Nicene Nerd

The central and fundamental Christian claim is that Jesus died and rose again, and is thus Lord.

This cannot be proved or disproved by disproving or proving evolution.

And if you say evolution disproves the Bible (which would still be false), the truthfulness of the Bible has no bearing on whether this claim is true, since even if the Bible was hogwash written by Van Gogh while going mad it would have no impact on the historical reality or nonreality of Jesus' death and resurrection.

So why keep hitting on this same tired point?

According to almost every atheist here, these terms were made up by Creationists who just wanted to make it sound like they're accepting some science while rejecting some of it.

Only, this historically isn't true. The terms were coined by Yuri Filipchenko, who held to and worked on evolutionary theory.

Two sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Filipchenko

Or if you hate Wiki: lmgtfy.com/?q=Yuri+Filipchenko

So why continue to say this myth?

(Also, this says nothing of my views on evolution or creation, because my views are in flux. So don't bother going there.)

Here it is:

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/pl...

It's long, so bear with me if you will. If you have nothing on topic to say, do not answer. If you do not read (or at least skim) the article, do not answer. If you are going to just hate, do not answer.

Can we all agree that the following statements are true?

* Bow ties are cool.

* Frozen was a great movie.

* Captain America is an awesome superhero.

* Dr. Pepper is delicious.

* Google knows everything.

Harmony, my friends.

In a recent question, I made the statement that no serious scholars deny Jesus' historical existence. Of course, some of you mocked or rejected that statement. So, first, to clarify:

By "serious scholar," I mean a professional with a reputable degree who studies anything historical that includes 1st century Palestine.

This includes a number of people who are not Christians. Examples:

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." - Bart Ehrman, PhD, agnostic

Robert Prince, PhD, who believes Jesus probably did not exist, still admits that he is in a tiny minority.

"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Historian Michael Grant

I should also note that the majority of other people who study antiquities, from hardcore atheist to evangelical Christian, admits that Jesus' existence is the scholarly consensus.

ANYWAY, here's my question:

Why is it okay for Christ-mythers to deny scholarly consensus about relatively recent history, but you pile like dogs all over people who reject the scholarly consensus on issues from millions of years past like evolution? (Don't just say "evidence," because the majority of scholars hold that there is much evidence for Jesus' existence.)

...that Christianity began with a Jewish Messiah-figure/Rabbi named Jesus, even if you don't believe the Biblical account of His life at all?

I've been philosophizing quite a bit lately, so I have a question for you all.

Can you prove that the world you perceive through your senses (sight, touch, hearing, taste, etc) is real and that your senses don't actually deceive you?

Note that to do this, you could not references anything external to you (books, people, etc.) because your knowledge of them is dependent on your senses.

So is there a logical argument to prove that the world you perceive is real?

This is mainly for fun, by the way.

My wife is pregnant, just about to enter her second trimester. However, she's always had bad allergies, and right now they are quite severe because she cannot take her usual allergy medicines. As for the basically pregnancy-safe allergy medicines, they either don't work for her and never have, or will make her too sleepy to do anything. Other things we've tried include an air purifier, a vaporizer, Vicks VapoRub, honey/lemon tea, and more.

She is constantly coughing and sniffing, her throat continually hurts, she's tired all day, her stomach hurts, she's run a fever a couple times, and she's missed work a few days.

Does anyone know anything she can do? We've tried to go to the doctor, but so far have had no success.

I'm not a YEC. I won't elaborate on my views. But let me paint you a picture of the *average* YEC:

* Born in church. Heard the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 in Sunday School. No other interpretation is mentioned.

* Grow up a little bit, shown videos by YEC groups which give evidence (if you call it that) convincing to a young mind that the earth is young. The old earth view becomes associated with theological liberalism and atheism.

* Grow up a little bit more, maybe given anti-evolution books. Assured the whole time that the old earth science in school is hogwash.

* Since these are now teenagers, they couldn't care less about their science classes and don't really pay attention to what evidence is presented for an old earth. All the while, social pressure from the previous generation who taught them keeps them from considering anything besides YEC anyway.

* They grow up, still not having their YEC view challenged significantly, and so retain the view by default.

Now, many of the atheists here (not every single one, but quite many) use words like "stupid," "deluded," "irrational," "moronic," and many more to describe YECs. Yet that's not the person in this story (and this story accurately describes *many* people). They're not idiots. They're uninformed and uninterested. The strongest word that could reasonably describe them is "ignorant," and they only remain so because they don't care about the origins debate, not because they are stupid.

So can't there be some charity here? Please? There's usually way too much hate, condescension, and insulting towards YECs.

That's only partially accurate. I formerly lived in Florida, and there my parents gave me a car, but it remained in their name. Then I moved to Georgia, but it was only meant to be temporary so I still did nothing with the car. Then I decided to stay in Georgia, but moved from the south to the north, though I already got a Georgia driver's license with the previous Georgia address.

Anyway, by this point I need to register my car in Georgia and put the title in my name. My dad also said that legally it should best be recorded as him selling it to me for a small amount. Unfortunately, I cannot find any information on how to do this in my situation. All of the circumstances for which I can find help are different than mine in key ways. Does anyone have any advice?

Materialism: the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Naturalism: a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Now, before you villify me as an idiot, understand that I am very friendly and interesting in science. However, most of you use science as a reason not to believe in things such as God, angels, demons, magic, souls, and other such immaterial concepts.

Here's my question: why? What is the rational basis behind restricting the scope of reality to what can be detected scientifically? By definition, science only deals with natural, material phenomena. If there were anything immaterial or supernatural in reality, science still could not detect or measure it even in theory.

Naturalism and materialism appear to be baseless assumptions, as far as I have ever heard. It seems that supernaturalism and parallel material/spiritual reality are equally viable as coherent philosophical systems.

So my question, again, is this: why materialism and naturalism?

I am doing some research for a book. If you know who the Waldensians were, does anyone know if they had reached England to any notable extent by the mid 1200s?

If you know who the Waldensians were, does anyone know if they had reached England to any notable extent by the mid 1200s?

Most of the atheists here pretend that faith just means "belief without any evidence/reasons." Most of you act like Christianity is all about assenting that God exists for no reason.

Let's look at the primary dictionary definition of faith: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" or "strong belief or trust in someone or something."

Faith in Christianity is about trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ as our only chance of salvation, hope, restoration, and redemption. It is about believing His promises and so following Him wherever He leads.

It has nothing to do with blind belief that God exists. All I ask, then, is that you please stop making fun of us because of incorrectly defined "faith."

As a sidenote, can you at least acknowledge that, even if our evidence is not good enough for you, we at least *believe* we have legitimate historical evidence that Jesus died and rose again?

Thank you for your time. Please do not respond except on topic, and without vicious insult.

A handful of you seem to get this. But most of you seem to imagine that the Bible was a single book written by one or two bronze age goat herders. Let's look at the facts, though:

* The Bible consists of 66 individual books, each of which has a unique purpose, origin, and context.

* The books of the Bible were written by at least 40 men. Atheistic scholars would significantly increase that number.

* The books of the Bible come in a number of genres, including historical records, books of song and poetry, personal letters, autobiographical reflections, allegorical prophecy, and even legal code.

* These books were not written even mostly by contemporaries, but were written over the span of around 1500 years.

Despite this, several of you seem to imagine that the entire Bible must stand or fall together. Does it really seem plausible that out of 66 independently authored books from history, not one of them is a credible historical source? And with four different accounts of Jesus' life, at least one of which certainly had no genealogical connection to the others, even the events they agree on never took place (despite the fact that all of them were written well within the lifetime of witnesses who could confirm or rebut)?

Basically, don't you think common sense dictates that, to reject the entire Bible, you must prove that each of the 66 books is not a credible source in its own context for its own reasons?

BTW, please do not reply if you are not directly addressing my questions.

All my life I have attended the smallest churches in already small towns. The pastors there aren't doing it for the money. Heck, my pastor of almost 10 years had to hold two jobs to stay at the church, and he started the church out of the back room of a pawn shop. Yet you guys like to go on about how all religious leaders want is money. That's just inappropriate given how many aren't in great financial shape. So can we please leave some room for respecting people who work stressful, painful jobs (and if you don't think pastoral ministry is hard, you're a fool) for barely any pay surrounded by a decent number of people who aren't even serious about what they're doing, all because they have a conviction and passion?

According to atheists:

*When someone grows up, "I now realize that Santa does not exist. God is the same."

But what if this is taken to its logical conclusion:

* What the atheist thinks people should do: "I now realize that God does not exist. The natural world has no cause beyond nature itself."

* What this should mean applied to Santa: "I now realize that Santa does not exist. The presents under my tree have no cause beyond the presents themselves."

Yet this is obviously mixed up, for the correct realization is: "I now realize that Santa does not exist. The presents under my tree do not come from Santa, but my parents."

If this is truly parallel to God, how could it be completed: "I now realize that God does not exist. The natural world does not come from God, but from ???"

If this analogy is truly valid, then the ??? cannot be replaced with anything in the natural world, for that would be like saying the presents under the tree cause the presents under the tree. Thus the argument falls to pieces when we realize that *something* outside of the presents is required for the presents to be, just as something outside nature is required for nature to be.

So, remind me atheists how God is actually like Santa?

All the time I see atheists on here saying that Josephus isn't a source about Jesus. Usually they just say, "Josephus isn't a source for Jesus' existence because a monk forged that part."

However, it seems no one has done some basic research.

First, the text the atheists refer to as discredited is called the Testimonium Flavianum. It is a longer passage which contains information about Jesus' ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection. Now, most scholars do not consider it entirely authentic. However, they also do not consider it a complete forgery. The general consensus is that Jospehus did originally mention Jesus and the crucifixion here, but that the rest is a later interpolation. In fact, most scholars would consider the following reconstruction of the Testimonium to be close to Josephus' original:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Finally, there is an almost undisputed reference to Jesus elsewhere, when Josephus mentions the execution of James, who he says is "brother of Jesus, who is called Christ." Most scholars agree that this reference is almost certainly authentic.

Therefore Jospehus provides two likely solid references to the historical existence Jesus Christ. Why, then, do so many misrepresent the evidence?

Sources:

Joel B. Green "Crucifixion" in the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN 0-521-79678-4 page 89

Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 434-435

Dunn 2003, p. 141.

Schreckenberg & Schubert 1992a, pp. 38-41.

The Jesus Legend by G. A. Wells 1996 ISBN 0812693345 page 48.

Painter 2005, pp. 134-141

Louis Feldman (ISBN 90-04-08554-8 pages 55-57) states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged".