What makes the bible true

[racrguy]

Your poor attempt at discrediting the book because YOU do not believe the author is valid is getting old. Don't read it if you think this. His science/evidence is from the "Mainstream" community....remember he started out an atheist when writing this book...he was just like you, seeking evidence to 100% disprove God to shut up the Theists. But the further he investigated the more he realized the evidence pointed toward God. In the end he became a Christian, wrote a book, made a million bucks....maybe you will too. Again "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is too vague. Very subjective as I am not able to read minds and know what you or anyone else on here finds reasonable. I want a quantifiable answer...such as " I need writing from 10 different sources from up to 100 years from the birth of Jesus stating they were eye witnesses of said event with no opposing writings from witnesses from the same time frame ". Or whatever suits you. Again, I have to know specifically what you need...not a vague answer as you continue to give.

Verifiable, testable evidence. The same kind that any peer reviewed paper goes through. If it can withstand the test that science puts itself through, that's good enough for me. And, like Maddhattter said, not of the resurrection, of his divinity.

[stephen4785]

I would argue that you’re putting the cart before the horse with your supporting evidence, but that’s not the topic at hand.



No, the only way you could win all other arguments is to prove Christ’s divinity. There have been numerous reports of people believing someone to be dead, only to discover that said dead person was in a coma/hypothermic/ etc.

Why is it that proving Christ’s resurrection would prove everything? There are plenty of other things that the bible claims he has done. Proving that he could be dead for three days and spontaneously reanimate does not indicate that he could duplicate matter, perform ocular restoration, or restore the functionality of extremities. The supernatural is not an all or nothing deal. It’s handled on a claim by claim basis. However, if you could prove his divinity, it would stand to reason that the other miracles attributed to him would be possible.



I would need enough evidence to show that Jesus existed, and was the son of God, beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem I see you having here is proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the supernatural. The supernatural has never been proven to exist and is, by definition, impossible. Not to mention that every time science and the supernatural have come into conflict, science has won, giving no indication that the supernatural is even a possibility.

You’ll also run into the problem of certainty. I could only agree to tentatively accept the God hypothesis, should you prove the existence of a divine Jesus, if I were to be intellectually honest. As science is constantly learning, supernatural explanations are getting harder and harder to justify without you coming off sounding like BrianC or Dewayne6243. So, if science discovers how something like naval travel could be done on the surface of the water without a sea faring vessel, that would detract from the possibility of the biblical depiction of Jesus being accurate.



I’m sorry to hear that. The ‘Jesus Gone Wild’ film series was one of the most outrageous series of events ever caught on film.


I wouldn’t want a holy grail. Immortality would suck when the reality of things sets in. Why would anyone like the idea of surviving the heat death of the universe? You’d be all alone, no light to read with, and no one to keep you company. You’d have to live on while all your friends and family die around you. I can’t imagine why anyone would want immortality.



I’m not sure if this was only supposed to be aimed at Racrguy, but it’s statements like this that make me keep going back to requesting that you either concede my points, or explain how they are wrong. I explained why someone who has no science experience could not be trusted to use good science as a source. I also explained why, from a scientific perspective, it was irrelevant to even read the book, as what scientists publish in novels makes zero difference to the scientific world. It is publishing said finds in respectable, established peer-reviewed scientific journals so that other scientists will attempt to show that the findings are incorrect.

The question about medical care that Racrguy asked you, in regards to seeking medical care from you or Dr. Dave is valid here. You may know how to diagnose and treat what ails poor Racrguy, but there is no reason to believe that you could even identify that bleeding him will not cure his genital warts(Please don’t ask me how I know this, it’s a terribly humiliating story that involves a nearly unbelievable accident with an electron microscope, and I don’t wanna talk about it.) So, if the science in those books is sound, you should only have to cite the science. The rest of the book would be useless filler and a waste of everyone’s time as the author has no credibility in the realm of science.

Your poor attempt at discrediting the book because YOU do not believe the author is valid is getting old. Don't read it if you think this. His science/evidence is from the "Mainstream" community....remember he started out an atheist when writing this book...he was just like you, seeking evidence to 100% disprove God to shut up the Theists. But the further he investigated the more he realized the evidence pointed toward God. In the end he became a Christian, wrote a book, made a million bucks....maybe you will too. Again "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is too vague. Very subjective as I am not able to read minds and know what you or anyone else on here finds reasonable. I want a quantifiable answer...such as " I need writing from 10 different sources from up to 100 years from the birth of Jesus stating they were eye witnesses of said event with no opposing writings from witnesses from the same time frame ". Or whatever suits you. Again, I have to know specifically what you need...not a vague answer as you continue to give.

[stephen4785]

That proof will be provided to all, skeptics or not, at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore some of the skeptics will simply have to wait, because God will do the things He said He will do in His own time and not on ours.

I agree with that. However my intent is not to win or say I am better than someone, if I can get one person to actually do more research than just believe someone on here who says "there is no scientific or any other evidence the bible is true"...then I'm glad I did it. Most of you, no matter what I say or solid evidence I give will never believe. You harden your heart and for whatever reason do not want to give God a chance. That is your choice and in the end God will give you exactly what you want, a place without God. This will be your choice, not His.
Whoever posted about about he knew where I was going with the argument...I understand those people were not claiming to be God and Jesus should have more evidence than lets say Alexander the Great...but again I need to know what level of proof is necessary.....anyone? Anyone answer....what proof do you need?

[Maddhattter]

That proof will be provided to all, skeptics or not, at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore some of the skeptics will simply have to wait, because God will do the things He said He will do in His own time and not on ours.

Once again, a wholly unsupported claim.

[Maddhattter]

I will spell it out for you.... the original post was asking on how to know the bible is true. I have stated that the entire reason I believe the bible (And most Christians) is because we believe Christ rose from the dead.

I would argue that you’re putting the cart before the horse with your supporting evidence, but that’s not the topic at hand.

If I can prove to your satisfaction that Christ rose from the dead, then all other arguments are won as well.

No, the only way you could win all other arguments is to prove Christ’s divinity. There have been numerous reports of people believing someone to be dead, only to discover that said dead person was in a coma/hypothermic/ etc.

Why is it that proving Christ’s resurrection would prove everything? There are plenty of other things that the bible claims he has done. Proving that he could be dead for three days and spontaneously reanimate does not indicate that he could duplicate matter, perform ocular restoration, or restore the functionality of extremities. The supernatural is not an all or nothing deal. It’s handled on a claim by claim basis. However, if you could prove his divinity, it would stand to reason that the other miracles attributed to him would be possible.

So, I ask again for me to convince you I need evidence that will satisfy your doubt. What level of evidence would do that?

I would need enough evidence to show that Jesus existed, and was the son of God, beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem I see you having here is proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the supernatural. The supernatural has never been proven to exist and is, by definition, impossible. Not to mention that every time science and the supernatural have come into conflict, science has won, giving no indication that the supernatural is even a possibility.

You’ll also run into the problem of certainty. I could only agree to tentatively accept the God hypothesis, should you prove the existence of a divine Jesus, if I were to be intellectually honest. As science is constantly learning, supernatural explanations are getting harder and harder to justify without you coming off sounding like BrianC or Dewayne6243. So, if science discovers how something like naval travel could be done on the surface of the water without a sea faring vessel, that would detract from the possibility of the biblical depiction of Jesus being accurate.

My example of the grail was not serious, I was simply saying that is the level of proof you require logical....I of course cannot provide a video tape of the life of Jesus, or a sacred relic that provides 100% miraculous proof He existed.

I’m sorry to hear that. The ‘Jesus Gone Wild’ film series was one of the most outrageous series of events ever caught on film.

If you are fair and say that you require the same level of proof as you would for any other great person in history and their existence and what they did etc....then I am not wasting my time. If you want holy grails and video then I cannot provide that and we can agree to disagree.

I wouldn’t want a holy grail. Immortality would suck when the reality of things sets in. Why would anyone like the idea of surviving the heat death of the universe? You’d be all alone, no light to read with, and no one to keep you company. You’d have to live on while all your friends and family die around you. I can’t imagine why anyone would want immortality.

Apparently citing sources of people more knowledgeable about certain things than ourselves is NOT accepted since you refuse to read any of the book I suggested because the author only has a Bachelors of Arts, Master of Divinity, and Doctor of Law degree. Therefore he cannot possibly have any valid scientific views cited in his book that would be acceptable.

I’m not sure if this was only supposed to be aimed at Racrguy, but it’s statements like this that make me keep going back to requesting that you either concede my points, or explain how they are wrong. I explained why someone who has no science experience could not be trusted to use good science as a source. I also explained why, from a scientific perspective, it was irrelevant to even read the book, as what scientists publish in novels makes zero difference to the scientific world. It is publishing said finds in respectable, established peer-reviewed scientific journals so that other scientists will attempt to show that the findings are incorrect.

The question about medical care that Racrguy asked you, in regards to seeking medical care from you or Dr. Dave is valid here. You may know how to diagnose and treat what ails poor Racrguy, but there is no reason to believe that you could even identify that bleeding him will not cure his genital warts(Please don’t ask me how I know this, it’s a terribly humiliating story that involves a nearly unbelievable accident with an electron microscope, and I don’t wanna talk about it.) So, if the science in those books is sound, you should only have to cite the science. The rest of the book would be useless filler and a waste of everyone’s time as the author has no credibility in the realm of science.

[The King]

Lol...people like you don't get me mad or excited. And for the record, I wasn't wrong and by no means have an e-ego. You have The King as your name and a picture of some washed up QB trying to relive his glory days. Maybe some self-reflection on your part would help clear things up for you. Until then...please keep being as annoying as fucking possible.:wink1:

Poor befuddled man, SNs and avatars mean nothing. I could replace the picture of a washed up QB with a washed up BK below and still be just as annoying.....

[V8tt]

...you can be my wing man!

So are you Iceman or Maverick Doc?

[V8tt]

^^^^^
Awwwwww him got him wittle feelings hurt 'cause he was wrong and got called on it

Few things better on a site such a this than seeing someone's e-ego get e-deflated, LOL

Lol...people like you don't get me mad or excited. And for the record, I wasn't wrong and by no means have an e-ego. You have The King as your name and a picture of some washed up QB trying to relive his glory days. Maybe some self-reflection on your part would help clear things up for you. Until then...please keep being as annoying as fucking possible.:wink1:

[davbrucas]

True....let's go back further then...do you believe Alexander the Great existed? Or the Pharaohs?

I recognize the point you are trying to make, but your comparisons are off. You are listing men of history...whose accolades are likely exaggerated, but do not include the supernatural.

[davbrucas]

More troof to that than you might realize

You'd probably be a lot of fun to have a few beers with...you can be my wing man!

[The King]

Again if I can prove Jesus rose from the dead and is who He says He is then all the rest will fall into place.

That proof will be provided to all, skeptics or not, at the time of the Second Coming. Therefore some of the skeptics will simply have to wait, because God will do the things He said He will do in His own time and not on ours.

[stephen4785]

See post #303.


I hold everyone else to the same standards that I hold myself. Any facts that I post, I can provide relevant sources for. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that any facts a person posts, they can provide a reference for. I can't say for certain, but I am under the assumption that no one in this thread has the required education to discuss the topic at hand without citing other places.


The bible is not an autobiography, as it didn't get written until a minimum of 40 years or so after Jesus' supposed death.



Is it possible he existed, absolutely. Did he do the things he is credited with? In my opinion, absolutely not.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
See what I did there, I gave credit to my source, something you didn't do with your quote. Where did it come from?



You conveniently forget that the devil is a construct of god, as told about in the bible. Everything the devil does is with god's knowledge and approval, as god could stop the devil. So, by extension, if I was in fact to worship the devil, it would be because of gods actions.

1. Apparently citing sources of people more knowledgeable about certain things than ourselves is NOT accepted since you refuse to read any of the book I suggested because the author only has a Bachelors of Arts, Master of Divinity, and Doctor of Law degree. Therefore he cannot possibly have any valid scientific views cited in his book that would be acceptable.
2. The writing of a person 40 years after their death is actually very much a statement in my favor. Most ancient documents were written hundreds of years after an event occurred so the fact it is only 40 years after He died is very much a good thing. I will provide examples once I get my answer on what level of proof you require.
3. I apologise...my source was carm.org
4. The devil is another topic I don't mind discussing but if you don't believe in God then you probably don't believe in the devil. Again if I can prove Jesus rose from the dead and is who He says He is then all the rest will fall into place.

[stephen4785]

I don’t think it’s possible for us to start here. I’m pretty sure that we started at this post, before you changed tracks on the conversation.

With this sudden change of topic, do you concede my points or did you just plan on ignoring them and pretending that there are none? Hell, you never even covered how believing or not believing is relevant to the evidence. You just suddenly asked what proof I need of Jesus’ divinity. Unless it can be illustrated how my belief in the character’s divinity is relevant to the topic at hand, I can’t really be inclined to start down that path.

I would also have to argue that finding the "Holy Grail that makes people live forever" would do absolutely nothing to speak to Jesus’ divinity. It would only prove that Holy Grail, as the bible has nothing to say about that Holy Grail. With no input from the bible about that Holy Grail, there is no linking that grail to Jesus. With no linking of that grail to Jesus, it would more provide evidence for King Arthur than anything in the bible.

I will spell it out for you.... the original post was asking on how to know the bible is true. I have stated that the entire reason I believe the bible (And most Christians) is because we believe Christ rose from the dead. If I can prove to your satisfaction that Christ rose from the dead, then all other arguments are won as well. So, I ask again for me to convince you I need evidence that will satisfy your doubt. What level of evidence would do that? My example of the grail was not serious, I was simply saying that is the level of proof you require logical....I of course cannot provide a video tape of the life of Jesus, or a sacred relic that provides 100% miraculous proof He existed. If you are fair and say that you require the same level of proof as you would for any other great person in history and their existence and what they did etc....then I am not wasting my time. If you want holy grails and video then I cannot provide that and we can agree to disagree.

[stephen4785]

We have documents with Washington's signature and can go dig up his grave and find an actual human. These things make his history more believable. The only evidence of Jesus' existence is contained in the propaganda in the Bible.

True....let's go back further then...do you believe Alexander the Great existed? Or the Pharaohs?

[The King]

^^^^^
Awwwwww him got him wittle feelings hurt 'cause he was wrong and got called on it

Few things better on a site such a this than seeing someone's e-ego get e-deflated, LOL