Tears In The Rain

Wtf? It's nonsense that evolution is supported by evidence?

Go spend some time in the evolution/creation forum or check out talk origins.

RPS

No, evolution is exceptionally well supported by the evidence. The comparison was between those who ignore the experts and discount the evidence of evolution and those who ignore the experts and discount the evidence of the historical Jesus. Both camps appear to be made up largely of those who are so invested in a particular conclusion that they very badly misread and deny the evidence.

Tears In The Rain

What evidence of the historical Jesus are you referring to?

RAFH

And since you are comparing the two, please explain how the evolution 'camp' is "made up largely of those who are so invested in a particular conclusion that they very badly misread and deny the evidence."

I don't see the comparison at all, other than as a contrast. The theological history camp has always accepted the historical existence of Jesus as a 'given fact', no need to verify such, indeed, to question that given was until quite recently heretical (and I don't just mean the church type that ends up with a barbeque). Any young historian suggesting anything other than "of course Jesus existed" found their careers terminated. The job wasn't to look for evidence and then by rational means determine a reasonable conclusion as to their meaning, it was to look for evidence of any kind that would support the given and to bury any evidence to the contrary, if they could, ignore what they couldn't bury and actively dispute and discredit and ridicule what could not be ignored.

Some how that doesn't sound like the work in evolution. Not the least. Indeed, though there is general acceptance of the basic concept, there is lively debate about virtually every aspect of the science, made all the livelier by the automatic inclusion of all the other sciences with which evolution must make its peace: biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, geology and all the rest not to mention the physical record, both past and living.

gracebkr

Did you see the compliment I received? Tomboy said I was a good addition and to stick around. Then I stated that. I didn't know what it was when I was called that on this forum. That's why I was smiling. Anyways, what I found was different then what you said. I am not insulted by anything on this forum. I don't care what people say. It is the name of the game.

gracebkr

I agree. I am not arguing that. I am simply stating Jesus lived. Some disagree. How can we discuss the Divinity of Jesus if we can't all agree he existed?

No, mohamed is not the Prophet.

Johann Sin

Simply stating doesn't make it true, unfortunately. The fact is, the so-called 'extra-biblical historical evidence' of the historic Jesus is the FT, that's it. And we all know that even that was tempered with i.e. interpolation. Overall, the 'strongest' such evidence is still weak, sort of like a 'Taller than a Dwarf' award.

Tacitus, Pliny... etc are either;

1. Not the correct time.
2. Not the correct place.
3. Talking about Christians, not Jesus Christ.


Not sure if this qualify but there are some who argues for a mystical Jesus rather than a historical Jesus. In this aspect, Jesus can be divine yet have not existed as a historical person.

Back that up please. I have the Quran that states otherwise, what have you?

spamandham

...also be fake. Any other tough questions?

RPS

Not interested. You were the one who was making the snide comments about evidence. If you're so up on the evidence, you can show where and how the experts have it wrong about the HJ. Have at it.

Had you read what I actually wrote rather than assuming what I would write because I'm a Christian you would have noticed that what I said was that those who deny evolution, like those who deny the historical Jesus, badly misread and deny the evidence.

That's a touching story about the poor, presumably atheist scholars pining to tell the truth and persecuted for it. But it's obviously ridiculous. The idea of Jesus as myth has a long history, from the likes of Voltaire, Strauss, Engels and Massey. It was a relatively popular fad a century or so ago, but has subsequently been rejected by historians as nonsense.

Similarly, there is robust debate among scholars over what exactly Jesus did and said. But there is widespread agreement about the existence of an historical Jesus.

Johann Sin

All these so called 'evidence' (e.g. FT, Tacitus, Pliny... etc) have been analyzed, and have been found wanting.

What evidence? No, I am NOT being snide. As far as I know, these exists no such substantial evidence.


You keep claiming it maybe you wish that it's true. Please back that up. Wishing does not make it true.