The Demise of Evolution

[Kylie]

How do you know they aren't reliable, as they pertain to whether or not Jesus existed? Beyond simply not knowing the names of who authored them?

The fact that they weren't written until several decades AFTER the events described, the fact that they appear to be copies and/or based off a single source document, the fact that they contradict each other...

 

[Strathos]

The fact that they weren't written until several decades AFTER the events described, the fact that they appear to be copies and/or based off a single source document, the fact that they contradict each other...

If they are copies, that means there were originals that existed beforehand, during the contemporary time.

 

[Job 33:6]

The fact that they weren't written until several decades AFTER the events described, the fact that they appear to be copies and/or based off a single source document, the fact that they contradict each other...

The book of Mark is suggested to have been written by 65 AD, which means Josephus would have been in his 30s.

James, brother of Jesus is said to have been executed by 62AD. Josephus again would have been some 30+ years old and his works came out perhaps just 30 years later.

We aren't talking about multiple generations here, these historians were living at the same time as the apostles.

I didn't witness the Vietnam or gulf wars first hand, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a credible source on whether or not they occurred simply because I wasn't there to experience them first hand, or simply because I wrote about them 30 years after they occurred.

Remember, Jesus was just a nobody rebel carpenter with some fisherman followers. There is no reason to believe Josephus or Tacitus or the historians that perhaps taught them or raised them, would have even cared about Jesus during his ministry. Nobody of course would care to have written about Jesus until after he was executed, and that's what we see. Within a single generation after the alleged execution of Jesus, we have the apostles generating their gospels, and a Jewish and Roman historians talking about it, which is just what we would expect.

Also, remember further that, given that Jesus was hypothetically just a carpenter, he would have had a hired professional scribes with him during his ventures. So there is no reason to believe that anyone necessarily would have written down his history as it was unfolding, no more than is the case for you or I.

And while it is true that even the gospels sometimes contradict one another, it is also true that in many cases, the gospels tell the same stories, and mention the same people. The same people who also happen to be spoken of by these historians.

 

[Kylie]

If they are copies, that means there were originals that existed beforehand, during the contemporary time.

No it doesn't. We don't have the original document, so we can't say when it existed.

 

[Strathos]

No it doesn't. We don't have the original document, so we can't say when it existed.

It obviously existed before the copies did. Unless you're suggesting time travel or something.

 

[Kylie]

The book of Mark is suggested to have been written by 65 AD, which means Josephus would have been in his 30s.

Which means that the author was writing about things that happened thirty years previously.

James, brother of Jesus is said to have been executed by 62AD. Josephus again would have been some 30+ years old and his works came out perhaps just 30 years later.

Again, this was writing about events that had happened thirty years previously.

We aren't talking about multiple generations here, these historians were living at the same time as the apostles.

But no evidence that they actually SPOKE to the apostles.

I didn't witness the Vietnam or gulf wars first hand, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a credible source on whether or not they occurred simply because I wasn't there to experience them first hand, or simply because I wrote about them 30 years after they occurred.

No, but your work would be laughed at if you didn't use contemporaneous sources or speak to eyewitnesses. Do you have evidence that Josephus did that?

Remember, Jesus was just a nobody rebel carpenter with some fisherman followers. There is no reason to believe Josephus or Tacitus or the historians that perhaps taught them or raised them, would have even cared about Jesus during his ministry. Nobody of course would care to have written about Jesus until after he was executed, and that's what we see. Within a single generation after the alleged execution of Jesus, we have the apostles generating their gospels, and a Jewish and Roman historians talking about it, which is just what we would expect.

Let's not also forget that Jesus was big enough to gather huge crowds. And when Jesus died, dead saints were said to have risen from their graves. With events like these, you'd think there'd be SOME record of it from the time it actually happened! But instead, nobody seems to get the idea to write anything down about it until thirty years LATER!

Also, remember further that, given that Jesus was hypothetically just a carpenter, he would have had a hired professional scribes with him during his ventures. So there is no reason to believe that anyone necessarily would have written down his history as it was unfolding, no more than is the case for you or I.

So Jesus would have had a scribe, and yet you say this scribe would NOT have written down anything at the time?

And while it is true that even the gospels sometimes contradict one another, it is also true that in many cases, the gospels tell the same stories, and mention the same people. The same people who also happen to be spoken of by these historians.

So? That doesn't prove it's true.

 

[Kylie]

It obviously existed before the copies did. Unless you're suggesting time travel or something.

That doesn't mean it was written at the time of the events being described.

 

[Strathos]

That doesn't mean it was written at the time of the events being described.

The earliest copies are already only a few decades off. If they are copied from earlier records, I'd say that makes it close enough.

 

[Speedwell]

The earliest copies are already only a few decades off. If they are copied from earlier records, I'd say that makes it close enough.

How do you know they were copied from anything? The Gospels were composed, not copied.. Mark's 30 or 40 years after the supposed date Crucifixion from a variety of unknown sources, Matthew and Luke another 20 years on and based on Mark and other unidentified sources. The Gospel of John reached its final form about the turn of the century and the author appears to have known of the Gospels of Mark and Luke although whether he relied upon them significantly for source material is unclear. To regard the Gospels as copies of eyewitness accounts is fatuous.

 

[Kylie]

The earliest copies are already only a few decades off. If they are copied from earlier records, I'd say that makes it close enough.

I don't share that "close enough is good enough" idea, particularly when it comes to something as important as this.

 

[Kylie]

How do you know they were copied from anything? The Gospels were composed, not copied.. Mark's 30 or 40 years after the supposed date Crucifixion from a variety of unknown sources, Matthew and Luke another 20 years on and based on Mark and other unidentified sources. The Gospel of John reached its final form about the turn of the century and the author appears to have known of the Gospels of Mark and Luke although whether he relied upon them significantly for source material is unclear. To regard the Gospels as copies of eyewitness accounts is fatuous.

We're talking about the Q source. Q source - Wikipedia

 

[Strathos]

I don't share that "close enough is good enough" idea, particularly when it comes to something as important as this.

Well that's just because you don't have faith.

 

[Kylie]

Well that's just because you don't have faith.

That seems to be rather circular.

You need to have faith that it supports the thing you have faith in.

Sounds to me like it's just lowering your standards for what constitutes valid evidence simply because it tells you what you want to hear.

 

[Strathos]

That seems to be rather circular.

You need to have faith that it supports the thing you have faith in.

Sounds to me like it's just lowering your standards for what constitutes valid evidence simply because it tells you what you want to hear.

Obviously you wouldn't understand.

 

[Kylie]

Obviously you wouldn't understand.

If you could produce a rational argument for it, yes I would.

Please don't try to paint ahteists as being unreasonable just because they want more evidence than can be provided.

 

[Strathos]

If you could produce a rational argument for it, yes I would.

Please don't try to paint ahteists as being unreasonable just because they want more evidence than can be provided.

'For those who disbelieve, no explanation is possible. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary'.

 

[Kylie]

'For those who disbelieve, no explanation is possible. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary'.

That sounds exactly like what you'd get if you were trying to justify belief in something that isn't real.

For those who already believe in the thing that isn't real, no explanation is necessary, because they already believe. You don't need to try to convince someone who is already convinced.

But when it comes to those who do not believe, no explanation is possible, because there is no way to show the existence of something if that thing is not real.

What you are talking about is entirely consistent with an imaginary deity.

 

[Strathos]

That just proves what I said - you wouldn't understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

That just proves what I said - you wouldn't understand.

But thats a belief and not rational.

Rational ideas can be explained.

 

[Strathos]

But thats a belief and not rational.

Rational ideas can be explained.

Consider it what you want to.