Burden of proof

[DarkProphet]

Do you agree with this statement?

Christians bear the burden of proof because of the claims in the Bible.
​

if not why not?

 

[dvd_holc]

Christians bear the cross that Jesus bore which is to instruct by demonstration and words the witness of God. This is the role of every human that there is because we are all made in the likeness of God. It is not selectively Christian because we are all alike, but it is the Christian who mature into being truly human; the way God made us to be.

But is this knowledge of the purpose for humanity something that is not visible? Certainly not, we all instinctively know it, but not all seek and manifest it.

 

[childofGod31]

We don't bear the burden of proof. You read the Bible, you either believe it or not believe it. God didn't ask Christians to "prove" anything, just simply proclaim it.

God does the "proving" by touching people's hearts and enabling them to believe.

 

[CShephard53]

I'd agree that we should be able to have evidence and reasons. But it is not burdened totally on us. Why? Because some choose to ignore reasonable arguments and reasons we put forth for the Bible's claims.

PS-
Dark prophet, you said you look forward to my conversion, but you said 'not yet'. If you're going to start, it should probably be now- I have a month and a half before I leave to work at a camp this summer. Then I'm unavailable until mid August.
But don't forget please. I'm not talking about proving people right or wrong, but looking at evidence. I'm not trying to convert you. Rather, listen to what you have to say. You should do the same. And I'd really like to hear what you have to say, so long as you can do it in a civil way.

 

[DarkProphet]

I'd agree that we should be able to have evidence and reasons. But it is not burdened totally on us. Why? Because some choose to ignore reasonable arguments and reasons we put forth for the Bible's claims.

I would say the burden would be with Christians because Christians claim to have all the answers regarding life and salvation. If that is the case then you should have enough proof to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is correct.

PS-
Dark prophet, you said you look forward to my conversion, but you said 'not yet'. If you're going to start, it should probably be now- I have a month and a half before I leave to work at a camp this summer. Then I'm unavailable until mid August.
But don't forget please. I'm not talking about proving people right or wrong, but looking at evidence. I'm not trying to convert you. Rather, listen to what you have to say. You should do the same. And I'd really like to hear what you have to say, so long as you can do it in a civil way.

Sounds good, I'll have more time after finals in mid May.

 

[CShephard53]

I would say the burden would be with Christians because Christians claim to have all the answers regarding life and salvation.

Well, we don't have all the answers. And, I know you've heard this before, but we only know the One who does.

If that is the case then you should have enough proof to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is correct.

So, we don't have enough 'proof', because we don't have all the knowledge.


Thanks for the offer- my finals end around that time as well.

 

[Merlin]

No.
I do not need to prove anything to anyone.

 

[CShephard53]

I do not need to prove anything to anyone.

God didn't ask Christians to "prove" anything, just simply proclaim it.

You are required by God, if you are a Christian, to provide a defense for those who ask.

 

[BereanTodd]

Burden of proof for what would be my question. That statement could be applied to many issues, and in some we bear the burden in others the atheists do.

 

[Adoniram]

Christians bear the burden of proof because of the claims in the Bible.

No, I do not agree with that statement. In math, I do not have to reprove every theorem that I wish to use in an equation, the proofs have already been done, and I chose to accept by faith that they are correct. And in the case of the Bible, God himself supplied the proof of the claims of the Bible in the life of Jesus Christ, His Son. Christ's resurrection is that proof, and I accept it. But, the Bible is not the only source of evidence for Christ's resurrection, secular sources also allude to it. What is amazing to me is that many people have no trouble believing ancient manuscripts that attest to the existence of the Pharaohs, or the Caesars, or Troy, and many other ancient personages and events, yet when it comes to the Bible, which has so many more extant manuscripts available for study than any other ancient document that it's ridiculous to even compare, people are unwilling to accept it's veracity. Never mind that archeologist's use it regularly as a road map on digs. It's a strange dichotomy that God's Word, synonymous with truth, is unbelieved while all those other manuscripts are accepted without question.

But, having said that, God does wish us to study his Word so that we are able to give ready and reasonable answers.

1 Pet. 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

2 Tim. 1:7-8, 13; 2:15
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord...

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do you agree with this statement?

Christians bear the burden of proof because of the claims in the Bible.​

if not why not?

I neither agree nor disagree; the statement does not make sense to me.

I think if you paraphrased it in rather clearer language I might have more of a chance of commenting.

 

[Catherineanne]

I would say the burden would be with Christians because Christians claim to have all the answers regarding life and salvation. If that is the case then you should have enough proof to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is correct.

I do not claim to have all the answers regarding life and salvation. Neither do I know of any Christians who would claim to have all the answers.

Only God has all the answers.

As I see it, the problem you have is that you expect us to be able to convince you. You think it is my problem what you believe.

Actually, I am not at all bothered what you believe, and you are welcome to worship little pink mushrooms if you want to - it doesn't bother me one bit.

If there is a God, and he is interested in your soul, then it is his problem to convict you, not mine. It is he who wants to save your soul, and reconcile you to himself, not me. And if he is as omnipotent as I believe him to be, he hardly needs me to start interfering in his divine plan for your good self.

So your questions are directed to the wrong person. And the burden of proof remains with you; what evidence are you looking for?

The ancient Greeks had a saying; the gods grant the wishes of those whom they wish to curse. In other words, be careful what proof you ask God for.

 

[DarkProphet]

Burden of proof for what would be my question. That statement could be applied to many issues, and in some we bear the burden in others the atheists do.

Burden of proof that Christian doctrine is correct. In that I suppose the starting point would be proving that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

 

[DarkProphet]

No, I do not agree with that statement. God himself supplied the proof in the life of Jesus Christ, His Son. Christ's resurrection is that proof.

I suppose the question would be the Bible's accuracy in that account.

Now this is attested to not only in the Bible, but also secular sources.

I am familiar with these secular sources and I am also familiar as to why they are not reliable in this account. However, you are right in that this would be proof toward Jesus's resurrection but that wasn't the question. The question was, who bears the burden of proof?

What is amazing to me is that many people have no trouble believing ancient manuscripts that attest to the existence of the Pharaohs, or the Caesars, or Troy, and many other ancient personages and events, yet when it comes to the Bible, which has so many more extant manuscripts available for study than any other ancient document that it's ridiculous to even compare, people are unwilling to accept it's veracity. Never mind that archeologist's use it regularly as a road map on digs. It's a strange dichotomy that God's Word, synonymous with truth, is unbelieved while all those other manuscripts are accepted without question.

The other manuscripts are not accepted without question. Take Shakespeare for example, there are numerous debates as to whether or not he actually wrote the plays he is credited for.

But, having said that, God does wish us to study his Word so that we are able to give ready and reasonable answers.

1 Pet. 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

2 Tim. 1:7-8, 13; 2:15
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord...

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The problem with citing the Bible is that you must show the Bible is Truth before you can cite it.

 

[BereanTodd]

Burden of proof that Christian doctrine is correct. In that I suppose the starting point would be proving that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

In relation to the Bible, to a certain extent I agree. Now I will say this - evidence bears out that we can trust that what we have is originally what was written, and we can trust that what was written was extremely historically accurate. From there the questions come to dating, and other issues.

On the issue of the existence of Jesus, in relation to those who claim He never existed, the burden of proof lies on them, because the mountains of evidence say that He very much did.

We could go through all sorts of issues like this, and some burdens would be on one side, others on the other.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Do you agree with this statement?

Christians bear the burden of proof because of the claims in the Bible.​

if not why not?

Burden of proof for what? The existance of God or the claims of the bible?

 

[DarkProphet]

Burden of proof for what? The existance of God or the claims of the bible?

The claims of the Bible.

 

[ReformedChapin]

The claims of the Bible.

I haven't read all the posts but I think that the bible has proven itself relaible through archeological sources and other emperical sources. It also depends on which CLAIM you are talking about.

 

[ebia]

Do you agree with this statement?

Christians bear the burden of proof because of the claims in the Bible.​

if not why not?

Depends on context - who is trying to prove what to whom and why.

Christianity isn't really about facts to be proved, but returning to God. At it's heart it's a way of life, not a set of doctrines. The early church grew rapidly not because they made statements and proved them, but because the lives they lead caused people to wonder what was going on, to investigate, and eventually join.

If one's approach to evangelism is based on apologetics then yes, one has the burden of proof, but (IMO) that approach is a modernist reaction to modernism and has little to do with biblical Christianity; it's fighting fire with fire, which is not Jesus' way. If one's approach to evangelism is based on the (highly successful) model of the early church 'proof' (either way) isn't in the focus at all.

 

[Adoniram]

I suppose the question would be the Bible's accuracy in that account.

The Bible has been proven to be very reliable from a historical and archaeological viewpoint. There is no reason to doubt the Bible's accuracy in relation what it says about Jesus Christ. Scientifically, there are disagreements, but proof of the Bible's errancy remains to be seen. In the end, I'll support the Bible in that also.

I am familiar with these secular sources and I am also familiar as to why they are not reliable in this account. However, you are right in that this would be proof toward Jesus's resurrection but that wasn't the question. The question was, who bears the burden of proof?

You are the first of the many atheists and naysayers that I have had discussions with, here and other places, who has ever brought up the fact that these historians might be unreliable. Does that supposition have any foundation or is it just another of your random speculations? These historians were not Christian, and if anything, would probably have disputed the Biblical Jesus accounts in their writings rather than support them.

In a debate, which of course this is not, because of the rules, both sides bear the burden of proof to support their stand. I have already said that God provided the proof in the resurrection of Christ. Where is your proof to the contrary?

The other manuscripts are not accepted without question. Take Shakespeare for example, there are numerous debates as to whether or not he actually wrote the plays he is credited for.

The authorship of Shakespearian plays is an example of a dispute over relatively recent works of fiction. Not very applicable to the discussion. But come on, thousands of history books have been written based on information gleaned from ,among other things, these ancient manuscripts, and now you're gonna say all these history books are unreliable? Get real. At least bring some supportable points to the discussion.

The problem with citing the Bible is that you must show the Bible is Truth before you can cite it.

And who must I show that to? You? If I could transport you back in time to, oh, let's say the first century, and you were present in Israel at the time of Jesus' ministry, a witness to his teaching and his miracles, you would be just as unbelieving as most of the Jews were. The problem is that your eyes are blinded to what is truth, just as many of those Jews' eyes were. It's not that you are necessarily a bad person, but rather that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes by the devil. You can indeed be freed from that but it will take an honest desire on your part. May God help you.