Evolutionary news

[Guest]

Why did Philo of Alexandria, who mentions the action of Pontius Pilate putting a couple of military ensigns up in Jerusalem not bother to mention that "oh, by the way, he also crucified some guy that a number of Jews considered the messiah

if not being mentioned in a book of antiquity is grounds for existence how many other people would not have existed under this thinking??

[Guest]

under your thinking evolution didn't and doesn't exist because it is not mentioned anywhere in antiquity. there is no historical foundation in any civilization for evolution thus it is impossible for evolution to have taken place.

if you are going to apply different standards to Christ and His existence then apply them to your own theories. that is if you want to be known for honesty not a hypocrite.

you can't change the rules just because you don't like something or disbelieve it.

[Minimalist]

Why did Philo of Alexandria, who mentions the action of Pontius Pilate putting a couple of military ensigns up in Jerusalem not bother to mention that "oh, by the way, he also crucified some guy that a number of Jews considered the messiah

if not being mentioned in a book of antiquity is grounds for existence how many other people would not have existed under this thinking??

One would expect a person, allegedly of some importance, to be mentioned. Here, for everyone's edification, is the relevant section of Philo's letter (Known as the Embassy to Caligula.") Let's be clear, Caligula became emperor in 37 AD, after the death of Tiberius. Your Jesus ostensibly was killed during the reign of Tiberius so, it is safe to say that a Jewish theologian, writing AFTER THE EVENT, should have been aware of that fact if it was as important an event as the so-called gospels make it out to be. I have underlined a portion for emphasis.

XXXVIII. (299) "Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

Now, in the underlined part, it just seems that if there was anything to the Jesus story at all it would have been ideal point to mention the fact. Historians and scholars are interested in such anomalies but bible-thumpers simply ignore the implications and go merrily on their way believing the unbelievable.

However, if as many scholars now believe, the whole Jesus-on-earth story was a later concoction of the gospel writers, there would have been no way for Philo to have known of the story because he died in 50 AD at least 20 years before the story was written.

[Minimalist]

under your thinking evolution didn't and doesn't exist because it is not mentioned anywhere in antiquity. there is no historical foundation in any civilization for evolution thus it is impossible for evolution to have taken place.

if you are going to apply different standards to Christ and His existence then apply them to your own theories. that is if you want to be known for honesty not a hypocrite.

you can't change the rules just because you don't like something or disbelieve it.

Ridiculous. Darwin published his his theory in the 1850's. Had he done so in the 1350's your kind would have strapped him to a stake and burned him for heresy.

Since that time there has been much scientific comment on the theory, in general and Darwin in particular. But it would have been pretty damned hard to comment on Darwin's Theory of Evolution before he wrote it.

Likewise, I would not expect to find a reference to your Jesus in Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars since these ended 50 years before his alleged birth. But in contemporary or near contemporary writings it does seem odd that such a major event is ignored.

[FreeThinker]

To contend that something did not occur because it is not written in humanity's ancient texts is foolish to the point of stupidity. What about the times before writing was invented? They didn't happen? Are we to believe that illiterate societies don't exist because they lack a writing system to record events? For that matter, what about dinosaurs? NOT ONE ancient text mentions dinosaurs, not a single one. Are we not to believe in them just because our ancestors were ignorant of them? This line of thinking is pure stupidity and I sincerely hope no one here actually holds such a view. Archaeology is an examination of evidence found in modern times to come to an understanding of the past. Sometimes the findings agree with ancient texts, sometimes not. To prejudice an investigation from the outset either pro or con with regards to ancient sources defeats the whole purpose of an investigation.

[Guest]

To contend that something did not occur because it is not written in humanity's ancient texts is foolish to the point of stupidity

if you read minimalist's posts, it seems he thinks that is so. he calls one author's inclusion a forgery and another's exclusion as proof. what it sounds like to me is that he rejects anything that proves the Bible and accepts anything that infers it is false.

doesn't sound like open-mindedness to me, sounds more like trying to prove what one wants not what is.

Ridiculous. Darwin published his his theory in the 1850's. Had he done so in the 1350's your kind would have strapped him to a stake and burned him for heresy.

again twisting the facts to fit your theory. darwin wasn't the first to hold evolution as an alternative to creation nor does he need to publish for it to be talked about previously. if evolution were true, thenwe would have records in antiquity attesting to that fact. we have none, all ancient societies acknowledge some type of creation.

thus by your thinking, creation is true and evolution never took place.

Now, in the underlined part, it just seems that if there was anything to the Jesus story at all it would have been ideal point to mention the fact

i read the passage and the context doesn't support any mentioning of Christ. it would be out of place tosay something and again, non inclusion does not mean it never happened. there are a myriad of reasons why Philo would have left Jesus out.

Historians and scholars are interested in such anomalies

you again try toplace historians in the position of infallibility forgetting the old saying, " history is inthe eyes of the historian" in other words if you limited your analysis to such thinking as you propose thenyouare not getting the full story nor the truth.

[FreeThinker]

"if evolution were true, thenwe would have records in antiquity attesting to that fact."

This is false. Humanity has not been literate anywhere near long enough to have recorded ongoing evolution of complex species. Evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years at the least. Humans have only been literate for a couple of few thousand.

[Minimalist]

To contend that something did not occur because it is not written in humanity's ancient texts is foolish to the point of stupidity

if you read minimalist's posts, it seems he thinks that is so. he calls one author's inclusion a forgery and another's exclusion as proof. what it sounds like to me is that he rejects anything that proves the Bible and accepts anything that infers it is false.

Not I. I merely point out what scholars who have studied these issues are writing. The fact that these scholars are able to provide evidence to support their positions whereas the bible relies on it's status as "THE BIBLE" for truth merely clinches the argument for me. The bible was written to advance a specific viewpoint and the only evidence it can ever seem to muster to support its conclusions is that it is "THE BIBLE." That does not cut it for me.

doesn't sound like open-mindedness to me, sounds more like trying to prove what one wants not what is.

Ridiculous. Darwin published his his theory in the 1850's. Had he done so in the 1350's your kind would have strapped him to a stake and burned him for heresy.

again twisting the facts to fit your theory. darwin wasn't the first to hold evolution as an alternative to creation nor does he need to publish for it to be talked about previously. if evolution were true, thenwe would have records in antiquity attesting to that fact. we have none, all ancient societies acknowledge some type of creation.

Who? Lamarck?? An idea for which he never provided any actual evidence and which Darwin corrected for him. Nonetheless, as Lamarck was a near contemporary of Darwin's it does show that scientists were beginning to consider the problem once the Enlightenment had freed them from the tyranny of Genesis so they could begin to seek the facts. Had Darwin not made the breakthrough it is pretty clear that science was trending away from magical solutions and beginning to look for facts.

thus by your thinking, creation is true and evolution never took place.

Now, in the underlined part, it just seems that if there was anything to the Jesus story at all it would have been ideal point to mention the fact

i read the passage and the context doesn't support any mentioning of Christ. it would be out of place tosay something and again, non inclusion does not mean it never happened. there are a myriad of reasons why Philo would have left Jesus out.

The most obvious of which being that he had never heard of any such person and that Pilate had not committed any of his atrocities upon him!

Historians and scholars are interested in such anomalies

you again try toplace historians in the position of infallibility forgetting the old saying, " history is inthe eyes of the historian" in other words if you limited your analysis to such thinking as you propose thenyouare not getting the full story nor the truth.

I'll take someone who seeks the truth over some bible-thumper who thinks that he has already found it, any day.

[Guest]

I'll take someone who seeks the truth over some bible-thumper who thinks that he has already found it, any day

there we have the crux of the issue. you want everyone to be like you, lost. you are jealous because people have discovered truth which, in reality, you have rejected.

yes, you want people seeking truth but you never want them to find it. sorry but those of us who have found it aren't giving it up no matter how much you cry and change the facts.

This is false. Humanity has not been literate anywhere near long enough to have recorded ongoing evolution of complex species

sorry you are wrong, tell that to all the ancient civilizations who have recorded their affairs with writing and we have read.

Evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years at the least.

excuses excuses and you think only modern humans are articulate enough to observe experiments and discover fossils? what arrogance and ignorance!!

Humans have only been literate for a couple of few thousand.

according to who? the same scientists that feed you a bunch of crap and who will never prove what they say and you believe them.

The most obvious of which being that he had never heard of any such person and that Pilate had not committed any of his atrocities upon him

wishful thinking

Who? Lamarck

the story goes that Darwin's grandfather held such views first and that Darwin went from there. but there were others before him.

[Guest]

to be honest, we really don't know what philo knew or didn't know:

James C. VanderKam writes: "Although many of Philo's writings have survived, little is konwn about his life. We do not even know when he was born or when he died. The few facts about his life come from occasional hints in his own books and a small number of external references

Emil Schürer writes: "Philo has nowhere given a systematic statement of his system. He has at most developed single points, such as the doctrine of the creation of the world with some degree of connection. As a rule he gives the ideas he was worked out, in conjunction with the text of the Old Testament. This is consistent with the formal principle of his whole theology, viz. the assumption of the absolute authority of the Mosaic law.

since the jews do not, a few ever did, accept Christ as Messiah or as a special man, why would philo, a staunch jew, even give him the time of day?

stop picking minute points to create an issue when none exists, you try and manipulate discussions but it won't work here. try to be honest instead of antagonistic.

[Guest]

sorry forgot to post the link:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

again your pattern of thinking only undermines your side of things. as has been stated before, no ancient civilization acknowledges evolution as a fact, theory or exploration. it was never considered to be a reality only creation has roots in antiquity thus evolution is false.

[Leona Conner]

[quote="archaeologist"]
again your pattern of thinking only undermines your side of things. as has been stated before, no ancient civilization acknowledges evolution as a fact, theory or exploration. it was never considered to be a reality only creation has roots in antiquity thus evolution is false.[/quote]

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Confucius

[Minimalist]

since the jews do not, a few ever did, accept Christ as Messiah or as a special man, why would philo, a staunch jew, even give him the time of day?

Because when Philo was writing in the early first century, such issues would have been of paramount concern to him. Early christians were JEWS to a large degree so Philo would have had a significant interest in him. He certainly would have made reference to unrest caused by Pilate's policies in a letter in which he was complaining about Pilate's policies.

You stretch credulity to beyond the breaking point with your sad dedication to bible-based stupidity.

[Guest]

Because when Philo was writing in the early first century, such issues would have been of paramount concern to him. Early christians were JEWS to a large degree so Philo would have had a significant interest in him.

Kenneth Scott Latourette does not mention Darwin in his epic works on the history of christianity, so by your thinking darwin then did not exist, evolution could not happen. surely, something as controversial as evolution, which affects christianity as it challenges creation, and its 'founder' would be mentioned in a work such as his.

your argument is a waste of time and is just useless. again just because someone is not mentioned in one book (or two or three...) does it mean they did not exist. anyone who uses such thinking is only looking to provoke and not engage in meaningful dialogue.

there was no unrest during Jesus' time. the couple of times the jews became upset concerning Jesus, were not on a national or international level. it was a local reaction that did not warrant a lot of attention.

you have to remember the purpose of Philo's writings, if Jesus was not germane to his point then why would he include Him? if you are writing a book on english, you certainly wouldn't include Billy Graham in a chapter, despite his good works, he is not germane to the topic.

like i said before, when you ask impossible standards for the Bible to meet, make sure you apply the same standard to your own works or your argument means nothing and has no credibility.

[Minimalist]

Kenneth Scott Latourette does not mention Darwin in his epic works on the history of christianity,

Are you locked up in an asylum? I'm starting to question your sanity.