lpetrich

Except, Magus55, Noah's Flood may have been an exaggerated local flood, if it had happened at all.

A planetwide flood has never happened in any of the last 500+ million years, and it is not likely to have happened in any time before them. And if anyone wishes to argue that with me, I recommend going over to the Evolution/Creation section of this site.

lpetrich

Magus55:
More than likely, other historians like Tacitus or Josephus were busy recording the crucifiction or the actions done by the Romans. Since no one could explain the darkness, they didn't consider it to be important enough to copy down, at least since it was written by Luke, Matthew and Mark.

Bull feces.

People have recorded LOTS of oddball, "unexplained" events. Pliny the Elder's Natural History is absolutely full of such events, just to name one example. And he had been a boy when this event had allegedly happened.

And there is no evidence that they ever said that "Jesus Christ's biographers have recorded it, so I don't have to."

And historians simply don't work that way. When the 9/11/2001 kamikaze hijackings happened, it was in news services from all over the world. But according to Magus55's argument, they would all have refused to cover it with the argument that "The New York Times has everything you might ever want to know about it."

Who knows why they didn't write it down, its speculation at this point. But the lack of lots of people writing it down, doesn't negate its happening.

Not recording it is like someone watching the World Trade Center buildings collapsing, and then refusing to consider that event anything noteworthy.

Finally, I really have to wonder if Magus55 is aware of anything outside of his favorite fundie literature. In fact, I wonder if the name "Pliny the Elder" will register on his consciousness.

orac

Finally! We have historical proof of the crucifixion. This should put an end to all those arguments.

Could you provide references to where Tacitus or Josephus write about the crucifixion, please? These writings have gone virtually unnoticed among atheist scholars, so unless you provide the references, we'll probably never know the truth.

If that's too hard, could you admit that they did no such thing?


Let's list a few miracles that are in the Bible, but not in any other history books:
Unexplained darkness
A flood that covered the world
Thousands of children - every first-born son - being killed
Everyone hated Herod for doing that, even though God did it first
Plagues of locusts
Rivers of blood
Moses and the parting of the dead sea

Somehow you believe that these things are just ignored by everyone who couldn't explain them? Do you actually believe that every historian has always said "oh, it's in the Bible, I don't need to write about this" including historians who did not believe in your God?

I know christians believe some weird things, but aren't you really stretching things just a little bit?

Magus55

Go read the topic under Biblical Criticism about the flood. The flood is quite feasible, and there is evidence for it, that evolutionists dismiss ( claiming massive groups of unrelated fossil being found together are just all family members).

Talk origins had a guy who tried to refute the flood, and his claims were all explained and refuted back. You think the flood is impossible, because you aren't taking into account that the world didn't have the same topography that it does now. Moutains weren't very high, and the ocean floor wasn't as deep. The flood, God and plate tectonics are what caused the Earth to become the way we see it today. Now i really don't care if you don't believe in the flood. We do and thats whats important. There is tons of studying done on it, and its been found to be quite feasible, especially if God had a part in it.

Demigawd

I read the articles you linked in that thread. The main failure each article is the presumption that the bible is the true account of the universe. So, the "researchers" in question started from that premise and interpreted data to support it.

Until you understand the history of science, that fallacy will continue to go right over your head, and you'll be suckered into whatever wacky creationist "theory" is fed to you. Historical scientists did not start from the stance that evolution is true or old earth is true. They looked at the data first, then drew their conclusions. Rock formations, fossils, etc., all flew in the face the universal western assumption that the bible was true. So, the book of genesis became more and more uncredible as a basis for understanding reality.

Biff the unclean

Track ways are paths that animals leave in soft mud that sometimes get preserved as the mud hardens. Sometimes these are footprints, or tail prints or burrows. Since animals evolved feet every layer of sediment has these track ways. Every layer also shows where rivers and streams, deserts and beaches were. If these layers were all deposited at the bottom of a miles deep world-wide sea how were the critters walking around leaving hoof prints?

Magus55

And the problem with talk origins and other evolutionist/anti Creation sites is they have the presupposition that the universe was created by something other than God. Whats your point?

Magus55

Why couldn't the foot prints been left after the flood?

Magus55

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Demigawd

And my text flies right over Magus' head. Did you actually read and attempt to understand what I wrote, or did you just jump on the "unbelievers are deceivers" bandwagon?

The stance of observations leading to conclusions is worlds-apart from accepting a conclusion then observing what supports that conclusion. The former is the root of honest scholarship while the latter is the domain of dogma apologists.