Historicity of Bible

[Justanatheist]

Anyway archaeology puts the Philistines around Gerar near the time of Abraham even if they came in larger numbers in later centuries.

And this is typical of what I expect from apologists, an article that actually does nothing to confirm what you want it to but enough to fool the believer.

 

[Justanatheist]

Romans 1:
"Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error."

Paul does not mince words here.....both gay and lesbian sex is considered disgraceful....an obscenity. Males though were singled out because the seed of life is treated with disrespect. It was intended to be deposited in only one place. Anything else is against nature.

No human abnormality is a sin. The word in simple terms means "imperfection"....its an archery term meaning to "miss the mark".....there are two kinds of sin in the Bible....one we are born with.....a propensity to do, think and say the wrong things....and the one we commit deliberately, knowing that it is wrong, but doing it anyway. We can't help the first kind and that is not held against us if we simply implement God's commands and keep ourselves in control of our actions....because it is our actions that condemn us, not our sinful nature.

God forbids immorality...no matter what gender we are, or who we commit it with. Sex outside of scriptural marriage breaks God's law. Sex is not just for pleasure...its primary function is for making babies. The fact that it joins two people as "one flesh" means that the sanctity of life is protected in a committed union between a man and a woman in a relationship sanctioned by God to transmit life to the next generation....in a family.

There is no 'hatred' and there should be no discrimination towards any person for things they have no control over or cannot help.....if we are born that way, God knows, and if we try to exercise self-control, we will suffer no condemnation...actually we will be commended for the strength of character that we display....putting God's will before our own.....but you have to love him more than you love yourself or anyone else. Once you get to know him...its not hard at all.

Thankfully the kind of hate speech you just wrote will be banned in decent societies soon and the obscene religion you follow will not be allowed to publish an old book your kind hide behind to spout your disgraceful nonsense.

I truly pity anyone who believes this rubbish.

 

[leroy]

Why Romans Crucified People (The Story Beyond the Cross & Nails)

"In the book, I argue that it is likely that Jesus was not given a decent burial, as described in the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and his request for the body on the afternoon of the crucifixion.

(See my previous two responses in this thread here and here).

Rather, it is more likely that – as was the case with virtually every other crucified person in all of Roman antiquity – Jesus’ body was left on the cross for several days before being tossed into some kind of pit. It sounds bizarre, but I think that’s what the evidence suggests. And Craig thinks otherwise. This will be an interesting point/counter-point/counter-counter-point, I hope – as it is obviously a very important issue for a very great number of people."​

SORRY with evidence I mean the “actual primary sources” not a blog post a modern historian…………how does the author of your source know that stuff about crucifixion?

 

[leroy]

So what does history have to do with theology and vice versa?

Being historically reliable and having theological purposes are not mutually exclusive.

A text can be both theological and historically true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t know much about Abraham, but when it comes to the new testament (Gospels for example) it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

1 There were written by people who were well informed, (they had access to good reliable information) we don’t know who the authors where, but we know that they were very well informed.

2 they intended to tell the truth, the authors where not lying, they didn’t intended to write science fiction, they intended to write what actually happened.

From 1 and 2 it follows inductively that the documents are historically reliable and accepted as true.

You don’t have to accept miracles, but you do have to accept that events that where interpreted as miracle occurred.

"It can be proven beyond reasonable doubt"?

Personally, I'd say the way the Gospel story gets more elaborate and grandiose the later it's written is a big red flag that the authors are drawing on sources other than historical fact.

I mean, you've got Luke, which - if we believe the author - is an attempt to provide a comprehensive, accurate account compiled by someone who says he has "followed all things carefully from the beginning." ... but then a few decades later, we get John, which says "but wait - there's more! There were all sorts of big public miracles that all of the other Gospel authors either didn't notice or didn't feel like mentioning. And don't bother to corroborate this with any eyewitnesses of those big public events - I coincidentally didn't publish this until everyone contemporary to what I describe would be dead... but don't read anything into that."

Saying that it strains credulity would be generous.

 

[Windwalker]

SORRY with evidence I mean the “actual primary sources” not a blog post a modern historian…………how does the author of your source know that stuff about crucifixion?

How does Bart Ehrman know about Roman history? Because he is qualified scholar?

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bɑːrt ˈɜːrmən/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia
​

I once saw an interview with him, where someone asked him, like you are, who says that's what happened. His answer was perfect. "I said it". Meaning, he is the qualified authority to say so. Expertise has meaning. Expert opinions are worth more than just yours or mine speculating about stuff we aren't experts in. We'd all do well to pay attention to experts, rather than gossip.

Hiding from knowledge is not an act of faith, IMO.

 

[leroy]

How does Bart Ehrman know about Roman history? Because he is qualified scholar?

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bɑːrt ˈɜːrmən/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia
​

I once saw an interview with him, where someone asked him, like you are, who says that's what happened. His answer was perfect. "I said it". Meaning, he is the qualified authority to say so. Expertise has meaning. Expert opinions are worth more than just yours or mine speculating about stuff we aren't experts in. We all do well to pay attention to experts, rather than gossip.

Yes but as far as I know, Bart is not a time traveler, so who does he (and other historians) know that stuff about the romans and the crucifixion?


I assume they know that because they have primary sources (ancient documents)……..so what documents are those?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes but as far as I know, Bart is not a time traveler, so who does he (and other historians) know that stuff about the romans and the crucifixion?


I assume they know that because they have primary sources (ancient documents)……..so what documents are those?

Read his books, or those like him. There are scores of references included in them. For instance, you can also find the highly regarded scholar John Dominic Crossan saying that same thing, and he is a devout Catholic, former monk. You can read his more academic works, such as this where you'll find all those historical references detailed and footnoted:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060616601/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

P.S. Any scholar looking back at the sources in antiquity they are drawing from, are in effect "time travelers". It's how we do history.

 

[leroy]

Read his books, or those like him. There are scores of references included in them. For instance, you can also find the highly regarded scholar John Dominic Crossan saying that same thing, and he is a devout Catholic, former monk. You can read his more academic works, such as this where you'll find all those historical references detailed and footnoted:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060616601/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

P.S. Any scholar looking back at the sources in antiquity they are drawing from, are in effect "time travelers". It's how we do history.

If you dont know the primary sources how do you know they are reliable?

 

[Windwalker]

If you dont know the primary sources how do you know they are reliable?

I trust their scholarship, in that they have the primary sources. And they share them with the readers for you to check, if you are able to access the material and read it in the original languages yourself. This is why we have experts. You or I are not.

Should we trust experts? Should we distrust experts? Those are personal choices. The latter leads to ignorance and stunted growth, or possibly death even depending on which experts you choose to disregard, though. I choose my sources based upon their qualifications as experts. That's how I grow in knowledge and understanding.

 

[lukethethird]

Being historically reliable and having theological purposes are not mutually exclusive.

A text can be both theological and historically true.

That's never happened, religious texts are not historically accurate.

 

[Rival]

religious texts are not historically accurate.

So if Tanakh records that Mitzraim had a Pharaoh called Ramesses, that's not historically accurate?

Unless you were being sarcastic.

 

[lukethethird]

So if Tanakh records that Mitzraim had a Pharaoh called Ramesses, that's not historically accurate?

Unless you were being sarcastic.

I would not jump to conclusions because an actual city or ruler is named.

 

[Rival]

I would not jump to conclusions because an actual city or ruler is named.

It's historically accurate though.

 

[lukethethird]

It's historically accurate though.

Sure thing, Sherlock.

 

[Windwalker]

It's historically accurate though.

That argument doesn't make much sense to say that just because an author of a story references actual historical things, that the details of that person's story itself should all therefore be taken as factual history. Homer's Odyssey speaks of Greece and the Mediterranean, which both actually exist. But that doesn't mean then that Poseidon really came out of the sea to smite them.

 

[Rival]

That argument doesn't make much sense to say that just because an author of a story references actual historical things, that the details of that person's story itself should all therefore be taken as factual history. Homer's Odyssey speaks of Greece and the Mediterranean, which both actually exist. But that doesn't mean then that Poseidon really came out of the sea to smite them.

That wasn't the argument I was making. I agree with you here, but he said this,

"That's never happened, religious texts are not historically accurate."

As if nothing written in them were historically accurate at all and absolutely none of it can be trusted, which is bunk.

 

[Windwalker]

That wasn't the argument I was making. I agree with you here, but he said this,

"That's never happened, religious texts are not historically accurate."

As if nothing written in them were historically accurate at all and absolutely none of it can be trusted, which is bunk.

Certainly it's not an all or nothing thing. But, they shouldn't be treated as if they should be considered historically accurate without independent corroborations, like the creationist saying the earth is only 6000 years old or so, because the Bible says that, and ignore everything that contradicts that. Clearly that is not history. It's also not a mistake of the Bible. It's a mistake of the reader who doesn't understand what religious texts are for.

 

[lukethethird]

That wasn't the argument I was making. I agree with you here, but he said this,

"That's never happened, religious texts are not historically accurate."

As if nothing written in them were historically accurate at all and absolutely none of it can be trusted, which is bunk.

What is bunk is not giving an example of what event actually happened within The Bible in order to prove your point.

 

[Rival]

What is bunk is not giving an example of what event actually happened within The Bible in order to prove your point.

I thought you're a Christian. I guess your religious descriptor is not what I thought.

Either way, I'm not here to argue the ins and outs of this with you. It's not my scripture.