Why in the world would I have to need to provide evidence that something did not happen? The burden of proof is with the person that claims that something did happen.
Even in the legal system, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Or in other words, nothing happened until someone proved it did.
Ok, let me make this even more clearer for you and go back to basics.
What?
The historical claim that Jesus Christ lived in the 1st century AD in Galilee/ Judea, the claim that he was conceived by a virgin, the claim that he began his ministry aged 30 and performed miracles which were witnessed my hundreds of people. The claim that he claimed and proved to be God and that he was fully human and fully divine, the claim that he was put to death for blasphemy and crucified for making these claims of divinity, the claim that he was resurrected from the tomb after 3 days and subsequently appeared to over 500 people, the claim that he ascended to heaven after promising to his disciples that he will return to end history and to judge every single person who has ever lived.
Primary evidence
The primary evidence for all of these claims comes from The Bible. The above claims are not just the view or opinion of Christians. The claims are recorded in an historical text which the majority of mainstream Christians** accept to be written by man and the inspired and infallible word of God. (
** this excludes the so-called Christian sects and cults such as JWs and so on..)
Authority of primary evidence
The most extensive manuscript, scroll and codex library exists to support The Bible. More than 23,000 extant manuscripts exist, with over 5,300 for the New Testament alone. When you test and attest any of the pertinent manuscript evidence that exists for The Bible against the rule for establishing historical accuracy of ancient texts, then The Biblical account clearly stands up as being an accurate account of history, and more importantly an accurate account of Jesus Christ.
Its often argued on this forum that there are other religious texts other than The Bible which argue for their own authority. Lets compare The Quranic account of Jesus (Isa) versus The Christian account:
The Islamic account of Jesus:
The Quran - written circa 600 years after the known time when Jesus lived.
The Quran - written in Southern Persia (Saudi Arabia) some 1000 kilometres from Judaea/ Galilee
The Quran - written by one author (Muhammad) alone who never knew, met or saw Jesus, and never had any contact with anyone who likewise knew, met or saw Jesus
The Quran - the alleged account (of Jesus) dictated to by an angel to Muhammad, but this account was then memorised and passed on orally, and wasnt written down in any form until almost 80 years later
The Quran - the alleged account denies the crucifixion, denies the deity of Jesus, denies The Trinity, contains inaccuracies surrounding the virgin birth (i.e. born under a palm tree), and the early childhood life of Jesus (i.e. performing miracles as a baby)
The Quran minimal manuscript archive - earliest primary sources 150-300 years after the events they describe
compared to:
The Bible - 3 full eyewitness accounts written by people who lived at the same time as when Jesus was alive. A wealth of additional eyewitness accounts reliability recorded also..
The Bible - written by people who knew Jesus and/ or were close to Jesus
The Bible - written by people who lived in Judaea/ Galilee where Jesus lived whilst Jesus was alive
The Bible - accounts written down and first manuscripts complied 20-35 years after the events being described (First Epistle to the Thessalonians written in circa AD52)
The Bible - affirms the deity, the crucifixion, The fatherhood, The Trinity
The Bible extensive manuscript archive approx.. 5,300 New Testament sources with the majority written before the time of Muhammad.
Now based on the huge differences of:
-authorship
-closeness to the events described
-localisation
-manuscript archive
Which account do you think is correct? If you believe the Islamic account is correct, then that is the equivalent of believing that me completely rewriting Russian history from the 15th century, completely changing the facts about people who lived then and then saying that my version is more accurate than a group of historians who lived in Russia at that time and knew those people.
Secondary evidence
There are well over 50 separate pagan, Jewish and secular sources such as the accounts of historians Falvius Josephus, Tacitus, The Talmud, Fronto, Suetonius and so on with independently corroborate the historical accuracy of The Bible.
The Dead Sea scrolls are sectarian manuscripts from Judaism, and provide unquestioned reliability for the Old Testament especially the scrolls relating to the book of Isaiah. Closely related are the Qumran scrolls which were discovered to contain fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. All-in-all there were about 200 scrolls discovered, and completely support the belief that The Old Testament was well preserved and accurately handed down to us.
None of these secondary sources of evidence have been successfully undermined in terms of their authenticity, however some sources are considered more reliable than others simply due to the variation the manuscript records.
Other non-Christian evidence
There have been a number scientific investigations to prove the events of The Old Testament:
-In 1990 the Merneptah Stele was found to contain hieroglyphic clues to demonstrate that the ancient Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago
-In 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible.
-It was also discovered that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time.
Other Christian evidence
The 2 examples that spring to mind are the fulfilled prophecies (i.e. Jesus (as supported above), The Prophecy of Tyre), as well as the widespread usage and acceptance of the established cannon throughout the early church demonstrated through the letters from the early church bishops in the early church
Conclusion
So the evidence is (a) The Bible, (b) non-Christian texts (c) archeological and scientific evidence, and (d) the fulfilled prophecies and widespread acceptance of the authority of The Biblical cannon.
There is no doubt that The Bible in itself is a reliable historical text. There is more evidence to support this body of work than for any other ancient text.
The accounts and claims of The Bible can be further validated by non-Christian and non-religious texts which themselves are generally accepted to be reliable accounts.
Irrespective of this, The Bible can be tested in its own right against tests of historicity which can demonstrate its accuracy.
And finally it can be compare against other religious texts using the same tests of historicity which prove that The Biblical account it accurate.
The Bible is my primary evidence. Everything else is a bonus quite frankly.
Over to you
So Ive laid out the evidence for you. This is done objectively you can check out anything that Ive made claim to.
This does not hinge on personal belief or religion this is object evidence which exists out there for you to check out for yourself.
So heres my proof.
You need to refute my claims and evidence using counter evidence to support your counter arguments/ claims.
Failure to provide any counter argument along the lines of what I have provided, would imply that you do not have a sufficient evidence based counter argument.
Until you or anyone else can provide this counter argument, then I hold that my position stands as being the true accurate and historical account.
Therefore God exists, and Christianity is the correct world view.
