Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[Confused]

Hello Confused, Zzy, Cathar, Joey and all on this thread. Good Will to you all. Season's Greeting!

Nice to see you again Joer.

Now, I know many people can make comparisons between other historical figures and show inconsistencies, etc..... but I am not asking about other historical figures like Alexander the Great. I am asking for specifics in the Bible.

My Point about this is, that History is not a positively accurate science. While you may not be interested in errors and inconsistencies ABOUT the History of Alexander the Great as reported by Historians with different POV’s.

I am aware of inconsistencies in accounts of historical figures, yes. My only point was not to compare them to those with Jesus and who/what He was. Two completely different issues.

My argument at this point in the thread was that it was unreasonable for those requiring proof of Historical events or personages to EXPECT that Historical Proof to be of a higher caliber than Historically possible. History has errors, inaccuracies, exaggerations, inconsistencies controversies and POV’s. It’s not logical or rational to expect the History of Biblical events, characters, people, places and things to be any different. Within this thread Joey and Zzy to a limited extent acknowledged that and than Zzy suggested a focus on Jesus’ teaching and created a new thread.

On the contrary, I am not asking for anything more than I would any historical event/figure. I am not even asking for anything supernatural to be proved. Jester brought up the red sea and the results for which are really highly unfavorable for it being "The Parting of the Red Sea". Even as such, proving the Red Sea existed doesn't offer proof that Moses led all those Jews through it by means of the water parting.

As for the teaching of Jesus, I have yet to hear of what He taught. One person says He taught love, another taught that father would turn against son, etc..... violence, not love. So I am not so sure it is the what was taught so much as the validity that Jesus did indeed teach it, the Jesus as described in the NT.

So I contend that I have answered every point of your OP to highest historical standard extant. If I haven’t, please let me know where I am lacking and what evidence do you present to prove my position holds no merrit.

No, you haven't. You have addressed what others have posted, but not what I asked in my OP. You refute others issues, but present me with no evidence of events that are said to have occurred. Natural or supernatural.

Forgive the omitting of much of your post, but they were just that, refutes of others posts. Not addressing the OP.

Peace be with ALL of you and may Your New Year bring solutions and Hope for a Better Future for ourselves and ALL humankind.

Many blessing to you and yours for not only the holidays, but all the other days in the year as well.

[Confused]

I disagree. If these historical events occurred in specific places, then we should find some trace of the event. Archaeological, paleontology, etc... something. Anything that would justify the occurrence of these historical events recorded in scripture. Feel free to use the writers of the Christian bible to tell of the event, but find me some proof that the event happened. Not even specifically referring to anything supernatural. Just historical events. Battles, plagues, etc......

Okay, I'll agree that many of the events described in the Old Testament should have left behind some evidence. Some groups have made claims to findings such as Ron Wyatt's claim of locating the Red Sea Crossing. I'm not sure that the same types of archeology applies to the New Testament, however, given the nature of the events.

I am always amazed at how we can find items, bones, etc. dating back over 4,000 years but we can't find anything to validate "historical" accounts in the OT or the NT. Now before anyone jumps on the validity of dating methods, this thread is not intended to address those. I make this comment because for all the ancient civilizations we find materials, bones, structures, etc... yet, we cannot find any traces that validate events of the OT. Why?

Please don't take this tailspin into the validity of another author. I couldn't care less what Josephus wrote. Even if they were later insertion, it doesn't matter. It doesn't speak of any historical event aside from a brief mentioning of a man crucified and those who followed him. ....

I'll agree that it doesn't speak much about specifics, but I would assert that this does establish that these were the beliefs of the Christians even in the view of a Jewish scholar. This is significant in that it is not uncommon on this site for individuals to argue that there was a vast gap between what the Jewish Christians believed, and the beliefs of the churches founded by Paul. I mentioned it as an example of someone who had access to the Jewish version of the story agreeing that there was, in fact a consensus about the mundane events of Christ's life.

If, of course, we are arguing that this was the story circulating within Jewish areas, and even among scholars who would have had access to people in Jerusalem, it is very difficult to argue with the idea that the resurrection story was accepted by many of those who lived in Jerusalem (who would have been in a good position to validate the claims).

They validate what we already know, a man named "Christus" was crucified and had a gathering of followers. That is all (the watered down version of course). Either way, that is second hand, at best, hearsay. Hardly concrete evidence considering how easy one charismatic leader can convince a group to kill for him or to commit suicide today. And conditions were worse with more "supernatural" thoughts prevailing back then. I doubt sociopaths are a new addition to mankind. I am certain they existed then as well. (Please note, I am not trying to state Jesus was a sociopath, just giving a reference point).

As for the mundane aspects of the life of Jesus, I don't really care what theological historians care to reach consensus about. They are not a part of the OT or the NT.

[Jester]

I am always amazed at how we can find items, bones, etc. dating back over 4,000 years but we can't find anything to validate "historical" accounts in the OT or the NT. Now before anyone jumps on the validity of dating methods, this thread is not intended to address those. I make this comment because for all the ancient civilizations we find materials, bones, structures, etc... yet, we cannot find any traces that validate events of the OT. Why?

I'd say that this is due to the nature of the events and the short time span we are discussing. Finding one bone from 4,000 years ago from one person in China is a reasonable task, finding the bones of one of Confucius' students, or a direct piece of historical data that he actually had students (outside of the fact that some people claimed to have been his students) is, in practical terms, impossible.

I agree that the events of the New Testament are a bit different, but I'd argue that they are more in this category than a war or dynasty would be. These are particular events surrounding a relatively small group of people, none of whom were influential. Basically, my question here would be: What, exactly, would you expect to find in the event that the New Testament is basically true?

Personally, I'd expect to find what we find for nearly every event in history - that someone wrote about it. The document can still be criticized, of course, but not on the grounds that we don't have a direct artifact that testifies to its truth.

They validate what we already know, a man named "Christus" was crucified and had a gathering of followers. That is all (the watered down version of course). Either way, that is second hand, at best, hearsay.

I'd say it at worst hearsay. At best, it's true. The important matter is that the more we validate these basic mundane facts, the more we validate the classic "lord, liar, or lunatic" apologetic (which is solid unless the validity of these mundane claims are brought into question).

Hardly concrete evidence considering how easy one charismatic leader can convince a group to kill for him or to commit suicide today. And conditions were worse with more "supernatural" thoughts prevailing back then.

I do believe, however, that the cultural prejudices against Christianity should be considered here. Yes, nearly everyone at this time was deeply religious. One consequence of this fact in Israel, however, was the degree to which the culture of the time rejected any notion that a person could be God, or the son of God. This was completely opposed to their understanding.
In the modern era, we have a more diversified culture, meaning that there are at least a few people in any city which represent nearly any given belief. This would mean that a charismatic leader would have an easier time claiming something drastically different from majority opinion in this culture than among first century Jews. While I personally consider that to be a good thing, it works against the notion that Christ could have charmed his followers in this way.

I doubt sociopaths are a new addition to mankind. I am certain they existed then as well. (Please note, I am not trying to state Jesus was a sociopath, just giving a reference point).

Didn't even cross my mind, actually. That doesn't sound very much like you.

As for the mundane aspects of the life of Jesus, I don't really care what theological historians care to reach consensus about. They are not a part of the OT or the NT.

I suppose I've already babbled on about that, but did want to add that I believe them to be a part of the New Testament. Not nearly so sensational or controversial, but important nonetheless.

And, since I haven't done so in a while, may I send you best wishes quite apart from any point in debate? I hope Florida is treating you well.

[joer]

Joey wrote:

In light of Joer's overall position here, I will accept the use of the word truth in what I consider the believer's use of the term. I accept Jesus at least thought He was speaking truth.

I like the way you think joey. To me it demonstrates a simplicity of using logic and reason in it’s simplest and least complex form. It shows a lot of common sense. I like that approach. It shows me a very high standard or personal integrity to maintain a personal opinion based on the material presented. It responds to the material in the most honest and candid form giving it validation of existence and maintaining your integrity of perception.

I love the precise wording that goes far enough to validate while NOT claiming Truth by Proof. It opens the door for the possibility for either position to be True without claiming either IS TRUE. At the same time. I like the clarity of nuances you place on the extent of how far the validity goes. Limiting it from being presumed to be True or accepting it as such without proof. It’s seems like a VERY REAL and HONEST presentation of perception joey and I appreciate that.

Like this statement of joeys:

My purpose as an atheist would be to dissuade folks from believing fantastical claims that have no rational, logical basis for a rational, logical person to believe them.

I like this joey. You don’t just come out and say as a fundamentalist might, this true, it’s the only truth and there’s no other way to rationally or logically see the truth. Any other way would be fantasy.

You qualify your statements. You give them a measured amount of validity. “My purpose�, That is a very powerful way of qualifying a statement. Assuming total ownership for it and presenting it as a personal value. “My Purpose� an intent, a value of importance but not immutable. Someone’s “Purpose� can and does change. But your Purpose is not an immutable “FACT�. Hard and Sound and unmovable. Your “Purpose� is much more valuable than any hard and fast “fact� because it is a personal statement of the validation of your being and existence. “Your Purpose�.

It may seem so insignificant to many but it is so powerful to me because it has the ability to ADAPT to the TRUTH. Because it is not Hard and Fast tied to a single definition or meaning, it has the flexibility to adjust to the Truth as it becomes known to the individual.

IMHO the Absolute Truth is unknowable to us. We can only approach it in our capacity to adapt to knowing the truth by the evolution and expansion of our knowledge and understanding. AND BY our personal and wholly unique manner of “seeing� that knowledge and experience of the Truth.

IMHO Joey has an ATTITUDE (another personal attribute) toward the Truth that will allow him to approach in greater and greater depth as he evolves and matures in accumulated knowledge and wisdom. We all have the same opportunity to exercise those personal attributes as they exist in us. But it’s a joy to me seeing Joey Knuccione evaluating the data presented for any portion of truth it may contain.

I do want to get into Jesus’ teachings in response to you, Zzy’s and Confused’s request. I believe you are exactly right about the supernatural events, there’s no way to prove them logically or rationally, but you can find evidence that people believe them to be true. Which brings me to a question about you choice of words in this statement.

Ok Joey this statement makes prefect sense precisely because you state your purpose as an atheist.

My purpose as an atheist would be to dissuade folks from believing fantastical claims that have no rational, logical basis for a rational, logical person to believe them.

My question is about the use of the words “Believed� and “believe�. Somehow they throw me off because I think of them being used by believers who don’t based their belief in those supernatural events on Logic and Reason but Faith.

Somehow the words of "belief" seem to me to lack the conviction necessary for "the powerfulness" your statement. It may be a left over reservation on my part developed from OnceConvinced's thread on "Belief and Faith".[/b] I’m trying to think of what words would sound more consistent to me. I think maybe instead of "believing fantastical" maybe "being convicted of fantastical". And instead of for a "logical person to believe them" I might expect, for a "logical person to find a basis in them."

Anyway I'm not making a statement that your view is wrong. I just get thrown off by your use of derivative words of "belief". I do appreciate what your saying.

Now to contrast your statement with the "logic" of a believer, I would say you are absolutely right that those "fantastical claims that have no rational, logical basis" in an outwardly physical material quantifiable world reality, they do behave rationally and logically in a fantastical reality based on "Faith" of an inward reality based on an understanding of a materially undefined reality of a personal experience of spiritually knowing. That reality is totally rejected by the materialist atheist's world view, BUT is the foundation of the believer's Faith.

I don't know how to resolve those differences in the realities they (the believer and non-believer) hold true. But it is certainly not for lack of trying.

Good Will to you brother joey.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 21 Post 23

>Great Post<

Right or wrong. I can't help the observer decide one way or the other.
-----------------
From Page 21 Post 23

I believe you are exactly right about the supernatural events, there’s no way to prove them logically or rationally, but you can find evidence that people believe them to be true. Which brings me to a question about you choice of words in this statement.

I don't doubt that folks believe some of the more 'fantastical' claims, I just doubt they actually occured.

My purpose as an atheist would be to dissuade folks from believing fantastical claims that have no rational, logical basis for a rational, logical person to believe them.

My question is about the use of the words “Believed� and “believe�. Somehow they throw me off because I think of them being used by believers who don’t based their belief in those supernatural events on Logic and Reason but Faith.

I could have been a bit more clear:
My purpose as an atheist would be to disuade folks from just blindly believing fantastical claims...or Joer's use of 'convinced of'. If someone has a reason, outside of the claim, then I would consider they have done so 'reasonably'. Instead of "Wow, this claim is fantastical, it must be true", I would prefer, "Since Jesus is divine (due to 'X'), it follows He could do 'divine' works." While I still reject these events occurred, I would much rather if someone believed them, they would do so with 'secondary' evidence.
I also concede my 'material world view' somewhat, if not wholly, could or would restrict my ability to recognize a 'miracle' if it jumped up and bit me.

...a personal experience of spiritually knowing...

I could only offer alternative explanaitions for 'spirituality' in humans, and could never completely disprove 'spiritual/ness' as real. I may miss pointing this out in a given reply, but if asked I would quickly concede anything I say could be wrong. And I hope I would be seen as really meaning it, and not just 'spitting it out'.

I don't know how to resolve those differences in the realities they (the believer and non-believer) hold true. But it is certainly not for lack of trying.

I think the important thing is to realize a given position could be wrong, and so we should all seek to try to get along with one another (as Joer is so capable of doing). Debate, do it aggressively and with vigor, but never forget we are all humans. We could very well be all of us wrong.

Peace to you Jester, and Joer, I appreciate y'alls presence in these forums. You set a great example for understanding and caring for one another. Not that I do, but I'm trying to get there.

[joer]

Nice to see you again Joer.

Thank You Confused. The feeling is mutual.

I am aware of inconsistencies in accounts of historical figures, yes. My only point was not to compare them to those with Jesus and who/what He was. Two completely different issues.

Point well taken and understood.

My intention wasn’t to compare them, only to point out that many inconstancies exist in both cases based on the limitations of historical analysis. And it would be illogical to accept the historical reality with these inconsistencies on the one hand while rejecting it based on those historical inconsistencies on the other.

On the contrary, I am not asking for anything more than I would any historical event/figure. I am not even asking for anything supernatural to be proved

Understood.

True, and as you stated, as the water parting would be a supernatural event, so you’re “not even asking for anything supernatural to be proved.� Right?

As for the teaching of Jesus, I have yet to hear of what He taught.

That’s coming.

So I am not so sure it is the what was taught so much as the validity that Jesus did indeed teach it, the Jesus as described in the NT.

I understand what you’re saying and this is where my point of historical reporting standards comes in. Historically it’s impossible to prove what He (Jesus) taught beyond a shadow of a doubt. But it is possible based of the reality of historical reporting standards however erroneous and inconsistent they might be that he did exist and he did teach something. So based on the historical reporting how ever inaccurate and vague it may be, historical and literary analysis of the written histories can be evaluated and educated guesses assumptions used as a standard of historical analysis can be made.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago there was an active thread, rich in discussion about the veracity of the Bible. I share it here because even than I was trying to guide us away from “Literal� interpretations in supporting and refuting Biblical claims and focus more on the historical and literary analysis and interpretations of those claims. Here’s a part of a post from that discussion:

The Bible is not the word of God
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7511#57511

The Bible is often referred to as the Word of God. But seldom is that concept contemplated. What is the Word of God? The simple answer is “The Bible�. But unfortunately that would be untrue. The Word of God is much more than just “the Bible�. The Word of God has to do with an understanding of the concepts of
Inspiration,
Revelation,
Literary Genres in the Bible
The Parable
The Allegory
The Beast fable
The Short Story and Historical Novel
The Problem Story
The Speech as a Literary Device
Conditioned Thought Patterns
Sacred Writings vs. Inspired Writings
Poems in the Bible
The Prophets
Atonement Theory and Vicarious Suffering
Hebrew Philosophy
The Gospels
Apocalyptic Literature

How do you know what it is you are dealing with? Informed References.
Understanding the Situation

Your interaction with and understanding of the Bible forms the Word of God to you Today!
Jesus Christ - “The Word made Flesh� – “The Living Word of God�

To many people try to Live off the words themselves, dictionary definitions and the like. But if you read it after you have a good understanding of the previous concepts it’s much more meaningful.

Now McCulloch’s favorite bible in the New American Bible as is mine. And all these ideas and more are in my edition. There’s a historical and literary analysis before each major division and book. So it brings you much more in touch with who actually wrote it and the literary and historical context and events occurring at the time of the writing. So it really improves the understanding and meaning of the writing.

I found out later that I was mistaken, McCulloch’s favorite Bible for references for these discussions did differ from mine.

When you do look at the Bible as an historical and literary document and interpret things based on an analysis of the writings, you get what I would term a more “REAL� though less literal understanding of the meanings and intentions of conveying those meanings by the actual but unproven people who wrote them.

So while you want factual and literal proof Confused, of Jesus’ teachings, to the believer it’s the meaning and value of those purported teachings that are more important than the historically unrealistic irrefutable “proof� that “he taught and what he taught.� When we evaluate the impact of events on our lives is the “irrefutable proof� of the event, that it took place and what the content was, or the effect it had on us personally that we hold close to our hearts?

So we come to the teachings purported to have come from Jesus. Is the proof of what he taught and that he taught it more important than the value of those purported teachings to our lives today?

Isn’t the value accrued from the story of Jesus and His Teachings enough? If Jesus never existed and you threw out everything from the story that didn’t make sense literally or analytically, isn’t there value in the teaching that Love is deity and that we are ALL brothers and sisters, and that we shouldn’t lie, steal or kill one another. And that we should be kind to one another and the help the less fortunate. I mean even if it could never be proven that Jesus existed when and how he purportedly did, and taught what he purportedly taught, shouldn’t there be an idealized figure or something that represents the potential of what we could be as human beings? Real or fictional what difference does it make if it improves us as humankind?

If it’s the right thing to do, we should do it and find whatever reality exists that will support it. IMHO.

joer wrote:

So I contend that I have answered every point of your OP to highest historical standard extant. If I haven’t, please let me know where I am lacking and what evidence do you present to prove my position holds no merrit.

No, you haven't. You have addressed what others have posted, but not what I asked in my OP.

Well I won’t argue that point anymore. Let me see if I can find more acceptable evidence that Jesus taught something. I guess teaching is an event. Right?

Good Will and good intentions to all here.

[joer]

From Page 21 Post 23

>Great Post<

Right or wrong. I can't help the observer decide one way or the other.
-----------------
From Page 21 Post 23

I believe you are exactly right about the supernatural events, there’s no way to prove them logically or rationally, but you can find evidence that people believe them to be true. Which brings me to a question about you choice of words in this statement.

I don't doubt that folks believe some of the more 'fantastical' claims, I just doubt they actually occured.

My purpose as an atheist would be to dissuade folks from believing fantastical claims that have no rational, logical basis for a rational, logical person to believe them.

My question is about the use of the words “Believed� and “believe�. Somehow they throw me off because I think of them being used by believers who don’t based their belief in those supernatural events on Logic and Reason but Faith.

I could have been a bit more clear:
My purpose as an atheist would be to disuade folks from just blindly believing fantastical claims...or Joer's use of 'convinced of'. If someone has a reason, outside of the claim, then I would consider they have done so 'reasonably'. Instead of "Wow, this claim is fantastical, it must be true", I would prefer, "Since Jesus is divine (due to 'X'), it follows He could do 'divine' works." While I still reject these events occurred, I would much rather if someone believed them, they would do so with 'secondary' evidence.
I also concede my 'material world view' somewhat, if not wholly, could or would restrict my ability to recognize a 'miracle' if it jumped up and bit me.

...a personal experience of spiritually knowing...

I could only offer alternative explanaitions for 'spirituality' in humans, and could never completely disprove 'spiritual/ness' as real. I may miss pointing this out in a given reply, but if asked I would quickly concede anything I say could be wrong. And I hope I would be seen as really meaning it, and not just 'spitting it out'.

I don't know how to resolve those differences in the realities they (the believer and non-believer) hold true. But it is certainly not for lack of trying.

I think the important thing is to realize a given position could be wrong, and so we should all seek to try to get along with one another (as Joer is so capable of doing). Debate, do it aggressively and with vigor, but never forget we are all humans. We could very well be all of us wrong.

Peace to you Jester, and Joer, I appreciate y'alls presence in these forums. You set a great example for understanding and caring for one another. Not that I do, but I'm trying to get there.

Excellent Post Joey. I like how you retain openness to ideas concepts and opinions while maintaining the integrity of your position without being threaten by other's beliefs and entertaining the possibility of, "We could very well be all of us wrong."

Peace to you Jester, and Joer, I appreciate y'alls presence in these forums. You set a great example for understanding and caring for one another. Not that I do, but I'm trying to get there

I have no doubt of your civility Joey. And I appreciate it. I'll see if I can find some of those secondary sources.

Here's a few links that expound on the theme I've been presenting that while historical methodology doesn't prove fantastical events it does provide historical evidence of certain things to the standard of historical methods and analysis. For example Confused asked for evidence that Jesus was a teacher and of what he taught. Here in accordance to historical standards, that evidence is given, that he was in fact a Jewish teacher and taught about healing and the Kingdom of God.

And the specifically in event of the money changers in the temple it states "This event satisfies the criterion of multiple attestation, and scholars of the historical Jesus generally credit this event as genuine and associate it with Jesus' arrest and crucifixion."

So I maintain that I have met her request according to the parameters she set forth.

Historicity of Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Historical Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Jesus and history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_history

Jesus and the money changers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_ ... y_changers

I will look for historical evidence of other events and teachings of Jesus. I still maintain that the value of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are not weather or not it can be proved that he teacher or taught things, But the self evident truth and value that they contain within them, regardless of their verifiable source.

Peace to all here.

[Zzyzx]

.
Joer,

If this was ALL that is claimed for Jesus there would be little opposition.

I still maintain that the value of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are not weather or not it can be proved that he teacher or taught things, But the self evident truth and value that they contain within them, regardless of their verifiable source.

It is the claim of "divinity" and the tales of "miracles" and "resurrection" that run afoul of evidence and reason.

If the focus of Jesus' followers was upon the teachings attributed to him, they would not be derailed attempting to "explain" or "prove" fantastic / incredible claims of supernaturalism.

Of course, without divinity, miracles and resurrection there is no reason to "worship" Jesus any more than any other influential figures from the past – which removes the "reason to be" of one of the major organized, commercial religions and the infrastructure that it has created based upon convincing worshipers to believe the proposed "divinity of Christ".

Many other figures from the past (real or mythical) taught things of value – including Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, and Quetzaquotal. Great teachers are not unknown in real life – "gods" are unknown in real life.

[Easyrider]

.
Joer,

If this was ALL that is claimed for Jesus there would be little opposition.

I still maintain that the value of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are not weather or not it can be proved that he teacher or taught things, But the self evident truth and value that they contain within them, regardless of their verifiable source.

It is the claim of "divinity" and the tales of "miracles" and "resurrection" that run afoul of evidence and reason.

You're a minority with that opinion.

.
Many other figures from the past (real or mythical) taught things of value – including Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, and Quetzaquotal. Great teachers are not unknown in real life – "gods" are unknown in real life.

They're in the box. Jesus is Risen.

[FinalEnigma]

.
Joer,

If this was ALL that is claimed for Jesus there would be little opposition.

I still maintain that the value of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are not weather or not it can be proved that he teacher or taught things, But the self evident truth and value that they contain within them, regardless of their verifiable source.

It is the claim of "divinity" and the tales of "miracles" and "resurrection" that run afoul of evidence and reason.

You're a minority with that opinion.

That completely irrelevant(popularity of an idea does not make it correct), not an argument, and also untrue, as there are more non-christians than christians.

.
Many other figures from the past (real or mythical) taught things of value – including Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, and Quetzaquotal. Great teachers are not unknown in real life – "gods" are unknown in real life.

They're in the box. Jesus is Risen.

Flat statements like that with nothing backing them up are completely useless when speaking to people who don't agree with you. to demonstrate-

No he isnt.

That is exactly as compelling of an argument