the right religion

[Heathen Hammer]

Like I said, yes, he believes these lies and hyperbole as if they are true. :lol: And he'll produce more non-factual numbers to prove it is true!

Plus the regular idiocy. I mean, why wouldn't a book whose commentary is later written by it's own believers, not remain thematically consistent? It's a non issue he polishes like a gold star, as if it makes any sense. All the Star Wars novels are thematically consistent over all their many authors, too. Duh.

 

[A Troubled Man]

A reply definately worth the effort which reaveals the sound argumentation of the critic.

Your dishonest contradiction did not deserve sound argumentation.

 

[1robin]

Your dishonest contradiction did not deserve sound argumentation.

I wil not allow you to me drag down to this level.

 

[Nakosis]

In essence you are asking what Satan did in the Garden. "Did God really say?"

I've been told that after "And God said, “Let there be light,” The rest was human commentary.

It has IMO become traditional belief to accept every word of the Bible as having the authority of God. Even if God dictated every word of Genesis it does me little good because I've no idea what it means. I don't know the context or the source. I've heard many interpretations of Genesis. Most sound reasonable enough but if we are left to trust our own interpretation or someone else's we are trusting the reasoning of men.

Ways to verify the accuracy of the bible.
1. Historical accuracy.
2. Existential accuracy.
3. Prophecy.
4. Claims to knowledge not available at the time but now known to be accurate.
5. Narrative consistency.
6. Explanitory suffeciency.

As I mention accuracy is not an issue. I'm sure if you were to write of contemporary events you could report such events accurately. Accuracy is not necessarily a sign of divine authority.

Consistency... Men have had 100's of years to review the contents of the Bible. What was accepted into the Bible was accepted because it told a consistent view of God. Anything not consistent with that view was assumed to be flawed. A lot of minds have worked on making sure the Bible had a consistent view of God. That you/we today find this consistency is not surprising.

Prophecy... I find man's nature, history to be cyclic. It's not unimaginable for someone to proclaim a contemporary prophecy that given hundreds or a few thousand years events can not be found to fit to a prophetic passage. For example if I were to state something like "The moon will turn blood red and a king will lose his crown". That statement is vague enough that given a thousand years or so some historical event could be found to fit to it.
Nations come and go. Rulers get deposed. Wars occur.

The bible has almost supernaturally passed all tests. If fallable humans were writing on their own there would be many mistakes with the points above. The writers even claim things like a prophet must be 100% accurate to be from God, or that they require and offer a spiritual experience with a deity. These are things a writer writing in a vacume would never do as it would self distruct. The bible is know as "Theoneustos" a greek word meaning God breathed. God unlike his dealing with me actually dictated through the spirit exactly what was to be written. He guarantied the revelations accuracy and obviously has the power to make it happen.

You're asking me to use my ability to reason to justify the authority of the Bible?

This subject needs more time to answer than I have but you can find all the info you want through these links.

The bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. It is the most intesely studied book in human history. It's critics fade away and it remains.

The Bible was created on an anvil that has bore many hammers. I'm not going to claim to be smart enough to begin to unravel it.

Many of the passages of the Bible I trust for reasons of personal experience/ research. Many of the OT prophets also seem trustworthy. Good for instruction and training. Doesn't mean I think it reasonable to accept every word, every author of the Bible as having the same divine authority.

The prophets of the Bible were human like you and me. Perhaps inspired through dreams and visions by God but still subject to sin, like you and me.

You are asking me to accept the divine authority of every word of the Bible on faith. I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to make that determination. I'm not trusting enough of man's "integrity" to allow someone else to make that determination for me. If at some point I am shown otherwise then that's a different story. At this point I'm not ready to go all in.

 

[beerisit]

My question was not quite as stupid as your answer. I made no claim in the statement being discussed that I can prove God exists, or the flood is provable. I was comparing the relative merit of Christianity v/s it's closest competitor. The bible requires faith concerning many of it's claims. If these things could be proven then faith is unnecessary. The bible contains countless other things that can be proven like the prediction of destruction of Tyre, or Babylon that only a God could have produced. There are over 2000 of these prophecies in the bible. If you will pick one that can be suffeciently evaluated then do so. Keep that proof of anything was not claimed in my statement it was the relative integrity, reliability and amount of information in the bible compared to another religion. Why is the multi verse theory considered valid when there isn't and can't possibly be a scrap of evidence, and the bible which posseses a wealth of data not. The double standards are pathetic. An informal definition of objective truth in the context we are discussing is a truth that is independant of individual human opinion. That can only come from a source outside of us. Most people who claim there are no objective moral values will quickly start asserting them as justification for things they desire. For example in the neurenburg trials the Nazi's claimed they were acting consistent with the moral framework of their society. At this point you would have not been able to say anything meaningful in reply unles you did what the allies did and assert an absolute standard greater than their societal norms. I would bet that if you felt suffeciently threatened you would start appealing to moral absolutes pretty fast.

So you have met my challenge and failed. Oh dear. Well really it was your challenge that you failed, but why split hairs. You FAILED. Well done.
For instance:
Most people who claim there are no objective moral values will quickly start asserting them as justification for things they desire.
Would that be like believing that the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden are justified in your gods objective view and the bombing of London was not justified in your gods objective view?

 

[A Troubled Man]

I wil not allow you to drag down to this level.

You dragged it down already and I was not willing to stoop to that level.

 

[1robin]

I've been told that after "And God said, “Let there be light,” The rest was human commentary.

It has IMO become traditional belief to accept every word of the Bible as having the authority of God. Even if God dictated every word of Genesis it does me little good because I've no idea what it means. I don't know the context or the source. I've heard many interpretations of Genesis. Most sound reasonable enough but if we are left to trust our own interpretation or someone else's we are trusting the reasoning of men.

Seems like this conversation is from a while back. If whatever source told you that is more reliable than God then have at it. The most accepted scholarly position on this is that the bible is not perfect. It has thousands of errors. However none of them effect doctrine, they are more like spelling issues etc....Except for I think 3 significant ones. The last chapter of Mathew (I believe is unreliable), the story of the women caught in adultory, can't remember the thrid one. This still leaves about 95% that is considered reliable by most new testament scholars. If you are interested Dr James White is the most frank, hones, and knowledgable I have ever heard on the subject. Keep in mind the bible has a vastly superior manuscript tradistion than any other ancient text.

As I mention accuracy is not an issue. I'm sure if you were to write of contemporary events you could report such events accurately. Accuracy is not necessarily a sign of divine authority.

No it is not. However inaccuracy in the revelation would be a sign that it is not devine. If the bible had a textual tradition not much better than any other work then I would have major doubts. It instead has an almost supernatural accuracy which establishes confidence at the very least.

Consistency... Men have had 100's of years to review the contents of the Bible. What was accepted into the Bible was accepted because it told a consistent view of God. Anything not consistent with that view was assumed to be flawed. A lot of minds have worked on making sure the Bible had a consistent view of God. That you/we today find this consistency is not surprising.

No that is not true the major criteria for the bible was the apostolic nature or status of the authors.

Prophecy... I find man's nature, history to be cyclic. It's not unimaginable for someone to proclaim a contemporary prophecy that given hundreds or a few thousand years events can not be found to fit to a prophetic passage. For example if I were to state something like "The moon will turn blood red and a king will lose his crown". That statement is vague enough that given a thousand years or so some historical event could be found to fit to it.
Nations come and go. Rulers get deposed. Wars occur.

This would only be valid if we were talking about Nostradomas type of vague, ambiguous, and indecipherable types of prophecy. The bible has thousands of prophecies that include specific dates, conditions, and outcomes. They also predict things that seemed impossible when made. For instance the destruction of Babylon. It was a mighty and prosperous city, with perhaps the largest defensive structures in history. It was thought to be impregnable. The bible not only predicted it's destruction but also that it would be virtually uninhabited from then on. The last time any significant effort was made to settle there was Sadam Hussein right about the time we attacked him and the settlement never materialised. Or just take the otherworldy detail contained in 300 prohecies concerning Christ alone.

You're asking me to use my ability to reason to justify the authority of the Bible?

Along with the Holy spirit.
God promised that all who diligently seek me will find me.

The Bible was created on an anvil that has bore many hammers. I'm not going to claim to be smart enough to begin to unravel it.

Many of the passages of the Bible I trust for reasons of personal experience/ research. Many of the OT prophets also seem trustworthy. Good for instruction and training. Doesn't mean I think it reasonable to accept every word, every author of the Bible as having the same divine authority.

The prophets of the Bible were human like you and me. Perhaps inspired through dreams and visions by God but still subject to sin, like you and me.

You are asking me to accept the divine authority of every word of the Bible on faith. I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to make that determination. I'm not trusting enough of man's "integrity" to allow someone else to make that determination for me. If at some point I am shown otherwise then that's a different story. At this point I'm not ready to go all in.

You made some understandable points and none of us are born believers it does take time but I wouldn't ever stop or let up until I was suffeciently sure enough to make a decision on. FROM THE WISDOM OF THE ROCK BAND RUSH: "If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice". or "There is no hero in neutrality".

The bible is plenty suffecient to establish faith in the ressurection. That is the main points and climax and the knowledge that produces salvation. The rest is secondary. Not unimportant but less critical. The bible is accurate enough to communicate with ease any and all knowledge God requires. The devine nature and source of revelation would prohibit a sinful prophets sin to effect the revelation. God guarantied the accuracy of revelation. Again to claim any different is to call God a liar which is a choice we are allowed to make but which cannot be justified.

 

[1robin]

So you have met my challenge and failed. Oh dear. Well really it was your challenge that you failed, but why split hairs. You FAILED. Well done.
For instance:
Most people who claim there are no objective moral values will quickly start asserting them as justification for things they desire.
Would that be like believing that the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden are justified in your gods objective view and the bombing of London was not justified in your gods objective view?

What in the name of all that's good and pure are you babbling about. No you did not understand the simple point I made. This is becomeing epidemic. I said that even people who claim there is objective value will still appeal to them when in need thus revealing the need for them even if that person won't admit it. That statement had nothing whatsoever to do with the next one you posted above. You have a bizarre way of evaluating the worth and quality or lack there of in your statements. You are nothing if not entertaining.

 

[1robin]

You dragged it down already and I was not willing to stoop to that level.

That is the equivelant of "I know you are but what am I"

If it isn't too much trouble can you please make an actual well reasoned point if possible and abandon the diatribe.

 

[A Troubled Man]

If it isn't too much trouble can you please make an actual well reasoned point if possible and abandon the diatribe.

Ok, you dishonestly contradicted Christianity with Islam, and you know it.

 

[1robin]

Ok, you dishonestly contradicted Christianity with Islam, and you know it.

What the...... Are you actually talking to me or an imaginary poster in your head. I am close to giving up on you. You won't make a coherent point to dissagree or agree with.

If it isn't too much trouble can you please make an actual well reasoned point if possible and abandon the diatribe.

That is my statement you replied to with something about Islam and Christianity. How is any word in there related in anyway to Islam or Christianity?

 

[waitasec]

Obvious to anyone with an open mind and a couple hours with the internet. It is claimed by scholars to have 25,000 historical claims verified by archeology. It's manuscript tradition is vastly greater than any other work of ancient history.

yet there is absolutely no historicity of moses or abraham....in any archeological findings. none. :sorry1:
and the timing of the census is off a bit...
or if jesus came only for the lost tribe of israel or not
or if one is to prove their faith by drinking poison
or if one or both of the criminals were mocking jesus
of if jesus was dead for 3 days or just 1 and a half
or if jesus was scared to go to the cross or confident of his destiny
or if zombies were actually walking around after jesus breathed his last
of if a 3 hour eclipse actually did occur
and how did they know when jesus died the curtain ripped in 2...close circuit TV?
yes...ambiguous.
fyi, open mind =/= indoctrination.

 

[Nakosis]

Seems like this conversation is from a while back. If whatever source told you that is more reliable than God then have at it. The most accepted scholarly position on this is that the bible is not perfect. It has thousands of errors. However none of them effect doctrine, they are more like spelling issues etc....Except for I think 3 significant ones. The last chapter of Mathew (I believe is unreliable), the story of the women caught in adultory, can't remember the thrid one. This still leaves about 95% that is considered reliable by most new testament scholars. If you are interested Dr James White is the most frank, hones, and knowledgable I have ever heard on the subject. Keep in mind the bible has a vastly superior manuscript tradistion than any other ancient text.

I think it reasonable to accept at least with the NT the adequate transition of scripture. This from my own investigation. I only mentioned it so it wouldn't be a point of contention.

No it is not. However inaccuracy in the revelation would be a sign that it is not devine. If the bible had a textual tradition not much better than any other work then I would have major doubts. It instead has an almost supernatural accuracy which establishes confidence at the very least.

First of all I have to understand the prophecy. Not being a prophet myself I don't assume much authority in that regard. I've found me relying on "What the heck I think it means" problematic. Maybe if I find a source/teacher to be trustworthy that'll change.

No that is not true the major criteria for the bible was the apostolic nature or status of the authors.

There were 12 appointed by Jesus. Anything beyond that is assumption. Makes sense these would be the most reliable source of his teachings.

This would only be valid if we were talking about Nostradomas type of vague, ambiguous, and indecipherable types of prophecy. The bible has thousands of prophecies that include specific dates, conditions, and outcomes. They also predict things that seemed impossible when made. For instance the destruction of Babylon. It was a mighty and prosperous city, with perhaps the largest defensive structures in history. It was thought to be impregnable. The bible not only predicted it's destruction but also that it would be virtually uninhabited from then on. The last time any significant effort was made to settle there was Sadam Hussein right about the time we attacked him and the settlement never materialised. Or just take the otherworldy detail contained in 300 prohecies concerning Christ alone.

I'll keep an open mind. If I come across an argument persuasive enough. I'll look into it.

Along with the Holy spirit.
God promised that all who diligently seek me will find me.

Then it would seem one's diligence is important. The other necessities will hopefully take care themselves.

You made some understandable points and none of us are born believers it does take time but I wouldn't ever stop or let up until I was suffeciently sure enough to make a decision on. FROM THE WISDOM OF THE ROCK BAND RUSH: "If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice". or "There is no hero in neutrality".

I'm not looking to be a hero. Just trying to go forth as honestly as I can in life.

The bible is plenty suffecient to establish faith in the ressurection. That is the main points and climax and the knowledge that produces salvation. The rest is secondary. Not unimportant but less critical. The bible is accurate enough to communicate with ease any and all knowledge God requires. The devine nature and source of revelation would prohibit a sinful prophets sin to effect the revelation. God guarantied the accuracy of revelation. Again to claim any different is to call God a liar which is a choice we are allowed to make but which cannot be justified.

Not looking to call God a liar. Just trying to determine who if anyone has the authority to speak on God's behalf.

 

[1robin]

yet there is absolutely no historicity of moses or abraham....in any archeological findings. none. :sorry1:
and the timing of the census is off a bit...
or if jesus came only for the lost tribe of israel or not
or if one is to prove their faith by drinking poison
or if one or both of the criminals were mocking jesus
of if jesus was dead for 3 days or just 1 and a half
or if jesus was scared to go to the cross or confident of his destiny
or if zombies were actually walking around after jesus breathed his last
of if a 3 hour eclipse actually did occur
and how did they know when jesus died the curtain ripped in 2...close circuit TV?
yes...ambiguous.
fyi, open mind =/= indoctrination.

How is ignoreing a ton of evidence but instead listing a few areas where you want something that you didn't find a valid argument? I have noticed a trend in biblical critics. If a bible defender supplies 100 examples of concrete evidence. If the critic can find one ambiguity or issue that sometimes even comes from their lack of knowledge they list the example ignore the other 99 with no problems and declare victoy.

I will look into your Moses and Abraham claim.
The Abraham one is not that supriseing but I would think Moses would have left some evidence.
2. This is a doctrtinal issue not a historic one and therefore not what I was talking about. However I believe his earthly ministry was primarily (maybe exclusively) for the Jews but his priesthood that he aquired by his resurrection is for all. No matter what the answer is, it is not the kind of verifiable historical claim that we were discussing.
3. That poison story isn't ment to be literal. That's just silly. I have heard a very good commentary on that verse but can't remember it accurately enough write it here.
4. Don't remember. It could easily be explained by the different perspectives and events listed in the gospels. Both claims could be true at different times. From my unsure memory I think only one did. Again this is not what we were discussing and is another issue.
5. This is a popular one. If you know that any part of a day is considered as a whole day in the Hebrew culture of the time then there is no issue here. This same issue appears several times in the bible.
6. This is another one where both realities could be valid. He was 100% man and 100% God (even though he voluntarily relinquished much of his Godly Characteristics) Many theologans say that his humanity was in anguish and doubt but his devine nature was confident. In my opinion he could have been one then the other at different times.
7. Zombies that's a good one. I have no opinion I just accept it on faith. It has no bearing on anything unless it could be shown to be false.
8. Actually I believe there is an extra biblical source or two that record the eclipse.
9. It is called two people remebering what time it was when something happened.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. If the bible was inaccurate then there should be all kinds of towns out of place, thousands of prophecies that didn't happen, dates that are wrong etc.....that are all easily shown to cotradict the bible. You supplied some extraordinary claims alright but no actual contradictory concrete facts that disprove them. I would not expect you to accept the "zombies" because the bible says so unless you actually check into the thousands of verifiable claims and the bible is found accurate first. Even then I would understand reluctance to claim zombies as factual. I have dobts as well but they are not concerning well attested things found in a reliable bible like the existance of Jesus and the ressurection. I answered your points from my memory and did not do the research because I don't understand why you listed them. They seem out of context if I remember the discussion correctly. If you desire I will really dig into one or two if you tell me why. Have you seen where they found what they claim is a bone box with the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" I am skeptical of things like this but have not spent much time verifying it but it looked at first glance to be authentic, it might be interesting to check out.

 

[1robin]

I think it reasonable to accept at least with the NT the adequate transition of scripture. This from my own investigation. I only mentioned it so it wouldn't be a point of contention.

Very well. If you find it reliable why have you not commited your life to Christ by accepting him as savior and being born again. I am not pressureing you or critisizing you in any way. I honestly am curious. I am assuming from your posts that you are not born again. If you find this too personal or uncomfortable then please feel free to ignore it.

First of all I have to understand the prophecy. Not being a prophet myself I don't assume much authority in that regard. I've found me relying on "What the heck I think it means" problematic. Maybe if I find a source/teacher to be trustworthy that'll change.

I do not claim Mathew Henries commentary devinely inspired but it is the most universally thought to be reliable.

There were 12 appointed by Jesus. Anything beyond that is assumption. Makes sense these would be the most reliable source of his teachings.

They were all the original 12 except for Paul and James unless I am forgetting someone. Paul who wrote the majority of the new testament was appointed his apostleship directly by the risen Christ and his testimony was accepted by all the other apostles. He is my favorite.

I'll keep an open mind. If I come across an argument persuasive enough. I'll look into it.

There are many books devoted to this. You can compare their presentation of the prophecies with the bible and the commentaries and should be able to feel pretty certain about their claims. My only advise would be to definately do anything you can to arrive at a decision. Whatever it takes. I one time threw my Tv and VCR into the lake by my apt and spent a year reading the bible or books about the bible. The only wrong action is inaction. And misspelling, and in that case I am in trouble.

Then it would seem one's diligence is important. The other necessities will hopefully take care themselves.

I found that to be the case personally. The way I always describe it to people who ask. I got 90% of the way to my salvation experience by my own effort through relentless study. The last 10% was all God. When I say relentless study I mean it. It might require you to turn off the TV or put down other books. Any sacrifice that would result in eternal life would be worth it.

I'm not looking to be a hero. Just trying to go forth as honestly as I can in life.

I can tell you are a very reasonable and open minded person. You have a humility and respectful attitude that is refreshing. My point about the Hero lines was to illustrate the danger in neutrality.

Not looking to call God a liar. Just trying to determine who if anyone has the authority to speak on God's behalf.

I know that you don't make statements with the intention of contradicting God. I was trying to illustrate what his point of view might resemble. The other factor along with my study that made the most difference was the personal examples of dedicated Christians. Most Christians are not shining examples of their faith. G.K Chesterton replied when someone asked him what was wrong with Christianity, " I am , very respectfully G.K. Chesterton." However obedient Christians can be found who have an obvious unusually honorable character. People like this made a big difference in my faith.

 

[waitasec]

How is ignoreing a ton of evidence but instead listing a few areas where you want something that you didn't find a valid argument? I have noticed a trend in biblical critics. If a bible defender supplies 100 examples of concrete evidence. If the critic can find one ambiguity or issue that sometimes even comes from their lack of knowledge they list the example ignore the other 99 with no problems and declare victoy.

I will look into your Moses and Abraham claim.
The Abraham one is not that supriseing but I would think Moses would have left some evidence.
2. This is a doctrtinal issue not a historic one and therefore not what I was talking about. However I believe his earthly ministry was primarily (maybe exclusively) for the Jews but his priesthood that he aquired by his resurrection is for all. No matter what the answer is, it is not the kind of verifiable historical claim that we were discussing.
3. That poison story isn't ment to be literal. That's just silly. I have heard a very good commentary on that verse but can't remember it accurately enough write it here.
4. Don't remember. It could easily be explained by the different perspectives and events listed in the gospels. Both claims could be true at different times. From my unsure memory I think only one did. Again this is not what we were discussing and is another issue.
5. This is a popular one. If you know that any part of a day is considered as a whole day in the Hebrew culture of the time then there is no issue here. This same issue appears several times in the bible.
6. This is another one where both realities could be valid. He was 100% man and 100% God (even though he voluntarily relinquished much of his Godly Characteristics) Many theologans say that his humanity was in anguish and doubt but his devine nature was confident. In my opinion he could have been one then the other at different times.
7. Zombies that's a good one. I have no opinion I just accept it on faith. It has no bearing on anything unless it could be shown to be false.
8. Actually I believe there is an extra biblical source or two that record the eclipse.
9. It is called two people remebering what time it was when something happened.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. If the bible was inaccurate then there should be all kinds of towns out of place, thousands of prophecies that didn't happen, dates that are wrong etc.....that are all easily shown to cotradict the bible. You supplied some extraordinary claims alright but no actual contradictory concrete facts that disprove them. I would not expect you to accept the "zombies" because the bible says so unless you actually check into the thousands of verifiable claims and the bible is found accurate first. Even then I would understand reluctance to claim zombies as factual. I have dobts as well but they are not concerning well attested things found in a reliable bible like the existance of Jesus and the ressurection. I answered your points from my memory and did not do the research because I don't understand why you listed them. They seem out of context if I remember the discussion correctly. If you desire I will really dig into one or two if you tell me why. Have you seen where they found what they claim is a bone box with the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" I am skeptical of things like this but have not spent much time verifying it but it looked at first glance to be authentic, it might be interesting to check out.

all i'm saying is that the bible is very ambiguous. hence the many many interpretations...

 

[1robin]

all i'm saying is that the bible is very ambiguous. hence the many many interpretations...

I would have to agree to some extent. However do you think a book written over thousands of years that deals with the most devisive, contentious, personal, profound, and mysterious events and subjects that by it's own nature is restricted from provideing absolute proof for it's most controversial claims would have no opposition or missunderstandings surrounding it.

The way I always think of it is this.

If you are open to and are honestly searching for the truth there is more than enough evidence to make a decision on. Billions have.

If you have some wordview that makes you resistant to the concept of God even if you don't realise it then once again you can find plenty of reasons to justify unbelief.

It almost seems designed this way. So the issue actually is your and my presuppositions, humility, and the condition of our hearts not the evidence its self.

 

[waitasec]

I would have to agree to some extent. However do you think a book written over thousands of years that deals with the most devisive, contentious, personal, profound, and mysterious events and subjects that by it's own nature is restricted from provideing absolute proof for it's most controversial claims would have no opposition or missunderstandings surrounding it.

The way I always think of it is this.

If you are open to and are honestly searching for the truth there is more than enough evidence to make a decision on. Billions have.

If you have some wordview that makes you resistant to the concept of God even if you don't realise it then once again you can find plenty of reasons to justify unbelief.

you can find plenty of reasons to justify belief too...
fyi, i'm not resisting anything, that is a preconceived notion you hold.

It almost seems designed this way.

do you believe in destiny?

So the issue actually is your and my presuppositions, humility, and the condition of our hearts not the evidence its self.

when it comes to applying attributes to god, evidence is so underrated.

 

[1robin]

you can find plenty of reasons to justify belief too...
fyi, i'm not resisting anything, that is a preconceived notion you hold.

I didn't ask or assign you to a category. I was making a generic observation.

do you believe in destiny?

I believe I am destined to answer yes. Actually I believe there is such a thing but maybe it's not universal.

when it comes to applying attributes to god, evidence is so underrated.

Wisecracker, actually when evaluating God it is necessary only to incorporate his characteristics he has revealed. In other news his attributes are indicated in other more concrete ways. For example his attributes are the exact ones considered necessary for whatever created the universe. They were written in the bible way before man figured out that those were the necessary requirements for any first cause.There are many other ways to derive a certain amount of confidence or evidence for God's attributes. Do you ever use philosophy to evaluate God, these things are apparent if you have. Forgive me if I should have known better than ask this because you have already answered it.

 

[Oryonder]

There is far more information that attests to Christianity than any other religion. I will give you an example: Just take the holy books themselves. Compare the bible to the quran. The Quran has one author and was written over about 23 years. It contains no prohecies worth the label, contains verses out of gnostic texts, makes many mistakes concerning events that the bible recorded many years earlier, and makes many scientific mistakes, etc..... The quran is spread by violence to a great extent. The bible is written over several thousand years (and somehow maintaines a consistent theme) by approx 40 authors. records many miracles and prophecies witnessed by hundreds, has borrowed no text from uninspired sources, has not been shown to make any claim that has been proven wrong, etc.....The bible is not propegated by violence by and large (it has been unjustly missused for violence). It has even gained followers during times of great persecution. It was compiled using great scrutiny and care by many scholars. The quran was dictated by one man who's first thoughts after the revelation was that he was possessed.

The quran is the next most likely to be true religion, the desparity is even greater between other religions.

What first bible are you talking about concerning Mark.

My NIV bible lists the authors of the Gospels. Are you qualified to dispute the scholars that produced it? Even if true is one gospel that doesn't mention something proof where three that do mention something are not?

What, Paul said he met the risen Christ on the way to Demascus.

The time gap between events and the recording of them in the bible is debatebly much sooner than you state but even your timeframe is shorter than any other work in ancient history. For instance Thucydides peloponesian war has a gap of a thousand years yet it is considered very reliable.

You are forgetting history. There was likely far more written about other religions than for Christianity .. The reason we do not have these writing is because the Christians destroyed them.

Paul did not meet the risen Christ. Paul had a vision and even the Biblical accounts give 3 different versions fo the story.

There is almost no information on the life of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus in the writings of Paul. The least Paul could have done was recounted some of the stories of the life of Jesus but he did not even do that.

The fact that Paul did not record any stories of Jesus for us is more evidence that these stories were written after Paul rather than supporting Matt, Mark, Luke.

It is understandable that Paul would not be aware of the aforementioned gospels because they had not yet been written but would he not have known at least of any of the stories ?

Pauls message deviates so widely from that of Jesus and James that it is hard to believe that Paul was anything other than a rogue religious person who had his own agenda much like may of the televangelists of today.

Im not sure where you are getting this "consistent theme" idea because the Bible is anything but consistent nor was it written over thousands of years. The OT was written in roughly 400 BC and the NT was mostly written by 250 AD.

The Israelites of the OT prior to the Babylonian Captivity did not think much of Yahweh and believed in sacrificing children to their various Gods which consisted mostly of El (the father), Asherah ( El's consort/wife) and Baal (the son).

It was not until the Persians that the Jews adopted monotheism and gave up on human sacrifice. This was because the Persians were monotheistic (Zoroastrianism) and detested human sacrifice. Judaism was transformed into its current form on the basis of adopting the religious beliefs of the Persians.

Isaiah 45 even claims that King Cyrus was "annointed by God" to subdue nations.

The Persians were the world empire and they freed the Jews from the grasp of the Babylonians so it is no wonder they thought the Persian king was annointed by God and that God was giving them a second chance. Obviously if the Perisan king was "annointed by God" his religion must be the correct one and Judaism adopted it (including the Genesis creation story) lock stock and barrel.