Religion

[Mr Kobayashi]

Your "facts" are not facts. The universe does not have an eternal past . Fact
You believe that nothing became something ,billions of years ago . How,? The universe popped into being uncaused? That's a fairy-tale. It's what atheists believe. It's a religious notion. Creation and atheism are both religious. It's the interpretation of facts that counts.
Life comes from life . The law of biogenesis. Fact. Life can't come from non life. That's what you believe apparently but it's not science.
In your view microbes changed into men over billions of years . Particles to people, amoeba to animals? All the species ( kinds ) evolved from ere microbes? Well , that's the general theory of evolution ( GTE) that you espouse. But its not a fact. No one has observed life from non life. Nor has anyone observed a microbe change into all the different kinds ( species) of flora, fauna and humans over millions of years . The extrapolation is fantasy.
it's not factual. You need to get your facts right
Animals belong to their genus or species i.e. kinds . Fact
These do not evolve from one another. No one has seen a dog ( canis) evolve from a non dog. The change is only observed within kinds ( species) of plants or animals .
For instance there is a limit as to how much one can breed different kinds or species of animal. Its observable science. No one has observed change outside the kind or species. But on atheist naturalist macro evolution theory all the kinds ( species) came from a micro molecule,unobserved. That's what you've sided with . But it isn't scientific i e. Observable demonstrable.

 

[paulsimpson]

Well I think that’s because of the context of the letters being about the churches and the fact Paul didn’t know Jesus the man.

He only claimed, via a vision, to see him well after his death.

IMO the letters are the most honest part of the whole Bible.

That’s just my two pence as amateur scholar.

you do know its all allegorical......don't you?

Jesus quoted Noah . It wasn't allegorical for Him. He knew of a real creation Mark 10:6 . Knew He was a descendent of Adam as we all are ( which is the panacea for racism by the way) .
Jesus had the highest view of Scripture. Jesus clearly believed that Scripture was God’s Word and therefore truth (John 17:17), and that it could not “be broken” (John 10:35). His own view of the Scripture was that of verbal inspiration (Matthew 5:18) inspired down to its very words.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament’s historicity as clear, accurate, and reliable. He often chose for illustrations in His teaching the very persons and events that are the least acceptable today to critical scholars. This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they serve as a warning for future judgement? This also applies to Jesus’s understanding of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign, if the events of Jonah did not take place?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Jesus quoted Noah . It wasn't allegorical for Him. He knew of a real creation Mark 10:6 . Knew He was a descendent of Adam as we all are ( which is the panacea for racism by the way) .
Jesus had the highest view of Scripture. Jesus clearly believed that Scripture was God’s Word and therefore truth (John 17:17), and that it could not “be broken” (John 10:35). His own view of the Scripture was that of verbal inspiration (Matthew 5:18) inspired down to its very words.

Jesus regarded the Old Testament’s historicity as clear, accurate, and reliable. He often chose for illustrations in His teaching the very persons and events that are the least acceptable today to critical scholars. This can be seen from his reference to Adam (Matthew 19:4–5), Abel (Matthew 23:35), Noah (Matthew 24:37–39), Abraham (John 8:39–41, 56–58), Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28–32). If Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional accounts, then how could they serve as a warning for future judgement? This also applies to Jesus’s understanding of Jonah (Matthew 12:39–41). Jesus did not see Jonah as a myth or legend; the meaning of the passage would lose its force, if it were. How could Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as a sign, if the events of Jonah did not take place?

 

[SidJames]

The Daughter was trying to convert me in to her religion of Woke over Christmas dinner.

Being an old fucker i am struggling accepting there are now 29 sexualities.

Apparently one is never to assume a stranger is a Man or a woman based on their appearance, or automatically refer to them as "He" or "She".It is offensive.You must ask them politely which pro-noun would they like to be refereed by.

Honestly..... she gave me a Headache bless her.

 

[paulsimpson]

Keep in mind what's observable demonstrable.
Universe cannot have come from nothing uncaused. Hawking believed matter could pop into being uncaused. That was his mistake. That's not observable demonstrable.
Life comes from life. Law of biogenesis. Observable demonstrable. Atheist naturalist general theory of evolution( GTE) posits that life comes from non life. That's never been observed.
Atheist GTE says all species came from a micro molecule I.e. micro to macro , molecules to men over billions of years Unobserved . Not scientific
GTE is the greatest lie foisted on the masses ever. Johnny English indeed .

 

[paulsimpson]

My wife doesn’t believe Noah’s Ark ever happened and believe a lot of the Old Testament stories are parables in themselves. She believes it’s a metaphor for Jesus and he’s the “Ark”.

Convenient I suppose but there’s no way Noah’s Ark ever happened. The dimensions you’ve posted are laughable, even if you’re going to fit 2 of every species on as infants.

Again, she believes that Adam and Eve are a metaphor for humanity turning to sin over God… however I’ve pointed out a massive problem is that Adam is mentioned in Matthew and Luke as Jesus’s ancestor.

Dimensions are in the biblical account for all to see . Mathematical measures in context of building a huge vessel are not allegorical.
If Adam were metaphorical then Jesus would be a liar and quite clearly He is not as He has proven Himself to be God incarnate. I've demonstrated elsewhere His willingness to be worshipped and His name as " I Am" to be signs of His deity . No metaphor.
there are multiple passages in the New Testament where Jesus quotes from the early chapters of Genesis in a straightforward, historical manner. Matthew 19:4–6
(He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female) is especially significant as Jesus quotes from both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. Jesus’ use of Scripture here is authoritative in settling a dispute over the question of divorce, as it is grounded in the creation of the first marriage and the purpose of it (Malachi 2:14–15).
The passage is also huge in understanding Jesus’ use of Scripture as He attributes the words spoken as coming from the Creator (Matthew 19:4). More importantly, there is no indication in the passage that He understood it figuratively or as an allegory. If Christ were mistaken about the account of creation and its importance to marriage, then why should He be trusted when it comes to other aspects of His teaching?
Also , in a parallel passage in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning.
He also is a descendent of Adam. Luke’s genealogy presents Adam alongside numerous other historical individuals (Abraham, Joshua, David, etc.) in order to link him as a real person to Jesus, so Adam cannot be interpreted symbolically or allegorically or metaphorically .

 

[paulsimpson]

You may as well piss into the wind as hope to have a reasoned debate with these arrogant fuckwits. In short, the prevailing scientific consensus means fuck all to them for one simple reason. Scientific investigation, by its very nature, requires empirical evidence to prove any theory whereas the creationist nutters choose to start with a literal interpretation of a book written by numerous authors in excess of 30 years following Christ's death and present arguments drawn from various branches of pseudoscience as evidence in support of a prescribed agenda. Just to reinforce how marginalised Mr Simpson and his ilk are, note that the official position adopted by both the Protestant and Catholic church is that the bible's account of creation should not be interpreted literally. Also, Simpson refers to John Woodmorappe as the 'author of the definitive Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study'. Take five minutes to research Mr Woodmorappe (a pseudonym for some reason) and you'll find that his theories have been routinely debunked by numerous respected scientists and scholars. As said, irrespective of the overwhelming, undeniable weight of opinion in the scientific community, anyone seeking to debate these people is, sadly, wasting their breath.

It has not been debunked. Assertion fallacy : Mere assertion as debunking is not evidence of debunking. Moreover the feasibility study is what empirical science demands and should be looked at given your desire for scientific methodology.
But more importantly your general theory of evolution is not empirical. Molecules changing into men over billions of years is not empirical ,observable or demonstrable. Changes within species or the kinds of animals is empirical for example :breeding .
But yhere should be in the fossil record some evidence of grand evolutionary change but no transitional fossils or bones between all the different kinds or species exist.
For example a New Scientist report in 2020 describes research and claims that “the shape of the femur from Sahelanthropus tchadensis is typical of apes like chimps” and that the creature “didn’t walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps.” When we add this new data to the original reconstructions done of the skull, which showed it to be very chimp-like in appearance (even the same size as chimp skulls), the conclusion is that Sahelanthropus represents a type of extinct chimp and isn't an evolutionary human ancestor.

So, again we are left with a huge chasm between humans and apes in the fossil record. The missing link/ transitional fossil is still missing. Indeed the whole chain between all the kinds of animals and plants is missing. Therefore, it's reasonable to infer it didn't actually happen . We need to see trillions of intermediate fossils in the rocks in order to confirm GTE or macro evolution from one kind to another. We don't see it. What we do see is billions of dead animals and plants, according to their kinds , buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world .
There are all changes yes ,changes in gene (allele )frequency over time but no evidence for macro change.Of course allele frequencies change, but this does not explain the origin of the genes (of which the alleles are variants), which ‘goo-to-you’ evolution needs to explain, not just variations in the frequency of existing alleles. . If evolution is true, first, it should be possible on chemical and statistical grounds which means life should come from non life (it is not), and second, we should see evidence for it in the fossil record. We don't .
The judeo Christian creation view is perfectly reasonable and scientific.

 

[tonea2003]

Keep in mind what's observable demonstrable.
Universe cannot have come from nothing uncaused. Hawking believed matter could pop into being uncaused. That was his mistake. That's not observable demonstrable.
Life comes from life. Law of biogenesis. Observable demonstrable. Atheist naturalist general theory of evolution( GTE) posits that life comes from non life. That's never been observed.
Atheist GTE says all species came from a micro molecule I.e. micro to macro , molecules to men over billions of years Unobserved . Not scientific
GTE is the greatest lie foisted on the masses ever. Johnny English indeed .

so then your god comes from where exactly?

 

[tonea2003]

It has not been debunked. Assertion fallacy : Mere assertion as debunking is not evidence of debunking. Moreover the feasibility study is what empirical science demands and should be looked at given your desire for scientific methodology.
But more importantly your general theory of evolution is not empirical. Molecules changing into men over billions of years is not empirical ,observable or demonstrable. Changes within species or the kinds of animals is empirical for example :breeding .
But yhere should be in the fossil record some evidence of grand evolutionary change but no transitional fossils or bones between all the different kinds or species exist.
For example a New Scientist report in 2020 describes research and claims that “the shape of the femur from Sahelanthropus tchadensis is typical of apes like chimps” and that the creature “didn’t walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps.” When we add this new data to the original reconstructions done of the skull, which showed it to be very chimp-like in appearance (even the same size as chimp skulls), the conclusion is that Sahelanthropus represents a type of extinct chimp and isn't an evolutionary human ancestor.

So, again we are left with a huge chasm between humans and apes in the fossil record. The missing link/ transitional fossil is still missing. Indeed the whole chain between all the kinds of animals and plants is missing. Therefore, it's reasonable to infer it didn't actually happen . We need to see trillions of intermediate fossils in the rocks in order to confirm GTE or macro evolution from one kind to another. We don't see it. What we do see is billions of dead animals and plants, according to their kinds , buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world .
There are all changes yes ,changes in gene (allele )frequency over time but no evidence for macro change.Of course allele frequencies change, but this does not explain the origin of the genes (of which the alleles are variants), which ‘goo-to-you’ evolution needs to explain, not just variations in the frequency of existing alleles. . If evolution is true, first, it should be possible on chemical and statistical grounds which means life should come from none life (it is not), and second, we should see evidence for it in the fossil record. We don't .

all this evolution denying is not doing you any favours mate, you look more ridiculous with each written passage you produce
i get its difficult for you as it destroys the literal reading of the bible

 

[tonea2003]

Dimensions are in the biblical account for all to see . Mathematical measures in context of building a huge vessel are not allegorical.
If Adam were metaphorical then Jesus would be a liar and quite clearly He is not as He has proven Himself to be God incarnate. I've demonstrated elsewhere His willingness to be worshipped and His name as " I Am" to be signs of His deity . No metaphor.
there are multiple passages in the New Testament where Jesus quotes from the early chapters of Genesis in a straightforward, historical manner. Matthew 19:4–6
(He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female) is especially significant as Jesus quotes from both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. Jesus’ use of Scripture here is authoritative in settling a dispute over the question of divorce, as it is grounded in the creation of the first marriage and the purpose of it (Malachi 2:14–15).
The passage is also huge in understanding Jesus’ use of Scripture as He attributes the words spoken as coming from the Creator (Matthew 19:4). More importantly, there is no indication in the passage that He understood it figuratively or as an allegory. If Christ were mistaken about the account of creation and its importance to marriage, then why should He be trusted when it comes to other aspects of His teaching?
Also , in a parallel passage in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning.
He also is a descendent of Adam. Luke’s genealogy presents Adam alongside numerous other historical individuals (Abraham, Joshua, David, etc.) in order to link him as a real person to Jesus, so Adam cannot be interpreted symbolically or allegorically or metaphorically .

what you are missing here is its the person who wrote the gospels(we don't know who) is saying what jesus is saying, there is no corroboration for any of this as they are written long after the alleged events

and i'm not even going there with your ark nonsense

 

[paulsimpson]

all this evolution denying is not doing you any favours mate, you look more ridiculous with each written passage you produce
i get its difficult for you as it destroys the literal reading of the bible

I suggest Your idea of Jesus isn't real only a metaphor or allegory. You need to stand on the whole Word not on bits of it. If parts of it are not true none of it is true. Even Dawkins knows this and tries to undermine truth. But he has to face up to his own belief in the impossibility of life coming from non life, molecules to man evolution.
There are metaphors in the Psalms but Christ's life and historical teachings are not mere allegory.
You believe in the resurrection of Jesus? His ascension? Well ,why not all aspects of His ministry , healing miracles, teaching on historical figures like Noah,Adam etc.? You do a great disservice to Him and in my view need to be more courageous.

 

[tonea2003]

I suggest Your idea of Jesus isn't real only a metaphor or allegory. You need to stand on the whole Word not on bits of it. If parts of it are not true none of it is true. Even Dawkins knows this and tries to undermine truth. But he has to face up to his own belief in the impossibility of life coming from non life, molecules to man evolution.
There are metaphors in the Psalms but Christ's life and historical teachings are not mere allegory.
You believe in the resurrection of Jesus? His ascension? Well ,why not all aspects of His ministry , healing miracles, teaching on historical figures like Noah,Adam etc.? You do a great disservice to Him and in my view need to be more courageous.

do i believe in the resurrection? i have my doubts over all of it, top to bottom
i have my doubts the man in the bible ever existed(jesus that is)
there is not one single external 1st century corroboration for anything written in the gospels not a single jot
not even pauls letters(well there wouldn't be as the gospels are written long after)
and don't say Josephus as that is well known to be a contentious passage

i think you'll find dawkins has a lot more confidence in the theory of evolution than what you are trying to promote here

 

[paulsimpson]

what you are missing here is its the person who wrote the gospels(we don't know who) is saying what jesus is saying, there is no corroboration for any of this as they are written long after the alleged events

and i'm not even going there with your ark nonsense

Well It has now been established that the Gospels were written between 30 and 60 years after the death of Jesus ,very likely much less than that . In fact, since none of gospel writers mention the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD then it follows that they had their gospels already written before that time. So we can even bring the numbers down to between 30- 40 years after the death of Jesus. For instance, when we see a prediction in Matthew that the Temple will be destroyed (Matthew 24:1– 2), with no mention of that prophecy’s fulfilment, this can be taken as evidence that the document was written before the Temple was destroyed. There is no way those devout writers miss out on writing about such a calamitous event. So , inherent evidence within the texts is enough to show the approximate age of the text .
Classical historians have shown that even two full generations wouldnt be enough for narratives to overcome historical core of witten content. This is seen when Gospel reports compare extremely favorably with other famous historical events that historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.
Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event. See also Suetonius' account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon 110 years after the event ! Everyone believes his famous account .

As for nonsense, you haven't denied the nonsensical belief of life coming from non life and microbes turning into men over billions of years.

 

[Kippaxpete]

It has not been debunked. Assertion fallacy : Mere assertion as debunking is not evidence of debunking. Moreover the feasibility study is what empirical science demands and should be looked at given your desire for scientific methodology.
But more importantly your general theory of evolution is not empirical. Molecules changing into men over billions of years is not empirical ,observable or demonstrable. Changes within species or the kinds of animals is empirical for example :breeding .
But yhere should be in the fossil record some evidence of grand evolutionary change but no transitional fossils or bones between all the different kinds or species exist.
For example a New Scientist report in 2020 describes research and claims that “the shape of the femur from Sahelanthropus tchadensis is typical of apes like chimps” and that the creature “didn’t walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps.” When we add this new data to the original reconstructions done of the skull, which showed it to be very chimp-like in appearance (even the same size as chimp skulls), the conclusion is that Sahelanthropus represents a type of extinct chimp and isn't an evolutionary human ancestor.

So, again we are left with a huge chasm between humans and apes in the fossil record. The missing link/ transitional fossil is still missing. Indeed the whole chain between all the kinds of animals and plants is missing. Therefore, it's reasonable to infer it didn't actually happen . We need to see trillions of intermediate fossils in the rocks in order to confirm GTE or macro evolution from one kind to another. We don't see it. What we do see is billions of dead animals and plants, according to their kinds , buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the world .
There are all changes yes ,changes in gene (allele )frequency over time but no evidence for macro change.Of course allele frequencies change, but this does not explain the origin of the genes (of which the alleles are variants), which ‘goo-to-you’ evolution needs to explain, not just variations in the frequency of existing alleles. . If evolution is true, first, it should be possible on chemical and statistical grounds which means life should come from non life (it is not), and second, we should see evidence for it in the fossil record. We don't .
The judeo Christian creation view is perfectly reasonable and scientific.

As said, debating this subject with arrogant pricks like you is a fool's errand so I won't even try. You just keep distorting real science to fit your book of fairy tales for adults.

 

[Kippaxpete]

Keep in mind what's observable demonstrable.
Universe cannot have come from nothing uncaused. Hawking believed matter could pop into being uncaused. That was his mistake. That's not observable demonstrable.
Life comes from life. Law of biogenesis. Observable demonstrable. Atheist naturalist general theory of evolution( GTE) posits that life comes from non life. That's never been observed.
Atheist GTE says all species came from a micro molecule I.e. micro to macro , molecules to men over billions of years Unobserved . Not scientific
GTE is the greatest lie foisted on the masses ever. Johnny English indeed .

Your ego must the size of a fucking planet (pun definitely intended) if you sincerely expect anyone to accept your word over that of the pre-eminent physicist and cosmologist of the modern era. See you outside the Etihad at the next home game wearing a 'Jesus Saves' sandwich board and tin foil hat.

 

[JASR]

‘None of the gospels mention…’

So, the absence of something proves something is factual. :-0

still no refuting or explanation of how the unmentioned continents animals were travelled to, located, herded, transported back, fed on specific diets, then re-distributed back to unmentioned continents by a small family group… just paragraphs and paragraphs on wrong Ark dimensions.

Another story, ‘gospel’, written to fit prophesy of some sort of messiah is the complete farce of Luke’s description of the background to jesus birth. Joseph and Mary went back to their place of birth because that’s what a census required…nonsense, the logistics and practicalities of this are similar to the stocking of the Ark.

Luke iirc is the only gospel to mention 3 kings following a star, whilst another is the only one to mention 3 shepherds. You would have thought a new star moving across the sky for months and then stopping above a stable, would be mentioned by every ‘gospel’ as it’s quite a majorly earthly event…

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

If parts of it are not true none of it is true.

What you are stating is false.

Lots of Christians (mainly academics/theologians who specialise in New Testament Studies) have long acknowledged that the authors of the gospels made things up to suit their theological agenda and intended readership. The technical term for identifying traditions about Jesus that have been subjected to this process is 'redaction criticism'. The aim is ultimately to identify a core of material that might be regarded as authentic. This whole exercise has been described as 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus'.

One example is the contrast between Jesus's teaching about divorce in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus teaches that a man can divorce his wife if she is unfaithful to him, and Mark's gospel, in which he forbids divorce entirely, teaching that ‘what God has joined together, man must not separate.’ As Mark's gospel mentions women divorcing men, it has been suggested that this gospel was aimed at a Gentile readership, as under Roman Law women did enjoy the right of divorce. Contrastingly, only men could divorce their wives according to Jewish law, which raises the possibility that whoever wrote Matthew's gospel had Jewish readers in mind, and wished to persuade them that Jesus was their promised Messiah. In both instances, whatever Jesus taught about divorce has been manipulated.

Of course, there are those (including Christians themselves) who regard the aforementioned quest as futile, and beyond acknowledging that Jesus existed affirm that the Christ of faith is what really matters.

But anyway, it is pure nonsense to suggest that every word of the Bible is literally true. Again, one further example, this time taken from the Old Testament, can demonstrate this: both the future King David and Elhanan of Jair are described as the slayers of Goliath in the books of Samuel. So it can't be both.

In closing, I should add that were three different endings to Mark's gospel in circulation initially. So the gospel ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb and without any resurrection appearances. These endings were appended at this point, so an explanation is in order as to why they were needed and which (if any) is trustworthy.

Really, I have just skimmed the surface of this topic with what little I have said here.

E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus would be the place to start for anyone who wants to explore the issue of what can reasonably known about Jesus in more depth. As a non-Christian, I was amazed when reading this book to discover just how ruthless Christians themselves have been when it comes to the synoptic gospels and episodes within them that they regard as fictional (for example, this is the line that Sanders takes with the accounts of Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke).

As for the vexed issue of whether Jesus actually existed in the first place, Maurice Casey is the person to look at:

Review of Prof. Maurice Casey's Scholarly Critique of the Work of Jesus Mythicists - Dr. Michael Heiser

I blogged a short time ago to alert readers about this book. Maurice Casey was a New Testament scholar and Aramaic specialist. He was also nowhere close to being a …

drmsh.com

Jesus historians get an earful from Maurice Casey - Macleans.ca

An academic who is ‘not serving the interests of any faith’ derides self-serving portrayals of Christ

www.macleans.ca

 

[tonea2003]

Well It has now been established that the Gospels were written between 30 and 60 years after the death of Jesus ,very likely much less than that . In fact, since none of gospel writers mention the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD then it follows that they had their gospels already written before that time. So we can even bring the numbers down to between 30- 40 years after the death of Jesus. For instance, when we see a prediction in Matthew that the Temple will be destroyed (Matthew 24:1– 2), with no mention of that prophecy’s fulfilment, this can be taken as evidence that the document was written before the Temple was destroyed. There is no way those devout writers miss out on writing about such a calamitous event. So , inherent evidence within the texts is enough to show the approximate age of the text .
Classical historians have shown that even two full generations wouldnt be enough for narratives to overcome historical core of witten content. This is seen when Gospel reports compare extremely favorably with other famous historical events that historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.
Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event. See also Suetonius' account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon 110 years after the event ! Everyone believes his famous account .

As for nonsense, you haven't denied the nonsensical belief of life coming from non life and microbes turning into men over billions of years.

the very earliest most scholars give for mark is 64 so no eye witnesses , luke is copying from josephus so that is 90 plus and john is way later
matthew and luke mine from mark but all are anonymous that is now widley accepted
you are completely ignoring the fact that rock star of the 1st century is not recorded by anyone absolutely nobody other than the 4 anonymous later gospels in the first century
totally unthinkable that would happen
the fact you mention hannibal or anyone else for that matter is irrelevant
i will ignore your evolution nonsense for obvious reasons, you are making yourself look foolish

 

[Octavian]

do i believe in the resurrection? i have my doubts over all of it, top to bottom
i have my doubts the man in the bible ever existed(jesus that is)
there is not one single external 1st century corroboration for anything written in the gospels not a single jot
not even pauls letters(well there wouldn't be as the gospels are written long after)
and don't say Josephus as that is well known to be a contentious passage

i think you'll find dawkins has a lot more confidence in the theory of evolution than what you are trying to promote here

Josephus, in my understanding, is a pretty good source as he wasn’t just a non Christian, he despised Christianity.

Regarding evolution, it’s a bit of a non starter to even waste time arguing about it. Paul is a fundamentalist and isn’t going to favour science over what he gets from scripture.

 

[JASR]

Josephus, in my understanding, is a pretty good source as he wasn’t just a non Christian, he despised Christianity.

Regarding evolution, it’s a bit of a non starter to even waste time arguing about it. Paul is a fundamentalist and isn’t going to favour science over what he gets from scripture.

Fantasy, not scripture. ‘Scripture’ unfortunately (but Incorrectly) implies it is a correct and factual story.