Does The Bible Prove Itself? Do Books Prove Themselves?

[Delta4Embassy]

Often when empiricists ask theists to prove their assertions they quote their religion's holy book. But does a Bible prove the claims the book makes?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No one? Not a single theist wants to jump in and defend their religion saying how true their book is? While disappointing, it's also kinda nice to see you understand the futility involved.

 

[ninja007]

the unsaved cannot understand spiritual truth from God.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

the unsaved cannot understand spiritual truth from God.

Survey says!

Cop-out. We have some lovely parting gifts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Prove what claims, Aqualung?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Prove what claims, Aqualung?

You know aqualungs are what Jacques Cousteau invented right? The first SCUBA systems.

 

[Penelope]

If you mean that the Bible claims the existence of God, then my answer would be,

No, the bible tells about man and his state of mind and culture , and his views on God during the time of the writing.
Julian Jaynes wrote a good book, about the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, of which he believes even introspection evolved in man. Also one of your Rabbi's also wrote a shorter book, The Minds of the Bible in which he talks about Jaynes theory,
Abraham thought God was outside of him, as he thought his inner talk was coming from outside, his thought , so when God says something he says, Here I am,
whereas by the later time the Bible then says , the kingdom of God is within.

Here is a link to Jaynes book if you want it, online free.

http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Prove what claims, Aqualung?

You know aqualungs are what Jacques Cousteau invented right? The first SCUBA systems.

^ How I think of Delta

 

[sealybobo]

No one? Not a single theist wants to jump in and defend their religion saying how true their book is? While disappointing, it's also kinda nice to see you understand the futility involved.

I find it interesting that virtually all other claims of Jesus outside of Christian writings come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius & Talmud

Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself.

 

[sealybobo]

we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

 

[sealybobo]

Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious person can inherit a dependence on any information that supports a belief and that includes fraudulent stories, rumors, unreliable data, and fictions, without the need to check sources, or to investigate the reliability of the information.

 

[sealybobo]

What appears most revealing comes from what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him. People claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod. The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas.

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide and not one person records his existence during his lifetime?

Matthew 2 describes Herod as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus (also known as Philo of Alexander) whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus* "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

 

[sealybobo]

No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many of these historians believed as Christians themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards supporting a "real" Jesus.

 

[sealybobo]

Often when empiricists ask theists to prove their assertions they quote their religion's holy book. But does a Bible prove the claims the book makes?

David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works) responded with:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

& The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he or she must accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards.

 

[PostmodernProph]

depends on what is being proved.....I have had many times in an argument where folks have said "the Bible doesn't say anything about....."

obviously then, quoting the Bible is essential to prove claims asserted......does quoting the Bible prove the Bible, obviously not....no more than your posts prove you......

 

[sealybobo]

depends on what is being proved.....I have had many times in an argument where folks have said "the Bible doesn't say anything about....."

obviously then, quoting the Bible is essential to prove claims asserted......does quoting the Bible prove the Bible, obviously not....no more than your posts prove you......

Just like the Mormons, Jews & Muslims think their religions are number one, so do you honey, so do you....

 

[PostmodernProph]

depends on what is being proved.....I have had many times in an argument where folks have said "the Bible doesn't say anything about....."

obviously then, quoting the Bible is essential to prove claims asserted......does quoting the Bible prove the Bible, obviously not....no more than your posts prove you......

Just like the Mormons, Jews & Muslims think their religions are number one, so do you honey, so do you....

obviously.....did you just ken to that recently?.......

 

[sealybobo]

depends on what is being proved.....I have had many times in an argument where folks have said "the Bible doesn't say anything about....."

obviously then, quoting the Bible is essential to prove claims asserted......does quoting the Bible prove the Bible, obviously not....no more than your posts prove you......

My great great grandfather wrote about a guy called Jebediah who could perform miracles. I think I have a better chance of proving to you that I exist than I do Jeb.

Agreed?

 

[PostmodernProph]

depends on what is being proved.....I have had many times in an argument where folks have said "the Bible doesn't say anything about....."

obviously then, quoting the Bible is essential to prove claims asserted......does quoting the Bible prove the Bible, obviously not....no more than your posts prove you......

My great great grandfather wrote about a guy called Jebediah who could perform miracles. I think I have a better chance of proving to you that I exist than I do Jeb.

Agreed?

not really.....I find it hard to believe that stupidity actual exists in the levels you put forward.....

 

[RandomVariable]

Often when empiricists ask theists to prove their assertions they quote their religion's holy book. But does a Bible prove the claims the book makes?

Are you asking if the Bible proves there was a flood? for example