13 Oct 08
Originally posted by PalynkaThere will come a time when each human being will have that answer. One school of thought is that he was a piece of fiction. Another faction believes he was merely a person of history....now dead. I belong to a third group which is mocked and reviled on these forums constantly. But the truth will come out, won't it?
The more I have looked into it, the more I leaned towards the theory that he did not.
13 Oct 08
Of course, I have heard that King David did not really exist either. However, I recently heard that some archaeology finds show that he did exist. Then you hear things like the nation of Israel were not really held captive in Egypt, that is, until recent archaeological finds say otherwise. When will they ever learn? 😴
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyDon't try to persuade them with facts. It only confuses them.
Of course, I have heard that King David did not really exist either. However, I recently heard that some archaeology finds show that he did exist. Then you hear things like the nation of Israel were not really held captive in Egypt, that is, until recent archaeological finds say otherwise. When will they ever learn? 😴
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ale1552I think you will find that when it comes to belief, the facts really don't matter that much. That is why belief is so important. If you believe the "wrong" thing, you are doomed to interpret the facts the wrong way.
Don't try to persuade them with facts. It only confuses them.
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ale1552No, I don't think the truth will come out. I think you are just saying that to comfort yourself for not having any evidence to back up your beliefs.
There will come a time when each human being will have that answer. One school of thought is that he was a piece of fiction. Another faction believes he was merely a person of history....now dead. I belong to a third group which is mocked and reviled on these forums constantly. But the truth will come out, won't it?
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyAre you saying that there are recent archaeological finds that support the captives in Egypt story, or are you saying that the finds will be made in future?
Of course, I have heard that King David did not really exist either. However, I recently heard that some archaeology finds show that he did exist. Then you hear things like the nation of Israel were not really held captive in Egypt, that is, until recent archaeological finds say otherwise. When will they ever learn? 😴
If they have been made, do you have any references?
13 Oct 08
Both theists and atheists are normally in agreement that Jesus was "real" in the sense that he took on a human body, lived among mankind on this very earth, and died upon a cross. Where the groups tend to differ is that theists believe that by the power of God, Jesus was resurrected and broke the power of death forevermore. Atheists refute this claim. Which side of the fence you sit on is for each of us to decide, but Jesus himself said "you are either for me or against me. There is no middle ground". One day he will return to this earth to judge all mankind.
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was watching a documentory on the History Channel about the subject that was all relatively new information. They found evidence for slaves being in Egypt from writing on cave walls. Additionally, they found evidence for a Hebrew influence in the Egyptian royalty via a ring found in an Egyptian palace with a Hebrew inscription written upon it. It is the only Hebrew inscription found in Egyptian artifacts to date. It supports the Biblical story of Joseph's rise to power within Egypt. There are also stories found written about a mass exodus from Egypt that seem to mirror the Hebrew exodus.
Are you saying that there are recent archaeological finds that support the captives in Egypt story, or are you saying that the finds will be made in future?
If they have been made, do you have any references?
The trouble was that the area that they were digging in had been off limits by the Egyptian government. You see, due to the Arab/Israeli tensions they restrict digging in certain areas that could uncover evidence that the Israelis were slaves in Egypt. Politically speaking, no one in the Arab world wants to deal with the fall out of such evidence. In fact, the archaeologists had to convolute the reasons as to why they were digging. They did not reveal that the real reason was to prove that the Israelites were once in Egypt.
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadwith your reference to Paul, a man born into a privileged family, his father being a Roman citizen, its not sure how he obtained this, whether he earned this or bought the privileged, an individual schooled in the strictest Jewish tradition, plus having a Hellenistic schooling and a knowledge of several languages, someone who had formerly persecuted the sibling christian congregation in its infancy, dragging people from their homes to be brought to trail in Jerusalem, WHO BASED HIS BELIEFS NOT SOLELY ON HIS VISION as you incorrectly and rather ignorantly state, although there is no question that this had a profound effect on him, but on his KNOWLEDGE of the scriptures prior to his vision on the road to Damascus as is clearly evident from the number of times he accurately quotes and applies to Christ and the fledgling christian congregation from the original Hebrew scriptures, IT WAS A FAITH BASED ON KNOWLEDGE, STUDY AND REASON NOT ON SOME MERE FIXATION AS YOU wrongly state. However you are entirely correct in this respect that there are many theists who have not the slightest idea what they are talking about and truly their faith is nothing more than an emotional attachment to some superstition!
I got the impression that veritas101 was claiming that, but then he hasn't actually made any definite claims so far, only vague criticism and a reference to 40 historians.
[b] But it's probable that some parts of the texts come from sources directly associated with Jesus, which I think is the basic thrust of the claim.
Nemesio
When FabianFnas s lieved by reputable scholars to be the writings of someone who did actually meet Jesus?[/b]
13 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThe real essence of this argument which cuts to the core is whether you believe, or whether there is evidence that the Bible and its writers were 'inspired', by God to record the things that they did. The Bible makes the claim that 'all scripture is inspired by God', " 2 Timothy 3:16,17. This word 'inspired', is very interesting, and comes from a Greek word, theosnustos, which literally means god-breathed and is the same word used for when God breathed life into Adam. Now the question is, is there evidence that the scriptures were/are inspired? Ask yourself the question, how could a book, written over an extensive period by 66 different authors contain a unified and internal harmony? how could prophesy uttered centuries before find its fulfillment hundreds of years later in incredible accuracy? these are questions that many atheists find disturbing and difficult to answer and are not readily rebuffed with skepticism over dates and events as many of them are historical facts, established beyond doubt both by secular historical sources, archeological and scientific.
Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]When FabianFnas said:
"He was real. Roman sources says so. "
He was not referring to the Gospel writers or their sources.
There are no sources that were actually penned in Jesus' lifetime. There
is no dispute about this whatsoever.
And there are only a handful of Roman sources that mention Him at all rson removed, a person who knew a Disciple or Disciples.
Nemesio[/b]
for example, the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and the Persians and the manner in which it would be carried out, (they diverted the Euphrates river)
the fall of Tyre and its manner of annexation (he built a causeway to the island from the remains of the old city) by Alexander the Great, the hundreds of Messianic prophecies relating to Christ, his manner of death and resurrection, The Fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in the year 70 and the terrible carnage prophesied by Christ and recorded by Josephus, etc etc etc.
14 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyThat there were slaves in Egypt is not new information - and proves nothing whatsoever. Unless you say the writing was in Hebrew (something you did not state).
I was watching a documentory on the History Channel about the subject that was all relatively new information. They found evidence for slaves being in Egypt from writing on cave walls.
Additionally, they found evidence for a Hebrew influence in the Egyptian royalty via a ring found in an Egyptian palace with a Hebrew inscription written upon it.
One ring with Hebrew writing on it is "Hebrew influence in the Egyptian royalty"?
If they find a ring with Greek writing, will that be evidence that the Greeks were once slaves in Egypt? What if there was some Chinese writing on a ring?
Considering that it is a historically recorded fact that the Egyptians and Hebrews were engaged in several wars I would not find it strange to find Hebrew jewelry in Egypt or even evidence of some Hebrew women taken as slaves. That doesn't support the Biblical story.
The trouble was that the area that they were digging in had been off limits by the Egyptian government. You see, due to the Arab/Israeli tensions they restrict digging in certain areas that could uncover evidence that the Israelis were slaves in Egypt. Politically speaking, no one in the Arab world wants to deal with the fall out of such evidence. In fact, the archaeologists had to convolute the reasons as to why they were digging. They did not reveal that the real reason was to prove that the Israelites were once in Egypt.
Sounds to me like an invented conspiracy theory to try and explain why there is no evidence for the Biblical account.