Why do you believe in the Bible?
What are the historical proofs for the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Two questions for Christians
Talk religion
Talk religion
Why do you believe in the Bible?
What are the historical proofs for the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
?
I believe because of personal experience. But I don't think sola scriptura holds water.
Because they are multiple witness testimonies the authors vouched for with their lives.
>picrel
Bible is not the claim. It's the historical proof of the claim.
>trust me bro, BRO TRUST ME
Don't trust me. Trust the guy who'd rather get tortured and killed than change his testimony.
The NT wasn't written by eyewitnesses. If you can prove it was you should submit a monograph to a peer-reviewed publisher and overturn the academic consensus. You'll be recognized as the greatest biblical scholar of the century.
>the authors vouched for with their lives.
That also never happened dude.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170308004402/https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/48/
>wasn't written by eyewitnesses
Written *down. That is fine. In oral cultures such as Greek and Hebrew passing a testimony orally for a generation is roughly as reliable as textually. If you can prove it isn't, you should submit a monograph to a peer-reviewed pusblisher and overturn the academic consensus.
>[talks about peer-reviewed publishers]
>[sources a blog that's already offline]
I'm afraid I'll need more than that.
Islam?
Islam what? What witness testimonies of God are there?
It's a popular knee-jerk reaction to suppose that other religions where people died have the same caliber of evidence, but none actually do.
>What witness testimonies of God are there?
People were willing to die to defend the claims found in the Quran just as others were to defend the claims found in the Bible. Dying to defend a claim doesn't make it historical.
Absolutely agreed. Which is why my argument wasn't "people died for a claim" but the fact that witness testimonies are more reliable when the authors insisted on them even in torture and death. Name me one Jihadi who died based on a witness testimony about God.
>Witness testimonies are more reliable when the authors insisted on them even in torture and death.
>Name me one Jihadi who died based on a witness testimony about God.
They died for different reasons, yes. But why would you say they weren't as reliable as the ones that did it for witness testimonies of Jesus?
The apostles of Jesus were the source of the claims. They did not die for something which was passed down to them, they died for things which they claimed to personally witness. This would not make sense if they were liars, which they would have to be if their claims were not true.
I get your point. But still, couldn't they be in a state of fundamentalism just as it happens with Jihadis?
I don't know what "a state of fundamentalism" is, or why it's significant to this discussion.
You know, being so deeply credulous about some idea that one goes to the last consequences of it, even being killed in the most gruesome ways.
You mean they were not cowards. Yes I think that is manifest.
No, I mean that they were actually analogous to Jihadis. For example, they could believe that Jesus was God for what he taught them and then take it to the last consequences for strong faith or courage, if you prefer.
>Because they are multiple witness testimonies the authors vouched for with their lives.
Doesn't prove shit.
What are the historical proofs for Julius Caesar aside from some books written by Imperial propagandists hundreds of years after he died?
His own writings? Writings of contemporaries like Cicero? Contemporary statues and art made of and for him?
Regardless, nobody would believe it if Julius Caesar claimed to be a god.
>bro this other guy believed me so bro you have to believe me too
Implessive
>this other guy believed me
What? If you have no argument at least make you insults land, Anon.
>no bro, TRUST me bro, TRUST me, this guy 2000 years ago totally DIED and he STILL TRUSTED ME bro, so you have to trust me too bro
Incredible
>TRUSTED ME
Again - what? Lol
>the book says that someone DIED and didn’t change their beliefs about the book, so the book must be true!
Coal
>"Someone was killed" now added to the list of miracles atheists will deny
Ahahahaha
the earliest written copy of De Bello Gallico is dated to the 13th century, you really expect me to believe that some book written over a thousand years after the alleged author existed is real? get a grip, next thing you know you'll be telling me there was more than one World War
witnesses who vouched with their life
>YOU MEAN YOU!?!?!?!?
No lol.
>bro.
>trust me.
>I vouch with my LIFE bro, so you HAVE TO trust me bro
dum dum dum dum dum
>Prove history
>No witness accounts, use REAL proof!!!
This thread is falling apart by the minute.
>bro, this guy WALKED ON WATER AND RETURNED FROM THE DEAD
>my source for all this?
>some guy said it happened and wrote it down
I suppose you’re Mormon, then?
>No no no no NO WITNESS ACCOUNS IN HISTORY
Please continue. I love atheists exposing their ignorance of the field.
I’m the father of god. My brother will vouch for me.
>NO NO NO WITNESSES IN HISTORY PLEASE
Keep going. Please.
There's an anon trying to argue historical data on one side and a frogposter trying to argue witnesses shouldn't be considered in historical analysis. The contrast is delicious. OP never stop lol
>Witness evidence is enough for me to believe that someone is god
My friend is god. Believe me dude.
>NO NO NO WITNESSES IN HISTORY PLEASE
Keep going. Please.
And if you have a witness testimony, die about it. I will consider it then, honest promise.
Ok. Why don’t you believe in Mormonism?
Because Smith didn't do what I describe in
How's that friend-god thing going, you died with your friends about it yet? Lol
Smith did exactly that though. Why do you think they call it the church of latter day saints? Who do you think the latter day saints are?
If you have any sources on that, please share. Wiki suggests Smith's death is nowhere near comparable to being tortured and executed for insisting on a witness testimony.
Joseph Smith didn't die a martyr for his faith, he died a violent criminal's death of sneaking a pistol into the jail cell and killing one of his lynchers as he got peppered with bullets while trying to run away.
>Sleeps with followers virgin daughters and wives
>Has the bullshit of the golden tablets that got called out by a woman
>Tried to destroy freedom of speech by terrorizing a newspaper for mocking Mormons
>When jailed decided to run away armed from jail than face his death for the sake of his faith
Joseph Smith was a text book cultist.
In this scene he's not the guy getting dramatically shot, Smith is actually the one in the back trying to run away.
>why do you believe in the bible
Tradition.
>what are the historical proofs…
The Bible, Some Roman documents, and israeli documents. But most importantly the world we live in is the projection of his love and his sacrifice for us. No Jesus, no party.
Christians believe in the bible because that’s what their parents and culture taught them to do. They would have believed in Zeus had they been born in ancient Greece, or Odin had they been born in medieval Norway.
Any other explanation is just a post hoc rationalization.
We're a globalized society with information at our fingertips, with most influences being anti-theist among places with access to public school. Its a bit more impressive Christianity survives with so much soft repression. We live in the goal of Julian the Apostate, destroying Christianity by removing its influence in society non-violently.
Just like most Atheists would be religious zealots had they not been bombarded with secularism and pluralism from all sides. Partially true.
Atheists are religious zealots.
This is so moronic, science can be a mean a tool, most atheists are just naturalists, they try to observe life for what actually is, they observe the nature of things, they don't see supernatural just nature, they are not spiritual men, they are natural men.
I think he was referring to materialists who have locked themselves in a vicious circle..
>there is only matter because spirit cannot proven
>spirit cannot be proven because there's only matter
Such atheists, who often conflate science with their materialistic dogma, are indeed zealots. And we pretend they're part of a religion to pick on their high horse.
They are part of a religion.
I never got this cope, religious stories have the spiritual interacting with the material all the time.
You are the spirit interacting with the material.
I don't know if that's true. It would be much easier to convince me if you could chant some latin shit to convert water into wine.
Sorcery is a sin.
Yeah because it's uncomfortably easy to test whether it's real lol.
No, it's because it involves communion with unclean spirits and rejection of God.
They absolutely do. Which is why theists don't think it's apriori impossible to prove spiritual reality. Materialist, however, insists it is and in turn uses this self-imposed methodology limitation to infer an ontological claim. In other words "it's not there so I ain't gonna look, I didn't see it, so it's not there".
There is no shortage of exorcist cases from 21st and 20th century, for example. Can you think of a way in which a materialist would concede that it's not a mere mental illness?
I'm not sure if I'd call myself a materialist (it's complicated), but I'd believe the exorcism was genuine if the possessed person could either pass a test devised by me or do something like predict the name of a lotto winner.
That would indeed be something, but to a materialist this wouldn't suffice. If someone got posessed tomorrow, listed all your childhood memories to you and then telekinetically bent the keys in your pocket, the materialsit has no "scientific" way to connect the two together. He cannot convince the demon to do it again. And even if he does, there are so many confounding variables that the claim "there is a spiritual realm through which this happens" will never be the top most likely one from a materialist POV.
I think very few people are "materialists" in the way you describe it.
I hope you're right. But the people "representing" atheists in popular culture are virtually mostly these kinds. Dawkins and Harris come to mind. I have yet to hear any atheist come up with a methodological route from materialism to supernaturalism.
>I have yet to hear any atheist come up with a methodological route from materialism to supernaturalism.
That's because it doesn't make sense for there to be one. There's a presuppositional conflict of worldviews and we are all in error while we fail to acknowledge that.
It absolutely make sense to make an idea falsifiable when falsifiability is the trademark you live and die by.
I will immediately convert to Christianity if God makes all birds in the world sing "Jesus is risen" next Easter.
God is not your butler awaiting your instructions.
That's irrelevant. The fact that God may do it if he does indeed exist shows that I am not locked into my views based on s presupposition.
No it doesn't because it's also not true. If that happened, you would say the heckin christcucks did something to trick you. Nobody's falling for this "I would believe if if" charade
>Nuh-uh
So God doesn't actually care about his creations, just Da Plan? Good to know.
>either God will obey my orders or He doesn't care about me
You will have a rough time in eternity
I guess it also depends on local culture. Where I live, there are really no famous advocates for atheism even though most people here are either agnostics, atheists or believers in some vague organizing principle that may or may not be a mind.
Fair.
Based falisifiable atheist.
funny childish schizo moment
talking about religious zealots
>Dawkins and Harris come to mind
Cause that's all you got, everytime.
You don't belong to this board, go to reddit cause there is where these characters are suitable in and where your interest is apparently, either that or /x/.
If you wanna talk about atheists atheism i'm expecting you to talk about Feuerbach or Nietzsche not youtube reddit shit.
You're welcoming these morons on this board, no need to try to justify their behavior and ignorant psychosis.
I mean look at this thread.
Why do you tag three of my posts when you couldn't formulate a useful response to a single one?
If you think Nietzsche has anything over Harris in their theological understanding, I would like to ask for even a single line that would prove that. For all his persuasive writing, insightful remarks about psychology and speculation about religions, nations and spirit, Nietzsche never manages to address supernaturalism as a framework.
Why don't you lay a single line that would prove that, can you manage to address that?
Oh actually nevermind, i'm not gonna play your moronic games with you, bye.
They are moronic sheeple
>Why do you believe in the Bible?
The Lord said "My sheep know my voice and the voice of another they will not follow" and "All that the Father gives me will come to me". Therefore, the reason the saints believe His word is because of the Holy Spirit within them who guides them into all truth and enables them to recognize their Lord's word as a man recognizes light by sight alone.
>What are the historical proofs for the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus?
The historical proof is the eyewitness testimony of those who lived and walked with Him.
>there is le incisible SPIRIT INTERACTING WITH THINGS!!!
>what does it do? Well… stuff….
>where? Uhh… well…. You le can’t see it because… uhh… you just can’t
>how? Erm… spiritually… STOP ASKING QUESTIONS OK???
God you frickers are moronic.
>Where is spirit?
You really thought you had us huh?
Well Black person? Where is it?
>Doubles down
Lool
No answer then.
Correct. It's a loaded question lmao. Why would we ever answer this?
You’re trying to convince me that something exists, but you can’t tell me what it is, where it is, what it does, how it does those things, or literally anything about it.
>NOOOO THATS A LOADED QUESTION
Let me guess. You can’t explain how it’s a “loaded question” either.
Of course I can. It's loaded by virtue of assuming a physical location of spirit, when the entire idea of spirit is that it's not physical lol
I'm not trying to convince you of shit, I'm just mocking the fact you pretend to have a gotcha when in reality you're a toddler pushing a square block into a triangle hole.
If it interacts with physical things, you necessarily can observe where and when it interacts with those things you drooling fricking moron.
>where is it
>I-...uh I meant where it interacts
Ohhhhh that's closer! Try the square hole!
Let me guess. You have a girlfriend, she’s just Canadian and I can’t meet her.
Single and ready to mingle. New Year's eve kiss?
It interacted with your physical flesh when you willed your cheeto dust covered fingers to make this shitpost.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Flesh? Which part? Can you show me?
In your brain. Neurons can be affected by non-deterministic events.
It is a mystery how mind and body interact.
By the way this circular reasoning is also inconsistent. God is an immaterial spirit, and all things whatsoever happen in time happen by His providence, so that even the rising and setting of the sun is on His fingers. That doesn't mean there's something physically measurable happening since that would require His providence to be some kind of physical mechanism, which would also require Him to not be an immaterial spirit. This argument is absurd, you're just crying that immaterial things aren't made of matter.
>god does everything
>with physics?
>NOOO HE DOES IT MAGICALLY IN A WAY YOU CANT SEE
Schizophrenia. Truly frightening.
>God has do things physically or else it doesn't happen because only physical things are real because they just are ok
>this invisible force exists and does everything
>see it? Erm… no. It works in… mysterious ways.
>also the invisible force says you have to listen to me and do what I say. And get me a coke
>non-deterministic events
It’s impossible to say if the universe or anything in it is deterministic or not. What do you mean by this?
>invisible force
No, forces are impersonal physical laws. And God is immaterial, not just invisible. Physics is the study of the behavior of objects in space. God is not an object in space, which is why physics has nothing to do with Him.
>It’s impossible to say if the universe or anything in it is deterministic or not. What do you mean by this?
Physicists disagree. We can observe one variable determining another very frequently lol. And we also observe the opposite. Neurons respond to events that are non-deterministic and hence not subject to mere physical causality. You asked where spirit gets to chime in. This is where.
>We can observe one variable determining another very frequently lol.
Causality is not determinism. Chaotic systems are not random. Unpredictable events are not non-deterministic.
>events that are non-deterministic
Again, which events?
moron.
I will NEVER renounce by beliefs. Raud the Strong didn’t die for nothing.
>anything is deterministic
>impossible to say