(January 22, 2014 at 6:41 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: The historical evidence for Jesus dying on the cross is utterly overwhelming, by contrast. Criteria of embarrassment, multiple attestation, discontinuity with Judaism...given there's nothing remotely miraculous about a leader of a Jewish sect getting crucified, I can see no good historical argument against.

I don't think it's overwhelming, and there are people here, who have much more knowledge of the subject than I do, who would surely contest it. Whether or not Jesus was a real man and was really executed by provincial Roman authorities is rather beside the point, which is, are Jesus' claims true? His messianic claims are the keystone of your faith; if they are not true, then your faith is sorely misplaced. I see no good historical argument verifying those claims. What makes the Christian salvation story non-fictional, when its claims are as historically verified as the parable of Elisha?

(January 22, 2014 at 7:34 am)Carnavon Wrote: Please provide irrefutable proof and while you are at at, proof of how it then happened.

Prove your claim, using extra-biblical sources, that Genesis happened as the Bible describes it. I'll respond with evidence to the contrary. One for one. Quid quo pro.

Quote:Notice you did not responded to the challenge to substantiate your view on what is right and wrong, yet feel free to express views using the very concepts of right and wrong.

I don't need to substantiate it because I don't require you to share it. Since that is not the case for Christianity, it is up to you to justify all of the atrocities attributed to your god by his own followers.

Since your version of 'right' includes things such as rape, slavery and genocide, which are objectionable even to most Christians, you're the one needing to explain your morality.

(January 22, 2014 at 7:45 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I don't think it's overwhelming, and there are people here, who have much more knowledge of the subject than I do, who would surely contest it. Whether or not Jesus was a real man and was really executed by provincial Roman authorities is rather beside the point, which is, are Jesus' claims true? His messianic claims are the keystone of your faith; if they are not true, then your faith is sorely misplaced. I see no good historical argument verifying those claims. What makes the Christian salvation story non-fictional, when its claims are as historically verified as the parable of Elisha?

Starting with the OP, hopefully we've reached the point of agreement that the story is about an innocent man being attacked by a large mob of teenagers threatening to kill him. God responds to protect His man, and in doing so a number of the young thugs had their non-existence double confirmed, or something.

Anyway, its hard to get morally outraged over the deaths of fictional characters; those who were doing so can now go and lie down in a darkened room with a cold towel on their heads listening to whale song, safe in the knowledge that It's All Right.



There may well be people on this site who would contest the historicity of the crucifixion, but academics in relevant disciplines don't bother. It is, however, useful that people do challenge this claim on websites, because in doing so they flag up to the rest of us the need to treat any information they provide with careful checking.

You are absolutely right that in order to avoid Jesus' claims about Himself going the same way as other non-historical stories, I would set out a clear historical case. As Paul put it, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”. If you check my posting history, you can find the line I take.

(January 22, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Indeed, Jesus' crucifixtion is a detail few historians would find objectionable. Unfortunately for us, the early Christians' obsession with the message of the Jesus story overshadowed their interest in the biographical or historical details of Jesus' life and death.

I can't disagree with much of this. It would be so nice to know what Jesus looked like, whether he was left or right handed, which websites he posted on regularly...

The gospel writers were operating to an extent within the conventions of their time, and were starting with the Greek bios format. I would agree they went some way beyond that, and the kerygma was an important purpose, but you have to start with a known genre or people don't know how to read you (see post 169).

I would challenge their lack of interest in Jesus' history (Luke certainly does in his introduction!). The bios may not be history quite in the way we do it (e.g. speeches are reconstructed rather than recorded), but it is intended as proper history.

(January 23, 2014 at 6:00 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: I can't disagree with much of this. It would be so nice to know what Jesus looked like, whether he was left or right handed, which websites he posted on regularly...

The gospel writers were operating to an extent within the conventions of their time, and were starting with the Greek bios format. I would agree they went some way beyond that, and the kerygma was an important purpose, but you have to start with a known genre or people don't know how to read you (see post 169).

I would challenge their lack of interest in Jesus' history (Luke certainly does in his introduction!). The bios may not be history quite in the way we do it (e.g. speeches are reconstructed rather than recorded), but it is intended as proper history.

Following the Persian Wars, Herodotus the Halicarnassian interviewed eyewitnesses and their children to find out what had occured during those years. His "Histories" is an invaluable resource to historians...but no one believes his stories about Delphi magically defending itself with lightning bolts, or a horse giving birth to a rabbit, or a whole town that allegedly witnessed a mass resurrection of cooked fish.

(January 22, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 22, 2014 at 7:34 am)Carnavon Wrote: Please provide irrefutable proof and while you are at at, proof of how it then happened.

If you are requesting that, then I assume it is because you have "irrefutable proof" that Genesis happened... right?

Sorry for the delay in responding.
I am only responding to your claim "There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened." .
What I would agree with is that entire fields of theoretical science have put paid that Genesis happened - such as the field of macro evolution. But when we get to the "practicalities", it has some severe limitations - such as the fact that no organism has ever been created from inorganic material, despite some serious efforts.
While we are on the subject (and to let you off the hook), on what basis do you believe/know that living material (i.e "simple" organisms) developed from non-living material?
Have a great day!

---

(January 22, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 22, 2014 at 7:34 am)Carnavon Wrote: Please provide irrefutable proof and while you are at at, proof of how it then happened.

If you are requesting that, then I assume it is because you have "irrefutable proof" that Genesis happened... right?

Please see my previous response - I asked for proof of a statement made. Maybe you can help?

---

(January 22, 2014 at 10:53 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 22, 2014 at 7:34 am)Carnavon Wrote: Please provide irrefutable proof and while you are at at, proof of how it then happened.

Prove your claim, using extra-biblical sources, that Genesis happened as the Bible describes it. I'll respond with evidence to the contrary. One for one. Quid quo pro.

Quote:Notice you did not responded to the challenge to substantiate your view on what is right and wrong, yet feel free to express views using the very concepts of right and wrong.

I don't need to substantiate it because I don't require you to share it. Since that is not the case for Christianity, it is up to you to justify all of the atrocities attributed to your god by his own followers.

Since your version of 'right' includes things such as rape, slavery and genocide, which are objectionable even to most Christians, you're the one needing to explain your morality.

Asking me for evidence for Genesis is a cop-out as you are unable to supply proof of the claim made. No offence.
Same with the issue of right and wrong. No grounds I must assume.
If you can be clear on atrocities, I will be able to respond once you can please clarify why they are atrocities. I am not quite clear on what you mean by atrocities.
Yes, the Bible gives us clear indication of right and wrong and that is the standard.
But if you wish to dispute anything being wrong, you must have a reason for saying so? Some argue that it is in the best interest of society etc. Well, my friend, Hitler believed he acted in the best interest of society by creating a "super race"and eliminating the Jews. So does Hamas, Al-Qaeda think that they are "right". I do not know your personal leanings, but you may not agree with one or more of the "morals" of these groups/individuals. Why is your standard the correct one and theirs wrong ?
Maybe you have not studies the Bible properly and rely mostly on "hearsay" or finding reasons not to believe it.
I mentioned it elsewhere that we tend to think of "kind and gentle Jesus", but that is not the truth - only part of it, as He invites you to come to Him. But God's wrath will also be revealed against ungodliness. As Peter Kreeft mentions (I also read some of Catholic apologetic stuff, some of which are very good) "Whenever I speak of it, they are stunned and silent, as if they have suddenly entered another world. They have. They have gone past the warm fuzzies, the fur coats of psychology-disguised-as-religion, into a world where they meet Christ the King, not Christ the Kitten.
Welcome back from the moon, kids."

Really no offense meant, but you will not get a clear picture of Christ unless you personally and hopefully somewhat unbiased, read the Bible. Maybe start with John. Use the ESV or my personal "favourite" the King James, with commentaries by Barnes, or Matthew Henry.

Thanks for the chat.

(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 22, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: If you are requesting that, then I assume it is because you have "irrefutable proof" that Genesis happened... right?

Sorry for the delay in responding.
I am only responding to your claim "There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened." .

I know we all look alike, but it wasn't me who claimed that...

(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: What I would agree with is that entire fields of theoretical science have put paid that Genesis happened - such as the field of macro evolution. But when we get to the "practicalities", it has some severe limitations - such as the fact that no organism has ever been created from inorganic material, despite some serious efforts.
While we are on the subject (and to let you off the hook), on what basis do you believe/know that living material (i.e "simple"
organisms) developed from non-living material?

Well, I don't know.
But it seems to be the only option available.
Somehow, through a series of events, carbon must have bonded with hydrogen and oxygen, forming carbohydrates (stuff that happens routinely, even today), which then bonded to form proteins and amino-acids and those bonded to form the first self-replicating chains of amino-acids, and thus... life.
It's this last step that science hasn't managed to replicate yet...
Even if they do manage to create self-replicating amino-acids chains... what will prevent anyone from saying "yeah, it's possible to do it like that, but who's to say it really happened like that?"

(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 22, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: If you are requesting that, then I assume it is because you have "irrefutable proof" that Genesis happened... right?

Please see my previous response - I asked for proof of a statement made. Maybe you can help?

The claim that genesis is wrong?
Actual measured age of the universe. ~14 billion years.
actual measured age of the planet Earth. ~4 billion years.

genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Is that enough, or do you want some more?

genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Just curious.. Where exactly does Genesis make this claim?

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding.
I am only responding to your claim "There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened." .

I know we all look alike, but it wasn't me who claimed that...

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: What I would agree with is that entire fields of theoretical science have put paid that Genesis happened - such as the field of macro evolution. But when we get to the "practicalities", it has some severe limitations - such as the fact that no organism has ever been created from inorganic material, despite some serious efforts.
While we are on the subject (and to let you off the hook), on what basis do you believe/know that living material (i.e "simple"
organisms) developed from non-living material?

Well, I don't know.
But it seems to be the only option available.
Somehow, through a series of events, carbon must have bonded with hydrogen and oxygen, forming carbohydrates (stuff that happens routinely, even today), which then bonded to form proteins and amino-acids and those bonded to form the first self-replicating chains of amino-acids, and thus... life.
It's this last step that science hasn't managed to replicate yet...
Even if they do manage to create self-replicating amino-acids chains... what will prevent anyone from saying "yeah, it's possible to do it like that, but who's to say it really happened like that?"

That is the exact point - the theory does not tie up with reality. Apart from that, a really substantial amount of information is necessary for a cell to function. This huge amount of information just appeared and exactly right to "create" this organism? This is not logical, not experimentally verified and statistically exceeding "no chance".
With them having solved all the issues, I would like to have a pair of wings - traffic congestion is killing me . You will know from objective analysis that all issues have not been resolved. Kindly consider the number of assumptions inherent in any of the theories.

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: Please see my previous response - I asked for proof of a statement made. Maybe you can help?

The claim that genesis is wrong?
Actual measured age of the universe. ~14 billion years.
actual measured age of the planet Earth. ~4 billion years.

genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Is that enough, or do you want some more?

Hi, the actual measured age of the earth is changing (adjusted from time to time as "new evidence" comes to light) but is again dependent upon certain assumptions - like uniformatism and a number of others.
It may interest you to read on the accelerating expansion of the universe, dumping a number of assumptions I believe and thus "scientists" have to review their theories.
But on a more serious note - see if you can find "The sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink. Maybe it is ridiculous of me to ask you to do this, as even "normal" Christians find this book a bit hard, but maybe it will give you an idea of who God is. Televangelists preach such a distorted gospel and I pity people who have to judge Christ by them. I trust you will consider it.
Have a fantastic day!

(January 29, 2014 at 9:07 am)Drich Wrote: genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Just curious.. Where exactly does Genesis make this claim?

Beats me...
People who've read the whole book (maybe it requires the full collection, not just genesis) claim it to be in that order of magnitude.... I go by those who did that work... .usually, they're christians, so I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of that result.

---

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: Well, I don't know.
But it seems to be the only option available.
Somehow, through a series of events, carbon must have bonded with hydrogen and oxygen, forming carbohydrates (stuff that happens routinely, even today), which then bonded to form proteins and amino-acids and those bonded to form the first self-replicating chains of amino-acids, and thus... life.
It's this last step that science hasn't managed to replicate yet...
Even if they do manage to create self-replicating amino-acids chains... what will prevent anyone from saying "yeah, it's possible to do it like that, but who's to say it really happened like that?"

That is the exact point - the theory does not tie up with reality. Apart from that, a really substantial amount of information is necessary for a cell to function. This huge amount of information just appeared and exactly right to "create" this organism? This is not logical, not experimentally verified and statistically exceeding "no chance".

Did I ever say "cell"?
A cell is a very very advanced mechanism.... so you'd be right in your view that it'd take an extraordinary event for such a mechanism to just pop out of a few atoms...

But I didn't say "cell", now did I?

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: With them having solved all the issues, I would like to have a pair of wings - traffic congestion is killing me . You will know from objective analysis that all issues have not been resolved. Kindly consider the number of assumptions inherent in any of the theories.

I do... and the assumptions that go into the god hypothesis are also going into the pot...

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: The claim that genesis is wrong?
Actual measured age of the universe. ~14 billion years.
actual measured age of the planet Earth. ~4 billion years.

genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Is that enough, or do you want some more?

Hi, the actual measured age of the earth is changing (adjusted from time to time as "new evidence" comes to light) but is again dependent upon certain assumptions - like uniformatism and a number of others.
It may interest you to read on the accelerating expansion of the universe, dumping a number of assumptions I believe and thus "scientists" have to review their theories.

Well, they may be revising the number to an ever increasing accuracy, but the consensus is in the order of 14by... give or take a few millions.

(January 29, 2014 at 9:10 am)Carnavon Wrote: But on a more serious note - see if you can find "The sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink. Maybe it is ridiculous of me to ask you to do this, as even "normal" Christians find this book a bit hard, but maybe it will give you an idea of who God is. Televangelists preach such a distorted gospel and I pity people who have to judge Christ by them. I trust you will consider it.
Have a fantastic day!

Does that book make the same mistake as all others I've been advised to read?
Oh, the mistake is to assume, right from the start, that god exists and is very well defined.
Well, if magic exists, anything is possible, and anything can be written about it... the imagination is the limit!

Enjoy your imagination!

(January 29, 2014 at 9:07 am)Drich Wrote: genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.

Just curious.. Where exactly does Genesis make this claim?

Perhaps you should take that up with the young earthers who are making this claim, and not the people who disagree with them?