Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[Spartan]

Like who for instance?

You're unaware there are secularists who rip off people?

 

[Spartan]

I can find others. But Carrier is a well respected scholar in the field. All you had were apologists. And no, he buried your claims. You had nothing.

Carrier is not well respected by any number of theologians, or others, as a matter of fact. In fact, he is a self-admitted adulterer / hedonist who screwed around royally on his wife.

Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue

Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD – A creepy, dishonest hypocrite

Theologically, he denies the resurrection of Jesus, but doesn't have any solid evidence for his position. In theological terms, he's a heretic.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg with him.

 

[Spartan]

At any rate since someone has a rather odd hatred of Carrier here is an article that goes over several of the problems with the Nativity myths:

A Christmas Tale: How Much of the Nativity Story Is True?

That's hilarious. Here a fine example of the Mickey Mouse "scholarship" of the article. Quote:

"The Gospel of Matthew describes wise men, or Magi, who come to Bethlehem from the east to honor the baby Jesus, "the king of the Jews," with gifts such as frankincense. Yet no historical records attest to such trips by any Magi at the time, Landau said."

First of all, there is a record of it - in the Gospel nativity account.

Second, where is it written that Magi (i.e. "wise men") were supposed to keep a written record of their travels?

Third, there's no way Landau could possibly keep track of all the travels of Magi in Jesus' day.

And lastly, how does Landau know that there might have once been such records, but now are lost to antiquity?

Critical thinking...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Carrier is not well respected by any number of theologians, or others, as a matter of fact. In fact, he is a self-admitted womanizer who screwed around royally on his wife.

Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue

Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD – A creepy, dishonest hypocrite

Theologically, he denies the resurrection of Jesus, but doesn't have any solid evidence for his position. In theological terms, he's a heretic.

Sorry, those links do not support your claim. The first is him explaining that he can't live as you and I do. If anything the people trying to push their superstitious sexual beliefs upon others is "creepy". The second is merely a hit piece by a hypocritical Christian.

And theologically your beliefs appear to be bankrupt so there is nothing wrong with being a "heretic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's hilarious. Here a fine example of the Mickey Mouse "scholarship" of the article. Quote:

"The Gospel of Matthew describes wise men, or Magi, who come to Bethlehem from the east to honor the baby Jesus, "the king of the Jews," with gifts such as frankincense. Yet no historical records attest to such trips by any Magi at the time, Landau said."

First of all, there is a record of it - in the Gospel nativity account.

Second, where is it written that Magi (i.e. "wise men") were supposed to keep a written record of their travels?

Third, there's no way Landau could possibly keep track of all the travels of Magi in Jesus' day.

And lastly, how does Landau know that there might have once been such records, but now are lost to antiquity?

Critical thinking...

LOL! You need to apply critical thinking to the Magi myth. Tell me, how did they find Jesus?

 

[Spartan]

LOL! You need to apply critical thinking to the Magi myth. Tell me, how did they find Jesus?

The Star of Bethlehem.

Even before Jesus, the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures foretold of such an event.

"A Star from Jacob

THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 28:14)

I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; a Star shall come out of Jacob; a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and batter the brow of Moab, and destroy all the sons of tumult. (Numbers 24:17)

THE RABBINIC WRITINGS

A STAR shall proceed out of Jacob, and there shall come a SCEPTRE in Israel. The KING Messiah is here spoken of as a STAR. (Rabbi Lieva of Prague)

When a king shall arise out of Jacob and the Messiah be anointed from Israel, He will slay the princes of Moab, and reign over all the children of man. (Targum Onkelos)

Our rabbis have a tradition that in the week in which the Messiah will be born there will be a bright STAR in the east , which is "THE STAR OF THE Messiah." (Pesikta Sotarta fol. 58. c.1)" The Messiah Pages: A Star from Jacob

Gotta love it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Star of Bethlehem.

Even before Jesus, the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures foretold of such an event.

"A Star from Jacob

THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 28:14)

I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; a Star shall come out of Jacob; a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and batter the brow of Moab, and destroy all the sons of tumult. (Numbers 24:17)

THE RABBINIC WRITINGS

A STAR shall proceed out of Jacob, and there shall come a SCEPTRE in Israel. The KING Messiah is here spoken of as a STAR. (Rabbi Lieva of Prague)

When a king shall arise out of Jacob and the Messiah be anointed from Israel, He will slay the princes of Moab, and reign over all the children of man. (Targum Onkelos)

Our rabbis have a tradition that in the week in which the Messiah will be born there will be a bright STAR in the east , which is "THE STAR OF THE Messiah." (Pesikta Sotarta fol. 58. c.1)" The Messiah Pages: A Star from Jacob

Gotta love it!

so you can't understand your own Bible and you couldn't answer the question.

how did the Magi find Jesus?

Ironically Jesus did not fulfill the one clear prophecy you listed.

 

[Spartan]

so you can't understand your own Bible and you couldn't answer the question.

how did the Magi find Jesus?

I understand it quite well.

Have you NEVER read Matthew chapter 2?

"Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed."

Ironically Jesus did not fulfill the one clear prophecy you listed.

There's still the second coming so you can't conclude that yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it quite well.

Have you NEVER read Matthew chapter 2?

"Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed."

Like the mythical Magi, you don't understand celestial navigation. If you did you would understand why that story is b.s..

There's still the second coming so you can't conclude that yet.

And now we can add prophecies to the list.

 

[Spartan]

Like the mythical Magi, you don't understand celestial navigation. If you did you would understand why that story is b.s..
And now we can add prophecies to the list.

And you are evidently clueless about the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you are evidently clueless about the supernatural.

I am not the clueless one. Whenever your run into trouble with your mythical beliefs you claim "magic". That is not very convincing. Why go to the trouble of making a magic "star"? Why not just magically give them the information? If you are going to claim magic at least try to be reasonable.

 

[Spartan]

I am not the clueless one. Whenever your run into trouble with your mythical beliefs you claim "magic". That is not very convincing. Why go to the trouble of making a magic "star"? Why not just magically give them the information? If you are going to claim magic at least try to be reasonable.

Listen - I have the historical accounts, you have denial only. I like my position better than yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Listen - I have the historical accounts, you have denial only. I like my position better than yours.

Projection again. You only have the Gospels and apologists. You have yet to use reliable historical accounts. I have referred to actual historians.

It is rather amazing that you can only use low level Christian apologist sources. You in effect refute your own claims with your poor choice of sources.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Do you need a list of scriptures that condemn gay sex?



And I reject your claim that you believe god was not behind it, because I don't think its possible to know any such thing



Sounds like the kind of nonsense one would hear on the streets of Sodom and Gomorrah.

1: no - you could provide a list of every baseless claim of a bunch of ancient people and the claims themselves would still not be enough to convince me that being gay is in any way immoral (or moral; it doesnt have a moral position)

2: reject away; but I don'd believe a god was behind it. What I think you're trying to infer that my standpoint and yours on the issue are on equal grounds in terms of burdens of proof - however I make no claim to absolute truth or to knowledge of any kind (unlike theists, who, in order to hold their belief must also maintain a claim of knowledge). What I do claim is that the weight of evidence about homosexuality indicates that it is amoral, as opposed to immoral or moral. The biblical condemnation of this is poorly justified and based on tenuous historical events of which the cause is unknown - despite claims that it was god.

3: you're probably right. But then again, I'm not a homophobe and don't have a problem with most of the acts described as having been condoned in sodom and gomorrah. Rape is aparantly one of these, and I'm obviously opposed to this as it violates the rights of another person. Being gay, however, does not. Should we just check what can be described as 'sodomy' btw? In some states the official designation is anything other than missionary sex between a married couple. Am I to take it you're against anything that happens outside of these constraints? Thats the 'good' christian position...

 

[Dan Mellis]

Oh they actually admit that they did that to fulfill prophecy?

They do - I dont have the exact bit of scripture to hand but its the bit where they talk about jesus riding in on a donkey across palm leaves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do - I dont have the exact bit of scripture to hand but its the bit where they talk about jesus riding in on a donkey across palm leaves.

The writers of the Gospels, whoever they were, were not ignorant of the Jewish scriptures. One thing that they did realize was that Jesus did not meet the messianic prophecies which is why they may have invented some of their own. Many of the so called prophecies are quote mines of old verses that are either not prophetic or are prophecies unrelated to Jesus when read in context.

 

[Spartan]

1: no - you could provide a list of every baseless claim of a bunch of ancient people and the claims themselves would still not be enough to convince me that being gay is in any way immoral (or moral; it doesnt have a moral position)

2: reject away; but I don'd believe a god was behind it. What I think you're trying to infer that my standpoint and yours on the issue are on equal grounds in terms of burdens of proof - however I make no claim to absolute truth or to knowledge of any kind (unlike theists, who, in order to hold their belief must also maintain a claim of knowledge). What I do claim is that the weight of evidence about homosexuality indicates that it is amoral, as opposed to immoral or moral. The biblical condemnation of this is poorly justified and based on tenuous historical events of which the cause is unknown - despite claims that it was god.

3: you're probably right. But then again, I'm not a homophobe and don't have a problem with most of the acts described as having been condoned in sodom and gomorrah. Rape is aparantly one of these, and I'm obviously opposed to this as it violates the rights of another person. Being gay, however, does not. Should we just check what can be described as 'sodomy' btw? In some states the official designation is anything other than missionary sex between a married couple. Am I to take it you're against anything that happens outside of these constraints? Thats the 'good' christian position...

Mellis - didn't you identify yourself as a Catholic? Do you know what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexual relations?

"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment

Now let's review what God and the Bible actually say about homosexual sin:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-10 - “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”

Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

There's no gay marriages in the Old Testament; No gay marriages in the New Testament; no gay sex approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite - gay sex is condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that.

 

[Spartan]

Projection again. You only have the Gospels and apologists. You have yet to use reliable historical accounts. I have referred to actual historians.

It is rather amazing that you can only use low level Christian apologist sources. You in effect refute your own claims with your poor choice of sources.

Once again, your negative characterization of Christian scholarship is for the birds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, your negative characterization of Christian scholarship is for the birds.

I have never given a negative characterization of Christian scholarship. If you actually used such as would not have so many disagreements. Apologists are rarely scholars.

If anything you attacked Christian scholarship because it so often disagrees with you.

 

[Spartan]

I have never given a negative characterization of Christian scholarship. If you actually used such as would not have so many disagreements. Apologists are rarely scholars.

If anything you attacked Christian scholarship because it so often disagrees with you.

No, I disagree strongly with LIBERALS trying to trash or rewrite the Gospels.