The Demise of Evolution

[VirOptimus]

Consider it what you want to.

No, thats not "my consideration", thats how things work.

 

[Kylie]

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

I understand completely. You have a belief, and you think your belief is correct, despite the lack of any objective or verifiable evidence to support it. And when I point out that your belief can't be explained rationally, you say that I can't understand. I don't lack understanding, I just don't think abandoning rationality to believe in something simply because I want to believe in it is a good idea.

 

[Strathos]

I understand completely. You have a belief, and you think your belief is correct, despite the lack of any objective or verifiable evidence to support it. And when I point out that your belief can't be explained rationally, you say that I can't understand. I don't lack understanding, I just don't think abandoning rationality to believe in something simply because I want to believe in it is a good idea.

With this post, you have just demonstrated that you don't understand.

 

[Speedwell]

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

Yes, I know. But I'm not convinced of the Q source, not as a single document, anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

With this post, you have just demonstrated that you don't understand.

Understand what? We are not, so far as I know, discussing the truth of the Christian faith itself, but the extent to which the Bible and other sources constitute reliable documentary evidence of Jesus. That is a rational question which requires a rational answer.

 

[Job 33:6]

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



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



But no evidence that they actually SPOKE to the apostles.



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?



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!



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



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

30 years just isn't a long time. If we were talking about 100 years difference, I might view this as a significant response. But these figures, the authors of the gospels, Josephus and even Tacitus, lived at the same time.

Not only did they live at the same time, but Josephus in particular, would have been some 30 years old as the book of mark was written, which as discussed above, is simply a copy of a previous document anyway.

20 years is the difference, roughly, between today and 9/11. Who here remembers 9/11? Everyone? I remember watching it on TV quite clearly. And that's only 11 years off from 30 years ago. We aren't talking about a grand span of time here.

And there is this response that there is no evidence that Josephus spoke to apostles. What would apostles say that would be different than what any other source/follower of Jesus had potentially said? I don't think it really matters who Josephus specifically spoke to (among followers of Jesus), moreso than it matters what the porminent ideas were that were circulating at the time (and why these ideas were widely circulating). The why, of course being that the Christian movement was spurred by significant historical events (significant to followers of Christ at least).

Josephus makes reference of historical figures outside of Jesus as well, that are also referenced in the Bible. Which means is that, whether precise in details or not, the Bible to some degree, is giving an historical account of events/people/places of that time. Josephus also speaks of events, such as the death of James brother of Jesus, that isn't within the Bible. So it's not even necessarily a case where Josephus is simply copying scripture.

You asked if there was evidence of if Josephus used contemporaneous sources. But of course, Josephus himself was contemporaneous, particularly to James, brother of Jesus and the authorship of the Gospels and of course of the apostles themselves. Josephus is present in time and space to these immediate Christian followers and historical figures of the Bible.

Was Josephus an eye witness? People don't have to be first-hand eye witnesses to be credible sources on things. I mentioned 9/11 earlier. Was I in New York? No, but I can still be a credible source on something even if I didn't witness it first hand.

You mentioned that when Jesus died, dead saints were said to have risen from their graves, and that someone should have noticed this and immediately written about it. Well first off, perhaps they did. Given that the Gospels themselves are copies of prior writings.

But, beyond this, The historicity of James brother of Jesus, and John the Baptist, and Jesus himself, dont need to be miraculous in nature. Jesus could have hypothetically been no different than David koresh of the dividends and these figures could very well have still been real without necessarily having miracles associated with them. This idea about saints rising and people rushing to their tablets is really just a strawman.

And regarding your second to last point, what I meant to say is that because Jesus was a carpenter, he likely would not have had his own personal scribe. Pardon the typo.

If he was just a carpenter and his followers were just fishermen and the poor and outcasts of society, We would not expect there to have been professional scribes following Jesus around.

At best we would simply expect the apostles to get together sometime after his death to write about him. Which just so happens to be what we see with the gospels and other numerous books of the Bible. For simple math, if Jesus died in 30 AD, and the book of mark was completed (not started but completed) by 60AD, and there were even a source Q before Mark. We really can't ask for much more from followers of Jesus than to finalize books of scripture within 30 years of his death (which again isn't particularly long at all).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

30 years just isn't a long time. If we were talking about 100 years difference, I might view this as a significant response. But these figures, the authors of the gospels, Josephus and even Tacitus, lived at the same time.

Not only did they live at the same time, but Josephus in particular, would have been some 30 years old as the book of mark was written, which as discussed above, is simply a copy of a previous document anyway.

20 years is the difference, roughly, between today and 9/11. Who here remembers 9/11? Everyone? I remember watching it on TV quite clearly. And that's only 11 years off from 30 years ago. We aren't talking about a grand span of time here.

I suspect you don't remember clearly watching events on TV, but you think you do. You've also, no doubt, watched the events a number of times since then, so your memory of 9/11 is not from a single viewing, it's been reinforced many times. Memories are odd like that. You're making the mistake of comparing reporting on modern media to ancient "reporting". If I asked you to describe, in detail, what you did and said on July 5th 2008 I doubt you'd have much of a story. I have memories from 30 years ago, but I'm not silly enough to say they're perfect, and I have no doubt I've embellished them over the years without any ulterior motive. We all know that eye witnesses are notoriously prone to error. Why would the apostles be any different?

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with much of Kylie's argument. But your counter argument is not as strong as you think it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suspect you don't remember clearly watching events on TV, but you think you do. You've also, no doubt, watched the events a number of times since then, so your memory of 9/11 is not from a single viewing, it's been reinforced many times. Memories are odd like that. You're making the mistake of comparing reporting on modern media to ancient "reporting". If I asked you to describe, in detail, what you did and said on July 5th 2008 I doubt you'd have much of a story. I have memories from 30 years ago, but I'm not silly enough to say they're perfect, and I have no doubt I've embellished them over the years without any ulterior motive. We all know that eye witnesses are notoriously prone to error. Why would the apostles be any different?

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with much of Kylie's argument. But your counter argument is not as strong as you think it is.

I recently watched a YouTube video on memory and it claimed that studies had shown that when we remember things that we are remembering remembering. Very often when we remember something our minds edit the memory slightly. A person that obsesses on an event often have a faulty memory of that event as a result. In thirty years memories of Jesus could have changed quite a bit without any dishonesty of those that remembered him.

EDIT: The video that I watched, quite interesting:

 

[Kylie]

With this post, you have just demonstrated that you don't understand.

You've given nothing to understand. Just a slogan.

 

[Kylie]

30 years just isn't a long time. If we were talking about 100 years difference, I might view this as a significant response. But these figures, the authors of the gospels, Josephus and even Tacitus, lived at the same time.

Not only did they live at the same time, but Josephus in particular, would have been some 30 years old as the book of mark was written, which as discussed above, is simply a copy of a previous document anyway.

20 years is the difference, roughly, between today and 9/11. Who here remembers 9/11? Everyone? I remember watching it on TV quite clearly. And that's only 11 years off from 30 years ago. We aren't talking about a grand span of time here.

How accurately could you write about the fall of the Berlin Wall from memory?

And there is this response that there is no evidence that Josephus spoke to apostles. What would apostles say that would be different than what any other source/follower of Jesus had potentially said? I don't think it really matters who Josephus specifically spoke to (among followers of Jesus), moreso than it matters what the porminent ideas were that were circulating at the time (and why these ideas were widely circulating). The why, of course being that the Christian movement was spurred by significant historical events (significant to followers of Christ at least).

For a start, it would at least show that the apostles were real, and he'd be getting his information first hand. As it is, at best, Joe was getting information from people who hadn't experienced it but were just told stories. That's hearsay, nothing more.

Josephus makes reference of historical figures outside of Jesus as well, that are also referenced in the Bible. Which means is that, whether precise in details or not, the Bible to some degree, is giving an historical account of events/people/places of that time. Josephus also speaks of events, such as the death of James brother of Jesus, that isn't within the Bible. So it's not even necessarily a case where Josephus is simply copying scripture.

Such as who? Are there any non-Biblical sources for these figures, I wonder?

You asked if there was evidence of if Josephus used contemporaneous sources. But of course, Josephus himself was contemporaneous, particularly to James, brother of Jesus and the authorship of the Gospels and of course of the apostles themselves. Josephus is present in time and space to these immediate Christian followers and historical figures of the Bible.

Thirty years later is not contemporaneous.

Would you say that a book written about the fall of the Berlin Wall today is contemporaneous to the events?

Was Josephus an eye witness? People don't have to be first-hand eye witnesses to be credible sources on things. I mentioned 9/11 earlier. Was I in New York? No, but I can still be a credible source on something even if I didn't witness it first hand.

True, but that's because 9/11 was plastered all over every TV screen on the planet for a month. Such widespread dissemination of information just wasn't a thing back in Jesus' time.

You mentioned that when Jesus died, dead saints were said to have risen from their graves, and that someone should have noticed this and immediately written about it. Well first off, perhaps they did. Given that the Gospels themselves are copies of prior writings.

And amazingly, no records at all exist of this event. Despite the fact that some official should have seen it and made a note of it.

But, beyond this, The historicity of James brother of Jesus, and John the Baptist, and Jesus himself, dont need to be miraculous in nature. Jesus could have hypothetically been no different than David koresh of the dividends and these figures could very well have still been real without necessarily having miracles associated with them. This idea about saints rising and people rushing to their tablets is really just a strawman.

Why do you think there would be no one writing about Jesus if he was just another charismatic cult leader?

And regarding your second to last point, what I meant to say is that because Jesus was a carpenter, he likely would not have had his own personal scribe. Pardon the typo.

If he was just a carpenter and his followers were just fishermen and the poor and outcasts of society, We would not expect there to have been professional scribes following Jesus around.

Forgiven.

But given that Jesus allegedly drew crowds of hundreds, he wasn't "just a carpenter," and it's likely that someone there would have either written it down or spoken of it to someone who could have written it down.

At best we would simply expect the apostles to get together sometime after his death to write about him. Which just so happens to be what we see with the gospels and other numerous books of the Bible. For simple math, if Jesus died in 30 AD, and the book of mark was completed (not started but completed) by 60AD, and there were even a source Q before Mark. We really can't ask for much more from followers of Jesus than to finalize books of scripture within 30 years of his death (which again isn't particularly long at all).

It doesn't take thirty years to write a book, particularly one as short as the gospels.

 

[Job 33:6]

How accurately could you write about the fall of the Berlin Wall from memory?

For a start, it would at least show that the apostles were real, and he'd be getting his information first hand. As it is, at best, Joe was getting information from people who hadn't experienced it but were just told stories. That's hearsay, nothing more.

Such as who? Are there any non-Biblical sources for these figures, I wonder?

Thirty years later is not contemporaneous.

Would you say that a book written about the fall of the Berlin Wall today is contemporaneous to the events?

True, but that's because 9/11 was plastered all over every TV screen on the planet for a month. Such widespread dissemination of information just wasn't a thing back in Jesus' time.

And amazingly, no records at all exist of this event. Despite the fact that some official should have seen it and made a note of it.

Why do you think there would be no one writing about Jesus if he was just another charismatic cult leader?

Forgiven.

But given that Jesus allegedly drew crowds of hundreds, he wasn't "just a carpenter," and it's likely that someone there would have either written it down or spoken of it to someone who could have written it down.

It doesn't take thirty years to write a book, particularly one as short as the gospels.

I could easily write about the Berlin Wall from memory.

Remember, I don't have to write a detailed research paper, simply to be a credible reference to the mere existence of the Berlin Wall or it's fall.

Josephus wouldn't have to personally interview James, brother of Jesus, to be a credible source on if he exists. No more than I would have to interview former president Clinton, to know that he exists.

You ask for non-biblical sources for people that Josephus references. Josephus is a non-biblical source himself, in that he discussed concepts not included in scripture, with respect to the apostle James, brother of Jesus.

And yes, I would say that the fall of the Berlin Wall is contemporaneous, or is of the same period of time, as today. People even here in this discussion, have witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall, granted, we have watched it over tv. But the point is that Josephus was alive, and an adult, as the gospels were being finalized. He wasn't living in some other century, he was living as these events (the execution of the apostle James, and the completion of the gospels) were unfolding.

It's not like Josephus showed up 100 years later and started seeking out details. He really could not have been any closer in time, with respect to non-biblical sources.

And you mentioned being surprised that there aren't Roman historians who detailed the crucifixion. But remember, Jesus was just a carpenter. It's not like the collapse of the Roman empire. There really isn't reason to believe that hordes of scribes would have been flocking to watch the execution of a carpenter who had some poor fisherman followers. It is even said that some denounced Jesus and hid in fear, as he was taken to be executed (reference to Peter). The apostles in some fashion, scattered.

According to scripture, the Romans largely didn't even recognize who Jesus was. They would have had the most professional historians with them. But there really isn't any reason for them to write about any random figure that pops up with followers, no more than any of us really pays attention to such things today. Consider the idea that nobody would know who David koresh is, had there not been a mass suicide. Realistically.

In scripture, even the apostles themselves weren't even understanding of who Jesus ultimately was determined to be by later Christians. They simply observed his teachings and followed him. And whether there were truly thousands of followers, or hundreds, or if it were perhaps just 20 or 30, we will never truly know.

And for those who did believe of the Christians who followed, of course they passed word via oral tradition and wouldn't necessarily keep written records of him anyway. Early followers of Jesus believed, but we're divided without scripture. Hence why Paul wrote his various letters, to unite various Christian communities.

And as far as the gospels being short, theyre actually packed with a great amount of detail on Jesus. I mentioned this before, but these are concepts related to who he was, where he went (towns and cities that exist), when he was doing things at certain times of the year, who he had conversations with, why he traveled to certain areas. It's really explicit. I wouldn't consider 30 years particularly long in completing the book of mark, given that even immediately after Jesus died, people may not have been rushing to write things down, and given that the book of mark is further still said to be a copy of a pre existing source.

And obviously many details cannot be confirmed. We don't know who told Josephus about the apostle James. Or if Josephus met the apostle James. We don't know who he met or talked to. We don't know how Josephus got the idea that James was executed (which isn't in the Bible).

We don't know what happened that stirred early Christians to begin writing the gospels. Nor do we even know when the apostles began writing those gospels.

Same with Tacitus. As far as we know, he was a credible Roman historian. He was under the impression that Jesus was a real figure who was crucified. Someone could argue well, maybe Tacitus was fooled too and wasn't actually a credible Roman historian, and maybe Tacitus copied history from Christians whom he hated? Well anyway...

And someone could doubt that the apostles existed, including James, brother of Jesus. And we could suggest that Josephus and tacitus just trusted in people who lied to them or simply didn't know any better.

But i think it's much more feasible to simply conclude that these religious leaders, be them Jesus or the apostles or John the Baptist, of them, some, if not all, probably existed. I think it's more feasible to suggest that these people in some fashion, did in fact live and that these Jewish and Roman historians and the several writers behind the gospels, were not all mistaken. Perhaps some, but doubtful that all were.

It should also be noted that the New Testament itself also is a large compilation of individual books and letters by individual authors. So even the new testament itself is a testament to what was going on in these times.

And to say that there was no Jesus, or that there werent even apostles, and that these historians that are otherwise considered credible were all just mistaken, personally, i think is a stretch.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suspect you don't remember clearly watching events on TV, but you think you do. You've also, no doubt, watched the events a number of times since then, so your memory of 9/11 is not from a single viewing, it's been reinforced many times. Memories are odd like that. You're making the mistake of comparing reporting on modern media to ancient "reporting". If I asked you to describe, in detail, what you did and said on July 5th 2008 I doubt you'd have much of a story. I have memories from 30 years ago, but I'm not silly enough to say they're perfect, and I have no doubt I've embellished them over the years without any ulterior motive. We all know that eye witnesses are notoriously prone to error. Why would the apostles be any different?

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with much of Kylie's argument. But your counter argument is not as strong as you think it is.

Well, I never said my memories of 9/11 were perfect. I'm simply saying that you can actually trust me, if I were to tell you that such a disaster occurred.

Nobody is asking Josephus or Tacitus, or the apostles or their respective gospels, to give a 100% detailed and credible account of Jesus' life.

All I'm saying is that collectively, the numerous letters and gospels of the Bible (written by several independent authors), these texts and books and references to Jesus (multiple references by Josephus, Tacitus, and even potential references by others who were simply describing Christian rebels), and/or references to James brother of Jesus, and/or John the Baptist...

Collectively, i think that this suggests that some of these figures if not all, in some fashion, were actually real people (most likely). As opposed to the alternative that all of these independent writers, Josephus a Jewish historian and Tacitus, a Roman historian, were all just incorrect and following some hypothetical pre existing fables.

And I'm not even making an argument that Jesus was God with any of the above. But I sincerely think that what we have, and people don't have to agree with me, but I am actually surprised and impressed by the amount of literature that we have on these alledged historical figures, to the extent that I would be in no way surprised, if Jesus actually did exist.

And I'm also not sure that an alternative, that...these historians that are generally considered credible were wrong, and that the very very explicit details of Jesus in scripture, were just...made up, makes any sense.

Sure, maybe the 5000 loaves or the healing of the blind and the sick, or the exorcisms are a stretch in scripture. But when scripture gets into fine details, and expounds on them and provides great quantity in independent "accounts" of Jesus, I think that collectively, this is compelling.

And it's not even hard to imagine these things. People allegedly perform exorcisms and heal the blind today (just turn on some evangelism tv show). And sure those are a stretch of the imagination. But is it really a stretch to suggest that a man, who claimed to do these things, actually did exist, and actually did have followers and actually did inspire the Christian movement? I think it's a given that yes, the man was probably real.

Do I have a time machine to confirm? No, but I certainly would not be surprised in the slightest.

 

[eleos1954]

As long as satan is free, evolution will be believed along with other scientific lies.

oh so very true! Theories on many things being accepted as "fact".

Nothing wrong with having theories to pursue idea(s) about something ... and science is important ... much is discovered ... also true much is theory and will remain so ... especially in regard to the origin of life.

It is agreed (by the scientific community and the faith community) whatever happened for life to begin ... happened out in the cosmos .... the cosmos is so vast (enormous) it's not all observable (very little actually), testable, much less repeatable and never will be.

What percentage of the universe is observable?

4 percent - at best (different theories on this of course)

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter.May 12, 2011

so ... the controversy goes on ;o)

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh so very true! Theories on many things being accepted as "fact".

Why does the fact of evolution bother you so much? Evolution has nothing to do with Satan, it is merely how life got to the state that we see today. The problem for Christians with denying evolution is that there is so much evidence for it that God would have had to purposefully and continually planted false evidence. Denying evolution amounts to calling God a liar. Think of it, does it make more sense that your God lies and plants false evidence, or maybe, just maybe, your literal interpretation of Genesis might be werong?

Nothing wrong with having theories to pursue idea(s) about something ... and science is important ... much is discovered ... also true much is theory and will remain so ... especially in regard to the origin of life.

It is agreed (by the scientific community and the faith community) whatever happened for life to begin ... happened out in the cosmos .... the cosmos is so vast (enormous) it's not all observable (very little actually), testable, much less repeatable and never will be.

Umm, no. Life is thought to have originated on Earth. Where do you get the idea that it happened somewhere out in the cosmos from?

What percentage of the universe is observable?

4 percent - at best (different theories on this of course)

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter.May 12, 2011

so ... the controversy goes on ;o)

What controversy?

 

[d taylor]

oh so very true! Theories on many things being accepted as "fact".

Nothing wrong with having theories to pursue idea(s) about something ... and science is important ... much is discovered ... also true much is theory and will remain so ... especially in regard to the origin of life.

It is agreed (by the scientific community and the faith community) whatever happened for life to begin ... happened out in the cosmos .... the cosmos is so vast (enormous) it's not all observable (very little actually), testable, much less repeatable and never will be.

What percentage of the universe is observable?

4 percent - at best (different theories on this of course)

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter.May 12, 2011

so ... the controversy goes on ;o)

You are taking to(actually writing) a flat earther, who does not believe science over the Bible. So if science does not line up with the Bible (about God's creation) 100% i reject it (that is science descriptions/theories about creation ).

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are taking to(actually writing) a flat earther, who does not believe science over the Bible. So if science does not line up with the Bible (about God's creation) 100% i reject it (that is science descriptions/theories about creation ).

Are you interested in learning why we know that you are wrong?

 

[Speedwell]

You are taking to(actually writing) a flat earther, who does not believe science over the Bible. So if science does not line up with the Bible (about God's creation) 100% i reject it (that is science descriptions/theories about creation ).

There are actually three possibilities:
1. Science is wrong.
2. The Bible is wrong.
3. Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

 

[eleos1954]

You are taking to(actually writing) a flat earther, who does not believe science over the Bible. So if science does not line up with the Bible (about God's creation) 100% i reject it (that is science descriptions/theories about creation ).

I agreed with your answer that evolution will never go away and added (maybe shouldn't have) refuting typical evolutionists thinking/responses in general (not in regard to your statement) ... and I understood your position .... sorry if I caused confusion in that regard.

 

[Gene2memE]

Nothing wrong with having theories to pursue idea(s) about something ...

The important part about having theories is to test them to discover whether they match reality or not. Because, in the hard sciences, a negative can be just as important as a positive.

and science is important ... much is discovered ... also true much is theory and will remain so ... especially in regard to the origin of life.

This is somewhat true. We may never have a full understanding of the origin of life on earth.

What we do know is that life on Earth is at least 3.7 billion years old, and possibly many hundreds of millions of years older than that. We also know that life underwent a series of ever more rapid diversifications, starting from about 575 million years ago.

However, when talking on scientific matters, it is very important to note that the usage of the word theory is very different from colloquial usage. In the sciences, a capital 'T' Theory is as good as it gets - it is an explanation of some part of the natural world that has strong predictive power.

It is agreed (by the scientific community and the faith community) whatever happened for life to begin ... happened out in the cosmos ....

Nope. It is not agreed.

So far, there is no scientific consensus on abiogenesis.

There are multiple (competing) hypotheses. Among those are variations of the concept of panspermia, of which there are also multiple hypotheses.

However, there are a large number of other hypotheses which are equally plausible, if not moreso, about life being purely terrestrial in origin.

It's a (very niche) area of ongoing research. The number of scientists publishing original research on abiogenesis numbers in low hundreds. Opposed to something like high energy physics, where there are thousands of scientists publishing.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kylie]

I could easily write about the Berlin Wall from memory.

In how much detail?

Remember, I don't have to write a detailed research paper, simply to be a credible reference to the mere existence of the Berlin Wall or it's fall.

So you'd write, "Once there was a wall in Berlin. Then it fell and people were happy"?

Josephus wouldn't have to personally interview James, brother of Jesus, to be a credible source on if he exists. No more than I would have to interview former president Clinton, to know that he exists.

But there is plenty of real world evidence for former President Clinton apart from anything you write. Where is such evidence when it comes to Jesus?

You ask for non-biblical sources for people that Josephus references. Josephus is a non-biblical source himself, in that he discussed concepts not included in scripture, with respect to the apostle James, brother of Jesus.

"I have written a book that the Earth has been invaded by reptilian aliens that have impersonated high ranking politicians in an effort to get the Earth's water for themselves. My source is this book I wrote about how the Earth has been invaded by reptilian aliens that have impersonated high ranking politicians in an effort to get the Earth's water for themselves."

And yes, I would say that the fall of the Berlin Wall is contemporaneous, or is of the same period of time, as today. People even here in this discussion, have witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall, granted, we have watched it over tv. But the point is that Josephus was alive, and an adult, as the gospels were being finalized. He wasn't living in some other century, he was living as these events (the execution of the apostle James, and the completion of the gospels) were unfolding.

No, today is not contemporaneous with the fall of the Berlin wall, and Josephus's text is not contemporaneous with the events he was writing about.

It's not like Josephus showed up 100 years later and started seeking out details. He really could not have been any closer in time, with respect to non-biblical sources.

Actually, he could have been about 30 years closer.

And you mentioned being surprised that there aren't Roman historians who detailed the crucifixion. But remember, Jesus was just a carpenter. It's not like the collapse of the Roman empire. There really isn't reason to believe that hordes of scribes would have been flocking to watch the execution of a carpenter who had some poor fisherman followers. It is even said that some denounced Jesus and hid in fear, as he was taken to be executed (reference to Peter). The apostles in some fashion, scattered.

Gotta love it when on one hand believers say Jesus wasn't viewed as worth it and was seen as a nobody, and then on the other hand we have Jesus gathering huge crowds and the Jewish leaders of the time demanding his execution with big crowds gathering and all that.

Jesus was popular when you want him to be and unpopular when you want him to be, depending on the needs of the story you are telling.

According to scripture, the Romans largely didn't even recognize who Jesus was. They would have had the most professional historians with them. But there really isn't any reason for them to write about any random figure that pops up with followers, no more than any of us really pays attention to such things today. Consider the idea that nobody would know who David koresh is, had there not been a mass suicide. Realistically.

Yeah, funny how nobody pays attention until they get the government involved. It's not like that happened to Jesus, is it? Oh wait...

In scripture, even the apostles themselves weren't even understanding of who Jesus ultimately was determined to be by later Christians. They simply observed his teachings and followed him. And whether there were truly thousands of followers, or hundreds, or if it were perhaps just 20 or 30, we will never truly know.

And this person who was important enough to get them to follow him when they didn't even know him all that well, they didn't bother writing about it?

And for those who did believe of the Christians who followed, of course they passed word via oral tradition and wouldn't necessarily keep written records of him anyway. Early followers of Jesus believed, but we're divided without scripture. Hence why Paul wrote his various letters, to unite various Christian communities.

And oral tradition is just so reliable, isn't it?

And as far as the gospels being short, theyre actually packed with a great amount of detail on Jesus.

Which often disagrees, so how can we get any kind of accurate information?

I mentioned this before, but these are concepts related to who he was, where he went (towns and cities that exist), when he was doing things at certain times of the year, who he had conversations with, why he traveled to certain areas. It's really explicit. I wouldn't consider 30 years particularly long in completing the book of mark, given that even immediately after Jesus died, people may not have been rushing to write things down, and given that the book of mark is further still said to be a copy of a pre existing source.

Again you try to go both ways. You claim it's not surprising that they took as long as they did, and then you try to say that they didn't take as long as they did.

And obviously many details cannot be confirmed. We don't know who told Josephus about the apostle James. Or if Josephus met the apostle James. We don't know who he met or talked to. We don't know how Josephus got the idea that James was executed (which isn't in the Bible).

We don't his sources, so he MUST be reliable!

We don't know what happened that stirred early Christians to begin writing the gospels. Nor do we even know when the apostles began writing those gospels.

Again, this isn't helping your case.

Same with Tacitus. As far as we know, he was a credible Roman historian. He was under the impression that Jesus was a real figure who was crucified. Someone could argue well, maybe Tacitus was fooled too and wasn't actually a credible Roman historian, and maybe Tacitus copied history from Christians whom he hated? Well anyway...

The passage is simpy, Tacitus repeating a story. It doesn't mean the story is real.

And someone could doubt that the apostles existed, including James, brother of Jesus. And we could suggest that Josephus and tacitus just trusted in people who lied to them or simply didn't know any better.

Or maybe they listened to people who could only repeat what they had been told. You ever play the game "telephone"?

But i think it's much more feasible to simply conclude that these religious leaders, be them Jesus or the apostles or John the Baptist, of them, some, if not all, probably existed. I think it's more feasible to suggest that these people in some fashion, did in fact live and that these Jewish and Roman historians and the several writers behind the gospels, were not all mistaken. Perhaps some, but doubtful that all were.

At best, this only shows that people of those names existed. There's a long way between "There was a guy called Jesus" and concluding that he was the son of God.

It should also be noted that the New Testament itself also is a large compilation of individual books and letters by individual authors. So even the new testament itself is a testament to what was going on in these times.

How much of it was written at the time of the events it describes, I wonder?

And to say that there was no Jesus, or that there werent even apostles, and that these historians that are otherwise considered credible were all just mistaken, personally, i think is a stretch.

When all those authors are saying is along the lines of, "People say there was a guy named Jesus," they can be credible all they want. No one is doubting that people said there was a guy named Jesus.