Evolutionists and credentialism

[Michael1975]

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.

And you then asked if he was taught at a Christian college. By saying that someone stupid is from a Christian college is trying to say that Christians are stupid.

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.

Hold on, you are not only dismissing there being non-biblical evidence, but biblical evidence as well. Well there is plenty of biblical evidence too, so "it being so" is not just the case because we want it to be.

 

[Michael1975]

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.

They do all agree he existed. A few believe it was as a myth. And what what evidence shows that scholars can't agree that he existed when they all agree he existed? I think you meant to say scholars can't agree on how he existed, and all the evidence everyone has shown does not support that anyway.

 

[sinan90]

They do all agree he existed. A few believe it was as a myth. And what what evidence shows that scholars can't agree that he existed when they all agree he existed? I think you meant to say scholars can't agree on how he existed, and all the evidence everyone has shown does not support that anyway.

Even in what you write you acknowledge not all scholars believe he existed. First you say they all believe he existed then go on to say a few believe it was a myth. As soon as one scholar disagrees with the view that the historical figure of Jesus existed not all agree he existed. I know what I meant to say, do you know what you're actually saying?

 

[Baggins]

And you then asked if he was taught at a Christian college. By saying that someone stupid is from a Christian college is trying to say that Christians are stupid.

I have never met anyone so pathetically defensive about their faith, get a grip man, I neither said all Christians are stupid and neither do I believe that, but if you feel the cap fits feel free to wear it.

Hold on, you are not only dismissing there being non-biblical evidence, but biblical evidence as well.

The bible can't used to prove the truth of what's written in the bible, it should be obvious to anyone that that is circular reasoning and not valid.

The historicity of Jesus is on very shaky ground until extra-biblical contemporaneous accounts of his life are found, if they ever are. Until then it is all a balance of probabilities, I believe it is slightly more probable that he did exist than he didn't, but I obviously have to truck with the idea that he was in any way divine. Most, perhaps all, of the miraculous feats attributed to him have been shown to be common to other deities of the period and place - virgin birth, water to wine, resurrecting others, resurrection etc - they are all the normal grab bag of attributes that divinities of the period have.

Well there is plenty of biblical evidence too, so "it being so" is not just the case because we want it to be.

There is loads of biblical evidence of his existence, but it shouldn't take a genius to work out why that isn't good historical evidence of his reality, any more than Morte D'Arthur is historical evidence of the existence of King Arthur.

 

[Michael1975]

Even in what you write you acknowledge not all scholars believe he existed. First you say they all believe he existed then go on to say a few believe it was a myth. As soon as one scholar disagrees with the view that the historical figure of Jesus existed not all agree he existed. I know what I meant to say, do you know what you're actually saying?

They all agree he existed, but some believe it was as a myth. Those who believe he existed as a myth still believe he existed, but just as a myth. But you're right, they believe he did not exist as a historical figure. I missed that in your previous post, sorry.

 

[Baggins]

They all agree he existed, but some believe it was as a myth.

Myths don't exist, that is why we call them myths.

Those who believe he existed as a myth still believe he existed,

Myths don't exist. I believe Batman is a myth, that doesn't mean I think Batman existed.

You might want to read through this stuff again before continuing in the same vein.

 

[Michael1975]

I have never met anyone so pathetically defensive about their faith, get a grip man, I neither said all Christians are stupid and neither do I believe that, but if you feel the cap fits feel free to wear it.

There is no way that you're crticizing me for defending my faith.
If you are, you are obviously not very bright. People will obviously defend what they believe in. By saying Christians are stupid, you're saying I am stupid. However, I am glad you do not believe they are because it is not true and only idiots think it is.

The bible can't used to prove the truth of what's written in the bible, it should be obvious to anyone that that is circular reasoning and not valid.

The historicity of Jesus is on very shaky ground until extra-biblical contemporaneous accounts of his life are found, if they ever are. Until then it is all a balance of probabilities, I believe it is slightly more probable that he did exist than he didn't, but I obviously have to truck with the idea that he was in any way divine. Most, perhaps all, of the miraculous feats attributed to him have been shown to be common to other deities of the period and place - virgin birth, water to wine, resurrecting others, resurrection etc - they are all the normal grab bag of attributes that divinities of the period have.

"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." - Wikipedia

There is loads of biblical evidence of his existence, but it shouldn't take a genius to work out why that isn't good historical evidence of his reality, any more than Morte D'Arthur is historical evidence of the existence of King Arthur.

See post above.

 

[Michael1975]

Myths don't exist, that is why we call them myths.





Myths don't exist. I believe Batman is a myth, that doesn't mean I think Batman existed.

You might want to read through this stuff again before continuing in the same vein.

Batman exists, but not as a historical figure. He exists as something made up. He exists as a myth.

 

[Baggins]

There is no way that you're crticizing me for defending my faith.

If you think this is defending your faith - putting words in others mouths, ascribing attitudes to others that they don't hold - then you are playing fast and loose with some of the tenets of your faith.

If you are, you are obviously not very bright. People will obviously defend what they believe in.

Some people very poorly

By saying Christians are stupid, you're saying I am stupid.

How many times do I have to repeat that I do not think all Christians are stupid.

There are stupid Christians out there, but you inability to grasp what I have stated clearly in my last few posts leads me to surmise that I may have uncovered another. I will write it out in big letters and bold it so it may penetrate your cranium.

I do not think all Christians are stupid

Do you understand?

However, I am glad you do not believe they are because it is not true and only idiots think it is.

Congratulations another paragraph where you contradict yourself.

"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." - Wikipedia

Once again you have failed to grasp what a comma means in the above sentence

let's make it clearer for you:

These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus

The biography of Jesus comes from the gospels.

then there is a comma

along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea.

The non-biblical sources give the historical context of 1st century Judea, they don't provide any biographical details of Jesus, how could they those documents simply don't exist.

If you have any clear an undisputed extra-biblical source for the historicity of Jesus you should post it, if you haven't you should stop trying to claim that it exists, it isn't honest to do so.

 

[Baggins]

Batman exists, but not as a historical figure. He exists as something made up. He exists as a myth.

i.e. he doesn't exist. You need to look at the dictionary definition of existence.

Usually when you say a figure exists you mean in reality not as a myth.

I know you are trying to use semantics to argue yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself, but it really doesn't make you look good.

As a general rule when someone starts to argue the semantics of words it is because they have lost the original argument as you did.

 

[flatworm]

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

Do you not read what I write? Tacitus was born 55 A.D. and is not therefore a contemporary souce. The same goes for Suetonius. We've already been over Josephus and how scholars agree his mention of Jesus is an interpolation by an later Christian scribe. Need I go on?

I never knew he was a scholar.

Irrelevant. The point is I asked for contemporary extrabiblical evidence for Jesus' historicity, not what may have brought this person or that person to believe in Jesus.

I am talking about scholars who researched Jesus being able to come up to the conclusion that he does exist.

What I asked for was extrabiblical contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. Some scholars may be convinced on the biblical evidence alone. Some may infer a Christ from the existence of Christians. All that is neither here nor there, since that was not what I asked for.

I did. 200 individuals is not the majority.

I'd call it a pretty representative sample. Do you know anyone who's surveyed every scholar in the field? If not then we have to make do with sampling methods.

No, I don't.

Then produce them.

Basically you believe people made up seeing Jesus after his death. Like I asked before, what reason do they have for making it up?

Money, for one. There was an entire industry at the time of street preachers who operated, for lack of a better analogy, like side-show entertainers or buskers. People would listen to them for entertainment value and give donations. If you really don't think people would invent stories of religious significance, you need to brush up on your apocrypha. You know, all the Christian religious texts that the Church believes were made up?

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 know you're not a historical scholar. Neither am I. That doesn't relieve either of us of the burden of providing sources.

That wouldn't just be any lie though, would it?

No worse than many I've personally seen.

Not only that, but those people back then had no reason to lie, and they personally met and experienced Jesus,

Claimed to have, or rather, were claimed by someone else to have. You can't assume first-person contact and assume veracity and use it to justify your claims of the same.

unlike many Christians today. The Christians today who have personally experience Jesus wouldn't lie on that scale.

That would be none of them.

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

Just like nobody else living in the world today, or possibly ever.

Actually, this was replying to you saying those who met Jesus being liars,

We don't even know if those people actually existed, since their accounts are related by third parties.

not the resurrection, and just look at the link at the start for your evidence.

I did. It's the usual crap of non-contemporary sources and apologies for the discredited Testimoniam Flavoniam.

This was just an example.

And as an analogy it failed. Next!

Soruces?

The gospel of Mark wasn't even attributed to him until the 2nd century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

On the gospel of Matthew:

Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry

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

On the gospel of Luke:

Most scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document, and place the composition of Luke between 80 and 90. A few scholars postulate an earlier date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#cite_note-5

On John:

Since "the higher criticism" of the 19th century, historians have questioned the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[4][5] J. D. G. Dunn comments: "few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus' life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics".[6] Most scholars regard the work as anonymous,[7][8][9] and date it to 90–100.

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

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

I don't actually ascribe to the whole "mythological Jesus" hypothesis. I think the character was based on an existing Hebrew cult leader in 1st century Judea, and he was deified after his death by his followers. I just wanted to correct your misconception that there exists contemporary historical, extrabiblical evidence for Jesus' existence, and that the "Mythological Jesus" hypothesis is universally rejected by scholars.

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

So why do you not hold the authors of the apocrypha in the same regard? The ones who make statements contradicting the evangelists?

 

[Michael1975]

If you think this is defending your faith - putting words in others mouths, ascribing attitudes to others that they don't hold - then you are playing fast and loose with some of the tenets of your faith.

I have not once put words in your mouth.

Some people very poorly

Some people.

How many times do I have to repeat that I do not think all Christians are stupid.

There are stupid Christians out there, but you inability to grasp what I have stated clearly in my last few posts leads me to surmise that I may have uncovered another. I will write it out in big letters and bold it so it may penetrate your cranium.

I do not think all Christians are stupid

Do you understand?

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

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.

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.

Congratulations another paragraph where you contradict yourself.

What I posted here was to say that I'm glad that you have now come to realise that Christians are not stupid. That does not change that you believe they were in the past. No contradiction.

Once again you have failed to grasp what a comma means in the above sentence

let's make it clearer for you:

Please do.

The biography of Jesus comes from the gospels.

then there is a comma

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.

The non-biblical sources give the historical context of 1st century Judea, they don't provide any biographical details of Jesus, how could they those documents simply don't exist.

If you have any clear an undisputed extra-biblical source for the historicity of Jesus you should post it, if you haven't you should stop trying to claim that it exists, it isn't honest to do so.

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

 

[Tomk80]

I have not once put words in your mouth.

Yes, you have put words in Baggins' mouth. Stop doing that, it is very dishonest.

Some people.

Yes.
You have contadicted yourself by implying that Christians are stupid 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?[/quote]
Baggins has nowhere claimed Christians are stupid. He has (IMO) implied that teaching in private Christian schools is subpar. This may or may not be true, I don't know. Perhaps you should ask why Baggins made the statement about Christian private schools that he made? Just a suggestion.

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.

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.

And there you go wrong. He never made an allusion to the specific faith of your teacher, only of the kind of school you go to. If atheists schools would exist and give a generally subpar education, you'd get a rephrasing like this:
Non-christian: My teacher told me 2 + 2 = 11.
Christian: I find that hard to believe unless you go to a private atheist school.

Perhaps atheist schools would be subpar in giving math, in which case the claim would be justified for a certain group of schools. Not for atheist teachers.

What I posted here was to say that I'm glad that you have now come to realise that Christians are not stupid. That does not change that you believe they were in the past. No contradiction.

Sorry Michael, I have seen Baggins' posts in this forum for a number of years now. Despite what you may want to believe about him, he did not in the past few years believe all Christians are stupid.

Please do.

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 just means the gospel are treated the same way as any other source. It does not automatically mean that they are reliable sources.

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

So do you finally rescind the claim that the wikipedia article clams there is non-biblical evidence for Jesus? I'll see what I can get from the links after that.

 

[Michael1975]

i.e. he doesn't exist. You need to look at the dictionary definition of existence.

Usually when you say a figure exists you mean in reality not as a myth.

I know you are trying to use semantics to argue yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself, but it really doesn't make you look good.

As a general rule when someone starts to argue the semantics of words it is because they have lost the original argument as you did.

If you look back to my reply to sinan90, you'll see that I did misinterpret what he said, and I apologised to him because yes, a few scholars believed he did not exist as a historic person.

However, those people do believe he exists as a myth. And this is not semantics, it's common sense. You have just misinterpreted the sentence "they believe he exists as a myth" like you do with everything. If I said that there is no such thing as Batman, I would be wrong. Batman exists, but not as a historical figure, just as a fictional character.

Also, the fact that you have to resort to trying to point out grammar mistakes in my sentence shows that you're argument is failing. You're trying to cover it up with other totally unrelated issues, like the definition of exist. Pathetic, really pathetic. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong? There is evidence for Jesus' existence.

Btw, the definition of exist is to be. Myths are untrue, but myths are still there. A myth exists, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be there meaning we wouldn't even know about them. According to the definition of exist, myths do exists. Whether or not they are real is another matter.

 

[flatworm]

I have not once put words in your mouth.

Yes, you did. You said he claimed Christians were stupid, when he's done nothing of the sort.

Yes.
You have contadicted yourself by implying that Christians are stupid and then by claiming you don't believe that Christians are stupid.

He said either you went to a private Christian college, or had a stupid teacher. The 'or' is disjunctive.

In case you can't think of any other interpretation the the "Private Christian college" clause other than "Christians are stupid", it's an indictement of private Christian colleges, not Christians in general. In the United States, there are a slew of non-accredited Christian colleges which do not exactly enjoy a good reputation in Academia. This is not a slur against Christians, since they form the majority of students at secular colleges as well.

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

He didn't say "Unless your teacher is a Christian." If you're going to try turning words around, you really should preserve the actual context of the words.

 

[Michael1975]

Yes, you have put words in Baggins' mouth. Stop doing that, it is very dishonest.

No, I haven't.

Baggins has nowhere claimed Christians are stupid. He has (IMO) implied that teaching in private Christian schools is subpar. This may or may not be true, I don't know. Perhaps you should ask why Baggins made the statement about Christian private schools that he made? Just a suggestion.

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

And there you go wrong. He never made an allusion to the specific faith of your teacher, only of the kind of school you go to. If atheists schools would exist and give a generally subpar education, you'd get a rephrasing like this:
Non-christian: My teacher told me 2 + 2 = 11.
Christian: I find that hard to believe unless you go to a private atheist school.

And that still implies that Atheists are stupid.

Sorry Michael, I have seen Baggins' posts in this forum for a number of years now. Despite what you may want to believe about him, he did not in the past few years believe all Christians are stupid.

Until now.

So do you finally rescind the claim that the wikipedia article clams there is non-biblical evidence for Jesus? I'll see what I can get from the links after that.

Wikipedia made reference to non-biblical sources used, but they didn't specifically say what the sources were.

 

[Vene]

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?

 

[Michael1975]

Yes, you did. You said he claimed Christians were stupid, when he's done nothing of the sort.

Yes, he has.

He said either you went to a private Christian college, or had a stupid teacher. The 'or' is disjunctive.

In case you can't think of any other interpretation the the "Private Christian college" clause other than "Christians are stupid", it's an indictement of private Christian colleges, not Christians in general. In the United States, there are a slew of non-accredited Christian colleges which do not exactly enjoy a good reputation in Academia. This is not a slur against Christians, since they form the majority of students at secular colleges as well.

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 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.

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

He didn't say "Unless your teacher is a Christian." If you're going to try turning words around, you really should preserve the actual context of the words.

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.

 

[Tomk80]

No, I haven't.

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

And that still implies that Atheists are stupid.

No, that implies that a certain subset is. There are a number of Christian colleges that perform subpar. They are not accredited and the kids graduating from those colleges are not accepted by a number of universities because their diplomas aren't worth the paper they are printed on. This has nothing to do with Christians or Christian teachers in general, but with a particular subset of Christians.

The point with atheists would be the same. Suppose there was was specific set of private, atheist colleges that would perform below standards. They would teach that 2+2=11. Now, if I get a kid who states that 2+2=11, I would ask whether he went to a priave, atheist college. Because that would be where these kind of things would be taught. This wouldn't say anything about atheist teachers in public schools, only about the teachers (whether atheist or Christian) in atheist schools. It's an indictment of those specific schools.

Until now.

No, not even now. Learn to read.

Wikipedia made reference to non-biblical sources used, but they didn't specifically say what the sources were.

No, they didn't. They specifically state of the non-biblical sources that these are sources about early Christians, not about Jesus. The article "historicity of Jesus" mentions these sources specifically.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

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

Did you mean science or silence?

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



Look at Verse 1 again ---

--- 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?

Assuming that he, as I said, really was only another self-declared prophet/holy man/guru/son of deity X, there indeed shouldn't be too much documentation. After all, such occurrences are common even today, let alone in that politically turbulent and superstitious time back then.

Assuming that he really was what he claimed to be, assuming that he really performed all these miracles and assuming that he did indeed rise from the dead and was seen by hundreds afterwards, however, there should be documentation. A lot. There should be letters from Roman authorities to their superiors, starting with "Remember that Jew we had crucified last week? Guess what...". There should be eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus, eyewitness accounts of the miracles themselves, eyewitness accounts of the Sermon on the Mount. And yet, there is nothing.