ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[Subduction Zone]

My point is simply, the more we find archaeology that supports the Bible, the more the Bible become reliable. Obviously one alone doesn't establish a truth but it continues to be verified.

Um, no. You are ignoring both Genesis and Exodus. Books that should have archaeological support and both that have none. Parts of the Bible are reliable. You are cherry picking only those parts that support your beliefs and ignoring those that refute it. Cherry picking makes your claims invalid in this matter.

 

[Kenny]

The Bible isn’t reliable. It contained too many questionable myths and symbolisms to be reliable.

Symbols, metaphors, parables, allegories, etc, are too open to different interpretations, which make the Bible contradict itself, or provide faulty knowledges.

Archaeology is one of the areas, where it repeatedly showed that the Bible is not reliable.

I may not agree with your position but I certainly respect your position.

 

[Kenny]

Um, no. You are ignoring both Genesis and Exodus. Books that should have archaeological support and both that have none. Parts of the Bible are reliable. You are cherry picking only those parts that support your beliefs and ignoring those that refute it. Cherry picking makes your claims invalid in this matter.

not really

 

[Subduction Zone]

not really

No, really. If you want to be taken seriously you have to own up to the obvious flaws in the Bible. You only paint yourself as a evidence denying zealot if you do not do so. If you appeal to evidence you have to follow it.

 

[Kenny]

Nothing has ever been found that supports Bible stories. Pilate's portrayal in the gospels is a joke, and so is the title of this thread.

I find it to be quite historical

 

[Kenny]

No, really. If you want to be taken seriously you have to own up to the obvious flaws in the Bible. You only paint yourself as a evidence denying zealot if you do not do so. If you appeal to evidence you have to follow it.

I love you! You do bring a smile to my face....Seriously!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love you! You do bring a smile to my face....Seriously!

How ironic that you can't properly follow your own book of myths.

Parts of the Bible are clearly false. You do not seem to realize that evidence can cut both ways. That lack of understanding on your part makes your supposed evidence based arguments worthless.

How about we take a break from the Bible and discuss the nature of evidence and logic? It will help keep you from making foolish mistakes.

 

[Kenny]

How ironic that you can't properly follow your own book of myths.

Parts of the Bible are clearly false. You do not seem to realize that evidence can cut both ways. That lack of understanding on your part makes your supposed evidence based arguments worthless.

How about we take a break from the Bible and discuss the nature of evidence and logic? It will help keep you from making foolish mistakes.

I think you really help me and my position.

Thank you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you really help me and my position.

Thank you!

It is the other way around. You cherry pick. That is a huge flaw. It only shows an inability to debate rationally and honestly.

Tell me, if someone cannot debate honestly don't you think that hurts their case? You do more to refute the Bible using the arguments that you use than I do when I point out its flaws. If it was a reliable book there would be no need for improper debating techniques.

A long time ago when I was a Christian I saw Duane Gish in a debate. He would spew out lies and inaccuraticies so quickly that it was impossible to deal with them all. This dishonest technique became known as the "Gish Gallop". As a Christian if bothered me immensely since if someone had to lie to defend God was that God worth defending?

Tell my, why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence? What are you afraid to learn how to reason logically? Your fears tell us that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Kenny]

LOL... My name isn't Duane Gish.

 

[PruePhillip]

No one is denying Newton’s contributions to physics and mathematics, and he was indeed a pioneer, but this whole “greatest scientist of all time” thing is nothing more than your ego talking.

Einstein, Planck, Hubble, and many other of the early 20th century have contributed to knowledge of science, in their respective fields.

And we know more today than those of the 1920s, and 50 years from now, they would know more than this generation. It is called progress, PruePhillip.

As much as Newton was a giant in his time, he didn’t know everything. Einstein didn’t know everything. No scientists know it all.

Science isn’t about knowing everything.

Science is about being able test knowledge - testing the hypotheses and theories - to find out which of them are probable and which are improbable, through testable evidences.

Any current accepted theories can be questioned or challenged, and any theory can be replaced, and there are no exception. But these challenges must undergo rigorous testing too.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of science.

Newton is considered the greatest scientist.
That doesn't mean he know everything - no
one knows everything. I didn't say that.
And no-one gets it 100% correct, we just
get closer to the truth of things.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nothing has ever been found that supports Bible stories. Pilate's portrayal in the gospels is a joke, and so is the title of this thread.

Well the bible says there was a Roman governor called Pilate. It's an unusual
name but yes, history shows, there really was a Pilate. So that supports the
bible story.
And no-one believed there was a town called Nazareth, but eventually it was
found. So yes, history proved the town existed.
And people didn't believe there was a King David. But now we have the evidence
there was a house of David.
And people didn't believe there was a racial group called Jews, but yes, now DNA
shows the Jews are a distinct people.
And people said in David's day there was no nation with its own literature and
government. But yes, we have found there was in fact a nation at 1000 BC.

 

[lukethethird]

I find it to be quite historical

No doubt.

Well the bible says there was a Roman governor called Pilate. It's an unusual
name but yes, history shows, there really was a Pilate. So that supports the
bible story.
And no-one believed there was a town called Nazareth, but eventually it was
found. So yes, history proved the town existed.
And people didn't believe there was a King David. But now we have the evidence
there was a house of David.
And people didn't believe there was a racial group called Jews, but yes, now DNA
shows the Jews are a distinct people.
And people said in David's day there was no nation with its own literature and
government. But yes, we have found there was in fact a nation at 1000 BC.

So you believe.

 

[tas8831]

Well, depending upon your age, the fact may have been established when you began hearing things. The pilate stone was found in the early 60ś. As I stated, before that, many felt Pilate was fantasy, since no record could be found of him in any lists of prefects, letters, citations, etc.

"Oh, but it was in dispute once. In fact, Christians were told it was a total made up name, since no record of a prefect of that name could be found in Roman documentation of the time. This has happened a number of times, he Bible has been said to be in error, and archaeology or some other discipline proves it true."

 

[gnostic]

I may not agree with your position but I certainly respect your position.

Look, KenS.

There are areas where we can verify what the Bible say to be historical, but they are a lot fewer than what Christians believe to be true.

For instance, PruePhillip keep bringing up Pontius Pilate to be governor of Judaea.

I agreed that he exist. I also agreed that Jesus existed.

Pilate existed historically, because he found mentioned in the few independent literary sources (texts) from independent historians.

When I say “independent”, I mean independent from the narratives of the gospels.

These historians are Josephus in The Jewish Wars (75 CE) and in Antiquities of the Jews (94 CE), Philo of Alexandria in Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius), and Tacitus in Annals.

While each of them confirmed that Pilate was governor of Judaea (Tacitus wrongly as “procurator”), at the time of emperor Tiberius and othat of Jesus, none of them mention anything about Pilate being involved in Jesus’ trial and execution that are found in the gospel narratives.

Tacitus say that Pilate was oppressing Christians, but no mention of Jesus being connected to these Christians.

Philo and Josephus both mentioned Pilate nearly caused the insurrection among the Jews at Jerusalem’s temple, when he allowed brought pagan imageries. None of this two sources connect Pilate to Jesus.

The only time Jesus is mentioned by name, in Josephus’ AotJ, is when Josephus talk about James as a Christian leader, with “James, brother of Jesus”. There are not much to go by, because it concern nothing about Jesus’ life, nothing about his teachings and miracles, nothing about his execution and miraculous resurrection. So I agreed with Subduction Zone that’s not strong evidences that confirmed what the gospels say about Jesus; very weak and tenuous evidence for Jesus, not very useful.

So other than the gospels and some non-canonical texts of Christians (eg the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, the gospel of Nicodemus), the independent sources about Pilate don’t connect Pilate to Jesus’ trial and execution.

There is a stone with Latin inscriptions in which Pilate dedicated the Roman temple to Tiberius, in Caesarea, Judaea, known as the Pilate Stone. That’s the only definitive archaeological evidence we currently have of, Pilate being governor (prefect) of Judaea, but again, the inscriptions have nothing to do with Jesus or with his arrest and crucifixion.

The bronze ring discovered is not definitive evidence, because a person who is a of equestrian order and governor wouldn’t have wore cheap ring like this. So it must have been ring of a person in Pilate’s service, an official, servant or auxiliary soldier.

All the historical records and archaeological evidences we have, only points to Pilate being governor at that time, but none of them connect Pilate to Jesus. It only prove Pilate being a real Roman prefect, not Pilate being around in Jesus’ sentencing and execution, as the gospels claimed.

My point is that proving Pilate’s existence as a prefect, doesn’t prove much about anything regarding to Jesus in the gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... My name isn't Duane Gish.

Never said that it was. The Gish Gallop is not the only improper debating technique. I was merely relating how the dishonesty of a Christian made me start to question the belief.

 

[Kenny]

Look, KenS.

There are areas where we can verify what the Bible say to be historical, but they are a lot fewer than what Christians believe to be true.

For instance, PruePhillip keep bringing up Pontius Pilate to be governor of Judaea.

I agreed that he exist. I also agreed that Jesus existed.

Pilate existed historically, because he found mentioned in the few independent literary sources (texts) from independent historians.

When I say “independent”, I mean independent from the narratives of the gospels.

These historians are Josephus in The Jewish Wars (75 CE) and in Antiquities of the Jews (94 CE), Philo of Alexandria in Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius), and Tacitus in Annals.

While each of them confirmed that Pilate was governor of Judaea (Tacitus wrongly as “procurator”), at the time of emperor Tiberius and othat of Jesus, none of them mention anything about Pilate being involved in Jesus’ trial and execution that are found in the gospel narratives.

Tacitus say that Pilate was oppressing Christians, but no mention of Jesus being connected to these Christians.

Philo and Josephus both mentioned Pilate nearly caused the insurrection among the Jews at Jerusalem’s temple, when he allowed brought pagan imageries. None of this two sources connect Pilate to Jesus.

The only time Jesus is mentioned by name, in Josephus’ AotJ, is when Josephus talk about James as a Christian leader, with “James, brother of Jesus”. There are not much to go by, because it concern nothing about Jesus’ life, nothing about his teachings and miracles, nothing about his execution and miraculous resurrection. So I agreed with Subduction Zone that’s not strong evidences that confirmed what the gospels say about Jesus; very weak and tenuous evidence for Jesus, not very useful.

So other than the gospels and some non-canonical texts of Christians (eg the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, the gospel of Nicodemus), the independent sources about Pilate don’t connect Pilate to Jesus’ trial and execution.

There is a stone with Latin inscriptions in which Pilate dedicated the Roman temple to Tiberius, in Caesarea, Judaea, known as the Pilate Stone. That’s the only definitive archaeological evidence we currently have of, Pilate being governor (prefect) of Judaea, but again, the inscriptions have nothing to do with Jesus or with his arrest and crucifixion.

The bronze ring discovered is not definitive evidence, because a person who is a of equestrian order and governor wouldn’t have wore cheap ring like this. So it must have been ring of a person in Pilate’s service, an official, servant or auxiliary soldier.

All the historical records and archaeological evidences we have, only points to Pilate being governor at that time, but none of them connect Pilate to Jesus. It only prove Pilate being a real Roman prefect, not Pilate being around in Jesus’ sentencing and execution, as the gospels claimed.

My point is that proving Pilate’s existence as a prefect, doesn’t prove much about anything regarding to Jesus in the gospels.

will address

 

[Audie]

Oh SHMOGIE!!! I NOTICE YOU GOT REAL SILENT AFTRR BEING
BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER HERE, RE YOUR FALSE CLAIM

IT IS RIGHT THERE, BELOW, IN BOLD


If there was a "Pilate" fine. It concerns me not.

Here is what does-

Christians were told it was a total made up name, since no record of a prefect of that name could be found in Roman documentation of the time. This has happened a number of times, he Bible has been said to be in error, and archaeology or some other discipline proves it true.

The part in bold is what I called into question.
Is there a record of this?

What is far more in question is, are we talking
about one skeptic telling two Christians this?

Is this the great broad river of academic thought
here, all them big professors saying
"total made up name?

I personally doubt it, as no researcher of any
worth would do so. If one does not have any
records, then you say there are no records,
you dont jump to a conclusion and say it is false.

AND most important in this-

JUST BECAUSE some facts stated in the
Bible are-gasp-TRUE, does not mean squat
with regard to the authenticity of the
supernatural stuff.

Now, I know one of our posters holds that
because he has had "experiences" the
supernatural stuff is properly evidenced.
Even though there is not the faintest
trace of material evidence, like there is
for "Pilate", or, "Egypt".

It is a silly argument, and I wont indulge him
in it

 

[Audie]

Never said that it was. The Gish Gallop is not the only improper debating technique. I was merely relating how the dishonesty of a Christian made me start to question the belief.

Did you ever find a honest one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you ever find a honest one?

I have found some that tried to be honest for at least a short period of time. Sadly when it was obvious to even themselves that they were wrong cognitive dissonance struck and then ran away.