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?

[beeswax]

One sated the bible was weak because 1213 stated the miracles could not be proven. I have shown how that is far from true, that the bible is a source of strength for Christians , this is not "a claim ", this is self evident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just HOW could they be proven and while we are at it..

Jesus said to his disciples, "Greater things you will do than than I did, including raising the dead...

So can you please advise who has been raised from the dead these past 2000 years and why can't the clergy facilitate miracles like Jesus promised?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 228 by H.sapiens]

Easily falsified. Were your statement true you'd jump at the chance to accept, with humbleness and humility, your honest place in the universe as a large-brained, upright ape rather than attempting to glorify yourself as a poor copy of a supreme being.

Glorify myself ? Supreme being ? My place in the universe is wherever I am at , not who I may be .

Glorifying yourself goes against everything I have just shown you as far as servitude being one of the main reasons for mission of Christians.

I mean how glorified are you not having a hot shower for weeks and pooping in a hole , where there are no toilets or running water. How glorified are the ones imprisoned and beaten in Iran ?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 231 by beeswax]

Just HOW could they be proven and while we are at it..

Let me clarify , I have proven that the bible is not weak , not the miracles part.

Jesus said to his disciples, "Greater things you will do than than I did, including raising the dead...

So can you please advise who has been raised from the dead these past 2000 years and why can't the clergy facilitate miracles like Jesus promised?

What does he mean by greater things ? Saving souls ?

We have the ability to raise the dead , you have the ability to raise the dead . The dead are brought back to life daily .

But this is digression., as I was not stating miracle could be proven , neither was 1213. Then one came back at him calling the bible weak . The point is not to concentrate on proof , to concentrate on the message.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 228 by H.sapiens]

Easily falsified. Were your statement true you'd jump at the chance to accept, with humbleness and humility, your honest place in the universe as a large-brained, upright ape rather than attempting to glorify yourself as a poor copy of a supreme being.

Glorify myself ? Supreme being ? My place in the universe is wherever I am at , not who I may be .

Glorifying yourself goes against everything I have just shown you as far as servitude being one of the main reasons for mission of Christians.

Then what's your problem with admitting that your just another animal, just another ape?
[quote="Faithful One"
I mean how glorified are you not having a hot shower for weeks and pooping in a hole , where there are no toilets or running water. How glorified are the ones imprisoned and beaten in Iran ?[/quote]Wow, you really thing that not having a hot shower for weeks and pooping in a hole, being where there are no toilets or running water is a big deal? Hell, I've done that for a year at a stretch, cold water and outhouses ... that's no big deal, not when you can wake every morning to the sound of bellbirds and the smell of mountain coffee brewing.

As for being imprisoned and beaten in Iran ... that's definitely rough, but you don't get a choice. I rather doubt that was in the contract when they left home. I was chased by Khmer Rouge over a hundred klicks down highway one into Phenom Pen and that was not in the prospectus I'd been shown for the South East Asian Friendship Games.

[Realworldjack]

.

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, testimonials)

Now, I am not sure if it is proper, but allow me to admit up front, you had, "opinion," and "speculation" listed, which I intentionally omitted, because at this time I would rather focus on the ones I have listed, and we will save the others for later if we get to it.

At any rate, as I read your statement above, it certainly seems to suggest, you recognize, "Biblical tales," (which could be labeled as stories) Biblical "claims," and Biblical "testimonials," as "verifiable evidence."

Of course my question then is, am I correct? Do you understand these things to be, "verifiable evidence?"

Pardon the lack of clarity in my statement. No, I do NOT regard Bible tales (stories) and biblical testimonials as verifiable evidence.

Instead I regard them as unverifiable writings by unidentifiable people decades or generations after the events and conversations they purport to relay in detail as though writers had direct personal knowledge and had witnessed said events (none of which can be shown to be true).

Thanks so much for the clarification. I did not want to take for granted your meaning.

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? 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.

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.

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."

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.

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

1. the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole.

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."

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

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

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

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. 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.

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.

But, we could continue on. We are just getting started here. Let's consider the author of what has been called, "The Gospel of Luke," and "The Actions of the Apostles." If this author was simply reporting what had been passed down to him, and was writing these things generations later, then he is without a doubt, a liar, and this letter becomes, "verifiable evidence" of this fact.

You see, this author from the beginning, tells his audience, who is someone by the name of, "Theophilus" how he obtained his information, and he claims it is through "careful investigation of everything from the beginning." Now, we could debate what he claims is "careful investigation" but that is really beside the point. The point would be, if in fact the author was there at the time, to perform any sort of investigation.

The author certainly claims to have been alive, and among the Apostles, because you see, in the second letter, the author actually refers to the first letter, and the second letter, is addressed to the same person as the first. This is "verifiable evidence" the author of these two letters, are one and the same.

In the second letter, the author begins to claim to be present to witness certain events, some of which were extraordinary. This means this letter becomes, "verifiable evidence" against the author, if he did not in fact witness, said events, or it becomes "verifiable evidence" the author is recording the truth.

At any rate, the author goes on to claim to actually be present with Paul, on his journey to Rome, in order to stand trial there. The second letter ends with Paul being under house arrest, where he is said to have, "welcomed all who came to see him. 31 He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ"with all boldness and without hindrance!"

This is a claim by the author, to be present with Paul, during his house arrest. Well now, it just so happens, in one of his letters written to Timothy, which is 2 Timothy, Paul tells Timothy, there are those who have deserted him, and goes on to say, "only LUKE, is with me." So then, what we have is, Luke writing 2 letters to someone named, Theophilus. In the second letter, Luke claims to have been with Paul during his house arrest in Rome. Next, we have Paul, writing to a completely different audience, with different concerns altogether, incidentally verifying Luke is with him. This is at least, "verifiable evidence" that, 1. Paul was under house arrest in Rome, and 2. Luke was present with Paul. It also lends credence to Luke's reports of being along with Paul during his journeys.

All the above, is at the very least, "verifiable evidence!" Does it, "prove" the reports are true? It absolutely does not, however, it can be used as, "evidence" in support of the claims.

Well, let's continue on. In his second letter to Theophilus, Luke claims, Paul was initially opposed to Christianity, and was attempting to put an end to the movement, even to the point of consenting to the death of those who followed this movement. Then we have, Paul addressing a completely different audience, with completely different concerns, acknowledging, he in fact was opposed to the movement, and was ashamed of the fact, he was involved in the stoning of Stephen. Again, "verifiable evidence" that can be used in support of the claims.

In his second letter, Luke reports the conversion of Paul, on the road to Damascus, which is reported as an extraordinary event. In a letter addressed to a totally different audience, Paul, incidentally confirms this same exact experience.

I could continue on, and on, but let's stop here, and simply consider, Paul and his letters.

There is no doubt, Paul was initially opposed to Christianity. There is also no doubt, Paul is the reason for the rapid spread of Christianity, throughout the known world at the time, and his letters are testament to this fact. In other words, his letters are, "verifiable evidence" of this fact. We could certainly consider all of Paul's letters, but for the sake of space, let us consider just one, which would be the shortest letter we have from Paul.

This of course would be his letter to Philemon. There is no doubt this letter was written while Paul was under house arrest in Rome. We can deduce this from the fact, he refers to himself as, "an old man," and continues to refer to his chains.

In this letter, Paul is appealing to, Philemon on be half of a fellow by the name of Onesimus. It is clear from this letter, Onesimus was a run away slave, who just so happen to be the possession of Philemon. At some point, Onesimus arrives in Rome, and comes into contact with Paul while he is under house arrest. Onesimus, certainly must have heard, and received the Gospel form Paul, and became a servant of both the Gospel, and Paul, and Paul found him to be most useful.

In his appeal to Philemon, Paul more than indicates that Philemon received the Gospel from his lips, and even refers to the Church that meets in Philemon's home. Paul's appeal to Philemon, is that he overlook the wrong Onesimus may have done, and receive him back, "not only as a slave, but more than a slave, as a brother." In the end, Paul's desire is for Philemon to send Onesimus back to him, because Paul finds him so useful in his ministry.

The point in this review, is to demonstrate, this letter of Paul, along with the rest of his letters, are simply the product, of Paul living out his life, as he went from place to place, preaching the Gospel, and planting Churches, and they just so happen to coincide with the report Luke gives in his letters. By the way, it also, just so happens at the end of this letter, to Philemon, Paul sends greetings from, you will never guess who? That's right, he sends greetings from Luke.

All the above, is "verifiable evidence" Paul was a missionary of the Gospel, and his letters are the by product of his ministry.

Is it even possible, the letters of, Luke and Paul, were written generations after the fact? NO! The answer is NO! The evidence is far to overwhelming.

Well, as I said above, saying the Bible is not, "verifiable evidence" is simply a tactic employed by those who are opposed to Christianity in order to attempt to cast doubt upon it. However, much of what we know about ancient history, is because of letters written by, and among the ancients. By reading, and comparing these letters, we feel certain we can know what occurred in ancient history, because we consider these letters to be at the very least, "verifiable evidence." On the other hand, when we consider the ancient letters of the Bible, they are anything but, "verifiable evidence."

Of course I would agree, the Bible makes extraordinary claims, and therefore deserves more scrutiny, but saying, "something deserves more scrutiny," is a far cry from saying, "it is not verifiable evidence."

In the end, I guess you are free to believe, and proclaim, "the Bible is not verifiable evidence," but please pardon, and excuse, those of us who are in the, "real world" if we happen to ignore your proclamation.

[Dropship]

The great stumbling block for anti-christians is that they've NEVER been able to explain why anybody would want to "make up" the Bible..
Many prophets were hassled and killed for opposing established religion, so I ask again, why did they let themselves in for it?
Many certainly never even wanted the job in the first place and were just ordinary people-

For example Paul was nothing to write home about -
"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his appearance is unimpressive, and he speaks poorly" (2 Cor 10:10)

And Moses admitted to being unable to think on his feet-
"O Lord, I have never been eloquent, i'm slow of speech and tongue, please send someone else." (Exodus 4:10)

And Jonah was so scared he refused pointblank to be a prophet and jumped on a ship to escape, bad call -
"Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish." (Jonah 1:3)

And young Jeremiah tried to talk his way out of the job - "Lord i'm no good at speaking, i'm too young and people won't take me seriously" (Jer 1:6)

Isaiah prophesied that Jesus was nothing much to look at-
"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (Isaiah 53:2)

And even Jesus said "Oh God I don't want to die tomorrow, get me out of it if you can" (Matt 26:42)

PS- the antis also claim the Bible has been edited over the centuries to make it look good, but if that's the case, why did they leave all the above jarring quotes in it?

[atheist buddy]

In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"

The Bible writers would have had much the same motives for making it all up that the authors of the millions of religious books YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN had.

What motives did the authors of Egyptian mythology have? What about Greek Mythology? What about the author of the koran? Book of mormon? Scientology?

[atheist buddy]

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Roman tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that Julius Caesar was stabbed by a team of conspirators?

Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting this basic belief about Roman history must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it"?

You're absolutely right.

I would NOT base my life on the notion that Caesar was stabbed, because the evidence for a stabbing is not strong enough for THAT!

I wouldn't refuse to marry someone who didn't believe in the stabbing. I wouldn't require that they put a tale of the stabbing in all courts of law. I wouldn't put a reference to "In the stabbing we trust" on all US currency. I wouldn't mention the stabbing in the pledge of alleigance. I wouldn't refuse to vote for a President who didn't believe in the stabbing. I wouldn't start a crusade to defend the belief in the stabbing. I wouldn't burn at the stake people who don't believe in the stabbing.

Why not?

Because the evidence for the stabbing, much like the evidence for the corpse of Jesus coming back to life and floating into the sky like a hot-air ballon is NOT STRONG ENOUGH.

I'm glad that we agree, and that from now on I can expect you to be no more invested in your beliefs in God than I am in my belief that Caesar got stabbed.

[beeswax]

Was Sherlock Holmes a real person? There are different books written that confirm SH was a Detective at 221 Baker Street London which is now the address of a Major Bank in the UK. SH talks about his arch enemy, Professor Moriarty who he meets time and again in other writings. SH goes to Washington and Scotland and films were made about him. SH is famous for using his deduction and logic to solve crimes, others can't which is still used today..

Surely this man was real and lived in 221 Baker Street as there is enough evidence around to suggest he was!

It really IS elementary!

[Dropship]

The Bible writers would have had much the same motives for making it all up that the authors of the millions of religious books YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN had.
What motives did the authors of Egyptian mythology have? What about Greek Mythology? What about the author of the koran? Book of mormon? Scientology?

To their credit, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians were spiritually aware enough to sense that there was "something out there", so they invented a bunch of gods and carved statues and stuff of them.
Mohammed claimed Allah had told him to write the Koran, and Joseph Smith claimed God had given him the Book of Mormon.
But only Jesus said he was the Son of God, which gives a lot more weight to him than anybody else..
As for Scientologists, one of them stopped me in the street in Plymouth UK a few years ago and invited me into their shop across the road and gave me a couple of leaflets. He also gave me a book about them, I said "thanks" and began walking to the door. "Er.. just a minute" he said, "the book costs 6" (9 US dollars), so I handed it back to him and walked out..