Who is Jesus?

[808state]

The confusion is all yours. The prosecution is the one bringing the charge of guilt, (not simply making the claim). The prosecution must prove that the status quo (presumption of innocence) is must be changed and that the defendent is in fact, guilty. If the defendent cannot be shown to be guilty, he does not prove innocence.

The problem with this argument is that we're not in a court of law nor am I claiming that the Bible is "guilty" of anything. Presumption of innocence is about keeping the dignity of the individual intact. It has nothing to do with any rules of logic, it's just about respecting one's personal rights. Secondly, in the context of the courtroom, bringing the charge of guilt is the same thing as making the initial claim it just so happens that, because it's in the context of a courtroom, the person making the initial claim is usually going to be accusing someone of guilt as well. They're using a different language to fit the context of the situation (court of law). But what it all comes down to is whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof.

That is not true. If reason cannot be shown to falsify the Bible, there is no burden to provide evidence for the truthfulness of something that is not question. If anyone claims the Bible is wrong, they must show WHY that claim is justified, or withdraw the allegeation. If evidence cannot be demonstrated to show the Biblical claims are false, the Bible stands correct, by default.

I've stated repeatedly that I'm not arguing that the Bible is wrong. If I was arguing that, then you would be completely right. But I'm not. You're acting as if there are only two sides to this, either you're claiming it's 100% right or you're claiming it's 100% wrong. I'm doing neither.

[808state]

Ok, that's good. I think many for many people the biggest problem isn't that the Christian faith is untenable, but that being a Christian is unthinkable. It's about submitting, and few people want to do that, which is why so many remain 'seekers', because while you're seeking, you don't have to submit to anything.

You asked whether the truth is supposed to be evident at this point in time: The Bible teaches that God is evident through creation, and I believe that atheism leads to absurdity, so yes, I think if you take your search seriously and look at the world around you, the truth will become evident to you. An persistent atheist is someone who must spent much of their day deliberately rejecting, ignoring the evidence around them.

Fair enough. Why do you think people don't want to submit to God?

And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is?

Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you?

Your attorney will suggest a plea-bargain, no?

All I'm doing at this point is arguing that the resurrection could potentially be a lie. I'm not arguing that it is 100% in-fact a lie.

Indeed, my argument wasn't that anything written about Jesus would be included in the Bible, but I see no reason why a corroborating 5th gospel or 6th gospel wouldn't, in which case you'll dismiss it, because it's in the Bible.

It would depend. If the writings originated from a reliable source, I would be more likely to believe it.

I'm not going to go into detail about this late 2nd century gnostic text, for the simple reason that it doesn't deal with the truth claim of the resurrection. It's credibility is questionable, because it's pseudographical, likely written much later, in a time when none of the eye witnesses remained.

I'm not asking you why it's a lie, I'm asking you why someone would lie about it to begin with and why so many others would believe that lie.

Ugh, enough about these ghosts. You're pushing this cart uphill, 808state. A bodily resurrection is falsifiable, a spectral image isn't. The disciples had no expectation of a physical resurrection, and making up the story would be far too easily falsified.

I don't think it's me pushing that cart uphill. A spectral image was something many people claimed to see at the time, a bodily resurrection wasn't. If this guy was supposed to be pass as the son of God, was he simply going to come back as something that many believed any old ordinary human could come back as or something that was much less common? Information spread through word of mouth. Not tv. Not pictures. Many people during this time were also gullible (hence why so many of them believed in ghosts.) People could twist stories any way they wanted to, and they could get others to believe them. It's not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is.

It's not merely God's perfection that I mentioned but the complicated concept of the trinity. God's character is also astonishingly cohesive to a point where I don't believe it's a made up character.

For example?

And what would you say this reward is?

Being at peace with God, being forgiven, eternal life with God, etc.

No you're wrong. It is by faith that we are saved not by works. Salvation changes a person from the inside out. It's not that Christian pursues virtue in order to be saved and get to live the good life in heaven, but rather that because they've been saved, they desire virtue. That's why we speak of regeneration. It's not man being good against his will, but the regenerated man becomes a new creature, desiring goodness.

It is for this reason that the Bible teaches you can judge a tree by its fruit. The evidence for salvation is a changed heart.

Christianity is unique in this regard because it has the cause and effect reversed.

The Muslim will claim he needs to go to heaven because he met (or atleast sincerely tried to) the requirements.

The jew will claim he needs to go to heaven because he met (or atleast sincerely tried to) the requirements.

the atheist will demand heaven because God didn't give him enough evidence and because atleast, he's not as bad as hitler. That really he was just a victim of being too intelligent and rational.

But, the true Christian on the other hand will say,

"Lord, I have broken every commandment you have given. I have not loved you as you deserve to be loved, I have been selfish all my life and didn't care much for my neighbour. I neclected the wife you gave me, watching TV instead of helping her around the house, and sometimes she'd tell me about her day and I'd pretend to listen, thinking about that boat I wanted to buy and fix up. I neglected my children, working late so often, and yelling at them when they disturbed me responding to my emails. I didn't honour my parents although they often had to go without luxuries to buy me diapers, and to pay for school, in fact for most of my life I thought they knew nothing and were ignorant. I stole, I committed adultery, I used your Name as a cussword. I lied...a lot. I lied during that one insurance claim, I lied to my friend when he needed me, when I told him I was busy, but I wasn't. I lied to my boss, telling him I was sick and couldn't come to work, when really, I was hungover from a party the previous night.

So Lord, I don't deserve you, but your Son paid the price for me. It is through Him that I stand before your gate."

But you're assuming that people of other religions don't desire true goodness over rewards. Most religions claim to change a person from the inside out, and most followers of these religions would claim that they have been changed inside out by their respective religions. Muslims believe they will go to heaven through salvation, not through a series of requirements. Buddhists/Hindus believe that if someone only goes through the requirements for the sake of attaining Nirvana, then they will never attain Nirvana.

[808state]

Our bodies are geared for survival, I'm not disputing that, but you haven't demonstrated that any of this proves that survival by itself makes life meaningful. In fact, since nothing in the end survives, doesn't that affirm what I've been saying, that life would ultimately be meaningless if life was only about survival?

What I'm arguing is that survival encompasses many things, it's not some simple act, but a very complex one. It's made up of many different experiences. Like I said in my pervious post, keeping your physical self healthy is just as important as keeping your emotional/mental self healthy. It's through our instincts, it's through what gives us pleasure and what gives us displeasure, that's what directs us in our path to a meaningful life. If you want to be a bit more spiritual about it, it's about experiencing life. Life can be it's own reward. If I die, and that's it, it doesn't discount any of the experiences I had on this earth. It doesn't mean that they didn't happen and that they didn't effect another's life. That's enough for me. I don't need anything more than that, at one point in my life I thought I did, but I don't.

Suppose a mad-man follows your logic to its conclusion and says, "Since the meaning of life is to survive, and since nothing ultimately survives anyway, let's just get it over with and blow up the planet. Yeah!"

*Click*....BANG!

Has his actions changed ultimate meaning in any way from an atheist point of view? I'd say no. In fact, for a brief moment after the flash before the shockwave and the fire consumes him and everything else, he may even have been happy knowing that he took control of his destiny. And if he's happy, then atleast by your logic what he did was quite meaningful...for him.

So now there's just smoldering chunks of the planet formerly known as earth hurtling through endless space.

What would you find in the debris field?

Perhaps a child's mangled tricycle can be spotted tumbling toward the empty nothing. The memory of the little child's laughter, of bruised knees, bandaids and a mother's comfort now vaporised.

Perhaps a cheap silver necklace. Given to a young sweetheart by a starry eyed young lover, wishing that his job as the gas station paid better to that he could afford a diamond.

Perhaps a briar pipe, which comforted an old widower as he enjoyed the aroma of cherry tobacco relaxing on his porch, thinking about the good old days, wishing his kids would visit him more often.

Has anything really been lost? Is there a reason to mourn? To be a little sad?

If survival is the only meaning, the only reason to be good, the only reason to love, then when nothing survives then those reasons have also been lost, right? Now that all the business of the planet is quiet, was it all for nothing?

So, what you're arguing is because no one survives in the long run then temporary survival is meaningless? Close, but no cigar. Temporary survival gives us something that simply not existing doesn't give us: Experience. It gives us life. Is that not enough for you? Why?

Now, I have to point out that since this guy is a "mad-man", he isn't in an emotionally healthy place. He isn't surviving mentally so he becomes destructive physically. It's why surviving both emotionally and physically is important. Now, if he blows up the entire planet, no one would be alive so how could anyone mourn the loss of it?

[808state]

The God of the Bible is offensive to human nature. The gods created by human beings do not resemble the God of Scripture and human nature precludes man creating the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is unique in that He relates to man redemptively, and no other god does.

How is he offensive to human nature?

And redemption is a major concept in Buddhism.

Except the definition of "perfection" in the Bible is not attainable by humans and thus man would not have created the biblical concept of perfection or a god who meets that standard to be the judge of man. Teh human defintion of perfection begins from the assumption that man is basically good. The Bible's definition of perfection begins with the assumption that man is inherently evil and morally bankrupt and unable to arrive under his own power to the biblical standard of perfection, thus man needs a redeemer.

Let's take a look at the Biblical idea that God loves human beings despite their flaws, is essentially willing to save them from themselves, is willing to lead them to a happier life, etc. These are all ideas that certainly benefit human-beings. I think most people come to a point in their lives where they feel like they're worthless, lost, not fulfilled, etc. The Bible essentially tells these people that they are, but that God can save them if they choose it. I've heard many different testimonies from many people of different religions, and they usually come to religion in one of two ways: They were either raised with particular religious beliefs or they came to religion when they were in a particularly vulnerable state. It seems kind of convenient to me.

If you want to secure one's devotion and keep them in your control, then you want to make sure that they believe themselves to be inferior to you. Some would call this manipulation.

Besides all of the gods that man has created in the past always reflect human failings and often need human assistance. God, on the other hand, has need of nothing from man and is entirely self-sufficient. The God of Scripture reflects a nature and incommunicable attributes that would never have even entered the mind of someone seeking to create a god simply from their imagination. It is not simply being perfect. Your approach to God is far to simplistic and shallow. There is more to God than "perfection." God exists outside the human experience and possesses attributes for which there is no point of reference within the scope of human experience which precludes Him from being a product of human imagination.

Could you give some examples of attributes of God mentioned in the Bible that no human-being could have thought up?

That is because you have a shallow understanding of what "good" means relative to the God of the Bible. What God calls "good" often runs contrary to mankind's concept of good.

For example?

That does not even compare with Christianity. Both Buddhism and Hinduism are about man achieving salvation through personal effort. In Christianity, Jesus is the one does everything necessary for salvation on our behalf. Jesus does all the work.

In Hinduism, and Buddhism, salvation is a reward. In Christianity it is free gift absent any personal merit or personal effort. You cannot "do" anything to be saved. Jesus did every that needs to be done to be saved. In Christianity enlightenment is the product or outworking of salvation and that comes not through human effort, but illumination by the Holy Spirit on the heart of a Christian.

Many see Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity as different paths to same goal or different paths to God. The problem is that the Bible teaches that there is no path to God. This is because a path is something you travel under your own strength to arrive at a destination. Man cannot possibly work his way to God; that "path" just does not exist. There is a way to God, through Jesus, but there is no path.

So, Jesus gives followers the desire and strength to live a more Godly life? I'll just reiterate what I said to LuftWaffle:

You're assuming that people of other religions don't desire true goodness over rewards. Most religions claim to change a person from the inside out, and most followers of these religions would claim that they have been changed inside out by their respective religions. Buddhists/Hindus believe that if someone only goes through the requirements for the sake of attaining Nirvana, then they will never attain Nirvana.

[Believer112]

Fair enough. Why do you think people don't want to submit to God?

I have four kids 1 believer, 2 skeptics, 1 atheist. I asked my oldest daughter; who was 24 at the time, to ask Jesus into her life. She told me she wasn't ready. I asked why and she said she's not ready to change. She was living with a guy and partying, doing what most young people do today. I read her these two scriptures

Romans 10

⁹ If you declare with your mouth,

[enoob57]

I'm not impressed with the fact that the Bible is accurate with about what was actually going on in the world at that time. The issue here is that the information that can't be verified is always the supernatural aspects. It's a bit suspect. Now, if you could verify most of the supernatural aspects of the Bible, then you could assume that the other supernatural events mentioned could have been true as well, but that's not what's going on here.

I could write a book right now, and talk about 9/11, the war in iraq, war in afghanistan, different things that are currently going on in the world, etc. and then mix in some supernatural events. It doesn't mean those supernatural events actually occurred.

Hi loved one...

That which is on the other side of deaths door is going to be the eternal...unending...unchanging reality as to being and place of being unproven by cognitive abilities unto those who place the corporeal as god!

This side is explained to us in this fashion:

all people are either possessions of God or are possessions of satan for we were not created to be possessor's but to be possessed. This truth is undeniable by all people in this way we were born not of our own will and we will die in like fashion... all that is between is that which is made up of choices... those choices can be reduced to yes/no, light/dark, 1/0, true/lie but they can not be both... this is the absolute of physics that we have not come to the end of but are still full steam of investigation of learning... yet in this same universe a law exists all that is substanced must end "entropy"... all this I have spoken of is undeniable reality of conscience proving as to this side of things before death. Your choice of direction belongs to you; for each day you choose either life or death, good or bad, love or hate, truth or lie etc. (but) are you not using the power of that which is born and must die? That which is in between beginning and ending to determine that which has no beginning or ending? Is this rational to your own opinion? Do you go to an apple tree to gather pairs? Do you go to religions that offer same as here just more or better? Rational demands that we always go to the source of anything to determine it's proper state before anything else in between has a chance to alter it in anyway? There is only one vehicle as to mode of reason that can cross the expanse of sin and death that being of faith and that being only formed by His Holy Word "The Bible". Meanwhile I don't see you having any difficulty standing, walking, or laying down on that which has more space that solid material? So it looks as if you are already applying faith in his Word for in the beginning He formed the world with His Word... Love Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. The only reason why I brought it up to begin with was to show that it is possible that not all of the writers were putting their personal faults on display to the world initially. I was not trying to go after the credibility of the New Testament with that one.

You are missing the point. The fact that the Bible makes no attempt to hide the flaws of the followers of Jesus and makes no attempt to paint them as white washed saints points to the Bible's credibility and its honesty in dealing with the facts. The writers of the New Testament even those who are writing about themselves are brutally honest about their own flaws, which is not typical of those who are trying to make up stories about themselves.

shiloh357, on 19 February 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

The God of the Bible is offensive to human nature. The gods created by human beings do not resemble the God of Scripture and human nature precludes man creating the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is unique in that He relates to man redemptively, and no other god does.

How is he offensive to human nature?

Because He strikes at the heart of human pride. He tells you that on your own, you are a miserable, hopeless wretch and you stand before Him condemned and are helpless in your own strength to do anything about it. He tells you that you have nothing good in you, that your entire life in His eyes is empty, chaotic and perverted. He tells you that apart from Him, you are spiritually dead and headed for hell. You stand before Him guilty under the law and under the merciless thumb of sin. He tells you that your best deeds on your best day is nothing but filthy menstral rags in His sight.

God tells us in His word that He is within His rights to destroy us as sinners, but that He has instead chosen to have mercy on us and to give us the opportunity of redemption. This redemption is not because you deserve it (you deserve to be rubbed out), but because God has chosen to have mercy on you and to love you in spite of your sinful condition.

And redemption is a major concept in Buddhism.

You don't understand. God relates to man redemptively, Buddha does not. The difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Christianity is wholly centered upon and wrapped up in and intrinsically linked to the person of Jesus. You cannot be a Christian without participating in the person of Jesus. Christianity is Christ.

In Buddhism on the other hand, you do not have to know anything about the person of Buddha to follow Buddha. Buddha is not a redeemer and any "redemption" that Buddhism offers is based on the efforts of Buddhists.

Christ is the redeemer of man. Buddha did not redeem humanity. Buddha does not offer a free gift of eternal life. In Buddhism, you seek to earn those things on your own merit and effort. It all depends on you. In Christianity, redemption is a free gift not based on personal merit or personal effort.

Let's take a look at the Biblical idea that God loves human beings despite their flaws, is essentially willing to save them from themselves, is willing to lead them to a happier life, etc. These are all ideas that certainly benefit human-beings. I think most people come to a point in their lives where they feel like they're worthless, lost, not fulfilled, etc. The Bible essentially tells these people that they are, but that God can save them if they choose it. I've heard many different testimonies from many people of different religions, and they usually come to religion in one of two ways: They were either raised with particular religious beliefs or they came to religion when they were in a particularly vulnerable state. It seems kind of convenient to me.

If you want to secure one's devotion and keep them in your control, then you want to make sure that they believe themselves to be inferior to you. Some would call this manipulation.

Except, that is not what God is doing. God is honest with us about spiritual condition and how hopeles and helpless we are about it. He offers us salvation as a free gift, not to manipulate, but He does it out of His mercy. I don't see any manipulation in it at all.

God does not offer happier lives, though. Rather He asks us to be willing to give up all, deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.

Could you give some examples of attributes of God mentioned in the Bible that no human-being could have thought up?

Yes, but what I said was that no human would have thought them up in ancient times due to not having a frame of reference for them. Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. In thousands and thousands of years and countless gods, not one of the hundreds of pagan cultures contemporary with ancient Israel created any such God. That God was sinless and separate from creation were also not part of any ancient theologies. Furthermore, the redemptive nature of God was not part of any ancient view of their gods. Their gods cared nothing for man and were in most cases, just amplified versions of humanity. Their gods were created, but the God of the Bible is eternal without beginning or end. That should do for now.

So, Jesus gives followers the desire and strength to live a more Godly life? I'll just reiterate what I said to LuftWaffle:

You're assuming that people of other religions don't desire true goodness over rewards.

No, I am not. I assume they do.

Most religions claim to change a person from the inside out, and most followers of these religions would claim that they have been changed inside out by their respective religions. Buddhists/Hindus believe that if someone only goes through the requirements for the sake of attaining Nirvana, then they will never attain Nirvana.

Yes, and that makes my point. They have to earn what they are seeking for. They have to earn it in tandem with a sincere desire. The point is that they STILL have to earn it. It is still ultimately based on their own efforts, and the problem is that even if they achieve what they are seeking, it won't bring them to God. Jesus said of Himself,"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but through me." (Jn14:6)

Jesus is the only way to God. Even if ones finds what they are looking for in another religion, once they die, they enter eternity lost and separated from God.

The problem with this argument is that we're not in a court of law nor am I claiming that the Bible is "guilty" of anything.

That is basically true, but the rules for debate carry over. Your position is one of skepticism toward the accuracy and veracity of the biblical text.

Presumption of innocence is about keeping the dignity of the individual intact. It has nothing to do with any rules of logic, it's just about respecting one's personal rights. Secondly, in the context of the courtroom, bringing the charge of guilt is the same thing as making the initial claim it just so happens that, because it's in the context of a courtroom, the person making the initial claim is usually going to be accusing someone of guilt as well. They're using a different language to fit the context of the situation (court of law). But what it all comes down to is whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof.

Again, many of the rules of debate that take place in a courtroom apply (albeit in a different context) to the rules of debate outside of the courtroom. It is not the one "making the claim" that has the burden of proof, but the one who makes who makes the claim that the status quo must be changed.

In this context, the status quo is the assumed accuracy of the text of Scripture. Those who claim the text of the Bible is inaccurate, false or unbelievable have the burden of proof to support their assertions. The Bible does not have to "prove" its accuracy. Rather it is its detractors who must demonstrate that sufficient evidence exists to challenge the accuracy of the Bible.

The elaboration is new. Can we agree on that? Obviously, most Jewish people had a different understanding of the Old Testament than the understanding that Jesus had. So, some of these interpretations were new to most Jews at the time. I'm not going to debate who had the right interpretation, it's irrelevant.

I was not "new." Jesus constantly quoted the NT, and no one is recorded as claiming that Jesus was bringing up something new. Rather, Jesus was fulfilling what had already been written. The point is that Jesus was not starting a new religion and His followers did not see Him as starting a new religion.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I am afraid that I do doubt it. As Hume rightly pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Theirs is not enough. Also, men have died for all manner of curious causes and reasons.

Or again, as Hume puts it;

When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should have really happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of the testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

Hume's theory was totally debunked as an 'abject failure' by Professor John Earman (an agnostic who didn't even believe in God).

[Guest shiloh357]

I've stated repeatedly that I'm not arguing that the Bible is wrong. If I was arguing that, then you would be completely right. But I'm not. You're acting as if there are only two sides to this, either you're claiming it's 100% right or you're claiming it's 100% wrong. I'm doing neither.

Then your unbelief has no platform. The Bible is either true or it is not. There is no fence to ride. Either you believe what is written or you don't. To claim it is "unverified" is not really saying anything.

I cannot verify to you what I had for breakfast last Thursday. I cannot verify to what I was thinking about earlier this morning. If I tell you that earlier this morning I was thinking about my grocery list, you would just have to take my word for it. The fact that I cannot verify it, really doesn't mean anything. You may choose to disbelieve what I claim is true on the grounds that I cannot verify it, but that is really neither here nor there. The fact that later, I went out and actually bought groceries is evidence that my claim is true, despite the fact that I still cannot actually "verify" that I really was thinking about a list of groceries before I went shopping. You can make up anything you want to in your mind to explain away the correlation of what I claimed I was thinking and what I did later. That is not really sufficient, though. Either you believe me, or you don't.

In the same way, the evidence is there to support the claims of the disciples and the veracity of the Bible, both in terms of internal and external evidence. That does not mean you cannot dream up a "possible" scenario to explain away the correlation of claims to evidence, but just because you can concoct an alternate explanation, it doesn't mean that you have offered anything of intellectual value to the discussion and you certainly have not really provided an intellectually satisfying platform to justify your unbelief.

You come off as someone who will accept any alternate explanation, no matter how absurd or counter-intuitive to observable reality in order to preserve unbelief, which tells me that you really can't (or won't) deal with the evidence for the veracity of Scripture.

I'm not impressed with the fact that the Bible is accurate with about what was actually going on in the world at that time. The issue here is that the information that can't be verified is always the supernatural aspects. It's a bit suspect. Now, if you could verify most of the supernatural aspects of the Bible, then you could assume that the other supernatural events mentioned could have been true as well, but that's not what's going on here.

I could write a book right now, and talk about 9/11, the war in iraq, war in afghanistan, different things that are currently going on in the world, etc. and then mix in some supernatural events. It doesn't mean those supernatural events actually occurred.

You are still missing the point. This kind of nonsense is what I mean when I say that you operate against observable reality. There is no motivation for someone who is trying to present a factual account to suddenly decide to mix in a bunch of false information.

When was the last time someone wrote a biography on Martin Luther King Jr. and suddenly decided to claim that He climbed up on a flying purple unicorn and flew into outerspace?

It is counter-intuitive to observable reality that a person who goes out of their way to be factually correct on minute details of geography, genealogical records, history and even the names and titles of important people to suddenly mix in false, or misleading information. The fact that they include supernatural events does NOT mean that their claims regarding to those supernatural events are either false or entirely unverifiable.

Just now, there is monumental evidence in Saudi Arabia of the real Mt. Sinai. Saudi Arabia is biblical Midian. The Saudis do not allow people to get too close, but there is evidence of the exact events described in the Bible including the Lord's descent to Sinai and even the rock out of which water flowed to the Children of Israel. You can google most of that, as it is in the pubic domain.

No amount of evidence will convince anyone unwilling to be convinced, though.

[enoob57]

I'm not impressed with the fact that the Bible is accurate with about what was actually going on in the world at that time. The issue here is that the information that can't be verified is always the supernatural aspects. It's a bit suspect. Now, if you could verify most of the supernatural aspects of the Bible, then you could assume that the other supernatural events mentioned could have been true as well, but that's not what's going on here.

I could write a book right now, and talk about 9/11, the war in iraq, war in afghanistan, different things that are currently going on in the world, etc. and then mix in some supernatural events. It doesn't mean those supernatural events actually occurred.

You are still missing the point. This kind of nonsense is what I mean when I say that you operate against observable reality. There is no motivation for someone who is trying to present a factual account to suddenly decide to mix in a bunch of false information.

When was the last time someone wrote a biography on Martin Luther King Jr. and suddenly decided to claim that He climbed up on a flying purple unicorn and flew into outerspace?

It is counter-intuitive to observable reality that a person who goes out of their way to be factually correct on minute details of geography, genealogical records, history and even the names and titles of important people to suddenly mix in false, or misleading information. The fact that they include supernatural events does NOT mean that their claims regarding to those supernatural events are either false or entirely unverifiable.

Just now, there is monumental evidence in Saudi Arabia of the real Mt. Sinai. Saudi Arabia is biblical Midian. The Saudis do not allow people to get too close, but there is evidence of the exact events described in the Bible including the Lord's descent to Sinai and even the rock out of which water flowed to the Children of Israel. You can google most of that, as it is in the pubic domain.

No amount of evidence will convince anyone unwilling to be convinced, though.

Brother how well you have brought out the point of the darkness that holds those in it's grasp! She does not know that there is a truth that is bound up in the infinte, unchanging, real, substanced in all that we have seen and witnessed in this life illumined by The Light of Christ.... Let the peace of God be rich in your heart for Her in prayer! Love Steven