Why Should I Believe The Bible?

[Spartan]

OK, (and I'm not conceding the fact) but let's say that Jesus existed.
What evidence is there that he rose from the dead?
What evidence is there that he is the son of God?
What contemporary evidence outside of The Bible is there for Jesus' existence? i.e. in what other books is he mentioned?

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus

Even the existence of Nazareth in biblical times has not been proven.

Keep studying and you'll find the evidence. For starters, if you want to know about the resurrection, you have to study the resurrection. Have you? Here's the book that lays it out:

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

You "iffy" about Nazareth? Have you even bothered to study up on it???

Responding to the Skeptic’s Attack Against Nazareth


NAZARETH, Israel — Days before Christmas, archaeologists on Monday unveiled what they said were the remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus — a find that could shed new light on what the hamlet was like during the period the New Testament says Jesus lived there as a boy.

The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means who kept camouflaged grottos to hide from Roman invaders, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/12/21/israel-first-jesus-era-house-found-in-nazareth/

The skeptics were wrong again, having claimed many times that Nazareth did not exist in the time of Christ.

members.tripod.com/george_haddad/nazareth/christian.html

Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families. The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE.

More in the link below.

http://www.prc.org.uk/palestine 48/nazareth.html

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600 - 900 BC it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages.

Ancient Biblical Nazareth in Israel

Was Nazareth inhabited?
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.htm

But in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered a number of farms at Nazareth, with pottery dating from the second century BC through to the 4th century AD. You can read the details of their discoveries at

http://www.uhl.ac/NazarethVillage/nazareth.html

According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

..and i would include the 'religion', of atheistic naturalism in that cultural Indoctrination pattern. As the latest and greatest pop religion of the day, with exclusive power to indoctrinate in State institutions, with NO competition, it is the new cultural belief standard.

Welcome to Progresso World.

To assume, 'All gods are human constructs!', you would have to 'know' that there is no God.. that we live in a godless, purely material universe.

How does one 'know!' such a thing?

All i can observe, is a lot of conflicting opinions, about the nature of the universe. How is a 'no God!' opinion any different?


Isn't that just another man made construct speculating about something we cannot really know? Aka, a belief?

That is not a religion in the same sense that you have a religion. There is no dogma, there is no faith. How is atheism a religion in your opinion?

And no, to state that "all gods are human constructs" is a paraphrase of what you quoted at best. But let's say that someone said that. It is a statement based upon experience and not an absolute statement. All one has to do to refute it is to find a god that is not a human construct. Good luck with that.

 

[Spartan]

Richard Carrier. Far more serious than most Christian "scholars".

In your dreams.

Refuting Richard Carrier

"Why I Dont Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier refuted

 

[Altfish]

Keep studying and you'll find the evidence. For starters, if you want to know about the resurrection, you have to study the resurrection. Have you? Here's the book that lays it out:

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

You "iffy" about Nazareth? Have you even bothered to study up on it???

Responding to the Skeptic’s Attack Against Nazareth


NAZARETH, Israel — Days before Christmas, archaeologists on Monday unveiled what they said were the remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus — a find that could shed new light on what the hamlet was like during the period the New Testament says Jesus lived there as a boy.

The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means who kept camouflaged grottos to hide from Roman invaders, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/12/21/israel-first-jesus-era-house-found-in-nazareth/

The skeptics were wrong again, having claimed many times that Nazareth did not exist in the time of Christ.

members.tripod.com/george_haddad/nazareth/christian.html

Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families. The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE.

More in the link below.

http://www.prc.org.uk/palestine 48/nazareth.html

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600 - 900 BC it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages.

Ancient Biblical Nazareth in Israel

Was Nazareth inhabited?
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.htm

But in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered a number of farms at Nazareth, with pottery dating from the second century BC through to the 4th century AD. You can read the details of their discoveries at

http://www.uhl.ac/NazarethVillage/nazareth.html

According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html

Once again you are giving books by Christian apologists; I'm sorry but would you accept Richard Dawkins as my source? I notice you don't accept Richard Carrier.
Then that bastion of truth - Fox News
Next you'll be quoting The Discovery Institute.

I have looked into the resurrection and Nazareth. Resurrections (note the plural) only occur in The Bible, off the top of my head there were a minimum of 10 but multiple one's occurred when Jesus was resurrected. The only one whose name I can remember was Tabitha.
Nazareth - I'll look into your information about Nazareth.( Two or three of those links didn't work)
However, if you continue reading after your selected quote it goes on to say "While the site was settled during the period 600 - 900 BC it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Joseph and its name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud." - so, again far from conclusive.

I will need extremely good evidence for me to believe the resurrection is anything but invented mythology.
I could be persuaded on the existence of Nazareth.

But we still haven't addressed the son of God element.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your dreams.

Refuting Richard Carrier

"Why I Dont Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier refuted

By linking such weak sources you only verify the claims of others. If you want to refute Carrier you cannot do so with apologetic sites. You need to find reliable sources. Refutation of scholars is done through peer reviewed articles, not opinion pieces by the ignorant. You even confirmed that your source is poor by not quoting applicable arguments of his. Posting a link, especially to a weak source proves nothing except that you could find a weak source that agrees with you. So what? Anyone can do that for any position. You need something stronger if you want to make a case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again you are giving books by Christian apologists; I'm sorry but would you accept Richard Dawkins as my source? I notice you don't accept Richard Carrier.
Then that bastion of truth - Fox News
Next you'll be quoting The Discovery Institute.

I have looked into the resurrection and Nazareth. Resurrections (note the plural) only occur in The Bible, off the top of my head there were a minimum of 10 but multiple one's occurred when Jesus was resurrected. The only one whose name I can remember was Tabitha.
Nazareth - I'll look into your information about Nazareth.( Two or three of those links didn't work)
However, if you continue reading after your selected quote it goes on to say "While the site was settled during the period 600 - 900 BC it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Joseph and its name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud." - so, again far from conclusive.

I will need extremely good evidence for me to believe the resurrection is anything but invented mythology.
I could be persuaded on the existence of Nazareth.

But we still haven't addressed the son of God element.

Did anyone even claim that Nazareth did not exist in this debate? Now I know that its continued existence is iffy at best. When it comes to a small village it may be all but impossible to prove either continual inhabitation or the opposite. But by using such a weak argument against a concept that may not have even been introduced he only provides ammunition for the other side.

 

[Spartan]

Once again you are giving books by Christian apologists; I'm sorry but would you accept Richard Dawkins as my source? I notice you don't accept Richard Carrier.
Then that bastion of truth - Fox News
Next you'll be quoting The Discovery Institute.

I've spent over 40 years researching the Bible and the New Testament. Can't begin to tell you how badly liberal pundits screw up their analyses. You want to have tunnel vision and just real Dawkins and Carrier? Go for it. But don't expect to find out the real evidence for the resurrection until you read Habermas.

But we still haven't addressed the son of God element.

If you won't read Habermas I won't bother with your Son of God query.

 

[Spartan]

By linking such weak sources you only verify the claims of others. If you want to refute Carrier you cannot do so with apologetic sites.

Please don't bother me with this kind of nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please don't bother me with this kind of nonsense.

Not nonsense. A fact that you can't deal with. You really should try to find actual scholars that support your beliefs. Apologist sites are not written by scholars. They tend to be written by liars for Jesus. You should learn the difference. There are parts of the Bible that have been refuted. If your apologists sites defend those myths then that tells you that that source is not reliable.

 

[Altfish]

I've spent over 40 years researching the Bible and the New Testament. Can't begin to tell you how badly liberal pundits screw up their analyses. You want to have tunnel vision and just real Dawkins and Carrier? Go for it. But don't expect to find out the real evidence for the resurrection until you read Habermas.

So, you've spent 40-years researching the Bible - very good. I've spent 20-years researching Biblical myths. So what??
What has Liberal got to do with it? I'm an atheist.
I'd argue that Christians screw up their analysis even worse. If a scientist could prove Giod ot Jesus, they would win Nobel Prizes and honours galore. No one has managed it?

If you won't read Habermas I won't bother with your Son of God query.

Because you can't answer it.

 

[Altfish]

Did anyone even claim that Nazareth did not exist in this debate? Now I know that its continued existence is iffy at best. When it comes to a small village it may be all but impossible to prove either continual inhabitation or the opposite. But by using such a weak argument against a concept that may not have even been introduced he only provides ammunition for the other side.

May be, but it is in doubt, I was trying (maybe poorly) to state that there is so much doubt about JC's existence, even his alleged origins.

 

[Spartan]

So, you've spent 40-years researching the Bible - very good. I've spent 20-years researching Biblical myths. So what??
What has Liberal got to do with it? I'm an atheist.
I'd argue that Christians screw up their analysis even worse. If a scientist could prove Giod ot Jesus, they would win Nobel Prizes and honours galore. No one has managed it?
Because you can't answer it.

If all you do is read liberal theology rags then you've largely wasted your time. The information you want is in the book I listed that you refuse to read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If all you do is read liberal theology rags then you've largely wasted your time. The information you want is in the book I listed that you refuse to read.

What makes you think that the book you selected is in any way superior?

 

[Altfish]

If all you do is read liberal theology rags then you've largely wasted your time. The information you want is in the book I listed that you refuse to read.

Why do you keep using the word 'Liberal'?
I read science based journals, science is not liberal, it is non-political.
I do not read Christian Apologetic stuff which has been debunked too many times.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Keep studying and you'll find the evidence. For starters, if you want to know about the resurrection, you have to study the resurrection. Have you? Here's the book that lays it out:

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

You "iffy" about Nazareth? Have you even bothered to study up on it???

Responding to the Skeptic’s Attack Against Nazareth


NAZARETH, Israel — Days before Christmas, archaeologists on Monday unveiled what they said were the remains of the first dwelling in Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus — a find that could shed new light on what the hamlet was like during the period the New Testament says Jesus lived there as a boy.

The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means who kept camouflaged grottos to hide from Roman invaders, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/12/21/israel-first-jesus-era-house-found-in-nazareth/

The skeptics were wrong again, having claimed many times that Nazareth did not exist in the time of Christ.

members.tripod.com/george_haddad/nazareth/christian.html

Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families. The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE.

More in the link below.

http://www.prc.org.uk/palestine 48/nazareth.html

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600 - 900 BC it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages.

Ancient Biblical Nazareth in Israel

Was Nazareth inhabited?
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.htm

But in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered a number of farms at Nazareth, with pottery dating from the second century BC through to the 4th century AD. You can read the details of their discoveries at

http://www.uhl.ac/NazarethVillage/nazareth.html

According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html

Rather confusing I would think.

If I remember a couple of verses specifically ....

Luke chapter 1 verse 26, Matthew chapter 2 verse 23 plainly states that Nazareth was a city. And yet here, it's mentioned as being a small Hamlet.

 

[Spartan]

Rather confusing I would think.

If I remember a couple of verses specifically ....

Luke chapter 1 verse 26, Matthew chapter 2 verse 23 plainly states that Nazareth was a city. And yet here, it's mentioned as being a small Hamlet.

The Greek word for "city" in both of those verses is "polis", which Strong's Concordance defines as being "a town of greater or less size".

 

[Spartan]

Why do you keep using the word 'Liberal'?
I read science based journals, science is not liberal, it is non-political.
I do not read Christian Apologetic stuff which has been debunked too many times.

The reason why is that liberal theology is often seen - ala the Jesus Seminar - as denying the supernatural. That's what the liberal "Bishop" Spong and others like him do in their analyses. They tend to deny traditional authorship of the Gospels - positing the discredited Q theory. They late-date the Book of Daniel to the 2nd century BC because if they didn't they'd have to admit that prophecy exists (Daniel's book is very prophetic in nature). They try to legitimize gay sex and gay marriage - which coincides with liberal thinking in politics. All this becomes apparent after many years of reading the works and opinions of different scholars, which I have. That you haven't noticed this is curious to me. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking that's the difference.

As for Apologetic works, there's well done material and questionable material. What I've found is that top scholars like Norman Geisler and Gary Habermas, and others, tend to present well thought out arguments, based on evidence, that is superior to what I see with their detractors or those rationalists on the left.

You need to be more well read and expand your knowledge base. You also need to be more objective than thinking those liberal theologians are God's gift to the masses.

Do try to read the following, and those bolded in particular. I think you eyes will be opened.

"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.

 

[Altfish]

The reason why is that liberal theology is often seen - ala the Jesus Seminar - as denying the supernatural. That's what the liberal "Bishop" Spong and others like him do in their analyses. They tend to deny traditional authorship of the Gospels - positing the discredited Q theory. They late-date the Book of Daniel to the 2nd century BC because if they didn't they'd have to admit that prophecy exists (Daniel's book is very prophetic in nature). They try to legitimize gay sex and gay marriage - which coincides with liberal thinking in politics. All this becomes apparent after many years of reading the works and opinions of different scholars, which I have. That you haven't noticed this is curious to me. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking that's the difference.

As for Apologetic works, there's well done material and questionable material. What I've found is that top scholars like Norman Geisler and Gary Habermas, and others, tend to present well thought out arguments, based on evidence, that is superior to what I see with their detractors or those rationalists on the left.

You need to be more well read and expand your knowledge base. You also need to be more objective than thinking those liberal theologians are God's gift to the masses.

Do try to read the following, and those bolded in particular. I think you eyes will be opened.

"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.

Gary Habermas bases all his reasoning on the Gospels (Yes, the ones that contradict themselves) being true and factual. That is not a good starting point. I've seen hour long presentations by him which do not impress from a scientific point of view.
Josh McDowell, I know less well, but he has been debunked in atheists circles many times.
Lee Strobell is a Creationist, I'm sorry but if they believe Genesis to be factual they carry no weight.

I would respectfully suggest that it is not I who needs to be more well read and have my knowledge base expanded. I think a look in the mirror may well help.

 

[Spartan]

Gary Habermas bases all his reasoning on the Gospels (Yes, the ones that contradict themselves) being true and factual. That is not a good starting point. I've seen hour long presentations by him which do not impress from a scientific point of view.

Give me your best ONE (1 - just your best ONE) example of a person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be fictitious. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your argument.

Then show me ONE example of where Gary Habermas has backed something false in the Gospels?

Josh McDowell, I know less well, but he has been debunked in atheists circles many times.
Lee Strobell is a Creationist, I'm sorry but if they believe Genesis to be factual they carry no weight.

<facepalm>

So, you're an "anti-creationist". Quite the bias there. Show me the replicated scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? Then show how God could not have created the universe?

I would respectfully suggest that it is not I who needs to be more well read and have my knowledge base expanded. I think a look in the mirror may well help.

You've been challenged above to back up your rhetoric. Either put up or don't bother me anymore.

 

[Altfish]

Give me your best ONE (1 - just your best ONE) example of a person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be fictitious. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your argument.

Then show me ONE example of where Gary Habermas has backed something false in the Gospels?

As with proving that God does not exist, it is virtually impossible. Try proving that Zeus doesn't exist, it is equally difficult. However, I can show you errors or contradictions in the Gospels...e.g.

Geneology of Jesus: Matthew's genealogy has Joseph descended from King David through King Solomon, and from thence to a man named Jacob. On the other hand Luke's has Joseph descended from David along a radically different line, through another son, Nathan, from thence to a man named Eli. Indeed, everything after this inconsistency is different between the two accounts. In addition, after the man named Hezron, Matthew lists the next in line as a man named Ram, but Luke claims it was Arni, who fathered Admin, who fathered the next person the two accounts agree upon.

So, you're an "anti-creationist". Quite the bias there. Show me the replicated scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? Then show how God could not have created the universe?

Yes, I am biased against Creationism because it is absolute bunkum; ever since Darwin it has been proved to be utter rubbish. So people who do not see that it is nonsense lose their ability to argue any scientific debate.
As I have said you cannot categoricall prove a negative.
Have you heard of Russell's Teapot? Bertrand Russell famously said....
f I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

You've been challenged above to back up your rhetoric. Either put up or don't bother me anymore.

I now challenge you to prove God's existence - I can assure you that if you manage this you will be more famous than Darwin, Newton, Mandela, and anyone else you wish to mention.