We are all made of stars

If the Bible were untrue and/or false, I would expect contemptuous writings from others that could provide eyewitness testimony to contradict the claims made in the Bible. If Jesus did not rise from the dead I would have expected the Pharisees to drag His dead body out to prove He did not rise. I would expect someone from Bethany to refute the resurrection of Lazarus. If Jesus did not feed the multitude why didn’t someone come forward and claim it never happened and state that he went to bed hungry that night?

The Bible is not a single piece of writing. It is a collection of writings from several different authors. So your request for writings outside of the Bible is somewhat misleading. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Jude all wrote about the resurrection of Christ. That’s seven different men who testified of Christ, but you want more. Tell you what, until you provide evidence that these writers got it wrong, we must assume they got it right.

The absence of contemporaneous writings has led you to make inferences. Which is my main point, the evidence is inferential in nature.

It is my understanding that the apostles did not write eyewitness reports. They are Gospels "according to" because they are not eyewitness testimonies. And an assumption that witnesses are right until proven wrong is another inference of little weight. Those that make the claim have a burden of proof to show their claim is valid.

I could use your case almost identically to "prove" that Sherlock Holmes was a real person living in Victorian England, but you would then rightly take me to task for the inferential nature of my claims.

Bill wrote:
It is my understanding that the apostles did not write eyewitness reports.   They are Gospels "according to" because they are not eyewitness testimonies.   And an assumption that witnesses are right until proven wrong is another inference of little weight.   Those that make the claim have a burden of proof to show their claim is valid.

Matthew and John were both disciples of Christ. Their gospels were from firsthand experiences with Jesus. Luke and Mark were both traveling companions of Paul and both were well acquainted with the apostles. So their accounts can be considered authoritative as well.

As far as the eyewitness accounts found in the NT, they all agree 100%. I know eyewitness accounts can be questionable, but when you have seven eyewitnesses all telling the exact same story, it can be accepted as true. Especially since there is not a single piece of evidence to contradict their testimony.

You could make the claim that Sherlock Holmes was a true person. But Holmes has not effected the entire world the way Jesus Christ has. To quote Lyle C Rollings III: The Greatest Man in History… Jesus; Had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today.

Whew! Boy howdy, that is good stuff right there! Somebody hold my mule!!

I thought we might have had some evidence when I heard that Joseph's Tomb had been attacked by Palestinian vandals.

Alas, a quick perusal of the Jewish virtual library made it less than perfect evidence: "Joseph’s Tomb is located in the heart of Nablus, in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank. Conflicting views exist as to whether or not the patriarch Joseph was buried there; nevertheless, the tomb is recognized as a Jewish shrine, albeit a minor one."

My limited research suggests that this Joseph was not the one who married Mary, even though one French site does make that connection.

You don't know your Josephs very well, do you? The Joseph whose tomb was vandalized was the 11 son of Jacob in the OT. Joseph of Nazareth is the man who married Mary, the mother of Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee who was a follower of Jesus who also lent his grave to Jesus for a mere three days. Three different Josephs there.

I have never claimed to be a Joseph follower, just hopeful that some meaningful discussion might occur around here. It seems, according to some who might have no more idea than me, that the tomb actually held the remains of an Islam adherent called Yusef.

I tend to avoid commenting on things I have no idea about. Doing so reveals to others pretty quick you're in over your head. For instance, when a person claims to have studied the Bible extensively, when in fact they simply have a passing knowledge, it is easy to show how little they actually know.

In my experience those who have a deep remembrance of every Bible passage have simply filled their heads up with so much irrelevance that there is no room for clear thinking anymore.

And I do wish theists could present better cases than:

P I only believe in real things
P I believe in god
C God exists

and

P The bible is a reliable book
P The bible tells us god exists
C God exists

If you want a quick course on fallacies. we could start with those two.

Believers are not required by God to prove anything to anyone. We are simply commissioned to tell people about Jesus. What others do with the truth of Christ is up to them. You ask for evidence, I present evidence. You reject the evidence, there is nothing else I can do for you.

I do wish I could remember every Bible passage, but I can't. However, I do remember enough to defend my faith and put to silence those who pretend to know the Bible.

But as pointed out on a different thread, Christians will observe the memory of the crucifixion on an incorrect day of the week because of their failure to read the bible in a logical manner.

We still await the first piece of evidence that amounts to more than "Because I believe that makes it true." Anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proving it. Stating that believers are not required to provide proof does not fulfill that requirement, just gives a lame alibi for avoiding the need.

It’s not the crucifixion we celebrate. We celebrate the resurrection. The day Jesus was crucified is irrelevant. It is the resurrection that makes all the difference.

Go ahead and post chapter and verse out of the Bible that instructs believers to prove their faith and I will comply. If you can’t do that then accept the evidence presented.

Honestly I shall try to accept the evidence when it is presented. But we are still waiting. Being told that you have no requirement to provide evidence is insufficient.

And those deeply knowledge Christians got one of the basic elements of their religion wrong: no wonder modern apologists state the matter is irrelevant: another example of avoiding the issue when there is nothing to offer in reply.

The day of the crucifixion is not a basic element of Christianity any more than the day of His birth is. The day Jesus was born and the day He died have no bearing on salvation. The fact that God in the flesh was born is important. The fact that God’s Son died for our sun is important. The fact that He resurrected is most important. These are the basic elements of Christianity. You want to discredit Christianity on trivial issues that have no impact whatsoever.

I have provided ample evidence for God, Jesus and the infallibility of the Bible. You have simply dismissed it all out of hand with no other explanation other than you consider it an inference. Well, according to Webster an inference is “a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence”. So an inference is based on facts and therefore acceptable.

"The universe is evidence of intelligent design" does not amount to evidence simply because it contains the word "evidence".   It is a classic example of an inference being made from an observation.   And, if I may be so bold, the observation is errant in itself.

And I note that you concede Christians are celebrating their savior's birth on the wrong day of the Calendar year.

And should we all accept the premise that believers have to provide no proof, then we are bound to accept Donald J Trump as being accurate when he said, yesterday "“I think I’m the most honest human being, perhaps, that God has ever created.”

I have no idea when Christ was born. It was probably in the spring or summer. Feel free to celebrate His birth on any day you so choose.

I really like Webster’s definition of inference: an opinion based on fact.

And that has been my point all along: just because an opinion is based on a fact does not make that opinion correct.

An easy example for you: the sun, stars and moon all "rise" in the east, traverse the sky and "set" in the west. The opinion of the vast majority in olden times was that the Earth was the center of the universe and those who thought otherwise were willfully ignoring the evidence.

More subtle: you look at your watch and it displays the time of 7:40. In your opinion the time really is 7:40 and the last several hundred times you looked at your watch it had been correct. On this occasion your watch had stopped some half an hour ago and your opinion in the past has been based on sound evidence, but is now errant.

And on to: "When I relate to the Holy Spirit my body responds in a positive way. In my opinion the Holy Spirit is real". The inference is valid for that person, but for that person alone and is not valid for humanity at large.

I am glad we can agree on some things. And on this one that facts do not guarantee accurate opinions.

And I'm glad to see you acknowledge my faith/opinion is based on facts. Yes, on this we do agree.

And that when I state that your opinion is not necessarily the only opinion that can be drawn, it is the opinion I am rejecting, not willfully ignoring any evidence that might have been presented. Even if, at times. the "evidence" is highly questionable.

We still await what supporting material there is to the claim that "the universe is evidence of an intelligent designer"

Plenty of evidence to support my faith has been presented. Just remember refusing to undertake the verification process does not make the evidence incapable of being verified. So while you may not agree with my faith, you have acknowledged it is based on facts. That is good enough for me.

As far as the universe goes, scientists have determined that the universe is expanding. This means there had to be a starting point or a point in time and space before everything began to expand. Many scholars refer to this as the Big Bang Theory. I personally believe in the Big Bang. What is overlooked is the cause of the Big Bang. Something (or Someone) had to set the Big Bang into motion. Newton's First Law of Motion states: An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

That "force" that started the universe moving has to be outside of the universe and has to be stronger than the universe. There is only one clear answer that meets the requirements of that force, and that is God.

Newtons first law is only valid for an inertial framework and can be (very) errant in an accelerating system. such a the universal expansion of the universe. Hence we need Einstein to shore up the gaps.

A "law" in science is not like a legislated law: it is simply an observation of some phenomenon and how it acts over time. Boyle's Law, for example, is not a hypothesis but observation of how gases react to pressure.

The universe certainly seems to have had a moment when time was set at zero. (If there was in infinite amount of time before now we could not yet have reached now).

Your opinion that the starting point of the universe was an external force is ok, but not the only explanation of how a universe may begin. Other opinions are equally open to being in error, but their existence denies any claim that there is only one possible explanation.

You asked for evidence of intelligent design, I provided the evidence. I find it hilarious that when I present unquestioned laws of nature, you shrug it off as being very errant in accelerating systems. When I present the law of cause and effect you brush it aside as not the only explanation (although you offered no other explanation yourself). But when I point out evolution is still just an unproven theory, you have a cow. You are adamant that even though it is called a theory, it just must be correct. You sneer when I say "God did it" but you are steadfast in believing "it just happened without any cause and despite known laws of nature". Again, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist or agnostic. Hahaha

Cause and effect only applies to past events: the future lies on a probability chart.   As they say, the moment we call now is when a probable future is converted into a determined past.

For example. we know that half the isotopes in a radioactive stack will decay over a given period of time (called the half life) but there is no known method of stating which particular one will decay at which particular moment.  I suppose one could hold the opinion that god decides which one dies at which point:  but that is simply an opinion and not the only possible solution.

The agnostic says there is no justified true belief in the existence or non existence of any one god.   And that is true.   The atheist says, so what?  There is no god.   In the same way that the theist says So what?  There is a god.   Both have irrational beliefs.   We are not all cut from the same thread,