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.

[FinalEnigma]

Normally I wouldn't respond to something quite so off topic, when the underlying issue was already dealt with by a moderator, but seeing as you spent an entire screen worth of text talking about how inappropriate I was being I felt the need to defend myself.

Easyrider wrote:

You're a minority with that opinion.

FinalEnigma wrote:

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.

Unfortunately when we all make non-specific general statements it offers the opposition to imply a meaning that may or may not have been intended.

As in this case We really don’t KNOW what minority opinion Easyrider is referring to. Then FinalEnigma makes another vague general statement in which he an assumption that implies Easyrider was referring to ALL non-christians. And by assumption and implication of what Easyrider meant makes a generalized statement without knowing Easyrider’s true intent or meaning of his statement that it is “untrue�.

Need I establish a lengthy block of text to disagree with someone who posts two sentences? I could have gone on to state the incredibly obvious at great length in the manner of yourself, but I felt it was needless as my point was quite clear, and, though briefly, I explained my statements.

Now this leave’s an opening for others eager to increase the validity of their opinion weather it’s in a minority or not while casting doubt on the arguments of the opposition without much effort jumping on the bandwagon of disparagement.

I don't think it was my intent to increase the validity of my opinion as expressed in a thread I don't believe I had ever posted in.

It happens both ways in many debates here. But we should recognize that these tit for tat’s don’t add much to recognition of truths on either side of the argument as McCulloch’s moderator statement quickly caught, but others couldn’t avoid taking the opportunity of a cheap shot on such vague statements. I’m not criticizing pre se because I’m guilty of the same thing if not here, then other threads. But I recognize when we get caught up in that type posting while it might break some monotony, it doesn’t do much to advance us in thought and understanding.

This would be a relevant statement if I had seen McC's post however, as it was on the page after mine, that would have been difficult. As it is, this paragraph is a fair attempt to make me look bad.

Also, I don't tend to disagree with people to break monotony, I disagree with them because I believe they are wrong. My style of debate is generally to read through the threads until I see somebody post something that I do not consider to be true, then respond to it. Especially if nobody else has responded to it and it appears to have been missed. The whole point of this is that I do not like to let statements that I perceive as untrue stand unchallenged, because that might cause provisional acceptance or an assumption of validity in those who do not see the flaw that I believe I see. Thus why I sometimes jump into threads long enough to disagree with an atheist's incorrect statement and then leave.(usually atheist's tend to correct their statement when I do that because it was generally a misunderstanding or not thinking things through to the end) also why I tend to find the need to publicly disagree with people who disparage me.

For example we could analyze some of the possibilities that Easyrider may have meant and compare them to FinalEnigma’s statement of being “untrue�

Now it’s True if Easyrider meant more Christians than non-Christians, he was wrong.
But what if he meant More Christians than atheists? He’d be right.
But what if he meant More Christians than agnostics? He’d be right.
But what if he meant More Christians than followers of Mohammad? He’d be right.
But what if he meant More Christians than followers of Buddha? He’d be right.
But what if he meant More Christians than followers of Confucius? He’d be right.
But what if he meant More Christians than Hindus? He’d be right.But what if he meant More Christians than followers of Quetzaquotal? He’d be right.
As a matter of fact he’d be right if he meant there were more Christians than any other SINGLE separate religion or non-religious group in the world.

But if FinalEnigma assumes Zzy’s opinion is representative of ALL non-Christians of the World, I would have to disagree. Zzy and Confused both cautioned me on lumping Zzy into any other category other than that with which he represents himself. Especially when I mistakenly referred to him as an atheist. And it was thoughtless on my part. Because they were right.

Okay, I guess I should explain my statement with a large block of text to avoid violating any rules.

Zzyzx said

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

with regard to Jesus. which is quite obvious when taken in the context of his other statement of

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

Therefore, when Easyrider claimed that it was a minority opinion, that would only be true if the majority of people thought there was sufficient evidence and reason to believe the claim of Jesus' divinity, the biblical miracles, and Jesus' resurrection. I would suggest that if people believed in Jesus' divinity, they are most probably christians, and if they do not, then they non-christians. Therefore, Easyrider's statement is clearly untrue, as there are more non-christians than christians. Also, I highly doubt that Zzyzx would object to me classifying him as not-a-christian.

And yes, Easyrider would have been right had he said any of those things you mentioned above, but he didn't. However, whether he meant them or not is immaterial as they are not what he said. a statement is wrong when the statement is untrue, not when what the author meant when he wrote the statement is untrue.

With regard to the second part of my post, I didn't respond to easy with a simply nay-say. I said that he was incorrect, then explained why. making brief posts is fine if you can explain them in the brief post, it's flat one liners with no evidence or explanation that are against the rules.

The other half of your post addresses the OP, which the majority of posts(including mine) in this thread have failed to do, so I commend you there.

And now that I think about it, I do believe I have posted in this thread before - to agree with you that you had answered the OP when others were claiming you had not.

And yes, I do realize that I will probably be jumped on for this post, but I have this strange dislike for people speaking at length about why I am being inappropriate when I do not feel that I am.

[Goat]

I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se.

Good. I don’t believe that is material evidence or techniques that can do that. If they could it would be natural and not supernatural.

Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?

Is that a one liner? I guess a question is ok in that respect.

Irregardless, there is historical evidence if that helps:

THE SUN DARKENED AT NOON

Circa 750 B.C.

According to Amos 1:1, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah (767-739 B.C.), and Jeroboam, king of Israel (782-753 B.C.). The name "Amos" is derived from the Hebrew term meaning, "lift a burden," or "burden-bearer" (note Isaiah 9:4, speaking of the coming Messiah as one who would carry our burdens, and also Matthew 11:28). His calling by God was to foretell of pending judgments upon a number of surrounding nations, and particularly of a coming judgment upon Israel. As is common with other Biblical prophets, along with the promise of impending judgment, God also gave Amos a glimpse of events that would soon occur in the life of the coming Messiah, though the significance of what was prophesied may or may not have been made known to Amos. And so it is in the Old Testament book of Amos that we find a prophecy that for many centuries was looked upon with wonder and curiosity:

"'In that day,' declares the Sovereign Lord, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight....I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'" (Amos 8:9-10)

It probably wasn't until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in 32 A.D. that the prophecy of Amos took on clarity and meaning, for in Matthew 27:45 Jesus had just been nailed to the cross when the Bible records:

"From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land."

Just as the "Star of Bethlehem" marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? In his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Volume 1, pages 81-87), Josh McDowell provides the following historical evidence that what took place at Calvary was more that just fanciful mythology:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me - unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died."

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: "....during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, "Contra Celsum," book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ....and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar." Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an "unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate."

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the 'other' side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. From God's perspective, it surely was a time of mourning for His only begotten son.

Jesus once said, "I am the light of the world." So it shouldn't be surprising that during his death there might be a time of darkness over the land.

REFERENCE

McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Vol. 1). Thomas Nelson
Publishers. Nashville. 1972.

Yes, that is where the story was ripped off. HOWEVER, the only evidence that 'the sun darkened at noon' is the claims of a Christian apologist that claims that a document he has that we don't have ACCESS to records something. Yes, Matthew could have taken something from Amos and made a claim, but the only 'evidence' that it actually happened it a claim from an apologist 150 years later that claims HE has a document that mentions an eclipse, but we don't have the original document, nor does
an eclipse describe what the bible describes.

The verdict , according to the evidence is GUILTY OF FRAUD. That is what the evidence demands.

[Easyrider]

I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se.

Good. I don’t believe that is material evidence or techniques that can do that. If they could it would be natural and not supernatural.

Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?

Is that a one liner? I guess a question is ok in that respect.

Irregardless, there is historical evidence if that helps:

THE SUN DARKENED AT NOON

Circa 750 B.C.

According to Amos 1:1, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah (767-739 B.C.), and Jeroboam, king of Israel (782-753 B.C.). The name "Amos" is derived from the Hebrew term meaning, "lift a burden," or "burden-bearer" (note Isaiah 9:4, speaking of the coming Messiah as one who would carry our burdens, and also Matthew 11:28). His calling by God was to foretell of pending judgments upon a number of surrounding nations, and particularly of a coming judgment upon Israel. As is common with other Biblical prophets, along with the promise of impending judgment, God also gave Amos a glimpse of events that would soon occur in the life of the coming Messiah, though the significance of what was prophesied may or may not have been made known to Amos. And so it is in the Old Testament book of Amos that we find a prophecy that for many centuries was looked upon with wonder and curiosity:

"'In that day,' declares the Sovereign Lord, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight....I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'" (Amos 8:9-10)

It probably wasn't until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in 32 A.D. that the prophecy of Amos took on clarity and meaning, for in Matthew 27:45 Jesus had just been nailed to the cross when the Bible records:

"From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land."

Just as the "Star of Bethlehem" marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? In his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Volume 1, pages 81-87), Josh McDowell provides the following historical evidence that what took place at Calvary was more that just fanciful mythology:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me - unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died."

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: "....during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, "Contra Celsum," book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ....and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar." Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an "unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate."

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the 'other' side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. From God's perspective, it surely was a time of mourning for His only begotten son.

Jesus once said, "I am the light of the world." So it shouldn't be surprising that during his death there might be a time of darkness over the land.

REFERENCE

McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Vol. 1). Thomas Nelson
Publishers. Nashville. 1972.

Yes, that is where the story was ripped off.

Goat's knee-jerk, AUTOMATIC DENIAL without substantiation is seen once again.

HOWEVER, the only evidence that 'the sun darkened at noon' is the claims of a Christian apologist that claims that a document he has that we don't have ACCESS to records something. Yes, Matthew could have taken something from Amos and made a claim, but the only 'evidence' that it actually happened it a claim from an apologist 150 years later that claims HE has a document that mentions an eclipse, but we don't have the original document, nor does
an eclipse describe what the bible describes.

The verdict , according to the evidence is GUILTY OF FRAUD. That is what the evidence demands.

All you've done above is spew out the usual denials without providing any substantiation. Where's your evidence any of it is false?

[Goat]

All you've done above is spew out the usual denials without providing any substantiation. Where's your evidence any of it is false?

Let's see.

What evidence do we have that it is true?

We have the passage in Matthew, that was using a literary device to make things dramatic. Little things like zombies walking around Jerusalem and things going dark at noon. Very huge accounts that are no were recorded by anybody.

THen we have an account by Africanus who was countering the concept of someone born 20 years after things were supposed to have happened that discounted it as an eclipse.

So, what outside verification do we have that this very dramatic , obvious and supernatural event happened.

ABSOLUTELY ZERO. We have NO contemporary outside verification that these rather dramatic , obvious and note worthy supernatural events happened.

So, in the answer to the question

Did Matthew merely copy Amos, or is there external evidence that those accounts actually happened is

There is not outside verification, even in other Christian literature that Matthew did anything more than copy Amos. The only rational conclusion is that Matthew was using a literary device to say 'Something really dramatic and important is happening', and that it physically didn't happen.

Now, do you have any contemporary independent evidence it actually happened??

[Easyrider]

All you've done above is spew out the usual denials without providing any substantiation. Where's your evidence any of it is false?

Let's see.

What evidence do we have that it is true?

We have the passage in Matthew, that was using a literary device to make things dramatic. Little things like zombies walking around Jerusalem and things going dark at noon. Very huge accounts that are no were recorded by anybody.

Who says it's a "literary device?" You? Forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

THen we have an account by Africanus who was countering the concept of someone born 20 years after things were supposed to have happened that discounted it as an eclipse.

And he did quite well. It obviously wasn't an eclipse because it lasted too long.

So, what outside verification do we have that this very dramatic , obvious and supernatural event happened.

ABSOLUTELY ZERO.

Wrong again. The sources were listed.

So, in the answer to the question


There is not outside verification, even in other Christian literature that Matthew did anything more than copy Amos.

Matthew doesn't even mention Amos. He may not have even known about the prophecy.

The only rational conclusion is that Matthew was using a literary device to say 'Something really dramatic and important is happening', and that it physically didn't happen.

Nope. The logical conclusion is that Matthew accurately recorded what did occur.

Now, do you have any contemporary independent evidence it actually happened??

Contemporary? Luke investigated it from eyewitness testimony and confirmed it (Luke 1:1; 23:44).

So there you have it: The prophecy, the fulfillment, Luke's confirmation, and extra-Biblical sources. Gotta love it!!

[Zzyzx]

.

So back to the OP.

I agree – and have no comment to the off topic nonsense raised by Easyrider.

What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?

I’ve showed evidence from outside the bible that Jesus exited, he had followers later called Christians, he was a Jewish teacher and taught about the Kingdom of God, he existed and was crucified under the ruler of the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilot around 2000 years ago.

I will acknowledge that there is "evidence", VERY scant evidence of the existence of Jesus in sources other than the bible (and most appear to be WELL after the supposed lifetime and contemporary "accounts" are not originals but are copies that are known to scholars to be later modifications (the TF in particular).

Who are you trying to convince -- believers that already believe bible stories -- people who do not already believe?

There may be enough "evidence" to convince those who already believe or want to believe the stories. However, if you are attempting to show evidence to non-believers you will need STRONG evidence. Think how much evidence it would take to convince you that Odin is the "one true god" and that he really exists and really does or did magical tricks. THAT may be somewhat similar to the level of evidence that would be required to convince me (and probably others) to believe any of the god stories.

When it is frustrating that non-believers do not accept what you say just reflect upon what you would require as evidence to convince you to begin worshiping Odin.

Of course, religionists often tell their stories to people who are too young to have developed judgment and discernment OR people whose self-concepts, judgment and discernment are impaired by emotional stress or distress. In the absence of judgment, fanciful stories of hope and faith may appeal and be convincing.

It is much more difficult to convince or convert people who are satisfied and comfortable with their own convictions, their lives and themselves.

I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se.

Good. I don’t believe that is material evidence or techniques that can do that. If they could it would be natural and not supernatural.

We agree that there is not any material evidence to support supernatural stories and claims (and I add that in all probably will not be any such evidence). Thus, the "evidence" will be "spiritual" or emotional rather than literal / physical.

With that being the case, why would anyone attempt to defend supernaturalism in a public debate forum? The heart of debate is substantiation of arguments. Since substantiation is not available (with anything other than personal opinion and unverifiable stories), how can anyone expect to effectively debate in favor of supernaturalism?

If supernaturalism is NOT defended, what does religion have to offer?

Would you be interested in a non-supernatural Christianity?

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.

Exactly as the three cities mention in the Bible that I mentioned in the beginning of this thread that were archeologically discovered and authenticated recently.

Bible believers are heavily dependent upon the mention of real cities and real people in the bible as "proof" or "evidence" that the stories are true or the bible is historical.

I continually point out that by those standards "Gone with the Wind" is a truthful, historically accurate account of Antebellum South because it mentions real cities (such as Atlanta) and real people (such as Lincoln and Davis).

Many novels (acknowledged works of fiction) mention real people and places. Doing so does NOT indicate the stories authenticity or historicity.

As Zzy pointed out, this evidence and the events, people, places or things that I've showed evidence of existence, time of occurring or just that they took place is not evidence of the "fantastical" stories that most Christians believe in.

Thank you.

Can we debate Christianity WITHOUT the fantastical stories and/or without supernatural claims?

Your right Zzy. This evidence is for non-believers and very basic, BUT evidence none the less that these stories have some basis in reality. even if they are totally exaggerated, have a basis in early beliefs, come from multiple religious leaders from seemly diverse and independent sources.

Can we identify the parts of Christian literature and lore that are NOT exaggerated? Can we identify the "basis in reality" of the stories?

I believe there is mounting evidence warranting the further investigation of these exact things that Confused is asking for.

To what "mounting evidence" do you refer? There is a great deal of information becoming available – on all sides of the issues. Do you suggest ignoring some and focusing on other?

It is precisely because of the doubt historically that any of these things even existed, including the ones recently authenticated and verified, that we should keep looking.

I agree that archeologists should continue looking for evidence of past civilizations and societies.

I do NOT agree that we should specifically look for evidence to support ANY specific theories because setting out to look for evidence to support a theory is fraught with possibilities of "finding what you look for – whether it is really there or not".

It's very exciting to me as a believer seeing even the most basic discoveries[of physical or historical aspects of things that were totally doubted

Are believers equally aware of and excited about new information that contradicts bible stories?

Of course not. It is human nature to look favorably upon whatever promotes our agenda and to look unfavorably upon that which disputes or disproves our theories. One of the great advantages of the Scientific Method is that it demands that studies be made available for others to verify or dispute. Those who disagree with methods or conclusions are encouraged to raise objections. This tends to "level the bias" of individuals and groups promoting favorite theories.

Theology and "faith" are NOT adequate preparation for discovering or evaluating evidence of real world conditions and events – because they promote a particular conclusion BEFORE evidence is collected.

A search for truth is favored by an approach which observes conditions FIRST and THEN reaches conclusions based upon what is observed and studied.

Those who reach the conclusion first do not seek truth – they seek support for their a priori conclusion.

When one has a vested interest in a particular theory they ARE excited and rewarded by anything that seems to support their theory. Is very common for opportunists (or religionists or both) to "find" things that "prove the bible" – only to have them discovered to be fraudulent. That is a great danger when researching with emotion rather than with impartiality.

Impartial observation of the same information may be far less supportive of

and more recently with the rise and popularity of Darwinian theories, disbelieved in even more. Now by The same science that caused doubt are biblical persons, places and things being reestablished as having really existed.

In the view of science it does not make any difference whether new information supports bible stories or not because the emphasis is upon discovery of truth no matter where the path leads.

Still rationally the un-believer still objects to the blind Faith in those supernatural events, personages and beliefs that are NOT yet supported by scientific discoveries.

Yes. And the Christian believer objects to blind faith in Odin, Allah and Quetzaquotal – but expresses puzzlement when others are equally resistant to believing in his favorite gods. How quaint.

But I have no doubt that with our advancement in scientific method and techniques and instrumentation MORE personages, places and things (events) WILL BE VERIFIED and be known to have evidence of existence or having occurred in the next 50 years.

Hope springs eternal.

I see no evidence that advancement of knowledge has or will favor religious beliefs. In fact, increasing knowledge of the real world since the Middle Ages has disputed many religious claims.

Perhaps what will happen with increased public knowledge is that religion will adapt at least somewhat to the real world and the new information in order to retain some public appeal. Retaining the emphasis upon "believe on faith alone" fanciful tales should, with increasing education and awareness, become a path reminiscent of the Shakers.

[joer]

I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se.

Good. I don’t believe that is material evidence or techniques that can do that. If they could it would be natural and not supernatural.

Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?

Hi McCulloch. good to see and talk with you brother. I think there could be natural evidence that "something" occurred. But because it would be beyond the means of natural explanation and definition, we would call it "Supernatural". BUT that would be enough for some to accept what it was supernaturally by personal experience, revelation or some other materialistically unacceptable method, that would be to the non-believer unacceptable proof or evidence of what it was understood by them (the believers) to be.

True Revelation

Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion; logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. ... And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.

The way you stated this McCulloch, "Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?" It almost sounds like you think it is possible for there to be natural evidence of "a Supernatural event having occurred".

Do you have something in mind? or some speculation on that? My curiosity is peeked by your question brother.

[McCulloch]

The way you stated this McCulloch, "Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?" It almost sounds like you think it is possible for there to be natural evidence of "a Supernatural event having occurred".

Do you have something in mind? or some speculation on that? My curiosity is peeked by your question brother.

In context of the debate, there are many claims of supernatural events in the Bible, the universal flood, the sun stopped in the sky, various resurrections from the dead, healings, translations, one virgin birth (maybe), talking non-human animals and numerous claims about the efficacy of prayer. Take your pick. Surely one or more of these events could leave evidence in the natural world.

[joer]

The way you stated this McCulloch, "Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?" It almost sounds like you think it is possible for there to be natural evidence of "a Supernatural event having occurred".

Do you have something in mind? or some speculation on that? My curiosity is peeked by your question brother.

In context of the debate, there are many claims of supernatural events in the Bible, the universal flood, the sun stopped in the sky, various resurrections from the dead, healings, translations, one virgin birth (maybe), talking non-human animals and numerous claims about the efficacy of prayer. Take your pick. Surely one or more of these events could leave evidence in the natural world.

Oh I see. Sorry McCulloch. I mistook your question to be one of honest inquiry. I see now it seems you meant it to be more facetious or rhetorical in nature and intent.

Regardless, I was thinking of your question early today and wondering How could any evidence exist of a supernatural event of biblical times that would be acceptable to a non-believer as "valid" evidence of a supernatural event. I've been trying to take some basic things that according to some standard of acceptability can be taken to be true in a generally accepted way. But I've assumed that that would be impossible to so with a supernatural event except by the unacceptable means, of personal experience, faith, revelation or some other materialistically unacceptable method of evidential substantiation.

I thought of the stone rolling back by itself in it’s track uncovering the grave of Jesus that the roman Soldier’s and possibly Jewish agents of the sanhedren were guarding.

Now it’s logical in one possible scenario that if they reported seeing this to higher authorities that they would be cautioned not report this to anyone and possible even told to suggest Jesus followers came and stole the body of Jesus.

Nothing Supernatural about that. What would be supernatural, would be if the stone actually moved be itself. Now of course in those times there would be no way to video tape the event and even if it was videotaped. It could questioned and labeled as a hoax. But what if those soldiers and Jewish agents REALLY witnessed the stone moving seemingly by itself? The evidence that it moved would only be their PERSONAL WITNESSING. Each one of them by personal experience of witnessing this supernatural event would hold (barring all pressures not to reveal the truth) that the stone did indeed move by itself. “I saw with my own eyes.� They might say. Or “seeing is believing� they might say. And others might believe it occurred based on seeing the veracity of the testimony as spoken and presented by those who saw. Others still being told by those who saw, those who saw, might believe also based on the honesty of the person who told them. And so begins a line of belief based on faith in the honesty of the persons relating the story.

Of course even of the primary witnesses others could say. “You must have been hallucinating�. Or “you’re seeing things� or “Were you drinking?� because of their doubt of the primary witnesses to the event (assuming it actually occurred) they would NOT believe or accept that event as True.

So if you throw out Personal Observation as a valid form of evidence or even histories of personal observations as valid forms of evidence. McCulloch I ask, How could ANY Supernatural occurrence from that time period EVER have materialistically acceptable evidence supporting it? I suggest that is impossible and is Why I make the general statement that those supernatural events can only be acceptable based on Faith, Personal experience, Revelation or some other method that while acceptable to the believer would be not-acceptable to the non-believer.

Speaking honestly McCulloch, would you say that’s a fair assessment of weather or not evidence of a Supernatural event could exist if that Supernatural event ACTUALLY occurred?

Thank’s in advance McCulloch for your honest and candid reply. What more could I ask for or expect? I stand to learn from your honest reply. I stand to have my vision and perspective expanded by my honest examination and reflection on yours. I look forward to your reply with an anticipation of tempered excitement.

Thank You my friend.

[Zzyzx]

.
Joer,

I have no doubt that you are very sincere in your personal supernatural beliefs.

Do you understand that others are just as sincere in their beliefs or convictions? Do you accept that many have given these matters great consideration – and have come to different conclusions regarding supernaturalism? Do you realize that those who oppose supernatural claims are not necessarily ignorant or unintelligent?

I (and others) do not accept that you have any special knowledge or "inside information" about the supernatural characters or events that you present as "real" – but only that you have read a book and listened to sermons (neither of which is guaranteed to impart knowledge).

You CANNOT demonstrate that you speak truth -- but you claim truth. That is invalid in ethical debate.

Do I remember correctly that you support theories promoted under the title "Urantia Book"? If that is in error I apologize and ask for correction.

The way you stated this McCulloch, "Could there not be natural evidence of a supernatural event having occurred?"[ It almost sounds like you think it is possible for there to be natural evidence of "a Supernatural event having occurred".

Do you have something in mind? or some speculation on that? My curiosity is peeked by your question brother.

In context of the debate, there are many claims of supernatural events in the Bible, the universal flood, the sun stopped in the sky, various resurrections from the dead, healings, translations, one virgin birth (maybe), talking non-human animals and numerous claims about the efficacy of prayer. Take your pick. Surely one or more of these events could leave evidence in the natural world.

Oh I see. Sorry McCulloch. I mistook your question to be one of honest inquiry. I see now it seems you meant it to be more facetious or rhetorical in nature and intent.

Attempting to dismiss or demean valid questions does NOT improve your position.

I view the questions as valid in debate. Because they are difficult for apologists to address is not adequate reason to demean them.

Regardless, I was thinking of your question early today and wondering How could any evidence exist of a supernatural event of biblical times that would be acceptable to a non-believer as "valid" evidence of a supernatural event.

It will be VERY difficult to present any evidence to support most of the claims. However, a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago would leave abundant evidence, the sun stopping (i.e., Earth pausing in rotation) WOULD have disastrous effects worldwide, a person living "in the belly of a fish" for three days could be shown to be possible, a high mountain from which "all kingdoms of the Earth can be seen" should be identifiable (if such a thing was possible on a sphere).

Instead, the stories are repeated with total lack of support – even when requested. This would not be surprising in children's bible study classes, but it is totally unacceptable in ethical debate.

I've been trying to take some basic things that according to some standard of acceptability can be taken to be true in a generally accepted way. But I've assumed that that would be impossible to so with a supernatural event

It would also be impossible to show evidence of an event that DID NOT OCCUR.

The only "evidence" to support bible stories is . . . . the bible (and church dogma).

except by the unacceptable means, of personal experience, faith, revelation or some other materialistically unacceptable method of evidential substantiation.

Yes, it is likely to be impossible to show evidence of claimed "supernatural events" that appear ONLY in bible stories – tales told by ancient writers who were even more ignorant of the real world than we are presently.

It might be helpful for the story line if one could IDENTIFY the supposed tomb of "Joseph of Arimathea" (Notice that fake tombs and "ossuaries" are not unknown).

I thought of the stone rolling back by itself in it’s track uncovering the grave of Jesus that the roman Soldier’s and possibly Jewish agents of the sanhedren were guarding.

The ONLY evidence of a stone "rolling" is contained in bible STORIES.

Who, exactly, "rolled the stone" and who, exactly, rolled it back or away from the opening – according to the tales?

Now it’s logical in one possible scenario that if they reported seeing this to higher authorities that they would be cautioned not report this to anyone and possible even told to suggest Jesus followers came and stole the body of Jesus.

Yes, one can make up all sorts of "possible scenarios" to "explain" how the tale "could have" been true. What is lacking is ANY real evidence of truth.

Nothing Supernatural about that.

Yes, and no evidence that it is true. It is just another made up story on top of an earlier story (that cannot be shown to be anything other than myth, fable, fiction or fraud).

What would be supernatural, would be if the stone actually moved be itself.

Wouldn't it also be "supernatural" if the stone was rolled back by an "angel" as some accounts seem to suggest?

Now of course in those times there would be no way to video tape the event and even if it was videotaped. It could questioned and labeled as a hoax. But what if those soldiers and Jewish agents REALLY witnessed the stone moving seemingly by itself?

And the "argument" becomes more and more irrational.

The evidence that it moved would only be their PERSONAL WITNESSING.

There is NO evidence from anyone who WITNESSED any such thing – only more made-up tales and "possible scenarios" and tales that "there were witnesses".

Each one of them by personal experience of witnessing this supernatural event would hold (barring all pressures not to reveal the truth) that the stone did indeed move by itself. “I saw with my own eyes.� They might say. Or “seeing is believing� they might say.

There are NO eyewitness accounts – so the question is moot. Note: an eyewitness account is NOT a writer decades or centuries later saying "there were witnesses".

Who saw exactly what, who did they tell, who wrote the accounts? How do we know?

And others might believe it occurred based on seeing the veracity of the testimony as spoken and presented by those who saw.

Exactly WHO saw? Exactly what was their veracity? Exactly how do you know?

Others still being told by those who saw, those who saw, might believe also based on the honesty of the person who told them.

What is KNOWN about the honesty of the supposed witnesses AND about the story writer? Are these people identified with certainty? If not, what can be said about their honesty?

And so begins a line of belief based on faith in the honesty of the persons relating the story.

Exactly. The ONLY reason to believe bible stories is "FAITH" (a desire to believe without evidence) or a "line of belief".

Of course even of the primary witnesses others could say. “You must have been hallucinating�. Or “you’re seeing things� or “Were you drinking?� because of their doubt of the primary witnesses to the event (assuming it actually occurred) they would NOT believe or accept that event as True.

It IS valid to question the observations of those reporting events that are not known to happen in the real world. "What have you been drinking (or smoking or ingesting) is a REASONABLE question to ask an observer – when the observer is know.

"How honest is the observer", "How accurate are their observations known to be" are other important questions.

So if you throw out Personal Observation as a valid form of evidence or even histories of personal observations as valid forms of evidence

One need not "throw out personal observation" BUT one telling the tale should provide ADDITIONAL evidence besides personal observation. The additional information should be from sources outside the story itself – observers representing different points of view, different allegiances, different religious views, different biases.

How could ANY Supernatural occurrence from that time period EVER have materialistically acceptable evidence supporting it?

As you suggest, providing such evidence is unlikely to impossible. So – why should anyone (you included) believe that the events occurred – based only upon ancient tales that cannot be shown to be true?

If one KNOWS that the story they tell cannot be verified, WHY would they tell it to others as truth?

I suggest that is impossible and is Why I make the general statement that those supernatural events can only be acceptable based on Faith, Personal experience, Revelation or some other method that while acceptable to the believer would be not-acceptable to the non-believer.

YES – "acceptable to the believer" and "not acceptable to the non-believer".

"If you believe these stories, you believe these stories" and there is NOTHING else to offer (aside from an equally unprovable promise of reward "after you die" – or punishment if you refuse to accept the story line).

With whom are you attempting to communicate in these debates – ONLY fellow believers?

In my observation, apologists are asking others (including non-believers) to accept the tales they tell ONLY because they believe them personally. That is NOT reasonable grounds in debate (though it may work in church) or with analytical people (though it may work with those who are generally accepting of what they are told).

Speaking honestly McCulloch, would you say that’s a fair assessment of weather or not evidence of a Supernatural event could exist [if that Supernatural event ACTUALLY occurred?

I maintain that those who tell of supernatural events have the burden of demonstrating that they speak truth.

The lack of evidence to support the tales is adequate reason to NOT accept the tales as true in my opinion.

I have no quarrel with those who make it very clear that they "believe" the tales are true but cannot show evidence – that accepting the tales without evidence is a personal choice – that the presence of bible stories that cannot be verified does NOT indicate that the religious literature and dogma are true.

Fundamentalists with whom I debate seldom (to be kind) meet those criteria.