The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Festus

Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does religion, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong.

Not so sure Wickey...

...maybe....

Science explains what it can about what is happening around us most of the time. Heisenberg has something to say about the whole time
Jesus explains what science will not.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Surely by that logic to a theist all of them must be true and can believed, including all religious books in existence?

Or just the Bible?

Let me guess...

We use discernment and are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is both a religious book and a history book, for Christians the New Testament, for Jews the Old Testament.

Bringing non-historical religious books into the discussion is strawmaning

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does religion, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong.

Not so sure Wickey...

...maybe....

Science explains what it can about what is happening around us most of the time. Heisenberg has something to say about the whole time
Jesus explains what science will not.

As does Mohammad and Thor and Pandora etc etc

An explanation that is just a guess does not explain anything.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

As does Mohammad and Thor and Pandora etc etc

An explanation that is just a guess does not explain anything.

Can you prove it's not a guess...can you, can you , can you

Lemme guess...

thought not :P:P:P

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

We use discernment and are guided by the Holy Spirit.

What if you aren't guided by the Holy Spirit.

How do you tell the difference to any degree of accuracy?

And please don't say you know it is the Holy Spirit because the Bible says so.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Bringing non-historical religious books into the discussion is strawmaning

It is not straw manning at all. For all the talk about how atheists are so close minded to the idea that the Bible might be true, in reality the logic used to support the Bible is not applied by theists to any other religious book (since it would also support these mutually exclusive texts).

Such logic can be used to support any and all religious claims. Yet for some strange reason you guys apply this only to one particular religion.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove it's not a guess...can you, can you , can you

Certainly. Present any testable prediction of this explanation.

What's that? You can't? It is just faith? Thought so. :rolleyes:

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

What if you aren't guided by the Holy Spirit.

How do you tell the difference to any degree of accuracy?

And please don't say you know it is the Holy Spirit because the Bible says so.

The Bible provides the clues, after that we have our ways...

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not straw manning at all. For all the talk about how atheists are so close minded to the idea that the Bible might be true, in reality the logic used to support the Bible is not applied by theists to any other religious book (since it would also support these mutually exclusive texts).

Such logic can be used to support any and all religious claims. Yet for some strange reason you guys apply this only to one particular religion.

There's a subtle hint in the forum title :rolleyes:

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

So it is not an historical fact that a Jesus who was viewed as the Christ existed?

Sure, just like lots of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans.[2]
Athronges (ca. 3 BC)[3], a shepherd turned rebel leader.
Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC — AD 30-?), a wandering prophet and teacher who was crucified by the Romans; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians.
Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.
Vespasian, c.70, according to Josephus[4]
Simon bar Kokhba (?- ca. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.
Moses of Crete (?), who in about 440-470 convinced the Jews of Crete to attempt to walk into the sea to return to Israel; he disappeared after that disaster.
Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (684-705), who led a revolt in Persia against the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.
Yudghan (?), a disciple of Abu 'Isa who continued the faith after Isa was slain.
Serene (?), who around 720 claimed to be the Messiah and advocated expulsion of Muslims and relaxing various rabbinic laws before being arrested; he then recanted.
David Alroy (?), born in Kurdistan, who around 1160 agitated against the caliph before being assassinated.
Nissim ben Abraham (?), active around 1295.
Moses Botarel of Cisneros (?), active around 1413; claimed to be a sorcerer able to combine the names of God.
Asher Lemmlein (?), a German near Venice who proclaimed himself a forerunner of the Messiah in 1502.
David Reubeni (1490-1541?) and Solomon Molcho (1500-1532), adventurers who travelled in Portugal, Italy, and Turkey; Molcho was eventually burned at the stake by the Pope.
A mostly unknown Czech Jew from around the 1650s.[5]
Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), an Ottoman Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam; still has followers today in the Donmeh.
Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba), successor of Sabbatai Zevi.
Jacob Querido (?-1690), claimed to be the new incarnation of Sabbatai; later converted to Islam and led the Donmeh.
Miguel Cardoso (1630-1706), another successor of Sabbatai who claimed to be the "Messiah ben Ephraim."
Mordecai Mokia (1650-1729), "the Rebuker," another person who proclaimed himself Messiah after Sabbatai's death.
Löbele Prossnitz (?-1750), a proven fraud who nevertheless attained some following amongst former followers of Sabbatai, calling himself the "Messiah ben Joseph."
Jacob Joseph Frank (1726-1791), who claimed to be the reincarnation of King David and preached a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism.
Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), the seventh Chabad Rabbi who tried to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. Some of his followers believe him to be the Messiah, but this belief is declining.[6]

And it is not an historical fact that this same Jesus was executed by the same means described in the New Testament record?

No its not historical fact but lets just say it is for the sake of it.

Even non Christian historians can agree on these two facts independent of the Bible.

No they can't, but lets just say they do for the sake of it.

So if the New Testament record is accurate on these events then why can't we assume that they are accurate in relation to the other facts that they recount?

Because thats so wrong its laughable.

Because one or two things are correct the rest must be ? :rolleyes:

So if someone finds a copy of the mormon bible in a few hundred years, find out that yes Joseph Smith existed and yes that some other facts are true it means Mormonism is true ?

So I can take out a copy of the Koran, find two facts (Mohammad existed and was viewed as the prophet and something else) that suddenly makes Islam true ?

i.e. the fact of the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances etc..?

See above.

I really don't understand how you can make this argument, its so clearly illogical and wrong in every possible way imaginable.

What good reasons have we got to dismiss these as fanciful events?

What good reasons have you to dismiss the accounts in the Koran or Buddhist scripts or Hindu scripts as fanciful events ?

I mean to intermingle the empty tomb narrative into the story they way it is seems like a pretty arduous task if it was made up?

Why ?

Have you ever read any literature on Dracula ? His death and subsequent rise seems equally arduous to intermingle into the story if it was made up.

That's why this fact is not really questioned that much by the scholars. What is debated though is how the tomb got to be empty but that's another thing altogether.

Scholars most certainly do not agree on this. Christian biblical scholars might very well but they accept it based on belief, not on the historical method.

Same thing with the fact that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that God had raised Him from the dead as a fact of history. Whether it happened or not is not really the point, the point is that nobody really debates the fact they they (the apostles) at least believed it happen.

And every religion on Earth can make the exact same claim, some can even make a better claim using the historical method and your logic then Christianity.

There are Buddhist writings which tell how Buddha's followers REALLY believed he reached nirvana, that he came from a rib from his mothers side.

Thai people REALLY believe there are spirits in the forest. Some Buddhists REALLY believe they are going to be reincarnated. Some Japanese REALLY believe they can communicate with their ancestors. Some Hindus REALLY believe they have over 1 million gods.

23 million starving North Koreans believe Kim Il-Sung isn't really dead. They believe he and his son control the weather and when Kim Il-Sung died his body was taken back to heaven by a flock of cranes. They REALLY believe all this. I have North Korean friends who still find it hard to accept its not true even after defecting from the North.

What you are saying here is applicable to every single religion, every single philosophy and every single 'belief' of any kind that has ever existed.

Same thing for the post mortem appearances.

Like Dracula ?

So if we can be sure that these facts are in fact facts then how do you explain them with one simple naturalistic explanation?

Facts ? Jesus's existence itself is not a 'fact'. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Bible provides the clues, after that we have our ways...

Ways that I imagine are not over flowing with strong critical thinking.

StealthRolex wrote: »

There's a subtle hint in the forum title :rolleyes:

I've no problem in you guys saying you believe the Bible.

It is when someone like Soul Winner says I believe the Bible for these totally rational and logical reasons, and so should you and if you don't you are close minded.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly. Present any testable prediction of this explanation.

What's that? You can't? It is just faith? Thought so. :rolleyes:

Evolution - that's testable isn't... it predicts new species doesn't it

What's that? It isn't? It doesn't? Its just a theory :pac::pac::pac:

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Because one or two things are correct the rest must be ? :rolleyes:

No, I never said that it was true for that reason. I said that if the NT is accurate in these facts that: 1.) Jesus Lived and 2.) He was executed by means of crucifixion by the Romans. Which even secular sources agree on. Then what is the big deal about an empty tomb narrative when there are no records anywhere which refute it? Why should the default position be that the empty tomb part of the story is not a fact when it has been shown that other more important facts are? Show me why we should think that it is not factual. It appears to me that you seem to think that if secular sources can agree with some of the facts in the NT that that is the reason why I think the NT is true. That is not what I'm saying at all. But I think you know that already and just want it to look like that is my position. Well everyone, that is not my position no matter how many time Wick, Moon and Sam say it is. Read my bloody posts will you, stop having me repeating myself.

monosharp wrote: »

So if someone finds a copy of the mormon bible in a few hundred years, find out that yes Joseph Smith existed and yes that some other facts are true it means Mormonism is true ?

Again that is not my position. You are either too dumb to understand what I'm saying or your deliberately misrepresenting my words. Either way it is very annoying, please try an stop whatever one is the case.

monosharp wrote: »

So I can take out a copy of the Koran, find two facts (Mohammad existed and was viewed as the prophet and something else) that suddenly makes Islam true ?

I have no problem believing that Mohamed existed at all. I have no problem even believing that a supernatural being might have given him the Koran in a cave. But I do not believe that the Koran is correct when it comes to Jesus. It says that Jesus wasn't execute by means of crucifixion which puts it at logger heads with the New Testament and other secular sources which record His death by crucifixion hundreds of years before Mohamed existed. Furthermore the Koran states that Allah just made it look like they killed Jesus but they didn't, that there was some sort of stand-in on the cross, that it wasn't really Jesus. Making Allah a deceiver of some sort. So you have to ask the question, what is more likely to be the true story? The NT and secular sources or the Johnny come lately Koran? Would you believe a story in the newspaper today about Gandhi that was written by someone who never met, heard or seen Gandhi or one that contradicted this one that was written during his lifetime by some who was acquainted with him? The question is rhetorical.

monosharp wrote: »

I really don't understand how you can make this argument, its so clearly illogical and wrong in every possible way imaginable.

How? Why? Because you say so? Show me please. Stop blitterng on about it.

monosharp wrote: »

What good reasons have you to dismiss the accounts in the Koran or Buddhist scripts or Hindu scripts as fanciful events ?

I don't. They being true or false doesn't make a blind bit of difference. I start with Christianity. If that is true then there are things there that contradict other religions. If it's false then I don't really care what any other religion has to say anyway. I don't find them interesting enough to be bother with. The implications of their truth claims do not touch my life. Christianity is different whether I believe it or not. If it is true then it has implications for my life whether I believe it or not. In Jesus we have an historical Person making ridiculous claims about Himself which we do not find in any other respected founder or religion be that Buddha, Confucius or Mohamed or whoever. Yes you find strange claims in a lot of the minority religions but their leaders are not respected by the world at large as good and wise teachers in the way that Buddha et all are including Jesus. Heck we even have and Atheists for Jesus movement He's respected that much. But if Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be then He does not deserve a place on the shelf with these other respected founders of religion, they never made such ridiculous claims about themselves. Jesus belongs in the nutty fringe group if His claims aren't true.

What would vindicate His claims though is His resurrection from the dead. When you scrutinize that fact you are invariable brought to the position where you must believe the veracity of the reporters who proclaimed it. This we do and cannot find any malice in their report. Plus they all died horrendously agonizing deaths proclaiming it, so it has a lot going for it in terms of being true because it is psychologically inconceivable that the simple men would deliberately set out to tell this lie knowing that what it would bring them was nothing but ridicule, rejection, loss of family and friends and ultimately an agonizing death with no hope of heaven either because they knew they were lying and won't get in.

So if Jesus did rise from the dead then He was who He claimed He was and that puts Him at the centerer of everything and if another religion comes along which contradicts that then we have to assume that it is false or else Jesus was false. We have to make that judgment call and to not do so leaves us in a wilderness of conflicting false claims. We must make a decisive decision on Jesus be it either for or against Him using scrutiny of the records and whatever other sources are available to us. Intelligent men have been doing just that for centuries and not one has come back and given a good and valid reason to think that the story is false.

monosharp wrote: »

Have you ever read any literature on Dracula ? His death and subsequent rise seems equally arduous to intermingle into the story if it was made up.

Dracula is made. Didn't you know that? Yeah check it out, its all made up, every word of it. We even know who wrote it and when, and why. And the writer never claimed it was true, and never had to die an agonizing death defending it either.

monosharp wrote: »

And every religion on Earth can make the exact same claim, some can even make a better claim using the historical method and your logic then Christianity.

Yeah but what are the implications of these of these religions to us if they are true?

monosharp wrote: »

There are Buddhist writings which tell how Buddha's followers REALLY believed he reached nirvana, that he came from a rib from his mothers side.

Thai people REALLY believe there are spirits in the forest. Some Buddhists REALLY believe they are going to be reincarnated. Some Japanese REALLY believe they can communicate with their ancestors. Some Hindus REALLY believe they have over 1 million gods.

23 million starving North Koreans believe Kim Il-Sung isn't really dead. They believe he and his son control the weather and when Kim Il-Sung died his body was taken back to heaven by a flock of cranes. They REALLY believe all this. I have North Korean friends who still find it hard to accept its not true even after defecting from the North.

They BELIEVE all these things but do they claim to have eyewitnesses them? And was the flesh on their body pealed off with a whip for not reneging on this eye witness testimony in Armenia like Batholomew? Where they dragged to death in the streets of Alexandria for this testimony liek Mark? Where they crucified upside down like Peter? Where they stoned like Paul? Etc etc...

monosharp wrote: »

What you are saying here is applicable to every single religion, every single philosophy and every single 'belief' of any kind that has ever existed.

No its not. Read the above again and the penny might just drop for you.

monosharp wrote: »

Facts ? Jesus's existence itself is not a 'fact'. :rolleyes:

Tell that to these guys:

Josephus
Lucian
Mara bar-Serapion
Pliny
Seutonius
Tacitus
The Talmud
Thallus

They all refer to Jesus as a man who actually existed in history, do we discard these sources as well because the FACT that Jesus actually existed doesn't sit well with you?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Evolution - that's testable isn't... it predicts new species doesn't it

Yes and yes.

You will notice you didn't answer my question.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Ways that I imagine are not over flowing with strong critical thinking.

Imagination is your demesnes.

You would be surprised at how critical discernment is.

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no problem in you guys saying you believe the Bible.

It is when someone like Soul Winner says I believe the Bible for these totally rational and logical reasons, and so should you and if you don't you are close minded.

Well, as you said the reasons are rational and logical. Do you have a problem with rational and logic? Is there other stuff that has reasons that are rational and logically that you won't believe?

You see, Soul Winner does not say these are rational and logical reasons. He presented reasons which you have discerned to be rational and logical. Yet you persist in refusing to believe. If not closed minded then what other rational and logical reason is there?

For all the work Soul Winner put in what was your response? I think it contained the word "stupid". Not only that but there was insufficient time between Soul Winners posting and your response for you to have done any kind of critical research into his points to determine validity or veracity.
Not a very scientific approach that.
There might be other ways to describe that kind of approach.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes and yes.

You will notice you didn't answer my question.

Prove it, prove it, prove it. Go on - how do you test evolution? What new species are we going to see in teh next, say, five years ? Eh? Not character trait changes within a species but totally new spieces that never existed before produced by evolution.
Ok too short - make it 10,000 yrs. Will you be around to prove it?

Well if you are you might just see some Biblical predications come to fruition, like the rise of the atheists or teh antichrist. Maybe even the end of the world. All predicted.

smokingman

Festus wrote: »

Well if you are you might just see some Biblical predications come to fruition, like the rise of the atheists or teh antichrist. Maybe even the end of the world. All predicted.

Ever wonder if the "end of days" was just a reference to the end of religion?

Soul Winner

smokingman wrote: »

Ever wonder if the "end of days" was just a reference to the end of religion?

Even so it was still predicted by religion :pac:

Festus

smokingman wrote: »

Ever wonder if the "end of days" was just a reference to the end of religion?

nah, just an excuse for a cheap movie

Soul Winner

StealthRolex wrote: »

For all the work Soul Winner put in what was your response? I think it contained the word "stupid". Not only that but there was insufficient time between Soul Winners posting and your response for you to have done any kind of critical research into his points to determine validity or veracity.

Welcome to the Christianity forum

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, as you said the reasons are rational and logical.

No, that is what is claimed.

I simply pointed out the logical flaw in the thinking, and pointed out that he wouldn't use such stupid logic in any other aspect of historical study, so why use it with the Bible? WHat make the Bible so special that we should all abandon reason when studying it?

What is the point of pretending that a belief is based on critical thinking when it isn't? As you asked JC and Wolfsbane, does this bring us closer to Jesus? If Christians give silly reasons in support of their faith does that not simply make their faith look silly?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, I never said that it was true for that reason. I said that if the NT is accurate in these facts that: 1.) Jesus Lived and 2.) He was executed by means of crucifixion by the Romans. Which even secular sources agree on.

What 'secular' source says he was crucified and buried in a tomb ?

Then what is the big deal about an empty tomb narrative when there are no records anywhere which refute it?

Whats the big deal about anything in any religion ?

there are no records to refute it. there are also no records to refute Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc etc

Why should the default position be that the empty tomb part of the story is not a fact when it has been shown that other more important facts are?

I don't dispute it, I don't care because it doesn't matter either way if it was empty or not.

Why should the default position be that the Buddha didn't meditate without food or water for 49 days when other more important facts are in the same text ?

Show me why we should think that it is not factual.

Because theres nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that it is. And you can pick any number of similar incidents from any other religion that has ever existed.

It appears to me that you seem to think that if secular sources can agree with some of the facts in the NT that that is the reason why I think the NT is true.

So whats your saying is because X and Y are true and these are important facts then Y must be true because its not as important and they'd have no reason to make it up ?

I have no problem believing that Mohamed existed at all. I have no problem even believing that a supernatural being might have given him the Koran in a cave. But I do not believe that the Koran is correct when it comes to Jesus.

What ?!?!? What possible reason have you got to doubt the Koran ? All of Muhammad's followers clearly believed he was the prophet and believed that the archangel Gabriel relayed Gods message to him. What reason would they have to lie ?

It says that Jesus wasn't execute by means of crucifixion which puts it at logger heads with the New Testament and other secular sources which record His death by crucifixion hundreds of years before Mohamed existed.

So a secular source overrides religious text ? Or are you talking about the historical method where the greater number of texts from more diverse sources override one text from one source ?

Will you then accept the Bible is wrong in parts if I show you other sources which directly contradict those events ?

How? Why? Because you say so? Show me please. Stop blitterng on about it.

Because its applicable to not only every religion that has ever existed but every belief of any kind.

I don't. They being true or false doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Yes they do, religions are mutually exclusive. If Hinduism is true then Christianity cannot be true.

In Jesus we have an historical Person making ridiculous claims about Himself which we do not find in any other respected founder or religion be that Buddha, Confucius or Mohamed or whoever.

I just gave you a list of people who make the same claims. We have people right now today who make the same claims. Theres a homeless man who lives in the subway station near my house who makes similar claims.

What exact ridiculous claims would you like ? Son of God ? Walk on water ?

Just name it and I'll find another religions persona who has claimed the same.

As for Confucianism, you know its not a religion right ?

Yes you find strange claims in a lot of the minority religions but their leaders are not respected by the world at large as good and wise teachers in the way that Buddha et all are including Jesus.

Argumentum ad populum ?

1700 years ago Jesus was dead for 300 years and Christianity was nowhere near close to being respected by the world at large.

1000 years ago Jesus was dead for 1000 years and was nowhere near close to being respected by the world at large.

200 years ago Jesus was dead for 1500 years and was just getting close to being respected by the world at large.

Africans, Asians, native Americans and aboriginals are people too. :pac:

Heck we even have and Atheists for Jesus movement

You also have Jewish Atheists, Buddhist Atheists, Muslim Atheists, shinto Atheists ...etc.

But if Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be then He does not deserve a place on the shelf with these other respected founders of religion, they never made such ridiculous claims about themselves.

So you are saying that all main respected religions are true ?

What would vindicate His claims though is His resurrection from the dead.

One on a very long list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

How about Bodhidharma for one. He's the guy who brought Zen Buddhism to china.

Plus they all died horrendously agonizing deaths proclaiming it, so it has a lot going for it in terms of being true because it is psychologically inconceivable that the simple men would deliberately set out to tell this lie knowing that what it would bring them was nothing but ridicule, rejection, loss of family and friends and ultimately an agonizing death with no hope of heaven either because they knew they were lying and won't get in.

I'm pretty sure lists have been shown to you before which show the exact same thing for many other religions.

So if Jesus did rise from the dead then He was who He claimed He was and that puts Him at the centerer of everything and if another religion comes along which contradicts that then we have to assume that it is false or else Jesus was false.

So if Bodhidharma did rise from the dead then he was who he claimed to be and .......

So if Horus did rise from the dead then he was who he claimed to be and .....

etc. etc. etc.

Dracula is made. Didn't you know that?

Tell that to the people in Wallachia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler#Vampire_legend

Yeah but what are the implications of these of these religions to us if they are true?

Well is Islam is true then your going to hell for not following it.

If religion(X) is true then something bad will happen to you is true for most religions.

They BELIEVE all these things but do they claim to have eyewitnesses them?

Which ones ?

And was the flesh on their body pealed off with a whip for not reneging on this eye witness testimony in Armenia like Batholomew?

I can absolutely guarantee to you that the worst torture imaginable would not be enough to make the vast majority of North Koreans renege on the Great and Dear leaders.

Where they dragged to death in the streets of Alexandria for this testimony liek Mark? Where they crucified upside down like Peter? Where they stoned like Paul? Etc etc...

As has been pointed out to you dozens of times, history is full of such incidents. People dying for the truth, people dying for a lie, people dying for pretty much any reason imaginable.

No its not. Read the above again and the penny might just drop for you.

Unless your making these logical claims to be so specific and inter-dependent as to make them pointless then yes it is.

Tell that to these guys:

Before I go on lets make sure we understand each other. I don't deny the historical existence of a Jesus person, scholars do accept there was a 'Jesus' but scholars are divided over the 'Jesus of history and the Christ of faith'.

Josephus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Josephus
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937–1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[46] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.

Lucian

Talks about Christians as a group, not Jesus.

Mara bar-Serapion

Sure

edit: Talked about 'Christ' which is a title, not 'Jesus'

Pliny

Talks about Christians as a group, not Jesus.

Seutonius

Talks about Christians as a group, not Jesus.

Tacitus

Talks about Christians as a group, not Jesus.

The Talmud

edit: Talked about 'Christ' which is a title, not 'Jesus'

Thallus

Reference to darkness during time of crucifixion, not to christians or christ.

They all refer to Jesus as a man who actually existed in history, do we discard these sources as well because the FACT that Jesus actually existed doesn't sit well with you?

It makes absolutely no difference to me if Jesus existed or didn't. Even if the Jesus from your book existed (apart from the supernatural stuff) it would make no difference to me.

That there was a man called Jesus who was a religious preacher existed there is little doubt. That the Jesus of your bible existed is very much in doubt.

But if you like for this argument I'll accept that he did exist and did everything said about him in the bible (except the supernatural).

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Prove it, prove it, prove it. Go on - how do you test evolution? What new species are we going to see in teh next, say, five years ?

Umm, think about that for a sec. You want me to read the future and tell you something what hasn't happened yet :rolleyes:

If you are asking do we have evidence of species appearing with a five year time frame, then yes we do. Do I think you will care? Not a bit, the tone of your posts shows how utterly close minded you are.

Festus wrote: »

Not character trait changes within a species but totally new spieces that never existed before produced by evolution.

Umm, I'm starting to suspect you don't understand what a species is.

Festus wrote: »

Well if you are you might just see some Biblical predications come to fruition, like the rise of the atheists or teh antichrist. Maybe even the end of the world. All predicted.

All predicted to happen with in the generation of those listening to Jesus sermon.

Shockingly that didn't happen, so of course rather than simply conclude that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about (can't have that, that means no afterlife and wonderful things in heaven) it requires a bit of creative re-interpretation of what Jesus was actually saying.

By golly let it never be said that the odd divine prediction not coming true will put off the faithful.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

Here is a summary of the evidence against Materialistic Evolution ... and in favour of the only other contender ... Divine Creation

I asked you for evidence for creation JC, not against materialistic evolution.

Anyway, I have don't have too much knowledge on the depth of science you're getting into now. I can pick my way through your points and give your the ones that I know to be incorrect and I'm not bothered looking up the rest

Before I do that though, can you answer me this according to your (il)logic.

If I provide evidence against Divine creation, is this in favour of the only other contender ... Materialistic Evolution?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, I'm starting to suspect you don't understand what a species is.

This is a common problem among creationists. They seem to think "species" is something similar to what's actually called "genus", and they want to see an animal in one genus give birth to an animal in another, without any intermediates. This is evolution to them.

Uncle Festus, for what it's worth, that would disprove evolution.

gosplan

Oh and while people are debating the so-called 'lack of transitional forms' in the fossil record, I saw this the other day and thought some may be interested.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

**awaits someone explaining how this isn't actually a transitional form**

monosharp

gosplan wrote: »

**awaits someone explaining how this isn't actually a transitional form**

smokingman

I'd be curious to find what creationists think Neanderthals are or were - honest question, I'm not intending to troll here.

I don't know enough of biology to know if they are a sub species or entirely different one to homo sapiens but the ole common sense arguement would be that they're definitely not like modern humans.

monosharp

smokingman wrote: »

I'd be curious to find what creationists think Neanderthals are or were - honest question, I'm not intending to troll here.

Old people with genetic disorders, apparently.

I don't know enough of biology to know if they are a sub species or entirely different one to homo sapiens but the ole common sense arguement would be that they're definitely not like modern humans.

Common what ? Here ? :pac:

smokingman

monosharp wrote: »

Old people with genetic disorders, apparently.

Seriously? Wow, wasn't expecting that....especially given caucasians and aisan people share dna with them...maybe there's an oldie in all of us eh?

gosplan

J C wrote: »

the Darwinists haven't provided any evidence for Darwinism despite being asked numerous times to do so ... and I have provided extensive evidence for Creation!!!:):D

J C wrote: »

Here is a summary of the evidence against Materialistic Evolution ... and in favour of the only other contender ... Divine Creation

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's pretty much the logic gosplan. Creationists think that if they argue against evolution then for some reason creationism wins by default.

gosplan wrote: »

JC ... can you answer me this according to your (il)logic.

If I provide evidence against Divine creation, is this in favour of the only other contender ... Materialistic Evolution?

Come on, answer the last question, I'm itching to get started 'providing evidence' for Materialistic Evolution by basically pointing out evidence against Creationism and a literal interpretation of the bible.

While you're at it JC, could you tell me whenabouts exactly the flood was when the population of the earth was reduced to 8 - there should be something that doesn't add up in that one.

Also, no-one has any actual proof of supernatural powers in any way shape or form, right?

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Oh and while people are debating the so-called 'lack of transitional forms' in the fossil record, I saw this the other day and thought some may be interested.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

**awaits someone explaining how this isn't actually a transitional form**

... looks like a member of the Crocodile Kind to me !!!!:D:)