ecco
Veteran Member
Your position is upsetting to everyone who would hope that rational thinking would have overcome silly superstitions.
Perhaps more upsetting is that someone can actually believe:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Perhaps more upsetting is that someone can actually believe:
No I simply make no claim one way or another beyond what facts, events and persons are found factual by the objective evidence accepted by general agreement academic history and science.
Actually the ring was not likely owned nor worn by Pontius Pilate. It was own by a lesser person likely under or related to Pontius Pilate. In general based on previous evidence it was accepted that Pontius Pilate was a real person in history.
Shad
Veteran Member
It is applicable as you are using the finding to validate a wider belief as per correlation between factual elements with those in dispute. The title gives your hidden premise away as does your nail comment. These are addressing general arguments of detracts regarding the accuracy of the Bible. Richard Carrier and Robert Price come to mind. You just failed to include that as something you are arguing against openly.
Nope. My first few posts in this thread were about minor details about the sources from detractors often arguing the bias of the linked article. If your view bugged me I would have addressed it first.
You sound irrational.
ONCE AGAIN! It is slow but always verified what is written
The document from the First Temple period, of which only two lines of ancient Hebrew script have survived, is a dispatch regarding a gift of wine "to Jerusalem." The text itself reads: “[hand]maid of the king, from Na'arata, wineskins, wine, to Jerusalem.” The city of Na'arata, or Naarah is mentioned in Joshua 16:7. The gift of wine was sent either to King Manasseh, King Amon or King Josiah - who reigned during this period.
Prof. Ahituv emphasized that "not only is this papyrus the most ancient external biblical source that mentions Jerusalem in Hebrew script, but also, until now, no papyrus documents from the First Temple period have been found in the Land of Israel except one from Murabat creek." The papyrus also draws attention to high-ranking women in the Judean administration.
Ancient Papyrus Again Proves Israel's Biblical History
The document from the First Temple period, of which only two lines of ancient Hebrew script have survived, is a dispatch regarding a gift of wine "to Jerusalem." The text itself reads: “[hand]maid of the king, from Na'arata, wineskins, wine, to Jerusalem.” The city of Na'arata, or Naarah is mentioned in Joshua 16:7. The gift of wine was sent either to King Manasseh, King Amon or King Josiah - who reigned during this period.
Prof. Ahituv emphasized that "not only is this papyrus the most ancient external biblical source that mentions Jerusalem in Hebrew script, but also, until now, no papyrus documents from the First Temple period have been found in the Land of Israel except one from Murabat creek." The papyrus also draws attention to high-ranking women in the Judean administration.
Ancient Papyrus Again Proves Israel's Biblical History
This not the case. Not everything has been positively verified in the Bible. Genesis and Exodus are not remotely confirmed by the archaeological evidence. In fact the archaeological evidence contradicts the Genesis accounts.
As far as this find it only documents the existence of Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE. It does not 'prove' the history of Israel.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Scholarship recognizes that they are all likely re-writes of Mark
who was writing some excellent fiction based on the OT prophecies and the savior demi-god craze that was sweeping Europe, Asia and Africa.
No, like I said I can show you the debate where Carrier shows that every time John says the particular word used for "brother" in his letters that he is meaning "brothers in the lord".
There is no question about this except from Christians for obvious reasons. They do the same thing with evolution.
The Acts where John doesn't want women in the church and sees an actual Jesus and all that stuff is fiction.
This isn't a fringe theory, it's accepted scholarship.
Should I comb through the gospels of Hercules to make sure quantum mechanics isn't violated too?
I came from a strict Christian background. I was shocked when I realized that archeology admits Moses and the Patriarchs are myth and that there is an entire field of biblical historicity that (for obvious reasons) is ignored by the church.
There is even a Christian Pastor on this panel who isn't very happy about it but even he admits that through historicity we cannot verify anything about the NT.
Carrier has shown the actual sources where the NT myths come from
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier
Not only that but the gospels are written in a highly mythical nature using all sorts of mythical literary devices that historical writings never use.
Carrier is fringe in terms of the mythicist theory but mainstream scholarship 100% recognizes that the supernatural stories of Jesus are not real. This isn't even a question.
When you say "scholarship" what do you mean? Because there are many crank theories about Jesus written by amateur historians and writers.
All of which are also debunked by Ph.D scholars.
A Ph.D first has to do some historical writings, then it takes years for their peers to research it and verify that the finding are correct.
Thomas Thompsons work wasn't accepted in the field for decades. Now his work is considered fact.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Try to summarize the points but you really need to read the article:
"summarized the problem: Paul also never says Jesus had biological brothers. Brothers by birth or blood appear nowhere in Paul’s letters. He only knows of cultic brothers of the Lord: all baptized Christians, he says, are the adopted sons of God just like Jesus, and therefore Jesus is “the firstborn of many brethren” (OHJ, p. 108). In other words, all baptized Christians are for Paul brothers of the Lord, and in fact the only reason Christians are brothers of each other, is that they are all brothers of Jesus. Paul is never aware he needs to distinguish anyone as a brother of Jesus in any different kind of way. And indeed the only two times he uses the full phrase “brother of the Lord” (instead of its periphrasis “brother”), he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians"
"So it’s just as likely, if not more so, that Paul means he met only the apostle Peter and only one other Judean Christian, a certain ‘brother James’. By calling him a brother of the Lord instead of an apostle, Paul is thus distinguishing this James from any apostles of the same name—just as we saw he used ‘brothers of the Lord’ to distinguish regular Christians from apostles in 1 Cor. 9.5. Indeed, this would explain his rare use of the complete phrase in only those two places: he otherwise uses the truncated ‘brother’ of his fellow Christians; yet every time he specifically distinguishes apostles from non-apostolic Christians he uses the full title for a member of the Christian congregation, ‘brother of the Lord’. This would be especially necessary to distinguish in such contexts ‘brothers of the apostles’ (which would include kin who were not believers) from ‘brothers of the Lord’, which also explains why he doesn’t truncate the phrase in precisely those two places."
Question :
What about Philippians 1:12-14: “Now I would have you know, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the progress of the gospel; so that my bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest; and that most of the brethren in the Lord, being confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.”
This would appear to be a third use of the full ‘brothers of the Lord’ phrase.
Carrier :
That’s a mistranslation. Paul actually wrote “confidence in the Lord” not “brothers in the Lord.” As most translations now agree. Compare the translations here. See OHJ, pp. 584-85 n. 94.
Ehrman concedes that “brother” can be meant non-literally, a “spiritual brother” as Ehrman describes it, meaning “someone who is connected by common bonds of affection or perspective to another.” That actually isn’t what any peer reviewed mythicist argument claims. Christians were not brothers because they were “connected by common bonds of affection or perspective.” They were brothers because they were at baptism the adopted sons of God. Literally. Paul explicitly says that. And this made them all brothers of the Lord Jesus. Again, Paul explicitly says that. And I reiterated this point in my assessment of Ehrman’s Argument 14. It was disingenuous of Ehrman to only respond to the non-peer reviewed arguments for mythicism and ignore the peer reviewed arguments. Ask yourself, why would he do that?
Ehrman also says this can’t be the meaning in Galatians 1:18-19 because there the James thus called a brother of the Lord is being differentiated from Cephas (Peter) the Apostle. As I wrote in my summary, that’s indeed true: Paul is making a distinction; he uses the full term for a Christian (“Brothers of the Lord”) every time he needs to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic Christians. The James in Galatians 1 is not an Apostle. He is just a rank-and-file Christian. Merely a Brother of the Lord, not an Apostolic Brother of the Lord. The only Apostle he met at that time, he says, was Cephas (Peter), the first Apostle (according to 1 Corinthians 15:5 in light of 1 Corinthians 9:1). Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas.
Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord • Richard Carrier
full article is a response to Bart Ehrman
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
You guys have cherry-picked to the point where you don't have a
single cherry left. In order words, be specific like I was specific.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You weren't though. Please, you chose only those verse that seemed to support your claims, meanwhile ignoring the rather ridiculous claims such as plants appearing before the Sun.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Archeology admits nothing of the kind. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
All archeology can say is that no evidence for Moses has been found.
Remember, "some" archeologists said that King David was a myth because the bible
was written in Babylonian times. Not only have we found evidence of the house of David,
but saying the bible was written in Babylonian times is itself a myth.
joelr
Well-Known Member
The Ph.D who is considered to have demonstrated that Moses and the Patriarchs are indeed myth is this man:
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T354T7YX0FCP745CZKST
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham
"he concludes that these stories are neither historical nor were they intended to be historical. Instead, these narratives are written as expressions of Israel's relationship to God."
There of course must be historical places and events that might be written into the OT that really happened at some point.
It speaks more to fundamentalism. If you want to say the OT is literally true then archeology doesn't support that. Denver seems to be saying they are myths written to express ideas about who or what god is.
It doesn't disprove god but it seems to disprove a fundamentalist reading of the OT.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
God created the heavens.
That's everything out there.
I mentions the sun again, I think several times.
But biblical earth history begins with a dark oceanic world.
It then says "let there be light" - so what was it, a giant torch?
No, it's the sun shining breaking through the cloud deck (think
Venus and Titan cloud decks)
joelr
Well-Known Member
All creation myths got some things right and some things wrong.
Each creation myth was also likely passed down from other myths. Their are ancient Sumerian, Babylonian and African myths that probably contained fragments of Genesis.
In fact Joseph Campbell wrote of an African myth that was basically the Garden of Eden myth with the snake and all that. Dating way back before the OT.
The Hindu managed to figure out the universe was billions of years old. Their creation myth is very impressive.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And there is no reason think that the Early Earth was an oceanic world. It got the time of the Sun being created amazingly wrong. Plants did not even appear until long after life was here.
Claiming that it was the "Sun breaking through the clouds" is a reinterpretation that is not supported by anything except for an artificial need for the Bible to be "right".
joelr
Well-Known Member
OMG!?
Holy crud?!
You picked a historical person from the bible then ALL deities from other cultures and thought it was a good point????
How about the bible talks about - "enter name of any fictional god, angel, demi-god, miracle, talking snake, magic blood".
Wow, confirmation bias on overdrive!
As if the Greeks or Romans didn't talk about real people also???
joelr
Well-Known Member
According to NASA???
NASA is a space organization?
According to science the Earth formed from dust and rogue rocks and once heavy enough the core began melting.
Over BILLIONS OF YEARS water accumulated. Possibly from asteroids.
There was NEVER an ocean without continents??? The Earth was NEVER completely covered in water??? The water would still be here.
There was rocks and over billions of years ponds became lakes which became oceans.
That history is completely non-scientific as if written by a man from 4000 years ago.
Wow what a coincidence? God's sci-knowledge is bronze-age human level. Wow, imagine that!
I can't believe you're posting this as if it's some sort of supernatural deity proof?
joelr
Well-Known Member
That's the opposite of what's been found.
Archeologists look at the knowledge and stories of ancient writers for clues about when they could have been written.
Moses and the Patriarchs have been completely dismantled as historical people. That isn't even a question in the real world. Maybe in church people still pretend like they were possible real?
It's not a thing anymore.
"Looking to the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, he concludes that these stories are neither historical nor were they intended to be historical. Instead, these narratives are written as expressions of Israel's relationship to God."
"This book is now a classic and belongs in the library of all serious biblical scholars. In the context of the recent battles in biblical archaeology it is worth a new reading, especially by those of the new generation, which only knows the work by reputation and may be surprised by how cautious and reserved it now seems. It is a work that changed the course of historical research on the subject of ancient Israel, and for this reason its author deserves a special place of honor in the history of the discipline of biblical studies."—John Van Seeters, Review of Biblical Literature, March 2003. (John Van Seeters)
Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against Thompson, but it is his other books Dever has the most beef against. This one stands stellar and strong. I was absolutely bowled over by it. The second time through is even more astonishing.
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yeah I agree. Have you ever read:
Joseph Campbell: The Power of Myth?
that helped me to see the good side of myth.
The Matrix: Revolutions, Explained
for example the Matrix is obviously modern mythology. But reading about the myths that are hiding beneath it's surface was very illuminating to me. See if you enjoy it?
The bible contains things called Markan sandwiches, ring structure and other mythic storytelling devices - like the story of a 12 year old girl bleeding for weeks wrapped around the story of an old woman bleeding and what it represents is the new Israel/old Israel. But when the stories are relevant to the times it can be educational. Some of those Hindu myths in Matrix are still relevant.
Of course the resurrection myth is also in Matrix 1, Neo is Jesus. He dies for the humans and is resurrected by love.
He is humanities savior.
I can't get rid of this damn font sorry.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Well because they like to believe that the OT is literal.
If one thing turns out to be a myth then the whole thing could be a myth.
Not only for religious reasons. Imagine if you were Scandanavian or one of those Viking countries and always thought your ancestors were ****** Vikings with war ships and big swords and hammers and smashing invaders.
Then archeologists found a cave with writings from that time and it turned out everyone was a farmer and no one had weapons and when invaders came they just gave them free stuff and it was just too cold for people to stay and use your stuff.
Bummer.