Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Sparko]

...and we're back to investing not necessarily including interviewing eyewitnesses.

and we are back to you nitpicking everything to extreme literalness and refusing to read between the lines. If Luke traveled with Paul and if you read Acts you will notice he would have also met the various disciples and apostles Paul did, and he was indeed there "from the beginning" that he would have had met and talked to eyewitnesses.

[Roy]

And James was not an original eyewitnesses?

An excellent question, which you didn't provide an answer for. What does Luke say about him?

[seer]

An excellent question, which you didn't provide an answer for. What does Luke say about him?

That he and and Paul visited James and all the elders in Jerusalem.

[Roy]

And James was not an original eyewitnesses?

An excellent question, which you didn't provide an answer for. What does Luke say about him?

That he and and Paul visited James and all the elders in Jerusalem.

Which doesn't tell us whether James was an original eyewitness, but does tell us that seer is a dishonest gutless schmuck.

[seer]

Which doesn't tell us whether James was an original eyewitness, but does tell us that seer is a dishonest gutless schmuck.

What a little puke you are Roy. And what James is this Roy? We know that Paul met James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem Galatians 1:18-20. Unless you don't believe that Christ's brother was an eyewitness.

[carpedm9587]

Ah I have found your "sources" Carp.

1. Your link to life expectancy us someone's blog. That is like me quoting Mountain Man as a source and expecting you to believe it.

That was one link - the easier one to read. Because it was a blog, I also linked a peer-reviewed paper.

John 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” - apparently they didn't think 50 to be an unreachable age. As someone else said, the "average" life expectancy also includes all of the infant mortality. You were lucky to reach adulthood, but once you did, people lived normal live spans barring disease or accident. Your other link is to an abstract to some paper that you can't read without paying for access and you didn't bother quoting anything from it so it can be dismissed.

2 That seems to be your only sources listed other than a map.

So much for you supporting your claims with evidence.

No wonder you didn't want to provide the links when I asked for them. You were probably embarrassed to bring them back up.

As you wish...

[Starlight]

Unless you don't believe that Christ's brother was an eyewitness.

The gospels imply that Jesus's family were almost completely absent from his ministry. IIRC the popular later idea was that James was like Paul - initially against Jesus and converted by a resurrection appearance. So James wouldn't have been an eyewitness to much of Jesus' ministry or even death.

[rogue06]

The gospels imply that Jesus's family were almost completely absent from his ministry. IIRC the popular later idea was that James was like Paul - initially against Jesus and converted by a resurrection appearance. So James wouldn't have been an eyewitness to much of Jesus' ministry or even death.

Based on Matthew 20:21; Mark 15:40-41 and John 19:25 it is conceivable that the apostles James and John were cousins of Jesus.

[Terraceth]

Life expectancy from the age of the bible to the 1700s didn't change all that much: 35-40 years.

Your source admits the numbers are conjecture and also doesn't indicate whether it's counting infants. Based on looking at information regarding this on other sites, the 35-40 seems to be including those who die at young ages. This is problematic for determining how old people, once past their youth, would live, due to the high infant mortality rate screwing things up.

For example, I looked at the average lifespan of Benjamin Franklin and his 14 siblings (the source you cite claims lifespans were fairly stagnant until the 19th and 20th centuries so this was before they rose). Their average lifespan was a rather low 36 years. However, four of them didn't even make it to the age of 6. If we don't count those, then their average lifespan is increased to 49, with the earliest death being at the age of 35, the proposed average. In fact, two of them (including Benjamin) lived to be over 80! This showcases the effect that infant deaths can have in skewing lifespan averages and how they must be removed in order to find out how long the typical adult would live to be.

As long as I'm on the subject of founding fathers, an amusing note: John Adams, the second president, lived to be 90 years old. Want to know how long it took for that title of "oldest-living president" to be taken away from him? (note I am referring to how long they lived period, not their age when assuming the presidency) It was nearly two centuries later, with Gerald Ford, though Herbert Hoover admittedly did come close. Sure, John Adams was obviously a particularly long-lived individual for his time period. But it certainly shows how even during time periods when the average lifespan was around 35-40, people could outlive the majority of people in today's world, to the point it took nearly two centuries to elect someone who ended up living a longer life.

There are several sources that attest to this.

Well, it's behind a paywall so I can't view it. But the abstract note indicates that the hard data regarding lifespans at the time is "rather disappointing" which indicates uncertainty regarding the low lifespan people ascribe to it.

[seer]

The gospels imply that Jesus's family were almost completely absent from his ministry. IIRC the popular later idea was that James was like Paul - initially against Jesus and converted by a resurrection appearance. So James wouldn't have been an eyewitness to much of Jesus' ministry or even death.

Nonsense, James knew his brother and what he was up to, he knew his brother died and met the risen Jesus.

[Rational Gaze]

Since I have a PhD in a science field I would estimate that it is probable that I am smarter than even the greatest historical Christian thinkers and probably by a significant margin.

False. Isaac Newton.

[mossrose]

False. Isaac Newton.

Isaac probably wasn't as humble as SL, though.......

[seer]

False. Isaac Newton.

Let's not forget:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulPascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pens�es ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pens�es was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
.
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

[rogue06]

Since I have a PhD in a science field I would estimate that it is probable that I am smarter than even the greatest historical Christian thinkers and probably by a significant margin.

How about Francisco J. Ayala, the biologist and philosopher, former Dominican priest and President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?

Or Robert James "Sam" Berry, British geneticist and member of Royal Society of Edinburgh and Royal Society of Biology, former President of the Linnean Society who has served as a lay member of the Church of England's General Synod and president of Christians in Science?

Or Alasdair Coles, Professor of Neuroimmunology, consultant neurologist to Addenbrooke’s and Hinchingbrooke Hospitals, and an Anglican priest at St Andrews Church, Cambridge?

Or Lisa Goddard, PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge and Phd in theology from Liverpool University?

Or Michael N. Keas, a Fulbright Scholar and the professor of the history and philosophy of science at the College at Southwestern in Fort Worth and an adjunct professor in Biola University’s M.A. program in Science and Religion?

Or Denis Lamoureux the biologist who holds a professorial chair of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta?

Or Alister McGrath, PhD in Molecular Biophysics, DD in Theology, who holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford and former Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London. A former atheist and now an Anglican priest who wrote The Dawkins Delusion?

Or John Polkinghorne the theoretical physicist, theologian and Anglican priest?

Or Michael J. Reiss, Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, where he is Assistant Director, Research and Development, President of the International Society for Science and Religion and the International Association for Science and Religion in Schools, Visiting Professor at the Universities of Leeds and York, and an Anglican priest?

Or Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford and one of the most influential English philosophers of religion of the 20th century?

If that doesn't suffice I can add a couple dozen more names including a couple of Nobel laureates (Physics) if need be.

[One Bad Pig]

The gospels imply that Jesus's family were almost completely absent from his ministry. IIRC the popular later idea was that James was like Paul - initially against Jesus and converted by a resurrection appearance. So James wouldn't have been an eyewitness to much of Jesus' ministry or even death.

In an era where everyone knew everybody's business, Jesus' family was very likely cognizant of his doings whether or not a family member was actually present. The gospels barely mention Jesus' family during his ministry, but that hardly means they were not present; you're arguing from silence. Your point regarding the conversion of James likewise does not require his earlier absence; James (according to Paul) was one of those Jesus appeared to after his resurrection, which could explain his conversion regardless of how familiar James was with Jesus' ministry. Jesus' family was with the apostles at Pentecost; it's rather unlikely they were there as inquisitive bystanders.