Myth Or History?

[PearlSeeker]

Well, for one thing the OT biblical accounts are about real historical people and places which have been verified by archeologists.
As an example, there are 29 kings mentioned in the Bible from Egypt, Israel, Moab, Damascus, Tyre, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia. Many of these kings are not only mentioned in the Bible, but their names were engraved on monuments discovered by archeologists.
I believe the biblical accounts because they are history, unlike mythological stories of Zeus, etc.

16 Historical Characters From Ancient Mythology Who Actually Existed In Real Life:

https://historycollection.com/16-hi...thology-who-actually-existed-in-real-life/13/

 

[Subduction Zone]

First Epistle of John - Wikipedia
Nothing like biased based wikipedia

Now... let me ask you a question...

Just what does that first sentence say?

And for your further growth:
Did John Write John? The Evidence is Clear.

And so many others that are readily available.

Wikipedia is one of the least biased sources due to the ability of it to be edited by anyone that can support his work. If a biased person edits it it is easily corrected. If one tries to edit and cannot support one's work, that person can lose his or her ability to edit. The conclusion of the Wiki article appears to be that the Apostle John was not the author, but that those works were written by his followers.

Your second source is rather biased.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Paul never fell off a horse, ...maybe even in his entire life.

OK my mistake. Horse was not mentioned. But it doesn't matter. Paul never met Jesus. He was not an eye witness of anything that happened till crucifixion.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You are asking for facts - when you cannot even come up with one yourself????
When did God regret the deluge???

When he said he will never do it again.

 

[PureX]

So a story is a story. It can't serve as an evidence of God revealing Himself to man.

If we have to make up and accept lies about historical fact to make ourselves believe that God is revealing Himself through a story, then no. The story IS NOT evidence of God revealing Himself to mankind. Because I don't see how we can claim God's revelation results in or requires our dishonesty.

On the other hand, if we are claiming that the idealized truth that the mythical story conveys to us is a form of divine revelation that results in our being better humans, then I would say that IS a divine revelation, as it is providing a divine result.

If a myth reveals to us the how and why of loving ourselves and each other, or of forgiving ourselves and each other, or of being as kind and generous toward each other as we can be, then the myth has hugely succeeded in imparting a truly divine revelation. Which has nothing to do with the factual historicity, or lack thereof, of the story.

 

[Kenny]

1 John mentions neither of the prophecies you've mentioned thus far, so indeed we must be. Let us take one at a time: how did you determine the Kings prophecy account is from eyewitnesses? Or that the testimony of said eyewitnesses is plausible?

If we are going back to Kings, I will have to go back to my original statement:

For me, I find my stories are true on various levels.

1. Archaeologically: When we reconstruct what we find archaeologically, we find that again and again it supports the narrative. It has happened so much that even when we haven't found archaeological evidence on one part of history, the preponderance of the veracity of all the other evidences gives credence to the historical stories that have yet to be supported archeologically.

 

[Kenny]

*spits out drink*

I'm sorry, and you think the National Catholic Register is an unbiased source of information about the Bible? Jesus, Kenny.

Why the selective reading?

And so many others that are readily available.

An inquiring mind will search.

You can look at your evidence and stop there, if you so desire.

 

[Kenny]

wrong:

1 John 1
King James Version

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Looks like first person to me.

Looks like does not necessarily mean that it is.
Why can't it be a poetic verse?[/QUOTE]
For you, you can make it a poetic verse. People tend to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Happened in Jesus' time too.

 

[Kenny]

Wikipedia is one of the least biased sources due to the ability of it to be edited by anyone that can support his work. If a biased person edits it it is easily corrected. If one tries to edit and cannot support one's work, that person can lose his or her ability to edit. The conclusion of the Wiki article appears to be that the Apostle John was not the author, but that those works were written by his followers.

Your second source is rather biased.

Yes... I read it.

There are just as many sites that declares that it was John.

The most reliable evidence is found closest to the writing, to wit:

Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies,” ca. a.d. 180), which includes in three passages direct citations of 1 and 2 John. Adv. haer. 1.16.3 is a quotation of 2 John 11 in which Irenaeus adds that the Epistle was written by the Lord’s disciple John, who was also the author of the Fourth Gospel. Adv. haer. 3.16.5 is a quotation of 1 John 2:18-19 and 21-22, and 3.16.8 is quoted from 2 John 7-8 which also appears in 1 John 4:1-2 and 5:1. All of these are part of Irenaeus’ arguments against the Gnostics.

Clement of Alexandria (died ca. a.d. 220) not only quotes 1 John a number of times8 but attributes this to John the Apostle and speaks of it as “the greater epistle,”9 which indicates he knew at least one more of the Johannine letters (2 or 3 John) and considered them to come from the same author. It appears that the other Johannine letter Clement knew was 2 John, since his Hypotyposes apparently contained a commentary on 2 John.10

Today's "scholars" - tend to be more biased eliminating these obvious supporting documentation

 

[Subduction Zone]

For you, you can make it a poetic verse. People tend to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Happened in Jesus' time too.

No, the evidence indicates otherwise. Being an apologist is usually a weak attempt to explain away the evidence.

 

[Kenny]

No, the evidence indicates otherwise. Being an apologist is usually a weak attempt to explain away the evidence.

strawman unsupported opinion

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes... I read it.

There are just as many sites that declares that it was John.

The most reliable evidence is found closest to the writing, to wit:

Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies,” ca. a.d. 180), which includes in three passages direct citations of 1 and 2 John. Adv. haer. 1.16.3 is a quotation of 2 John 11 in which Irenaeus adds that the Epistle was written by the Lord’s disciple John, who was also the author of the Fourth Gospel. Adv. haer. 3.16.5 is a quotation of 1 John 2:18-19 and 21-22, and 3.16.8 is quoted from 2 John 7-8 which also appears in 1 John 4:1-2 and 5:1. All of these are part of Irenaeus’ arguments against the Gnostics.

Clement of Alexandria (died ca. a.d. 220) not only quotes 1 John a number of times8 but attributes this to John the Apostle and speaks of it as “the greater epistle,”9 which indicates he knew at least one more of the Johannine letters (2 or 3 John) and considered them to come from the same author. It appears that the other Johannine letter Clement knew was 2 John, since his Hypotyposes apparently contained a commentary on 2 John.10

Today's "scholars" - tend to be more biased eliminating these obvious supporting documentation

Unfortunately the ones that you rely on tend to be written by apologists. How are your examples valid? They both had clear agendas. Scholars want to know, your sources only want to believe. That tends to give them less credibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

strawman unsupported opinion

Please learn what a strawman is. And do you seriously think that mild claim about apologists needs support?

 

[Kenny]

Unfortunately the ones that you rely on tend to be written by apologists. How are your examples valid? They both had clear agendas. Scholars want to know, your sources only want to believe. That tends to give them less credibility.

I established why and you certainly haven't debunked it. The overused 'apologist' excuse doesn't fly either.

 

[Kenny]

Please learn what a strawman is. And do you seriously think that mild claim about apologists needs support?

Another strawman and still no supportive documentation

Please look up "strawman" for your personal edification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I established why and you certainly haven't debunked it. The overused 'apologist' excuse doesn't fly either.

No, you used poor biased sources. That was all that was needed.

 

[Kenny]

No, you used poor biased sources. That was all that was needed.

This is the Subduction I have grown to know and love.

with still no supportive documentation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another strawman and still no supportive documentation

Please look up "strawman" for your personal edification.

LOL! You still don't know what a strawman is.

You took on a burden of proof with your claims. What strawman did I use?

And I asked you a question that you dodged. Evidence is not needed for a question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the Subduction I have grown to know and love.

with still no supportive documentation.

Wow! You are amazingly blind here. A religious person pushing an agenda is not biased? Since when?


EDIT: And you seem to have forgotten that I did adopt the one unbiased source that you used. Would that be good enough?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Paul is not really a witness. He never met Jesus..

Oh, I think he did .. he was well versed with Jesus and his disciples .. he opposed Jesus as the messiah initially.
That is not to say that Paul knew Jesus well, I would agree.

So far no witnesses.

..witnesses of what?
..that Jesus is God?
I wouldn't expect there to be..

..but if you are claiming that all texts in the NT are some sort of fraudulent writings, that is a "big ask" .. I cannot believe that.
What evidence have you, that they are all fraudulent?