Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #80]

I think that clarifies things, but always feel free to correct any misunderstandings of mine that crop up. You are saying let's assume Jesus resurrected and talk about how that came to happen and the implications thereof?

I would offer that God brought it about by supernaturally transforming a real, dead body into a glorified, alive body as a public and divine confirmation of Jesus' claims about being the divine Messiah.

In support of this, I would say that we have no evidence that natural resurrections can occur. God, as the Creator of all of life, has the authority and power to overturn death. Jesus also taught that God would raise Him (also that He would raise Himself) from the dead prior to His death and resurrection.

What alternative(s) would you offer and what support of that?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #81]

Okay - so in looking at the thread subject we are focusing on the particular event - Jesus rising from the dead.

I think at this point we might be better then to start our own thread. What is your preference - have the thread created in a debate forum - perhaps 1 on 1 - or in the informal chat section?

My preference is to engage this as informal chat.

As well as this, we have been discussing things in the other thread, and there may be an opportunity to also create a thread for that, or include it in the one new thread.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #82]

It sounds good to me to create a new thread for this and for it to be informal. Go ahead and start it and let me know where it is. Looking forward to it.

[William]

Okay - so in looking at the thread subject we are focusing on the particular event - Jesus rising from the dead.

I think at this point we might be better then to start our own thread. What is your preference - have the thread created in a debate forum - perhaps 1 on 1 - or in the informal chat section?

My preference is to engage this as informal chat.

As well as this, we have been discussing things in the other thread, and there may be an opportunity to also create a thread for that, or include it in the one new thread.

[Replying to William in post #82]

It sounds good to me to create a new thread for this and for it to be informal. Go ahead and start it and let me know where it is. Looking forward to it.

New chat thread

Discussing ideas to do with The Resurrection

[Avoice]

Why not ask for proof of the Jews being sent into excile and proof of them returning? Or proof that the land of Israel will be unworkable until the Jews return. Or how God will have the Jews prosper even more than at their beginning

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #72]

Actually, it is still possible demons cause diseases by germs. For example Covid seems to be made by humans and released by humans intentionally to cause death and to give politicians more power.

This is an assertion, not an explanation.

Modern medicine does not merely label diseases; it predicts, tests, and falsifies hypotheses about them. Germ theory explains why sterilisation works, why antibiotics work, why vaccines work, and why specific mutations produce specific variants. Demons add no predictive power whatsoever.

You can always append “demons did it” to any natural process, but that is not explanation — it is an unfalsifiable add-on. If demons act through germs in ways indistinguishable from natural processes, then invoking demons explains nothing at all.

As for COVID being intentionally released: that claim requires positive evidence, not suspicion. Extraordinary claims still require evidence.

It is interesting that the word pharmacy apparently comes from the word pharmakeus, which is translated sorcerer.

This is an etymological fallacy.

The Greek pharmakon meant drug / remedy / poison. Ancient people lacked chemistry and microbiology, so medicine, poison, and magic were grouped together. Modern pharmacology is grounded in biochemistry, controlled trials, dose–response curves, and reproducibility — not incantations.

Calling chemotherapy “sorcery” because ancient Greeks lacked microscopes is rhetoric, not argument.

We can find all evidence of the great flood that there should be (oil, coal, gas fields, orogenic mountains, vast sediment formations, marine fossils on high mountain areas...).

None of those constitute evidence of a single, recent, global flood.

• Oil, coal, and gas form over millions of years
• Mountains arise through plate tectonics, not sediment settling
• Marine fossils on mountains are explained by uplift, not global inundation
• A global flood would leave a single synchronous sedimentary layer worldwide — it does not exist

If the Flood occurred as described, we would expect:
– identical fossil sorting worldwide
– a catastrophic biodiversity bottleneck
– thermal signatures sufficient to sterilise life

None are observed.

Absence of expected evidence is evidentially relevant.

But, if writings from multiple authors is not sufficient for Jesus, why would it be sufficient for JC?

Because quality, proximity, genre, and corroboration matter.

For Julius Caesar we have:
• contemporary inscriptions
• coins minted during his lifetime
• hostile and neutral accounts
• mundane administrative records
• no violations of known physics

For Jesus’ miracles we have:
• anonymous theological texts
• written decades later
• copied and edited over centuries
• no independent contemporary corroboration
• claims of suspending natural law

Historians weigh ordinary claims differently from miraculous ones.

So, if I plant a garden, I have created the plants?

Genesis 2 does not merely say Yahweh plants. It says he forms man from dust, creates animals after man, and builds woman from man. These are creative acts, not agricultural metaphors.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present different narrative orders. This is why biblical scholars — including conservative Christian ones — recognise distinct traditions.

Disagreement with scholarship does not refute it.

I think those are based on real experiences and the other gods existed.

If all gods existed, the Bible’s repeated condemnation of false gods becomes incoherent. Yahweh is portrayed as denying their reality, not merely their worthiness.

Claiming all gods existed abandons biblical monotheism entirely.

How would you prove they would not have been in the original source?

Textual criticism does not prove negatives; it works by manuscript comparison.

Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11:
• are absent from the earliest manuscripts
• appear later and inconsistently
• display stylistic and vocabulary discontinuities
• were known to be disputed by early church fathers

This is exactly how interpolation is identified in all ancient texts.

Condemnation is because of sin. And the judgment remains if one doesn't believe what Jesus said.

Mark 16:16 explicitly ties condemnation to unbelief. That linkage appears nowhere else in the earliest Gospel material — precisely why scholars flag the passage.

The danger is not compassion; it is building doctrine on unstable text.

The whole mission of Jesus was to come to offer forgiveness, that is why I think it is silly to think John 7:53–8:11 is some how a foreign idea.

A passage can be theologically compatible and still be textually inauthentic. These are different questions.

The Pericope Adulterae floats across manuscripts, appears in different locations, and breaks Johannine style. That is why scholars — including Christian ones — judge it a later insertion.

Beautiful stories can still be later additions.

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

That's your choice — but lack of persuasion is not lack of evidence.

The manuscript data exists whether one accepts it or not. Faith may choose to retain later traditions, but it should not deny the findings of historical method.

Truth claims stand or fall on evidence, not preference.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #73]
A. On metaphysics vs. empirical grounding

If that is a problem, then you must reject the very empirical access you are praising because it all depends on philosophically grounded reasoning.

This is a category mistake.

Empirical inquiry indeed presupposes minimal philosophical commitments (logic, induction, reliability of observation). But it does not presuppose conclusions about supernatural agency, divine intentions, or infinite metaphysical entities.

There is a difference between:
• background epistemic assumptions required for inquiry to function at all, and
• substantive metaphysical claims introduced as explanations.

Rejecting the latter does not undermine the former. That is not “pulling the legs out from under the chair”; it is refusing to add extra furniture that does no work.

B. Perfect knowledge and freedom

“Knowledge” doesn’t coerce, but perfect knowledge would.

This claim is asserted, not demonstrated.

Perfect clarity does not logically entail compulsion. One can know with certainty that harming others is wrong and still choose to do so. Criminal behaviour, addiction, and deliberate wrongdoing already demonstrate that epistemic certainty does not eliminate moral freedom.

To claim otherwise requires a further premise: that freedom requires epistemic ambiguity. That premise is neither self-evident nor argued for.

C. Why metaphysical claims require stronger support

Why?

Because metaphysical claims assert universality beyond all possible observational correction.

Empirical claims are defensible and corrigible; metaphysical claims purport to describe the ultimate structure of reality. The stronger the scope of a claim, the stronger the justification required.

This is not bias — it is proportional epistemic responsibility.

D. On scholarly consensus and “sociological momentum”

Show that scholars accept this by mere sociological momentum.

The point is not that scholars accept a historical Jesus only due to momentum, but that consensus alone does not convert weak evidence into strong evidence.

Biblical studies emerged historically within confessional institutions. That context does not invalidate conclusions, but it does require heightened scrutiny — especially when primary sources are sparse, partisan, and late.

Consensus informs probability; it does not settle it.

E. Paul and the historical Jesus

Paul speaks of Jesus being born as a human… crucified, buried, and resurrected bodily.

Paul affirms beliefs about Jesus; he does not provide independent biographical attestation.

Crucially:
• Paul never quotes Jesus’ earthly teachings directly.
• Never describes miracles, parables, or ministry episodes.
• Grounds his authority in revelation, not eyewitness testimony.

That does not disprove historicity — but it limits evidential weight. Paul confirms early belief, not historical detail.

F. Independence of sources

They don’t count as one source simply because they saw each other’s work.

Dependence is not binary; it is a matter of degree.

The Synoptics share literary structures, pericopes, and narrative frameworks. This forms a single tradition stream, not multiple independent attestations in the way historians normally require.

John, meanwhile, reflects later theological development. That does not make it worthless — but it weakens its use as corroboration.

G. Tacitus, Josephus, and external attestation

Tacitus and Josephus would not just rely on hearsay from a fringe group.

But that is precisely how ancient historians often operated — reporting what was said among identifiable groups.

Tacitus confirms that Christians existed and believed certain things. Josephus, even in reconstructed form, reflects later knowledge. Neither provides eyewitness confirmation of Jesus’ life or resurrection.

They corroborate belief, not events.

H. Criterion of embarrassment

Your view here is truly unfalsifiable… you’d create a narrative that explains why it would be fabrication.

The problem cuts both ways.

Once theological inversion is allowed (“weakness becomes victory”), embarrassment ceases to function as a discriminator. That is not ad hoc; it is a recognition of genre.

A movement whose core theology valorizes suffering and reversal is uniquely resistant to embarrassment-based inference. The criterion therefore loses force in this specific context.

That is a methodological limitation, not a denial of all history.

I. Narrowing the claim: did Jesus exist?

I see absolutely no good reason to think Jesus didn’t historically exist.

Nor do I assert that he definitively did not.

My position is narrower and more cautious:


A minimal historical Jesus (some itinerant preacher) is plausible.
The evidential base is thin, partisan, and non-independent.
Therefore, confidence should be modest, not categorical.


Suspension of judgment is not denial; it is epistemic restraint.

J. On the proposed next steps

I am willing to examine:
• burial narratives
• empty tomb claims
• post-mortem appearances

— but only under the same historical standards applied to non-Christian ancient claims. If those standards are relaxed at any stage, the inference breaks.

Bottom line

Our disagreement is not about hostility to metaphysics or dismissal of history. It is about epistemic discipline.

Extraordinary metaphysical conclusions cannot rest on:
• Late, theologically motivated texts.
• Internally dependent traditions.
• Explanations that outrun their evidential base.

That does not prove Christianity false — but it does undercut the claim that the resurrection (or divine causation) is the best historical explanation.

If you want, we can proceed step-by-step — but only if we agree to keep the evidential bar consistent throughout.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #87]

A. Types of evidence needed

This is a category mistake.

Empirical inquiry indeed presupposes minimal philosophical commitments (logic, induction, reliability of observation). But it does not presuppose conclusions about supernatural agency, divine intentions, or infinite metaphysical entities.

There is a difference between:
• background epistemic assumptions required for inquiry to function at all, and
• substantive metaphysical claims introduced as explanations.

Rejecting the latter does not undermine the former. That is not “pulling the legs out from under the chair”; it is refusing to add extra furniture that does no work.

The context of my response is that you said that crossing from the natural-historical domain to a supernatural explanation is a problem because we enter a domain without empirical access or falsifiability. For you to say that, you have crossed into metaphysics, claiming that empirical falsifiability is the test for truth, making a statement that itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

This claim is asserted, not demonstrated.

Perfect clarity does not logically entail compulsion. One can know with certainty that harming others is wrong and still choose to do so. Criminal behaviour, addiction, and deliberate wrongdoing already demonstrate that epistemic certainty does not eliminate moral freedom.

To claim otherwise requires a further premise: that freedom requires epistemic ambiguity. That premise is neither self-evident nor argued for.

The context of my response involves how perfect knowledge coerces knowledge, not action. You are arguing a good God would leave no intellectual doubts. Please support that.

Because metaphysical claims assert universality beyond all possible observational correction.

Empirical claims are defensible and corrigible; metaphysical claims purport to describe the ultimate structure of reality. The stronger the scope of a claim, the stronger the justification required.

This is not bias — it is proportional epistemic responsibility.

Empirical claims purport to describe the ultimate structure of empirical reality just as metaphysical claims purport to describe the ultimate structure of metaphysical reality. These are equal in strength.


B. Historical Facts

1. Jesus historical existed

The point is not that scholars accept a historical Jesus only due to momentum, but that consensus alone does not convert weak evidence into strong evidence.

Biblical studies emerged historically within confessional institutions. That context does not invalidate conclusions, but it does require heightened scrutiny — especially when primary sources are sparse, partisan, and late.

Consensus informs probability; it does not settle it.

I agree and never claimed otherwise. My point was that you will need to come with a good case for your alternative view, not vague skepticism (as it seemed you were offering in response).

Paul affirms beliefs about Jesus; he does not provide independent biographical attestation.

Crucially:
• Paul never quotes Jesus’ earthly teachings directly.
• Never describes miracles, parables, or ministry episodes.
• Grounds his authority in revelation, not eyewitness testimony.

That does not disprove historicity — but it limits evidential weight. Paul confirms early belief, not historical detail.

Paul does quote Jesus’ earthly teachings (1 Cor 7:10-11 on divorce, 1 Cor 11:23-25 on the words at the Last Supper, 1 Cor 9:14 on ministers being supported, Rom 12:14 on blessing those who persecute you) as well as strongly alluding to others (Rom 13:8-10 on loving others, Phil 2:5-11 on serving others.

Why should we expect Paul to describe miracles, parables, or ministry episodes? He isn’t writing a biography, but explaining what Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection mean for specific situations of communities that would know of those oral traditions about Jesus’ life from elsewhere.

This is evidence for Jesus’ historical existence.

Dependence is not binary; it is a matter of degree.

The Synoptics share literary structures, pericopes, and narrative frameworks. This forms a single tradition stream, not multiple independent attestations in the way historians normally require.

John, meanwhile, reflects later theological development. That does not make it worthless — but it weakens its use as corroboration.

The Synoptics also differ in structures, pericopes, and frameworks. They contain independent attestations to Jesus’ historical existence (what we are talking about now) as well as other features. Theological development from another source doesn’t weaken that source on this fact either.

Tacitus and Josephus would not just rely on hearsay from a fringe group.

But that is precisely how ancient historians often operated — reporting what was said among identifiable groups.

Tacitus confirms that Christians existed and believed certain things. Josephus, even in reconstructed form, reflects later knowledge. Neither provides eyewitness confirmation of Jesus’ life or resurrection.

They corroborate belief, not events.

Tacitus doesn’t say Christians believed Christus existed and was crucified during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate, he says Jesus actually was crucified during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate. He wouldn’t just trust the Christians on this to make this claim. It’s the same with Josephus. He’s saying what happened, not just what Christians claimed happened.

The problem cuts both ways.

Once theological inversion is allowed (“weakness becomes victory”), embarrassment ceases to function as a discriminator. That is not ad hoc; it is a recognition of genre.

A movement whose core theology valorizes suffering and reversal is uniquely resistant to embarrassment-based inference. The criterion therefore loses force in this specific context.

That is a methodological limitation, not a denial of all history.

First, you are assuming the inversion was theologically motivated rather than historically so. Second, it’s not all or nothing as one embarrassment doesn’t mean any embarrassment would be accepted.

Nor do I assert that he definitively did not.

My position is narrower and more cautious:


A minimal historical Jesus (some itinerant preacher) is plausible.
The evidential base is thin, partisan, and non-independent.
Therefore, confidence should be modest, not categorical.


Suspension of judgment is not denial; it is epistemic restraint.

Yes, but I think your epistemic restraint here is unwarranted for the many reasons I’ve stated above.

Possibly still to come…

2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. Jesus' tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement originally focused on the resurrection as its centerpiece.

Step 2: Explanation of the facts
Step 3: Implication of the explanation of the facts, especially concerning God's existence.

I’ll still wait to move forward to hear what you have to say in response to the things above. I don’t want to move too quickly. This is me keeping the evidential bar high and consistent.

[1213]

...Demons add no predictive power whatsoever...
...You can always append “demons did it” to any natural process, but that is not explanation — it is an unfalsifiable add-on. If demons act through germs in ways indistinguishable from natural processes, then invoking demons explains nothing at all.

The point is, modern "knowledge" doesn't rule out that demons could be behind it, even if you see no predictive power. I don't claim it is necessary so always, but it is possible.

The Greek pharmakon meant drug / remedy / poison. Ancient people lacked chemistry and microbiology, so medicine, poison, and magic were grouped together. Modern pharmacology is grounded in biochemistry, controlled trials, dose–response curves, and reproducibility — not incantations.

That is what the quacks want you to believe.

• Oil, coal, and gas form over millions of years

Can be much faster. No good reason to believe in millions of years.

• Mountains arise through plate tectonics, not sediment settling

Allegedly. No intelligent reason to believe that claim, which goes against basic physics.

• Marine fossils on mountains are explained by uplift, not global inundation

And because the idea of uplift is irrational, that explanation is not useful.

• A global flood would leave a single synchronous sedimentary layer worldwide — it does not exist

No it would not, when the world is not uniform and the flood didn't go to all directions the same way.

If the Flood occurred as described, we would expect:
– identical fossil sorting worldwide
– a catastrophic biodiversity bottleneck
– thermal signatures sufficient to sterilise life

No intelligent reason to assume identical fossil sorting worldwide, because likely different areas had different animals and not all areas had as good fossilization conditions.

Humans can not detect a bottleneck, because they don't have the knowledge about what exactly there was before the flood.

No good reason to assume "thermal signatures sufficient to sterilise life", when you understand how the flood happened.

Genesis 2 does not merely say Yahweh plants. It says he forms man from dust, creates animals after man, and builds woman from man. These are creative acts, not agricultural metaphors...

Genesis 2 is about the day God made Adam and Eve and how He planted the garden and formed animals for Adam. And I agree, no agricultural metaphors, the Bible directly says God planted the garden. Planting a garden doesn't mean plants were not created already. They existed, but had not yet grown, because there had not yet been rain. Also animals could exist already, but God formed (not created) them for Adam in the Garden.

Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Gen. 2:5
Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen. 2:7-8
Yahweh God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them....
Gen. 2:18-20

If all gods existed, the Bible’s repeated condemnation of false gods becomes incoherent. Yahweh is portrayed as denying their reality, not merely their worthiness.

Where in the Bible Yahweh is portrayed as denying their reality?

The Bible speaks for ample about a golden calf that people held as their god. Such things can easily exist. Even today we can found such a thing, we just should not keep it as our God. Most if not all the things people have kept as their gods could have existed, we just should not keep them as our God.

Claiming all gods existed abandons biblical monotheism entirely.

No it doesn't, because it is said they are not true gods. For example Zeus, a wine drinking old guy on a hill, easily could have existed, just not reasonable to keep him as the true God.

Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11:
• are absent from the earliest manuscripts
• appear later and inconsistently
• display stylistic and vocabulary discontinuities
• were known to be disputed by early church fathers

Sorry, I have not enough faith to believe your claims.

Mark 16:16 explicitly ties condemnation to unbelief. That linkage appears nowhere else in the earliest Gospel material — precisely why scholars flag the passage.

One could the link between unbelief and condemnation without Mark 16:16, so, even if it would not exist, it would not make any difference. Without receiving words of Jesus, people die to their sins. And the actual reason for condemnation is the sins that people have, not disbelief. Disbelief is the reason why the judgment remains and believing the words of Jesus can remove the judgment people have because of their sins.

Thus I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins."
John 8:24
He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.
John 3:18-21

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #88]

A. Empirical falsifiability and metaphysical claims

…you have crossed into metaphysics, claiming that empirical falsifiability is the test for truth…

No — that is not the claim I am making.

I am not claiming that empirical falsifiability is the test for all truth. I am claiming it is the test for empirical explanatory claims — including historical explanations that posit causal mechanisms operating in the world.

Once a hypothesis proposes that an event occurred because of a supernatural agent acting in spacetime, it has crossed into the explanatory domain where evidential constraints apply. If that explanation cannot, even in principle, discriminate itself from error, coincidence, or myth, then it fails as a historical explanation — regardless of whether metaphysics as such is allowed.

This is not scientism; it is domain discipline.

B. Perfect knowledge and coercion

You are arguing a good God would leave no intellectual doubts. Please support that.

I am not arguing that God must leave no intellectual doubt.

I am arguing the conditional claim you advanced fails:

That perfect epistemic clarity would necessarily undermine freedom.

Your examples do not establish that. Humans frequently act against what they take to be certain truths (self-harm, addiction, cruelty, betrayal). Epistemic certainty does not logically entail volitional compulsion.

If you wish to defend the thesis that moral freedom requires epistemic ambiguity, that requires argument — not intuition.

C. Empirical vs. metaphysical scope

Empirical claims purport to describe the ultimate structure of empirical reality just as metaphysical claims purport to describe the ultimate structure of metaphysical reality.

This is precisely the asymmetry.

Empirical claims are corrigible by further observation. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are not. That difference matters epistemically.

A claim whose falsification conditions are accessible carries less justificatory burden than one whose falsification conditions are not. This is not bias; it is proportional epistemic risk management.

D. On “vague skepticism” and burden of proof

…you will need to come with a good case for your alternative view, not vague skepticism.

Suspension of judgment is not an “alternative theory” that carries the same burden as a positive claim.

The burden lies with the claim that:
• a specific individual existed, and
• a specific sequence of extraordinary events occurred (e.g. resurrecting the dead), and
• a specific supernatural explanation best accounts for them.

Epistemic restraint is not vagueness; it is refusing to over-infer beyond what the evidence warrants.

E. Paul as evidence

Paul does quote Jesus’ earthly teachings…

I grant that Paul alludes to teachings attributed to Jesus. That strengthens the case for early belief about a historical figure.

It does not convert Paul into an independent biographical source. His knowledge is mediated by tradition and revelation, not personal observation. That matters when weighing evidential independence.

This again supports a plausible minimal Jesus, not a high-confidence reconstruction.

F. Synoptic dependence and independence

The Synoptics also differ in structures…

Agreed — and degrees of independence exist.

But partial independence does not equal multiple independent eyewitness streams. Shared narrative frameworks, theological motifs, and literary dependence still limit the weight that can be placed on convergence.

The point is not “worthless” vs. “valuable,” but how much confidence is justified.

G. Tacitus and Josephus

Tacitus wouldn’t just trust Christians on this…

Tacitus reports what Roman authorities understood — which itself likely derives from Christian claims circulating by the early second century.

He provides valuable corroboration that:
• Christians existed.
• They were persecuted.
• Christians believed in Jesus, who was allegedly crucified and resurrected.

He does not provide independent archival confirmation. That distinction is standard in historiography and does not require assuming bad faith or gullibility. Tacitus and Josephus never met Jesus, and never witnessed any of the alleged miracles of Jesus.

H. Criterion of embarrassment

You are assuming the inversion was theologically motivated rather than historically so.

No — I am saying that once inversion theology exists, embarrassment loses discriminatory power.

The criterion does not vanish entirely, but its probative force weakens significantly in a movement that explicitly valorizes shame, suffering, and reversal.

That is a methodological caution, not a blanket dismissal.

I. Where we actually agree

We now agree on several key points:

• A minimal historical Jesus is plausible.
• The sources are late, partisan, and limited.
• Confidence should scale with evidential strength.

Where we differ is here:


You think the evidence justifies firm confidence.
I think it justifies cautious plausibility.


That difference is not about hostility to Christianity or metaphysics. It is about how much weight one assigns to limited, internally connected sources.

I am not claiming:
• that Jesus did not exist,
• that the evidence is worthless,
• that metaphysics is illegitimate.

I am claiming only this:


When evidence is sparse, partisan, and weakly independent, epistemic humility is rational.
Extraordinary explanatory steps should wait until ordinary ones are exhausted.


I am willing to proceed step-by-step — including burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearances — but only if we continue to apply the same evidential standards consistently at each stage.

If you wish, we can proceed next to the burial in a tomb under those agreed constraints.