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?

[Zzyzx]

.

I hereby challenge YOU to answer them openly, accurately and honestly.

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

Jesus was anything more than human?

Humans possess a soul?

An afterlife exists?

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Go ahead and show readers that I am wrong . . . answer the questions. Present the verifiable evidence that exists for each of them.

Ok. let's play.

I'm not playing.

Question 1) Jesus was anything more than human?

This one is easy for me to answer because I believe he was as 100% human as you and I, so nothing to prove or disprove here.

I do not disagree that a HUMAN wandering preacher somewhat like the Jesus described in gospels lived two thousand years ago.

If NO claim is made that he was supernatural or performed supernatural feats (otherwise known as "miracles"), I have no objection.

However, much or all of Christianity is based upon the supposition that Jesus was also "100% God".

Question 2) Humans possess a soul?

Humans are a soul.

Repeating a claim does not verify the claim.

For instance, a body and its spirit equal a soul. Soul just means person.

So you say. Re-defining words does not verify a claim.

But you are probably asking whether humans possess a spirit. A spirit is referring to something that isn't physical. In your DNA that makes up your body, it also has the DNA of your spirit that you inherited from either of your parents or their lineage (reincarnation if you like). You inherit a spirit just like you inherit other physical features, ailments, and talents/abilities from either of your parents and/or from their lineage.

Kindly cite DNA studies that verify that "spirit" is inherited. Making a claim is not verification.

What is a spirit? It's your mind.

Opinion noted. Kindly verify with evidence other than your personal opinion.

For instance, the way my mind accepts things is different from the way someone else's mind accepts things. Their are individuals of like-minded. Also your upbringing, surroundings, life experiences,etc also influence your mind's thoughts.

So what?

For example, there are Atheists that went to a religious based school that caused them to be so put off by Christianity, that they want absolutely nothing to do with the bungling God, the fables of the Bible, or anyone relating to the bible. Yet their were other minds (spirits) in that same school who went on to join the church to become a church father/pastor to preach of God, the Bible, and Jesus.

How does that provide evidence of a "soul"?

Question 3) An afterlife exists?

Well, there are actual video and photographic proof of house hauntings, Ghosts appearing and disappearing, and all sorts of unusual phenomena caught on video and camera. Check this website http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostsandhauntings/ that has live video feed that captures hauntings. There are other numerous sites regarding hauntings. Youtube has lots of videos also.

YouTube videos do not constitute proof of existence.

If anyone can demonstrate that the paranormal exists they can collect one million dollars from the famous Randi One Million Dollar Challenge – that has been standing for fifty years – with NO takers.

In 1964, Randi put up $1,000 of his own money payable to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal. Since then, the prize money has grown to the current $1,000,000, and the rules that surround claiming the prize are official and legal. No one has gotten past the preliminary test which is set up and has to be agreed upon by both Randi and the applicant.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/james ... paranormal

Why do you suppose that no one has claimed the million dollars? Could it be that the "supernatural" or "paranormal" CANNOT be shown to be anything more than illusion or imagination?

Question 4) Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

The Biblically written miracles that were purported to have happened in the past are obviously not happening in our day (hence the need for a book/Bible to communicate).

Agreed. "Miracles" are purported to have happened long ago in a land far away – with no evidence that they occurred as anything other than tales in ancient writings.

Notice, however, that many religionists claim that "miracles" DO occur in modern times. They just cannot show that the claims are true.

Accordingly, there is no way of proving that the Bible's miracles are true.

Thank you. That is my point. The honest answer to the question is NONE.

It is my belief that a miracle would be hard to accept and prove if we were subjected to one in our day. How much harder would it be to then try and prove that a miracle happened thousands of years ago.

Since "miracles" cannot be shown / proved to have happened, it is less than credible to claim the did happen.

The standard of finding a person guilty during a court trial to imprison for life or death sentence can be based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt.

Okay. So what?

You are asking beyond any doubt,

Correction: I clearly ask in the OP for VERIFIABLE evidence. That is NOT the same as "beyond all doubt."

which would mean that unless God,Jesus, someone does a miracle for you personally to remove any possibility of doubt, you wont believe.

Correction: You have no idea what it would take to convince me that "miracles" occur – unless you also claim supernatural ability to read minds or be omniscient.

That's fine. But, there might be good reason why miracles haven't been happening as they once were happening as claimed in the Bible.

Yes, and there might be "good reason" why fairies and genies do not grant wishes as told in tales. Could that reason be that fairies and genies (and gods) do not exist except in imagination?

Question 5) Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

I can prove these miracles are possible, and therefore happened.

Okay, start with proving that it is possible for the Earth to stop rotating.

It's obvious that these acts are impossible in a real world.

Thank you.

However, our world isn't real. It's being dreamed into existence by a perfect person in the real world.

Interesting and imaginative speculation. Kindly provide verifiable evidence that it is true.

The proof is that if you had control of your subconscious mind where your dream is created, you could easily create these events and more, if you chose. The people you created in your dream would have no way of knowing they were being dreamed into existence. How do you think the dreamer of our world knows how the world will end. Easy, after all events played through to this world's destruction, the dreamer replayed all events over and was able to tell old testament prophets of future events. That's why we get deja vu, clairvoyance at times, and hauntings.

How, exactly, is this different from fantasy and fiction?

Question 6) God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

Since the world is being dreamed into existence,

Correction: Someone proposing, speculating, opining the "dream tale" is no assurance it is anything more than overworked imagination masquerading as factual information.

it means the dreamer is always playing a role as a humanly born normal person in the dream. In Old Testament times, the dreamer's conscious mind communicated directly with patriarchs and messenger's (who represented God on Earth). In the latter times, and especially in the last generation, the dreamer communicates via a Bible. The reason is that several centuries after Jesus, the subconscious mind (where our world is dreamed) only accepts logical ways to exist in the world, which was based on how people were leaning to a more logical less superstitious world. Should God's conscious mind force a miracle, it would probably cause the subconscious mind to wake from the dream. Therefore God commanded prophets to write manuscripts that would survive to the latter days by which God can communicate and warn the latter day messenger and those with him to be saved from the outcome of this world's end, just as it happened in the first timeline of events. The proof is, as you intercede in your own dream, so God (the dreamer of this world) intercedes in this world.

This talent in fantasy might be appreciated as science fiction – but has no place in debate.

Question 7) Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Not all Bible writers were inspired by God.

Agreed. I would leave off "not all" – until someone can show that some Bible writers WERE "inspired by God" (not just claims, testimonials and speculation).

Gospel writers wrote of their claimed experiences according to their own experiences, evidence and testominials of others, while having a natural biased stance towards Jesus and salvation through Jesus.

Exactly.

When a prophet commanded to write with a "Thus Saith The Lord" then that is inspired by God.

How, exactly, can this be known to be true? Anyone can write "thus saith the lord."

The problem arises that there were many prophets claiming different things.

Agreed. There are may false prophets.

One way to determine a prophet/messenger having a straight message is if his predictions happened

Okay. If ANY "prophets" predicted things that eventually happened they are TRUE prophets. Correct?

(usually after the religious leaders and like minded population had the prophet/messenger and many that believed him/her killed). Then the following generation would then believe that the prophet's writings were inspired by God, even though their father's killed the prophet. Usually a messenger quoted God saying to the religious leaders, nation, and professed people of God that God had nothing good to say about them. Whereas false prophets said what the leaders and people of God wanted to hear. You stay alive longer that way. Where's the actual live- video- footage- like proof that confirms beyond doubt that they were inspired by God? There isn't any at this time available.

This appears to be a rather convoluted way to describe a particular instance – but is presented as though a general truth.

Should the Bible and God be true, then proof beyond doubt will be shown during the dreamed judgment time from God's memory of all events that happened. If not, there is always reincarnation.

Why does this sound like the ending of a fairy tale?

Asking for proof that isn't available doesn't always mean you will be able to know one way or another.

Agreed. I am quite comfortable saying that I do not pretend to know about things I do not know about. When others claim to know such things I challenge their claims of knowledge. When the response is "Take my word for it, or his or this book" OR "Just you wait and see", I'm not buying.

Maybe put the pieces of the puzzle together to create the true picture of whether something is true or false, innocent or guilty.

Putting the pieces together can be known as "convergence of evidence." THAT is what the OP asks for. When the "pieces" proposed cannot be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination, the "true picture" is not achieved.

[sevensealscom]

Putting the pieces together can be known as "convergence of evidence." THAT is what the OP asks for. When the "pieces" proposed cannot be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination, the "true picture" is not achieved.

The Book of Revelation states that one person will have the wisdom to count the number of the beast, see Rev.13:18.

Rev.13:18
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast (representing a kingdom made up of a union of nations): for it is the number of a man (representing the leading nation among the union of nations); and his number is Six hundred threescore and six (666).

The number is 6 because the beast (kingdom of a union of nations) and the man (leading nation) reign together as the number 6 kingdom. However I have the wisdom to count the number three times, because the number 6 kingdom first reigned as the number 6th kingdom, then the same number 6 kingdom reigns again as the number 7th kingdom, and thereafter the same number 6 kingdom reigns again as the 8th kingdom, see Rev.17:19,11.

Rev.17:10,11
10 And there are seven kings (seven kingdoms): five are fallen, and one is (being the number 6 kingdom), and the other (number 7 kingdom) is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the (number) eighth, and is of the (number) seven, and goeth into perdition.

Since it is the same number 6 kingdom that reigns three separate times: first as the number 6 kingdom, then as the number 7 kingdom, and thereafter as the number 8 kingdom. In other words, the number 6 kingdom reigned as the number 6 kingdom, then again as the number 6 kingdom, then again as the number 6 kingdom. Hence the one person that has the wisdom to count the number 6 as three numbers: number 6 (counted once) number 6 (counted a second time), and number 6 (counted a third time) that equal three number 6s, written as 666.

Food for thought...

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 312 by sevensealscom]

SS, "convergence of evidence" is NOT taken to mean quoting a few places in company literature. Instead, a valid convergence is from multiple disconnected sources.

If, for instance, one wished to verify the fuel mileage characteristic of a given vehicle it would NOT be credible to cite accounts from salesmen / promoters for the company. Instead, several independent (disconnected) testing organizations, preferably scattered or worldwide to minimize bias or collusion, would be consulted.

Would it not be rather naive and gullible to take the word of the salesman / promoters rather than consulting testing organizations?

[fstopper]

.
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?

There are a number of extrabiblical written records that support the Bible's historicity such as the writings of Flavius Josephus for one, but many people see no problem with believing in events that there are no eyewitness reports of, such the alleged billions of years of prehistory.

[Goat]

.
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?

There are a number of extrabiblical written records that support the Bible's historicity such as the writings of Flavius Josephus for one, but many people see no problem with believing in events that there are no eyewitness reports of, such the alleged billions of years of prehistory.

One of the problems with trying to use such people as Flavius Joseph for example, talking about Jesus is that there is quite a bit of evidence of tampering, and it is very possible that of entire interpolations instead of mere modification when it comes to the Testimonium Flavious .

[Zzyzx]

.

There are a number of extrabiblical written records that support the Bible's historicity such as the writings of Flavius Josephus for one, but many people see no problem with believing in events that there are no eyewitness reports of, such the alleged billions of years of prehistory.

One of the problems with trying to use such people as Flavius Joseph for example, talking about Jesus is that there is quite a bit of evidence of tampering, and it is very possible that of entire interpolations instead of mere modification when it comes to the Testimonium Flavious .

Agreed. We do not have access to original documents of anything Josephus wrote. Instead we have copies of copies of copies made over centuries by people who had reason to wish he had written things favorable to their religious beliefs and hero characters.

[rikuoamero]

.
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?

There are a number of extrabiblical written records that support the Bible's historicity such as the writings of Flavius Josephus for one, but many people see no problem with believing in events that there are no eyewitness reports of, such the alleged billions of years of prehistory.

Tell me...does the fate of my soul supposedly hang in the balance depending on whether or not I believe that Jesus resurrected? Does the fate of my soul hang in the balance depending on whether or not I believe dinosaurs roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago?

[fstopper]

.
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?

There are a number of extrabiblical written records that support the Bible's historicity such as the writings of Flavius Josephus for one, but many people see no problem with believing in events that there are no eyewitness reports of, such the alleged billions of years of prehistory.

Tell me...does the fate of my soul supposedly hang in the balance depending on whether or not I believe that Jesus resurrected? Does the fate of my soul hang in the balance depending on whether or not I believe dinosaurs roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago?

Yes and no. "If Christ is not risen your faith is in vain"1 Corinthians 15:17.
Since creation and the flood is mentioned or alluded to in every book of the Bible except 2,believing the Genesis account of creation no more than 10,000 years ago gives us a better understanding than the rest of scripture.Also, Jesus himself confirmed the Genesis account on a number of occasions.

[fstopper]

.

There are a number of extrabiblical written records that support the Bible's historicity such as the writings of Flavius Josephus for one, but many people see no problem with believing in events that there are no eyewitness reports of, such the alleged billions of years of prehistory.

One of the problems with trying to use such people as Flavius Joseph for example, talking about Jesus is that there is quite a bit of evidence of tampering, and it is very possible that of entire interpolations instead of mere modification when it comes to the Testimonium Flavious .

Agreed. We do not have access to original documents of anything Josephus wrote. Instead we have copies of copies of copies made over centuries by people who had reason to wish he had written things favorable to their religious beliefs and hero characters.

But at least there is some record of these events as opposed to no records of millons of years.No historical records are probably completely accurate but when one compares records from many different sources, as historians tend to do, one can be pretty confident that the event actually happened.
We don't have that confirmation for any event for which there are no eyewitnesses or records of any kind.

[Realworldjack]

.

That is a wise move – perhaps realizing that there is no known way to determine truth of scripture.

I would not call it a, "move" I would call it reality, and this is not the first time I have acknowledged it. So, what's your point?

My point is "There is no known way to determine truth of scripture" so therefore anyone who claims to know truth from scripture is blowing smoke – claiming to know the unknowable.

Agreed. Everyone should make up their own version of religion and call it Christianity.

I believe I can detect a hint of sarcasm in this statement, but I do not understand the point? Are you suggesting that someone who rejects the consensus of the scholars, are not following true Christianity? Please explain the point.

The point is that there is no such thing as authentic (or true or real) Christianity but instead tens of thousands of different OPINIONS by groups or individuals – made up in the mind from scriptures that cannot be shown / known to be anything more than imagination.

I and many other non-believers and former-believers have done exactly that – and determined for ourselves that the Bible is largely useless ravings of religion promoters telling stories and giving opinions about their belief in gods (and a lot of disinformation about the real world).

I understand this, and think it is wonderful, and this was exactly my point. In other words, if you have thoroughly examined the evidence, and have come to your conclusions, and can explain your reasons, I am fine with that. The problem comes in when, in a debate format someone says something like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", or "the scholars have said it, I believe it, and that settles it." This is exactly what I was responding to. I was not in any way suggesting, "if you were to do this you would certainly be a Christian, and see things my way", and I would think you would know this since I have on more than one occasion stated, "I believe we can both look at the same exact evidence, we can both use reason, and logic, and still come to completely different conclusions".

You state my point rather well – Christianity is a hodgepodge of opinions

So what's your point?

My point is to present these ideas for readers to consider as they evaluate the claims and stories of religionists.

Many who do that are now Ex-Christians.

I understand this as well. So again, what's your point? You also understand, there are those who were at one point professed Atheists, who are now Christian after examining evidence, right? But I don't see the point either way?

I have encountered a few accounts of non-believers becoming Christians after reading the Bible – and MANY accounts (including here in the Forum) of Christians reading the Bible and renouncing the faith after discovering that the "Diamonds to Dung ratio" (phrase borrowed from Thomas Jefferson) is unacceptable, that the tales are incredible (Not credible; surpassing belief; too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief;), that the "advice" is for the most part useless, that atrocities are glamorized if "in the name of God", and/or that it is all hogwash.

In the end, religious beliefs seem to be based upon 1) unverifiable stories and claims

It is interesting that you chose the word, "seem" in that sentence. Are you certain that you would not rather use the word, "are"?

I use the word "seem" and other qualifying terms to acknowledge that I cannot speak with certainty about the conclusions or actions of others. I do not claim to know what I do not know and/or cannot cite references.

But since you used the word, "seem" is it possible that it is different than it, "seems"?

Of course, anything may be "possible" – and there may be some real reasons to worship invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities that have not been shown to be anything more than imagination.

Because I assure you that it is!

Can you offer EVIDENCE rather than assurance? "Take my word for it (or his or this book)" isn't convincing to me – though that is evidently sufficient for many believers.

You see, I went to great lengths in citing, and refuting a Biblical scholar who opposed the authorship of two of the Biblical letters, in one of my responses to, "enviousintheeverafter". I received a response from him, but I did not hear a peep from him, nor anyone else concerning my refutation. Now, you may not agree with my refutation, and you may want to refute what I had to say, but the fact is, I gave internal evidence that these letters, could in fact have been written by the same person.

I am much more concerned about the truth and accuracy of stories and claims than which unidentified person wrote which accounts.

I could continue on, and on, as long as you like, giving this sort of evidence, but the point is, you have your opinion concerning the Biblical writings, which you are certainly welcome to, but in the end that is all it is, you have not, and cannot prove your opinion to be true,

Agreed. Each of us has an opinion regarding Bible tales. Mine is that they have not been shown to be truthful and accurate – or anything more than imagination. Is that incorrect?

all you can do is to give the reasons for what you claim to believe about the Biblical writings. However, as I have said in the past, if you are convince now that you can actually prove your position, go right ahead, I'll be waiting.

See above.

Also, Jack, I have no illusions about convincing you of anything – but instead address my comments to readers with the intent of providing sound reasons for doubting / questioning / disbelieving supernatural tales.

("Take my word for it or his or this book")

As I have stated in the past, "I am not a take my word for it type of person".

Good. That is common ground.

I have become convinced of the Bible by intently reading and studying it,

How is this NOT taking the book's word for such things as the "resurrection"? If Jesus did not come back to life as claimed, the whole New Testament is a fraud (as even Paul/Saul is said to have indicated).

and by looking at the internal, and external evidence in favor of it, and I have at least shared some of this evidence on this site.

What is the external evidence in favor of ANY of the significant claims relating to the divinity of Jesus – the "miracles", the "resurrection", the "100% human and 100% God, etc?

External evidence . . . not "the book says so in two places"

I do not claim to have proven the Bible, in fact I believe I have stated "that would be impossible" I understand all I can do is to give the reasons, along with the evidence concerning my convictions.

Thank you. That is quite reasonable. Each of us (and readers) decides what to accept as truthful and accurate.

Again, if you can prove your position concerning the Bible, go right ahead.

What is there to prove about "I don't believe Bible tales"? What is there to prove about "The claims have not been shown to be anything more than imagination"?

personal emotional, mental and/or psychological "experiences"

As far a emotions, and experience, I am completely against basing ones beliefs on such things, and have spoken out against it here on this site, and elsewhere.

We are in agreement.

As far as the mental, and psychological, I am not sure what you are talking about,

Mental and/or psychological episodes include hearing voices, having "visions", hallucinating, and/or being delusional. In extreme cases such things may be regarded as mental imbalance. Even dreams are mental / psychological experiences (that some regard as being real).

unless you are suggesting, Christians are mentally, and psychologically unstable, but surely that is not the case?

Of course I do not make any such suggestion (as you imply).

My point is "There is no known way to determine truth of scripture"

I really don't know how many times I can acknowledge this, on top of the fact, I have never stated anything to the contrary. However, in the same way, I would never be able to determine the truth of Julius Caesar, and things pertaining to him, aside from the letters we have concerning his life. Even then, I cannot be absolutely certain, but I can certainly read the information, compare it to other evidence we may have, and make an educated determination based on this information.

You see, I was not there to witness the events concerning Caesar, therefore I am dependent on information I can not absolutely verify. Even so, I am confident about what I believe concerning his life.

I have encountered a few accounts of non-believers becoming Christians after reading the Bible – and MANY accounts (including here in the Forum) of Christians reading the Bible and renouncing the faith after discovering that the "Diamonds to Dung ratio" (phrase borrowed from Thomas Jefferson) is unacceptable, that the tales are incredible (Not credible; surpassing belief; too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief;), that the "advice" is for the most part useless, that atrocities are glamorized if "in the name of God", and/or that it is all hogwash.

Again, what's your point? Certainly you are not suggesting in any way, "that since there seem to be more of those who were Christians at one time who end up rejecting the Faith, than there are those who were opposed, who go on to accept the Faith" is a way to determine truth? While it may be something to consider, it certainly should not be considered, as a means to determine truth. So let's consider it, but before we do, let's also remember I am not the one who brought this subject up, because I do not understand, how the experience of others would have any bearing upon what the truth actually is?

At any rate, as we consider this point of yours, I think that we can not only agree, but I think we have agreed in the past that, many, many Christians do not use their minds, to arrive at Faith. Not only do I think we can agree, I believe there have been numerous ex-Christians here on this site that have attested to the fact, they did not engaged their mind, when arriving to Faith, and it was not until they began to use their mind, that they came to this realization, and once they began to use their minds, this is the point in which they began to realize, what they had excepted was false.

Now, let's think about this for a moment. These folks admit, to not engaging their mind. Many Christians base their belief upon some sort of emotional experience they believe they have had, or continue to have. Because of this experience, they go on to simply except what they are taught, without question. When things do not turn out exactly as expected, there are those who are somehow able to allow conflicting ideas to coincide inside of their mind, which means they continue on excepting what they were taught in spite of the evidence against it, while others eventually begin to question what they have been taught, and of course when they begin to question, this is the point they realize, that it does not line up with reality.

My question to all of this is, "if these folks admit to not engaging their minds when they came to faith, what makes us now think their minds are engaged"? Also, if they did not use their minds, and simply excepted what they were taught, it could very well be the case, and probably is, that what they were taught was not even taught in the Bible. If that is the case, then they have not really rejected Christianity, but rather the false teachings they were exposed to.

I could give a number of examples I have witnessed myself, but allow me to use one of the members of this site as an example. There is a particular member here, that was at one time a Christian, to the point he actually became a missionary in foreign fields.

I have read many post by this member, had a private conversation through pm, and also read the links he provides, one of which is entitled, "How Christianity Stole Years of My life," that tells his story. I read this story in horror, and anger.

As he tells the story, he was convinced the Bible commands all of us as Christians to, "go into all the world and spread the Gospel." He did this being convinced that if he obeyed, God would certainly provide for all his needs. When this did not occur, it was Christianity that was false, because it certainly could not be, his own misunderstanding of what Christianity actually teaches.

You see, his mind was not engaged when he came to Faith, or when he excepted the idea that he should go be a missionary, and when things do not work out, his mind is not engaged, because it never crosses his, "mind" that what he was taught, or what he believed, about Christianity was false. In other words, instead of thinking the whole thing through thoroughly, to determine if this is what the Bible actually teaches, we throw the whole thing out, because I could not possibly be wrong! And you want to say the mind is now engaged?

How about the fact, when Jesus says, "go into all the world and preach the Gospel," He was speaking to the eleven Apostles at the time. How does that translate into, "all Christians should be in all the world doing this"? Next, how about the fact that Paul tells us this mission was accomplished when he says, "the Gospel has been preached in all the world"? How about the fact that Paul never asks, the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc., why they are still in their hometowns, and not out on the mission fields, but instead instructs them on how to live their lives, where they are. How about the fact, we are told that not all of us have the same abilities, or talents, and we are not all called to do the same things?

Now, you want to talk about how someone can hold conflicting ideas in their minds, and yet this person rejects Christianity based upon something it clearly does not teach, and wants to tell us his mind is now engaged? Well, I hope you can clearly see, why I am not buying it!

My main point to all the above is this. You cannot say you reject Christianity, based upon something it does not teach! An example would be, someone who does not engage the mind, and simply excepts the teaching, of the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel. If these things do not occur in their life, and they reject Christianity based on this, then it really cannot be said that, "they have rejected Christianity", because Christianity does not teach any sort of thing!

In the same way, if someone goes to the mission field, based on their belief that the Bible commands all Christians to do this sort of thing, then when, and if, things fall apart, he cannot blame Christianity, if Christianity does not in fact teach this, and it is clear that it does not. Rather, it is more than likely, since this person admits to not using their mind to except the Faith, but rather went on some sort of experience, then when these things fail to work out, their mind is not engaged, and now they have based their belief on another experience!

I use the word "seem" and other qualifying terms to acknowledge that I cannot speak with certainty about the conclusions or actions of others. I do not claim to know what I do not know and/or cannot cite references.

This is good because I attempt to operate in the same way, so this puts us on a level playing field.

Of course, anything may be "possible" – and there may be some real reasons to worship invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities that have not been shown to be anything more than imagination.

Exactly whose imagination are you speaking of? Certainly not mine, because I did not dream up the Scriptures, that somehow coincide together reaching back thousands of years. If it is the imagination of Biblical writers, then imagine how they were to able to accomplish this task? You see, it is one thing to imagine what must be done to appease a certain god, and from this imagine certain religious rites. It is quite another to have those over thousands of years describe a, God, using historical events, who we are told cannot be appeased by us, and therefore we are to let go of our own efforts of righteousness, and grab a hold of what this God has supplied. In other words, a God that serves, rather than a God that must be served.

It is rather easy to pick up a Bible, read a few passages, and believe you understand this particular Faith, enough to critique it. It is quite another to actually, intently study it to know what you are talking about.

Can you offer EVIDENCE rather than assurance?

Not only can I, I believe I have done exactly that numerous times on this site throughout my time being here, some of which, received no response! But you see, there is no way in which I could supply all of the evidence that has convinced me, here in this format, because it would be a book volume!

It is also my hope that those who are so opposed to the Christian Faith could not possibly give all of their evidence against the Faith here in this format. In other words, hopefully we all have put in considerable time, evaluating the evidence for, and against before making our decisions. Sadly, this does not always seem to be the case, because when I have suggested elsewhere, "that certainly those opposed could not possibly give all their reasons for rejecting, in one post", I have received responses that it is possible, and the reasons were simply something like, "not believing the ridiculous tales recorded in the Bible". As I said, "it is one thing to sit down, and intently study, to know what you believe, and why you believe it, it is quite another to read a few passages, and believe you know enough to critique it!"

The point is that there is no such thing as authentic (or true or real) Christianity but instead tens of thousands of different OPINIONS by groups or individuals

This is like beating a dead horse, because we have had this conversation in the past. I believe, in the past the number was not in the tens of thousands, but rather the hundreds of thousands. In fact, if I remember correctly the exact number was, 140,000.

While there are a few sects that would be considered outside the realm of orthodoxy, for the most part there are only minor differences over the non-essentials between the majority of different sects. The example I gave back then still stands.

The Church I was raised in, taught the sleep of the dead, and conditional immortality, while most other sects would not agree. However, we were considered orthodox, and brothers, and sisters in the faith by these other sects, to the point, there were women in our Church who were married to men who were members of Baptists Churches. In other words, these distinct teachings does not place one outside the realm of orthodoxy, because it does not effect the over all message.

On top of this, the numbers are skewed, and more than likely on purpose. You see, it will list, "The Reformed Churches of America", and then go on to list, "The Reformed Churches of Canada", as a completely different sect, when they are in fact the same exact sect, simply in different parts of the world, and there are a number of different sects that are listed in this way, demonstrating how skewed the numbers are.

Next, there are a great number of Churches in the world which are independent, meaning they are not tied to any particular denomination. Each, and everyone of these independent Churches, are listed as totally, and completely different sects, when it would seem as if you would need to evaluate the teachings of each of these Churches, in order to determine how different they actually were. But that would only be done, if you were really concerned about the truth of the matter. However, if you have an agenda, and that agenda includes simply finding ways to cast doubt, then the truth of the matter, would be irrelevant.

I am much more concerned about the truth and accuracy of stories and claims

If this were actually true, then it would seem as if you would not continue to point to the over exaggerated, skewed number of different sects, as if this is some sort of evidence against it. In other words the truth is, while there may be a number of different sects, this number does not reflect the number of completely, conflicting, contradictory, beliefs concerning the over all message, among the different sects. As I said, one believing in, the sleep of the dead, as opposed to the other believing one goes to heaven, or hell upon death, has no bearing whatsoever, on the overall message. The bottom line, and the truth of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of different sects, have FAR more in common, concerning beliefs, than there are differences. That is, "truth, and accuracy"!

I am much more concerned about the truth and accuracy of stories and claims than which unidentified person wrote which accounts.

This seems sort of funny because in the past, one of your main objections seemed to be that the authors were unidentifiable, and this was at least partially based on the "consensus of the scholars." When I actually cite one of these scholars, and refute his claims, as being utterly ridiculous, all of the sudden, the identity of the author is not all that important?

Well, since I have demonstrated how utterly ridiculous this scholar's ideas were concerning the fact that the same author could not have possibly written two of the letters attributed to Paul, I wonder if I could in fact give strong evidence concerning the fact that Paul was the author of all the letters attributed to him? Although it would be in depth, and take up a lot of space, I believe I can. However, since the actual author is not all that important any longer, there is no need in it, and will save me the time and effort.

Agreed. Each of us has an opinion regarding Bible tales. Mine is that they have not been shown to be truthful and accurate – or anything more than imagination. Is that incorrect?

Okay, if you are asking, "is it correct, that this is what you believe"? Then I believe you are the only one who can answer that question. More than likely however, you are asking, "if the Bible has been shown to be truthful, and accurate?" Well, that would depend on whom you asked, now wouldn't it? If we were to ask you, or the scholars you seem to love to refer too, then of course the answer would be, "NO"! But let's see how this plays out. As I have said, I cannot point out every detail because it would take up far too much space, so then, let's simply consider a few.

The Bible recorded thousands of years ago, the Israelites were the chosen people of God. Secular historians, acknowledge the Israelites as an ancient tribe, along with the other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible. The other ancient tribes recorded in the Bible, that are also acknowledged by secular historians, are no longer with us as a people, however the Israelites, the people the Bible records as God's chosen people, are still with us today, in spite of the odds against it!

As I have stated I another post, "the Jews have been, one of the most, if not the most persecuted race on the face of the Earth. There have been those who have attempted to wipe this race from the face of the Earth, and there are still those today who would love to see them annihilated! In spite of all of this, the Israelites, the people the Bible records as God's chosen are still alive, and well". Now, the question is, can this been shown to be true? Let's continue on.

The Bible records, Jesus is the Messiah. There were those before, and after Jesus who rose up claiming to be the Messiah. The name of those others have faded into history, and hardly anyone knows their name. However, the name of Jesus, is more than likely, the most well known name in the history of the world! Can this be shown to be true? Let's do one more.

The second letter attributed to Luke, which is, "The Actions of the Apostles", the author begins to use the word, "we" to described the events recorded, indicating the author was present to witness the events. The end of this letter has Paul under house arrest, "preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered."

Let's remember this letter has been attributed to Luke. Now, let us compare this letter, to a letter attributed to Paul, which is, 2 Timothy. There is clear evidence in this letter attributed to Paul, that the author is under arrest, and cannot fend for himself, which coincides with the letter attributed to Luke. Toward the end of this letter to Timothy, the author states, "only Luke is with me." This coincides with the second letter attributed to Luke, which is to a completely different audience, addressing different concerns. Can this be shown to be true?

So then, what we have in these two different letters, addressed to completely different audiences, dealing with totally different concerns is, two men writing about what actually occurred, and this is why these letters coincide together, or we have anonymous writers, generations later who either just so happen to coincide, or they colluded together, or it was the same person who wrote both letters, and had the presence of mind to coincide these things together.

The point is, it is quite easy to read over some of the passages in the Bible, and simply announce that it is all "imagination", however if one were to actually intently study the Scriptures they may in fact find, there are good solid reasons to believe them. As I said above, "it is quite easy to simply say, the Biblical claims are ridiculous", it is quite another to actually read, and study them, in order to understand what you are actually criticizing!

In the end you are correct to say, "we all have our own opinion concerning Scripture", I guess the question becomes, which of us is more informed?

Also, Jack, I have no illusions about convincing you of anything – but instead address my comments to readers with the intent of providing sound reasons for doubting / questioning / disbelieving supernatural tales.

I have actually made the same exact point myself. In other words I have said, "It is not my goal to persuade anyone to change their mind". In fact I have actually stated, "I understand this to be impossible." So, we are on the same page here.

Also like you, my goal is to simply explain what I believe, and why I believe it, in hopes that this will demonstrate there are sound reasons someone may in fact believe. So again, we seem to be on the same page here. The only difference seems to be, I have acknowledged that I understand, unbelief, and can also understand how there are those who arrive at unbelief using their reason, and logic. Said differently, I understand, there are reasons, for unbelief.

You on the other hand, certainly seem to believe there is no possibility of your own error, and there are no sound reasons to believe. If this is your opinion, you a certainly welcomed to it, however in the end, all you are doing is giving the reasons for what you believe and why you believe it, which is no different than myself. The point is, until or unless, one of us prove our point, this is all we can do. I acknowledge this, how about you?

How is this NOT taking the book's word for such things as the "resurrection"? If Jesus did not come back to life as claimed, the whole New Testament is a fraud (as even Paul/Saul is said to have indicated).

You are exactly right about what Paul, or some anonymous writer generations later had to say, and I am certainly glad you brought this up. This writer is pointing back to an historical event and proclaiming, "if this historical event did not in fact occur, then the whole of Christianity, is a fraud!" Notice clearly, he is not saying something like, "as long as Jesus has arisen in your heart, then that is all that matters." NO! The author is absolutely saying, "if this historical event, that I have been preaching, did not in fact take place, in real time, and space in history, then your faith is futile", (useless). Now let's compare this to something that has been attributed to the Apostle Peter. 2 Peter 1:16-18

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased�— 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

The point is, both of these authors, are pointing to historical events, which means Christianity hinges on these historical events, and if these events did not in fact occur, then Christianity is a lie, a fraud, and useless!

I understand this, but more importantly, these writers understood this, which means they understood it would be far easier to simply appeal to the emotions of people, which would cause the truth to hinge on how Christianity effects ones life. But as you point out, these authors claim that Christianity hinges on particular historical events, and the point is, if these events did not in fact occur, then it really does not matter at all about how your life may be different, or how you feel at all. In other words, Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with me, or how it may effect me, but rather, it has to do with, what God has done on our behalf, and if these things did not actually occur, then my Faith in what He has done, is useless.

Your acknowledgement here, rules out the possibility that the Biblical writers were appealing to the mythological. If this were the case, then whether an historical event actually occurred of not would have no relevance.

In fact, in the passage I referred too in 2 Peter, he certainly seems to be acknowledging there are certain mythological beliefs when he says, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you". In other words, "there may be certain mythological tales, but this is not what we are preaching"! Also notice the author's use of the word "known"! So then clearly, we can completely rule out myth when speaking of what these Biblical writers record.

How is this NOT taking the book's word for such things as the "resurrection"?

Okay here, we have a complete lack of knowledge of what the Bible actual is, or it must be willful ignoring! It really does amaze me how one can say, "well you are simply taking the Bibles word for it", as if the Bible is one book?

This sort of comment would be understandable if the Bible was written by, one person, or even a certain group of people, in a certain point in time, but this is not the case at all! In fact if you think about it, the Bible was not, written! In other words, no one ever sat down to author a book entitled the Bible. On top of this, none of the authors intended, or had any idea, what they were writing at the time, would ever be compiled together with other writings, and these authors also, had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact none of them had ever heard of the Bible.

So again, the Bible was not written, but rather compiled, and it was compiled for a few reasons. One of those reasons, is so we would not have to have, and compare all these writings separately. The point is, if we did not have all these writings compiled together, we would have to have 66 separate writings, because this is what the Bible actually is.

So then, when and if I compare, Genesis, to lets say, The Gospel of Luke, I am not comparing the same writing, or even the same book. Rather, I am comparing two totally different writings, written by two totally different people, separated by thousands of years!

Similarly, if I was to compare, lets say, "The Gospel of Matthew" to the "Gospel of Luke", I am not comparing the same writing, or the same book, but rather two totally different writings, by two totally different authors.

NOTICE CAREFULLY HERE! When comparing any of these different writings together, I do not in any way whatsoever, have to presuppose they are true! Rather, I can simply read and compare what these writers have had to say, over, and down through the centuries, which leads to millennium.

I do not, and have not assumed these writings are true, however I have become convinced by the evidence, that the over all message, from beginning to end, about the fall of man, and how we could never remedy the situation we find ourselves in, but God has supplied The Remedy, is true! Now, can I prove that it is true? I cannot! But as I have said, "this is not my aim".

What is there to prove about "I don't believe Bible tales"?

Nothing at all. In the same way, there is nothing for me to prove about, "I am convinced they are true."