The Demise of Evolution

[Speedwell]

Ok, well, if we return to my original response, I was personally not talking about science or prophecies, but rather historical material.

Thank you for sharing your ideas, but you're dragging me away from what I was originally talking about.

You can't do it with history , either. All you've got is material which tends to show that Jesus was a real person, a point no one seriously disputes.

The bottom line is that some of the historical narratives in the Bible are supported by historical or archaeological evidence. But that is not sufficient to demonstrate that those claims made by the Bible for which there is no evidence must be taken as objectively proven.

 

[Job 33:6]

You can't do it with history , either. All you've got is material which tends to show that Jesus was a real person, a point no one seriously disputes.

The bottom line is that some of the historical narratives in the Bible are supported by historical or archaeological evidence. But that is not sufficient to demonstrate that those claims made by the Bible for which there is no evidence must be taken as objectively proven.

The above points obviously aren't proof of God, nor are they even proof of prophecy (if such things could ever be proven) but they are absolutely significant to why Christians have faith in Jesus.

Nobody can have faith in Jesus, if they didn't believe Jesus existed to begin with.

Remember @Bungle_Bear s words:

"I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history..."

Whether or not Jesus even existed is very meaningful to scripture, and if history suggests Jesus was in fact real, this results in historical support for a significant number of concepts in scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

The above points obviously aren't proof of God, nor are they even proof of prophecy (if such things could ever be proven) but they are absolutely significant to why Christians have faith in Jesus.

Nobody can have faith in Jesus, if they didn't believe Jesus existed to begin with.

Remember @Bungle_Bear s words:

"I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history..."

Whether or not Jesus even existed is very meaningful to scripture, and if history suggests Jesus was in fact real, this results in historical support for a significant number of concepts in scripture.

Of course, but the historical information only corroborates those portions of the scriptures which it corroborates. Corroboration of Jesus as a real historical person does not, for example, corroborate the existence of Adam and Eve as real historical persons.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course, but the historical information only corroborates those portions of the scriptures which it corroborates. Corroboration of Jesus as a real historical person does not, for example, corroborate the existence of Adam and Eve as real historical persons.

Remember bungle bears post.
"I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history..."

The New Testament, is in large part, what many Christians are heavily influenced by. Which means that if concepts of the new Testament, such as whether or not Jesus existed, are historically supported in favor of Christianity, then scripture, I would say, has in fact been supported in a (at least one) meaningful way by historical accounts.

This doesn't mean that every single part of scripture is proven by historical accounts, it doesn't mean that God has been scientifically proven to exist either. But it does fit the criteria of what bungle bear appears to be suggesting to the contrary.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Speedwell

Would you agree, that in at least one fathomable way, scripture (be it old or new testament) has in fact been supported (corroborated or suggested to be true, even if only in part) in a meaningful way by historical evidence?

Ideally in a yes or no fashion.

The obvious answer is yes.

And this is important because many Christians base their faith on these "yes" cases.

Faith, to most, has never been in something proven by science in an objective sense. Granted, some crazies like Ken Ham like to think so. But for most Christians, faith is in the unseen that is, at least in some fashion, supported by historical accounts of Jesus. Historical accounts that are absolutely "meaningful" to the Christian faith.

 

[Speedwell]

Remember bungle bears post.
"I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history..."

I think you are taking Bungle Bear too literally.

The New Testament, is in large part, what many Christians are heavily influenced by. Which means that if concepts of the new Testament, such as whether or not Jesus existed, are historically supported in favor of Christianity, then scripture, I would say, has in fact been supported in a (at least one) meaningful way by historical accounts.

But the literal inerrancy of scripture has not been supported in any meaningful way--which is the issue in a creation/evolution forum.

This doesn't mean that every single part of scripture is proven by historical accounts, it doesn't mean that God has been scientifically proven to exist either. But it does fit the criteria of what bungle bear appears to be suggesting to the contrary.

OK, but I still think that "proving' parts of the Bible in order to "prove" other parts is bogus.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you are taking Bungle Bear too literally.

I am simply responding to what he typed. No need to blame the messenger. But I'm glad we've at least come to an agreement.

 

[Speedwell]

@Speedwell

Would you agree, that in at least one fathomable way, scripture (be it old or new testament) has in fact been supported (corroborated or suggested to be true, even if only in part) in a meaningful way by historical evidence?

Ideally in a yes or no fashion.

The obvious answer is yes.

And this is important because many Christians base their faith on these "yes" cases.

Faith, to most, has never been in something proven by science in an objective sense. Granted, some crazies like Ken Ham like to think so. But for most Christians, faith is in the unseen that is, at least in some fashion, supported by historical accounts of Jesus. Historical accounts that are absolutely "meaningful" to the Christian faith.

On a "nice to know" basis, for sure. It's a kind of validation of something one believes already. But I'm not a Protestant so I don't believe "because the Bible says so" to begin with.

 

[Job 33:6]

"OK, but I still think that "proving' parts of the Bible in order to "prove" other parts is bogus."

For me, Christianity has never really been about proof. Because it isn't a proven religion. If Jesus were proven to be God, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If @roman2819 believes that Jesus has been scientifically proven to be God, then I would agree that historical accounts of Jesus do not fit the bill.

But, at the end of the day, Roman did say that historical evidence was a part of why he has faith. He said "The Scriptures which is backed up by history" And with that, I would agree with him that supportive historicity of scripture is very meaningful to just about every Christians faith, and I would disagree with anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Whether or not Jesus even existed is very meaningful to scripture, and if history suggests Jesus was in fact real, this results in historical support for a significant number of concepts in scripture.

That's pushing things too far. @Speedwell understands exactly what I meant, you are twisting words to get a different meaning from them. The emphasis you put on the word "any" should have gone on the word "meaningful". I am not disputing that somebody called Jesus existed, or that Herod existed etc as those facts are not meaningful. But I am disputing the support for a global flood, fulfilled prophecies, Lazurus being raised from the dead, the feeding of the 5000 and other scriptural claims which are meaningful.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's pushing things too far. @Speedwell understands exactly what I meant, you are twisting words to get a different meaning from them. The emphasis you put on the word "any" should have gone on the word "meaningful". I am not disputing that somebody called Jesus existed, or that Herod existed etc as those facts are not meaningful. But I am disputing the support for a global flood, fulfilled prophecies, Lazurus being raised from the dead, the feeding of the 5000 and other scriptural claims which are meaningful.

Whether or not Jesus existed is not meaningful to the Christian faith? Interesting.

 

[Job 33:6]

A better response to Roman, would have simply been to say that the Christian faith has not been scientifically proven to be true (with specific respect to miracles such as those you had listed). As this is what holds meaning to you (even though Roman was talking about why he himself believes). And beyond that, there is no reason in suggesting that no meaningful historical evidence exists, given that historical evidence could never fit your criteria of "meaningful" to begin with. Presumably.

To say that no meaningful evidence with regards to history, has ever been found in support of the Christian faith, really is just an absurd statement.

And I'm not twisting words, they were simply a poor selection of words to begin with (no twisting necessary).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Whether or not Jesus existed is not meaningful to the Christian faith? Interesting.

I see you deliberately misunderstanding what I said. It's not very clever. And let's be honest - that a man named Jesus existed is not meaningful in and of itself, so your claim is very weak. The meaning only comes when that man does something special as scripture claims. There is no support for those claims.

Quote mining will allow you to make what I said mean what you want. Taken in context what I said does not mean what you claim it means.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see you deliberately misunderstanding what I said. It's not very clever. And let's be honest - that a man named Jesus existed is not meaningful, so your claim is very weak. The meaning only comes when that man does something special as scripture claims. There is no support for those claims.

Quote mining will allow you to make what I said mean what you want. Taken in context what I said does not mean what you claim it means.

Whether or not Jesus existed is very meaningful to the discussion of why Christians have faith in Jesus.

Don't blame me for your bizarre claim that there is no meaningful historical evidence in support of faith in Jesus Christ.

And before we can even discuss if Jesus performed miracles, it is meaningful to first determine if the man even existed to begin with.

It's not a deliberate misunderstanding, it's just that you happened to use a poor choice of words.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Don't blame me for your bizarre claim that there is no meaningful historical evidence in support of faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm not blaming you for my claim, which I stand by. I am blaming you for deliberately misconstruing it.

And before we can even discuss if Jesus performed miracles, it is meaningful to first determine if the man even existed to begin with.

Twisting the word "meaningful" again? Why?

It's not a deliberate misunderstanding, it's just that you happened to use a poor choice of words.

If your misunderstanding is not deliberate then you should perhaps take time to understand what I actually meant. As I said, context is important. Your claim relies on a quote mine.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's review the discussion:

@roman2819 said:

"There are three levels i based my faith on:"

And line item B was:
"B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled".

Meaning that part of his faith is based on historicity of scripture.

@Bungle_Bear said in response:
"B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history".

Meaning that, in his opinion, scripture was not supported in any meaningful way with relation to history.

And yet, scholars of the historicity of scripture, that examine history as it pertains to scripture, have supported the notion that Jesus was a real man, who was crucified, just as scripture suggests. Meaning that historically, meaningful (it doesn't get more meaningful than whether or not Christ was even a real person) and supportive (in favor of Jesus's existence) evidence does in fact exist.

History could never corroborate a miracle in an objective manner, and thus suggesting that there is even such a thing as meaningful historical evidence for miracles, really is just absurd to begin with. Just as nobody accepts historical accounts for global floods, regardless of how many ancient civilizations claim their occurance.

 

[Job 33:6]

Twisting the word "meaningful" again? Why?

What would meet your criteria of meaningful historical evidence for a global flood?

 

[Job 33:6]

If your misunderstanding is not deliberate then you should perhaps take time to understand what I actually meant. As I said, context is important. Your claim relies on a quote mine.

It's not a quote mine either, I've quoted you in full.

The context is that Roman said that part of his faith is based on the historicity of scripture (is Jesus real? Did he travel through Jerusalem? Was he crucified etc.). And you replied by saying that no meaningful historical support exists for scripture, which is an absurd response.

Whether you meant something deeper, related to miracles such as breaking the bread, or the global flood, wasn't clarified in your post. You simply made a broad sweeping statement and expected the world to understand that you didn't literally mean what you said.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And yet, scholars of the historicity of scripture, that examine history as it pertains to scripture, have supported the notion that Jesus was a real man, who was crucified, just as scripture suggests. Meaning that historically, meaningful (it doesn't get more meaningful than whether or not Christ was even a real person) and supportive (in favor of Jesus's existence) evidence does in fact exist.

If I'd said "...not supported in any way.... by history" you'd have a point. But I didn't, I deliberately included the word "meaningful". Why do you think I did that?

History could never corroborate a miracle in an objective manner, and thus suggesting that there is even such a thing as meaningful historical evidence for miracles, really is just absurd to begin with. Just as nobody accepts historical accounts for global floods, regardless of how many ancient civilizations claim their occurance.

Now you seem to understand. It took some time, but you're finally there.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's not a quote mine either, I've quoted you in full.

You did not quote me in full, nor did you quote me in context. That's a quote mine.

You simply made a broad sweeping statement and expected the world to understand that you didn't literally mean what you said.

The broad sweeping statement came from roman initially. And the only person I see not understanding this is you.

Context....quote mine....