There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You keep making baseless assertions about me, and my alleged comprehension on things, yet you cannot substantiate those claims, because you simply do not know, it's just a petty insult. Yet again you accuse me of being 'illiterate', well you have a the golden opportunity to prove that with your previous claim, but you won't, because you can't. There's only person being dishonest and dishonourable here, and it clearly isn't me as I've just explained.

How embarrassing for you to be vaunting your reading comprehension after your blunder above. Your words:

By the way, can you explain how the following unsubstantiated source free statement is substantiated by the scientific method?​

​

'We do not see creatures in various stages of completion. In the past, according to evolutionary theory, there were half-birds, half-dogs, etc. We see nothing like that now.'​

​

Now I may not be the scientific genius you are, but I would put this in the category of 'marking your own homework'. Basically this should be clarified with the following caveat. 'This statement is true because the theory I support says it is, no further evidence required', call me Mr Picky but that doesn't sound very sciencey to me.​

The answer to your question is that that comment is NOT "substantiated by the scientific method." It's falsified by it. Apparently, you didn't realize that that was a creationist claim being debunked by Talk Origins - not their own claim or that of any science source.

Men are not apes, that is absurd, and no-one actually claims as such, even your own misguided side recognise this.

Wrong. This is settled science and consensus in the scientific community even if it's still a stumbling block for creationists. Man is the relatively hairless, bipedal, nonarboreal, non-sylvan, omnivorous ape with language, civilization, and technology.

I asked AI, "Is man an ape?":

Yes, man is classified as a type of ape under the order Primates and the family Hominidae. Taxonomically speaking, humans belong to the Hominidae family, which also includes great apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Evolutionary evidence supports the idea that humans share a common ancestor with these great apes, making us a branch of the ape family tree.
One key concept in understanding this classification is the genetic similarity between humans and apes. Studies have shown that humans share over 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees, indicating a close evolutionary relationship. This genetic similarity underscores the common ancestry between humans and apes.

Another important aspect to consider is our physical similarities with apes. Humans and apes share many anatomical features, such as opposable thumbs, similar skeletal structures, and comparable muscle arrangements. These similarities further highlight the evolutionary connection between humans and apes.

Furthermore, behavioral studies have also shown parallels between humans and apes, including social structures, communication methods, and problem-solving abilities. These shared behaviors suggest a common evolutionary heritage that extends beyond just physical characteristics.

In conclusion, while humans are a distinct species with unique traits and capabilities, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the classification of humans as apes. Our shared genetics, physical characteristics, and behavioral patterns all point to our evolutionary relationship with other apes. Embracing this classification can help us better understand our place in the natural world and appreciate the interconnectedness of all living beings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't believe how gullible I was to believe in the creation myth while I was a Christian. In my opinion, I think it is more reasonable to believe the theory of evolution as a logical explanation for the origin of mankind than to believe that the biblical god created a man from dirt, breathed air into his nostrils and made him alive, and then created a woman from this man's rib. I also think it is more reasonable to believe that a talking serpent cunningly deceived the woman, who then deceived the man, into disobeying this god's command to them not to eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or that the rest of humanity descended from this man and woman. In comparison to this biblical story of man's origin, believing that human beings evolved from a primate ancestor doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It seems ridiculous to me now that I once believed the creation myth.

As you know there is evidence for evolution. I am very sure that creationists know that there is very good evidence for evolution too. They simply cannot afford to admit it. That is also why they run away from learning what is and what is not evidence. If they did then by the rules of evidence it would be too easy to show that they are wrong and that they had just crossed over to actively lying about the science. As a defense mechanism they refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence so that they can convince at least themselves that they are debating honestly.

 

[Tony B]

Generations

That's not an answer, how much time, in years, with the evidence please.

Humans are apes.

Only according to evolutionary theory, so the point is moot because it's very much a theory.

It's been demonstrated many times over by multiple independent groups of scientists across the world, spanning multiple scientific fields over the last 150+ years. Evolution is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. Genetics alone demonstrates it.

Biology and evolution of life science - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The relevance of evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

Cats and humans share 90% DNA, the same as Monkeys, are you sure we're not cats? but we could be pigs, because we share 98% DNA apparently, it's almost as if this nonsense is full of holes. I should add that quoting the people promoting the theory isn't very credible source wise.

Nope, it's right on point about what scientific theories are. You just don't seem to understand it, despite my attempt to explain it.

You said it was a fact, but it's a theory, here's the definition of theory;

A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something.

I accept it's a theory, the clue is in the name.

We can see evolution in action as well.

Can we? do elaborate.

I just explained it to you.

Try reading it all again, this time with an attempt to understand it.

Yes, you keep making unsubstantiated claims and then repeating them, we've established that.

The existence of germs are a fact.

Germ is a very generic term, it isn't germ theory though, nice try, shall we stick to the theory?

Germ theory of disease explains how they operate and interact with our bodies and the mechanisms involved.

No, germ theory just states that micro-organisms can invade our bodies and cause disease, but it's still a theory, coincidentally, that's why it's called 'germ theory'.

Evolution is a fact of life.

No, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, the definition of a fact is;

A fact is something that is demonstrably true, you cannot demonstrate evolution, to be fair you can't even give me a time for your claim, so I rest my case.

The theory of evolution explain how it operates, and the mechanisms involved.

Yes, a theoretical idea.

The existence of gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory explains how it operates, and the mechanisms involved.

Gravity is also a theory, and in this case a strawman.

There are no viable competing theories to the theory of evolution.

And? so the absence of any competing theory proves any theory true? is that what you're claiming? Interestingly there is far more evidence for creationism than there ever is for evolution, so congratulations, your faith is remarkable in the absence of evidence. As a side note, can you explain which came first? the chicken or the egg? how was that evolutionary conjuring trick made possible?

 

[Tony B]

Humans are great apes.

Introduction to Human Evolution

humanorigins.si.edu

Frequently Asked Questions

humanorigins.si.edu

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

The 13-million-year-old infant skull may have resembled a baby gibbon

www.scientificamerican.com

Humans and other Great Apes

Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

australian.museum

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

According to Evolutionary THEORY, the bit you keep missing, as it's a theory it's not a fact, I rest my case.

 

[Tony B]

How embarrassing for you to be vaunting your reading comprehension after your blunder above. Your words:

By the way, can you explain how the following unsubstantiated source free statement is substantiated by the scientific method?​

​

'We do not see creatures in various stages of completion. In the past, according to evolutionary theory, there were half-birds, half-dogs, etc. We see nothing like that now.'​

​

Now I may not be the scientific genius you are, but I would put this in the category of 'marking your own homework'. Basically this should be clarified with the following caveat. 'This statement is true because the theory I support says it is, no further evidence required', call me Mr Picky but that doesn't sound very sciencey to me.​

The answer to your question is that that comment is NOT "substantiated by the scientific method." It's falsified by it. Apparently, you didn't realize that that was a creationist claim being debunked by Talk Origins - not their own claim or that of any science source.

Hey, we all make mistakes, but lets look at the actual claim then, here's the statement;

Evolution does not predict incomplete creatures. In fact if we ever saw such a thing it would pretty much disprove evolution. In order to survive, all creatures must be sufficiently adapted to their environment; thus, they must be complete in some sense.

So where's the fossil record of the creatures between fish and mammals for instance? or the record for apemen? Please spare me the nonsense of Apes are men, we can literally see the differences. When did Apes start talking? when Planet of the Apes was filmed? Why can't Apes talk now? etc etc.

Wrong. This is settled science and consensus in the scientific community even if it's still a stumbling block for creationists. Man is the relatively hairless, bipedal, nonarboreal, non-sylvan, omnivorous ape with language, civilization, and technology.

I asked AI, "Is man an ape?":

Yes, man is classified as a type of ape under the order Primates and the family Hominidae. Taxonomically speaking, humans belong to the Hominidae family, which also includes great apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Evolutionary evidence supports the idea that humans share a common ancestor with these great apes, making us a branch of the ape family tree.
One key concept in understanding this classification is the genetic similarity between humans and apes. Studies have shown that humans share over 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees, indicating a close evolutionary relationship. This genetic similarity underscores the common ancestry between humans and apes.

Another important aspect to consider is our physical similarities with apes. Humans and apes share many anatomical features, such as opposable thumbs, similar skeletal structures, and comparable muscle arrangements. These similarities further highlight the evolutionary connection between humans and apes.

Furthermore, behavioral studies have also shown parallels between humans and apes, including social structures, communication methods, and problem-solving abilities. These shared behaviors suggest a common evolutionary heritage that extends beyond just physical characteristics.

In conclusion, while humans are a distinct species with unique traits and capabilities, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the classification of humans as apes. Our shared genetics, physical characteristics, and behavioral patterns all point to our evolutionary relationship with other apes. Embracing this classification can help us better understand our place in the natural world and appreciate the interconnectedness of all living beings.

Great, you asked the system programmed by the people with a vested interest in denying creationism, there's just the small matter of the missing link, which used to be a really important thing, but magically has disappeared now, you guys need to get your stories straight.

 

[Tony B]

I can't believe how gullible I was to believe in the creation myth while I was a Christian. In my opinion, I think it is more reasonable to believe the theory of evolution as a logical explanation for the origin of mankind than to believe that the biblical god created a man from dirt, breathed air into his nostrils and made him alive, and then created a woman from this man's rib. I also think evolution is more reasonable to accept than to believe that a talking serpent cunningly deceived the woman, who then deceived the man, into disobeying this god's command to them not to eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or that the rest of humanity descended from this man and woman. In comparison to this biblical story, believing that human beings evolved from a primate ancestor doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It seems ridiculous to me now that I once believed the creation myth.

You have much more faith than me, I've yet to meet an Ape that can talk, and I've never seen any evidence of information being created from matter. You believe there was a random explosion and everything came from nothing, that takes a hell of a lot of faith to believe as opposed to a supreme intelligence designing complex life forms that would be mathematically impossible to evolve randomly, but go you...

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not an answer, how much time, in years, with the evidence please.

It is an answer.
Heritable traits are passed onto one's offspring in each generation.

Only according to evolutionary theory, so the point is moot because it's very much a theory.

This is what I'm talking about.
You don't even understand the basics of science.
Despite my just explaining it to you ... twice.

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

Cats and humans share 90% DNA, the same as Monkeys, are you sure we're not cats? but we could be pigs, because we share 98% DNA apparently, it's almost as if this nonsense is full of holes. I should add that quoting the people promoting the theory isn't very credible source wise.

Every living creature on earth is related to everything else, in varying degrees. This is a prediction of the theory of evolution.

You said it was a fact, but it's a theory, here's the definition of theory;

A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something.

Read what I said again. This time, attempt to actually understand it.
I can't simplify it any more than I have.

That's not the definition of scientific theory, as I pointed out above.
What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

I accept it's a theory, the clue is in the name.

You don't seem to understand at all what a scientific theory is.
Read through the provided links for better understanding.

Can we? do elaborate.

Yes, you keep making unsubstantiated claims and then repeating them, we've established that.

That's you. You are psychologically projecting your failings onto me.

Germ is a very generic term, it isn't germ theory though, nice try, shall we stick to the theory?

Yes, it is the germ theory of disease.
Please educate yourself.

Germ Theory

curiosity.lib.harvard.edu

No, germ theory just states that micro-organisms can invade our bodies and cause disease, but it's still a theory, coincidentally, that's why it's called 'germ theory'.

No, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, the definition of a fact is;

A fact is something that is demonstrably true, you cannot demonstrate evolution, to be fair you can't even give me a time for your claim, so I rest my case.

Yes, a theoretical idea.

You really do not understand scientific concepts. At all. You keep missing the forest for the trees.

What Is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts.

www.livescience.com

Gravity is also a theory, and in this case a strawman.

It's a fact and a theory. As explained. Twice.

And? so the absence of any competing theory proves any theory true? is that what you're claiming? Interestingly there is far more evidence for creationism than there ever is for evolution, so congratulations, your faith is remarkable in the absence of evidence. As a side note, can you explain which came first? the chicken or the egg? how was that evolutionary conjuring trick made possible?

No. The evidence spanning multiple fields of science collected by multiple independent groups of researchers over the last 150+ years all point to the same conclusion - that evolution is a fact of life.

In short, it's what the evidence indicates. No faith required whatsoever. I have no use for faith.

The egg came first. Lots of creatures laid eggs before chickens ever came along.

 

[Tony B]

LOL! If you want to base your argument on that article you have admitted that evolution is real. Once again, you linked an article that you either did not either read. He points out in that article that people are the product of evolution. He just does not like the term "ape". He is factually wrong in that dislike. He does not represent the mainstream with that opinion. He does not point to a time when men stopped "being apes".

Well you clearly didn't read what I wrote because I made the point he was on your side, but even he could see we're not Apes.

Prove that it is a strawman argument. I understand evolution. You clearly do not. So how are you going to support that claim?

Here's the definition of a strawman;

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy that distorts an opposing position and argues against it

Different varieties of Duck have nothing to do with Apes vs men, it's a strawman. Show me where the talking apes are.

You do not get to just say "strawman". You have to be read to defend that claim.

I just did.

Once again, you do not even understand the basics of science. I can help you with that. Are you willing to learn?

You don't even understand the difference between a theory and a fact so you're not able to teach me anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

According to Evolutionary THEORY, the bit you keep missing, as it's a theory it's not a fact, I rest my case.

Until you understand what a scientific theory is, you're never going to grasp this.
Do you actually want to, is my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you clearly didn't read what I wrote because I made the point he was on your side, but even he could see we're not Apes.

Here's the definition of a strawman;

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy that distorts an opposing position and argues against it

Different varieties of Duck have nothing to do with Apes vs men, it's a strawman. Show me where the talking apes are.

Sorry, you failed. It is exactly the same argument. People are a type of apes. If you want to see a talking ape the quickest way for you to do that is to look in the mirror. The example went over your head. People are apes. Here is how you can tell. You will not find one biological trait shared by all of the other great apes that man does not have as well.

I just did.

No, you only demonstrated your ignorance. Even the creationist Linnaeus, the man responsible for the old Genus species classification system could see that people were apes.

You don't even understand the difference between a theory and a fact so you're not able to teach me anything.

You are wrong again. One more time, theories explain facts. Evolution is both a fact and a theory as is gravity. Please read this:

Theory and Fact | National Center for Science Education

One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

ncse.ngo

If I cannot teach you anything that is your flaw not mine. All that you have been able to do here is to make false claims about others and demonstrate that you cannot be an honest interlocutor. I am willing to "put my money where my mouth is" so to speak. I am willing to teach you the basics of science. But until you learn any of your demands for evidence have to be disingenuous. It is hypocritical to demand evidence when you do not even understand the concept.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How large is the Jewish faith these days, compared to say Christianity?

We don't care. We are not about numbers, and we are not about "spreading Judaism." We do not proselytize. No one NEEDS to be a Jew. We are perfectly fine with you worshiping God in your own way, even if you have some mistaken notions.

and before you play the inevitable 'numbers don't prove anything' card let me remind you that you are generally born into the Jewish faith, Christianity, not so much.

You are RADICALLY underestimating the impact of being raised Christian and/or growing up in a Christian culture in the choice adults make to be Christian.

In the U.S., about 65% of people raised Christian continue to identify as Christian in adulthood, according to a Pew Research Center report from 2019. This means that roughly one-third of people raised Christian no longer identify as such, and two-thirds do.

As for Christian adults in the U.S., the majority were raised Christian. Pew’s 2021 survey shows that 85% of Christian adults were raised in a Christian household, indicating that only about 15% of adult Christians converted from a different religion or no religious background.

Numbers are a part of the evidence,

No, they aren't.

Christians were persecuted by Jews right from the start as minority and for obvious reasons,

You have ONE story in the book of Acts of a Christian being killed by Jews. We have a gazillions stories of Jews being killed by Christians over the last 2000 years, including the Christians of Germany, Austria, Poland etc., who cooperated with the Nazis.

Next...

that and the fact you can join and leave no problem,

Are you under the mistaken impression that Jews can't choose to leave Judaism? That only Christians can choose their religion?

no persecution in modern times, and hasn't been for some considerable time.

OMG. Are you just not listening to the news? You've never heard of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and their intent to kill Jews and eradicate Israel, their spread of ancient lies such as the blood libel? You've never heard of attacks on Jewish students by pro-Hamas college demonstrators, creation of Judenfrei zone on compass, and even calls to murder Jews by some of these protesters? You haven't heard of any of the shootings at synagogues such as Chabad of Poway, Tree of Life Synagogue, Young Israel of Greater Miami, and others? You haven't heard of the attacks on the streets of Jews all across the country? You haven't heard of the Jersey City kosher supermarket shooting, the Monsey Hanukkah stabbing, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, or the wave of anti-Jewish attacks in Brooklyn? Are you unaware that French Jews feel safer moving to Israel during a time of war than staying in France? Do you not find it eery that 90,000 Jews lived in Egypt 100 years ago, and less than 20 live there now? That a similar 90,000 lived in Iran before the revolution, and only 9000 live there now? The FBI says that antisemitic hate crime have TRIPLED over the last ten years, and currently make up a whopping 68% of all religious hate crimes. Things are getting worse, far, far, far worse. Worse around the world, worse in the west, and worse in the US.

But you think there is no persecution?

Either you never read a newspaper, or you are willfully blind. And I'm actually very, very offended that I literally live in fear for being a Jew, and you don't acknowledge that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Perhaps his understanding of Christian "basics" differs from your understanding of "important issues."

Therefore? Talk to a couple of synagogue-attending Jews about the patrilineal descent or the historicity of the Exodus.

I actually mention to him how divided we Jew are.

 

[Brian2]

"Saw" themselves as Jews? Before Cornelius, all the believers in Jesus WERE Jews, and they WERE obligated to the Law.

No, this is a mistake. The council of Jerusalem absolutely declared that Gentile believers did not need to become Jews. This decision was binding on all the Christian churches.

We agree here. I did not make a mistake. You have just cut up my sentence and the point I was making got obliterated in that process.

• #853

Well, that's what you believe, and you are entitled to believe anything you want. But it is not the teaching of Acts 15, which never ever rescinded the understanding that Jewish believers were bound by the Torah.

What you say about Acts 15 here is true. The Council of Jerusalem did not rescind any understanding that Jewish believers were "bound" by the Torah.
My understanding is that all Christians are not "bound" by the Torah. To be a Christian, under the New Covenant frees anyone, including Jews, from being "bound" by the Torah. IOW a Jew does not need to remain under the Law to be a Christian, in the New Covenant with God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We agree here. I did not make a mistake. You have just cut up my sentence and the point I was making got obliterated in that process.

• #853

What you say about Acts 15 here is true. The Council of Jerusalem did not rescind any understanding that Jewish believers were "bound" by the Torah.
My understanding is that all Christians are not "bound" by the Torah. To be a Christian, under the New Covenant frees anyone, including Jews, from being "bound" by the Torah. IOW a Jew does not need to remain under the Law to be a Christian, in the New Covenant with God.

Again, you have your own religion, your own beliefs. That' fine. And again, this is not what we find in Acts 15.

 

[Tomef]

The New Testament was written by people who were not eye witnesses to Jesus.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. The four gospels were written and circulated anonymously and the traditional authorship was secondarily assigned towards the end of the second century CE. There is not a single first person claim to being an eye witness to Jesus' life.

Given what I said above, which is explained in the video below, what logical reason would anyone have to believe that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of the life of Jesus? Why should we believe that what these anonymous authors wrote about Jesus is true?

Lots of people have seen him on pieces of toast.

 

[Brian2]

It's the same "faith" required to imagine that leprechauns aren't needed. There's just no evidence for it, so there's no reason to include lerpechauns in our explanations.

That's not faith.

By God I mean a creator.
Science cannot and does not say whether a creator was needed or not. Any belief either way is a leap of faith.

Such as?

like the idea that life began under the sea at ocean vents. But this is just a theory anyway and can never be confirmed unless we travel back in time to see what happened. There are many such hypotheses which cannot ever be confirmed without travel back in time. That should be clear to anyone but unfortunately is not.

That's not what science "says."

Science uses more scientific language, true.

Where is (s)he? That's the problem.

Do you really expect science, which has a limitation of only being able to study the physical universe, to be able to see or detect spirits?
That is the faith of scientism and is not really very logical. And as I said, I'm not complaining about science not being able to find God or spirits, it's just the leap of faith that skeptics take to then say that since science has not found a God, that is significant.

It seems that you are projecting.

What do you mean?

 

[Brian2]

Why you think that "skeptics believe things that have not been proven" is beyond me. It sounds like projection, tbh.

There is no need for faith when you've got evidence.
This kind of faith is antithetical to the scientific method which is evidence-based.

I am told that science does not prove things, but skeptics believe many things that science tells us. That sounds like skeptics believing things that have not been proven.
There is nothing antithetical about faith the believes things beyond what science has or can show are correct.

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. Yet again. It's as though you've not taken in anything said to you on this subject, to date.

I cannot prove to you that there is a God and you cannot prove to anyone that there is no God. I don't want you to try to prove it to me. Just opening your eyes to the fact that we all have unproven beliefs would be a good thing however.

What you've shown us time and time again, is that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason/evidence. Otherwise they'd just give the evidence. And therefore it is an unreliable pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith. You've confirmed this many times over in your posts. (I've pointed that out every time.)

Anything can be disbelieved on faith also.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's the usual sleight of hand of course, lets assume there were no DIRECT eye witnesses for Jesus who wrote in the New Testament, does that mean the stories are false? Can you tell me roughly how many people have been soundly convicted of crimes where no-one actually saw the crime being committed? and is the gathering of evidence in the absence of direct contact a reasonable process in order to draw a sound logical conclusion?
The fact of the matter is, that no-one can conclusively prove one way or another whether no-one writing in the New Testament actually met Jesus, based on what is written in the New Testament. Maybe you can give me other examples of where 11 disciple's willingly went to often gruesome deaths based on hearsay and anecdotes? I'll wait on that one...

Your answer sounds like a sleight of hand way of getting around answering my question.

People died in protest marches here in the U.S. Some people believe in something that strongly that they are willing to die for it.

But, when it comes to a religious belief... Does that make it true? And just in case you were thinking of saying "yes", then go ask the Baha'is how many of their people have been willing to die for their religion. A religion you probably think isn't true.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's the usual sleight of hand of course, lets assume there were no DIRECT eye witnesses for Jesus who wrote in the New Testament, does that mean the stories are false?

It means they are totally unreliable, that you cannot say for sure which stories are factual and which are fiction.

 

[Muffled]

No, you have a foundation that is weaker than sand. You have demonstrated that far too often. Believing because you want to believe is not a pathway to the truth.

I believe you get carried away by your imagination. My foundation is sure.