Is the Bible True?

[irenaeuslyons]

Well the issue isn’t just that I haven’t seen proof of the supernatural it’s that no one has ever once proved that the supernatural is real. I’m not saying I have to personally experience it but someone will have to prove it scientifically for it to seem credible as opposed to the only way people can prove it is their own experience

The supernatural just means beyond the laws of nature. In the moments after the big bang, the natural laws did not yet take shape. Therefore, even science recognizes the supernatural existed at one point.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Ill leave the miracle side of things to some of the knowledgeable people here. My area of biblical research is ancient history and chronology, which is an area atheists scorn and undermine. However, in recent years, hard evidence has come to light, and it always supports the Bible’s record of history.

Here are a few examples that skeptics have declared ‘myths & fables,’ but they have all proved to be true:

• The city of Nineveh was found
• The Hittite Empire was discovered.
• King David was not a legend.
• The chronology of the kings compute.
• Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon.
• Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea AD 26-36

Skeptics are forced to go beyond David with mealy-mouthed claims that the Bible isn’t a reliable record of history. However, almost every year something is unearthed that ratchets their ‘myths’ back a few more years. The latest archaeological find is that of Joshua’s conquest of Ai in 1404 BC. Boy, does that have them squirming!

I’d be curious to find out where you got this information–meaning the skeptics’ claims.

 

[Cyberseeker]

The skeptics claims? Well they dont deny the above listed items now, but they have at various times denied all of them. For example, skeptics were saying that King David and Solomon were legendary figures up to only a few years ago. When the Tel Dan Stele was discovered in 1993 it caused a right old flurry among biblical minimalists. Some even tried to say it was a forgery.

 

[SonOfMan]

Essentially we know things that the original spectators could easily observe and accurately report:

Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.

Ok, yes.

Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.

This is not a fact. The Bible alleges that he claimed to be, but there are no writings outside of the inner circle of writers that coincides with these claims.

Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.

Not a fact. The Bible alleges that he proved things, but no other writings outside of the Bible corroborate these claims.

Keep in mind, Indians believe there to be eyewitnesses to the miraculous deeds and resurrection of Krishna, because that is what is written. Does their claim have any credibility in your view?

Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.

That’s what is written, but nothing else corroborates this.

Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.

Maybe so, but the claim out there is that Jesus as the man-god is legend based upon a real man named Jesus. Just because there was a real man named Jesus does not mean he was God, nor does it mean he had divine powers. And since there are no reliable sources that corroborate what the Bible has claimed, we simply don’t know.

Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

Jesus allegedly said the gates of hell would not prevail. That doesn’t neccessitate that the teachings would be protected and would be kind of a stretch, jump, and hop to say so based on that sentence alone.

Historically, they prove that the messenger sent from God worked many miracles to support His mission and teaching to the extent of forgiving sins. God as Truth cannot provide such power to prove falsehood, so the claims of Jesus are true, culminating in the fact of His resurrection from the dead.

Historically, the most it proves is that there was a real man named Jesus. That doesn’t prove this man named Jesus was God or that he proved himself through miraculous deeds. A real man named Jesus with stories of miracles and resurrecting added to his name throughout the years, and you have a Legend. This is the more plausible possibility.

So from the reliability of the Gospels as history, we now know that:

1. An infallible Church was founded by the Son of God
2. That infallible Church teaches that the Bible, as She has given us, is the inspired Word of God.

This is circular reasoning.

 

[clem456]

I am catholic and recognize the Bible as an essential part of our faith. My questions is really meant to address a popular atheist sentiment that there is no reason to believe the supernatural (or otherwise) claims of the Bible.

I am not sure how to address such claims.

This is going to seem like a smart aleck simpleton question, but I’m going to throw it out anyway.
What do you mean by “believe”? As in your question above…Why should we have reason “to believe” the supernatural claims of the bible?

If, by believe, you mean affirm these events happened in literalist fashion, you will never have satisfying proof, historical or scientific, to prove much of anything in the bible, with some very minor exceptions.

On the other hand, the bible, as a work of inspired literature, proposes things for our belief that are beyond the historic or scientific. We are asked to trust (have faith) that the words contained therein are life giving Truth, but not proven in literalist fashion. That is belief. Belief asks us to move beyond sight.

My daughter was really trying to aggressively climb the corporate ladder several years ago. She applied for like the 10th job in the course of one month (not really, it was probably the 3rd interview). This particular interview she had to drive “hundreds of miles”. This is hypberbole, it was only 2 hours away. Because it was snowing cats and dogs she got stuck, had to get out and walk for another “hundred miles” and get a ride. She was late and had a bad confrontation with an unsympathetic superior and told her where to shove it. She did not get the job. The way she tells it, it was God’s will that she tell her superior where to shove it and God’s will that she did not get this job. Because she stayed her other job and met her current husband and all live happily.

Is this story true? Is it true that it snowed cats and dogs or that she had to walk 800 miles in a snowstorm, or that God really wanted her to nuke her superior? If one becomes ensnared in looking for proof of all this, the real truth is lost.

That is inspiration…the real truth which God wishes to convey. It’s not all about proving literalist details. Fundamentalist atheists will insist that because the literal factual truth of a passage cannot be proven, then there is no inspired truth in scripture.

Faith (belief) is a theological gift. It cannot be demanded or proven. We have to ask for it in a spirit of docility and trust, or we cannot see what is really true is scripture.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

This is going to seem like a smart aleck simpleton question, but I’m going to throw it out anyway.
What do you mean by “believe”? As in your question above…Why should we have reason “to believe” the supernatural claims of the bible?

If, by believe, you mean affirm these events happened in literalist fashion, you will never have satisfying proof, historical or scientific, to prove much of anything in the bible, with some very minor exceptions.

On the other hand, the bible, as a work of inspired literature, proposes things for our belief that are beyond the historic or scientific. We are asked to trust (have faith) that the words contained therein are life giving Truth, but not proven in literalist fashion. That is belief. Belief asks us to move beyond sight.

My daughter was really trying to aggressively climb the corporate ladder several years ago. She applied for like the 10th job in the course of one month (not really, it was probably the 3rd interview). This particular interview she had to drive “hundreds of miles”. This is hypberbole, it was only 2 hours away. Because it was snowing cats and dogs she got stuck, had to get out and walk for another “hundred miles” and get a ride. She was late and had a bad confrontation with an unsympathetic superior and told her where to shove it. She did not get the job. The way she tells it, it was God’s will that she tell her superior where to shove it and God’s will that she did not get this job. Because she stayed her other job and met her current husband and all live happily.

Is this story true? Is it true that it snowed cats and dogs or that she had to walk 800 miles in a snowstorm, or that God really wanted her to nuke her superior? If one becomes ensnared in looking for proof of all this, the real truth is lost.

That is inspiration…the real truth which God wishes to convey. It’s not all about proving literalist details. Fundamentalist atheists will insist that because the literal factual truth of a passage cannot be proven, then there is no inspired truth in scripture.

Faith (belief) is a theological gift. It cannot be demanded or proven. We have to ask for it in a spirit of docility and trust, or we cannot see what is really true is scripture.

The trouble with this analogy is that that story was not written to be used a fact and a basis for people generations to come to base their lives off of. If I had to write a story about factual events that I knew to be the inspired word of god I would drop the hyperbole and say what happened. ie. if someone only walked 20 block I wouldn’t write they had to walk hundreds of miles I would write they had to walk 20 blocks.

 

[ericc]

Well it depends on the claim, I mean if 99% of the world says that they saw a solar eclipse and I was asleep then sure I’d buy that even if there wasn’t supposed to be an eclipse. However if 99% of the world says that they saw 6 solar eclipses in a row I would very much doubt that and if they say they saw 6 different suns being eclipsed by 6 different moons than I wouldn’t believe it at all so the claim is important. Especially the time when the claim is made I mean looking at the bible none of it was written until AT BEST 30 years later. And if you want to say “how could is spread if it wasn’t true?” look at Mormonism and how far it has grown in the modern world where we know much more about how the world works. In fact a good friend of mine just went on a mission trip to Reno to spread Mormonism so there are even people willing to give good portions of their lives (2 years in his case) for what they believe. So yes physical evidence is important but just because a lot of people believe it(even people you trust personally*).

So to sum up, yeah even if 99% of the world believed something I would stay skeptical, especially if there was no physical proof.*

Well you know they were hallucinating because there weren’t 6 suns, only one. If 99% says they have seen a ghost, and you haven’t, that is really different from the 6 suns example because the 6 suns can be tested and verified but not the supernatural which currently is still beyond the reach of modern technologies. The question therefore rest on whether the weight of the experience of others mean absolutely nothing to you or something. If nothing, I do think that is a strange way of learning new things. Which mean history could also fall in the same category for events prior to the invention of recording media. The reason history lessons exist is because we trusted the credibility of others to tell us what they know. And the reason why one may trust another account of seeing a supernatural event because we think that person is a credible source + hundreds, thousands, millions others and over different times. All together, I think that is a powerful indicator for existence of the supernatural rather than “Nope, I haven’t seen it , experience it myself, therefore it can’t be real”. That is what I call self-imposed censorship of scope of knowledge.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Well you know they were hallucinating because there weren’t 6 suns, only one. If 99% says they have seen a ghost, and you haven’t, that is really different from the 6 suns example because the 6 suns can be tested and verified but not the supernatural which currently is still beyond the reach of modern technologies. The question therefore rest on whether the weight of the experience of others mean absolutely nothing to you or something. If nothing, I do think that is a strange way of learning new things. Which mean history could also fall in the same category for events prior to the invention of recording media. The reason history lessons exist is because we trusted the credibility of others to tell us what they know. And the reason why one may trust another account of seeing a supernatural event because we think that person is a credible source + hundreds, thousands, millions others and over different times. All together, I think that is a powerful indicator for existence of the supernatural rather than “Nope, I haven’t seen it , experience it myself, therefore it can’t be real”. That is what I call self-imposed censorship of scope of knowledge.

It’s not that I don’t value other’s experiences it’s that if those experiences aren’t backed by any kind evidence then I will doubt it. And as you said the supernatural is beyond modern science, or in other words unproveable, now I’m not saying the supernatural is not and cannot be real however I am saying that until we can prove it there is no sound reason to believe in it. So unless you are willing to say every experience people claim to have ie. alien abductions, big foot, the loch ness monster, and the claims of other religions than you can’t claim the experiences of people in your religion as evidence and experiences of what I listed above as anything less credible(in other words special pleading) Now personal experience isn’t worthless and while not the most reliable source of information it is useful but if someone claims to have experienced something that is impossible, or something that is very out of the ordinary(especially today where good quality cameras are in our pockets) then that claim won’t be taken as enough evidence.

And in regards to your claim of history we have things to back up most of that like physical evidence of events/places people who gave accounts of their time (which match up with other accounts that are within the norm of what you would expect) and people who were alive during those events to verify them.

 

[ynotzap]

It’s not that I don’t value other’s experiences it’s that if those experiences aren’t backed by any kind evidence then I will doubt it. And as you said the supernatural is beyond modern science, or in other words unproveable, now I’m not saying the supernatural is not and cannot be real however I am saying that until we can prove it there is no sound reason to believe in it. So unless you are willing to say every experience people claim to have ie. alien abductions, big foot, the loch ness monster, and the claims of other religions than you can’t claim the experiences of people in your religion as evidence and experiences of what I listed above as anything less credible(in other words special pleading) Now personal experience isn’t worthless and while not the most reliable source of information it is useful but if someone claims to have experienced something that is impossible, or something that is very out of the ordinary(especially today where good quality cameras are in our pockets) then that claim won’t be taken as enough evidence.

And in regards to your claim of history we have things to back up most of that like physical evidence of events/places people who gave accounts of their time (which match up with other accounts that are within the norm of what you would expect) and people who were alive during those events to verify them.

And if I told you that I exorcised and evil spirit in the presence of college students, priests, and nuns, and lay people, around 60-to l00 would that be considered a supernatural event to you, and would you believe me. Like many people they can always find excuses or reasons not to believe because they weren’t there. And even if they were some would still not believe, I actually experienced this. Some could say “Mass hysteria”. What is the spiritual condition of the observer, does this have a lot to do with their response? Personally, I know better, some are not disposed to believing even if one were to arise from the dead. There are so many natural things that can lead a person to ask, how is it possible, no human could possibly do that, is there really a God? We don’t have the power to convince someone, all we can do is witness to our own experience and belief. And we do take a lot of things on faith every day, and we do take things for granted, it is human.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

And if I told you that I exorcised and evil spirit in the presence of college students, priests, and nuns, and lay people, around 60-to l00 would that be considered a supernatural event to you, and would you believe me. Like many people they can always find excuses or reasons not to believe because they weren’t there. And even if they were some would still not believe, I actually experienced this. Some could say “Mass hysteria”. What is the spiritual condition of the observer, does this have a lot to do with their response? Personally, I know better, some are not disposed to believing even if one were to arise from the dead. There are so many natural things that can lead a person to ask, how is it possible, no human could possibly do that, is there really a God? We don’t have the power to convince someone, all we can do is witness to our own experience and belief. And we do take a lot of things on faith every day, and we do take things for granted, it is human.

Actually no I wouldn’t believe you. Well I don’t believe that you forced an evil spirit out of a person. I believe that preformed the ritual of an exorcism and that there was a crowd like you describe but since I don’t believe in evil spirits I certainly don’t believe you forced one out of a person. So no not mass hysteria just that the people in the audience believed you were doing something so did you and I’m sure the “victim” of the evil spirit did as well but preforming a ritual is not the same as the proving evil spirits exist.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

It’s not that I don’t value other’s experiences it’s that if those experiences aren’t backed by any kind evidence then I will doubt it. And as you said the supernatural is beyond modern science, or in other words unproveable, now I’m not saying the supernatural is not and cannot be real however I am saying that until we can prove it there is no sound reason to believe in it. So unless you are willing to say every experience people claim to have ie. alien abductions, big foot, the loch ness monster, and the claims of other religions than you can’t claim the experiences of people in your religion as evidence and experiences of what I listed above as anything less credible(in other words special pleading) Now personal experience isn’t worthless and while not the most reliable source of information it is useful but if someone claims to have experienced something that is impossible, or something that is very out of the ordinary(especially today where good quality cameras are in our pockets) then that claim won’t be taken as enough evidence.

And in regards to your claim of history we have things to back up most of that like physical evidence of events/places people who gave accounts of their time (which match up with other accounts that are within the norm of what you would expect) and people who were alive during those events to verify them.

I think you have a very limited view of what constitutes evidence. Evidence is not limited to the empirical domain. There is also logical evidence as can be seen in math for the sciences and inductive / abductive / deductive reasoning for philosophy. If you have a higher confidence in empirical evidence, that is all well and good, but this does not mean there are no other kinds of evidence that can be used for investigating claims about God.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I think you have a very limited view of what constitutes evidence. Evidence is not limited to the empirical domain. There is also logical evidence as can be seen in math for the sciences and inductive / abductive / deductive reasoning for philosophy. If you have a higher confidence in empirical evidence, that is all well and good, but does not mean there is no other kinds of evidence.

Ok, well if you can create a mathematic proof for ghosts than be me guest and use that. And for inductive reasoning is a form of … reasoning not evidence.

 

[ynotzap]

Actually no I wouldn’t believe you. Well I don’t believe that you forced an evil spirit out of a person. I believe that preformed the ritual of an exorcism and that there was a crowd like you describe but since I don’t believe in evil spirits I certainly don’t believe you forced one out of a person. So no not mass hysteria just that the people in the audience believed you were doing something so did you and I’m sure the “victim” of the evil spirit did as well but preforming a ritual is not the same as the proving evil spirits exist.

The evil spirit was revealed as a real power exhibiting a human voice that all heard, and it didn’t proceed from anyones mouth. I didn’t force the evil spirit from anyone, Jesus did. And because you don’t believe in evil spirits, is that proof that one doesn’t exist? I expelled it in the Name of Jesus. the people involved were highly credible, and intelligent. Like I said we can find all kinds of reasons not to believe, even when we can afford reliable proof, although many may not regard the proof as reliable. We can always doubt a person’s integrity, or even the integrity of many people. The victim didn’t know, and neither did the assembly until it was revealed.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Ok, well if you can create a mathematic proof for ghosts than be me guest and use that.

You obviously don’t know much about mathematics because math does not always model reality.

And for inductive reasoning is a form of … reasoning not evidence.

It’s a form of logical evidence. Just as a measurment can be both a quantity and empirical evidence.

 

[ericc]

This is not a fact. The Bible alleges that he claimed to be, but there are no writings outside of the inner circle of writers that coincides with these claims.

Not a fact. The Bible alleges that he proved things, but no other writings outside of the Bible corroborate these claims.

Keep in mind, Indians believe there to be eyewitnesses to the miraculous deeds and resurrection of Krishna, because that is what is written. Does their claim have any credibility in your view?

That’s what is written, but nothing else corroborates this.

Maybe so, but the claim out there is that Jesus as the man-god is legend based upon a real man named Jesus. Just because there was a real man named Jesus does not mean he was God, nor does it mean he had divine powers. And since there are no reliable sources that corroborate what the Bible has claimed, we simply don’t know.

Extrabiblical sources provide evidence. * Josephus a first century Jewish historian in his “Antiquities” said this:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual? He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct.

Jesus allegedly said the gates of hell would not prevail. That doesn’t neccessitate that the teachings would be protected and would be kind of a stretch, jump, and hop to say so based on that sentence alone.

Well what it mean is that the Church can not teach untruth. Christ guaranteed it. We don’t have to stretch, jump, hop. We only need to know that he meant what he said.

Historically, the most it proves is that there was a real man named Jesus. That doesn’t prove this man named Jesus was God or that he proved himself through miraculous deeds. A real man named Jesus with stories of miracles and resurrecting added to his name throughout the years, and you have a Legend. This is the more plausible possibility.

In Josephus above, he already described Jesus as a doer of such deeds. And that he lived again after being dead for 3 days is evidence that he is no mere mortal.

A legend? Why don’ t you disclose your historical sources proving the credibility of what you wrote? You alleged but you didn’t support with any evidence of legend making. How long does it take for a legend to take off?

Early Christians are being matryed over a “legend”?

• Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56-c. 118) was proconsul of Asia (112-113), friend of Pliny the Younger, and author of Annals and the Histories. In Annals 15.44 he provides a passing reference to Jesus that is of some limited importance:

Therefore, to squelch the rumor [that the burning of Rome had taken place by order], Nero supplied (as culprits) and punished in the most extraordinary fashion those hated for their vice, whom the crowd called “Christians.” Christus, the author of their name, had suffered the death penalty during the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The pernicious superstition was checked for a time, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the origin of the evil, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible and shameful collect and are practiced.

• Pliny the Younger, who in 110 was the governor of Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan for advice in how to deal with Christians. The passage that is of interest is found in his Epistles Book 10, Letter 96:

They [the Christians] assured me that the sum total of their error consisted in the fact that they regularly assembled on a certain day before daybreak. They recited a hymn antiphonally to Christus as to a god and bound themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and embezzlement of property entrusted to them. After this it was their custom to separate, and then to come together again to partake of a meal, but an ordinary and innocent one.

You don’t write letters to the Emperor over legends.

There are also hostile sources. Rabbinic sources about Jesus and from Celsus. See Craig Evans book below.

This is circular reasoning.

No, that is not. The Church came first. She was teaching this orally before there was even a Bible. The Church wrote down what was being taught and the Bible came into existence hundreds of years later. Where is the circle?

• Source: The Historical Jesus - Craig Evans

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

The evil spirit was revealed as a real power exhibiting a human voice that all heard, and it didn’t proceed from anyones mouth. I didn’t force the evil spirit from anyone, Jesus did. And because you don’t believe in evil spirits, is that proof that one doesn’t exist? I expelled it in the Name of Jesus. the people involved were highly credible, and intelligent. Like I said we can find all kinds of reasons not to believe, even when we can afford reliable proof, although many may not regard the proof as reliable. We can always doubt a person’s integrity, or even the integrity of many people. The victim didn’t know, and neither did the assembly until it was revealed.

And no my disbelief is not proof that an evil spirit doesn’t exist however I also don’t need to disprove something that hasn’t been proven. And while you have continued to say we can “find reasons not to believe, even when afforded reliable evidence” you have not afforded reliable evidence.

 

[ynotzap]

And because you think like you do is one reason we have “atheists”, no condemnation meant, and I accept your position, there are all kinds of people in the world. But I personally have a lot to be thankful for, mostly my Faith which has been proven to me to be the truth, and that Jesus Christ is what we claim Him to be, the Savior, Son of God, the Messiah.

 

[ericc]

It’s not that I don’t value other’s experiences it’s that if those experiences aren’t backed by any kind evidence then I will doubt it. And as you said the supernatural is beyond modern science, or in other words unproveable, now I’m not saying the supernatural is not and cannot be real however I am saying that until we can prove it there is no sound reason to believe in it. So unless you are willing to say every experience people claim to have ie. alien abductions, big foot, the loch ness monster, and the claims of other religions than you can’t claim the experiences of people in your religion as evidence and experiences of what I listed above as anything less credible(in other words special pleading) Now personal experience isn’t worthless and while not the most reliable source of information it is useful but if someone claims to have experienced something that is impossible, or something that is very out of the ordinary(especially today where good quality cameras are in our pockets) then that claim won’t be taken as enough evidence.

I think there is something missing in life if one is not able to trust the judgement of others, not all, but credible people that you look up to. Why should anything be labelled “impossible” just because he has no knowledge of it? Others have that knowledge through experience although you may choose not to trust the testimonies of others.

And in regards to your claim of history we have things to back up most of that like physical evidence of events/places people who gave accounts of their time (which match up with other accounts that are within the norm of what you would expect) and people who were alive during those events to verify them.

And that’s where Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians 1Cor 3-8 mentioned that Jesus appeared to more than 500 brethren after his crucifixion. Eyewitnesses were still living at the time the letter was written.

And the Church has several documented miracles with witnesses throughout history. You only need to google for those miracles. Approved Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles are two of the common ones. Padre Pio has several miracles attributed to him. Before saints are canonized, evidence of miracles attributed to the intended saint must be verified. Miracles at Lourdes are also well-attested. en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles

If you have an open mind, then you may be interested to find out for yourself these miracles, the when, where, people involved, the situation etc of such miracles. Then weigh the probability that these miracles were hoaxes, natural phenomena and probably the conclusion may be this: It is impossible but it did happened.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I think there is something missing in life if one is not able to trust the judgement of others, not all, but credible people that you look up to. Why should anything be labelled “impossible” just because he has no knowledge of it? Others have that knowledge through experience although you may choose not to trust the testimonies of others.

And that’s where Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians 1Cor 3-8 mentioned that Jesus appeared to more than 500 brethren after his crucifixion. Eyewitnesses were still living at the time the letter was written.

And the Church has several documented miracles with witnesses throughout history. You only need to google for those miracles. Approved Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles are two of the common ones. Padre Pio has several miracles attributed to him. Before saints are canonized, evidence of miracles attributed to the intended saint must be verified. Miracles at Lourdes are also well-attested. en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles

If you have an open mind, then you may be interested to find out for yourself these miracles, the when, where, people involved, the situation etc of such miracles. Then weigh the probability that these miracles were hoaxes, natural phenomena and probably the conclusion may be this: It is impossible but it did happened.

Well there is a big difference between the bible saying there were 500 people and there being 500 people there. And in regards to miracles I’m not looking for ones the church has approved but miracles that have been independently approved. And I trust the judgement of others but that trust can be removed from a discussion if they start talking about ridiculous things they claim happened to them. for example I go to my friend who is now a missionary for his church he claims to have felt the holy spirit in him and just feels now more than ever that the holy spirit is helping him spread the word and that the word is indeed true.

 

[SonOfMan]

Extrabiblical sources provide evidence. * Josephus a first century Jewish historian in his “Antiquities” said this:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual? He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct.

In Josephus above, he already described Jesus as a doer of such deeds. And that he lived again after being dead for 3 days is evidence that he is no mere mortal.

Josephus is just regurgitating the stories he’s heard from others. Josephus wasn’t an eyewitness nor did he have any direct interaction with Jesus. He was born years after Jesus had died. The fact remains that there are exactly zero contemporary writings about Jesus as the man-god.

Secondly, some scholars also argue that the Josephus’ text regarding Jesus isn’t even authentic. Given these things, Josephus isn’t a relevant citation.

Well what it mean is that the Church can not teach untruth. Christ guaranteed it. We don’t have to stretch, jump, hop. We only need to know that he meant what he said.

How does one get “the Church cannot teach untruth” from “The gates of hell will not prevail”?

Early Christians are being matryed over a “legend”?

There is even dispute about early Christian martyrs. The allegations exist that these, too, were part of legend and never took place.

ISIS dies and kills for their faith everyday too. Does that make their beliefs true?

You don’t write letters to the Emperor over legends.

You can write to the Emperor over a real man, though, who later became a legend.

No, that is not. The Church came first. She was teaching this orally before there was even a Bible

What proof do you have of this?

The Church wrote down what was being taught and the Bible came into existence hundreds of years later. Where is the circle?

The cicle is: The Bible says there is an infallible, spirit-led Church. The Church says the Bible is inspired and led by the spirit.