If evolution is real, then where is it?

[DogmaHunter]

They were either eye witnesses or had contact with the Disciples themselves according to what they claimed themselves.

So... your evidence that the text was written by eyewitness or as-good-as eyewitnesses is.... the text saying so?

We don't for sure but we do know that the earliest church documentation claims the authors are who they say they are.

So you don't know but......you know anyway?

Are you trying to say that it is just one persons testimony?

He is saying that extra-ordinary claims require extra-solid evidence.
Claiming that I saw a movie yesterday is not an extra-ordinary claim and you'll probably just take my word for it.

Claiming that I saw a pink elephant appear from nowhere is another matter entirely.

Even if I were to claim it with 20 other people, you'ld still not believe that a pink elephant materialised out of thin air in front of our eyes.

There's literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people alive today that you can go and talk to (as opposed to unkown anonymous authors who have been dead for 2000 years), who will testify to have been abducted by aliens and subjected to weird sex experiments. And they really do believe it.

You don't take people's word for outlandish claims in day-to-day life, so I wonder why you make an exception for your bronze-age religion. Why the double standard? What does it gain you?

What do you think might happen if you apply the same standard to your religious beliefs?

That is like saying that if the U.S. constitution is "documentation" so is the "Tales of Beedle the Bard".

That made no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps you should actually address the point being made.
If the bible is "documentation" that jesus rose from the dead, then why isn't the koran "documentation" that mohammed flew to the moon on a winged horse and split the moon in two?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, we have given reasonable standards of evidence. There are no contemporary sources that mention Jesus, or the supposed darkness, or the zombies that arose a day and a half after the crucifixion. If the claims of the N.T, were true one would expect to see at least one of these if not all of them.

Here is one about the darkness. Several other early historians (many non-Christian) speak of the darkness for that day.

Tertullian

Lucian

Julius Africanus

Origen

Phlegon of Tralles

Cornelius Tacitus

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because the Bible story is copied from the Sumerians. The Sumerian empire was not built by Noah's grandsons since he was a fictional character.

You state this as fact. What determines this as fact?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are outside sources for some of the disciples and early church documentation for many many more. I find it humorous that people have no trouble believing writings from history until it comes to the Bible.

You seem to be under the impression that anything writen down from history is simply believed. This is simply not true.

If you were living in the time of Christ and had seen Him speak and understood that He was the awaited Messiah and then witnessed His death completely destroying all the hope you had in Him; would you after His death still claim Him as your Messiah? Would you still die for Him? I don't think so and the fact that so many became Christians after His death and under persecution and death it seems pretty unlikely it was untrue.

People believing it is not evidence that what they believe is actually true.

After His death His disciples went out stronger than before.

So did the muslims after mohammed's death.

If only the few disciples had said they had seen Him do you think all those people that had watched Him crucified and die would believe them that He was still alive? I don't think so.

Err.... I think you underestimate how gullible people are. Especially during those times. Superstition was widespread and invoked every other minute.

Even today it's incredibly easy to make people believe all kinds of fantastical things. How can it be hard for you to comprehend that?

And, again: people believing X is not evidence that X is true.

I think it took at least 500 people to spread the word that they had seen Him to family and friends who trusted them to show the truth of what happened.

You can think whatever you want. You are flat out asserting here that "people wouldn't have believe it if it weren't true". That's just a stupid argument imo. It's incredibly easy to come up with all kinds of examples of massive amounts of people believing things that are even more fantastical as a guy returning from the dead...

We know for a fact that people can be manipulated easily.
We know people are gullible.
We know people will believe anything as long as you push the right buttons.

People believing it doesn't mean anything at all

 

[Oncedeceived]

That wouldn't change the fact that the Sumerian text predates the bible.

It predates any known copy of the Bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But we know that part of the Bible did not happen either. So a belief in Moses, who did not exist, supports a belief in the resurrection and eternal life of Osiris since he did not exist either. If you accept one false idea then it only makes sense that you should accept other false ideas AV/

What evidence do you have that Moses didn't exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It predates any known copy of the Bible.

There is no reason to assume the Noah story existed before the Sumerian text.

All evidence points to the Bible story being a rehashing of the Sumerian story.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence do you have that Moses didn't exist?

I always chuckle at such requests....

What evidence do YOU have that the pink 7-headed dragon that eats rainbows doesn't exist?

You can't present evidence of things that don't exist, Einstein.

Maybe you should present the evidence that Moses DID exist, instead of trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no reason to assume the Noah story existed before the Sumerian text.

All evidence points to the Bible story being a rehashing of the Sumerian story.

Some Christians don't do well with the bible being analyzed objectively and critically.

Never mind, that the majority of even Christian NT scholars agree, the four gospels are indeed anonymous and the names were attached to them by the church at least a century after they were penned.

And in regards to a rehash, yes, there are many similarities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You seem to be under the impression that anything writen down from history is simply believed. This is simply not true.

The Bible has always been considered a Historical account. Historical accounts can be verified by evidence confirming them in the way of people and events, artifacts and such.

People believing it is not evidence that what they believe is actually true.

People would have known if it were true or not.

So did the muslims after mohammed's death.

Where there claims that He died and lived again?

Err.... I think you underestimate how gullible people are. Especially during those times. Superstition was widespread and invoked every other minute.

I think you underestimate the people then. They were not stupid nor were they any more gullible. If you were to see someone put to death even then it would take more than just someone claiming He rose again for them to risk their lives for Him.

Even today it's incredibly easy to make people believe all kinds of fantastical things. How can it be hard for you to comprehend that?

Yes, I understand how people can believe fantastical things. Some people believe that mixing a long period of time with some mutations and selection can through mindless, unguided processes produce a mind such as ours.

And, again: people believing X is not evidence that X is true.

Yes, believing but when you know the truth why follow a lie?

You can think whatever you want. You are flat out asserting here that "people wouldn't have believe it if it weren't true". That's just a stupid argument imo. It's incredibly easy to come up with all kinds of examples of massive amounts of people believing things that are even more fantastical as a guy returning from the dead...

IF someone believed it to be true yes, they will believe it. IF they know it isn't true they won't. When ever do people believe something they know isn't true?

We know for a fact that people can be manipulated easily.
We know people are gullible.
We know people will believe anything as long as you push the right buttons.

When do they do that knowing something is untrue?

People believing it doesn't mean anything at all[/quote]

I agree, people believe a lot of things not true but they don't know they aren't true. I don't know of anyone knowing something is not true would believe it to be true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no reason to assume the Noah story existed before the Sumerian text.

All evidence points to the Bible story being a rehashing of the Sumerian story.

Really, what evidence are you referring to?

 

[bhsmte]

Two words:

Historical method.

For those who want to get the most objective view of any ancient writings, you should learn the following:

-Understand the historical method
-the evidence it looks for and utilizes to apply credibility to ancient writings
-review the work of NT historians and look closely at how they apply the historical method

It will be very enlightening.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I always chuckle at such requests....

What evidence do YOU have that the pink 7-headed dragon that eats rainbows doesn't exist?

You can't present evidence of things that don't exist, Einstein.

Maybe you should present the evidence that Moses DID exist, instead of trying to shift the burden of proof.

Here we go again with burden of proof. The poster made a positive claim that Moses didn't exist. It is his burden to support his claim.

 

[bhsmte]

I always chuckle at such requests....

What evidence do YOU have that the pink 7-headed dragon that eats rainbows doesn't exist?

You can't present evidence of things that don't exist, Einstein.

Maybe you should present the evidence that Moses DID exist, instead of trying to shift the burden of proof.

Well, if you don't have credible evidence that something existed, what is one to do?

Simple, tell they other person to prove the person didn't exist.

Never mind supplying credible evidence the person did exist, that is not important.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Some Christians don't do well with the bible being analyzed objectively and critically.

Never mind, that the majority of even Christian NT scholars agree, the four gospels are indeed anonymous and the names were attached to them by the church at least a century after they were penned.

And in regards to a rehash, yes, there are many similarities.

Some Christians understand that it doesn't really matter as to the identity of the writers as much as the way written and oral traditions were much more important then than now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, if you don't have credible evidence that something existed, what is one to do?

Simple, tell they other person to prove the person didn't exist.

Never mind supplying credible evidence the person did exist, that is not important.

It was a positive claim, he stated Moses didn't exist. It is his burden of proof.

 

[crjmurray]

It was a positive claim, he stated Moses didn't exist. It is his burden of proof.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence to suggest that Moses was a real person. Now it's your turn.

 

[bhsmte]

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence to suggest that Moses was a real person. Now it's your turn.

Agree.

If someone stated Moses did not exist, than it is a positive claim.

But, I look at Moses like other claims; I don't see the evidence that he did exist. Could he have existed? Sure, but I don't see it, so show me he existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, I look at Moses like other claims; I don't see the evidence that he did exist. Could he have existed? Sure, but I don't see it, so show me he existed.

And until you actually see Millard Fillmore, he's just a signature on a treaty, isn't he?

 

[bhsmte]

And until you actually see Millard Fillmore, he's just a signature on a treaty, isn't he?

Please refer to my post in regards to the historical method.