Ted;1482886 wrote: Some folks enjoy living in a magic and make believe world. Such are the anti evolutionists. I suppose if it makes them happy they can stick to it I simply cannt follow the illogic.
Some folks enjoy living in a magic and make believe world. Such are the evolutionists. I suppose if it makes them happy they can stick to it I simply cannt follow the illogic.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482923 wrote: Some folks enjoy living in a magic and make believe world. Such are the evolutionists. I suppose if it makes them happy they can stick to it I simply cannt follow the illogic.
Parroting. Its all you are capable of. You've never posted anything of substance that are your own words.
Walt Brown's parrot is all you are.
Parroting. Its all you are capable of. You've never posted anything of substance that are your own words.
Walt Brown's parrot is all you are.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Parroting LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
Parroting is a good substitute for the real hard slugging that it takes to find the truth. Then of course what is "truth"???
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1482936 wrote: Parroting is a good substitute for the real hard slugging that it takes to find the truth. Then of course what is "truth"???
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Also, truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality, like all my posts.
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Also, truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality, like all my posts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Wow - pasting from a different book. Must be a first.
Science Disproves Evolution
"Pahu wants a cracker" skwawk
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
It is highly doubtful that Jesus ever uttered "I am the way . . . me". Those are words that the evangelist who wrote the Gospel of John put into the mouth of his Jesus character.
Science Disproves Evolution
In fact 80% of the words in the Bible attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. The are the words the Gospel writers ??? put into his mouth.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu is entitled to his thinking. The only problem I have is that it is that kind of thinking that is turning people away from any faith whether Christian or otherwise. He is one of the 22,000 variations on the Christian theme. He it would seem claims to have the real truth on God. There are a lot of others like him in both men and women.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1482966 wrote: It is highly doubtful that Jesus ever uttered "I am the way . . . me". Those are words that the evangelist who wrote the Gospel of John put into the mouth of his Jesus character.
What evidence do you have supporting your assertion? It appears you think Jesus was a fictional person. Here is evidence He existed:
The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for Christ], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
What evidence do you have supporting your assertion? It appears you think Jesus was a fictional person. Here is evidence He existed:
The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for Christ], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1482968 wrote: In fact 80% of the words in the Bible attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. The are the words the Gospel writers ??? put into his mouth.
Where is evidence for that assertion?
Where is evidence for that assertion?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Personally I have no doubt that he existed. Most myths & legend have a foundation of truth, regardless of how far they are from the facts of the matter. However, there is no actual physical proof of his existence. The one which most Chistian 'Scientists' try to rely on, just as you have done is Tacitus, which has been PROVED to have been faked - or, more to the point, edited after the fact so as to change its meaning by changing certain letters, such as the 'e' in the original 'chrestus', meaning peaceful (verb) to an 'i', so as to read christus (noun). This has been proved by expert graphologists, x-rays & ultra violet examination.
As for the Josephus one, this is another one that has been in question from the start. For a start off, both Jesus & James were common names at the time. Furthermore, Flavius Josephus was writing his interpretations on things. Therefore this is hearsay, not documented evidence. On top of that, what you think of as the writings of Josephus are not his writings at all, but interpretations of those who would wish to reinterpret things to their own meanings. The original writings do not exist. They cannot, therefore, be referred to as evidence. Other 'external' sources are just rehashes on the Bible, using that as an evidence source. You cannot validate the veracity of something on its own evidence. There has to be some form of independent corroboration. Nothing you have cited does this. They are merely the same old straws that Christians vainly cling to while trying to prove his existence, rather than bother with the actual moral teachings.
Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)
As for the Josephus one, this is another one that has been in question from the start. For a start off, both Jesus & James were common names at the time. Furthermore, Flavius Josephus was writing his interpretations on things. Therefore this is hearsay, not documented evidence. On top of that, what you think of as the writings of Josephus are not his writings at all, but interpretations of those who would wish to reinterpret things to their own meanings. The original writings do not exist. They cannot, therefore, be referred to as evidence. Other 'external' sources are just rehashes on the Bible, using that as an evidence source. You cannot validate the veracity of something on its own evidence. There has to be some form of independent corroboration. Nothing you have cited does this. They are merely the same old straws that Christians vainly cling to while trying to prove his existence, rather than bother with the actual moral teachings.
Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1483075 wrote: Personally I have no doubt that he existed. Most myths & legend have a foundation of truth, regardless of how far they are from the facts of the matter. However, there is no actual physical proof of his existence. The one which most Chistian 'Scientists' try to rely on, just as you have done is Tacitus, which has been PROVED to have been faked - or, more to the point, edited after the fact so as to change its meaning by changing certain letters, such as the 'e' in the original 'chrestus', meaning peaceful (verb) to an 'i', so as to read christus (noun). This has been proved by expert graphologists, x-rays & ultra violet examination.
As for the Josephus one, this is another one that has been in question from the start. For a start off, both Jesus & James were common names at the time. Furthermore, Flavius Josephus was writing his interpretations on things. Therefore this is hearsay, not documented evidence. On top of that, what you think of as the writings of Josephus are not his writings at all, but interpretations of those who would wish to reinterpret things to their own meanings. The original writings do not exist. They cannot, therefore, be referred to as evidence. Other 'external' sources are just rehashes on the Bible, using that as an evidence source. You cannot validate the veracity of something on its own evidence. There has to be some form of independent corroboration. Nothing you have cited does this. They are merely the same old straws that Christians vainly cling to while trying to prove his existence, rather than bother with the actual moral teachings.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)
I doubt your accusations are true since you supply no evidence. Here are the facts:
We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:
1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point, Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed or “(the) anointed one, as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many at the end of his life. Large growth
in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.
Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.
As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist. Referring to the first several centuries AD, even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “¦ [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.
Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries AD: “¦ f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity ¦ [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person ¦ [T]he rabbis ¦ used the real events of Jesus’ life against him (Van Voorst).
Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.
â–¸ Celsus, the Platonist philosopher, considered Jesus to be a magician who made exorbitant claims.
â–¸ Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor and friend of Tacitus, wrote about early Christian worship of Christ “as to a god.
â–¸ Suetonius, a Roman writer, lawyer and historian, wrote of riots in AD 49 among Jews in Rome which might have been about Christus but which he thought were incited by “the instigator Chrestus, whose identification with Jesus is not completely certain.41
â–¸ Mara bar Serapion, a prisoner of war held by the Romans, wrote a letter to his son that described “the wise Jewish king in a way that seems to indicate Jesus but does not specify his identity.
Almost all sources covered above exist in the form of documents that have been copied and preserved over the course of many centuries.
As a final observation: In New Testament scholarship generally, a number of specialists consider the question of whether Jesus existed to have been finally and conclusively settled in the affirmative.
Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible – Biblical Archaeology Society
Also consider the Shroud: http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
[continue]
As for the Josephus one, this is another one that has been in question from the start. For a start off, both Jesus & James were common names at the time. Furthermore, Flavius Josephus was writing his interpretations on things. Therefore this is hearsay, not documented evidence. On top of that, what you think of as the writings of Josephus are not his writings at all, but interpretations of those who would wish to reinterpret things to their own meanings. The original writings do not exist. They cannot, therefore, be referred to as evidence. Other 'external' sources are just rehashes on the Bible, using that as an evidence source. You cannot validate the veracity of something on its own evidence. There has to be some form of independent corroboration. Nothing you have cited does this. They are merely the same old straws that Christians vainly cling to while trying to prove his existence, rather than bother with the actual moral teachings.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)
I doubt your accusations are true since you supply no evidence. Here are the facts:
We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:
1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point, Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed or “(the) anointed one, as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many at the end of his life. Large growth
in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.
Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.
As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist. Referring to the first several centuries AD, even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “¦ [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.
Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries AD: “¦ f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity ¦ [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person ¦ [T]he rabbis ¦ used the real events of Jesus’ life against him (Van Voorst).
Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.
â–¸ Celsus, the Platonist philosopher, considered Jesus to be a magician who made exorbitant claims.
â–¸ Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor and friend of Tacitus, wrote about early Christian worship of Christ “as to a god.
â–¸ Suetonius, a Roman writer, lawyer and historian, wrote of riots in AD 49 among Jews in Rome which might have been about Christus but which he thought were incited by “the instigator Chrestus, whose identification with Jesus is not completely certain.41
â–¸ Mara bar Serapion, a prisoner of war held by the Romans, wrote a letter to his son that described “the wise Jewish king in a way that seems to indicate Jesus but does not specify his identity.
Almost all sources covered above exist in the form of documents that have been copied and preserved over the course of many centuries.
As a final observation: In New Testament scholarship generally, a number of specialists consider the question of whether Jesus existed to have been finally and conclusively settled in the affirmative.
Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible – Biblical Archaeology Society
Also consider the Shroud: http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"
Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible. We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).
Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.
Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic, led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
Recommended Resources: The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel and Logos Bible Software.
Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?
Also consider the Shroud: http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"
Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible. We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).
Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.
Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic, led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
Recommended Resources: The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel and Logos Bible Software.
Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?
Also consider the Shroud: http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang? 4
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see (i).
“In each of the five patches of sky surveyed by the team, the distant galaxies bunch together instead of being distributed randomly in space. ‘The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today,’ says Steidel, who is at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Ron Cowen, “Light from the Early Universe, Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 92.
“One of the great challenges for modern cosmology is to determine how the initial power spectrum evolved into the spectrum observed today. ... the universe is much clumpier on those scales [600–900 million light-years] than current theories can explain.Stephen D. Landy, “Mapping the Universe,Scientific American,Vol. 280, June 1999, p. 44.
“There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.James Trefil,The Dark Side of the Universe(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.
Geoffrey R. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang? Nature,Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36–40.
Ben Patrusky, “Why Is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.
Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, “Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of Galaxies, Scientific American, Vol. 246, March 1982, pp. 106–114.
“In fact, studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud. [Patterns that repeat on all scales are called fractal.] Francesco Sylos Labini, as quoted by Marcus Chown, “Fractured Universe, New Scientist, Vol. 163, 21 August 1999, p. 23.
“If this dissenting view is correct and the Universe doesn’t become smoothed out on the very largest scales, the consequences for cosmology are profound. ‘We’re lost,’ says [Professor of Astrophysics, Peter] Coles. ‘The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We’d be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation, or the distribution of galaxies in the Universe.’ Ibid.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
All that proves is that scientists are still thinking about all that, and still studying the universe.
That is what scientists do.
Beside, something millions of light years away from us has probably moved by now. We are looking at where those galaxies were millions of years ago.
That is what scientists do.
Beside, something millions of light years away from us has probably moved by now. We are looking at where those galaxies were millions of years ago.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
I have a library of hundreds of books which I could list in a bibliography but consider it basically a waste of my time. I have spent some 55 years in both formal and informal study coocerning religion and especially Christianity. In addition I spend a great deal of time at the Vancouver School of Theology taking courses from several of the present day theologians and Biblical historians. I will list several authors and scholars and a few books. D. Crossan and M. Borg (who recently passed away) were considered the two most prominent Jesus scholars in the world. Studied under both of them., Mathieu Fox I. Finkelstein (archaeologist) N. Silbermann (historian) , James Meek, Bruce Sanguin,, D. Hall etc and dozens more.. So if one wants some handle on the truth one has to go to some of them and their many writings. Lets not forget Walter Bruggeman, or Bish. J. Spong. Far to many folks limit their reading to only few. I have no problem with the existence of the Historical Jesus.. However the Bible is not an historical book it is primarily a religious book. It does contain some historical basis for what is written there but it was and is first of all Jewish book. It is written in a particular Jewish style called midrash. Madras was both a stle of Interpretation and a style of writing and mades vast use of metaphor in the broader sense of the world. It is not a history book.
The Gospels were not written by anyone who had ever known the historical Jesus. The Gospels are a developing tradition that is what the chuch had come to believe about Jesus at the time of writing and mpore and more were added in with each new Gospel. The order of writing is Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John. Those names were appended by later writers and were not the actual writiers of each Gospel. The real writers are unknown.. The actual events cannot be pinned down to one year or even date or time.
In Hebrew Jesus name was Yeshua of Nazareth. We know almost nothing about the historical Jesus. The gospels are not history books and are loaded with contradictions.. Her I draw attention to Biblical historian and scholar M. Ehrmann, or K. Armstrong.
Pahu open your mind and a broader selection of scholars. There are questions with both Tacitus and Josephus but none ore conclusional. . This is all after some 11 years of graduate studies in formal institutions.
As far as the question of evolution it is harly worth mentioning here.
The Gospels were not written by anyone who had ever known the historical Jesus. The Gospels are a developing tradition that is what the chuch had come to believe about Jesus at the time of writing and mpore and more were added in with each new Gospel. The order of writing is Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John. Those names were appended by later writers and were not the actual writiers of each Gospel. The real writers are unknown.. The actual events cannot be pinned down to one year or even date or time.
In Hebrew Jesus name was Yeshua of Nazareth. We know almost nothing about the historical Jesus. The gospels are not history books and are loaded with contradictions.. Her I draw attention to Biblical historian and scholar M. Ehrmann, or K. Armstrong.
Pahu open your mind and a broader selection of scholars. There are questions with both Tacitus and Josephus but none ore conclusional. . This is all after some 11 years of graduate studies in formal institutions.
As far as the question of evolution it is harly worth mentioning here.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1483096 wrote:
I have spent some 55 years in both formal and informal study coocerning religion and especially Christianity. In addition I spend a great deal of time at the Vancouver School of Theology taking courses from several of the present day theologians and Biblical historians. I have no problem with the existence of the Historical Jesus.. However the Bible is not an historical book it is primarily a religious book. It does contain some historical basis for what is written there but it was and is first of all Jewish book. It is written in a particular Jewish style called midrash. Madras was both a stle of Interpretation and a style of writing and mades vast use of metaphor in the broader sense of the world. It is not a history book.
It looks like most of the Bible is history.
The Gospels were not written by anyone who had ever known the historical Jesus.
The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They were written before AD 70.
The Gospels are a developing tradition that is what the chuch had come to believe about Jesus at the time of writing and mpore and more were added in with each new Gospel. The order of writing is Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John. Those names were appended by later writers and were not the actual writiers of each Gospel. The real writers are unknown.. The actual events cannot be pinned down to one year or even date or time.
The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before AD 70.
In Hebrew Jesus name was Yeshua of Nazareth. We know almost nothing about the historical Jesus. The gospels are not history books and are loaded with contradictions.. Her I draw attention to Biblical historian and scholar M. Ehrmann, or K. Armstrong.
We know a great deal about the historical Jesus from the history of the gospels. What contradictions are you referring to? I know of none.
Pahu open your mind and a broader selection of scholars. There are questions with both Tacitus and Josephus but none ore conclusional. . This is all after some 11 years of graduate studies in formal institutions.
It appears you are the victim of misinformation.
I have spent some 55 years in both formal and informal study coocerning religion and especially Christianity. In addition I spend a great deal of time at the Vancouver School of Theology taking courses from several of the present day theologians and Biblical historians. I have no problem with the existence of the Historical Jesus.. However the Bible is not an historical book it is primarily a religious book. It does contain some historical basis for what is written there but it was and is first of all Jewish book. It is written in a particular Jewish style called midrash. Madras was both a stle of Interpretation and a style of writing and mades vast use of metaphor in the broader sense of the world. It is not a history book.
It looks like most of the Bible is history.
The Gospels were not written by anyone who had ever known the historical Jesus.
The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They were written before AD 70.
The Gospels are a developing tradition that is what the chuch had come to believe about Jesus at the time of writing and mpore and more were added in with each new Gospel. The order of writing is Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John. Those names were appended by later writers and were not the actual writiers of each Gospel. The real writers are unknown.. The actual events cannot be pinned down to one year or even date or time.
The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before AD 70.
In Hebrew Jesus name was Yeshua of Nazareth. We know almost nothing about the historical Jesus. The gospels are not history books and are loaded with contradictions.. Her I draw attention to Biblical historian and scholar M. Ehrmann, or K. Armstrong.
We know a great deal about the historical Jesus from the history of the gospels. What contradictions are you referring to? I know of none.
Pahu open your mind and a broader selection of scholars. There are questions with both Tacitus and Josephus but none ore conclusional. . This is all after some 11 years of graduate studies in formal institutions.
It appears you are the victim of misinformation.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
There you have it Ted. The expert of all things to di with Christian Science who only appears to have read a single book, questions your informed knowledge on the matter. That's put you in your place. You know nothing. Besides, the galaxies can't be millions of years old, seeing as they were only created about 6000 years ago. We know this to be true because Pahu says so - and he has absolute proof. Walt Brown said so as well!!
As for 'my' accusations about Tacitus...
As for 'my' accusations about Tacitus...
Science Disproves Evolution
Oh well. LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang? 5
Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB (j). [See pages 434–436.]
j. Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe, Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. [See also M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall, Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885.]
John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky, Science, Vol. 263, 25 March 1994, p. 1684.
Will Saunders et al., “The Density Field of the Local Universe, Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32–38.
“But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMB] is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’. Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the Universe, Science News, Vol. 137, 24 March 1990, p. 184.
As described below, one of the largest structures in the universe, “The Great Wall, was discovered in 1989. It consists of tens of thousands of galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
“The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the 2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very homogeneous in the beginning. M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Gets Larger—Maybe, Science, Vol. 238, 13 November 1987, p. 894.
“The map’s most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found. Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey 2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution. Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Survey, Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003, p. 276.
James Glanz, “Precocious Structures Found, Science, Vol. 272, 14 June 1996, p. 1590.
For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the nearly uniform CMB. Without concentrations, matter could never gravitationally contract around those concentrations to form galaxies and galaxy clusters. Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major shortcomings were not mentioned:
The concentrations were only one part in 100,000—not much more than the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated, “Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies]. , p. 1684.
“data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the satellite’s resolution. George Musser, “Skewing the Cosmic Bell Curve,Scientific American,Vol. 281, September 1999, p. 28.
Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could easily account for the faint signal.
Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100 or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.
“... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is getting into a major jam. Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune? Scientific American,Vol. 293, August 2005, pp. 49, 55.
The slight temperature variations (0.00003°C) detected have a strong statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52–55.] They probably have nothing to do with a big bang.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
No surprise there then. When faced with the INDEPENDANT evidence he promptly avoids the subject altogether & pastes another (repeated) chapter of codswallop.
Science Disproves Evolution
Doesn't do much for knowledge.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1483661 wrote: Doesn't do much for knowledge.
No. Knowledge is found from multiple, informed sources of differing viewpoints. Not from a single book written by someone with a blinkered viewpoint, using fantasy as fact & using out of context quotes to support a flawed hypothesis.
No. Knowledge is found from multiple, informed sources of differing viewpoints. Not from a single book written by someone with a blinkered viewpoint, using fantasy as fact & using out of context quotes to support a flawed hypothesis.
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang? 7
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium (k). Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) (l) and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older stars (m) contradicts the big bang theory.
k. “And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures. Van Flandern, p. 33.
“It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances. H. C. Arp et al., “The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View, Nature, Vol. 346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
“The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data. William C. Mitchell, p. 375.
l. Steidl, pp. 207–208.
D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 149–155.
m. “Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [a thousand times too much] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts. Ron Cowen, “Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details, Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p. 151.
Gerard Gilmore et al., “First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17–21.
Ron Cowen, “Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the Elements, Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286–287.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Still Pahu-sting nonsense?
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1483915 wrote: Still Pahu-sting nonsense?
What do you find nonsense about it?
What do you find nonsense about it?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The nonsense is how you continue to post bits and pieces of the ongoing scientific discussion and claim it to be proof of you silly conjectures.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1483959 wrote: The nonsense is how you continue to post bits and pieces of the ongoing scientific discussion and claim it to be proof of you silly conjectures.
For example?
For example?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1483972 wrote: For example?
You're no different to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, holographic moon, planet X/niburu buffoons that dwell on YouTube. You're all weak minded fools who have fallen for nonsense and refuse to see it for what it is. You all use the same tactics. Made up science that reinforces the nonsense because the real science doesnt.
You all look as foolish as each other
You're no different to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, holographic moon, planet X/niburu buffoons that dwell on YouTube. You're all weak minded fools who have fallen for nonsense and refuse to see it for what it is. You all use the same tactics. Made up science that reinforces the nonsense because the real science doesnt.
You all look as foolish as each other
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1483972 wrote: For example?
Pretty much, everything you post is an example.
Pretty much, everything you post is an example.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1483977 wrote: You're no different to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, holographic moon, planet X/niburu buffoons that dwell on YouTube. You're all weak minded fools who have fallen for nonsense and refuse to see it for what it is. You all use the same tactics. Made up science that reinforces the nonsense because the real science doesnt.
You all look as foolish as each other
What nonsense are you referring to?
You all look as foolish as each other
What nonsense are you referring to?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1483981 wrote: Pretty much, everything you post is an example.
Try to be more specific. Let's try my last post. What exactly do you find foolish in that post? Are saying the scientists that confirm that information are foolish?
Try to be more specific. Let's try my last post. What exactly do you find foolish in that post? Are saying the scientists that confirm that information are foolish?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1483990 wrote: Try to be more specific. Let's try my last post. What exactly do you find foolish in that post? Are saying the scientists that confirm that information are foolish?
You have an amazing grasp of the obtuse.
Let's look at your last post then.
You do not really say anything. You post some quotes of various scientists discussing Helium and on the merit of their statements, you attempt to show that the "Big Bang Theory" is flawed, somehow, and therefore invalid.
Truth is, again, you offer no science. Only quotes, taken completely out of context and the only conclusion that can honestly be drawn from such a collection is that there is a discussion going on about the origin of the universe.
And it seems fairly easy to conclude that you are not really in on that discussion ,and have no actual knowledge of the subject matter.
You have an amazing grasp of the obtuse.
Let's look at your last post then.
You do not really say anything. You post some quotes of various scientists discussing Helium and on the merit of their statements, you attempt to show that the "Big Bang Theory" is flawed, somehow, and therefore invalid.
Truth is, again, you offer no science. Only quotes, taken completely out of context and the only conclusion that can honestly be drawn from such a collection is that there is a discussion going on about the origin of the universe.
And it seems fairly easy to conclude that you are not really in on that discussion ,and have no actual knowledge of the subject matter.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
And on the subject of Helium,
Astronomers Find Origin Of Extreme-Helium Stars
...
"It's taken more than 60 years after the first discovery at McDonald to get some idea of how these formed," said team leader N. Kameswara Rao of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics in Bangalore. "We are now getting a consistent picture."
The first extreme-helium star, HD 124448, was discovered at McDonald Observatory in Austin in 1942 by Daniel M. Popper of the University of Chicago. Only about two-dozen such stars have been found since.
...
Read more at: Astronomers Find Origin Of Extreme-Helium Stars
Astronomers Find Origin Of Extreme-Helium Stars
...
"It's taken more than 60 years after the first discovery at McDonald to get some idea of how these formed," said team leader N. Kameswara Rao of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics in Bangalore. "We are now getting a consistent picture."
The first extreme-helium star, HD 124448, was discovered at McDonald Observatory in Austin in 1942 by Daniel M. Popper of the University of Chicago. Only about two-dozen such stars have been found since.
...
Read more at: Astronomers Find Origin Of Extreme-Helium Stars
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1483992 wrote: You have an amazing grasp of the obtuse.
Let's look at your last post then.
You do not really say anything. You post some quotes of various scientists discussing Helium and on the merit of their statements, you attempt to show that the "Big Bang Theory" is flawed, somehow, and therefore invalid.
That is what the science indicates.
Truth is, again, you offer no science. Only quotes, taken completely out of context and the only conclusion that can honestly be drawn from such a collection is that there is a discussion going on about the origin of the universe.
And it seems fairly easy to conclude that you are not really in on that discussion ,and have no actual knowledge of the subject matter.
How do the quotes change the context?
Let's look at your last post then.
You do not really say anything. You post some quotes of various scientists discussing Helium and on the merit of their statements, you attempt to show that the "Big Bang Theory" is flawed, somehow, and therefore invalid.
That is what the science indicates.
Truth is, again, you offer no science. Only quotes, taken completely out of context and the only conclusion that can honestly be drawn from such a collection is that there is a discussion going on about the origin of the universe.
And it seems fairly easy to conclude that you are not really in on that discussion ,and have no actual knowledge of the subject matter.
How do the quotes change the context?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You really should read some of the articles from which these quotes were taken, and try to understand the actual points that were made in them.
In fact, I challenge you to just pick one quote, find the entire article, and read it.
In fact, I challenge you to just pick one quote, find the entire article, and read it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Maby Pahu could give us a list of these scientists and their credentials and how they have been received by the bona fide scientific community. Have their findinggs been subject to the majority scientific review?
Science Disproves Evolution
Many of the scientists quoted by Mr Brown in these things have very good credentials. And when you take the time to look up the articles that the quotes came from you will find most are very qualified publications, as well.
The problem is that a single sentence, or two, pulled out of the article are being used falsely to suggest that the scientist said something entirely different than the gist of the article from which the quote was taken.
The problem is that a single sentence, or two, pulled out of the article are being used falsely to suggest that the scientist said something entirely different than the gist of the article from which the quote was taken.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1484019 wrote: Maby Pahu could give us a list of these scientists and their credentials and how they have been received by the bona fide scientific community. Have their findinggs been subject to the majority scientific review?
The following scientists were taken from the endnotes confirming Walt Brown's conclusions:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
The following scientists were taken from the endnotes confirming Walt Brown's conclusions:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
That fact that Mr Brown took quotations from these people and put them in his book does not lend credence to his writings. I doubt, in fact that many, if any at all, agreed to have their words used in such a fashion. In fact, I doubt that any were even asked.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Taking work outof context is in my mind immoral.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1484044 wrote: Taking work outof context is in my mind immoral.
Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1484048 wrote: Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
One can even make a case that God supports war crimes. Numbers 31.
Science Disproves Evolution
One can find justification for nearly anything they want, if they look hard enough.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
read Numbers 31
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1484082 wrote: read Numbers 31
Have, and did.
Have, and did.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1484050 wrote: We had that conversation a while back with the Hawking's quote. Taken by itself, you can read a context with which could claim that Hawking supports your view of the Universe, while the paragraph from which it was extracted makes a completely different statement.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
That's because they were. Here is his statement again:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
You, of course simply rejected the idea, and declared all the other sentences in to be "speculation"
That's because they were. Here is his statement again:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.