Typhoon struck pineapple land for a reason

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, okay, don't ask me, my view might be considered bias. Take the bible to any recognised non-religious university today (eg. Harvard, Yale, Oxford, NUS) and ask them whether it is recognized as a historical text or not.

The links you gave are the opinion of some person, can you provide links to some other bona-fide publication like National Geographic or Time magazine that is widely accepted as legitimate sources of information based on fact and discovered evidence? To counter your "Christian" source, google for The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur. He was an ordained Anglican priest and a regular columnist on Christian and religious issues in the Toronto Star. He states that the story of Jesus Christ is based on stories told by earlier civilizations which explicitly states that the story of Jesus is merely that - a story. Christians who have read his book have commented that this doesn't shake their faith in the religion because the spiritual Christ is what matters rather than the story of some magician to put hope in the lives of the destitute. If a Christian priest can take on a scientific outlook, it leaves a lot to be expected from regular secular people on their expectations of what is true and what is folklore.

Cheers!

Firstly, as mentioned before, there is no good reason to exclude the Bible as a historical document in its own right and merit. I can only attribute it to your sheer bias and prejudice if you do so. And that's hardly being objective.

Secondly, I already pointed out the non-Christian sources. But I suppose you are going to dismiss them because these are compiled by Christians? Hope not.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

Regarding the Holocaust, the issue is not whether it happened within the lifetimes of those who are still alive today. Even now we have people denying it happened. 1000 years later would it be denied? Sure, but the objective truth is that it happened, even if 1000 years from now everyone on earth said it never happened, or every shred of evidence from it has been removed from the face of the earth. That's the nature of truth, it doesn't depend on what you believe or feel about it. Our five senses are generally reliable, but there are things beyond our five senses. When it comes to matters of history, it's about historical evidence and artefacts and documents.

 

[Frodo]

Fren, okay, don't ask me, my view might be considered bias. Take the bible to any recognised non-religious university today (eg. Harvard, Yale, Oxford, NUS) and ask them whether it is recognized as a historical text or not.

The links you gave are the opinion of some person, can you provide links to some other bona-fide publication like National Geographic or Time magazine that is widely accepted as legitimate sources of information based on fact and discovered evidence? To counter your "Christian" source, google for The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur. He was an ordained Anglican priest and a regular columnist on Christian and religious issues in the Toronto Star. He states that the story of Jesus Christ is based on stories told by earlier civilizations which explicitly states that the story of Jesus is merely that - a story. Christians who have read his book have commented that this doesn't shake their faith in the religion because the spiritual Christ is what matters rather than the story of some magician to put hope in the lives of the destitute. If a Christian priest can take on a scientific outlook, it leaves a lot to be expected from regular secular people on their expectations of what is true and what is folklore.

Cheers!

This should be relevant to you. http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf

What they deny (about the Flood) is one thing, but please note what they admit, that the Bible IS a historical document.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I am unable to cut and paste from the url you provided, but in its last paragraph it states "In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document."

I did also mention earlier that the Old Testament accounts some events of early Jewish history in their quest to look for land, and there are archaeological evidences of them (King David, Solomon, etc.) but that does not make it a history book as an accurate account of historical events, especially the life of Jesus Christ, which the New Testament portrays as a fulfilment of The Coming of The Messiah, the Son of God, etc.

The flood is another issue, there must have been countless big floods in history, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed (we know it wasn't formed by a Jew dropping a penny in a crack, there were no Jews there at that time). So how do we know which flood the one in the bible referred to? I guess we will never know - but come this March, there will be a movie about Noah's flood on screen, should be a good movie. It's got Russell Crowe I think playing Noah.

Cheers!

This should be relevant to you. http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf

What they deny (about the Flood) is one thing, but please note what they admit, that the Bible IS a historical document.

 

[Frodo]

I am unable to cut and paste from the url you provided, but in its last paragraph it states "In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document."

I did also mention earlier that the Old Testament accounts some events of early Jewish history in their quest to look for land, and there are archaeological evidences of them (King David, Solomon, etc.) but that does not make it a history book as an accurate account of historical events, especially the life of Jesus Christ, which the New Testament portrays as a fulfilment of The Coming of The Messiah, the Son of God, etc.

The flood is another issue, there must have been countless big floods in history, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed (we know it wasn't formed by a Jew dropping a penny in a crack, there were no Jews there at that time). So how do we know which flood the one in the bible referred to? I guess we will never know - but come this March, there will be a movie about Noah's flood on screen, should be a good movie. It's got Russell Crowe I think playing Noah.

Cheers!

You have got to read that last sentence in its context. The Smithsonian was of the view (which I believe is wrong) that the Bible contains both accurate history and also also stories that aren't real, as such because the Bible in their view isn't 100% history they treated it as a religious book.

Yes, there have been many floods in earth history, but only ONE global flood would have been sufficient to carve the Grand Canyon.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I don' think that I could have misread their statement about the Bible. I agree with them that some parts of the Old Testament do describe historical events, and indeed there exists archaeological findings that have proven they happened. Which is why I have accepted that the Old Testament accounts for Jewish history. What I refuse to accept as fact is the existence and story of Jesus, as predicted in the scriptures and he lived as the God-man, able to perform miracles and all that supernatural stuff.

As for the flood, I have to admit that I have not really given it much thought, and so far, if the story of Noah actually happened, he couldn't have taken in all the animals that lived on Earth, perhaps just the domesticated animals useful to mankind like some cattle, goats, pigs, camels, dogs and some fowl which man raised on farms, but not lions, tigers, hyenas etc. That is, just the "good" animals. It is not logistically possible to carry out such a feat.

I any case, I still believe the Bible is a good text and the stories in there teach us good lessons and make for good teaching. I want my child to learn about it, but I will encourage her to question the possibility and factuality of events in there and not accept them as truth without asking.

Cheers!

You have got to read that last sentence in its context. The Smithsonian was of the view (which I believe is wrong) that the Bible contains both accurate history and also also stories that aren't real, as such because the Bible in their view isn't 100% history they treated it as a religious book.

Yes, there have been many floods in earth history, but only ONE global flood would have been sufficient to carve the Grand Canyon.

 

[Frodo]

I don' think that I could have misread their statement about the Bible. I agree with them that some parts of the Old Testament do describe historical events, and indeed there exists archaeological findings that have proven they happened. Which is why I have accepted that the Old Testament accounts for Jewish history. What I refuse to accept as fact is the existence and story of Jesus, as predicted in the scriptures and he lived as the God-man, able to perform miracles and all that supernatural stuff.

As for the flood, I have to admit that I have not really given it much thought, and so far, if the story of Noah actually happened, he couldn't have taken in all the animals that lived on Earth, perhaps just the domesticated animals useful to mankind like some cattle, goats, pigs, camels, dogs and some fowl which man raised on farms, but not lions, tigers, hyenas etc. That is, just the "good" animals. It is not logistically possible to carry out such a feat.

I any case, I still believe the Bible is a good text and the stories in there teach us good lessons and make for good teaching. I want my child to learn about it, but I will encourage her to question the possibility and factuality of events in there and not accept them as truth without asking.

Cheers!

You did not misread the last line, but I think you missed the context in which it was made.

There's not much I can say if you choose to deny the fact of Jesus' existence, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not the least of which millions (including yourself) all over the world attest (unconsciously or not) to His existence everyday when they write down dates.

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
http://y-jesus.com/is-there-any-evidence-from-secular-sources-that-jesus-even-existed.php
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=187
http://evidencetobelieve.net/history-of-jesus/

And a very interesting post here http://listverse.com/2013/03/31/8-reasons-jesus-definitely-existed/

It would not be wrong to agree with your self-assessment that you have not given much thought to the global flood, or read the Genesis account with a careful eye. For the record, Noah need not take in all the animals that lived on the earth, so your logistical impossibility vanishes.

As to teaching your child to question the Bible, I take it that you do not specially teach that for the Bible, but for EVERY aspect of history and every historical document of antiquity?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, I wrote down in a earlier post a summary statement of the text. I think that pretty much sums up what the authors wish to put across.

Personally, I do not wish to debate on religious beliefs, it is a personal thing. If it brings comfort to someone to believe, so be it. As long as that person or group of people do not impose their practices and thoughts to others, that's fine by me. Otherwise, it will go on and on, without end. I appreciate your efforts in pointing out the above urls and writings, but like I've mentioned, the person Jesus that may have existed is some ordinary human being without the divine and supernatural powers described in the bible. So, until further proof or evidence of the man God is accepted by the scientific community, my idea of Jesus is more that of a rebel than the saviour told in his story.

As for my daughter's religious education, she is a Catholic (like my wife), attends a Catholic school, and I leave the education part to the school and cathecism class. I tell her that dinosaurs died out by the time the bible was written and leave it as that. She was baptised and went through communion, but her interests are like any other kid - she prefers Pokémon on Nintendo and dogs. I leave it as her choice to believe or not. I do not teach her to be pro or anti bible.

Cheers!

You did not misread the last line, but I think you missed the context in which it was made.

There's not much I can say if you choose to deny the fact of Jesus' existence, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not the least of which millions (including yourself) all over the world attest (unconsciously or not) to His existence everyday when they write down dates.

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
http://y-jesus.com/is-there-any-evidence-from-secular-sources-that-jesus-even-existed.php
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=187
http://evidencetobelieve.net/history-of-jesus/

And a very interesting post here http://listverse.com/2013/03/31/8-reasons-jesus-definitely-existed/

It would not be wrong to agree with your self-assessment that you have not given much thought to the global flood, or read the Genesis account with a careful eye. For the record, Noah need not take in all the animals that lived on the earth, so your logistical impossibility vanishes.

As to teaching your child to question the Bible, I take it that you do not specially teach that for the Bible, but for EVERY aspect of history and every historical document of antiquity?

 

[duluxe]

Fren, I wrote down in a earlier post a summary statement of the text. I think that pretty much sums up what the authors wish to put across.

Personally, I do not wish to debate on religious beliefs, it is a personal thing. If it brings comfort to someone to believe, so be it. As long as that person or group of people do not impose their practices and thoughts to others, that's fine by me. Otherwise, it will go on and on, without end. I appreciate your efforts in pointing out the above urls and writings, but like I've mentioned, the person Jesus that may have existed is some ordinary human being without the divine and supernatural powers described in the bible. So, until further proof or evidence of the man God is accepted by the scientific community, my idea of Jesus is more that of a rebel than the saviour told in his story.

As for my daughter's religious education, she is a Catholic (like my wife), attends a Catholic school, and I leave the education part to the school and cathecism class. I tell her that dinosaurs died out by the time the bible was written and leave it as that. She was baptised and went through communion, but her interests are like any other kid - she prefers Pokémon on Nintendo and dogs. I leave it as her choice to believe or not. I do not teach her to be pro or anti bible.

Cheers!

You really believe it is possible for them not to impose their practices on others?

Despite concrete court evidences, there are followers of Kong Hee and other Christians still maintain he is innocent. Where religion faith is concerned, to each individual he owns poison.

Your spouse believes in the spiritual Jesus? Your family are Catholics, why are you not one?

 

[Agoraphobic]

I believe religion is a personal choice. We all have the freedom to choose which religion (or not to) believe. My wife is a Catholic convert. She and her sister converted many years ago from Taosim. There were both adults when they decided to become Catholics. She and me have different views on creation and this entity our species calls God and we accept that each have their own right to choose. Me, I choose not to belong to any church, attend mass, swear to believe in the Apostle's Creed, therefore I am not Catholic. I believe in the persona and compassion of Jesus Christ, to help and care for others, to forgive (if they know not what they do). And if I chance upon a chap who can turn water into booze, I will followi him to hell.

Cheers!

ps. I don't believe in Kong Hee, but to my knowledge, the followers of the City Harvest Church are members on their own choice. They weren't forced to join the church.

You really believe it is possible for them not to impose their practices on others?

Despite concrete court evidences, there are followers of Kong Hee and other Christians still maintain he is innocent. Where religion faith is concerned, to each individual he owns poison.

Your spouse believes in the spiritual Jesus? Your family are Catholics, why are you not one?

 

[Frodo]

Fren, I wrote down in a earlier post a summary statement of the text. I think that pretty much sums up what the authors wish to put across.

Personally, I do not wish to debate on religious beliefs, it is a personal thing. If it brings comfort to someone to believe, so be it. As long as that person or group of people do not impose their practices and thoughts to others, that's fine by me. Otherwise, it will go on and on, without end. I appreciate your efforts in pointing out the above urls and writings, but like I've mentioned, the person Jesus that may have existed is some ordinary human being without the divine and supernatural powers described in the bible. So, until further proof or evidence of the man God is accepted by the scientific community, my idea of Jesus is more that of a rebel than the saviour told in his story.

As for my daughter's religious education, she is a Catholic (like my wife), attends a Catholic school, and I leave the education part to the school and cathecism class. I tell her that dinosaurs died out by the time the bible was written and leave it as that. She was baptised and went through communion, but her interests are like any other kid - she prefers Pokémon on Nintendo and dogs. I leave it as her choice to believe or not. I do not teach her to be pro or anti bible.

Cheers!

That some refuse to accept the Bible as a historical document does not negate the fact that the Biblical writers were writing about real events in history, and claimed to be doing so.

If history or archaeology is admitted to be a science then the existence of Jesus is hardly in dispute, except for a small minority. But serious historians do not dispute that Jesus existed. Science can in no way prove that Jesus was divine, and it is a mistake to ask science to do something it is incapable of doing and use that as a justification of nonbelief. The Bible is not silent on dinosaurs, but that they are called by another name, dragons.

Regarding dinosaurs, you should also inform your daughter that the Bible records that God created all land animals on Day 6, before He created man. So according to the Bible, dinosaurs did walk with man, not millions of years ago, but really thousands of years ago. And Job 40 describes a behemoth that best refers to a dinosaur of some kind.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, it is not a busy time at work and I had time to browse the net for evidence of the topic of our discussion, most are excerpts/extracts from biblical sources, but this is quite neutral:

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100 CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely an individual named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is no evidence over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A small minority, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief.

I've chosen to go along this path of thought.If you wish to read more, click on this url:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

As for dinosaurs, our current knowledge accepts that they died out 65 million years ago. Those that exist today are lizards, the largest being called the Komodo dragon, is still a lizard. There are rumours and claimed sightings of "dinosaurs in the States, Africa, and China, but there is no solid evidence and these are classified under cryptozoology. As far as I am concerned, humans appeared on this planet well in the age of mammals, and dinosaurs, or dragons if you prefer exist only in folklore. The latest speculation on dinosaurs is whether they were covered with scales like lizards (or reptiles) or feathers (like birds) and whether they are cold blooded (like lizards) or warm-blooded (like birds). Research is on-going.

My daughter, is young and I do not expect here to question some of these issues yet, but so far, she tends to view the Genesis version of creation as fantasy and is more inclined towards evolution. I am no expert in this area and have not yet discussed this with her. I will likely leave her to find out for herself.

Cheers!

That some refuse to accept the Bible as a historical document does not negate the fact that the Biblical writers were writing about real events in history, and claimed to be doing so.

If history or archaeology is admitted to be a science then the existence of Jesus is hardly in dispute, except for a small minority. But serious historians do not dispute that Jesus existed. Science can in no way prove that Jesus was divine, and it is a mistake to ask science to do something it is incapable of doing and use that as a justification of nonbelief. The Bible is not silent on dinosaurs, but that they are called by another name, dragons.

Regarding dinosaurs, you should also inform your daughter that the Bible records that God created all land animals on Day 6, before He created man. So according to the Bible, dinosaurs did walk with man, not millions of years ago, but really thousands of years ago. And Job 40 describes a behemoth that best refers to a dinosaur of some kind.

 

[Frodo]

Fren, it is not a busy time at work and I had time to browse the net for evidence of the topic of our discussion, most are excerpts/extracts from biblical sources, but this is quite neutral:

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100 CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely an individual named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is no evidence over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A small minority, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief.

I've chosen to go along this path of thought.If you wish to read more, click on this url:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

As for dinosaurs, our current knowledge accepts that they died out 65 million years ago. Those that exist today are lizards, the largest being called the Komodo dragon, is still a lizard. There are rumours and claimed sightings of "dinosaurs in the States, Africa, and China, but there is no solid evidence and these are classified under cryptozoology. As far as I am concerned, humans appeared on this planet well in the age of mammals, and dinosaurs, or dragons if you prefer exist only in folklore. The latest speculation on dinosaurs is whether they were covered with scales like lizards (or reptiles) or feathers (like birds) and whether they are cold blooded (like lizards) or warm-blooded (like birds). Research is on-going.

My daughter, is young and I do not expect here to question some of these issues yet, but so far, she tends to view the Genesis version of creation as fantasy and is more inclined towards evolution. I am no expert in this area and have not yet discussed this with her. I will likely leave her to find out for herself.

Cheers!

I note that the website you take have chosen to adopt espouses a naturalistic worldview. If you start from the assumption that there is no supernatural then it means you have no choice but to strip the Bible of anything that speaks of the supernatural, and all you have is what you concluded about Jesus Christ, just an ordinary man.

What about Pliny the Elder or Josephus? Surely you do not consider them as Christian? Or maybe you even doubt these two people existed?

Popular belief is that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. And there is evidence to challenge this popular belief. As it stands now, fresh tissue (and possibly DNA?) has been extracted from incompletely fossilised dinosaur bones. But the amazing rationalisation is that such can remain as they are for 65 million years. The deep time belief is so deep set that it cannot be questioned. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

 

[Agoraphobic]

When I was a kid, the people in my kampung believed in pontianaks and other spirits. These are what we call "supernatural." Today, we know they don't exist. If you are asking me to believe in supernatural beings, its like asking me to go back to a time when we were uninformed, or ill-informed.

The two gentlemen you mentioned, I didn't know of them until I read the article whose link I pasted, here are extracts from them. They may have tried, but looks like they are not well supported or that convincing in their attempts.

] Josephus Flavius
The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus' birth in 37 CE, well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, means he could not have been an eyewitness. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 CE, even later than the first gospels. Despite Josephus having long been a favourite of apologists, many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius of Caesarea)………………………………………………………

] Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger was a Roman official born in 62 CE. In one letter c. 106 CE he said “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god ...” That is all. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians. Again, notice, the absence of the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other "christs"[139] who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah. ……………………………………………

Ability to extract their DNA today is not proof that they exist today, or until recent times. It only goes to say we've advanced in science. But so far, this possibility to recreate them only exists in movies. However, I am in support of funding to look for living dinosaurs in remote areas of the planet. And not just dinosaurs, I am particularly interested in this said creature in Sumatra the locals call Orang Pendek.

Cheers!

I note that the website you take have chosen to adopt espouses a naturalistic worldview. If you start from the assumption that there is no supernatural then it means you have no choice but to strip the Bible of anything that speaks of the supernatural, and all you have is what you concluded about Jesus Christ, just an ordinary man.

What about Pliny the Elder or Josephus? Surely you do not consider them as Christian? Or maybe you even doubt these two people existed?

Popular belief is that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. And there is evidence to challenge this popular belief. As it stands now, fresh tissue (and possibly DNA?) has been extracted from incompletely fossilised dinosaur bones. But the amazing rationalisation is that such can remain as they are for 65 million years. The deep time belief is so deep set that it cannot be questioned. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

 

[Agoraphobic]

I just went to the link you provided for the dinosaur article and read it. I couldn't read it before because I was then surfing on my Android and the page was too small. Just did so on my PC.

The article sure was news from a new angle. Until more is reported, I can say it can mean one of two things. Either the T-Rex bones were from an animal that lived more recently than 65 million years ago, or that the tissue was kept preserved for 65 million years. Both will be astonishing news. Now, assuming that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together, why haven't we found cave drawings of dinosaurs?

Cheers!

 

[Frodo]

I just went to the link you provided for the dinosaur article and read it. I couldn't read it before because I was then surfing on my Android and the page was too small. Just did so on my PC.

The article sure was news from a new angle. Until more is reported, I can say it can mean one of two things. Either the T-Rex bones were from an animal that lived more recently than 65 million years ago, or that the tissue was kept preserved for 65 million years. Both will be astonishing news. Now, assuming that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together, why haven't we found cave drawings of dinosaurs?

Cheers!

Even the researcher was shocked by what she found, because it is impossible for soft tissue or DNA to be preserved for 65 millions years. People who suddenly now find it possible that such can now be preserved that long (because they already accepted the deep time idea) really must ask themselves whether they are too sold to a paradigm that cannot be challenged. Perhaps even if a dinosaur is found, would they just shrug it off and say it is just amazing how they can have survived after all these millions of years? For example, they found a coelacanth swimming in the oceans pretty much alive and oblivious to the hoohaa that scientists believed they went extinct 65 millions of years ago and was a possible candidate for our human ancestry. It was virtually the same as the fossil record. Did evolution stop for them, or maybe evolution with its billions of years idea is not true at all?

 

[Frodo]

When I was a kid, the people in my kampung believed in pontianaks and other spirits. These are what we call "supernatural." Today, we know they don't exist. If you are asking me to believe in supernatural beings, its like asking me to go back to a time when we were uninformed, or ill-informed.

The two gentlemen you mentioned, I didn't know of them until I read the article whose link I pasted, here are extracts from them. They may have tried, but looks like they are not well supported or that convincing in their attempts.

] Josephus Flavius
The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus' birth in 37 CE, well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, means he could not have been an eyewitness. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 CE, even later than the first gospels. Despite Josephus having long been a favourite of apologists, many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius of Caesarea)………………………………………………………

] Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger was a Roman official born in 62 CE. In one letter c. 106 CE he said “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god ...” That is all. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians. Again, notice, the absence of the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other "christs"[139] who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah. ……………………………………………

Ability to extract their DNA today is not proof that they exist today, or until recent times. It only goes to say we've advanced in science. But so far, this possibility to recreate them only exists in movies. However, I am in support of funding to look for living dinosaurs in remote areas of the planet. And not just dinosaurs, I am particularly interested in this said creature in Sumatra the locals call Orang Pendek.

Cheers!

Not being an eyewitness does not mean Josephus failed to record correct history. I won't be surprised that secularists would downplay this. But if it is other people maybe they are less prone to do that. Your attempt to explain away Pliny the Elder is simply bewildering. It makes more sense to accept the record as true rather than to invoke an ad hoc rationalising away. On one hand you claim there are no non-Christian sources, but when given you attempt to explain them or dismiss them away or disqualify them. It seems then you already of a set mind that there can be no no secular records for existence of Jesus? If all I have is Josephus then maybe you can still play it down. But if you are going to play down every other secular source that supports the existence of Jesus then something is obviously wrong, and it is not with the evidence.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Well, we all have heard the saying that fact is stranger than fiction, but until fact is proven, it remains fiction.

The coelacanth case is a good one for those who wish for mysteries to still exist. I am hoping for prove of the Orang Pendek. Perhaps someone from Singapore should start an expedition to search for it and do something other than make money, that'll make life more exciting.

Evolution is so far still a theory as no intermittent forms of fossils/skeletons have been discovered. Scientists are still researching. For me, some things we may never find out for sure during our lifetimes.

Cheers!

.......... Did evolution stop for them, or maybe evolution with its billions of years idea is not true at all?

 

[Agoraphobic]

I never heard of this Pliny nor Jopsephus dude till this article. I base my reasoning from the literature compiled by people I think have looked far deeper into this subject that I, and on this I say that there are no non-Christian records, so far. I am no authority on this topic. And I will not allow my judgement to be swayed by popular sentiments.

Cheers!

Not being an eyewitness does not mean Josephus failed to record correct history. I won't be surprised that secularists would downplay this. But if it is other people maybe they are less prone to do that. Your attempt to explain away Pliny the Elder is simply bewildering. It makes more sense to accept the record as true rather than to invoke an ad hoc rationalising away. On one hand you claim there are no non-Christian sources, but when given you attempt to explain them or dismiss them away or disqualify them. It seems then you already of a set mind that there can be no no secular records for existence of Jesus? If all I have is Josephus then maybe you can still play it down. But if you are going to play down every other secular source that supports the existence of Jesus then something is obviously wrong, and it is not with the evidence.

 

[duluxe]

Evolution is so far still a theory as no intermittent forms of fossils/skeletons have been discovered. Scientists are still researching. For me, some things we may never find out for sure during our lifetimes.

Cheers!

bro, you are under-informed but better than those who are mis-informed with warp scientific info to satisfy religion beliefs. Scientists have already discovered the intermittent forms!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9136200/#.UuTVU_sRV4-

 

[Frodo]

I never heard of this Pliny nor Jopsephus dude till this article. I base my reasoning from the literature compiled by people I think have looked far deeper into this subject that I, and on this I say that there are no non-Christian records, so far. I am no authority on this topic. And I will not allow my judgement to be swayed by popular sentiments.

Cheers!

Then I suggest you look at the works of Gary Habermas and Mike Licona

http://www.garyhabermas.com/
http://www.risenjesus.com/