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.

[richic]

They're not driven by religious belief, if that's what you mean. Why do so many Christians assume that science (in this case history) that doesn't agree with their beliefs is motivated by some anti- Christian agenda?

I think the issue is we can all place experts on either side of an issue and debate till the cows come home. This is how our partisan political system works in the US today.

The question is do we have some truly independent verification or repudiation of the biblical dates regarding the Jerusalem Temple prophecies?

[Lotan]

I think the issue is we can all place experts on either side of an issue and debate till the cows come home. This is how our partisan political system works in the US today.

I agree, except that politics are to some extent a matter of opinion, whereas facts are not. For example, the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 CE. Unless some new evidence shows otherwise, this is an historical fact, not a subject for debate.

The question is do we have some truly independent verification or repudiation of the biblical dates regarding the Jerusalem Temple prophecies?

I'm not sure what you mean by "truly independent". Martians?
The next best thing, I think, would be a consensus view. From Wikipedia:

"Estimates for the dates when the gospels were written vary significantly, and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:
• Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
• Mark: c. 68–73
• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
• John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition."

These are the dates that I am most familiar with. Interestingly, Mark may have been written before the temple was destroyed. If so, he might have seen it coming, or the story might have been interpolated, who knows? Here is a brief article from the Journal of Biblical Studies that outlines the reasoning used to assign those dates. Conservative scholars and apologists do argue for earlier dates but they do so without any more evidence than anyone else has.
This would not be the only case where a biblical 'prophecy' was shown to have been written after the fact, and to me at least, this is a simpler answer than an actual supernatural occurrence.


**************************************************************************************************************************

People that investigate science with their lives are less likely to accept the supernatural.

To the best of my knowledge you are correct. There is an inverse relationship between education and belief in the supernatural.

Even if they did accept the supernatural, they would never include that in their analysis. Only offstage and behind the curtain.

You're painting an awful lot of people with the same brush, don't you think? Why do you think someone would want to hide evidence of the supernatural? So they don't become rich and famous?
It's very hard to take you seriously when you choose to attack the integrity and credibility of so many people simply because they are educated enough to hold views that differ from yours. I'm sure that you're happy enough to accept scientific findings that support your beliefs, but when they don't you automatically assume that they're dishonest? Unless you've got some proof for your conspiracy theory, I'd say you're breaking the 9th commandment.

[Corvus]

Lotan wrote: They're not driven by religious belief, if that's what you mean. Why do so many Christians assume that science (in this case history) that doesn't agree with their beliefs is motivated by some anti- Christian agenda?

It's more like a stereotype. You disagree with it? I think it's safe to say that it's very accurate. People that investigate science with their lives are less likely to accept the supernatural. Even if they did accept the supernatural, they would never include that in their analysis. Only offstage and behind the curtain.

Considering the very many people who, at the very least, claim to be Christians in America, and the small minority that are atheists and agnostics, I have to wonder why there are such a disproportionate number of anti-Christians working in scientific fields. I think it's only natural that a person committed to investigating the natural world would be less likely to accept the supernatural. They can only look at what is there. Has anyone ever gotten some supernatural proof?

[chrispalasz]

GreenLight311 wrote:
People that investigate science with their lives are less likely to accept the supernatural.

Lotan wrote:
To the best of my knowledge you are correct. There is an inverse relationship between education and belief in the supernatural.
GreenLight311 wrote:
Even if they did accept the supernatural, they would never include that in their analysis. Only offstage and behind the curtain.

Haha. That's because once you find the answer, you stop looking. Does that make Christians stupid? You tell me. Is a person with the right answer stupid? With each answer found by a non-Christian, all that really seems to be found are more unaswered questions.

You're painting an awful lot of people with the same brush, don't you think?

Isn't that what stereotyping is?

Why do you think someone would want to hide evidence of the supernatural? So they don't become rich and famous?

That's not what I said. That's also not what I meant. I didn't mean they hide any evidence that they find. I mean they hide their private belief in a god, if they have such a belief. This is not due to evidence they find... but rather a lack of evidence and an increase in the understanding that the complexity of life and the world will never... never be truly discovered through science.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you choose to attack the integrity and credibility of so many people simply because they are educated enough to hold views that differ from yours.

Sounds like a bitter remark to me. That's fine. It's hard to take you seriously when you use websites like EvilBible.com as a source. haha

I'm sure that you're happy enough to accept scientific findings that support your beliefs, but when they don't you automatically assume that they're dishonest?

I don't need anyone to FIND scientific evidence that support my beliefs. And no, I don't always assume they're dishonest. Some are dishonest... the rest are just incorrect.

Unless you've got some proof for your conspiracy theory, I'd say you're breaking the 9th commandment.

Well, if they're not Christians... I think that's pretty obvious proof.

Corvus wrote:
I think it's only natural that a person committed to investigating the natural world would be less likely to accept the supernatural. They can only look at what is there. Has anyone ever gotten some supernatural proof?

8) Then why try to determine anything about the supernatural if you're only investigating the natural?

[Lotan]

Haha. That's because once you find the answer, you stop looking. Does that make Christians stupid? You tell me.

Those are your words, not mine. I don't know if 'stupid' is the correct word to describe someone who is unable to adjust their beliefs in light of evidence. How about 'irrational'?

You're painting an awful lot of people with the same brush, don't you think?

Isn't that what stereotyping is?

That's exactly what stereotyping is, although I'm a little surprised to hear someone defending it. Considering your views on spousal rape, I guess it's not that surprising...

That's not what I said. That's also not what I meant. I didn't mean they hide any evidence that they find. I mean they hide their private belief in a god, if they have such a belief. This is not due to evidence they find... but rather a lack of evidence and an increase in the understanding that the complexity of life and the world will never... never be truly discovered through science.

It's a lot better understood than in Jesus' day, don't you think. There is absolutely no way that you can pretend to know the hearts and minds of such a large and diverse group. You have to believe this because you can't accept the alternative.

It's hard to take you seriously when you use websites like EvilBible.com as a source. Haha

Haha, yourself. Here's a condensed version of our conversation...

For references see here.

I linked to that site because it contains scriptural references to rape…
If you can show that these references aren't valid please present your evidence.

The references are valid. The points or conclusions that were drawn are not valid, and that is what I am disputing.

That's easy enough then. There are 10 valid references on that page. Since you feel that the author is not educated enough to make valid conclusions regarding them, then you yourself should be educated enough to be able to show where he is mistaken. Two or three examples would be nice.

Once again, you are boring me with your unsupported opinions. You can't show that scientists are wrong, you can't even show that the author of the EvilBible site is wrong, you can only state your belief that you think they are. For supporting 'evidence' you slander people who you know nothing about.

[richic]

These are the dates that I am most familiar with. Interestingly, Mark may have been written before the temple was destroyed. If so, he might have seen it coming, or the story might have been interpolated, who knows? Here is a brief article from the Journal of Biblical Studies that outlines the reasoning used to assign those dates. Conservative scholars and apologists do argue for earlier dates but they do so without any more evidence than anyone else has.
This would not be the only case where a biblical 'prophecy' was shown to have been written after the fact, and to me at least, this is a simpler answer than an actual supernatural occurrence.

Here's quote from your reference: "Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus’ siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24)"

So your position is that since the supernatural doesn't exist, the gospels were written after the fact.

Gosh the logic is so profound. How could I have missed it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[chrispalasz]

Lotan wrote: Those are your words, not mine. I don't know if 'stupid' is the correct word to describe someone who is unable to adjust their beliefs in light of evidence. How about 'irrational'?

This response is littered with your worldview, and your assumption that your view is correct. That makes it completely invalid in this discussion. I view the world through Christianity, because I know God, who is Jesus Christ.

A similar statement by me would sound like this and be just as invalid in this discussion (only, in my view, definately not as false):

"I don't know if 'stupid' is the correct word to describe someone who is unable to adjust their beliefs in light of Jesus. How about 'irrational'?"

Lotan wrote: That's exactly what stereotyping is, although I'm a little surprised to hear someone defending it. Considering your views on spousal rape, I guess it's not that surprising...

Stereotyping is perfectly valid under some conditions. Certain things are stereotypes when facts fit the majority in the group.

You indicate to me, by your second sentence, that you do not know my views on spousal rape. Why don't you go ahead and sum them up for me, then I'll correct you.

Lotan wrote: It's a lot better understood than in Jesus' day, don't you think.

I do think that science is better understood today than in Jesus' day, but science is limited to the observable world in what it understands. That's quite a small limitation. Also, science can only explain what it observes through other things it observes. Then science must observe the observed explanation and explain that with another observation. The chain will never end, and science will never find the answer that is Jesus Christ. As far as what is important to understand (in everything, not just science), I'd say there is the same understanding today as there was in Jesus' day.

Lotan wrote:There is absolutely no way that you can pretend to know the hearts and minds of such a large and diverse group. You have to believe this because you can't accept the alternative.

I don't have to believe anything. I do not pretend to know the hearts and minds of such a large and diverse group of people. Stereotypes pretend to do no such thing. I thought it was clear to most people, but just so it's clear to you: A stereotype is a stereotype when it is a condition that fits the majority. Also, this is a stereotype whether or not I defend it. Many other people have drawn the same conclusion and observed the same thing. I do not claim it fits everyone. I would hope that, in the future, you could use rational deductive reasoning (like bernee51 has recently done) and assume that I did not mean that.

On another thread:
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 2&start=20
Lotan wrote:
For references see here.

And then Lotan wrote:
I linked to that site because it contains scriptural references to rape…
If you can show that these references aren't valid please present your evidence.

I wrote:
The references are valid. The points or conclusions that were drawn are not valid, and that is what I am disputing.

So Lotan wrote:
That's easy enough then. There are 10 valid references on that page. Since you feel that the author is not educated enough to make valid conclusions regarding them, then you yourself should be educated enough to be able to show where he is mistaken. Two or three examples would be nice.

Of course Lotan claimed I then wrote:

This is blatantly a lie. I posted no such emoticon of confusion in reponse to your post. As a matter of fact, I posted many posts responding to your post. Why don't you go read them instead of pretending that your questions are legitimate concerns and final?

Completely ignoring the information after your post and clarified explanations to your questions from educated sources doesn't mean that none exists. Nice try.

Also, by citing that website with those scripture references and then by stating that they were "scriptural references to rape", you were making the exact same argument that the author of the EvilBible website was making. Only, you were relying on that authors unresearched and uneducated interpretation and understanding of the scriptures. I challenge you to find an educated and/or respected Bible Scholar that agrees with that interpretation. In fact, those scripture references are not scriptural references to rape at all.

That's like trying to convince somebody that black men are inferior and then quoting the KKK website.

There are 10 valid references on that page.

...10 valid references to scripture, not to rape.

Once again, you are boring me with your unsupported opinions. You can't show that scientists are wrong, you can't even show that the author of the EvilBible site is wrong, you can only state your belief that you think they are. For supporting 'evidence' you slander people who you know nothing about.

I'm sorry that when I support my opinion with well educated and well researched Bible Scholars, apparently you don't think it counts. At your request, should I reduce myself to the caliber of sources you have used? I don't think two wrongs make a right.

You did not simply use the EvilBible website for scriptural reference, you used it for scriptural reference with interpretation. It is clear that you did this when you said you were using these scriptural references to rape, when in fact they are not references to rape at all.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Dear skeptics,you are fighting in the wrong front.For every evidence you point out against existence of jesus,there will be a counter eveidence pointed out.For every contrary archeological claim there will be a counter claim.And we will debate endlessly citing books and journals and scientists.

Let us not question the existence of Jesus.We cannot verify it without bias.So the question should be

1)Prove to me that jesus was god and not human.

Testimonies can be an evidence,but all those who saw this happen have now died.And also millions of hindus and muslims claim that their ancestors were witnesses to the events in quran and vedas.So all we have is contrary claims with billion witnesses stacked up on each side.

All cannot be true.Either one is true or none is true.If you claim yours is true show something solid.If you claim miracles by god as proof,there are so many such mircales reported in every religion.Even atheists report mircales like UFO at times.

So what is the proof you have?I dont ask proof for existence of jesus.I ask proof that he is god.Except witnesses and mircales what do you have?

[chrispalasz]

Islam will not let scholars take an indepth look at the Qu'ran. People that try to do studies are killed or attacked when the studies are released. That makes sense. Why would they want their lies to be uncovered?

Christianity has let the Bible come under scrutiny for hundreds of years. Christianity still stands... and so does the Bible. I know that doesn't prove to you that Jesus is God, but it says a lot none-the-less.

[richic]

So what is the proof you have?I dont ask proof for existence of jesus.I ask proof that he is god.Except witnesses and mircales what do you have?

What proof would you believe?

Eyewitnesses accounts are usually accepted, like in a court of law.