 |
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 19, 2008, 09:18 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by jillianleab
I'm sorry you think we're arguing, and I don't think you, or anyone else is attacking my view. I'm trying to encourage you to educate yourself about the scientific method so you will understand why evolution isn't "just a theory". If you have no interest in doing that, this conversation can't go anywhere, because it hinges on it. I've also turned your statements around on you so you can get some perspective from the other side and see that each argument you make can essentially be made in the same way from the other side, so that means (neither) argument "proves" anything.
But that's fine, conversation over, I have no problem with that.
You are nothing but a control freak... it is quite obvious. You're words mean nothing to me.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 19, 2008, 10:01 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by jillianleab
Um... where did I say evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory?
I said the arguments being presented (in this thread) aren't going to "prove" anything, but that's not the same as saying evolution is an unproven theory, or that it's a fable or idea.
Here's the thing (in a nut shell, and rather off topic, sorry); there is evidence for evolution. We have fossil records, we have observed evolution in nature (what many refer to as "micro evolution"), but it is true, we have not observed ape-creature turning into human. That part of the fossil record is still missing, but here's the thing, fossils aren't easy to come by, and they aren't made every time something dies. Just because we don't have that specific fossil, doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. It's sort of like context clues when reading; you look at what you are given, and figure out what it all means.
In other words, its speculation.
Now, for some people, they require more evidence than what we have - that's fine. If you won't believe in evolution until every last part of the chain is found, I'm OK with that.
In other words, it is only a theory without all the facts. Otherwise, if it were a fact, it would be impossible for anyone to argue against it.
For instance, gravity is a fact. What goes up must come down.
But evolution is not a fact. There could be many reasons that mouse has teeth like an elephant. None of them make it necessary that the mouse evolved into an elephant.
Some require that sort of proof, some require less. But just because some people require that as proof, doesn't mean it isn't a good theory, or that it's far fetched.
You have again proved its only a theory, because the opposite is also true. In other words, it doesn't mean that it is a good theory or that it isn't far fetched either.
Remember, there are a lot of people (I'm one of them) who won't believe in god unless he literally appears before me and says, "Believe, dang it!". That is the proof some require of god, and some require less.
There you go. Actual, true and beautiful logic. You require extraordinary proof in order to believe in that which you don't see. Well, you are correct, we require at least ordinary proof before we submit to the idea that that your theory is a fact.
And you could say all the same things about your point of view, and your reason for believing in god; you have evidence, you have observations, etc. That might equate proof to you, but not to someone else. Same thing on both sides.
She can be taught!! ;)
And please also remember your ideas of biblical literalness, the creation of the universe, life after death, etc. sound just as far fetched to me as my ideas of the big bang theory, evolution, and nothingness sound to you. Our ideas are far fetched to one another, but the great thing is, we don't have to agree, we just have to respect the other's rights to believe what they want.
And that is what we have been trying to say all along.
Thanks for finally producing a polite message.
Sincerely,
De Maria
|
|
 |
Full Member
|
|
Apr 19, 2008, 10:02 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by buzzman
This is an oxymoron in itself, because Science today seems to be finding ways to back its beliefs on Evolution "Non-Scientifically". Just by teaching that Evolution is fact is going against every rule they stand for, if they're true intention is to "DISPROVE". The "big Bang Theory" CANNOT be "PROVEN" any more than Creation. If people actually think about this and open their eyes, they would acknowledge this. In my mind, it is a battle of faith EITHER WAY you look at it. Except my faith involves a Savior and a Hope for the future. And I agree with your concept of making people see things that can never be made to be seen. Some people choose to see what they want to.
This is why it's called the Big Bang "Theory". It's taught in school's as a theory, based on no more likely scenarios being discovered so far. It's still not acceptable in most places to teach this as more than a theory. No one can be certain where the universe came from.
Btw, I don't see the problem in believeing in both God and evolution. Seriously, what's so bad about believeing that God made his creatures able to adapt over time? And you don't need to read about evolution to know that it happens. Selective breeding happens all around you, you can see it on a day to day basis! Life forms change over time, there are natural mutations that become part of the mainstream if they're able to be successful enough to reproduce. You don't need to be a scientist to see that!
|
|
 |
Full Member
|
|
Apr 19, 2008, 10:18 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Hmmmm..no proof of evolution,,,,,,,Tadpoles into Frogs,,,,,Catepillars into Moths,,,,,hmmmmm
Ok... I think you've missed the point. A tadpole does EVOLVE when it turns into a frog. Evolution is about change over generations. Becoming a frog or a butterly is just growing up.
Evolution is when you breed creatures with unusual traits together and it gets passed on to their children. If the traits and other changes continue on, they eentually become a separate species.
It happens. A good example is the peppered moth from England. Before the industrial revolution, these moths were mostly white. When the factories came in, there was so much pollution going into the air that the white moths stood out, and thus got eatern. As a result, only the darker coloured moths could survive, so over a few generations (only moth generations, so a couple of years) the majority of the species became black. Selective breeding. It's easy to observe. It's everywhere. You cannot deny that it happens.
And what about people who are born with missing chromosomes? Too many fingers? Why can 2 brown-eyed parents have a blue-eyed baby? It's because of traits that are passed on through generations. It's because every living thing is capable of change.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 06:18 AM
|
|
It's because every living thing is capable of change.
Now that's the best statement of this whole thread. Men may lie, and exaggerate, but nature is the best proof of life adopting to its environment. That includes man. Change over time... evolution.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 07:08 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by buzzman
You are nothing but a control freak...it is quite obvious. You're words mean nothing to me.
Feel free to add me to your "ignore" list if my words are so meaningless. In fact, feel encouraged! :)
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 07:33 AM
|
|
De Maria,,
I loved reading your response to my post, you will keep me on my toes for sure. I have a lot of respect for you because of the time you have spent on it and quite frankly it was the type of post I was expecting from Chuck.
HOWEVER
I still have a lot of problems, and I will try to address all of them if I have the time, your post was quite long. I guess I will start at the beginning and work my way down.
Yes, we do. We know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Two of these people are Apostles of Jesus Christ who walked with him, St. Matthew and St. John.
St. Mark is a disciple of Jesus Christ who also doubled as St. Peter's secretary. In fact, the Gospel according to St. Mark could easily be called, the Gospel according to St. Peter as transcribed by St. Mark.
St. Luke is another disciple of Jesus Christ who walked with the Lord after His resurrection. His Gospel is a compilation of information which the good physician gathered from those who had walked with Jesus Christ from the beginning.
This is just hearsay, there really is no proof of it, or that the stories are true.
This information has been known for 2000 years. It is only recently that skeptics have begun to claim that the authors of the Gospels were not known.
It's not a recent thing, people has been questioning the validity of the story and it's writers since the beginning. That's why people like Justin Martyr had to defend the story. Lets not forget, the Jews have never accepted the story and have been skeptics from day one. Throughout the years there have always been skeptics. Have you ever read the works of Thomas Paine? I wouldn't consider that very recent either.
And those Gospels were rejected by people who were aware that they weren't written by anyone who walked with Christ.
The precise criterion used to reject those pseudo-gospels from the authentic gospels was whether they were written by known Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ. Since they could not be proved to be written by known acquaintances of Jesus Christ, they were rejected as worthy to be included in Scripture.
By the time people started putting these books together there was no way of knowing who actually "walked or talked" with Jesus.
A christian teacher named Tatian produced a harmony of the four gospels to avoid difficulties and iron out the differences between he and Marcion(you have heard of him right? ) His harmony was called the 'Diatessaron' which means 'through the four (and into the one gospel)'.
Later on the early church was forced to say why it wanted only four gospels? Irenaeus the great Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD answered saying this, "the earth has four corners, there are four living creatures, there are four winds and there are four covenants. So there should be four gospels to match".
That's pretty much why and how the four gospels were chosen from the many others. At one time though all of the gospels were believed and used by different sects.
Besides the Gospels there is the existence of a Church which has stood for 2000 years teaching what Jesus Christ instructed.
Many religions claim the same thing.
There is also the empty tomb
Have you seen it? Again that's just hearsay. I believe if you were to take a tour of the erea they would show you three different places of the supposed spot. The same thing for his birth. Proof of an empty tomb is not given in the form of words written or told.
the Shroud of Turin, the headpiece which can all be traced to a person crucified exactly as depicted by the four Gospels.
This has already been exposed as a fake, they found traces of paint on it for crying out loud. After reading this whole post I found it really hard to believe that you would have brought up the Shroud. Don't worry though, none of us are perfect... lol
There are the writings of other historians
No there's not. Most things brough up by other historians only mention the word christian, which only proves christians walked the Earth, not it's founder(if you are to believe it was Jesus who founded christianity, some believe it was Paul)
No it doesn't. Precisely because Zeus' life can't be verified independently nor are there writing which can be verified to be written by his contemporaries nor by eyewitnesses. All evidence points to the fact that Zeus' life is a myth
I'm sorry to say, but the same applys to the Jesus story. All evidence points to myth. As in every God and Demi God.
Eyewitness testimony is evidence acceptable in a court of law.
But is thrown out if the witnesses don't tell the same story, which is the case in the gospels. They can't agree on things from JCs last words to how many people went to the empty tomb. This would not be a good case in court at all.
Architectural evidence is very powerful evidence in that regard as well.
There is none that support the Jesus story. Yes it would be powerful if they came up with some. For instance if they found Roman records of the crucifixion. Romans kept detailed records of these things. I'm sure if it took place these records would be dug up. Until then, there is no proof.
Your interpretation of history also neglects the fact that the birth and death of all of those Herods is an estimate. There is no way to ascertain the exact date of birth or death of any of them
Including Jesus,
I agree fully, however one would expect more from eye witnesses. One would expect from a person who actually walked and talked with JC to have a better record of the accounts. Maybe the subject never came up? I can buy that I guess. Of course I have revealed my birth date on many occasions for different reasons, some of them just BSing with coworkers. So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have a birth date given to us from the people who actually walked and talked with him. I'm sure if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses they would have known just what Herod they were talking about and given the full name. I don't buy into the fact that there were many so it could have been any of them. I knew of the other Herods, I just feel someone should have gotten the names right if the story was valid.
And you also neglect the fact that Quirinus was tetrarch twice:
This has been in debate for a long time, it's not fact either way really. The only reason why it's such a huge debate is because Josephus says one thing and Luke says another. This debate will never end, because some will believe the Bible and some will believe a historian. So here we are, as one of each... lol
When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, "I'd rather be Herod's sow than Herod's son." ― Macrobius, The Saturnalia, trans. Percival Davies (New York 1969), 171.
Augustus said this when he heard Herod killed his sons Aristobulus and Antipater, who were adults at the time and who's death had nothing to do with the hunt and destruction of babies who might be considered a future king of the Jews. It is in fact an interesting story though, and one I would recommend people to read. It's actually a common story among royal families back in the day.
And Josephus gave the direct impression that Herod was certainly capable of such atrocities:
That's my point,, if it had happened, something of this magnitude would have been recorded. Were talking about a massacre of many children. This would be big news then as it would be today. Something like that would not go unmentioned today. It wouldn't have back then either, especially from a guy everyone hated.
I hope I addressed everything, and am looking forward to the response.
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 08:05 AM
|
|
These words are pretty big assumptions without knowing the type of person that I am. By the way that you wrote your words shows how narrow minded you are being by judging my personal character by one comment. Who do you think you are? All of this has been brought upon Man to himself my friend.
Dude really,
I would love to take the credit for natural disasters,, lol,, but that would make me God... lol
Man has nothing to do with natural disasters, they have been around long before man became industrialized. I have not judged your personal character at all, especially from one little quote, for I have ready many of yours. Diseases have been around for ever as well. The frkn Sun is dangerous to us if we spend enough time sitting under it. So don't tell me we brought this on ourselves.
Point be known, I read the other day that no one in the United states has died of natural causes since the late 1950s
:eek: :eek:
I would really love to see this article, because I could swear I hear of people dying of natural causes all the time.
Think about the largest money making companies in the world... Cigarette companies, Oil companies, and Pharmaceuticals. You don't think they manipulate our Governments to assure their stability whether people get hurt or sick? Don't kid yourself. Remember, safety books and Policies are normally written in Blood. If there were no consequences ($$Lawyers$$) then nothing would change. It's the $$ that motivate the changes, not the Companies hearts. You should know by now that justice is directly proportional to your pocket book... So to conclude, its not nature that is not perfect harmony. It is that Man has CREATED DISHARMONY. Consequences to actions my friend. We have created some of it for ourselves. Some of it we are casualties of war . In the end it all comes down to People as a common denominator.
I don't mean to be rude man, but you really don't make much sense. Judging from your posts one would think no one started dying until man became industrialized. This just isn't the case. The Earth was unstable long before man could even talk, let alone become advanced enough to start putting holes in the O Zone. Please don't take this the wrong way man. I don't mean anything by it, I just don't understand how you think Man today is responsible for the troubles early humans had with earthquakes, volcanos, floods, etc etc. I do think we take for granted how easy we have it today, I don't mean that as an attack on you, I include myself. It's hard to imagine how hard it was for early humans because of how easy we have it today.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 08:32 AM
|
|
One thing we do know about ancient man was his knowledge was limited, and his view of his world, and environment, was harsh, and unrelenting. Tribe warred with tribes, and the winner called the shots. Religion, and what you were allowed to do, rested with whoever's army was in charge, so the potential for pure thinking, and seeking knowledge, and truth, was severely hampered, by whomever was in control. What's interesting, is the bible is about a specific time, in mans history, and a specific region, but doesn't account at all, for the bigger world, or civilizations, of other parts of the Earth, and we do have proof that man was all over the planet, and not just in the middle east. So to make one region superior, as the be all of all human truth, is ridiculous. Man is more than his middle eastern roots. Why do we ignore the rest of our heritage?
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 09:02 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by jillianleab
Feel free to add me to your "ignore" list if my words are so meaningless. In fact, feel encouraged! :)
Lol good one:D
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 09:17 AM
|
|
What's interesting, is the bible is about a specific time, in mans history, and a specific region, but doesn't account at all, for the bigger world, or civilizations, of other parts of the Earth, and we do have proof that man was all over the planet, and not just in the middle east. So to make one region superior, as the be all of all human truth, is ridiculous. Man is more than his middle eastern roots. Why do we ignore the rest of our heritage?
Good point and very true. The Mayans are a perfect example of this. Here are a people that we know existed during at least the times the NT was written, and they have there own stories and beliefs and even predictions, some of which have also come true.
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 09:24 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by talaniman
Man has a choice, and God lets you chose.
And if you don't choose what he wants you to, you'll BURN IN HELL. Loving god.
|
|
 |
Full Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 09:37 AM
|
|
In other words, it is only a theory without all the facts. Otherwise, if it were a fact, it would be impossible for anyone to argue against it.
Someone who knows nothing on the subject they are arguing about can agrue regardless of facts.
Here is the final deal with evolution the end all be all of why its used.
1. It has never been proven wrong.
2. All evidence that has so far been collected over the last 150years has pointed towards evolution.
3. Every experiment ever done on the subject has proven evolution.
4. No one has come up with a theory that fits the evidence better.
Until you have some evidence that contradicts one of those 4 points your argument that evolution is flawed is wrong.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 09:43 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by isabelgopo
and if you don't choose what he wants you to, you'll BURN IN HELL. loving god.
The God that I understand lets you pay your own consequences for your actions. Or reap the fruit of your labors, that burning in hell stuff is some man's idea to keep you in line, and follow his agenda, which has nothing to do with your soul. I worry about right here on this earth, at this time, and my own choices. I doubt you can make me accountable for yours.
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 11:12 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by KalFour
This is why it's called the Big Bang "Theory". It's taught in school's as a theory, based on no more likely scenarios being discovered so far. It's still not acceptable in most places to teach this as more than a theory. Noone can be certain where the universe came from.
Btw, I don't see the problem in believeing in both God and evolution. Seriously, what's so bad about believeing that God made his creatures able to adapt over time? And you don't need to read about evolution to know that it happens. Selective breeding happens all around you, you can see it on a day to day basis! Life forms change over time, there are natural mutations that become part of the mainstream if they're able to be successful enough to reproduce. You don't need to be a scientist to see that!
I'm not saying you don't have a right to believe in what you want. My points were not designed to make people see anything other than the fact that even though schools teach that Evolution is a theory, it is ASSUMED and therefore being brought forth (Through media, Universities, schools... etc.. ) as Scientific fact, which is causing our next generation to turn their minds off to self thinking. To be fully scientific, you have to know and except that we don't know it all and allow a young mind to have ALL the information in front of them to make THEIR OWN educated decision. I speak for myself, because I thought growing up that this is the way it is... there is nothing else to learn or compare. You can go to museums, schools, etc. It is all being "presented" as truth and factual, whether they are saying it is still a theory or not. And somehow over time and generations, Creation Theory has been thrown to the wayside and taken out of thought. As for Creation, I am not going to even try to make or teach someone about Creation that doesn't want to hear it, because I cannot explain it properly enough without possibly leading someone astray. I can tell people what I know, but that is all. Its my personal choice and its in my faith try and understand myself better as God changes my heart through prayer as I submit my will to Him. That's nobody's business but my own. If people want to know what I know about it truthfully, they'll ask in an intelligent manner. In answering your response, I agree with you that this is NOT SUPPOSED to be acceptable to teach evolution as fact in schools, and yet here we are. My point exactly.
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 11:20 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by jillianleab
Feel free to add me to your "ignore" list if my words are so meaningless. In fact, feel encouraged! :)
My point exactly regarding your control issues. So typical of a "Controlling personality" by feeling you have to get the last word in... You will hear nothing else from me after this regardless of what you say from this point on. So feel free to respond to "Get that last word in". I don't need a computer to ignore you. You are transparent to all in this discussion.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 11:20 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by buzzman
This is a useless discussion that has turned into a childish arguement and I'll have no part in it.
And yet, you keep on posting.
|
|
 |
Full Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 11:32 AM
|
|
You can go to museums, schools, etc. It is all being "presented" as truth and factual
That's because the information that they do present is truthful and factual.
The reason creation theory isn't accepted is because it doesn't hold up to scientific testing in order to be considered a scientific theory there has to be supporting evidence and experimentation that proves some part of that theory true and there has to be no evidence that contradicts it. Both of those requirements are true for evolution but not for creationism. That is why evolution is science and creationism is religion. Science has to have facts behind it or it isn't science. Religion can make up anything they want even if it doesn't make sense or have facts behind it and it is still considered religion.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 11:33 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Onan
De Maria,,
I loved reading your response to my post, you will keep me on my toes for sure. I have a lot of respect for you because of the time you have spent on it
Thanks.
and quite frankly it was the type of post I was expecting from Chuck.
HOWEVER
I still have a lot of problems, and I will try to address all of them if I have the time, your post was quite long. I guess I will start at the beginning and work my way down.
No problem. Its better to take time and consider each point in detail.
This is just hearsay, there really is no proof of it, or that the stories are true.
True. But hearsay evidence is not necessarily false. And evidence in history is hearsay..
This is the definition of hearsay evidence:
Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what the witness has personally experienced or observed.
Judicial System Glossary
For instance, I never met George Washington. But I believed my teachers, whom I trusted were telling me the truth concerning his existence and role in American History. And they never met George Washington either. They were relying on sources of information that they could trust.
Now, apparently you don't trust the Church. Because it is the Church which has preserved the knowledge of its original members which asserts that the Authors of the Gospels are who they say they are.
But I do trust the Church. I find no credible evidence to overturn the history of the Gospels as they explain it.
So, you are free to distrust the Church as I am free to trust the Church.
The testimony of St. Irenĉus is of special importance. He was born in Asia Minor, where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences of St. John the Apostle, and in his numerous writings he frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be succeeded, was ninety years of age when he gained the crown of martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St. Irenĉus, who was born about A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is, therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would do, he calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal inspiration; shows how congruous it is that there are four and only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves. There was already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West. The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread that they became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian religion was acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel, and his quotations show the same phenomena of variant readings.
The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour the Gospels held in the Church, in the early portion of the century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D. 105, and converted in 132-135. In his "Apology" he speaks of the memoirs of the Lord which are called Gospels, and which were written by Apostles (Matthew, John) and disciples of the Apostles (Mark, Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles he cites the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous quotations from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. "He [Justin] tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David--that the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary--that it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah . . . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence of an enrolment under Cyrinius--that as they could not find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger", etc. (Westcott, "Canon", 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual in apologetical works, such as the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was addressing outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which were called Gospels were read in the churches on Sunday along with the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they were placed on an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the "Dialogue", cv, we have a passage peculiar to St. Luke. "Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the Cross said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit?' [Luke, xxiii. 46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of this fact also." These Gospels which were read every Sunday must be the same as our four, which soon after, in the time of Irenĉus, were in such long established honour, and regarded by him as inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; so we may be sure that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenĉus, not many years after. This conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's quotations, but by the evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in Rome, and afterwards compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous "Diatessaron", in Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and the fact that he uses only those shows that they alone were recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church between 130-150. This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the Apostles and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many scholars that St. Luke lived till towards the end of the first century.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint Luke
It's not a recent thing, people
You mean skeptics.
has been questioning the validity of the story and it's writers since the beginning.
Like who? And what are you questioning at this point? The authorship of the Gospels or the existence of Jesus Christ? Lets not mix apples and oranges. We can move to proving the existence of Jesus Christ later in this discussion.
That's why people like Justin Martyr had to defend the story.
From skeptics. Just as today there are people who don't believe that man has set foot on the moon and many other things which most of us believe. The existence of skeptics does not invalidate the truth.
Lets not forget, the Jews have never accepted the story
Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. Jews have always accepted the existence of Jesus Christ. They simply do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. However, their witness of the historical truth of His existence is independent confirmation that Jesus Christ lived.
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Probe Ministries - Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
and have been skeptics from day one. Throughout the years there have always been skeptics. Have you ever read the works of Thomas Paine? I wouldn't consider that very recent either.
The existence of skeptics does not invalidate the truth. I have read Thomas Paine, many years ago. His opinions are simply that, opinions. They are not founded on faith.
By the time people started putting these books together there was no way of knowing who actually "walked or talked" with Jesus.
Putting the books together. Sure that happened 200 years later. But you forget that they were writing the papers while Jesus was still walking. And these were being circulated immediately after His death and resurrection. So much so that St. Peter was already calling St. Paul's letters Scripture while they were both still alive.
2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
A christian teacher named Tatian produced a harmony of the four gospels to avoid difficulties and iron out the differences between he and Marcion(you have heard of him right? ) His harmony was called the 'Diatessaron' which means 'through the four (and into the one gospel)'.
Later on the early church was forced to say why it wanted only four gospels? Irenaeus the great Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD answered saying this, "the earth has four corners, there are four living creatures, there are four winds and there are four covenants. So there should be four gospels to match".
That's pretty much why and how the four gospels were chosen from the many others. At one time though all of the gospels were believed and used by different sects.
These things are true to a point. But the spin you put on these facts is the problem. Yes, Christians have harmonized the Gospels and have had differences in interpretation throughout the centuries. But Christians who understand the three legged stool upon which Christian revelation stands have always been able to confirm the true meaning of Scripture by comparing to the Traditions which were established by Jesus Christ to emphasize His Teachings and to the Magisterial interpretations of the Church which He commanded to continue teaching what He had said.
Like you, many historians have focused on only one source. The Scriptures. But that makes their arguments circular since they have no independent data upon which to confirm their assertions. But Church logic has always used at least three forms of evidence, Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. And has never ruled out outside witnesses, secular historical documents, and other credible historical material. In fact, even otherwise "incredible" material has been used to obtain confirming evidence as to the culture and the living conditions of the people of the time.
Your statement that the number four was preselected before the actual selection took place is simply a false conclusion based on limited evidence. It wasn't. History proves that Christians used many Gospels and many other letters and documents in their worship gatherings in the first century. That is why so many Gospels proliferated even after the year 180AD. History also proves that the Gospels were selected on the basis of authorship and inspiration. But the Four Gospels stood the test of time, being the only ones proved to be authored by companions of Jesus Christ.
Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eag erly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: II Peter, iii, 15, 16, supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the New Testament
Many religions claim the same thing.
But none can prove it. The Catholic Church can list its leaders from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. The next oldest religion which claims continual existence since the 7th century is Islam. Yet since the death of Mohammed, Islam has never been practiced as Mohammed described. There are Shiite and Sunni each claiming inheritance of the religion and many forms of practicing the religion. Unlike the Church, none can point to one leader who can officially speak for all Muslims.
Hinduism is next and the Chinese philosophies. They have never had any organization to speak of. Finally, there are the Pagan religions which all practice what they want and worship what they want. No leaders or many. But no central organization.
Continued
Sorry for the extreme length of the response. Maybe in the future we can focus on one element of our discussion rather than on so many at one time.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Apr 20, 2008, 11:34 AM
|
|
continued
Oh and I forgot Judaism. Which has never been the same since the advent of Jesus Christ. Each Jewish sect functions independently of the other without a central leader.
So, they can claim anything they want but only the Catholic Church can trace its organization for 2000 years without a break.
Have you seen it? Again that's just hearsay. I believe if you were to take a tour of the erea they would show you three different places of the supposed spot. The same thing for his birth.
True, there are many claims for the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. But you have to use discernment to believe which is which. In my opinion, the evidence points to the tomb in Jerusalem.
Since the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has the oldest claim and since Jesus had to be buried in an extreme hurry due to the proximity of the Sabbath, that is where the wealthy man, Joseph of Arimethea would have buried Jesus.
Proof of an empty tomb is not given in the form of words written or told.
I think you mean that just because the tomb is empty does not mean it is Jesus' tomb. But that fails to take into account cultural memory. Christians, although most were chased out of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 AD, would have remembered where their Master was buried and would have gone directly back to the Christians who remained in Jerusalem and begun to worship at the site of His burial at the first possible opportunity.
History records that Christians have been doing just that from the 4th Century when was the first opportunity for exiled Christians to return to Jerusalem.
This has already been exposed as a fake, they found traces of paint on it for crying out loud. After reading this whole post I found it really hard to believe that you would have brought up the Shroud. Don't worry though, none of us are perfect... lol
Well I guess you didn't keep up with the news about the Shroud. Seems that the tests which seemed to invalidate the authenticity of the Shroud were flawed. The Shroud has been retested and dates back to the first Century. In addition, other components of the burial cloth have been found which match exactly the pattern of the Shroud of Turn where they were laid one on top of the other.
So, perhaps you need to read up on the new developments:
Read: Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever
The Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever
Photomicrograph of fibers from warp segment of carbon 14 sample. It is chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. That is a problem.
In January, 2005, things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud of Turin was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.
Shroud of Turin Story Guide to the Facts 2007
No there's not. Most things brough up by other historians only mention the word christian, which only proves christians walked the Earth, not it's founder(if you are to believe it was Jesus who founded christianity, some believe it was Paul)
But St. Paul says it was Christ and St. Paul expounds the teachings of Christ. And Christians also say it was Christ and I think we know the difference between St. Paul and Jesus Christ.
And no, actually other historians do mention, Jesus Christ or Yeshu, as in the Masoteric Text above. I believe I already quoted Josephus in the previous message. If not, I'm sure you are aware of the text in which he uses Jesus name.
Josephus and Jesus Christ
I'm sorry to say, but the same applys to the Jesus story. All evidence points to myth. As in every God and Demi God.
Wrong. The evidence is supported by the testimony of four eyewitnesses. Now, I know that much of which is attributed to Jesus Christ is beyond the ability of normal man. But that doesn't on its own make it incredible. In addition, I have studied the sincerity of the men who went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of their testimonies. Therefore I believe the evidence.
Again, you are free to disbelieve. But that is your opinion IN SPITE of the evidence, not because of it.
And if you compare the eyewitness testimony and evidence for Jesus Christ to any mythological hero or even to an actual historical figure of that era, you will find that evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is hands down superior to any of them. I repeat, any of them.
But is thrown out if the witnesses don't tell the same story, which is the case in the gospels. They can't agree on things from JCs last words to how many people went to the empty tomb. This would not be a good case in court at all.
Spoken like a true novice to evidence gathering and to determining the value of evidence.
The fact is that the differences in the Gospels are the strength of the testimony. Not its weakness.
If the four Gospels simply repeated what each said verbatim, that would be evidence of simple plagiarism. The same Gospel with four different names.
But since the four Gospels have minor differences which corroborate and confirm the order, sequence and pattern of events during the life of Jesus Christ. And which confirm the major events of His life as well, this is independent verification by four witnesses.
Lets compare to a common scene. Four people witness an accident. Will the four people see the same thing? No. One may be fashion consicence and may focus on the colors and appearance of the cars and people in question. One may be time conscience and may focus on the time of the events. The others may have other differences which mean they focus on other elements of the event. But each will contribute enough information in common to identify the same event and enough individual observation that the investigator may be able to piece together the entire event.
This is the strength of eyewitness testimony and the strength of the testimony in the Gospels.
There is none that support the Jesus story. Yes it would be powerful if they came up with some. For instance if they found Roman records of the crucifixion. Romans kept detailed records of these things. I'm sure if it took place these records would be dug up. Until then, there is no proof.
Really? We may safely assume that many people were crucified by the Romans during the 33 years that Jesus lived. Please provide the reference which includes the detailed records of each one of those individuals.
However the architectural evidence to which I am referring are the Churches and other worship sites which were and have been continuously used for the Christian worship since the time of the Apostles. See the Church of Our Lady of the Pillar in Saragosa Spain. A Church which has been in continuous use since the before our Lady was assumed into heaven.
Including Jesus,
I agree fully, however one would expect more from eye witnesses.
Only if one were unfamiliar with the nature of eyewitness testimony.
One would expect from a person who actually walked and talked with JC to have a better record of the accounts. Maybe the subject never came up? I can buy that I guess. Of course I have revealed my birth date on many occasions for different reasons, some of them just BSing with coworkers. So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have a birth date given to us from the people who actually walked and talked with him. I'm sure if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses they would have known just what Herod they were talking about and given the full name. I don't buy into the fact that there were many so it could have been any of them. I knew of the other Herods, I just feel someone should have gotten the names right if the story was valid.
I guess you don't even know that keeping up with birthdays is a very modern phenomenon. In the past, in the time of Jesus, people kept up as best they could with approximate year of birth. What you are doing is reading current cultural norms back into a society which was oblivious to such customs. It never even occurred to them to keep up with the date of birth.
The best they could do is what St. Luke did to mark the birth of Jesus Christ:
St. Luke 2 1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
This has been in debate for a long time, it's not fact either way really. The only reason why it's such a huge debate is because Josephus says one thing and Luke says another. This debate will never end, because some will believe the Bible and some will believe a historian. So here we are, as one of each... lol
But Scripture testimony is confirmed by archaeological evidence which points to Quirinius being Tetrarch twice.
Augustus said this when he heard Herod killed his sons Aristobulus and Antipater, who were adults at the time and who's death had nothing to do with the hunt and destruction of babies who might be considered a future king of the Jews. It is in fact an interesting story though, and one I would recommend people to read. It's actually a common story among royal families back in the day.
That's my point,, if it had happened, something of this magnitude would have been recorded. Were talking about a massacre of many children. This would be big news then as it would be today. Something like that would not go unmentioned today. It wouldn't have back then either, especially from a guy everyone hated.
Again, you act as though they had TV and news at 10. They didn't. People back then were mostly concerned with staying alive and feeding their families. Josephus however, pretty much confirmed that Herod could have committed the atrocity. And it is very possible that if Josephus did not mention the atrocity because either Herod or his children may have still been alive and may not have wanted that atrocity mentioned by him or anyone else.
I hope I addressed everything, and am looking forward to the response.
You did a wonderful job.
I'm looking forward to another round of discussion. However, I'll be leaving for eight days. God willing I'll be back to continue our discussion.
Sincerely,
De Maria
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
How hard is it to prove?
[ 4 Answers ]
Hello. Recently like in the month of September, toward the end, my aunt was in Oregon living with her husband. She had a surgery on the 12th and just some days later her husband started getting really angry with her, and mistreating her. He even raped her. She said she told him no, because her...
Prove it
[ 1 Answers ]
Prove with eight matches sticks that one plus one equal to two in accounting
Prove by induction
[ 2 Answers ]
I need to prove by induction that for every n => 0,
8/1*3 + 8/5*7 +... + 8/(4n+1)*(4n+3) <= 4
Every help is welcome!
View more questions
Search
|