Eric,

Something which was addressed briefly in one of the first answers to your OP, but was pretty much ignored.

I'll grant that Rome was the equivalent of a super-power, but using your own words the "limited technology of the time" would make it extremely hard for the Romans to execute the kind of eradication you're talking about.
IIRC the Romans tended to leave the day-to-day business of the occupied territories to the indigenous people while they chose to work as "overseers".
If that is so, we should not only have evidence for Jesus (and his miracles), but also evidence for the alleged purge as I find it likely that the people who would gain from saving the evidence for Jesus would themselves write and disseminate information about the purge itself.

I'm not finding it now, but another point against the likelihood of a purge that was brought up on this thread is the fact that Romans seemed to enjoy debate, so it seems likely that a Roman attack against christianity would take the form of speeches and other verbal attacks.

"You can't however continue to speak to me like this and expect to still be speaking to me."


Eric, I was not comparing you to a 4 year old, and I apologize if you took it that way. What I was trying to say is that I am not an evangelist, I do not try to convert people from of their beliefs, as I think that would be cruel, like proving to a four year old there is no Santa Claus.

But I will object when you try to get me to accept your beliefs, without evidence or rational thought. You started this discussion, not the atheists and skeptics. You have evidently found the answers to your questions not to your liking. We are willing to continue it, and would especially like your considered thought on the points raised.

And no, I do not tolerate perceived foolishness gladly. But that is my personality trait that I am aware of and live with. I can only apologize.

Eric,

Let's not keep going in circles trying to determine whether or not the bible says the Earth doesn't move. We can probably interpret the bible to say the Earth and sun revolve around each other. It's interesting that Galileo got in such hot water if the bible doesn't make this claim. But anyway...

By this point, I think your initial question has been answered ad nauseum. I'd like to hear what you think of those answers.

Eric,

"The problem is that this does not change the meaning of the Hebrew word that was used. Again"
"http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08398"

Looking at your own link, I see that the definition of the word "tebel' is given simply as "world," which supports R.C.'s interpretation, not yours. According to your own source, "inhabited world" is not the meaning of the word, it's a later interpretation which was created, I would guess, in order to conceal the error in the Bible.

"So on a larger scale, knowing that Rome was a super power...(rephrasing my question for you guys) if the events of the Bible were true, how much evidence would you expect to have knowing about the persecutions (suppression of the Christian message) of Christians from a super power such as Rome?"

By repeating the question again and again without significant modification, you're demonstrating that you haven't paid any mind to the replies that have argued that there was no conspiracy to conceal information about Jesus, and that a scarcity of evidence does not cause us to lower the standards of proof. Do you really want to argue that the less evidence we have for a claim, the less evidence we should require in order to believe that claim? Does that make the slightest bit of sense?

"This question is important to me simply because the answer of that question determines if I should even be in this group and discussing what I believe. If you want more then I can supply, my time is more suitable somewhere else."

In other words, you have no evidence for your claims, but rather than conceding that your beliefs are therefore irrational, you instead choose to shift the blame onto rationality itself.

"I am not saying that there is a sin gene. I was displaying a point about the Spiritual by giving an example of the Natural."

What point could you possibly have been trying to make?

Before the discovery of molecular genetics, we had already known that offspring inherited characteristics from their parents; what we didn't know was how. Genetics is the mechanism by which inheritance works. To claim that sin is somehow "like" genetics tells us absolutely nothing because there is no mechanism behind the inheritance of sin. Sin is inherited solely because your god arbitrarily chooses to blame us for the "crimes" of our ancestors. Thus, the analogy between sin and genetics is meaningless.

Eric --

"When I stated that R.C. has the burden of proof, I meant for the verse that we were discussing. In other words, prove that how I interpreted was incorrect."

Again, you are talking complete nonsense. You might as well ask me to prove a ghost is not in the room. Biblical interpretation if non-falsifiable (including any that I may make).

If you are not familiar with even the basic logical fallacies, you should pay a visit to wikipedia.

By what standard do I apply correctness/non-correctness?

Once again, (I know you will continue to ignore this) I assert only that the Bible cannot be objectively interpreted, and is thus is useless for historic, scientific purposes. I proposed a completely reasonable interpretation of a verse that was diametrically opposed to yours. If you cannot conclusively refute it, then it proves my point that the Bible is subjective.

You have made the assertion of objectivity, not me. You have the burden of proof to prove that it is.

Eric, you are slipping farther and farther from any rational discourse.

I just wanted to take some time out to clear something up since my last post on this thread.

R.C.

1. When I stated that R.C. has the burden of proof, I meant for the verse that we were discussing. In other words, prove that how I interpreted was incorrect.

2.

The burden of proof is on you Eric. You are the one making the fantastic claim, not R.C.

You are saying the Bible is a book inspired by God, contains no contradictions or false statements and contains all the answers to the important questions of life.

This comment is fair in the larger sense. However, lets be clear. I am not interested in defending Every version of the Bible. This is why I supplied the link to the Hebrew words that were used, which I believe to be fair. When ever you evaluate a historical document, you look at it in the context of the original language.

3.

"30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

It means:
Be afraid of God, people, he is powerful, and cannot be affected anymore than the world(planet) can be moved.

I am glad that you found a version of the Bible that proves your point. The problem is that this does not change the meaning of the Hebrew word that was used. Again http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/vi...

4.

What you are missing is the obvious fact that the Bible is being constantly interpreted and reinterpreted on the spot by every Christian who needs a rational excuse for his theology.

Opinion and has nothing to do with the definition of the Hebrew word.

Rick
5.

It's also not clear what point you're trying to make in asking the original question. Are you perhaps trying to convince us that any evidence at all, in the face of a vast anti-Jesus conspiracy, is miraculous?

The question was an honest one and the reasons why I asked it is two-fold. First, because of the persecutions of Christians by the Romans (Rome being a super-power at the time) in the first century and the limited technology of the time. It is logical that a lot of evidence would be missing or destroyed. Even in 2008 there are missionaries that have to tape portions of the Bible on their body to hide them from foreign governments that do not want Christianity preached. So on a larger scale, knowing that Rome was a super power...(rephrasing my question for you guys) if the events of the Bible were true, how much evidence would you expect to have knowing about the persecutions (suppression of the Christian message) of Christians from a super power such as Rome?

This question is important to me simply because the answer of that question determines if I should even be in this group and discussing what I believe. If you want more then I can supply, my time is more suitable somewhere else.

6.
inherited genes

I am not saying that there is a sin gene. I was displaying a point about the Spiritual by giving an example of the Natural.

7. (Biblical number of Completion btw)

No, Eric, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a God who inspired infallible scripture exists. I am not asking you to concede anything, anymore than I would ask a 4 year old to concede Santa Claus in not real.

We talked about why Atheist were rude on another thread. I understand that you may not like my views and I feel that you can say whatever you would like to say about me. Laugh, call your friends and crack jokes...does not matter to me. You can't however continue to speak to me like this and expect to still be speaking to me. With that I say good day, and you might as well throw this thread in the archives.

A flaw in my above example. I guess if the bible is true, all of humanity is descended from the above 4 people (did Able sire offspring before Cain whacked him?). So the sin rate will stay at 50% assuming equal occurrence of males and females, the Y gene in males only.

Females are without sin according to the bible.

I did not know that!

Ha ha ha!!!! Sin as a gene. Christians really are good at making random, ridiculous things up.

"We know the basics of inherited genes."
Oh we do, do we.

Adam (Y1) and Eve (X1)(X1)
Cain = (Y1)(X1) [Sin Gene:] Abel = (Y1)(X1) [Sin Gene}

Cain (Y1)(X1) and Mrs. Cain (X2)(X2) [No Sin Gene:] (Where did she come from?)

Cain Boy (Y1)(X2) [Sin Gene:] Cain Girl (X1)(X2) [No Sin Gene:]

Two generations, and sin is reduced 50%. Imagine what the percentage is after millions.

The nonsense is piling up here. We need shovels.

"I am upset becasue very few has even attempted to answer my question."

Actually you've received many very thoughtful answers to your question; you're upset because most of them didn't take the form that you had anticipated. Part of the problem is that your question was based on the (false) assumption that there was a conspiracy to conceal evidence. When you ask a question that's built on an unproved assumption, the onus is on you to prove that assumption; the people you question aren't obliged to prove it for you nor to assume that it's true.

Consider this illustration:

Tom: Harry, tell me the exact date on which you stopped beating up orphaned children.
Harry: Since I never beat up any children, the question is based on a false premise, therefore it has no answer.
Tom: I demand that you answer my question exactly as I asked it! I'm upset by your refusal to supply me with the date!

See the parallel?

It's also not clear what point you're trying to make in asking the original question. Are you perhaps trying to convince us that any evidence at all, in the face of a vast anti-Jesus conspiracy, is miraculous?

"Most of what I got was, there is nothing that satisfy me because the Bible is completely false and Jesus never lived."

I call that a gross misrepresentation of what's been said here.

"How is that any different then if you gave me facts about Evolution and I stated that there is nothing that you could give me to even consider this fact because the Bible is true?"

It's not different because, a. that's not what was said here, and b. your misrepresentation of what has been said here is in fact an accurate representation of the attitude that Christian fundamentalists do have towards arguments and evidence for evolution.

"This is not aimed at you, I feel that you are one of the few that attempted to answer my question."

Why, thank you for that.

For example, instead of curing a handful of lepers, he could have instantaneously cured all of them throughout the world, while simultaneously eliminating the disease altogether.

"This is an answer...however I don't believe that it would have worked. There are people that saw Jesus perform miracles and did not believe. Therefore the leper in another land being healed would not have caused people to believe. Also, if Historian's at the time, did not record this event...we would be right back where we are now."

There are people today who perform "miracles" that are just as impressive as those of Jesus. Curing a handful of people is a cheap trick; it's a garden variety scam. If Jesus had cured a disease on a global scale, it wouldn't matter if those immediately around him had disbelieved; such an event would have left actual evidence that would have been discoverable by scientists and historians centuries later. So no, we would not be where we are now, we would in fact be in the notably different position of having actual evidence for Jesus' existence.

"We know the basics of inherited genes."
"Virgin Birth"
"Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
"Sin is inherited from Adam. A trait of fathers. Since Jesus biological father is divine, he inherits no sin."

Are you suggesting than sin is genetic, and not spiritual? If this is the case then we should eventually be able to find the gene for damnation and redeem ourselves by engineering it out of our genome, no?

"The themes that I added above are common and do not prove anything but the result of limited possiblity. That is why the specifics like the virgin birth are important.

The possibilities are limited only by your many presumptions. Outside of Christian dogma and Biblical claim there are no reasons at all to presume that damnation, salvation and blood cleansing are as fundamental as you believe them to be.

I fail to see the value of your post. In it, you proved nothing. The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is on you Eric. You are the one making the fantastic claim, not R.C.

You are saying the Bible is a book inspired by God, contains no contradictions or false statements and contains all the answers to the important questions of life.

This is a fantastic claim.

R.C. is saying it is a book written by humans and composed of metaphorical stories.

This is not a fantastic claim.

The burden of proof lies with you.

"The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. Please provide evidence that I am wrong or concede this point"


No, Eric, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a God who inspired infallible scripture exists. I am not asking you to concede anything, anymore than I would ask a 4 year old to concede Santa Claus in not real.

I will make one more attempt at explaining your own book to you though, as it is not that difficult, any thinking adult should be able to figure it out.

"30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

It means:
Be afraid of God, people, he is powerful, and cannot be affected anymore than the world(planet) can be moved.

The meaning is the actual planet, written by an writer unaware the planet does move.

There is metaphor but it is subtle, implying faith must be fixed like the planet.

Why did God not know the planet is not fixed? He is either stupid or non-existent. Take your pick.

R.C.,

I fail to see the value of your post. In it, you proved nothing. The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. Please provide evidence that I am wrong or concede this point. However do not waste my time with futile verbal bullying. I joined the group with good intentions to give everyone here a greater understanding of my position, and more knowledge of what they do not believe. Your last post says that, no matter what I say, you don't care. It is saying that you can be wrong about something so small, but still act as though you are right. If that is the feeling of this group...I will happily leave.

Eric --

I think the incoherence of your response speaks more to the fallacy of the Biblical as truth than I could in a million lines of rational argument.

And Of what use is a book of truth to someone if it only makes sense through later clarification by Jesus?

"...please let me know if there was something in my reference that I missed."

What you are missing is the obvious fact that the Bible is being constantly interpreted and reinterpreted on the spot by every Christian who needs a rational excuse for his theology. Which is what we skeptics have been trying over and over to explain to you. Which is why the Bible cannot be used for historical, scientific or philosophical purposes. It is in merely a form of literary I Ching or Tarot cards, giving you whatever you want it to.

The more you write, the more you demonstrate this. Please come up with a rational argument or call it a day.

R.C.,

I have read both the Chapter and reference over many times now. I do not see where the reference that I supplied state that "Tebel" is literal. I does however state that when the Bible is talking about the creation of the world, the word is literal. I agree with this. Let's examine the Chapter. I think the confusion is really verse 26. The overall context for the Chapter is to give thanks to God. During the chapter, it list facts (according to the Bible of course) about God. Note verses 16-26. Verse 26 references the creation of the world stating a Biblical fact about God creating the heavens. This fact is in the chapter as a reason to praise God, but it is not the context of the chapter as a whole. starting at verse 27 it goes back to praising and worshiping God. This would mean that verse 30 is about giving thanks, worship and praise of a God that is worthy. Therefore based on the reference that I supplied about the word "Tebel", it means the inhabitable world.

An 2008 American English example of this would be the following.

"I don't trust Chris, so I have my eye on him.

Me not trusting Chris is a fact and should be taken literally. The latter part of the sentence is a figurative expression that should not be taken literally. I don't actually have my physical eye on Chris, I am just watching him closely. 4000 years from now, that expression may not make any since in 4008 English, or any other language that is popular. For people in 4008 to understand my expression, they would have to know about the way that we communicate in 2008. The same goes with the Bible and that is why debates on interpretation exist. Similarly to science where a scientific breakthrough could happen that changes a theory. There can be new information about the culture and language of the ancient text, that could alter how a verse is interpreted.

If god were writing a book, as you think he did, wouldn't he make it all leteral? that would make the most sense. Having to make your followers determine what is metaphorical and what is literal seems like a huge waste of time and energy. it also seems to cloud god's message.

In short, no...God would not. Jesus kindof answered this question indirectly.

Matthew13:9Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

There are metaphoric verses so that the people of that time could understand. In public speaking, it does not matter how advanced the message is, if you can not communicated it in a way that the audience understands.

R.C.,

please let me know if there was something in my reference that I missed.

I am on my way to Church. Any Prayer request?

Eric,

"For all of the earth to fear him is really talking about the inhabitants of the Earth and not personifying the Earth itself. And the word "world" is Tebel, the word in question."

The earth part is not in question. The world part is. You claimed it meant inhabited world. If does not by your own reference. It means literally the world. Not moving. If you cannot agree with your own references, we are in big trouble here.

You ignored the rest of my comment as usual. You must have a lifetime of selective reading to draw from. Your cl"aim "some Christians misquoting" is very ironic, in light of this conversation.

Eric,

How exactly do you determine what is metaphorical and what is literal in the Bible? It seems to me that this is picking and choosing.

"Well, this is just metaphorical."

"Well, this is literal."

I mean really aren't you just going by your own sense of right and wrong and then determining what is "metaphorical" and what is "literal?"

If god were writing a book, as you think he did, wouldn't he make it all leteral? that would make the most sense. Having to make your followers determine what is metaphorical and what is literal seems like a huge waste of time and energy. it also seems to cloud god's message.

R.C.,

Of course I disagree with you recent post...I bet you did not see that coming. This is the KJV of the verse.

30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

For all of the earth to fear him is really talking about the inhabitants of the Earth and not personifying the Earth itself. And the word "world" is Tebel, the word in question.

My research shows that when Christians need the Bible to metaphor to rationalize their beliefs, it is metaphor. When they need it to be literal to rationalize their beliefs, it is literal.

This is partly true. There are some Christians that quote out of context. Some on purpose, some on accident. I have already conceded this. This is the reason why there are differences in views among Christians, because it is all based on what God said. Again, we should not put an ancient document in terms of 2008 American English. In the link provided, the word means what the word means. Why are you saying that I am changing the meaning?

Also, there are verses that are metaphorical, i.e. Psalms. Revelations is metaphorical. My issue is that because there are some people that quote verses out of context, Christians as a whole gets labeled for changing the meaning of scripture. Earlier in this thread, when we were discussion Horus, you stated this...

You are really getting off track here. Some writers (bad historians with ingrained biases) have tried to draw explicit connections between the Horus myth and the Jesus myth that are not there.

There has been some Christians that have misquoted and changed meanings of versus. Don't blame all of us. There has also been some terrible things done in the name of my Lord. Don't blame all of us. There are some good questions that Atheist have, however...this particular passage is not an example of one of them.

In short...the word Tebel still means what it means.

"Do you know the context of that verse. Was this a metaphorical statement or literial statement? What does your research show?"

My research shows that when Christians need the Bible to metaphor to rationalize their beliefs, it is metaphor. When they need it to be literal to rationalize their beliefs, it is literal.

"Was this a metaphorical statement or literial statement? What does your research show?"

Eric, it is a literal statement, as your own context proves. Note verse 26, "For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the LORD made the heavens.

We are not talking about metaphorical heavens here are we? Or do you agree God only made the universe in a metaphorical sense.

Also, as to "..briefly looking up the word, it is תבל (Tebel) http://www.blueletterbible.org... which means the habitable part of the Earth"

You should have read the entire entry. In the sense it is used in Chronicles (referring to creation) it means the whole earth, literally.

And I agree with Nathan, at no point does God seem to realize that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Why does he not reveal this simple fact anywhere in the Bible. Educated humans at the time were aware of it. It God less knowledgeable than ancient Greeks?

Eric,

This is not a fair question at all. Is it metaphorical? Is it literal?

Personally, I think the entire OT was meant to be a metaphorical text, so i would answer metaphorical. However, I know many christians who say it literally happened.

Also, would it really matter if it were literal or metaphorical? Either way it shows that they did not know the earth revolved around the sun.

Nathan,

In my post I have stated that I did not research this throughly. Do you know the context of that verse. Was this a metaphorical statement or literial statement? What does your research show?

Eric,

This seems to be referring to the fact that the sun was in the same (or seemed to be) position in the sky, making it a really long day...but again...did not have time to do a word study on this.

Uhhh...yeah, that is exactly what it implies. that the sun stood still, in the same position in the sky. Yet, it does not say that the earth stood still, it says that the sun stood still.

The obvious implication is that the sun moves around the earth and joshua prayed for it to stop moving. What he should have prayed for is the earth to stop moving. If the perosn who wrote this knew that it was the earth that revolved around the sun and not the sun that revolved around the earth, they would have written it that way. however, they did not. They wrote it the unscientific way, that anti-science way.

This is a great example of where the Bible goes against science.

another great one would be evolution of course.

Eric,

The verse doesn't say the sun doesn't move, it says that it does move. The sun "goes forth in his might," implying that the sun moves around the Earth and not the other way around.

There are several references in the bible to a stationary Earth and moving sun. I just picked two random ones. Even when the bible refers to the Earth or sun in metaphors, the fact that the sun is always a metaphor for something moving and the Earth a metaphor for something stationary is pretty telling.

The point of all of this was to show that there are things in the bible contradicted by science. For another example, there's always the flood. I'm sure we can all agree that the bible is pretty clear about this flood thing happening.

Sorry about not responding to every post. Sometimes it gets overwhelming because there is one Christian on the board and many of you. I want to touch base on the scriptures that Dan posted.

1. Chronicles 16:30

A lot of times, people quote one verse from a passage and attach meaning to it (Both Christian's and Non-Christians). I feel that this is an example of that. When quoting a verse you have to be careful quote it in context. I added a couple more verses so that we may understand the context.

23 Sing to the LORD, all the earth;
proclaim his salvation day after day.

24 Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous deeds among all peoples.

25 For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise;
he is to be feared above all gods.

26 For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the LORD made the heavens.

27 Splendor and majesty are before him;
strength and joy in his dwelling place.

28 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength,

29 ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name.
Bring an offering and come before him;
worship the LORD in the splendor of his [d:] holiness.

30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

31 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"

In reading the other verses with verse 30, we see that the chapter is about the people of the world worshiping God, and not being moved from their position of unbelief. This is similar to the famous John 3:16 verse. Jesus did not die for the "world", he died for the population of the world.

Also, I would like to point out that the Bible is an ancient document. We should be slow to say that things do not make since using 2008 American English vernacular. To gain a deeper understanding we need to look at the actual word that was used in the native language of the document using word studying. Briefly looking up the word, it is תבל (Tebel) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi... which means the habitable part of the Earth, which again seems like it is referring to the people and not the Globe.

I hope this clears up some confusion about this verse.

2. Judges 5:31

I honestly do not understand how "be like the sun", means that the sun does not move. This line seems like a metaphor. Please explain your position.

Joshua

I have read this, however I did not have time to do a word study. First, Joshua was in prayer asking the Sun to stand still and then the Bible says that it did. This seems to be referring to the fact that the sun was in the same (or seemed to be) position in the sky, making it a really long day...but again...did not have time to do a word study on this.

I normally like to quote the King James version of the Bible. I just noticed that I did not, this is the New International Version. Please forgive me.

There is also the reference to Joshua making the sun stand still so he could get all the killing in during light hours.

The bible states that the Earth is stationary and that the sun moves.

There are many references to the Earth not moving. Chronicles 16:30, for example:

the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

As for the sun moving, it should be obvious that if the Earth is stationary, the sun must move, but for good measure, Judges 5:31, for one, mentions it:

So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD:

but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.

I plan to respond to everyone however I have limited time now. I will make another post when I am able. I would like to see the verse that states the Earth revolves around the Sun. Please provide that for me. I have heard it referred to me, but no one has provided the location of this verse as of yet.

Eric,

I think the reason many people diverged from your original question was that we were trying to point out that the question really didn't have much of a base.

It is kind or irrelevant.

Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?

It is like me saying, "The government would have a vested interest in supressing alien abductions. They would because they don't want people to be scared (or maybe the government has worked out some type of payment with the aliens so that they actually benefit from the abductions). So, since the government would want to hide the fact that aliens are abducting people, I only need to find a small amount of evidence that suggests alien abductions are real in order to deduce that they are real."

This is a terrible argument. Because I can think of a situation where people would like to supress alien abductions, it does not mean that I can conclude that they actually occur based on a small amount of evidence (or in the case for jesus, none).

We may have got off track also because we were pointing out that there isn't any evidence for the existence of jesus. So when you ask, "How much is needed?" we might respond with, "But there isn't any at all."

Admittedly we should have first said, "A lot" and then said "There isn't any."

Yes, a lot is subjective, but it is not that subjective when it comes to the lack of evidence for Jesus.


The question is

Eric,

I'll reiterate what I said in my last post as examples of the type of evidence I'd need:

1. Biblical claims tend to be more accurate than inaccurate, i.e. explaining that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the other way around. If these types of claims were accurate I'd be more inclined to view it as a reliable text.

2. Obvious divine intervention. Lots of faith healers claim to have "cured" diseases who are later completely discredited. One non-subjective example would be to re-grow an amputated limb (in such a way that nothing else could explain it).

3. A human-creating recipe. Perhaps even a demonstration of creating a universe and/or life form from scratch. Bonus points if the creation has custom modifications requested by the observers.

This would be a good start, IMHO. I hope this is clear enough for you. Everyone will naturally have a different opinion of what they’d need. The discussion may have been sidetracked, but your claim that evidence of Jesus was deliberately suppressed was worth examining and opened the debate.

" Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?"

It depends on what the evidence is to show:

If you want to claim a man named Jesus lived approx 2000 yrs ago, not much. Jesus was a common name.

If you want to claim a man was believed to be the Jewish messiah, and inspired a new religion, a little more evidence is required.

If you want to claim a man was crucified as a trouble maker, very little. The Romans loved their crucifixions.

If you want to claim the Bible documents the above fairly correctly, its references to Pilate help, and it is very plausible.

But if you want to claim that the individual above was divine, you now must supply evidence outside the Bible itself and it must be physical, or highly documented. For instance, if you want to claim the lost city of Atlantis existed, and it possessed a high level of technology, you must find the ruins, and remains of the technology, or show multiple detailed documents from independent sources that describe Atlantis and its technology, based on first hand experience.

I am purposely ignoring your assumption that such evidence has been destroyed, to keep the confusion down.

Eric,

I'll address the "a lot" comment, since I'm the one who said it. I know that "a lot" is a subjective term. I was trying to summarize comments I'd made earlier. As to specifically how much evidence is needed before we believe biblical claims, I don't know how to exactly quantify it. Seventeen historical references to Jesus? Four pieces of geological flood evidence? Eleven predictive biblical references to modern events? I don't know exactly how much evidence is needed. The point I've been trying to make is that the probability of finding evidence should not affect the amount of evidence we require before holding something to be true. We don't lower the standard based on the likelihood of meeting it.

What I do know is that, at least from my point of view, however much evidence is needed is more than currently exists. I don't know that you can ever say in advance just how much evidence you need, but you often know it when you see it. Another important consideration is the ratio of evidence for to evidence against. A number of biblical claims are contradicted by scientific findings. A certain amount of conflict is tolerable, but for biblical claims to be considered true, corroborative evidence should greatly outweigh contradictory evidence. It doesn't. So, maybe I can replace one vague answer with another. Instead of "a lot" of evidence, we need more evidence.

As far as what constitutes "extraordinary evidence," again, it's hard to be absolutely specific, but the evidence should be of the same scale as the thing it's proving. Biblical claims are far outside of observable reality, the laws of nature, etc. We should have evidence that is similarly grand. The evidence should be obviously miraculous. The evidence should be extraordinary both in terms of its nature and its abundance. Evidence for should extraordinarily outweigh evidence against.

Just look at the word, extra ordinary: outside of the ordinary. Historical evidence for Jesus consists of the bible and a few dubious mentions in a couple of historical documents. This is at most the bare minimum amount of evidence required to establish the vaguest details of any historical figure. It's barely ordinary. For someone as extraordinary as Jesus, the evidence should be overwhelming.

I would like to be honest. I have been confused about this very thing. Please allow me to sum up the discussion so far and shed some light into the discussion based on my understanding of where we are. I asked a question in post 1.

I have a question for all of the non-Christians. When I read the Bible, it talks about how the Jewish leaders did not like Christ. They saw Him as a radical and someone that made them look stupid. They saw Him as someone that would over throw them. I also see the Roman Empire. They also had a vested interest in suppressing the message of Christ. Even Herod did not like Him, because He was suppose to be the King of the Jews. Those 3 parties would be the ones that write most of the History books at that time. All had a vested interest in suppressing the message of Jesus. Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?

The responses that I initially received were not answers to my question, but questions on the bible, which is the context in which the question was asked. This went to a discussion about Horus and Jesus. I responded but tried not to go to deep with my response because that is not the question and the reason for this thread. Then there was a question on how to read the Bible. I answered this question as well, but it was a brief answer because that was not the question and the reason for the thread. Since then, there has been more questions that were raised to me that were indirectly related to the question but not an answer to the question itself. I became frustrated because my question was not being answered. I was told that I was crying like a spoiled child. This however brought attention back to my question. Then another question about Jesus came up and I responded briefly because it is not a answer to my question. With all of the side chatter about other issues...this conversation has become multi-threaded and a little confusing.

Things that came out of the conversation

I heard many interesting things. Here are my favorite.

1. The lack of evidence is not evidence itself.
2. Extraordinary claims cause for Extraordinary evidence.

I believe that both of these statements are true.

Answers to the question

1. a lot
2. Extraordinary evidence
3. Jesus should have done something meaningful

Problems that I have with the answers

1. a lot is subjective and not definitive therefore what is your definition for a lot? A lot to me could be a little to you.

2. Extraordinary evidence...again subjective. What is Extraordinary?

Please let me know if you have a different understanding of the discussion.

"Now are we debating whether or not the bible is a reliable source of history... for the future?"

We might as well, none of this is making any sense anymore. We have gone around in circles so many times my head is spinning.

Now are we debating whether or not the bible is a reliable source of history... for the future?

"If you look at Christology and examine the times of Christ, most of the prophesy is handled on his first pass, only a few things fail the criteria. If you look at the doctrine of the end times (Eschatology) and Christ's second coming, you will find that all criteria is met."

Huh? Is this the "if I make stuff up, I can prove anything to be true" school of logic?

If it is not explicitly in the Bible, then it does not count. Period. You do not get to march through history including bits of opinion from every religious figure who owned a pen an paper. Your continuous use of circular reasoning is giving me carpal tunnel syndrome.

Christology and Eschatology are only meaningful if the prophecies are real. You can not use the conclusions as evidence of the validity of the assumption (in this case the prophecies are real)

The real question at this point Eric, is how long are we going to humor your constantly changing the rules of the game. It is getting tedious, I must admit. Every time we refute a point you skip to a new subject.

I disagree with the link.

I'm utterly shocked.

Despite my shock, let me say that to use the second coming of christ (which presumably hasn't happened yet unless you are a David Koresh fan) to say that all the criteria are met is completely ridiculous. You admit that at least some of it does not match, but then want us to suppose that "it will someday because Jesus must be god!!!"

This is just a horrible, horrible, horrible way to misuse logic. I just don't know what else to say other than that.

Well, and this.... this website shows Jesus isn't the Messiah. You saying that he will eventually meet all the criteria is as convincing as me telling you that Dan will eventually meet all the criteria.




P.S. I believe in you Dan.

I disagree with the link. I thought that it was very interesting though. If you look at Christology and examine the times of Christ, most of the prophesy is handled on his first pass, only a few things fail the criteria. If you look at the doctrine of the end times (Eschatology) and Christ's second coming, you will find that all criteria is met.

Eric,

I expect increasing evidence as the extraordinary nature of the claim increases.

To accept that Jesus existed doesn’t require much evidence…a few fragments would do. It’d have been nice if we’d found some writings of his own, but failing that I would accept mentions by other writers living in the same era. I’m not at all swayed by your claim that the Romans and Jews suppressed all mentions of Jesus…the Romans in particular were known to write disparaging things about their enemies. Cicero’s Orations are an example. I find it more likely that during his lifetime Jesus simply wasn’t worth mentioning.

We cannot read Luke as a history for the same reason we cannot read Plato or Homer as a history. Ancient writings may provide clues about the era, but we also need archaeology and related sciences. Stonehenge is a good example. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote that Merlin directed the construction, taking the stones from giants in Ireland. Would you take this story at face value or look for corroborating evidence?

Asking me to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, performed miracles, etc., etc. demands more proof because the claim is so extraordinary. So I would expect the same level of evidence as other extraordinary claim. A good start would be Biblical revelations that matched what we’ve so far learned about natural law instead of contradicting it. Divine intervention that was obvious instead of mysterious. The formula for starting a universe. That sort of thing.

Now…what would it take to convince you that there isn’t a god, or that the hypothesis is less than likely?

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?opti...

Here is the link as promissed----or is it the link as prophesized???

"Luke was a historian."

I agree.

The Gospel of Luke is written as a historical narrative. The author was very close in time to the events he wrote about.

It is too bad he did not write in the style of Josephus or other historians of the time. It would be invaluable. Unfortunately, he copied from work of others, embellished events, and clearly contradicted the other gospels. He also included quite a bit of propaganda in the form of parables.

In addition, his work was edited for inclusion in the cannon, reducing its trustworthiness.

But still, it is a very early document, with a lot of detail.

Eric,

I answered this question about a dozen posts back, but I'll restate it. The likelihood of outside historical evidence existing, the expectation that such evidence exists, should not affect the amount of evidence we require before calling something true. If we cannot find the evidence, then so be it. Decreasing the probability of evidence existing does not increase the probability of the claim being true, it only decreases the likelihood that the claim will ever be proven.

Let's say, for example, that I propose two new subspecies of coyote: Canis latrans rufus, the red coyote, and Canis latrans imperceptus, the unseen coyote. The red coyote is similar to a normal coyote, but is slightly taller, has slightly different dentition, and has fur that is slightly reddish. The unseen coyote is invisible, can fly, and is capable of photosynthesis. I have no evidence for either of these.

For the red coyote, we would expect more evidence. We would expect to see it, but we have not seen it, so this lack of evidence is a mark against it, decreasing its probability of existing. We would not expect to see the unseen coyote, because it is invisible, so no mark against it. We would expect to see the red coyote's tracks, which would be slightly different from regular coyote tracks because of its larger size, but have not. We would not, though, expect to see unseen coyote tracks because it can fly. Again, a mark against the red coyote, but not the unseen coyote. We would expect to find dead red coyote prey, with a slightly different pattern of bite marks than regular coyote kills, but have not. We would not expect to find unseen coyote prey because they photosynthesize. Again, a mark against the red coyote but not the unseen coyote.

By this rationale, the case against the red coyote existing is stronger than the case against the unseen coyote existing, because we have failed to produce expected evidence for the red coyote while for the unseen coyote we never expected evidence in the first place. Obviously, this reasoning contradicts basic common sense. A child can tell you that the unseen coyote is far less probable than the red coyote, because it is inconsistent with observed reality, and so we should expect demand more evidence before we believe it, not less.

The same is true of the bible. It makes outrageous claims. Because of the nature of these claims, we should require a stronger body of evidence than we do for more reasonable claims.

If by "expect" you mean "anticipate ever finding," then I guess we shouldn't expect very much evidence at all for biblical claims. I expect none, frankly. But if by "expect" you're referring to the standard we should require of the claims, then we should expect as much evidence as we ever have for anything.

I posted this on another group's thread and thought I should post it here as well.

I do not understand why the Gospel of Luke is not counted as historical evidence.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
Luke 1:1-4

Luke was a historian. Also, my question was about the amount of outside biblical evidence that we should expect. The reason is based on the Bible, the people of authority did not like Jesus and had motive to discredit him. Luke starts off saying that he examined the evidence and interviewed the witnesses. We do not have the ability to do that today, nor did the Jewish leaders or the Roman Empire have a vested interest in doing so.

The method you have used, my dear Pliny, in investigating the cases of those who are accused of being Christians is extremely proper. No search should be made for these people; when they are accused and found to be guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the individual denies he is a Christian, and gives proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Documents without the accuser's signature must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, since this introduces a very dangerous precedent, and is by no means consistent with the spirit of the age. - Pliny letters X, 97

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp...

It seems that in the first century Christians have been persecuted for their faith in Jesus by the Roman Empire. I am sure that this discouraged a lot of historians to write accounts of Jesus. Which makes my question valid. How much evidence should we expect?

Dan,

I don't know enough about how well the Jesus story meshes with the Old Testament.

I am at work now but I will link the Jewish website that shows how the Jesus story does not mesh with OT prophecy, and shows that Jesus could not possibly be the messiah as soon as I get home.

I think I may have given you that website before, but can't remember.

Eric,

I'm not sure which answer you're referring to. If it's in regards to the Jesus story being necessary, then I see your point, and would respond by saying that I don't know enough about how well the Jesus story meshes with the Old Testament, so hopefully someone will chime in here. I'd also say that the Old Testament prophecy itself is unnecessary, and I still think it's absurd to place limitations on God, saying that he is bound by some prophecy. But, as you said, this destroys the whole context of the bible, which brings us back to the original question.

We should only care about the context the bible provides if there is enough evidence supporting biblical claims for us to take it seriously. So how much evidence should be expected? Well, I feel like I've already answered that question. A lot should be expected.

Dan,

I understand your answer. However the question is in the context of the Bible. To simply say that the Bible is wrong and untrue, is not a answer based on the context.

Also, the elements of the Jesus story is very necessary based on the old testament. If man caused the fall, it also had to be a man (loosely used) to redeem mankind. So, if you want to throw away the whole Bible from Genesis 3 to Revelations out...ok...however we would not be talking about a Christian God without the Christian Cannon which makes it very difficult to answer a question based on the text that we just threw out.

I have a prayer request...

Think!

Well, it is more of just a request...

"I am getting ready to go to church now. Any prayer request???"

Since you asked, I am good, because like Voltaire:

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."

Eric,

The point was that God, being God, could do whatever he wants to do. Jesus did not have to be born at all; he could just appear. Jesus could have biological parents and God could make him free of original sin the same way he did for Mary. There are an infinite number of ways that God could have given us salvation. Nothing about the Jesus story is necessary. The idea of sin being inherited only from fathers is dubious.

On another note, I tried to offer an answer to your original question a few posts back. Was this answer sufficient? Do you have a response to it?

Nathan,

It's like you say, "Well Horus's name was Horus and Jesus's name was Jesus, so see how the stories are completely different."

The differences you have shown are debatable and negligible. The reliability of the sources for your information are dubious.

Where are your unbais sources?

I am getting ready to go to church now. Any prayer request???