The Demise of Evolution

roman2819 said:

There are also archeological evidence of people being slammed against the city walls and perished, It was not like they drowned. The evidence suggest that the water came upon them suddenly, they did not have time to escape, and the sudden rush of water crushed them.

Click to expand...

Citation of evidence, with the place name and also the time period for this event taking place.

Kylie said:

Tacitus was just repeating a story that had been passed down....... Also, the passage says that Christians were being punished for the burning of rome. There is no source that actually shows that Nero was persecuting Christians for that.

Click to expand...

So past 10 years, you have never repeat something that you heard from somone else .... because non-first hand account are unreliable (which is what you are implying).

Even if you claim that Nero did not start the persecution of Christians, do you agree or deny that early Christians were severely persecuted? History asserts that the persecutions lasted more than 300 years. Severe persecution does not mean send to prison or beaten, it means they were thrown to the lions, cruciified, burn by fire, drowned by water, smashed by swinging wooden trunks while being tied to trees.... etc

Kylie said:

Considering we don't even know who wrote those books, I wouldn't say they were necessarily forgeries. but I would say they are not reliable.

Click to expand...

How do you know they aren't reliable, as they pertain to whether or not Jesus existed? Beyond simply not knowing the names of who authored them?

roman2819 said:

THere is evidence of global flood.

Click to expand...

No, there isn't.

Why would various different cultures allude to a flood if it didn't happen?

Click to expand...

Local floods certainly happened. Why would you think that means a global flood happened?

There are also archeological evidence of people being slammed against the city walls and perished, It was not like they drowned. The evidence suggest that the water came upon them suddenly, they did not have time to escape, and the sudden rush of water crushed them.

Click to expand...

Citation or retraction, please.

roman2819 said:

Post #1627 explained to you that it is "almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"... But you disagree. What credentials do you possess that give you credibility to dispute evidences presented by specialists in their field?

No wonder your response got a funny rating from @KomatiiteBIF .

Click to expand...

Well, I think that, in this case, he probably might agree with Josephus' as a credible source, but because Josephus speaks of James the apostle, brother of Jesus, and not Jesus directly, Josephus' commentary is second hand. In which case, Kylie seems to believe that second hand accounts cannot be trusted.

I don't think this is reasonable in that the gospels are pretty explicit in length and detail of stories of Jesus. Places Jesus went, what discussions were had with Jesus, who was with Jesus, things Jesus did (miracle and non miracle). There are really an extensive number of explicit, or very specifically detailed, stories that revolve around Jesus. Originating from a time that is about as early as people might even consider writing about Jesus.

Then, when we have cases of figures like Josephus' who out of the blue makes mention of figures and events around James, brother of Jesus, and even John the Baptist and his execution, in coincidence with the Bible...

I think that historians are probably correct in their recognition that a man named Jesus actually did exist at the heart of these related stories.

Of course nobody has a time machine to know for sure though. And second hand accounts of course aren't as robust as photographs or video footage.

roman2819 said:

THere is evidence of global flood.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence of a flood which ever submerged the entire terrestrial globe. It can, in addition, be conclusively demonstrated that no such flood occurred during the third millennium BC.

roman2819 said:

In order for their writing to be credible, do all historians have to be living at the time events happened or witness for themselves what happened first hand? That is not the standard today. I suppose that is your biased and artificially high standard to deny the existence of Jesus. Do you then believe that Jesus did not exist?

Many historians who wrote about ancient or modern history lived after the events happen, This include historians in our times now who were borned after World War 2. They researched and wrote about events that they did noit witness. The credibility of their writings are judged by other methods such as their sources, cross-referencing etc.

Click to expand...

Very similar in principle to how biblical texts should be judged.

If one had never heard of Huck Finn nor Mark Twain and found a "manuscript" without attribution, preface, forward, etc., should we believe that the events therein happened?

roman2819 said:

Severe persecution does not mean send to prison or beaten, it means they were thrown to the lions, cruciified, burn by fire, drowned by water, smashed by swinging wooden trunks while being tied to trees.... etc

Click to expand...

What is the aim of adding this information? I assume you think it somehow lends credence to the beliefs being persecuted. Emotional hyperbole is a very weak argument which is trivially turned back on the person using the argument. Christians have used what we in the 21st century consider to be horrific tortures and punishments, so claiming that the degree of unpleasantness of punishment in any way lends credence to the misdemeanor is a self-defeating argument.

roman2819 said:

THere is evidence of global flood. Why would various different cultures allude to a flood if it didn't happen? There are also archeological evidence of people being slammed against the city walls and perished, It was not like they drowned. The evidence suggest that the water came upon them suddenly, they did not have time to escape, and the sudden rush of water crushed them.

Click to expand...

As others have already requested: where is the evidence of a global flood? Please supply references.

roman2819 said:

In order for their writing to be credible, do all historians have to be living at the time events happened or witness for themselves what happened first hand? That is not the standard today. I suppose that is your biased and artificially high standard to deny the existence of Jesus. Do you then believe that Jesus did not exist?

Many historians who wrote about ancient or modern history lived after the events happen, This include historians in our times now who were borned after World War 2. They researched and wrote about events that they did noit witness. The credibility of their writings are judged by other methods such as their sources, cross-referencing etc.

Click to expand...

Historians do need to be able to cite their sources to be credible. That is why historians evidence for Alexander the Great is much much stronger than evidence for Jesus. They do site earlier named eyewitnesses. Some of them eyewitness historians whose work did not survive the years. We do not see that with Jesus.

Subduction Zone said:

Historians do need to be able to cite their sources to be credible. That is why historians evidence for Alexander the Great is much much stronger than evidence for Jesus. They do site earlier named eyewitnesses. Some of them eyewitness historians whose work did not survive the years. We do not see that with Jesus.

Click to expand...

In the case of Josephus', he was his own source when describing James, brother of Jesus.

If such a man, James, brother of Jesus, did exist, why would it be more likely that Jesus didn't actually exist, versus Jesus existing?

Especially given the numerous books of the NT which in and of themselves are independent sources, and additionally a Roman historian (Tacitus) who also presumably thought Jesus was real (through what appears to be a second hand account) who is also considered a credible source of history.

Given these various sources, it seems more probable that Jesus were a real individual rather than not. Even if these were, mostly with the exception of perhaps the gospels, second hand sources, the corroboration of details (James brother of Jesus, the crucifixion, Josephus' also spoke of John the Baptist) suggests that Jesus was a real person.

KomatiiteBIF said:

In the case of Josephus', he was his own source when describing James, brother of Jesus.

If such a man, James, brother of Jesus, did exist, why would it be more likely that Jesus didn't actually exist, versus Jesus existing?

Especially given the numerous books of the NT which in and of themselves are independent sources, and additionally a Roman historian (Tacitus) who also presumably thought Jesus was real (through what appears to be a second hand account) who is also considered a credible source of history.

Given these various sources, it seems more probable that Jesus were a real individual rather than not. Even if these were, mostly with the exception of perhaps the gospels, second hand sources, the corroboration of details (James brother of Jesus, the crucifixion, Josephus' also spoke of John the Baptist) suggests that Jesus was a real person.

Click to expand...

But are not both Josephus quotes suspected of being Christian interpolations of the original?

Subduction Zone said:

But are not both Josephus quotes suspected of being Christian interpolations of the original?

Click to expand...

Well it looks like the one instance was, related to the crucifixion (but not necessarily in regards to the reference to Jesus). But it looks like most scholars suggest that the references to James, brother of Jesus and the reference to john the Baptist (also a figure described and a significant figure of the Bible) appear to be authentic. Let's see what the wiki suggests. I'll quote the webpage:

So the one section on wiki breaks down the page as arguments in favor of authenticity, arguments of partial authenticity and arguments for complete forgery with respect to the "testimonium flavianum" which is within book 18.

But the reference to James brother of Jesus is in book 20 and wiki states the following:

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[14][98][1][15][18]

Then back in book 18 is reference to John the Baptist, which of course is another significant figure in the Bible, in which the wiki states the following:

In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 5, 2) Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea.[19][20] The context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with Aretas IV of Nabatea, which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John.[21][129][130]

Almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety, although a small number of authors have questioned it.[19][131][132] Because the death of John also appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the ministry of Jesus.[19]



I think what this is all telling us, is that, people of this time, the first century, and at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived, are talking about Jesus. They're talking about John the Baptist, they're talking about James. Jewish historians like Josephus are talking about them, even Tacitus' book was only written some 20 years after the gospel of John, (and 50 after Mathew and luke) even as second hand sources, these guys are present in these series of events. The apostles and followers of Jesus were alive during this time and they're working up the new testament.

And while it sounds like the gospels may be the only 1st hand accounts of Jesus (Even though we don't know the names of specifically who wrote them)...realistically, im not sure that we ought to expect other sources beyond them. Jesus was basically a, according to the gospels, he was basically a rebel. He had no power, he didn't finance scribes to follow him around. It was just the poor and needy that largely followed him. And his apostles were just regular Joes, and fisherman. They werent particularly organized. So I'm not sure that we ought to expect much more from this beyond what we have in the gospels. They aren't exactly professional scribes.

And the second hand sources, all they can do is say, hey, these rebels called Christians are causing trouble. I didn't see Jesus crucified, but my sources say it happened (Tacitus who hates Christians and I can't imagine would listen to them), and right now, this guy by the name of John the Baptist has been executed (Josephus, alive at the time) and James who claims to be Jesus' brother, is also around (Josephus in another statement considered authentic). Which is all we might expect second hand accounts to say as well. Whether Josephus' spoke of Jesus beyond talking about his apostle brother James, or John the Baptist, seems to be disputed.

Personally, I think this is pretty convincing. Obviously nobody can really know for sure what was going on this time. But I think this is convincing in the sense that it suggests the christian movement got started and was rapidly moving for some reason. And...it was focused around a figure named Jesus.

I just think it's easier to suggest that there probably was a leader who caused these sequences of events to happen. Maybe it was a crazy person just like the Waco davidians leader. Maybe it was truly a divine man. Or maybe it was someone named Jesus who was somewhere in between.

But to say that there was no Jesus. I think that just sounds kind of odd. Did the Waco Davidians make up David? We know plenty of people in these times were trying to start movements like this. Seems feasible to me that a man (divine or not) named Jesus was probably real. Someone had to inspire people. Someone had to inspire John the Baptist. And James, brother of Jesus (allegedly).

And one last thing. The Gospels are exceptionally explicit in detail about Jesus. Who he was, what he said, where he went, how he acted, dates, when he was doing stuff during certain times of the year, who he spoke to etc. He went north to this city, then went east to this town, then went to this temple in that town, then went back south to the other city. Etc. The Gospels are very explicit.

It just seems all too coincidental imo, for there not to have actually been a person who started it.

roman2819 said:

If an event that happened 5000-7000 years ago cannot be proven, does it mean it never happened?

Click to expand...

It means there no evidence it did.

roman2819 said:

If an event that happened 5000-7000 years ago cannot be proven, does it mean it never happened?

Click to expand...

It depends. There are events that would leave definite evidence behind. At times absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I can give several non-biblical examples that make this clear. The events of Genesis and Exodus as written in the Bible would have left clear evidence of those events behind. That we cannot find such evidence tells us that they do not appear to have happened.

roman2819 said:

In order for their writing to be credible, do all historians have to be living at the time events happened or witness for themselves what happened first hand? That is not the standard today. I suppose that is your biased and artificially high standard to deny the existence of Jesus. Do you then believe that Jesus did not exist?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with historians writing about things that happened before they were born, or things they were not there for.

But they should be using sources that were.

Many historians who wrote about ancient or modern history lived after the events happen, This include historians in our times now who were borned after World War 2. They researched and wrote about events that they did noit witness. The credibility of their writings are judged by other methods such as their sources, cross-referencing etc.

Click to expand...

And did Josephus and Tacitus do this? Can you show me their sources? Did they even mention their sources?

roman2819 said:

Post #1627 explained to you that it is "almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"... But you disagree. What credentials do you possess that give you credibility to dispute evidences presented by specialists in their field?

No wonder your response got a funny rating from @KomatiiteBIF .

Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to read my post more carefully.

The passage only says that James was considered the brother of Jesus. Let's say it is authentic. It still doesn't prove that there was a Jesus, only that there was a guy called James who was considered to be the brother of Jesus.

roman2819 said:

So past 10 years, you have never repeat something that you heard from somone else .... because non-first hand account are unreliable (which is what you are implying).

Click to expand...

Sure I have. But I've never done so about something this big. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A third hand account that someone ate a sandwich a week ago is one thing. A third hand account of someone who could bring back dead people is another thing entirely.

Even if you claim that Nero did not start the persecution of Christians, do you agree or deny that early Christians were severely persecuted? History asserts that the persecutions lasted more than 300 years. Severe persecution does not mean send to prison or beaten, it means they were thrown to the lions, cruciified, burn by fire, drowned by water, smashed by swinging wooden trunks while being tied to trees.... etc

Click to expand...

Dunno, I haven't looked into it.

If there are primary sources from the time, not just hearsay, sure, I'd believe it.