ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[joelr]

Much of what God does is illogical like cursing a fig tree and it dying from the roots.

That's a parable about the temple cult being destroyed by Romans but then being replaced by Jesus because unlike animal sacrifice blood which only lasts 1 year Jesus tells people to pray instead.
So even though god allowed the Romans to destroy his temple he had a better solution in mind.
Then Jesus was sacrificed and so on.


It's a Markan sandwich, explained at 25:20

then the fig Markan sandwich is explained at 26:20

 

[Audie]

Well because they like to believe that the OT is literal.
If one thing turns out to be a myth then the whole thing could be a myth.
Not only for religious reasons. Imagine if you were Scandanavian or one of those Viking countries and always thought your ancestors were ****** Vikings with war ships and big swords and hammers and smashing invaders.
Then archeologists found a cave with writings from that time and it turned out everyone was a farmer and no one had weapons and when invaders came they just gave them free stuff and it was just too cold for people to stay and use your stuff.
Bummer.

Oh- then you are talking about someone else, not an
archaeologist.

A scientist who starts with a conclusion is about as legit
as an atheist preacher.

 

[shunyadragon]

ONCE AGAIN! It is slow but always verified what is written

The document from the First Temple period, of which only two lines of ancient Hebrew script have survived, is a dispatch regarding a gift of wine "to Jerusalem." The text itself reads: “[hand]maid of the king, from Na'arata, wineskins, wine, to Jerusalem.” The city of Na'arata, or Naarah is mentioned in Joshua 16:7. The gift of wine was sent either to King Manasseh, King Amon or King Josiah - who reigned during this period.

Prof. Ahituv emphasized that "not only is this papyrus the most ancient external biblical source that mentions Jerusalem in Hebrew script, but also, until now, no papyrus documents from the First Temple period have been found in the Land of Israel except one from Murabat creek." The papyrus also draws attention to high-ranking women in the Judean administration.


Ancient Papyrus Again Proves Israel's Biblical History

I wanted to add that it is historically recognized by archaeological discoveries and research that the Kingdoms of Israel in the North ~1000 to ~600 BCE and Kingdom of Judah ~900 BCE in the South and Jerusalem existed in the period. This fragment is of course more evidence, but in reality nothing new. Based on the archaeological evidence Israel began to be identified as a tribal identity between ~1200 and ~1000 BCE with a progressive increase in the number of villages as a pastoral Canaanite culture. This growth is in part attributed to a favorable climate.

 

[gnostic]

Well, the bible talks about King David.
And the Greeks talk about Zeus
the Romans talk about Neptune
the native Americans talk about Nanook
the aboriginals talk about Altjeringa
and the Maori talk about Ara Tiotio.

Which one is an actual historical person?

None of them exist as “an actual historical person”, PruePhillip.

Outside of the OT Bible, there are no contemporary evidences and no contemporary independent records of King David ever existing, or ruling the kingdom, or of him slaying Goliath.

There are not even contemporary ancient Hebrew inscriptions that referred or allude to King David. Even the books of Samuel were centuries after his supposed reign.

The two oldest Hebrew writings (Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar, both of 10th century BCE) make no mention of any king of Israel, let alone by the name of David or Solomon.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Most fact and those that don't are simply still under investigation.

God of the gaps is a bad argument.

 

[viole]

I'm glad you believe in something Even if it is just parroting overused statements.

Well, that is the faith of statements that are likely to express some truths, at least to some It is called a meme.

And I have no problems to admit that I also believe in things that have no evidence. The only notable difference, is that I am not particularty touched if someone ridicules them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

That's a parable about the temple cult being destroyed by Romans but then being replaced by Jesus because unlike animal sacrifice blood which only lasts 1 year Jesus tells people to pray instead.
So even though god allowed the Romans to destroy his temple he had a better solution in mind.
Then Jesus was sacrificed and so on.


It's a Markan sandwich, explained at 25:20

then the fig Markan sandwich is explained at 26:20

that is one viewpoint. There is another in which Adam used fig leaves or human capacity to reach God. It could be understood as Jesus saying, that way has no life because after that he talked about faith to produce fruit.

 

[Kenny]

I wanted to add that it is historically recognized by archaeological discoveries and research that the Kingdoms of Israel in the North ~1000 to ~600 BCE and Kingdom of Judah ~900 BCE in the South and Jerusalem existed in the period. This fragment is of course more evidence, but in reality nothing new. Based on the archaeological evidence Israel began to be identified as a tribal identity between ~1200 and ~1000 BCE with a progressive increase in the number of villages as a pastoral Canaanite culture. This growth is in part attributed to a favorable climate.

That is someone's viewpoint. I disagree with it.

 

[Kenny]

God of the gaps is a bad argument.

It isn't my arguement

 

[metis]

@KenS, I have not had much time to add to our study of Matthew or any other of your posts since my sister is in hospice and my wife, kids, and I have been staying with her for the last two weeks. I may be able to do the Matthew thingy tomorrow as I'll be home then (I hope), but don't count on it.

Take care, and please pray for her ("Dawn").

 

[Kenny]

@KenS, I have not had much time to add to our study of Matthew or any other of your posts since my sister is in hospice and my wife, kids, and I have been staying with her for the last two weeks. I may be able to do the Matthew thingy tomorrow as I'll be home then (I hope), but don't count on it.

Take care, and please pray for her ("Dawn").

I just had a celebration service for my mom. We are in Ky now, taking care of all the particulars with the rest of my family. Understand the process... count on my prayers.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is someone's viewpoint. I disagree with it.

Someone's view point?!? This is the result archaeological evidence. Yes the piece of text you cited confirms the existence of Jerusalem, which was already known. What new information did this find discover?

 

[Kenny]

Someone's view point?!? This is the result archaeological evidence. Yes the piece of text you cited confirms the existence of Jerusalem, which was already known. What new information did this find discover?

The application of what they found is indeed someone's viewpoint

 

[shunyadragon]

The application of what they found is indeed someone's viewpoint

Does not answer the question. Everything in the fragment as far the history of the time was already known.

Yes the piece of text you cited confirms the existence of Jerusalem, which was already known. What new information did this find discover?

 

[PruePhillip]

None of them exist as “an actual historical person”, PruePhillip.

Outside of the OT Bible, there are no contemporary evidences and no contemporary independent records of King David ever existing, or ruling the kingdom, or of him slaying Goliath.

There are not even contemporary ancient Hebrew inscriptions that referred or allude to King David. Even the books of Samuel were centuries after his supposed reign.

The two oldest Hebrew writings (Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar, both of 10th century BCE) make no mention of any king of Israel, let alone by the name of David or Solomon.

True. What we have is the "house of David"
"David" being the first in the dynasty, or predominant.
But it wasn't long ago when "scholars" were telling us,
by extension, there was no house of David.
It's a given that the further back you go in history the
less evidence there is. This applies to the bible like
any other document claiming to be historical.

The bible presents David as a complex figure, warts
and all, adds to the sense he was an historic figure.
(note his tidy dealings with Solomon prior to his death,
and the story of Bathsheba.)

 

[PruePhillip]

That's a parable about the temple cult being destroyed by Romans but then being replaced by Jesus because unlike animal sacrifice blood which only lasts 1 year Jesus tells people to pray instead.
So even though god allowed the Romans to destroy his temple he had a better solution in mind.
Then Jesus was sacrificed and so on.


It's a Markan sandwich, explained at 25:20

then the fig Markan sandwich is explained at 26:20

I like this, "Obviously a fictional story"
Not a scientific statement. "Obviously" Hannibal was a fictional character too,
using similar logic.
Makes you wonder why people bang on about it if it's just a "fictional story."
Methinks there's two issues here
1 - issues of salvation and heaven and hell.
2 - the stringent moral expectation of the Gospels.

Saying that God decided on something new in Jesus begs the question -
what were the authors of the Old Testament referring to when they said
the Messiah would be come, be rejected, and the nation of Israel and its
temple would be destroyed. And, what role the temple had in Biblical
symbolism. I watched bits of this video - it's childish. I am not saying
that because I don't agree - I have respect to good atheist arguments.
This is not one of them.

 

[PruePhillip]

Someone's view point?!? This is the result archaeological evidence. Yes the piece of text you cited confirms the existence of Jerusalem, which was already known. What new information did this find discover?

No, it didn't just confirm there's a place for Jerusalem.
That city has been around for a long time.
If I recall - not having read the article since the discovery.

It confirmed things that "scholars" rejected:

there was an Israel, not just a collection of Canannite tribes.
This is evident by the fact that Jerusalem was an administrative center,
and there was at that stage a developed Jewish language and writing.

The old theory (now obviously updated) is that the whole OT was
invented in Babylonian times. King David, the temple, the ark of the
Coventant, Moses.... all invented.
And recall that 1000 BC was a far away from Babylonian scribes as
the founding of America is today.
So now we know there WAS a House of David, there WAS a cultic
centre at Jerusalem, there WAS an administrative center in the same
city, there WAS a Jewish identity then as expressed in language and
literature.

Now, recall this Cohen guy, former lawyer to Trump? Look it up under
Jew, Geneology, DNA and Cohen. This lawyer hailed from the ancient
line of Levite priests, in all likelihood. Wasn't long ago that "scholars"
would have said that was all nonsense too.

 

[PruePhillip]

Scholarship recognizes that they are all likely re-writes of Mark

Please don't use that word "scholarship."
These scribes having a starting position which is:
"If we have to resort to invoking God we haven't progressed as a science"
or something to that effect.
So with that preconceived bias our scholars attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY
the scripture. Tellingly, what can't be EXPLAINED AWAY is SIMPLY IGNORED.
It's fascinating to study what can't be explained, like Daniel speaking of the
Messiah coming to the Temple while it is still standing, and being "cut off."

 

[PruePhillip]

No, like I said I can show you the debate where Carrier shows that every time John says the particular word used for "brother" in his letters that he is meaning "brothers in the lord".
There is no question about this except from Christians for obvious reasons. They do the same thing with evolution.

This is an old Catholic style argument, ie Jesus had no brothers
and we can "prove" it because the bible often uses "brother" to
mean the brotherhood of all believers.
It simply ignores James, Joses, Jude and Simon. These brothers
were mentioned too by King David ca 1000 when he says that the
Messiah would be rejected of his parent's children.

James was likely the first son Mary had after Jesus. He did not
believe until after the resurrection. He went on to become the
head of the Jerusalem church. He was martyred.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Acts where John doesn't want women in the church and sees an actual Jesus and all that stuff is fiction.

Do you mean Paul?
Paul had an issue with a few women in the church who didn't keep quiet.
His early convert was Lydia. He referred to women preachers that he wanted
the churches to support.
Not sure how you know Paul's vision was fiction. I wasn't there myself. Paul
started out from Jerusalem with the intent of destroying the church, and wound
up in Damascus as a follower. Something certainly happened.