who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[sojourner]

In that case, your sacred Wikipedia and your sacred William Denver claim that Abraham was real:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.[9]
So the people were real, only the details are in doubt (according to Denver).

That wasn't what was posted earlier about what Wikipedia had to say about Abraham.

Subjectively, I know that God exists.
I may not have access to all of the details, but I know the miracles that I have seen and I know the spiritual being that I have encountered.
Knowing that both God and miracles are real ... I cannot help but view the claims from a hopelessly different perspective than a non-theist.

I cannot prove what I know, nor can I reasonably expect you to believe what I know "because I say so", but what I know to be true matters to me.

Some claim of the last 50 years rejecting everything that has been believed for the previous two millennia (or more) needs more than someone who doesn't believe in God claiming that "he sees no evidence" to convince me to reject the body of personal experience that half a century of life have provided to me.
That God exists today makes it far more reasonable to believe that he existed in the distant past.
That God communicates with people today makes it far more reasonable that he communicated with people in the distant past.

Your mileage will undoubtedly vary.
For that you have my sympathy.

I have no idea what you're talking about or what this has to do with the topic. FWIW, I think I mostly agree with Dever on the point you posted.

 

[outhouse]

From Denver on Wikipedia:

You cant even spell the guys name right, how can you debate with any credibility if you cannot even understand how to read a guys name correctly?

It is Dever.

 

[outhouse]

your sacred Wikipedia and your sacred William Denver claim that Abraham was real:

No he did not, that is dishonest. Do you any comprehensive skills what so ever?

but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.[9]

Means the mythology written never happened in real life. Possible memory does not mean anything, and it does not give the legends any historicity what so ever.


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

NOVA | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible


The faith of Abraham

According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?

One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.


The origins of Israel

What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?


The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

 

[outhouse]

I came to discuss "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?"

Ok let me sum this up for you. Paul founded nothing. He joined a movement in progress in the Diaspora after hunting Hellenistic members down for an unknown amount of time.

Jesus originally founded nothing as he took over Johns movement when John died.

Jesus did however generate the martyrdom by his perceived selfless action in the temple that resulted in his crucifixion. His martyrdom had an effect on Hellenistic Proselytes who ended up writing the versions of Jesus we have today.

BUT he never would have approved of the Hellenistic movement that took place, as he did not teach to these kinds of people. He taught strictly in Aramaic poor Jewish villages by our best accounts.

 

[outhouse]

Has nothing to do with YEC.

Actually it does, as most people that follow a flood are usually YEC.

So you do believe in a global flood?

 

[Kenny]

Actually it does, as most people that follow a flood are usually YEC.

So you do believe in a global flood?

No it doesn't...

Please go find ANOTHER cup of coffee.

I don't do

1) A moving goal post
2) Trolling
3) A lack of intelligent debate
4) non-sequitur
5) A red herring fallacy

 

[outhouse]

No it doesn't...

OK so YEC your up in the air about. Fine.

So you do believe in a flood then?

 

[Kenny]

OK so YEC your up in the air about. Fine.

So you do believe in a flood then?

You haven't answered my question,

Is it that you are afraid the Bible is true, is it that you had a bad experience with Christianity or is it both?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Taking the Abraham story at face value (not the details, just the basic 'some guy left Mesopotamia and became a nomad') ... what sort of evidence might we find?
Up until King David's time (taking your hundred year give or take), the most important public building was reported to be a tent.
I believe that there are coins and inscriptions of King David ... I have no idea on the dates (or how one dates a coin or stone).

As the father of supposedly the most influential faith set in the world, wouldn't you expect to find something about Abraham? A relief? Some inscriptions? Some depictions? A piece of tile? Something?

And not to jump ship to another topic, but the supposed, and much vaulted Kingdom of David doesn't match the archaeological record either. And coing from the Kingdom of David? I'd like to see them. Think about this; are there any undisputed references to David at all? Is there any true reference that he was ever in Jerusalem?

If you say "But the Bible says otherwise and the Bible can name a few places that actually existed - therefore it must be right about everything...." ; surely you see the problem.

I don't suggest you only read articles and sites strictly devoted archaeology to answer that question. You can even dig through Jewish-specific history and archaeology sites, and you'll find the same things... Conclusions aren't what they are because of a bias against it. Conclusions are what they are because there is nothing substantial to back it up.

Then cite the peer-reviewed scholastic data rather than just posting a link to Wikipedia.
I was explaining why I did not view Wikipedia as sufficiently authoritative to support or refute claims of the caliber being discussed here.

I did not set the bar.
I came to discuss "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?" and walked into a flogging (between others) on the existence of Israelites before 1200.
For discussing a general fact related to "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?", Wikipedia is a perfectly valid reference.
For providing analysis on the earliest documentary evidence of the existence and evolution of a people 3000 to 4000 years ago, Wikipedia is inadequate.

While Wikipedia might be much maligned, are you going to insist that everything in this link is crap?
Hittites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I mentioned to KenS, you don't have to take anything at face value. There are 43 references in that particular article, each of which lead you to 43 individual works. You can, study and read the references contained with those 43 different works to continue to build upon your knowledge of almost any topic. That's the beauty of academia in general, and, at a more common level, it's the beauty of Wikipedia. Is one of the references on the Hittite page in glaring error? Is there something that you know about the history of the Hittites that isn't mentioned or that's represented incorrectly? If so, then submit a correction and cite it.

If the earliest known evidence of

 

[sojourner]

As the father of supposedly the most influential faith set in the world, wouldn't you expect to find something about Abraham? A relief? Some inscriptions? Some depictions? A piece of tile? Something?

Given that the culture was mostly illiterate, and, given the fact that the stories weren't actually written down until about 1400 years after the alleged fact, and given the culture's angst about representations, it's not at all surprising that nothing exists about Abraham. But that doesn't mean I believe Abraham was a real person.

 

[outhouse]

And coing from the Kingdom of David?

No such thing exist. Biased people are using Egyptian scarabs as evidence. Its really pathetic and there is no tie at all.

 

[outhouse]

There is great 2 hour special on TV that has been airing. channel 6 here. kvie.

The bibles buried secrets.

Worth watching for anyone at any level. I knew 90% of the archeologist filmed and knew where they were going before they said a word. Its funny, Im telling my kid all excited hey that's Dever! there's Redford! hey there is the liar Mazar. And I still picked up some new information.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Given that the culture was mostly illiterate, and, given the fact that the stories weren't actually written down until about 1400 years after the alleged fact, and given the culture's angst about representations, it's not at all surprising that nothing exists about Abraham. But that doesn't mean I believe Abraham was a real person.

I wouldn't even require it to be something even close to the supposed contemporary timeline. I'm simply stating that outside of it's source material, there is absolutely nothing - and, as I've mentioned several times before it's a source material that, while it may name a few accurate places, has a terribly spotty track record and contains several blatant fabrications of historical events.

I don't want a piece of cloth from the man's robe, just something earlier than a piece of text written at least 1000 years after the first known reference to these people. Given the great and mighty culture/kingdom that they supposedly had, wouldn't that be a rather fair expectation?

No such thing exist.

That's precisely my point. The evidence to make the claim simply isn't there.

We can't just say "Well, we know from the Bible that...." Because what the Bible says happened is not evidenced to have happened. And everything that happens, whether you believe in the supernatural or not, leaves traces of physical, natural, tangible evidence. Without the evidence, then any claims to an event happening are little more than fables; hence it's called mythology.


EDIT:
I watched a fun little documentary last night about Sir Arthur Evans and his discoveries on the Isle of Crete in the late 19th century. He and his work are another perfect example of what I'm referring to.

He essentially follows the trail of some old stone seals, combines that with the mythology of Theseus and the Minotaur, and stumbles upon one of the greatest discoveries of the modern era. In his zeal and bias, however, he interprets most of his findings incorrectly, attributing them to the mythology that he was so fond of. While he did break ground and make some incredible advancements to knowledge, it took later studies of his site to properly retell the history of the place. What he thought were actual representations of the Minotaur turned out to be remnants of a people who worshiped the bull. What he discovered was not the fable, but the reality. He found what helped scholars piece together the evolution of pieces of religion and language that lead up to Hellenism. He found the origin of a belief system. He found how a previous culture's deity influenced the succeeding culture's thoughts on the supernatural...

 

[outhouse]

I don't want a piece of cloth from the man's robe, just something earlier than a piece of text written at least 1000 years after the first known reference to these people

People have been looking for evidence in all the wrong places


There is plenty of evidence for Abraham. And every last bit of it shows he was a literary creation during the Babylonian exile. While Israelites were located there, just down river they place his heritage there.

The whole OT is about freedom, and the search for it. Exodus did it, Abaraham did it, Joshua fought for it, ect ect ect all literary themes in the theology that was more important then trying to identify with the Canaanite heritage they left behind which by the exile was almost forgotten.

 

[godnotgod]

There is great 2 hour special on TV that has been airing. channel 6 here. kvie.

The bibles buried secrets.

Worth watching for anyone at any level. I knew 90% of the archeologist filmed and knew where they were going before they said a word. Its funny, Im telling my kid all excited hey that's Dever! there's Redford! hey there is the liar Mazar. And I still picked up some new information.

Like the recently unearthed 1st Century city of Nazareth ruins? They say it's being kept under wraps, so no one actually knows for sure. Shhhhhh!

Flash! Just this morning, Jesus's sandals and carpentry tools have been found just as he left them in his workshop! Believe it!

 

[outhouse]

Is it that you are afraid the Bible is true, is it that you had a bad experience with Christianity or is it both?

No bad experience with religion. I have more passion for the religion then you do. I see the beauty you may never see.

Science and history shows the many errors the dogmatic theist blindly follow.

Claiming the bible is true, is severely ignorant of all aspects of the bible as it shows you know nothing at all of its nature or the objective of the different authors who compiled and edited and wrote the collections.

The bible is factually not historically true. YET It is theologically 100% true for many. It is factually not scientifically accurate YET its spiritual guidance through lessons and morals are 100% true for many.

No sir, I know the bible is true, but context is key here. Context you are forced to ignore due to your bias and willful ignorance.


The reason you wont truthfully answer if you believe in the flood, is because you know your belief would be boxed in a corner. You have played that game and it didn't work out so well in the past, so you now choose debates that don't make you like as if you have no credibility what so ever.

Your belief in the flood is fine, we don't want to change that. But when you decide to try and attack science and history with positions of certainty on biblical inerrancy, your going to get called on it.

Did you get your masters in theology from AIG?

 

[sojourner]

I wouldn't even require it to be something even close to the supposed contemporary timeline. I'm simply stating that outside of it's source material, there is absolutely nothing - and, as I've mentioned several times before it's a source material that, while it may name a few accurate places, has a terribly spotty track record and contains several blatant fabrications of historical events.

I don't want a piece of cloth from the man's robe, just something earlier than a piece of text written at least 1000 years after the first known reference to these people. Given the great and mighty culture/kingdom that they supposedly had, wouldn't that be a rather fair expectation?

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly! I'm just saying, "Don't expect a written source."

 

[Kenny]

Given that the culture was mostly illiterate, and, given the fact that the stories weren't actually written down until about 1400 years after the alleged fact, and given the culture's angst about representations, it's not at all surprising that nothing exists about Abraham. But that doesn't mean I believe Abraham was a real person.

About what time would that be?

 

[Kenny]

No bad experience with religion. I have more passion for the religion then you do. I see the beauty you may never see.

Science and history shows the many errors the dogmatic theist blindly follow.

Claiming the bible is true, is severely ignorant of all aspects of the bible as it shows you know nothing at all of its nature or the objective of the different authors who compiled and edited and wrote the collections.

The bible is factually not historically true. YET It is theologically 100% true for many. It is factually not scientifically accurate YET its spiritual guidance through lessons and morals are 100% true for many.

No sir, I know the bible is true, but context is key here. Context you are forced to ignore due to your bias and willful ignorance.


The reason you wont truthfully answer if you believe in the flood, is because you know your belief would be boxed in a corner. You have played that game and it didn't work out so well in the past, so you now choose debates that don't make you like as if you have no credibility what so ever.

Your belief in the flood is fine, we don't want to change that. But when you decide to try and attack science and history with positions of certainty on biblical inerrancy, your going to get called on it.

Did you get your masters in theology from AIG?

I doubt your story. Doesn't match your disposition.

 

[sojourner]

About what time would that be?

Most scholars guess it at about 2000 b.c.e. The texts weren't written down until about 650 b.c.e.