ABRAHAMIC GOD of the BIBLE, is the Creator

Speaking of cold cases.....



Jim Warner Wallace: Cold Case Atheist Detective Challenges the Bible


[video=youtube;3FzFTGJc7ZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FzFTGJc7ZY[/video]





"J. Warner Wallace (a former atheist) examines Christianity from a viewpoint of a homicide detective." - Southwest Community Church (April 28, 2013)


[video=youtube;nkllFXIsV6M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkllFXIsV6M[/video]

 

If you care to look I quoted the 500 episode. Only Paul uses that.

Having spent 12 months thoroughly studying the Book of Acts, I can assure you I have a fair knowledge of the subject, the theology, the background, the cities, the rulers and the problems Paul faced when he eventually started his known ministry - 14 years after his conversion.

I've asked you about Abraham but had no reply.

You remind me of another poster who relied on other peoples websites to prove his points.

 

We do not know their intent or if the witnesses even existed as it all could plausibly be the fabrication of the author.

Today eyewitness accounts need to be backed by forensics as we now understand that observation is a weak form of evidence.

Thus it is plausible that the body was moved rather than miraculously resurrected.

A better question is why do you believe a story that cannot be forensically verified actualy happened?

The creation of a religion as without the resurrection being true Christianity would be founded upon a lie.

And today people see Jesus in their toast, clouds, windows, and many other surfaces and once again for the Bible story to be true requires that the authors were objective and honest in their writings... which there is no way to prove.

The link is a great example of confirmation bias as it refers to the Bible as a historical record thus making the claims in the Bible proof of itself. Based on that one can argue that Orcs exsist because I read it in The Lord of the Rings.

 

BTW, want proof the Bible is flawed......go out into a garden.

According to Genesis, God created the PLANTS on the Third Day.....yet He created THE SUN on the Fourth Day.

What kind of "Supreme Being" would create the plants....BEFORE creating the solar body responsible for keeping them warm and nourished???

Sounds pretty stupid for a "Supreme Being", huh?

- - - Updated - - -

He's trying to make the old "The Bible proves that the Bible is true" Argument.

 

While Orsen Wells was reading the script for, "War of the Worlds," on air for the first time - thousands of people called in reporting strange lights and seeing aliens
in the woods. The ability of humans to convince themselves of things is well documented.

As for people "remembering" things different than they were ... hey, just take at look at the different interpretation of events that occurs every political season - how
easily thing are twisted and how easily "events," are interpreted differently. And we have the advantage of audio and video recordings. How easily is human memory
distorted?

 

Keep in mind, there are probably millions of Christians who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that ...

1. the fruit in the Garden of Eden was an "apple".

2. that the names of the Magi were "Casper, Melchior and Balthazar".

3. that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute.


None of that being "Biblical".

 

Being a suspect is not synonymous with being guilty thus our use of forensics and security cameras.

Being charged with a crime is not synonymous with being convicted of a crime. Many cases get thrown out of court due to lack of evidence and many people have been incarcerated for crimes they did not commit because of faulty eyewitness accounts. The scientifically minded understand that observation alone is a weak form of evidence.

Allegedly.

Yet you assume that the story of the resurrection is true.

Indeed, you gave me absolutes lacking absolute evidence.

You gave me correlation implies causation.

Pot meet kettle. The burden of proof is upon you as you as it is not possible to prove a negative. The scientifically minded examine plausible explanations for the claims made in the Bible while the biased only see the evidence that supports their predetermined conclusion aka confirmation bias.

 

God is more incredible than anything we can imagine and this is what he is like....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DDuSAklcY

 

In the Bible? He's nothing but a tribalistic homicidal maniac....localized to a few thousand square miles of the Middle East....

who later becomes a "nice guy" after He decides to torture to death His Son.

 

So, it is Gods will and morality that humans own each other, fathers sell their daughters, that women are lesser humans, that Jewish armies can mass abduct and rape virgins and wholesale killing is righteous?

 

NO he would not as hearsay is not considered evidence especially when third hand and lacking anything to show accuracy, added to this Joe cannot even be shown to be a real person to be charged.

 

The first video he speaks about what the evidence feels like which is the first sign of a bias as when doing an investigation feelings need to be left out of the equation. He also acknowledges that eyewitness accounts very from person to person.

 

uh...I was hoping folks would get the hilarity of that silly statement...

 

You know those words didn't exist at the time the bible was written. English wouldn't show up for a few more millenia.

We have another poster who started a thread about the flat earth. Because the bible says its flat and the earth is a foot stool and there are pedestals supporting it.
Prove the earth is flat, then we can put a line in the sand and have a start point.

 

Your third post in your own thread and you are changing the rules already?
Indirect evidence means you have to make an assumption. So you already blew any further proof you will present. For you formed the conclusion on something that is assumed.

 

Seriously? You have to ask why cultures all over the world would use a boat or similar to escape flood waters?
Perhaps swimming wasn't an option.
Who says they were chosen?

 

Evidences can be addressed when evidences are supplied. For now, all you given are assumptions and f off, God doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want. Some evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't prove the book you're using to be accurate, you can't prove anything you're talking about.
You have to establish the base 1st.

 

Wait. A couple posts earlier you said you don't know if there was a world wide flood, the bible says there was, very definitive.
So if you can't believe if that story is accurate, how do you now say the bible is accurate?

 

Wait, the apostles went into hiding. Were not around when Jesus was on trial?
How did they give such details about the conversations that took place between Pilate, the pharisies, and Jesus?
They gave some pretty detailed descriptions about those conversations, and no one was around.

- - - Updated - - -

Every post you've made is assumptive evidence.
You even so much as stated it in the 1st or 2nd post.
You called it indirect evidence. Doesn't get any more assumptive than that.

 

So what if only Paul uses that?

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html




If you're going to use Paul in your attempt to discredit the Bible, then you should think thrice about that.


Paul is the most convincing example of eyewitnesses that proves the RESURRECTION indeed happened!


To say that Saul of Tarsus was hostile to Christians and Christ.....would be an understatement. He pursued to prosecute Christians!

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

You obviously missed that important part about Paul, that's explained above.
Using Paul to try to discredit EYEWITNESSES to the Resurrection..... is the most ridiculous attempt at rebuttal.


Imagine Christ appearing to one of the most hostile persecutor of Christians, and Saul of Tarsus becoming a believer, spreading the Gospel to gentiles, and willingly dying for Christ - the irony is quite deliciously played.

What made Paul change his mind that he devoted the rest of his time spreading the Gospel, and willingly suffering and dying for it?

 

Irrelevant. Stick to the topic....or start your own thread.

 

The letter provided a crucial lead to the case. Because of the letter, the investigators can pursue the case.
They've got the names to alleged eyewitnesses.

It's not hearsay to track down those 5 witnesses that were mentioned in the letter, and interview them personally.



All historical books must be garbage since all people relevant to the events are all either dead or senile, and all we have now are due to "hearsay!"

There are ways of getting to the truth based on the available information one may have. However, when it involves proving a man's guilt (which may result in punishment), his guilt has to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt."


It doesn't say, "without any doubt." It says, "beyond a REASONABLE doubt."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

 

So why do none of the others mention so important a point? Paul wasn't there. The Corinthians are a thousands miles away. Are they likely to travel to ask these witnesses? They simply take what Paul says without question.

What made Paul change his mind that he devoted the rest of his time spreading the Gospel, and willingly suffering and dying for it?

I don't believe in Paul's vision anymore than I believe in Gabriel talking to Mohammed. Yet Muslims are willing to die for what they believe in.

Using Paul to credit EYEWITNESSES to the Resurrection without any proof there were EYEWITNESSES is a ridiculous attempt to prove a point. No-one else reports it, and PAUL wasn't there. Was it something Paul heard? He doesn't mention it again. In fact none of the disciples mention it.

You really need to think for yourself, study for yourself and not to rely on others to do your thinking. Josh McDowell is not the greatest of people to rely on. He misses several points in his article which are contrary to his viewpoint.

 

And?

What's that got to do with the evidences?
I'm saying that there are cumulative or corroborating evidences being given for the validity of the Bible! Isn't that clear enough?

That there are cumulative or coroborating evidences.....is ALSO evidence in itself!

Check our Preponderance of Evidence, too!

 

A "Lead" is not in any way useful in court....and if the lead provides no data after investigation it has no value.

"Well judge....we have this lead about a possible bad guy but we cannot find him or confirm anything, still we think he is guilty."


Case dismissed and you are fined for wasting the courts time.