Creation vs. Evolution

[deco_martini]

Ah, Deco... you paint yourself with the very brush that has been used on Christians who have posted in this thread. I seriously doubt that you even bother to click on the links I provided, much less read them. The links provided historical references to Jesus that exist outside of the Bible- sources that include, but are not limited to Josephus.The link to Alexander the Great cited a list historical sources that we base our belief in the existance of him on & when they lived. So, let's try again.

This link provides an interesting break down of the references in the Testamonium Flavianum to Jesus & His brother James, as well as discussing the passage on John the Baptist. Lots of citations from historians of various camps there. &, no, I am not one of those who buy into the "if indeed He could be called a man" & "He was the Christ" camps. Obvious additions by middle ages scribes, IMHO.

We have sources about Alexander written by people who knew him.

We zero accounts of the life of Jesus from the time he lived or by his peers.

Mentions by historians later on, no matter how numerous, do not establish the historical Jesus. I cannot find a simpler way to explain this. Mind you, Yeshua was a popular name and nobody disputes there may have been one or many messianic figures named Yeshua during those times.

The standards for establishing the historical facts about someone aren't just applied to Jesus. Take the example of Apollonius of Tyana.
Apollonius of Tyana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was also a messianic figure who performed miracles and such. However, the historical nature of him can't be confirmed. Jesus is not alone in figures whose historical facts cannot be validated.

 

[Warthaug]

In posting these it shows me how simliar the skulls are, and how someone when looking at an ancient beat up fossil could be fooled. If that baby chimp skull were unearthed in an old rock structure I'm certain it would have been given biped status.

You cannot determine if a species is bipedial from its skull, and the fact you seem to think that is the case pretty clearly demonstrates you know little of the field.

The baby chimps skull would never be mistaken for a human, or for a member of the homo genus. And it would be blatantly obvious, from the shape and orientation of the hands, that it was not a bipedial species.

Bryan

 

[Sordello]

You guys often get made when unscientific folks make scientific observations but have no problem consulting left wing atheistic professors on the existence of Jesus without consulting any religious scholars.

Have you have discussed your answers to most of these questions with religious scholars? Are they left wing or right wing scholars? Do you know the difference? Is the difference more because they agree or disagree with you?

I have to wonder only because your posts provide no hint of knowledge of theological matters at all. If you do have any schooling it was likely a clerical schools of theology. One book, one truth... word for word.

 

[Marvel]

Marvel, thanks for pointing out that I omitted the forward slash, it certainly wouldn't help the quote challenged to follow the instructions as I mistyped them.

And my name is shoredivr, not shordivr.....you can see how easy it is to misquote if typing in a hurry or not proofing....

Well, I can use the quote functions pretty well but I'm sure not much of a typist! Thank goodness for Spellcheck (most of the time)!

 

[Marvel]

We have sources about Alexander written by people who knew him.

We zero accounts of the life of Jesus from the time he lived or by his peers.

Mentions by historians later on, no matter how numerous, do not establish the historical Jesus. I cannot find a simpler way to explain this. Mind you, Yeshua was a popular name and nobody disputes there may have been one or many messianic figures named Yeshua during those times.

The standards for establishing the historical facts about someone aren't just applied to Jesus. Take the example of Apollonius of Tyana.
Apollonius of Tyana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was also a messianic figure who performed miracles and such. However, the historical nature of him can't be confirmed. Jesus is not alone in figures whose historical facts cannot be validated.

Problem with some camps (& I suspect that you belong to one of those) is that y'all want to apply different standards to substantiating the existence of Jesus than is applied to other historical figures from antiquity. To do so they completely throw out the writings of His followers (what you would call peers)- John, Peter, James- as well as the references that I provided. So, we have writings from contemporary eye witnesses but those who want to perpetuate this idea refuse to give them any type of credence. The rationale? Because they were followers of Jesus their words do not count. Kind of a twisted logic, if you ask me since in the same breath they are denying that Christ did not exist.

Serious, well respected historians do not have any doubts that Jesus existed. I'll give you a couple of paragraphs from one of the links that you probably did not follow. BTW, I'll also provide links to the scholars that are cited:

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Christianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

BTW, I did scan the link that you provided on Apollonius. While I see that there were claims of miracles attributed to him I did not see anythng that stated that he was raised from the dead.

 

[deco_martini]

To do so they completely throw out the writings of His followers (what you would call peers)- John, Peter, James- a

We don't throw out what does not exist. There are no writings written by his peers. You may be confused since there are epistles credited to Peter but there is no evidence they were written by him and much doubt and evidence otherwise.

We don't "throw" these things out. There are a great many writings attributed to Peter, Paul, Mark, every apostle, and even Judas. Some of these attributed writings even wound up in the Bible (the best book ever written by committee).

Only some of Paul's epistles are generally agreed to have been written by the attributed author by a large consensus among scholars.

Remember, there are no original copies of any of these documents.

 

[Potapko]

And there I was, staring at the pictures of skulls aligned by their dated age showing a pretty smooth progression without any mythical missing link.

You, like millions of others, were duped!!

Supporters of Biological Evolution have, interestingly enough, perpetrated some of the more famous scientific frauds, such as the Piltdown and Nebraska man and other fake (or wishful thinking) fossil hoaxes. One of the more enduring was devised by Ernst Haeckel who promoted his theory of embryonic recapitulation by faking photographs of embryos to make them look similar. Despite this fraud having been debunked many decades ago, the fake pictures are still being published by Biology texts.

This is the main point. Even though they know it is a fraud. It is still being published in the textbooks being given to children as fact.

One of the more spectacular recent frauds committed in China against National Geographic and published by them in November 1999. Dinosaur and bird fossils were assembled in juxtaposition and passed off as an important new evolutionary intermediate. National Geographic apologized a few months later for being taken in, but could have avoided the problem with more due diligence in the first place, less rush to publication, and less willingness to believe what they wanted to believe.

 

[ce4jesus]

Have you have discussed your answers to most of these questions with religious scholars? Are they left wing or right wing scholars? Do you know the difference? Is the difference more because they agree or disagree with you?

I have to wonder only because your posts provide no hint of knowledge of theological matters at all. If you do have any schooling it was likely a clerical schools of theology. One book, one truth... word for word.

If you're discussing the existence of Jesus, most of the world is in my camp. You might find a few kooks who don't look at the totality of the evidence who disagree with it. As far as my theological views go, I guess they would be considered somewhat conservative. But yes, I've discussed them with many people, theologians, pastors etc. Do you have a particular viewpoint in mind when you state this or are you making a general statement?

 

[deco_martini]

You, like millions of others, were duped!!

Supporters of Biological Evolution have, interestingly enough, perpetrated some of the more famous scientific frauds, such as the Piltdown

Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.
--talkorigins

and Nebraska man

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.
--talkorigins

and other fake (or wishful thinking) fossil hoaxes. One of the more enduring was devised by Ernst Haeckel who promoted his theory of embryonic recapitulation by faking photographs of embryos to make them look similar. Despite this fraud having been debunked many decades ago, the fake pictures are still being published by Biology texts.

The problem being that Haeckel was right even though he fudged his data. You may be surprised, but instead of using Haeckel's drawings some textbooks use actual real photographs which show the same thing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

Dinosaur and bird fossils were assembled in juxtaposition and passed off as an important new evolutionary intermediate. National Geographic apologized a few months later for being taken in, but could have avoided the problem with more due diligence in the first place, less rush to publication, and less willingness to believe what they wanted to believe.

And once again, science and not preachers exposed this.

For an interesting read on all of your antiquated notions about fossils and science:
An Index to Creationist Claims

Please read that before embarrassing yourself once again. There is no conspiracy to pass off fossils as real that aren't. The nearest thing to a conspiracy I have found is a conspiracy of ignorance and fear in fundamentalism using the same tired arguments about bats, eyes, and a few hoax fossils over and over and over.

 

[DiverBeth]

If you're discussing the existence of Jesus, most of the world is in my camp. You might find a few kooks who don't look at the totality of the evidence who disagree with it. As far as my theological views go, I guess they would be considered somewhat conservative. But yes, I've discussed them with many people, theologians, pastors etc. Do you have a particular viewpoint in mind when you state this or are you making a general statement?

Yes, the majority of people in the world would agree that Jesus existed. That alone does not mean he did exist.