Evolutionists and credentialism

[Michael1975]

Oh come on. I know someone who claims to know someone who claims to have seen a giant hairy humanoid monster in the Black Forest pick up a jeep and dump it over. That doesn't mean it really happened.

But if many scholars who have researched this all come to the conclusion that it did happen....

 

[flatworm]

So you clicked on a link saying 1st century Judea, and it brought you to "Cultural and historical background of Jesus", and you still don't believe they are the same thing in the context used.

That isn't what I said. If Jesus existed, his cultural and historical background would have been 1st century Judea. We have plenty of extrabiblical sources for the history of 1st century Judea. It doesn't in the least mean that there are extrabiblical sources for the existence of Jesus.

Is extra-biblical the same as non-biblical? If so then I have mentioned reference to non-biblical source in the past.

I've seen you cite sources that speak of Chistians, but not Jesus.

The 1st century of Judea involves Jesus. You clicked on the link, so you know.

No, that's entirely the question at hand, and one on which scholars do not agree. The "mythical" Jesus camp is in the minority, but they're not crackpots. Most scholars believe that Jesus existed, but did not rise from the dead and did not perform the miracles attributed to him.

I clicked on the link, and I found you had misread it. It seems you continue to misread it.

3rd hand accounts claim that eyewitnesses existed, because of eyewitness accounts.

Bollocks. Produce these accounts.

How could they claim they existed if the people written about did not have an eyewitness account?

Do I have to spell it out for you? You make it up. Maybe you heard the main story from someone else, but added your own embellishments, such as the existence of eyewitnesses (whose existence conveniently cannot be verified), perhaps to bolster your credibility. The story of Jack and the Beanstalk leaves Jack alive at the end, meaning he would be an eyewitness- but the story is still fictional and so is Jack.

 

[flatworm]

They do simply differ on the details. More details is different. And they still all mention the resurrection.

Very true. It falls then to scholars to explain the core similarity. The Christian position is that the similarity is there because all the gospels are describing the same real event. However, there are alternative possibilities, such as the gospels not being independent at all, but derived from each other and from a common oral tradition. Guess which one currently holds sway among Biblical scholars?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you guys still begging for extra-Biblical confirmation of Jesus' existence?

 

[Michael1975]

That isn't what I said. If Jesus existed, his cultural and historical background would have been 1st century Judea. We have plenty of extrabiblical sources for the history of 1st century Judea. It doesn't in the least mean that there are extrabiblical sources for the existence of Jesus.

Exactly.
And there is non biblical evidence for Jesus anyway.

I've seen you cite sources that speak of Chistians, but not Jesus.

I've given reference to sources which make scholars believe in Jesus.

No, that's entirely the question at hand, and one on which scholars do not agree. The "mythical" Jesus camp is in the minority, but they're not crackpots. Most scholars believe that Jesus existed, but did not rise from the dead and did not perform the miracles attributed to him.

I clicked on the link, and I found you had misread it. It seems you continue to misread it.

1. In what way did I misread it? Go and look again. It says that the minority of scholars which do believe he is a myth are effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.
2. Wrong again. There are plenty of arguments for and againsts his resurrection but the majority do not believe he did not rise from the dead. Critical scholars concede that they cannot use empiracal methods to know whether or not the miracles were genuine, which most believe were.

Bollocks. Produce these accounts.

How could there be 3rd hand accounts of something that never happened?

Do I have to spell it out for you? You make it up. Maybe you heard the main story from someone else, but added your own embellishments, such as the existence of eyewitnesses (whose existence conveniently cannot be verified), perhaps to bolster your credibility. The story of Jack and the Beanstalk leaves Jack alive at the end, meaning he would be an eyewitness- but the story is still fictional and so is Jack.

Yes, Jack is fictional, but Jesus' crucifixion is not. Scholars know that Jesus was then placed in a tomb, which he then disappeared from. It was not made up. There is historical evidence of Jesus not being in his tomb after being placed there.

And why would the people who have listened to Jesus and experienced him lie when lying is something he was clearly against? Why would they even try to decieve people? Why would they start a new religion if they knew it was based on a lie?

I could also use the same philoposphy and say that because I have not heard Hitler actually declare war on Poland, it never happened. His advisors could have been lying. How pathetic, having to resort to the people who were vital to make the new testament liers, especially when you have no means of proving it.

 

[Michael1975]

Very true. It falls then to scholars to explain the core similarity. The Christian position is that the similarity is there because all the gospels are describing the same real event. However, there are alternative possibilities, such as the gospels not being independent at all, but derived from each other and from a common oral tradition. Guess which one currently holds sway among Biblical scholars?

They still all mention the resurrection.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Are you guys still begging for extra-Biblical confirmation of Jesus' existence?

I am just pointing out that there is little or none. It is fine to claim that Jesus existed, I agree. But to state that there is lots of evidence outside the Bible as some people do is simply false.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Are you guys still begging for extra-Biblical confirmation of Jesus' existence?

Only when Christians claim that such evidence exists. The rest of the time, I'm 100% with Frumious Bandersnatch: I think it's entirely possible that a man called Yeshua, who believed himself to be the son of God, traveled around Palestine in the 1st century for some time preaching to the locals, then attracted the attention of the local authorities and was executed for blasphemy and/or high treason. It's not exactly what I would call out of the ordinary, and I'm perfectly fine with accepting the story, shaky as though the documentation might be.

However, when Christians insist that there is indeed ample evidence for Jesus' existence, or even of his divinity or the resurrection itself to be found outside the Bible, we have to question this claim - and as we have seen in this thread, rightly so.

 

[Michael1975]

Ok, this argument is going in circles. We do know that there is enough evidence for scholars to all agree on his existence, but at the end of the day, whether you actually believe in him is your decision and I no longer care what you choose. Just don't say that there is no evidence for Jesus because that isn't true. Don't be suprised if I leave the discussion from this point, because I now see how pointless it truly is.

 

[ResoluteShaman]

It's not deceptive, because it was never God's intention for Darwinism to exist as a scientific theory.

Waitonedarnedminute! "God never intended"? Just how the heck would you know that? Isn't claiming to know the mind of God one of the most egregious sins there is?

Never intended, huh? There goes that vaunted infallibility.

 

[sinan90]

Ok, this argument is going in circles. We do know that there is enough evidence for scholars to all agree on his existence, but at the end of the day, whether you actually believe in him is your decision and I no longer care what you choose. Just don't say that there is no evidence for Jesus because that isn't true. Don't be suprised if I leave the discussion from this point, because I now see how pointless it truly is.

The point is they don't all agree, and everything people have shown as their evidence seems to support the fact that scholars can't agree on the fact that the historical figure of Jesus existed. Just because the majority believe so doesn't make it necessarily so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only when Christians claim that such evidence exists. The rest of the time, I'm 100% with Frumious Bandersnatch: I think it's entirely possible that a man called Yeshua, who believed himself to be the son of God, traveled around Palestine in the 1st century for some time preaching to the locals, then attracted the attention of the local authorities and was executed for blasphemy and/or high treason. It's not exactly what I would call out of the ordinary, and I'm perfectly fine with accepting the story, shaky as though the documentation might be.

In other words, as long as it doesn't contradict slience, you'll accept it.

However, when Christians insist that there is indeed ample evidence for Jesus' existence, or even of his divinity or the resurrection itself to be found outside the Bible, we have to question this claim - and as we have seen in this thread, rightly so.

Let's set the record straight here --- all the truth about this Man was collated into the Scriptures ---

1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Look at Verse 1 again ---

1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us...

--- there's all your extra-Biblical writings.

Given the fact that all this happened within the borders of Israel (with two exceptions), and what do you want in the area of extra-Biblical writings.

I submit that there shouldn't be any extra-Biblical documentation supporting Him.

Why would there be?

 

[flatworm]

Exactly.
And there is non biblical evidence for Jesus anyway.

Well then by all means, have out with it!

I've given reference to sources which make scholars believe in Jesus.

Francis Collins says he started believing in Jesus when he came upon a beautiful triple waterfall while hiking. That doesn't mean triple waterfalls are extrabiblical references to the historicity of Jesus.

1. In what way did I misread it? Go and look again. It says that the minority of scholars which do believe he is a myth are effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.

Remember this is Wikipedia. That particular claim is the subject of some disagreement among the contributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#.22Non-historicity_effectively_refuted.22

Notice the last entry is only 4 days ago.

2. Wrong again. There are plenty of arguments for and againsts his resurrection but the majority do not believe he did not rise from the dead. Critical scholars concede that they cannot use empiracal methods to know whether or not the miracles were genuine, which most believe were.

Cite? Look up the Jesus Seminars.

How could there be 3rd hand accounts of something that never happened?

So you admit these accounts do not actually exist? Good.

It's simple to have 3rd hand accounts of things that didn't happen. Either you write them out of whole cloth in the form of 3rd-hand accounts, hear of a fabrication made up by someone else by way of an intermediary, or you take an account of a real event and modify, embellish, and exaggerate it until it's effectively fictional.

You seem to be arguing for the non-existence of fiction. Please try to realize just how ridiculous this is before you embarass yourself further.

Yes, Jack is fictional, but Jesus' crucifixion is not. Scholars know that Jesus was then placed in a tomb, which he then disappeared from. It was not made up. There is historical evidence of Jesus not being in his tomb after being placed there.

Jesus' crucifixion is probably historical, but your other claims are total horse droppings. Prove them. Where is this historical evidence you keep crowing about but never name specifically?

And why would the people who have listened to Jesus and experienced him lie when lying is something he was clearly against?

I see Christians lie almost every day. In fact, it seems to be a central personality trait of Christian apologists. Don't ask me why they do it, but the fact is they do.

Why would they even try to decieve people? Why would they start a new religion if they knew it was based on a lie?

Ask L. Ron Hubbard and his followers, or Charles Manson, or the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, or any other cult leader in history.

I could also use the same philoposphy and say that because I have not heard Hitler actually declare war on Poland, it never happened.

Straw man. I never said I reject the historicity of the resurrection because I wasn't there. There just isn't enought evidence. We have plenty of historical documentation from various contemporary sources for Hitler's invasion of Poland. Where is the equivalent evidence for Jesus and the resurrection?

Oh, and BTW, don't you find it a little dishonest to attack a caricature of your opponent's position rather than addressing his actual arguments?

His advisors could have been lying.

As I said, most of our documentary evidence for Hitler's invasion of Poland does not come from his advisors.

How pathetic, having to resort to the people who were vital to make the new testament liers, especially when you have no means of proving it.

First, I'm not necessarily calling anyone specific a liar, since the authors of the gospels are effectively anonymous. Most scholars agree they were not written by the disciples for which they were named.

Second, I don't need to prove anything in order to call into question the credibility of anyone making wild supernatural claims without a shred of evidence. Given my personal experience with the mendacity of those pushing religious agendas in my own lifetime, I see no reason their claims should be accepted at face value.

Third, the people vital to making the new testament came centuries later, the ones who decided what writings belonged in the bible and those who did not.

 

[Chalnoth]

The point is they don't all agree, and everything people have shown as their evidence seems to support the fact that scholars can't agree on the fact that the historical figure of Jesus existed. Just because the majority believe so doesn't make it necessarily so.

Yup. And it's hardly surprising that a majority believe it. Considering that the vast majority of people who study the historicity of Jesus are Christians themselves, they are hardly going to be unbiased examiners of the evidence.

 

[USincognito]

Oh come on. I know someone who claims to know someone who claims to have seen a giant hairy humanoid monster in the Black Forest pick up a jeep and dump it over. That doesn't mean it really happened.

The first time I read this I thought you wrote "pick up a jeep and take a dump all over it".

 

[Baggins]

You implied that Christians are stupid.

No I didn't. I implied that the teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid, and he/she is unless she was just stating that to start a discussion, which is a distinct possibility, because, let's face it, you would have to be pretty dumb to believe that he laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

I also asked whether that could have been taught at a private Christian college because they have a poor reputation for teaching science.

There is evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible

No there isn't, there is evidence or early Christians, that is something entirely different. There is no extra-biblical contemporaneous written evidence of Jesus except for a passage in Josephus that many, even most, scholars believe to be a later addition.

Just wanting something to be so doesn't make it so.

 

[Baggins]

We do know that there is enough evidence for scholars to all agree on his existence,

No we don't, that is exactly what you have been unable to show. there is no reliable, extra-biblical eyewitness accounts of Jesus. A reasonable minority of scholars don't even believe he existed, so you claiming that all scholars agree on his existence is just dishonest especially when you have been shown that this is the case.

Just don't say that there is no evidence for Jesus because that isn't true.

There is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, that is all we have been saying.

Don't be suprised if I leave the discussion from this point, because I now see how pointless it truly is.

I am never suprised when people who can't support their premise leave a discussion claiming victory, what else can they do?

 

[Michael1975]

Well then by all means, have out with it!

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

Francis Collins says he started believing in Jesus when he came upon a beautiful triple waterfall while hiking. That doesn't mean triple waterfalls are extrabiblical references to the historicity of Jesus.

I never knew he was a scholar.
I am talking about scholars who researched Jesus being able to come up to the conclusion that he does exist.

Cite? Look up the Jesus Seminars.

I did. 200 individuals is not the majority.

So you admit these accounts do not actually exist? Good.

It's simple to have 3rd hand accounts of things that didn't happen. Either you write them out of whole cloth in the form of 3rd-hand accounts, hear of a fabrication made up by someone else by way of an intermediary, or you take an account of a real event and modify, embellish, and exaggerate it until it's effectively fictional.

You seem to be arguing for the non-existence of fiction. Please try to realize just how ridiculous this is before you embarass yourself further.

No, I don't. Basically you believe people made up seeing Jesus after his death. Like I asked before, what reason do they have for making it up?

Jesus' crucifixion is probably historical, but your other claims are total horse droppings. Prove them. Where is this historical evidence you keep crowing about but never name specifically?

Did you ignore the part of me not being a history scholar? Therefore I cannot name the sources. However I did post a link at the start of this reply.

I see Christians lie almost every day. In fact, it seems to be a central personality trait of Christian apologists. Don't ask me why they do it, but the fact is they do.

That wouldn't just be any lie though, would it? Not only that, but those people back then had no reason to lie, and they personally met and experienced Jesus, unlike many Christians today. The Christians today who have personally experience Jesus wouldn't lie on that scale.

Ask L. Ron Hubbard and his followers, or Charles Manson, or the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, or any other cult leader in history.

Yes, cult leaders who did not personally meet or experience Jesus.

Straw man. I never said I reject the historicity of the resurrection because I wasn't there. There just isn't enought evidence. We have plenty of historical documentation from various contemporary sources for Hitler's invasion of Poland. Where is the equivalent evidence for Jesus and the resurrection?

Oh, and BTW, don't you find it a little dishonest to attack a caricature of your opponent's position rather than addressing his actual arguments?

Actually, this was replying to you saying those who met Jesus being liars, not the resurrection, and just look at the link at the start for your evidence.

As I said, most of our documentary evidence for Hitler's invasion of Poland does not come from his advisors.

This was just an example.

First, I'm not necessarily calling anyone specific a liar, since the authors of the gospels are effectively anonymous. Most scholars agree they were not written by the disciples for which they were named.

Soruces?

Second, I don't need to prove anything in order to call into question the credibility of anyone making wild supernatural claims without a shred of evidence. Given my personal experience with the mendacity of those pushing religious agendas in my own lifetime, I see no reason their claims should be accepted at face value.

Fine, you don'r have to. This is what I was saying about this argument changing no-one's beliefs and therefore being pointless.

Third, the people vital to making the new testament came centuries later, the ones who decided what writings belonged in the bible and those who did not.

So? These people were still vital in making the new testament.

 

[Michael1975]

Yup. And it's hardly surprising that a majority believe it. Considering that the vast majority of people who study the historicity of Jesus are Christians themselves, they are hardly going to be unbiased examiners of the evidence.

Where did you get this rubbish from? Where does it say that the vast majority of people studying Jesus are Christians themselves? I have given names of plenty of non-Christians who researched this and came to the same conclusion.

 

[Michael1975]

No we don't, that is exactly what you have been unable to show. there is no reliable, extra-biblical eyewitness accounts of Jesus. A reasonable minority of scholars don't even believe he existed, so you claiming that all scholars agree on his existence is just dishonest especially when you have been shown that this is the case.

All scholars agree he existed, however a few believe he existed only as a myth.

There is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, that is all we have been saying.

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

I am never suprised when people who can't support their premise leave a discussion claiming victory, what else can they do?

It's funny that you only replied after I said that I will be leaving the discussion. And how exactly did I claim victory? I said that no-one will change their beliefs, which does not seem like victory to me.