Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses.

This doesn't mean that the accounts purely relied on first-hand testimonies of these eyewitnesses, or that the eyewitnesses altogether witnessed everything that is mentioned in the accounts from Jesus' birth to ministry to death and resurrection. It also doesn't mean that these "possible rebuttal witnesses" could have had access to, or awareness of, these documents at the time.

No but having 27 documents that carry the same basic message and churches the believe that same basic message BEFORE the documents adds to the probability of the reliability of the accounts--as they would in any series of ancient documents for any events. 

The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

No, that's a non-sequitur. There is no reason to suggest it was certainly believed from day one. It may have been a decade later (or whatever) when this doctrine of the resurrection started to emerge.

That theory would contradict Acts. We have no reason to believe Acts is not as it claims to be: a history of the early church. You can't just throw out theories without thinking about how you are going to deal with this or that evidence. More below on Acts.

Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reasons do you give for that?

The authenticity of Acts has been called into question by many biblical scholars, and for a combination of good reasons.

From Wikipedia:

Acts agrees with Paul's letters on the major outline of Paul's career: as Saul he is converted and becomes Paul the Christian missionary and apostle, establishing new churches in Asia Minor and the Aegean and struggling to free Gentile Christians from the Jewish Law. There are also agreements on many incidents, such as Paul's escape from Damascus, where he is lowered down the walls in a basket. But details of these same incidents are frequently seen as contradictory: for example, according to Paul it was a pagan king who was trying to arrest him in Damascus, but according to Luke it was the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:33 and Acts 9:24). Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never brings Paul into conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter (Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2). Acts omits much from the letters, notably Paul's problems with his congregations (internal difficulties are said to be the fault of the Jews instead), and his apparent final rejection by the church leaders in Jerusalem (Acts has Paul and Barnabas deliver an offering that is accepted, a trip that has no mention in the letters). There are also alleged major differences between Acts and Paul on Christology (the understanding of Christ's nature), eschatology (understanding of the "last things"), and apostleship.

So it seems like the Book of Acts was revisionist work that aimed to provide a more positive image of the early Christian church, one of unity as opposed to conflict among the church leaders.

What are you talking about? You did not get any "authenticity" problems from what you just quoted. You cataloged a couple of interesting points if you were really really into church history and the life of Paul. You are taking leaps because you actually don't understand the references being made. Read it again, no one thinks that Acts was revisionist. In fact, minor differences are evidence of authenticity. A revisionist account would have cleaned up the little discrepancies or questions that you would expect an investigative reporter (Luke) would write down a few years later.

[polymath257]

100% confirm = REAL world evidence. Find the tomb he was buried in. Find a trace of DNA, SOMETHING that actually ties down what this book says to anything you say happened. It doenst exist. The romans kept VERY good records, and there is no record of this ever happening.

Setting aside that finding any of those things today would prove nothing, 99.9% of history of events and people is conveyed in writing. You don't know what someone did, thought, said, believed by archaeology. Also, 99.99% of all historical documents do not survive. Here's a question, how many references to Hannibal are their that were dated within his lifetime. Do you believe Hannibal did the things ascribed to him? Why? We don't have any "REAL world evidence". 

Some of the REAL WORLD evidence:

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/hann...03763.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016...ty-toronto

One should *always* consider written material skeptically until supported by physical evidence.

[Abaddon_ire]

Question begging is circular reasoning (which you just double-down on). Here's the basics of your reasoning:

1. Miracles can't happen

Wrong.

2. The NT contains miracles

Sure.

3. Therefore the NT cannot be true because it contains miracles

Wrong.

You have assumed your conclusion in your first premise. I know, I know, it takes away 80% of your argument, but stop anyway. 

Pot, kettle, black and also wrong.

BTW, there is almost no ancient history scholar that believes that Jesus never existed. Even atheist scholars don't bother to claim that nonsense.

Followed up with a lie.

[Pat Mustard]

LOL. So he refers to 400 year old documents we have never seen from people he never met. You got me!! Exactly the same as the NT.

Documents not seen by people not met by the author? OMG, you're this close to rejecting the Gospels ...

Keep thinking, Steve. You'll get there.

Yes! It is part of the joy of talking to Grand. He get's kudos just for telling me I'm wrong and I get to amuse myself with comments I am sure are going over his head. A win-win.

What win? If anything, you come off as someone who's pretty insecure that this not-so-bright Grandizer is getting lots of kudos compared to you. If you want lots of kudos, and RR isn't good enough to keep you satisfied, maybe you should make a lot more reasonable and valid points instead of all the special pleading and the appeals to popularity and authority and all that. People here are brighter and fairer than you make them out to be. Also, some of them have degrees that you and I could only dream of having, so perhaps you shouldn't be debating them on topics they are experts on. I've done that before, only to realize that I was getting it wrong.

Steve is too thick to realise that he is being pwned by the most basic concepts. It's almost like he was Dunning and Krueger's patient 0.

[GrandizerII]

No but having 27 documents that carry the same basic message and churches the believe that same basic message BEFORE the documents adds to the probability of the reliability of the accounts--as they would in any series of ancient documents for any events.

Emphasis mine. That there is one of the many problems with the NT. The Gospel message isn't consistently the same throughout the 27 books. Prime example being James' salvation through works vs. Paul's salvation through faith. Only a biased Christian mind sees the opposite.

That theory would contradict Acts. We have no reason to believe Acts is not as it claims to be: a history of the early church. You can't just throw out theories without thinking about how you are going to deal with this or that evidence. More below on Acts.

No reason? Considering that the historicity of Acts has been called into question, with scholars themselves pointing out various contradictions regarding the depiction of Paul in Acts vs. the Pauline epistles, your statement is clearly unwarranted. Again, you only say this because of your strong theological biases.

What are you talking about? You did not get any "authenticity" problems from what you just quoted. You cataloged a couple of interesting points if you were really really into church history and the life of Paul. You are taking leaps because you actually don't understand the references being made. Read it again, no one thinks that Acts was revisionist. In fact, minor differences are evidence of authenticity. A revisionist account would have cleaned up the little discrepancies or questions that you would expect an investigative reporter (Luke) would write down a few years later.

Revisionism is exactly what "Luke" did himself by rewriting history to favor the unity of the early church. Do read that paragraph from Wikipedia again.

[Amarok]

No but having 27 documents that carry the same basic message and churches the believe that same basic message BEFORE the documents adds to the probability of the reliability of the accounts--as they would in any series of ancient documents for any events.

Emphasis mine. That there is one of the many problems with the NT. The Gospel message isn't consistently the same throughout the 27 books. Prime example being James' salvation through works vs. Paul's salvation through faith. Only a biased Christian mind sees the opposite.

That theory would contradict Acts. We have no reason to believe Acts is not as it claims to be: a history of the early church. You can't just throw out theories without thinking about how you are going to deal with this or that evidence. More below on Acts.

No reason? Considering that the historicity of Acts has been called into question, with scholars themselves pointing out various contradictions regarding the depiction of Paul in Acts vs. the Pauline epistles, your statement is clearly unwarranted. Again, you only say this because of your strong theological biases.

What are you talking about? You did not get any "authenticity" problems from what you just quoted. You cataloged a couple of interesting points if you were really really into church history and the life of Paul. You are taking leaps because you actually don't understand the references being made. Read it again, no one thinks that Acts was revisionist. In fact, minor differences are evidence of authenticity. A revisionist account would have cleaned up the little discrepancies or questions that you would expect an investigative reporter (Luke) would write down a few years later.

Revisionism is exactly what "Luke" did himself by rewriting history to favor the unity of the early church. Do read that paragraph from Wikipedia again.

He loves pushing that 27 story books nonsense .The number of books mean nothing if the books are crap

[Angrboda]

He loves pushing that 27 story books nonsense .The number of books mean nothing if the books are crap

[SteveII]

No but having 27 documents that carry the same basic message and churches the believe that same basic message BEFORE the documents adds to the probability of the reliability of the accounts--as they would in any series of ancient documents for any events.

Emphasis mine. That there is one of the many problems with the NT. The Gospel message isn't consistently the same throughout the 27 books. Prime example being James' salvation through works vs. Paul's salvation through faith. Only a biased Christian mind sees the opposite.

Did you read that on an atheist bullet list? What exactly did James say? 

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect?

So, as a student of the Bible, tell me how that contradicts Paul and that they cannot both be right. Please be specific with references. 

That theory would contradict Acts. We have no reason to believe Acts is not as it claims to be: a history of the early church. You can't just throw out theories without thinking about how you are going to deal with this or that evidence. More below on Acts.

No reason? Considering that the historicity of Acts has been called into question, with scholars themselves pointing out various contradictions regarding the depiction of Paul in Acts vs. the Pauline epistles, your statement is clearly unwarranted. Again, you only say this because of your strong theological biases.

What are you talking about? You did not get any "authenticity" problems from what you just quoted. You cataloged a couple of interesting points if you were really really into church history and the life of Paul. You are taking leaps because you actually don't understand the references being made. Read it again, no one thinks that Acts was revisionist. In fact, minor differences are evidence of authenticity. A revisionist account would have cleaned up the little discrepancies or questions that you would expect an investigative reporter (Luke) would write down a few years later.

Revisionism is exactly what "Luke" did himself by rewriting history to favor the unity of the early church. Do read that paragraph from Wikipedia again.

Here is your reference.

Acts agrees with Paul's letters on the major outline of Paul's career: as Saul he is converted and becomes Paul the Christian missionary and apostle, establishing new churches in Asia Minor and the Aegean and struggling to free Gentile Christians from the Jewish Law. There are also agreements on many incidents, such as Paul's escape from Damascus, where he is lowered down the walls in a basket. But details of these same incidents are frequently seen as contradictory: for example, according to Paul it was a pagan king who was trying to arrest him in Damascus, but according to Luke it was the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:33 and Acts 9:24).[1] Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never brings Paul into conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter (Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2). Acts omits much from the letters, notably Paul's problems with his congregations (internal difficulties are said to be the fault of the Jews instead), and his apparent final rejection by the church leaders in Jerusalem (Acts has Paul and Barnabas deliver an offering that is accepted, a trip that has no mention in the letters). There are also alleged major differences between Acts and Paul on Christology (the understanding of Christ's nature), eschatology (understanding of the "last things"), and apostleship.

SO, in 28 chapters with over 1200 verses spanning 30 years of time, how many details contradict some other detail based on the letters of Paul? Scanning above... 1

Questions about why Luke left out this or that detail? Taking a wild guess...he didn't know.

Questions about "alleged" doctrine differences...Luke was reporting history. Don't really know what the specific references of this objection, but it is extremely likely that he did not have Paul's letters. Luke never claimed to be writing doctrine. 

It is quite interesting that you get "revisionist" and "historicity called into question" about such a list. You accuse me of a charitable reading of Acts because of my "theological bias". But really what we see here is your dismissal of Acts with no real reasons. You went looking for reasons to dismiss it and you came back with some lame-ass list you thought might be compelling--because, really--you don't know if that list is significant or not--because you don't know shit about the NT. Now who has the bias?

[Abaddon_ire]

<snip juvenile apologia>

Can you tell me who rocked up to the tomb and what happened next?

[Rahn127]

41 pages and what have we learned ?

I'd say that Stevell appeals to the bible WAY too much.
Read another book Stevo. Visit a library. They literally have tons of them.

All the books in the world about electricity are not evidence of electricity. Those books can inform you about the experiments performed and the results so that you can perform the same experiments to see if your results match.

We know about electricity through experimentation and knowledge gained about electrons.

What experiments has anyone performed that test to see if a god exists ?