Historical Evidence of Jesus [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Historical Evidence of Jesus


Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 18:36
Is Jesus Real? - Non-biblical Evidence of His Existence - YouTube

Little Joe
05-13-2012, 04:12
It's believed that most of the disciples and Paul were brutally martyred. They could have walked away from it with denouncement. They witnessed the supernatural power of God, and the resurrection of Christ. They knew it was real, and were willing to die for it. That has always spoke volumes to me.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 11:46
It's believed that most of the disciples and Paul were brutally martyred. They could have walked away from it with denouncement. They witnessed the supernatural power of God, and the resurrection of Christ. They knew it was real, and were willing to die for it. That has always spoke volumes to me.

Yes, something changed Peter, for instance, from someone who denied Jesus three times and went back to his previous occupation of fishing to being a witness who could not be silenced. The Resurrection is the most logical explanation for that.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 21:40
Yes, something changed Peter, for instance, from someone who denied Jesus three times and went back to his previous occupation of fishing to being a witness who could not be silenced. The Resurrection is the most logical explanation for that. Where do we find evidence of this change in Peter or that he went back to fishing after the crucifixion?

Paul7
05-14-2012, 21:44
Where do we find evidence of this change in Peter or that he went back to fishing after the crucifixion?

The Gospel accounts.

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 22:14
The Gospel accounts. How is that not a circular argument?

juggy4711
05-14-2012, 22:30
...The Resurrection is the most logical explanation for that.

Really? That is the most logical argument? Seriously? Explain to me how is would not be just as logical, just as reasonable to claim Peter did so because he was offered a large sum of money? Or figured he could attain a place of power and influence by doing so?

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 08:55
What I don't understand is why a bunch of non-believers come into a faith based forum and tear threads down. This is not the debate forum. If you pulled this **** in GNG over tattoo or pitbull threads they'd run you out on a rail.

ArtificialGrape
05-15-2012, 09:10
What I don't understand is why a bunch of non-believers come into a faith based forum and tear threads down. This is not the debate forum. If you pulled this **** in GNG over tattoo or pitbull threads they'd run you out on a rail.

The forum is "Religious Issues" -- that does not make it a "faith based forum". It is neither a Christian forum, nor a theists forum. It is not necessary to believe in a deity to have religious issues.

There is always christianforums.com for anybody that wants a forum where participants must agree that they are Nicene Creed accepting Trinitarian Christians.

-ArtificialGrape

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 09:57
The forum is "Religious Issues" -- that does not make it a "faith based forum". It is neither a Christian forum, nor a theists forum. It is not necessary to believe in a deity to have religious issues.

There is always christianforums.com for anybody that wants a forum where participants must agree that they are Nicene Creed accepting Trinitarian Christians.

-ArtificialGrape

Okay. Let me try it this way. Why go into Christian threads started by Christians and demand scientific evidence on faith based scriptures.

eracer
05-15-2012, 09:59
Okay. Let me try it this way. Why go into Christian threads started by Christians and demand scientific evidence on faith based scriptures.I'll take this one, Grape.

Read the thread title. See that word 'evidence'?

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 10:00
I'll take this one, Grape.

Read the thread title. See that word 'evidence'?

I'm talking overall.

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 10:01
I've noticed that in all Christian based threads.

eracer
05-15-2012, 10:03
Both sides are guilty, overall. How many times has someone started a thread about the study of evolution, and had that thread immediately flooded with faith-based denials of its relevance and/or empirical proof?

I agree that the arguments are tiring. I wish everyone could just admit that none of us knows anything for certain, and to question is not necessarily to deny.

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 10:15
Both sides are guilty, overall. How many times has someone started a thread about the study of evolution, and had that thread immediately flooded with faith-based denials of its relevance and/or empirical proof?

I agree that the arguments are tiring. I wish everyone could just admit that none of us knows anything for certain, and to question is not necessarily to deny.

Yeah, I agree. It seems that people who do agree can't have a decent conversation about it without it being derailed. No biggie, it's easy enough to just ignore them and not respond to their interruption.

Lone Wolf8634
05-15-2012, 13:22
Okay. Let me try it this way. Why go into Christian threads started by Christians and demand scientific evidence on faith based scriptures.

This may help you out.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1413889

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 14:09
This may help you out.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1413889

In what way?

ArtificialGrape
05-15-2012, 14:33
I've noticed that in all Christian based threads.
Eracer nailed it, this thread was started with the claim of evidence.

Personally, I try to let statements of faith slide -- fine, that's what somebody has faith in -- I am more likely to get involved when there are claims of evidence, or science is abused or rejected in the process.

For example if somebody has faith that the Great Flood really happened because that's what the Bible tells you, then okay. If you have faith that there were no rainbows before the flood, and by extension some people claim that it had never rained before the flood, then I may privately roll my eyes, but I'll probably let it slide. If somebody then claims that there is evidence that the Grand Canyon or the geologic column was created by the Flood, then I'm going to have a few questions.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 15:51
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me.


Eracer nailed it, this thread was started with the claim of evidence.

Personally, I try to let statements of faith slide -- fine, that's what somebody has faith in -- I am more likely to get involved when there are claims of evidence, or science is abused or rejected in the process.

For example if somebody has faith that the Great Flood really happened because that's what the Bible tells you, then okay. If you have faith that there were no rainbows before the flood, and by extension some people claim that it had never rained before the flood, then I may privately roll my eyes, but I'll probably let it slide. If somebody then claims that there is evidence that the Grand Canyon or the geologic column was created by the Flood, then I'm going to have a few questions.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Lone Wolf8634
05-15-2012, 20:16
In what way?


The first question I asked is the same as yours. Lots of folks answered.



Okay. Let me try it this way. Why go into Christian threads started by Christians and demand scientific evidence on faith based scriptures.

Little Joe
05-15-2012, 20:53
The first question I asked is the same as yours. Lots of folks answered.

Got it. Thanks Lone Wolf.

Kingarthurhk
05-16-2012, 15:49
The historical person of Jesus has been/can be established.

The aspect of whether He is accepted as Jesus Son of God, is what the Atheists are disputing.

What proves interesting is the predictions made about Jesus thousands of years prior that He in turn fulfilled, accurately.

Not even the purported Nostradamus fans can make such a claim:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=TXcToy3zRYQ&NR=1



AMAZING OVER 300 Prophecies OF Yahushua THE MESSIAH - YouTube

Animal Mother
05-16-2012, 16:25
The historical person of Jesus has been/can be established.

The aspect of whether He is accepted as Jesus Son of God, is what the Atheists are disputing.

What proves interesting is the predictions made about Jesus thousands of years prior that He in turn fulfilled, accurately.
You've claimed this repeatedly. You've also repeatedly been asked to provide independent documentation external to the Bible that any of these supposed fulfilling events actually happened. You haven't done that. Why not?

Kingarthurhk
05-16-2012, 17:26
You've claimed this repeatedly. You've also repeatedly been asked to provide independent documentation external to the Bible that any of these supposed fulfilling events actually happened. You haven't done that. Why not?

I have provided historical evidence that Jesus existed independant of the bible. On other threads, I have provided evidence that the bible is historically accurate by archaeology. So, if the bible is historically accurate, and archaelogically accurate, Jesus has been shown to be an actual historical figure independant of the bible, why is it then a stretch for you to then not see that predicitons about him in an historically accurate bible made thousands of years before he existed and then fufilled by his actions?

And since we have coberated these things, what conclusions can you come to based upon the evidence? It is more likely that His claim to be the Son of God is more possible than Him not being the Son of God?

And if it is more than likely true based on the preponderance of the evidence than the Theory that Jesus is the Son of God is more than not?

void *
05-16-2012, 23:11
On other threads, I have provided evidence that the bible is historically accurate by archaeology.

By the standard of evidence present in those other threads, the Iliad is historically accurate by archaeology. Why don't you accept Zeus as the King of Gods?

Nobody is claiming *nothing* in the bible is true. Nobody is claiming that there aren't places named in the bible that actually exist, or that there weren't people named in the bible who actually existed. There's a difference between being fact mixed with fiction and entirely fact.

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 06:05
I have provided historical evidence that Jesus existed independant of the bible. On other threads, I have provided evidence that the bible is historically accurate by archaeology. So, if the bible is historically accurate, and archaelogically accurate, Jesus has been shown to be an actual historical figure independant of the bible, why is it then a stretch for you to then not see that predicitons about him in an historically accurate bible made thousands of years before he existed and then fufilled by his actions? Sorry, but that kind of transitive property doesn't work in this instance. Bethlehem is a real place, that in no way proves either that Jesus was born there nor that he is the literal son of God.

By way of example, does the fact that Atlanta is a real place and was really burned by Sherman prove that Tara and Scarlett O'Hara existed?
And since we have coberated these things, what conclusions can you come to based upon the evidence? It is more likely that His claim to be the Son of God is more possible than Him not being the Son of God? You haven't "coberated" anything with regard to Jesus' divinity, in the absence of any such evidence, the not the Son of God conclusion has to be choice.
And if it is more than likely true based on the preponderance of the evidence than the Theory that Jesus is the Son of God is more than not?Sorry, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

series1811
05-17-2012, 06:17
I spend two weeks in Israel several years ago, mostly in Jerusalem. It was a life awakening experience for me.

Anyone who thinks the story of Jesus is a fairy tale, should do the same, and then come back and tell us why they still think that.

At the very least, you will come back a lot less impressed with yourself.

void *
05-17-2012, 11:05
Anyone who thinks the story of Jesus is a fairy tail, should do the same, and then come back and tell us why they still think that.

Doesn't the posit implied by this statement have a slight problem in that there are five million or so people who live in Israel all the time who do not believe in Jesus?

series1811
05-17-2012, 11:13
Doesn't the posit implied by this statement have a slight problem in that there are five million or so people who live in Israel all the time who do not believe in Jesus?

Do not believe he lived? Or, do not believe he was the Messiah?

Since the Jews and the Muslims, both believe he lived, but discounted his being the Messiah, I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers.


The State of Israel has some 7.4 million inhabitants.

The most prominent characteristic of Israelís the population is its high diversity. Besides the main division of the countryís inhabitants into Jews (80%) and Arabs (20%), there are many more subdivisions. The Jews, for example, are divided into religious and secular, while the latter include various immigrant communities who preserve their culture. Likewise, the Arabs are divided into Moslems, Christians and Druze. Alongside these groups, Israel has additional small ethnic religious groups such as the Circassians and the Samaritans, and small Christian communities from Europe such as the German Beit El community in Zikhron Ya'akov.

http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Israel/Pages/Population.aspx

Go there, spend a week or two, keep an open mind, and come back here and say you felt nothing. I went there for very secular reasons (training). It affected me in a way I totally did not expect. Who knows? It might do the same to you. What's the worst that could happen? :supergrin:

void *
05-17-2012, 11:41
Do not believe he lived? Or, do not believe he was the Messiah?

Since the Jews and the Muslims, both believe he lived, but discounted his being the Messiah, I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers.

'discounted his being the Messiah' is the critical bit here. All the attributes of a Jesus that someone could dismiss as 'fairy tale' require that we are discussing 'Jesus as messiah', not 'Jesus as ordinary person'. When people say they 'believe in Jesus', they generally do not mean 'Well, I believe he was a guy who lived around then' or the like.

I don't know if there was a historical Jesus or not, but it's not the idea that there was a historical Jesus that meets 'fairy tale'. Kind of like how the idea that there are mentions of King Arthur in various histories, and those mentions may mean there actually was a King Arthur, doesn't mean that Geoffrey of Monmouth's account isn't essentially a fairy tale.

series1811
05-17-2012, 11:45
'discounted his being the Messiah' is the critical bit here. All the attributes of a Jesus that someone could dismiss as 'fairy tale' require that we are discussing 'Jesus as messiah', not 'Jesus as ordinary person'. When people say they 'believe in Jesus', they generally do not mean 'Well, I believe he was a guy who lived around then' or the like.

I don't know if there was a historical Jesus or not, but it's not the idea that there was a historical Jesus that meets 'fairy tale'.

If your answer is imprecise, my response will be likewise. But, back to my original point.

Go to the Holy Land, and then come back and tell me you didn't get anything out of it. Maybe you won't. I went and I did.

Paul7
05-17-2012, 13:33
Sorry, but that kind of transitive property doesn't work in this instance. Bethlehem is a real place, that in no way proves either that Jesus was born there nor that he is the literal son of God.

By way of example, does the fact that Atlanta is a real place and was really burned by Sherman prove that Tara and Scarlett O'Hara existed?
You haven't "coberated" anything with regard to Jesus' divinity, in the absence of any such evidence, the not the Son of God conclusion has to be choice.
Sorry, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Your double standard is noted. By it, we could dismiss most of what we know of ancient history. See this thread from another religion forum:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7791

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 14:02
Your double standard is noted. What double standard do you imagine I'm employing?
By it, we could dismiss most of what we know of ancient history. Perhaps you should expand on this claim.
See this thread from another religion forum:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7791 We've gone over that thread before also, how does it apply in this instance?

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 14:08
Do not believe he lived? Or, do not believe he was the Messiah?

Since the Jews and the Muslims, both believe he lived, but discounted his being the Messiah, I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers.




http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Discover%20Israel/Pages/Population.aspx

Go there, spend a week or two, keep an open mind, and come back here and say you felt nothing. I went there for very secular reasons (training). It affected me in a way I totally did not expect. Who knows? It might do the same to you. What's the worst that could happen? :supergrin:I've been to Israel multiple times. Certainly there are impressive and imposing locations there, but that's also true of any number of other locations around the world.

series1811
05-17-2012, 14:09
I've been to Israel multiple times. Certainly there are impressive and imposing locations there, but that's also true of any number of other locations around the world.

Point being?

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 14:23
Point being?
Jerusalem is not unique in being an impressive historical site.

series1811
05-17-2012, 14:26
Jerusalem is not unique in being an impressive historical site.

It's okay to say you don't have a point. They are not required. :supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
05-17-2012, 16:54
Sorry, but that kind of transitive property doesn't work in this instance. Bethlehem is a real place, that in no way proves either that Jesus was born there nor that he is the literal son of God.

How doesn't it work? Because you don't want it to? The bible has been proven historically accurate by archaeological evidence. Jesus has been proven to have existed through independant historical sources. Jesus is mentioned in an historically accurate book, e.g. the bible. Predicitions regarding Him that are thousands of years old were fulfilled by Him. Therefore, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I think it is a solid Theory that Jesus is the Son of God, and that same said God exists.


By way of example, does the fact that Atlanta is a real place and was really burned by Sherman prove that Tara and Scarlett O'Hara existed?

Do you have independant historical evidence that Tara and Scarlett O'Hara existed in the same fashion that Atlanta and General Sherman did?


You haven't "coberated" anything with regard to Jesus' divinity, in the absence of any such evidence, the not the Son of God conclusion has to be choice.
Sorry, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

I think I was pretty clear. The question is now, based on the evidence, (which is the common complain I hear is the desire for evidence), you have a decision to make; namely, whether the Theory is correct or not.

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 21:39
How doesn't it work? Because you don't want it to? No, it has nothing to do with what I, or you for that matter wants, it has to do with the nature of reality. The truth value of the different things are completely independent of one another. The truth (or not) of the fact "There was a man named Jesus in 1st century Jerusalem" has absolutely no bearing on the truth of "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" or "Jesus is the incarnate son of God".
The bible has been proven historically accurate by archaeological evidence. In some cases, in others it's been shown to be inaccurate through both archaeological and scientific evidence. What's important here is that neither of those conditions has any bearing on event that are completely independent of one another other than both being related in the same collection of writings.
Jesus has been proven to have existed through independant historical sources. Proven? No. There is evidence there was a person named Jesus in Jerusalem, but it hardly rises to the level of proof.
Jesus is mentioned in an historically accurate book, e.g. the bible. Granted, the Bible does mention Jesus.
Predicitions regarding Him that are thousands of years old were fulfilled by Him. This isn't even agreed to among those who hold the scriptures to be inspired. There's certainly no actual evidence that it is true.
Therefore, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I think it is a solid Theory that Jesus is the Son of God, and that same said God exists. You are wrong. You don't have any evidence for either your previous claim, that Jesus fulfilled predictions or for the claim that he is the Son of God. Both of those arguments are found solely in apologetic sources attempting to support the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, not in any independent objective source.
Do you have independant historical evidence that Tara and Scarlett O'Hara existed in the same fashion that Atlanta and General Sherman did? No, but according to your reasoning, I don't need to. One part of a work being true (the burning of Atlanta) makes the whole thing true (the existence of Tara). Obviously this isn't a valid position to take, which is what I'm trying to point out to you.
I think I was pretty clear. The question is now, based on the evidence, (which is the common complain I hear is the desire for evidence), you have a decision to make; namely, whether the Theory is correct or not. There's no evidence for the majority of your "Theory". If your theory were "Jericho existed" or "Herod was king of the Jews as a client of the Roman Empire" you would have a strong argument, but you don't have any evidence for the conclusion you're trying to reach.

Paul7
05-17-2012, 21:48
What double standard do you imagine I'm employing?


By having a much higher standard of proof for the Gospel events than you do for other ancient historical happenings.

juggy4711
05-17-2012, 21:55
Another thread as entertaining as Coast to Coast AM.

Animal Mother
05-17-2012, 23:49
By having a much higher standard of proof for the Gospel events than you do for other ancient historical happenings.That's not true at all. I have a higher standard of evidence for supernatural events than I do for historical events which can be verified by independent accounts or evidence. For example, I accept the Trojan war happened based on the accounts of Homer, independent attestations to the existence of some of the named participants and archaeological evidence for the existence and destruction of Troy. That does not mean I accept either that there was an indestructible warrior named Achilles or that the Greek gods were active in the battles.

Kingarthurhk
05-18-2012, 18:17
That's not true at all. I have a higher standard of evidence for supernatural events than I do for historical events which can be verified by independent accounts or evidence. For example, I accept the Trojan war happened based on the accounts of Homer, independent attestations to the existence of some of the named participants and archaeological evidence for the existence and destruction of Troy. That does not mean I accept either that there was an indestructible warrior named Achilles or that the Greek gods were active in the battles.

How many prophecies existed thousands of years predicting Homer? None. How many prophecies predicted Jesus thousands of years prior to Him walking the earth. Hundreds. So, that is the "Achilles" heel of your argument.

GreenDrake
05-18-2012, 18:20
Family Guy - first Joseph night (s07e04) - YouTube

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 21:04
How many prophecies existed thousands of years predicting Homer? None. How many prophecies predicted Jesus thousands of years prior to Him walking the earth. Hundreds. So, that is the "Achilles" heel of your argument.No, it really isn't, nor is your analogy correct. Homer composed the Iliad, he wasn't the main character. A better parallel would be either Homer with Luke, Matthew, Mark, or John or Achilles with Jesus. BTW, there were supposed prophecies about Achilles death, they're reported in the Iliad itself, but that's tangential to the point I'm making.

To return to those "prophecies" about Jesus, they're hardly universally accepted nor are they substantiated by any external evidence.

Paul7
05-18-2012, 22:01
That's not true at all. I have a higher standard of evidence for supernatural events than I do for historical events which can be verified by independent accounts or evidence. For example, I accept the Trojan war happened based on the accounts of Homer, independent attestations to the existence of some of the named participants and archaeological evidence for the existence and destruction of Troy. That does not mean I accept either that there was an indestructible warrior named Achilles or that the Greek gods were active in the battles.

So you pretty much a priori reject any supernatural claims?

Paul7
05-18-2012, 22:02
To return to those "prophecies" about Jesus, they're hardly universally accepted nor are they substantiated by any external evidence.

If an ancient contemporary attested to the 300+ prophecies about Jesus Christ they would most likely be a Christian, making them an unreliable witness in your book. Or are you saying if you verified 300+ fulfilled prophecies of Jesus you would not become a Christian?

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 22:22
So you pretty much a priori reject any supernatural claims?Where did I say that? Could you point out the specific passage?

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 22:26
If an ancient contemporary attested to the 300+ prophecies about Jesus Christ they would most likely be a Christian, making them an unreliable witness in your book. Or are you saying if you verified 300+ fulfilled prophecies of Jesus you would not become a Christian?I'm saying that none of the supposed 300+ prophecies can be verified to actually be prophecies, much less prophecies pointing directly at the person Jesus. If you have evidence, please do share it.

Kingarthurhk
05-19-2012, 13:31
I'm saying that none of the supposed 300+ prophecies can be verified to actually be prophecies, much less prophecies pointing directly at the person Jesus. If you have evidence, please do share it.

Where have you been durring this thread?

Animal Mother
05-19-2012, 16:34
Where have you been durring this thread? Right here. Do I need to repeat the question?

Kingarthurhk
05-19-2012, 16:39
Right here. Do I need to repeat the question?

You have asked for evidence. It has been presented.

Animal Mother
05-19-2012, 21:22
You have asked for evidence. It has been presented.No, it hasn't. That's the problem. Let's take one prophecy, I'll even let you pick which one. What evidence, external to the Bible, is there that the prophecy you've chosen was uniquely fulfilled in the person of Jesus?

Kingarthurhk
05-19-2012, 22:48
No, it hasn't. That's the problem. Let's take one prophecy, I'll even let you pick which one. What evidence, external to the Bible, is there that the prophecy you've chosen was uniquely fulfilled in the person of Jesus?

That is rather the point. We have demonstrated that the bible is an historically accurate account as demonstrated through archaeology. Further, through independant historical accounts we have demonstrated that Jesus actually existed. Now, can you name me any other religious text in all the world that can prove that their text is historically accurate, and the main protagonist existed through verifiable historical accounts?

There isn't one. Further, if it has proven itself in this regard, it would lend credibility to the accounts documented within its texts. Now, I have presented hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled that were predicted in scripture thousands of years before He walked the earth as Messiah.

What religious text can also make that claim? Absolutely none.

So, given all these parameters, it would be reasonable to postulate that the claims of this historically accurate book with 100's of fulfilled prophecies would be the inspired relveation of God.

juggy4711
05-19-2012, 23:00
...So, given all these parameters, it would be reasonable to postulate that the claims of this historically accurate book with 100's of fulfilled prophecies would be the inspired revelation of God.

The sad thing is you don't realize how insane that comes across.

Animal Mother
05-19-2012, 23:35
That is rather the point. We have demonstrated that the bible is an historically accurate account as demonstrated through archaeology. Further, through independant historical accounts we have demonstrated that Jesus actually existed. Now, can you name me any other religious text in all the world that can prove that their text is historically accurate, and the main protagonist existed through verifiable historical accounts?

There isn't one. Quite a few. The Prose and Poetic Eddas, the Iliad, the Ramayana, the Avesta.
Further, if it has proven itself in this regard, it would lend credibility to the accounts documented within its texts. No, it would only lend credibility to the accounts documented by archaeology or external evidence. This has been explained repeatedly and you've simply ignored it. The fact that Jericho existed, and was destroyed, in no way proves the Flood happened or Noah was a real person. As with your supposed evidence of the Exodus, you accept anything which might support your beliefs and ignore any alternative explanation or contradictory evidence.
Now, I have presented hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled that were predicted in scripture thousands of years before He walked the earth as Messiah. Yet you apparently can't produce a single piece of external evidence for any of them.
What religious text can also make that claim? Absolutely none. Many of them can make that claim, but all suffer from the same problem your argument does, the supporting evidence is completely absent.
So, given all these parameters, it would be reasonable to postulate that the claims of this historically accurate book with 100's of fulfilled prophecies would be the inspired relveation of God. Given that none of your "parameters" are true, is it equally reasonable to postulate that the Bible is in no way inspired?

Kingarthurhk
05-20-2012, 00:47
Quite a few. The Prose and Poetic Eddas, the Iliad, the Ramayana, the Avesta.

I have provided detailed evidence regarding the bible. Now, present your evidence for you above claim.


No, it would only lend credibility to the accounts documented by archaeology or external evidence. This has been explained repeatedly and you've simply ignored it.

You have yet to provide anything to justify your carte blanche dismissal, other than you choose to dismiss it.

The fact that Jericho existed, and was destroyed, in no way proves the Flood happened or Noah was a real person. As with your supposed evidence of the Exodus, you accept anything which might support your beliefs and ignore any alternative explanation or contradictory evidence.

Evidence supporting the flood has been presented to you as well; which you also chose to ignore, and dismiss it for the sake of dismissing it.



I have. Repeatedly. Which only means, either you haven't been paying attention, or you are being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

[quote]
Many of them can make that claim, but all suffer from the same problem your argument does, the supporting evidence is completely absent.

Ironic, considering it has been presented over and over and over again.


Given that none of your "parameters" are true, is it equally reasonable to postulate that the Bible is in no way inspired?

Simply because you say so?

Kingarthurhk
05-20-2012, 00:49
The sad thing is you don't realize how insane that comes across.

It makes a great deal more sense with the evidence submitted than the Theory of Evolution. In fact I have presented far more concrete evidence reagarding my Theory than anyone has presented regarding the former Theory.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 02:23
I have provided detailed evidence regarding the bible. Now, present your evidence for you above claim. I've presented exactly as much as you have for your position, and I've done it for far more sacred texts.
You have yet to provide anything to justify your carte blanche dismissal, other than you choose to dismiss it. I'm not dismissing the things which have been verified by archaeological or other external evidence. I'm pointing out that those examples do nothing to lend credibility to the other stories in the Bible which lack such confirmation.
Evidence supporting the flood has been presented to you as well; which you also chose to ignore, and dismiss it for the sake of dismissing it. Wrong again. The things advanced as evidence of a global flood are far better explained by localized flooding and more importantly, the evidence of civilizations around the world which continued uninterrupted through the period during which they would have supposedly been underwater provide irrefutable contrary evidence. If you'd really like to discuss the Flood again, feel free to start a thread.
I have. Repeatedly. Which only means, either you haven't been paying attention, or you are being contrary for the sake of being contrary. No, you haven't. You haven't produced a single piece of evidence external to the Bible for of these supposed prophecies being fulfilled uniquely in the person of Jesus. In the case of Jesus, all that has been offered, and all that can be offered, is 4 to 6 mentions of him in non-Christian sources during the first three centuries CE.
Ironic, considering it has been presented over and over and over again. Do you understand what presented means? You have to actually produce the evidence, not just keep claiming it exists. I submit that you know no such evidence exists, otherwise you wouldn't have gone to the effort of trying to construct an argument based on a fallacy of composition.
Simply because you say so? No, simply because they are demonstrably not true. There is no external evidence that any of the prophecies in the Bible regarding the Messiah were uniquely fulfilled by Jesus. There is no validity to trying to claim that because some parts of the Bible can be verified independently of the Bible itself, all parts of the Bible must be accepted as true.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 02:24
It makes a great deal more sense with the evidence submitted than the Theory of Evolution. In fact I have presented far more concrete evidence reagarding my Theory than anyone has presented regarding the former Theory. And you were doing so well with accepting evolutionary theory as accurate just a couple of weeks ago. It's sad to see you sliding backwards.

Kingarthurhk
05-20-2012, 08:49
And you were doing so well with accepting evolutionary theory as accurate just a couple of weeks ago. It's sad to see you sliding backwards.

Adaptation and one species becomming another are completely different.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 17:04
Adaptation and one species becomming another are completely different. No, they're not, they're both part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Out of curiosity, since you seem to consider yourself an expert on evolutionary genetics, what factor or characteristic allows what you identify as adaptation but prevents what you classify as "one species becoming something completely different"?

series1811
05-21-2012, 18:28
Another thread as entertaining as Coast to Coast AM.

I know. For some reason, it is really important to the atheists, that everyone see things the same way they do. Why, is the thing they never seem to get around to explaining. I keep tuning in for that, but I'm starting to lose hope (and interest) that it will ever be explained by any of them.

I guess dogma is only dogma when it's the other guy. :supergrin:

Paul7
05-21-2012, 18:49
I know. For some reason, it is really important to the atheists, that everyone see things the same way they do. Why, is the thing they never seem to get around to explaining. I keep tuning in for that, but I'm starting to lose hope (and interest) that it will ever be explained by any of them.

I guess dogma is only dogma when it's the other guy. :supergrin:

delete

Paul7
05-21-2012, 18:50
I know. For some reason, it is really important to the atheists, that everyone see things the same way they do. Why, is the thing they never seem to get around to explaining. I keep tuning in for that, but I'm starting to lose hope (and interest) that it will ever be explained by any of them.

I guess dogma is only dogma when it's the other guy. :supergrin:

:thumbsup:

But their views all come from science, don't you see, at least until you ask them how the first non-life became life, or what caused the Big Bang, or how did rationality come from a dead universe.

Animal Mother
05-21-2012, 21:35
I know. For some reason, it is really important to the atheists, that everyone see things the same way they do. If this is true, why is it always theists who are demanding everyone agree with them, not only in the absence of supporting evidence but when all available evidence contradicts their beliefs?

Animal Mother
05-21-2012, 21:36
:thumbsup:

But their views all come from science, don't you see, at least until you ask them how the first non-life became life, or what caused the Big Bang, or how did rationality come from a dead universe. Does not having all the answers to all the questions somehow invalidate what we do know? You insist the Flood happened, despite not only a complete absence of evidence for it but in the face of overwhelming evidence that no such event has occurred while mankind has existed.

Paul7
05-21-2012, 22:39
Does not having all the answers to all the questions somehow invalidate what we do know?

You seem to think so when it comes to questions about the Bible.

Animal Mother
05-21-2012, 22:48
You seem to think so when it comes to questions about the Bible.No, I don't, but I do note that you're required to misrepresent my position to try and bolster yours.

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 03:36
Does not having all the answers to all the questions somehow invalidate what we do know? You insist the Flood happened, despite not only a complete absence of evidence for it but in the face of overwhelming evidence that no such event has occurred while mankind has existed.

Geology and Deep Time (strong evidence for a global flood) by Dr. Emil Silvestru - YouTube

34 minutes in begins the introduction of the speaker's lenghty credentials, then the actual lecture.

series1811
05-22-2012, 04:12
If this is true, why is it always theists who are demanding everyone agree with them, not only in the absence of supporting evidence but when all available evidence contradicts their beliefs?

Always? You know what they say about people who use general absolutes in their arguments, right? :supergrin:

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 04:13
34 minutes in begins the introduction of the speaker's lenghty credentials, then the actual lecture.34 minutes before it even gets to his credentials, that sounds like an excellent use of my time. At what point do they explain how the various existing groups of humanity around the world at the supposed time of the Flood managed to overlook the fact that they spent a year underwater? How many minutes in do they explain how a wooden vessel large enough to contain examples of all animal life could possible survive the influx of the amount of water described in the Bible?

Kingarthurhk
05-22-2012, 04:16
34 minutes before it even gets to his credentials, that sounds like an excellent use of my time. At what point do they explain how the various existing groups of humanity around the world at the supposed time of the Flood managed to overlook the fact that they spent a year underwater? How many minutes in do they explain how a wooden vessel large enough to contain examples of all animal life could possible survive the influx of the amount of water described in the Bible?

You're in here playing around anyway. Also, I was attempting to spare you the first 34 minutes to get to the meet of the issue by a world reknown geologist. Enjoy the show, with actual science.:supergrin:

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 04:19
Always? You know what they say about people who use general absolutes in their arguments, right? :supergrin: You mean like "never"?

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 04:48
You're in here playing around anyway. Also, I was attempting to spare you the first 34 minutes to get to the meet of the issue by a world reknown geologist. Enjoy the show, with actual science.:supergrin:Alternatively, you could answer the questions I asked. Even better you could actually answer them with appropriate references to the scientific literature rather than some creationist propaganda video.

series1811
05-22-2012, 04:59
You mean like "never"?

Yes. So do you know or not? :supergrin:

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 05:09
Yes. So do you know or not? :supergrin:Please, do enlighten me.

series1811
05-22-2012, 05:28
Please, do enlighten me.

It indicates one dimensional thinking, for one thing. Probably, the last thing an atheist wants to be known for. Right? :supergrin:

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 05:38
It indicates one dimensional thinking, for one thing. Probably, the last thing an atheist wants to be known for. Right? :supergrin:Is it something you're comfortable being known for as a theist? I wasn't using always in a formal logical argument, but in general conversation.

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 21:58
It makes a great deal more sense with the evidence submitted than the Theory of Evolution. In fact I have presented far more concrete evidence reagarding my Theory than anyone has presented regarding the former Theory.

Right. All of the cumulative, testable, predictable, repeatable results of chemistry, physics, bio-chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics make less sense than a book written by desert dwelling populations from 1700-3000 years ago. Once again the sad thing is you don't realize how insane that comes across.

I know. For some reason, it is really important to the atheists, that everyone see things the same way they do. Why, is the thing they never seem to get around to explaining. I keep tuning in for that, but I'm starting to lose hope (and interest) that it will ever be explained by any of them...:

I know. For some reason it is really important to the religious to discredit science, which if was incorrect, the medium in which this discussion was taking place would not be possible. Science as a whole is completely dependent on the Quantum nature of reality. No Big Bang no internet. No BB no modern medicine. No BB no paint, no BB no DNA, no BB no DVD players, no BB no sand, no BB no smart phones, no BB no anything as we can predict, test, and measure.

And once again I am not an atheist. Not sure how many times I will have to state that before I stop being labeled so.

series1811
05-23-2012, 03:46
Is it something you're comfortable being known for as a theist? I wasn't using always in a formal logical argument, but in general conversation.

Yes, I do understand that you don't see what you did, or the significance of it. It's okay. :supergrin:

And, I'm not making fun of you. I wouldn't do that.

I don't know what you've done or where you've been in life. I've had a life that makes me really want to understand some of the things I have seen and done. The Bible and the teachings of Jesus help me do that.

If you don't and/or haven't walked in my shoes, and don't need that, then good for you. There was a time I thought I didn't need it, too. I was wrong.

Kingarthurhk
05-23-2012, 18:47
Alternatively, you could answer the questions I asked. Even better you could actually answer them with appropriate references to the scientific literature rather than some creationist propaganda video.

I don't hold a Phd in Geology. However, the presenter does. What are your credentials exactly?

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 01:47
I don't hold a Phd in Geology. However, the presenter does. What are your credentials exactly? Do my credentials somehow lend weight to the questions I ask? I can reference any number of Geology PhDs who will tell you the presenter is completely wrong. Will their credentials convince you?

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 04:22
Do my credentials somehow lend weight to the questions I ask? I can reference any number of Geology PhDs who will tell you the presenter is completely wrong. Will their credentials convince you?

How do you carte blanche declare him wrong without reviewing the evidence he presents?

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 06:13
How do you carte blanche declare him wrong without reviewing the evidence he presents?I'm more than willing to review the evidence. I'm simply asking you to post it here or a link to where it can be read rather than trying to keep track of the multitude of claims made in a video.

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2012, 16:11
I'm more than willing to review the evidence. I'm simply asking you to post it here or a link to where it can be read rather than trying to keep track of the multitude of claims made in a video.

If there was a transcription of the presentation I would be happy to do so. Sadly, I doubt there is.

So, I guess you will have to take one more step into modernity and see a filmed presentation. Alas, the curse of living in the 20th and 21st century.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 23:05
If there was a transcription of the presentation I would be happy to do so. Sadly, I doubt there is. Presumably if this information is correct, the good Professor would have published it somewhere. I don't have to refer you to YouTube to find the results of the WMAP mission or to explain General Relativity.
So, I guess you will have to take one more step into modernity and see a filmed presentation. Alas, the curse of living in the 20th and 21st century.I watched it, and it appears most of his position is an indictment of Lyell's uniformitarianism view of geology. That would be a lot more compelling if scientists hadn't figure out that such a view was incomplete decades ago. For the Flood model to be correct, that evidence of sudden geological change should be everywhere around the world, and all at the same layer geologically.

There's also the minor problem of people spending a year under water without noticing.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 05:22
Presumably if this information is correct, the good Professor would have published it somewhere. I don't have to refer you to YouTube to find the results of the WMAP mission or to explain General Relativity.
I watched it, and it appears most of his position is an indictment of Lyell's uniformitarianism view of geology. That would be a lot more compelling if scientists hadn't figure out that such a view was incomplete decades ago. For the Flood model to be correct, that evidence of sudden geological change should be everywhere around the world, and all at the same layer geologically.

There's also the minor problem of people spending a year under water without noticing.

The people underwater died, along with all the animals. If you are looking for uniformity in a cataclism, it might be difficult as it was a chaotic, not an orderly experience. The topography of the oceans is vastly different as well, and most of that used to be land mass.

GreenDrake
05-26-2012, 06:05
What about Pangea?

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 06:10
What about Pangea?

What about it?

GreenDrake
05-26-2012, 06:16
What about it?

Do you believe it existed or in plate tectonics?

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 06:19
The people underwater died, along with all the animals. Then why didn't every civilization on Earth come to a sudden end in the archaeological record at the exact same time? Perhaps we should also discuss when exactly the Flood happened.
If you are looking for uniformity in a cataclism, it might be difficult as it was a chaotic, not an orderly experience. Who said anyone was looking for that?
The topography of the oceans is vastly different as well, and most of that used to be land mass.According to who? I certainly didn't see any evidence of that in the video. Monterey Canyon (which is mentioned in the video) may have been dry land at one point, but that's hardly the same as "most" of the ocean once having been dry land.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 06:27
Then why didn't every civilization on Earth come to a sudden end in the archaeological record at the exact same time?
[quote]

You mean paleontological? Given the various topographies in catalclismic event, you would expect things to be acted upon differently. Also, there is no fossil record as you suggest that occurs in neat "evolutionary flow" that is a contrivance and fiction given the topsy turvy nature of fossils found in various strata that do not match such a neat contrivance.

[quote]
Perhaps we should also discuss when exactly the Flood happened.[/quote

We can find the what, when, why and how in Genesis 6-8.

[quote]
Who said anyone was looking for that?
According to who? I certainly didn't see any evidence of that in the video. Monterey Canyon (which is mentioned in the video) may have been dry land at one point, but that's hardly the same as "most" of the ocean once having been dry land.

You see what you want to see.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 06:28
Do you believe it existed or in plate tectonics?

I think the majority the world was land mass until the flood, and it caused major tectonic activity, that we feel even today.

GreenDrake
05-26-2012, 06:47
Thanks, just curious how the creationist viewpoint relates to a singular Pangea and modern day tectonics.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 07:40
You mean paleontological? No, I don't, although the line between paleontology and archaeology is somewhat nebulous.
Given the various topographies in catalclismic event, you would expect things to be acted upon differently. No, not really. Drowning is drowning, no matter what the topography. There should be evidence that human civilization existed, disappeared at the same time around the world, then reemerged. Where is that evidence?
Also, there is no fossil record as you suggest that occurs in neat "evolutionary flow" that is a contrivance and fiction given the topsy turvy nature of fossils found in various strata that do not match such a neat contrivance. You're wrong, but let's entertain this thought for a moment. If your position is correct, and all of humanity died at the same time, there should be a cornucopia of modern human fossils found in geological layers science identifies as predating humans. Could you point out a few of the examples?
We can find the what, when, why and how in Genesis 6-8. Excellent, then it should be a snap for you to share at least a rough date, say within a century or two.
You see what you want to see.Now you're just being meta. I'm the one who sees what the evidence shows, you're the one who demands the evidence fit what he wants to see and ignores everything else.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 07:41
I think the majority the world was land mass until the flood, and it caused major tectonic activity, that we feel even today.How did koala bears get to Australia?

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 07:58
How did koala bears get to Australia?

How did the mongoose get to Hawaii?

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 08:11
How did the mongoose get to Hawaii?They were brought there to control the rat population, in the late 19th century. Are you claiming that koalas were intentionally imported to Australia? Do you have some evidence of that? Mongooses can be found in many other parts of the world. Where else can we find koalas?

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 10:42
No, I don't, although the line between paleontology and archaeology is somewhat nebulous.

Not really, they are two different specialties.


No, not really. Drowning is drowning, no matter what the topography.

Alright, then where are the remains of Harry Truman after Mount Saint Hellens? Surely, he must be laying on top of the sediment somwhere, right?:upeyes:


There should be evidence that human civilization existed, disappeared at the same time around the world, then reemerged. Where is that evidence?
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.44.html


http://www.godscare.net/Skeptic/scientific_proofs/archaeoloy/index.htm


You're wrong, but let's entertain this thought for a moment. If your position is correct, and all of humanity died at the same time, there should be a cornucopia of modern human fossils found in geological layers science identifies as predating humans. Could you point out a few of the examples?

http://www.godscare.net/Skeptic/scientific_proofs/archaeoloy/index.htm


Excellent, then it should be a snap for you to share at least a rough date, say within a century or two.
Now you're just being meta. I'm the one who sees what the evidence shows, you're the one who demands the evidence fit what he wants to see and ignores everything else.

Actually, you intepret the evidence based upon your metaphyiscal presuposition.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 10:45
They were brought there to control the rat population, in the late 19th century. Are you claiming that koalas were intentionally imported to Australia? Do you have some evidence of that? Mongooses can be found in many other parts of the world. Where else can we find koalas?

It's not beyond reason. How did kamens enter the United States, snakehead fish, etc? How did the Romans have such a vast array of animals? So, humans relocating animals can be shown in both a modern and ancient sense.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 18:35
It's not beyond reason. No, it isn't. Where's your evidence?
How did kamens enter the United States, snakehead fish, etc? How did the Romans have such a vast array of animals? So, humans relocating animals can be shown in both a modern and ancient sense. True, but when animals are relocated they can be found both where they are relocated from and where they are relocated to. Where were koalas relocated from? Why are there fossils of koalas only in Australia? Why are the vast majority of marsupials found only in Australia?

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 18:44
Not really, they are two different specialties. Yes, they are, with a rather unclear division between them.
Alright, then where are the remains of Harry Truman after Mount Saint Hellens? Surely, he must be laying on top of the sediment somwhere, right?:upeyes: Are you under the impression that the recent explosion of Mt. St. Helens was a global event? Truman is buried at the Truman Library in Missouri. Are you contending that Missouri was somehow affected by the St. Helens eruption?
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.44.html


http://www.godscare.net/Skeptic/scientific_proofs/archaeoloy/index.htm



http://www.godscare.net/Skeptic/scientific_proofs/archaeoloy/index.htm I ask for evidence and get completely unsourced, random claims that have (for the most part) already been debunked? That's disappointing.
Actually, you intepret the evidence based upon your metaphyiscal presuposition.You're projecting again. I evaluate the evidence based on the whole of the available information. I, unlike creationists, don't require that evidence or conclusions fit into a preconceived belief system.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 19:01
It's not beyond reason. How did kamens enter the United States, snakehead fish, etc? How did the Romans have such a vast array of animals? So, humans relocating animals can be shown in both a modern and ancient sense.

I wish this was a troll. That you can actually believe Koalas were/could have been transplanted to Australia is just wow. I have a mentally ill brother who's a paranoid schizophrenic with psychotic delusions that isn't that delusional.

Lone Wolf8634
05-27-2012, 07:37
Are you under the impression that the recent explosion of Mt. St. Helens was a global event? Truman is buried at the Truman Library in Missouri. Are you contending that Missouri was somehow affected by the St. Helens eruption?


AM, The Harry Truman he's speaking of is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Randall_Truman

That, however is as much information that I can give you on that quote, it seems to just be a random thought having nothing to do with the anything in the conversation.

Kingarthurhk
05-27-2012, 12:02
AM, The Harry Truman he's speaking of is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Randall_Truman

That, however is as much information that I can give you on that quote, it seems to just be a random thought having nothing to do with the anything in the conversation.

It has quite a bit to do with it. He was killed in a great cataclism, one of the largest in American history, yet, no one has uncovered his body. Does that mean he never existed?

Kingarthurhk
05-27-2012, 12:06
I wish this was a troll. That you can actually believe Koalas were/could have been transplanted to Australia is just wow. I have a mentally ill brother who's a paranoid schizophrenic with psychotic delusions that isn't that delusional.

It is not inconcievable. How was the bubonic spread throughout the world? Stowaway animals or animals brought along on a ship are not inconcievable. Animals could have crossed on land bridges as the topography after the great catalclism is not entirely known.

Creation Today: Week 7/14/11 - Kangaroos & Koalas, Right & Wrong - YouTube

Lone Wolf8634
05-27-2012, 12:24
It has quite a bit to do with it. He was killed in a great cataclism, one of the largest in American history, yet, no one has uncovered his body. Does that mean he never existed?

I think I see what you're trying to do.

Your trying to compare the loss of one man in the aftermath of a volcanic eruption to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people supposedly drowned in a flood?

To make the point that just because we haven't found them, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Got it.:thumbsup:

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 15:45
It has quite a bit to do with it. He was killed in a great cataclism, one of the largest in American history, yet, no one has uncovered his body. Does that mean he never existed?What does that have to do with anything? In the case of the supposed global flood, which is the comparison I assume you're attempting to draw, we aren't talking about one person, or 57, but the entire population of the Earth. We might not find any single individual, but we should find numerous pieces of evidence of both people and civilizations abruptly ending. We don't find any such evidence.

Animal Mother
05-27-2012, 15:56
It is not inconcievable. How was the bubonic spread throughout the world? Stowaway animals or animals brought along on a ship are not inconcievable. Where did the koalas stow away from? Why is it we find fossils of koalas and kangaroos in Australia, and only in Australia?
Animals could have crossed on land bridges as the topography after the great catalclism is not entirely known. We can still find evidence of the Bering Land Bridge, where is the evidence of these bridges to Australia?
Creation Today: Week 7/14/11 - Kangaroos & Koalas, Right & Wrong - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOmTNUM8jgw)Fascinating, Kangaroos must have lived in the Middle East because that's where the Ark landed. Not that there's any evidence of such a thing. Marsupials must have crossed land bridges that placental mammals missed, not that there's any evidence of that. Marsupials must have, by and large, chosen not to settle anywhere between the Middle East and Australia, not that there's any evidence of that.

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the lengths to which creationists will go to maintain their fantasies.

juggy4711
05-27-2012, 22:23
It is not inconcievable. How was the bubonic spread throughout the world? Stowaway animals or animals brought along on a ship are not inconcievable. Animals could have crossed on land bridges as the topography after the great catalclism is not entirely known.

Creation Today: Week 7/14/11 - Kangaroos & Koalas, Right & Wrong - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOmTNUM8jgw)

Yes it is. That you think koala bears could spread like a communicable disease if further proof you're detached from reality. My brother once told me that the sun had not risen for three days. Took him to the movies last night. I mentioned that I had communicated with someone online that thought Koalas might have been transplanted to Australia.

He looked me straight in the eye and his exact words were "That's insane".