Evolutionists and credentialism

[Tomk80]

Yes, he has.

Comparing a Christian college to dim teachers is implying that Christian teachers are dumb (for a school to be dumb, it has to have dumb teachers. The school itself can't be dumb because it's just bricks).

No, it is implying that teachers in Christian schools are dumb. Those teachers will most likely be Christian, but they will not be representative of all Christians or of all Christian teachers.

He is not trying to say they don't have a good reputation, he's trying to say the teachers are stupid.

In those schools, most likely. That only says something about the teachers in those schools, not about all Christians, nor about Christians not teaching in those schools.

Fine.
Non-christian: My teacher told me 2 + 2 = 11.
Christian: I find that hard to believe unless you go to a private atheist school, have a dim teacher or both.

Great, now you have something analogous. This would say something about the teachers in those specific schools, not about atheists in general.

Perhaps this helps:

                                     All Christians
                          /                            \
                     teachers                 non-teachers
                /                      \
in public schools          in private schools

Referring to teachers in private Christian schools does not refer to all Christian techers, nor to all Christians.

 

[flatworm]

Yes, he has.

Mindless contradiction is not a rebuttal.

Comparing a Christian college to dim teachers is implying that Christian teachers are dumb (for a school to be dumb, it has to have dumb teachers. The school itself can't be dumb because it's just bricks).

Not all Christian teachers teach at private Christian colleges. For teachers at private Christian colleges to be poor teachers, all that is required is for the less talented Christian teachers to gravitate towards them. The fact many of them are unaccredited makes it hard for them to attract top-notch faculty.

Do I need to draw you a Venn diagram?

He is not trying to say they don't have a good reputation, he's trying to say the teachers are stupid.

If that were the case, there would be no need for him to repeat himself in two separate clauses.

Non-christian: My teacher told me 2 + 2 = 11.
Christian: I find that hard to believe unless you go to a private atheist school, have a dim teacher or both.

That's better. As you can see the indictement is not of atheists in general, but of atheist private schools.

 

[Baggins]

I have not once put words in your mouth.

Once again I'd say look to your conscience, all one has to do is look back through your posts to see you ascribing things to me that I neither said nor believe.

You're the Christian, apparently, after all.

Yes.
You have contadicted yourself by implying that Christians are stupid

Once again you tell lies about me, you are really a piece of work, it constantly amazes me to see the difference between supposed beliefs and actual practice in Christianity.

I have never said or even implied that all Christians are stupid, I even put it in big bolded letters that I don't hold that view and still you repeat it.

Are you entirely dishonest?

Look at what I wrote, someone said that their teacher claimed that when a tree fell in the forest it makes no sound ( to paraphrase ), I don't think it was even stated what religion this teacher was.

I then said that the teacher, if they did say that, was either stupid, from a Christian College or both.

From that you have somehow convinced yourself that I am implying that all Christians are stupid. In no way can that statement be twisted to mean that, it impugned one teacher and private Christian College science, those things in no way constitute the entirety of Christians and I am tired of you insisting they are.

I have met many very intelligent Christians on this site, I fear you will not be joining their illustrious number.

and then by claiming you don't believe that Christians are stupid. This leads me to believe that you did think that Christians are stupid, but not anymore. See how that works?

Yes it seems you are incapable of logical thought processes

But, of course, you'll simply say that you are innocent and didn't actually say they are stupid, so i'll show you how you did by turning it the other way around:

Non-christian: My teacher told me 2 + 2 = 11.
Christian: I find that hard to believe unless your teacher is an atheist.

The Christian in this situation is implying that atheists are stupid, just like you did.

What I said in no way mirrored what you claim here, you are once again bearing false witness, I am starting to fear for your immortal soul

If you still don't understand, you are simply a lost cause because things can't be explained any more simply than this. You did imply that Christians are stupid.

I shall put this all down to you having poor reading comprehension and the usual fundie inability to admit to error even when it is explicitly shown.

What I posted here was to say that I'm glad that you have now come to realise that Christians are not stupid.

For goodness sake, once again you lie, you ascribe a belief to me that I have never held in my life. I don't know where people like you get off on this constant dishonesty about others, have you no morals?

That does not change that you believe they were in the past. No contradiction.

Again ascribing beliefs to me that you cannot possibly know that I have ever held is just incredibly dishonest, I am flabberghasted by the lying and dishonesty I am seeing coming from you .

Yes, but you conveniently left out the part saying that their methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. That means the gospels are indeed are reliable source.

No it doesn't, they were written with the express purpose to proselytise how can they be reliable in that case.



A

ctually, I did post a link providing non-biblical evidence for Jesus.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

There is no extra-biblical support for Jesus documented, to pretend that there is is, once again, plain dishonest.

But that is what I am coming to expect from you.

I'm afraid I am out of this thread, your deceit sickens me.

That doesn't mean I won't defend myself if you continue to lie about what I believe and say

 

[Baggins]

No, I haven't.

First lie

Baggins said that Christian teachers are stupid.

Second lie, the faith of the teacher was never given

I then asked why being Christian changes anything. His reply was that he didn't says Christians are stupid, which he did.

Third lie

 

[Baggins]

He's calling a subsect of your faith deluded, not all. And it looks as if he's not the only one considering the number of unaccredited Christian schools. Or does our government (full of Christians) now think that all Christians are stupid?

Not even that. I was accusing one teacher of undisclosed faith of being stupid if their words were accurately reported and I went on to imply that he science teaching in private Christian colleges is sub par.

That is all I did

 

[Chalnoth]

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

Perhaps you could point out exactly where he talks about this extra-biblical evidence, because from a quick scan through I'm not seeing it.

 

[Michael1975]

You know what, Baggins knows whether or not he thought Christians were stupid because after all, he wrote the post. If he didn't, I apologise. The wording of his post was misleading. I'm not here to make enemies, especially if it is because of a mistake made by me.

 

[Michael1975]

Perhaps you could point out exactly where he talks about this extra-biblical evidence, because from a quick scan through I'm not seeing it.

You have to scroll down. Approximately half way down, there is a subheading entitled Ancient Non-Christian Sources.

 

[Chalnoth]

You have to scroll down. Approximately half way down, there is a subheading entitled Ancient Non-Christian Sources.

I'm disappointed that he tries to use those sources as evidence for Jesus. Those sources do nothing whatsoever but describe Christians and their beliefs. As was the practice of the time, these historians did not state how they obtained their information. Therefore, the explanation that they were merely describing the beliefs of Christians explains everything that they state. They provide no evidence of having attempted to find independent evidence of Jesus (presumably they saw no reason to).

 

[Michael1975]

I'm disappointed that he tries to use those sources as evidence for Jesus. Those sources do nothing whatsoever but describe Christians and their beliefs. As was the practice of the time, these historians did not state how they obtained their information. Therefore, the explanation that they were merely describing the beliefs of Christians explains everything that they state. They provide no evidence of having attempted to find independent evidence of Jesus (presumably they saw no reason to).

Actually, not all of them do.

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, not all of them do.

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

Right. Some of them are describing somebody else entirely. And one was inserted hundreds of years after the original author (Josephus in Testimonium).

 

[Michael1975]

Right. Some of them are describing somebody else entirely. And one was inserted hundreds of years after the original author (Josephus in Histories).

Not all of them do.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not all of them do.

Why not present one? Your continued assertions without any argument or evidence to back them up is getting a little tiring.

And, by the way, before you try to turn this back on me, bear in mind that in order to "present evidence" for my claim, I would have needed to cite every single source mentioned, which is simply too much work. You need only present one that you think supports your claim that Jesus is actually described by extra-Biblical sources.

 

[Michael1975]

Why not present one? Your continued assertions without any argument or evidence to back them up is getting a little tiring.

And, by the way, before you try to turn this back on me, bear in mind that in order to "present evidence" for my claim, I would have needed to cite every single source mentioned, which is simply too much work. You need only present one that you think supports your claim that Jesus is actually described by extra-Biblical sources.

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:
Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

Btw, what continous assertions have I failed to back up?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]

I have read several different pages on this and they uniformly state the Yeshu or Yeshua was not Jesus
From This page
[SIZE=+1]Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.
[/SIZE]

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

He is talking about the beliefs of Christians 200 years after the life of Jesus. How is that extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Another recounting of Christian legends well after the fact.

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:
Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

So we have a second hand reference from someone who says they found a reference to an event that no non Christian seems to have noticed.
From Wikipedia

No other author who mentions Thallus before Syncellus makes any mention of Thallus' supposed reference to the darkness. Some would expect Christians to make a great deal of such a reference on the part of a well-known chronographer and historian if it supported Christian belief. Africanus may here be in error or Thallus may have only put forth the idea that the darkness that Christians claimed occurred at the death of Jesus was a normal eclipse of the Sun, perhaps referring to the eclipse of the Sun that occurred in AD 29.

I would not call that very good evidence.

Btw, what continous assertions have I failed to back up?

You have failed to back up the assertion that there is evidence for the existence of Jesus that does not come from the Bible or Christian writings.

 

[Chalnoth]

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]

Not describing Jesus. Crime is different. Circumstances are different. Stoned, not crucified. Only the name is remotely similar. Many of the other examples are similarly different from the gospel accounts as to render them worthless as supporting the gospels.

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

Describing Christians and their beliefs. So what?

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

I see no indication that this is talking about Jesus.

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:
Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

Hearsay? Really? If I'm understanding what is being said here, we don't know what Thallus was writing about, specifically whether it had any relationship whatsoever to Jesus. All we know is that an early third-century Christian historian claimed he was talking about Jesus.

Btw, what continous assertions have I failed to back up?

Primarily that the Jesus myth scholars are easily refuted. If I'm wrong, please, point me to the post.

 

[Michael1975]

Not describing Jesus. Crime is different. Circumstances are different. Stoned, not crucified. Only the name is remotely similar. Many of the other examples are similarly different from the gospel accounts as to render them worthless as supporting the gospels.

This person is wrong about what happened to him, but he is describing Jesus. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged".

Describing Christians and their beliefs. So what?

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account". Who do you think that man was?

I see no indication that this is talking about Jesus.

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king" and "Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Primarily that the Jesus myth scholars are easily refuted. If I'm wrong, please, point me to the post.

Post 180. Is that all?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This person is wrong about what happened to him, but he is describing Jesus. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged".

My last post is being held up by the mods for some reason, but Yeshu lived about 100 years before Jesus. Everything I could find from Talmudic scholars indicates that this person was not Jesus. BTW hanged the evening before is not the same a crucified the day of.

 

[Michael1975]

My last post is being held up by the mods for some reason, but Yeshu lived about 100 years before Jesus. Everything I could find from Talmudic scholars indicates that this person was not Jesus. BTW hanged the evening before is not the same a crucified the day of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Identification_of_Yeshu_with_Jesus

 

[Tomk80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Identification_of_Yeshu_with_Jesus

You should have read on a little longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Criticism_of_the_identification_of_Yeshu_with_Jesus

Whatever the truth here, form a purely historical standpoint the Talmud and Tosefta don't seem to be good sources for Jesus, given the many inconsistencies these references have with the gospels.