Royd 0 #226 May 27, 2006 Where did you get those numbers? From an expert. 10 million years is a big gap. That's what I'm talking about throwing numbers around. It sounds impressive to some. If you had a dinner date and the person showed up one day late would you put any credence in what they said? That kind of time line would never stand up in a court of law. So, was it 90 million, 100 million, or could it have been 4,000 yrs? Touche! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #227 May 27, 2006 I'm as confused as a very confused thing.... In one post you conceed that evolution in viruses takes place... and then with in moments, you appeare to be saying that virus mutations are man made.... If that's the case, were done... Bye. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #228 May 27, 2006 .!.. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #229 May 27, 2006 Well this whole post is useless now! Waste of my valuable time mumble better things to do mumble mumbleDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #230 May 27, 2006 Whoops ... sorry matey I pressed reply whilst reading the wrong post.. twasn't meant to be yours edited : I'ved changed the re: bit (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #231 May 27, 2006 Where have you been during this whole discussion? Setting us up for the big fall? I could have been outside enjoying this North Fl. sunshine instead of carrying on a needless conversation with a couple of guys from the UK! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #232 May 27, 2006 Getting one pawn taken off of the board doesn't mean I've tipped the King over! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #233 May 28, 2006 QuoteWhere have you been during this whole discussion? I was reading it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #234 May 28, 2006 ***At one time humans BELIEVED the earth was flat as well as the center of the universe. Were they stupid? No. The truth wasn't obvious so they did the best they could with the information and technology they had at the time. QuoteNowadays, Hollywood liberals think that they are the center of the universe. Sounds like we're going downhill, fast Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #235 May 29, 2006 >The elk will never grow snowshoes in order to run on top of the snow. Google "snowshoe hare." > there are plenty of times in my work where I've needed three hands. Next time you're in a zoo, count how many hands a chimpanzee has. > I am a gardener and observe, and practise natural selection all of the >time. I plant ten zucchini seeds in a group. Four or five come up strong. >The rest are runty. I pull them up in order to give the good ones room to >grow. At the end of the season every thing that came from those plants >were zucchini. Ah, but they look absolutely nothing like the original zucchini plants, which were even more runty than your 'runts.' We selected for larger plants through hybridization and forced selection. In effect, we evolved them very fast. That's how we got great danes and chihuahuas from wolves in a few thousand years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #236 May 30, 2006 QuoteOk I raised these points in another thread, but nobody in the god squad wanted to tackle them, perhaps you might, 1. There is no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. I don't see the problem with this. Why do you disregard writings of his contemporaries and followers? Why is eyewitness testimony considered untrustworthy in the case of Jesus? Quote2. There is no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus? I don't know much about this. Supposedly, Tacitus (a roman historian) wrote something about it. Josephus, a Jewish historian, for sure wrote of Pontius Pilate and Jesus, however. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GrandLat/people/griffiths/collatin.htm http://www.bible-history.com/jesus/jesusuntitled00000472.htm This anti-Christian site makes mention of the Tacitus reference: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html Quote3. There is not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus I don't know about this claim, but there were early historians who did mention Jesus and Christians and persecution of Christians, etc. Quote4. Comparative Religion shows that the story of Jesus already existed in numerous religions prior to the alleged time of Jesus. Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. The motif of a Crucified Savior was already extant prior to the alleged time of Jesus.I can't say I've read enough mythology to even recognize all these names, but I have heard the accusation before... Do stories of these mythical dieties make the actual events of Christ's life impossible to have occurred? The Messiah's life and death were prophecied in the OT, you know. Maybe the authors of these myths got creative and used the prophetic details in their stories. Quote5. Solar Mythology shows the story of Jesus is just an allegory for the sun passing through the Zodiac and the passage of the seasons of the year. Jesus travels throughout his one year ministry, and the description of his travels exactly match that of the sun traveling through the Zodiac during the year. Here we have the origin of the Jesus story. This common origin explains why all the stories of crucified saviors are essentially the same. Conjecture proves nothing. This is wishful thinking by "infidels" and atheists. Quote6. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170). That's actually pretty early for back then! Are you aware of this? Quote7. The fact that no history, sacred or profane,—that not one of the three hundred histories of that age,—makes the slightest allusion to Christ, or any of the miraculous incidents ingrafted into his life, certainly proves, with a cogency that no logic can overthrow, no sophistry can contradict, and no honest skepticism can resist, that there never was such a miraculously endowed being as his many orthodox disciples claim him to have been. Not so. Histories of the time DO mention Christ and the spread of Christianity. Check this history link: http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm As I recall, Pajarito also gave you some links containing extra-biblical historical references. Did you check those out? Does any of this help answer your questions b? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #237 May 30, 2006 Quote6. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's actually pretty early for back then! Are you aware of this? Very early. Especially considering that Jesus died in ~ A.D. 33. The writings are within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses. No other ancient work even comes close to the credibility of the New Testament. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #238 May 30, 2006 QuoteVery early. Especially considering that Jesus died in ~ A.D. 33. The writings are within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses. No other ancient work even comes close to the credibility of the New Testament. Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War is generally considered to be pretty damn good. Funny word, Peloponnesian... sounds like they were all fighting over a large melon or grapefruit or something. They weren't, though.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #239 May 30, 2006 QuoteThucydides History of the Peloponnesian War is generally considered to be pretty damn good. Let's compare: Thucydides: Written - 460-400 B.C. Earliest copy - 900 A.D. Approx timespan between orig & copy - 1300 yrs Number of copies - 8 New Testament: Written - 1st Century A.D. (50 - 100 A.D.) Earliest copy - 2nd Century A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) Approx timespan between orig & copy - < 100 years Number of copies - 5600 Accuracy of copies - 99.5% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #240 May 30, 2006 EVERYTHING about the NT manuscripts is superior to any other ancient work... the time span between the originals and the first copies, the number of copies (manuscripts)--- EVERYTHING. When you put all the data together, it's pretty amazing. Thanks for the actual numbers, Paj.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #241 May 30, 2006 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #242 May 30, 2006 Paj, do you know off the top of your head how many of the original disciples of Christ were martyred because of their claims about Christ? Some were NOT martyred, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #243 May 30, 2006 I don't quite see how that alone is a measure of historical credibility.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #244 May 30, 2006 Then what standards are normally used for determining the historical credibility?Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #245 May 30, 2006 QuotePaj, do you know off the top of your head how many of the original disciples of Christ were martyred because of their claims about Christ? Some were NOT martyred, right? I was out for a while. Sorry. Here's a list I have. 11 out of the original 12 were. Impressive testimony. 1. Peter - crucified 2. Andrew - crucified 3. Matthew - the sword 4. John - natural 5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified 6. Philip - crucified 7. Simon - crucified 8. Thaddaeus - killed by arrows 9. James, brother of Jesus - stoned 10. Thomas - spear thrust 11. Bartholomew - crucified 12. James, son of Zebedee - the sword In addition: 1. Barnabas - burned to death 2. Mark - dragged to death 3. James (the less) - Clubbed to death 4. Paul - beheaded 5. Luke - hanged Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #246 May 30, 2006 QuoteI don't quite see how that alone is a measure of historical credibility. It's not. It's just one aspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #247 May 30, 2006 Ok. Then in that case I will still say the Thuc is the most accurate and credible ancient work. After that, maybe Xenophon's Anabasis or Caesar's Commentaries but Caesar had much more of an agenda and Xen was just a bit flaky.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #248 May 31, 2006 QuoteThen in that case I will still say the Thuc is the most accurate and credible ancient work. How do you figure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #249 May 31, 2006 Because all my lecturers say it is. To be perfectly honest I'm just posting as a diversion from all the work I really should be doing right now. What I can say about Thuc is that it is the one ancient work which is taken at very near face value as a no bullshit record of what really happened (minus some vague behind the scenes political maneuvering). He was a highly educated man who personally took part in some of the events of which he writes (as a general), was a meticulous researcher and at the time of writing had no political career or personal agenda (apart from adulation of Pericles who was long dead by then anyway) to advance. In fact you could say it's his sheer mundanity that is his best asset. Caesars writing was too important to his political career, Xen was too much into philosophy and 'colourful' writing to be totally trusted. There are several biographies of Alexander still extant that back each other up very well, but they were all written at least a century or two after his death and we no longer have the contemporary histories (Cleisthenes, Nearchus, Ptolemy, court diaries) that they claimed to use as sources. Why the hell am I still typing this when I should be working? Have a very nice evening - I'm off.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #250 May 31, 2006 I'd like to post this again for emphasis. Let me get this straight. Dismiss the New Testament as rubbish but accept Thucydides as very accurate? Written ~500 years before the New Testament with the earliest copy we have being 1300 years later and we only have 8. Thucydides: Written - 460-400 B.C. Earliest copy - 900 A.D. Approx timespan between orig & copy - 1300 yrs Number of copies - 8 New Testament: Written - 1st Century A.D. (50 - 100 A.D.) Earliest copy - 2nd Century A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) Approx timespan between orig & copy - < 100 years Number of copies - 5600 Accuracy of copies - 99.5% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 10 of 16 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,991 #235 May 29, 2006 >The elk will never grow snowshoes in order to run on top of the snow. Google "snowshoe hare." > there are plenty of times in my work where I've needed three hands. Next time you're in a zoo, count how many hands a chimpanzee has. > I am a gardener and observe, and practise natural selection all of the >time. I plant ten zucchini seeds in a group. Four or five come up strong. >The rest are runty. I pull them up in order to give the good ones room to >grow. At the end of the season every thing that came from those plants >were zucchini. Ah, but they look absolutely nothing like the original zucchini plants, which were even more runty than your 'runts.' We selected for larger plants through hybridization and forced selection. In effect, we evolved them very fast. That's how we got great danes and chihuahuas from wolves in a few thousand years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #236 May 30, 2006 QuoteOk I raised these points in another thread, but nobody in the god squad wanted to tackle them, perhaps you might, 1. There is no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. I don't see the problem with this. Why do you disregard writings of his contemporaries and followers? Why is eyewitness testimony considered untrustworthy in the case of Jesus? Quote2. There is no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus? I don't know much about this. Supposedly, Tacitus (a roman historian) wrote something about it. Josephus, a Jewish historian, for sure wrote of Pontius Pilate and Jesus, however. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GrandLat/people/griffiths/collatin.htm http://www.bible-history.com/jesus/jesusuntitled00000472.htm This anti-Christian site makes mention of the Tacitus reference: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html Quote3. There is not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus I don't know about this claim, but there were early historians who did mention Jesus and Christians and persecution of Christians, etc. Quote4. Comparative Religion shows that the story of Jesus already existed in numerous religions prior to the alleged time of Jesus. Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. The motif of a Crucified Savior was already extant prior to the alleged time of Jesus.I can't say I've read enough mythology to even recognize all these names, but I have heard the accusation before... Do stories of these mythical dieties make the actual events of Christ's life impossible to have occurred? The Messiah's life and death were prophecied in the OT, you know. Maybe the authors of these myths got creative and used the prophetic details in their stories. Quote5. Solar Mythology shows the story of Jesus is just an allegory for the sun passing through the Zodiac and the passage of the seasons of the year. Jesus travels throughout his one year ministry, and the description of his travels exactly match that of the sun traveling through the Zodiac during the year. Here we have the origin of the Jesus story. This common origin explains why all the stories of crucified saviors are essentially the same. Conjecture proves nothing. This is wishful thinking by "infidels" and atheists. Quote6. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170). That's actually pretty early for back then! Are you aware of this? Quote7. The fact that no history, sacred or profane,—that not one of the three hundred histories of that age,—makes the slightest allusion to Christ, or any of the miraculous incidents ingrafted into his life, certainly proves, with a cogency that no logic can overthrow, no sophistry can contradict, and no honest skepticism can resist, that there never was such a miraculously endowed being as his many orthodox disciples claim him to have been. Not so. Histories of the time DO mention Christ and the spread of Christianity. Check this history link: http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm As I recall, Pajarito also gave you some links containing extra-biblical historical references. Did you check those out? Does any of this help answer your questions b? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #237 May 30, 2006 Quote6. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's actually pretty early for back then! Are you aware of this? Very early. Especially considering that Jesus died in ~ A.D. 33. The writings are within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses. No other ancient work even comes close to the credibility of the New Testament. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #238 May 30, 2006 QuoteVery early. Especially considering that Jesus died in ~ A.D. 33. The writings are within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses. No other ancient work even comes close to the credibility of the New Testament. Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War is generally considered to be pretty damn good. Funny word, Peloponnesian... sounds like they were all fighting over a large melon or grapefruit or something. They weren't, though.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #239 May 30, 2006 QuoteThucydides History of the Peloponnesian War is generally considered to be pretty damn good. Let's compare: Thucydides: Written - 460-400 B.C. Earliest copy - 900 A.D. Approx timespan between orig & copy - 1300 yrs Number of copies - 8 New Testament: Written - 1st Century A.D. (50 - 100 A.D.) Earliest copy - 2nd Century A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) Approx timespan between orig & copy - < 100 years Number of copies - 5600 Accuracy of copies - 99.5% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #240 May 30, 2006 EVERYTHING about the NT manuscripts is superior to any other ancient work... the time span between the originals and the first copies, the number of copies (manuscripts)--- EVERYTHING. When you put all the data together, it's pretty amazing. Thanks for the actual numbers, Paj.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #242 May 30, 2006 Paj, do you know off the top of your head how many of the original disciples of Christ were martyred because of their claims about Christ? Some were NOT martyred, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #243 May 30, 2006 I don't quite see how that alone is a measure of historical credibility.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #244 May 30, 2006 Then what standards are normally used for determining the historical credibility?Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #245 May 30, 2006 QuotePaj, do you know off the top of your head how many of the original disciples of Christ were martyred because of their claims about Christ? Some were NOT martyred, right? I was out for a while. Sorry. Here's a list I have. 11 out of the original 12 were. Impressive testimony. 1. Peter - crucified 2. Andrew - crucified 3. Matthew - the sword 4. John - natural 5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified 6. Philip - crucified 7. Simon - crucified 8. Thaddaeus - killed by arrows 9. James, brother of Jesus - stoned 10. Thomas - spear thrust 11. Bartholomew - crucified 12. James, son of Zebedee - the sword In addition: 1. Barnabas - burned to death 2. Mark - dragged to death 3. James (the less) - Clubbed to death 4. Paul - beheaded 5. Luke - hanged Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #246 May 30, 2006 QuoteI don't quite see how that alone is a measure of historical credibility. It's not. It's just one aspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #247 May 30, 2006 Ok. Then in that case I will still say the Thuc is the most accurate and credible ancient work. After that, maybe Xenophon's Anabasis or Caesar's Commentaries but Caesar had much more of an agenda and Xen was just a bit flaky.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #248 May 31, 2006 QuoteThen in that case I will still say the Thuc is the most accurate and credible ancient work. How do you figure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #249 May 31, 2006 Because all my lecturers say it is. To be perfectly honest I'm just posting as a diversion from all the work I really should be doing right now. What I can say about Thuc is that it is the one ancient work which is taken at very near face value as a no bullshit record of what really happened (minus some vague behind the scenes political maneuvering). He was a highly educated man who personally took part in some of the events of which he writes (as a general), was a meticulous researcher and at the time of writing had no political career or personal agenda (apart from adulation of Pericles who was long dead by then anyway) to advance. In fact you could say it's his sheer mundanity that is his best asset. Caesars writing was too important to his political career, Xen was too much into philosophy and 'colourful' writing to be totally trusted. There are several biographies of Alexander still extant that back each other up very well, but they were all written at least a century or two after his death and we no longer have the contemporary histories (Cleisthenes, Nearchus, Ptolemy, court diaries) that they claimed to use as sources. Why the hell am I still typing this when I should be working? Have a very nice evening - I'm off.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #250 May 31, 2006 I'd like to post this again for emphasis. Let me get this straight. Dismiss the New Testament as rubbish but accept Thucydides as very accurate? Written ~500 years before the New Testament with the earliest copy we have being 1300 years later and we only have 8. Thucydides: Written - 460-400 B.C. Earliest copy - 900 A.D. Approx timespan between orig & copy - 1300 yrs Number of copies - 8 New Testament: Written - 1st Century A.D. (50 - 100 A.D.) Earliest copy - 2nd Century A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) Approx timespan between orig & copy - < 100 years Number of copies - 5600 Accuracy of copies - 99.5% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
