What is Science?

[Jazer]

We know people were born in Bethlehem around 3BCE-4CE, but we have little evidence for any specific person, Christ included.

You have the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, you have huge amounts of Hebrew and Christian tradition written and oral. So if you ever decide to join us in the real world let us know. Otherwise if you want to play in a pretend world that does not exist you will have to play by yourself. To come here and say I am going to ignore vast amounts of evidence and pretend like that evidence does not exist is really crazy. You are simply not being objective.

 

[Jazer]

Balaam's talking donkey, Eden's talking serpent, etc) has thus far been verified. But, by all means, go right ahead.

I can not say about the serpent because I have never talked to a snake. But I have had enough conversations with animals that I have no problem to understand Balaam's donkey. Did you read the conversation? Do you really mean to tell me you have never had a conversation with an animal or bird like that? You need to maybe catch up on the research science is doing on this right now. For one thing they are working on putting probes in peoples brain so that you can carry on a non verbal conversation with other people. Even if you do not have a voice box they can make you an artificial voice box. Look at the telephone where they transmit your voice though a wire. Do you believe in that? Or do you think that telephones are impossible and do not exist. Or a radio where they can transmit a voice across the air waves. If you have never had a conversation with an animal then that part of your brain must be broken, you need to perhaps get it fixed. I will give you a photo of an animal talking to you. Can you tell me what the animal is saying? I hope you get it right because your life could depend on know what that animal is telling you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is about the most insane thing I have ever heard. You have the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, you have huge amounts of Hebrew and Christian tradition written and oral.

I already addressed this (honestly, Jazer, we talked about this before - don't respond to a post unless you've read the whole thing): 2000 years ago, documentation decades after the alleged events took place is indistinguishable from myth and legend. The Bible certainly mentions Jesus, but it also mentions talking donkeys and the plants growing before the Sun formed - hardly the most reputable source, is it? Its source documentation for Jesus were written decades after the event, making them just a tad unreliable, don't you think?

The early Church Fathers probably did believe in Jesus (they'd be peculiar Church Fathers if they didn't), but all of them lived after the events took place, some born centuries later. Their writings are necessarily second- or -third hand accounts, as they weren't eye-witnesses themselves - and in that regard, they're no more reliable than you.

Hebrew and Christian oral tradition is all well and good for the time, but it's no good to us now, is it?

Imagine, if only God had decided to impregnate a Chinese woman, all this tedious nonsense about verifiable documentation and empirical evidence could've been avoided! Instead, he chose a much more illiterate part of the world.

 

[Jazer]

don't respond to a post

Ok, I will not respond to your posts. If your going to ignore the evidence then there is no reason to have a conversation. You have to want to know the truth and it is obvious that you do not want to know the truth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can not say about the serpent because I have never talked to a snake. But I have had enough conversations with animals that I have no problem to understand Balaam's donkey. Did you read the conversation? Do you really mean to tell me you have never had a conversation with an animal or bird like that?

I absolutely have not. No animal, other than a fellow human, has spoken to me audibly with their mouths with words. If you think you can perform such a feat, if animals literally speak to you like you're Doctor Dolittle himself, then there's $1,000,000 waiting for you at the James Randi Foundation.

You need to maybe catch up on the research science is doing on this right now. For one thing they are working on putting probes in peoples brain so that you can carry on a non verbal conversation with other people. Even if you do not have a voice box they can make you an artificial voice box. Look at the telephone where they transmit your voice though a wire. Do you believe in that? Or do you think that telephones are impossible and do not exist. Or a radio where they can transmit a voice across the air waves.

Except Balaam didn't live in the 21st century, so what's your point?

The Bible clearly states that God, not human science, made the donkey talk like a man (Numbers 22:28).

If you have never had a conversation with an animal then that part of your brain must be broken, you need to perhaps get it fixed. I will give you a photo of an animal talking to you. Can you tell me what the animal is saying? I hope you get it right because your life could depend on know what that animal is telling you.

It looks like a leopard or a tiger. What's your point?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok, I will not respond to your posts. If your going to ignore the evidence then there is no reason to have a conversation. You have to want to know the truth and it is obvious that you do not want to know the truth.

Oh grow up. I clearly responded to each of your alleged pieces of evidence, given detailed explanations for why they don't constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus. As a response, you decided to forfeit the discussion in a most childish fashion.

I'm always open to have an honest and civil debate, but we can't have that if you are unable to take criticism.

 

[Jazer]

2000 years ago, documentation decades after the alleged events took place

That is revisionism and is against forum rules because that violates whatever creed we go by to post here. That is why the church has creeds to deal with false teaching and false doctrine. They may have another forum set up for that sort of discussion but this is not the forum for that. I do not post on those forums but I sure there are people there that can help you with that sort of a discussion.

"Discussions about Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs may take place in the Christian-Only forums, all discussions regarding non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics will take place in Unorthodox Theology. Those topics include (but are not limited to)
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Masonry
● discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions"

 

[Jazer]

has spoken to me audibly with their mouths with words.

O, So U and I R not having a conversation because it is not audible? We R not talking? I C. No doubt you do not believe your understanding and interpretation of the Bible. I do not believe in your interpretation of the Bible either. Lots of people say they do not believe in God. Then when they tell me what their understanding and concept of God is, I agree with them. I do not believe in what they call god either. It's all a straw man. Set up your target and then falsify your own thinking. Your only argument is with yourself. No reason to drag others into it. Or I will be glad to agree with you that your understanding of God is not accurate and not true. Just like your understanding of the Bible is not accurate and not true.

 

[Greg1234]

I already addressed this (honestly, Jazer, we talked about this before - don't respond to a post unless you've read the whole thing): 2000 years ago, documentation decades after the alleged events took place is indistinguishable from myth and legend.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is revisionism and is against forum rules because that violates whatever creed we go by to post here. That is why the church has creeds to deal with false teaching and false doctrine. They may have another forum set up for that sort of discussion but this is not the forum for that. I do not post on those forums but I sure there are people there that can help you with that sort of a discussion.

"Discussions about Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs may take place in the Christian-Only forums, all discussions regarding non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics will take place in Unorthodox Theology. Those topics include (but are not limited to)
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Masonry
● discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions"

Since we are not discussing such things, your objections are moot and, frankly, transparently desperate. We are discussing the historicity of the Bible, the reliability of its source documentation. The interpretation of those documents is irrelevant. Try again.

O, So U and I R not having a conversation because it is not audible? We R not talking? I C. No doubt you do not believe your understanding and interpretation of the Bible. I do not believe in your interpretation of the Bible either. Lots of people say they do not believe in God. Then when they tell me what their understanding and concept of God is, I agree with them. I do not believe in what they call god either. It's all a straw man. Set up your target and then falsify your own thinking. Your only argument is with yourself. No reason to drag others into it. Or I will be glad to agree with you that your understanding of God is not accurate and not true. Just like your understanding of the Bible is not accurate and not true.

Do you have any idea what the topic of conversation is? You don't seem to be able to focus on any given thing - we're talking about how the Biblical story of Balaam and his talking donkey is a story unsupported by the evidence.

I don't know where you got the idea from, but I never once said that a conversation has to be audible (again, you're desperately grabbing at straws here - why?).
It should be obvious that I do, in fact, believe my interpretation of the Bible - if I didn't believe it, why on Earth would I hold to that particular interpretation? (And this is before we even get into what my interpretation actually is)

You seem to think we're talking about a straw-man of God that I've cooked up - yet I've done no such thing. I haven't even mentioned God. The conversation, thus far, has been to do with the veracity of the texts of the Bible, in particular the lack of evidence supporting the story of Balaam.

You do realise this, right? It's like I'm talking to a bot, procedurally generating random sentences based on keywords, completely missing the point again and again.

 

[Jazer]

we're talking about how the Biblical story of Balaam and his talking donkey is a story unsupported by the evidence.

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Do you have any idea what the topic of conversation is?

Actually the impression I get from you is that your making some sort of cry for help. I do not know what your holiday situation is though. But I have been told that this can be a difficult time of year for some people.

Of course this is a holiday for us here and not you there.
But as it is black friday this is when the official holiday season begins.

 

[Tiberius]

If Jesus was born of a virgin and was crucified and resurrected, would you believe it.

EDIT: Not expecting a response outwardly.

If reality supported it, yes.

Adam & Noah were very closely related. So they are considered to have the Cohen Gene. So we do have DNA evidence to back up the Bible and all the vast Jewish/Hebrew Tradition.

So you are saying "Cohen Gene, therefore Noah?"

Prove to me that the Cohen Gene could only have come from Noah.

All it proves is that there was a person who lived about 30,000 years ago who was the most recent common ancestor of Jewish people alive today.

It does not prove that he was the first Jew, it does not prove that they were the only people alive at the time. Indeed, there could have been a very large population. And there are many other people alive today descended from this person who are not Jews.

The fact of the matter is if the Bible were not true then Science would have falsifed the Bible a LONG time ago.

Funny, I thought it had.

If Adam, Noah & Abraham were not real people then in the last 10 years all the new information we have on DNA would have falsifed the Bible.

Your claim rests on whether you can show that the Cohen gene can come only from those specific people. You don't have a shred of proof.

But all the studies and research on Genetics and Evolution and DNA confirms that the Bible is true.

lol, no it doesn't.

I have just given you LOTS of evidence.

You've given me some evidence. But it does not prove your case at all.

I am willing to bet from past experance that you will give me NOTHING except to SAY NOT TRUE.

Well, i said it was not true, but I gave you the reasons why I said it. Now it's up to you to answer my reasons, isn't it?

That is not good enough on your part. I win the debate because I present abundant evidence, you lose because you present NOTHING other then a opinion. I have taken graduate level classes in debate, so I DO know the rules.

Wow! You took classes in debate! Should have taken classes in genetics, maybe then you;d have realised that your conclusions do not follow from the evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

[
But you've said nothing! That's my point: despite my lengthy posts refuting your false science again and again, you've yet to counter me. Are you afraid of being disproven?

Actually the impression I get from you is that your making some sort of cry for help.[/qiuote]
...
...
...
I
...
...
...
What?

I've looked over my posts here. In the most generous, leniant, flamboyant, interpretation of my words - how did you dervice "some sort of cry for help"?

I do not know what your holiday situation is though.

"Holiday situation"? What 'holiday'?

But I have been told that this can be a difficult time of year for some people.

We had Hallowe'en a few weeks ago, and Christmas is next month. There's nothing special about this time of year, so what on Earth are you on about?

Of course this is a holiday for us here and not you there.
But as it is black friday this is when the official holiday season begins.

You become more obtuse by the minute.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wiccan Child,

This time of year, this past Thursday, is Thanksgiving in the US. Traditionally, extended family get together for a big meal and "give thanks."

Since this occurs on a Thursday, many people take Friday off. It has become the first big shopping day before Christmas. Shops go from red ink to black inkl hence Black Friday.

 

[razeontherock]

The important thing to understand about legitimate science is that it takes scientists to where it leads. False or pseudoscience begins with an answer and tries to fits bits of information to support that answer, ignoring all the information that does not support it.

As a practical matter, people start with their own ideas, or hunches. Large bodies of information are always ignored, because they aren't what the individual wants to encounter. The status quo hasn't yet risen above that, but hopefully you are part of the solution rather than part of the problem!

 

[razeontherock]

2000 years ago, documentation decades after the alleged events took place is indistinguishable from myth and legend.

Clearly you have no idea what academic standards are used to authenticate writings of antiquity. And you reject that the Trojan Wars ever happened, along with essentially all history before the invention of the printing press.

This is a scientist willfully ignoring massive amounts of information simply because it disagrees with your foregone conclusions. I realize this has nothing to do with physics, but it still might present a challenge?

ETA: bumping this up, which demonstrates at least part of the principles involved:

 

[thaumaturgy]

Clearly you have no idea what academic standards are used to authenticate writings of antiquity. And you reject that the Trojan Wars ever happened, along with essentially all history before the invention of the printing press.

Raze, this is actually a good point. But it does miss some very important things.

Indeed when one talks about authenticating written reports in antiquity the stakes are usually not as high as "eternal life".

So, when someone writes about Jesus' "miracles" decades after anyone who was around would have "witnessed" them it would be indistinguishable from similar stories of other religious non-Judeo-Christian miracles. But for some reason these are not used to justify why you are not a non-Christian.

So when we look and see there is really no contemporary written record about Jesus that is trustworthy (The Josephus writings are thought by most to be later forgeries) we are tasked with questioning the "synoptic" gospels.

But the question of whether Jesus was real or not isn't particularly important unless you have reason to believe that belief in him is of paramount importance viz a vis "eternal life". Jesus represents the most important man in the world (if not the most interesting man). So why should his existence be as poorly documented as just about anyone elses?

If someone says there's more evidence for Jesus existence than say Napoleon (or whatever) it won't really matter much if Napoleon is "disproven". As long as there is an explanation for all the physical evidence that is linked to Napoleon (the death and wars and 3/4 of Paris, etc.)

But Jesus is a different story. If Jesus were found to not exist then there's serious repercussions. It basically destroys the concepts underlying Christian salvation, eternal life etc.

Jesus is, hence, a being whose existence must rise to a much higher degree of evidence than anyone else who has ever lived.

If Jesus' existence is as "inconsequential" in the evidentiary department as any other historical figure of antiquity, then he can stand or fall based on that. And fall is just as likely since if he is as inconsequential as any other mere human who has ever existed then it won't matter if I believe in him or not.

But clearly no Christian feels that way. That is why the presumptive forger added in the Josephus stuff. They wanted more "proof" of Jesus.

Look at the writings of historians of ancient times: Pliny the Elder. Because he wrote about Atlantis do we automatically assume it was real?

Herodotus wrote about "flying snakes". I don't believe there were flying snakes. Sure maybe there were, who knows? It is highly unlikely. But would it change everything in all of the universe if it were found that Atlantis was real and that flying snakes existed?

Nope.

I personally assume that there may very well have been a guy named Jesus around Palestine at some time about 2000 years ago, he may have been an itinerant preacher. There were many such people. And several are said to have worked miracles. There were others claiming to be the Messiah (Athronges, Simon of Perea, Simon bar Kobah).

But it will take more than the "ordinary" evidence reserved for mere mortals to support the "extraordinary" claims that this one man, who existed but left so little trace, was the most important human to have lived in the last 2000 years and who was THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE INCARNATE, who died for my sins and the acceptance of whose existance and sacrifice on my part are the only things I need to achieve eternal life, the failure to do so will result in eternal torment and agony.

If I rejected the existence of Vespasian tomorrow it wouldn't matter after I died. Why can't the most important man to ever live not have the most compellingingly real existence to ever be seen?

 

[razeontherock]

Indeed when one talks about authenticating written reports in antiquity the stakes are usually not as high as "eternal life".

Somehow I think if I had heard you say that IRL, it wouldn't have been nearly as funny; but the mental picture in my mind as I read this was hilarious! Now to return to being serious, the majority of the Bible is over and done with before "eternal life" is introduced as a topic, much. The "stakes" are better represented as, bringing your cattle in out of the field, or not. As in, those that believed God before the plagues of Egypt, brought their cattle in, and they were spared. Those that didn't believe, didn't; and lost their cattle. Oh, for the simple life! Which is why the story makes such a great illustration of what are really pretty abstract ideas.

So, when someone writes about Jesus' "miracles" decades after anyone who was around would have "witnessed" them it would be indistinguishable from similar stories of other religious non-Judeo-Christian miracles. But for some reason these are not used to justify why you are not a non-Christian.

Yes well, this "some reason" you refer to is called "FACTS." Which you have mis-represented. The eye witnesses recited the stories DAILY, in the Temple in Jerusalem, before a congregation of 1,000's. For 30+ YEARS. No going back to change anything! People would have noticed.

And then that element of Liturgical worship wasn't written into the Gospel to somehow make it credible or respectable; it was written down solely because other, new Churches, were afraid of messing everything up and requested a written copy. In that time and place, personal testimony from a trusted source was preferred over anything written.

(And if the concern turns to the compilation of our Bible, it is merely collecting the various letters used in the various Churches, so all had access to the entire body of work, which was not readily available to anyone prior to that.)

So when we look and see there is really no contemporary written record about Jesus that is trustworthy (The Josephus writings are thought by most to be later forgeries) we are tasked with questioning the "synoptic" gospels.

Nope. This is purely an anachronism.

But the question of whether Jesus was real or not isn't particularly important unless you have reason to believe that belief in him is of paramount importance viz a vis "eternal life". Jesus represents the most important man in the world (if not the most interesting man). So why should his existence be as poorly documented as just about anyone elses?

This is a very interesting philosophical question! It also opens a door to the very heart of G-d. Actions speak louder than words, so what does it say, that He was born in a manger?

But Jesus is a different story. If Jesus were found to not exist then there's serious repercussions. It basically destroys the concepts underlying Christian salvation, eternal life etc.

Jesus is, hence, a being whose existence must rise to a much higher degree of evidence than anyone else who has ever lived.

Again, you impose an anachronism. You must humble yourself to the accepted measures of the day. And you are surrounded by entire cultures built upon what it is you are questioning; not just a few odd rogues such as myself. And this is really what is at the heart of the strange, ongoing, lingering issues such as Cr / Ev, Faith vs facts, etc.

As a species, mankind wants to create his own reality exclusive of God; perhaps like never before, perhaps equivalent to Babel's tower. (I can't be sure which.) This is at least spoken of as "the great falling away," and I do think also 666.

If Jesus' existence is as "inconsequential" in the evidentiary department as any other historical figure of antiquity, then he can stand or fall based on that. And fall is just as likely since if he is as inconsequential as any other mere human who has ever existed then it won't matter if I believe in him or not.

But clearly no Christian feels that way. That is why the presumptive forger added in the Josephus stuff. They wanted more "proof" of Jesus.

And this is what makes the faux pas in the Gospels so significant! The authors were aware of the problems, but DID NOTHING to correct them, instead choosing to relate the info as best they could. They didn't need "more proof" of Jesus

Look at the writings of historians of ancient times: Pliny the Elder. Because he wrote about Atlantis do we automatically assume it was real?

Herodotus wrote about "flying snakes". I don't believe there were flying snakes. Sure maybe there were, who knows? It is highly unlikely. But would it change everything in all of the universe if it were found that Atlantis was real and that flying snakes existed?

Flying Snakes in Navajo and Hopi Lore - YouTube

That's myth, lore. Modern day reality:

Flying Snake Mystery Solved - YouTube

Atlantis is not quite so certain:

National Geographic - Finding Atlantis - March 2011 - 1/4 - YouTube

For most of our lifetime, Pontius Pilate was considered a fictitious character. Now, we know he was as the Bible portrays him.

But it will take more than the "ordinary" evidence reserved for mere mortals to support the "extraordinary" claims that this one man, who existed but left so little trace

This very website refutes your "little trace" argument

 

[Jazer]

So you are saying "Cohen Gene, therefore Noah?"

Prove to me that the Cohen Gene could only have come from Noah.

The Cohen Gene proves Abraham, there is plenty of evidence for that. Remember Abraham was father of the Isreal nation though Sarah, He was father of the Arab nation though Hagar the Egyptian. Lots of people call Abraham their father. Actually Christians call him their father also, but we were adopted into the family and are not considered to be natural descendants of Abraham.

Could there have been two people at that exact point in time in that exact location that had two son with two different women? One that formed the Israel Nation and one that formed the Arab nation? With all the written history and all the tradition that Abraham was that man?

God said: Genesis 12:2-3 (NKJV)

2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

All it proves is that there was a person who lived about 30,000 years ago who was the most recent common ancestor of Jewish people alive today.

6,000 years ago.

Wow! You took classes in debate! Should have taken classes in genetics,

Actually your the one that needs to study the genetics. You failed to falsify anything. As it stands what I say could be true. Even if you do not accept it as true you can not prove that it is NOT TRUE.

Sorry you just came up empty handed, but I appreciate you trying. I would appreciate anyone that could blow a hole in what I am saying and show us that it can not be true.

So your "prove to me" means nothing. It is up to you to prove what I say is NOT true. That you do not seem to be able to do. I do not worry about people like you that are to lazy to do any research. I worry about the people that put the work into it. I want to be sure I am not sending them on a wild goose chase and that they will indeed find what I say they will find if they do their research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDDI0TwfG8A

 

[Tiberius]

The Cohen Gene proves Abraham, there is plenty of evidence for that. Remember Abraham was father of the Isreal nation though Sarah, He was father of the Arab nation though Hagar the Egyptian. Lots of people call Abraham their father. Actually Christians call him their father also, but we were adopted into the family and are not considered to be natural descendants of Abraham.

Could there have been two people at that exact point in time in that exact location that had two son with two different women? One that formed the Israel Nation and one that formed the Arab nation? With all the written history and all the tradition that Abraham was that man?

So you are just assuming the Bible is true. Got it.