Evidence please

-Removed-

On what evidence do I base the fulfillment of prophecies? If you’re asking me if I believe the writers of the Gospels accurately and truthfully recorded the events they saw, my answer is “yes.”

-Removed-

I think he is saying that his certainty about its truth is somehow evidence (for the neutral observer, for example), in and of itself.

-Removed-

The fact the prophecies were written centuries before their fulfillment is evidence that the prophecies are genuine.

And I trust the veracity of the Gospel writers in accurately describing events they saw. In some cases, such as Isaiah chapter 53, no one expected the Messiah to be a “suffering servant,” including the Apostles, who were not Biblically learned men, but also including the Pharisees, who were Biblically learned men.

-Removed-

I guess it depends on how they read them. God never intended His existence to be provable and even people who witnessed Jesus Christ’s miracles refused to believe He was the Messiah.

-Removed-

I’ve never said God’s existence could be proven or that Jesus Christ’s Resurrection could be proven.

I’ve said enough evidence exists for one to reasonably conclude that both are true. But a degree of faith is required, as it is in nearly everything.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I’ve never said God’s existence could be proven or that Jesus Christ’s Resurrection could be proven.

Haven't you said that Jesus Christ’s Resurrection could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like dozens of times?

Originally posted by @fmf
Haven't you said that Jesus Christ’s Resurrection could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like dozens of times?

I’ve never said it could be proven. And “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” is an oxymoron anyway. Either something is proven or it’s not.

-Removed-

Asks for evidence? I’ve specified where *some* of the evidence is for Christ’s Resurrection. Apparently no one felt like reading the article.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I’ve never said it could be proven. And “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” is an oxymoron anyway. Either something is proven or it’s not.

So a person can be reasonable and still conclude that the evidence does not constitute proof and does not amount to enough to dispel doubts about its veracity?

Originally posted by @romans1009
The fact the prophecies were written centuries before their fulfillment is evidence that the prophecies are genuine...

Of course it isn't. Not if later events were made to fit the prophecies.

Why is it (as Bart Ehrman points out) we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home?'

You don't recognize that as a flaw in Luke's account or that perhaps his primary objective was to have Jesus fulfill earlier prophecies? Really?!