Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[arian]

Even the dumbest, most primitive sailor knows the earth is curved.

So what? Even the dumbest, most primitive sailor knows God exists, what does that prove? Example, let me ask you: "Do YOU believe God exists?" See what I mean?

Oh you mean by observing the sky meeting the ocean? If the earth was flat, you'd see the same thing no?

What's a big step for man, what about 3 feet? Tell me, what's the curvature of the earth within that 3 feet? Pretty flat wouldn't you say? See, the earth is flat when we are walking, which means we could disagree on just about everything. I could show you the Evidence of God that the most primitive sailor believes exists, and yet defying all logic, you keep denying His existence.

Evidently you do not go down to the sea in ships.

I haven't gone "down to the sea" yet thank the Lord, but boated all my life.

No, what the dumbest, most primitive sailor sees is that you first sight the top of a mast or the peak of a mountain and then as you get closer more and more comes into sight.

Yes true, even this 'primitive sailor' knows that the earth curves about 8 inches per mile, so; YARRR, top of the mast first as she comes closerr Cap'n! And thar she's still flying that black flag with the skull and bones on it, looks like shes still out to get us Cap'n!
"Quick, put up the white flag, show 'em we mean no harm!"
"But sirrr, .. we been flying the white flag for almost two months, got evn the letters "Under Probation" on 'er, ..!?"
"Well, all we can do now is just pray, and wait, and dodge them flat cannon balls, .. I mean cannon spheres!"

So even the dumbest, most primitive sailor knows the world is spherical as a result of direct observation that is shared and confirmed by everyone who has made a similar observation.

I never said the earth is not spherical, I was talking about flatness. If I asked you to please cover the moon with this cheesecloth, but make sure the cheesecloth is nice and flat against the moon, would that mean that I want you to take a rolling-pin and roll the moon out 'flat' as a pancake first?

That's 0.0012626 inch drop every inch of the earths curvature, and our feet is what, 10 to 12 inches so that's like a few thousandths of an inch difference between your heal and your toes, pretty 'flat' won't you say? Better then I could lay wallpaper.

This is why we can't get any straight answers, you guys keep throwing curve balls all the time, twisting things out of shape.

That's what ... very different than religion, remember, direct and reproducible observation ... that's the key!

Yes, direct and reproducible observation is very much different than religion, that's my whole purpose in debating here. To point out the lies in religions and their un-scientific doctrines which they try to pass off as 'science'.

[arian]

.

Even the dumbest, most primitive sailor knows the earth is curved.

So what? Even the dumbest, most primitive sailor knows God exists, what does that prove? Example, let me ask you: "Do YOU believe God exists?" See what I mean?

Oh you mean by observing the sky meeting the ocean? If the earth was flat, you'd see the same thing no?

Those who live by the sea understand that a ship leaving port disappears "from the bottom up" – meaning that the hull passes from view while the superstructure (or sails) remain in view but gradually disappear until only the very top is visible.

Once that tip is no longer visible the ship cannot be seen even with the most powerful telescope at ground level. Raise the telescope and the ship can again be seen – for a while – but it will again disappear "from the bottom up". With further ship travel it cannot be seen even from the tallest building with a very powerful telescope.

Explain that with the flat Earth concept.

Sure, .. just repeat what I said: Oh you mean by observing the sky meeting the ocean? If the earth was flat, you'd see the same thing no?

What's a big step for man, what about 3 feet? Tell me, what's the curvature of the earth within that 3 feet? Pretty flat wouldn't you say?

Since curvature of the Earth is approximately 8 inches per mile, the amount in three feet is 0.00454545 inches. A person cannot detect that much curvature BUT a surveyor can and must. Perhaps that means that the Earth is "flat" to people who limit themselves to what they can see within three feet.

Correct, everyone that walks the earth takes up about a feet of space; "one foot" at a time, which is a few thousandths of an inch difference from heel to toe, so I'd say that's pretty flat won't you agree? We wouldn't say; "pretty spherical".

Same like with a basket full of goodies, if we were to remove a few items from it we wouldn't say "ok, now that's pretty empty", right? But if we removed everything except maybe for a few small items, we could say it's pretty empty.

See, the earth is flat when we are walking,

If we are walking downhill does that mean that the Earth is a valley?

No, that means you are getting ahead of yourself. No matter where on earth you stand, you are standing in the dead center, and if your feet are flat on the ground, there is about 0.0012626 inches difference between your heel and toes. That's if you are perfectly flat on the ground. No hill, no valley, but standing flat on the earth.

which means we could disagree on just about everything.

Can you disagree with: If you hold a rock at arm's length and shoulder height standing anywhere on the Earth's land surface and release the rock it will fall unless supported.

OK, here; since you previously said there is no up or down in space, and the earth is in space, me standing there holding a rock am in space, then from a 'below-me perspective' the rock would float up towards the ground, not fall.

I could show you the Evidence of God that the most primitive sailor believes exists, and yet defying all logic, you keep denying His existence.

Can you show evidence of God that any modern person can verify as truthful and accurate?

Of course, but 'modern person' believes he's an ape, an animal with no mind but just a brain that's reacting to billions of years of chaotic mutation. So like the trainers of Koko, I have found it next to impossible to explain even the simplest concepts of mind vs. brain to these animals. (Oh go ahead Moderators, give me them warnings for calling men who believe in some evidence that they are animals; animals.)

I maintain that ANY of the thousands of "gods" worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting only sound, verifiable evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision which, if any, actually exist.

AGAIN?

We've been through this already remember? As long as Evolution rules the mind of man, he is reduced to an animal state, he believes he is an animal, starts to sing about being an "Animal" clothes herself in animal meat, drinks animal blood (animal, includes human remember)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5-tjIB9YBk

http://www.mtv.com/news/2254239/lady-ga ... ress-vmas/

When things like this interest mankind more then "Scientific Evidence of God", revealing anything of God is like throwing our precious pearls before swine. (Ooohh, that there deserves at lest two warnings, right?)

Take care Z.

[Zzyzx]

.

me standing there holding a rock am in space,

I do not disagree -- somewhere in space

Thanks for demonstrating for readers the results of perverting science (often used in defense of supernaturalism).

[Dropship]

But Christianity IS science, or to be more exact- "Superscience" or "Supernature" where reality can be bent to produce miracles, and is therefore a fascinating subject for study by all open-minded people..
"The truth is not for everyone, but only for those who seek it"- Ayn Rand 1905-1982

[arian]

.

Lets talk science, and go by actual observation;
Please explain: When I'm standing up straight here in the US, am I standing on the 'down slope' of the earth

'When I have addressed elementary school level students as a guest speaker, I ask similar questions and let them work out answers. They typically do a pretty fair job with very little coaching.

Hello Z, thanks for the response sir.
I see you have your sleeves rolled up, so as one of your student's (you have taught me a lot), so using the things I have learned from you and life in general, let's see if I can be a worthy debating opponent.

First, you said regarding the elementary school kids; "with a little coaching".

Correction: What I actually said was "with very little coaching" – which conveys a different meaning to astute readers than "with a little coaching". It implies that the students arrived at conclusions with very little assistance.

Right, .. with "little assistance". Or just "assistance", .. or with just "coaching".

Well as you know I came from a former communist country where I have witnessed how the meaning of God as Creator, provider, helper in need has changed to a cuss word, all with a "little coaching". I'm sure you can work out how that happened, right?

Your experience with a totalitarian regime is not representative of my addressing grade school students.

I wouldn't say that, just because it's not that noticeable, it all comes gradually, .. over time, .. like evolution, and before you know it you no longer believe you are a human, but an animal of the ape family.

Please take a look at this, and you will see what can happen over time with little assistance/coaching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZKcQXD ... 1300208869

The same way as today the word 'science' has become to mean "Evolution" and "Big-Bang",

Science today means a systematic method to learn about the environment. That has not changed.

.. and what happens when that information gets into the hands of Evolutionist? Fukushima is a good indication what happens, so is Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Texas oils spills, chem-trails, poison in our waters, etc. on and on, anything to bring about some beneficial mutation to justify the stories behind science. So I wouldn't say the method has not changed, it most certainly has, starting with the WWII Holocaust. Since then the method changed from rats and monkeys, to ALL biological life especially humans.

What poorly informed or misinformed people think of science or how they define science is immaterial. The public does not do the work

No, just suffer the consequences, but it's OK, here lab-rats: ..

– but enjoys the benefits (including these computers and modern medicine) while often complaining about areas of science that contradict their pet religious beliefs.

.. here lab rats, here is computers for you, cell phones, where you can have access to anything your little hearts desire. Also the scientifically designed TV 'programming', lets not forget that! Yes, they got religion down to a science, like "Cancer Awareness", the "You Got Cancer" in the mail, billboards, TBN, .. everywhere, look, breathe, drink, eat, .. enjoy!

all by a teeny-tiny 'coaching' suggestions like saying "60 million years ago, .. dinosaurs, .. your ancestor the apes" etc. that children will associate with evolution. All has come about by that "little coaching", agreed?

Evolution is "genetic change through generations". That occurs every time a "super bug" becomes antibiotic resistant.

Well yes, but that's only for now. But what about before there were antibiotics? You know, where tadpoles evolve into monkeys which evolved into human-monkeys!?

A favorite question I use is to ask them to decide what "up" and "down" mean. They may struggle a bit but come close to a correct answer – which is that down means toward the center of the Earth and up means the opposite.

Doesn't seem you had much influence on the kids Z, people including scientists still refer to North as Up.

Is this to say that "up" is NOT "away from the center of the Earth" – and using a colloquialism to "prove" your point?

.. huh? What were we talking about again?

But yes Z, I understand what you mean.

Then why the pointless detour / distraction?

If you do understand that the Earth is spherical, why the extended discussion?

You started it with asking me to prove my "flat Earth" beliefs, so I gave you examples of flat.

We extend that concept to decide that up and down have no meaning in free space / the universe.

I wonder when Astronauts are in danger in space, something like a fire, or meteor hit, in those critical last moments if they still think of Heaven as being "Up there" and hell as being "down there"?
Besides, does 'above' still mean up and 'below' still mean down in space? Because in Star Wars I heard the 'Red Leader' tell Mr. Solo: "Solo, you have a tie Fighter right above you!" So not to be sarcastic or anything, I still believe 'up' and 'down' has the same meaning even in space!? But then I'm not a teacher, right?

Perhaps it would be prudent to consult sources other than Star Wars.

The movie "Gravity" then?

(meaning when I walk let's say from South to North, or from East to West etc.) am I walking up-hill on the round Earth, .. or am I always standing on a flat surface at the very tip of the Globe?

Compass directions are human concepts useful in navigation but are not an actual feature or characteristic of the Earth. There are no grid lines marked on the Earth and no marked equator. Though they may be depicted on globes or maps, they are only imaginary lines.

Thank you sir, I will try to remember that and stop looking for them while driving cross country. (feel like a fool now that you mention it, what was I thinking?)

When I was in the Army we would occasionally show a new recruit the grid lines on a map, tell him we should be near that point, and send him out looking for one

LOL, .. imagine the look on you guyses faces if he actually found one?

Since the spheroidal Earth (actually an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid of revolution) is in rotational motion, a hypothetical (not physical) axis can be proposed. The points at which that hypothetical axis intersects the Earth surface are assigned the name poles and one is arbitrarily called "north" and the other "south" (in the English language). Neither of those terms has any meaning away from the Earth.

Viewed from distant space, the Earth is simply a spinning ball.

Yes sir. So if an Astronaut was to report from space to another astronaut that he just seen a nuclear bomb go off at the top of the North Pole, no one would understand him? "Wha, .. top, ... North, .. what the hell you talking about man, all I see is a spinning ball!?"

I trust that astronauts are familiar with navigation (especially those who are pilots) and would have no difficulty communicating the location of an atomic explosion that occurred on Earth.

Exactly, .. they still use up, down, north, south, sun coming up, the sun going down even in space.

Personal Moderator question Z, could we consider your responses as 'condescending'? Just asking?

Ask another moderator via PM.

Figures, .. pass the buck.

When I walk any direction, am I not always on a flat surface (tip of the Globe)?

A sphere (or spheroid) has no "tip" and no flat surfaces (except perhaps very locally / limited areas) just as a beach ball has no tip and a ball bearing has no flat surfaces (beyond microscopic level).

Most people have noticed that the Earth contains non-flat surfaces (hills, mountains, valleys, volcanic cones, etc). Although the Earth may seem quite rugged in places to us, it is smoother in scale than a piece of paper. Although the Earth is "bulged" at the equator it is closer to true spherical than most ball bearings (.003% tolerance).

Disclosure: I taught these topics in freshman university geology classes fifty years ago.

I understand sir. So a 26,600 feet high mountain sticking out of the earth can be considered "smoother then paper" in comparison, but walking on the earth like through the desert, or driving through Kansas could not be considered flat?

Driving in Kansas could be considered flat – unless one takes into account the curvature of the Earth surface.

Yes, that's what kept me awake all the times I drove through Kansas, taking account of the curvature of the earth: "Wake up Odon, it's not all flat, remember the curvature of the earth, .. just remember the curvature of the earth!"
Does anyone actually think of that?

Hey, you're the teacher, and I'm on probation, so what can I say but; yes sir!

In these debates there is no rank, status, or seniority. Present your ideas for readers to consider.

Those on probation would be well advised to observe Forum Rules and Guidelines.

.. as interpreted by? .. exactly, by moderators without question.

So we are always standing, walking on a flat Earth right?

Wrong.

yes sir. I was just thinking stupid, considering that the earth curves .0012626 of an inch per feet, and since our feet is the only thing touching the ground, it may seem flat!? Unless you can feel the .001 inch difference (that's 1/4 of the diameter of our hair difference) from the back to the front of your feet? I'd say that's pretty darn flat, .. but that would be delusional right?

Is this an attempt to prove that the Earth is flat?

No, .. what I wrote: "our feet is the only thing touching the ground, .. (that's 1/4 of the diameter of our hair difference) from the back to the front of your feet? I'd say that's pretty darn flat."

See, scientific observation tells us that for anyone traveling on the earth, the earth is flat at all times (except when a hill/mountain shows up in our path).

Scientific observation tells no such thing.

Yes sir, .. I must have heard them refer "We need a nice big flat surface for this experiment, like the California Salt Flats" to something else then, not for a flat surface on earth obviously, cause that would be delusional.

Did you ask "them" if the Earth surface is curved as part of a spherical body

No, in my example we just needed a nice big flat surface. The earth being a sphere did not come up, neither that there is no gravity nor air in space, or that we are floating in space, .. none of that mattered .. just a nice big flat surface on the earth.

The illusion of flatness is not in accord with the reality of a spherical surface.

Again you are correct, so reading in a science journal about; "driving endlessly through the hot, dry flat desert" should be restated: "driving through the hot, dry, spherical desert" correct?
When will we ever learn? 'The sun comes up, the sun goes down, .. were driving up, and others driving down for vacation, .. living in the flatlands with not even a hill around' etc. people just don't learn I guess?

Colloquialisms must be misleading to those who do not understand.

Yes, .. er, .. I guess?? That's why I had mine taken out.

Thanks for that educational debate.

Thank you for providing readers with a theistic point of view.

I never mentioned any of them 10's of thousands of gods even once, .. I did mention your Creator Evolution though, I guess that would count too!? You're right again Z. But hey, just because I mention some gods or creators, shouldn't make me a theist would it?
Take care Z.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 275 by arian]

.. and what happens when that information gets into the hands of Evolutionist? Fukushima is a good indication what happens, so is Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki,

I'd love to know just what evolution has to do with these nuclear disasters/attacks. You do know, I hope, that these are completely different things? Nuclear theory has nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory.

[Realworldjack]

.

At any rate, now that I have this clarification, I would like to ask, who exactly is it, that determines the Bible is not, "verifiable evidence?" Really? Who is it that makes this determination?

For these debates C&A Guidelines make it clear that "3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

I can tell you this, it is not determined by reason, and logic, and seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what the Bible actually is.

The lack of verification is what demonstrates lack of verification . . .

You can easily prove me wrong RWJ by simply providing evidence that bible tales about "miracles" and "resurrection" and "soul" and "afterlife" are true using sources that can be verified by anyone interested.

Regardless what the Bible is called it cannot be used (rationally) to verify itself. Verify means "confirm the truth of".

Thus, confirming the truth of Bible tales rationally requires evidence OTHER than the tales themselves.

This is simply a tactic on the part of those opposed to Christianity, that may work on those who may not have a true knowledge of what the Bible actually contains, but in the end, it really does not wash at all.

The "tactic" of seeking truth often offends those who cannot show that what they say is truthful and accurate.

Before we go any further, let's establish that there is a huge difference between, "verifiable evidence," as opposed to "verifiable proof." Certainly there are those Christians who act as if the Bible is, "proof." From this attitude we have Christians saying such things as, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." I will agree, this is a weak minded position, in that it simply assumes the Bible is proof. But again, there is a huge difference between, "proof," and "evidence," and you chose the word, "evidence."

Yes, we are discussing VERIFIABLE evidence, not proof – evidence that can be checked. "Jesus told me personally" may be considered "evidence" by some but it is not verifiable.

In real life, RWJ, do we accept "Take my word for it" regarding important decisions (such as buying expensive real estate) or do we check (verify) what we are told?

To say the Bible is not at least, "verifiable evidence," is to either demonstrate, a lack of knowledge of what, "evidence" actually is, and what the Bible actually contains, or it is to deliberately ignore the two.

Evidence "broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

The Bible contains stories by many unidentifiable writers telling of events and conversations that they cannot be shown to have direct personal knowledge. When a person writes accounts of events that were told to them by others that is known as hearsay (that heard from others).

First off, the Bible is not a book, period!

Common use dictionaries of the English language seem to disagree – "a handwritten or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers." Doesn't that seem to include the Bible?

In other words, the Bible is not something someone sat down to author from start to finish. It is also not multiple authors getting together, and deciding to author a book together, from start to finish.

Notice that the definition of book does not require being written "from start to finish" by an individual or group. For instance, Readers Digest Condensed BOOKS contain stories written by several different authors who did not write the whole thing and did not "get together and decide to author a book."

The stories contained in Readers Digest Condensed Books may be true or may be fiction.

If one of those stories tells about ghosts building a house (or doing anything else), do we believe that actually happened in real life? If two or three stories tell something similar is that indication that the stories are truthful and accurate?

Would we NOT be wise to ask for verifiable evidence before we accepted the stories as true?

Would we NOT be wise to say "Show me the house" for starters? Would we accept the stories as truthful and accurate if instead of showing us the house or anything else the person claimed "It really did happen long ago and far away"? Would we accept "Take my word (or his, or that other story) for it"?

Rather, the Bible is more of a composition, and when I use the word, "composition," I am not using it in the literary sense. Words have different meanings, and the word, "composition" has a literary meaning, but it also has an alternative meaning and this is the meaning I have in mind,

Perhaps it is most accurate to consider the Bible an anthology – "a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors, usually in the same literary form, of the same period, or on the same subject:"

So then, the Bible is composed of different writings, over thousands of years, in which the authors never intended, and had no idea, their writings would be later composed, to form a whole. This is, "verifiable," and it would also be what is defined as, "evidence."

Okay, I do not dispute that the Bible was written by people who likely had no notion that their works would be compiled into an anthology. So what?

Before we go any further, let's define evidence.

As stated previously, evidence is that presented in support of an assertion. Verifiable evidence is evidence that itself can be checked for accuracy and truth.

It is evident, the content of the Bible was written over thousands of years. It is evident, the authors, had no idea, what they were writing would later be composed into what we now call the Bible. So then, "verifiable evidence," (evident).

Yes, the Bible shows evidence of containing writings of people who were not personally acquainted and who wrote during hundreds or thousands of years. So what?

At this point, let us narrow our focus from the whole of the Bible, to what is called the New Testament. Again, the New Testament, is not a book. It is not even, part of a book. The New Testament, does not even contain books.

That may be a bit difficult to defend, but go ahead.

Rather, what is contained in the New Testament, from start to finish is letters.

RWJ, that is dead wrong as anyone can VERIFY. The NT contains

The New Testament consists of
four narratives of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, called "gospels" (or "good news" accounts);
a narrative of the Apostles' ministries in the early church, called the "Acts of the Apostles", and probably written by the same writer as the Gospel of Luke, which it continues;
twenty-one letters, often called "epistles" in the biblical context, written by various authors, and consisting of Christian doctrine, counsel, instruction, and conflict resolution; and
an Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, which is a book of prophecy, containing some instructions to seven local congregations of Asia Minor, but mostly containing prophetical symbology, about the end times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament

Does this indicate that the NT contains material other than, and in addition to, letters?

These letters were written from one person to another person, or group of people. Some of these letters contain not only theological content, they also contain the personal concerns, and needs of the author.

Yes, some NT letters (or epistles) appear to have been written to individuals or groups. So what?

With the content of the New Testament being solely written in letter form,

If (since) this is wrong, what else in the post is wrong?

from one party to the next, these letters can become, "verifiable evidence" of at least one or two things. These two things are, either the author of the letter was lying to the other party, or they were reporting the truth.

False dichotomy. A person can write a letter that contains information that they believe and claim is accurate even though they are mistaken in what they say. For instance, someone can write a letter detailing an automobile accident they heard about (sincerely believing it was true) but later it is discovered that no such accident occurred – was the letter writer LYING (which means "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" – notice intent to deceive. If one makes an untrue statement without realizing it is untrue they cannot legitimately be accused of lying.

You seem to want to suggest, the authors may have been writing, generations after the fact, and were simply reporting what they had heard past down to them, which would be myth, or folk lure, and this would sort of, protect them from the accusation of lying.

Agreed

But this notion will not fly at all with the New Testament writers, who claimed to have been there to witness certain events. When this occurs, (and it does) the author, no matter when he is writing, cannot be protected, by simply saying he was reporting events passed down through generations. Rather, this means, these letters become, "verifiable evidence" of a lie, or the truth!

The author of, "2 Peter" actually addresses your concerns, about these reports being myth, folk lure, etc., when he writes in 2 Peter 1:16

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

This statement alone, makes the author out to be either telling the truth, or lying, and it does not matter who the author happens to be, or the time of the writing. If he did not witness said event, then the author is a liar. This letter then becomes, "verifiable evidence" of the truth, or a lie.

It would appear as though whoever wrote 2 Peter was not telling the truth about being an "eyewitness of his majesty" OR that the phrase was not intended to indicate an actual event (but rather a "spiritual" witnessing) OR the phrase was added later by others to improve the text. We do not know which, if any of these apply or if there are other unidentified alternatives.

It is interesting to note:

Of all the epistles accepted into the New Testament canon, the book of 2 Peter remains the most difficult. Understanding with certainty the epistle’s complex issues feels like trying to untie a tightly woven knot—only to find more little knots to untie. However, if the issue of authorship can be reasonably determined, most of the knots considerably loosen themselves.

The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.1 The term pseudonymity refers to an author assuming the name of another, writing supposedly on his or her behalf—or in his or her name. The prefix pseudo means “false.� “Scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, although it must be admitted of the few who do that they defend their case with an impressive combination of learning and ingenuity.�2
https://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s

Does this affect what is said in 2 Peter?

If you continue on in 2 Peter, you will discover, the event the author is describing is what has been called the, "Transfiguration of Christ" when Jesus is said to have taken, Peter, James, and John, up onto an mountain, where this event is said to have occurred.

Well guess what? There just so happens to be, three other authors of New Testament letters, writing to completely different audiences, who record this same exact event. This certainly seems to mean, these other three letters become, "verifiable evidence" confirming the truth of the event, or it becomes, "verifiable evidence" of collusion between the authors.

There IS evidence that the NT gospel writers copied from one another or from another common source. We are all aware of the "The Synoptic Problem" in which ". . . textual analysis of Matthew, Mark and Luke show large portions so strikingly similar, not only in content but even the language used, that it is generally agreed they have drawn upon common source material, either oral or written: hence these three are generally referred to as the ‘synoptic’ gospels. http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/ntdocs/ntdocs6/

But, we could continue on. We are just getting started here.

Let's deal with the above before continuing.

For these debates C&A Guidelines make it clear that "3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

I agree with these guidelines completely. Therefore, I attempt to never simply quote the Bible in support of something that must be true, because the Bible records it. However, I can, I believe, make factual statements concerning the Bible. With this being the case, I believe I can say, "some of the things recorded, in the letters attributed to Paul, verify the reports of the letters attributed to Luke." In fact, I believe, I have not only said this, I have also demonstrated it. This means, when you go on to give me the definition of, "verify", which was,

Verify means "confirm the truth of".

I believe, I have without a doubt, "confirmed the truth of," my statement above, which again was,

some of the things recorded, in the letters attributed to Paul, verify the reports of the letters attributed to Luke.

To keep from becoming hung up on semantics, a detective may be convinced someone is lying, and therefore he may interview another witness. If this other witness tells the same story, he may now be convinced the both of them are lying, however, he would have to say, "this witness, verifies, (confirms the truth of) what the first witness testified." With this being said, I am not suggesting that, because these two authors agree, this confirms the truth, but rather, they confirm each other, which turns out to be, "verifiable evidence." In other words, we can certainly verify we have the testimony of these authors, and testimonies are considered evidence in a court of law.

You can easily prove me wrong RWJ

Who is it, that is suggesting, I am attempting to, "prove" you wrong? It seems sort of funny how we have went from, "verifiable evidence," to "proof" all of a sudden. Allow me to explain something to you. I have never suggested in any way, I can "prove" the Bible. But here is the thing, you cannot, "prove" in any way whatsoever, the Bible is false! All you can do, is give the, "verifiable evidence" as to why you believe it to be false.

Now, I am certain your response will be the same old song and dance I have heard from others which is, "the burden of proof is on those who believe the Bible to be true." But, how is this the case? In fact, it would seem, the burden is on those, who claim the Biblical testimony is false.

First, the burden of proof would be on me, if I were intending to prove the Bible, but this is not my goal, because I realize this would be impossible. My goal is to simply demonstrate, there are at least, reasons to believe the Christian message.

The difference I see is, many who reject Christianity, are convinced they have used reason, and logic, to come to their conclusions, and I have no doubt that they have in fact used, reason, and logic. However, since they have used reason, and logic, they are convinced, reason, and logic could not possibly be used, to come to another conclusion. In other words, their thinking seems to be, "I have used reason, and logic, to come to my conclusions, therefore, anyone who disagrees with me, is unreasonable."

You see, I have a different mindset. I am convinced, you and I can look at the same exact evidence, we can both use reason, and logic, and we can still come to completely different conclusions. In other words, I understand, until, or unless I can prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, there could be other alternatives.

Now let's see if we can determine who the burden of proof is actually upon? First, if you are not in any way attempting to absolutely, disprove Christianity, but are rather simply giving your reasons for rejecting it, which would more than likely include, "verifiable evidence," then you would have no burden of proof at all, since your goal is to simply explain the reasons for your stance, according to the way you have interpreted the evidence. However, if it is your goal to absolutely, disprove Christianity, then the burden of proof, is clearly upon you!

You see, the reality is, we have verifiable testimony from the letters contained in the Bible. To be clear here, when I say, "verifiable testimony," what I mean is, it can be verified, we have this testimony recorded.

It seems to be your claim, these testimonies that we have, were written generations after the events by anonymous writers. Well, it just so happens, a number of these writers, claim to have witnessed the events they record. On top of this, a good number of these letters actually identify the author, which is the case with the letters of Paul, and also the letters of Peter.

Since we have these testimonies, along with the witness of those such as Polycarp, and Ignatius, who would have been alive during the Apostolic age, it would seem, the burden of proof would be upon you, if you are attempting to PROVE these testimonies were written generations later, and, or have been tampered with.

You see, I had nothing to do with these letters, but I can certainly present them as evidence, along with what they themselves claim to have witnessed. If you are convinced these letters are not legitimate, then it would seem you have the burden of proof, to provide the proof they are not legitimate.

However, if you are not attempting to PROVE these testimonies are not legitimate, but are rather attempting to simply, give "verifiable evidence" as to why you believe they may not be legitimate, then you have no burden of proof at all. At this point, you would simply be giving the reasons for your stance, as opposed to providing proof.

The point is, I am convinced, you and I will never be able to prove our case one way or the other. With this being the case, all we can do is to give the reasons for what we believe, but if you are now convinced you can, PROVE your position, go right ahead, I am all ears!

Regardless what the Bible is called it cannot be used (rationally) to verify itself.

Well, if the Bible could be used to absolutely, "verify" itself, or if you could absolutely, "verify" what it is you claim about the Bible, then there would be no need in a site such as, "Debating Christianity" now would it? So then, we seem to agree on this point. However, the Bible can certainly be used as, "verifiable evidence" in support of itself. Allow me to give you an example that I have given in the past.

The Bible records, thousands of years ago, "the Israelites are the chosen people of God." This is absolutely, "verifiable" because I can cite numerous passages from the Bible, which state this very thing, and it would also be, "verifiable" these things were written thousands of years ago. It is, "verifiable" from secular history, the Israelites were an ancient tribe. It is also, "verifiable" from secular history, the other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible. The other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible, that are, "verified" by secular history, are no longer with us as a people. However, the Israelites, the people the Bible records as the people of God, and are also acknowledged by secular history as an ancient tribe, are still with us today, in spite of the odds against it.

The Israelites, continuing to be a people in spite of the odds, is also verifiable. This is why you will see, the only user group I am a part of on this site is, "Stands Against Holocaust Denial." I believe it is an undeniable fact, the Israelites have been, one of the most, if not the most persecuted race on the face of the earth. There have been those in the past who have attempted to wipe this race from the face of the earth. It is a fact, this race was without a homeland for centuries, spread across the world. In spite of this fact, they now have a homeland, and there are those today, who would love to see this race annihilated.

So then, all the above is evidence that can be verified, and it can certainly be used in support of the Biblical claims. I could continue, on, and on, giving this sort of evidence. Now, would any of this, PROVE the Bible is true? It would not, but it is at the very least evidence that can be used in support of the Biblical claims. Therefore, when you say,

Thus, confirming the truth of Bible tales rationally requires evidence OTHER than the tales themselves.

I believe the above is an example of, the Biblical tales, along side evidence outside the Bible, and as I have said, "I could continue on, and on, giving this sort of evidence." I will also point out again, I am not attempting to, "COMFIRM the truth of Bible tales," rather I am simply attempting to give reasons why someone may in fact believe.

The "tactic" of seeking truth often offends those who cannot show that what they say is truthful and accurate.

Let me assure you, I am not offended in any way, but more importantly, could you please demonstrate where I may have said something that was not truthful, or accurate? You see, I happen to believe the Christian message, and have been convinced by the evidence, however, I also understand the possibility of my error. Therefore, saying, "I believe the Christian message," is a far cry from saying, "it has to be true." Can you see the difference?

Yes, we are discussing VERIFIABLE evidence, not proof – evidence that can be checked. "Jesus told me personally" may be considered "evidence" by some but it is not verifiable.

You are certainly barking up the wrong tree here, because I have never in my life ever said, "Jesus told me personally". In fact, if a Christian ever told me such a thing had happen to them, I would pull out the Bible, and demonstrate how this does not occur. But that would be another topic.

In real life, RWJ, do we accept "Take my word for it" regarding important decisions (such as buying expensive real estate) or do we check (verify) what we are told?

Well, we certainly should check what we are told, in an attempt to verify what we are told, but as I have said, there is always the possibility of our error. In other words, I could check out what I have been told about a piece of real estate, and I can be convinced that I have verified what I have been told, but there could be certain loop holes I failed to consider. At any rate, this is exactly why I have studied the Bible so intently over the years, in order to attempt to verify what it has to say. So then, I am not the type of person who simply reads the Bible and excepts what it says.

Anyone who knows me will tell you, I am critical to a fault. I do not easily believe anything. Anything I hear, read, or even see, I am always critical. I listen, and read, critically, and this includes the Bible. So, I am absolutely not a "take my word for it" kind of person.

Yes, the Bible shows evidence of containing writings of people who were not personally acquainted

Oh really, can you kindly show your proof of this fact you have just stated? It is one thing to say you, "believe the people were not acquainted" and go on to supply the evidence. However, you seem to be making a dogmatic statement here, so what is the proof?

The New Testament consists of
four narratives of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, called "gospels" (or "good news" accounts);
a narrative of the Apostles' ministries in the early church, called the "Acts of the Apostles", and probably written by the same writer as the Gospel of Luke, which it continues;
twenty-one letters, often called "epistles" in the biblical context, written by various authors, and consisting of Christian doctrine, counsel, instruction, and conflict resolution; and
an Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, which is a book of prophecy, containing some instructions to seven local congregations of Asia Minor, but mostly containing prophetical symbology, about the end times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament

Does this indicate that the NT contains material other than, and in addition to, letters?

It absolutely does not, and it is extremely comical because it is so easy to refute. I actually began to laugh out loud when I read it.

The first question I would ask is, when did, "Wikipedia" become an authority on the Bible? Next, if you will notice, it refers to, "The Actions of the Apostles" as a narrative, when it is without question a personal letter. Both the, "Gospel of Luke" along with, "The Actions of The Apostles" were addressed to the same person, and the second letter not only refers to the first, it actually tells what was recorded in the first letter. Then "Wikipedia" tells us, Luke, and Acts were "PROBABLY" written by the same person. As I said, it's really funny. If Wikipedia is all the evidence you have, I believe I will pass. I find it hard to believe now, that you could ridicule anyone concerning their evidence.

At any rate, Luke, and Acts, are definitely written in letter form. All of Paul's writings are in letter form. Peter's writings are in letter form. James is in letter form, and Revelations itself claims to be the seven letters to the seven Churches.

Yes, some NT letters (or epistles) appear to have been written to individuals or groups. So what?

Exactly, what do you mean by the word, "appear"? Are you suggesting they may have been fake letters, and the persons they were addressed to were fake as well, and somehow these fake letters, addressed to fake people somehow found their way into circulation? Have you really thought about this? Generations later someone sat down to write a letter using the name of Paul, "the Apostle" addressed to a particular person. It is introduced to the Church generations later, even though no one has seen it before, and no one even questions this sudden appearance after all these years?

And you say, "So what?" Well, how about we compare these letters that were written by different authors, to different audiences, addressing different concerns, to determine if they may coincide together?

Under your theory, generations later someone wrote a fake letter using the name of Paul. Then there are 2 letters that have been attributed to Luke which, according to you someone else sat down to write generations later. However, when we compare these writings, written by two different authors, generations later, the events somehow seem to neatly coincide together. Unless of course you want to suggest all of these letters were written by the same person, generations later, which would open up a whole other can of worms, and becomes a train wreck.

You see this is the exact reasons there are those who come up with such theories, because they understand how well these letters coincide. Therefore they must endeavor to come up with some sort of explanation.

If (since) this is wrong, what else in the post is wrong?

Well seeing as how I have demonstrated it is not wrong, then what else have I said that may be true, and accurate? The only content of the New Testament that may be argued not to be in letter form, would be, Matthew, Mark, and John, which are considered, "Gospels." However, Luke is considered a "Gospel" as well, and it is clearly written in letter form, and contains a good bit of the same information, as the others.

The main point is, the authors of the New Testament did not have in mind to be authors of books, or a book. Rather, they were writing letters among each other, with no intention whatsoever that their letters would one day be compiled together. This is the main point I was attempting to stress, and if the truth is being strained here, it is being strained by, "Wikipedia"!

False dichotomy. A person can write a letter that contains information that they believe and claim is accurate even though they are mistaken in what they say. For instance, someone can write a letter detailing an automobile accident they heard about (sincerely believing it was true) but later it is discovered that no such accident occurred – was the letter writer LYING (which means "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" – notice intent to deceive. If one makes an untrue statement without realizing it is untrue they cannot legitimately be accused of lying.

No, it is not a false dichotomy. You would be correct to say, if someone simply heard about an accident, and simply reported what they had heard, and no accident actually occurred then they should not be accused of lying. However, if I write a letter to you, and claim to have actually witnessed the accident, and no accident actually occurred, what would I be then? A liar, right?

Now, would you like for me to go case by case through the New Testament writings and point out each and every time these writers claim to have witnessed the events they record?

You see, I clearly understand why you would like to make the case, "the writers of the New Testament were writing generations later." It is because in this way, they may be said to be only recording what had been past down to them through the generations, and they may have sincerely believed what they were told. In this way, they really could not be accused of lying, because they never really witnessed said events. But as I have said, "this will not fly, with the times in which these authors actually claimed to have witnessed said events."

The point I am attempting to push here is, no matter when these things were written, if the author claims to have witness certain events, that he did not witness, then he not only becomes a liar, he also is a liar, with the exact intent to deceive. Why are you so afraid of this? I am not afraid of it, because I realize, either these men were reporting the truth of what they witnessed, or they were liars with the intent to deceive, no matter who the author, or when it was written. If they claimed to have witnessed certain events, which they did not in fact witness, then they are liars, period.

It would appear as though whoever wrote 2 Peter was not telling the truth about being an "eyewitness of his majesty"

Well, here is that word, "appear" again? If the writer did not in fact witness this event, as you seem to be dogmatically saying, then it does not just, "appear" to be, but instead it is a fact, he is not telling the truth! At this point, I would like to pose a question. Is there a difference in, "not telling the truth" and lying? Wait a minute, maybe your next point will help us out here.

OR that the phrase was not intended to indicate an actual event (but rather a "spiritual" witnessing)

Nope! Sorry, this will not work at all in this case, because you see, the author was actually guarding against such a thing, when he wrote,

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories

You see, the writer is definitely attempting to steer the reader away from the sort of thing you describe, and that is why he goes on to intentionally use the word, "eyewitness." This word denotes, a real historical event, and the word, "eyewitness" would be a word you would commonly hear in a court of law. In fact, the New Testament writers employ a number of words you would expect to hear in a court of law on a daily basis. Here is a list of some of those words, and you can certainly look them up in a concordance. At any rate, here is the list, witness, eyewitness, convict, defense (as in a court of law), evidence, testify, testimony, investigate.

At any rate, as we get back to 2 Peter, the author is describing an event that happens to be recorded in 3 of the Gospels, and none of those describe it in any other way, than a historical event. Therefore, the intent of the author is to steer the reader away from the mystical, to reality.

OR the phrase was added later by others to improve the text.

Okay, can you provide any sort of evidence whatsoever, this may be the case for this particular text? It is one thing to say, "it is a possibility" it is quite another to give, "verifiable evidence" toward the accusation.

We do not know which, if any of these apply or if there are other unidentified alternatives.

Oh, so we just don't know? So then, it is possible that none of what you have speculated is true at all, and there could be other alternatives we have not yet considered, right? Well, let me ask you this. Is one of the possibilities that, the author was actually who he claimed to be, and was actually reporting facts? Or is this not even a possibility at all?

It is interesting to note:


Bible.org wrote:
Of all the epistles accepted into the New Testament canon, the book of 2 Peter remains the most difficult. Understanding with certainty the epistle’s complex issues feels like trying to untie a tightly woven knot—only to find more little knots to untie. However, if the issue of authorship can be reasonably determined, most of the knots considerably loosen themselves.

The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.1 The term pseudonymity refers to an author assuming the name of another, writing supposedly on his or her behalf—or in his or her name. The prefix pseudo means “false.� “Scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, although it must be admitted of the few who do that they defend their case with an impressive combination of learning and ingenuity.�2
https://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s

Does this affect what is said in 2 Peter?

It absolutely does, because if you read the whole article then you surely noticed it gave a defense for a Peterine authorship. I could give a better defense of a Peterine authorship, but that is really beside the point, because the point is, if the author was not in fact Peter, and the author did not in fact witness the event recorded, then the author is a liar, period!

When the author claims to have witnessed the, "Transfiguration" he is without a doubt at that point claiming to be either, Peter, James, or John, because these are the only three recorded in all three of the Gospel accounts to have witnessed this event. So then, the author is at least claiming to have been one of these three. If he was not, he is a liar, and since he claimed to be Peter, (which just so happens to be one of the three) if he was not Peter, then he is a liar, and a liar with the intent to deceive, period!

Let's pause here and consider your scenario. More than likely, the original followers of Jesus, never left anything in writing. Like the followers of the others who came along before, and after Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, the followers of Jesus simply faded into history, leaving nothing behind. Generations later, pseudo writers began to record writings concerning the life, and teachings of Jesus. Much of this writing coincide neatly together, and many of these writers actually claim to be the original followers of Jesus, even though it is generations later. These writings are filled with theological content, and tie neatly into the writings of the Old Testament.

At any rate, these pseudo writers certainly went to a lot of trouble, and they certainly must of had an intent. For at least some of them, the intention would have been to lead people to believe, something they knew beyond doubt at the time of writing, was a lie. Then generations later these letters are introduced to the Church, and they are accepted as authentic, and these pseudo letters, become one of the reasons for the great success of Christianity, which goes on to become the largest faith known to man. All of this would have been done by those who were lying, knew they were lying, and were lying with the exact intent to deceive, and they end up being successful. I don't care who you are, that is a fantastic tale!

There IS evidence that the NT gospel writers copied from one another or from another common source. We are all aware of the "The Synoptic Problem" in which ". . . textual analysis of Matthew, Mark and Luke show large portions so strikingly similar, not only in content but even the language used, that it is generally agreed they have drawn upon common source material, either oral or written: hence these three are generally referred to as the ‘synoptic’ gospels. http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/ntdocs/ntdocs6/

Again, this is extremely comical! On the one hand, I have to defend against those who complain about the discrepancies between these writers, because there are certain discrepancies. Then, on the other hand, I have to defend against the similarities in the stories, and sometimes, I have to defend both to the same exact folks. So then, is it the discrepancies that cause the New Testament to be unreliable? Or, is it the similarities?

Well, since you bring up the similarities, let's attempt to deal with it. If the authors are actually, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then would it really be uncommon for them to describe the events in the same exact way, using the similar verbiage? Think about it, if you and I had been friends for a long time, and had witnessed extraordinary events together, then certainly we would continue to discuss these events between ourselves over, and over. Not only would we sit together and discuss these events among ourselves, more than likely we would also be together describing the events to others as well. When others heard these stories, they may in fact bring friends, and family members in to hear the stories as well, which would cause us to retell the stories, over, and over again in the hearing of the same people. With this being the case, it would not be strange at all for the stories to be told, in a very similar fashion. But here is the thing.

Let's say, Matthew wrote his letter first. If Mark, had a copy of this letter by Matthew, and wanted to pass this information on to others, then why would he not simply copy it word for word, or have a scribe copy Matthew, and send this copy on to those he wished to have this information? Why would he go to the trouble of sitting down to compose a whole other letter?

Another point is, although there may be similarities in the stories told, they are not told in the same sequence, which is certainly evidence against copying. But the fact of the matter is, I really do not understand the problem? We certainly, "copy and paste" here on this site all the time. Instead of attempting to completely rewrite some sort of information I have received from others, I may in fact, "copy and paste." But you see, 2000 years ago, they would not have had, "copy and paste." This is not an admission on my part, that I believe these authors did in fact copy each other, because I believe the evidence shows differently, rather I am simply saying, I really do not see the problem.

But, I think the author of "Luke" may help us out with this copying question. Right at the beginning of his first letter, the author tells his audience, the reason for his writing, identifies his audience, and more importantly, how he gathered his information.

Luke 1:1-4
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

There is a lot of great information in these few sentences, but our main concern here is how the author claims to have obtained his information, which was through, "careful investigation." With this being the case, if the author simply copied others, and did not in fact perform any sort of investigation, then he is without question, a liar! At this point, simply saying, "what the author may have considered careful investigation, may not really be careful investigation," will not wok here in this case, because he goes on to give his intent for saying he, "carefully investigated everything," which was so that his audience, which was someone by the name of, "Theophilus" "may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." With this statement, the author is claiming to be reporting, "the exact truth." This is clearly his stated purpose.

The author without a doubt, is attempting to give, Theophilus confidence in what he is about to read. This is not someone who is simply passing on information, that has been passed on to him, but rather someone who is claiming to have, "investigated EVERTHING CAREFULLY from the BEGINNING," in order for his audience to, "KNOW the EXACT TRUTH about the things you have been taught."

This is very strong language, and clearly demonstrates, the author is either telling the truth throughout both of his letters, or he is a complete liar, with the intent to deceive!

Allow me to apologize for the length but I attempted to address as much as possible, and also let me apologize for my very tardy response time.

[enviousintheeverafter]

You see, the reality is, we have verifiable testimony from the letters contained in the Bible. To be clear here, when I say, "verifiable testimony," what I mean is, it can be verified, we have this testimony recorded.

It seems to be your claim, these testimonies that we have, were written generations after the events by anonymous writers. Well, it just so happens, a number of these writers, claim to have witnessed the events they record. On top of this, a good number of these letters actually identify the author, which is the case with the letters of Paul, and also the letters of Peter.

Since we have these testimonies, along with the witness of those such as Polycarp, and Ignatius, who would have been alive during the Apostolic age, it would seem, the burden of proof would be upon you, if you are attempting to PROVE these testimonies were written generations later, and, or have been tampered with.

As if if this would be especially difficult- given that it is the overwhelming consensus among scholars and that corroborating such a claim would require little more than a few minutes providing citations or posting/paraphrasing sections from the relevant publications on the subject. That's if that's even deemed necessary- that, for instance, the Gospels were not written by the Apostles whose names they bear, is such a ubiquitous and well-corroborated view that it may well be considered public knowledge, no more in need of specific citation than the assertion that things fall when dropped.

You see, I had nothing to do with these letters, but I can certainly present them as evidence, along with what they themselves claim to have witnessed. If you are convinced these letters are not legitimate, then it would seem you have the burden of proof, to provide the proof they are not legitimate.

Well but part of presenting evidence is assuring/establishing that the evidence is reliable and legitimate. If someone is going to cite Scripture as evidence for religious claims, establishing the legitimacy of those sources is part of their burden of proof.

However, the Bible can certainly be used as, "verifiable evidence" in support of itself.

Not without circularity.

The Bible records, thousands of years ago, "the Israelites are the chosen people of God." This is absolutely, "verifiable" because I can cite numerous passages from the Bible, which state this very thing, and it would also be, "verifiable" these things were written thousands of years ago. It is, "verifiable" from secular history, the Israelites were an ancient tribe. It is also, "verifiable" from secular history, the other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible. The other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible, that are, "verified" by secular history, are no longer with us as a people. However, the Israelites, the people the Bible records as the people of God, and are also acknowledged by secular history as an ancient tribe, are still with us today, in spite of the odds against it.

You're not talking about using the Bible as evidence in support of itself here, but are talking about external evidence supporting the Bible, which is the crucial difference.

I believe the above is an example of, the Biblical tales, along side evidence outside the Bible, and as I have said, "I could continue on, and on, giving this sort of evidence." I will also point out again, I am not attempting to, "COMFIRM the truth of Bible tales," rather I am simply attempting to give reasons why someone may in fact believe.

But what's the purpose of this? Isn't it to show that there are good and rational reasons to believe the truth of the Bible? But then, we have to ask whether the reasons do in fact imply the truth, or probability, of the Biblical claims. If the reasons for believing X do not imply the truth, or probable truth, of X, then they cannot be good and rational reasons for believing X, and someone believing X on that basis does so irrationally.

Let me assure you, I am not offended in any way, but more importantly, could you please demonstrate where I may have said something that was not truthful, or accurate? You see, I happen to believe the Christian message, and have been convinced by the evidence, however, I also understand the possibility of my error. Therefore, saying, "I believe the Christian message," is a far cry from saying, "it has to be true." Can you see the difference?

The difference is merely one of degree- saying "I believe the Biblical claims" is to say that you think they are true, which isn't quite the same as saying they have to be true. But just because one believes that they are true rather than that they must be true doesn't mean that the rationality of the belief isn't still contingent upon their being reasons for the belief that imply itse truth or at least probability. But the sorts of reasons you're talking about here (i.e. scriptural testimony) pretty clearly don't satisfy this requirement.

[enviousintheeverafter]

But Christianity IS science

The opposite if this is the case. No religion is scientific, but Christianity is certainly one of the least scientific of the bunch.

... a fascinating subject for study by all open-minded people

Indeed- religion, and all the peculiar sociological/psychological phenomena involved, is quite fascinating. But open-mindedness is death to acceptance of (any particular) religion- once again, Christianity probably first and foremost. A robust Christian belief is not compatible with rational/critical self-examination.

[Realworldjack]

You see, the reality is, we have verifiable testimony from the letters contained in the Bible. To be clear here, when I say, "verifiable testimony," what I mean is, it can be verified, we have this testimony recorded.

It seems to be your claim, these testimonies that we have, were written generations after the events by anonymous writers. Well, it just so happens, a number of these writers, claim to have witnessed the events they record. On top of this, a good number of these letters actually identify the author, which is the case with the letters of Paul, and also the letters of Peter.

Since we have these testimonies, along with the witness of those such as Polycarp, and Ignatius, who would have been alive during the Apostolic age, it would seem, the burden of proof would be upon you, if you are attempting to PROVE these testimonies were written generations later, and, or have been tampered with.

As if if this would be especially difficult- given that it is the overwhelming consensus among scholars and that corroborating such a claim would require little more than a few minutes providing citations or posting/paraphrasing sections from the relevant publications on the subject. That's if that's even deemed necessary- that, for instance, the Gospels were not written by the Apostles whose names they bear, is such a ubiquitous and well-corroborated view that it may well be considered public knowledge, no more in need of specific citation than the assertion that things fall when dropped.

You see, I had nothing to do with these letters, but I can certainly present them as evidence, along with what they themselves claim to have witnessed. If you are convinced these letters are not legitimate, then it would seem you have the burden of proof, to provide the proof they are not legitimate.

Well but part of presenting evidence is assuring/establishing that the evidence is reliable and legitimate. If someone is going to cite Scripture as evidence for religious claims, establishing the legitimacy of those sources is part of their burden of proof.

However, the Bible can certainly be used as, "verifiable evidence" in support of itself.

Not without circularity.

The Bible records, thousands of years ago, "the Israelites are the chosen people of God." This is absolutely, "verifiable" because I can cite numerous passages from the Bible, which state this very thing, and it would also be, "verifiable" these things were written thousands of years ago. It is, "verifiable" from secular history, the Israelites were an ancient tribe. It is also, "verifiable" from secular history, the other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible. The other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible, that are, "verified" by secular history, are no longer with us as a people. However, the Israelites, the people the Bible records as the people of God, and are also acknowledged by secular history as an ancient tribe, are still with us today, in spite of the odds against it.

You're not talking about using the Bible as evidence in support of itself here, but are talking about external evidence supporting the Bible, which is the crucial difference.

I believe the above is an example of, the Biblical tales, along side evidence outside the Bible, and as I have said, "I could continue on, and on, giving this sort of evidence." I will also point out again, I am not attempting to, "COMFIRM the truth of Bible tales," rather I am simply attempting to give reasons why someone may in fact believe.

But what's the purpose of this? Isn't it to show that there are good and rational reasons to believe the truth of the Bible? But then, we have to ask whether the reasons do in fact imply the truth, or probability, of the Biblical claims. If the reasons for believing X do not imply the truth, or probable truth, of X, then they cannot be good and rational reasons for believing X, and someone believing X on that basis does so irrationally.

Let me assure you, I am not offended in any way, but more importantly, could you please demonstrate where I may have said something that was not truthful, or accurate? You see, I happen to believe the Christian message, and have been convinced by the evidence, however, I also understand the possibility of my error. Therefore, saying, "I believe the Christian message," is a far cry from saying, "it has to be true." Can you see the difference?

The difference is merely one of degree- saying "I believe the Biblical claims" is to say that you think they are true, which isn't quite the same as saying they have to be true. But just because one believes that they are true rather than that they must be true doesn't mean that the rationality of the belief isn't still contingent upon their being reasons for the belief that imply itse truth or at least probability. But the sorts of reasons you're talking about here (i.e. scriptural testimony) pretty clearly don't satisfy this requirement.

As if if this would be especially difficult- given that it is the overwhelming consensus among scholars

What scholars are you talking about? You do realize there are, "scholars" who believe these letters to be authentic, right? Of course the scholars who claim these writings are authentic, are Christian scholars, while those opposed are not. So, are you suggesting the truth is determined by the majority? If so, that is an extremely poor argument!

That's if that's even deemed necessary- that, for instance, the Gospels were not written by the Apostles whose names they bear, is such a ubiquitous and well-corroborated view that it may well be considered public knowledge, no more in need of specific citation than the assertion that things fall when dropped.

Well yes, it certainly seems as if you have swallowed what you have been told, hook, line, and sinker, simply because this is what you have been told! Please attempt to explain to me, how this is any different from a Christian believing something, simply because the Bible records it? Your view certainly seems to be, "the scholars say it, I believe it, and that settles it."

In the same way, I would be willing to bet, you believe evolution, because the majority of scientists believe it to be true, right? And since the majority of scientists believe it to be true, then it is as certain as, "things fall when dropped?" WOW!

that, for instance, the Gospels were not written by the Apostles whose names they bear,

Which Gospels are you talking about? There are four Gospels, so which ones are you talking about?

Well but part of presenting evidence is assuring/establishing that the evidence is reliable and legitimate.

I don't think so. I believe a lawyer, can present a witness who claims to have witnessed certain events, if the opposing side believes the witness to be unreliable, the responsibility is upon them to demonstrate this unreliability.

If someone is going to cite Scripture as evidence for religious claims, establishing the legitimacy of those sources is part of their burden of proof.

First, there is a tremendous difference between, evidence, and proof! On the one hand, I can simply give you the, "evidence" of why I believe as I do. Giving evidence, does not in any way, establish truth, rather it is simply reasons to believe a certain way, according to the way the evidence is interpreted. On the other hand, if I supply proof, then I am establishing truth, that is beyond question.

The point is, I understand myself to be giving the, "evidence" of what I believe, and why I believe it, with the understanding that it is not "proof". If you have the, "proof" of what you believe then I am certainly willing to listen, and it would certainly help me out, because I certainly would not want to continue to believe something that there is certain proof against! So then, if you have the certain, "PROOF" then please supply it.

Quote:

However, the Bible can certainly be used as, "verifiable evidence" in support of itself.

Not without circularity.

Okay then, allow me to give you an example, and then you explain to us how this argument is circular.

The Bible contains two letters which have been attributed to Luke. Of course one of these letters is known to us as, "The Gospel of Luke," the other letter is, "The Actions of The Apostles." Toward the end of the second letter, the writer begins to concentrate almost exclusively, on the actions of Paul. He even begins to use the word, "we" clearly indicating he is with Paul witnessing the events. The author claims to have been with Paul, on his journey to Rome in order to stand trial there. The letter ends with Paul being under house arrest, welcoming all that came to him, and preaching the Gospel to them, for two whole years, and the author clearly indicates he is there with Paul. These two letters that have been attributed to Luke, are addressed to someone name, Theophilus and they give the reasons for the writing.

Okay so then, we have another letter contained in the Bible, in which the author clearly identifies himself as the, Apostle Paul. The letter I am referring to, is the second letter to Timothy. There is evidence in this letter, that the author was in fact under house arrest, and at the end of this letter, the author, who claimed to be Paul, tells Timothy that, there were some who had deserted him, but goes on to say, "only Luke is with me."

So then now, as we compare these two letters together, written by two completely different people, to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns, we can clearly see how they validate each other, and the thing is, they do so incidentally.

So now, please explain how this is not, verifiable internal Biblical evidence, supporting itself? Also explain how this would be a circular argument!

But what's the purpose of this? Isn't it to show that there are good and rational reasons to believe the truth of the Bible?

Yes, this is what I am attempting to do, but there is a tremendous difference between attempting "to show that there are good and rational reasons to believe the truth of the Bible," and establishing the truth of the Bible, and Christianity. We will get to more on this in just a moment.

But then, we have to ask whether the reasons do in fact imply the truth, or probability, of the Biblical claims. If the reasons for believing X do not imply the truth, or probable truth, of X, then they cannot be good and rational reasons for believing X, and someone believing X on that basis does so irrationally.

Okay, so can you please explain whom I need to go to in order to determine any of this? Should I consult you, since you seem to believe your reasoning is sound? Should I consult the scholars, and simply believe what the majority of them have to say, as you seem to do? In other words, what is it that causes you to believe your reason, and logic is any more sound than mine? As I said, "we will get to more on this in a moment," and I will explain the way I see it, but I would certainly like you to explain, how you come to the conclusion, your logic and reasoning, is any better than anyone else? Or, do you gage it like, those that agree with you, use sound logic, but if they disagree their logic is way off the mark?

The difference is merely one of degree- saying "I believe the Biblical claims" is to say that you think they are true, which isn't quite the same as saying they have to be true. But just because one believes that they are true rather than that they must be true doesn't mean that the rationality of the belief isn't still contingent upon their being reasons for the belief that imply itse truth or at least probability. But the sorts of reasons you're talking about here (i.e. scriptural testimony) pretty clearly don't satisfy this requirement.

Well, at this point I will attempt to explain the way I see things. Before I begin, allow me to say, I came to this particular site, thinking I would be discussing theology with fellow Christians. It was not until I signed up that I realized there seemed to be more of those here opposed to Christianity, than there were Christians themselves. Therefore, I saw this as an opportunity for myself, and myself alone, to determine if what I claimed to believe, held up to those with completely opposing beliefs. In other words, I have no desire, or impression, that my arguments will somehow persuade anyone. So then, I admit, my reasons for staying here are, selfish. I say all of this, simply to establish my reasons for participating on this site.

Having established the above, allow me to help you get some things straight. The name of this site is, "Debating Christianity." With this being the case, there is a reason for you, as an unbeliever to be here. What is that reason? Is it to prove Christianity wrong? If so, you are not doing a very good job! Or could it be, your reason for being here, is to simply explain why you reject Christianity, according to the way you have interpreted the evidence? If this is the case, then welcome to the conversation, and I am more than happy to exchange ideas.

The point is, if you believe you can prove Christianity false, then by all means go right ahead, and we can shut this site down.

The question now becomes, which of us is living in the, "real world?" Is it the one who understands they cannot prove what it is they believe, but instead gives the reasons for what they believe, and why they believe it? Or, is it the one who seems to think, what they believe is a proven fact, and anyone who may disagree is, irrational, and illogical?