Evolutionists and credentialism

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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

Did you actually read it?

Critics of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus point to inconsistencies between the Talmudic references to Yeshu and ben-Stada and the stories about Jesus in the New Testament.[citation needed] The oppression by King Jannæus mentioned in the Talmud occurred about 87 BCE, which would put the events of the story about a century before Jesus. The Yeshu who taught Jacob of Sechania would have lived a century after Jesus. The forty day waiting period before execution is absent from the Christian tradition and moreover Jesus did not have connections with the government. Jesus was crucified not stoned. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem not Lod. Jesus was executed on the eve following passover according to John not the eve of passover. Jesus did not burn his food in public and moreover the Yeshu who did this corresponds to Manasseh of Judah in the Shulkhan Arukh. Jesus did not make incisions in his flesh, nor was he caught by hidden observers. In addition, the information cited from the Munich, Florence and other manuscripts in support of the identification are late comments written centuries after the original redaction of the Talmud.

 

[Baggins]

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.

My post was not misleading stop trying to squirm out of it, you may have misunderstood what I wrote, that is something else entirely, others don't seem to have made the same mistake.

There are many Christians on this site who are excellent scientists that I admire greatly and who are a damn site smarter than I am it is ludicrous to suggest that I think all Christians are stupid, most of the world's greatest scientific discoveries were made by religious people, there is no way I would suggest that religious people are somehow less smart than atheists.

different people have different levels of belief in the mystic, mine is very low but that in no way proscribes my intelligence and the opposite is also true, having a strong capacity for a belief in the mystic, even the Christian mystic, tells one nothing about some ones intelligence.

I resent being labeled with views I don't share.

 

[Chalnoth]

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

Ah, right, don't how how I managed to miss that but managed to read the later sentence. But it is irrelevant, as my point still stands: it's a different execution method. Hanging is not the same as crucifixion, unless you can provide evidence that they were synonyms back then, the default assumption is that hanging = hung from a rope by the neck. Regardless, when you search through a long list of executions, you're bound to find a few that bear some superficial resemblance to one you're looking for. It's still not similar enough to the gospels to lend any credence to them.

"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?

They claimed to worship a man. What more is there to say?

"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."

And who was this "wise king"? How do you know it referred to Jesus? How do you know it didn't refer to a "wise king" who was actually, you know, a king, in the political sense?

Post 180. Is that all?

I don't see how that is support of your claim that the Jesus myth scholars are easily refuted. Why don't you refute the essay I linked earlier? Here, I'll make it easy on you and link it again:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/jesus_mythicist_position_revised_2008
It's long, so I don't expect you to refute the whole thing, naturally. But surely you can read it, and then pick out one or two specific points to "easily refute"?

 

[Naraoia]

My post was not misleading stop trying to squirm out of it, you may have misunderstood what I wrote, that is something else entirely, others don't seem to have made the same mistake.

There are many Christians on this site who are excellent scientists that I admire greatly and who are a damn site smarter than I am it is ludicrous to suggest that I think all Christians are stupid, most of the world's greatest scientific discoveries were made by religious people, there is no way I would suggest that religious people are somehow less smart than atheists.

different people have different levels of belief in the mystic, mine is very low but that in no way proscribes my intelligence and the opposite is also true, having a strong capacity for a belief in the mystic, even the Christian mystic, tells one nothing about some ones intelligence.

I resent being labeled with views I don't share.

Baggins, calm down. Didn't he apologise? Peace, guys.

 

[Michael1975]

They claimed to worship a man. What more is there to say?

That this man was Jesus.

And who was this "wise king"? How do you know it referred to Jesus? How do you know it didn't refer to a "wise king" who was actually, you know, a king, in the political sense?

Because this wise king was king of the Jews who's teachings were given to the Jews, and continues to live on in those teachings. This wise king was then executed by Jews. Which other king fits that description?

I don't see how that is support of your claim that the Jesus myth scholars are easily refuted. Why don't you refute the essay I linked earlier? Here, I'll make it easy on you and link it again:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/jesus_mythicist_position_revised_2008
It's long, so I don't expect you to refute the whole thing, naturally. But surely you can read it, and then pick out one or two specific points to "easily refute"?

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

 

[Michael1975]

My post was not misleading stop trying to squirm out of it, you may have misunderstood what I wrote, that is something else entirely, others don't seem to have made the same mistake.

There are many Christians on this site who are excellent scientists that I admire greatly and who are a damn site smarter than I am it is ludicrous to suggest that I think all Christians are stupid, most of the world's greatest scientific discoveries were made by religious people, there is no way I would suggest that religious people are somehow less smart than atheists.

different people have different levels of belief in the mystic, mine is very low but that in no way proscribes my intelligence and the opposite is also true, having a strong capacity for a belief in the mystic, even the Christian mystic, tells one nothing about some ones intelligence.

I resent being labeled with views I don't share.

Yes your post was misleading. The fact that you won't let it go just proves my point about you trying to guide the argument away from it's really about. I wonder why...

 

[Tomk80]

Yes your post was misleading. The fact that you won't let it go just proves my point about you trying to guide the argument away from it's really about. I wonder why...

How was his post misleading?

 

[flatworm]

Yes your post was misleading. The fact that you won't let it go just proves my point about you trying to guide the argument away from it's really about. I wonder why...

...Says the guy who derailed the thread back at post #80...

 

[Michael1975]

How was his post misleading?

If he wasn't trying to say that Christians are stupid, comparing a Christian college to dim teachers is misleading. Why is this being brought back anyway? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Michael1975]

...Says the guy who derailed the thread back at post #80...

What the heck are you talking about?
I responded to someone saying Jesus didn't exist, as would be expected, because he does.
Baggins is trying to avoid this discussion now, just like you, as it seems.
If this is what this discussion is about now, I'm leaving because my response will be the same as post 227 everytime.

 

[TheGnome]

Wow, I read this entire thread. It's amazing how people would simply throw away logic in order to continue believing in something. It's amazing how all of the extra-biblical evidence were written much after the death of Jesus. How is this evidence of Jesus' existence? If a bunch of people wrote stories about a man who did things before they were even born, and those writings were discovered in the future, it should be admitted as evidence of the existence of this man as well as the magic this man performed? Absolutely ridiculous!

All I have to say was that there was an epic failure in logic. I think it's safe to agree that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Otherwise, using their logic, King Arthur really did pull that sword out of the stone because he was chosen by God to do so.

 

[AV1611VET]

All I have to say was that there was an epic failure in logic. I think it's safe to agree that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus.

I don't think even staunch atheists deny the existence of Jesus --- let alone scientists. I could be wrong, but I've yet to meet someone who swears Jesus never existed.

 

[Chalnoth]

That this man was Jesus.

According to Christian beliefs, yes. This person is not providing independent corroboration of Jesus, as he is merely describing their beliefs.

Because this wise king was king of the Jews who's teachings were given to the Jews, and continues to live on in those teachings. This wise king was then executed by Jews. Which other king fits that description?

Could be a number of others. There were many people around the time of Jesus who claimed to be Messiahs. And there were many Jewish kings who had been assassinated (though the Jews themselves didn't speak highly of them, who is to say that others didn't think highly of them?).
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4mara95.html

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

It seems clear to me that you didn't read his essay.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't think even staunch atheists deny the existence of Jesus --- let along scientists. I could be wrong, but I've yet to meet someone who swears Jesus never existed.

It is actually not that uncommon amongst atheists (and agnostics etc.) to have at least some doubt about the existence of a historical Jesus.

Here is Earl Doherty's webpage: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm
He is one of the most well known, and probably the best, Jesus Myther.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't think even staunch atheists deny the existence of Jesus --- let alone scientists. I could be wrong, but I've yet to meet someone who swears Jesus never existed.

I think it would be absurd for even an atheist to swear that Jesus never existed. There is certainly no way to prove such a statement. I happen to believe that Jesus did exist but that belief is not based on any extra-Biblical evidence. I just object to people citing evidence that doesn't in fact exist. The passage in Josephus is dubious and and was written well after the Biblical times given for the life of Jesus and it is the only extra Biblical reference that I am aware of. Those who believe in Jesus should not need to falsely quote evidence that isn't there. Doubting that Jesus existed is an other matter.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?
.... .

i dont think it takes a moron to be a creationists. what i think it takes is (in general) indoctoring kids while they are young. This leads people to go out of their way to fit reality to fit what they were brought up to believe.

So why do they adhere to it? becuase its a belief they have known all of their life (normally) they may have social bonds related to it that may be lost (what you think evo happened, your disowned) ect.....

 

[AV1611VET]

i dont think it takes a moron to be a creationists.

I'll take a moron creationist over any "educated" scientick any day.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I'll take a moron creationist over any "educated" scientick any day.

Why is nobody surprised that you'd take someone who agrees with you over someone with an education in the subject?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

.... just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

your right and i dont think anyone really goes with the appeal to populatirity strawman. However what we do go with is that scientists look at the evdience and draw answers from that. creationists tend to look at the answer they want and try to pick and choose and discard that which contradicts their desired answer.

and flat earth was prior to actual science (scientific method and such) and was formed mainly due to religious institutions and superstition that had a reasonable influence inthose times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is nobody surprised that you'd take someone who agrees with you over someone with an education in the subject?

Please --- oh, please --- show me one "educated" person on here qualified to take on this old Fundamental Baptist in a discussing on the Creation. I'll eat him for breakfast.