The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[samuelbb7]

Thank you youngbream on your defence of Daniel. It seems most here are trying to ignore the fact that Daniel not only predicted the first coming of JESUS and what year it would be. But that He also points to the second coming. Along with predicting many furtue historical events. All of which help show JESUS is who He says he is.

There are also many more prohecies about JESUS.

Now on this points

4. The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with 6th century BCE Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official in the employ of King Nebuchadneazzar.

I have read the so called mistakes. One is that balshazzar is called a son of Nebuchadnezzer. A common hebraism like JESUS being the son of David.

Also in the third century the list of Kings did not list balshazzar. so many said Daniel was wrong for calling him a king. But when promised the reward it said being made thrid ruler of the kingdom In the early 1900's a scroll was found that showed balshazzar as having been named a coruler with his father. Which justified the Bible as being correct and the archeologist having again found the bible to be accurate.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

[
When I'm talking about consensus, I'm talking about biblical scholars, not true believers. These biblical scholars need to use sound practices of analysis or they are rejected by their peers. They are primarily historians and linguists, but that's all we have because the source documents we'd like to put under the microscope don't exist and the eyewitnesses are dead. Very little from that ime period has survived wear and tear. Ink fades, paper dries up.

What they did was to recopy the texts as they were handed down from generation to generation. So the earliest known 'source document' will be a copy and it may have been copied many times.

My guess is that in that day and age they were very careful on the accuracy of their work, since any mistakes would be lost forever to future generations. This was a very important job. Also any document that did not conform to the general belief at that time would be rejected out of hand. In Christianit's case since it grew so rapidly, I think it would be difficult to change the story since there would be so many people aware of what the original apostles claimed.

Academics are comfortable working in this environment, why should we reject their conclusions just because we don't have absolute certainty?

They are able to spot things like the Christian interpolations added to Josephus' history. Josephus would not have said Christ rose from the dead because he was a practising Jew who rejected Christianity. But it is reasonable to accept that he said Christ existed. The academics concurred on this.

I agree this tells us nothing about the proof of what Jesus did, but it does provide a supporting leg towards that goal.

So all your efforts are in favor of proving jesus' existence,not empirical verifications of his teachings?.If somebody proves existence of prophet mohammed, will that make any difference towards your religious beliefs?

So you have accepted that there arent any proof's for jesus' deeds, while the proof for his existence is still being searched for. So in end you are searching proofs for your beliefs.I believe somebody should base their beliefs on proofs and not vice versa.

[richic]

So all your efforts are in favor of proving jesus' existence,not empirical verifications of his teachings?.If somebody proves existence of prophet mohammed, will that make any difference towards your religious beliefs?

So you have accepted that there arent any proof's for jesus' deeds, while the proof for his existence is still being searched for. So in end you are searching proofs for your beliefs.I believe somebody should base their beliefs on proofs and not vice versa

I'm not sure we can empirically verify what someone says without a tape recording of his conversation.

Proving his existence is just Step 1 and the consensus was that he existed. For those who believe Jesus was a myth or a figment of a group of apostles' imagination, then that would be a significant step.

The next step is to establish a case for his supernatural deeds. In the link I provided earlier www.earlychristianity.com/miracles.html a case can be made for Jesus' miracle working. Do you accept this?

I think the next step would be to determine the credibility of the witnesses to his miracles which would be the apostles. If we can verify their existence and their truthfulness then we could believe them. What do you think?

I have no doubt Mohammad did exist. But Mohammad did not claim to be God, like Jesus, so it's much easier to accept Mohammad. He never claimed to be more than a prophet. And his prophecy was about something told to him as opposed to a prediction of future events.

For Mohammad I think the question is: Did he bring anything new to the table?

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

I'm not sure we can empirically verify what someone says without a tape recording of his conversation.

The next step is to establish a case for his supernatural deeds. In the link I provided earlier www.earlychristianity.com/miracles.html a case can be made for Jesus' miracle working. Do you accept this?

I think the next step would be to determine the credibility of the witnesses to his miracles which would be the apostles. If we can verify their existence and their truthfulness then we could believe them. What do you think?

I have no doubt Mohammad did exist. But Mohammad did not claim to be God, like Jesus, so it's much easier to accept Mohammad. He never claimed to be more than a prophet. And his prophecy was about something told to him as opposed to a prediction of future events.

For Mohammad I think the question is: Did he bring anything new to the table?

you can verify a statement without a tape recorder.Newton did not have any tape recorder but we can test his statements empirically without his recorded voice.

that miracles link did not open so couldnt comment on it.apostles claim is just a claim as long as it is not verified.their being truthful means nothing.their claims should be truthful.if u can prove that its fine.A person who makes a statement is truthful doesnt make a statement true.was the statement true?That adds weight.

[richic]

you can verify a statement without a tape recorder.Newton did not have any tape recorder but we can test his statements empirically without his recorded voice.

And Einstein proved Newton wrong and that's great. Science explains our physical reality extremely well.

I don't think we use the scientific method when we analyze old documents. The link below explains the approach they use in analyzing and comparing old documents.

Sorry about the link. That was www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

you can verify a statement without a tape recorder.Newton did not have any tape recorder but we can test his statements empirically without his recorded voice.

And Einstein proved Newton wrong and that's great. Science explains our physical reality extremely well.

I don't think we use the scientific method when we analyze old documents. The link below explains the approach they use in analyzing and comparing old documents.

Sorry about the link. That was www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

If you read my statement carefully i said "we can test his statements empirically"..I never said "He was correct".

Since newton gave his statements in an empirically verifiable form we were able to test it and come up with einsteins theorum.Einstein also has given it in empirically testable form.It also can be negated tomorrow.But its a model of improvement .

Bibles version of world is one model.Galielos was a better one than that.Newtons was still better and einsteins was even better.So research only moves positively.But for research to happen, you should atleast give statements in empirically testable forms.

will read the link and comment tomorrow.thanks for it.

[richic]

If you read my statement carefully i said "we can test his statements empirically"..I never said "He was correct".

Since newton gave his statements in an empirically verifiable form we were able to test it and come up with einsteins theorum.Einstein also has given it in empirically testable form.It also can be negated tomorrow.But its a model of improvement .

Bibles version of world is one model.Galielos was a better one than that.Newtons was still better and einsteins was even better.So research only moves positively.But for research to happen, you should atleast give statements in empirically testable forms.

I think I understand now.

I think Christianity operates differently than science in that it cannot evolve its paradigm where science can and should.

Whenever Christianity has moved away from its center, its core principles found in the gospels, it has become corrupted.

Reform movements spring up to bring it back to its roots and those have proved to be very successful.

There's also nothing to add to Christianity. You either accept it or reject it.

[Lotan]

I think Christianity operates differently than science in that it cannot evolve its paradigm where science can and should.

There are many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as lesser groups) who would disagree with that statement. Of course, you could argue that they're not really Christians...
The idea that Christianity is one religion is something of a myth, considering doctrinal differences between the various denominations and sects, not to mention the diversity of early traditions prior to the establishment of 'orthodoxy'.
Furthermore, at least some forms of Christianity have adapted to changing times, for example the Catholic endorsement of the theory of evolution. I have to wonder how much John Paul II would have in common with St. Peter.

[richic]

There are many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as lesser groups) who would disagree with that statement. Of course, you could argue that they're not really Christians...
The idea that Christianity is one religion is something of a myth, considering doctrinal differences between the various denominations and sects, not to mention the diversity of early traditions prior to the establishment of 'orthodoxy'.
Furthermore, at least some forms of Christianity have adapted to changing times, for example the Catholic endorsement of the theory of evolution. I have to wonder how much John Paul II would have in common with St. Peter.

I think it's fine for these sects to evolve on their own, but they do not represent a consensus of Christian thought so we can't really say Christianity has evolved.

I wouldn't argue that they're not Christians because Christianity does have some core tenets that I assume all these denominations share but a Catholic calls themself a Catholic first, then a Christian. A Mormon the same.

Then there are non-denominational believers who are just plain Christians. They don't see any reason to add to the teachings of the gospels and the early apostles, other than finding new applications for bible principles to help people in their daily lives.

[Arch]

I think Christianity operates differently than science in that it cannot evolve its paradigm where science can and should.

There are many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as lesser groups) who would disagree with that statement. Of course, you could argue that they're not really Christians...
The idea that Christianity is one religion is something of a myth, considering doctrinal differences between the various denominations and sects, not to mention the diversity of early traditions prior to the establishment of 'orthodoxy'.
Furthermore, at least some forms of Christianity have adapted to changing times, for example the Catholic endorsement of the theory of evolution. I have to wonder how much John Paul II would have in common with St. Peter.

I agree with Lotan, I have seen the evolution of the christian doctrine everytime they are presented with new information that disputes their claims.

One of my favorites is the response to the fact that the geneology given in Matthew is from Jospeh not Jesus, thus making Joseph a Son of David but since He isn't Jesus' daddy Jesus isn't so he doens't fit the prophecy.

The new repsonse is jesus is adopted by joseph...I found this quite amusing.

Also the response to how were the previous prophets of the bible saved since they never believed in jesus. One very educated christian pointed out to me that abaraham was a christian..lol

Another one is that since Jesus was GOD their belief in GOD saves them because Jesus is GOD. This retroactive salvation however DOES NOT apply to Muslims who also believe in the GOD of Abraham.

and lastly another new response as seen on this site is that the GOD of the israelites(jews) is not the same GOD of christians How did that happen?

Oh Christianity doctrines evolves and evolves alot. Even historically during the true beginnings of most modern christians doctrines; ie baptist lutherns catholics and such, the doctrines were much different. Most of the people who inhabit these churches now would have been deemed heathens and heretics.