Evolutionists and credentialism

[Michael1975]

I'm not. You asked when creationism was falsified, not Christianity. I never said anything about Christianity. Usually creationism is used to denote those people that hold a literalist stance on the bible.
I don't know what evidence Lyell brought to the table specifically, I just know that he was the first to publish why creationist theories of that time were not correct. For that evidence there have been a few good threads around lately, perhaps you could check those out?

I don't really care how it is "usually" used. The actual definition is the belief that the earth was created, which has nothing to do with the flood.
So far you have not shown me anything to disprove creation, which is what I asked.

He said this to ridicule LogicalThinker. Problem was that you made your assertion directly after that, so that confused the flow of conversation.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am also very confused and because this whole "seeing is believing" began as a joke and is irrelevent, lets just drop it.

I have just watched the debate. To be very honest, I find the 'historical' arguments that the Habermas' makes in it rubbish. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason he won is because Flew was even worse. He let pass way to many logical and historical fallacies, of which I think Habermas' made at least one every three sentences. Sorry, but count me unimpressed by that video.

Wait, are you saying that Habermas' argument is rubbish or that it wasn't historical? Or both?

 

[Michael1975]

Well, yes. That's all well and dandy. It is perfectly plausible that Jesus was the starter of a Jewish cult that later became Christianity. The problem is, the evidence for this is so thin that it is also conceivable that he never existed at all, that Christianity was started by somebody else (such as, perhaps, Paul).

No, it isn't.

 

[Michael1975]

Who says those people do not use the bible as evidence? I am unaware of any such scholars. Perhpas one could conclude that historians at the time, such as Josephus, noted the early group of Christians and described them and that based on that, it is likely that he existed. Do with that whatever you like.

This also neglects the authors who say Jesus is not a historical figure. They also use the bible as evidence, especially the contradictions and incompatibility of the bible with other historical sources.

"The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-centur Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus."

 

[Tomk80]

I don't really care how it is "usually" used. The actual definition is the belief that the earth was created, which has nothing to do with the flood.
So far you have not shown me anything to disprove creation, which is what I asked.

I never intended to. God can have created the universe and let it roll from there, or perhaps frequently intervened. If that is what you believe, that is not and cannot be falsified, nor have I ever said it was. I was using the term creationism as it is commonly used. Sorry, but if you use language in a way that differs from anybody else, don't blame me for getting confused.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am also very confused and because this whole "seeing is believing" began as a joke and is irrelevent, lets just drop it.

Happy to.

Wait, are you saying that Habermas' argument is rubbish or that it wasn't historical? Or both?

Both. His argument is historically invalid, in that Josephus and other supporting extrabiblical sources he mentions only report what the early Christians at that time believed. This is not good historical evidence of the existence of Jesus or the occurrence of the ressurection. Even if his sources were as historically valid as he claims they are, you still cannot conclude from them that the resurrection of Jesus really happened. The best you can get from the sources is that there were people around at that time who called themselves Christians and who believed that the resurrection of Jesus had occurred.

 

[Tomk80]

"The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-centur Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus."

That they do not include theological or religious axioms does not mean that they do not use the bible as a source. Only that they do not base their viewpoints on Christian theology (or at least try not to), but use the bible as any other historical document.

 

[Michael1975]

So? Claims of miracles were even more common back then (per capita, at least). Sure, the means of trickery may have gotten more sophisticated (tough few tricksters take advantage), but so has peoples' skepticism. Additionally, there were groups of people around that time who, for example, fully believed that Homer's epics The Iliad and The Odyssey were historical.

I have never heard of claims of people (other than Jesus) being resurrected. Or bringing people back to life.

Yes, I did, some time ago. And my feeling on the film is the same as Frumious Bandersnatch's. I'd rather not go through it again.

Fine. That's your opinion.

Why not? I honestly do not care why people believed in it. It requires no explanation, because there are plenty of reasons that people could have believed in it that don't require it to have actually happened. People could have been convinced by a charismatic speaker (e.g. Paul). People could have heard of a crucifixion survivor (which has been known to happen) by word of mouth, and dramatically twisted the story into some savior figure as the story was passed on. It could have been pure fiction that some people started taking seriously. The possibilities are endless, and the evidence far, far too scant to know exactly why these people were fooled.

Charismatic speaker - Why did he begin to believe it?
Crucifixion survivor - He was stabbed (to check he was dead), and put in a tomb for days. He was definately dead.
Pure fiction - But it's not fiction. This guy lived.

Have you got a history scholarship? You don't and you don't believe Jesus lives. However, history scholars do believe he lived. Who is right, you or them?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

"The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-centur Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus."

Since you like Wikepedia I suggest you read the Historicity of Jesus. I think it validates my point that the only extra-Biblical reference to Jesus is the dubious and diputed passage in Josephus. I think that Josephus did refer to Jesus but that the reference was significantly doctored by later Christian translators. There is no original text of Josephus so it is possible that the entire mention of Jesus was added and not original to Josephus.

 

[Michael1975]

Both. His argument is historically invalid, in that Josephus and other supporting extrabiblical sources he mentions only report what the early Christians at that time believed. This is not good historical evidence of the existence of Jesus or the occurrence of the ressurection. Even if his sources were as historically valid as he claims they are, you still cannot conclude from them that the resurrection of Jesus really happened. The best you can get from the sources is that there were people around at that time who called themselves Christians and who believed that the resurrection of Jesus had occurred.

The fact that he did not cite sources tells us that he doesn't have to. Anthony Flew knows Jesus exists. They both know because they have done their research.

If there were people at that time who believed Jesus had been resurrected, they had to have a reason to do so.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have never heard of claims of people (other than Jesus) being resurrected. Or bringing people back to life.

They are quite common in mythology, Osiris for example. And then there were the Greek Mystery cults and many other examples of resurrection in myth.

 

[Michael1975]

Since you like Wikepedia I suggest you read the Historicity of Jesus. I think it validates my point that the only extra-Biblical reference to Jesus is the dubious and diputed passage in Josephus. I think that Josephus did refer to Jesus but that the reference was significantly doctored by later Christian translators. There is no original text of Josephus so it is possible that the entire mention of Jesus was added and not original to Josephus.

I will read it. In fact, in the second paragraph, it says what I have been saying about scholars believing in Jesus. They would have had to have done their research to become scholars and if this is what they believe, there must be documentation pointing to this.

 

[Michael1975]

They are quite common in mythology, Osiris for example. And then there were the Greek Mystery cults and many other examples of resurrection in myth.

Does Orisis have documentation as evidence of his existence?

 

[Michael1975]

Since you like Wikepedia I suggest you read the Historicity of Jesus. I think it validates my point that the only extra-Biblical reference to Jesus is the dubious and diputed passage in Josephus. I think that Josephus did refer to Jesus but that the reference was significantly doctored by later Christian translators. There is no original text of Josephus so it is possible that the entire mention of Jesus was added and not original to Josephus.

I really don't know what you are talking about. It does not support your point. If you think it does, direct me to where it does.

From what I have read, this goes against your view. Look at paragraphs: "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as a myth" closely. Pay special attention to the last line of "Jesus as a myth".

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I will read it. In fact, in the second paragraph, it says what I have been saying about scholars believing in Jesus. They would have had to have done their research to become scholars and if this is what they believe, there must be documentation pointing to this.

Did you read the entire paragraph? There is a reason for the disagreement. There is no solid evidence. Don't forget that most Biblical Scholars are Christians. That doesn't make them wrong but it may color their interpretation. Here is the paragraph with a part bolded.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] On the other hand, mythologists[2], and a minority[3][4] of biblical and historical scholars argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[5]

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I really don't know what you are talking about. It does not support your point. If you think it does, direct me to where it does.

From what I have read, this goes against your view. Look at paragraphs: "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as a myth" closely. Pay special attention to the last line of "Jesus as a myth".

Show me where it quotes a non Biblical source not produced by early Christian writers other than the one reference in Josephus. Show me any non Christian reference to the existence of Jesus that is not a quote of some Christian reference to Jesus and not Josephus.

 

[Michael1975]

Did you read the entire paragraph? There is a reason for the disagreement. There is no solid evidence. Don't forget that most Biblical Scholars are Christians. That doesn't make them wrong but it may color their interpretation. Here is the paragraph with a part bolded.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] On the other hand, mythologists[2], and a minority[3][4] of biblical and historical scholars argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[5]

A minority of biblical and historical scholars.

The last sentence of "Jesus as myth":

The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by a few scholars and historians, some of the earliest being Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.
The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.
More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, by Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), and by biblical scholar Robert M. Price.
Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.

It wouldn't be effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars if there is no evidence for Jesus.

 

[Michael1975]

Show me where it quotes a non Biblical source not produced by early Christian writers other than the one reference in Josephus. Show me any non Christian reference to the existence of Jesus that is not a quote of some Christian reference to Jesus and not Josephus.

As i've said before, on the wikipedia page Historical Jesus, it says:

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.

I can't prove that the sources they used were not influenced somehow along the way but if it was, the scholars and historians would have researched it and known about it. The fact that they still come to this conclusion says that there is reliable evidence for Jesus' existence.

 

[Tomk80]

The fact that he did not cite sources tells us that he doesn't have to.

Huh? He did cite sources. Those sources don't support his point.

Anthony Flew knows Jesus exists. They both know because they have done their research.

Listening to the discussion, whatever Flew did in preparation, research was not it. And as I already stated, the only conclusion that can be drawn from his sources is that there were people believing something, not that that something is a historical occurrence.

If there were people at that time who believed Jesus had been resurrected, they had to have a reason to do so.

Conned, believing rumours, there is a whole legion of reasons why they might have started believing what they did. An actual resurrection is a possibility, but not a necessity.

 

[Tomk80]

As i've said before, on the wikipedia page Historical Jesus, it says:

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.

I can't prove that the sources they used were not influenced somehow along the way but if it was, the scholars and historians would have researched it and known about it. The fact that they still come to this conclusion says that there is reliable evidence for Jesus' existence.

Again, the bolded sentence does not mean they do not use the bible as evidence, only that they try to leave their theology and religiosity out when using it as a source.

 

[Michael1975]

Huh? He did cite sources. Those sources don't support his point.

He didn't cite sources of documentation for the existence Jesus. He didn't because he didn't have to.

Listening to the discussion, whatever Flew did in preparation, research was not it. And as I already stated, the only conclusion that can be drawn from his sources is that there were people believing something, not that that something is a historical occurrence.

But it was a historical occurrence.
If you look at the pages from wikipedia you'll see that almost all scholars believe that Jesus existed, and those who don't are easily proven wrong.
You may still say that because people believe something it is not necessarily, but then i'll repeats what I said about these people being scholars who have done their research to get their scholarships in this particular area. They know more than you.

Conned, believing rumours, there is a whole legion of reasons why they might have started believing what they did. An actual resurrection is a possibility, but not a necessity.

An actual resurrection is the most likely possibility.

 

[plindboe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Why would his existence be accepted by scholars who do not use the bible as evidence? There must be something else documented proving it, as my teacher said.

Your assumption is contradicted by your own link. In the second sentence it clearly says that the Bible is the primary source used to describe Jesus. The extra-biblical evidence used are to provide a historical context of the period.

Peter