Why believe the bible?

[Amarok]

Inferring from the nearly 6.8 billion people (almost 9 out of 10) who believe in the supernatural AND the 10,000 years of history where we see the same. Of course I might be wrong and it's all because of the superb evidence we are hiding from the little atheist population. 

Appealing to numbers and history does not imply we are naturally wired to believe in the supernatural nor does your second premise follow .

---

It didn't spread within 20 years and even if it had that's not evidence of a real event 

Surely it spread somewhat within 20 years though within 20 years of exactly what isn't clear.

Not to the proportions he's trying to depict

[Mystic]

Inferring from the nearly 6.8 billion people (almost 9 out of 10) who believe in the supernatural AND the 10,000 years of history where we see the same. Of course I might be wrong and it's all because of the superb evidence we are hiding from the little atheist population. 

Appealing to numbers and history does not imply we are naturally wired to believe in the supernatural nor does your second premise follow .

Yes you are right, this also shows psychology is based on irrational foundations.

[Succubus]

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus. They all believed the same thing that later appeared in the Gospels. Evidence for these churches are in first and second century docs like these. The mention of these churches in Acts and the Epistles complete a nice loop.

Fact is, we do know way more that you think. Demanding that we have non-religious-related docs is nonsense. 99.9% of all docs from the first century are gone. It is only docs that people cared about that were painstakingly preserved and copied on materials that had expiration dates.

From *your* link:

Marcus Minucius Felix. Died 260 AD.

Epistle of Barnabas. They propose a composition "date during or immediately after the reign of Nerva (96-8 C.E.)

Clement of Rome. Estimated Range of Dating: 80-140 A.D.

2 Clement. Although known as 2 Clement, this document is in actuality an anonymous homily of the mid-second century.

The Shepard of Hermas. The Muratorian canon, a list of canonical books from about the 3d century, says Hermas was written by the brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome, about 140-154.

Ignatius of Antioch. places Ignatius' martyrdom in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)

Polycarp of Smyrna. 120-140 CE

Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. Estimated Range of Dating: 130-200 A.D.

Fragments of Papias. Estimated Range of Dating: 110-140 A.D.

Quadratus of Athens. Estimated Range of Dating: 120-130 A.D.

Apology of Aristides. Estimated Range of Dating: 120-130 A.D.

Fragments of Melito of Sardis. Estimated Range of Dating: 165-175 A.D.

Fragments of Hegesippus. Estimated Range of Dating: 165-175 A.D.

Fragments of Dionysius of Corinth. Estimated Range of Dating: 165-175 A.D.

---

Should I go on?


lying for Jeebus. A tradition as old as the gospel of Mark ~70CE

[SteveII]

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus.

I don't think that it's in much dispute that there were Christians then. It's not in dispute at all that the Branch Dravidians were real, but it does not imply that David Koresh was a real prophet.

Historical scholars care about the WHY and make inferences and tie things together with the WHY. WHY were there relatively widespread Christians in the decades between Jesus and the Gospels?  The answer is that the general beliefs about Jesus did not come from what we now call the Bible. Where did they come from? The most obvious answer is that the momentum of the eyewitnesses/contemporaries following Jesus death and resurrection motivated serious, early efforts to propagate the Gospel and repeated the events we eventually learn about.  While not conclusive of anything but belief, it is another piece of evidence that 1) supports the overall NT theme and 2) cripples any theories of late fabrication/hoax/simple misunderstanding.

[RoadRunner79]

And how can we be sure that what they witnessed was properly recorded? Even in modern society witness testimonial is quite unreliable, yet alone scientific ignorant people living in the bronze age. Or it might have been completely fabricated and packaged along with the claim in order to make it more believable. Fact is, we just don't know. What do we know though is nowhere else outside of the Bible are any of the magic that is claimed to have happened actually recorded.

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus. They all believed the same thing that later appeared in the Gospels. Evidence for these churches are in first and second century docs like these. The mention of these churches in Acts and the Epistles complete a nice loop.

Fact is, we do know way more that you think. Demanding that we have non-religious-related docs is nonsense. 99.9% of all docs from the first century are gone. It is only docs that people cared about that were painstakingly preserved and copied on materials that had expiration dates.

We can confirm a lot from writings outside of the Bible about the early beliefs of Christians, what was known of Jesus, and the early practices of the Church

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-...the-bible/

Let’s review what we’ve learned from hostile pagan and Jewish sources describing Jesus. We’ll do our best to discount the anti-Christian bias we see in the sources, just as we discounted the pro-Christian bias we think might exist in some versions of the writing of Josephus. Many elements of the Biblical record are confirmed by these hostile accounts, in spite of the fact they deny the supernatural power of Jesus:

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death.

These where not witnesses to these events, but they do confirm (from a non-friendly) point of view a number of things that where known about Jesus fairly early.  They confirm the Gospel and that Jesus was known as a healer and miracle worker.

[SteveII]

We are talking about a specific set of miracles chronicled in the NT. They can be substantiated by people who saw them. These people later wrote things down, told other people and had them write them down. There is no proof. Only whether you believe the evidence and have additional reasons to think the evidence is true. Christian belief does not happen because you read about a miracle and believed it to be true. It is a process I outlined in my very first post in this thread. 

Bringing up people who purportedly perform miracles today is a red herring. I have no knowledge of or access to these claims.

That you accept hearsay claims from decades after the purported events as evidence of said events says more to your credulity than anything else.

Hearsay is not evidence Steve-o. No matter how much you deperately want it to be.

Except Bastard-o...there is actually a term called 'hearsay evidence'...you should write someone about getting that corrected. Start here

And to remind you, my inductive line of reasoning does not rely on hearsay evidence:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

[Angrboda]

These where not witnesses to these events, but they do confirm (from a non-friendly) point of view a number of things that where known about Jesus fairly early.  They confirm the Gospel and that Jesus was known as a healer and miracle worker.

And the existence of folklore proves that green M&M's are aphrodisiac and the world is populated by dangerous hitchhikers.

---

That you accept hearsay claims from decades after the purported events as evidence of said events says more to your credulity than anything else.

Hearsay is not evidence Steve-o. No matter how much you deperately want it to be.

Except Bastard-o...there is actually a term called 'hearsay evidence'...you should write someone about getting that corrected. Start here

And to remind you, my inductive line of reasoning does not rely on hearsay evidence:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

No, if it did, I think that would be an improvement. Your "inductive line of reasoning" appears to depend on loose logic and dubious assumptions.

[Amarok]

Appealing to numbers and history does not imply we are naturally wired to believe in the supernatural nor does your second premise follow .

Yes you are right, this also shows psychology is based on irrational foundations.

Lol no it doesn't

[Mystic]

Yes you are right, this also shows psychology is based on irrational foundations.

Lol no it doesn't

It is, it assesses human psychology by statistics observation often, which sometimes works and sometimes, it doesn't prove anything.

[Amarok]

These where not witnesses to these events, but they do confirm (from a non-friendly) point of view a number of things that where known about Jesus fairly early.  They confirm the Gospel and that Jesus was known as a healer and miracle worker.

And the existence of folklore proves that green M&M's are aphrodisiac and the world is populated by dangerous hitchhikers.

---

Except Bastard-o...there is actually a term called 'hearsay evidence'...you should write someone about getting that corrected. Start here

And to remind you, my inductive line of reasoning does not rely on hearsay evidence:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

No, if it did, I think that would be an improvement.  Your "inductive line of reasoning" appears to depend on loose logic and dubious assumptions.

In Christian apologetics is their any other kind of logic.And his attempt at hijacking hearsay evidence is tortured at best .

---

Lol no it doesn't

It is, it assesses human psychology by statistics observation often, which sometimes works and sometimes, it doesn't prove anything.

More lunacy