Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Janadele

Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother?

True believers know, they have the knowledge within, and do not need to prove anything.

Matthew Chapter 16 :
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The Lord has said “My sheep know my voice” ....
Mosiah 6:10–13.
John 10:1–15.
John 21:15–17.
Isaiah 40:10–11.
The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them.

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-a...sheep+know+%22

So, pretty much all of the disciples weren't true believers, then?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

So, pretty much all of the disciples weren't true believers, then?

There are often plot twists in works of fiction.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by dafydd

There are often plot twists in works of fiction.

And there's always a need for NPCs...

[dafydd]

And Deus Ex Machinae.

[justintime]

The problem with Christianity is there are too many believers today. The world population has grown to 7 billion and so have the Christian believers. By comparison there are only 55,000 subscribers of the Skeptic Magazine and some 1 million skeptics world wide.

The evangelical movement is a victim of its own success. There aren't enough souls to save unless Christians accept other primates as equals and expand their mission.

But can Christians ignore the skeptics? The atheist are lost forever but skeptics are just in denial, doubtful, questioning, uncertain and terribly insecure individuals. They are the right candidates for conversion.

We are basking in the mercy of grace because the world was spared for the sake of a few good believers. A few bad skeptics will not reverse that decision.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by Janadele

Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother? . . . (megasnip of biblical quotes, etc.) . . .

Actually, this thread is about the veracity of the Bible, irrespective of whether there is or isn't a God or gods. Perhaps you can answer the specific objections I have below, with respect to contradictions between the various gospels:

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

[justintime]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Actually, this thread is about the veracity of the Bible, irrespective of whether there is or isn't a God or gods. Perhaps you can answer the specific objections I have below, with respect to contradictions between the various gospels:

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

Christian don't have a problem with the resurrection of Christ. If you have searched so hard for the answer and still have found none. Then there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Maybe you serve best as a skeptic. You would be trampled for your slowness in a wave of Christian believers rushing to greet the savior. Your doubts are what is preserving you from a premature heavenly bliss and so are your good instincts.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by justintime

Christian don't have a problem with the resurrection of Christ. If you have searched so hard for the answer and still have found none. Then there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Maybe you serve best as a skeptic. You would be trampled for your slowness in a wave of Christian believers rushing to greet the savior. Your doubts are what is preserving you from a premature heavenly bliss and so are your good instincts.

No.

[Resume]

You typed:

Originally Posted by justintime

The problem with Christianity is there are too many believers today. The world population has grown to 7 billion and so have the Christian believers. By comparison there are only 55,000 subscribers of the Skeptic Magazine and some 1 million skeptics world wide.

The evangelical movement is a victim of its own success. There aren't enough souls to save unless Christians accept other primates as equals and expand their mission.

But can Christians ignore the skeptics? The atheist are lost forever but skeptics are just in denial, doubtful, questioning, uncertain and terribly insecure individuals. They are the right candidates for conversion.

We are basking in the mercy of grace because the world was spared for the sake of a few good believers. A few bad skeptics will not reverse that decision.

It read like:
blahblahblahblah . . . blah.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by justintime

Christian don't have a problem with the resurrection of Christ.

Nor do Muslims have a problem with the idea that Mohammed was God's last true prophet. Mormons don't have a problem with the golden plates and the seer stones. Scientologists don't have a problem with Xenu.

Quote:

If you have searched so hard for the answer and still have found none, then there are none so blind as those who will not see.

This doesn't even begin to address Tim's question. Can you explain the many contradictions within the various canonical gospel accounts? Are you even aware of them?

Quote:

Maybe you serve best as a skeptic. You would be trampled for your slowness in a wave of Christian believers rushing to greet the savior. Your doubts are what is preserving you from a premature heavenly bliss and so are your good instincts.

Funny, I'll bet those are the same things that are prevening him from getting his own planet to be god of after this life, or ridding himself of his body thetans and attaining OT8, or getting 70 virgins in Heaven.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by DOC

When a person like Luke, who has been called a first class historian by a famous archaeologist, writes something as fact, that is historical evidence.

When that "something" is, for example, a census that never happened, it is evidence that the New Testament writers did not tell the truth.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

Almost all the information we have on Alexander the Great (the man who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world) comes from writers writing over 350 years after his death. All the other writing except an offhand comment in a single letter and an inscription has been lost.

Actions speak louder than words. Jesus told his disciples go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He didn't say hey guys write all this down and carry around heavy scrolls in your travels around the world for people who can't read anyway.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by DOC

Almost all the information we have on Alexander the Great (the man who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world) comes from writers writing over 350 years after his death. All the other writing except an offhand comment in a single letter and an inscription has been lost.

Actions speak louder than words. Jesus told his disciples go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He didn't say hey guys write all this down and carry around heavy scrolls in your travels around the world for people who can't read anyway.

You weren't asked about comtemporaneous historical accounts concerning Alexander, you were asked about contemporaneous accounts about the alleged Jesus Christ.

Your reply doesn't answer that question.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

According to the Gospel of Mark, the only evidence of a resurrection is the empty tomb...

<snip>

So, DOC, did Jesus appear to nobody - as Mak has it...

Tim, as you have done at least two other times, you state as fact an opinion you have. You can lose credibility when you keep doing this. This is why it is important for people to do their own research and not take anyone's comments as fact (including mine.)

The manuscripts from the Alexandria area didn't go beyond an empty tomb, but other manuscripts do have the resurrection. That could have been something as simple as the last page of the manuscript in the Alexandria area fell off with heavy use (passed around from person to person) and then was copied from that manuscript. Have you ever had a notebook where the end page ripped or came off, I have and I was the only one who used it.

But there are other explanations, for example in the article:

The Last 12 Verses of Mark
by Chuck Missler

"However, it seems that Irenaeus in 150 A.D., and also Hypolytus in the 2nd century, each quote from these disputed verses, so the documentary evidence is that they were deleted later in the Alexandrian texts, not added subsequently.)

But there is even more astonishing evidence for their original inclusion that is also profoundly instructive for broader reasons..."

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/

[Resume]

Originally Posted by DOC

But there is even more astonishing evidence for their original inclusion that is also profoundly instructive for broader reasons..."

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/

I love the quote in your link: "Bringing the world in focus through the lens of Scripture."

Sort of like Ken Ham's "Put on your Bible glasses children."

That how research is done in your neck of the woods?

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by DOC

Tim, as you have done at least two other times, you state as fact an opinion you have. You can lose credibility when you keep doing this.

Not answering is a real credibility killer.

Quote:

This is why it is important for people to do their own research and not take anyone's comments as fact (including mine.)

I don't think there will be a problem with that.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan
In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

Originally Posted by DOC

Almost all the information we have on Alexander the Great (the man who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world) comes from writers writing over 350 years after his death. All the other writing except an offhand comment in a single letter and an inscription has been lost.

Actions speak louder than words. Jesus told his disciples go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He didn't say hey guys write all this down and carry around heavy scrolls in your travels around the world for people who can't read anyway.

Of course, this is not an answer to my question as to who these nine sources are. Please answer that question by listing the nine sources.

As to information on Alexander the Great, or, for that matter Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, etc., in addition to writings, we have coins struck during their lifetimes and busts made of them reliably dated to their lifetimes. In sharp contrast to this, we have no contemporary images of Jesus. The earliest images of him, made centuries after his time, depict him as a beardless youth. However, as a first century Jew, e would certainly have been bearded.

In addition to this iconographic evidence, we have inscriptions carved during or shortly after their lifetimes, bearing their names. The earliest mention of Jesus from a preserved document that I know of is the Rylands fragment. It has been dated to ca. 125 by palaeographic dating. However, as was pointed out by maximara on another thread, palaeogrphic dating is rather unreliable.

Again, we need to hear from you who your nine sources are.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan
Actually, this thread is about the veracity of the Bible, irrespective of whether there is or isn't a God or gods. Perhaps you can answer the specific objections I have below, with respect to contradictions between the various gospels:

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

Originally Posted by justintime

Christian don't have a problem with the resurrection of Christ. If you have searched so hard for the answer and still have found none. Then there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Maybe you serve best as a skeptic. You would be trampled for your slowness in a wave of Christian believers rushing to greet the savior. Your doubts are what is preserving you from a premature heavenly bliss and so are your good instincts.

Apparently, you've completely missed the points I made regarding the inconsistencies in the gospels accounts of the Resurrection. The gospels are purportedly witnessed events. However, they grossly contradict each other. Try explaining why that is so, rather than preaching at me.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by DOC

Almost all the information we have on Alexander the Great (the man who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world) comes from writers writing over 350 years after his death. All the other writing except an offhand comment in a single letter and an inscription has been lost.

Actions speak louder than words. Jesus told his disciples go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He didn't say hey guys write all this down and carry around heavy scrolls in your travels around the world for people who can't read anyway.

You ever going to get around to answering post #240?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actions speak louder than words. Jesus told his disciples go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. .

Perhaps he did that. But he did not walk on water and come back to life.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

However, as a first century Jew, e would certainly have been bearded.

And married.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

<snip>

I've snipped out the bits of your post that have nothing to do with the question you're pretending to answer.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Tim, as you have done at least two other times, you state as fact an opinion you have.

<snip>

Would that be in the thread that you've abandoned for the sake of spamming this one with the previously-debunked rubbish that has ended up causing so much embarrassment for whatever cause it is that you think you're championing?

Links please.

[Baffled]

Originally Posted by DOC

Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

Rubbish. Someone would just say he was crucified and then thrown off a cliff, and you'd be happy to suggest that that was somehow "evidence".

[DOC]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

You ever going to get around to answering post #240?

Actually I did answer the part of it that dealt with Mark. I will get to the rest as time permits. So far I have seen no contradictory accounts, I've seen different accounts though. There is a difference. Actually different accounts that are not contradictory give us a more complete picture of what happened.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Baffled

Rubbish. Someone would just say he was crucified and then thrown off a cliff..

That is a possibility but I meant if he was thrown off alive and executed that way.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually I did answer the part of it that dealt with Mark. I will get to the rest as time permits. So far I have seen no contradictory accounts, I've seen different accounts though. There is a difference. Actually different accounts that are not contradictory give us a more complete picture of what happened.

What you actually said was, "Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it."

What you offered for the issue of "Mark's" gospel ending in a unique way was, a website by Chuck Missler: evanagelical minister, self-taught bible teacher, "expert" on biblical prophecy, plagiarist; Chuck Missler who claims that the fact that giant blobs of peanut butter have not evolved out of jars and destroyed supermarkets 'proves' that evolution is a 'fairy tale'; Chuck Missler who wrote Hidden Treasures: In The Bible Text ("...hidden messages, encryptions, deliberate misspellings and other amendments to the text -- that present implications beyond the immediate context, demonstrating a skillful design that has its origin from outside our space and time..."). Missler claims that the "correct" addition to "Mark's" gospel (out of many) can be demonstrated by the application of his "heptadic" scripture structure, revealed by counting the number of words in the text, the number of letters in the words, and the ratio of consonants to vowels; all of which demonstrate a "purposely hidden signature" supported by numerological "authentication codes" in the text.

In my opinion, this is a fairly lax standard for the adjective "logical".

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

You ever going to get around to answering post #240?

Actually I did answer the part of it that dealt with Mark.

Oh, codswallop. All you've done is present yet another link to more of . . .

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

. . . the same logic-challenged evasions, muddle-headed obfuscations and outright lies that you've been posting here for years.

Originally Posted by DOC

I will get to the rest as time permits.

You've already had years in which to do so.

It's not time that's against you, DOC, it's a complete dearth of evidence.

Originally Posted by DOC

So far I have seen no contradictory accounts, I've seen different accounts though.

Different accounts of the exact same alleged events that describe those events in such vastly different ways as occurs in the synoptic gospels is the definition of 'contradictory accounts'.

That you are unable to see this has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

Originally Posted by DOC

There is a difference. Actually different accounts that are not contradictory give us a more complete picture of what happened.

Yes, they do.

They tell us that the whole disparate mess is nothing more than fanfic written by Isis knows how many different authors, and nothing whatsoever to do with actual events.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Baffled

Rubbish. Someone would just say he was crucified and then thrown off a cliff..

That is a possibility but I meant if he was thrown off alive and executed that way.

Of course that's what you meant.

How dare people assume that it's but one more ad hoc explanation just because you've done such things about twenty billion times in the past?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by DOC

That is a possibility but I meant if he was thrown off alive and executed that way.

You'd think the fall would kill him.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Would that be in the thread that you've abandoned...

I guess I figured if my 2000+ posts in that 500 page thread didn't convince you it was time to give it a rest for awhile. Then the thread fell off the first page of the forum.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by DOC

I guess I figured if my 2000+ posts in that 500 page thread didn't convince you it was time to give it a rest for awhile. Then the thread fell off the first page of the forum.

You still don't know the difference between quality and quantity.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

I guess I figured if my 2000+ posts in that 500 page thread didn't convince you it was time to give it a rest for awhile.

Regardless of the number of posts you've made, you haven't yet managed to convince anyone of anything, and you aren't giving it a rest at all - you're just posting exactly the same, previously debunked drivel in this thread.

Originally Posted by DOC

Then the thread fell off the first page.

Only because I allowed it to. Now that it's back I'll look forward to you returning to answer the many, many questions you've left unanswered for so long.

[Wolrab]

Jesus wasn't tossed off a cliff or crucified. Judas threw him under the bus.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Jesus wasn't tossed off a cliff or crucified. Judas threw him under the bus.

This bus?

[Wolrab]

Yes.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . (major snip) . . . But there are other explanations, for example in the article:

The Last 12 Verses of Mark
by Chuck Missler

"However, it seems that Irenaeus in 150 A.D., and also Hypolytus in the 2nd century, each quote from these disputed verses, so the documentary evidence is that they were deleted later in the Alexandrian texts, not added subsequently.)

But there is even more astonishing evidence for their original inclusion that is also profoundly instructive for broader reasons..."

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/

You must be desperate if you're citing Chuck Missler, sometimes writing partner with Hal Lindsey, who originally predicted the Tribulation would start in 1988 (40 years after the founding of Israel). Lindsey later changed that date as 1988 loomed too close for comfort, saying that Israel wasn't completely founded until the Israelis took Jerusalem in the Six Day War in 1967. Thus, 1967 + 40 = 2007. He further back-pedaled to say that, rather than being 40 years, a generation might be 100 years! This gave him two more fall-back positions: 1948 + 100 = 2048, and 1967 + 100 = 2067.

I cite lindsey's nonsense and dishonesty only as a prelude to Missler's bizarre theories. In his book The Return of the Nephilim he asserts that UFO sightings and alien abductions are genuine, but that, instead of being extraterrestrials, the saucer people are inter-dimensional demons and demon / human hybrids intent on creating more human - demon hybrids ad deluding people to be enmeshed in New Age religions (i.e. Satanism, according to Missler) as part of Satan's war on God and his people. In other words, Missler is far from a sound source.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by DOC

I guess I figured if my 2000+ posts in that 500 page thread didn't convince you it was time to give it a rest for awhile. Then the thread fell off the first page of the forum.

1 post and 1999+ repeats.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

This bus?

The magic bus:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...=furtherer+bus

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Actually, this thread is about the veracity of the Bible, irrespective of whether there is or isn't a God or gods. Perhaps you can answer the specific objections I have below, with respect to contradictions between the various gospels:

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

Well, I haven't been following, been on another extended absence, but I would say that these contradictions are also irrelevant to the thread, unless someone is claiming that there is evidence for them.

The existence of falsehoods in the Biblical literature really has no bearing on whether or not there is evidence for "anything" in the Bible, which there certainly is -- for example, the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians.