Evidence (Christians)?

That depends on what you mean by true.

If you mean it is a reliable representation of what the authors originally wrote you would look at one form of evidence.

There are three specific lines of evidence that I see as important for concluding this to be true.

1. The many MSS from different geographical locations and times enables comparisons to be made and variants identified can be examined to effectively identify interpolations.

2. The level of agreement comparing MSS with Quotes in letters written by early Church leaders. Especially those that can be dated earlier than the earliest MSS

3. The level of agreement comparing MSS against Early versions(translations) that predate the earliest MSS

These three combined allows us to have a strong degree of confidence that what we have today is a faithful representation of what was written by the original authors.

If you mean what they wrote was believed by the authors and the readers at that time, you would look at another form of evidence.

Here we would look at the circumstantial evidence ask "Is what we see more consistent with what we would expect if the authors and early converts (those in the best position to evaluate the truth of the claims) believed the text was true or not true?"

If the early authors/converts believed the text was true - there would be evidence of changes in behavior that correspond to the teachings of the text.. We do!

If the early authors/converts believed the text was true - we would expect they would be unwilling to recant even under threats.. That is what we see!

There is more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the assertion the authors/converts believed the content of the text was true.

If you mean every thing contained therein is an accurate statement that is another thing entirely.

The Bible contains the words of Good and Even men, Satan, true and false prophets and teachers, the honorable and the dishonorable. Because of this there are many statements in the Bible that are not true or accurate. Which is why one must always consider the context (who is speaking, who is being spoken to, what is the purposes of the message etc). Because the text is very old and the culture is very different from our Modern, Occidental, Low Context society, we must not only consider textual context but also historical and cultural context as well. Examining the many alleged contradictions asserted by skeptics we find are not really contradictions but contextual issues For example:

1. Statements made hundreds of years apart and as result under different circumstances.

2. One quote being a true prophet compared to a quote made by a false prophet.

3. A statement related to one group in different circumstances compared to a statement related to a completely different group and in different circumstances.

Roughly 80% of the alleged contradictions commonly asserted by skeptics fall into this category - not true contradictions but cases where context is not considered.

About 10% of the alleged contradictions commonly asserted by skeptics amount to comparing A with Not-A

Most of the other alleged contradictions are language related - a word translated the same way means one thing in the Hebrew but something different (albeit slightly) in the Greek.

Virtually all the sustainable contradictions (only about 10 to 15 of the list of 400+ alleged contradictions) are due to known transcription errors and are inconsequential to the base message of the text.

I will state for the record, In my opinion most of your modern churches fail their members in that very little time is spent critically examining the scriptures, doctrines and statements of belief. As result too many church members cannot intelligently articulate why they believe what the believe much less justify their belief is reasonable based on the available evidences. It is because of this failure 'religious people" get a bad reputation and are often looked upon as unthinking sheep who just believe what they are told without thinking about it ...

That being said, I have noticed this same situation with many modern atheists compared to the past. After reading Dawkins "The God Delusion" and the response to it by atheists I could only conclude that the age of intellectual atheism is past.

After taking some time to read some of your questions and responses I am convinced you are not a poe and you have the potential to be numbered among the minority 'intellectual atheists'.

A more important question would not be evidence, but "What is the main reason you believe?"

It comes down to personal experience usually. The evidence and arguments they put forth are not the reason they believe, and yet they expect other people to be convinced by them.

Christians can come up with many poor arguments if you ask them, and you can go ahead and waste your time refuting every one of them and then they'll always drop back to "faith" or "spiritual experiences" or "common sense", or some other ridiculous statement.

Weak faith and the very real fear of the evidence against their claims mean they dare not!

The only way primitive religion exists today is through the child abuse of forcing it into very, very young children but thanks to better education and growing intellects so many teens are able to discover the truth, throw off the indoctrination and step into the real world!

So atheism is not a conscious decision or a belief but a realisation!

The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!

Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

There's hundreds of ways and avenues to look at answering the question you have.

But it's late and I'll just pass on the following.

Listen to Bible commentary by J. Vernon McGee at www_ttb_org

and here's a fine sermon by Adrian Rogers: Learning to walk with God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJK1qGnO8Ho

I believe that everyone should challenge even their most deep-set beliefs

~~~ No one does that!

The stronger the belief infection, the less available it is to critical examination!

What you 'believe' changes nothing

The Church which was responsible for composing the Sacred books is the authority, not the Bible.