First of all, you weren't there. Second of all you obviously don't believe in miracles. Do you deny that Jesus was born of a virgin as that was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus walked on water? That too was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus healed a man born blind by putting spit and dirt in his eyes? That too was a physical impossiblity. Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? Did Jesus calm the storm by the word of his mouth?
There is no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists that any of these miracles occurred. Do you deny the resurrection? Can a man who was crucified get up from his tomb after three days and then ascend into heaven? Another physical impossibility for which we have no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists.
From our viewpoint the flood was obviously a physical impossibility. You can't pull the oceans up from their bed and spread them over the earth, can you? That is a physical impossibility, isn't it? Yet Jesus and Peter both attested to the fact of its occurrence. So am I going to believe You or my "lying" eyes? Well, since the only physical evidence I have is the words on the page of the Bible that it either occurred or didn't occur, I suppose I'll have to believe my "lying" eyes. I wasn't there. You weren't there. Jesus was. He is my eyewitness.
Now who are you going to believe? You're lying eyes, or Jesus Christ, the Creator and sustainer of all things?
So? No one but O.J. saw him whack his wife and her friend, but the evidence was sufficient to convince quite a few people.
Second of all you obviously don't believe in miracles.
How do you know what I believe in? It's awefully presumptious of you, isn't it?
Do you deny that Jesus was born of a virgin as that was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus walked on water? That too was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus healed a man born blind by putting spit and dirt in his eyes? That too was a physical impossiblity. Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? Did Jesus calm the storm by the word of his mouth?
There is no evidence one way or another that these situations actually occurred. Indeed, it's pretty evident that lots of folks were performing such miracles in the Mediterranean at the same time. And, note, the "miracles" you mention are not of the type to leave any lasting physical evidence, UNLIKE A WORLD-WIDE FLOOD.
There is no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists that any of these miracles occurred.
Exactly. Historians typically reject any classical claim for which there is no third-party reference. For example, one of the reasons we accept the existence of Julius Caesar is because, not only did he leave us some of his writings, he was mentioned by numerous contemporaries (including his enemies) in their writings. For the same reason, the Sumerian list of their earliest kings is taken with a grain of salt because there is no third-party reference to them.
Do you deny the resurrection? Can a man who was crucified get up from his tomb after three days and then ascend into heaven? Another physical impossibility for which we have no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists.
Well, because there is no Roman record of Jesus, his execution, and subsequent disappearance -- and Romans kept records of everything -- one would be required to take the story with a grain of salt, if one were being intellectually honest.
From our viewpoint the flood was obviously a physical impossibility. You can't pull the oceans up from their bed and spread them over the earth, can you? That is a physical impossibility, isn't it?
Not an impossibility, but the lack of evidence for such an event is very indicative the entire account is fictitious. Would you believe it if someone claimed he moved a mountain overnight from point A to point B if there was no corroborating evidence?
Yet Jesus and Peter both attested to the fact of its occurrence.
Nope. A writer claimed they both attested to it. There is a difference, though you refuse to see it.
So am I going to believe You or my "lying" eyes? Well, since the only physical evidence I have is the words on the page of the Bible that it either occurred or didn't occur, I suppose I'll have to believe my "lying" eyes. I wasn't there. You weren't there. Jesus was. He is my eyewitness.
Once again, you are attributing to a book facts not in evidence. You have no evidence it is the Word of God, or even that it was divinely-inspired. You CHOOSE to believe that way. One does not need "to be there" to decipher events from readily-apparent clues. Cops and doctors do it all the time. What you are engaging in is a form of special pleading.
Now who are you going to believe? You're lying eyes, or Jesus Christ, the Creator and sustainer of all things?
I'm going to believe the evidence. Period. You can put your faith in hearsay if you'd like; that's your right. But understand why other people will not and why quoting from the Bible to reinforce your point is counter-productive in most cases.