they were just honestly mistaken. Sometimes they are retelling something they heared somewhere else and are just very gullible.

I don't refer to a story as a tale, just because it involves supernatural event. I can understand, why an Atheist would, because in his mind, there is no such thing.

Well, sure. The fantastical bits of the bible read very much the same as the fantastical bits of greek mythology etc.

Whenever a story includes such fantastical bits, most people (including you), kind of instantly recognize it as being fictional, exactly because of those fantastical bits.

In any other context then the bible, you wouldn't take a story seriously of a person who lives inside a big fish for a couple of days, for example. Or who speaks with snakes or bushes, with the snake and bush talking back.

Aside from the bible, I'm sure you use this exact same standard to evaluate any fantastical claim anyone presents to you. But for some reason, those standards are thrown out the window when you read exactly such claims in your bible.

The thing about the Bible, is that it is about the supernatural - the entire book.

Uhu
So is the bagavad ghita and the quran.

So if one has an a priori - no supernatural - the entire Bible would contain fables... from the garden of Eden, to the wedding feast in Cana in Galilee, to the island of Patmos.

Here's where your mind is twisting.
It's not the case that I have an "a priori - no supernatural" assumption.
I have an open mind. Just not so open that my brains are falling out.
I have no reason to believe the supernatural is real, so I don't. So whenever someone makes claims about it, I have no reason to believe those claims. And the fact is that indeed because there is not one iota of evidence for the supernatural, I actually have good reason to believe the claims are likely false.

Just like YOU, when you are presented with extra-biblical fantastical claims. Like when someone claims to have been abducted by aliens - and aliens aren't even supernatural!

For the believer though, he considers the reliability of the document.

For no reason other then he likes it. Because just like me, the believer has NO GOOD REASON to believe the supernatural is real. You have access to the same reality as I do and that reality doesn't contain evidence to support the supernatural.

If he finds he can trust, say 80%, then he has no valid reason for doubting the other percentage, if it cannot be proven false...

Wow....
First of all, all claims fall and stand on their own merrit.
99% of a story being real, doesn't mean the remaining 1% is real as well.
Furthermore, your addition of "if it cannot be proven false..." is also not a good reason to believe something. In fact, giving that as a reason to justify belief is literally an argument from ignorance.

especially if he sees a connection to the greater percentage, and he understands the connection to the symbolism.

Symbolism, shmymbolism. Evidence is what matters, and there isn't any.

To give an example...
The snake in the garden did not actually speak, as skeptics believe. The believer knows from related scriptures, what was speaking.
The trees in the middle of the garden, did not have any special powers, as skeptics believe. The believer understands the trees had a symbolic representation.
The believer knows that most of the book of Revelation is symbolic.

Fight it out with your fellow christians, who believe different things about those passages.
And don't bother with the No True Scottsman reply.

Apart from these, the acts that some find hard to believe, are merely acts done by supernatural beings.

"merely".

As if it is a common event, nothing special.

All that means is, a life-form way higher than our own is obviously capable of feats greater than ours.

Are you saying that your god is just some advanced alien? Somehow, I doubt it.
Having said that, either way, you still have yet to present one iota of evidence that this "life-form" lives anywhere but in your imagination or as a character in a story.

That's not anymore unbelievable than time travel... imo.

Actually, time travel is pretty unbelievable imo.

If one has already closed their mind to such a possibility, however, it will be unbelievable... regardless of what anyone may relate, or what may be observed.

You seem to be confusing "having an open mind" with "being gullible".
Obviously, they are not the same thing.

Having a closed mind, means that you are closed to new data that might potentially show you wrong and force your to reconsider your position on a certain issue.

That's what YOU do. That's not what I do.

You could convince me off your religion. All it would take is reasonable evidence in support of it.

But I'm absolutely positive, that no amount of evidence would ever be enough for you to reconsider your religious beliefs, amirite?

This is why you are selective in the science you accept. You're perfectly fine with the scientific theories that you feel don't contradict your religious beliefs. But you'll reject any science that does contradict your religious beliefs at face value.

This is because YOU are close minded.
I'm not. I go where the evidence takes me.

You on the other hand just believe whatever you feel you are religiously required to believe, no matter the evidence.

 

[sooda]

Tale, story, myth, legend, hearsay, whatever you wish to call it.

Do you believe everything anyone ever wrote just because they wrote it and believed it themselves?



Do you understand that back in the old days, telling tales was a common way of getting a message accross?
As in: stories they knew weren't true, but which held some kind of lesson? A lesson in human psych, a lesson in morals, a lesson in social conduct,.... whatevs.




Sure, it happens all the time, even today.
Sometimes they are delusional. Sometimes they are/were hallucinating. Sometimes they were just honestly mistaken. Sometimes they are retelling something they heared somewhere else and are just very gullible.



Well, sure. The fantastical bits of the bible read very much the same as the fantastical bits of greek mythology etc.

Whenever a story includes such fantastical bits, most people (including you), kind of instantly recognize it as being fictional, exactly because of those fantastical bits.

In any other context then the bible, you wouldn't take a story seriously of a person who lives inside a big fish for a couple of days, for example. Or who speaks with snakes or bushes, with the snake and bush talking back.

Aside from the bible, I'm sure you use this exact same standard to evaluate any fantastical claim anyone presents to you. But for some reason, those standards are thrown out the window when you read exactly such claims in your bible.


Uhu
So is the bagavad ghita and the quran.



Here's where your mind is twisting.
It's not the case that I have an "a priori - no supernatural" assumption.
I have an open mind. Just not so open that my brains are falling out.
I have no reason to believe the supernatural is real, so I don't. So whenever someone makes claims about it, I have no reason to believe those claims. And the fact is that indeed because there is not one iota of evidence for the supernatural, I actually have good reason to believe the claims are likely false.

Just like YOU, when you are presented with extra-biblical fantastical claims. Like when someone claims to have been abducted by aliens - and aliens aren't even supernatural!



For no reason other then he likes it. Because just like me, the believer has NO GOOD REASON to believe the supernatural is real. You have access to the same reality as I do and that reality doesn't contain evidence to support the supernatural.



Wow....
First of all, all claims fall and stand on their own merrit.
99% of a story being real, doesn't mean the remaining 1% is real as well.
Furthermore, your addition of "if it cannot be proven false..." is also not a good reason to believe something. In fact, giving that as a reason to justify belief is literally an argument from ignorance.




Symbolism, shmymbolism. Evidence is what matters, and there isn't any.



Fight it out with your fellow christians, who believe different things about those passages.
And don't bother with the No True Scottsman reply.



"merely".

As if it is a common event, nothing special.



Are you saying that your god is just some advanced alien? Somehow, I doubt it.
Having said that, either way, you still have yet to present one iota of evidence that this "life-form" lives anywhere but in your imagination or as a character in a story.



Actually, time travel is pretty unbelievable imo.



You seem to be confusing "having an open mind" with "being gullible".
Obviously, they are not the same thing.

Having a closed mind, means that you are closed to new data that might potentially show you wrong and force your to reconsider your position on a certain issue.

That's what YOU do. That's not what I do.

You could convince me off your religion. All it would take is reasonable evidence in support of it.

But I'm absolutely positive, that no amount of evidence would ever be enough for you to reconsider your religious beliefs, amirite?

This is why you are selective in the science you accept. You're perfectly fine with the scientific theories that you feel don't contradict your religious beliefs. But you'll reject any science that does contradict your religious beliefs at face value.

This is because YOU are close minded.
I'm not. I go where the evidence takes me.

You on the other hand just believe whatever you feel you are religiously required to believe, no matter the evidence.

The definition of "parable" is a simple story to teach a moral lesson. Jesus taught in parables.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you relate to that - someone wrote down something like that, because they believe it happened, only it didn't happen, yet the person is in their right mind? If you (not you) tell me, the person is lying, that makes more sense to me.
Or not, you (not you) are the one telling the tale.

Is a tale, any story you don't believe? Then tales are relative.
I don't refer to a story as a tale, just because it involves supernatural event. I can understand, why an Atheist would, because in his mind, there is no such thing.

It is easy even in the contemporary world for intelligent learned people to make claims for what they claim to see as fact, but it is not true as determined by the scientific evidence, and sometimes they still believe despite the scientific knowledge that is is not true.

The best example I can provide is the Loch Ness monster, and I can name many others if you wish to continue this line of reasoning.

The thing about the Bible, is that it is about the supernatural - the entire book.
So if one has an a priori - no supernatural - the entire Bible would contain fables... from the garden of Eden, to the wedding feast in Cana in Galilee, to the island of Patmos.

No, the Bible is NOT totally about the supernatural. It is set in history, and does contain 'some' facts about the history of some people, places, and events. Like all ancient scripture that does contain 'some' facts it cannot be concluded that the whole text of the scripture is true and factual.

 

[shunyadragon]

The definition of "parable" is a simple story to teach a moral lesson. Jesus taught in parables.

I do not believe that the "parable" are an issue as to how factual and 'true' the historical accounts and claims of miracles are.

 

[Nimos]

You want to know, how we prove that Jesus is whom he claimed to be - the son of God. Is that correct?

In short, Yes.

Jesus performed miracles, according to his followers, who claimed to be eyewitnesses of those things.

Lets try to go through this and see if we can come to some sort of common understanding of what this would entail.

Would you agree to the following:
1. We have to somehow establish (demonstrate) that his followers were actual eyewitnesses to these miracles, for this to really be useful as evidence?

2. Since we have no way of asking them or speak with other people at the time when these miracles should have taken place, the only source we have for them being true is the bible?

3. If we can't verify it directly, what we can do is look at the claims themselves and compare it to what we have actually observed. Meaning have we ever observed a person rise from the dead? Walk on water? etc. Lets call it natural evidence and as far as I know, the answer is no. It doesn't proof that it isn't possible to do it, just that nothing currently support that it is. Which only leaves us with this being explained by some sort of supernatural event.

4. Supernatural explanations are not really considered good evidence, due to the very nature of them being supernatural.

5. So we are left with two options, 1) a natural explanation which suggest that these miracles did not happen, due to the lack of evidence of this being possible or 2) a supernatural explanation for which we have no solid evidence. And anyone have to decide whether they find 1) or 2) most plausible.

Furthermore we can find differences in the apostles account of these stories (As pointed out in the last post - citing Bart Ehrman), and also its fairly well established that these different accounts uses each other as sources. So its not all that easy to claim that they were written independent of each other. In fact I think it would be difficult to find anyone supporting that idea.

So at least in my eyes, I don't think the apostles claiming to be eyewitnesses are strong evidence in support of Jesus being who he claimed. Not saying they are lying, simply that we have to weight these claims versus each other. And that we are not dealing with some mundane claims here, like someone claimed to have won a battle or something, but rather something that really defy what we know about the natural world.

Consider the wise words of a man - Gamaliel. (Acts 5:27-40)

I don't really find this to be a good argument or even that wise. Because it seems to follow a sort of Pascal wager approach.

Acts 5:38-39
38 "I'm telling you to keep away from these men for now. Leave them alone, because if this plan or movement is of human origin, it will fail.
39 However, if it is from God, you won't be able to stop them, and you may even discover that you are fighting against God!" So they were convinced by him.

So if you try to stop them and God is with them, then you can't do it as you are fighting God, who would want that? But if you let them do it, there is a chance that they will fail if God is not with them. But by not stopping them, you are not risking the fight against God. So in the end the outcome or the Pascal wager reasoning or what to call it, would go for not stopping them as that is where you are going to risk the least.

The problem with Pascal wager, is that it doesn't take everything into considered. Like what if you bet on the wrong God? Lets say that God of Judaism or Islam is actually the right one? So it only really works when one assume that they are correct about the two possibilities that they use.

No. That isn't what I am saying. What made you think that?

Because I must have misunderstood you then.
So is it the opposite then, that prophecies will always have to come true then?

Murdering someone is criminal.
Are you saying that the religious rules are to shoot doctors who perform abortions?
Where are those rules written?

No, that is not what I say. What I say is, that when for instant the Catholic church, go out and tell the poor in Africa that using pills etc are a sin, because of what they as many other religious people believe is against the word of God, when he say that you should not kill. That it causes people to behave in ways that are causing harm to them, such as the spreading of Aids, children born under poor conditions. That this is caused due the believe that these religious organisations is telling people. Their motive is not to cause aids to spread or kill innocent, but to follow the rules that they believe is in accordance with their beliefs. And we know how some people react when they feel their beliefs are being violated or threaten etc.
Why isn't it Atheists that run around and blow up people in terrorist attacks for instant, but causes others to do these things?
And im not saying that Atheists can't do bad things, they sure can. But their motives for doing so are simply those that any other religious person could also do.
So clearly something about these religions motivate people to do things that atheists at least would not do, even if that is not the intention of these establishments.

Any others?

Pretty much all of them, Adam and Eve, Noa, Goliat, Job.

If you read what Bart Ehrman wrote in the article? I think, I would probably be more generous than he is in regards to what I would consider true. But then again, I do not have the knowledge he have and obviously do not know all the stories with supporting evidence and context as he does. But at least that should give you an idea of what my position is.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The tribulation was local.. Jesus told them the flee to the mountains. They escaped to Pella. It was over when the temple was destroyed or when Massada fell.

Yes, the first or 'minor' fulfillment came in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful 'Jerusalem'.
Revelation was written after the year 70, Revelation applies to our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10
The 'MAJOR' part Matthew 24:21 did Not happen in the first century, just to unfaithful Jerusalem.
Revelation 7:14,9 applies to the 'MAJOR' fulfillment of Matthew coming in our day which includes the whole world.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Bible says why? Where?
No. One uses principle. The Bible principle regarding life, resulted in laws to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
The laws are based on those principles.
People also think it's wrong to kill any human - not just children. So I don't see the difference.
What's the difference between God killing adults, and him killing children?
Morals change? Interesting. They might as well stop pretending, and call it what it really it.
That's like a rebel getting into power, and changing a principle. Principles don't change. When someone changes a law that is based on a principle, they have disregarded principle... It's a violation.
Some believe laws are meant to be broken... likewise, morals.

Also, I find there is a difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of the righteous ones.
Any comments about God's position found at Jeremiah 32:35 or 2 Chronicles 28:3 ______________

 

[sooda]

Yes, the first or 'minor' fulfillment came in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful 'Jerusalem'.
Revelation was written after the year 70, Revelation applies to our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10
The 'MAJOR' part Matthew 24:21 did Not happen in the first century, just to unfaithful Jerusalem.
Revelation 7:14,9 applies to the 'MAJOR' fulfillment of Matthew coming in our day which includes the whole world.

That's what Hal Lindsey says.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm just making sure you understand.
Let me see if I have not mistaken you.
You want to know, how we prove that Jesus is whom he claimed to be - the son of God. Is that correct?

Background :
Jesus performed miracles, according to his followers, who claimed to be eyewitnesses of those things.
He gave his followers a most important work, which he claimed was his father's - that of making disciples of people of all nations. He gave them the message to preach, and the method by which to preach, and he gave them the duration. Also, he assured them, that though not present in body, he would be with them by spirit.

If what Jesus said, proves to be true, that proves that he is whom he claimed to be.

Spoiler: What Jesus said...

Jesus said, just in case you didn't read the texts... "...this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations... Also, in all the nations, the good news has to be preached first. I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:14; 28:20 Mark 13:10)

Conclusion...
Consider the wise words of a man - Gamaliel. (Acts 5:27-40)
If Jesus was not overseeing the work he started, it could not increase, and spread throughout the entire earth, especially in the face of extreme opposition. It would have been stamped out - ended. Instead, 2,000 years after, it is in every corner of the earth, and continuing to grow rapidly. The message is the same, and the method has not changed.

I also understand your argument, but some things to think about.
1. What my convince one man, does not convince another. For example, you are probably convinced that there is proof of something you believe. Others are not convinced. Their lack of belief does not make the proof you see, null. Does it?
Likewise, Christian do not need the belief of skeptics to validate the proof they have.
It is noteworthy, what the apostles said regarding those who would not believe or even see what is proof.
There are many, but one comes to mind, concerning a prophecy Jesus made in Matthew 24.

Spoiler: What Peter said...

(2 Peter 3:2-5) 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” 5 For they deliberately ignore . . .

Even though other things are true, that fact does not remove evidence proving something else.

2. Jesus also gave other prophecies, which is what you are seeing - the spread of false religion, and apostate Christianity.
So yes. You will see long-lasting religious systems... It was also prophesied.
The point is though, Jesus and his followers faced stiff opposition. The level of opposition was so great as to make Gamaliel's words significant. "If the work is from God, it cannot be overthrown."
Also, it is important to note that, the message, and methods, as well as its duration, would be evidence to those looking at it, that it is proof.
Those not interested in the evidence, or even biased, could fail to see... as is the case, imo.


No. That isn't what I am saying. What made you think that?


That's true. That's why we examine the evidence for the reliability of the Bible before concluding that what is written is true, or fact.
Once we can verify the reliability of the scripture, then we can consider the facts it may contain.


Murdering someone is criminal.
Are you saying that the religious rules are to shoot doctors who perform abortions?
Where are those rules written?

I recall, this started with your having a problem with the rules religious people are told to live by that can cause them or others harm.
So you will have to show what rules you are referring to that are harmful... and remember, we are discussing the Bible.


Any others?

As usual the only socalled 'proof' you have offered id the scriptures 'prove' the scriptures, and that is 'begging the question,' and every diverse conflicting religion or belief system could be 'proved' the same way. There is a problem here you are not addressing.

The same problem persists with you describing that 'some' people, places and events have been confirmed by archaeology therefore the Bible is totally true, .and every diverse conflicting religion or belief system could be 'proved' the same way

 

[sooda]

I do not believe that the "parable" are an issue as to how factual and 'true' the historical accounts and claims of miracles are.

Like walking on water or a global flood myth? I don't think they were ever written as history or with any notion of a timeline. I think they are morality tales borrowed from other earlier cultures.

 

[sooda]

Yes, the first or 'minor' fulfillment came in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful 'Jerusalem'.
Revelation was written after the year 70, Revelation applies to our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10
The 'MAJOR' part Matthew 24:21 did Not happen in the first century, just to unfaithful Jerusalem.
Revelation 7:14,9 applies to the 'MAJOR' fulfillment of Matthew coming in our day which includes the whole world.

How many tribulations do you think there were?

 

[shunyadragon]

Like walking on water or a global flood myth? I don't think they were ever written as history or with any notion of a timeline. I think they are morality tales borrowed from other earlier cultures.

Possibly, but I do not think these would be parables as Jesus used as lessons in the NT, which most if not all have earlier origins in Hebrew traditions, nuch like the Koans of Buddhism.

I believe that the Global flood, and Jesus 'walking on water' were considered literally true and not parables.

 

[sooda]

Possibly, but I do not think these would be parables as Jesus used as lessons in the NT, which most if not all have earlier origins in Hebrew traditions, nuch like the Koans of Buddhism.

I believe that the Global flood, and Jesus 'walking on water' were considered literally true and not parables.

I think they are morality tales with the recurring theme of redemption. Truthfully, Egypt never flooded beyond the annual flooding (hopefully) of the Nile Delta.

Look at a map of where civilizations arose in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think they are morality tales with the recurring theme of redemption. Truthfully, Egypt never flooded beyond the annual flooding (hopefully) of the Nile Delta.

Look at a map of where civilizations arose in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Today, yes, morality tales, but many still today consider it an actual world event, At the time the scriptures were written they were considered true events, and morality tales. I still consider parables to be different, because then and now they are considered morality symbolic short lessons and not tales, myths, nor true stories in history.

Actually the flood first recorded in Sumerian texts was likely a catastrophic flood of the Tigress Euphrates River Valleys as documented by geologic research, but later incorporated in Canaanite and later Hebrew texts as a literal world event. Originally it was the written description of an early oral Sumerian story and not considered a world event that wiped out all life.

Egyptians considered their abbual floods as part of the normal natural cycle life on the Nile.

 

[sooda]

Today, yes, morality tales, but at the time the scriptures were written they were considered true events, and morality tales. I still consider parables to be different, because then and now they are considered morality symbolic short lessons and not tales, myths, nor true stories in history.

Remember that Aesop's Fables were written by a Greek slave about the same time (650 BC)

Nobody with even half a brain believed the sun stood still.

 

[shunyadragon]

Remember that Aesop's Fables were written by a Greek slave about the same time (650 BC)

Nobody with even half a brain believed the sun stood still.

True, but that does not reflect the belief that the flood was a real historical event then, and by many today.

It is true that those that believe today it was a real event like lack half a brain or any upper brain, and believe the sun stood still.

 

[sooda]

Today, yes, morality tales, but many still today consider it an actual world event, At the time the scriptures were written they were considered true events, and morality tales. I still consider parables to be different, because then and now they are considered morality symbolic short lessons and not tales, myths, nor true stories in history.

Actually the flood first recorded in Sumerian texts was likely a catastrophic flood of the Tigress Euphrates River Valleys as documented by geologic research, but later incorporated in Canaanite and later Hebrew texts as a literal world event. Originally it was the written description of an early oral Sumerian story and not considered a world event that wiped out all life.

Egyptians considered their abbual floods as part of the normal natural cycle life on the Nile.

The Tigris and Euphrates river basins have always flooded.. Spring snowmelt from the mountains combined with spring rains. That's what built the delta south of Basra.

Our ancient ancestors were quick learners.. They knew you couldn't walk on water.. The people of Sumer had irrigation, written language and sailboats long before Abraham.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Tigris and Euphrates river basins have always flooded.. Spring snowmelt from the mountains combined with spring rains. That's what built the delta south of Basra.

True, but geologists have dated a particularly catastrophic flood of the whole river valley system that correlates well with the Sumerian description as taken palce before the first cuneiform record. Oral legends may not be totally true, but they are often grounded in historical facts. In fact original Native American oral legends and Chinese and Japanese written records of catastrophic floods are grounded in and described as catastrophic river floods and Tsunamis, and even often accurately dated by astronomic observations, other traditional ways of record keeping like totems and stone stella, and confirmed by geologic investigations.

Our ancient ancestors were quick learners.. They knew you couldn't walk on water.. The people of Sumer had irrigation, written language and sailboats long before Abraham.

True, but I am not sure this is relevant. In fact Abraham origin of the name may be A-Brahman.