Debate on Christianity and Evidence

Jeff Boldgloom

When I asked people how we knew there was a God, I was told "because it's in the bible"

When I asked people how we can believe the bible, I was told "because it's the word of God"

That's why I'm an athiest

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Were they the same people?

Were these two answers all you got from all you asked?

Start travelling around a bit ...

Michael Lambert

Boldgloom? I like it!

Da Absurd Bird

@Hans-Georg Lundahl c'mon man. Trying to recruit dudes to your cult in an atheist comment section?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Da Absurd Bird It so happens, I have heard this meme about Christian evidence, since I was a not yet Catholic teen of 15. I have not exactly been fully acquainted with a Christian who actually said so, and lots who didn't say exactly that.

Sure, recruiting here would be nice ...

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Uh.. yes? I've never seen a reason to believe in God that isn't based around faith or logical fallacy.

Faith isn't a good enough reason for me to believe something. You're going to have to show proof that isn't wrapped up in some form of assumption or fallacy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Going to God of the Bible (that of the Catholic Church):

• there is a Catholic Church which started 33 AD (Catholics and Orthodox disagree on who of them continue it);
• there was before that a Judaism with a Temple, Catholics and the Jews without a Temple disagree on who of them continue it;
• there was a Babylonic captivity before that Temple
• there was another Temple before the Babylonic captivity
• there was an Israelite religion which split into Judaism of first temple and Samaritan religion after the ten tribes rejected Rohoboam the son of Solomon

None of these historic and present communities are doubtful. No body doubts they existed and that now exist Samaritans, Jews, Catholics and Orthodox.

Now, here is the rub:

• Samaritans accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Jews accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Catholics accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Orthodox accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history.

True, in each of the latter three communities at least, there is a modern faction throwing doubts on it, but it is recent compared to those earlier centuries when as far back as we trace, no one threw doubt on historicity of the books mentioned.

Now, if they are historical, there are sufficient miracles in each to warrant divine intervention in history.

If they are garbled, and garbled history happens, there are too many specifics of the miracles that defy explanation as garbled history.

By contrast, the pagan history contemporary to them do not show sufficient specifics on miracles to warrant an acceptance of their gods as true gods (example of insufficient specifics : divinity and pre-human creation events and perhaps mission of possible prophet revealed to that person through a vision or an apparition, with no miracles external to the experience of prophet to back these up).

This means, the God of the Old Testament exists.

Now, there are four religions claiming to come from the Joshua event, directly or with more after, namely, as said, Samaritans, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox. Three splits basically 1000 years apart. The middle one is most important.

Now whether the Church founded in AD 33 was Catholics or Orthodox, or something in between, and whichever side continued it after 1054, it claims, since both Catholics and Orthodox claim and this is also backed up by earlier splits like Copts, Armenians, Nestorians, and even dead ends like Arians and Thondrakians, that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are history.

Same story. If you suppose they are garbled history, you must explain how the garbling came to include miracles which hadn't happened.

And if you accept the miracles, you have to accept the Christian side of the split around AD 33. Since the Jews clearly do not claim any miracles of a major divine kind contrary to the Christian miracles.

Now, once you accept miracles are proven by even possibly garbled history (like some kind of Trojan War is proven by definitely garbled Iliad), you will have to accept God worked them, and once you do that, you will have to accept He founded Christianity and therefore gave either a Church or a Bible or both to faithfully preserve His revelation, and this leads to accepting inerrant history as well. Which was not needed to prove God, but we as Christians need to believe it to avoid certain errors.

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not a historian so I have no way of knowing if anything you're explaining to me is completely true, so I'm going to check this against both religious and secular historical sources. Thanks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Do so!

And try to first of all learn a difference dear to historians, even if I am just an amateur in the subject:

• a history book is a history book, it's a modern analysis of sources
• a historical source is from or as close to from the time of events that we get.

Best wishes!

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hm. That seems to me like preemptive damage control. I have some questions for you.

Where did you find this information?

Where did you fact check this information?

Would scholars that do not have a religious bias agree that this information must prove the existence of God?

caleb robinson

That sounds like an extremely brainwashed answer, I don't believe that is an answer God would want one to give, being a Christian myself, hearing this quite upsets me, we are told in the scripture to be able to give an account for the hope that lies within us and I feel like these answers were extremely void of any substance, I'm sorry about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "That sounds like an extremely brainwashed answer, I don't believe that is an answer God would want one to give,"

What is "extremely brainwashed" about it?

NOT being brainwashed in modern prejudices of history?

NOT being brainwashed in Protestantism being original Christianity with absolutely no proof to back it up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Glad I was not talking over the head of you while you were factchecking and should be given the time to do so.

"I have some questions for you."

Fine.

"Where did you find this information?"

Many sources, and I am not sure I can give you each I originally came across.

I gave a reasoning, my synthesis, on more than one historic fact question.

"Where did you fact check this information?"

On which of the topics? I'd be glad to give a good fact check on each you would like to ask.

"Would scholars that do not have a religious bias agree that this information must prove the existence of God?"

These informations in this reasoning.

As they these days usually either are in an anti-religious bias (like Richard Carrier) or working in an academic context where the religious implications are methodologically left out (like my Catholic or Neo-Catholic Historian friend in Lund, Professor Yvonne Maria Werner), no, they would not.

Richard Carrier would try the dodge to say when a source includes the supernatural it is unreliable, more or less (he wouldn't do that wholesale on Tacitus, but he would be sure Tacitus had had unreliable sources for, for instance, the omens in Rome when Nero was probably murdering his mother, this is in book VI of Annals, btw).

Yvonne Maria Werner would definitely not as a historian on behalf of the institution do so, I suspect she might do so as a private person.

As I have no academic position to defend, I also don't have to comply with that methodology.

Now, go to Annals of Tacitus, and some more ancient Historians, go to Anglo-Saxon chronicle, and then get back and tell me reliable historic information is not even to be gleaned from sources including miracles.

I had Annals book VI at university (my Latin was so good back then I could somehow manage Tacitus), and read about omens in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle somewhere in the context of Vikings, so it should be like from before the attack on Lindisfarne. I take this as typical, if you don't, well do a better fact check.

THEN go to modern syntheses about Rome after Augustus but before Tacitus set to work, or about England from Roman legions leaving in 411 AD to 1154, especially the latter part, close to King Alfred's time, when the original manuscript (which was later updated) seems to have been made. See how much they after all do rely on Tacitus or Anglo-Saxon chronicle for non-miraculous and non-ominous events.

AND, as a third step, if you still disbelieve the miraculous, ask yourself why you take one source as reliable when it is non-miraculous and as non-reliable when it is miraculous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson again, here:

"we are told in the scripture to be able to give an account for the hope that lies within us"

Exactly what I am trying to do.

"and I feel like these answers were extremely void of any substance, I'm sorry about that."

Perhaps because history, while key to a real substantial answer, is not your best subject?

If I am wrong, name one person who belonged to YOUR type of Christian Church and who lived in 750 AD.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It sounds brainwashed because that person if they are giving answers like that dont know why they believe what they believe, yes it is something God has told us is true through his scripture, but it doesnt offer any substance to the one asking a question, and i feel thats where the answer fails, I too believe that the scripture is the truth, but i feel that one should be able to give an account of their belief in an analytical, logical, and rational manner. Having faith because the evidence shows it to be so, and i do believe that there is enough evidence to suggest God is real and Jesus was who he said he was.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You realise i am not replying to your comments dont you? I am replying to the Original comment made, in which this thread is continuing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "yes it is something God has told us is true through his scripture, but it doesnt offer any substance to the one asking a question, and i feel thats where the answer fails, I too believe that the scripture is the truth, but i feel that one should be able to give an account of their belief in an analytical, logical, and rational manner."

Well, didn't I?

"Having faith because the evidence shows it to be so, and i do believe that there is enough evidence to suggest God is real and Jesus was who he said he was."

So do I. I consider the chief difficulty is believing Gospel is evidence and I adress that through nature of historic evidence as such and through specifics about this case.

What's sounding brainwashed about that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "You realise i am not replying to your comments dont you? I am replying to the Original comment made, in which this thread is continuing."

Oh, I actually didn't until I was just now beginning to suspect it.

But to me it sounded not brainwashed, but fictional.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Again if you read my comment, it was not aimed toward you.

I am from the church of christ, and all the apostles were from this church Peter, Paul, John, all of them. The church i attend is structured and runs the same as the first churches did. I do not know who Lived in 750 AD.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yeah it happens sometimes thats why i should tag the people im talking to in the future. aha sorry about the confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "The church i attend is structured and runs the same as the first churches did. I do not know who Lived in 750 AD."

I have a fairly good idea what major known groups of people did, and none of them had as far as I know both your Church Structure and your doctrine.

In fact, since part of your doctrine is a doctrine about Church structure, but also for other reasons, this means none had your doctrine back then.

This means, you can't have the same Church Structure and Doctrine as Apostles, see Mt 28:20 "all days"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson I should have guessed even without a tag, but was tired.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well studying through the scripture you begin to see the apostles were giving the doctrine as it was being revealed to them, and they wrote it down, which is what makes up the bible. we hold steadfast to the apostles doctrine that they wrote down for us, and also gave to the christians living at that time.

But i do not remember speaking about doctrine, we just do what the bible says and structure it accordingly. Thats all.

The Truth

So much delusion in this thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "studying through the scripture you begin to see the apostles were giving the doctrine as it was being revealed to them,"

Partly, but mostly, they were given the doctrine by Christ and giving it as occasions demanded.

"and they wrote it down, which is what makes up the bible."

NT has 8 authors. Sts Matthew, Jude and Peter were of the 12. St John may have been of the Twelve or may have been just a namesake of the son of Zebedee, not same person. In that case, the beloved disciple was the Gospeller, not the fisherman.

St James was the Brother of God, not the son of Zebedee.

Sts Mark and Luke were definitely not of the 12.

Suggests to me, the 12 had some other function than writing NT, besides, NT is not all of the Bible. Any reference in NT to "Scripture" usually primarily refers to the OT.

So, what else were the 12 doing, and what else are you steadfastly holding to, except the doctrine written down in NT, as you interpret it?

Bc, what you just said is NOT enough. St Matthew, one of the twelve, did write down a promise involving ALL DAYS, right?

To have the overall right interpretation of NT, you have to have a Church which has been in place since the 12 heard that promise (or 11, Judas not yet replaced by St Mathias). You don't.

"we just do what the bible says and structure it accordingly. Thats all."

In order actually to structure it accordingly to what the Bible says, you need to find a Church which was there in all days, therefore also in 750.

This guy was born that year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Ireland

So were these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_of_Salzburg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermudo_I_of_Asturias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_of_Fulda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegrim_of_Ch%C3%A2lons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodulf_of_Orl%C3%A9ans

These men died that year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Confessor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agilulfus_of_Cologne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boruth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bressal_mac_%C3%81edo_R%C3%B3in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burchard_of_W%C3%BCrzburg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himelin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inreachtach_mac_Dluthach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzak

There is nearly one person of these who definitely was not a real Christian in my book - the husband of Tzitzak, Constantine Shitname (who survived her by 25 years).

Some of the Irish were perhaps schismatic, the rest were Christian. So, the promise in Matthew 28:20 is fulfilled as to 750 AD.

@The Truth Like what?

@caleb robinson I missed St Paul, an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

@caleb robinson And Tzitzak, like her husband, was probably clpable of iconoclastic doctrine.