Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism

Within the very same generation of those who witnessed the events.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps we all kind of feel the same way about each other.

This is kind of how I feel talking to some of you at times. Not all the time, just sometimes.

Perhaps a bit along the lines of these song lyrics by King Crimson...

I Talk to the Wind

Said the straight man to the late man
Where have you been
I've been here and I've been there
And I've been in between

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear
The wind cannot hear

I'm on the outside looking inside
What do I see
Much confusion, disillusion
All around me

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear
The wind cannot hear

You don't possess me
Don't impress me
Just upset my mind
Can't instruct me or conduct me
Just use up my time

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind…

Don’t you also feel this way about me?

Can we maybe agree on this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No not at all. Firstly we have no evidence anyway of any crossing of the red sea by any large group of people....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross...rly verified evidence,Red Sea ever took place.
"No archaeological, scholarly verified evidence has been found that confirms the crossing of the Red Sea ever took place. Zahi Hawass, an Egyptian archaeologist and formerly Egypt's Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs, reflected scholarly consensus when he said of the Exodus story, which is the biblical account of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt and subsequent 40 years of wandering the desert in search of the Promised Land: "Really, it’s a myth... Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence."
And any supposed parting of the Red sea, is and can be explained by natural phenomena, considering how narrow it does get in places.
If the Pacific Ocean parted in front of my eyes, and enable me to walk to New Zealand for example, I would first consult expert professional Archeologists about such an event for any possible explanation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly the theory of evolution is fact...there is no doubt of that, and is the reason that the Catholic church to avoid criticism, now recognise that fact, along with the BB due to the preponderance of evidence supporting that model.
Secondly there are probably rogue ratbag scientists [very minimal number] that disagree with that fact. Remember I have explained to you at least twice now, that any 100% agreement in any group or discipline is near impossible. There are mavericks everywhere.

 

I don't think you are right here. Perhaps you could educate me and show specifically when the first written reports were made.
That would be interesting as I have seen various estimations which frankly I can't recall such that I would state a number of years but I thought it was something like fifty or more.
I think the area of the greatest concern is that there is nothing a out the resurrection outside the bible and one would think that a man rising from the dead would be news that would have been written about by just so many people.
I mean think about it..why was there nothing? The fact there was nothing tends to suggest there was nothing.
In any event let me know when the first written record was created as I really would like to know.
Alex

 

For your review, if you wish, Alex...
Best Regards,
Seti

From Wikipedia:
Historicity of Jesus

Pauline epistles

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus. Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person and a Jew. Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus.

Historical existence

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

From Wikipedia:
Historical Jesus

Non-biblical sources

In addition to biblical sources, there are a number of mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources that have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.

Thallos

Biblical scholar Frederick Fyvie Bruce says the earliest mention of Jesus outside the New Testament occurs around 55 CE from a historian named Thallos. Thallos' history, like the vast majority of ancient literature, has been lost but not before it was quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus (ca.160-ca.240 CE), a Christian writer, in his History of the World (ca.220). This book likewise was lost, but not before one of its citations of Thallos was taken up by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca.800). There is no means by which certainty can be established concerning this or any of the other lost references, partial references, and questionable references that mention some aspect of Jesus' life or death, but in evaluating evidence, it is appropriate to note they exist.

Josephus and Tacitus

There are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus, that are generally considered good evidence.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 ("the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"). Paul references meeting and interacting with James, Jesus' brother, and since this agreement between the different sources supports Josephus' statement, the statement is only disputed by a small number of scholars.

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus's crucifixion.

 

Thank you.

I think he was employed by the Roman family who invented Jesus as a consultant on Jewish stuff so that the story could be tied in with prophesy.
I am sure that was in that video I listed for you...do you remember that bit?

Was he older or younger..would you not have to call him half brother?
Alex

 

Yes, I understand, and that is a different interpretation than apparently most scholars hold.

“The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus.”

So please just make your own decision.

 

Sure you are ok with that?
I tend to go with the notion that originally we had Sun worship and then a considerable number of human gods appearing all having the same attributes as the Sun....do you accept or reject the notion that there were a few human gods with astrology characteristics or do you think those are stories invented by Satan?
Do you see the conclusion one must reach if astrology based human gods were somewhat common place?
You did not say if we should call the brother of Jesus his half brother nor if he was older or younger.

When does the clock start ticking for AD ? How can they be 20 to 30 years after his death if listed as AD 50 and 60. What do I have wrong here? So the year is 2020..is that 2020 years after birth or after death?
In any event let's take 20 years as the period between events and recording...I would not like to write a true account of something 20 years ago...how could you know such reporting was reliable? And as I asked and you have not answered..why would such an event not get written about at the time? Why would such an event not be news that spread like wild fire right across the known world..heck you could expect such news to get to China...why is that?
If someone died today and was dead for three days in these times do you think it would be news..why wasn't it news back then?

Alex

 

Yes, completely!

That is a possible conclusion.

Another thought is perhaps, that a few of the attributes of God can be universally seen by all of mankind in creation itself. Perhaps enough to know there is a God, and to see some of His attributes, but not enough to know everything about Him.

So, if this is correct, you could and perhaps likely would see the existence of numerous different religions and beliefs in history like astrology that have at least some of God’s attributes in common. As people try and figure Him out and try to understand.

Apparently, James would have been younger, since Jesus would have been, according to the accounts, the firstborn of Mary. I don’t know if “half brother” would be a common, normal expression for that time and place. So not sure that is a problem. Would that have been a derogatory term and not used much, I certainly do not know?

Yes, I agree! You know all of this already...

Differences between our time and culture and theirs, over about 2000 years, mean there should be differences in many things.

That is what we should expect to find, right?

Differences in thought, expectations of others, available technology for communication. Perhaps the records we have are just appropriate for the time and culture.

As you know the printing press did not exist, word of mouth, would have been the normal communication method for the time. There may have been earlier eye witness written records that we don’t have.

And the idea behind the New Testament documents we do have, especially the four gospels is that they were, as claimed, carefully researched and verified by the eye witnesses of the events, as that generation was beginning to die off.

Because, just as you said, these would have been important events to preserve in written document form for future generations, not yet alive.

The Jewish authorities should have been able to produce the body of Jesus immediately to suppress the resurrection and spread of Christianity, which would have been a threat to their control and power. And that should also have been in the written records of the time.

Do you know of any such records?

Perhaps China new all about these events from word of mouth. A God matching the attributes of the God of the Old Testament apparently was worshipped in ancient China under a different name.

According to the gospels, the people of the East saw and understood that Jesus had been born, from studying signs in the Stars. I don’t know how? And elements of the gospel, are imbedded in their own written symbolism, they use today everyday.

Yes, I agree!

Perhaps the day is coming in the future when similar events will happen again and perhaps they will be all over the news then. If some of the prophecies in the Bible are true and are correctly understood? Not easy to do!

But in that time and culture, there was no “News” like we have today.

 

Scientists understand the theory of Evolution to be fact, so they have no reason to speak out against it. You don't even understand the very basics of science so it's not likely you'll understand evolution, but surely you'll deny and denounce it every chance you get, that's what dishonest theists do.

 

Lying seems to be the only way you can make your point. Maybe you can explain why you feel the need to lie all the time?

 

Intelligent Design Theory generally understands that Evolution, as a process, is an undeniable, observable fact.

But also holds that Evolution alone cannot explain everything we observe in this world.

Its proponents so often make up fantastical fairy tale stories to explain things they cannot and do not know or understand.

It goes far beyond what is empirically testable and tries to explain things in the past that are unknown. And currently, likely unknowable.

Abiogenesis has never been proven.

A pretend, fantasy, primordial soup of the gaps probably does not really fit under the umbrella of empirical science.

Do you think made up stories do?

 

If Intelligent Design were true, why am I so dumb?

 

And if the professional experts could not explain it, where would you go next for an explanation?

Launch Google Earth, just for fun, and search for Nuweibaa on the East side of the Sinai Peninsula.

That is really where the Red Sea Crossing took place.

 

Well, you are not dumb, so?

 

But, you don't agree evolution is an undeniable fact?

It explains all life and how it evolved.

You're obviously talking about Intelligent Design proponents?

You're talking about Intelligent Design?

But, it has evidence to suggest it happened and is the most likely candidate for the origins of life.

You wouldn't know of any such things considering how ignorant you are of any kind of science.

Like Intelligent Design?

 

Sure, Possibly!

I am certain that I do not know everything.

And I am indeed ignorant of a great many things in Science!

 

Thank you, that's nice.

 

Rather than denouncing certain theories of science, it would behoove you to learn something about the basics of how science operates and then work yourself up to those theories. Be forewarned, understanding those theories will result with you most likely agreeing with them, thus the appropriate slap upside the head followed by a resounding, "Doh!"

Of course, if this occurs, will your Faith still be threatened by the science as it's threatened now?