Question 3

[non-religious]

Why is there so little information about Jesus outside of scripture? If the claims were true, would we not have a wealth of first century historians informing us of his ministry? Why is there so little?

 

[ianb321red]

Why is there so little information about Jesus outside of scripture? If the claims were true, would we not have a wealth of first century historians informing us of his ministry? Why is there so little?

Do we have more information (than we do about Jesus) for anyone else who lived during the 1st century AD?

Or actually, do we have less non-biblical information about Jesus than we do for anyone else from a similar period of history?

The reason I ask is to give us a frame a reference for the terms "so little information" and "why is there so little", because without making a like-for-like comparison these observations are essentially meaningless and devoid of an accurate context to answer the question..

 

[ebia]

Why is there so little information about Jesus outside of scripture? If the claims were true, would we not have a wealth of first century historians informing us of his ministry? Why is there so little?

Do you realise how sparse non-Christian texts are for that period in that place?

Jesus is better documented than Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the known world at the time of his death.

 

[non-religious]

Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?

 

[ebia]

Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?

China is not comparing like for like; this is a backwater of the Roman Empire and needs to be considered as such. The reality is that events are reported by those who have an agenda for reporting them. If you eliminate the books that have an agenda for talking about anyone you've got pretty much nothing left on anyone. Somebody doing some miracles in Palestine would not have been big international news in 33ad

 

[ianb321red]

Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?

No, I don't really think this is a plausible theory to be honest.

I actually think you're in danger of over stating the impact of early Christianity. Early Christianity was viewed as a Jewish sect. Of course this perception soon stopped once it became known that early Christians were not observing Jewish practices, but the reality is that Christianity was not fully recognised as a religion until it's beliefs and teachings were unified around 325 AD

Bear in mind that some of the NT writings were not written until close to 100 AD, but as Ebia rightly says why would anyone make a particularly big issue about what Jesus was doing in his adult ministry given that at that point no one knew that impact that Christianity would eventually make on world history.

Non biblical evidence for Jesus and his followers exists in sectarian Jewish historical records, along with Greek, Roman and Pagan historical records. Christian historical records agree factually with the aforementioned non-biblical historical records, so we can be sure that the (Christian) evidence we do have for Jesus is indeed accurate.

So while early Christianity still had it's cult like status as a Jewish sect, it really does not warrant a comparison with key figures from the Roman Empire. By the time Christianity developed in to a fully fledged religion separated from Judaism, it teachings and key figures became more well known.

The historical evidence that we DO have that is non-biblical is in reality enough to reflect the status of Christianity at that point in history, as well providing a sufficient means of cross checking the accuracy of the Christian historical record.

 

[ianb321red]

Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?

After I'd written my previous post I came across yesterday an interview with Bart Ehrman where he discussed his new book "Did Jesus Exist?" (see http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602)

Here's the interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt_pyrU8V3U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If you go to 1 minute of the interview between 25:08 – 26:06
Erhman says as follows:

“We have far more evidence about Jesus than we have for almost anybody in the ancient world. There are few exceptions – we know more about Julius Ceasar, Ceasar Augustus or other great political leaders because they were so important. Some of these important figures left their own writings (and Jesus didn’t), but if you simply look at people who are at Jesus’s socio-economic status i.e a lower class peasant in a rural part of the empire, I don’t think there is anybody in the ancient world that even comes close to the amount of evidence we have for Jesus for anyone else”

This is quite interesting coming from Ehrman who in his book "Misquoting Jesus" very much undermined Christian beliefs in the claims of Jesus Christ, because in his new book he is very much supportive of the basic claims of the historicity of Jesus...

 

[ianb321red]

If you honestly think science can only support discoveries made by science you have a lot to learn.

Sorry, wrong conclusion - I'm not saying that

 

[ianb321red]

Proving Jesus was not divine (again, how do you prove a negative?) would not prove that God does not exist.

I'm talking about Arianism here not divinity, so why is it proving a negative?

People a long time before him. Who was Nebuchadnezzar's son?

Name some of them ?

I have just provided evidence. Now let's watch you reject it......

Sorry, I must have missed it - please post me the permalink.

 

[ianb321red]

Charles Thaxton is an intelligent design person. It's not having a different philosophy to me that is the problem, nor being a Christian. There are plenty of reasonable scientists that are also Christians. It is ignoring all of the scientific evidence that causes me to label him that way.

Is that any worse than you ignoring biblical evidence; the kind of evidence that has convinced these scientists?

And to go back to the "nutcase" allegation, do you realise that a difference in a persons core philosophy which cannot be tolerated by someone with an opposing viewpoint is bigotry? I don't hear proponents of ID referred to their opposors as nutcases.....

The main problem is you using a book published in 1984 by a fringe group of scientists and saying it reflects "increasing" evidence of a supernatural creator nearly 30 years later.

Have read any of the other more contemporary that books I've listed in my previous posts then?

I have neither read the Koran or the Bible. I have some basic understanding of the bible from school and some of the stories.

Fair enough.

I don't think I've made up any stories from the bible to discredit it.

No, but if you're discussing Christian issues then it would be quite useful to get your own understanding of them directly from the bible and think it through properly for yourself before engaging with serious debate with other people.
You demonstrating some glaring errors and accusations (such as "most Christians disowned the OT anyways") which could be avoided, because I've no clue where you got this from. Quite simply, none of the NT makes any sense at all without the OT.

I very much doubt Muslims claim that the Koran isn't true or historically accurate. I'm only going on my own personal experience here, so maybe there are Muslims that claim it is untrue and the bible is the truth.

You've previously said that "It's easy to say one book is true if you don't read any others".
And now you've said you've read neither of these books?
So if you've NOT read either book, is it true to say that BOTH are NOT truth..??

To answer your question (very very simply), Islam and Christianity teach opposites on a number of fundamental/ core beliefs. Islam is the only religion in the world which is in direct opposition to Christianity; it is the ONLY religion that contains teaching that directly go against what Christianity teaches - primarily about Jesus.

The law of non-contradiction leaves us with situation where opposites cannot both be true. Christianity teaches Jesus dies on a cross, and Islam teaches that Jesus escaped death and someone else was killed in his place. Christianity teaches that God has a (only begotten) son. Islam teaches teaches that God has no son (la sharika lahu - this is inscribed on the inside of the dome of the Dome of the rock in Jerusalem).

Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. They both could be false, but as a minimum one of these religions MUST be false - this is a logical necessity. Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity) or he did not die(Islam)> He cannot have both died and not died at the same time. If it were not at the same time then we are talking about 2 different people. God either has a son (Christianity) or he does not have a son (Islam) - He cannot both have and not have a son at the same time..

 

[ianb321red]

..

Where's the list?

There might be a bit of overlap with some of these, but here is the list anyway:

(1) Adam and Eve are presented as actual people, (2) the narrative outlines important events in their lives, (3) they gave birth to literal children, (4) the phrase "this is the account of.." is used frequently to record history in Genesis, (5) OT chronology puts Adam at the top of the list, (6) NT chronology puts Adam at the beginning of Jesus' literal ancestors, (7) Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first actual "male and female" (Matt 19:4-5), (8) Paul describes a literal death bought in to the world by a literal Adam (Rom 5:12-14), (9) Adam is called the "first Adam" and Jesus the "last Adam" in 1 Cor 15:45 showing that Adam was seen as a literal historical figure, (10) Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14 mentions when "Adam was first formed, then Eve" showing that he was referring to literal people, the temptation of Eve is mentioned in (11) 1 Tim 2:14 and (12) 2 Cor 11:3 and in both cases described as literal events..

..... (12) The style of Genesis is NOT consistent with Psalms or Proverbs which are both examples of Hebrew poetry, (13) Genesis 2 is part of the creation record and not poetic, (14) the creation element of Genesis has a straightforward historical narrative similar to any other OT historical narrative i.e. using "this is the account of....", (15) NT writers refer to creation events as historical.

 

[tonybeer]

Is that any worse than you ignoring biblical evidence; the kind of evidence that has convinced these scientists?

And to go back to the "nutcase" allegation, do you realise that a difference in a persons core philosophy which cannot be tolerated by someone with an opposing viewpoint is bigotry? I don't hear proponents of ID referred to their opposors as nutcases.....



Have read any of the other more contemporary that books I've listed in my previous posts then?



Fair enough.



No, but if you're discussing Christian issues then it would be quite useful to get your own understanding of them directly from the bible and think it through properly for yourself before engaging with serious debate with other people.
You demonstrating some glaring errors and accusations (such as "most Christians disowned the OT anyways") which could be avoided, because I've no clue where you got this from. Quite simply, none of the NT makes any sense at all without the OT.



You've previously said that "It's easy to say one book is true if you don't read any others".
And now you've said you've read neither of these books?
So if you've NOT read either book, is it true to say that BOTH are NOT truth..??

To answer your question (very very simply), Islam and Christianity teach opposites on a number of fundamental/ core beliefs. Islam is the only religion in the world which is in direct opposition to Christianity; it is the ONLY religion that contains teaching that directly go against what Christianity teaches - primarily about Jesus.

The law of non-contradiction leaves us with situation where opposites cannot both be true. Christianity teaches Jesus dies on a cross, and Islam teaches that Jesus escaped death and someone else was killed in his place. Christianity teaches that God has a (only begotten) son. Islam teaches teaches that God has no son (la sharika lahu - this is inscribed on the inside of the dome of the Dome of the rock in Jerusalem).

Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. They both could be false, but as a minimum one of these religions MUST be false - this is a logical necessity. Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity) or he did not die(Islam)> He cannot have both died and not died at the same time. If it were not at the same time then we are talking about 2 different people. God either has a son (Christianity) or he does not have a son (Islam) - He cannot both have and not have a son at the same time..

Firstly not all types of evidence are born equal. If you claim biblical evidence is the same as scientific evidence then you can equally claim any written account is on a par with scientific evidence.

I am very happy calling someone a nutcase. They have the same right to call me one as I do them. If I were to discriminate against them then that would be different. Proponents of ID might not call people nutcases, but instead they lie, present false evidence, misrepresent their opponents position and destroy young minds which IMHO is far far worse.

I'm only trying to debate the science here. I'm trying to deal with claims in the bible that can actually be tested, not those that cannot. We can't for example know whether Jesus walked on water, however we do know that the order of events in Genesis is incorrect.

As far as the OT goes, I'm only going on the few Christians I know and have spoken to. I'm sure some Christians think it's great that God was so immoral in the OT and believe talking snakes went around informing humans of their dinner choices.

Neither the bible nor the Koran say man evolved. I don't need to read the whole of either book to know that neither say man evolved nor the universe formed in the way it did.

I'm not trying to say the whole of either book is untrue. I'm simply looking at the parts scientists know are not literally true.

Your last point I agree with!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There might be a bit of overlap with some of these, but here is the list anyway:

(1) Adam and Eve are presented as actual people, (2) the narrative outlines important events in their lives, (3) they gave birth to literal children, (4) the phrase "this is the account of.." is used frequently to record history in Genesis, (5) OT chronology puts Adam at the top of the list, (6) NT chronology puts Adam at the beginning of Jesus' literal ancestors, (7) Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first actual "male and female" (Matt 19:4-5), (8) Paul describes a literal death bought in to the world by a literal Adam (Rom 5:12-14), (9) Adam is called the "first Adam" and Jesus the "last Adam" in 1 Cor 15:45 showing that Adam was seen as a literal historical figure, (10) Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14 mentions when "Adam was first formed, then Eve" showing that he was referring to literal people, the temptation of Eve is mentioned in (11) 1 Tim 2:14 and (12) 2 Cor 11:3 and in both cases described as literal events..

1+2. Same can be said for Harry Potter, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes etc etc ad nauseam. That is not a reason to believe they exist.
3. I'd be fascinated to know what sort of children you think they would have given birth to if this were just a story.
4. That may mean the author honestly believed it to be true but it doesn't make the claims any more or less correct.
5+6. And? If Adam was the first human he'd be at the top of everyone's genealogy, so what is the point of this lineage? Common descent is inevitable - we all share common ancestry and just claiming it is Adam and Eve from Genesis does not make it true.
7-11. Can you show me any example of a religious text which part way through says "The history presented in the first part of this book is erroneous"? Self-supporting texts mean nothing in terms of veracity of the claims made.

..... (12) The style of Genesis is NOT consistent with Psalms or Proverbs which are both examples of Hebrew poetry, (13) Genesis 2 is part of the creation record and not poetic, (14) the creation element of Genesis has a straightforward historical narrative similar to any other OT historical narrative i.e. using "this is the account of....", (15) NT writers refer to creation events as historical.[/quote]
12-15. Same as point 4.

In summary, 10 of your reasons rely on the books of the bible being self-supporting, and the other 5 are really a single point -writing style shows that the text in Genesis is meant as historical narrative. So boiled down even further we have:

a) The bible makes the claim Adam was the first human and then refers back to this claim multiple times.
b) The first claim, on which all the others rely, should be taken literally.

That's hardly 15 examples of compelling evidence, is it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sorry, wrong conclusion - I'm not saying that

It's certainly what you've implied. What are you saying?

Name some of them ?

Why more than one? Your claim is that there has never been a single error found in the bible so a single person would meet that requirement. In fairness, I actually have no idea who was the first person to point out that Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son and not actually king, but it was someone long before Dawkins.

Now, perhaps you'd care to show how that is not an error in the bible?

 

[Danny777]

Proponents of ID might not call people nutcases, but instead they lie, present false evidence, misrepresent their opponents position and destroy young minds which IMHO is far far worse.

I'm only trying to debate the science here. I'm trying to deal with claims in the bible that can actually be tested, not those that cannot. We can't for example know whether Jesus walked on water, however we do know that the order of events in Genesis is incorrect.

Hi Tony...

Can you explain how being a proponent of ID is to "destroy young minds"?

Also, can you present me with evidence that proves the order of events in Genesis is incorrect?

Thanks...

 

[ianb321red]

In summary, 10 of your reasons rely on the books of the bible being self-supporting, and the other 5 are really a single point -writing style shows that the text in Genesis is meant as historical narrative.

I think this is the point I was trying to make originally though. The very fact that NT writers refer back to OT accounts of events is because they believed they were true and literal historical events.

Jesus referred to Jonah in Matt 12:39:41 which is a clear sign that He accepted this account to be true literally:

"He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here."

The bible is self supporting in way that (for example) NT writers refer back to OT events as FACT not fable - and this in itself is one test for internal consistency. This would not be the case if the account of Adam and Eve (and Noah/ Jonah and so on) was held by NT writers to be allegorical or poetic.

So really the question is why were the NT writers able to understand OT scriptures correctly (i.e. literally where relevant) to others - or at least others holding an allegorical/ poetical understanding...?

 

[ianb321red]

Firstly not all types of evidence are born equal. If you claim biblical evidence is the same as scientific evidence then you can equally claim any written account is on a par with scientific evidence.

No - because biblical evidence is simply not comparable to "any written evidence". This is not a like-for-like comparison.
My previous point was that there are scientists that hold true to a belief in science and a belief in God. These people have the ability to discern and choose the appropriate evidence from a range of sources to justify what they believe. These people aren't any less of a scientist than those scientists that hold a non-theistic viewpoint.
The allegation of ignoring evidence simply doesn't hold up to even the basic level of scrutiny when you investigate the credentials of any number of scientists who are theistic - both their scientific credentials as well as their theological credentials; these people on the face of things seem to be far from ignoring any evidence - quite the opposite in fact....

I am very happy calling someone a nutcase. They have the same right to call me one as I do them. If I were to discriminate against them then that would be different. Proponents of ID might not call people nutcases, but instead they lie, present false evidence, misrepresent their opponents position and destroy young minds which IMHO is far far worse.

Conjecture regarding destroying young minds. People should be given the choice to decide for themselves what to believe, not inculcated in to accepting the "correct scientific theory".

Tell Danny about the lies and false evidence..

As far as the OT goes, I'm only going on the few Christians I know and have spoken to. I'm sure some Christians think it's great that God was so immoral in the OT and believe talking snakes went around informing humans of their dinner choices.

Ok, so if you don't like or struggle to understand something in the bible, then the best policy is to reject it rather than study it? The bible is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. I fail to see how anyone can be a serious Christian if they reject the OT. Unless you understand Genesis 3 how on earth does Mark 15:21-32 make any sense?

Neither the bible nor the Koran say man evolved. I don't need to read the whole of either book to know that neither say man evolved nor the universe formed in the way it did.

Ok, but Tony think about when both respective books were written and when the theory of evolution was actually popularised by Darwin!

Obviously neither book mentions that mankind evolved. Why should they? they are both religious texts, not scientific papers. The plain and honest answer about evolution is that the bible does not tell us anything about it. It's Christians choosing to fit or not fit evolution theory in to the bible, not the other way round!!

 

[tonybeer]

I don't see why the bible gets elevated above any other historical document. It should be treated the same way any other ancient text is. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

No Christian scientist has ever found any scientific evidence that shows there is a God. They would have real incentive to as 1. They'd get a Nobel prize and become very rich and famous and 2. It would vindicate their beliefs.

Yes children should be taught to understand how to deal with evidence and how to decide what is true or not. However children do not always have the ability to do this. I know that when I was say 8 years old I would have believed anything a teacher told me. Thankfully as an adult I know how to determine if something is real or not. Many, many adults cannot do this however. Look at the numbers that believe in astrology/mediums/ghosts/Aliens/Moon landing conspiracy etc.

The bible doesn't make any sense! If the idea of the bible is God giving man instructions as to how to live their lives it was an incredibly poor way of doing it. If I read the bible literally I'm misunderstanding it? There's definitely a talking snake in there. Who decides whether I'm misunderstanding it or not?

On your last point, the problem is the books claim something different to evolution. If they said no one knows that would be fine and honest. However it talks about man being made from dirt etc etc.

 

[Robban]

Most probably there are as many "talking snakes" as there are people on this planet, considering the evil inclination that we are all born with.

 

[tonybeer]

Hi Tony...

Can you explain how being a proponent of ID is to "destroy young minds"?

Also, can you present me with evidence that proves the order of events in Genesis is incorrect?

Thanks...

I'm referring to the school cases in America where creationists try to teach ID in schools as science. It is not science and is dishonest.

I won't go through all of Genesis but one to start with: God makes the Earth before the stars.

The Earth is 4.5ish billion years old. Our sun slightly older. [astro-ph/0204331] The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS

There are some stars that are much much older.

A nearby star has been measured at 13.2 billion years old. [astro-ph/0703414] Discovery of HE 1523-0901, a Strongly r-Process Enhanced Metal-Poor Star with Detected Uranium

Lots of the orders of animals/plants etc is wrong too, and this is measured using different types of radioactive dating methods.