Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
    But Himalaya was under water. Before that lift.
    The Himalaya mountain range did not exist before the uplift. It was a broad flat coastal plain and shallow seas like eastern USA, Bermuda region of shallow sea, and the Caribbean

    Depends on whether shrimps and such are involved in Flood sediments. For global Flood, yes, for floods you compare it too, no.
    The sea life, shell fish, crustaceans, corals, and fish found in the Himalaya limestone are embedded in the limestone, and reflect the same environment as found in modern day limestone shallow sea like found around Bermuda. The same limestone that is found under ground in the region in the strata with other shales, volcanics ( basalt and ash), and beach and dune sandstones related to coastal plain deposition like the eastern United States in distinct layers and cyclic sequences of sandstone, shale, limestone and volcanics that do not remotely reflect a flood environment. Pretty much all the strata found in the layers of rock found round the world were deposited in similar environments with similar flora and fauna we find at the surface of the world today, though many species are extinct and the specie found today are evolved from their ancient ancestors. Some of the smaller species (shell fish, corals and microbial life) in these ancient rocks still survive today, because they were well adapted to the coastal shallow sea environment that persisted throughout geologic history.

    The key is that the crustaceans (shrimps?) and other sea life is embedded in the limestones, and not simply scattered on the surface.

    The most damning evidence for Genesis flood geology is the Appalachian Cyclotherms where hundreds of feet of cyclic sediments of sandstone, shale and coal repeated over fifty times. These layers contain river systems, beach deposits, and lake deposits in the layers. Nothing here approximates any sort of catastrophic flood.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-27-2016, 09:59 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      There is no eyewitness reportage of the gospel events. The best we have is 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay recorded by Papias, who himself was an unreliable historian. The earliest recording of the Jesus oral tradition is c.70 CE...plenty of time for it to be redacted and embellished.
      First, the gospels stem from eyewitness accounts. They're not transcripts, but are probably closer to the apostles than is usually thought. Second, Papias is relating information he received from someone named John the Elder. Third, Paul records some of the Jesus tradition. Fourth, the oral tradition was more conservative than you (or Ehrman) wants to give it credit.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
        First, the gospels stem from eyewitness accounts. They're not transcripts, but are probably closer to the apostles than is usually thought. Second, Papias is relating information he received from someone named John the Elder. Third, Paul records some of the Jesus tradition. Fourth, the oral tradition was more conservative than you (or Ehrman) wants to give it credit.
        This is an interpretive stretch. Yes, the shorter version of Mark is probably oldest and closest to the life of Jesus, but it remains conjecture that it is 'closer than usually thought' There is sufficient historical gap with no known documents and records, before ~50-70 AD. Still missing is the hypothetical Q or other early sources. I believe there is ample evidence that basic biography of Jesus is accurate, but that does not necessarily include the miraculous accounts of his life. It is apparent that the later gospels are amplified version reinforcing miraculous accounts of his life and death.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          This is an interpretive stretch. Yes, the shorter version of Mark is probably oldest and closest to the life of Jesus, but it remains conjecture that it is 'closer than usually thought' There is sufficient historical gap with no known documents and records, before ~50-70 AD. Still missing is the hypothetical Q or other early sources. I believe there is ample evidence that basic biography of Jesus is accurate, but that does not necessarily include the miraculous accounts of his life. It is apparent that the later gospels are amplified version reinforcing miraculous accounts of his life and death.
          Assuming Q exists, maybe. The miracle stories exist in the earliest sources; it's pretty well-established that Jesus' followers thought him capable of performing seemingly miraculous healings/exorcisms/etc.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by psstein View Post
            Assuming Q exists, maybe. The miracle stories exist in the earliest sources; it's pretty well-established that Jesus' followers thought him capable of performing seemingly miraculous healings/exorcisms/etc.
            What are you calling the earliest sources? I am considering only Mark as possibly a known early source. I believe the miraculous nature of the ministry of Jesus was amplified in the gospels that came after Mark.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-27-2016, 09:47 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
              First, the gospels stem from eyewitness accounts. They're not transcripts, but are probably closer to the apostles than is usually thought.
              The gospels stem from oral tradition, and the earliest was not written until c.70 CE, thus allowing ample opportunity for embellishment and redaction.

              Second, Papias is relating information he received from someone named John the Elder.
              Even Bauckham, Papias’ great advocate, recognises that there is no record Papias interviewed a single eyewitness! All his information came from disciples who, at the very best, were passing on second hand accounts of what Aristion and John the Elder had said; or with disciples of elders who were passing on what others had told them others had said. In short, it’s merely 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay, not eyewitness accounts.

              Third, Paul records some of the Jesus tradition.
              There’s no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus so, as with Papias, his information about him is hearsay. Furthermore, Paul claims he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it; rather, he received it “by direct revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians). So Paul's information could be delusional for all we know.

              Fourth, the oral tradition was more conservative than you (or Ehrman) wants to give it credit.
              This is open to question but regardless, “oral tradition” is all you’ve got and its insufficient given the extraordinary claims being made.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                First, the gospels stem from eyewitness accounts.
                Who says so, and why should I take their word for it?

                Originally posted by psstein View Post
                Papias is relating information he received from someone named John the Elder.
                Who was that person, and how do we know that?

                Originally posted by psstein View Post
                Third, Paul records some of the Jesus tradition.
                That isn't what he himself says.
                Last edited by Doug Shaver; 11-27-2016, 11:17 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  First, the gospels stem from eyewitness accounts. They're not transcripts, but are probably closer to the apostles than is usually thought. Second, Papias is relating information he received from someone named John the Elder. Third, Paul records some of the Jesus tradition. Fourth, the oral tradition was more conservative than you (or Ehrman) wants to give it credit.
                  I don't know what you mean by "transscripts", I do know that two of them, the first and last, were by apostles, i e eywitnesses to most the recounted.

                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  This is an interpretive stretch. Yes, the shorter version of Mark is probably oldest and closest to the life of Jesus, but it remains conjecture that it is 'closer than usually thought' There is sufficient historical gap with no known documents and records, before ~50-70 AD. Still missing is the hypothetical Q or other early sources. I believe there is ample evidence that basic biography of Jesus is accurate, but that does not necessarily include the miraculous accounts of his life. It is apparent that the later gospels are amplified version reinforcing miraculous accounts of his life and death.
                  Markan priority is an Academic invention of 1870's Prussia.

                  Certain passages in Matthew were very inconvenient in that society, like the rather obvious endorsement of Papal Primacy in the Church, Matthew 16:18,19. Or a passage which some term "antisemitic".

                  It was thus convenient to deny Matthaean authorship and its writing soon after event, despite this being traditional author assignments.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    There’s no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus so, as with Papias, his information about him is hearsay. Furthermore, Paul claims he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it; rather, he received it “by direct revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians). So Paul's information could be delusional for all we know.
                    If it had been delusional, how did he get it through an accreditation process involving Sts Peter and other actual eyewitnesses?
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      If it had been delusional, how did he get it through an accreditation process involving Sts Peter and other actual eyewitnesses?
                      You have a very simplistic view of the formation of the NT and the role of the early Church leaders. There’s no evidence of any direct eyewitness reportage in the NT.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        There’s no evidence of any direct eyewitness reportage in the NT.
                        In the tradition there is evidence that Matthew and John are precisely eyewitness reports from memory. You have this weird idea that for early Christian tradition, we have books surviving, we reconstruct (without respecting tradition about them) the order in which they were written and then reconstruct developing tradition from that.

                        It never occurred to you that tradition in ecclesiastic sense is a very systematic and very safe method of transmitting information.

                        Let's us define for arguments' sake the question/information we want transmitted from early Christian times to ours as "content of first Christian doctrine".

                        The tradition based view lands us with five denominations, sth like 100 different independent Churches, the reconstructionist view with more like 5000 independent congregations, many of which have different doctrine. Accepting tradition has far fewer pitfalls, and yet you insist on preferring a reconstruction, known to be such as much as the Reformation was.
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          You have a very simplistic view of the formation of the NT and the role of the early Church leaders.
                          OK, either Peter was or he was not an early Church leader.

                          That his testimony about narrative of Gospels is only known from tradition by other writers (including St Mark taking down according to Clement of Alexandria as dictation the reading partly from Matthew and partly from Luke with few own comments) is not very important, no Roman Historian from Tiberius' time has given us details about his reign, we only have them second had, except the very few details given by Velleius Paterculus.

                          We can presume he was giving same narrative, basically, as Gospels.

                          If he was an early Church leader, either he was or was not an "ex"-disciple (ex in the sense that the three or more years of study beside the master were past) of Jesus or not.

                          If he was an earlier on disciple, we have Gospel narrative by eyewitness, even if that precise version were lost.

                          If he was not, but was a Church leader, how did a Church leader get away with posing as disciple of a man who never existed?

                          If he was not even a Church leader, how did later Church leaders get away with posing as successor of a man who never existed?

                          It is as if Presidents of US were posing as successors of Washington, but there was no US President before Adams or Jefferson.

                          Or as English monarchs posing as going back to William the Conqueror (and beyond), but the earliest "known" king being William Rufus (documents from the time of the Conqueror having come into Academic disrepute, as with St Peter's works in reality), we cannot posit there was any William the Conqueror.

                          If there was no William the Conqueror, how could William Rufus pose as his son? If there was no Washington or Adams, how could Jefferson pose as their successor?
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            Yes.

                            If you wonder why I don't call them Hebrews, it is because Hebrews are defined by ancestry of a descendant of Shem who was also ancestor of Abraham, and the language was not called Hebrew until they were the only ones left speeaking it, after the confusion of tongues. That man was called Heber.
                            Ok, so there's a Jewish tradition I was unaware of that "Hebrew" comes from "Eber", and that Eber didn't take part in building the tower.

                            Which you take as absolute fact - even though many Jews don't, it isn't in the Bible, or the Talmud, or AFAICT the Rabbinical writings - and which you class as "evidence". And you think 3.5 is not a number. And you think Nasa's satellites are held up by angelic beings.

                            Ooooookay.
                            Last edited by Roy; 11-28-2016, 08:14 AM.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Ok, so there's a Jewish tradition I was unaware of that "Hebrew" comes from "Eber", and that Eber didn't take part in building the tower.
                              The relationship between the words Heber and Hebrew / Eber and Ebraeus/Ebraios is clearly same root.

                              That Heber didn't take part in the building is there in Josephus' comment as well as all comments I have seen from Christians during ages of faith.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Which you take as absolute fact - even though many Jews don't, it isn't in the Bible, or the Talmud, or AFAICT the Rabbinical writings - and which you class as "evidence".
                              Many Jews are not my rule of faith.

                              It isn't in the Bible, but it is in Josephus and in Christian tradition after his time.

                              I don't use Talmud.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              And you think 3.5 is not a number.
                              As said, a ratio.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              And you think Nasa's satellites are held up by angelic beings.
                              Could be, not said they are.

                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Ooooookay.
                              OK, what is that supposed to mean?
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                                The relationship between the words Heber and Hebrew / Eber and Ebraeus/Ebraios is clearly same root.

                                That Heber didn't take part in the building is there in Josephus' comment as well as all comments I have seen from Christians during ages of faith.
                                No it isn't.
                                It isn't in the Bible, but it is in Josephus and in Christian tradition after his time.
                                No it isn't.
                                Ooooookay.
                                OK, what is that supposed to mean?
                                That you are a deluded incompetent and that anything you say (such as "Heber didn't take part in the building is there in Josephus' comment" or "Markan priority is an Academic invention of 1870's Prussia"*) should be assumed to be drivel until demonstrated otherwise.


                                *It wasn't an invention, and it was proposed in the 1700s.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X