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

[tas8831]

Oh, but it was in dispute once. In fact, Christians were told it was a total made up name, since no record of a prefect of that name could be found in Roman documentation of the time. This has happened a number of times, he Bible has been said to be in error, and archaeology or some other discipline proves it true.

Can you document that? I had never heard this.

 

[tas8831]

Unless Jesus come back and say yes this is my tomb they can not prove it enough that non believers will believe it actually was the tomb of Jesus.

And with good reason.

 

[Audie]

Can you document that? I had never heard this.

If somone said that to two Christians, then
this:
Christians were told it was a total made up ...

Is technically true, but deliberately deceptive,
which is of course, the game with these
assertions.

Same with the thing about how
when some things in the bible prove
to be true, more or less, it is implied
that therefore all of it is

Deliberate attempt at deception, and
nobody but the perp is convinced by it.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry, but the gospels sometimes don’t agree with other.

To give you, an example.

In 3 of the gospels, Mark (14:3-11), Matthew (26:6-13) and John (12:1-8), they all agreed with a supper taking place in a small town called Bethany, and all 3 agreed that a woman anointed Jesus with a very expensive jar of perfume.

But the details in this episode in Bethany differed.

According to Matthew and Mark, the supper and anointing took place in the home of Simon the Leper. While in the gospel of John, Lazarus was the host and it was his home, not Simon the Leper’s.

The woman with the perfume was nameless woman in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but in John’s, it was Lazarus’ sister Mary Magdalene.

Again in Matthew’s and Mark’s, it was Jesus’ head that got anointed, but in John's, it was Jesus’ feet.

And in Matthew’s and Mark’s, all disciples complained about the waste, but in John’s, only Judas Iscariot made the complaint.

In the gospel of Luke, this scene never happened in Bethany, instead Jesus anointing occurred in Nain, Galilee, and in the house of Simon the Pharisee, not to be confused with Simon the Leper. Here, the woman is also nameless, but the gospel referred to her as the Sinful Woman, and it was Jesus’ feet that got anointed with expensive perfume, not his head. And lastly, there were any complaints by his disciples, but rather it was his host, who complained not of the expensive perfume, but that the woman was sinful.

So we have 3 different versions, in which only two gospel agreed with each other in one version.

So how would you determine which of 3 versions are the right one? And how would you verify that it happened as it say?

Interesting.
But you see, this confirms that Jesus was real and that the Gospel stories are correct - it is the argument from embarrassment. That the bible was copied so studiously and accurately in ancient times, despite the fact that there were contradictions and discrepancies, proves that the bible is accurate. For who would make copies of errors - who would embarrass themselves - in such a fashion were they not confident in the reality of what they were copying?

Or so I have been told by more than one self-proclaimed bible expert.

 

[Audie]

Luke version maybe a separate story, but the other story, is the same story, but has two different versions.

All you are doing is blindly making excuses.

Maybe not. i ran across a guy, he was trying
to convert me.

After a bit it emerged that GOD was speaking
through him, so, nothing he said could
be incorrect.

Of course, similarly Ol' Nick was speaking
through me, so everything I said was,
yes, a devilish lie.

That is probably what you are dealing with here.

 

[tas8831]

It's symbolic language, Audie. That's all.
It's like when we say "sunrise"
We all know the sun doesn't "rise"
- the earth simply rotates.

We know that NOW.
Do you think this was always known?

Point is, what we see as symbolic now was likely once to have been considered reality.

 

[shmogie]

Can you document that? I had never heard this.

Well, depending upon your age, the fact may have been established when you began hearing things. The pilate stone was found in the early 60ś. As I stated, before that, many felt Pilate was fantasy, since no record could be found of him in any lists of prefects, letters, citations, etc.

 

[Audie]

Well, depending upon your age, the fact may have been established when you began hearing things. The pilate stone was found in the early 60ś. As I stated, before that, many felt Pilate was fantasy, since no record could be found of him in any lists of prefects, letters, citations, etc.

Lotta blah blah, but no documentation, as asked for.

 

[Audie]

We know that NOW.
Do you think this was always known?

Point is, what we see as symbolic now was likely once to have been considered reality.

DO "we" know that the language of genesis is
symbolic? How do "we" know what the ones
who concocted the story had in mind?

Some Christians have now adopted this as
a fall-back position, faced with the
very obvious-to-all fact that there was
no flood, or 6 day poof.

As for what was intended by the stories
at the time?

Telling ridiculous stories that nobody figures
out are not true for a couple thousand years
and even then a huge number of people
still dont get it...

And you'd have a hard time getting anyone
now, to agree what the symbolism is or
what is or isnt a real story.

That is a messed up way to teach anything.

(wasn't it supposed to be that naughty ol'
Devil, who is the author of confusion?)

 

[shmogie]

Lotta blah blah, but no documentation, as asked for.

What kind of documentation would you like from 60 years ago ? I remember discussions I had, articles I read, but I can recall them now, so ms. blah, blah, blah where should I look ? Or, are you disputing the fact that there was no documentation of Pilate before 1962 ? Easily provided, you just need to say please

 

[Shad]

Lotta blah blah, but no documentation, as asked for.

Pilate stone - Wikipedia

Just linking it so you can read it.

 

[Audie]

What kind of documentation would you like from 60 years ago ? I remember discussions I had, articles I read, but I can recall them now, so ms. blah, blah, blah where should I look ? Or, are you disputing the fact that there was no documentation of Pilate before 1962 ? Easily provided, you just need to say please

Do you even remember your original claim, for
which you were asked to provide documentation?

Never mind.

 

[Audie]

Pilate stone - Wikipedia

Just linking it so you can read it.

If there was a "Pilate" fine. It concerns me not.

Here is what does-

Christians were told it was a total made up name, since no record of a prefect of that name could be found in Roman documentation of the time. This has happened a number of times, he Bible has been said to be in error, and archaeology or some other discipline proves it true.

The part in bold is what I called into question.
Is there a record of this?

What is far more in question is, are we talking
about one skeptic telling two Christians this?

Is this the great broad river of academic thought
here, all them big professors saying
"total made up name?

I personally doubt it, as no researcher of any
worth would do so. If one does not have any
records, then you say there are no records,
you dont jump to a conclusion and say it is false.

AND most important in this-

JUST BECAUSE some facts stated in the
Bible are-gasp-TRUE, does not mean squat
with regard to the authenticity of the
supernatural stuff.

Now, I know one of our posters holds that
because he has had "experiences" the
supernatural stuff is properly evidenced.
Even though there is not the faintest
trace of material evidence, like there is
for "Pilate", or, "Egypt".

It is a silly argument, and I wont indulge him
in it

 

[shmogie]

Do you even remember your original claim, for
which you were asked to provide documentation?

Never mind.

I do, you apparently don´t

 

[Audie]

I do, you apparently don´t

I'd already quoted it for you,
before you had a chance to
claim I dont know what you said.

You apparently didnt bother to notice.

As for your "response" to having the claim
questioned, it has been and remains
100% unresponsive.

 

[PruePhillip]

We know that NOW.
Do you think this was always known?

Point is, what we see as symbolic now was likely once to have been considered reality.

Yes and no.
The ancients were pretty spot on about some things. I think the Greeks got
the radius of the Earth fairly accurate.
They certainly knew how to conduct their societies, a skill we are rapidly
losing (see tag line below)
But with the bible it's hard to tease out what is symbolic and what is real at
times. For instance it says that "God commanded the seas to bring forth
life." And from it came fishes and birds. Where do we begin with something
like that?

 

[lukethethird]

Well, depending upon your age, the fact may have been established when you began hearing things. The pilate stone was found in the early 60ś. As I stated, before that, many felt Pilate was fantasy, since no record could be found of him in any lists of prefects, letters, citations, etc.

Philo and Josephus wrote about Pilate, do you know who they were and when they wrote?

 

[PruePhillip]

Philo and Josephus wrote about Pilate, do you know who they were and when they wrote?

It's interesting, you know.
Josephus wrote about Pilot, and he wrote about Herod, and he wrote
about John the Baptist.
But he didn't write about Jesus (one entry on Jesus is clearly faked)
Yet Jesus had the biggest impact of them all. In fact, Christianity
eventually ruled the Roman Empire.
I believe the exclusion of Jesus was totally deliberate. Josephus was
a Pharisee to his core.

 

[lukethethird]

It's interesting, you know.
Josephus wrote about Pilot, and he wrote about Herod, and he wrote
about John the Baptist.
But he didn't write about Jesus (one entry on Jesus is clearly faked)
Yet Jesus had the biggest impact of them all. In fact, Christianity
eventually ruled the Roman Empire.
I believe the exclusion of Jesus was totally deliberate. Josephus was
a Pharisee to his core.

What else is interesting is that Philo wrote essays about the first born Son of God but never mentioned Jesus.

 

[joelr]

What I had argued earlier was the Carthaginian Hannibal.
He is recorded by just two writers. The claim he took an
African army across the Alps and invaded Rome, by
the standards of biblical criticism, is plain silly.
I should have stuck to him.

Jesus is recorded by eight people, I think.
And he is the most famous person in the Western World.
No coins, yes, but Christians who followed him created no
images to any person. Forget Caesar, Jesus' influence
outlasted the Roman Empire, indeed, it conquered it.
And here were people waiting for the Messiah, writing of
him for 2,000 years.

We've covered this. This is exactly when scholars argue with fundamentalist, the scholars demonstrate that there is no historical evidence with the gospels, Paul and such. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
About as likely as any myth.
Then the fundamentalist circles back to the gospels. "It says in the gospels....blah blah..."

You keep puling out the list of bad arguments. I was waiting for "most famous".
As if making Christianity LAW in Rome and then militantly spreading the cult around the world never happened and it became famous because it's so much fun?
People wrote of a messiah in the OT after the Persians introduced the war between heaven/hell and savior myths.
By the time the Jews got around to their own it had been done so many times the church had to invent "the devil in history" where the devil changed the past to fool Christians.

I still haven't gotten an answer from any Christian as to how they explain this without believing in the devil?
Unless you believe in the devil.

Not to mention the OT could not be more mythical. It's the original Lord of the Rings.
You also just explained Christianity perfectly.

"And here were people waiting for the Messiah, writing of
him for 2,000 years."

Exactly!! It was made up from the OT. That's exactly right!
There are over 200 failed prophecies in the bible so claiming prophecy is impossible.
How could a god make so many failed prophecies then be prophetic?
Then the prophecy only comes true in a myth?