Finding common ground between God and evolution ("Theory is greater than facts)

Seattle Times ^ | Jan 25, 2005 | Froma Harrop

[ohioWfan]

Am I to assume you aren't coming back to answer my question, or respond to all the verifiable historic evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels that I've provided?

Just curious.

[ohioWfan]

LOL! Junior, my last post was to you, and not to myself.

I wondered what you thought of the evidence I provided.

[eagle11]

Right on! How could God ever have a problem with evolution?

[ohioWfan]

Here you go, Junior. Start at 564.....

[Junior]

Have you checked out a reference in Josephus' Antiquities, Tacitus' Annals, or Thallus' Histories, with references to the historic crucifixion and resurrection?

Josephus apparently doesn't even get Scripture right in Antiquities:

The Jewish Antiquities, (written c. 94 in Greek) is a history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the war in the late 60s. There is an autobiographical appendix defending Josephus' own conduct at the end of the war when he cooperated with the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus Flavius. His account, while parallel to the Old Testament, is not identical to it. There has been speculation that the differences are due to Josephus' access to ancient texts (perhaps going back to Nehemiah) which survived the destruction of the Temple. Since Josephus was close to the Roman leaders, he may have received permission to recover and retain some or all of those texts, as he indicates. On the other hand, credible arguments have been made that the Dead Sea scrolls are partially or entirely sacred scrolls from the Temple of Jerusalem hidden in various sites around the Dead Sea to protect them against possible destruction by the Romans. The two possibilities are not completely mutually exclusive, so both may be (partially) true.

And, as he was born after the death of Christ (~37) so anything he wrote on the matter would be considered second hand.

As for Tacitus:

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," but that is disputable. The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." Although Tacitus was Roman rather than Jewish and might have believed that was part of the name, it is extremely unlikely he would have selected it alone from the archives. In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.

Regarding the reliability of Tacitus, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions "the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of the Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv)." [1] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm)

We have a bit more of a problem with Thallus.  He may have been dead for quite some time (read: two centuries) before Christ, and his single reference to the darkening of the sky at the crucifixion may have been added after the fact:

• Thallus: an Analysis (1999)
• Jacoby and Müller on "Thallus" (1999)

[ohioWfan]

Wikepedia is your source of information? An online Encyclopedia?

And who is Richard Carrier, and what are his credentials and background?

[Junior]

Does it matter? Are they correct in their assessments or not? And, if so, how?

BTW, Richard Carrier is an historian.

[ohioWfan]

I'll tell you what matters. Richard Carrier is an atheist (checked it out myself).

We're at a stalemate, Junior. My sources are from Christian scholars, and you won't believe anything they say just because they are Christians (even though you claim to be a Catholic yourself).

Your sources are atheists, so I won't believe that they are genuinely looking for the truth. How can you trust an atheist to come up with the truth when he has thrown out the Author of ALL Truth before he asked any questions?

In the end, the only thing that matters is whether the Gospels actually ARE authentic. If you're right and they're not, no big loss for me. If I'm right and Jesus is who He says He is, you're in big trouble.

So........end of conversation. Thanks for coming back.

[pgyanke]

Thanks for pinging an audience from the other thread. It was enjoyable.

[Junior]

No. I won't accept anything they say automatically simply because they are Christian. There is a difference between that and not accepting them because they are Christian. Carrier may be an atheist, but he has done his research, so he is credible. Pulling stuff off Christian sites because it sounds good and supports your views does not necessarily make your particular positions valid.

Your sources are atheists, so I won't believe that they are genuinely looking for the truth.

Why not? Would it not be possible for an atheist to be objective? Would you consider that Christian apologists might be a bit biased too? Research can always be double checked regardless of the leanings of the researcher (that's what peer review is all about). This is the reason I linked my sources.

[ohioWfan]

Don't twist my words, Junior. I said nothing about accepting anything someone says just because they are a Christian.

Carrier has done research as an atheist, with a point to prove. You can say the same thing about the Christian sources I have (also scholars who have done extensive research).

That was the whole point of my last post. Both sides will have bias.

You believe the bias of the atheists for whatever your reasons are, and I believe the bias of the Christians, because they will have more of a moral compunction to tell the truth. (It's a commandment that atheists can and do, freely ignore).

As I said previously. We are at a stalemate. You are free to believe your atheist sources as to the authenticity of Scripture.

[ohioWfan]

Hey........no problem. :o)

[ohioWfan]

Pulling stuff off Christian sites because it sounds good and supports your views does not necessarily make your particular positions valid.

Oh.......I missed this little gem.

My sources, as I said previously, are books, not websites. Since Christian websites are a point of ridicule for you religious evolutionists, why would I use them as a source of information?

I have also told you that my daughter has extensive written verification of the authenticity of ancient texts. She is a scholar, as are her professors. But she is also a Christian, so you won't believe her either.

[ohioWfan]

In case anyone is lurking and wondering if I actually have sources, here is a list........

History and Christianity, by John Warwick Montgomery.

Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed., MacMillan

Companion to Classical Texts, "MS. Authorities for the Text of the Chief Classical Writers," by F.W. Hall, Oxford.

The Bible and Archaeology, Harper publ.

Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Broadman press.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell (just found out he actually has a website).

Junior won't believe any of these scholars because they're Christians, but perhaps someone else might find the references useful in studying Christian apologetics, and the authenticity of the New Testament.

[ohioWfan]

.

[ohioWfan]

So am I to assume from your lack of response, that you agree that since you choose to believe only atheistic sources, and dismiss Christian ones, no matter how scholarly, that we have no common ground?

Is that how this discussion will end? If so, it will prove much about your so-called faith.