Do people still believe everyone decended from Adam and Eve?

[Skywalker]

Another argument refuted by "So what?"

I am still waiting for your supposed evidence.

There is oral tradition. Obviously, people in those days didn't have tape recorders and few people could read, so they relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened until it was later written down. Scholars have identified several places in which this oral tradition has been copied into the New Testament in the form of creeds, hymns, and sermon summations. This is really significant because the oral tradition must have existed prior to the New Testament writings for the New Testament authors to have included it." It's very early, which weighs heavily in its favor, as any historian will tell you. For example, we have reeds that laid out basic doctrines in a form that was easily memorized. Many scholars believe Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting with them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. That would be within five years of the crucifixion. Not only is it extremely early, but it was apparently given to Paul by eyewitnesses or others he deemed reliable, which heightens its credibility even more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is oral tradition. Obviously, people in those days didn't have tape recorders and few people could read, so they relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened until it was later written down. Scholars have identified several places in which this oral tradition has been copied into the New Testament in the form of creeds, hymns, and sermon summations. This is really significant because the oral tradition must have existed prior to the New Testament writings for the New Testament authors to have included it." It's very early, which weighs heavily in its favor, as any historian will tell you. For example, we have reeds that laid out basic doctrines in a form that was easily memorized. Many scholars believe Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting with them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. That would be within five years of the crucifixion. Not only is it extremely early, but it was apparently given to Paul by eyewitnesses or others he deemed reliable, which heightens its credibility even more.

Oral tradition is not reliable historical evidence.

Just give up. Admit that there is no reliable evidence of the resurrection.+

 

[Skywalker]

Oral tradition is not reliable historical evidence.

Just give up. Admit that there is no reliable evidence of the resurrection.+

What about the creed that was relayed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Church? Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 - New International Version

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried,that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

Paul got one of the earliest creeds from Peter and James five years after Jesus was crucified. It's early data but it was given to Paul by eyewitnesses. That creed was powerful and persuasive. Although early dating does not totally rule out the possibility of invention or deceit on the part of Jesus' followers, it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to debunk the resurrection. It's simply gold for a historian.

And we've got even more oral tradition-for instance, the New Testament preserves several sermons of the apostles. Actually, these are apparently summaries of the preaching of the apostles, since most sermons lasted a lot longer than that. At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that the early apostolic teachings are enshrined in these sermon summaries in Acts-and they're not at all ambiguous: they declare that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. For example, Paul says in Acts 13, which is very similar to what Peter reports in Acts 2: "For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.' That's a bold and forthright assertion: David's body decayed, but Jesus' didn't, because he was raised from the dead. Finally, we have written sources, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's widely accepted, even among skeptical historians, that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even very liberal scholars will concede that we have four biographies written within seventy years of Jesus' life that unambiguously report the disciples' claims that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about the creed that was relayed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Church? Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 - New International Version



Paul got one of the earliest creeds from Peter and James five years after Jesus was crucified. It's early data but it was given to Paul by eyewitnesses. That creed was powerful and persuasive. Although early dating does not totally rule out the possibility of invention or deceit on the part of Jesus' followers, it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to debunk the resurrection. It's simply gold for a historian.

And we've got even more oral tradition-for instance, the New Testament preserves several sermons of the apostles. Actually, these are apparently summaries of the preaching of the apostles, since most sermons lasted a lot longer than that. At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that the early apostolic teachings are enshrined in these sermon summaries in Acts-and they're not at all ambiguous: they declare that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. For example, Paul says in Acts 13, which is very similar to what Peter reports in Acts 2: "For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.' That's a bold and forthright assertion: David's body decayed, but Jesus' didn't, because he was raised from the dead. Finally, we have written sources, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's widely accepted, even among skeptical historians, that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even very liberal scholars will concede that we have four biographies written within seventy years of Jesus' life that unambiguously report the disciples' claims that Jesus rose from the dead.

Paul never saw Jesus. Read his writings. All he had were visions. Or in other words hallucinations. And Paul quite often disagreed with the disciples. His mania was strong enough that he thought that he knew better than people that supposedly knew Jesus.

Would you trust followers of David Koresh to give an accurate description of him? He was after all Christ returned to Earth. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. You keep confirming that you have no reliable evidence.

 

[Skywalker]

Paul never saw Jesus. Read his writings. All he had were visions. Or in other words hallucinations. And Paul quite often disagreed with the disciples. His mania was strong enough that he thought that he knew better than people that supposedly knew Jesus.

Would you trust followers of David Koresh to give an accurate description of him? He was after all Christ returned to Earth. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. You keep confirming that you have no reliable evidence.

I think an excellent case can be made for dating the Gospels earlier, but let's go with the more generous estimations. That's still extremely close to the events themselves, especially compared to many other ancient historical writings. Our two best sources on Alexander the Great, for instance, weren't written until at least four hundred years after his life.

As for Caesar Augustus, who is generally regarded as Rome's greatest emperor, there are five chief sources used by historians to write a history of his adulthood: a very brief funeral inscription, a source written between fifty and a hundred years after his death, and three sources written between a hundred and two hundred years after he died. So it's really remarkable that in the case of Jesus, we have four biographies that even liberals agree were written within thirty-five to sixty-five years after his execution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think an excellent case can be made for dating the Gospels earlier, but let's go with the more generous estimations. That's still extremely close to the events themselves, especially compared to many other ancient historical writings. Our two best sources on Alexander the Great, for instance, weren't written until at least four hundred years after his life.

As for Caesar Augustus, who is generally regarded as Rome's greatest emperor, there are five chief sources used by historians to write a history of his adulthood: a very brief funeral inscription, a source written between fifty and a hundred years after his death, and three sources written between a hundred and two hundred years after he died. So it's really remarkable that in the case of Jesus, we have four biographies that even liberals agree were written within thirty-five to sixty-five years after his execution.

You might, but that is just wishful thinking. Actual scholars that study it appear to have valid reasons for their dates. And it still does not help you. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

 

[Skywalker]

You might, but that is just wishful thinking. Actual scholars that study it appear to have valid reasons for their dates. And it still does not help you. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

The final verses in Mark, which describe the resurrection appearances, were not part of the original text, but Mark clearly knows of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark predicts the resurrection in five places, and he reports the testimony of the angel to the resurrection, the empty tomb, and the imminent appearance of Jesus in Galilee. In fact, Mark's reference to Peter in Mark 16:7 may be the very same appearance reported in the creed I mentioned. Most scholars believe Mark is the earliest Gospel, but we have an even earlier report about the resurrection: the 1 Corinthians 15 creed that I mentioned. This clearly spells out various post-Easter appearances by Jesus-including at one point to five hundred people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The final verses in Mark, which describe the resurrection appearances, were not part of the original text, but Mark clearly knows of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark predicts the resurrection in five places, and he reports the testimony of the angel to the resurrection, the empty tomb, and the imminent appearance of Jesus in Galilee. In fact, Mark's reference to Peter in Mark 16:7 may be the very same appearance reported in the creed I mentioned. Most scholars believe Mark is the earliest Gospel, but we have an even earlier report about the resurrection: the 1 Corinthians 15 creed that I mentioned. This clearly spells out various post-Easter appearances by Jesus-including at one point to five hundred people.

A book written after the fact does not have predictions by definition.

I am still waiting for the evidence that you claimed existed.

And did you read Exodus 34?

 

[Skywalker]

A book written after the fact does not have predictions by definition.

I am still waiting for the evidence that you claimed existed.

And did you read Exodus 34?

Then we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the apostles or were close to others who did. There's a strong likelihood that their writings reflect the teachings of the apostles themselves-and what do they say? That the apostles were drastically impacted by Jesus' resurrection. Consider Clement, for example. The early church father Irenaeus reports that Clement had conversed with the apostles-in fact, Irenaeus commented that he 'might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes.' Tertullian, the African church father, said Clement was ordained by Peter himself." In his letter to the Corinthian church, which was written in the first century, he writes: 'Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit's certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.'

Then we have Polycarp. Iranaeus says that Polycarp was 'instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ,' including John; that he 'recalled their very words'; and that he 'always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.' Tertullian confirms that John appointed Polycarp as bishop of the church in Smyrna.

So think about the depth of evidence we have in these three categories: Paul, oral tradition, and written reports. In all, we've got nine sources that reflect multiple, very early, and eyewitness testimonies to the disciples' claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. This is something the disciples believed to the core of their being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the apostles or were close to others who did. There's a strong likelihood that their writings reflect the teachings of the apostles themselves-and what do they say? That the apostles were drastically impacted by Jesus' resurrection. Consider Clement, for example. The early church father Irenaeus reports that Clement had conversed with the apostles-in fact, Irenaeus commented that he 'might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes.' Tertullian, the African church father, said Clement was ordained by Peter himself." In his letter to the Corinthian church, which was written in the first century, he writes: 'Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit's certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.'

Then we have Polycarp. Iranaeus says that Polycarp was 'instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ,' including John; that he 'recalled their very words'; and that he 'always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.' Tertullian confirms that John appointed Polycarp as bishop of the church in Smyrna.

So think about the depth of evidence we have in these three categories: Paul, oral tradition, and written reports. In all, we've got nine sources that reflect multiple, very early, and eyewitness testimonies to the disciples' claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. This is something the disciples believed to the core of their being.

From my understanding that is merely church tradition. Claims made centuries after they died.

By a stroke of luck I have been watching this video today. It relates. The evidence for these claims appear to be totally missing:

 

[Skywalker]

From my understanding that is merely church tradition. Claims made centuries after they died.

By a stroke of luck I have been watching this video today. It relates. The evidence for these claims appear to be totally missing:

We have evidence that the disciples had been transformed to the point where they were willing to endure persecution and even martyrdom. We find this in multiple accounts inside and outside the New Testament. Just read through Acts and you'll see how the disciples were willing to suffer for their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. The church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Origen-they all confirm this. In fact, we've got at least seven early sources testifying that the disciples willingly suffered in defense of their beliefs-and if we include the martyrdoms of Paul and Jesus' half-brother James, we have eleven sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have evidence that the disciples had been transformed to the point where they were willing to endure persecution and even martyrdom. We find this in multiple accounts inside and outside the New Testament. Just read through Acts and you'll see how the disciples were willing to suffer for their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. The church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Origen-they all confirm this. In fact, we've got at least seven early sources testifying that the disciples willingly suffered in defense of their beliefs-and if we include the martyrdoms of Paul and Jesus' half-brother James, we have eleven sources.

Not really. Again there are only two apostles that historians are fairly sure were executed and I don't think that there is evidence that any of them were given a chance to recant. Most of the martyr stories are simple church tradition that arose hundreds of years after the event.

 

[metis]

Much like societies in general, religions don't evolve in a vacuum, and this includes Christianity. Thus some things can be picked up and adopted. However, each society and each religion tends to adjust what they've learned from others, and they usually make some alterations to either the original narrative(s) or its interpretations or both.

Not only has this and does this happen, it often may be for betterment, as learning from others has its benefits, whether that be on the personal level, the societal level, and/or the religious level. I can use myself as an example here as I have learned much from people here at RF, and some of this I have internalized and used myself. Decades ago, what I learned from Gandhi changed my perspective on some things. Science has had a major impact on even my religious thinking. My guess is that each of us have had influences that have helped shape our lives and beliefs.

However, not all influences are beneficial, and sometimes we may disagree on which is which. But my point is that this is a natural occurrence that, by itself, is not intrinsically bad.

Anyhow, that's my take on this.

 

[capumetu]

Are there still people in the 21st century that believe all humans are descendents from Adam and Eve, only two people?

Wouldn't that mean that when they had children, to have more children,,,
-the dad/mom had to sleep with their son/daughter,,,
-brother/sisters slept together,,,
-aunts/uncles slept with nephews/nieces
-etc.

If not can some logically explain how they populated the earth without doing any of that?
By the way, all of that is forbidden in the bible

Leviticus 18:8-18
8 “Do not have sexual relations with any of your father’s wives, for this would violate your father.

9 “Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s.

10 “Do not have sexual relations with your granddaughter, whether she is your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for this would violate yourself.

11 “Do not have sexual relations with your stepsister, the daughter of any of your father’s wives, for she is your sister.

12 “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister, for she is your father’s close relative.

13 “Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “Do not violate your uncle, your father’s brother, by having sexual relations with his wife, for she is your aunt.

15 “Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, so you must not have sexual relations with her.

16 “Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, for this would violate your brother.

17 “Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. And do not take her granddaughter, whether her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, and have sexual relations with her. They are close relatives, and this would be a wicked act.

18 “While your wife is living, do not marry her sister and have sexual relations with her, for they would be rivals.

We teach we came from Adam and Eve, evolutionists say we came from a single live cell that multiplied, may I ask where you think we came from? And if it is from another planet, do you have a theory on how life started there?

Thanks much

 

[sojourner]

Oral tradition is not reliable historical evidence.

Actually, historians consider oral tradition to be an excellent source of evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I think an excellent case can be made for dating the Gospels earlier, but let's go with the more generous estimations. That's still extremely close to the events themselves, especially compared to many other ancient historical writings. Our two best sources on Alexander the Great, for instance, weren't written until at least four hundred years after his life.

As for Caesar Augustus, who is generally regarded as Rome's greatest emperor, there are five chief sources used by historians to write a history of his adulthood: a very brief funeral inscription, a source written between fifty and a hundred years after his death, and three sources written between a hundred and two hundred years after he died. So it's really remarkable that in the case of Jesus, we have four biographies that even liberals agree were written within thirty-five to sixty-five years after his execution.

But there are no eyewitnesses. That would be compelling evidence. The Gospel accounts are tenuous, at best.

 

[Skywalker]

But there are no eyewitnesses. That would be compelling evidence. The Gospel accounts are tenuous, at best.

People of other faiths have been willing to die for their beliefs through the ages-the martyrdom of the disciples was different because they didn't just believe Jesus from the dead, but they knew for a fact whether he did. They were on the scene and able to ascertain for sure that he had been resurrected. So it was the truth of the resurrection that they were willing to die. This is totally different from a modern-day Islamic terrorist or others willing to die for their beliefs. These people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, but they aren't in a position to know for sure. The disciples, on the other hand, knew for a fact whether the resurrection had truly occurred-and knowing the truth, they were willing to die for belief that they had. Probably no fact was more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.

The atheist Ludemann conceded: 'It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.' Now, he claims this was the result of visions, which I simply don't believe is a credible explanation. But he's conceding that their experiences actually occurred. Here's a quote from the book The Case of the Resurrection of Jesus, page 60. Paula Fredriksen of Boston University, a very liberal scholar, said

"I know that in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."

In fact, Fredriksen says elsewhere that 'the disciples' conviction that they had seen the risen Christ is historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.' I think that's pretty much undeniable-and I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that what they saw was the return of Jesus from the dead.

 

[McBell]

People of other faiths have been willing to die for their beliefs through the ages-the martyrdom of the disciples was different because they didn't just believe Jesus from the dead, but they knew for a fact whether he did. They were on the scene and able to ascertain for sure that he had been resurrected. So it was the truth of the resurrection that they were willing to die. This is totally different from a modern-day Islamic terrorist or others willing to die for their beliefs. These people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, but they aren't in a position to know for sure. The disciples, on the other hand, knew for a fact whether the resurrection had truly occurred-and knowing the truth, they were willing to die for belief that they had. Probably no fact was more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.

The atheist Ludemann conceded: 'It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.' Now, he claims this was the result of visions, which I simply don't believe is a credible explanation. But he's conceding that their experiences actually occurred. Here's a quote from the book The Case of the Resurrection of Jesus, page 60. Paula Fredriksen of Boston University, a very liberal scholar, said

"I know that in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."

In fact, Fredriksen says elsewhere that 'the disciples' conviction that they had seen the risen Christ is historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.' I think that's pretty much undeniable-and I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that what they saw was the return of Jesus from the dead.

A willingness to die for your beliefs ONLY reveals how much the belief was believed.
It has no bearing on the belief otherwise.

 

[sojourner]

People of other faiths have been willing to die for their beliefs through the ages-the martyrdom of the disciples was different because they didn't just believe Jesus from the dead, but they knew for a fact whether he did. They were on the scene and able to ascertain for sure that he had been resurrected

How do we know this, though? How do we know that they knew? Facts? Admissible evidence? 3rd party corroboration of eyewitnesses?

 

[Skywalker]

A willingness to die for your beliefs ONLY reveals how much the belief was believed.
It has no bearing on the belief otherwise.

We know from multiple sources that Paul-who was then known as Saul of Tarsus-was an enemy of the church and committed to persecuting the faithful. But Paul himself says that he was converted to a follower of Jesus because he had personally encountered the resurrected Jesus. So we have Jesus' resurrection attested by friend and for alike, which is very significant. Then we have six ancient sources in addition to Paul-such as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen-reporting that Paul was willing to suffer continuously and even die for his beliefs. Again, liars make poor martyrs. So we can be confident that Paul not only claimed that risen Jesus appeared to him, but that he really believed it. People convert to other religions all the time, but the difference with Paul is that when virtually all people convert, it's because they've heard the message of that religion from secondary sources-that is, what other people tell them. Yet that's not the case with Paul. He says he was transformed by a personal encounter with the risen Christ. So his conversion is based in primary evidence-Jesus directly appeared to him. That's a big difference.