Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.

Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.

Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.

It is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Seriously you have not one piece of evidence to back your claim so what is your view based on ?

What makes you believe this when there is no evidence to support your claim ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...

Because I say so!!

So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?

We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.

The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.

 

[Youwerecreated]

false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!

Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.

We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.

Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.

You can assume anything you like you will anyways but that don't make you right.

 

[Youwerecreated]

it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......

How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyi_5I9JrE]GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube[/ame]

Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.

So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?

How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms? I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.

Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.

 

[Hollie]

Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.

We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.

Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.

You can assume anything you like you will anyways but that don't make you right.

I'm not assuming anything. You are the one making grandiose claims to supernatural entities and offering absolutely nothing in support of those claims. You recoil in angry tirades when your preconceptions and partisan religious biases are challenged but offer nothing except the "because I say so", weasel.

Your religious tales and fables may be valid to you, and within your own comfort zone that's fine. But by bringing them into the public arena, you have given approval for them to be scrutinized. Whatever your motives are, you cannot offer your point of view in a public forum and then not expect you will be asked to account for that view (well, you can but it's poor cricket). We all know you consider your partisan fundie religious perspectives valid-- but my reply isn't about that, it's about the presumption that your views are sacrosanct and above questioning.

Well, they're not. I'm convinced that you are clueless as to the damage you do to your credibility when you, for example, suggest that humans and dinosaurs shared the planet.

 

[Hollie]

How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?

GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube

Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.

So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?

How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms? I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.

Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.

Do yourself a favor. Read what is written. Attempt to understand it. If you still have difficulty, ("cybernetically") raise your hand and ask questions.

Now, once more for you:

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms? Such weird and wacky inventions as angels and jinn would seem to lose some of their supernatural abilities if constrained by earthly / human limitations.

If angels and jinn are breeding in some celestial boink-fest, are we to assume that angels and jinn are subject to the same issues of biology that afflict humans?

Your world of supernaturalism is becoming more and more difficult for you to invent "on the fly".

 

[LOki]

Because I say so!!

So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?

We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.

The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.

The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.

So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?

How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms? I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.

Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.

Do yourself a favor. Read what is written. Attempt to understand it. If you still have difficulty, ("cybernetically") raise your hand and ask questions.

Now, once more for you:

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms? Such weird and wacky inventions as angels and jinn would seem to lose some of their supernatural abilities if constrained by earthly / human limitations.

If angels and jinn are breeding in some celestial boink-fest, are we to assume that angels and jinn are subject to the same issues of biology that afflict humans?

Your world of supernaturalism is becoming more and more difficult for you to invent "on the fly".

I never said Angels were reproducing,the scriptures do say rebellious Angels took the form of men and did breed with the humans and their offsring were called nephilims,these offspring in the bible were said to be giants and very evil.

 

[LOki]

Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.

It is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Seriously you have not one piece of evidence to back your claim so what is your view based on ?

The clear evidence I presented.

Your obtuse and unsubstantiated denial of that evidence does not change the fact that what I present as evidence to support my claim, is in fact evidence to support my claim.

What makes you believe this when there is no evidence to support your claim ?

There is evidence. I presented it. You are denying I have done so, but the evidence of my presentation refutes it. I can copy and paste it back for you (where you have not been able to when asked to present your evidence) I can provide links to the posts where I have presented evidence to support my claims (where you have not been able to when asked to present your evidence), and I can predict with pretty fair accuracy that you will not provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

This is sufficient to prove that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Consider yourself dismissed.

 

[LOki]

Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.

Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.

You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You are dismissed.

 

[Hollie]

Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.

There is no evidence that "intelligence", as in a supernatural designer, was or is behind life.

You make these totally unsupported statements while never providing support for review. It's a simple matter to resolve: present the evidence for a supernatural designer god(s).

 

[daws101]

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

asked and answered

Has never been answered, if it has there would be no debate.

lol... you've been shown how hundreds of times and rejected the explanation..for one of your own, so in reality it's a false debate propagated by your pathological need to say god did it.

 

[daws101]

No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.

once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
to answer bullshit none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.

Read up on JOSEPHUS !

JOSEPHUS IS THE PROBLEM"Choking on the Camel
The historical evidence for Jesus
Part 1: The Conspiracy of Silence
Imagine that you were a history student assigned the task of writing a paper on the life of George Washington, America's first president and one of the country's most influential founding fathers.

On its face, this seems like a simple assignment. Encyclopedias and textbooks full of biographical information about Washington, written by notable scholars on his life, abound. Any one of them would provide enough material for a reasonably detailed report. However, this is not good enough for a diligent student such as yourself. To get the most detailed and accurate picture requires skipping the modern references, which were written centuries after the fact, and going straight to the original sources. You decide to base your report on first-hand evidence: letters written by Washington himself, accounts of his life written by people who knew him personally, and stories of his sayings and deeds recorded while he was still alive.

But, as you comb the records, you find something strange: you cannot seem to locate any first-hand sources. Though Washington is claimed to have done many wonderful things - leading the Continental Army, freeing the American colonies from British rule, presiding over the convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution, becoming the first President of the United States - somehow, there are no records of these deeds written by people who actually saw them happen, or even by people who were alive at the time. The historians who were alive during Washington's lifetime, as well as the ones that lived soon afterward, do not mention him at all. The first mentions of him come in disputed and scattered records written decades after his death; over time, these mentions grow more numerous until, by about a hundred years after his death, a chorus of historians who had never seen or met Washington themselves all testify to his existence and his deeds. It is their writings, not any first-hand evidence, that have filtered down to modern times to create the abundance of records we have today.

Would you begin to conclude that there was something very wrong here?

According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond (Matthew 4:25), renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer (Matthew 14:5, Luke 5:15, John 6:2). Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went (Luke 12:1). He converted many Jews, enough to draw the anger of the Jerusalem temple elders (John 12:11). He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish (Matthew 14:1, Luke 19:47). And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51), a worldwide three-hour darkness (Luke 23:44), and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people (Matthew 27:52-53).

If these things were true, it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.

And yet, when we examine the evidence, that is precisely what we do find. Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well (see part 2). The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.

Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts, but as in the George Washington hypothetical, we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.

Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.

Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 CE covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BCE and lived into the 60s CE, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 CE, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus' death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.

Events such as these create historians. To assume that not a single person who witnessed these monumental events would have felt compelled to write them down, or that no one bothered to preserve those records if they had, violates all standards of credulity. Jesus' healings alone, if news of them became generally known, would have attracted a flood of people from every corner of the Roman Empire desperate to be cured of their ailments; and if in addition news got out of his ability to revive the dead, as the gospels say it did (Matthew 9:25-26), those crowds would have been multiplied tenfold. Surely at least one person somewhere would have written about this, even if only to dismiss it as a peasant superstition. And events such as the darkening of the sun and the resurrection of the saints, if they really happened, would have left a vivid imprint on humanity's collective memory and would have produced a flood of awed and astonished records. To suggest that the succeeding generation simply let all memory of them disappear crosses the line from unbelievable to absurd.

The only rational way to explain this, if we are not to postulate a "conspiracy of silence" among ancient writers, is that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels never happened. And some non-fundamentalist believers might indeed choose this option. Yes, some might say, the gospels are the work of men. They may have exaggerated Jesus' fame and maybe even invented a few miracles to give the story more pizzazz. But this does not necessarily mean Jesus himself never existed. Might the gospels have preserved a core of historical reality, telling a story about a preaching, reform-minded Galilean rabbi that was built upon and embellished by later generations?

In response to this, it should be noted that the historians of the time not only fail to confirm the particulars of the gospel accounts, they fail to mention Jesus at all. But if he had been a real person who did even some of the things the Bible says, it is not at all unreasonable that at least some historians would have taken notice; Josephus and others do write about other would-be messiahs of their day. Of course, if one postulates a Jesus who did not perform miracles and did not attract much notice during his lifetime, it can never be proved that such a person did not exist. However, as part 3 will show, there is a superior way to explain the origins of Christianity, one that better explains all the evidence without positing a historical Jesus at all.

The gospels cannot help in proving the historicity of Jesus, since the accuracy of the gospels is itself what is in question. When they make extraordinary claims that contemporary records fail to corroborate, as argued above, this alone casts doubt on their reliability. Additionally, their numerous internal contradictions suggest that their authors were not recording historical events they remembered, but rather telling a story, changing events where they felt it necessary to make a point. Finally, and most importantly, the gospels themselves are not first-hand witnesses. In fact, the very first unambiguous references to them do not appear until the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, around 150 CE! This fact, combined with other evidence, has led to the conclusion that they were written, at the earliest, near the end of the first century - decades after the events they purport to describe, more than enough time for fact to become inextricably entangled with mythology and legend. Nor are the gospels independent witnesses. It has long been known that Mark, the simplest and therefore most likely the earliest gospel, provided the basic story upon which Matthew, Luke, and probably John as well simply elaborated, adding and changing details. At best, then, what the gospels provide is one anonymous, late, theologically driven source providing details which other, contemporary sources fail to confirm.

If Jesus Christ had been an actual, historical person, we would expect to have first-hand, contemporary documentation: records of his words and deeds written by people who actually saw him, or who were at least alive during his lifetime. We would expect the record of his life to be plentiful from the very beginning. On the other hand, if he was only a legend later turned into a real person, we would expect not to have any first-hand witness to his life. We would expect the historical record to be scanty and details elusive or non-existent at first, these details appearing only later as the stories about him grew in the telling. We would expect clear references to him not to appear until long after his supposed death. And of course, this scenario is exactly what we do in fact find.

Christian apologists often insist that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so strong that to deny he ever lived would force one to deny the existence of many other historical figures as well, such as Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. This comparison, however, cannot be sustained. We know that people such as Alexander or Lincoln were historical precisely because we do have first-hand evidence: artifacts made by them, things they wrote, things their contemporaries wrote about them. In Jesus' case, however, we have none of these things. The pattern of evidence much better fits the birth and growth of a legend. No matter who first said it, to uncritically accept the historicity of Jesus is to strain at gnats while attempting to swallow a camel.

But can the man Jesus be dismissed so easily? Modern-day Christian apologists say not. Despite the lack of first-hand evidence, they claim, there is still good reason to believe that their messiah really did once walk the earth. Part 2 will therefore critically examine the evidence they present, demonstrating that it does not hold up under scrutiny.


Part 2: The Apologists' Arguments

Ebon Musings: Choking on the Camel



Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus
March 10, 2011 in Christianity

This blog post is part of the ‘The Resurrection of Jesus’ series. In this series, evidence that has been put forward by Christian apologists in support of the idea that Jesus was resurrected will be explored and critically examined. As we shall see, most of this evidence isn’t even good evidence in the first place, and they are insufficient to justify the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roman Empire

The following are names of some of the Roman historians of antiquity who lived in and around the Mediterranean region, including some of the very places that Jesus and his apostles are said to have moved about.

•Aulus Persius (60 AD)
•Plutarch (c. 46-c. 119 AD)
•Columella (1st cent. AD)
•Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
•Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
•Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD)
•Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
•Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
•Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
•Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
•Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
•Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
•Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD)
•Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD)
•Petronius (d. 66 AD)
•Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
•Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
•Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
•Valerius Flaccus (1st cent. AD)
•Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)
Not a single one of these historians ever even mentions the existence of Jesus Christ, a man who was supposedly performing miraculous wonders and drawing crowds by the thousands, inciting the Jewish populace, aggravating the Roman authorities, and resurrecting from the dead. For if there were such a man, and he did the things the gospel writers claimed he did, is it possible for him to have gone unmentioned in Roman records? It is noteworthy that Jesus is not even mentioned anywhere in the official Roman historical records of the events in Palestine during the time of he is said to have existed.

As such, there are no contemporaneous (i.e. within his life time) historical records of Jesus.


Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus « Freethought Kampala

 

[daws101]

that's so silly.

it's also unprovable lol! Scripture quote in 5....4.....3....2......

how bout fallen angel offspring and their dna that is still with us ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeyi_5i9jre]giants , nephilim and fallen angels - photos and evidence - youtube[/ame]

bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[daws101]

false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!

Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.

We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.

Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.

Got to give them some credit, they did make boobs!

 

[daws101]

nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.

we can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.

Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.

you can assume anything you like you will anyways but that don't make you right.

(place a shit load of irony here!)

 

[LOki]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqB4FOlCtls&feature=player_embedded]Why do people laugh at creationists (part 31) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
to answer bullshit none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.

Read up on JOSEPHUS !

JOSEPHUS IS THE PROBLEM"Choking on the Camel
The historical evidence for Jesus
Part 1: The Conspiracy of Silence
Imagine that you were a history student assigned the task of writing a paper on the life of George Washington, America's first president and one of the country's most influential founding fathers.

On its face, this seems like a simple assignment. Encyclopedias and textbooks full of biographical information about Washington, written by notable scholars on his life, abound. Any one of them would provide enough material for a reasonably detailed report. However, this is not good enough for a diligent student such as yourself. To get the most detailed and accurate picture requires skipping the modern references, which were written centuries after the fact, and going straight to the original sources. You decide to base your report on first-hand evidence: letters written by Washington himself, accounts of his life written by people who knew him personally, and stories of his sayings and deeds recorded while he was still alive.

But, as you comb the records, you find something strange: you cannot seem to locate any first-hand sources. Though Washington is claimed to have done many wonderful things - leading the Continental Army, freeing the American colonies from British rule, presiding over the convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution, becoming the first President of the United States - somehow, there are no records of these deeds written by people who actually saw them happen, or even by people who were alive at the time. The historians who were alive during Washington's lifetime, as well as the ones that lived soon afterward, do not mention him at all. The first mentions of him come in disputed and scattered records written decades after his death; over time, these mentions grow more numerous until, by about a hundred years after his death, a chorus of historians who had never seen or met Washington themselves all testify to his existence and his deeds. It is their writings, not any first-hand evidence, that have filtered down to modern times to create the abundance of records we have today.

Would you begin to conclude that there was something very wrong here?

According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond (Matthew 4:25), renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer (Matthew 14:5, Luke 5:15, John 6:2). Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went (Luke 12:1). He converted many Jews, enough to draw the anger of the Jerusalem temple elders (John 12:11). He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish (Matthew 14:1, Luke 19:47). And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51), a worldwide three-hour darkness (Luke 23:44), and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people (Matthew 27:52-53).

If these things were true, it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.

And yet, when we examine the evidence, that is precisely what we do find. Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well (see part 2). The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.

Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts, but as in the George Washington hypothetical, we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.

Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.

Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 CE covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BCE and lived into the 60s CE, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 CE, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus' death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.

Events such as these create historians. To assume that not a single person who witnessed these monumental events would have felt compelled to write them down, or that no one bothered to preserve those records if they had, violates all standards of credulity. Jesus' healings alone, if news of them became generally known, would have attracted a flood of people from every corner of the Roman Empire desperate to be cured of their ailments; and if in addition news got out of his ability to revive the dead, as the gospels say it did (Matthew 9:25-26), those crowds would have been multiplied tenfold. Surely at least one person somewhere would have written about this, even if only to dismiss it as a peasant superstition. And events such as the darkening of the sun and the resurrection of the saints, if they really happened, would have left a vivid imprint on humanity's collective memory and would have produced a flood of awed and astonished records. To suggest that the succeeding generation simply let all memory of them disappear crosses the line from unbelievable to absurd.

The only rational way to explain this, if we are not to postulate a "conspiracy of silence" among ancient writers, is that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels never happened. And some non-fundamentalist believers might indeed choose this option. Yes, some might say, the gospels are the work of men. They may have exaggerated Jesus' fame and maybe even invented a few miracles to give the story more pizzazz. But this does not necessarily mean Jesus himself never existed. Might the gospels have preserved a core of historical reality, telling a story about a preaching, reform-minded Galilean rabbi that was built upon and embellished by later generations?

In response to this, it should be noted that the historians of the time not only fail to confirm the particulars of the gospel accounts, they fail to mention Jesus at all. But if he had been a real person who did even some of the things the Bible says, it is not at all unreasonable that at least some historians would have taken notice; Josephus and others do write about other would-be messiahs of their day. Of course, if one postulates a Jesus who did not perform miracles and did not attract much notice during his lifetime, it can never be proved that such a person did not exist. However, as part 3 will show, there is a superior way to explain the origins of Christianity, one that better explains all the evidence without positing a historical Jesus at all.

The gospels cannot help in proving the historicity of Jesus, since the accuracy of the gospels is itself what is in question. When they make extraordinary claims that contemporary records fail to corroborate, as argued above, this alone casts doubt on their reliability. Additionally, their numerous internal contradictions suggest that their authors were not recording historical events they remembered, but rather telling a story, changing events where they felt it necessary to make a point. Finally, and most importantly, the gospels themselves are not first-hand witnesses. In fact, the very first unambiguous references to them do not appear until the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, around 150 CE! This fact, combined with other evidence, has led to the conclusion that they were written, at the earliest, near the end of the first century - decades after the events they purport to describe, more than enough time for fact to become inextricably entangled with mythology and legend. Nor are the gospels independent witnesses. It has long been known that Mark, the simplest and therefore most likely the earliest gospel, provided the basic story upon which Matthew, Luke, and probably John as well simply elaborated, adding and changing details. At best, then, what the gospels provide is one anonymous, late, theologically driven source providing details which other, contemporary sources fail to confirm.

If Jesus Christ had been an actual, historical person, we would expect to have first-hand, contemporary documentation: records of his words and deeds written by people who actually saw him, or who were at least alive during his lifetime. We would expect the record of his life to be plentiful from the very beginning. On the other hand, if he was only a legend later turned into a real person, we would expect not to have any first-hand witness to his life. We would expect the historical record to be scanty and details elusive or non-existent at first, these details appearing only later as the stories about him grew in the telling. We would expect clear references to him not to appear until long after his supposed death. And of course, this scenario is exactly what we do in fact find.

Christian apologists often insist that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so strong that to deny he ever lived would force one to deny the existence of many other historical figures as well, such as Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. This comparison, however, cannot be sustained. We know that people such as Alexander or Lincoln were historical precisely because we do have first-hand evidence: artifacts made by them, things they wrote, things their contemporaries wrote about them. In Jesus' case, however, we have none of these things. The pattern of evidence much better fits the birth and growth of a legend. No matter who first said it, to uncritically accept the historicity of Jesus is to strain at gnats while attempting to swallow a camel.

But can the man Jesus be dismissed so easily? Modern-day Christian apologists say not. Despite the lack of first-hand evidence, they claim, there is still good reason to believe that their messiah really did once walk the earth. Part 2 will therefore critically examine the evidence they present, demonstrating that it does not hold up under scrutiny.


Part 2: The Apologists' Arguments

Ebon Musings: Choking on the Camel



Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus
March 10, 2011 in Christianity

This blog post is part of the ‘The Resurrection of Jesus’ series. In this series, evidence that has been put forward by Christian apologists in support of the idea that Jesus was resurrected will be explored and critically examined. As we shall see, most of this evidence isn’t even good evidence in the first place, and they are insufficient to justify the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roman Empire

The following are names of some of the Roman historians of antiquity who lived in and around the Mediterranean region, including some of the very places that Jesus and his apostles are said to have moved about.

•Aulus Persius (60 AD)
•Plutarch (c. 46-c. 119 AD)
•Columella (1st cent. AD)
•Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
•Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
•Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD)
•Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
•Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
•Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
•Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
•Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
•Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
•Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD)
•Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD)
•Petronius (d. 66 AD)
•Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
•Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
•Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
•Valerius Flaccus (1st cent. AD)
•Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)
Not a single one of these historians ever even mentions the existence of Jesus Christ, a man who was supposedly performing miraculous wonders and drawing crowds by the thousands, inciting the Jewish populace, aggravating the Roman authorities, and resurrecting from the dead. For if there were such a man, and he did the things the gospel writers claimed he did, is it possible for him to have gone unmentioned in Roman records? It is noteworthy that Jesus is not even mentioned anywhere in the official Roman historical records of the events in Palestine during the time of he is said to have existed.

As such, there are no contemporaneous (i.e. within his life time) historical records of Jesus.


Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus « Freethought Kampala

Nothing but atheist propaganda.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj3lceK0FCQ]Jesus in History- Proof Outside the Bible - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still no one willing to admit they have no evidence that natural processes converted matter into a living organism.

Not one example given to support your view,not surprising though.