Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #60]

Thank you, 1213, for your thoughtful response. I will address your key points in turn, under separate sections.

A. On Divine Rights and Moral Consistency

You wrote:
“God has given life, therefore He has the right to decide how long it lasts.”

This argument assumes that creation grants moral ownership. But by the same logic, a parent who gives life to a child would have the right to end that child’s life. We rightly call that murder, not “divine prerogative.”
If morality means anything beyond might-makes-right, then even a creator must be bound by the same moral principles that condemn killing the innocent. Otherwise, “goodness” becomes indistinguishable from power.

You also wrote that Biblical slavery involved “acceptance.” Yet Exodus 21:7–11 and Leviticus 25:44–46 clearly permit permanent enslavement and inheritance of slaves. Consent is not mentioned for the slaves. These are not voluntary employment contracts but ownership of persons. To call that moral today would nullify centuries of ethical progress.

B. On the Inability to Reanimate the Dead

You ask why humans cannot revive a dead body if life is purely physical. The answer lies in complexity, not divinity.
When the brain’s cellular networks disintegrate, information patterns encoding consciousness are lost - like erasing a hard drive on a computer. Abiogenesis and evolution describe how life arose from chemistry under specific early-Earth conditions, not how to reverse entropy after death. The fact that we cannot yet reconstruct consciousness from dead bodies does not imply that a supernatural agent must do it; it only shows the limits of our current technology. We can, however, resuscitate people whose hearts have stopped beating. Resuscitation was invented by humans using science. Before this, people whose hearts stopped beating died.

C. On Alleged Contradictions

You suggest that Genesis 2 is not about creation but “forming and planting.” Yet the text explicitly describes the creation of man, woman, animals, and vegetation, in a sequence that differs from Genesis 1. Scholars across traditions (Jewish, Christian, and secular) recognize these as two distinct creation accounts from different sources (often labeled J and P). Harmonization requires reinterpretation - an admission of inconsistency, not its absence.

Likewise, saying Judas both hanged himself and “fell and burst open” is possible but not what the texts state. Each narrative claims to be complete; combining them invents a third version not written by either author. That is precisely what “contradiction” means in literary analysis.

As for “God repented,” Genesis 6:6 explicitly says God “was sorry” and “repented.” If God is timeless and unchanging, repentance (a change of mind) cannot apply. To say “He didn’t change, He was just sorry” redefines the term. The contradiction stands.

D. On Creativity and Originality

You argue that humans merely “mimic what they observe.” Yet the ability to abstract, recombine, and invent is precisely what creativity is. No other species builds calculus, writes symphonies, or makes supercomputers. Novelty is not mere imitation; it is the recombination of prior patterns into unprecedented forms. Artificial intelligence itself testifies to this human capacity for generative creation.

E. On Moral Complexity and the Abolition of Slavery

You suggest slavery was abolished because of the Bible. Yet many slave-owners cited the same Bible to justify slavery, quoting:

Ephesians 6:5-7: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men.”

Colossians 3:22: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and you are trying to please them, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

The decisive moral arguments came from Enlightenment humanism, deism, and secular reasoning about equality, supported by a minority of religious reformers who re-interpreted scripture against its literal meaning.
If scripture alone were sufficient, slavery would never have arisen under Christian empires for nearly 1800 years.

Moral progress has occurred because humans expanded empathy beyond tribal and textual boundaries - precisely the moral evolution predicted by a compassionate, naturalistic ethics.

F. On Competing Revelations

You suggest choosing among gods “who have something to say.” Yet all scriptures make that claim: the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Book of Mormon. Have you read all of them?
If the mere existence of a message were proof of divinity, then mutually contradictory gods would all be true. Therefore, we need an independent criterion - empirical verification.
Until then, “God said” remains indistinguishable from “humans wrote.”

G. On the Qur’an and Jesus

You write that Muslims are hypocrites for not believing Jesus’ divinity. But by the same reasoning, Jews could call Christians hypocrites for worshiping a man when the Torah forbids worship of any created being.
Each faith interprets earlier texts differently; the question is which interpretation best fits evidence and moral reason. Reverence without verification does not produce truth.

Muslims believe that the Jewish and Christian scriptures have been corrupted by humans. Here are some verses from the Quran which claim this:

1. Al-Baqarah 2:75

“Do you covet [O believers] the hope that they will believe you, while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort it after they had understood it, while they knew [what they were doing]?”

→ Interpretation: Some among the Israelites altered the message after understanding it. This is the earliest suggestion of tahrif (corruption or distortion).

2. Al-Baqarah 2:79

“So woe to those who write the ‘scripture’ with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.”

→ Interpretation: Strong accusation that some people fabricated or modified scripture for worldly gain.

3. Al-Nisāʾ 4:46

“Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] places and say, ‘We hear and disobey,’ … twisting their tongues and slandering the religion.”

→ Interpretation: The term “distort words from their places” (yuharrifūna al-kalima ʿan mawādiʿihi) is often cited as evidence of verbal or interpretive corruption.

4. Al-Mā’idah 5:13–15

“But because they broke their covenant, We cursed them and hardened their hearts. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of…
…O People of the Scripture! There has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much.”

→ Interpretation: Again accuses “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) of concealing and distorting divine messages.

5. Āl ʿImrān 3:78

“And indeed, there is among them a group who twist their tongues with the Book so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book; and they say, ‘This is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah.”

→ Interpretation: Suggests oral distortion — misrepresenting scripture by recitation or commentary, not necessarily rewriting entire books.

H. Conclusion

The moral worth of any doctrine depends on whether it consistently promotes compassion, justice, and truth for all sentient beings. By that standard, no scripture—ancient or modern—should be immune from critique.
If the Biblical God commands what we would otherwise call evil, the moral task is not to redefine evil as good, but to hold all beings, divine or human, to the same compassionate standard.

Given the above verses in the Quran, the Muslims are not being hypocritical - they are following the Quran, which claims to be the final revelation from God.

The religious books make contradictory claims about what is true. Evidence is the only way to discover what is true. Just because a book, e.g. the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, etc., claims something to be true, it does not make it true.

[1213]

...But by the same logic, a parent who gives life to a child would have the right to end that child’s life. ..

Parents don't give life, they give birth.

You also wrote that Biblical slavery involved “acceptance.” Yet Exodus 21:7–11 and Leviticus 25:44–46 clearly permit permanent enslavement and inheritance of slaves. Consent is not mentioned for the slaves...

Permitting slavery is not the same as allowing it forcibly.

For example the "love your neighbor as yourself" and the kidnapping rule makes it impossible to have someone as a slave against his will. Also the rule not to hand over escaping slave shows it to be so.

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16
You shall not hand over to his master a slave that has escaped from his master to you.
Deut. 23:15

...Abiogenesis and evolution describe how life arose from chemistry under specific early-Earth conditions,...

Abiogenesis gives some kind of explanation, but doesn't show how life can rose from non organic material. People have not created life by it, nor have people ever witnessed life starting from non organic material spontaneously, as it should happen, if there is possibility for that.

...Yet the text explicitly describes the creation of man, woman, animals, and vegetation,...

One of the reasons atheists fail is that almost all of their arguments are based on falsehoods. That is why I think it is very important for everyone to read by themselves what is actually said. For example in this case:

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen. 2:7-8
Yahweh God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. ....
Gen. 2:18-20

In Genesis 2, God forms and plants. It is possible that same things were already created, but God wanted to plant the garden and in the garden He then formed animals.

...Each narrative claims to be complete...

Please show where they says so?

I don't think that is true, for example because:

Since many took in hand to draw up an account concerning the matters having been borne out among us, as those from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good also to me, having traced out all things accurately from the first, to write in order to you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1:1-3
Then truly Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 20:30

The Gospels are not books of complete information. They are what the certain people witnessed, remembered, thought important and knew. It leaves lot of things open and it does not mean that nothing else happened than what was written.

As for “God repented,” Genesis 6:6 explicitly says God “was sorry” and “repented.” If God is timeless and unchanging, repentance (a change of mind) cannot apply. To say “He didn’t change, He was just sorry” redefines the term. The contradiction stands.

Repentance doesn't necessary mean change of mind, at least not in the Bible. In it, the meaning of the original word is to be sorry.

Artificial intelligence itself testifies to this human capacity for generative creation.

In my opinion AI is not creative, it just collects data and then forms something from it by what people ask. But, maybe you could ask it to do something that has no paragon?

If scripture alone were sufficient, slavery would never have arisen under Christian empires for nearly 1800 years.

Slavery rises when it is beneficial for some, and people ignore all the rules from the Bible that are not nice for those who want to oppress others.

And I don't think slavery has gone anywhere, everyone who must pay taxes is still a slave. We just don't use that word, because that way the slave owners can feel morally superior.

Yet all scriptures make that claim: the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Book of Mormon. Have you read all of them?

If we accept that all of those makes the claim, the next step is then to ask, can you explain in one sentence what is the will of the God, what is the message in short to us, what the god wants from us?

You write that Muslims are hypocrites for not believing Jesus’ divinity.

No, I claim they are hypocrites when they don't believe what their holy book says.

But by the same reasoning, Jews could call Christians hypocrites for worshiping a man when the Torah forbids worship of any created being.

I think in that case they are correct. I don't think Bible tells we should worship a man.

“Do you covet [O believers] the hope that they will believe you, while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort it after they had understood it, while they knew [what they were doing]?”

I think Quran is correct in that many people have distorted the message that is in the Bible. Everyone who can read the Bible, can notice how some distort the message.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #62]

Parents don't give life, they give birth.

Parents conceive a zygote, which grows into a baby if it receives the required nutrients. Then the mother gives birth. I am not convinced that any of the Gods (e.g. Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Rama, etc.) of the many religions on Earth is actually real. No one has provided evidence for all the events in the Bible that I requested evidence for in my original post in this thread. I am not convinced that the Biblical God created anything. Even if the Biblical God created living things, it does not automatically make it ethical for God to kill living things - especially, sentient living things that don't want to be killed. Might is right is wrong. Ethical rules protecting sentient life apply to everyone, including Gods.

Permitting slavery is not the same as allowing it forcibly. “Love your neighbour” and the kidnapping rule make it impossible to have someone as a slave against his will.

Yet the texts themselves explicitly distinguish between Hebrew debt-servants (who may go free) and foreign slaves (who may be inherited as property):

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you... You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and make them slaves for life.” - Leviticus 25:44-46.

There is no mention of consent from the slaves. Exodus 21:7–11 even permits selling one’s daughter as a bondwoman. The prohibition of kidnapping (Ex. 21:16) refers to the acquisition of Hebrews, not the buying of foreigners.

Abiogenesis gives some kind of explanation, but doesn't show how life can rise from non-organic material. People have not created life by it, nor have people ever witnessed life starting from non-organic material spontaneously.

Scientists seldom “witness” once-only ancient events directly; they reconstruct them from converging evidence.
Abiogenesis research has demonstrated plausible chemical pathways:

Miller-Urey (1953): amino acids from simple gases and electricity.
RNA world hypothesis: self-replicating ribozymes (Joyce et al., 2009).
Protocell formation from lipid vesicles enclosing catalytic RNA (Szostak et al., 2012).

No single experiment re-creates four billion years of prebiotic chemistry, but the evidence shows no supernatural input is required.

One of the reasons atheists fail is that almost all of their arguments are based on falsehoods... [Genesis 2 citation]

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. It means that I don't know if Gods exist. It's impossible to test the Gods Hypothesis, if Gods exist outside the universe and don't intervene in the universe.

Genesis 1 and 2 give different orders of creation:

In Gen 1, plants → animals → humans (male and female together).
In Gen 2, man → plants → animals → woman.
Ancient redaction explains this: two separate traditions combined later. My point was that each presents itself as a self-contained narrative; neither text acknowledges the other. That’s why literal harmonization requires reinterpretation not demanded by the text itself.

Please show where they say they are complete.

“Complete” in this context meant “self-contained,” not “exhaustive.” Each gospel narrates the good news as if sufficient for faith (John 20:31: “These are written so that you may believe…”). Later verses admitting selectivity do not change that rhetorical claim of sufficiency; they simply concede incompleteness of detail.

Repentance doesn't necessarily mean change of mind... it means to be sorry.

Even if translated “sorry,” sorrow implies emotional variance inconsistent with an immutable, timeless being. If God experiences regret, He undergoes psychological change - something the doctrine of divine immutability forbids. Hence, either the text is anthropomorphic, or the doctrine is internally inconsistent.

AI is not creative, it just collects data and then forms something from it.

That description also applies to human creativity. Human brains recombine prior experiences through neural pattern re-association. When an artist paints, they “collect data” (memories, images, emotions) and produce novel configurations. Creativity is emergent recombination, not spontaneous ex nihilo production - precisely what AI now models algorithmically. I have seen many beautiful images and videos created by AI. You can see them online if you search for them.

Slavery rises when it is beneficial for some, and people ignore all the rules from the Bible that are not nice for those who want to oppress others.

Agreed: moral progress occurs when societies transcend older norms. But that admission implies the Bible was insufficient as a moral guide, since Christians required secular abolitionist reasoning - human rights, equality, empathy - to condemn slavery. “Love your neighbour” did not prevent 1800 years of Christian slaveholding.

Everyone who must pay taxes is still a slave.

Taxation in a democracy funds shared infrastructure and services and is subject to consent via representation. Historical slavery removed consent entirely and treated persons as property. Equating the two dilutes the gravity of real slavery. Only people who earn a certain amount have to pay taxes. Unemployed people and those who earn less than the taxation threshold don't have to pay any tax. At what level of income one has to pay tax and how much one has to pay is determined by elected representatives in a parliament. This is very different from slavery.

If we accept that all of those [holy books] make the claim, can you explain in one sentence what is the will of the God...?

Each scripture offers a different answer - that is precisely the epistemic problem. If an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God actually exists, he/she/it/they could communicate unambiguously to all minds simultaneously. Instead, humanity has many conflicting alleged revelations. The simplest explanation (Occam’s razor) is human authorship rather than divine authorship.

No, I claim [Muslims] are hypocrites when they don't believe what their holy book says.

Fair enough; but by parity of reasoning, Jews could level the same charge against Christians for violating the Shema’s monotheism (Deut 6:4). Once “hypocrisy” becomes a label for interpretive difference, every sect can wield it against all others, reducing dialogue to accusation.

I think in that case they are correct. I don't think Bible tells we should worship a man.

Then we agree that if Jesus was human, worshiping him conflicts with the Torah’s explicit prohibition of creature-worship (Ex 20:3-5). The earliest disciples’ elevation of Jesus thus reflects later theological development rather than Mosaic continuity. Please note the following verses which show Jesus being worshipped:

Matthew 14:33: “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”

Matthew 28:9: “They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.”

John 20:28: Thomas says to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”

Philippians 2:9–11: Paul writes that every knee will bow to Jesus, echoing Isaiah 45:23 (which refers to Yahweh).

Hebrews 1:6: “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

I think Quran is correct that many people have distorted the message that is in the Bible.

That admission concedes textual corruption - yet it raises the larger question:
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God allow his own revelation to be distorted for millennia, leaving billions in doctrinal confusion? A fallible human author fits the evidence far more parsimoniously than an infallible divine communicator.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #59]

A. Type of Evidence Needed

You have presented a standard historical-apologetic framework (minimal facts → theological inference). My critique is not that historical reasoning is useless, but that its epistemic range is limited to the natural-historical domain. Once an explanation invokes supernatural agency, it ceases to be historical inference and becomes metaphysical speculation. The issue is not “bias” but causal domain leakage.

That is why there are multiple steps. Step 1 is about the historical domain. Step 2 goes beyond the historical to the metaphysical. The case there is not speculation, but offers grounded reasoning.

If the Biblical God is truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then divine communication should be perfect in clarity, universality, and accessibility. Yet the medium chosen is a collection of human writings - anonymous, contradictory, and produced decades after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. A being capable of creating galaxies could easily write its message directly into the cosmos, using stars or universal signals comprehensible to all sentient beings. That such overwhelming clarity is absent poses a serious challenge to the coherence of the theistic model.

The Logical Structure of the Argument

1. If God is omniscient, He would know exactly what kind of evidence would convince every rational being of His existence and actions.
2. If God is omnipotent, He would be able to produce that evidence without error or delay.
3. If God is omnibenevolent, He would desire to remove unnecessary confusion, doubt, and religious conflict.
4. The actual world shows the opposite: many self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions, contradictory scriptures, and ambiguous historical claims.
5. Therefore, the hypothesis of an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God conflicts with the observed epistemic situation.

You aren't taking account of the inclusion of free will and "soul-making" in my theistic model. Perfect clarity coerces belief, contradicting free will. Epistemic distance is also required for humans to develop virtues like trust, humility, and love in ambiguous contexts. So, I guess I'm disputing premise 4?

Historical testimony is probabilistic, context-dependent, and non-replicable. Supernatural ontology is metaphysical and claims universal import. To rationally justify the latter from the former requires a form of evidence that transcends local, interpretive narratives - namely, reproducible empirical data or logically necessary argumentation. In their absence, the theological step remains an assertion of faith, not an inference from fact.

Why does the argumentation need to be logically necessary? That sounds like the standard of 100% certainty, which we don't get with empirical data and any other field beyond pure math and definitions.

I agree that historians do not discard texts wholesale for bias or mythic elements. However, this does not mean all reported details are equally credible. Historians rank claims according to independent attestation, proximity, internal coherence, and congruence with known reality.

There are more criteria for ranking the claims than that, but I agree with this approach and it is exactly what my case is built on.

When a text includes impossible elements (earthquakes that open graves, mass resurrections, voices from heaven), methodological naturalism requires we treat such content as mythic or symbolic. Otherwise, we abandon the uniformity principle that undergirds all historical and scientific reasoning.

I disagree completely. Those elements are not impossible, even if they didn't happen. And bringing in methodological naturalism is a blatant instance of begging the question. All reasoning should try to exclude such bias as much as possible. Agnosticism on miracles, etc. is what is required to be unbiased in this search.

Yes, one should be skeptical of those miraculous claims until evidence is shown otherwise, but that's exactly the same with natural explanations. We should follow the evidence, not artificially limit it because of our worldview.


Step 1: Historical Facts

1. Jesus historically existed

I do not claim Jesus certainly did not exist. The most defensible position is historical agnosticism: a plausible preacher or reformer may have existed, but we cannot reconstruct him reliably. The earliest sources - the undisputed Pauline letters - offer no biographical details and describe encounters that are visionary, not physical. The gospels, decades later, transform this visionary nucleus into a biographical narrative.

Therefore, the burden of proof shifts: even if a human “Jesus” existed, the divine attributes remain unsubstantiated. The existence of a man is not evidence of his divinity.

Why do you think agnosticism is the most defensible position? It could be because you think the standard is 100% certainty. If so, I've addressed that above. If not, then you disagree with almost every scholar who studies this for a living. We can reliably reconstruct some basic details and that is all that is needed, especially for this first act.

Multiple attestation increases confidence only if the sources are independent. “Mark,” “Q,” “Matthew,” and “Luke” share literary dependence. “John” draws from a later theological milieu. Paul’s letters never mention an empty tomb or miracles beyond visionary language. Roman and Jewish references (Tacitus, Josephus) derive from what Christians themselves were saying decades later - not from direct observation.

First, a more general point about independent attestation. It does not mean they only talk about different stuff. Yes, they are going to share some things, but that doesn't mean there is no independence between them. Each story/event must be taken separately.

Second, to the specific fact we are talking about to keep this organized. There is multiple, independent attestation that Jesus was a historical person. Mark, Q, Matthew's unique material, Luke's unique material, and John are all independent sources on this front. They have distinct stories of what a historical Jesus did, attesting to his existence.

Paul speaks of Jesus being born of a woman (Galatians 4:4), a physical descendant of David (Rom 1:3), tells us that he spoke to Jesus' brother (Gal 1:19), spoke of the Last Supper as historical (1 Cor 11:23-25), passed on ethical teachings of Jesus, talks of Jesus being betrayed, crucified, that Jesus died, that he testified before Pontius Pilate. Paul is another independent attestation that Jesus existed.

Sources like Tacitus, Josephus (the core, not the probable additions by a later Christian), the Talmud would not just accept Christian claims and pass them off as historical because Christians claimed they were; they'd have their own sources or witness to them, making them independent sources. And there are others.

As for the “criterion of embarrassment,” it presumes authors could not have had theological motives to invert humiliation into divine victory - a core motif of the entire Christian kerygma. A crucified messiah becomes a powerful symbol of divine victory through resurrection, not an embarrassment to avoid. Thus, the criterion loses force.

Using the criterion of embarassment to support a specific claim, doesn't mean assuming there were no other theological motives, but that those suggested motives aren't strong enough to overturn historicity.

As it pertains to this specific fact, if you invent Jesus' existence as God incarnated, you aren't going to say things like he was baptized by John.

Empty tombs, a crucified messiah as ultimate victory, supposed mythic parallels, fit better in discussion on later facts, not this one.

Still to come...

2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. Jesus' tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement originally focused on the resurrection as its centerpiece.

Step 2: Explanation of the facts
Step 3: Implication of the explanation of the facts, especially concerning God's existence.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #64]

That is why there are multiple steps. Step 1 is about the historical domain. Step 2 goes beyond the historical to the metaphysical. The case there is not speculation, but offers grounded reasoning.

Grounded reasoning requires that its premises remain within the evidential reach of the domain under discussion. The moment we cross from “what happened” (historical) to “what caused it supernaturally” (metaphysical), we enter a domain without empirical access or falsifiability.
Even if one builds an orderly chain of steps, the bridge between a local historical claim and an infinite metaphysical conclusion remains untestable. At best, such reasoning is speculative coherence, not evidence.

Perfect clarity coerces belief, contradicting free will. Epistemic distance is also required for humans to develop virtues like trust, humility, and love in ambiguous contexts. So, I guess I'm disputing premise 4?

That objection presupposes that knowledge nullifies freedom. But humans routinely disbelieve well-established truths - climate science, evolution, vaccines - despite overwhelming clarity. Knowledge does not coerce; it merely informs. Most people are non-vegan, even though veganism is better for the animals, the environment and humans. Knowledge is frequently ignored or twisted by humans for their own agenda.
If God’s goal were “soul-making,” He could ensure epistemic openness without resorting to cosmic ambiguity. A world of manifest divine presence need not remove moral freedom any more than scientific evidence removes ethical freedom.

Furthermore, if love or trust must depend on ignorance or uncertainty, those virtues become epistemically dependent, not freely chosen. An omnibenevolent being could enable virtue development after clarity, not through confusion.

Why does the argumentation need to be logically necessary? That sounds like the standard of 100% certainty, which we don't get with empirical data and any other field beyond pure math and definitions.

Logical necessity is not demanded for empirical claims - it is demanded when a claim asserts universal metaphysical truth.
A statement like “A supernatural being raised Jesus from the dead” is not probabilistic in scope; it proposes an ontological revolution of the entire causal order. Extraordinary claims require either repeatable empirical validation or deductive entailment from known truths.
Without those, we remain in the realm of imaginative possibility, not justified metaphysical knowledge.

There are more criteria for ranking the claims than that, but I agree with this approach and it is exactly what my case is built on.

That’s fair. But once those historical-critical criteria are applied consistently, the resurrection narratives rank at the lowest level of reliability. They are multiply redacted, theologically charged, and lack external corroboration.
If we apply the same standards used for non-Christian ancient reports, we would classify them as legendary accretions, not historical certainties.

Those elements are not impossible, even if they didn't happen. And bringing in methodological naturalism is a blatant instance of begging the question. All reasoning should try to exclude such bias as much as possible. Agnosticism on miracles, etc. is what is required to be unbiased in this search.

Methodological naturalism is not bias; it is the foundation of disciplined inquiry.
Without it, we lose any criterion for distinguishing miracles from myth, coincidence, or error. “Possible” is not the same as “plausible.” Until a miracle demonstrates repeatable, verifiable causal power distinguishable from natural processes, agnosticism is rational - but it justifies no positive belief in the event’s supernatural cause.

If we suspend methodological naturalism, every mythology gains equal evidential standing - Greek, Norse, Hindu, and Christian alike - collapsing explanatory hierarchy into relativism.

Why do you think agnosticism is the most defensible position? It could be because you think the standard is 100% certainty. If so, I've addressed that above. If not, then you disagree with almost every scholar who studies this for a living. We can reliably reconstruct some basic details and that is all that is needed, especially for this first act.

Historical agnosticism is not about demanding 100% certainty; it is about acknowledging proportional confidence.
Yes, most scholars accept a historical Jesus in some form - but that consensus reflects sociological momentum, not definitive evidence. The Pauline letters, our earliest sources, show belief in a revealed Christ, not detailed acquaintance with a historical biography.
A teacher may have existed; the divine incarnation claim remains unsubstantiated. Thus, the prudent position is neither denial nor belief, but suspension of judgment pending adequate evidence - epistemic humility.

There is multiple, independent attestation that Jesus was a historical person. Mark, Q, Matthew's unique material, Luke's unique material, and John are all independent sources on this front... Paul is another independent attestation... Tacitus, Josephus, Talmud...

Independence must be demonstrated, not assumed. “Mark,” “Q,” and the Synoptic expansions share oral and literary dependence, forming a single tradition cluster rather than distinct eyewitness streams. “John” exhibits later theological development, not historical corroboration.

Paul’s references are theological and visionary - he never claims to have seen Jesus in life. His “knowledge” derives from alleged revelation and second-hand reports.

As for Tacitus and Josephus, both rely on information circulating among Christians decades later. No Roman or Jewish contemporary provides primary observation of the events. The Talmudic materials are centuries later and polemical.

Therefore, the total evidential base reduces to intra-Christian testimony - a single ideological echo chamber.

Using the criterion of embarrassment... you aren't going to say things like he was baptized by John.

That assumes embarrassment cannot be theologically reframed. In fact, reversal of shame is the dominant motif of Christian theology: weakness becomes strength, death becomes victory, the last become first.
A baptized, crucified Messiah is not a reluctant concession but a deliberate theological construct designed to glorify God's victory through resurrection.

Hence, what appears “embarrassing” from an outsider’s lens is strategic from within the movement’s narrative of redemptive inversion. The criterion, therefore, loses discriminatory power in this context.

Conclusion

Historical reasoning can reconstruct that early followers believed Jesus had been resurrected. It cannot verify that resurrection as an ontic event, let alone as divine self-revelation.
Every step beyond that belief - to metaphysical explanation - rests on faith, not inference.

A truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being could reveal itself universally and unmistakably, preserving human freedom while ending needless religious division. The fact that it does not occur remains stronger evidence for human mythology than for divine strategy.

[1213]

Parents conceive a zygote, which grows into a baby if it receives the required nutrients. Then the mother gives birth.

I can agree with that. And in no part in that people give life.

...No one has provided evidence for all the events in the Bible that I requested evidence for in my original post in this thread.

I gave few, but for most of the things, if they truly happened, you could not find any physical evidence, except the stories and people who are Christians and Jews, if they truly happened.

Even if the Biblical God created living things, it does not automatically make it ethical for God to kill living things - especially, sentient living things that don't want to be killed. ...

It gives Him the right to decide how long life He gives. And no one has any good reason to demand more than what they get. And I think it is good, if God doesn't allow evil people to live forever.

It's impossible to test the Gods Hypothesis,

Why do you think so?

If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or I speak from Myself.
John 7:17

Ancient redaction explains this: two separate traditions combined later. My point was that each presents itself as a self-contained narrative; neither text acknowledges the other. That’s why literal harmonization requires reinterpretation...

I think literal reading, without any interpretations show there is no two creation accounts. To call there is two creation stories, one needs to have the interpretation that the words doesn't really mean what they are. And it is interesting why atheists insist using their interpretation. If Bible would be wrong, it would not need lies to show it to be false.

If God experiences regret, He undergoes psychological change ...

I don't think that shows a psychological change.

When an artist paints, they “collect data” (memories, images, emotions) and produce novel configurations.

And because it all is based on what they have seen or experienced, I don't think humans are creative, and for example able to imagine the Bible God from nothing.

Creativity is emergent recombination, not spontaneous ex nihilo production - precisely what AI now models algorithmically.

I think true creativity is ex nihilo production. And AI doesn't do that, it combines the data it has collected, which was made by someone else.

Each scripture offers a different answer - that is precisely the epistemic problem. If an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God actually exists, he/she/it/they could communicate unambiguously to all minds simultaneously. Instead, humanity has many conflicting alleged revelations.

I think the problem is in that people don't want to hear, and don't like the truth. Not in the way the message is delivered.

Also, God has offered help for everyone who wants to understand. But, I don't think many really want that, they like more of their own ideas.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26
However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but what-ever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him.
James 1:5

Please note the following verses which show Jesus being worshipped:

Matthew 14:33: “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”

Matthew 28:9: “They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.”

John 20:28: Thomas says to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”

Philippians 2:9–11: Paul writes that every knee will bow to Jesus, echoing Isaiah 45:23 (which refers to Yahweh).

Hebrews 1:6: “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

I think the idea in the Bible is to not having other gods than the one and only true God. And as the Bible shows, Jesus is a man, the mediator between God and men.

The word worship can mean bowing to a person. It does not necessary mean one is keeping the person as his God, or worshiping the person as the God. It was possible to bow to a king also in the OT. And because Jesus is the king, it is acceptable to bow to him as for a king.

And after the death of Jehoiada, the leaders of Judah came in and bowed themselves to the king; then the king listened to them.
2 Chr. 24:17

That admission concedes textual corruption ...

I don't think there is any textual corruption, corruption in what is written in the Bible. And by what I know, the accusations show the people making them don't really know what is said in the Bible. And it is quite bad for Islam, if their Allah doesn't know what is said in the Bible.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #66]

And in no part in that people give life.

Parents literally provide half the genetic material each and the environment for zygotic development. Life is not a mysterious addition but a biochemical continuum - a process of metabolism, growth, and reproduction governed by physical laws. Every living cell comes from pre-existing living cells (omnis cellula e cellula). To deny that parents “give life” is to deny biological causation itself. They do not create life ex nihilo, but they transmit and sustain it through natural processes.

I gave few, but for most of the things, if they truly happened, you could not find any physical evidence, except the stories and people who are Christians and Jews, if they truly happened.

That concession underscores my point: when claims are insulated from potential falsification, they leave the realm of historical reasoning and enter faith assertion. A proposition that “cannot be evidenced if true” is epistemically indistinguishable from one that is false. History depends on verifiable correlation - inscriptions, archaeology, or independent contemporary testimony - not on circular self-attestation. I've already critiqued your so-called evidence, so I won't repeat it here.

It gives Him the right to decide how long life He gives. And no one has any good reason to demand more than what they get.

That conclusion is ethically absurd. The act of creating consciousness entails responsibility for its welfare, not sovereignty over its termination.

Why do you think so?

Because the “God hypothesis” lacks operational definition and test conditions. To test a hypothesis, one must specify measurable predictions that differ from a null hypothesis. “If anyone desires to do His will…” is subjective verification, indistinguishable from confirmation bias or wishful attribution. Every religion makes parallel claims of inner conviction - and they mutually contradict. That shows the unreliability of such “tests.”

I think literal reading, without any interpretations show there is no two creation accounts.

Genesis 1 presents creation in six days culminating with humanity (male and female together). Genesis 2 presents a separate order: man first, then vegetation, then animals, and finally woman. Each text functions independently; neither references the other. To merge them, one must reinterpret “day” and reorder events - precisely the interpretive gymnastics you accuse others of doing.

I don't think that shows a psychological change.

Regret presupposes recognition that a prior choice produced an undesired outcome. Recognition entails change in mental state - a transition from satisfaction to dissatisfaction. That is psychological change by definition. An immutable, omniscient being could not “regret,” since it would have foreknown and pre-accepted every outcome.

I don't think humans are creative ... able to imagine the Bible God from nothing.

All creativity is recombinatory. Every idea - including “gods” - arises from pre-existing cognitive elements recombined in novel ways. The anthropomorphic traits of deities mirror human psychology and social structures. That is precisely what cognitive science of religion documents: gods are projections of human minds, not products of divine revelation.

I think true creativity is ex nihilo production. And AI doesn't do that, it combines the data it has collected, which was made by someone else.

Then by that standard, nothing that exists has ever been creative - yet we observe continual emergence of unprecedented forms, from language to mathematics to art to technology. Emergent novelty is not ex nihilo but combinatorial complexity. Even your concept of “ex nihilo” derives from linguistic and cultural inheritance, not from nothing.

I think the problem is in that people don't want to hear, and don't like the truth.

That explanation fails universally: every religion claims that dissenters “don’t want the truth.” The diversity of incompatible revelations shows that the issue is not human obstinacy but divine ambiguity. An omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God, if it really existed, could bypass all intermediaries and reveal identical information to every mind simultaneously. The absence of such universal revelation is strong evidence against the existence of such a God.

The word worship can mean bowing to a person...

In the cited verses, proskyneō and latreuō are the same Greek verbs used for worship of Yahweh. Moreover, Philippians 2:10–11 deliberately echoes Isaiah 45:23 - “to me every knee shall bow.” The early Christians recognized Jesus as sharing divine status, which is why Trinitarian theology emerged. To reinterpret “worship” as mere courtesy contradicts both linguistic context and theological history.

I don't think there is any textual corruption ...

Textual criticism demonstrates otherwise. Thousands of manuscript variants exist, many doctrinally significant (e.g. Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). The New Testament autographs are lost; what remains are divergent copies. Acknowledging this is not hostility but scholarly honesty. Denial of textual development does not preserve faith; it abandons intellectual integrity.

Ethical reasoning, historical method, and linguistic evidence all point toward human authorship, natural causation, and moral responsibility independent of divine decree. Evidence, reason, empathy and compassion should be our guides, not faith in the Bible or other religious books.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

@Compassionist, why do you need evidence from outside the Bible to support those historical events reported in the Bible? Either you believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word or not.

I believe that Jesus' bodily resurrection is a historical event because of all the eyewitnesses who saw him alive after they knew he died on the cross. They were willing to suffer and die for their testimonies. You can't get better witnesses than they were.

Therefore, if the God who raised Jesus from the dead permanently could do that, he certainly could do all the other historical events in the Bible.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #68]

@Compassionist, why do you need evidence from outside the Bible to support those historical events reported in the Bible? Either you believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word or not.

I believe that Jesus' bodily resurrection is a historical event because of all the eyewitnesses who saw him alive after they knew he died on the cross. They were willing to suffer and die for their testimonies. You can't get better witnesses than they were.

Therefore, if the God who raised Jesus from the dead permanently could do that, he certainly could do all the other historical events in the Bible.

Thank you, BruceLeiter. I understand your position, but belief and historical verification operate in different epistemic domains.

If we are discussing history, then we must use historical methods - corroboration, contemporaneity, and independence of sources. Every religious text - whether the Bible, the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita - makes supernatural claims. To evaluate which (if any) reflect reality, we must apply the same evidentiary standards to all. Otherwise, we presuppose one scripture’s alleged truth and dismiss all others by fiat.

The reason evidence outside the Bible is required is simple:
If we rely only on a text’s internal claims, then every religious book would “prove itself.” Historians do not accept a claim merely because it is sincerely written, or because some people believed it, or even because some died for it - people have died for false beliefs in every religion and ideology throughout history.

As for the resurrection, we have no firsthand accounts written by any alleged eyewitness. All four gospels are anonymous, written decades after the alleged events, in Greek, not Aramaic, and contain contradictory details. The earliest Christian writings - Paul’s letters - never describe an empty tomb or physical interactions with a resurrected body of Jesus; his “appearances” are visionary (1 Corinthians 15:3–8).

Sincerity of belief does not equal truth of claim. A Buddhist monk self-immolating for his faith, or a Muslim dying for belief in Muhammad’s Night Journey, are equally sincere - yet mutually exclusive with your own theology. Historical reasoning cannot privilege one religion’s sincerity over another’s.

Therefore, the question remains:
Can any of the Bible’s extraordinary claims - including the alleged resurrection of Jesus - be shown to be historically true using the same evidentiary methods we apply to every other ancient claim? So far, the answer is no.

Faith may not need external evidence, but science and history do. That distinction matters if we wish to reason, not merely believe.

[1213]

... Life is not a mysterious addition but a biochemical continuum....

In that case, why we can't add life back to a dead body?

- a process of metabolism, growth, and reproduction governed by physical laws. Every living cell comes from pre-existing living cells ...

Yes, that is why I say people don't give life. The life is in their cells and people only let them live and continue.

I gave few, but for most of the things, if they truly happened, you could not find any physical evidence, except the stories and people who are Christians and Jews, if they truly happened.

That concession underscores my point: when claims are insulated from potential falsification, they leave the realm of historical reasoning and enter faith assertion. A proposition that “cannot be evidenced if true” is epistemically indistinguishable from one that is false. History depends on verifiable correlation - inscriptions, archaeology, or independent contemporary testimony - not on circular self-attestation....

Many things are such that if they truly happened, we could not find anything, except maybe the stories. For example Bible tells certain bodies raised from death. That means, we could not find them from their tombs and it would look like they never existed. And so, in that a case for the story to be true, we should not find things.

And there is also lot of historical things that leave no traces that could be found. Most people that live today, likely will never be found after 2000 years.

Genesis 2 presents a separate order: man first, then vegetation, then animals, and finally woman. Each text functions independently; neither references the other.

But it is not speaking about creation.

gods are projections of human minds, not products of divine revelation.

Sorry, I think people are too evil and stupid to imagine Bible God.

every religion claims that dissenters “don’t want the truth.”

Sorry, i don't think that is true. And I don't mean that not believing is the same as not wanting to hear the truth. I mean that for example you don't seem to want to hear the truth that Genesis 2 is not a different creation story, because it speaks about planting and forming.

I don't think there is any textual corruption ...

Textual criticism demonstrates otherwise. Thousands of manuscript variants exist, many doctrinally significant (e.g. Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11).

In that case textual criticism seems to be wrong.

But, I can agree that there are small differences in translations. I don't think there is any that makes the text not understandable. But, the good thing is that we have the old versions so that we can check how accurate the modern versions are.

You gave these two scriptures. I don't see nay problem in them, so please explain how these are different doctrically?

And rising early on the first of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. That one had gone and reported to those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping. And those hearing that He lives, and was seen by her, they did not believe. And after these things, He was revealed in a different form to two of them walking and going into the country. And going, those reported to the rest. Neither did they believe those. Afterward, as they reclined, He was revealed to the Eleven. And He reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him, having been raised. And He said to them, Going into all the world, preach the gospel to all the creation. The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned. And signs will follow to those believing these things: they will cast out demons in My name; they will speak new languages; they will take up snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will be well. Then indeed, after speaking to them, the Lord was taken up into Heaven, and sat off the right of God. And going out, they preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs following. Amen.
Mark 16:9-20

And they each one went to his house. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. And at dawn, He again arrived into the temple; and all the people came to Him. And sitting down, He taught them. And the scribes and the Pharisees brought to Him a woman having been taken in adultery. And standing her in the middle, they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in the very act, committing adultery. And in the Law, Moses commanded that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say? But they said this, tempting Him, that they may have reason to accuse Him. But bending down, Jesus wrote with the finger in the earth, not appearing to hear . But as they continued questioning Him, bending back up, He said to them, The one among you without sin, let him cast the first stone at her. And bending down again, He wrote in the earth. But hearing, and being convicted by the conscience, they went out one by one, beginning from the older ones, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. And Jesus bending back up, and having seen no one but the woman, He said to her, Woman, where are those who accused you? Did not one give judgment against you? And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.
John 7:53-8:11