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

[PruePhillip]

There is no doubt that the gospels read as myth. Histories were not written this way.
Histories from those times did:
name sources, discuss skepticism, amazement at incredible events.

The Pharisee known to us as Josephus wrote of the Jewish Roman wars.
He believed, as Jesus did, that Israel was finished as a nation.
His account of the strange events is on public record. He registered his
own skepticism of the some of the events he heard from others, including
the Nkanor gates opening of themselves in the dead of night, the graphic
signs in the clouds, the calling from an empty temple, "We are leaving, we
are leaving." The one event we can check up on - the sign of the comet
as "dagger" in the heart of Jerusalem, turned out to be a close encounter
with Halley's Comet.
Josephus spoke of John the Baptist. But of course, many saw John as
being an Old Testament preacher. What he preached about is treated with
absolute silence by Josephus - along too with the events of Jesus' life.
The silence speaks to me as clearly as if he had mentioned Jesus.

 

[joelr]

Well, Luke wrote the Acts prior to 64 AD.
He is also the author of the Gospel of Luke.

There's this site I have just started reading
it challenges the "Markian myth" that Mark
wrote the first Gospel. Trouble with lots of
academic fashions is that this is all they
often are - fashions of belief.

Interestingly, this site mentions the use of
Hebrew "shorthand" for accounts. I wonder
if John used such shorthand, his own account
seems to have been written as it happened.

Matthew and Luke are copying Mark verbatim.
There is also some material in Matthew and Luke that is verbatim.
So who is copying who?

Scholars thought there might have been a source document they called "Q".
More scholars now believe Luke was just copying Matthew. The argument for Q is not looking good. Mark Goodacre has written good books about this subject.


source:

7:47

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, Luke wrote the Acts prior to 64 AD.
He is also the author of the Gospel of Luke.

There's this site I have just started reading
it challenges the "Markian myth" that Mark
wrote the first Gospel. Trouble with lots of
academic fashions is that this is all they
often are - fashions of belief.

Interestingly, this site mentions the use of
Hebrew "shorthand" for accounts. I wonder
if John used such shorthand, his own account
seems to have been written as it happened.

Luke may have been written by Luke, but of course he was not an eyewitness. And most put the date of the writing of Luke much later than you do. Some as late as parts being written around 110 CE. At any rate Luke admits that his work is not eyewitness testimony and his fictional nativity story is easily refuted.

 

[joelr]

The Pharisee known to us as Josephus wrote of the Jewish Roman wars.
He believed, as Jesus did, that Israel was finished as a nation.
His account of the strange events is on public record. He registered his
own skepticism of the some of the events he heard from others, including
the Nkanor gates opening of themselves in the dead of night, the graphic
signs in the clouds, the calling from an empty temple, "We are leaving, we
are leaving." The one event we can check up on - the sign of the comet
as "dagger" in the heart of Jerusalem, turned out to be a close encounter
with Halley's Comet.
Josephus spoke of John the Baptist. But of course, many saw John as
being an Old Testament preacher. What he preached about is treated with
absolute silence by Josephus - along too with the events of Jesus' life.
The silence speaks to me as clearly as if he had mentioned Jesus.

I'm sure anyone can make anything mean whatever they wish.

Josephus wrote history and it reads as actual history.
Josephus supposedly mentioned Christians, now people think it was added later? He didn't mention Jesus because there wasn't really a Jesus.

"The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else.

Both these additions may have been made by, or at the direction or under the supervision of, Eusebius…or his predecessor at the library, Origen’s successor, Pamphilus. The possibility that Pamphilus was the culprit has been overlooked by everyone in print so far. I mention it to further inform anyone who would ponder the options here. Evidence establishing Eusebius as the author is stylistic (I’ll summarize that shortly), but as Pamphilus taught Eusebius, it’s possible the stylistic features of Eusebius that are found in the Testimonium are actually the stylistic features of Pamphilus that were picked up by his student. As we don’t have any of the writings of Pamphilus, we can’t check to rule him out on stylistic grounds. (And it’s worth noting, every argument that has been attempted to rule Eusebius out, does not apply to Pamphilus; although I’ve never found those arguments very compelling anyway.)

Besides those observations, six things in all have changed since opinions were last declared on this subject:

• Reliance on the Arabic version of the Testimonium must be discarded.
• Attempts to invent a pared-down version of what Josephus wrote are untenable.
• The Testimonium derives from the New Testament.
• The Testimonium doesn’t match Josephan narrative practice or context.
• The Testimonium matches Eusebian more than Josephan style.
• Previous opinions on the James passage were unaware of new findings, and therefore require revision.

 

[joelr]

This is what happens. You have multiple accounts of an historic event.
Each vary, ie two accounts of the Hannibal myth (?)
Critics say the Gospels were written centuries later, even by the Roman
Catholic church (absurd) but if so then why the discrepancies? Why
weren't these ironed out? How could one thief on the cross repent in one
account, and rail upon Jesus in another?
But the whole purpose of the four accounts was to give us four people's
views of the events.

That isn't what critics say? Not at all? These are not multiple accounts of an historic event?
They are re-writes of a myth and are also myth. Each narrative adds more and more miraculous events.
There is zero historical writing.

 

[The Anointed]

All scholarship believes the bible is all myths, so the idea that someone is "incapable of comprehending truths" is delusional.

There is no doubt that the gospels read as myth. Histories were not written this way.
Histories from those times did:
name sources, discuss skepticism, amazement at incredible events.

The markers of myth are very high in all gospels. They emulate prior myths and are aimed at teaching lessons.
No other sources attest gospel events except forged documents and histories that just repeat what the gospels already say.

If you're interested a PhD covers much of this as well as how the Jesus story copies the Moses story as well as takes things from the Elijah-Elisha tale, and much more on how scholars know we are looking at myth - markan sandwiches, ring structure and so on

15:46 he starts with the Moses parallels
at 24:43 he speaks about mythic structure, ring structure etc..

Joeir wrote……..All scholarship believes the bible is all myths, so the idea that someone is "incapable of comprehending truths" is delusional.

The Anointed…….. All Atheist scholarship might believe the bible is all myths, but not Christian or Jewish scholarship, and your chosen champion Richard Carrier the American ATHEIST activist, proves beyond all doubt that the atheist is "incapable of comprehending the truths" as revealed in the scriptures

 

[PruePhillip]

That isn't what critics say? Not at all? These are not multiple accounts of an historic event?
They are re-writes of a myth and are also myth. Each narrative adds more and more miraculous events.
There is zero historical writing.

So you think the narrative of the first kings of Israel
was a myth? Written 400 years later in Babylon?
There's no Jewish nation at that time? No writing?
No united monarchy? No monarchy? No temple?

20 years ago I had people argue this with me.
Not anymore.
You can't say something is a myth without evidence
of the statement. You are selective in your reading.

 

[joelr]

Joeir wrote……..All scholarship believes the bible is all myths, so the idea that someone is "incapable of comprehending truths" is delusional.

The Anointed…….. All Atheist scholarship might believe the bible is all myths, but not Christian or Jewish scholarship, and your chosen champion Richard Carrier the American ATHEIST activist, proves beyond all doubt that the atheist is "incapable of comprehending the truths" as revealed in the scriptures

This argument makes no sense? Not even a little sense.
People understand the message in the gospels, it isn't quantum mechanics?
Everyone understands the parables and the spiritual messages. As do I. When I was a Christian and when I wasn't, the messages didn't change?

What educated people also learn is that there is a way writers wrote history and a very specific way one writes myth. The gospels are 100% myth.
Also comparative writing analysis (and common sense) shows all gospels are re-writes of Mark. They don't teach you this in church.

We also know there is zero evidence of Jesus outside of the gospels.
Comparative religious studies also reveals Jesus is just a Jewish copy of all the other pagan demigods who allow for sin forgiveness and a good spot in the afterlife.

The entire field of biblical historicity recognizes the gospels as myth. The few actual scholars who are fundamentalists I have watched debate. They are in high levels of delusion. I gave them a fair chance to say their thing. All they do is keep going on with "it says in the gospels...".
This phrase "-comprehending the truths" just means believing that obvious fiction is actually true. There is no "secret" knowledge you have.
I was a Christian also, I believed Jesus was our savior. Then I realized the concept was really a bronze age graphic novel. Written as myth, taken from myth, no history or corroboration. Exactly as likely as Hercules.

Isn't about Richard Carrier, it's about information. If you wanted to know about physics would you just make crap up? Would you consult a fiction writer? No, you would ask a physicist. Why would history be any different. You talk like learning facts from an expert is a bad thing. You talk down at sourcing from an actual PhD?
As if ignorance is what we should all strive for?
Hmmmm, kind of like what the church has been saying for 2000 years! Ha Ha!!!!
Look at that, it rubs off on individual members.

Hitchens was right, religion creates evil ideals.

Carrier wasn't even an atheist before he began his religious history studies. He actually was in a religion. So you're not even correct with your lame ad-hom attempts.


"The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[1]

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Gospels']four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[45][46][47][48][49]"[/URL]

 

[joelr]

So you think the narrative of the first kings of Israel
was a myth? Written 400 years later in Babylon?
There's no Jewish nation at that time? No writing?
No united monarchy? No monarchy? No temple?

20 years ago I had people argue this with me.
Not anymore.
You can't say something is a myth without evidence
of the statement. You are selective in your reading.

I don't know what exactly you're talking about here?
I mentioned Kings in another post to show that Luke was just making up a story using Kings. He was re-writing Kings as explained in the video.

As to Kings itself this is also what biblical archeologist Willian Denver says:

"(Wiki)In contemporary scholarship, the united monarchy is debated, due to a lack of archaeological evidence for it. It is generally accepted that a "House of David" existed, but many believe[who?] that David could have only been the king or chieftain of Judah, which was likely small, and that the northern kingdom was a separate development."


There is probably some history mixed in with a bunch of mythology. So they found a possible David. Who cares, what do you think is going to happen, we enter a ancient cave and Moses is going to jump out 40 feet tall setting things on fire and saying "See I'm real!"??




I was responding to this:
"Critics say the Gospels were written centuries later, even by the Roman
Catholic church (absurd)"

No PhD historian says this. You're creating a strawman. It is recognized that Mark was written fairly early. Paul mentioned some scripture, maybe this was Mark? We don't know?
The gospels were named in the mid-2nd century but already written.
But since the Marcionite canon was first these gospels might have been written as a response to the original canon. We can't know because whatever the Marcionites believed it was erased from Earth by the church once it got going.

 

[PruePhillip]

Josephus wrote history and it reads as actual history.
Josephus supposedly mentioned Christians, now people think it was added later? He didn't mention Jesus because there wasn't really a Jesus.

I don't doubt the Josephus reference to Jesus was a later
addition. Josephus gave half a book to Herod's family -
tedious reading, but it was history. So if there was a
famous preacher of righteousness then Josephus would
give us more than a verse or two on the topic. Truth be
told he was a Pharisee, the mortal enemy of Jesus.
Something clearly was going on with John the Baptist
and the rise of the Christians - his silence on this is
telling.
But it's interesting that he believed God was against his
people - and God gave him the chance to document this
so the Jews of future generations would understand what
became of their nation, religion and culture. Josephus
sensed his mission here. And yes, he documented what
appeared to be miracles or exceedingly strange events.

 

[The Anointed]

This argument makes no sense? Not even a little sense.
People understand the message in the gospels, it isn't quantum mechanics?
Everyone understands the parables and the spiritual messages. As do I. When I was a Christian and when I wasn't, the messages didn't change?

What educated people also learn is that there is a way writers wrote history and a very specific way one writes myth. The gospels are 100% myth.
Also comparative writing analysis (and common sense) shows all gospels are re-writes of Mark. They don't teach you this in church.

We also know there is zero evidence of Jesus outside of the gospels.
Comparative religious studies also reveals Jesus is just a Jewish copy of all the other pagan demigods who allow for sin forgiveness and a good spot in the afterlife.

The entire field of biblical historicity recognizes the gospels as myth. The few actual scholars who are fundamentalists I have watched debate. They are in high levels of delusion. I gave them a fair chance to say their thing. All they do is keep going on with "it says in the gospels...".
This phrase "-comprehending the truths" just means believing that obvious fiction is actually true. There is no "secret" knowledge you have.
I was a Christian also, I believed Jesus was our savior. Then I realized the concept was really a bronze age graphic novel. Written as myth, taken from myth, no history or corroboration. Exactly as likely as Hercules.

Isn't about Richard Carrier, it's about information. If you wanted to know about physics would you just make crap up? Would you consult a fiction writer? No, you would ask a physicist. Why would history be any different. You talk like learning facts from an expert is a bad thing. You talk down at sourcing from an actual PhD?
As if ignorance is what we should all strive for?
Hmmmm, kind of like what the church has been saying for 2000 years! Ha Ha!!!!
Look at that, it rubs off on individual members.

Hitchens was right, religion creates evil ideals.

Carrier wasn't even an atheist before he began his religious history studies. He actually was in a religion. So you're not even correct with your lame ad-hom attempts.


"The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure. A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[1]

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[45][46][47][48][49]"

Joier wrote...… What educated people also learn is that there is a way writers wrote history and a very specific way one writes myth. The gospels are 100% myth.
Also comparative writing analysis (and common sense) shows all gospels are re-writes of Mark. They don't teach you this in church.

The Anointed...…. No! The ridiculous statement that all gospels are rewrites of Mark, are only taught by atheists such a Carrier, Hitchens, etc, to those who are ignorant to the truths as revealed in the scriptures and who are deceived into believing such rubbish.

Please reveal where Mark wrote of the wise men from the east who saw the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and arrived in Jerusalem almost two years later to pay homage to the promised messianic King of the Jews?

Please reveal where Mark speaks of the young child Jesus sitting in the temple confounding the priests with his knowledge of the scriptures?

Please reveal where Mark speaks of the raising of Lazarus?

Would you care for me to continue revealing to you how none of the other gospels could possibly be rewrites of Mark?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Joier wrote...… What educated people also learn is that there is a way writers wrote history and a very specific way one writes myth. The gospels are 100% myth.
Also comparative writing analysis (and common sense) shows all gospels are re-writes of Mark. They don't teach you this in church.

The Anointed...…. No! The ridiculous statement that all gospels are rewrites of Mark, are only taught by atheists such a Carrier, Hitchens, etc, to those who are ignorant to the truths as revealed in the scriptures and who are deceived into believing such rubbish.

Please reveal where Mark wrote of the wise men from the east who saw the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and arrived in Jerusalem almost two years later to pay homage to the promised messianic King of the Jews?

Please reveal where Mark speaks of the young child Jesus sitting in the temple confounding the priests with his knowledge of the scriptures?

Please reveal where Mark speaks of the raising of Lazarus?

Would you care for me to continue revealing to you how none of the other gospels could possibly be rewrites of Mark?

That is true. Mark does not have the terrible failure that is the nativity myth.

 

[The Anointed]

That is true. Mark does not have the terrible failure that is the nativity myth.

The only biblical myth is in the minds of the atheists who are ignorant to the truths as revealed in Scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only biblical myth is in the minds of the atheists who are ignorant to the truths as revealed in Scripture.

What makes you think that any of it is "revealed". The Bible has countless flaws in it which means that you just accused your God of being terribly incompetent. That sounds like blasphemy to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only biblical myth is in the minds of the atheists who are ignorant to the truths as revealed in Scripture.

It appears that you do not understand how we know that the nativity stories are a myth. Would you like to start with Luke?

 

[PruePhillip]

Hitchens was right, religion creates evil ideals.

Go back to the year 1900. There was new hope for Europeans -
the end of monarchy and the end of religion. Thus the end of
the cycle of wars involving monarchical power and religious
beliefs.
Fast forward to the year 2000. Of the great human killings how
many came from religious wars? I got a student to do the math.
Conservatively - about 85% of the pogroms, holocaust, killing
fields, gulags, great leap forwards, cultural revolutions, nationalism,
fascism,communism etc were all secular.
I would go further and say a more hard-nosed assessment would
have it at 95% secular.
As Nietzsche and Dovesieki put it, the loss of religion will lead to
either nihilism or totalitarianism. We got both, and it's only just
beginning.

 

[PruePhillip]

What makes you think that any of it is "revealed". The Bible has countless flaws in it which means that you just accused your God of being terribly incompetent. That sounds like blasphemy to me.

So there's this guy writing the book of Isaiah, okay?
He told the Jews that one day they come again "a
second time" from exile and captivity, and take their
nation back with the sword.
A "second time" I could imagine the Jews saying,
"We are a free people and have never been exiled
from our nation, not even once!"
Fast forward a few years and the Jews were taken
off to Babylon. 600 years later they were enslaved
or exiled to the whole world. And in 1897 the Jews
began returning to their homeland, a second time.

So if this wasn't "revealed" to Isaiah, then how
could he have written this?

nb And this is only one of hundreds of such
revelations found in the bible which pertain to events
in the future of that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there's this guy writing the book of Isaiah, okay?
He told the Jews that one day they come again "a
second time" from exile and captivity, and take their
nation back with the sword.
A "second time" I could imagine the Jews saying,
"We are a free people and have never been exiled
from our nation, not even once!"
Fast forward a few years and the Jews were taken
off to Babylon. 600 years later they were enslaved
or exiled to the whole world. And in 1897 the Jews
began returning to their homeland, a second time.

So if this wasn't "revealed" to Isaiah, then how
could he have written this?

nb And this is only one of hundreds of such
revelations found in the bible which pertain to events
in the future of that time.

Excessively vague "prophecies" coming true are not very convincing. By your standards there should be a book of Nostradamus.

Edit: And if you want to even begin to call the Bible correct because of one supposedly fulfilled prophecies, you first have to deal with the Amazing failures of the Bible.

 

[The Anointed]

It appears that you do not understand how we know that the nativity stories are a myth. Would you like to start with Luke?

Go for your life sunshine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go for your life sunshine.

What is that supposed to mean?

If your beliefs are correct what do you have to be afraid of? And if they are false wouldn't you want to know that?