Is there any other written historical evidence besides the bible itself that Jesus existed? Any Roman documents reference Jesus? Also, Didnt the cathlic church state not to long ago, that after much research that they concluded that man did in fact evolve(of course it was God inspired) and does anyone have a link to the statement? Of did I just dream this?
Hi! I woud suggest to see talkorigins this cite here talks of evolution, and perhaps what you may be looking for.
The Cathlolic church doesn't speak for the Christian church first off so whether they said it or not doesn't matter. To answer your question, yes. There are extrabilical references to Christ. Not aware of where they all are (but I've seen them before) so I'd have to point you to Google. Ben
Funny, this anti-Catholocism I used to think that anti-Catholocism was a myth; strange, though, that as more and more anti-Catholics pile up at Sciforums, I'm also seeing a lot more of it in the culture. Previously, I had assumed it to be limited to the Nazis and to Seventh-Day Adventists. Which "Christian Church" do you refer to? Any specific sect, or just the protestant and splinter bodies of Christians who, while purging their faith of the oddities of Catholocism, invent quite a few absurdities of their own? Furthermore, I would ask your opinion on apocryphal and heretic gospels. After all, when the Protestant reformation occurred, about the only changes made to the Bible were, essentially, the exscinding of several books. It seems the Catholic opinion on other writings is sufficient, and Protestants have never, in any incarnation I've seen, attempted to rebuild the canon to purge it of its Catholic-related politics from the early-centuries. I admit I find it humorous that anti-Catholics just use a Catholic book with a bunch of words crossed out. But whenever an anti-Catholic rejects an heretical gospel, you can win the bet every time that the justification of rejection is little changed from its original Catholic-derived assertion. We might recall, since the issue that spurred this was Catholics and evolution, the origins of the Missouri Synod, a splinter sect that objected to the American Lutheran "acceptance" of evolution. (I believe the point, in the wake of the Scopes trial, was that the faithful had better things to do for God than to hound school boards over evolution, and the Missouri delegation, as the story goes, walked out.) But really, man, which "Christian Church" were you referring to? Yes, but are there extrabiblical references to Christ that are contemporary to Christ? As an example, we once undertook the subject here at Sciforums; probably over a year ago. Someone provided Eusebius, though he wrote two-hundred years later; and someone provided Josephus, who was right in the thick of it, but is selectively trusted by Christians based upon whether his perspective helps or hurts their arguments. Josephus' problem is one of credibility and changing allegiances in protection of his own life. And, also, Josephus' references to Christ aren't particularly compelling as proof of His existence. What is most hilarious about the Josephus references is that only a couple weeks before, a Christian poster had decried Josephus as fraudulent, thus effectively removing his argumentative value as an historical proof of Christ. Roman tax records? Arrest and trial records? Sure, it's scattered, but you'd think something that important would be preserved unless the early followers attempted to whitewash Christ's activities by destroying those records. (Last time I did the Google search on the historical Jesus, I got a lot of secondary material telling me there was source material, but no source material other than than the scant--and contested, strangely, by fundamentalist Christians and also by anti-Semites--references in Josephus. If you have the links from Google to the source material, please do post them.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nope There is no credible historic evidence for the alleged Christian god, born in the flesh "Jesus" ... nyet! nuttin, niks. Take care.
*Originally posted by Radical the bible is not a written historical evidence It is written. It is historical. It is evidence. You probably meant to say either you can't read, or that it is new or that you don't believe it. *Originally posted by tiassa I find it humorous that anti-Catholics just use a Catholic book with a bunch of words crossed out.* I find it sadly humorous to see Catholics using an anti-Catholic book. *We might recall, since the issue that spurred this was Catholics and evolution, the origins of the Missouri Synod, a splinter sect that objected to the American Lutheran "acceptance" of evolution. (I believe the point, in the wake of the Scopes trial, was that the faithful had better things to do for God than to hound school boards over evolution, and the Missouri delegation, as the story goes, walked out.) * It would have been the unfaithful who believed that man had better to things to do than believe the truth. My hat is off to the Missouri Synod for being able to think. That ability is so rare among evolutionists.
The Christian church as in the body of Christ not contained by walls which answers only to Christ who is God and His word. The Pope speaks for Catholics. Ben
Heh, and I suppose we are to assume that you guys speak for the church? After all is said and done, you are only speaking for yourself, aren't you? So why bandy around lofty terms like "the body of Christ" as if it would somehow make things more clear? Just a tought...
I can't let the sort of false information dissemenate. As to references to a Yaisuah, there are some vague stories passed down in the vein of other characters such as Hercules. All evidence of both individuals are the products of passed down myths. There was a recent trace of a 'possible' life of jesus. I say possible because any theory of the life a jesus character will remain that. In their conjecture they had the jesus character being born in Nazarith (hence the of Nazarith) due to some logistical details of his birth. Of the details only a scant few could have occurred. At the apex of his journey he leaves the madman John and forms a subcult of approximately 10-15 people and runs into town to overturn some tables. After that he takes flight and may or may not be betrayed by Judas. *Originally posted by KalvinB To answer your question, yes. There are extrabilical references to Christ. Not aware of where they all are (but I've seen them before) so I'd have to point you to Google.* I can't imagine what you are referring to. Any subject matter with reference to Jesus or Yaisuah is based on the bible. As to the search that was done through the records of Roman executions, not much has been said about lately. *Originally posted by Tony1 Response to:the bible is not a written historical evidence *It is written. It is historical. It is evidence.* It may be written but it wasn't at first. Each story was written at least 100 years after the event supposedly occurred. Any rational person should see the problems this incurs. In some respects it is historical. Whether or not the Earth/Universe was made in 6 days is a very laughable concept. No amount of interpretation can erase those kind of gaping flaws. In the area of some events being generalized or 're-interpreted' it is somewhat historical. Whether or not it is accurate is very clear. If a story is passed down over an amount of time changes are inevitable. History depends on another factor of multiple witnesses. Ther but four for the Jesus accounts. What's worse is that they are not all in agreement of the facts. As for evidence: for a piece of data to be called evidence it must have counterparts. In light of my previous arguments it would appear that this particular piece of data is comparably weak. As for evolution I can think of billions of very strong arguments to support the elegant model of lifes origin. The fact that we emerged from viruses scares the religious ilk. Why would their god start with something so inferior to human beings? It is their admission of egocentric thinking. Everything their religion tells them is that they are special. Somehow they are automatically better than other life. There is nothing that acts as more of a roadblock to thinking than human arrogance.
Teg, One minor correction: life could not have evolved from viruses since viruses themselves are dependent on other life to reproduce. I know you probably said it in a somewhat sarcastic tone, but some anti-evolutionists take such "mistakes" very seriously as the glaring indications of evolution's invalidity. Even though the first life must have certainly been modest in architecture compared to what it has become some 4 billion years later, it was probably biochemically quite unlike what we observe today. It didn't have DNA, it probably couldn't actively locomote, etc. Some of the current speculations peg it as likely to have taken the shape of loose assemblages of mutually-reproducing compounds that may or may not have started with a primitive bubble of lipids around them. Other people propose an "RNA world" of self-reproducing RNA enzymes. But whatever the case, viruses must have come later -- only after the potential hosts have been developed and wide-spread enough.
*Originally posted by Bambi Heh, and I suppose we are to assume that you guys speak for the church?* We are the church. *After all is said and done, you are only speaking for yourself, aren't you?* If we were speaking for ourselves, we'd be writing stuff like what you write. Our stuff is different, which is why you disagree with it. *Originally posted by Teg It may be written but it wasn't at first.* Such a pearl of wisdom. No book is written until it is written. *As for evolution I can think of billions of very strong arguments to support the elegant model of lifes origin.* Of course, there were no witnesses of the evolutionist model of life's origin. So, what was that you were saying about the number of witnesses? *The fact that we emerged from viruses scares the religious ilk.* Why are there viruses today if viruses evolved into man? *Somehow they are automatically better than other life.* Yes. If you wish to think of yourself as the grandson of a virus, feel free. I won't stop you. *Originally posted by Bambi Even though the first life must have certainly been modest in architecture compared to what it has become some 4 billion years later, it was probably biochemically quite unlike what we observe today.* Modest in architecture? It would have been non-existent in architecture in the evolutionist model. You are proposing the evolution of life from rock, don't forget. *Some of the current speculations peg it as likely to have taken the shape of loose assemblages of mutually-reproducing compounds that may or may not have started with a primitive bubble of lipids around them.* Speculations are what I call them, too. How many chemical compounds do you know of that reproduce? What chemical compounds "mutually" (re)produce other compounds? What would a "primitive lipid" be?
Tony, Get a clue. In other words, you define the "Church of Christ" to be all those who agree with you. Conversely, all those who disagree are not part of the "body of Christ". Funny how megalomaniacal that sounds. Last thing first: I said a "primitive bubble of lipids", not a "bubble of primitive lipids". You need to pay attention to the links between the ordering of words in English grammar and the resulting semantics. The bubble would have been primitive in comparison to a modern cell wall. As for the other two, here's a few links. See for yourself: "RNA world": http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/rna/base.html http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/articles/altman/ http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1997/mar/research_970331.html A creationist critique of "RNA world" hypothesis: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm Autocatalytic ensembles: http://embo-reports.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1/3/217 http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-summer97/turning.html http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/events/abstracts/pastAbstracts/lancet071201.html http://www.zurichmednet.org/development/OriginOfLife.htm http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0521564123 http://ool.weizmann.ac.il/publications.html P.S. If you want to continue this line of discussion, please move it to an appropriate forum. I'm not going to post any further replies here on this issue, as I do not want to hijack this thread.
*Originally posted by Bambi In other words, you define the "Church of Christ" to be all those who agree with you. Conversely, all those who disagree are not part of the "body of Christ". Funny how megalomaniacal that sounds.* It would sound very megalomaniacal if what you said were the case. The Body of Christ is all those who agree with Christ, not all those who agree with me. Conversely, all those who disagree are not part of the "body of Christ". *Last thing first: I said a "primitive bubble of lipids", not a "bubble of primitive lipids".* You got me there. When I ventured to respond to that, I couldn't believe that someone as intelligent as you are would refer to a "primitive bubble." Aren't bubbles generally a "primitive" spheroid shape? What would a "complex bubble" be, cell wall or no cell wall? You need to pay attention to the ordering of words when making statements. *I'm not going to post any further replies here on this issue, as I do not want to hijack this thread. * How noble of you. All of the threads in this forum are already hijacked in someone's opinion, so what is one more going to hurt? Besides, the topic refers to "written" and your links are written, are they not? The topic refers to "historical" and evolution must refer to past history since it isn't occurring today. The topic refers to "evidence" and you are providing that, aren't you?
Interesting, interesting... But Catholics say they agree with Christ. But you don't agree with them. So you don't include them in the "Body of Christ". Which means anyone you don't agree with is excluded from your definition of the "body". Did I miss anything?
Re: Interesting, interesting... *Originally posted by Bambi But Catholics say they agree with Christ. But you don't agree with them. So you don't include them in the "Body of Christ". Which means anyone you don't agree with is excluded from your definition of the "body". Did I miss anything? * Yes. Saying you agree is not the same as agreeing. The problem the Catholics have is that they can't decide which of their several hundred Jesuses is the Christ. They've got 'em all. Fully grown Jesuses, baby Jesuses, sick Jesuses, blind Jesuses, Jesuses still hanging on the cross, wearing flat gold hats, you name it.
In other words anyone who doesn't have the same interpretation of the Bible as you to the letter, is not part of your church. Which is basically what I said before. You're speaking only for yourself, after all. And please don't tell me that the bible has only one correct interpretation, which is of course yours. That is putting the same idea into different words.
*Originally posted by Bambi In other words anyone who doesn't have the same interpretation of the Bible as you to the letter, is not part of your church. Which is basically what I said before. You're speaking only for yourself, after all.* I not fussy about getting it down to the letter level. Catholics admit to two redeemers in writing; the Bible has one. Maybe you can't tell the difference between two and one without interpretation, but I can. *And please don't tell me that the bible has only one correct interpretation, which is of course yours. That is putting the same idea into different words. * So, to maintain your objectivity and superior stance vis-a-vis the Bible, you will allow only multiple, conflicting "interpretations" to exist. Thus, you tell me that your interpretation, containing multiple variations, of the Bible is the only correct one.
Bambi Nope. I mean, you could have made it a more detailed account of his religious bigotries, but that's the essential core. Unfortunately, and as you seem to be finding out, Tony1 has constructed a religion whereby he never has to examine his own faults, merely point out the faults in others and say, "at least I'm not them." Sometimes it reminds me of a biblical character, an accuser of some sort ... what was its name ... I think it starts with an "s". For Sciforums' sake, this runs back a few months; when confronted with the tangible result of Christianity in history, Tony1 began employing a sweeping version of the, Well, they're not Christians defense whereby everything negative resulting from the Christian experience was exscinded by a simple declaration that this or that person wasn't a Christian. At first it was amusing, since he was largely trying to deny Catholocism--you know, that church without which Christianity would not be such a huge religion ...? But when he went on to call Jonathan Edwards, Puritanism, and Wiccan "Catholic", he's pretty much proved his case as a general misanthrope manifesting his hatreds in the form of anti-Catholocism. He's denied a fiery Hell as "too Catholic", despite the overwhelming presence of a punishing Hell among Christians in general; he's even gone so far as to insist that the fiery Hell is Catholic despite the depictions in Chick Ministry tracts, whose website includes a diatribe on why Catholics are presently condemned. Original sin is his excuse to distrust everybody, but he sees that distrust as a sacred trust. Generally speaking, it's quite sick. The only thing I wanted to mention otherwise was to be careful with the word "church". It's incredibly flexible, kind of like "Praise Jesus". The word means whatever a Christian wants it to mean, it seems. Just like two people praising Jesus might be thinking of different--and possibly opposing--attributes, so too do they treat the word church. It is important to regard the body of Christ when speaking of the "solidarity" of Christians. But when doctrinal disagreements and contradictions in faith are pointed out among the "church", the body of Christ quickly becomes diverse individuals because who are we to suppress Christian diversity? Not I, said the duck, but I wonder how well interpretive arguments will sit with Jesus. (Consider Matthew 25, which I've pressed for a while; some of our Christian posters demand the right to not do unto the least of His brethren. Diversity, indeed; I thought the Bible was quite clear there.) But I did want to offer you the following exercise, designed to prepare you for, and eventually replace the activity of, debating with Tony1. 1) Go to hardware store, buy cinderblock for garden. 2) Take cinderblock home, put it on the table. 3) Try to reason with it. 4) Repeat step 3 until you are compelled to smash yourself in the head with the cinderblock. 5) Smash yourself in the head with cinderblock. He's just trying to feel smug while waiting for God. You could always take up a drug habit instead; it might actually get you more than debating with Tony1. Of course, that's how we think he got to the nearly-incoherent stage he's at, so be careful with that route Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually I was reffering to an experiment in which they found viruses could go dormant for millions of years and even longer. It is highly likely that we are a product of a space seed, a virus in space that found its way to Earth. They have been found to survive over vats expanses in time and under extreme radiation. So in fact the virus is likely the key original ancestor. Also anything without DNA cannot be classified as life (through a twisted form of logic viruses aren't classified as life either, but I cannot agree). So in conclusion viruses do not need life. They can survive for long periods of time, dormant.
