The Flood (2)

[Contracelsus]

We're not really sure that Socrates really existed. We only know of him through other philosophers who wrote about him in a way that implies... imagination. It's entirely plausible that he didn't exist.

That's pretty neat info!

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

My point was that the Christian writings only appear several decades after Jesus alleged death. Wasn't anyone writing beforehand? Pre-humous biographies are possbile, y'know.

Possible but not necessary.

Given that we have the works of Socrates, I'd hardly say he didn't exist. In any case, I am merely stating that I don't believe because of the absence of evidence. There is evidence for Socrates, so I do believe.

Nope. There is no contemporary evidence of socrates. What we know of him is only through Plato. Double standard? Sure seems like it. In fact there is a good deal more evidence for Jesus than for Socrates.

It's not my fault if the record-keeping of the time was lacking. But that's besides the point: the record-keeping of the time wasn't lacking.

Wasn't lacking among who? Who should have mentioned him but didnt'? (is that where you are going with this?)

My qualifications are in mathematics and physics. I deal in logic and proof, rigour and elegance. That said, I have yet to see any objection from you that isn't an ad hominem: "It is absolutely retarded", "Your qualifications are absurd", "On what authority do you base this idiotic rule?", etc.
Note that these three are from this post alone. If you have actual objections, then make them clear, and don't obfuscate them in insults.

Im sorry I am just shocked, at how weak those arguments appear. I wasn't really meaning to attack your person. In any case, my objection is there is no reason to ignore evidence or accounts of a person written after a person is dead if the authors are witnesses to that person or if their information is from credible witnesses/sources. Simply dying is not a magic brew to ignore what we know.

Tell me, why didn't anyone write about Jesus when he was living? You'd think that the literate disciples would be eating up his every word

They were, but why write about him when he was alive and could speak for himself? Up until the time near his death they had been thinking he would cast out the Romans and rule Israel for a thousand years or something like that. They didnt' really expect him to die.

I'm simply showing that we are fairly sure Cleopatra existed because we have contemporary documentation, yet we are unsure of King Arthur's existance because we don't have such documentation.

I think we are pretty sure King Arthur existed. Albeit not as a Great King of England and all that, but more of a Celtic Warlord, or something to that effect.

So they claim. I find it suspicious that none wrote prior to his death. People don't magically gain the ability to write about someone when they die.

Ok the fact that you are coming up with your own arguments is good, but to be honest at least from my perspective they are not very convincing. Maybe that is just when they decided to write about him? That isn't any 'problem' and not very surprising.

Perhaps. You did history; where're your arguments? Where's your refutation of my methodology?

I would certainly like to do so, would you like me to critique your methodology? I was getting the impression you were thinking you could just take anything however you wanted. Guess not.

These arguments are my own. Why on Earth would I believe Jesus existed 2000 years ago if there is no evidence for his existance? Of all the documents of the time, there is no mention of his existance. But, a few decades after his alleged death, an epileptic has a vision of Jesus and writes a book. This should raise suspicions, if nothing else.

Ok then what leads you to believe it is simply epileptic and a vision, and what documents should he be present in but is not? Also, as for the methodological critique, documents are generally innocent until proven guilty (this is not just for the Bible but for every text) small errors and minor contradictions notwithstanding as these usually point to complexities of a situation rather than falsities of an account.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Possible but not necessary.

My point was that the standard opinion of the Jesus story does not account for the soley post-humous documentation.

Nope. There is no contemporary evidence of socrates. What we know of him is only through Plato. Double standard?

Hardly. As I clearly stated, I believe what the evidence suggests. I stand correct on the existance of contemporary evidence for Socrates, and as Fishface point at, it is therefore plausable that he didn't exist.

Wasn't lacking among who? Who should have mentioned him but didnt'? (is that where you are going with this?)

I would expect the Roman and Israeli historians of the time, not to mention the literate among Jesus' followers, to make some note of this figure (given the events he is alleged to have done, it seem strange that there is absolutely no mention of them in contemporary history).

Im sorry I am just shocked, at how weak those arguments appear. I wasn't really meaning to attack your person. In any case, my objection is there is no reason to ignore evidence or accounts of a person written after a person is dead if the authors are witnesses to that person or if their information is from credible witnesses/sources. Simply dying is not a magic brew to ignore what we know.

But that's just it: I dispute that he died at all.

They were, but why write about him when he was alive and could speak for himself? Up until the time near his death they had been thinking he would cast out the Romans and rule Israel for a thousand years or something like that. They didnt' really expect him to die.

Nevertheless, they would have recognised the importance of writing down his words to spread the Gospel (as it became known).

I think we are pretty sure King Arthur existed. Albeit not as a Great King of England and all that, but more of a Celtic Warlord, or something to that effect.

And what makes us think this? What evidence is there for the existance of a real King Arthur (or the leader from which the character is derived)?

Ok the fact that you are coming up with your own arguments is good, but to be honest at least from my perspective they are not very convincing. Maybe that is just when they decided to write about him? That isn't any 'problem' and not very surprising.

Why is it not surprising?

I would certainly like to do so, would you like me to critique your methodology?

By all means.

Also, as for the methodological critique, documents are generally innocent until proven guilty (this is not just for the Bible but for every text) small errors and minor contradictions notwithstanding as these usually point to complexities of a situation rather than falsities of an account.

Agreed. However, given that the documents allegedley written by Jesus' disciples contain major errors and inconsistencies, I would say that they are at least suspect of fraud.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

My point was that the standard opinion of the Jesus story does not account for the soley post-humous documentation.

You don't think historians take that into account or dont' realize that? Why? It seems like that would be one of the first things they would take into account as it is pretty obvious.

Hardly. As I clearly stated, I believe what the evidence suggests. I stand correct on the existance of contemporary evidence for Socrates, and as Fishface point at, it is therefore plausable that he didn't exist.

So you actually are consistent with that? Well you might find yourself letting go of quite a lot of history then. But lets move on. We've established at least that you are trying to be consistent. Although this is not the perspective most historians take. Even evidence given by tradition alone tends to have a historical core.

I would expect the Roman and Israeli historians of the time, not to mention the literate among Jesus' followers, to make some note of this figure (given the events he is alleged to have done, it seem strange that there is absolutely no mention of them in contemporary history).

You say you would expect this, but dont' say who didn't write about him that should have. How can we test any of your suggestions then? Who didn't write about Christ who should have? As I said before we have limited sources from the time, so be specific.

But that's just it: I dispute that he died at all.

Then by what criterion do you gauge that the Gospels et al were not contemporary if he didn't die at all?

And what makes us think this? What evidence is there for the existance of a real King Arthur (or the leader from which the character is derived)?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_basis_for_King_Arthur">The historical basis for King Arthur</a>

Why is it not surprising?

I wouldn't really expect much else in this situation.

Agreed. However, given that the documents allegedley written by Jesus' disciples contain major errors and inconsistencies, I would say that they are at least suspect of fraud.

I have heard this before, but I haven't ever seen any arguments which compromise the historical core.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You don't think historians take that into account or dont' realize that? Why? It seems like that would be one of the first things they would take into account as it is pretty obvious.

I'd be interested to hear their explanations.

So you actually are consistent with that? Well you might find yourself letting go of quite a lot of history then.

Better safe than sorry.

But lets move on. We've established at least that you are trying to be consistent. Although this is not the perspective most historians take.

Fortunately, I am not most historians.

Even evidence given by tradition alone tends to have a historical core.

So the transubstantiation, by it's traditional nature only, constitutes evidence of transubstantiation?

You say you would expect this, but dont' say who didn't write about him that should have. How can we test any of your suggestions then? Who didn't write about Christ who should have? As I said before we have limited sources from the time, so be specific.

Velleius Paterculus, for one.

Then by what criterion do you gauge that the Gospels et al were not contemporary if he didn't die at all?

Because he was alleged to have died at around 33CE. I find it suspect that none of the relevant texts were written at or around that time (it was several decades after his alleged death that the first Christian writings appear).

The historical basis for King Arthur

Note the section headed 'No historical basis': the reason given is:

"A school of thought, with growing numbers since the publication of Dr. David Dumville's criticisms, argues that Arthur had no historical existence at all, on the basis that none of the sources are contemporary or reliable."

Which is my criticism of the NT exactly: it is neither contemporary nor reliable.

I have heard this before, but I haven't ever seen any arguments which compromise the historical core.

If the gospels were derived from real-life events (i.e., the authors were eye-witnesses to the things they wrote about), then there shouldn't be any major discrepancies. As it happens, there are major discrepencies. Why?

 

[Baggins]

All you can do is say that my science proofs are laughable!?...thats it!?.

They are laughable mainly because they are so unscientific.

And that wasn't it, I challenged you to explain the white cliffs of Dover in terms of a global flood 4000 years ago.




..

.if you can say that my science is laughable, then i can say
that your science is laughable!

You aren't using science

...

science and Creationism go together better than science and anything you believe in my friend!.

They don't go together better than egg and chips and I believe in egg and chips.

.

.Fellow atheists and "non-believers" even say that there is evidence of some sort of Supreme Being outside of this earth!...

I think that you will find that that isn't true.

The definition of an atheist is a person who doesn't accept the existence of god(s) so they would, by definition, not accept the existence of an supreme being.

They say that there was a beginning to this earth based on how the Universe is expanding,

No they say there is a beginning to this earth based on our understanding of how the solar system formed

so therefore your science is messed up,

Well obviously

and just cause your a "scientist" doesnt mean i have to believe what you have to say over what the scientists i believe say!...

The people who you believe are, by and large, not scientists. The few that are are not following scientific principles when they write about creationism because they are starting with a conclusion and forcing the data to fit it. Science starts with evidence and forms a conclusion based on that evidence.

Have fun using your messed up proofs for proving anything about what you believe!...

Thank you I will

ever heard of the word incomprehensible?

Ever heard of the word gullible? It isn't in any dictionary you know.

It's what God is,

So why do Christians spend so much time describing him and what he does?

its why there is so much dispute about him!...It's because noone can truely understand him, because he is SO GREAT!

Is that Peter Noone? Of Herman's hermits Fame? I shall re-read their lyrics more closely

-

Cameron

Any luck with explaining the white cliffs of Dover with the biblical flood model yet?

Baggins

 

[BrainHertz]

All you can do is say that my science proofs are laughable!?...thats it!?....if you can say that my science is laughable, then i can say that your science is laughable!...

This doesn't exactly seem like a response to the prior posting that you quoted, which was asking for a "flood" based explanation for the existence of the white cliffs of Dover.

So do you have an answer?

science and Creationism go together better than science and anything you believe in my friend!...

Really? Please provide substantiation.

Fellow atheists and "non-believers" even say that there is evidence of some sort of Supreme Being outside of this earth!...

Please look up "atheist" in a dictionary.

They say that there was a beginning to this earth based on how the Universe is expanding, so therefore your science is messed up,

Uh, what? I'm not detecting any coherence here.

and just cause your a "scientist" doesnt mean i have to believe what you have to say over what the scientists i believe say!...

Quite. Argument for authority is bad. So please state what you think, and why (not who told you).

ever heard of the word incomprehensible? It's what God is, its why there is so much dispute about him!...It's because noone can truely understand him, because he is SO GREAT!

So how do you claim to know anything...?

 

[Beccs]

The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe the gospel!

1Co 15:1-22
(1) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
(2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
(3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
(4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
(5) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
(6) After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
(7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
(8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(9) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
(10) But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
(11) Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
(12) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
(13) But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
(14) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
(15) Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
(16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
(17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
(18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(20) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
(21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
(22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.



In the last days, which ARE near, it shall be as in the days of Noah and the flood.

Mat 24:35-44
(35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
(36) But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
(37) But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(38) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
(39) And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(40) Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(41) Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(42) Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
(43) But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
(44) Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

The flood of fire is coming, and it will dissolve all the elements. Repent and be baptized in the name of the Father & the Son & the Holy Spirit and you shall be saved. Jesus is Lord. The kingdom of God is at hand.

I'll wait for the movie . . .

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Double post.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

So the transubstantiation, by it's traditional nature only, constitutes evidence of transubstantiation?

That isn't what I meant by traditions, but yes that could be considered evidence for some things.

Velleius Paterculus, for one.

Probably not actually. Jesus never went to Rome, his work was only about Roman history. Jesus was just another weird Jewish preacher/prophet for all he knew if he even heard about Jesus. Further his work was published when Jesus had just begun his ministry... why would he show up in Paterculus' writing if he hadn't done anything yet?

Because he was alleged to have died at around 33CE. I find it suspect that none of the relevant texts were written at or around that time (it was several decades after his alleged death that the first Christian writings appear).

Not necessarily, and especially not since (as it is alleged) the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses with eyewitness accounts. Usually eyewitnesses are considered credible sources even a few years down the road.

Some people don't write their own accounts of war for a long time after the event. So why is this so shocking?

Date alone isn't much of a reason to dispute authenticity unless it contradicts authorship or corresponds something else. You can dispute the authorship itself, but you will have to have a good basis for it.

Which is my criticism of the NT exactly: it is neither contemporary nor reliable.

The issue though is that there IS historical basis to King Arthur See the other stuff in the article, and there is MORE historical basis in the NT. The issue with 'contemporary' sources notwithstanding.

If the gospels were derived from real-life events (i.e., the authors were eye-witnesses to the things they wrote about), then there shouldn't be any major discrepancies. As it happens, there are major discrepencies. Why?

I see minor discrepancies, but no major ones... the historical core seems pretty solid, of course I will invite you to try and demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

did you even read my link!?...

Your link was to a list long list of web sites full of absolute nonsense. I have read many of the them before and can demolish them one at a time as I get time. Right now I am traveling and have very limited time. I have a fairly complete analysis of Sarfati's laughably stupid ark defense page on the True Hogwash archive that I will post this weekend. But why don't pick one that you think is good and post your analysis of it for us rather than just posting a link to a group of other links?

 

[Naraoia]

Usually eyewitnesses are considered credible sources even a few years down the road.

Yes, if we have good reason to believe they actually were eyewitnesses.

(And I don't think I'm taking sides in this debate because my knowledge of history is really shameful)

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

The Flood Has More Evidence! Evolution Has None!

 

[Inan3]

Any luck with explaining the white cliffs of Dover with the biblical flood model yet?

Baggins

Oh Baggins, I see you are up to your bad boy stuff again. Why can't you just be nice?

Anyways....What about this site?

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-11.html

Or this one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/18/geography.geology

 

[Baggins]

The Flood Has More Evidence! Evolution Has None!

Can you explain the white cliffs of Dover in terms of the biblical flood then?

Jesusfreak can't.

 

[Baggins]

Oh Baggins, I see you are up to your bad boy stuff again. Why can't you just be nice?

Anyways....What about this site?

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-11.html

Or this one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/18/geography.geology

Neither of those sites explain how the white cliffs of Dover were formed. They are sites documenting a localised flood that exposed the white cliffs of Dover, that flood didn't create the rock they are made of did it?

Why is it "bad boy" behaviour to ask a simple question?

the deafening silence in reply speaks volumes and is more eloquent than I could ever be

 

[IrishRockhound]

*ahem*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...graphy.geology

' "This prehistoric event rewrites the history of how the UK became an island and may explain why early human occupation of Britain came to an abrupt halt for almost 120,000 years," said Dr Gupta... The researchers believe a second massive flood completed the job of separating Britain from France around 180,000 years ago.'

I gotta ask, do you read the links you post at all? 120,000 years is a bit longer than the 6,000 you think the earth has existed.

I don't understand why this is still even being debated. The race has run on whether the earth is old, and creationism lost. Christian scientists worked this out more than a hundred years ago.

The rocks that we can see and touch and examine in minute detail describe an old earth. You can go and look at them yourself, and you can learn from the very basics how they formed, and unless you are willing to do this I suggest that you not post in ignorance. Educate yourself and do the hard work involved in developing an informed opinion, or defer to the people who have spent years doing exactly that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither of those sites explain how the white cliffs of Dover were formed. They are sites documenting a localised flood that exposed the white cliffs of Dover ...

You left a prefix out. One site called it a "super flood," and the other called it a "megaflood."

... that flood didn't create the rock they are made of did it?

If it's how the rock was "created" that you want to know, read Genesis 1.

the deafening silence in reply speaks volumes and is more eloquent than I could ever be

I got a volume that's more eloquent than you'll ever be:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That isn't what I meant by traditions, but yes that could be considered evidence for some things.

So what did you mean?

Probably not actually. Jesus never went to Rome, his work was only about Roman history. Jesus was just another weird Jewish preacher/prophet for all he knew if he even heard about Jesus. Further his work was published when Jesus had just begun his ministry... why would he show up in Paterculus' writing if he hadn't done anything yet?

Ah, but he had: King Herod had, allegedly, set out on a crusade against Jesus before he was even born. That's how famous the King of Kings was.

In any case, there was Philo:
"a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea"

A contemporary Jewish historian who wrote about everything involved in the Jesus story... except Jesus himself. No mention, whatsoever.

Not necessarily, and especially not since (as it is alleged) the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses with eyewitness accounts. Usually eyewitnesses are considered credible sources even a few years down the road.

A few years, yes, but not a few decades. Even if someone was an eye-witness to a divine manifestation a few years ago, people do not have perfect recollection. Now extend that to a few decades,

Some people don't write their own accounts of war for a long time after the event. So why is this so shocking?

Because wars are, unfortunately, fairly common. The manifestation of the Christ in front of your very eyes? Not so common.

I see minor discrepancies, but no major ones... the historical core seems pretty solid, of course I will invite you to try and demonstrate otherwise.

The discontinuity at the tomb, for instance:

So Matthew says two women went at sunrise to the tomb, whilst John says one woman went in darkness.