Why Should I Believe The Bible?

[Twilight Hue]

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".

From what I had gathered through academics, polis as a Greek term refers to a city-state which basically references a territory consisting of land with a city in it , polis as a city-state, is more modern adaptation of the term.

It's pretty close though, as the Greek term for town is poli which is more in line with what you're describing.

Most people seem to agree and share the view that Nazareth, the original, is most likely an insignificant town or hamlet during the alleged time of Jesus.

That would be all and fine except for one snag. The settlement in question seems to have had indications that it was destroyed by the Assyrians in 720 BC.

 

[Spartan]

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.

That's not a fictitious person, place or event in the Gospels. So the challenge remains: 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.

There's also plenty of websites that discuss Jesus' genealogy if you're that concerned.

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.

So, your anti-creationist bias isn't founded on science (you presented zero scientific studies to back your viewpoint up).

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.

You still haven't answered my challenge (see above). Let's see you back up your rhetoric? Also, where's your example of where Habermas supports a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels?

 

[Spartan]

From what I had gathered through academics, polis as a Greek term refers to a city-state which basically references a territory consisting of land with a city in it , polis as a city-state, is more modern adaptation of the term.

It's pretty close though, as the Greek term for town is poli which is more in line with what you're describing.

Most people seem to agree and share the view that Nazareth, the original, is most likely an insignificant town or hamlet during the alleged time of Jesus.

That would be all and fine except for one snag. The settlement in question seems to have had indications that it was destroyed by the Assyrians in 720 BC.

Lots of Biblical cities were destroyed or sacked and later rebuilt. Jerusalem was one of them. Today there's two Jericho's. In addition, since you say Nazareth was destroyed in 720 BC, then why is it still a flourishing community today in Israel? So your argument is moot.

 

[Altfish]

That's not a fictitious person, place or event in the Gospels. So the challenge remains: 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.

There's also plenty of websites that discuss Jesus' genealogy if you're that concerned.

Did you read my post.
YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.- science will always say something like, "We can find no evidence for the existence of God/Jesus/fairies/whatever" The door is always open for further evidence that disproves previous findings.
Can you prove that Fairies don't exist? Can you prove that The Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?

So, your anti-creationist bias isn't founded on science (you presented zero scientific studies to back your viewpoint up).

Good grief, of course it is based on science. I've read both sides of the argument and only one side is backed up with evidence and can be demonstrated. It isn't the creationist side.

You still haven't answered my challenge (see above). Let's see you back up your rhetoric? Also, where's your example of where Habermas supports a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels?

As I said you are asking me to do the impossible.

I will take up my challenge to disprove the existence of Fairies, I'll complete your challenge.

 

[Spartan]

Did you read my post.
YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.- science will always say something like, "We can find no evidence for the existence of God/Jesus/fairies/whatever" The door is always open for further evidence that disproves previous findings.
Can you prove that Fairies don't exist? Can you prove that The Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?

Good grief, of course it is based on science. I've read both sides of the argument and only one side is backed up with evidence and can be demonstrated. It isn't the creationist side.

As I said you are asking me to do the impossible.

I will take up my challenge to disprove the existence of Fairies, I'll complete your challenge.

So, you can't back up your claims. You can't back up your false Gospel claims and you can't provide scientific studies to back up your anti-creationist claim. All you appear to have are a handful of empty claims.

You need a lot of help with your theology and unfounded biases.

Can't help you. Please go find someone else to bounce your rhetoric off of.

 

[Altfish]

So, you can't back up your claims. You can't back up your false Gospel claims and you can't provide scientific studies to back up your anti-creationist claim. All you appear to have are a handful of empty claims.

You need a lot of help with your theology and unfounded biases.

Can't help you. Please go find someone else to bounce your rhetoric off of.

I've shown a contradiction in the Gospel ... one of those must be false.

What is it you don't understand about you can't prove a negative.
I notice you haven't taken on my challenge to disprove fairies.

I need absolutely no help on theology and unfounded biases. There is a bit of pot calling the kettle black.going on there.

 

[Spartan]

I've shown a contradiction in the Gospel ... one of those must be false.

Nuts. You haven't studied that either.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-are-jesus-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different

So you STILL have not shown any person, place, or event in the Gospels to be fictitious. SURELY, you have something better?

 

[Altfish]

Nuts. You haven't studied that either.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-are-jesus-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different

So you STILL have not shown any person, place, or event in the Gospels to be fictitious. SURELY, you have something better?

Selective response...what about the rest of my post?

Typical apologetic tactics.

 

[Spartan]

Selective response...what about the rest of my post?

Typical apologetic tactics.

Go find somebody else to debate with.

 

[Altfish]

Go find somebody else to debate with.

I thought so, you're a Troll

 

[sooda]

From what I had gathered through academics, polis as a Greek term refers to a city-state which basically references a territory consisting of land with a city in it , polis as a city-state, is more modern adaptation of the term.

It's pretty close though, as the Greek term for town is poli which is more in line with what you're describing.

Most people seem to agree and share the view that Nazareth, the original, is most likely an insignificant town or hamlet during the alleged time of Jesus.

That would be all and fine except for one snag. The settlement in question seems to have had indications that it was destroyed by the Assyrians in 720 BC.

Decapolis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapolis

Overview
The Decapolis (Greek: Δεκάπολις Dekápolis, Ten Cities) was a group of ten cities on the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire in the southeastern Levant in the first centuries BC and AD. The cities formed a group because of their language, culture, location, and political status, with each functioning as an autonomous city-state dependent on Rome. Though sometimes described as a league of cities, it is now believed that they were never formally organized as a political unit. The Decapolis was a center of Greek and Roman culture in a region which was otherwise populated by Semitic-speaking people (Nabataeans, Arameans, …

Read more

 

[Spartan]

I thought so, you're a Troll

No, I'm not. But I'm not interested in feeding your folly when you automatically kick to the curb legitimate information that answers and/or refutes your claims. You haven't even read Habermas and yet you trash him like you have the first clue what you're talking about.

You know, people who are college educated tend to investigate claims and do their research. Otherwise their professors will eat them for lunch. They've been through that and have learned their lessons. I don't think you've been down that road before, which is why you throw so much unfounded rhetoric against the walls to see what might stick.

 

[Altfish]

No, I'm not. But I'm not interested in feeding your folly when you automatically kick to the curb legitimate information that answers and/or refutes your claims. You haven't even read Habermas and yet you trash him like you have the first clue what you're talking about.

You know, people who are college educated tend to investigate claims and do their research. Otherwise their professors will eat them for lunch. They've been through that and have learned their lessons. I don't think you've been down that road before, which is why you throw so much unfounded rhetoric against the walls to see what might stick.

You failed miserably to address any of my questions.
All you did was question my approach, call me biased, I have not read all your apologetics but watched videos of their talks. I have not read all of Dawkins, Harris, etc either. It is easy to throw a load of books at a person and claim 'You haven't read ...". I could have done the same.
btw, I am college educated.
You make too many assumptions about me and my knowledge, beliefs, etc. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. You make ridiculous claims about me not knowing what I'm talking about. - Based on no evidence and cerainly your lack of response to my questions makes you unable top make such claims.
I was religious until I was about 14, I was brought up attending church.

There is a great deal I do not know, I'm still learning about many areas of science. I do not understand many of the more advanced ones.
But it is not like (say) the Trinity - nobody understands that mumbo jumbo.because it is invented.

I'm sorry all you are doing is insulting me and ignoring my arguments and questions.

 

[RedDragon94]

And you're not?

I... I-I-I-I- am the prince of darkness.

 

[corynski]

..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?

usfan....... Greetings, nice to have an inquiring mind isn't it? I enjoy it, and have come to the conclusion that no gods exist because I have repeatedly asked for an interview, beginning my earliest years, with either Jesus or 'God' himself, but received no acknowledgement whatsoever, zero, nada. This went on from my earliest 'brainwashed' years, where I incidentally achieved a 100% perfect sunday school attendance award including a Bible with my name in gold, up until my teen years when I became very disappointed. I was told my prayers would be answered........ So I began looking at other sects than Methodist to see what they had to offer, and eventually met a fellow who was a non-believer. Interesting I thought, and the thought of non-belief opened before me.

But unfortunately, as you see on this site, people want to make much more of 'atheism' than it really is, and that is simply 'without belief'.... that's all, no qualifications, no ifs or doubts, just a simple "I am without belief because I have no evidence of the existence of a 'god'". Bring me evidence and I'll rethink the situation......

And of course studying anthropology provides a sold basis for disbelief, for you will discover some very cogent reasons for perceiving religion and god belief as a cultural phenomenon, a cultural 'brainwashing from birth' so you must identify with your cultural group. Remember, this goes back thousands of years, as witnessed by books such as Marjorie Leach's "Guide to the Gods", about 900 pages of all the gods humans have 'created'.

So my answer to you is 'God must show up', and Jesus too, like they said they would...... because if they don't there is nothing 'real' to belief in, it's all guesswork ........