- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 123,002
- Reaction score
- 4,576
- Points
- 113
I didn't ask you to provide me with things that could convince believers. I asked you what the evidence was. You've also yet to provide a definition of faith.
I didn't give you anything "that could convince believers" -- I gave you things that have convinced people to believe.
I used to have a stack of books on intelligent design (not the perversion the Creationists have made of it, but the original thing), all by people from different scientific disciplines who concluded from knowledge in their fields that there is, indeed, a Creator. Not all went past Deism; not all who did became Christians, but all were serious scientists who began as atheists or agnostics but were convinced by what their studies told them that there was at the very least a Guiding Hand behind it all. I don't know what's become of them; perhaps I'll come across them while moving (an ongoing process at the moment).
Faith, in the Bible, is trust based on a demonstrated record.
And which documents are these? The Gospels? They are pseudepigraphs, two of which derive most of their accounts from Mark and as such cannot serve as more testimony. The Pauline Corpus also has questionable epistles as far as authorship is concerned. But even if I were to grant you that they are written by those who claim to have seen the events, to say that simply because someone said they saw or experienced X doesn't meet the level of adequate evidence. Imagine if we just took eye witness testimony at face value in a court of law without interacting with them and cross examining them. Or if we just accepted some notarized letter they submit. That you or some other believers are satisfied with "someone said so and I believe them" that's fine and good luck with that, but know that this is far from establishing a solid case.
Mark was complete in its present form by 45 A.D., and thus almost certainly written by someone with that name -- this from the science of papyrology, which doesn't deal with literary conjecture or such, but with quantifiable, objective, physical evidence.
Luke has a substantial body of material also found in Mark, but that hardly dismisses what he has; it demonstrates that Mark, written early, was considered a trustworthy source, and adds to Mark additional material. Matthew is in the same situation, both corroborating and increasing Mark's testimony.
I don't know many believers who are "satisfied with 'someone said so and I believe them'". Those who are, frequently aren't worth talking to seriously.






























