Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?

[Zzyzx]

A KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?"
Unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more), four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, AND none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension,' AND he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

Of course, Paul/Saul claimed to have met the dead man in a 'vision' (or hallucination or imagination) while blind and delusional for days (and also claiming to have taken a trip to 'the third heaven')

WHY accept such stories as truthful and accurate?

[SiNcE_1985]

If your standard for an 'eyewitness' is really THIS low, then you should accept/believe virtually any claim(ed) miracle(s) from antiquity.

Here, hold this "L".

He said what he said.

Either you believe him, or you don't.

Did any of the said 'eyewitnesses' see/read the Greek-written document, as written by "Mark" and then also (corroborate/validate) it? Nope.

Here, hold this "L".

If they were eyewitnesses, why would they need to "read" anything?

Being we are dealing with a claim from ancient antiquity, we have nothing else to go upon with the Gospels.

1) Are the claims consistent and/or trustworthy? No.
2) Are the given source(s) reliable, as they also express other details? Meaning, do the other claims within these documents comport with (or) can they also be corroborated using external source(s)? No.
3) Is the given source(s) unbiased, via both religiously (and/or) politically? No.
4) Do the claim(s) exclude breaking immutable (and/or) "natural" law(s)? No.
5) Are the claim(s) backed by any substantiated relic(s)? No.

Opinions.

The more (no's) above, the worse off the odds are... The Bible looks to then be quite low on the probable 'truth-barometer.' Sorry.

Cool. Carry on with unbelief, then.

Historians verify ancient claims by cross-referencing information across multiple types of evidence, including written sources, archaeological finds, and material artifacts, then critically evaluating each source's origin, purpose, and reliability. They look for corroboration, or multiple independent sources that agree, and use contextual analysis to determine if a claim is typical or unique. They also use techniques like comparing handwriting or linguistic style to authenticate documents and check for consistency with known historical or archaeological data.

Let me guess; the Bible doesn't meet those^ standards.

Gotcha.

I disagree.

What else you got?

This is because they HAVE to. It's quite odd that a "god inspired" book needs so much heavy footnoting. This is one of the reasons Christian apologetics is also so dang necessary. They cannot let the text speak for themselves. No, perpetual spin must be implemented by Christian apologist(s).

Here, hold this "L".

Um, no.

The footnotes are for clarity and usually involves how certain words should be translated into English (for English Bibles).

The Gospel isn't effected by it so it ain't even an issue.

Yes. And when skeptics call things out, the spinner will spin it. Like when the reader compares "Mark" to Luke', and reads the given (alternative facts), as issued in "Luke", when compared to "Mark".

Here, hold this "L".

Whatever you got to say about Mark-Luke; say it.

Come wit it.

Ohh, I get it, you're unable to express your own thoughts, so you are relying on this bogus video to do it for you.

Is that what it is?

One post in, and you cannot help yourself, with the (science denial). I've already exposed your bankrupt epistemology in another thread. Do I need to do it again here?

Here, hold this "L".

Hey, you attack my faith..and I attack yours.

Fair exchange, no robbery.

[POI]

He said what he said. Either you believe him, or you don't.

Another demonstrated handwave. I'm pointing out YOUR epistemology. Based upon your own standards of eyewitness attestation, you should accept virtually all miraculous claims from antiquity. Which would mean you should be the most confused and undecided individual on the planet -- in not knowing which religion(s) to randomly accept/reject.

If they were eyewitnesses, why would they need to "read" anything?

Any publication from antiquity can say so-and-so saw stuff. All this proves is hearsay, and not instead verifying there were any actual eyewitnesses. We've been all over this, in the last thread, already.

Opinions.

Yet another handwave or deflection... I'm not sure if you do this solely to deflect from the facts, or, because you really do not know what the word 'opinions' here really means.

In terms of using the historical method, this collection of claims objectively falls very low, regarding any scholarly confidence standard.

Cool. Carry on with unbelief, then.

Yet another handwave,

Let me guess; the Bible doesn't meet those^ standards. Gotcha. I disagree. What else you got?

Oh no! Not the 'nuh-uh' defense!

But yet, you are spot-in. When comparing this collection of claims with other claims from antiquity, the Bible is objectively bottom barrel. Sorry dude. I know you have nothing, other than a handwave. This is why indoctrinated faith is paramount.

Um, no. The footnotes are for clarity and usually involves how certain words should be translated into English (for English Bibles). The Gospel isn't effected by it so it ain't even an issue.

Riiight! And when a second author later added verses (9-20), in Mark 16, what was that? You see Venom, since these writers got caught, they have no choice but to acknowledge the manipulation. And this is where the shifty apologists later come in to 'save the day.'

Whatever you got to say about Mark-Luke; say it.

I already have. "Luke" makes claims, which are irreconcilable with the claims from "Mark". The video, which I'm sure you handwaved, because this has been your demonstrated MO, mentions many of them.

Hey, you attack my faith..and I attack yours.

Based upon YOUR OWN given standard, evolutionary theory is not faith-based. Hence, not only are you wrong, but you have some absurd fetish with a peer reviewed theoretical science which obviously makes you quiver, (as you feel the knee-jerk need to mention it in every exchange).

[SiNcE_1985]

Another demonstrated handwave. I'm pointing out YOUR epistemology. Based upon your own standards of eyewitness attestation, you should accept virtually all miraculous claims from antiquity.

I have no problem accepting miraculous claims...because after all, I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES!!

I believe in a God who performs miracles...and this God may even allow undivinely inspired miracles.

So, don't threaten me with a good time here.

Which would mean you should be the most confused and undecided individual on the planet -- in not knowing which religion(s) to randomly accept/reject.

Um, no.

According to Judeo-Christianity, there is a spiritual war between righteous spirits (angels who, based on God's command and order), performs miraculous deeds.

And on the flip side, you have evil spirits (demons) who are among Satan's camp...who God allows to run amok and yet are still under divine supervision under God.

These evil spirits also performs miracles...and with these miracles comes the deception of other religions.

But obviously, we as believers have the Holy Spirit to provide us discernment...and this is all my long-winded way of saying; there is no confusion or indecisiveness to those of whom this discernment is given to.

Religion-babble to you? I know.

And I love it.

Any publication from antiquity can say so-and-so saw stuff. All this proves is hearsay, and not instead verifying there were any actual eyewitnesses. We've been all over this, in the last thread, already.

Yeah, and we've also been through the fact that; it doesn't matter what we have.

Even if we had the author(s)of the Gospels saying "I (we) were there, I seen the risen Jesus", then skeptics would be moving the goalposts elsewhere.

That said, it simply doesn't matter what we have.

The books say what they say.

Either you believe it, or you don't.

Yet another handwave or deflection... I'm not sure if you do this solely to deflect from the facts, or, because you really do not know what the word 'opinions' here really means.

I'm unconvinced at your assessment.

In terms of using the historical method, this collection of claims objectively falls very low, regarding any scholarly confidence standard.

Based on the evidence presented, I'm convinced.

Oh no! Not the 'nuh-uh' defense!

But yet, you are spot-in. When comparing this collection of claims with other claims from antiquity, the Bible is objectively bottom barrel. Sorry dude. I know you have nothing, other than a handwave. This is why indoctrinated faith is paramount.

Opinions.

Riiight! And when a second author later added verses (9-20), in Mark 16, what was that?

It was what it was.

You see Venom, since these writers got caught, they have no choice but to acknowledge the manipulation. And this is where the shifty apologists later come in to 'save the day.'

First of all, it isn't even necessarily true that Mark 9-20 isn't historical.

All we know is what the footnotes say; which is that verses 9-20 isn't in the earliest manuscripts.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I already have. "Luke" makes claims, which are irreconcilable with the claims from "Mark". The video, which I'm sure you handwaved, because this has been your demonstrated MO, mentions many of them.

I ain't see no irreconcilable claims yet.

Based upon YOUR OWN given standard, evolutionary theory is not faith-based. Hence, not only are you wrong, but you have some absurd fetish with a peer reviewed theoretical science which obviously makes you quiver, (as you feel the knee-jerk need to mention it in every exchange).

?

[POI]

I believe in a God who performs miracles...and this God may even allow undivinely inspired miracles.

According to Judeo-Christianity, there is a spiritual war between righteous spirits (angels who, based on God's command and order), performs miraculous deeds.

we as believers have the Holy Spirit to provide us discernment...and this is all my long-winded way of saying; there is no confusion or indecisiveness to those of whom this discernment is given to.

1) I already know you believe in 'miracles', (aka) the 'supernatural', like claimed resurrection(s) and the like. The question is WHY? Especially from claims in antiquity, which do not even provide verified eyewitness attestation to boot --- such as the Gospels?

2) Without use of the prefrontal cortex of your brain, the majority of your ability for [discernment] would not be possible. Meaning, if this portion of your brain was (damaged/missing/other), you would not possess the ability to even [discern] perceived (good vs evil). Aside from indoctrinated faith and circular reasoning alone - (aka) -- I was 1) raised in it and 2) the Bible tells me so, please demonstrate two points:

a) Please demonstrate why anyone should believe that the "Holy Spirit" actually exists?
b) Please explain why the demonstrated "Holy Spirit" must only work in humans who possess a functioning prefrontal cortex?

I'll await the handwave...

Yeah, and we've also been through the fact that; it doesn't matter what we have.

You are missing my point here Venom. Sure, I acknowledge I likely still would not believe myself. But this is not WHY I ask. The reason I ask, is because the Gospel accounts are no more substantiated (in their hearsay to the divine) than any rival claim to the divine. Which then means you apply special pleading for the Gospels. Why?

The "why" question is a rhetorical one. Meaning, you apply fallacious reasoning because you were raised in THIS one. That's all. Otherwise, you have no actual evidence to place this claim above and beyond the many other claims to the divine.

I'm unconvinced at your assessment.

LOL! Handwaving is not debating. Based upon THE historical method (offered/given/provided) prior, the Bible falls at the very bottom for confirmed historicity. You know it, I know it. Which is exactly why you have not offered any rebuttal on many occasions, when I offered the standard for the historical method in the last thread/exchange. You are a product of indoctrination, with no actual evidence to back up your indoctrinated faith.

Opinions.

Yet again, another handwave and/or improper use of the word 'opinions'. The historical method places your beloved indoctrinated collection(s) of hearsay at the bottom of the (veracity barometer). Which is one of the reasons why believers in the Bible will preach faith in God without seeing him.

It was what it was. First of all, it isn't even necessarily true that Mark 9-20 isn't historical. All we know is what the footnotes say; which is that verses 9-20 isn't in the earliest manuscripts. Nothing more, nothing less.

You see Venom, even when I provide an example, you just handwave. Pointing out this one well-known 'footnote', at the end of Mark, exposes the obvious corruption in the Gospels. This is why you run the other direction.

I ain't see no irreconcilable claims yet.

When you are deeply intrenched within (Christian apologetics), regardless of what your own personal position is (i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, other), as a believer, you never will find any irreconcilable claims. Why? Like I said, the spinner will spin. And you, my friend, are quite dizzy.

?

You accept peer reviewed theoretical science as substantiated, unless it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. Your fallacious reasoning runs abound. The 4-minute video posted below is more-so for others to watch, since I know you handwave them yourself.

[historia]

As I see it, one of the main reasons believers can continue debating the topic of a "risen Jesus' is because investigating virtually any claim(s) from antiquity is fraught with pitfalls.

I appreciate your point here about the inherent difficulties of investigating events from ancient history. But this is an odd critique to lay at the feet of Christians when this topic that is "fraught with pitfalls" was started by an atheist.

The 'Gospels' were written in Greek. If a truly all loving and caring god wish(es) to convey universal truth, I doubt such a god would leave such claims to the hands of fallible humans to write it down later, in one specific language, for later generations to muck it up.

It seems to me this "message in a bottle" view of Scripture is more indicative of how Muslims view the Quran than Christians have historically viewed the Bible.

Historically, Christians see the Bible (and especially the New Testament) as part of, and integral to, the apostolic tradition of the early Church. It is part of a broader set of teachings and practices that are authoritative because the apostles and their successors themselves have authority.

The New Testament is not a one-time revelation in the way the Quran purports to be. And for that reason, Christians don't revere "one specific language" as being sacred in the way Muslims and Jews do with Arabic and Hebrew, respectively. Nor are minor transmission errors in the NT manuscript tradition a serious concern to Christianity in the way that similar errors in the Quran would be in Islam.

[POI]

I appreciate your point here about the inherent difficulties of investigating events from ancient history.

Thanks.

But this is an odd critique to lay at the feet of Christians when this topic that is "fraught with pitfalls" was started by an atheist.

This thread wasn't started by <me> though. (Skeptics/doubters/scoffers/atheists/other) do not share the exact same viewpoints regarding the supernatural claims in which they express doubt. 'Atheism" runs the gamut from (mythicist <to> Jesus was a real person who was executed for 'treason' <to> beyond this point even). I'm merely here to express how claims from ancient antiquity cannot usually be compared to modern historical claims. However, in using the historical methods we have, where exactly does the Bible actually align, when compared to other claims from antiquity? The Bible does not fare very well, as compared to other said storylines from antiquity -- in which historians deem as factual events. Christians know this, which is why they desperately try to add "relics", modify the Gospels, plagiarize other historians - (like Josephus), etc...

Further, whether or not one believes a Jesus actually rose, in and of itself, is outside the confines of historicity anyways. Why? From a purely historical-critical perspective, dead bodies do not rise, and such an event is considered outside the realm of historical inquiry. Quite frankly, it is a faith-based claim alone. But if we gleam the historical method, the Bible does not cut the mustard without a whole lot of injected faith.

It seems to me this "message in a bottle" view of Scripture is more indicative of how Muslims view the Quran than Christians have historically viewed the Bible.

I reckon this is the position 'progressive Christians' now HAVE to take, in line of the reality that many of these claims are not founded historically/scientifically. Case/point, "Adam and Eve," "Noah's flood", "the Exodus", etc., are no longer deemed actual events in history. This requires a massive pivot by later Christians.

Christians have historically viewed the Bible (and especially the New Testament) as part of, and integral to, the apostolic tradition of the early Church. It is, in that way, part of a broader set of teachings and practices, and not something you're meant to just read and interpret on its own.

Okay. If you were a perfect being, and wanted to spread truth, would (you) opt to pass it along orally, knowing that fallible and corrupt humans would write it to paper many decades later, and that no one would agree on virtually anything within it? And I know what you might say... (Paraphrased) - "Even if Jesus opted to pass it down himself, followers would not all agree." I get that. But you see the problem here... Jesus apparently has the ability to express his messages in a way all could understand, and he (at best) chose not to. He opted only to update/correct individuals while he was alive, and while people confronted him directly. This means, at minimum, he possesses little value in conveying truth for anyone after. We are instead stuck with a corrupt set of texts and no correction to come. Weee!

That's why Christians don't revere "one specific language" as being sacred in the way Muslims and Jews do with Arabic and Hebrew, respectively. Nor are minor transmission errors in the NT manuscript tradition a serious concern to Christianity in the way that similar errors in the Quran would be in Islam.

I'm not sweating the "minor" errors. I'm sweating the claims, in which Jesus apparently also believed, which are later discovered to be objectively false, like the aforementioned OT claims above -- (just for starters).

[SiNcE_1985]

1) I already know you believe in 'miracles', (aka) the 'supernatural', like claimed resurrection(s) and the like. The question is WHY?

Why? Because of...

1. The absolutely, positive, irrefutable evidence that there exists a cosmic creator of the universe and life within it....beyond any reasonable doubt.

And because of...

2. The preponderance of evidence which supports the resurrection of Jesus...meaning the event is more likely than not to have occured.

That is why.

Especially from claims in antiquity, which do not even provide verified eyewitness attestation to boot --- such as the Gospels?

Well again, I doubt that even if we had verified eyewitness attestation, that skeptics would be any closer to belief than they are now.

That said; we have what we have...and if you aren't going to believe it, even if we have what you currently say we don't, then of course you won't believe it if we have anything less.

So, the Gospels are damned if they do, damned if that don't...and if that's the case then; let those who don't believe, continue not believing...and let those who do, be blessed...as Jesus stated in John 20:28-29.

2) Without use of the prefrontal cortex of your brain, the majority of your ability for [discernment] would not be possible. Meaning, if this portion of your brain was (damaged/missing/other), you would not possess the ability to even [discern] perceived (good vs evil).

If my uncle had a vagina, he would be my auntie.

Aside from indoctrinated faith and circular reasoning alone - (aka) -- I was 1) raised in it and 2) the Bible tells me so, please demonstrate two points:

a) Please demonstrate why anyone should believe that the "Holy Spirit" actually exists?
b) Please explain why the demonstrated "Holy Spirit" must only work in humans who possess a functioning prefrontal cortex?

I'll await the handwave...

This is a red herring. If you believe in Christianity, then you should believe in the Holy Spirit.

If you don't, then you shouldn't.

Just as simple as that.

Moving along.

You are missing my point here Venom. Sure, I acknowledge I likely still would not believe myself.

My sentiments exactly.

But this is not WHY I ask. The reason I ask, is because the Gospel accounts are no more substantiated (in their hearsay to the divine) than any rival claim to the divine. Which then means you apply special pleading for the Gospels. Why?

The "why" question is a rhetorical one. Meaning, you apply fallacious reasoning because you were raised in THIS one. That's all. Otherwise, you have no actual evidence to place this claim above and beyond the many other claims to the divine.

The evidence for the resurrection is convincing to me. That is why.

LOL! Handwaving is not debating. Based upon THE historical method (offered/given/provided) prior, the Bible falls at the very bottom for confirmed historicity. You know it, I know it. Which is exactly why you have not offered any rebuttal on many occasions, when I offered the standard for the historical method in the last thread/exchange. You are a product of indoctrination, with no actual evidence to back up your indoctrinated faith.

Opinions with a sprinkle of Genetic Fallacy.

Yet again, another handwave and/or improper use of the word 'opinions'. The historical method places your beloved indoctrinated collection(s) of hearsay at the bottom of the (veracity barometer).

Opinions + Genetic Fallacy.

Which is one of the reasons why believers in the Bible will preach faith in God without seeing him.

Unbelievers believe in life from nonlife, and reptile to bird transformations in nature; without seeing either.

So I guess we're even.

You see Venom, even when I provide an example, you just handwave. Pointing out this one well-known 'footnote', at the end of Mark, exposes the obvious corruption in the Gospels. This is why you run the other direction.

I did not handwave. I addressed your point, directly.

When you are deeply intrenched within (Christian apologetics), regardless of what your own personal position is (i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, other), as a believer, you never will find any irreconcilable claims. Why? Like I said, the spinner will spin. And you, my friend, are quite dizzy.

I said I don't see any irreconcilable differences...basically setting you up to provide some.

You didn't, but instead resorted to the same Genetic Fallacy you've been committing for the past 2-3 months.

Here, hold this L.

You accept peer reviewed theoretical science as substantiated, unless it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. Your fallacious reasoning runs abound. The 4-minute video posted below is more-so for others to watch, since I know you handwave them yourself.

Um, no.

Because you got some Christians who are old earth creationists (Hugh Ross), where he reconciled science with his Biblical interpretation.

So, try again.

[POI]

Why? Because of...

1. The absolutely, positive, irrefutable evidence that there exists a cosmic creator of the universe and life within it....beyond any reasonable doubt.

Care to share this "absolutely, positive, irrefutable evidence that there exists a cosmic creator of the universe and life within it"?

And because of...

2. The preponderance of evidence which supports the resurrection of Jesus...meaning the event is more likely than not to have occured.

That is why.

Without verified eyewitness attestation, you have no evidence. And guess what? The Gospels offer hearsay alone, which is exactly what other books provide. You represent special pleading to the religion you were indoctrinated within. Nothing more.

Well again, I doubt that even if we had verified eyewitness attestation, that skeptics would be any closer to belief than they are now.

So, the Gospels are damned if they do, damned if that don't...and if that's the case then; let those who don't believe, continue not believing...and let those who do, be blessed...as Jesus stated in John 20:28-29.

Again, this is not the point, at all. The point is you apply special pleading to a book you just so happened to be indoctrinated within. The book you were indoctrinated within offers nothing better or worse than the books you happily reject as 'evil'.

This is a red herring.

No, it is not. I'm holding you accountable for your given claims in this exchange. Please stop dodging, or do not make the claim(s) to begin with. I'm sorry these questions hurt you, (which is why you are avoiding them), but they are reasonable and rational follow-up questions pressed to the asserter of a 'Holy Spirit.':

Aside from indoctrinated faith and circular reasoning alone - (aka) -- I was 1) raised in it and 2) the Bible tells me so, please demonstrate two points:

a) Please demonstrate why anyone should believe that the "Holy Spirit" actually exists?
b) Please explain why the demonstrated "Holy Spirit" must only work in humans who possess a functioning prefrontal cortex?

The evidence for the resurrection is convincing to me. That is why.

But we've already established the evidence given in the Bible is hearsay alone, just like other claims given, in other publications, to a risen dead body. So again, we are right back to, (you believe solely because 1) it was the one you were indoctrinated into, and also, 2) the Bible merely tells you so.) In essence, indoctrinated initiated circular reasoning and special pleading.

Opinions with a sprinkle of Genetic Fallacy.

Correction. Yet another handwave with a sprinkling of mislabeling.

You have no counter argument, which is why you do this. Face it Venom, you are a P.O.I., with nutt'n to back it up but blind faith.

Opinions + Genetic Fallacy.

More handwaving + another mislabel. As evidence by absolutely no continued rebuttal to the given historical method, and why the Bible is so lacking within it.

Unbelievers believe in life from nonlife, and reptile to bird transformations in nature; without seeing either. So I guess we're even.

Science deniers deny actual peer reviewed theoretical science only when it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible.

I did not handwave. I addressed your point, directly.

You handwaved. This is also evidence by the fact that I laid down a follow up claim and you bothered not to engage it. Again, the forced acknowledged provided 'footnote' in "Mark" establishes the corruption.

I said I don't see any irreconcilable differences...basically setting you up to provide some.

I already did above, in the footnote. You just handwaved it.

You didn't, but instead resorted to the same Genetic Fallacy you've been committing for the past 2-3 months.

LOL! Another mislabeling. Please recall exactly what you stated in post 12 (i.e.):

"Um, no. The footnotes are for clarity and usually involves how certain words should be translated into English (for English Bibles). The Gospel isn't effected by it so it ain't even an issue."

********************************

You are not engaging this footnote because you know it exposes incompatibility.

Um, no.

Um, yes.

Because you got some Christians who are old earth creationists (Hugh Ross), where he reconciled science with his Biblical interpretation.

So, try again.

So you are no longer rock'n with Mr. Hovind?.?.?.?

[SiNcE_1985]

Care to share this "absolutely, positive, irrefutable evidence that there exists a cosmic creator of the universe and life within it"?

No need. You've heard it all before.

Ain't nothin change.

Without verified eyewitness attestation, you have no evidence.

Depends on what you mean by "verified".

The claim has always been that the mere source of the material (Gospels) comes from eyewitnesses.

I find such claims credible.

And guess what? The Gospels offer hearsay alone, which is exactly what other books provide. You represent special pleading to the religion you were indoctrinated within. Nothing more.

I accept hearsay testimony..and you already stated that you probably wouldn't believe, even if eyewitnesses actually wrote the books.

So, again..damned if they do, damned if they don't.

This is like saying "I see no convincing evidence person X committed the crime, so I don't believe it. But even if I saw convincing evidence, I still wouldn't believe it".

Kinda defeats the point of even mentioning the lack of evidence then.

Foolishness, is what it is.

Again, this is not the point, at all. The point is you apply special pleading to a book you just so happened to be indoctrinated within. The book you were indoctrinated within offers nothing better or worse than the books you happily reject as 'evil'.

Genetic Fallacy.

No, it is not. I'm holding you accountable for your given claims in this exchange. Please stop dodging, or do not make the claim(s) to begin with. I'm sorry these questions hurt you, (which is why you are avoiding them), but they are reasonable and rational follow-up questions pressed to the asserter of a 'Holy Spirit.':

Aside from indoctrinated faith and circular reasoning alone - (aka) -- I was 1) raised in it and 2) the Bible tells me so, please demonstrate two points:

a) Please demonstrate why anyone should believe that the "Holy Spirit" actually exists?
b) Please explain why the demonstrated "Holy Spirit" must only work in humans who possess a functioning prefrontal cortex?

I repeat, a person should examine the evidence for Christianity...and if they find it to be credible, they should believe in it, along with the Holy Spirit.

The belief in the Holy Spirit is held, based on a prior belief and acceptance of Christianity.

That is why a person should/will believe in the Holy Spirit.

But we've already established the evidence given in the Bible is hearsay alone, just like other claims given, in other publications, to a risen dead body. So again, we are right back to, (you believe solely because 1) it was the one you were indoctrinated into, and also, 2) the Bible merely tells you so.) In essence, indoctrinated initiated circular reasoning and special pleading.

Genetic Fallacy.

I told you; anytime I see "indoctrinated" coming from you, you will be charged with committing the Genetic Fallacy.

The fallacy was named, just for the fallacious reasoning you continue to exhibit.

It was made just for you.

More handwaving + another mislabel. As evidence by absolutely no continued rebuttal to the given historical method, and why the Bible is so lacking within it.

Opinions.

Science deniers deny actual peer reviewed theoretical science only when it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible.

I deny evolution/abiogenesis as science.

It has to be science, for it to be a denial of science.

You handwaved. This is also evidence by the fact that I laid down a follow up claim and you bothered not to engage it. Again, the forced acknowledged provided 'footnote' in "Mark" establishes the corruption.

No forced acknowledgement...true believers are open, honest, and transparent...and that's what we have there.

I already did above, in the footnote. You just handwaved it.

I addressed what you said about Mark's ending, and you neglected to respond to the crux of what I said.

LOL! Another mislabeling. Please recall exactly what you stated in post 12 (i.e.):

"Um, no. The footnotes are for clarity and usually involves how certain words should be translated into English (for English Bibles). The Gospel isn't effected by it so it ain't even an issue."

Um, reading comprehension.

The keyword is "usually", meaning not all the time; but more times than not.

There are only two interpolations in the Bible that I'm aware of..and that is the ending of Mark..and the famous narrative of the woman being caught in adultery and Jesus telling her accusers "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Those are the only two that I'm aware of...which leaves the rest of the footnotes, LIKE I SAID, to involve certain word translations to English.

And even with the two interpolations, neither of them effect Christian doctrine nor the Gospel...as I ALSO SAID.

And third, again, we still don't know whether either of those additions are actually historical....as I ALSO SAID.

You are not engaging this footnote because you know it exposes incompatibility.

I can and I did.

So you are no longer rock'n with Mr. Hovind?.?.?.?

I am neutral and open-minded about the age of the earth.

[POI]

No need. You've heard it all before. Ain't nothin change.

So, you don't actually have a good argument. Shocker. Got it. I mean, it's only one of the most important unproven claims ever made. If it's irrefutable, you could have easily converted me to at least deism just now. Oh well....

Depends on what you mean by "verified".

We've already been over this ad nauseum. Remember? Hint hint... Actual eyewitness corroboration with Caesar and Joseph Smith's findings of further revelation in the "golden plates"?

The claim has always been that the mere source of the material (Gospels) comes from eyewitnesses. I find such claims credible.

Then in your worldview, ALL mere hearsay is credible. Right?

I accept hearsay testimony..and you already stated that you probably wouldn't believe, even if eyewitnesses actually wrote the books. So, again..damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is like saying "I see no convincing evidence person X committed the crime, so I don't believe it. But even if I saw convincing evidence, I still wouldn't believe it". Kinda defeats the point of even mentioning the lack of evidence then. Foolishness, is what it is.

You continue to try and belabor a point I never even made. I've explained this over and over again. Any and all resurrection claims, under your worldview, carry equal merit in "truthiness". Does this mean you accept all 'miraculous' claims, from every publication, as factual/actual events?

Genetic Fallacy.

Yet again, wrong. The ONLY reason you believe is because you were indoctrinated into a set of beliefs in where you must employ fallacious reasoning to substantiate and sustain it. If the book had real evidence, you would not need to demonstrate such faulty reasoning and science denial. You have made your bed; you must now lie in it.

I repeat, a person should examine the evidence for Christianity...and if they find it to be credible, they should believe in it, along with the Holy Spirit. The belief in the Holy Spirit is held, based on a prior belief and acceptance of Christianity. That is why a person should/will believe in the Holy Spirit.

I know you believe it. I know you do not really want your assertion(s) challenged, but too bad. Do not make such claims in a debate forum. I'm pressing the claim of a "Holy Spirit" specifically. The reason I'm pressing here is because this is the claimed tool you use to discern whether a claimed miraculous event is deemed "good" or "evil".

I repeat...

Aside from 1) indoctrinated faith and 2) circular reasoning alone - (aka) -- I was 1) raised in it and 2) the Bible tells me so, please demonstrate two points:

a) Aside from 1) and 2), please demonstrate why anyone should believe that the "Holy Spirit" actually exists?
b) Aside from 1) and 2), please explain why the demonstrated "Holy Spirit" must only work in humans who possess a functioning prefrontal cortex?

Genetic Fallacy. I told you; anytime I see "indoctrinated" coming from you, you will be charged with committing the Genetic Fallacy. The fallacy was named, just for the fallacious reasoning you continue to exhibit. It was made just for you.

This is because you have no REAL response. So, you are desperately searching for a loophole to escape the identified obvious. The indoctrination IS the reason you believe. And due to belief preservation, because of your heavy indoctrination, you are forced to only apply fallacious arguments and science denial to defend your indoctrinated faith, because this is all you've got. Time and time again, you demonstrate it. You have given no reasonable justification(s) for your belief(s). It's all fallacious reasoning and peer-reviewed theoretical science denial.

Opinions.

Another gross misuse of the term. I will just keep repeating it, because it's fun at this point... You have no rebuttal to the fact that the Bible falls short, even using the lowest of standards, when comparing it's claims to other claims from antiquity. This is evident by the fact that you offer absolutely no rebuttal at all!

I deny evolution

And evolutionary biology is a peer reviewed theoretical science. You are a science denier. You do this solely because you cannot square it with Genesis. Welp, too bad. Handwaving gets you further from truth and only breeds further brain rot.

No forced acknowledgement...true believers are open, honest, and transparent...and that's what we have there.

Hmm? So, believers are aware that the identified addition poses serious problems? Or is it just another example of believing spinners sinning a narrative?

I addressed what you said about Mark's ending, and you neglected to respond to the crux of what I said.

Oh, I addressed it more than once. You handwaved it. By "handwave", I mean "an explanation that glosses over important details, steps, or complexities, often using vague language, intuition, or gestures to seem convincing without true rigor, like a magician distracting you."

There are only two interpolations in the Bible that I'm aware of..and that is the ending of Mark..and the famous narrative of the woman being caught in adultery and Jesus telling her accusers "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Those are the only two that I'm aware of...which leaves the rest of the footnotes, LIKE I SAID, to involve certain word translations to English. And even with the two interpolations, neither of them effect Christian doctrine nor the Gospel...as I ALSO SAID. And third, again, we still don't know whether either of those additions are actually historical....as I ALSO SAID.

I'm not interested in the footnotes to clarify a singular word/other. I've never quibbled with you over 'minor' errors in spelling/other. I'm instead talking about incompatibility. The fact that such an addition is identified, raises question to the historicity to ANY of it. Remember, according to your given worldview, the Bible only needs to present one identified problem.

Why do you believe Mark 16:1-8 jives with Mark 16:9-20?

I am neutral and open-minded about the age of the earth.

How many peer-reviewed theoretical sciences do you have to question? Oh, that's right, only the ones which press or contradict your interpreted claims of the Bible.