• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus Resurrection

joelr

Well-Known Member
Twelve is a composite number, the smallest number with exactly six divisors, its divisors being 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12. Twelve is also a highly composite number, the next one being twenty-four. - Wikipedia


I believe there is a lot more to this but that should be enough for now.
Wow:

11 is a prime number. It is the smallest two-digit prime number in the decimal base.

The next prime is 13, with which it comprises a twin prime.

If a number is divisible by 11, reversing its digits will result in another multiple of 11. As long as no two adjacent digits of a number added together exceed 9, then multiplying the number by 11, reversing the digits of the product, and dividing that new number by 11, will yield a number that is the reverse of the original number. (For example: 142,312 × 11 = 1,565,432 → 2,345,651 ÷ 11 = 213,241.)

Multiples of 11 by one-digit numbers all have matching double digits: 00 (=0), 11, 22, 33, 44, etc.

An 11-sided polygon is called a hendecagon or undecagon.

There are 11 regular and semiregular convex uniform tilings in the second dimension, and 11 planigons that correspond to these 11 regular and semiregular tilings.

In base 10, there is a simple test to determine if an integer is divisible by 11: take every digit of the number located in odd position and add them up, then take the remaining digits and add them up. If the difference between the two sums is a multiple of 11, including 0, then the number is divisible by 11.[6] For instance, if the number is 65,637 then (6 + 6 + 7) - (5 + 3) = 19 - 8 = 11, so 65,637 is divisible by 11. This technique also works with groups of digits rather than individual digits, so long as the number of digits in each group is odd, although not all groups have to have the same number of digits. For instance, if one uses three digits in each group, one gets from 65,637 the calculation (065) - 637 = -572, which is divisible by 11.

Another test for divisibility is to separate a number into groups of two consecutive digits (adding a leading zero if there is an odd number of digits), and then add up the numbers so formed; if the result is divisible by 11, the number is divisible by 11. For instance, if the number is 65,637, 06 + 56 + 37 = 99, which is divisible by 11, so 65,637 is divisible by eleven. This also works by adding a trailing zero instead of a leading one: 65 + 63 + 70 = 198, which is divisible by 11. This also works with larger groups of digits, providing that each group has an even number of digits (not all groups have to have the same number of digits).

An easy way of multiplying numbers by 11 in base 10 is: If the number has:

  • 1 digit - Replicate the digit (so 2 x 11 becomes 22).
  • 2 digits - Add the 2 digits together and place the result in the middle (so 47 x 11 becomes 4 (11) 7 or 4 (10+1) 7 or (4+1) 1 7 or 517).
  • 3 digits - Keep the first digit in its place for the result's first digit, add the first and second digits together to form the result's second digit, add the second and third digits together to form the result's third digit, and keep the third digit as the result's fourth digit. For any resulting numbers greater than 9, carry the 1 to the left. Example 1: 123 x 11 becomes 1 (1+2) (2+3) 3 or 1353. Example 2: 481 x 11 becomes 4 (4+8) (8+1) 1 or 4 (10+2) 9 1 or (4+1) 2 9 1 or 5291.
  • 4 or more digits - Follow the same pattern as for 3 digits.
In base 13 and higher bases (such as hexadecimal), 11 is represented as B, where ten is A. In duodecimal, however, 11 is sometimes represented as E and ten as T or X.

There are 11 orthogonal curvilinear coordinate systems (to within a conformal symmetry) in which the 3-variable Helmholtz equation can be solved using the separation of variables technique.

See also 11-cell.

11 of the thirty-five hexominoes can be folded to form cubes. 11 of the sixty-six octiamonds can be folded to form octahedra.

11 is the fourth Sophie Germain prime,[7] the third safe prime,[8] the fourth Lucas prime,[9] the first repunit prime,[10] and the second good prime.[11] Although it is necessary for n to be prime for 2n − 1 to be a Mersenne prime, the converse is not true: 211 − 1 = 2047 which is 23 × 89.

11 raised to the nth power is the nth row of Pascal's Triangle. (This works for any base, but the number eleven must be changed to the number represented as 11 in that base; for example, in duodecimal this must be done using thirteen.)

11 is a Heegner number, meaning that the ring of integers of the field Q ( − 11 ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {Q} ({\sqrt {-11}})}
b64d4fadbf3c55211cfdf0a531ffc240cf4874ee
has the property of unique factorization.

One consequence of this is that there exists at most one point on the elliptic curve x3 = y2 + 11 that has positive-integer coordinates. In this case, this unique point is (15, 58).

After Judas Iscariot was disgraced, the remaining apostles of Jesus were sometimes described as "the Eleven" (Mark 16:11; Luke 24:9 and 24:33); this occurred even after Matthias was added to bring the number to twelve, as in Acts 2:14:[13] Peter stood up with the eleven (New International Version). The New Living Translation says Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles, making clear that the number of apostles was now twelve.

Saint Ursula is said to have been martyred in the third or fourth century in Cologne with a number of companions, whose reported number "varies from five to eleven".[14] A legend that Ursula died with eleven thousand virgin companions[15] has been thought to appear from misreading XI. M. V. (Latin abbreviation for "Eleven martyr virgins") as "Eleven thousand virgins".

Babylonian
In the Enûma Eliš the goddess Tiamat creates eleven monsters to take revenge for the death of her husband, Apsû.


anyway, 12 appears in bronze/iron age myths because the earlier solar worship had 12 zodiac.
 
You can't be serious. I demonstrated that it was not burnt. It is a naturally dark stratum on top of the mountain.

All thats proven is that its dark metamorphic rock.

Well, per the article you gave me, metamorphic rock happens due to heat.

Thus "burnt mountain".

Your article has zero credibility. You can't "prove" anything that does not rely on proper sources. Learn how to check your sources.

All you did here was assert my source is wrong, tell me why?


No, I sleep on regular pillows.

Me too. Those fairy pillows can keep you awake.

So what if the mountain is there? They got their facts wrong even though they are easily understood. This is an example of why sources that do not rely on peer review are almost always garbage. This is a garbage source that you have been using.

Why do you put this traditional peer review process on a padestal?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
All thats proven is that its dark metamorphic rock.

Well, per the article you gave me, metamorphic rock happens due to heat.

Thus "burnt mountain".

Now you are changing your story. It was supposedly burnt because og God, now you are admitting that it is purely natural.

All you did here was assert my source is wrong, tell me why?

I have explained to you time and again why peer review is a must. Without peer review their claims are worthless. Their claim of a burnt mountain as part of the myth was refuted. Now you improperly try to change the story after the fact.

Me too. Those fairy pillows can keep you awake.



Why do you put this traditional peer review process on a padestal?

Because it works. How do you think that you are able to communicate here?
 
I acknowledge that the current opinion of the field is that Jesus was not a deity but was a real man.
To go against scholarship one needs good evidence. To that end Richard Carriers research has proven his thesis - that the odds are 3 to 1 favoring myth.
Carrier has made his point and also explained all of the assumptions that sat unchallenged in the field concerning historicity.
So he made the case to why would scholars consider Jesus a real man and showed that the assumptions are based on flawed assumptions. Time will tell if his work is accepted as fact.

Which one do YOU believe, the archeologists or richard on Jesus being real or myth?

And how is it 3 to 1 that Jesus is myth? How is that scale determined?

And how has richard showed that archeologists assumptions are flawed?

so maybe another god burned the mountain. Or maybe it's a natural occurence.

Unlikely that another God burnt it UNLESS theres a ancient source saying another god descended on sinai mountain. Not wiki either, but an actual ancient scripture or tablet of some culture saying it.

Also, a natural avent causing it? Hmmmm, God could have used and manipulated natural phenomena to burn the mountain. Its possible.

But, its also possible God could have just menefested himself and done so.

the problem is the actual location of the mountain mentioned in the bible is actually UNKNOWN.
Do you see that problem?

Everything is unknown. We dont know ANYTHING in life, lol. Wer dealing with probabilities, your favorit word. Its probable that its the location in arabia.

Totally subjective.

So theres no such thing as a bad additude toward oposite views?

Let me ask you. Do you respect religious people?

We know "where its generally at" a ha HA HA HA

"Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia"
Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

The last ten years has witnessed the proliferation of books, videos, websites and television programs that have proposed a new site for Mt. Sinai - Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia. They also told about underwater searches for Pharaoh’s chariots and weapons from the Egyptian army. This paper examines three aspects of the identification of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia. First, the paper questions the credibility of the claims. Second, the paper disputes the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz. Third, the paper examines the archaeological evidence.

I believe that this paper, along with the Bible and Spade article, will conclusively demonstrated that there is no credible historical, geographical, archaeological or Biblical evidence to support the thesis that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.

All this is doing is asserting its not in arabia. Assertions arent going to work for me.

This is just appealing to authority. Thats not evidence.

What, you mean where you bring up a topic and I show scholarship and facts that show it to be likely wrong? That style? Cuz that's all that has happened.

No, not that style. I told you what style. The preaching, asserting style. I dont like debating like THAT.

That's a lie. Actually 2 lies. They don't match and you most certainly DO NOT go with any evidence if it counters your religious beliefs. I see this every new post.
For example you will ignore all the following evidence because it doesn't support your outlandish theory about a god-mountain:

They DO match. And if theres real evidence, i do go with it. Do you? I dont go along with your assumptions that you act is the same as evidence.

Heres how it all matches

RED SEA CROSSING SITE, BITTER LAKES,
UNDERWATER LAND BRIDGE,
BITTER SPRINGS OF MARAH,
THE 70 PALMS AND 12 SPRINGS OF ELIM,
CAVES OF MOSES,
CHARRED PEAK AND MELTED ROCK,
BOUNDARY MARKERS, GOLDEN CALF ALTAR,
MOSES' ALTAR AND THE 12 PILLARS,
SPLIT ROCK AT HOREB,
CAVE OF ELIJAH,


Biblical Archaeological Evidence for Mt. Sinai | Base Institute

Also charles Whitakers disertation is very detailed. Its a download though.

Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

As popular as this idea may be in certain evangelical (and even Jewish) circles, there is no credible historical, geographical, archaeological or Biblical evidence for the thesis that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.

Pure assertion.

There are several unsubstantiated claims that the proponents of this site need to substantiate or abandon. First, the Sinai Peninsula was not part of Egypt proper, but “out of Egypt.” Second, Biblically, Mt. Sinai is not in the Land of Midian, yet Jebel al-Lawz is in Midian territory (northwest Saudi Arabia). Third, the Sinai Peninsula was part of “Arabia” in the First Century AD. Paul would be perfectly correct in stating Mt. Sinai is in Arabia if Mt. Sinai was at Jebel Sin Bishar.

"Exodus 3:1 plainly identifies Mount Horeb (Sinai) as being in Midian: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.” Scripture reveals here that the region of “Midian” is undeniably the same as present-day Saudi Arabia. This has been established by numerous sources. Second, the traditional site for Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula has nothing to do geographically with the “back” of a desert. By contrast, certain mountains in Saudi Arabia are on the far side or margin of a vast desert in ancient Midian.

Exodus 2:15 reveals more. After killing an Egyptian, Moses fled Egypt for safer ground: “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian.” Egypt and its holdings would not have been safe for Moses under any circumstances. He would not have fled to the Sinai Peninsula, where archaeology shows that Pharaoh had multiple mining interests and military outposts. The Bible is clear that Moses went out of Egypt, to the land of Midian east of the Gulf of Aqaba.

The Bible makes several references to Moses returning to Egypt from Midian, including Exodus 4:19, where we read, “Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.’” All passages associated with Moses’ stay in Midian point toward present-day Saudi Arabia as the area to which Moses fled, subsequently met God at the burning bush, and then returned to with the children of Israel."

What is the location of the real Mount Sinai?


The proponents also need to face up to the archaeological evidence at their site. The petroglyphs of bovine existed long before Moses ever lived.

Its true the egyptian gods hathor and apis existed before Moses was born. But, Moses and isreal lived in egypt. They would have been well aware of hathor and apis. Or bovine.

The so-called “Cave of Moses” at el-Bad’ were not hewn until long after Moses lived.

How do you know it was hewn and how do you know the cave was after moses?

The so-called “altar of Moses and the 12 columns” dates to the Nabatean period and has nothing to do with the Wilderness Wanderings.

How do you know the alter and 12 columns are from nabateans and not moses?

Also, even if they did come from the nabateans, Moses and isreal could have easily been educated on there methods of building.

I want solid answers (evidence) for each of these questions, not just assertions.

You will not find out the author is a credible biblical scholar (Gordon Franz MA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary) or fact check any of the dozens of counter facts.

I want evidence, not a scholar, unless the scholar has evidence. But if the scholar is just making assertions, im not interested.

Maybe. But you haven't even came close to showing any evidence from a Ph.D to be wrong?

Yes i have, and also pointed out there assertions.

The "raw" evidence you gave is completely debunked?

No, its not debunked. We have barely scratched all the sections of the location and your acting like its debunked. Thats clear signs of someone whos mind is not open and is just preaching.

I'm talking about consensus. The opinion of the vast majority of any field is the opinion.

I dont care about consensus, i care about evidence, period. Evidence and reason, not majority, not PHD, not scholar, but evidence and reason. Thats it. Period. Capush. And....thats all you should care about too, because your a.....NATURALIST....right? And thats what naturalists are suppose to care about....right?

Stop appealing to authority and majority. Appeal only to evidence and reason.

There could easily be some guy who got a Ph.D and get brainwashed into any cult and have then try to make the science fit the weird ideas.

How do you know its not the naturalists trying to make the science fit there ideas? Perhaps its naturalism thats the REAL CULT. ;)

Most cosmologists believe in an expanding universe. There might be 1 or 2 who believe in the steady state model still. Who cares?

Who cares about majority, i care about evidence, DO YOU? or do you just care about whats popular?

How wer you in high school? Go along with peer pressure alot? Because its popular. Lol

And yes, the first thing probably worshipped was the sun.

Yea, EVERY single person worshiped the sun, lol. No one used there brain. Right......

In an earlier post I already quoted the Q'ran in which Abraham explains he wasn't happy with all the sun gods and wanted a "full-time god", one who didn't go out at night.
And guess what.......he had a revelation and here comes Yaweh. Yay!

I did not see you quote the qoran.

Quote the part of abraham forsaking the sun and getting a revelation from yawhah.

Even if its there, it dont mean much other then not EVERYONE worshiped the sun. Some used there brain.

Still quote it though. I want to see it.

But this shows that solar deities were super common. Did you forget that? Or are you ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your worldview that ancient people worshipped the same god?

No, ancient people did not worship the same god. There wer many gods different people worshiped. Not everyone did or believed the same things. This isnt a numbers game, this is about reality.

Unfortunately our oldest records of human worship are solar/moon worship and animal worship. Look it up.

Look up proof for that for me. Not assertions. And.....again, the nature of humans isnt to believe the same things. Theres various views within the human race. That would have been the case back then too.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Which one do YOU believe, the archeologists or richard on Jesus being real or myth?

And how is it 3 to 1 that Jesus is myth? How is that scale determined?

And how has richard showed that archeologists assumptions are flawed?

The existence of Jesus is a historical question, not an archaeology one.

Unlikely that another God burnt it UNLESS theres a ancient source saying another god descended on sinai mountain. Not wiki either, but an actual ancient scripture or tablet of some culture saying it.

Also, a natural avent causing it? Hmmmm, God could have used and manipulated natural phenomena to burn the mountain. Its possible.

But, its also possible God could have just menefested himself and done so.

Um no, we went over that. It is a natural formation, it was not due to being "burnt".

Everything is unknown. We dont know ANYTHING in life, lol. Wer dealing with probabilities, your favorit word. Its probable that its the location in arabia.



So theres no such thing as a bad additude toward oposite views?

Let me ask you. Do you respect religious people?



All this is doing is asserting its not in arabia. Assertions arent going to work for me.

This is just appealing to authority. Thats not evidence.



No, not that style. I told you what style. The preaching, asserting style. I dont like debating like THAT.



They DO match. And if theres real evidence, i do go with it. Do you? I dont go along with your assumptions that you act is the same as evidence.

Heres how it all matches

RED SEA CROSSING SITE, BITTER LAKES,
UNDERWATER LAND BRIDGE,
BITTER SPRINGS OF MARAH,
THE 70 PALMS AND 12 SPRINGS OF ELIM,
CAVES OF MOSES,
CHARRED PEAK AND MELTED ROCK,
BOUNDARY MARKERS, GOLDEN CALF ALTAR,
MOSES' ALTAR AND THE 12 PILLARS,
SPLIT ROCK AT HOREB,
CAVE OF ELIJAH,


Biblical Archaeological Evidence for Mt. Sinai | Base Institute

Also charles Whitakers disertation is very detailed. Its a download though.



Pure assertion.



"Exodus 3:1 plainly identifies Mount Horeb (Sinai) as being in Midian: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.” Scripture reveals here that the region of “Midian” is undeniably the same as present-day Saudi Arabia. This has been established by numerous sources. Second, the traditional site for Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula has nothing to do geographically with the “back” of a desert. By contrast, certain mountains in Saudi Arabia are on the far side or margin of a vast desert in ancient Midian.

Exodus 2:15 reveals more. After killing an Egyptian, Moses fled Egypt for safer ground: “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian.” Egypt and its holdings would not have been safe for Moses under any circumstances. He would not have fled to the Sinai Peninsula, where archaeology shows that Pharaoh had multiple mining interests and military outposts. The Bible is clear that Moses went out of Egypt, to the land of Midian east of the Gulf of Aqaba.

The Bible makes several references to Moses returning to Egypt from Midian, including Exodus 4:19, where we read, “Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.’” All passages associated with Moses’ stay in Midian point toward present-day Saudi Arabia as the area to which Moses fled, subsequently met God at the burning bush, and then returned to with the children of Israel."

What is the location of the real Mount Sinai?




Its true the egyptian gods hathor and apis existed before Moses was born. But, Moses and isreal lived in egypt. They would have been well aware of hathor and apis. Or bovine.



How do you know it was hewn and how do you know the cave was after moses?



How do you know the alter and 12 columns are from nabateans and not moses?

Also, even if they did come from the nabateans, Moses and isreal could have easily been educated on there methods of building.

I want solid answers (evidence) for each of these questions, not just assertions.



I want evidence, not a scholar, unless the scholar has evidence. But if the scholar is just making assertions, im not interested.



Yes i have, and also pointed out there assertions.



No, its not debunked. We have barely scratched all the sections of the location and your acting like its debunked. Thats clear signs of someone whos mind is not open and is just preaching.



I dont care about consensus, i care about evidence, period. Evidence and reason, not majority, not PHD, not scholar, but evidence and reason. Thats it. Period. Capush. And....thats all you should care about too, because your a.....NATURALIST....right? And thats what naturalists are suppose to care about....right?

Stop appealing to authority and majority. Appeal only to evidence and reason.



How do you know its not the naturalists trying to make the science fit there ideas? Perhaps its naturalism thats the REAL CULT. ;)



Who cares about majority, i care about evidence, DO YOU? or do you just care about whats popular?

How wer you in high school? Go along with peer pressure alot? Because its popular. Lol



Yea, EVERY single person worshiped the sun, lol. No one used there brain. Right......



I did not see you quote the qoran.

Quote the part of abraham forsaking the sun and getting a revelation from yawhah.

Even if its there, it dont mean much other then not EVERYONE worshiped the sun. Some used there brain.

Still quote it though. I want to see it.



No, ancient people did not worship the same god. There wer many gods different people worshiped. Not everyone did or believed the same things. This isnt a numbers game, this is about reality.



Look up proof for that for me. Not assertions. And.....again, the nature of humans isnt to believe the same things. Theres various views within the human race. That would have been the case back then too.
Too much garbage to deal with. Let's quit doing a dishonest Gish Gallop and properly address these claims one at a time.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The entire bible doesn't rely on historical evidence. The death and ressurection of Christ is a pagan ezoteric concept stolen and corrupted by jews who wrote the New Testament. In reality in pagan culture it wasn't about a phisycal ressurection, but a 'spiritual' one. You can find more informations about many thigs regarding Jesus and christianity here:
Exposing Christianity

I believe you are lost in fantasy. There is no evidence that anyone borrowed from anything other than the OT and that is clearly indicated that they did. God has His own way of doing things and inspires the writers His own way.
 
The existence of Jesus is a historical question, not an archaeology one.



Um no, we went over that. It is a natural formation, it was not due to being "burnt".


Too much garbage to deal with. Let's quit doing a dishonest Gish Gallop and properly address these claims one at a time.

No need to get hasty. I was gonna respond to your post. I only had time to respond to joels one post. Had no time to respond to his second or yours the other day.

But, ill respond to both. This is getting into backlogging.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No need to get hasty. I was gonna respond to your post. I only had time to respond to joels one post. Had no time to respond to his second or yours the other day.

But, ill respond to both. This is getting into backlogging.
Not being hasty. That the mountain was not "burnt" has been established. And your use of poor resources constantly hurts your argument.
 
Who knows? Look a black mountain - it must be god!!
Dumbest thing ever? God in the gap much?
Was it a volcano, did a small space rock shatter in the atmosphere and land there (this happened in Russia a few years back).
A mineral ? -Augite is the usual black or brownish-black pyroxene mineral of the dark igneous rocks and some high-grade metamorphic rocks.

It is metamorphic.

your "god in the gap" explanation is the worst argument you've made in this entire discussion. Do you know what "god in the gap" is?

Yes, i know what god in the gap means. But, im not doing it in this case because we have a biblical record that says God came on the mountain in a piller of fire. And we have an entire account of a exodus. This account matches the site in arabia.

no you really don't. Your calling all this stuff "red herring" but you brought up all of the topics?

No, thats incorrect. At first i was trying to debate the evidence and merits of the resurrection of Jesus. Then you wanted to debate many gods comparisons to Jesus. So, i did. This did not entirely get away from the ressurection, but, it sorta did.

Then this got into spiritual experiences, because things may not be stories vit experiences, so that led to NDEs and apparitions. Then you brought up UFOs. So, we dove there slightly.

Now, wer on the exodus, because im still contending the bible is historical structure, not mythical structure. So, wer getting into archeology due to my consistent contending that these wer experiences, not made up stories.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "logged in my mind" I don't know what that is supposed to suggest?

It dont take rocket science to figure it out. It means ill remember it and move along in our discussion.

In scholarship there are works accepted as historical fact. They represent our best guess at history.
Thomas Thompsons book on the mythical nature of the OT has been reviewed in top journals and accepted in the field as accurate. So this is taught in Universities and such.
Same with the Jesus is a man theory.

Appealing to authority and majority is not evidence.

And its not even a good idea because most people, especially ones in power are stupid.

There may be a few fundamentalist who work in the field who disagree? I don't know?
But generally once a work is accepted it's considered the current opinion of that field.

Its not about majority, its not about naturalism, its not about fundamentalism, its about EVIDENCE and reason.

Religious people can sit around all day and talk about how real this religion or god is but academia does not care. It moves forward and eventually some new generation will accept the knowledge.

You mean accept the theory from the majority. Evidence dont care.

Sometimes an entire generation or 2 of people who won't give up an idea that science has dis-proven will just ignore science.

Mayby its the naturalists who need to give up there idea.

I don't think changing any times makes any difference. Did you read some conspiracy theory website that told you if archeological times were different then it would be better?
Sounds like a total conspiracy? Like I'm supposed to just believe archeologists can't date things properly? What your saying is so vague and ambiguous that I really can't comment?

No, its not a conspiracy, its stupidity (aka, barking up the wrong tree). Yes, they arent dating things correctly. I question there entire dating methods and there competency in doing it.

No, no, that's Disingenuous .
You mean question everything that doesn't agree with Christianity being real.

No, question everything, PERIOD, whether you agree with christianity or not. But, heres the thing, yes, i believe christianity, but, by questioning the naturalist model, i then put that model to the test.

Likewise, by you questioning christianity, you put it the the test.

The one that can survive severe scrutiny and evidence is the one that is true.

So it's bias and bad science right from the start.

Look, dont you realize that YOUR JUST AS EQUALLY as biased as i am? Having a viewpoint just by itself makes you biased. Biased dont equal dishonest though.

It's not a search for truth it's a search to make a religion true.

Its not a search for truth, its a search to make naturalism true, to you.

You would have to research the methods of archeologist and have a credible counter claim to the dating practices. Which is different for different things.
Writings are dated because they will reference events or show lack of knowledge of events as one method. Writing styles, language, location. It's a science.

Good luck with that.

And thats the stuff we need to be debating, not this appeal to authority and majority nonsense.

Well for sure Judaism and Christianity are myths. The OT is proven myth and the NT follows mythotypes of all sorts including the main character scoring 18 on the Rank-Raglin scale.

Mayby in your mind, but in reality its not proven myth.

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham


Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.
So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up.

This is a very important book, it swept away the accumulated dust of centuries and opened up a new, realistic, understanding of the past it described, an understanding that has thoroughly replaced the anachronism of the 'general claim' referred to in the opening line of the review


Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted.

OT is myth

More appeal to authority. No evidence at all. Ill hear authority if the authority presents evidence.

Jesus has been debunked. I don't think we need to debunk Romulus.

You see what you keep doing? Preaching your view. So, i take it your view is aligned with richard and not the majority of archeologists that Jesus is a real man then?

Not wrong. You have purposely ignored mountains of information switching to new topics every time facts work against you.

Thats false, i ignored anything not evidence. And im not switching topics. I go along with you switching topics.

The only thing you even got to was a fact that Innanna wasn't crucified but that didn't matter of course because the similarities are about dying and rising savior gods.
Crucifixion was a Jewish/Roman era thing so of course their version would include that.

Yea, i got to innana and my point on that you dont wanna address fully. So, how can we move in to the other gods yet?

Also calling into question the scientific dating done by a field is very suspicious. Facts start going against you so now it's not the facts it's the ENTIRE FIELD OF ARCHEOLOGY? So I'm not wrong.

Its the dating methods. Not the entire field. Evidence, evidence, evidence, thats what its about for me. Should be for you too.
 
Now you are changing your story. It was supposedly burnt because og God, now you are admitting that it is purely natural.

Your not understanding what im telling you.

Im saying it was burnt. Period. Your source shows that it was burnt too.

What burnt it? I believe the story of exodus. But, you can believe lava did it. Either way, it was metamorphosis (aka, heated, changed, burnt)

I have explained to you time and again why peer review is a must. Without peer review their claims are worthless. Their claim of a burnt mountain as part of the myth was refuted. Now you improperly try to change the story after the fact.

No, you didnt tell me why this peer review shpuld be placed on a padestal. Tell me again? Why does a claim thats not peer reviewed make the claim worthless?

Because it works. How do you think that you are able to communicate here?

Its not due to a paper thats for sure. Its due to engineers and scientists going to work.
 
I believe you are lost in fantasy. There is no evidence that anyone borrowed from anything other than the OT and that is clearly indicated that they did. God has His own way of doing things and inspires the writers His own way.

The naturalists make 2 assumptions.

1, that barrowing was going on

2, and then the one doing the barrowing was the old testament from the pagans.

So, i pose to them, how do they know barrowing went on at all vs people independently had there own ideas and experiences.

Next i posed that if there was barrowing, how do they know the OT did the barrowing from pagans and that it was not pagans that did the barrowing from the OT?

theres no satisfactory answer they gave to this yet. Just a whole lot of dancing around. And appeals to authorities and majority.

No evidence on there answers.

I think the naturalists are smokin somethin, cause there a few fries short of a happy meal.
 
Last edited:
The existence of Jesus is a historical question, not an archaeology one.

So archeology does not deal with history? o_O:p


Um no, we went over that. It is a natural formation, it was not due to being "burnt".

Your source YOU GAVE ME said it was metamorphic rock due to heat. That means BURNT. Giving that source, you shot yourself in the foot. I didnt even have to draw my gun. Lol

Too much garbage to deal with. Let's quit doing a dishonest Gish Gallop and properly address these claims one at a time.

Well, go ahead, make a point on one of the things i said. I dont have to make one post with it. Go ahead, pick one and address it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your not understanding what im<sic> telling you.

Im<sic> saying it was burnt. Period. Your source shows that it was burnt too.

What burnt it? I believe the story of exodus. But, you can believe lava did it. Either way, it was metamorphosis (aka, heated, changed, burnt)

No it doesn't. When you have no clue you should not make up obviously false claims. You should ask questions politely and properly.

No, you didnt<sic> tell me why this peer review shpuld<sic> be placed on a padestal<sic>. Tell me again? Why does a claim thats<sic> not peer reviewed make the claim worthless?

Actually I explained to you several times. You refuse to understand the explanation. When people avoid peer review the reason almost always is because they know that they are spreading lies. By avoiding peer review they put a very heave burden of proof upon themselves.

Its not due to a paper thats<sic> for sure. Its due to engineers and scientists going to work.

You have no scientists going to work. You may have some ill educated engineers.. And you have no evidence. You do not even appear to understand the concept.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So archeology does not deal with history? o_O:p

Nope, related but separate discipline.

Your source YOU GAVE ME said it was metamorphic rock due to heat. That means BURNT. Giving that source, you shot yourself in the foot. I didnt even have to draw my gun. Lol

Nope. Metamorphic does not mean burnt.

Well, go ahead, make a point on one of the things i said. I dont have to make one post with it. Go ahead, pick one and address it.

Why don't you pick one. Perhaps your inability to understand what is and what is not evidence. That would probably be a good starting point. Are you game?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I’m sorry but what does clinical death have to do with Resurrection?
Coming back from death = resurrection. Lots of people do it, especially with modern medicine.

Jesus death was a series of events not a single one.
The series doesn't matter. What mattered is what killed him (ever watch that Halloween episode of CSI, I think it was, where the bad guy "dies" of like at least half a dozen things, but only really the last one actually killed him?), if he truly died at all, because I don't remember seeing that anyone checked for a pulse. Crucifixions can't be 100% fatal because there are idiots who do it to themselves every Easter. If it were THAT fatal, it'd be a stunt they can only pull once. There are no witnesses to his death (credible ones, anyway) and there weren't any witnesses for the resurrection. That leaves a lot of wiggle room. I believe the most likely scenario is that he was assumed dead and brought to a tomb (conveniently, the resurrected rarely wake up 6 feet under), where he had a couple of days to recover and then he skipped town because basically he had 5 stars on GTA and practically everyone was after him. John, the only one to mention the detail of being pierced in the side, even provides a likely medical scenario: that the soldier who stabbed him with a pointy stick inadvertently relieved the pressure of excess fluid in his abdomen or chest (it only says "side" not a specific location) and he thus recovered.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Which one do YOU believe, the archeologists or richard on Jesus being real or myth?

And how is it 3 to 1 that Jesus is myth? How is that scale determined?

And how has richard showed that archeologists assumptions are flawed?

Oh Carrier is most likely correct.

I think he basis his odds on Bayes’ Theorem - https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12742

He doesn't show how archeologists are flawed? Archeology is a different field.
He shows assumptions that historians had regarding Jesus being a real man.

Unlikely that another God burnt it UNLESS theres a ancient source saying another god descended on sinai mountain. Not wiki either, but an actual ancient scripture or tablet of some culture saying it.
No, I have no reason to challenge Wiki on the fact that it's believed the site was possibly used by other cults.
It's very likely.

Also, a natural avent causing it? Hmmmm, God could have used and manipulated natural phenomena to burn the mountain. Its possible.

But, its also possible God could have just menefested himself and done so.

Since as far as we know everything that's happened on earth EVER has been by natural causes and nothing has been shown to be caused by gods the probability is zero for that idea.

Everything is unknown. We dont know ANYTHING in life, lol. Wer dealing with probabilities, your favorit word. Its probable that its the location in arabia.

The probability that this is some magic god fire burnt mountain is about the same as Santa Clause delivering presents to children on Dec 25.

So theres no such thing as a bad additude toward oposite views?

Let me ask you. Do you respect religious people?

Too vague. If someone wants to believe in an imaginary being it's their business.

All this is doing is asserting its not in arabia. Assertions arent going to work for me.

This is just appealing to authority. Thats not evidence.

Assertations don't work for you? Are you insane? This whole return to magic mountain thing is one giant assertation!?!
You don't know for sure why it's black, it could be all sorts of natural causes and you haven't established if it's even the RIGHT MOUNTAIN???
And you wonder why I would be cranky?? this is why.

No, not that style. I told you what style. The preaching, asserting style. I dont like debating like THAT.

Facts, you don't like debating facts.

They DO match. And if theres real evidence, i do go with it. Do you? I dont go along with your assumptions that you act is the same as evidence.

Heres how it all matches
.

Yup now go back to my last post and read the giant article I linked too that completely debunks all that crap.

Pure assertion.

Yeah but the article that that quote comes from obliterates any chance of this being your fantasy mountain.

Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

The article explains why the idea is what's pure assertion? There is an entire BOOK EXPLAINING WHY HE'S WRONG.


"Ron Wyatt first proposed the idea that Mt. Sinai was at Jebel al-Lawz. Whatever one may think of Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries,” he should be given full credit for this discovery. However, I would like to call your attention to a recent book examining the claims of Ron Wyatt. It is entitled Holy Relics or Revelation, by two SDA researchers, Russell and Colin Standish. (Hartland Publications). This book is a careful, meticulous, in-depth study of Ron Wyatt’s claims. These researchers “speak the truth in love” but state that Ron Wyatt has not been truthful in his claims.""During the course of writing the first article, other proponents of Jebel al-Lawz requested that I not mention Ron Wyatt. Their stated concern to me was that my mentioning of him would “dignify him” and they consider him a “con man”. They feared that mentioning them in the same paragraph as Wyatt would result in “guilt by association”! I pointed out to them that when publishing research results one must begin with a discussion of the history of research and include a review of the literature on the subject. Ron Wyatt is the key player in this discovery. Both sets of proponents of this view used the same archaeological evidence to prove their points. The only difference between the views is their proposed route from Egypt to the Red Sea and the placing of the Red Sea crossing."

On top of all this other crap evidence you're using a CON MAN as evidence??



"Exodus 3:1 plainly identifies Mount Horeb (Sinai) as being in Midian: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, a

Exodus 2:15 reveals more. After killing an Egyptian, Moses fled Egypt for safer ground: “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian.” Egypt and its holdings would not have been safe for Moses

The Bible makes several references to Moses returning to Egypt from Midian, including Exodus 4:19, where we read, “Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, ‘
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/mount-Sinai.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/mount-Sinai.html

Two Biblical passages clearly place Mt. Sinai outside the Land of Midian. In Exodus 18, Moses and the Israelites are camped at “the Mountain of God” (Mt. Sinai) when Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, visits them. Verse 27 says, “Then Moses let his father-in-law depart [from Mt. Sinai], and he went his way to his own land [Midian].” Jethro departs from Mt. Sinai to return to the Land of Midian. According to Mandelkern Biblical Concordance, the phrase “his own land” (third person singular possessive) is used 30 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Ex. 18:27; Num. 21:24,26,34,35; Deut. 2:24,31; 3:2; 4:47; 11:3; 29:1 [29:2 Eng.]; 33:13; 34:11; Josh. 8:1; I Kings 22:36; II Kings 18:33; Isa. 2:7,8; 13:14; 18:2,7; 36:18; 37:7; Jer. 2:15; 27:7; 50:18; Prov. 8:31; Dan. 11:19,28; Neh. 9:10; Mandelkern 1896:153). In the Pentateuch the phrase is use 13 times. Each time it is used of a specific geo-political entity, a kingdom, nation or tribal area. It is used of the Kingdom of the Amorites (Num. 21:24,26; Deut. 2:24,31; 4:47), with the borders clearly delineated as going from the Arnon to the Jabbok (Num. 21:24). The Kingdom of Bashan (Num. 21:34,35; Deut. 3:2; 4:47), which is implied as going from the Jabbok to Mt. Hermon (Deut. 4:48). The nation of Egypt (Deut. 11:3; 29:1 [29:2 Eng.]; 34:11) as well as the tribal territory of Joseph (Deut. 33:13). Joshua gives the delineation of the tribal territory of Ephraim and Manasseh which make up the tribes of Joseph (Deut. 33:17; Josh. 13:29-33; 16:1-10; 17:1-18). If Moses is consistent with his use of the word, and I think he is, the context suggests Jethro returned to the country of Midian, not to a plot of ground that he controlled as the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz contend.

Ken Durham, a research assistant for Bob Cornuke and the BASE Institute, interpret the phrase “his own land” as an “actual, physical tract of land under the control of a person mentioned in the text- not to an arbitrary political/geographical designation” or “land under ones jurisdiction” (Letter to Bryant Wood, April 12, 2001). There does not appear to be lexical support or Hebrew dictionary references that support this use of the term.

The second passage that places Mt. Sinai outside the land of Midian is Numbers 10:30. It states, “I [Hobab] will not go, but I will depart [from Mt. Sinai] to my own land [Midian] and to my kinsmen.” Hobab is returning to Midian where his kinsmen live from Mt. Sinai.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Its true the egyptian gods hathor and apis existed before Moses was born. But, Moses and isreal lived in egypt. They would have been well aware of hathor and apis. Or bovine.
Right except we know from scholarship that Moses is a myth. As pointed out by leading biblical archeologist William Denver and historian Thomas Thompson in his peer reviewed work.

How do you know it was hewn and how do you know the cave was after moses?

Ask whomever wrote the article?

How do you know the alter and 12 columns are from nabateans and not moses?

Also, even if they did come from the nabateans, Moses and isreal could have easily been educated on there methods of building.
Well Moses was not real.
And the quotes are from the article written by a scholar.

I want solid answers (evidence) for each of these questions, not just assertions.

My experience shows this to be untrue. You love crap evidence if it's on your side only. You have some ridiculous mountain that you can't prove where it is, can never actually know what caused it's appearance, and the writings of a con-man. But that's ok because it's on your side. From others you want actual evidence.

Whenever you get evidence you ignore it. I really don't care if we actually knew where the mountain was and we didn't have any natural explanations for why it was black.
It still provides no evidence to support your religion at all. It's completely one huge assertion? The whole thing is pointless to debate.

But the facts still remain that the evidence is crap. Either way, it helps your argument zero.

I want evidence, not a scholar, unless the scholar has evidence. But if the scholar is just making assertions, im not interested.

Yes i have, and also pointed out there assertions.

That article already debunked things you came at me with so it's clear you didn't read it and are just guessing that there was no evidence? How embarrassing for you.

No, its not debunked. We have barely scratched all the sections of the location and your acting like its debunked. Thats clear signs of someone whos mind is not open and is just preaching.

Nope, debunked, biblically debunked, archeologically, credibility, all debunked . READ IT FIRST

"This article will examine four aspects of the question regarding whether or not Mt. Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia. First, the credibility of the claims will be questioned. Second, the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz will be disputed. Third, the Biblical evidence will be discussed. Fourth, the archaeological evidence will be examined. "
Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?

please run your silly questions through this filter first

I dont care about consensus, i care about evidence, period. Evidence and reason, not majority, not PHD, not scholar, but evidence and reason. Thats it. Period. Capush. And....thats all you should care about too, because your a.....NATURALIST....right? And thats what naturalists are suppose to care about....right?

Stop appealing to authority and majority. Appeal only to evidence and reason.

It's not about naturalism? Consensus is the lifetime of 100s of Ph.d s from a field. How could I know more than 100s or 1000s of experts? If you needed heart surgery tomorrow would you insist on delaying it for 8 years while you got your MD and became a good surgeon and then consulted with the surgeon on how to proceed? No.

The way we get evidence is by reading what the experts have proven. To that end the field considers Jesus a man. Carrier has proven mythicism to be most probable and your Moses and the patriarchs are definitely myth.
If you want the details read Thompsons work. Experts say it 100% debunks the OT.
Allso, you don't need to care about what sciences are saying. You can remain illiterate in any field. But you lose.

How do you know its not the naturalists trying to make the science fit there ideas? Perhaps its naturalism thats the REAL CULT. 

I don't know what naturalists are doing? I only know about scientists and historians are doing. But for sure they are not afraid to say "I don't know", so there isn't much proof of some agenda. Creepy question. Are you losing it?


Who cares about majority, i care about evidence, DO YOU? or do you just care about whats popular?

How wer you in high school? Go along with peer pressure alot? Because its popular. Lol

If the "majority" are physicists then what they say about physics matters to me. Same with historians and any other field.
If I need heart surgery I'll care about the findings of the majority of MD in the field.

Yea, EVERY single person worshiped the sun, lol. No one used there brain. Right......

Where did I say "EVERY"??
What do you mean "used their brain"?? People didn't know what the sun was?
The irony here is by using their brain here what you actually mean is for ancient peoples to have figured out the sun is a star and stop worshiping it and start worshiping a magic king-in-the-sky god like Zeus or Allah. Which is equally stupid??

I did not see you quote the qoran.

I did.

Quote the part of abraham forsaking the sun and getting a revelation from yawhah.

Even if its there, it dont mean much other then not EVERYONE worshiped the sun. Some used there brain.

Still quote it though. I want to see it.

"The Prophet Abraham(as) grew up in a polytheistic society and his people sought their Creator in the nature around them, but without satisfaction as we read in the Qur’an:
And when the night darkened upon him, he saw a star. He said: ‘This is my Lord!’ But when it set, he said: ‘I like not those that set.’ And when he saw the moon rise with spreading light, he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ But when it set, he said, ‘If my Lord guide me not, I shall surely be of the people who go astray.’ And when he saw the sun rise with spreading light, he said: ‘This is my Lord, this is the greatest.’ But when it set, he said, ‘O my people, surely I am clear of that which you associate with God. I have turned my face toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, being ever inclined to God, and I am not of those who associate gods with God.’ (Ch.6:Vs.77-80)

These verses illustrate the extent to which society at that time (around 4000 years ago) had fallen into the worship of celestial bodies. The insight that he was given showed his understanding that bodies that set below the horizon could not exert their influence continually over man, whereas the Creator was (and is) omnipresent. The verses show how Abraham(as) used his arguments to show his people the futility of their ancient beliefs as he had been the recipient of direct revelation; it was not the case that Abraham(as) himself had been groping to find his Creator through this process,. This is reinforced in a later verse in the same chapter:


So a separate god was created for Judaism. Now was this separate god inspired by a Egyptian god - probably -but they can't say that in the Qur'an.
It has to seem like they came onto their god by themselves.

Now just like Paul, Abraham also claimed revelation
(wow what a coincidence) to make his beliefs seem real. This is the same process with Paul and Jesus. Back then hallucinations/revelations were accepted as real. Now we know it's all made-up stuff.

No, ancient people did not worship the same god. There wer many gods different people worshiped. Not everyone did or believed the same things. This isnt a numbers game, this is about reality.

I never said anything like that? Whats wrong with you? I said the first gods worshiped were mostly solar and animal gods.

Look up proof for that for me. Not assertions. And.....again, the nature of humans isnt to believe the same things. Theres various views within the human race. That would have been the case back then too.
A number of archeologists propose that Middle Paleolithic societies such as Neanderthal societies may also have practiced early forms of totemism or of animal worship. E
Hints to the religion of Bronze Age Europe include images of solar barges, frequent appearance of the Sun cross, deposits of bronze axes, and later sickles, so-called moon idols, the conical golden hats, the Nebra skydisk, and burial in tumuli, but also cremation as practised by the Urnfield culture.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Yes, i know what god in the gap means. But, im not doing it in this case because we have a biblical record that says God came on the mountain in a piller of fire. And we have an entire account of a exodus. This account matches the site in arabia.

one of many things already debunked:


"The first time the word “Arabia” is used as a term for a designated geographical area is in the mid-fifth century BC by the famous Greek historian and traveler, Herodotus (born ca. 484 BC). He traveled to Egypt and wrote about his trip in his book, The Persian Wars. In his monumental work on ancient Arabs, Dr. Israel Eph’al of Tel Aviv University, points out that


Herodotus … calls the entire region east of the Nile and the Pelusian Branch, from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, "Arabia", and its population "Arabs" (2: 8, 15, 19, 30, 75, 124, 158) (Eph’al 1982: 193).

Moreover, in the mid-third century BC, 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek (known as the Septuagint) and followed the contemporary use of the word “Arabia” when they referred to Goshen as “Goshen of Arabia” (Gen. 45:10; 46:34). While Goshen is clearly part of Egypt (Gen. 37:6, 27; Ex. 9:26), the translator imposed the third century BC geographical reality on their translation.


On Egeria’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land, she visited Mt. Sinai (Jebel Musa) and also the Land of Goshen (Wilkinson 1981:91-103). In Goshen, she stayed at Clysma, a “city of Arabia” (Wilkinson 1981:100). She wrote, “It gets its name from the region, which is called "the land of Arabia, the land of Goshen," a region which, while it is part of Egypt, is a great deal better than any of the rest” (1981:100,101). Egeria followed the Septuagint reading of Gen. 46:34 in her description of Goshen being in the Land of Arabia.


Therefore, when the Apostle Paul says that Mt. Sinai is in Arabia, he is using the First century AD understanding of the word. He would be perfectly correct in placing Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula because the Sinai Peninsula was part of Arabia in his day.


In conjunction with Galatians 4:25, three other verses have been used to demonstrate that Mt. Sinai was outside the Sinai Peninsula: Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; and Habakkuk 3:3. It is stated that Seir, Mt. Paran and Teman are located in present day Jordan or even Saudi Arabia (Heiser 1998; Cross 1998).

Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
No, thats incorrect. At first i was trying to debate the evidence and merits of the resurrection of Jesus. Then you wanted to debate many gods comparisons to Jesus. So, i did. This did not entirely get away from the ressurection, but, it sorta did.

Now, wer on the exodus, because im still contending the bible is historical structure, not mythical structure. So, wer getting into archeology due to my consistent contending that these wer experiences, not made up stories.

I just mentioned them, not as a debate. OF course the OT isn't historical. Archeology has already shown this.



Appealing to authority and majority is not evidence.
You don't even understand how to use literary fallacies.
Appeal to authority is used to point out when someone is saying something is true because everyone else says so.
Like people saying Jesus was a real man.
It has noting to do with what SCIENTISTS FIND OUT.
DER!!!
You don't say crap like "oh you think special relativity is true just because all the physicists do, that's appeal to authority"




And its not even a good idea because most people, especially ones in power are stupid.

Yes people in power are POLITICIANS!!!!
You don't extend that argument to SCIENTISTS and HISTORIANS ??? You're now calling scholarship stupid. Are you a crazy person? You are awful at debating, holy crap?



Its not about majority, its not about naturalism, its not about fundamentalism, its about EVIDENCE and reason.

Well yes but you won't accept all the historical and archeological evidence at all. None of it.
Moving on to reason, you don't accept simple reason at all. Zero, no reason.

Reason tells us that since every other supernatural tale devised has been a myth that your religion is also a myth. That is how reason works. Period.

You do not do reason or evidence. Period.



You mean accept the theory from the majority. Evidence dont care.

No from the scientists. The majority are not smart. Accept theory from scholars only, qualified people.
But now that we see they all show evidence against your magical beliefs your trying to lump science in with "the majority" or those "in power", which is pure crap and dishonest. Am I supposed to fall for that?


Mayby its the naturalists who need to give up there idea.

I don't know anything about Naturalism. Do you assume I'm a naturalist because I don't believe in one myth?
I would believe in something supernatural if there was a shred of evidence.
This one debunks itself right at the beginning with Abraham and his revelation which is supposed to be a step up from solar worship? P.S, "revelation" means "made up".
The soft sciences debunk all scripture and reason shows myths are all just myths.

No, its not a conspiracy, its stupidity (aka, barking up the wrong tree). Yes, they arent dating things correctly. I question there entire dating methods and there competency in doing it.

good luck with that.

No, question everything, PERIOD, whether you agree with christianity or not. But, heres the thing, yes, i believe christianity, but, by questioning the naturalist model, i then put that model to the test.

go for it,

Likewise, by you questioning christianity, you put it the the test.


It failed the test.

The one that can survive severe scrutiny and evidence is the one that is true.

It isn't Christianity vs naturalism any more than it's the Easter bunny vs naturalism. I don't care about naturalism.
Christianity has already not-survived. Scholarship in all fields do not recognize any divinity.
That's just for people to go to church and believe in gods and have fun doing that. The masses need that stuff. The evidence is already compiled. How many times do I have to explain, history and archeology do not support divinity.


Look, dont you realize that YOUR JUST AS EQUALLY as biased as i am? Having a viewpoint just by itself makes you biased. Biased dont equal dishonest though.

No I follow evidence. You can't see that for some reason.

Its not a search for truth, its a search to make naturalism true, to you.
Nope it's a search for truth. I don't know if naturalism is true? I do know Hercules is not. That includes all myths/religions/


And thats the stuff we need to be debating, not this appeal to authority and majority nonsense.

That would be nonsense, luckily I only appeal to science.

Mayby in your mind, but in reality its not proven myth.

Uh, if it's a story about magic and the supernatural then it has to prove itself or it's just a story about magic and supernatural.

More appeal to authority. No evidence at all. Ill hear authority if the authority presents evidence.

Straight out lie.
You shut down the worlds best archeologists and the entire field of biblical historicity.

You see what you keep doing? Preaching your view. So, i take it your view is aligned with richard and not the majority of archeologists that Jesus is a real man then?

Carrier is not an archeologist. He is a historian. I've read his work and watched him debate probably 15 hours of impressive biblical scholars. So yes NOW I believe he's made his case because it withstood difficult debates from excellent scholars.

hats false, i ignored anything not evidence. And im not switching topics. I go along with you switching topics.

You ignore all evidence.

Yea, i got to innana and my point on that you dont wanna address fully. So, how can we move in to the other gods yet?
I addressed your point.


Its the dating methods. Not the entire field. Evidence, evidence, evidence, thats what its about for me. Should be for you too.
Dating what? Stop saying "evidence is what it's about for me". We are past that, the secret is out. You don't care about evidence unless it helps your beliefs. That's it. You've ignored all evidence and now that you seem to realize archeology is completely against the OT it's time to attack their methods. As if you even know how Thompson did his thesis. Are you just borrowing the creationist argument about carbon dating now?

Because that's not how archeology works? Geologists actually use many different elements for molecular dating and while carbon dating is less accurate some other types are very accurate.
But I have no idea what you're even talking about? A random argument against an entire field because it doesn't support your beliefs is crazy person/conspiracy territory. Unless you have a specific point to make I can't respond to crazy.

All I do is post evidence. When it doesn't help you you squirrel around it and call it "authority" or somehow try to make it seem less credible. Then ask for evidence?
 
Last edited:

Prometheus85

Active Member
Coming back from death = resurrection. Lots of people do it, especially with modern medicine.


The series doesn't matter. What mattered is what killed him (ever watch that Halloween episode of CSI, I think it was, where the bad guy "dies" of like at least half a dozen things, but only really the last one actually killed him?), if he truly died at all, because I don't remember seeing that anyone checked for a pulse. Crucifixions can't be 100% fatal because there are idiots who do it to themselves every Easter. If it were THAT fatal, it'd be a stunt they can only pull once. There are no witnesses to his death (credible ones, anyway) and there weren't any witnesses for the resurrection. That leaves a lot of wiggle room. I believe the most likely scenario is that he was assumed dead and brought to a tomb (conveniently, the resurrected rarely wake up 6 feet under), where he had a couple of days to recover and then he skipped town because basically he had 5 stars on GTA and practically everyone was after him. John, the only one to mention the detail of being pierced in the side, even provides a likely medical scenario: that the soldier who stabbed him with a pointy stick inadvertently relieved the pressure of excess fluid in his abdomen or chest (it only says "side" not a specific location) and he thus recovered.

Lol I think your idea of what Resurrection is misconstrued my friend. What your referring to is medical resurrection. Medical resurrection didn’t bring Jesus’s back to life. And besides, medical resurrection usually only occurs in very short time frames (a few minutes) between death and "resurrection" and assumes that all bodily functions have not completely shut down. So you equating Jesus’s resurrection with people lives being saved with modern medicine makes absolutely no since. We’re talking about the revival of previously dead humans to some degree of existence on earth. There is no solid evidence in recent times of a human corpse becoming reanimated and walking on Earth after death, either with or without a soul.
 
Top