Is there really no evidence of God?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:02 pm

This is always a go-to statement of nonbelievers. They say "there is no evidence of God", or "there's no evidence Christianity is true", or something along those lines... But I believe in Christianity because, precisely, it was the evidence that convinced me of its truth... Just the same as Lee Stroble, Simon Greenleaf, Peter Stoner and many others like us...

So if you believe there is no evidence of God, how could you justify that to someone who believes because of the evidence? Or can you not justify it, and it is simply your opinion?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:11 am

rikuoamero wrote:
Tart wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
Tart wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 16 by Tart]

"Evidence: anything in support of an assertion"... I use the word for what it means...
Then this means you let anything and I do mean ANYTHING true. A ghost took my keys and my evidence? Hmm...does the ghostly feeling I felt last week count as being 'in support of the assertion'?

Or should we do as I do, and go with the stricter route, so as to weed out mere feelings?

It's just wrong to say there is no evidence, but that is continuesly repeated by atheists as a way to discredit the actually existing evidence
When we say we want evidence, we mean evidence that withstands scrutiny. Not just as something offered in support of an assertion, but something that withstands attack. If something that has been offered in support of an assertion has been subjected to scrutiny and shown to be lacking...why do you call it evidence? Are you trying to equate it to other evidences that have withstood scrutiny, when it came to other subjects (such as say...the evidence that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen particles?)

So now it looks like we are all in agreance, evidence exists...
No, no we're not. It looks to me like you want these things to count as evidence, even after they have failed to withstand scrutiny.

So on a side note, you don't think Peter Stoner made any actual calculations ?
The few times I've seen him mentioned on this site by other people, there were no actual calculations offered. Just claims that a fulfilment by anyone other than Jesus of Prophecy XYZ are 1 in 10,000 or similar numbers. Basically...the probabilities were offered by posters and looked like they were pulled straight out of a rectum.
I worked with what I was given. If Stoner HAD done actual calculations...then those posters didn't show them, and I can't imagine why they didn't. Surely it would have aided their argument?
Well I can assure you Peter Stoner made calculations, and reasonable calculations at that...

And you still are claiming the evidence doesn't exist... saying it doesn't withstand scrutiny..
That is not a requirement for evidence to be evidence, and it's also an opinion I do not share..

So tell me.... I believe in the evidence of christianity... So, according to you, is my belief in something that is nonexistent? Or is it belief in evidence that exists, but is not true?

Also, saying the evidence doesn't withstand scrutiny is your opinion.. Or can you show that to be true? Can you shows Christianity can't withstand scrutiny?
Surely then you can provide the actual calculations? Offer something a little more substantive than 'according to stoner the odds of XYZ happening are 1 in 10,000'?

As for Christianity withstanding scrutiny...the religion obviously exists. What does not withstand scrutiny are the claims it makes, such as that a body that had been dead for several days levitated off the ground and flew off into the sky a la superman
To get familiar with Peter Stoner's calculations, one easy way would be to watch "the most incredible prophecy" on youtube...

And as far as this "scrutiny", by pointing out the resurrection and ascension of Christ, implying this isn't naturally possible... Everyone agrees with that, the resurrection isn't possible... without God.

You do agree if an all powerful God exists, he would have the power to do that, right?

If you'd like to properly scrutinize, you would show that God couldn't have done it, or that the testimony of it is false, or something like that.
A link would be far more preferable than a vague name.

As for what I agree with...your argument is circular. You're defining God as being able to perform resurrections and then saying "hey..
Then the resurrection is possible because God can do it!"
How do you know theres any reality to your definition? This has shades of the modal ontological argument.

Here...
https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=w ... sIQ8ksvs7D

And I don't even know what your talking about with this "scrutiny".

The claim in the scripture is that the ressurection is the result of an all powerful God... Would you like to present any proper scrutiny? That could show a Christian their beliefs are wrong? That way you can justify your claim that Christianity can't stand to scrutiny?

Or is it just you not believing in it, as far as it goes?

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:59 pm

Tart wrote: I believe in Christianity because the evidence shows that Jesus is the Messiah. That the prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ, the fulfilment of the law, the reasoning given by the disciples, the crucifiction of Christ in accordence to the scripture for the forgiveness of sin, and His rsurresurrection. That is the evidence of God, which has the ability to convict people in its authenticity.

"12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

I believe in God because the evidence convinced me... I not only think this is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, it is the only reasonable one...

So how can you justify there is no evidence of God?

So you are basing your stance on the most edited and revised collection of stories in human history - the Bible. You can't even say who actually wrote it. The earliest copies of the Bible (various Codex) are all different from one another. It is well known that gnostic gospels were excluded by the Church (like the Gospel of St Bartholomew), and evidence of tampering and tweaking have been shown many times. Yet this is the "word" of a god?

Do you know what heresay is? It's a legal term describing why third party claims about what other people said isn't valid evidence. Why? Because there is no independent verification. They could all be lying. They could be misrepresenting. They could even be convinced they are telling facts when in reality they aren't. THIS is the level of "evidence" you want to present to us? That's not worth a plug nickel.

Let's review your evidence:
You read something in a book.
The book claims to be from a very special source.
The source behaves very badly for the first half of the book, and then feels sorry for that.
The source predicts that it will send a special representative to make it all better
The special representative shows up, and makes it all better.

Let's review Cat In The Hat:
Cat In The Hat is a book.
It's a book about a very special source - a cat with a hat, that can talk and walk and is unlike any other cat.
The Cat behaves very badly, and makes a mess, and then feels bad about that.
The Cat predicts it can make it all better with something special.
The Cat sends a very special representative (the cleaning machine) to make it all better, and it makes it all better.

So under your standard of evidence, one can only assume you consider the Cat In The Hat to be a real being with predictive powers that can make everything all better...

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:04 pm

Tart wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 7 by Tart]

Ok so you have no way to justify "there is no evidence"?
The court notes that the prosecution has yet to actually offer this evidence, beyond claiming that it exists.

And if you have a better explanation feel free to present it...
It's not about better. It's about you using that word 'reasonable'. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for Christianity or any other religion, which is not the same thing as saying that they are correct/true.
There's a few reasonable explanations for how I lost my keys the other day. I could have dropped them, left them somewhere, been pickpocketed, etc. What does not make sense is saying that there is only the one reasonable explanation and that one is that a ghost took them.

OK so you can't justify to me that the evidence I believe in, in fact actually doesn't exist ? You just pretend it doesn't exist? Thats not helping your case

No. You cannot verify that your evidence (the stories in the Bible) are true, accurate, or contain factual information. You can't prove who wrote them. You can't produce the original copies. You can't determine by examination of the oldest copies we do have (the Codex's) which one is the most accurate. It cannot be denied that there have been major edits and revisions and omissions for the Bible over the years.

You don't have evidence. You have third party heresay written years after it is claimed to have been written by mostly persons unknown, often in languages like Coptic Greek which were only known by a sliver of highly educated people back in the day.

That you believe in it doesn't make it evidence.

William · Post by **William** » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:32 pm

[Replying to post 26 by Tart]

Of course belief doesn't make it true... I certainly never said, nor do i believe, that just because I believe it's true makes it true... Neither does your nonbelief makes it not true.

For me personally, I find belief has very little value because of this. Indeed, it is not a case of non belief for me either. I suspend both belief and none belief because neither are helpful.

Just like some posts here saying the evidence of Christianity doesn't withstand scrutiny...

Often that is the case with the bible, which is what Christianity bases its beliefs on. Indeed, the sects of Christendom do not even withstand one another's scrutiny and as such it can be viewed as a house divided.

that is their opinion, that I don't share...

Yet it is the truth that you are resisting...

I personally think that anyone who seeks God with an open heart will be proven of his existence through the evidence .

That doesn't make much sense because it has no context. Are you saying that those who seek GOD with an open heart will believe that the bible is the truth, or are you saying something else when you speak of the evidence? Please clarify for the reader.

Or in other words, anyone who seeks God will find God...

All very well, but is GOD the bible? Many Christians don't seem to see any difference. Do you think it is the truth that those who seek GOD and find GOD without the bible or Christianity have indeed found GOD?

But this is about the objective reality of Christianity... If Jesus was really the messiah, and was really resurrected, then Christianity is true... And if not then Christianity is not true, and even Christians admit that...

Christians base this on belief that is the truth. They do not know for a fact that it is the truth. It is when they cross the line in their arguments and claim it is The Truth, that they have abandoned a true position in exchange for a false one and as such cannot -truthfully- complain when they are then asked to present evidence that this claim is the truth.

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
~Paul (1 Corinthians 15)

Thus it is best not to preach something as The Truth if is it not FOUND to be the truth. As can be seen, this requires evidence - one finds the evidence and presents the evidence.

In the case of that biblical quote, this clearly has not been established and thus faith is required. Thus any preaching has to remain within the boundary of the faith in the thing believed in. Once one steps out by declaring the faith is the truth of the matter, one has to show the evidence has been FOUND to back up that new position.

Until that is the case, any preaching done in this manner can be considered false witness about GOD.

The truth is that the position is one of belief. This is to say, one can make statements along the lines of "we believe Jesus is the messiah and that GOD raised him from the dead and that he will return one day and fix the world...but we acknowledge that this is belief and something we have chosen to place faith in without having any evidence for, and so it could be false, but we believe that it isn't."

So what is it? I think the evidence, the scripture, the explanation given by the disciples is solid.

Can you see there where you are conflating evidence with 'scripture' and the 'explanation given by the disciples'? What you think is evidence is not actually evidence. If it were then there would be no necessity for the FAITH Paul speaks to.

Essentially evidence removes the need for faith and belief and belief in faith.

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
~Paul (1 Corinthians 15)

Is there evidence for us here and now that Christ was actually raised? No there is not, any more than there was when the above was written.

It is the truth, and can be shown to be true to all who seek it.

No, it cannot be SHOWN as truth. It can only be believed through faith that it is true. Something which is believed through faith to be true is not necessarily true, no matter how wonderful it is presented through SOUND, it is never SHOWN through SIGHT.

As said, you are conflating belief in faith with truth of evidence.

Christianity is build on faith, not evidence.

The prophecies, the convictions, the authority and authenticity is undeniable.

The faith in these things is what is undeniable. The truth of these things shows no evidence, and that is the issue here.
By all means, believe whatever you want to put your faith into but once you overstep the line in declaring that what you have faith in is the actual truth, you need to show actual evidence to support the claims, otherwise you are simply confusing faith in something as evidence of something, and arguing from that - very shaky - position.

These explanation given I the scripture make sense, and reveals the truth... God has revealed it...

Again, you believe this on faith, not on evidence. Lots of things 'make sense' but that doesn't mean they are the truth.

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:23 pm

[Replying to post 33 by Kenisaw]

Ok it looks like we have some conflicting beliefs... And specifics were not mentioned, so I'll go ahead and outline what I believe as a Christian...

We have the Bible... Which can be traced back as far as the house of David, or even farther to the twelve tribes of Israel and there source, the patriarch. Indeed I find it reasonable to believe Abraham most probably existed as the source of the israelites, and I even find historical value as far back as Genesis 10, perhaps where the Hebrew language originated with the Semites...

The claim in the old testament is that the Jews are Gods chosen people... That he played active roles in there society, in leading them, and even revealed prophecies to select prophets... Where these prophets were revealed prophecies prior to events unfolding (that is the claim in scripture, and I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever to even begin to question that claim)...

Indeed, we have historical value in the scripture that details israel and it's laws, it's wars, its population and geniology, it's land and cities, it's kings and prophets, and it's temple and relationship with God... In fact, i personally think the best place to go for our history as a human race is the Bible itself.

We know for a fact that prophecies were told of a messiah to come. Lots of them... some very specific some very broad, some prophecies not even known to be prophecy until the messiah (jesus) fulfilled it... Indeed there are multiple sources all prophecying separate things all pointing to one messiah (and i'd really like anyone to make sense of that from a nonbelief point of view)...

So we have historical documents leading up to the new testament...

Once we find ourselves in the new testement, we find stories of Jesus... We have documents depicting real people, real places, and real events... indeed, we have without a doubt, stories that have multible historical people (in the Gospels) and I have yet to see any valid evidence to bring into question anyone's historicity in the Gospels... as far as we know, everyone is historical that is mentioned in the Gospels and the book of Acts.... This details the Messiah, which we have prophecies prior to His coming...

Jesus, was the fulfilment of the Messiah, and given the name "Christ"... in fact, we know Jesus made sense of it all... Jesus not only came in fulfilment of prophecy, he came in fulfilment of the law... Jesus came, like an alignment of planets (so to speak), defying what people thought of the messiah...

In fact, Judaism is completely absurd without Jesus... Like for example the blood sacrifice, which is absurd, said to cleans sin... And yet when Jesus came and revealed the righteousness of God by laying down his life, while praying for the forgiveness of those killing him, Jesus made perfect sense of it... Indeed, the revalational quality of Jesus as the messiah is a very strong piece of evidence that this plan was planned by God from the start.

Later in the New Testement, we have the book of Acts depicting (likewise real people) the disciples and their testimony, their stories.

And we come to the Epistles, the earliest written books, that outline this exact kind of revelation, and with sound reasoning when they write about the fulfilment of the scripture which completely changed their lives. Indeed, these epistles are just letters written to one another, which is exactly the kind of behavior we should expect from them, that later turned into scripture. We have letters written by Paul, James, John, Peter, etc... many of which being eyewitnesses of Christ, His diciples...

That's a quick outline of my beliefs, which it looks like you have conflicting beliefs ... Would you like to clarify what exactly you disagree with.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:24 am

[Replying to post 31 by Tart]

Apologies for taking so long to reply, but anyway, here goes...

Here...
https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=w ... //m.youtub...

As I write this sentence, I have just opened the video. I have noticed it is a half hour long. Right now, I have it paused right at the beginning, so I am going to make a prediction: there are no calculations shown. The closest I will get will be someone or someones in the video giving us chapter and verses, and then saying the odds of someone fulfilling them (and not being Jesus) are this high number, like 1 in 10,000 or such.
I predict that other than the Bible itself saying Jesus fulfilled these predictions, nothing else will be offered to support them. As in, Old Testament Chapter and Verse, then New Testament Chapter and Verse, and that's it. In fact Tart, just to show off, I predict that Micah 5:2 will be one of these, AND that the people saying Jesus fulfilled it are going to ignore the verses that follow Chapter 5 Verse 2, and that talk about a Hebrew messiah warlord, who will save them from foreign enemies the Assyrians.
See you in a half hour...
Flipping called it. 5 mins in...and they talk about Micah. Tart...do I have oracular powers? Do I have visions of the future that could somehow only be from God? Or maybe...just maybe...I am so familiar with typical Christian thinking that I can predict their (your) responses in advance, because they have nothing new to actually show for it? I feel like Matt Dillahunty here, who did a debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate some years ago, and who pre-wrote his rebuttal before the debate, so familiar was he with what Sye Ten was going to say (anyone familiar with formal debates knows that rebutalls are typically done during the debate, in response to what is actually being said during the debate. Matt's rebuttal though as I said, was prewritten, and yet was still so on the nose with regards to what Sye Ten said, it showed that Sye Ten didn't have anything at all original for that debate. That, and it completely disproved Sye Ten's argument, in that no-one can know anything without his God...and yet here's Matt who clearly knows Sye Ten inside and out, and Matt's an atheist)

Anyway, Tart...I want you to explain for me why you chose this video when I called for evidence. All it is is a bunch of talking heads making claims that Jesus did this, that and the other. But they give no evidence that Jesus did anything of the sort. The claim comes from the New Testament, that Jesus did XYZ...and that's it. Where's the evidence to support the claim? Oh Jesus fulfilled Micha! It says so here in Matthew...all right, where's the evidence to back up this claim?

Where's the evidence that the census that somehow necessitated Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem ever happened at all? Don't you think such a census is a stupid way of counting one's population? Were the Romans so stupid as to do a census like that?

And I don't even know what your talking about with this "scrutiny".

Examination. Looking closely at something. I really don't know how to explain it other than that. Are you unfamiliar with this?

The claim in the scripture is that the ressurection is the result of an all powerful God... Would you like to present any proper scrutiny?

Is there any evidence that a resurrection happened at all, or can happen?

Nope, or you would have presented it by now.

That could show a Christian their beliefs are wrong?

Does the term "not justified" mean anything to you, Tart? You seem to be operating under the assumption that either a claim is proven true...or it is proven false. You don't seem to allow for where a claim is made, and it just isn't backed up by sufficient evidence. I could claim to you that my father is a child molester, but of course, I would not present sufficient evidence (in the interests of privacy), and thus, I wouldn't blame you if you chose a stance of non-belief in the claim that rikuoamero's father is a child molester.

That way you can justify your claim that Christianity can't stand to scrutiny?

I justify my claim by being a former Christian, who, while a Christian, looked at what Christians typically use as evidence to justify their beliefs...and found them lacking.

Or is it just you not believing in it, as far as it goes?

Both

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:08 am

[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]
The claim the Bible makes is that Jesus came and lived a historical life, which included being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. I have good reason to believe the Bible, and specifically that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are widely hisyorical...

Do you have reason to believe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem Ephrathah?

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:11 am

[Replying to post 35 by Tart]

We have the Bible... Which can be traced back as far as the house of David, or even farther to the twelve tribes of Israel and there source, the patriarch.

No it cannot. The Bible, noun, refers to the collection of writings typically called the Old Testament and the New Testament, (and if Catholic, the Apocrypha), which only came about centuries after Jesus Christ's alleged lifetime.

If you want to talk about individual books or manuscripts, the oldest we have are what are called the Silver Scrolls (dated to around 587 BCE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom
Readers, notice that Tart here does not qualify his claims with any evidence whatsoever. He makes no specifics, whereas...I do.
The stories within the Bible most certainly do refer to a house of David, to twelve tribes named after twelve sons of a man named Israel...but Tart's response here is sloppy, in that he conflates the stories with the actual documents (to which he makes no reference). Tart's writing here is so sloppy that I could say the Harry Potter books can be traced as far back as the childhood of one Tom Riddle in the 1940s...and in terms of structure, both it and what Tart wrote are indistinguishable (readers of Harry Potter will of course know that J K Rowling wrote the first HP book in 1998, and that there are portions of the story that refer to Riddle's childhood in the 1940s).

Indeed I find it reasonable to believe Abraham most probably existed as the source of the israelites, and I even find historical value as far back as Genesis 10, perhaps where the Hebrew language originated with the Semites...

I note that beyond saying a man named Abraham "most probably existed", there is no followup whatsoever. Does Tart believe all the OT stories that feature Abraham? Was there in history a man named Abraham...who talked with and obeyed a real God?

Indeed, we have historical value in the scripture that details israel and it's laws, it's wars, its population and geniology, it's land and cities, it's kings and prophets, and it's temple and relationship with God... In fact, i personally think the best place to go for our history as a human race is the Bible itself.

...I think civilisations of people living thousands of miles away from Israel at the time the documents that make it up were written, would have something to say about this. I really don't see the value of the Bible as a historical document of the human race (what, as a whole?) when it is concerned with only a tiny corner of the planet.

We know for a fact that prophecies were told of a messiah to come. Lots of them... some very specific some very broad, some prophecies not even known to be prophecy until the messiah (jesus) fulfilled it...

So then...how are they prophecy? How doe we know Jesus actually did these things? Isn't this just an admittance of playing with the facts, of retro-actively inventing prophecies to fit with things people believed Jesus had done?
Can I do the same Tart? How can a thing be a prophecy, if it's only "known" as a prophecy after the event alleged to be predicted takes place!?

Indeed there are multiple sources all prophecying separate things all pointing to one messiah (and i'd really like anyone to make sense of that from a nonbelief point of view)...

I'm getting the sense here that Tart thinks that no-one has tried this...uhh Tart...might want to actually read threads on this site. Atheists like myself have done this before.

Once we find ourselves in the new testement, we find stories of Jesus... We have documents depicting real people, real places, and real events...

https://news.marvel.com/comics/23815/ma ... r_11_2001/
This line of rhetoric "proves" that there is a real Spiderman, with real spider powers, because hey...we have a document depicting real people, in a real place (New York) with a real event (9/11).
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Tart.

indeed, we have without a doubt, stories that have multible historical people (in the Gospels) and I have yet to see any valid evidence to bring into question anyone's historicity in the Gospels

you mean not even the stories that detail magical events like horns blowing down city walls, or dead people wandering around Jerusalem or anything like that? No no no, skepticism not required!

as far as we know, everyone is historical that is mentioned in the Gospels and the book of Acts.... This details the Messiah, which we have prophecies prior to His coming...

Would this be one of those things counted as prophecies after the fact, Tart?

in fact, we know Jesus made sense of it all

Who is this "we" you speak of? Made sense of what?

Jesus not only came in fulfilment of prophecy, he came in fulfilment of the law

Again, fulfilment of prophecy that you admitted were only counted as such after he supposedly did them.
Also how does one fulfill law? Am I fulfilling law right now? I'm not stealing a car, or murdering anybody...does this mean I've fulfilled it?
You're very poor at debate, Tart. You're not defining your terms.

Jesus came, like an alignment of planets (so to speak), defying what people thought of the messiah...

Then he didn't fulfill prophecy.

In fact, Judaism is completely absurd without Jesus

I imagine Jews might take exception to this...

Like for example the blood sacrifice, which is absurd, said to cleans sin

Yeah, that's a concept within Judaism, and within Christianity. Is this a Freudian slip, Tart?

And yet when Jesus came and revealed the righteousness of God by laying down his life, while praying for the forgiveness of those killing him, Jesus made perfect sense of it...

Sense of what? Blood sacrifice? Circular logic here, Tart.

Indeed, the revalational quality of Jesus as the messiah

I have no idea what this phrase means...

is a very strong piece of evidence that this plan was planned by God from the start.

I predicted what the video you linked me to was going to say, Tart. Does this mean I somehow planned it out like God?

Later in the New Testement, we have the book of Acts depicting (likewise real people) the disciples and their testimony, their stories.

And I suppose you're just going to take Acts at face value, like you admit to doing, Tart? Just take it as Gospel truth (pardon the pun)? No scrutiny, no questions, just...this is what the author of Acts claims was told to him by other people, who all made various claims of magic, gods, demons and monsters, etc, and somehow it's all automatically true?

And we come to the Epistles, the earliest written books, that outline this exact kind of revelation,

Readers, note that while Tart uses words like exact...he doesn't actually quote anything. Instead, his language in this response is incredibly broad and vague. What do the Epistles say? The exact kind of revelation, claims Tart...but no specifics, nothing is quoted or cited.
Indeed, I find Tart's response here as to be so incredibly broad that it almost reads like it's intentionally written as to be unfalsifiable, which is a no no when it comes to saying this XYZ is the truth.

Indeed, these epistles are just letters written to one another, which is exactly the kind of behavior we should expect from them, that later turned into scripture. We have letters written by Paul, James, John, Peter, etc... many of which being eyewitnesses of Christ, His diciples...

I suppose Tart here knows something that not even professional Bible scholars do, and that is that Paul was an eyewitness of Jesus Christ (by Paul's own admission, he is at the least a second generation convert to Christianity, and not an original follower of Jesus).
Also, Tart somehow knows that the letters bearing Peter's name, or John, or James, were written by Peter, James or John. Funny...I thought Peter was a fisherman, uneducated and illiterate.

That's a quick outline of my beliefs, which it looks like you have conflicting beliefs ... Would you like to clarify what exactly you disagree with.

The fact that you equate your beliefs with knowledge, or facts.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:18 am

Tart wrote: [Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]
The claim the Bible makes is that Jesus came and lived a historical life, which included being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. I have good reason to believe the Bible, and specifically that the Gospels and the Book of Acts are widely hisyorical...

Do you have reason to believe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem Ephrathah?

You and yours insist that "Bethlehem Ephrathah" (as found in Micha 5) refers only to a specific place, the town of Bethlehem...and yet, you're wrong. Incorrect.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem.

You and I don't know that Micah 5:2 refers only to the town Bethlehem.

As for your actual question in the last line, I refer you back to what I said in a previous comment. You seem to operating under allowing for only one of two things: either something is proven true, or something is proven false.
Either Jesus WAS born in Bethlehem, or you are asking me to prove that he was not born in Bethlehem.

I do not believe that he was born in Bethlehem, because the only two documents that state such, Matthew and Luke, are highly suspect. This is not the same thing as me saying "I believe Jesus was born elsewhere" just that what is offered as "evidence" for the claim "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" is suspect. Not of a high enough grade.

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:31 am

[Replying to post 38 by rikuoamero]
Do you have any evidence that prophecies being fulfilled were forged after the fact a event took place?