"how can you know the bible to be true?"

[mindlight]

I would not suggest going there. Reading one's Bible literally gives both cases of true and of false history. Examples:

True: we have confirmed that a ruler named "Pontius Pilot" did exist, as did Caesar Augustus, places like Jerusalem, Rome, Assyria, Galilee, etc. That really doesn't prove much, as even works of fiction sometimes use real place and person names (like Spiderman being set in New York, fictional movies mentioning Bill Clinton, a Tale of Two Cities with London and Paris, etc.)

False - a lot of "history" from a literally read Bible is almost certainly false. If lengendary stories like Babel or the Exodus are taken as history, actual history from historians shows them to be false. Later stories also don't match history, such as the impossibility of the gold and armies of King Solomon, or the idea of Luke's "Census/Bethlehem" story - for which there is no external evidence.

My recommendation would be to direct him to look to his Bible as a source of inspiration, and not to look to history as proof that a Bible is divine. After all, the Qu'ran also mentions real people and real places. If we use the mentioning of real people and real places as "proof" that a Bible is divine, then we confirm the Qu'ran and other books (such as the Book of Mormon) as divine too.

In Christ-

Papias

I had hoped for people who actually accepted the authority of scripture to comment on this post. Your views on the Exodus , census, Solomon etc are contentious and assume that we must accept scholarly consensus's that have nothing to do with true Christianity

 

[mindlight]

Yes. I wouldn't call it a "documentary". It's a money-making project by a former rock musician, whose ideas are unsupported by evidence and have been rejected by the actual historians and archeologists. There has been plenty of work by actual archeologists in that area. Thanks for mentioning it though.

(from earlier) The Archeologists, Historians and Biblical archeologists agree - the whole exodus story never happened. How did the Jews get to Israel? They always were there. The evidence (including DNA evidence) shows that they are simply a Canaanite population that has a culturally different identity based on it's own internal stories. They were a Canaanite group that became distinct over time, never leaving its homeland.

There were plenty of expectations a century ago that archeology would confirm the stories in the first books of the Bibles, but as the evidence piled up, it soon became clear that it didn't happen as described in the Bibles. Some basic and well supported facts we now know:

• The Jews were never enslaved in Egypt - instead, they developed from earlier Canaanites, and never had to "conquer" the land they always had.
• There is no evidence that Moses ever existed outside of legend, like Hercules.
• No Egyptian records support the enslavement of the Hebrews, or any other Biblical story - and the Egyptians have good records.
• No Egyptian records support the drowning of their army in the red sea, or any other Biblical story - and the Egyptians have good records.
• Jericho has been studied extensively with massive digs and archeological testing - the Biblical story does not appear to have happened. In fact, the famed walls of Jericho were destroyed by the Egyptian army centuries before the Hebrew mythology was supposed to have happened.

and so on.

This is the consensus view of Biblical archeological historians. Some examples:

• Here is a book by a well known biblical archeological historian, who points out that the stories never actually happened. Read page 6 here: Exodus
• Even the Conservative Jews have accepted reality here - just the first few paragraphs of this article should make that clear: New Torah For Modern Minds
• Here is a good video describing this, by the top Archeologist at Israel's Tel Aviv University. You might notice that he's introduced by Rabbi Wine, who was one of the most respected Rabbis before his recent death.

The other videos by Dr. Finkelstein in that same series are also useful.​

I think in today's era of fake news and rampant hoaxes, it's more important than ever to look at what the actual experts say, instead just looking for someone - anyone - saying things that we want to be true. That's the very definition of wishful thinking, after all.

In Christ-

Papias

Sorry but this is laughable and you cannot prove anything with DNA at this distance and given the biblical commentary on this.

Lot and his descendants never left Israel so Abrahamic DNA would have remained in the region. Midianites etc were all genetically related to Hebrews.

The domination of the region by Egypt meant that Egyptians and their slaves were too and fro in the region throughout the time period, some of these Hebrew slaves would have died in the promised land and been buried there.

Dating is not always reliable.

The bible talks about Israelite intermarrying (always a problem) so the DNA was all mixed up.

Solomons first wife was Egyptian.

Numbers 12:1:

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

The Egyptians were notorious for writing out the unfavourable aspects of their history on a Pharoah by Pharoah basis.

Simple conclusion the evidence proves nothing beyond a reasonable doubt except a generally confused and mixed up situation.

 

[mindlight]

Often we start to lose faith in the Bible when we stop reading it.

This isn't to say there is no historical evidence, there's plenty, but often that isn't the root problem.

Getting into the evidence, I first recommend reading the Gospel of John, again if you have to.

1 Corinthians 15 is also great, with the majority view agreeing the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 dates back to within 5 years of Jesus' death. This means the Apostles who knew Jesus closely truly believed that He had risen from the dead, and not only that but 500 other people had witnessed Him, and Paul says many are still alive at the time, almost as though he is challenging the Corinthians to go out and ask them! One can then argue, "Okay, but maybe the Apostles were lying." And yet we then see that the Apostles live dangerously for the Gospel, without care for themselves, without financial or material gain, and most of them ending up dying for their witness!

Thanks for that. the guy I posted this for has not turned up so maybe he was not serious about wanting to know the truth despite his question.

My basic position here on liberal theological, archaeological consensus's that ever suggest the bible cannot be trusted is that they exaggerate what can be said from flimsy assumptions and misunderstood evidence. You can cast doubt on any liberal position by simply using their own sceptical methods against them and their own assumptions. At the end of the day the definite things that can be said from history support the bibles authority.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As above for Israel in Egypt. Uniquely when referring to Biblical history the term "we have no evidence for" is often used as equivalence for "it never happened" and reveals a unique standard of thinking in the minds of certain x-spirts on the subject.

No, you've missed something here.

Indeed, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.
Except when the claim in question is predicting certain evidence. Then, the absence of said predicted evidence, IS evidence of absence.

A clear-cut example is the biblical flood.
It predicts the presence of (among a great deal of other things) a genetic bottleneck in all extant life. It MUST be there. But it isn't.

That IS evidence of absence. It MUST be there, but it is not. Therefor, it is false.
There is no "but maybe we'll find it tomorrow" here. It won't magically pop-up tomorrow. It's not there today and it won't be there tomorrow, just like it wasn't there yesterday either.

It is clear that throughout the ancient world the absence of corroborating evidence for a significant event, people group or place is at least as easily due to the wishes of a competing people group or ruler to completely remove all traces of the memory of that event, people group or place from the face of the earth, as we currently see ISIS currently working on in the Middle East.

This is not always possible and in many (if not most or all) cases simply is NOT possible.

+600.000 slaves simply walking out of Egypt is one of those things.
First, it's not realistic that an event of this scale would go unnoticed by all neighbouring (and rivaling) nations. Secondly, it's equally unrealistic that all of Egypt could keep this quite. Thirdly, such an event would also have serious impact on the Egyptian empire as a whole in such a way that that impact could not have been "kept hidden".

That's like saying that America could have "kept it quite" that the WTC towers collapsed in the middle of New York.

Such things are just not realistic.
Also, next to a ginormous amount of slaves simply walking out of Egypt (which, btw, would have been an extremely large portion of the entire Egyptian population), a BIG chuck of its army supposedly was also drowned. So not only did all the slaves "disappear" overnight... the same goes for the army.

These are not the kind of things you can keep quite or which can go by unnoticed in the pages of history.

 

[anonymous person]

It depends what he means by know. There is a sense in which no one knows, if by know he means "can repeatedly demonstrate." To avoid ambiguity, a lot of people instead say, "have sufficient evidence to believe."

Evidence is available in many forms such as archeological evidence and the results of textual criticism of ancient fragments of the Bible (and others).

A problem a lot of people have is to not be willing to accept what someone else says, and I'm not just talking about the testimony of a Christian about experiencing God. A person that doesn't want to accept the general consensus from archeologists or textual criticists may not be able to get enough evidence to satisfy them. This is a level of faith that is often not discussed, but if you can't have faith in the work of tens of thousands of people (which is available for you to examine, but would take more time than you have in your whole life), how are you ever going to have faith in things that you can't examine with your own eyes?

People, Christians in particular, like to compare the level of evidence someone is demanding to believe in God or the Bible with how little evidence they have needed to believe other things. It is to point out the illogical bias that people have.

Sometimes the unbelieving one is trying to argue logically (and has a "superior" attitude about their logic), even though it is still a mish-mash of neurons like feelings or intuition are. The difference is that sound logic produces a sense of satisfaction in us that feelings do not. But what it takes to cause that satisfaction is affected by how they were raised and their culture just like everything else about them.

Decartes' famous assertion (I think therefore I am.) has a depth of meaning that isn't obvious. It was the consequence of acknowledging that we can't prove anything definitively and that we must build upon assumptions (faith). If you dissect human assumptions/logic/presumption, they boil down to: we must accept (without being able to prove) that we exist, because all our other reasoning and logic builds on that. We accept it as true because everything else that makes sense to us requires it to be true.

I wrote all that to say: There is a sense in which you can't "know" anything (e.g., The Matrix argument). What we must do is identify what you consider as sufficient evidence to believe. If you do that, then it will be easier to focus on the evidence you are having trouble believing, and to have realistic expectations for when you will "know" God is real, and the Bible is inspired by him down to the least stroke of the pen (used to write down single alphabetic character) and the choice of a verb tense—both examples Jesus used of how accurate Scripture is.

There are many sources of evidence; perhaps someone will list some. I will speak of the most reliable one, which is to get to know enough people who testify to interactions they've had with God to know that they don't make up stories to deceive people and aren't mentally damaged. Note the difference between what people say they believe about God vs. what they say they have experienced. The Bible is not full of what people believed about God, it is full of people's experiences and recounting of experiences. In practice the easiest way to get to know these people is to consider yourself a Seeker and start attending a church where miracles occur regularly (or from their perspective, are claimed to be happening regularly). Note that what you find to be true about the people in one church has nothing to do with what you would find about other people in another church. Christian individuals come in as many varieties as can be found in any other large group of people.

The Bible "works"—all the supernatural claims it makes still happen today. But only those who have fully committed to, and given themselves over to, Jesus Christ are going to experience them (or believe in them).

People who have been completely devoted to Jesus and been obedient for several decades are the ones that have been transformed the most into Jesus' likeness, and in fact, you don't need even need to get to know them all that well to start to find it uncomfortable to be around them. Fear, pain, and rejection are typical internal responses of those with less faith in God to those with more faith in God (even between two believers). Genuine faith is built up over the decades through experiencing God keeping his Biblical promises thousands of times. I would be impressed with any unbeliever who was able to continue to draw closer to such a person. I've never heard of anyone able to stick with it (without coming to believe in Jesus, too). The unbeliever would start to find the person unreasonable, but without having enough evidence to explain it. That's what happens when unbelief encounters significant evidence (Luke 16:31). (An article I didn't read all of seems to describe this in a lot of detail.)

Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. (1 John 3:24, 1984 NIV)

Bravo Greg! Well written.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I had hoped for people who actually accepted the authority of scripture to comment on this post.

No one else has anything of value to say?

This is called confirmation bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one else has anything of value to say?

This is called confirmation bias.

Not to mention that if one only wants responses from Christians, it would have been better suited in one of the many subforums where non-christians aren't allowed to post.

 

[anonymous person]

No, you've missed something here.

Indeed, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.
Except when the claim in question is predicting certain evidence. Then, the absence of said predicted evidence, IS evidence of absence.

A clear-cut example is the biblical flood.
It predicts the presence of (among a great deal of other things) a genetic bottleneck in all extant life. It MUST be there. But it isn't.

That IS evidence of absence. It MUST be there, but it is not. Therefor, it is false.
There is no "but maybe we'll find it tomorrow" here. It won't magically pop-up tomorrow. It's not there today and it won't be there tomorrow, just like it wasn't there yesterday either.

Couldn't God have seen to it that Noah and his family and the animals in the ark would be able to repopulate the earth with all of the genetic diversity we observe? For example, the progressive creationist will postulate acts of divine intervention and or special acts of creation which would make it possible for Noah and his family and the animals to reproduce until eventually we have the genetic diversity we see, all the while maintaining that the biblical flood was indeed global.

This is not always possible and in many (if not most or all) cases simply is NOT possible.

+600.000 slaves simply walking out of Egypt is one of those things.
First, it's not realistic that an event of this scale would go unnoticed by all neighbouring (and rivaling) nations.

In Joshua 2:10 we have record that in fact there were neighboring people groups who had heard of and knew about the Exodus. The inhabitants of Jericho knew about it. They're the first to come to mind.

Secondly, it's equally unrealistic that all of Egypt could keep this quite.

Who says they kept quiet?
Why think there aren't any Egyptian records yet to be found or records that once were, but have long since been destroyed by various means?

Thirdly, such an event would also have serious impact on the Egyptian empire as a whole in such a way that that impact could not have been "kept hidden".

No doubt it would have had a serious impact. Enough of an impact for news of the event to have reached at least Jericho. It takes no stretch of the imagination to conceive of the Egyptians doing all that they could to minimize the utter humiliation and defeat they had experienced at the hand of Moses.

That's like saying that America could have "kept it quite" that the WTC towers collapsed in the middle of New York.

No it is not. People groups during the period in question were often separated by vast distances and traveling was perilous due to a whole host of reasons. News of the Exodus would not have been shared on social media or broadcast on TV. You had no printing presses, no cell-phones, no videos and cameras. Most traveling was done on foot. It would have been far more feasible for Egypt to "keep quiet", than it would for America to keep quiet about the WTC because Egypt lacked the very thing which makes events like the WTC nearly impossible to keep quiet, i.e infrastructure for disseminating information.

Such things are just not realistic.
Also, next to a ginormous amount of slaves simply walking out of Egypt (which, btw, would have been an extremely large portion of the entire Egyptian population), a BIG chuck of its army supposedly was also drowned. So not only did all the slaves "disappear" overnight... the same goes for the army.

These are not the kind of things you can keep quite or which can go by unnoticed in the pages of history.

Who says they were kept quiet or went by unnoticed in the pages of history?

That this is as big a topic of discussion as it is thousands of years later should serve to show that it at least has not gone by unnoticed!

 

[Anguspure]

How, exactly?

"Does God exist? We've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

These are only a part of the evidence for God's existence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's leading philosophers, has laid out two dozen or so arguments for God's existence. Together these constitute a powerful cumulative case for the existence of God.

Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith

Same question... without using the bible, how do you demonstrate that this dude really existed?

Jesus of Nazareth and His crucifixion are mentioned as real historical events outside the Bible by Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus.
Given that these sources confirm the historical reliability of the documents written by the Apostles in this regard that gives us 6 or 7 independent written accounts of the existence of the man written within 1 generation of Him walking the earth.

The Evidence for Jesus | Reasonable Faith

What empty tomb? It seems to me that this tomb in Jeruzalem hasn't been opened at all... coverstone upon coverstone has it sealed of.

Oh come on! You're not seriously suggesting.....????
The tomb I'm referring to is the one attested to by the apostles. It's been a long time....

Also, I don't see how an empty tomb would be proper justification for "and therefor, this dude came back from the dead". Perhaps there never was a body in it. Perhaps it was taken out. Either of those 2 seems incredibly more likely then the dude having himself resurected through supernatural shenannigans.

No, from our perspective it is not a case of empty tomb...therefore.
It is a question of plausibility. We weigh all of the possibilities such as the Swoon theory or the Body snatching theory or the Mistaken Identity theory and the Ressurection theory and find that on the balance the most plausible explanation is the Ressurection story as presented by Mary and the Apostles.
The justification is with the people who tell us that this happened, we are merely weighing things to decide whether the story is plausible. In the end however the Ressurection is something that is taken on trust.

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

 

[Steve Petersen]

"Does God exist? We've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

These are only a part of the evidence for God's existence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's leading philosophers, has laid out two dozen or so arguments for God's existence. Together these constitute a powerful cumulative case for the existence of God.

Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith


Jesus of Nazareth and His crucifixion are mentioned as real historical events outside the Bible by Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus.
Given that these sources confirm the historical reliability of the documents written by the Apostles in this regard that gives us 6 or 7 independent written accounts of the existence of the man written within 1 generation of Him walking the earth.

The Evidence for Jesus | Reasonable Faith


Oh come on! You're not seriously suggesting.....????
The tomb I'm referring to is the one attested to by the apostles. It's been a long time....

No, from our perspective it is not a case of empty tomb...therefore.
It is a question of plausibility. We weigh all of the possibilities such as the Swoon theory or the Body snatching theory or the Mistaken Identity theory and the Ressurection theory and find that on the balance the most plausible explanation is the Ressurection story as presented by Mary and the Apostles.
The justification is with the people who tell us that this happened, we are merely weighing things to decide whether the story is plausible. In the end however the Ressurection is something that is taken on trust.

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

You can make all the philosophical or theological arguments you want, but this does not constitute empirical evidence.

None of it is falsifiable.

 

[anonymous person]

You can make all the philosophical or theological arguments you want, but this does not constitute empirical evidence.

None of it is falsifiable.

The Resurrection, the central tenet of The Faith, is falsifiable.

Where is Jesus' body?

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Resurrection, the central tenet of The Faith, is falsifiable.

Where is Jesus' body?

We don't even know which tomb he was put in. We have only tradition for the two sites supposed to be his tomb. His tomb could have been one or the other OR neither.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Does God exist? We've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

I started replying to each individually, but then I found that I had to respond to each one with the same question: "how?".

This is just a list of claims. You are trying to support a claim with even more claims, which even assume the claim that you started out with.

While I congratulate you with combo points for creating an argument that employs both the fallacy of circular reasoning and the assumed conclusion, fallacies are not a good way to build an argument.

These are only a part of the evidence for God's existence.

I should certainly hope so.... So what else do you have??

Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's leading philosophers, has laid out two dozen or so arguments for God's existence. Together these constitute a powerful cumulative case for the existence of God.

Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith

Let me stop you right there.

This is what I like to call the fallacy of "defining things into existence".
You are not going to convince me about anything with evidence that consists entirely out of mere "words".

That's just semantics and linguistic hocus-pocus.

Jesus of Nazareth and His crucifixion are mentioned as real historical events outside the Bible by Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus.

Actually, none of these are contemporary. Some passages' authenticity is also questioned by quite a few historians.

But even if there's no authenticity problem, all 3 would have been aware of the newly born sect called christians and they would have been aware of their beliefs and stuff. So essentially, they'ld just be repeating what christians preached. It would be no different from writing an article today and mentioned "hindu's who follow visjnoe".

So, while I don't have any specific problems with a historical (human) jesus who started some political / religious movement, if I were to take the stance of the "mythical jesus", i'ld call this evidence shaky at best.

Given that these sources confirm the historical reliability of the documents written by the Apostles

Actually.... the actual passages only confirm that these 3 authors were aware of the existance of christians and what these people believed.

It's not like they are actually referencing actual official records of the Romans from the time which would indicate a different source.

There is nothing about the relevant passages that even hints at anything other then them being aware of the existance of christians and their beliefs.

in this regard that gives us 6 or 7 independent written accounts

That's what I'm telling you. These are not independent written accounts.

Oh come on! You're not seriously suggesting.....????
The tomb I'm referring to is the one attested to by the apostles. It's been a long time....

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Sorry... I just read an article about the works being done there as we speak, by archeologists. They are opening it up for restauration and some general research or something.

Ow man, that's funny.

In any case... Yeah, i'm not really impressed by the scripture itself saying it happened. After all, that IS the claim...

No, from our perspective it is not a case of empty tomb...therefore.
It is a question of plausibility. We weigh all of the possibilities such as the Swoon theory or the Body snatching theory or the Mistaken Identity theory and the Ressurection theory and find that on the balance the most plausible explanation is the Ressurection story as presented by Mary and the Apostles.

I don't see how the most plausible explanation is the one that includes supernatural shenannigans.

I mean, for real... even a version that says that high-tech aliens visited from light years away and resurected Jesus is a more plausible explanation (if we assume for a second that the resurection actually happened) then what is written in the bible. For the sheer fact that it doesn't require the laws of nature to be suspendend or defied (which the supernatural does).

"magic" is never the "most plausible" explanation.


What seems actually most plausible... is that this is just a religion like any other, invented out of the imagination of people and taken for real for whatever reason.

I mean... Romans really, really believed that Rome was founded by Remus and Romulus, who were raised by a wolf.

Surely we have enough examples of people inventing some serious crazy stuff and actually believing it and build complete cultures and empires around it.

It's not like we are without precedent there........

 

[Anguspure]

You can make all the philosophical or theological arguments you want, but this does not constitute empirical evidence.

Nobody said anything about evidence having to be directly empirical?
There are other ways of knowing things other than direct sensory experience.
Nevertheless each of these arguments have some empirical grounding or content in them in them.
For example the contention that everything that begins to exist has a cause is based upon and strengthened by observations.

None of it is falsifiable.

No. It is all falsifiable, it is just not false and so very difficult to falsify.
Anyway truth doesn't need to be falsifiable in order to be true. All 'not being falsifiable' says is that a contention is not admissable as a scientific theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody said anything about evidence having to be directly empirical?

I'ld think it's implied.... I mean... evidence that can't be verified isn't evidence at all... Then they are just more claims piling on.

There are other ways of knowing things other than direct sensory experience.

Such as?

For example the contention that everything that begins to exist has a cause is based upon and strengthened by observations.

First, I don't really agree with the wording here. Technically, we never see anything "beginning to exist". Rather, we see "already existing things being reconfigured".

Secondly, the kalaam cosmological argument has been teared apart multiple times over and has been shown to be nothing but another cesspool of unsupported premises and fallacious thinking..

No. It is all falsifiable

Ok. Give a single example of how it could be falsified. Just give the BEST example right away.

Anyway truth doesn't need to be falsifiable in order to be true.

Indeed. But it needs to be falsifiable in order to be able to rationally accept it as true after it's been tested.

Because how else do you tell the difference between what is false and what is true, if not by falsifiability??

I can invent on the spot a couple hundred of unfalsifiable claims. And if just one of them was true, how would you tell it apart from all the others??

All 'not being falsifiable' says is that a contention is not admissable as a scientific theory.

No. It means that it can't be distinguished from pure fantasy.

Obviously, falsifiability is a requirement for scientific ideas... But not because it is a "science" thing. Rather because it is a "rational" thing, when you are trying to tell what is true from what is false.

 

[Anguspure]

I started replying to each individually, but then I found that I had to respond to each one with the same question: "how?".

This is just a list of claims. You are trying to support a claim with even more claims, which even assume the claim that you started out with.
While I congratulate you with combo points for creating an argument that employs both the fallacy of circular reasoning and the assumed conclusion, fallacies are not a good way to build an argument.

You really need to read the articles behind the links.
The list is a summary of the main points raised in the article behind the first link I posted, that in itself is only a quick summary of the much larger and more complete arguments made by Bill Lane-Craig and others.

I should certainly hope so.... So what else do you have??

Follow the links.

This is what I like to call the fallacy of "defining things into existence".
You are not going to convince me about anything with evidence that consists entirely out of mere "words".

That's just semantics and linguistic hocus-pocus.

If words cannot be used to describe something then what do you propose?

Actually, none of these are contemporary. Some passages' authenticity is also questioned by quite a few historians.

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120) Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

But even if there's no authenticity problem, all 3 would have been aware of the newly born sect called christians and they would have been aware of their beliefs and stuff. So essentially, they'ld just be repeating what christians preached.

Tacitus does both above and note he is no fan of the pernicious superstition. In case you miss it he writes: Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius:
as an explanation of the history of the sect and goes on to complain that His execution didn't acheive much.

It would be no different from writing an article today and mentioned "hindu's who follow visjnoe".

Both what is beleived and what is known fact would also be reported in this article and anybody who wished to use the article to establish some recognised fact about the sect could do so.

So, while I don't have any specific problems with a historical (human) jesus who started some political / religious movement, if I were to take the stance of the "mythical jesus", i'ld call this evidence shaky at best.

Cool. So now we are on a footing equivalent to the historical basis. Its not necessary to beleive all of the stories about Jesus of Nazareth in order to establish that the man existed and was crucified.

It's not like they are actually referencing actual official records of the Romans from the time which would indicate a different source.

Tacitus was an actual official record. Josephus is recognised as a credible historian. Pliny was a Christian so would obviously have lied through his teeth with all sorts of pernicious superstitions and mumbo jumbo and couldn't even lie straight in his bed at night and wouldn't recognise a true story if it tapped dance across his nose, but I include him for interests sake.

That's what I'm telling you. These are not independent written accounts.

Tacitus and Josepus are certainly independant of Mathew, Peter, Paul, John and Pliny and, in the case of Tacitus and Josephus at least, would be mortified (I suppose they've actually been mortified for a couple of thousand years now) to think that somebody would suggest anything different.

In any case... Yeah, i'm not really impressed by the scripture itself saying it happened. After all, that IS the claim...

I'm happy that you call it scripture, Christians call it such. But the truth is the accounts were not written as such.
For example the letter to the Corinthians is a pastoral letter written to the Church in Corinth, telling them to behave themselves.
The book of Luke goes along with the book of Acts and is written as a historical explanation of the situation that Paul found himself in under arrest in Rome.

I don't see how the most plausible explanation is the one that includes supernatural shenannigans.

If God exists then it is not implausible, given the person of Jesus, and given that all other proposed explanations fail on the story as it is given then I consider that it is more plausible.

I mean, for real... even a version that says that high-tech aliens visited from light years away and resurected Jesus is a more plausible explanation (if we assume for a second that the resurection actually happened) then what is written in the bible.

What do you think God is? I would say that the ability to createbiological forms by speaking is the ultimate high tech, indistinguishable from magic by our relative stone age knowledge and techniques. Is it even plausible that other "high tech aliens" exist?

For the sheer fact that it doesn't require the laws of nature to be suspendend or defied (which the supernatural does).

You suspend the laws of nature every time you catch a ball (which may well be miraculous to some). So why can't a God who got the ball rolling in the first place.

"magic" is never the "most plausible" explanation.

Clarkes 3rd law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

What seems actually most plausible... is that this is just a religion like any other, invented out of the imagination of people and taken for real for whatever reason.

I mean... Romans really, really believed that Rome was founded by Remus and Romulus, who were raised by a wolf.

A proper understanding of the way in which ancient people used so called mythology and the way in which subsequent people understood it reveals that it is unlikely that ancient people really beleived this stuff in the way we accuse them of doing.

I can't really reference it online but there is a very good book written in New Zealand that compares known historical events with the way in which early Maori later relayed the stories of these events to subsequent explorers.

I've also spoken recently to a Hindu man about the million odd detities of Hinduism and observe much the same.

So I'm sceptical of your claim that anybody really, really believed these things.

Surely we have enough examples of people inventing some serious crazy stuff and actually believing it and build complete cultures and empires around it.

It's not like we are without precedent there........

Thats right, so we can compare the crazy stuff and the people that invented it all with the guys that claimed that Christ rose from the dead to see if they are the same.
In the case of the Christian message we even have our own apochraphyl "gospels" to compare as well.
What we find is that the Gospel accounts and what we know of the people who held the story do not fit in the same box.

 

[anonymous person]

You really need to read the articles behind the links.
The list is a summary of the main points raised in the article behind the first link I posted, that in itself is only a quick summary of the much larger and more complete arguments made by Bill Lane-Craig and others.


Follow the links.


If words cannot be used to describe something then what do you propose?


Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120) Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.



Tacitus does both above and note he is no fan of the pernicious superstition. In case you miss it he writes: Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius:
as an explanation of the history of the sect and goes on to complain that His execution didn't acheive much.


Both what is beleived and what is known fact would also be reported in this article and anybody who wished to use the article to establish some recognised fact about the sect could do so.

Cool. So now we are on a footing equivalent to the historical basis. Its not necessary to beleive all of the stories about Jesus of Nazareth in order to establish that the man existed and was crucified.


Tacitus was an actual official record. Josephus is recognised as a credible historian. Pliny was a Christian so would obviously have lied through his teeth with all sorts of pernicious superstitions and mumbo jumbo and couldn't even lie straight in his bed at night and wouldn't recognise a true story if it tapped dance across his nose, but I include him for interests sake.


Tacitus and Josepus are certainly independant of Mathew, Peter, Paul, John and Pliny and, in the case of Tacitus and Josephus at least, would be mortified (I suppose they've actually been mortified for a couple of thousand years now) to think that somebody would suggest anything different.


I'm happy that you call it scripture, Christians call it such. But the truth is the accounts were not written as such.
For example the letter to the Corinthians is a pastoral letter written to the Church in Corinth, telling them to behave themselves.
The book of Luke goes along with the book of Acts and is written as a historical explanation of the situation that Paul found himself in under arrest in Rome.


If God exists then it is not implausible, given the person of Jesus, and given that all other proposed explanations fail on the story as it is given then I consider that it is more plausible.


What do you think God is? I would say that the ability to createbiological forms by speaking is the ultimate high tech, indistinguishable from magic by our relative stone age knowledge and techniques. Is it even plausible that other "high tech aliens" exist?


You suspend the laws of nature every time you catch a ball (which may well be miraculous to some). So why can't a God who got the ball rolling in the first place.


Clarkes 3rd law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


A proper understanding of the way in which ancient people used so called mythology and the way in which subsequent people understood it reveals that it is unlikely that ancient people really beleived this stuff in the way we accuse them of doing.

I can't really reference it online but there is a very good book written in New Zealand that compares known historical events with the way in which early Maori later relayed the stories of these events to subsequent explorers.

I've also spoken recently to a Hindu man about the million odd detities of Hinduism and observe much the same.

So I'm sceptical of your claim that anybody really, really believed these things.


Thats right, so we can compare the crazy stuff and the people that invented it all with the guys that claimed that Christ rose from the dead to see if they are the same.
In the case of the Christian message we even have our own apochraphyl "gospels" to compare as well.
What we find is that the Gospel accounts and what we know of the people who held the story do not fit in the same box.

Awesome Anguspure!

Very good!

 

[Anguspure]

I'ld think it's implied.... I mean... evidence that can't be verified isn't evidence at all... Then they are just more claims piling on.

Such as?

(Other ways of knowing apart from direct sensory experience?)
There are 7 other ways....hahaha. Yes 7 little ways of knowing...
1.Language;
2.Emotion;
3.Reason;
4.Imagination;
5.Faith;
6.Intuition;
7.Memory.

A little light releif.....

Ways of knowing

First, I don't really agree with the wording here. Technically, we never see anything "beginning to exist". Rather, we see "already existing things being reconfigured".

I'm not sure what your point is here.
A cake may be the reconfigured constiuents of....whatever a cake is made of....but the cake itself begins to exist at some point, and before that point it was not a cake.
This is true for all things down to what must be the uncaused-cause, that is God.

Secondly, the kalaam cosmological argument has been teared apart multiple times over and has been shown to be nothing but another cesspool of unsupported premises and fallacious thinking..

I don't beleive so but I guess if it is a falsifiable hypothesis it is possible that some may.

Ok. Give a single example of how it could be falsified. Just give the BEST example right away.

Right away? Right now? As in 6 hours ago? OK ummmmmm, how about...If it could be demonstrated that the universe does not have a beginning then the Kalam cosmological argument would fail?

Indeed. But it needs to be falsifiable in order to be able to rationally accept it as true after it's been tested.

Only if it is to be accepted as a scientific theory. Truth is knowable in more ways than sensory knowledge and so testability for the truth of what are probably one off events is probably not all that important.

Because how else do you tell the difference between what is false and what is true, if not by falsifiability??

It is interesting, but what makes you think that anything you sense is true?
What you sense may have some utilility for this world, but true? On what basis can you asses that?
The truth is that the first principle of knowledge in all of us is trust, simple trust in our faculties to convey truth about the world.
So the first principle of truth is trust, not empiricism.

I can invent on the spot a couple hundred of unfalsifiable claims. And if just one of them was true, how would you tell it apart from all the others??

On the grounds of some other source of knowledge.

Obviously, falsifiability is a requirement for scientific ideas... But not because it is a "science" thing. Rather because it is a "rational" thing, when you are trying to tell what is true from what is false.

FYI Refer: Theory of Knowledge IB Guide | Part 4 | IB Blog

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(Other ways of knowing apart from direct sensory experience?)
There are 7 other ways....hahaha. Yes 7 little ways of knowing...

Let's review...

1.Language;

Language is but a means of communicating ideas from one human to another. How is that a method/way of knowing?

2.Emotion;

Same question... how is that a method / way of "knowing"?

3.Reason;

Reason is good. But only insofar as it corresponds to reality. Valid and sound reasoning, is dependend on supported premises. So valid reasoning requires evidence.
This is essentially science.

4.Imagination;

LOL!! No comment on this one. Should be obvious how "imagination" is not a valid method to find differentiate truth from falsehoods.

5.Faith;

No, "just believing" things, does not constitute knowledge either.

6.Intuition;

"intuition" lead us to believe that time was a constant, everywhere, at all times. Einstein then used empirical science to show how that is incorrect.

And I can go on and on with more such examples. But one is enough to illustrate the point.

7.Memory.

You can only remember that which you already know. So knowledge does not come from memory.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Matter can't be created nore destroyed. Nothing in this universe ever "begins to exist". It's just the same ingredients being reconfigured into new configurations.

The atoms that make up your body have always exist. When you die, none of these atoms will disappear. All that matter will be recycled and be incorporated in other things.

A cake may be the reconfigured constiuents of....whatever a cake is made of....but the cake itself begins to exist at some point, and before that point it was not a cake.

Sure. I did say "technically...".

This is true for all things down to what must be the uncaused-cause, that is God.

Or so you say. You don't know this, off course. You merely believe it.
Also: special pleading, obviously. "all things are such and such, except this special case here, to make my argument work".

I don't beleive so but I guess if it is a falsifiable hypothesis it is possible that some may.

No, that's one of the other problems it has. It isn't falsifiable. You can replace the word "god" with pretty much any other undetectable thing your imagination can produce and the argument wouldn't change at all.

Right away? Right now? As in 6 hours ago? OK ummmmmm, how about...If it could be demonstrated that the universe does not have a beginning then the Kalam cosmological argument would fail?

That assumes that god creating the universe is the ONLY possibility. Which is exactly the thing that is in need of support.

Try again.

Not to mention that even if it was the case that the universe had no demonstrable physical beginning, it wouldn't change anything. People would still say that god created it. Just like they did before Hubble discovered the expansion of space and LeMaitre came up with Big Bang theory.

Only if it is to be accepted as a scientific theory.

No. As I said, unfalsifiable propositions can not be rationally accepted as being accurate, for the simple reason that you would have no way of differentiating it from pure fantasy.

As I also said, obviously science has a similar requirement. Science can't make progress if it can't differentiate truth from fiction.
Science doesn't put a requirement on falsifiability because it is an exclusive science thing, but rather because science is a rational undertaking. And when evaluating the accuracy of a certain proposition, when must have the means to do so. Falsifiability is the key to that.

Truth is knowable in more ways than sensory knowledge

Or so you keep saying, but not once did you actually demonstrate this. Your list at the beginning of your post is just a list of words with no explanation or demonstration whatsoever.

and so testability for the truth of what are probably one off events is probably not all that important.

It is important, if you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs.

If you just hold on to your beliefs because "you like them" or something similar, then yes... rational justification for your beliefs doesn't matter. But then don't be surprised that your beliefs are irrelevant to the rest of us.

It is interesting, but what makes you think that anything you sense is true?

Testing it.

What you sense may have some utilility for this world, but true? On what basis can you asses that?

Independently verifiable evidence.

The truth is that the first principle of knowledge in all of us is trust, simple trust in our faculties to convey truth about the world.

But this trust isn't blind. This trust is based on a track record of continued reliability and producing succesfull results - which is empirical, by the way.

It's how I know that jumping from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute, is a rather bad idea wich will result in certain death. I could really really really believe that I will hit the ground unharmed. But I'ld just be wrong.

So the first principle of truth is trust, not empiricism.

No. Empirical evidence trumps trust. Always, everywhere.
And trust is based on empirical evidence as well.

I trust my eyes, but I also realise that my brain can mess up the signals that my eyes send to it.

For example, this is actually a still image:

My brain tells me it is moving. But it isn't. It's a screenshot taken right out of google images. It's not an animated gif. It's a still image.
Like Neil deGrass Tyson once said... they shouldn't call these things 'Optical Illusions'... instead, they should call it "Brain Failures" - it's a more accurate description of the actual phenomena.

We KNOW that our brains can mess up the signals it receives from senses. We KNOW that we are prone to making such mistakes. It's precisely also the reason why we create tools that do the observing / measuring for us, specifically to remove / circumvent such human biases / brain-failures

On the grounds of some other source of knowledge.

Since all those ideas are unfalsifiable, you would have no way of relating to other sources of knowledge. Exactly the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You really need to read the articles behind the links. The list is a summary of the main points raised in the article behind the first link I posted, that in itself is only a quick summary of the much larger and more complete arguments made by Bill Lane-Craig and others.

I don't think that there is anything from Craig that I haven't heared before.
Moreover, I'm having a conversation with you, not with him.

Follow the links.

No. Make your argument here, using your own words.
Pick the BEST argument so that we can get it over with.

I'm very familiar with Craig's nonsense, you know...

If words cannot be used to describe something then what do you propose?

I said "mere words".
The point is that the words should be backup up by actual things in reality instead of just being "mere words".

There's that falsifiability thingy again.... If I have no way of relating the mere words to actual real, observable and/or testable phenomena in the real world, then your words are meaningless / useless... mere words.

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120) Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.



Tacitus does both above and note he is no fan of the pernicious superstition. In case you miss it he writes: Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius:
as an explanation of the history of the sect and goes on to complain that His execution didn't acheive much.

I'm well aware of his writings. I did read it, after all.
As I said: there is nothing in there that makes me think that these are independent writings. Clearly, he is aware of christians. Clearly, he is aware of what christians believe. He is not referencing a Roman legal document in which the details of the execution of christ are noted. He is not citing any source at all. There is nothing in that short passage that shows that he knows about Christ from a source that is not christians themselves.

But like I said, I don't have any particular problems with a historical human jesus. In fact, I consider it quite likely that a dude with that name, or a similar name, kickstarted this movement. I'm just saying, if I would take the stance of the mythical jesus, then I wouldn't consider such passages particularly convincing, as there is no reason at all to consider them "independent" accounts. It is very reasonable to state that he knew about this new sect as well as what the beliefs of this sect were.

If I repeat your beliefs in an article, then I'm just repeating your beliefs - not confirming them as accurate.

Both what is beleived and what is known fact would also be reported in this article and anybody who wished to use the article to establish some recognised fact about the sect could do so.

Sure. But it wouldn't establish that Visjno is a real entity that actually exists. The only thing it would establish is the existance of the Hindu religion and followers thereof.

Cool. So now we are on a footing equivalent to the historical basis. Its not necessary to beleive all of the stories about Jesus of Nazareth in order to establish that the man existed and was crucified.

Crucifixion was not exactly uncommon in ancient Rome, after all.

Tacitus and Josepus are certainly independant of Mathew, Peter, Paul, John and Pliny and, in the case of Tacitus and Josephus at least, would be mortified (I suppose they've actually been mortified for a couple of thousand years now) to think that somebody would suggest anything different.

Not really. As I said, all 3 would have been well aware of the existence of christians as well as what these people believed. All they did, was write it down.

To be a truelly independent account, it would have to come from an author who was NOT aware of christians and there beliefs. For example if there was some contemporary official who documented the case of the "trial" and subsequent execution of the man Jesus Christus, before the sect really took shape. Now THAT I would consider actual evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus.

But with the passages that we do have of these 3 authors, it could just as well be that they were merely repeating what they heared from christians themselves.

I consider it the most likely. Because at the time of the actual execution (assuming it actually took place), this wouldn't have been a big deal for Romans. It would be just another footnote of yet another crucifixion. Same old, same old. It would not have been mention worthy for them. It would not have been major news in all corners of the empire. For Romans, this would be just another execution of some irrelevant non-Roman.

So the idea that they "knew" about it from christians themselves seems a lot more likely then anything else. But it could be otherwise, sure... I just don't see anything in those texts to justify such an assumption.

I'm happy that you call it scripture, Christians call it such. But the truth is the accounts were not written as such.
For example the letter to the Corinthians is a pastoral letter written to the Church in Corinth, telling them to behave themselves.
The book of Luke goes along with the book of Acts and is written as a historical explanation of the situation that Paul found himself in under arrest in Rome.

That doesn't change the fact that it IS the claim. The claim isn't evidence of itself.
It is the claim that is in need of evidence.

If God exists then it is not implausible, given the person of Jesus, and given that all other proposed explanations fail on the story as it is given then I consider that it is more plausible.

That's a pretty huge "if". Not to mention that it is exactly the IF that is the subject here. Circularity is slipping in again....

And I simply disagree that "other proposed explanations" fail.
Again, i'll put up all the hundreds, thousands even, of crazy ideas that humans have invented out of thin air throughout history. Ideas that were really, really believed as absolute truth. So much so that entire cultures and empires were build upon it and wars were fought over it.

Again, it's not like we are without precedent here.

That christianity is just another one of such ideas is immensly more likely, then that it is actually true... even only for the simple fact that such an explanation does not require the suspension or violation of natural laws.

What do you think God is? I would say that the ability to createbiological forms by speaking is the ultimate high tech

Tech is the use of technological tools to accomplish things.
'speaking' things into existance is not that. In fact, it sounds suspiciously like "abracadabra - POEF".

Is it even plausible that other "high tech aliens" exist?

We exist and considering our technological advancement of the past century, it's clear that we are on a path to reach outside of our solar system. So we do have a precedent. We have no precedents of anything "supernatural".
So right out the gates, high-tech aliens are more plausible then supernatural shenannigans, yes.

You suspend the laws of nature every time you catch a ball (which may well be miraculous to some).

No. *I* am subject to the laws of nature. So is my pc, my gps, my cell phone,...
None of our technological or biological feats suspend/violate the laws of nature.

So why can't a God who got the ball rolling in the first place.

I don't think I said that it can't be the case. I said that there is no reason to think so. And that because we have exactly 0 precedents, "most plausible" explanations don't include such.

Clarkes 3rd law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Sure. But I don't think many christians will agree that their god uses technology.
When Jesus supposedly walked on water - he didn't make use of an anti-gravitational device, now did he?

A proper understanding of the way in which ancient people used so called mythology and the way in which subsequent people understood it reveals that it is unlikely that ancient people really beleived this stuff in the way we accuse them of doing.

I can't really reference it online but there is a very good book written in New Zealand that compares known historical events with the way in which early Maori later relayed the stories of these events to subsequent explorers.

I've also spoken recently to a Hindu man about the million odd detities of Hinduism and observe much the same.

So I'm sceptical of your claim that anybody really, really believed these things.

Really?
So christians do not (or did not) believe in "miracles"? Who are you trying to fool here?

Thats right, so we can compare the crazy stuff and the people that invented it all with the guys that claimed that Christ rose from the dead to see if they are the same.

And I say, yes...they are the same.
Same category of claims, same category of "evidence" to support it.

In the case of the Christian message we even have our own apochraphyl "gospels" to compare as well.
What we find is that the Gospel accounts and what we know of the people who held the story do not fit in the same box.

I disagree. But you are welcome to try and explain how they are supposedly different.