(March 16, 2017 at 7:22 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 16, 2017 at 6:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: Two points on the New Testament not being the claim:
1. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
Which is still not evidence.
(March 16, 2017 at 6:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). How can you describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as "the claim" as if it were one thing?
Because none of it has any supporting evidence.
(March 16, 2017 at 6:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it.
That isn't evidence.
Your problem is with word definitions.
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. They are NOT synonyms.
Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.
So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.
