Evidence other than hearsay

[food4thought]

I'm not sure you need to go to the trouble of arguing for a Theistic universe. Its a solution I would be quite comfortable with. The big problem is determining which god.

Good to know, and it is encouraging to know that you are keeping an open mind.

Would it not be reasonable for God to expect some skepticism? Otherwise we would simply worship any God mentioned to us. In any case I have gone beyond prayer and am not actively seeking advice - this forum being an example.

I'm going to go on the assumption that you meant you are "now" seeking advice. One bedrock of faith for me has been Daniel's 70 sevens prophecy. Here is the prophecy given to Daniel:

Daniel 9:24-27 NIV "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. (25) "Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. (26) After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. (27) He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."


The seventy sevens are sevens of years. So the totality of the prophecy encompasses 490 years. For your purposes, I want to focus on verses 25-26. It states that from the time a decree is issued, to the Anointed One (literally the Messiah) would be a total of 783 years. In 458 BC, Artaxerxes I gave such a decree to Ezra the scribe. Going forward 483 years from that decree would bring us to 26 AD, the year that many scholars believe was the time of Jesus' baptism, and thus the beginning of His public ministry. After this, according to Daniel 9:26, there would be an interval of unknown duration during which the Messiah would be put to death, and the sanctuary (the Jewish temple) would be destroyed.

This is a remarkable prophecy: one which accurately predicts the timing of Jesus' 1st coming, His being put to death, and the destruction of the Temple. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have copies of the book of Daniel dating to at least 100 years before these events, meaning that this is certainly a genuine predictive prophecy. I post this in the hopes that it will increase your estimation of the Bible as a reliable testimony which has an origin from outside our time domain.

Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[Gumph]

Yet you take the words of men who donot believe to be reliable and trustworthy.

I certainly do not if they make grand and unusual claims. I might if they are common and trivial (as per my earlier post explanation). I don't treat the claims of believers and non-believers and differently.

A detective demonstrates that the evidence of the gospel is reliable by using the same detective skills he used to solve cold cases on the bible and you dismiss it because of what?

Biblical accuracy look up Sir William Mitchell Ramsay and read what he found out about the writings of Luke as he dug up much of the middle east.

Investigate the findings of Gary Habermas the formost expert on the resurrection. Look at what Erhert says about the NT, even he an atheist accepts that Jesus lived died and that the disciples believed they had met a risen Jesus.
You discover from Habermass that there is only one explanation that fits all the known facts.
That Jesus did rise from the dead. If you don't believe it, prove it wrong.
If you can't you still have to account for the resurrection and the effect it has had on people over the years.

You are providing more and more "evidence" of the type that I already consider unacceptable. You could quote a thousand investigations here. They are all pointless if I cannot personally verify the original claims. For every person you quote, a Muslim could post one backing their claim, same for the Atheist, the Jew , the ....

Surely there has to be something else rather than this single source (the Bible)?

 

[Gumph]

I'm going to go on the assumption that you meant you are "now" seeking advice.

My humble apologies. That was a horrible typo. Yes I did indeed mean "now"

This is a remarkable prophecy: one which accurately predicts the timing of Jesus' 1st coming, His being put to death, and the destruction of the Temple. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have copies of the book of Daniel dating to at least 100 years before these events, meaning that this is certainly a genuine predictive prophecy. I post this in the hopes that it will increase your estimation of the Bible as a reliable testimony which has an origin from outside our time domain.

I find the prophecy angle very unconvincing. Its horribly vague and allows for multiple outcomes to support the prophecy. They speak in sevens. You have chosen to interpret that as years. Would it not be logical to consider those as weeks? If not, why not generations or or or ...

Furthermore a prophecy is pointless if we don't have a collection of all prophecies made by that person. Perhaps there are thousands of prophecies that didn't come true and their recordings were simply thrown away? This is an impossible request for a historian and therefore invalidates ancient prophecies.

They just seem like such a pointless mechanism to show off a supposed superior power. There are much better ways.

 

[Gumph]

Maybe observing how Christians live in contrast to the rest of the world?
Likely, love, joy and peace.
Sincere seekers will find what they need everyone in the world.
You seemed like one who is open to truth when you see it so I suggested it to you.

How does finding a community with love, joy and peace indicate their God is the one? These communities can be found in all types all over the world. Usually small rural communities.

Does finding a community with hate, sadness and war indicate that their God is the wrong one?

 

[Tolworth John]

They are all pointless if I cannot personally verify the original claims.

So start learning ancient hebrew, ancient greek, aramic and what ever other languages the bible was written in.

Then you can go and read the bible in the hundreds of early copies that exists, as well as read in the oringinal languages the writings of the church fathers and nonchristian writers like tacticus, pliny, and josephous.

You can corrispond with experts like gary habermas, bert erhert etc or you can buy there books and read their research.
One point.
Do you verivie that everytime you travel the aircraft is safe to fly, or that the roads are safe to drive on?
Or if a doctor perscribes medicine can you verify that it is the correct medicine?
If you trust a doctor or flight mechanic why can't you trust other experts?

 

[Ing Bee]

I always find this a bit of a strange response. Surely it is obvious to God that someone is looking for him?

Hello-
You are absolutely correct in that last sentence.

When looking for "evidence" to prove anything, it is always the case that underlying, unspoken assumptions determine how one will interpret data. There will always be reasons to discount evidence, even sound evidence. As British Atheist Paul Baird said in an interview:

“I now have since moved to the point where even if I had been there [and seen the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension] I could not accept the evidence because the nature of the evidence, by being supernatural, is inadmissible”.​

Baird's atheism would actually prevent him from accepting his own first-person eyewitness experience. That would be a denial of his actual pre-reasoning faculties: his senses! I am another one of those who have been convinced by historical, scientific and logical proofs that the Christian account of reality is true, but that doesn't do anything for those who (like Paul Baird and others) will not accept evidence

So how can we break through the barrier of our limitations and presuppositions? The answer comes from this truth: God is personal, not a passive object or concept to be discovered or proved. He is capable and active in "seeking and saving". In all of the Biblical record, Yahweh is always the one who initiates relationship. And this is completely in-line with our own human experience.

All human relationships require an initial "revealing" of the self to another person who then either accepts or rejects that personal self-disclosure. If accepted, the relationship progresses. If not, it can't. In Hebrews 11:6, the author writes that without faith (i.e. relational confidence in another person) it is not possible to please God for two obvious and human reasons:

1. Anyone who would come to God (for relational connection) must first have faith that he exists.
2. Secondly, one would have to have faith that pursuing him would be relationaly fruitful, rewarded with relationship

This is the place to begin. If I had asked my wife-to-be for medical records, school records, and government records along with photographic documentation, personal character references etc. before starting our friendship and later courtship, I would still be single. Instead, she revealed herself to me and I trusted that was true. I responded by acting on what she had said, revealing myself in the process.

This is why the Bible is called "revelation"; it is a record of God's self-disclosure in history. God is always inviting people into relationship after he has shown them something about his trustworthiness first. He is incredibly patient in this regard (see the story of Gideon). There are even non-Jews who enter into relationship with Yahweh, often with less proof than their Hebrew counterparts like Rahab ( (Joshua 2), Naman (2 Kings 5) and Ruth (Ruth 1) to name a few. What is the mark of true connection to God? Trust...just like every other relationship.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says that although God has shared about himself many times in the past, his best and final sharing is through the Son, Jesus who emptied himself (Philippians 2:1-11) and died for sinners as a picture of the extent of the Father's love for his rebellious creatures (Romans 5:8).

I think the bottom line for you in your knowing venture is this: Do you want to know this God who loves you and seeks you even when you can't seek him? Are you willing to act based on his self-disclosure? Your human experience with relationships should be your standard here, not forensic or historical methodology since the Christian life is adoption into the relational life of God (Ephesians 1:3-11). If you "hunger and thirst for righteousness" you will be satisfied. Everyone who wants to "walk humbly with their God" (Micah 6:8) will.

There's more I could say, but I will stop for now. Hopefully this has been helpful. The God who sees you seeks you when you can't seek him (Genesis 16).

Ing Bee

 

[food4thought]

My humble apologies. That was a horrible typo. Yes I did indeed mean "now"

No apologies necessary, we are all human here (at least I'm pretty sure we all are... or maybe some of us are alien spies learning about us before the invasion lol)

I find the prophecy angle very unconvincing. Its horribly vague and allows for multiple outcomes to support the prophecy. They speak in sevens. You have chosen to interpret that as years. Would it not be logical to consider those as weeks? If not, why not generations or or or ...

Furthermore a prophecy is pointless if we don't have a collection of all prophecies made by that person. Perhaps there are thousands of prophecies that didn't come true and their recordings were simply thrown away? This is an impossible request for a historian and therefore invalidates ancient prophecies.

I'm sorry you feel that way, it has been such a wonderful experience for me to know and be known by my God. I will be praying for an insight from God on how I might help you on your journey.

May God bless you materially, financially, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

Michael

 

[EJ M]

How does finding a community with love, joy and peace indicate their God is the one? These communities can be found in all types all over the world. Usually small rural communities.

Does finding a community with hate, sadness and war indicate that their God is the wrong one?

It is usually so,
I just hope you find Him, or are found of Him before it's to late.
And He isn't far away.

 

[Gumph]

So start learning ancient hebrew, ancient greek, aramic and what ever other languages the bible was written in.

I think thats a bit of an unreasonable request, considering the time and effort that would require. In addition, in the interest of completeness I would have to do the same with the original languages of all the main religions. It starts getting a bit ridiculous.

Then you can go and read the bible in the hundreds of early copies that exists, as well as read in the oringinal languages the writings of the church fathers and nonchristian writers like tacticus, pliny, and josephous.

You can corrispond with experts like gary habermas, bert erhert etc or you can buy there books and read their research.

But I will still be relying on the opinions of fallible men. Why can I not verify that there is a god without having to trust a potentially lying human? It is so counter intuitive. The Bible itself says we are imperfect sinners, and yet we must trust the word of these self same sinners?

One point.
Do you verivie that everytime you travel the aircraft is safe to fly, or that the roads are safe to drive on?

No, I've seen them fly before. Maybe not that specific one, but similar ones. To use your analogy more accurately to reflect what Christianity expects, I would have to just believe hard enough and the plane will take me to Jupiter soon.

Or if a doctor perscribes medicine can you verify that it is the correct medicine?

To more accurately reflect your analogy: would I want to verify the medicine if a doctor told me that the concoction in the syringe is from an ancient family recipe that someone he once knew gave him and assured him that I would never age or get sick again - at the cost of U$100'000 a jab? Indeed I would like to first verify his claims.

If you trust a doctor or flight mechanic why can't you trust other experts?

Because their claims are routine, your experts are instead claiming something rather unusual.

 

[EJ M]

I think thats a bit of an unreasonable request, considering the time and effort that would require. In addition, in the interest of completeness I would have to do the same with the original languages of all the main religions. It starts getting a bit ridiculous.



But I will still be relying on the opinions of fallible men. Why can I not verify that there is a god without having to trust a potentially lying human? It is so counter intuitive. The Bible itself says we are imperfect sinners, and yet we must trust the word of these self same sinners?



No, I've seen them fly before. Maybe not that specific one, but similar ones. To use your analogy more accurately to reflect what Christianity expects, I would have to just believe hard enough and the plane will take me to Jupiter soon.



To more accurately reflect your analogy: would I want to verify the medicine if a doctor told me that the concoction in the syringe is from an ancient family recipe that someone he once knew gave him and assured him that I would never age or get sick again - at the cost of U$100'000 a jab? Indeed I would like to first verify his claims.



Because their claims are routine, your experts are instead claiming something rather unusual.

You seem to acknowledge the preposterousness of the theory of evolution. The fact that something cannot evolve from nothing.
Anything evolving from nothing cannot be demonstrated, never has and never will.
That leaves the only option, intelligent design.
Please do yourself a big favor and read the Intelligent Designer's document He left that explains it all and desires us to live by.
I believe any unbiased sincere seeker will acknowledge the bible is by far the most rational, plausible explanation for it all.
True, written by fallible man, but the Intelligent Designer is fully capable of influencing men and leaving us an corrupted document so we may know................

 

[Gumph]

As British Atheist Paul Baird said in an interview:

“I now have since moved to the point where even if I had been there [and seen the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension] I could not accept the evidence because the nature of the evidence, by being supernatural, is inadmissible”.

​

Baird has a point, but I disagree with him saying it is inadmissible. It merely needs additional evidence. Witnessing something as grand as a resurrection with our senses is not sufficient evidence. Otherwise we must believe that David Copperfield can fly and make airplanes vanish. It is a starting point though and gets us looking further in to the matter.

Baird's atheism would actually prevent him from accepting his own first-person eyewitness experience. That would be a denial of his actual pre-reasoning faculties: his senses!

Not a denial. Its a first step, an alert introduction if you will, which must be followed up with further testing.

So how can we break through the barrier of our limitations and presuppositions? The answer comes from this truth: God is personal, not a passive object or concept to be discovered or proved. He is capable and active in "seeking and saving". In all of the Biblical record, Yahweh is always the one who initiates relationship. And this is completely in-line with our own human experience.

All human relationships require an initial "revealing" of the self to another person who then either accepts or rejects that personal self-disclosure. If accepted, the relationship progresses. If not, it can't.

I impatiently await this revealing, it would indeed be a very useful first step.

1. Anyone who would come to God (for relational connection) must first have faith that he exists.
2. Secondly, one would have to have faith that pursuing him would be relationaly fruitful, rewarded with relationship

This concept of blind faith is a weird one. Does he require me to believe first as well as want to believe, before he is even prepared to show himself? That really does seem the wrong way round to me.

If I had asked my wife-to-be for medical records, school records, and government records along with photographic documentation, personal character references etc. before starting our friendship and later courtship, I would still be single. Instead, she revealed herself to me and I trusted that was true. I responded by acting on what she had said, revealing myself in the process.

She revealed herself, you then made numerous and repeated tests with feedback and only then finally decided to marry her.

God is asking something different, he wants me to get the wedding arranged and then he will be revealed ... or at least some people say he will reveal himself.

I think the bottom line for you in your knowing venture is this: Do you want to know this God who loves you and seeks you even when you can't seek him? Are you willing to act based on his self-disclosure? Your human experience with relationships should be your standard here, not forensic or historical methodology

I always find that an odd question. Who wouldn't want to know about a powerful supreme being? Then you say I can't seek him, and yet everyone else is telling me to seek him. Act how on what self-disclosure? I am using my human experience, but I need someone to show up before that can kick in.

 

[Gumph]

You seem to acknowledge the preposterousness of the theory of evolution. The fact that something cannot evolve from nothing.
Anything evolving from nothing cannot be demonstrated, never has and never will.
That leaves the only option, intelligent design.

I have no problem with that, but which intelligence?

Please do yourself a big favor and read the Intelligent Designer's document He left that explains it all and desires us to live by.
I believe any unbiased sincere seeker will acknowledge the bible is by far the most rational, plausible explanation for it all.
True, written by fallible man, but the Intelligent Designer is fully capable of influencing men and leaving us an corrupted document so we may know................

I firmly believe he needs to do better than a book. As part of a package it would be ok I suppose, but on its own ... no that concerns me greatly.

 

[EJ M]

I have no problem with that, but which intelligence?



I firmly believe he needs to do better than a book. As part of a package it would be ok I suppose, but on its own ... no that concerns me greatly.

Exercise logic my friend, logic.
Any Designer Intelligent enough to design all this, hasn't a problem leaving the record thereof.
Please take the time to visit the Museum of the Bible in DC for an understanding of His word.
And then compare to other writings contemporary with the Bible.
The Bible is a book like no other, history, laws, and foretelling future events accurately.
Almost all written by Jewish authors, the bible contains the good, the bad and the ugly of Jewish history.
In fact, the Jews use that as further proof the bible is Divinely inspired.
What other document accurately portrays it's people in such a bad light?
What other evidence would you accept?

 

[Ing Bee]

Baird has a point, but I disagree with him saying it is inadmissible. It merely needs additional evidence. Witnessing something as grand as a resurrection withwour senses is not sufficient evidence. Otherwise we must believe that David Copperfield can fly and make airplanes vanish.

I'm curious as to What other evidence you would find sufficient?

Baird's chain of reasoning included

1. him seeing Jesus actually dead,
2. actually buried,
3. actually alive, and
4. actually ascend into heaven.

David Copperfield has the benefit of electricity, television tricks, controlled conditions, and not having been beaten severely and brutally executed by professionals who had a vested interest in him staying dead. As Jesus himself said "even if they see someone rise from the dead they won't believe". Evidence is no solution for someone who does not want to follow the implications of the evidence.

This was exactly the case with Jesus's miracles; the pharisees and religious leaders who witnessed them saw messianic prophecies being fulfilled in front of their eyes. No one HAD ever heard of someone healing a man born blind…never in the history of Israel. But when a decision had to be made about his identity, they preferred to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12) and claim that Jesus's miracles (which they didn't deny) were empowered by demons rather than follow him and abandon their own power, prestige and opinions.

The apostle Thomas gave his standard of evidence ("unless I put my fingers in his side") and was satisfied when he saw the risen Savior. Yet, he could have been like others who saw all of this and "still doubted". (Matthew 28:17). Clearly, at some point, in a relational context, one must begin to trust, because that is how you engage in relationship, not through amassing evidence and arriving at certainty.

This concept of blind faith is a weird one. Does he require me to believe first as well as want to believe, before he is even prepared to show himself?

God seems to be under the impression that he has given enough evidence and that there is no such thing as "blind faith". After all, the evidence that Paul offers in 1 Corinthians 15 (the resurrection details and eyewitnesses) was still accessible at the time. I agree with you though that the initial "introduction" is in God's court, since no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:65), so maybe that's the issue that you're wrestling with.

The invitation into relationship is testable, meaning, take him at his word and begin to act in light of what he says. You are interacting with all kinds of people on this forum simply by their word. God's word is even more sure because he doesn't change.

She revealed herself, you then made numerous and repeated tests with feedback and only then finally decided to marry her.

God is asking something different, he wants me to get the wedding arranged and then he will be revealed ... or at least some people say he will reveal himself.

I disagree with your characterization and with your assessment of what God is asking. He promises that those who seek him will find him. He also has indicated that everyone has access to enough evidence to at least start looking (Romans 1:20).

Also, to clarify a misapprehension, I didn't start making "numerous and repeated tests" with my wife, I began to interact with her at face value: mind to mind, will to will, emotions to emotions. The "test" was the ongoing relationship, which is exactly what the Father offers through the Son by the Spirit. The marriage decision was in addition to the relationship that already existed. Had we never got married, I would still have had a relationship with her…just not one ending in marriage.

It is God that has arranged the marriage (Ephesians 5:32) and he that always initiates relationship. The language of relational invitation is all over the place in the Bible. "Come to me all you who are weary and I will give you rest", "remain in me and you will bear much fruit", "cast your anxiety on him because he cares for you"... in each case, there is an assurance of relationship along with a specific response.

You mentioned in another response that God needs to do "better than a book". Consider though that the "book" is a collection of historical encounters between Yahweh and individuals and groups. (Hebrews 1:1) He talks with people, eats with people, tells them whats going to happen, miraculously rescues them, provides for them, judges them. In other words, our "book" is their personal encounters. He says He doesn't change and that he is the same "yesterday, today, and forever" so those past encounters reveal the same Divine Personality.

The coup de grace in God's self-revealing came when the Divine Son entered into history as the definitive proof of God's relational intentions toward humanity (Hebrews 1:2, Romans 5:8, John 3:16-17, Hebrews 2:1-18, Hebrews 8:10-12, etc.). It was the Father's initiative that the Son should make Him known and connect people to Him. Jesus died "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) rose again and sent the Holy Spirit into the world to indwell, empower and guarantee connection to the Father (Ephesians 1:3-14).

With all that revealing in mind, even in the form of a book (itself an act of relationship, see 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20) I'm confident that if you are seeking real relationship through the Son, you will find it. Keep persevering.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I'm curious as to What other evidence you would find sufficient?

Baird's chain of reasoning included

1. him seeing Jesus actually dead,
2. actually buried,
3. actually alive, and
4. actually ascend into heaven.

David Copperfield has the benefit of electricity, television tricks, controlled conditions, and not having been beaten severely and brutally executed by professionals who had a vested interest in him staying dead. As Jesus himself said "even if they see someone rise from the dead they won't believe". Evidence is no solution for someone who does not want to follow the implications of the evidence.

This was exactly the case with Jesus's miracles; the pharisees and religious leaders who witnessed them saw messianic prophecies being fulfilled in front of their eyes. No one HAD ever heard of someone healing a man born blind…never in the history of Israel. But when a decision had to be made about his identity, they preferred to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12) and claim that Jesus's miracles (which they didn't deny) were empowered by demons rather than follow him and abandon their own power, prestige and opinions.

The apostle Thomas gave his standard of evidence ("unless I put my fingers in his side") and was satisfied when he saw the risen Savior. Yet, he could have been like others who saw all of this and "still doubted". (Matthew 28:17). Clearly, at some point, in a relational context, one must begin to trust, because that is how you engage in relationship, not through amassing evidence and arriving at certainty.


God seems to be under the impression that he has given enough evidence and that there is no such thing as "blind faith". After all, the evidence that Paul offers in 1 Corinthians 15 (the resurrection details and eyewitnesses) was still accessible at the time. I agree with you though that the initial "introduction" is in God's court, since no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:65), so maybe that's the issue that you're wrestling with.

The invitation into relationship is testable, meaning, take him at his word and begin to act in light of what he says. You are interacting with all kinds of people on this forum simply by their word. God's word is even more sure because he doesn't change.



I disagree with your characterization and with your assessment of what God is asking. He promises that those who seek him will find him. He also has indicated that everyone has access to enough evidence to at least start looking (Romans 1:20).

Also, to clarify a misapprehension, I didn't start making "numerous and repeated tests" with my wife, I began to interact with her at face value: mind to mind, will to will, emotions to emotions. The "test" was the ongoing relationship, which is exactly what the Father offers through the Son by the Spirit. The marriage decision was in addition to the relationship that already existed. Had we never got married, I would still have had a relationship with her…just not one ending in marriage.

It is God that has arranged the marriage (Ephesians 5:32) and he that always initiates relationship. The language of relational invitation is all over the place in the Bible. "Come to me all you who are weary and I will give you rest", "remain in me and you will bear much fruit", "cast your anxiety on him because he cares for you"... in each case, there is an assurance of relationship along with a specific response.

You mentioned in another response that God needs to do "better than a book". Consider though that the "book" is a collection of historical encounters between Yahweh and individuals and groups. (Hebrews 1:1) He talks with people, eats with people, tells them whats going to happen, miraculously rescues them, provides for them, judges them. In other words, our "book" is their personal encounters. He says He doesn't change and that he is the same "yesterday, today, and forever" so those past encounters reveal the same Divine Personality.

The coup de grace in God's self-revealing came when the Divine Son entered into history as the definitive proof of God's relational intentions toward humanity (Hebrews 1:2, Romans 5:8, John 3:16-17, Hebrews 2:1-18, Hebrews 8:10-12, etc.). It was the Father's initiative that the Son should make Him known and connect people to Him. Jesus died "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) rose again and sent the Holy Spirit into the world to indwell, empower and guarantee connection to the Father (Ephesians 1:3-14).

With all that revealing in mind, even in the form of a book (itself an act of relationship, see 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20) I'm confident that if you are seeking real relationship through the Son, you will find it. Keep persevering.

Assuming that the biblical accounts are true.

 

[Gumph]

What other evidence would you accept?

His personal appearance (repeatedly) - preferably not in human form?
A direct personal conversation (regularly) ?

 

[Gumph]

What other document accurately portrays it's people in such a bad light?

Newspaper?

 

[Ing Bee]

Assuming that the biblical accounts are true.

Of course, just like I believe you are real and that the above statement represents another mind that I can interact with.

Another way to think about it would be, "Does the Person revealing himself in history seem to encourage relational response?" That is, I believe , the right sort of tack given that we can enter into relationship at our will, responding to another person's overtures, lightyears before we arrive at anything approaching certainty. The historical, textual, and archeological evidence are helpful but not necessary to begin relating mind to mind, will to will, emotion to emotion (i.e. interpersonally). to the Divine Person revealed in scripture.

Even setting aside the idea of inspiration, Hebrews 11:6 is just common sense:
Trusting response (faith) is the minimum requirement for any relationship since NO relationship is possible without 1) believing there is a particular someone you can know and 2) believing that if you begin to seek that relationship, it will be a fruitful endeavor.

In saying "assuming the biblical accounts are true" there are two ways to go:

1) Don't assume they are true until we have "enough" evidence of all the particulars contained therein, but that means we will rely on other assumptions (e.g. What we will accept as evidence, What other human authorities we will trust given our limitations of knowledge and access to evidence, etc.)

2) Option two is to assume the accounts are true insofar as they accurately present a divine person you can begin to interpersonally relate to. This approach allows for a range of knowledge, certainty, and even skepticism while not preventing actual relational engagement.​

My contention is that we need not treat the God revealed in the Bible as a passive concept that must first be proved and only then "believed in" like we believe in quantum mechanics as a model of reality. Intellectual assent isn't the same thing as interpersonal relationship. God has shared more personal information about himself in history (and recorded in the Bible) than I know about anyone on this Forum, and yet that doesn't prevent me from responding to what people say about themselves using written words, (just like the Bible). It is disingenuous to say that the Bible is not good enough since God is different than we are. He is revealed in personal, relational terms so that we can respond with interpersonal relationship.

Even assuming for a moment that all religious text are equally true, no other deity in all of recorded history:

1. Has always existed in a divine community of self-giving, other-benefitting love (agape 1 John 4:8)
2. Invites relationship
3. Is characterized as THE faithful God, patient, forgiving, not wanting anyone to perish
4. Allows "testing" to a degree
5. Condescends to localize himself
6. Opens up relationship to everyone
7. Personally takes on the results of human evil in order to rescue human rebels
8. Wants to involve all of humanity in the divine life
9. Is characterized by persistent, other-benefiting love
10. Connects himself to actual historical places, times, rulers, and events
11. and the list goes on.

There is simply no other God worth trying to get to know. It could all be false, but it seems a reasonable decision to make the attempt at relational interaction based on the personal self-disclosure provided, especially in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who actually existed in time and space. But delaying the relationship is iffy because we don't know when our clock will run out.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The Case for Christianity, Unrealistic Expectations and Evidential Modesty | Cold Case Christianity

 

[ldonjohn]

God did take the initiative when He gave us His Word, the Bible, and in that bible He says in Jeremiah 29:13, "You will find me when you seek me with your whole heart."
If you really want to know God then read His Word expecting to find Him there. When He sees that you are earnestly seeking Him He will open your spiritually blind eyes so you can see Him. That is what is called "the experience."
John