New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[bhsmte]

well, you have just shown how you interpret things. Jesus DID exist and there was no 'possibly' about it. Historically he has been PROVED he existed and not one single person should doubt that. Even your head of state, Richard Dawkins agrees there is no doubt the Man existed.
He was obviously someone far smarter than a person who simply got caught up in Roman politics. It wasn't Roman politics that killed Jesus, he allowed his own death. Instead of waiting for Judas to give away his location, he could have fled the land and hid. What we see instead is the forming of the biggest church on the planet. Amazing for just an ordinary guy wouldn't you say?

There are historians who claim Jesus did not exist (Richard Carrier and several others), but they are in the minority. The vast majority of historians agree Jesus was a real person who lived during the time noted.

Now, not one historian will claim Jesus performed miracles, because miracles by nature, can not be confirmed with the historical method. Also, there is significant debate over how much in the bible that is attributed to Jesus, actually are things he said or did.

 

[Loudmouth]

So are you saying that the bible can't be proved by historical evidence? are you saying Jesus didn't exist?

No more so than the Iliad can be proven by historical evidence. We have found the ruins of what we think is Troy, so does this indicate that Achilles really was the son of a nymph who had also drawn the eye of Zeus and Prometheus?

 

[Doveaman]

You tell me.

You tell me first.

How would you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the sun exists?

Exactly. Demonstrate that you, personally, are not "spiritually blind".

You first.

Exactly. Demonstrate that you, personally, are not "physically blind".

 

[Doveaman]

The same way that you demonstrate that radiowaves are real to someone who has sight.

Please be more specific.

How do you demonstrate to a physically blind man that the existence of the sun is a fact?

How can you be blind to something you can't show to exist?

It has been shown, but you can’t see it because you are blind.

You may try to show a physically blind man the physically sun, but he still won't see it.

You may try to show a spiritually blind man the spiritual Son, but he still won't see Him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please be more specific.

You translate the photons leaving the sun into sensory input a blind person can use. It is the same thing we do for radiowaves. We translate radiowaves into sound and into wavelengths that we can see. For a blind person we could also use a CCD camera that was attached to a sound system or to a piece of equipment that produced bumps where photons are detected where the height of the bump is determined by the number of photons that hit that pixel during a certain period of time. I could think of many, many ways that we could scientifically prove to a blind person that the Sun exists. Why can't you?

It has been shown, but you can’t see it because you are blind.

We can't see radiowaves, so does that mean they don't exist, or are inexplicable to science?

You may try to show a spiritually blind man the spiritual Son, but he still won't see Him.

Sight is not the only sense that can be used. The fact is that you have zero evidence for anything spiritual.

 

[nuttypiglet]

There are historians who claim Jesus did not exist (Richard Carrier and several others), but they are in the minority. The vast majority of historians agree Jesus was a real person who lived during the time noted.

Now, not one historian will claim Jesus performed miracles, because miracles by nature, can not be confirmed with the historical method. Also, there is significant debate over how much in the bible that is attributed to Jesus, actually are things he said or did.

My question was if Jesus actually existed, I didn't mention anything about miracles etc because I obviously know they would be very difficult to prove historically.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

My question was if Jesus actually existed, I didn't mention anything about miracles etc because I obviously know they would be very difficult to prove historically.

But the thing is, if the person who really existed (if he did) is unrecognisable from the person depicted in the story, can he in fact justifiably be called the same person? Or is he then a fictional character loosely inspired by someone the author knew? Like Sherlock Holmes or Indiana Jones for instance. Both are credited with amazing feats and are loosely based on real people, but we certainly wouldn't claim them to be real people. Same with Jesus. The gospel version might be based on a real person, but can we seriously say that a character presented as a miracle working son of god is actually the same real human being the story was based on? Where do you draw the line?

 

[bhsmte]

My question was if Jesus actually existed, I didn't mention anything about miracles etc because I obviously know they would be very difficult to prove historically.

Miracles are not difficult for a historian to prove, they are impossible to prove.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My question was if Jesus actually existed, I didn't mention anything about miracles etc because I obviously know they would be very difficult to prove historically.

Even as a person he may have not existed.

Even the Gospels are not "eye-witness" accounts. They are all second hand stories at best.

 

[Doveaman]

You translate the photons leaving the sun into sensory input a blind person can use. It is the same thing we do for radiowaves. We translate radiowaves into sound and into wavelengths that we can see. For a blind person we could also use a CCD camera that was attached to a sound system or to a piece of equipment that produced bumps where photons are detected where the height of the bump is determined by the number of photons that hit that pixel during a certain period of time. I could think of many, many ways that we could scientifically prove to a blind person that the Sun exists. Why can't you?

In other words, the blind man has to blindly rely on your manufactured piece of apparatus and blindly rely on your explanation of the results.

Not very convincing. Try again.

We can't see radiowaves, so does that mean they don't exist, or are inexplicable to science?

We can't see God, so does that mean He doesn’t exist, or are inexplicable to human beings?

Sight is not the only sense that can be used.

No kidding.

The fact is that you have zero evidence for anything spiritual.

If only you knew how silly that sounds from our perspective.

It's like a blind man telling a cosmologist he has zero evidence of the sun.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If only you knew how silly that sounds from our perspective.

It's like a blind man telling a cosmologist he has zero evidence of the sun.

You are misinterpreting some of your emotions and feelings, that is all. You are experiencing the same stuff we all experience, you are just slapping a fancy label on some of it ('spirituality') and then claiming it as proof for your completely unrelated and baseless religious beliefs. That is what is happening.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Even as a person he may have not existed.

Even the Gospels are not "eye-witness" accounts. They are all second hand stories at best.

well there are of course other writings that existed apart from the gospels. There are also artefacts. I can't remember what the Jews call them, but it was tradition for the dead to be placed in a tomb until only the bones remained. These would then be moved to a box, and inscribed on. These boxes were placed in catacombs. In the last couple of decades they have become collectors items, I have no idea why people would want to collect such things though. A historian was visiting antique stores and found one such box, and he purchased it at a very low cost. Probably because the storekeeper had no idea of the significance. The inscription read "Jesus, Son of Joseph and Mary, half brother of James". Tests were run on the box and indeed in was coated with chemicals you would expect having been in a cave for many years. The inscription too was made with tools from way back in history and and conformed to the standards of the time.
I wish I could remember more about this, I read it last year some time.

 

[lasthero]

well there are of course other writings that existed apart from the gospels. There are also artefacts. I can't remember what the Jews call them, but it was tradition for the dead to be placed in a tomb until only the bones remained. These would then be moved to a box, and inscribed on. These boxes were placed in catacombs. In the last couple of decades they have become collectors items, I have no idea why people would want to collect such things though. A historian was visiting antique stores and found one such box, and he purchased it at a very low cost. Probably because the storekeeper had no idea of the significance. The inscription read "Jesus, Son of Joseph and Mary, half brother of James". Tests were run on the box and indeed in was coated with chemicals you would expect having been in a cave for many years. The inscription too was made with tools from way back in history and and conformed to the standards of the time.
I wish I could remember more about this, I read it last year some time.

That sounds like an utter load.

 

[Ssup]

well there are of course other writings that existed apart from the gospels. There are also artefacts. I can't remember what the Jews call them, but it was tradition for the dead to be placed in a tomb until only the bones remained. These would then be moved to a box, and inscribed on. These boxes were placed in catacombs. In the last couple of decades they have become collectors items, I have no idea why people would want to collect such things though. A historian was visiting antique stores and found one such box, and he purchased it at a very low cost. Probably because the storekeeper had no idea of the significance. The inscription read "Jesus, Son of Joseph and Mary, half brother of James". Tests were run on the box and indeed in was coated with chemicals you would expect having been in a cave for many years. The inscription too was made with tools from way back in history and and conformed to the standards of the time.
I wish I could remember more about this, I read it last year some time.

It's an Ossuary. And it was James, brother of Jesus, not Jesus brother of James.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That sounds like an utter load.

It was a channel 4 documentary I think. It was interesting but without any dramatic revelations. All we learned was that the names jesus, mary, joseph etc were rather common at the time and that a family group with the right names was buried in a cave/catacomb/whatever at about the right date. It certainly hasn't got the christian world very excited. If anything, they don't want any real artifacts because the minute you pin down some concrete details it all begins to look rather ordinary, mundane and disappointing, as indeed the truth usually is.

edit:

Ssup:

It's an Ossuary. And it was James, brother of Jesus, not Jesus brother of James.

Ah yes, that's right. I remember now. The name were inscribed on the ossuaries.

 

[Ssup]

That sounds like an utter load.

.

On June 18, 2003 the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) published a report concluding that the inscription is a modern forgery based on their analysis of the patina. Specifically, it claimed that the inscription was added in modern times and made to look old by addition of a chalk solution.

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words, the blind man has to blindly rely on your manufactured piece of apparatus and blindly rely on your explanation of the results.

No, they can test the apparatus and the results for accuracy all on their own.

Not very convincing. Try again.

Of course not, you have a dogma to protect so you have to deny the obvious. How do blind people read without the use of sight?

We can't see God, so does that mean He doesn’t exist, or are inexplicable to human beings?

Unlike God, I can present objective evidence that radiowaves and x-rays exist even though we can't see them. So where is the empirical evidence for God?

 

[LastSeven]

A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”) builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind them that sprang into human beings.

From here.

 

[nuttypiglet]

No, they can test the apparatus and the results for accuracy all on their own.



Of course not, you have a dogma to protect so you have to deny the obvious. How do blind people read without the use of sight?



Unlike God, I can present objective evidence that radiowaves and x-rays exist even though we can't see them. So where is the empirical evidence for God?

Have you ever tried to get to know God?

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you ever tried to get to know God?

Yep, for the first 20 or so years of my life. It was through that process that I became an atheist.