Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Subduction,

If you want a reply work on your quotes. Otherwise I will simply point out that it looks like you are repeating your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name the atheists and bring them here to debate and they can show us there Burden of Proof. Believers show it is a personal faith and are not required by any form of logic or manmade rules to show proof of the God/s they believe in. However you believe in burden of proof and atheism is a belief it is the disbelief in God.
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So when you are ready feel free to unburden yourself and show the burden of proof regarding your disbelief or rather belief there is no God.



Not at all. You say there is no God the onus is on you to prove what you believe as the dictionary shows atheism is the disbelief or the lack of belief in existence of God or gods.
So show us proof there is no God.

Previous posts explained the position that there is no requirement in personal faith to prove it to others. So if you saying there is no personal faith you need to give account and prove what you
preach that there is no God.

Wow! Let me try to explain this to you. The burden of proof is upon those that way "there is a god". Most atheists lack a belief in God because of a lack of evidence for any gods. They do not claim that God does not exist because there is no evidence for him. That is also why we ask for evidence. Given evidence we would change our minds.

Do you understand why the burden of proof is upon theists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Running Away... The truth tends to do that to people who have no real arguments or knowledge on a subject they try to discuss./ Thank you for the ignore button. The above stands as proof you are not able to debate or discern and therefore answer the matters at hand when it comes to the subject of faith in God.

You appear to misunderstand. No one is doubting your faith in God. The point is that your faith appears to be unjustified. Why should anyone believe what you believe? You lack valid evidence for your beliefs. That is the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, you haven't read those basic evidence books, i.e.

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

How are you going to know the evidences for the life of Jesus Christ, etc., if you haven't done your proper due-diligence?

You could just provide some of this evidence you speak of. That would be easier than me going off and reading 6 books.

I have read many books claiming to have evidence for the existence of many different gods. They're not convincing to me, and perhaps it's because they never actually present good evidence that indicates that god(s) must have designed the universe.

Have you read any Bart Ehrman, may I ask? He agrees that Jesus Christ probably existed as a person, but not as the person depicted in the Bible and not as any kind of divine figure.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is in the book you haven't read.

Funny how you can't just say what it is.

And here's a documented miracle that's mentioned in the Gospels:

Documenting a Miracle

Documenting A Miracle

Are you trying to pass off an eclipse as a miracle?

You haven't done your homework. And there is evidence - tons of it. Which is why you refuse to look at it because you don't want your unfounded skepticism shaken to the core.

Let's not jump into new claims here, before resolving other claims. Miracles aren't evidence of the existence of the specific god you believe in either, but that's a whole other discussion.
Let's stick to your god claims for now.

But if there is so much evidence, has you say, why haven't you bothered to actually present any yet?? That's the question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Skeptic thinker,

There is no logic in the above. Show me what I have said that requires proof and show me where it is proved I have to provide proof.
Another useless argument and proof no logic involved in what you write. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all off the people all of the time.

There's no logic in burden of proof? Um, sorry but the legal system and the rules of logic disagree with you.

You are in a debate forum. It is customary in a debate to provide evidence for your claims, otherwise they are easily dismissed.

BURDEN OF PROOF is fallacy when it comes to GOD. I do not believe in a burden of proof in matters of personal faith. Logic tells us that until it is defined that faith no longer required
for belief in God then there is no burden of proof especially in personal faith.

Your personal beliefs about burden of proof aren't relevant in a debate forum, with other people. On a personal level, there is no burden of proof for you, and whatever you believe, no matter what the level of evidence you have is totally up to you. But this is a debate forum, and you should be ready to provide evidence for your claims that the god you believe in exists, or expect to find that they will be dismissed.

As you do believe in 'Burden of Proof' and you have made statements showing you do not believe in God, then feel free
to show us you proof and unburden yourself.

You're really not getting this. I don't claim that there is no god. If I did, the burden of proof for that claim would be mine. But atheism isn't a claim. It's a lack of belief in god(s), which is not a claim. It's about the same thing as stating that I don't believe in unicorns, because I've never seen good evidence indicating that unicorns exist. You don't think I have to disprove the existence of unicorns to hold that position, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could just provide some of this evidence you speak of. That would be easier than me going off and reading 6 books.

I have read many books claiming to have evidence for the existence of many different gods. They're not convincing to me, and perhaps it's because they never actually present good evidence that indicates that god(s) must have designed the universe.

Have you read any Bart Ehrman, may I ask? He agrees that Jesus Christ probably existed as a person, but not as the person depicted in the Bible and not as an kind of divine figure.


Funny how you can't just say what it is.


Are you trying to pass off an eclipse as a miracle?


Let's not jump into new claims here, before resolving other claims. Miracles aren't evidence of the existence of the specific god you believe in either, but that's a whole other discussion.
Let's stick to your god claims for now.

But if there is so much evidence, has you say, why haven't you bothered to actually present any yet?? That's the question.

I got curious and looked into it some more. It starts off by quote mining a "prophecy". Quote mined prophecies are not real prophecies since in context the abused meaning was not the actual meaning of the verse. I am not going to quote it, but here is a link to the chapter that the quote mine was taken from:

Bible Gateway passage: Amos 8 - New International Version

The article then tries to claim that the claimed darkness at the time of Jesus death was observed. But there are no actual Roman records given, only the claims of a Christian historian that was born in 160 AD which means at best he was writing 150 years after the fact, that there was an unexplained darkness during the time of a full moon during the time that Jesus was crucified. And the Romans at that time were sophisticated enough to understand an eclipse. So we have a referral by a biased source to a claim that was supposedly written down and this "documents a miracle".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Name the atheists and bring them here to debate and they can show us there Burden of Proof.

Sorry, what? Did you not read what I wrote?

Believers show it is a personal faith and are not required by any form of logic or manmade rules to show proof of the God/s they believe in.

Your faith is your business. You are free to believe whatever you want, evidence or not. The thing is though, if you're going to assert to other people that something is true, you're going to need good evidence to indicate that it is indeed true. Evidence that someone else can look at and consider.
And please note that you are in a debate forum.

However you believe in burden of proof and atheism is a belief it is the disbelief in God.
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So when you are ready feel free to unburden yourself and show the burden of proof regarding your disbelief or rather belief there is no God.

Again, I have to ask, did you not read what I wrote?

Disbelief is not a belief. By definition.

Not at all. You say there is no God the onus is on you to prove what you believe as the dictionary shows atheism is the disbelief or the lack of belief in existence of God or gods.
So show us proof there is no God.

I already specifically pointed out that I do NOT claim that "there is no god." Have you not read anything I've written to you??

Previous posts explained the position that there is no requirement in personal faith to prove it to others. So if you saying there is no personal faith you need to give account and prove what you
preach that there is no God.

That's fine and dandy for yourself. If you're going to assert to others that something exists, the burden of proof is yours. That's how it works.

And once again I don't "preach that there is no god." You need to get that right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I got curious and looked into it some more. It starts off by quote mining a "prophecy". Quote mined prophecies are not real prophecies since in context the abused meaning was not the actual meaning of the verse. I am not going to quote it, but here is a link to the chapter that the quote mine was taken from:

Bible Gateway passage: Amos 8 - New International Version

The article then tries to claim that the claimed darkness at the time of Jesus death was observed. But there are no actual Roman records given, only the claims of a Christian historian that was born in 160 AD which means at best he was writing 150 years after the fact, that there was an unexplained darkness during the time of a full moon during the time that Jesus was crucified. And the Romans at that time were sophisticated enough to understand an eclipse. So we have a referral by a biased source to a claim that was supposedly written down and this "documents a miracle".

Wow, it's even worse than I thought!

 

[Spartan]

You could just provide some of this evidence you speak of. That would be easier than me going off and reading 6 books.

Have you read any Bart Ehrman, may I ask? He agrees that Jesus Christ probably existed as a person, but not as the person depicted in the Bible and not as any kind of divine figure.

The amount of material I would have to post would be voluminous. Better to read the books. And I have read Bart Ehrman. He's a liberal theologian with many skeptical views.

Are you trying to pass off an eclipse as a miracle?

Are you trying to say an eclipse of the sun took place during a full moon?

But if there is so much evidence, has you say, why haven't you bothered to actually present any yet?? That's the question.

I have posted various evidences.

Why haven't you done your homework instead of hounding people who have?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The amount of material I would have to post would be voluminous. Better to read the books. And I have read Bart Ehrman. He's a liberal theologian with many skeptical views.

Give me your best one then.

Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian, that is, before he started studying the Bible in great depth, in it's original languages. He apparently has good reason to be a skeptic.

Are you trying to say an eclipse of the sun took place during a full moon?

I'm asking you why you think that an eclipse is a miracle. See post #666 for another poster's response to that, with which I agree. Your source is unverifiable and not contemporary to the time.

I have posted various evidences.

Why haven't you done your homework instead of hounding people who have?

Where? You keep referring me to a list of books. Why is it so difficult to provide evidence for the existence of god(s)?

No, no. What you want is for me to do your homework for you. Sorry, but I'm not going off to read 6 books, when I've already read many books on the subject. None of which were very impressive to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The amount of material I would have to post would be voluminous. Better to read the books. And I have read Bart Ehrman. He's a liberal theologian with many skeptical views.



Are you trying to say an eclipse of the sun took place during a full moon?



I have posted various evidences.

Why haven't you done your homework instead of hounding people who have?

You have not presented any reliable evidence. Your "documentation of a miracle" failed both in its prophecy and in its supposed observation.

Once again, posting links to books will never work. What you have been doing is mostly preaching instead of debating. If you want to debate start with your best evidence. Discuss that. Support that. Don't preach and tell others that they have not done their homework when you have not done yours. When debating your number one assignment is to supply reliable, objective evidence for your claims. You have not done that.

 

[Skwim]

You have not presented any reliable evidence. Your "documentation of a miracle" failed both in its prophecy and in its supposed observation.

Once again, posting links to books will never work. What you have been doing is mostly preaching instead of debating. If you want to debate start with your best evidence. Discuss that. Support that. Don't preach and tell others that they have not done their homework when you have not done yours. When debating your number one assignment is to supply reliable, objective evidence for your claims. You have not done that.

Don't hold your breath.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't hold your breath.

.

 

[Spartan]

Give me your best one then.

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

I'm asking you why you think that an eclipse is a miracle. See post #666 for another poster's response to that, with which I agree. Your source is unverifiable and not contemporary to the time.

Because it wasn't an eclipse. An eclipse of the sun CANNOT OCCUR DURING A FULL MOON, and it was a full moon at the time of the crucifixion.

No, no. What you want is for me to do your homework for you.Sorry, but I'm not going off to read 6 books

No, I want you to do your homework for yourself so you can get up to speed on scholarly evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas



Because it wasn't an eclipse. An eclipse of the sun CANNOT OCCUR DURING A FULL MOON, and it was a full moon at the time of the crucifixion.



No, I want you to do your homework for yourself so you can get up to speed on scholarly evidence.

Right and the record of it is extremely poor.. A late 2nd century or early 3rd century claim by a Christian historian that he saw something in an old manuscript. Not too convincing.

 

[sooda]

Right and the record of it is extremely poor.. A late 2nd century or early 3rd century claim by a Christian historian that he saw something in an old manuscript. Not too convincing.

Or perhaps it was just dramatic license.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Wow! Let me try to explain this to you. The burden of proof is upon those that way "there is a god". Most atheists lack a belief in God because of a lack of evidence for any gods. They do not claim that God does not exist because there is no evidence for him. That is also why we ask for evidence. Given evidence we would change our minds.

Do you understand why the burden of proof is upon theists?

Do you understand there is no burden of proof when it comes to the personal faith of a believer. If you have evidence that God is not in existence then if you want to prove it, then go ahead.
But otherwise it is clear you have been brain washed. If you want to discuss God or a believer I suggest you study the religion first.

 

[sooda]

Do you understand there is no burden of proof when it comes to the personal faith of a believer. If you have evidence that God is not in existence then if you want to prove it, then go ahead.
But otherwise it is clear you have been brain washed. If you want to discuss God or a believer I suggest you study the religion first.

On that basis you could defend belief in fairies or ghosts or Leprechauns, or Mermaids.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you understand there is no burden of proof when it comes to the personal faith of a believer. If you have evidence that God is not in existence then if you want to prove it, then go ahead.
But otherwise it is clear you have been brain washed. If you want to discuss God or a believer I suggest you study the religion first.

You seem to be having a problem understanding the burden of proof. If you want to claim that you believe something there is no burden of proof. You are correct in that. But if you want to pretend that your beliefs are factual then you have a burden of proof for that.

For example, I could believe that topless beautiful mermaids keep the world spinning by grabbing the ocean floor and swimming. If I keep my belief personal I need not prove it to anyone. If I make the error of publicly announcing my beliefs and claiming that they are true I put the burden of proof on myself.

 

[sooda]

You seem to be having a problem understanding the burden of proof. If you want to claim that you believe something there is no burden of proof. You are correct in that. But if you want to pretend that your beliefs are factual then you have a burden of proof for that.

For example, I could believe that topless beautiful mermaids keep the world spinning by grabbing the ocean floor and swimming. If I keep my belief personal I need not prove it to anyone. If I make the error of publicly announcing my beliefs and claiming that they are true I put the burden of proof on myself.

Critical thinking is taboo in America.