I already said "imo"
It should be obvious that I am speaking of people who have seen that The evidence for Jesus is prophesied historic events confirmed by witness.
I'm not talking about an experience as being the evidence.
If that is the way you see Buddha's philosophy, OK. I suppose that would account for the corruption in Buddhism when Buddha was supposedly a Baha'i Messenger from God.
Moses was there in Egypt and at the Exodus and it is he to whom God say, "Write these things down".
John was an apostle...
The article is just offering some of the evidence for Israel in Egypt and the Exodus as a counterpoint to archaeologists who say there is none.
It is clear which side of the debate you take.
Are you saying that the evidence for Jesus and Christianity is not better than the evidence for Buddha and Buddhism, or is this just a random attack on Christianity based on the skeptic belief that the gospels were written by people who did not know much about Jesus?
But imo the actual evidence...
@shunyadragon says that academia is neutral but when quizzed further that does not mean that academia does not use the prophecies to determine when the gospels and other parts of the Bible have been written.
So his "neutral" is really active anti supernatural. It's a blind spot he and academia...
Why do you want to turn the discussion away from neutrality of academia and into some sort of crazy attack on what I might believe or not.
For a start the whole thing is not about believing, it is about how prophecies are used to date the scriptures or not.
If I were neutral I would not use the...
That would be a matter of opinion I guess.
Have you got any arguments for late writing apart from any prophecies of Jesus or knowledge by Jesus of what would happen?
Of course I am not neutral about Biblical prophecy and academia is not neutral either even if it claims to be. It actually says that the Bible prophecies are not true and uses that................ ah what will we call it? I know, presumption or assumption would be a good term. It uses it that...
I'm not the one who claims to be using neutrality towards the supernatural and at the same time saying that prophecy is not true and can be used to disqualify scriptures, to make them all into a lie in the name of so called neutral academia.
For a theist surely this boundless Quantum World is something that God could have created to underlie all of our physical existence.
Sure, absolute nothing never existed if God existed before all created things.
I have been discussing that dating of the Gospels with @Subduction Zone and he claims that historians are neutral about the prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple and that they don't use this prophecy to date the gospels after 70 AD. I'll just give him summons here so he can...
Well you might know what the TOE hypothesises the evolution of a cell might be, but those hypothesese are no more than hypothesese based on the idea that God did not jump in and set it all up.
Actually I would have thought that how a cell came about is part of abiogenesis and not the TOE.
We have our differences of belief and interpretation about what might be going on but I find it interesting that the experiences of people like yourself seem to have no effect on what skeptics believe or not believe.
That is something I don't really know, but the Bible God is not a deistic God and I would say His manipulation of the environment and the design of life is true to be able to get what we have in life forms. The universe and life shows design imo but that does not mean that I know just what God did.
Evidenced predictions sound like a reasonable way to test hypothesese but that is probably not 100% reliable as I hear that evidence is turning against the BB these days.
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/
I don't care if...
The site starts off with evidence that gives early dating but not that early then progresses to evidence for even earlier dating and then the best till last, evidence for even earlier dating.