Without God Im Useless Blog

[11 to 1 0]

Actually the Bible has been translated. Not rewritten. Theres a big difference.Also, how in the world did we get on the subject of evolution? Besides the fact that if you actually study the science behind the "THEORY" of evolution its just ridiculous, I agree that this is not the place to decide whether evolution is in fact real, but its too fun to explain what evolution really is and hear the people who believe in it blow a gasket. So here goes. I actually took 2 full semesters in college on the evolution vs creation conflict. Involved in those classes were in depth study of the mathematics and original details of the "THEORY" of evolution, and anyone who looks at that information would laugh its so ridiculous. This is a good example of what evolution claims. Take a pair of shoes and set them out for 10 million years and they will evolve into a bicycle, and if you give it millions of years to interact with its environment it will eventually turn into a 2007 Volkswagen GTI, and then if you give the VW another few million years to interact with the environment it will evolve into a leer jet, and then a space shuttle and so on. Its so silly I marvel at the millions of people that fool themselves by believing in it so strongly. The mathematics of evolution is the pink elephant of ridiculousness as well.

Well, "garbage in, garbage out" as they say. What Creationsist school was this that managed to swindle you out of your money for two semesters and teach you....less than nothing.I took more than two semesters, I studied paleoanthropology in an actual accredited institution of higher education (University) for years - and I gotta say, you haven't the most basic grasp of any science involved. I will give you this one lesson free, I have given it for twenty years all over the Intetrnet and will waste my time once again, as I am sure you will ignore the information."Theory" does not mean "guess." It may mean that in the vernacular, but not in science. "Theory" means: an explanation of observable or predictable phenomena.Let me illustrate: there is a set of teachings that are referred to as: The Theory of Aerodynamics. They explain, in part, how things fly. That this is the Theory of Aerodynamics, does not mean "we are guessing that maybe things fly." We already know that, the theory is the explanation for how that happens. This theory has been developing for hundreds of years, it has been refined and added to, subtracted from and reworked. But even when parts of the theory were incorrect, things still flew. Birds and kites and moths and bumblebees still flew. The Theory of Aerodynamics, as it existed, allowed us to design all kinds of aircraft, but by it's own principles, said bees could not fly. That is, how bees can fly was unknown until about 5 years ago. They still flew. We still used the parts of the theory that worked well to design bigger and better, or smaller and faster, or a host of other types of aircraft.The Theory of Evolution does not mean "we think maybe, possibly species evolve." We already know they evolve. The Theory is just the explanation of how they do that. Is it incomplete? Of course. Will we find parts that are incorrect and add new things that we discover? Certainly! Does this mean species do not change over time? Does this mean we didn't, don't or won't continue to oberserve evolution of species? NO! Things Fly. Species evolve. Water molecules interact. All these things we observe are explaned, more or less accurately by The Theory of Aerodynamics, the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Hydrodynamics.Go back and read the first thirteen chapters of Genesis. They are, for the most part, explanations of things observed. The "Theory of Everything" of their time. There is a great deal of Truth in those pages, and there are even a few facts, or things based on facts. But like all theories, they are improved over time. That is....theories evolve.

[LouBlue 0]

Wow, amazing the tangents the discussion fragmented into and the venom that was evident in some of the posts.... All from a guy who was basically just saying that he needed to get his priorities straight...

[11 to 1 0]

Yes, let's get the facts correct.The KJV is a *translation* -- not a rewriting of the collection of canonical books.The idiosyncracies of the KJV are well documented (translated with some theological leanings), but to suggest it is a rewriting displays a lack of knowledge of the facts.We have somewhere around 25,000 new testament manuscripts which pre-date the KJV (another 20,000 manuscripts of ancient authors quoting the new testament for a total of somewhere around 45,000 ancient new testament manuscripts), all agreeing with each other approximately 99.5% in their content.There is little room for doubt about the textual content of the New Testament documents (although some well known and discussed minor variants here and there). Nearly any modern translation you pick up today at the local Barnes & Noble will be, in all likelihood, considerably accurate to the autographs.

Nice post. Have you read: The Book : A History of the Bible? (Christopher DeHamel, Phaidon Press Inc., N.Y., 2001.) Everyone should read this, fundamentalists, skeptics, everyone. It is an exceptionally well-researched look at how the physical Bible came to us and he draws the same conclusion as to accuracy. Though, the very oldest copies are still copies of copies, what evidence there is does show a very high degree of accuracy in the copying.

[Courtsdad 0]

I'll explain why you are wrong.The Bible was written on the original paper.Copies of those papers were made. Letters written by people who had those copies and originals quote from these enough for us to make up most of the Bible alone, just from these letters.. People translated these into different languages.Scholars used as many old copies as they could find to verify that the translations were accurate. People fought argued and some died to make these translations.Most of todays translations have been found to be accurate, to a degree of 99% by some estimates for like the NASB. The other 1% is in question is spelling of names in old testament and a couple extra verses here and there, which may or may not be foot notes.There are thousands of good translations, and the message is the same. The difference between accurate translations are usually sentance structure and or emphasis, not doctrinal truths. You cannot shop around for a translation that says it's okay to call with nothing but a gutshot for less than 8:1 pot odds.Now compare that to re-writing:The Bible was written on the original paper.The founders of Jehovah's Witnesses needed the Bible to say different things to confirm their twist on the truth.The re wrote the Bible and called it the New World Translation.No person who can read and write Hebrew agrees with their translation.They bother us on Saturdays.You are either misusing the word re-write, or you are completely confused and have zero to no understanding of the accuracy of the modern day Bible.You can argue it's content like Crow, but you are going to lose if you argue it's accuracy to the original text.By the way there is an excellant Bible museum in Goodyear Arizona that has copies of Geneva Bibles, Tyndales, etc. and they even have a page of a Guttenburg Bible for sale: $100K for one page. I bought some pages from the original King James Bible and Geneva Bible to add to my small collection of old Bibles and Bible pages.

Balloon Guy it is enjoyable to have a debate without name calling,lol especially here. Would you agree that that some authors doesn't put his own personal flair into a translation? I was never suggesting that the broad overall message was changed just that through the ages people have been slective about what they wanted in "their " Bible.There was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century AD. The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forcesFour hundred years is a long time for accuracy to prevail and personl opinions or variations to come into play.Would you agree exclusion is a form of "rewritting" ? Human history has allowed precious few ancient religious writings to survive the onslaught of the more aggressive and powerful religious forces, which seek only to gain territory and wealth. Genocide and cultural eradication always go hand in hand with missionary zeal. In many cases every trace of the conquered society's religious writings, practices, icons, and even buildings were destroyed, in the name of conversion from worship of gods considered evil, and religious customs labeled as heresies. What generally results from past crusades is the conqueror's religion replacing or predominantly blending with the conquered culture's former religious practice, making the its religion almost unrecognizable. Christianity falls into the latter category, having been the victim of the Roman Empire, under the Emperor Constantine, who blended the Christian Church with the institutionalized "pagan" practices of Rome and eliminated any semblance of either the Jewish religious influence or the first church Jesus established during his ministry.To the victor go the spoils and their version of what is "true" Through a series of Universal Councils, he and his successors completely altered doctrine without regard to biblical edict, set up a church hierarchy of his own design, and established a set of beliefs and practices, which are the basis for all mainstream Bible-based churches. The separation of the Protestants and the Roman Church caused a physical split but the beliefs and practices established by Constantine remained almost identical. Very little has changed since the 4th century Councils changed the face of Christianity. An effective practice instituted was the purging of any book in the formerly accepted biblical works, over 80% of the total, that church leaders felt did not fit within their new concept of Christianity. The doctrines and practices remaining in the surviving books were effectively eradicated by simply changing them by replacing clear scripture with Church-sanctioned doctrine. Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible. All along this was the major event i was referencing. We know what dictators do with text they don't like!!!!!My point is what is the original Bible? Word of mouth passed onto followers, eventually written down by the educated few? What did they omit? Did personal opinion come into play? Even people within Christianity were concerned and knew what would would (had?) happened."For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths." (II Timothy 4:3-4)We know who's name is attached to the Gospels but not who actually wrote them so how can we possibly beleive that whether purposely or accidentally the documents are unchanged. That was my whole reason for my initial response. The poster spoke as if the Bible had been passed down from the hand of Jesus and had been unchaged over 2000 years.I guess the root is the question would be what is the real Bible? Personally as long as the general message is the same it shouldnt matter ( obviously the overlap in the gospels shows that the general message was clear) This was an interesting read and note a "wikiquote" as you suggested earlier,lolhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../emergence.htmlDont shoot me for using a PBS link please,lolI want to say once again that nothing Ive stated is a shot at anyones beleif but in my world MY savior would want me to question anything that man has had a hand in writing. I mean man is full of sin, right? Faith is great but pretending blind faith is an absolute of the universe is not productive. And lets be honest..if I were to tell a story similar to the life and death of Jesus, the true beleivers would be the first to call me crazy. ( again I am not knocking anyones faith just pointing out human nature. My beleifs are right and yours are wrong syndrome)As long as what you beleive in makes you a good person and guides you in that direction, I am all for it.As a side note I would love to see those pages you have. Touching a peice of history, especially if it involves your faith, is a special thing.

[Balloon guy 158]

I took more than two semesters, I studied paleoanthropology in an actual accredited institution of higher education (University) for years - and I gotta say, you haven't the most basic grasp of any science involved. I will give you this one lesson free, I have given it for twenty years all over the Intetrnet and will waste my time once again, as I am sure you will ignore the information.

When I was a heavy equipment operator I worked with paleontologist alot. They earned on average $10 an hour, and drove crappy cars.I made $22 and got to drive big loud bulldozers and scrapers.Once I showed them a bone that I found that he said was a tooth from a saber tooth tiger about 25K years old. I asked if he wanted to buy it, he said no, he didn't have any money. It turned out to be a tooth from a camel, probably used by the US calvary in the 1800s.I don't have much respect for paleontologist.

[Balloon guy 158]

Balloon Guy it is enjoyable to have a debate without name calling,lol especially here. Would you agree that that some authors doesn't put his own personal flair into a translation?

I would argue that in this point God's hand comes into play.The Jews held their Torah to be so Holy that the copies were checked and rechecked for accuracy to the point of silliness, but to them this was God's Word and nothing could be overlooked.The Dead Sea Scrolls were a big jump backwards in time and there was nothing but vindication for our current text, as well as the Torah.So if you believe that the original text was God's message, than you can argue that He would have an interest in getting it too us. That's why the original New Testament was written in the common language of the people.The Bible has been under attack by non-believers for 2,000 years and has held up to all scrutiny. That alone is miraculous.And I agree that God wants us to challenge our thinking. That's why Christians have been so instrumental in founding universities and schools since the founding of this country. It could be argued that without Christians the quality of schools in America would be much much less.

[crowTrobot 2]

Wadems, it might startle you to learn that the percentage of well educated scientists who believe there IS a God is about the same as those who believe there isn't one.

if you are talking about world-wide, and specifically about the christian god, then that is not even close to true. if you are generalizing - of course a large percentage of scientists will always follow the faith of their upbringing, but that is obviously just a cultural phenomenon. in the vast majority of cases their belief has little or nothing to do with the empirical evidence they work with, so the point is trivial.

[rick_bays 0]

Nice post. Have you read: The Book : A History of the Bible? (Christopher DeHamel, Phaidon Press Inc., N.Y., 2001.) Everyone should read this, fundamentalists, skeptics, everyone. It is an exceptionally well-researched look at how the physical Bible came to us and he draws the same conclusion as to accuracy. Though, the very oldest copies are still copies of copies, what evidence there is does show a very high degree of accuracy in the copying.

Thanks for the compliment. I have not read the book you mention, but the scholarship involved is fairly well known.

[rick_bays 0]

There was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century AD. The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forcesFour hundred years is a long time for accuracy to prevail and personl opinions or variations to come into play.Would you agree exclusion is a form of "rewritting" ? -snip-

I'm sorry bro, but this post is just riddled with misinformation.Before I clear up some of the historical facts, let's clear up the concept of canon. A canon is a collection of authoritative documents, NOT an authoritative list of documents. Do you see the subtle difference? It is not the list which is authoritative, it is the documents themselves. When Christians appeal to a canon, they are appealing to the authority of the documents, not the list of the document names. Therefore, the important question regarding canon is this: which document(s) are authoritative?On to the historical facts:1) Quoting courtsdad: "No canon prior to Constantine."This is plainly false. The Muratorian fragment, for instance, has a consensus dating from the second century (ca 170 CE). Interestingly, this fragment was likely composed in reaction to Marcion who was proposing his own edited version of which books should be considered as authentic and authoritative (notice the implication here: if Marcion was proposing an edited version, then that presupposes an earlier established version).2) Quoting courtsdad: "The commission of the first bible by Constantine."I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. We have libraries full of manuscripts which pre-date Constantine. Constantine did not choose which books were considered authentic nor did the Council of Nicea.3) Quoting courtsdad: "Four hundred years is a long time for accuracy to prevail (sic) and personal opinions or variations to come into play."Actually, four hundred years is *not* a long time between an historical event and its recording. However, we do not suffer this problem with the New Testament documents as we have scores of manuscripts younger than this time frame.Let's look at some examples from ancient history.The historian Josephus, who lived from 37-100ad wrote of the Jewish wars which occured between 200bc and 70ad. He wrote the history around 80ad, giving a time span of 10-300 years between the events and his recording of the events. The earliest known manuscripts are dated 950ad, giving a time span of 900-1200 years between event and extant manuscripts. His work has been put through the scholarly wringers and comes out great. It is considered accurate and extremely valuable. Josephus also wrote the historical document Antiquities. The dates of events that he wrote about were from 200bc to 65ad. He wrote this history around 95ad, giving a time span between events and writing of 30 to 300 years. The earliest known manuscripts date from 1050ad, giving a time span of 1000-1300 years between events and extant manuscripts. Again, his work is considered accurate. Tacitus, who lived from 56ad to 120ad, wrote Annals. The dates of events he recorded were from 14-68ad. He recorded them from 100-120ad, giving a time span of 30 to 100 years between the events and his writing of them. The earliest known manuscripts date from 850ad, giving a time span of 800-850 years between events and extant manuscripts. His work is considered accurate. Seutonius, lived from 69-130ad, wrote of historical events of the Caesars that occured between 50bc and 95ad. He did his writing at 120ad, giving a span of 25 to 170 years between events and his recording of them. The earliest known manuscript is dated from 850ad, giving a time span of 750-900 years between events and extant manuscripts. His work is considered accurate. Plutarch lived from 50ad to 120ad, wrote historical records in 100 ad of events that happened from 500bc to 70ad, giving a gap of 30 to 600 years between his recording and the events. The oldest known extant manuscripts date from 950ad, giving a gap of 850 to 1500 years between events and extant manuscripts. His work is considered accurate. Herodotus, perhaps another historian you have heard of, lived 485-425bc. He recorded events that occured 546-478bc. He recorded them betwen 430 and 425bc giving us a gap of 50-125 years between the events and his recording. The oldest known manuscripts are dated 900ad, giving us a gap of 1400-1450 years between events and extant manuscripts. His work is considered accurate. I could cite more examples, but I think you get the idea. What you and I may think of as large gaps of time do not necessarily negate accuracy. The shorter the time gap between the event and the time the author records the information the better, of course. And the shorter the time of the first recording and extant manuscripts the better, of course.How do the documents contained in the New Testament stack up in this manner? Luke, lived from 10ad to 80ad, recorded events that happened between 5bc and 30ad. He recorded these events between 50 and 70ad (likely between 55 & 60 IMO), giving a gap of 20 to 75 years between the events and the recording. The earliest known manuscript is dated 180ad (or 90 - 110ad if we side with the thiede group) giving us 150 to 185 years gap between events and extant manuscripts. John, lived from 10ad-100ad, recorded events that happened between 27-30ad. The latest likely date that he recorded these events is 70ad, giving a gap of 40 to 43 years between events and his recording. The oldest known manuscript is dated to 130ad, giving a gap of 100 years between events and extant manuscripts. Matthew, lived from 0 to 70ad, recorded events that happened between 4bc and 30ad. The latest likely date that he recorded these events is between 50-65ad, giving a gap of 20 to 38 years between the events and his recording. The oldest known manuscript is dated to 200 ad (or 65ad if we side with the thiede group), giving a gap of 170-200 years between events and extant manuscripts. Mark, lived from 15ad to 90ad and recorded events that took place between 27 and 30ad. The latest likely date that he recorded these events is between 50-65ad, giving a gap of 20 to 38 years between the events and his recording of them. The oldest known manuscript is dated to 225ad (or 50-58ad if we side with the thiede group), giving a gap of 195 years between events and extant manuscripts. Paul, lived from 0-65ad and wrote his letters between 50 and 65ad, including portions that record history from 30ad. This gives a gap of 20 to 35 years between event and his recording. The earliest known manuscript is dated to 200ad (or 70ad if we side with the thiede group), giving a gap of 135 to 150 years between events and extant manuscripts. The dates accepted for New Testament writing and the dates of oldest extant New Testament manuscripts keep being steadily pushed back earlier and earlier since archaeology became a popular science; likewise we are in the midst of a technological revolution in papyrology which has also been pushing earlier dates.4) Quoting courtsdad: "Human history has allowed precious few ancient religious writings to survive the onslaught of the more aggressive and powerful religious forces."This is as much a statement of propaganda as it is fact. However, are you aware of the first three centuries of christian history? The early Christians were hated and persecuted by pretty much EVERYBODY. The documents which record Christian teaching and doctrine were written while christians were being routinely killed for their beliefs, by Jewish authorities and Roman authorities (not to mention the regular citizen on the street). You've got the roles reversed here.5) Quoting courtsdad: "To the victor go the spoils and their version of what is "true" - Through a series of Universal Councils, he and his successors completely altered doctrine without regard to biblical edict..."This is a kernel of truth here, but there is a serious problem here with the evidence. We have extant manuscripts of the Christian New Testament which pre-date Constantine. We know what the earliest Christians believed.6) Quoting courtsdad: "Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible."Again, this statement is just simply false.The best evidence we can hope for to answer such a question is direct quotes from those who were in a position to know. Interestingly, we have just this type of evidence in the historical record. We have extant writings from early chrsitians such as Clement, Ireaneus, Origen, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, etc. Within their writings they quote from the canonical books, refer to them as scripture, appeal to them as authentic, appeal to them as authoritative, write commentaries on them. They do reference other books (Hermas, Didache, for example) but do not treat these books in the same way. Guess which books they completely ignore? All the pseudographic and gnostic gospels. This genre of books does begin to appear by the mid second century - but they are ignored by pretty much everybody (other than to mention one of them by name and note that the books is considered a forgery or some similar polemic). Interestingly, we also have extant writings from some of the early enemies of Christianity - Celsus, for example. Guess which books the enemies of Christianity mention in their writings as containing the authentic Christian message? :-)These other books came along at a later date, were recognized as forgeries by everybody, and seemed to go along being pretty much ignored. There was no "competition" to be considered canonical, they were simply never considered because they were recognized as false as soon as they came on the scene.7) Quoting courtsdad: "My point is what is the original Bible? Word of mouth passed onto followers, eventually written down by the educated few? What did they omit? Did personal opinion come into play?"I hope I have cleared some of this up. Yes, the gospel message would've passed in oral tradition. But, this does not entail errors (we need to keep in mind the accuracy within accepted guidelines for these oral cultures) and we need to remember that the gospels were penned at very early dates compared to the events they record. Were they written by the educated few? Interestingly, we know from the quality of the Koinea that many of the writers were under-educated. What did they omit? Undoubtedly much (as John admits at the end of his gospel). But, are they sufficient in what they record? That is the key question.If I have misrepresented any of your points, or misunderstood them, please clarify for me.Agape!Rick

[MoChipsPlese 0]

Lolz, this made my day. Ty Mo

Glad I could make your day brighter Gil. Hey by the way, great job in the 100K on bodog yesterday. Sweet cash!

[crowTrobot 2]

(we need to keep in mind the accuracy within accepted guidelines for these oral cultures)

you mean accepted guidelines such as rejecting ALL metaphysical claims in ancient oral tradition outright because they are invalidated by all modern evidence and everything know about the natural world?

[rick_bays 0]

you mean accepted guidelines such as rejecting ALL metaphysical claims in ancient oral tradition outright because they are invalidated by all modern evidence and everything know about the natural world?

No, that's not what I mean.We now know that oral cultures had well established and proficient mechanisms for preserving their oral traditions. They used outlines, they used short story forms, they used poetic verse, they used melody, they used simple math, etc. We can examine oral cultures today and still see these mechanisms at work. It was a system developed over thousands of years and worked well within its own guidelines for accuracy (I can discuss these guidelines if you wish). Oral cultures knew their history in much the same way you and I may be able to recall a few Beatles songs - but they were much more practiced and skilled at this than you or I.Interestingly, if we translate the words of Jesus recorded in the canonical gospels back into aramaic, we find almost all of his teaching to be in short poetic verse or parables... exactly the type of material which we expect an oral culture to easily preserve.And we must remember, in all likelihood the gospel message did not travel around in oral form for very long. It was quickly put down to writing (just how quickly is difficult to determine, somewhere between zero and forty years - I can outline the arguments for both extremes if you wish).(metaphysics is a word with several meanings... if you intend to refer to supernatural claims made by the ancients then your statement is non sequitur)Good discussion, thanks!Agape,

[crowTrobot 2]

(metaphysics is a word with several meanings... if you intend to refer to supernatural claims made by the ancients then your statement is non sequitur)

non sequitur? if you are not concerned with validating the divinity of jesus then what's the point? and if you are differentiating the claimed divinity of jesus from "supernatural claims made by the ancients" then your reasoning is based on a biased double standard. "proficient mechanism for preserving oral tradition" and/or current versions of NT books being accurately copied from original manuscripts have no relevance to the question of the divinity of jesus. they are not things that are evidence jesus worked actual miracles or rose from the dead. in light of the complete lack of contemporary references to jesus they are not even difinitive evidence he existed at all.

[rick_bays 0]

non sequitur? if you are not concerned with validating the divinity of jesus then what's the point? and if you are differentiating the claimed divinity of jesus from "supernatural claims made by the ancients" then your reasoning is based on a biased double standard.

Not a double standard, each claim needs to be evaluated upon its own accord - we cannot simply lump them all together as you suggest. Unless, of course, we somehow know that reality is restricted to the matter & energy we experience with our five senses -- but we do not know this and it is impossible to establish this through scientific methods.

"proficient mechanism for preserving oral tradition" and/or current versions of NT books being accurately copied from original manuscripts have no relevance to the question of the divinity of jesus. they are not things that are evidence jesus worked actual miracles or rose from the dead.

Au contraire, you are mistaken. Here is where Christianity is different than most other major religions. Buddhism, for example, is centered around the teachings of the Buddha. If we were somehow to excise Sakyamuni's experience under the bodhi tree from Buddhism we wouldn't lose much. We would still have his dharma, the middle way - the core of Buddhism still stands.Christianity, on the other hand, is not centered around a doctrine nor a teaching... rather an historical event. This is either Christianity's greatest strength or its greatest weakness. Everything about Christianity centers around the purported resurrection of Jesus. Just ask Paul, who said "...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."Historical events are open to investigation and analysis by historical science. Thus, the keystone to Christianity's truth claims is open to historical investigation. If we can establish that the resurrection of Jesus likely did not occur, then we can discredit Christianity. If, however, we can establish that the resurrection was likely an historical fact - well then, we have to evaluate what this fact would mean to us.History happened, and it comes to us through documentary sources.

in light of the complete lack of contemporary references to jesus they are not even difinitive evidence he existed at all.

How do we establish that a person existed in past history? Through historical evidence, of course (written, iconographic, etc.) - or through indirect inference (we may have no known references to Caesar's mother... but few will doubt her existence).Does such evidence need to be contemporary? No, we are not always fortunate enough to have contemporary references to a person. This is just the nature of history (it is not always recorded the moment it happens, there was no six o'clock news in the first century) and the evidence we have (it is rare that stuff survives the passage of time to be preserved for us). Regardless, we can still establish the existence of a person in history with later evidence.To the point: what kind of evidence do we have for the existence of Jesus in history? Interestingly, this is not much of a problem - we have a ton.1. The sudden explosion of Christianity and the Christian church on the scene in first century Judea is by itself more than enough to establish the existence of Jesus as a real historical person (in the same way we can establish the existence of Caesar's mother by the appearance of Caesar in the historical record). There is just no adequate explanation of the sudden birth of Christianity without a Jesus at the beginning. This evidence dates to the middle of the first century.2. We have documentary evidence from the first century from those who were closest to Jesus. We have the synoptic gospels, thought by nearly all scholars to be either written by those who directly knew Jesus (primary sources) or compiled by those who knew them (secondary source material). We have the johannine gospel - claimed in its own pages to be written by a direct companion of Jesus. This evidence dates to the middle of the first century (earlier if we allow for quelle).3. We have the Pauline corpus, recognized by nearly all scholars as authentic, which contains several references to an historical Jesus. This evidence dates to the middle of the first century.4. Josephus, writing around the turn of the first century, makes mention of Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1. This passage is generally undisputed.He [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as breakers of the law he delivered them to be stoned. 5. Josephus also mentions Jesus in the Testamonium Flavium - there are three general schools of thought on the TF ranging from forgery to authentic. Most scholars believe the passage to be interpolated in some form but to contain a reference to Jesus in its original form.6. Tacitus (generally considered the greatest Roman historian and held a series of important administrative posts) wrote Histories covering the years 69-96 (originally likely had 12 books, 1-4 and parts of 5 have survived). He also wrote Annals (unfinished and considered his greatest work and our best source of history for this period) which covers the years from 14-68 (Augustus' death through Nero) was originally 16 or 18 books, 1-4 and 12-15 have survived intact. In Annals 15, Tacitus describes the great fire which destroys much of Rome in 64ad. After the fire the rumor began to spread that Nero ordered the fire to be set for his own personal gain... "But neither human effort not the emperor's generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called Chrestians. The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Tacitus goes on to describe how they were arrested, tortured, crucified, used as human torches, torn apart by wild animals for sport - all the while Nero made a spectacle of it (to detract attention away from himself is Tacitus's opinion). The vast majority of scholars agree that the above text is sound and trustworthy as the work of Tacitus. We can discuss the use of "Chrestians" and "Christ" if you like. We can also discuss the occasionally used assertion that "Christ" here most likely does not refer to Jesus.7. Seutonius, Roman writer and lawyer, was a prolific writer of many forms of literature. Unfortunately, only his Lives of the Caesars (published ca 120 ad) has survived basically intact. This book covers the lives of the first 12 emporers - Julius Caesar through Domitian. In Lives, Seutonius writes biographies of the emporers, including (in chronological order) family background, early life, physical appearance and private life. He treats the public career of each emporer in topical fashion. In one of these topical sections (book 5) he summarily lists actions which Claudius took toward various subject peoples during his reign. In 25.4 he states: He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus. The overwhelming consensus of scholars is that this passage is a reference to the historical Jesus.8. The Talmud contains a few passages which are thought by many scholars to reference the historical Jesus and I can present the ones which I give the most credence to if you like. The data in the Talmud was not penned until the third century but is universally recognized to have circulated in oral form prior to that.9. Lucian, a well known Greek satirist, also referenced the historical Jesus around the year 160ad. But we are starting to get later in history now.(skipping Pliny, Mara bar Serapion, and Thallos because I think I've made my point by now)I hope that helps!Agape,Rick

[rgold79 0]

May I just ask, politely, why someone would view the concept of evolution and natural selection as being in opposition to faith? Is it considered a threat to religion? There is a very long history of organized religion opposing science in astronomy, physics and biology, and in many cases these ideas are now accepted universally (unless anyone here believes the sun revolves around the earth). It just seems hard to reconcile everything to me and I'd like for someone to explain why faith and science - in this case at least - can't coexist.

[crowTrobot 2]

Not a double standard, each claim needs to be evaluated upon its own accord - we cannot simply lump them all together as you suggest. Unless, of course, we somehow know that reality is restricted to the matter & energy we experience with our five senses -- but we do not know this and it is impossible to establish this through scientific methods.

except to "evaluate upon its own accord" other ancient metaphysical claims that are mutually exclusive with christianity - you use empiricism lol. exempting the bible is a blatant double standard.

Historical events are open to investigation and analysis by historical science. Thus, the keystone to Christianity's truth claims is open to historical investigation. If we can establish that the resurrection of Jesus likely did not occur, then we can discredit Christianity. If, however, we can establish that the resurrection was likely an historical fact - well then, we have to evaluate what this fact would mean to us.

and how exactly do you do that without appealing to empiricism? historical science and natural science are intimately linked in that regard by all precedent. again, exempting the bible from the latter is a blatant double standard.the rest is nice, but i don't dispute that the evidence is heavily weighted for jesus existing as a historical figure. my point was more that if the events of his life were actually as pivotal and controversial as claimed historical precedent indicates contemporary references (particularly in roman history) should exist.since they don't exist, it's easy to envision the events of his life being embellished after the fact in the fashion fables are typically formed (and i don't buy the "not enough time for myth-making" argument, so don't bother).

[crowTrobot 2]

May I just ask, politely, why someone would view the concept of evolution and natural selection as being in opposition to faith? Is it considered a threat to religion? There is a very long history of organized religion opposing science in astronomy, physics and biology, and in many cases these ideas are now accepted universally (unless anyone here believes the sun revolves around the earth). It just seems hard to reconcile everything to me and I'd like for someone to explain why faith and science - in this case at least - can't coexist.

if you want to treat "faith" as some vague generalization (like DN does in practice) science isn't much of a threat, no. however science is certainly in opposition to all fundamentalist specifics.

[rick_bays 0]

except to "evaluate upon its own accord" other ancient metaphysical claims that are mutually exclusive with christianity - you use empiricism lol. exempting the bible is a blatant double standard. and how exactly do you do that without appealing to empiricism? historical science and natural science are intimately linked in that regard by all precedent. again, exempting the bible from the latter is a blatant double standard.

As I said, historical events are open to historical investigation - an empirical discipline. Sorry, but this does not entail falling into empiricism nor a priori presupposing naturalism. (in fact, science is not possible if we follow empiricism - science presupposes the principles of logic)

the rest is nice, but i don't dispute that the evidence is heavily weighted for jesus existing as a historical figure. my point was more that if the events of his life were actually as pivotal and controversial as claimed historical precedent indicates contemporary references (particularly in roman history) should exist.since they don't exist, it's easy to envision the events of his life being embellished after the fact in the fashion fables are typically formed (and i don't buy the "not enough time for myth-making" argument, so don't bother).

I posted direct reference from two contemporary Roman historians (three if we count Josephus as Roman... and some do considering his awkward position).We may be able to envision the events of Jesus' life being embellished, but without evidence to support this hypothesis it remains nothing more than speculation.You make an argument from silence about Roman historians (one which is contrary to the evidence). However, I should point out, such arguments from silence are only compelling if we have strong reason to expect a thing (in this case Roman historical references to Jesus) and yet do not find our expectation. In fact, we have little reason to expect Roman historians to mention Jesus - the religious oddities contained in an out of the way client kingdom just aren't something that would be interesting to the pragmatic Roman mind. Thus, the argument from silence is not compelling.The fact that we do have two (or three) Roman historians mention Jesus is quite remarkable and unexpected.Still thanking you for the interesting discussion. :-)Agape,Rick

[crowTrobot 2]

As I said, historical events are open to historical investigation - an empirical discipline. Sorry, but this does not entail falling into empiricism nor a priori presupposing naturalism.

then presumably you believe the archeological discovery of troy is evidence the god apollo exists.

I posted direct reference from two contemporary Roman historians (three if we count Josephus as Roman... and some do considering his awkward position).

they may have been contemporary historians, but their accounts that mention christ were non-contemporary, 2nd-hand, and do not refer to miracles or resurrections (other than the blurb in josephus the authenticity of which is almost universally disputed by secular scholars).

We may be able to envision the events of Jesus' life being embellished, but without evidence to support this hypothesis it remains nothing more than speculation.

1. presupposes biblical accuracy and shifts burden of proof.2. every conclusion science has ever reached from testing the natural world is evidence that accounts of jesus' life were embellished. equally true of any historical figure connected to claimed metaphysical events.

You make an argument from silence about Roman historians (one which is contrary to the evidence). However, I should point out, such arguments from silence are only compelling if we have strong reason to expect a thing (in this case Roman historical references to Jesus) and yet do not find our expectation. In fact, we have little reason to expect Roman historians to mention Jesus

most secular scholars would strongly dispute that. the supposed events of jesus life are intimately connected to roman government much of which is chronicled. for example you could argue that the slaughter of young males would be a significant enough event in the life of herod the great to be chronicled, yet for all josephus wrote about him he doesn't mention it. when you consider where the burden of proof lies the silence is deafening.

[workz 0]

best post ever..=)

[rick_bays 0]

quoting crowTrobot:>> then presumably you believe the archeological discovery of troy is evidence the god apollo exists.[/color]How do you figure that?quoting crowTrobot:>> they may have been contemporary historians, but their accounts that mention christ were >> non-contemporary, 2nd-hand, and do not refer to miracles or resurrections (other than the >> blurb in josephus the authenticity of which is almost universally disputed by secular scholars).Agreed. The historical references were to support a historical Jesus, the fact of which was questioned in an earlier post.However, your statement above conveniently ignores a large collection of documents which just happen to give us our best and most reliable information (the sources are closest in proximity and temporality) about the life of Jesus. quoting crowTrobot:>> 1. presupposes biblical accuracy and shifts burden of proof.Sorry, you've got it backward. If you are going to hypothesize that there was embellishment, then you accept the burden to support that hypothesis.quoting crowTrobot:>> 2. every conclusion science has ever reached from testing the natural world is evidence >> that accounts of jesus' life were embellished. equally true of any historical figure connected >> to claimed metaphysical events.This is non sequitur. No amount of positive results can prove what you are attempting here. See: Karl Popper.quoting crowTrobot:>> most secular scholars would strongly dispute that. the supposed events of jesus life are >> intimately connected to roman government much of which is chronicled. for example you>> could argue that the slaughter of young males would be a significant enough event in the >> life of herod the great to be chronicled, yet for all josephus wrote about him he doesn't mention it.No, I think most modern scholars would agree that we should not expect ancient Roman historians to care about the goings on in Judea. There were several Jews who claimed to be the Messiah during the first century... and yet we have nary a mention. When a political movement occurred... then the romans took notice, but that was about it. Client kingdoms were very much a "live and let live - as long as you pay the tax" situation.The events of the life of Jesus were not very much intertwined with Roman occupation (other than a general backdrop of resentment amongst the Jews).(you do realize that Herod was a Jewish ruler who enjoyed the backing of Rome, not a Roman ruler - right?)quoting crowTrobot:>> when you consider where the burden of proof lies the silence is deafening.What silence? where? and why do we expect silence?Agape,Rick

[11 to 1 0]

May I just ask, politely, why someone would view the concept of evolution and natural selection as being in opposition to faith? Is it considered a threat to religion? There is a very long history of organized religion opposing science in astronomy, physics and biology, and in many cases these ideas are now accepted universally (unless anyone here believes the sun revolves around the earth). It just seems hard to reconcile everything to me and I'd like for someone to explain why faith and science - in this case at least - can't coexist.

They can and do and in most cases are barely distinguishable from one another. The things that have a hard time co-existing are people. The arguments tend to be between the two extremes who, of course, most resemble one another, each believing what someone has written, each sure their "facts" are the real facts. Each imagines the other will come around if they can just be enlightened. I'm pretty sure that surety is the surest path to ignorance, but then, as I am so sure that is true....... In any case I am a Christian and "evolutionist" for want of a better description. Many are. The Pope is, and the RCC has over a billion memebers. Lotsa Christians who do not reject science. I used to have a clip of an article about a Catholic nun whose work in genetics made the human genome project possible. Well, speeded it up considerably.

[11 to 1 0]

t2. every conclusion science has ever reached from testing the natural world is evidence that accounts of jesus' life were embellished. equally true of any historical figure connected to claimed metaphysical events.most secular scholars would strongly dispute that. the supposed events of jesus life are intimately connected to roman government much of which is chronicled. for example you could argue that the slaughter of young males would be a significant enough event in the life of herod the great to be chronicled, yet for all josephus wrote about him he doesn't mention it. when you consider where the burden of proof lies the silence is deafening.

As it is from you. You haven't a shred of evidence that "every conclusion science has ever reached from testing the natural world is evidence that accounts of jesus' life were embellished." In point of fact, I'd like you to define science, tell me what qualifies a person to be a scientist, and then prove to us you have accessed every study by every scientist of the natural world and that no such study supports the existance of miracles, as we find them in the Gospels. You can't do it, you are just basically shooting your bazoo off here. Which is fine, it's pretty much the definition of message boarding.BUT - you are also, simply, wrong.I've asked before: define miracle and I'll provide you with some. Scientifically studied and all. Then, you can just reject them because you don't want to believe, which is the same reason you think others do believe. Because of what they want, instead of what the evidence is. Which makes you precisely and exactly like those with whom you dispute.

[crowTrobot 2]

How do you figure that?

why wouldn't you?

However, your statement above conveniently ignores a large collection of documents which just happen to give us our best and most reliable information (the sources are closest in proximity and temporality) about the life of Jesus.

temporality equating to reliability is an assumption.

Sorry, you got it backward. If you are going to hypothesize that there was embellishment, then you accept the burden to support that hypothesis.

no, it's what you need to rule out to prove historical correlation of ancient documents supports metaphysical claims in those documents. same with a hypothesis that the authors were honestly mistaken about or misinterpreting events due to their predisposition to belief in a savior and prophecies about him.

This is non sequitur. No amount of positive results can prove what you are attempting here. See: Karl Popper.

once again you assume biblical truth and place burden on disproof, and obviously its impossible to disprove anything in the sense of philosophical absolutes. however if you rely on historical correlation to prove the divinity of jesus, but ignore the fact that whenever it possibly can do so historical correlation also discredits every claim ever made that supposedly transcends the pattern of explanation by physical law, you are using a double standard.

There were several Jews who claimed to be the Messiah during the first century... and yet we have nary a mention.

that's my point. jesus apparently did nothing to distinguish himself to the level of being noticed by roman authority. someone building a very large (for those times) following by performing documentable miraculous healings for a prolonged period would garner notice at some point.

[crowTrobot 2]

As it is from you. You haven't a shred of evidence that "every conclusion science has ever reached from testing the natural world is evidence that accounts of jesus' life were embellished." In point of fact, I'd like you to define science, tell me what qualifies a person to be a scientist, and then prove to us you have accessed every study by every scientist of the natural world and that no such study supports the existance of miracles, as we find them in the Gospels. You can't do it, you are just basically shooting your bazoo off here. Which is fine, it's pretty much the definition of message boarding.

actually i could do all that, but it would be a horrendous waste of time discreting subjective non-scientific studies claiming to be science. obviously objective science has established a long-standing pattern without exception of ALL phenomena that alters the physical world in any way being explainable by closely related physical laws. if things were otherwise theists would be universally proclaiming documented miracles that have no alternate physical explanation. that is not the case because no such thing exists.

BUT - you are also, simply, wrong.I've asked before: define miracle and I'll provide you with some. Scientifically studied and all. Then, you can just reject them because you don't want to believe, which is the same reason you think others do believe. Because of what they want, instead of what the evidence is. Which makes you precisely and exactly like those with whom you dispute.

you've already demonstrated your nihilistic view of science. not interested in hearing more about it.