- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Persuaded Content
-
Should the New Testament of the Holy Bible be Considered Reliable History?
@Barnardot
So I get that you are not agreeing to the religious basis of the Bible as a whole, that is not what this discussion is about.
When you speak however, about the "mistakes" that are presented in the Bible, like: Creation, The Flood, and Sodom and Gamora, with those remarks, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you are a supporter of the evolution theory. To which is your rite. But to flat out state that "There is not one single peace of evidence" tells me that you are either completely oblivious to the plethora of evidence that has been discovered to show such events did happen, or you are completely closed-minded to the evidence that has been presented. For me, I have very much seen both sides of the evidence. My entire life I, like most other people, probably including yourself, I was only taught about evolution, without being provided the evidence for any other theories out there. It was not until I was in my early 30s that I began to study and research other theories, especially the ones that aligned with what the Bible teaches. But before I decided to go on that journey, I can honestly say that even before I became a serious Christian and all I had learned was evolution, there were several things that did not make any sense to me. The biggest thing being that mankind evolved from fish, and that our massive universe came from an explosion, that came from literally nothing. If you are cool with accepting those things without questioning them, that is your choice, but again just because you believe in a theory that has been presented outside of the Bible, it does not mean that what the Bible teaches is completely false. The truth is, we will never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how we got here and that is a fact. You place your faith in the evolution theory and I place mine in what the Bible teaches along with the historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence.
I would really encourage you to broaden your horizons. Find out for yourself what great scientists, historians, and researchers are discovering about the Bible.
I can tell you that evidence for a worldwide flood does exist. One of the biggest pieces of evidence for this is the fossil records. For example, Trees have been discovered that go through multiple sedimentary layers, showing that they were buried in a short period of time. Also, creatures that only survive in water have been discovered at the top of mountains. Many scientists believe places such as the Grand Canyon are evidence for the flood. Then there have been some archeological discoveries from other tribes and populace outside of the Bible that speak of a massive flood.
Sodom and Gamora was actually discovered recently and guess what, it shows much evidence of being destroyed by a cosmic blast that dispersed salt and fire.
When it comes to creation, there is not enough time to list out evidence for what we have discovered.
As I have worked through your remarks a little, I would like to get back to the main question at hand. Which was about the historicity of the New Testament. Not religion, or the Old Testament which are important things to discuss, but not what this topic is about.
I would like to close with some of the things that I presented in the opening statements for this debate.
When looking at the people, events, and places that are recorded in the books of the NT why is it so hard to accept what the books record as history? We know that there has never been any other documents in antiquity that have gone through the same rigor as the ones connected to the NT. A fact that does not appear to phase you.
I would really like to see what evidence you can present that shows any other historical documents that record events we claim to be a part of history that has more evidence than that of the NT. I would also like to challenge you to present evidence to your claim that the NT is "riddled with mistakes." I will attest to the fact that minor differences can be seen throughout the the thousands of manuscripts that have been discovered, but those differences are so minor, which is to be expected, so they do not and should not discredit the NT. The differences found within the manuscripts that worldwide scholars utilize is less than 1 percent. and many of those difference consist of examples such as changing the order in how "Jesus Christ" is written to "Christ Jesus". Things that do not fringe on or alter the major basis of what was originally written.
-
Should the New Testament of the Holy Bible be Considered Reliable History?
@Barnardot
I have to say, I am a little confused by you remarks. You first attest to the fact that it is historically proven and then turn around and say "Not one bit of its content can be verified." I am not sure how written documents can be historically proven but not be verified. I would like to give you just a few examples of what has been verified that is written in the Bible both Old and New Testament.
1. The Moabite Stone (Mesha Stela) was discovered in 1868, this stone is very significant as it bears witness to exactly what we read in 2 Kings 3 in the Old Testament. Its words describe the war between the Moabites and Israel. Which again is what we read in 2 Kings 3. Its inscriptions also contain the earliest known reference outside of the Bible to YHWH, which is the God of the Israelites.
2. Cyrus Cylinder was discovered among the ruins of Babylon and is the declaration by the Persian king Cyrus the Great allowing the exiled Israelites to return to their homeland in order that they may return to their ways of worshiping their God. Cyrus is mentioned by name in the Book of Ezra and is also found in Isaiah 45:1 which contains a prophecy about Cyrus being the one who allowed Israel to return home after a long exile.
3. Tele Dan Stele: This stone was discovered in 1993 an on it rests inscriptions referencing King David, who is the famous king that is in the book of 2 Samuel.
4. Babylonian Chronicles: These are a series of clay tablets that explain in great detail the time of King Nebuchadnezzar and their concurring of Jerusalem. It points to the deportation of Israel's king Jehoiachin, and how Babylon appointed them a new king by the name of Zedekiah. All events that are found in the Old Testament. It even has the precise date of Jerusalem's falling to be March 16, 597 BC.
5. Pilate Stone: In 1961 a limestone block was discovered that had the inscription that was part of a dedication to Tiberius Caesar, by "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea". This happens to be the Pontius Pilate who was prefect of Judea during Jesus' day the same one who had Jesus crucified. Pilate is also mentioned in several other non-biblical texts that have been discovered over the years.
6. Caiaphas Ossuary: Caiaphas was the high priest who presided over Jesus' trial. He was mentioned in the New Testament, and by a Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. This Ossuary was discovered in 1990 in a first century tomb.
7. Delphi Inscription (or Gallio Inscription): This inscription was discovered at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece. It was a message written by the Roman emperor Claudius, it mentions a man by the name of Gallio who was proconsul at the time. The same Gallio that is mentioned in the New Testament book of Acts (Acts 18:12). Because of the dating that went along with the inscription and the connection of to the book of Acts. Scholars have been able to date the time of when the Apostle Paul was brought before the tribunal in Corinth which is AD 51.
I could list a whole lot more of historical discoveries that very much point to the validity of the contents in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The fact is that if it was not for the Bible, many historical discoveries would never have happened.
As you also mentioned, "It was written 1000s of years ago by annonymous writers and taken from different texts then translated and transcribed several times over." I have to point out that most of the books of the Bible have a very evident author, most of them are not anonymous, some are, I will give you that, but there has been much work done to determine the authors of the books that are claimed to be known. I will also give you the fact that the writings were translated and transcribed several times over, that is partially why we have such a rich amount of manuscripts, however, this fact alone, does not negate the historical validity of what was written. There has never been any kind of historical documents that have gone through the kind of scrutiny that the writings of the Bible have gone through. Both done within the Christian community and outside of the Christian community. And it has yet to be proven that the people, places, and events are fictional thing, more and more evidence emerges leaning in favor of the accounts that we read about in the Bible.
With that being said, I would like to pose the question again, and make it clear, that even though the Bible is not considered a "history book," but one that many scholars both religious and secular utilize in their studies. Can you still argue that within its pages there is no authentic or reliable historical value? If so why?
-
Should the New Testament of the Holy Bible be Considered Reliable History?
When it comes to the Holy Bible, and more specifically, the New Testament within the Holy Bible. Can it be seen as reliable history or pure myth? When looking through the 27 different books within the New Testament one is taken through first, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Through what is called the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we come to see what is claimed to be eyewitness testimony attesting to the life of Jesus, what He taught, and the miracles He performed. Outside of those four books called Gospels, we see the book of Acts, which provides readers with the conception, birth, and growth of the first known body of believers who are called Christians and are the ones who established the Church. The rest of the books are letters to fellow believers and churches written by Apostles, relatives, and other disciples of Jesus. In all of the writings seen within the 27 books of the New Testament, the one prominent image being portrayed is that Jesus of Nazareth, was the Son of God, the long-awaited Messiah who had come to earth to free mankind from their slavery to sin. He did this by atoning for all of mankind’s sins by allowing Himself to be taken by the leaders of His day, to be beaten, mocked, and eventually crucified on the cross. In addition, all the books point to a Risen King, by this I mean the resurrected Jesus, who was seen to have been raised from the death that was inflicted on Him through the crucifixion on the cross.
Here are the questions. Are all these books and everything they claim considered to be authentic, historical documents? Should the New Testament and everything that is bound in its words be counted as reliable history? Is it careless for one to completely write off the New Testament as a mythical book that holds no genuine historical value to our world?
I posit that it is very plausible for one to objectively look at the New Testament and its contents as reliable history. As a matter of fact, it would be flat-out irresponsible for one to deny the wealth of historicity that rests within the entire New Testament of the Holy Bible, whether they are religious or not.
If one holds firm in their belief that what we learn about in our schools when it comes to the Caesars of the Roman Empire, Tacitus or any other prominent ancient historical figures taught in schools, there should be no reason to deny that the NT is reliable history. As a matter of fact, the NT should be the example of what reliable history looks like, as there is no other work of antiquity that comes close to having the kind of historical evidence that rests within the NT. No other documents can be dated as close to the accounts of the NT, and there is no other historical event or person that can claim the number of manuscripts or writings that have to do with the events and people of the NT. As Paul Gould puts it, “There is nothing in all of ancient writing with this sort of pedigree.”
Think about it, manuscripts that are contributed to the history of the Caesars of Rome can be dated to more than 1000 years after the actual events with far fewer manuscripts to be counted. When looking at the events of the NT and the writings that we have found, we see dates that hold to be within just a few years of the time after Jesus' death. The oldest manuscripts that are widely used are no more than 250 years after Jesus’ death, but those are the oldest ones. Not to mention these stem from more than 20,000 manuscripts that have been discovered today. Whereas we are seeing on average 12 for the Caesars and a whole whopping 2 for Tacitus which date to over 700 years removed.
With that being said, why is it that the idea that the New Testament and the Bible as a whole is being deemed a mythical text filled with fables and fairytales? Even most atheist historians will attest to the fact that as a whole, the NT is seen as historically proven. They might not agree with the messages that rest within the words of the NT but they cannot deny that the people were real, the places were real, and the events were real and played a huge part in our history.
What we can glean from this history, is the fact that there were eyewitnesses to the accounts portrayed in the writings of the New Testament. Those witnesses went all over the free world proclaiming what they saw by their own mouths and their written word. We also know that through extrabiblical accounts such as Josephus (AD 93), Clement (AD 70-96), Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110), Polycarp (AD 110-140), Justin Martyr (AD 155-157), Papias (AD 95-110), Cornelius Tacitus (AD 117-138), and a manuscript known as the Didache (AD 50-70). The accounts of the New Testament were properly recorded and bear collaboration to the eyewitness accounts within the NT. The only real question that can be asked is whether the experiences of the eyewitnesses are factual or fictional. I feel that because of what the overall message is that lies within the entire Bible both Old and New Testaments, that is where people have a hard time accepting any part of the Bible as being real. Because if indeed it is genuine and reliable history, then that brings to question whether or not the eyewitnesses really experienced what they experienced and just having to bring that question up scares many people. Therefore why not just cast the entire book as a fairytale, to maintain plausible deniability?
This is a debate that is being done for school credit, so please, only respond if you are against the argument that the New Testament should be considered reliable history. Thank you.
-
Is Religion a Mental Illness?
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
If you have been reading the debate you are probably wondering why all the atheists are avoiding the topic and are instead attacking people of faith. It's because they don't have any evidence that there is no God. When asked to explain how a universe could start from zero space, the atheist just wants you to take it on faith. When you ask them why the universe is astronomically finely tuned and how do they explain this, especially since there are no laws of nature that require the fundamental forces to be as they are, you get pathetic answers like 'cause it just is'. When you ask the atheist to provide evidence that abiogenesis works - just make life from non-life, they just stare at you with the 'I got nothin' look. When you ask the atheist to explain documented instances of miracles, they just start the science of the gaps song. When you point out that it is actually science which is saying that the miracles are impossible, yet they happened, you get the 'I got nothin' look again. Instead atheists want us to believe:
1) everything came from nothing
2) complexity came from chaos
3) life came from non-life
4) Consciousness came from inanimate objects
5) Morals came from matter
That's a lot of faith claims without any evidence at all. I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
-
I hate Trump, but it's Biden who's committing genocide on the Palestinians.
maxx said:racism is or was not something that suddenly popped out of thin air. It is also not discrimination because another group is inferior; it is the "belief" that they are inferior. Look at the logic. Back of racism is discrimination of others because they are different than uis in some way or the other. These difference; now world wide, began in ancient humans as i have shown you in my previous reply. Surely you accept the fact that differences have been with humans since ancient times? I have also shown asto why these differences were shunned, avoided, and discriminated against. Do you disagree with as to what i wrote in my reply? Racism is based on fear of others because of these differences, fear of change, war, resources, beliefs, diseases, and many other problems associated with strangers. Anything that has been with humans for a million years is genetically passed on. Racism is a survival aspect, and today we just do not see it as such. Survival of the species is passed on and anything that threatens it is passed on. As for links, as for the years i have been on this site, i find that people disregard them. Racism has evolved into what it is today, and if you ask as to why one is racist, they will simply give reasons, not understanding that their reasoning is based on distrust, and differences. Humans have had this fear of differences in others since they began to think. @ZeusAres42Most of the time, in fact, wrongly, racism is assumed as an element of natural or innate human behavior. It is, on the other hand, not a simple biological determination and does not fit at all into a simple evolutionary theory. While human history and psychology are pointing toward tendencies of in-group bias and out-group bias, it is by no means sufficient for explaining how such tendencies have translated into racially discriminating practices in complex and multifaceted societies around the world. It is not a fixed aspect of human nature that makes up today's racism, but rather a construct that is institutionally tediously developed and perpetuated tediously through social norms, cultural practices, and economic systems.
This assertion that human biological occurrence is at the base of racism is an absolute ignoramus on the powerful role which cultural and social dynamics play in determining racial ideologies. As a matter of fact, scholars like Nell Irvin Painter, Ibram X. Kendi, and geneticists like Adam Rutherford, among others, have gone on to establish the fact that there is no basis, genetic or biological, for such kinds of differences among races. By contrast, historical and contemporary shifts in racial categorizations demonstrate that racial categories are fluid and arbitrarily determined constructs that illustrate fully the way in which power and social institutions engage in the construction and maintenance of racism.
While evolutionary psychology brings into play human tendencies of tribalism, group preferences by themselves don't unequivocally lead, in the evolved basic cognitive faculties, to the complex racial hierarchies that are prevalent today. The leap from simple in-group preference to systemic racism is made by cultural evolution and social construction, not by biological determinism. The same is proved by works of such researchers as Henri Tajfel and Steven Pinker, which claim that even if humans are to have a certain tendency to label others within, explicit forms and expressions of racism are, to a great extent, a subject to be generated from social influences and historical contexts.
Despite the enormous change in the social and political scene, it seems that racial ideologies have great resilience in adapting during their process of evolution to further maintain power hierarchies and systemic inequalities. This adaptability has reflected that the core structure of societies has definitely changed, and thus the idea that racism is unchangeable or something static within human societies is challenged. This provides further evidence of the difficulty in removing racism, since such disparities continue within societies that have gone through legal and political reform.
These demonstrate, through the lens of history, human capacities to recognize, challenge, and change oppressive structures rather than being a part of human nature one cannot change—from abolition and suffrage to the civil rights movement and the breakdown of apartheid. These points underline the dynamic possibility and importance of collective social change in action to confront and overcome racism.
The interplay between them, and the interrelationship of human tendencies with social construction and historical development, can never lose sight of the fight against racism. It, therefore, would require an approach that explains racism not only in its manifestations but points towards its psychological, cultural, and structural underpinnings.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
Which of the things I listed do you not believe in? Are you telling me you do not think life came from non-life? The true cowardice is your unwillingness to admit what you really believe.MayCaesar said:
This is the textbook case of intellectual cowardice. You first attribute these claims that virtually nobody makes to all atheists, then start criticizing atheists for having them. Your system of beliefs is so weak, you have to consistently convince yourself that everyone who does not share it has the worst beliefs possible, for only then does it not look utterly ridiculous in comparison.just_sayin said:
Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you. I can't believe that everything came from nothing. That life came from non-life. That complexity came from chaos. That consciousness came from the irrational. Or that morals came from randomness. I just don't have enough faith to believe that. It's worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.
I think that intellectual cowardice is one of the most definitive features of faith. This is why all tyrannical regimes have hunted down the people who questioned their ideology and right to power: their arguments are the weakest and crumble upon the slightest scrutiny, so they can only survive if all attempts to subject them to any scrutiny are stopped preemptively. Said regimes also fell down spectacularly the moment people became fed up with this nonsense and started talking loudly.
A great example of this is your many appeals to the science of the gaps defense whenever I mention evidence of miracles, or discuss the fine tuning of the universe, the evidence that the universe had a beginning, or the numerous scientific problems with abiogenesis.
Now when I cited the miracle of Calanda where the guy's amputated leg grows back after being removed 1 1/2 years earlier - I provided medical documentation of the amputation, medical documentation of his amputated leg being fully grown and functional 1 1/2 years later. I provided 24 eye witness testimonies that were recorded under tribunal rules, with cross examination by lawyers and judges, and sealed as official testimony by the kings personal record keeper. You ignored the evidence and came up with your own imaginary explanations in defiance of the evidence. You weren't open to other views as you claim. The only person believing your BS is you. Don't be a coward. Own your beliefs. Sure, I'll keep crushing them with evidence, but at least own what you believe. -
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
The very word atheist denotes a belief. A - meaning negation, 'no', and theism from theo meaning God. Your anger toward God has caused you to lose objectivity. The atheists on this site do indeed have very strong beliefs and tenets associated with their faith, or lack thereof. They are unable to defend them though, and so pretend they have no beliefs. No one is fooled by the dishonesty, but the atheist making the claim.Factfinder said:
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
Sigh. Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it. You deny that you have beliefs that are just 'faith claims'. But it is true. If you believe life came from non-life that is a faith claim that science can not support. You just aren't honest about your faith.ZeusAres42 said:just_sayin said:
Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you. I can't believe that everything came from nothing. That life came from non-life. That complexity came from chaos. That consciousness came from the irrational. Or that morals came from randomness. I just don't have enough faith to believe that. It's worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.ZeusAres42 said:none. And I am an Atheist too.Anyway, as for this, I was responding that there is no evidence we atheists have to claim that God does not exist. To do so would entail making claims about which we do not know.
Your quote reads, "I don't have as much faith as you to not have faith."
I am anti-faith. And no amount of linguistic manipulation on your part will change that. I am an advocate for evidence-based epistemology, not flawed and failed epistemologies like faith.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
You have it backwards Jules, if there is an objective evil, then there is an objective lawgiver. So if there is true evil then there is a God. Objective evil is not actual tangible thing, it is the privation of good. It only exists as the absence of good, it can only exist if something objectively good exists. An atheist can not claim there is objective evil. How can matter be evil? An atheist claims its mind is the product of randomness. If so then it is irrational for an atheist to claim that something is objectively evil, for how can a mind of randomness make such a determination? Objective evil is evidence that there is a God.JulesKorngold said:Problem of Evil: The presence of evil and suffering in the world contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god
Diversity of Religions: The existence of many religions with conflicting beliefs about the nature of god(s) makes it difficult to determine which, if any, is true.
Unexplained Phenomena Attributed to Gods: Historically, many phenomena we now understand scientifically were attributed to gods. As science progresses, explanations for the natural world become less reliant on divine intervention.
The fact that there are many religions does not disprove God at all. it shows man has an innate desire to know God. it shows that within man is a desire to connect with the creator. In the same way that many numbers do not disprove that 2+2=4 , many religions do not disprove that there is a real God.
While there have been unexplained phenomena attributed to God that we now can attribute to science, there are also many well documented miracles - that have the blind regaining sight, amputated limbs growing, the lame walking, and even the dead rising from the dead. Science doesn't explain how a man whose leg was amputated, two years later wakes up with both legs fully intact and functional. Miracles are evidence for God. If explained phenomena disproves God, then miracles are indeed evidence for God.
So to recap, Jules AI set out to disprove God, but instead proved God existed. Thanks Jules. You couldn't have done better if you tried.
