The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

Josephus wrote his book about 93-94 CE, so the people he was getting his information from were likely NOT eyewitnesses. The events happened at least 60 years previously. Even if Josephus was hearing what 70 year old people had to say, they would have been talking about things they saw when they were barely out of childhood.

Why do today's scholars and historians believe that Josephus is a credible historian in his time even though he wrote about 93 CE -- even though he did not directly witness Jesus' ministry and miracles?

Scholars devoted time and diligence to study historical sources and evidences - they work at it, thats what they do. They investigated Josephus accounts of events and people -- including the existence of Jesus. And they not only evaluate Josephus writings, but they would also cross reference with other historical and archaeological evidence. Their comclusion: Josephus accounts are credible.

Are you a historian or scholar who study historical materials and evidence? If not, your opinions don't carry as much weight as theirs. Even if you read books avidly and make deductions in your personal capacity, you are still a layman like many of us. As such we go by the opinions of historians and scholars. .I believe that Confusius, Muhammad and Buddha existed - - and other historical events happened too - -whether by virtue of first hand account witness or otherwise, because I believe in the due diligence of historians and archaeologists. Not first hand account does not rmean unreliable because historians have other ways to verify --- it is their passion, they strive to seek out the truth.

If you still continue to claim that the writings of Josephus is not credible, then you are implying that you know more than the historians and scholars.. This will invite the next question : What credentials do you have to support your belief? Are you a specialist in history field, are you equal to them, is your work recognised by them?

 

[Speedwell]

Why do today's scholars and historians believe that Josephus is a credible historian in his time even though he wrote about 93 CE -- even though he did not directly witness Jesus' ministry and miracles?

Scholars devoted time and diligence to study historical sources and evidences - they work at it, thats what they do. They investigated Josephus accounts of events and people -- including the existence of Jesus. And they not only evaluate Josephus writings, but they would also cross reference with other historical and archaeological evidence. Their comclusion: Josephus accounts are credible.

Are you a historian or scholar who study historical materials and evidence? If not, your opinions don't carry as much weight as theirs. Even if you read books avidly and make deductions in your personal capacity, you are still a layman like many of us. As such we go by the opinions of historians and scholars. .I believe that Confusius, Muhammad and Buddha existed - - and other historical events happened too - -whether by virtue of first hand account witness or otherwise, because I believe in the due diligence of historians and archaeologists. Not first hand account does not rmean unreliable because historians have other ways to verify --- it is their passion, they strive to seek out the truth.

If you still continue to claim that the writings of Josephus is not credible, then you are implying that you know more than the historians and scholars.. This will invite the next question : What credentials do you have to support your belief? Are you a specialist in history field, are you equal to them, is your work recognised by them?

Still missing the point, I see.

 

[roman2819]

Still missing the point, I see.

Having read many of your posts, I see that you offer much theories witbout explaining why you made certain claims. Out of nowhere you would say God invented evolution - - that's your latest. I didn't bother to answer most of your claims because they have no basis, they self destruct.

Men invented science, but those like you think that science make men. Bless you.

 

[Speedwell]

Having read many of your posts, I see that you offer much theories witbout explaining why you made certain claims. Out of nowhere you would say God invented evolution - - that's your latest. I didn't bother to answer most of your claims because they have no basis, they self destruct.

I think your difficulty is that you are too anxious to believe that Kylie or anyone else who criticizes your position is out to "disprove Jesus."

Men invented science, but those like you think that science make men. Bless you.

Ending a snotty, lying comment like that with "Bless you" doesn't really improve it, it just makes you seem a hypocrite.

 

[roman2819]

"Ending a snotty, lying comment like that with "Bless you" doesn't really improve it, it just makes you seem a hypocrite.

The word 'Bless you' should be taken light-heartedly, not literally. Thought you would know better.

 

[Speedwell]

The word 'Bless you' should be taken light-heartedly, not literally. Thought you would know better.

Science didn't make men; God made men. Science merely studies how He did it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science merely studies how He did it.

Nope.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can you think of real examples , people or history? Or you think half of history is a big lie?

Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and started a civil war. I don't think anyone would dispute that fact. In Suetonius' account, Caesar decided to cross the river because of an apparition he saw. Suetonius is a credible source for historical facts. Does this mean the story of the apparition must be true?

 

[d taylor]

this is just stupid. John said the word created the universe by speaking it into existence. and no it clearly states 3 heavens...atmosphere, space and that beyond. I might remind you that greek system of planetary and solar things worked with earth as center epicenters forever till 1600s.

Nope John did not say the word created the universe.

 

[Kylie]

Why do today's scholars and historians believe that Josephus is a credible historian in his time even though he wrote about 93 CE -- even though he did not directly witness Jesus' ministry and miracles?

Josephus wrote on many subjects. It's not valid to assume that his reports being valid on one thing mean his reports are valid on all the things he wrote about. There's also nothing in Josephus' writings that paints Jesus in a divine light. His texts portray him as a philosopher, nothing more.

Also, Josephus' writings on Jesus are nothing more than him repeating the information that others would have given him. And they were written after the first of the Gospels were already around, so his texts may be nothing more than a very very brief summary of those.

Scholars devoted time and diligence to study historical sources and evidences - they work at it, thats what they do. They investigated Josephus accounts of events and people -- including the existence of Jesus. And they not only evaluate Josephus writings, but they would also cross reference with other historical and archaeological evidence. Their comclusion: Josephus accounts are credible.

There's quite a bit of disagreement about the validity of several of Josephus' passages about Jesus, and even if they are entirely credible, then all they are is repetitions of stories he would have been told, or claims that people existed who believed that Jesus was real. Neither of these indicates in any way the the stories he wrote actually happened.

Are you a historian or scholar who study historical materials and evidence? If not, your opinions don't carry as much weight as theirs. Even if you read books avidly and make deductions in your personal capacity, you are still a layman like many of us. As such we go by the opinions of historians and scholars. .I believe that Confusius, Muhammad and Buddha existed - - and other historical events happened too - -whether by virtue of first hand account witness or otherwise, because I believe in the due diligence of historians and archaeologists. Not first hand account does not rmean unreliable because historians have other ways to verify --- it is their passion, they strive to seek out the truth.

And yet you are STILL utterly incapable of showing that Josephus did anything at all to verify the accounts he heard and wrote of.

If you still continue to claim that the writings of Josephus is not credible, then you are implying that you know more than the historians and scholars.. This will invite the next question : What credentials do you have to support your belief? Are you a specialist in history field, are you equal to them, is your work recognised by them?

There are plenty of historians who doubt Josephus as a credible source.

 

[roman2819]

Josephus wrote on many subjects. It's not valid to assume that his reports being valid on one thing mean his reports are valid on all the things he wrote about. There's also nothing in Josephus' writings that paints Jesus in a divine light. His texts portray him as a philosopher, nothing more.

Also, Josephus' writings on Jesus are nothing more than him repeating the information that others would have given him. And they were written after the first of the Gospels were already around, so his texts may be nothing more than a very very brief summary of those.

There's quite a bit of disagreement about the validity of several of Josephus' passages about Jesus, and even if they are entirely credible, then all they are is repetitions of stories he would have been told, or claims that people existed who believed that Jesus was real. Neither of these indicates in any way the the stories he wrote actually happened.

And yet you are STILL utterly incapable of showing that Josephus did anything at all to verify the accounts he heard and wrote of.
There are plenty of historians who doubt Josephus as a credible source.

So you are certainly not a trained historian to give expert opinion about Josephus. Instead, your knowledge comes from other sources/books, from which you formed opinions. We all do that too, we are not experts either. However, you do say some different things at different times on the same question, so now one thing at a time:

Did Jesus exist as a historical figure, judging from accounts of different historical sources and evidences, not only from Josephus but from other evidences? The existence of the church, for example, is evidence of Jesus' existence, if not how else would the church begin? 12 clever men (including fishermen and a tax collector) wouldn't start the church by creating a fictional figure Jesus, would they? Not to mention how they went on to endure severe persecutions over any years and finally death?

Josephus was not known to be a Christian so he didn't portray Jesus as divine. Which also mean he was not biased trying to tell tall tales about an idol, so to speak. He mentioned that Jesus did miracles but that is immaterial in our discussion ie we don't have to agree on that.

But regardless whether Jesus was divine, whether did or didn't do miracles, was Jesus just a fictional figure by Josephus and ither or did Jesus really existed and lived in Judea/Galiee?

No technical jargon if you can, just straightforward answer. Otherwise, without a common frame of reference, it is useless trying to explain how Josephus carried out verification.

 

[Kylie]

You seem to say some different things at different times on the same question, so now one thing at a time:

Did Jesus exist as a historical figure?

Josephus was not known to be a Christian so he didn't portray Jesus as divine. Which also mean he was not biased trying to tell tall tales about an idol, so to speak. He mentioned that Jesus did miracles but that is immaterial in our discussion ie we don't have to agree on that.

But regardless whether Jesus was divine, whether did or didn't do miracles, was Jesus just a fictional figure by Josephus or did Jesus really existed and lived in Judea/Galiee?


No technical jargon please, just straightforward answer. Otherwise, without a common frame of reference, it is useless trying to explain how Josephus carried out verification.

You really seem intent on just not understanding my posts.

Josephus wrote only the stories he would have heard from others. That means that his writings only show that people back then believed Jesus was a real person. They can not tell us anything more than that.

Once again I shall ask you: Was there any way by which Josephus could have verified those stories? If so, what were they?

 

[roman2819]

You really seem intent on just not understanding my posts.

Josephus wrote only the stories he would have heard from others. That means that his writings only show that people back then believed Jesus was a real person. They can not tell us anything more than that.

Once again I shall ask you: Was there any way by which Josephus could have verified those stories? If so, what were they?

You are ambiguous, shifting goal posts, avoiding the question of Jesus' existence.

So far you are saying, you doubt Josephius' writing, so you doubt Jesus' existence too. Other times you seem to imply that Jesus exist.

 

[Kylie]

You are ambiguous, shifting goal posts, avoiding the question of Jesus' existence.

So far you are saying, you doubt Josephius' writing, so you doubt Jesus' existence too. Other times you seem to imply that Jesus exist.

No, this is not what I think about the existence of Jesus. I have been abundantly clear that I am talking about how reliable Josephus' writing is.

You are misrepresenting my position, despite the fact that I have spelled it out very clearly. I can only conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting my position. If you continue to do so, I will report it, as such behaviour is, I believe, against the forum rules.

 

[Speedwell]

You are ambiguous, shifting goal posts, avoiding the question of Jesus' existence.

The question of Jesus' existence is not at issue in this discussion.

So far you are saying, you doubt Josephius' writing, so you doubt Jesus' existence too. Other times you seem to imply that Jesus exist.

The question of Jesus' existence is not at issue in this discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

But regardless whether Jesus was divine, whether did or didn't do miracles, was Jesus just a fictional figure by Josephus and ither or did Jesus really existed and lived in Judea/Galiee?

Do you really not see the false dichotomy you have constructed? Or are you doing it on purpose.?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The question of Jesus' existence is not at issue in this discussion.

The question of Jesus' existence is not at issue in this discussion.

Indeed - there is a whole other debate to be had on that point...

 

[LoricaLady]

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

I agree to a point. Real science does not lie. Pseudo science lies.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree to a point. Real science does not lie. Pseudo science lies.

Real science should know when to quit.

 

[d taylor]

I agree to a point. Real science does not lie. Pseudo science lies.

If you take away all the pseudo science, really you have very little left.
What is left is the science that can be used to build a bridge or a building, areas like that where the results of ideas can be seen.

But all this science stuff of big bang, evolution, globe earth, outer space, etc.. is out of a satan stew pot and used to brew up doubt, and disbelief about God and His creation.