Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IamJoseph · 08-08-2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Also, Jews have no history of revelling in the death of another Jew, whether they liked him or not, and if the Gospel report is true, one cannot disagree the Jews did a terrible thing.

Talmud on the execution of some Jewish guy named Jesus.

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Who hung him - Jews or Romans? Witchcraft was a crime in Judea, and many suffered with right or wrong blame, and this has no connection with the Gospels or Jesus. The quote you gave has no correct names, son of whom?, dates, etc. I think that quote relates to 200 BCE.

Quote:

That the Gospels does not even mention the sacrifice of a million Jews, clearly makes it a terrible lie-by-omission. One must imagine their entire nation being wiped out and it is not even mentioned in a supposed book dealing with God and belief. You think!

===============

your accusation assumes the gospels were written after AD70. If you read the revelation, I think you will come to the conclusion that the author is pissed off over that as well.

Irrelevent. The massacres prevailed for a 100 years before this date, and the Gospels inclined towards Rome and against the Jews - nothing said there is without bias or evidential. But there is no reason to imagine the gospels was writen before 200 - 300 CE.

spin · 08-08-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's what the text says, and that's just as we know that there was a guard over the one ring.

That's appropriate reasoning if it's agreed that the text is an entirely fictional construction with no historical component. I think that's still an open question in this case.

Missed the logic. The basic issue is that text is not history in itself. One needs to be able to place text in a historical context before you can use its content. Otherwise what's the difference between the way one uses one text's story and another's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

(And what guard was there over the One Ring?)

Smaug.

spin

IamJoseph · 08-08-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You have produced no evidence of this. The consensus of archaeologists is against you

No, the majority is inclined only with one archeologist's finding's - which is not saying anything like what you suggest. All that is said is that the event positively occured, but at a somewhat varied date:

Quote:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/...bryantwood.php
Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., has proposed an alternate solution, one that solves these problems and does justice to both biblical and secular scientific evidence. He has shown that the correct biblical chronology date for the Conquest is ca. 2400 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. By this solution, it is the ca. 2400 B.C. destruction at Jericho, shown in the charts above, which must be credited to Joshua. For further information on Dr. Aardsma's solution, see What is the missing millennium discovery?

The Solution
Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., has proposed that this apparent disharmony results from a problem in traditional biblical chronology. Traditional biblical chronologies are constructed by assembling the various chronological data given in the Bible itself. Interpretive issues have given rise to relatively minor variations in traditional biblical chronologies, depending on the scholar. The traditional chronology displayed in the time chart at left is typical.
The key biblical chronological link used to determine the date of the Exodus is a number in 1 Kings 6:1. This verse reads, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel...". Solomon's reign is usually calculated to have begun around 970 B.C., thus placing the Exodus around 1450 B.C. As stated above, the archaeology of Egypt and Canaan at this time is incompatible with the biblical record. In addition, the Bible lists consecutive events between the Exodus and Solomon's reign which total at least 600 years.
In 1990, Dr. Aardsma proposed a major adjustment to traditional biblical chronology. He proposed that the "480" of 1 Kings 6:1 was originally "1,480" but the Hebrew letters corresponding to the "one thousand" were lost at an early stage of copying.
This proposal is applied in the second time chart at left. The new biblical date for the Exodus becomes ca. 2450 B.C., and prior biblical events are similarly shifted to earlier times, by exactly 1000 years relative to traditional biblical chronology.
This change is radical, and at first unimaginable. However, as one begins to examine the archaeology at the new dates, the harmony between biblical and secular accounts is overwhelming. Egypt is struck by national disaster, effectively causing the collapse of the Old Kingdom at the end of the sixth dynasty. The trail of the Israelites in the desert at the time of the Exodus, and remains of their encampment dating to exactly this time period have been found. Both Jericho and Ai were destroyed ca. 2400 B.C., with destruction layers accurately fitting the biblical descriptions. The evidence that Dr. Aardsma's proposal is correct has become overwhelming and continues to mount.
This discovery and the ensuing research have resolved the conflicts between biblical and secular histories prior to the United Kingdom period. Dr. Aardsma's research has also led to many exciting discoveries surrounding early biblical events such as Noah's Flood. Conservative, Bible-believing scholarship today has an answer for those who claim that the Old Testament stories are mere fabrications. This discovery is of extreme significance to anyone who believes the Bible or studies biblical archaeology.

Re:

Quote:

and you have given no reason to disagree with it

Here is actual interviews with archeologists, including the one you referred to. Their scientific POV says the events are absolutely correct, including the alignment of a host of descriptions in the writings, including that of King David - which was at one time said to be myth:
MORE: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Research.aspx

J-D · 08-08-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That's appropriate reasoning if it's agreed that the text is an entirely fictional construction with no historical component. I think that's still an open question in this case.

Missed the logic. The basic issue is that text is not history in itself. One needs to be able to place text in a historical context before you can use its content.

Oh, I agree with that.

Hence your answer that there were guards over the tomb in the text is correct if you're referring to the text of Matthew (they aren't mentioned in Mark, Luke, or John).

But the question of what happened historically can't be answered solely by reference to the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Otherwise what's the difference between the way one uses one text's story and another's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

(And what guard was there over the One Ring?)

Smaug.

spin

No, you're wrong there. Smaug never guarded the One Ring.

IamJoseph · 08-08-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Hence your answer that there were guards over the tomb in the text is correct if you're referring to the text of Matthew (they aren't mentioned in Mark, Luke, or John).

This assumes that the Apostles john and mathew are historical people and wrote before 300 CE. What proof exists?

J-D · 08-08-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The consensus of archaeologists is against you and you have given no reason to disagree with it

Be not so eager. I have good reason - check how many times the concensus was wrong in similar examples!

For any given statement, there is always the possibility that it may be wrong, but that is never by itself sufficient reason to hold that it is wrong. Humans are fallible, but that does not justify never believing anything any human says. The occasional fallibility and the general reliability of expert consensus are logically compatible, and the occasional fallibility by itself is never sufficient reason to doubt any single specific judgement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Th Jericho rejection is based on a dfferential of 140 years datings - which is not a factual conclusion. There are some 50 other factors which had not been regarded and remain in the side of the Hebrew texts.

If there really are 50 other factors, I defy you to list six of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Since we now have a dating for the tel Dan find, we can examine the Jericho issue in between the Egyptian stelle. However, one cannot make conclusions solely on C14 dayyng of such small period variances - while not having other back up. Specially when it is agreed there was a fire in Jericho's sub-terranean layers, but the C14 dates are not atching.

J-D · 08-08-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You have produced no evidence of this. The consensus of archaeologists is against you

No, the majority is inclined only with one archeologist's finding's - which is not saying anything like what you suggest. All that is said is that the event positively occured, but at a somewhat varied date:

Re:

Quote:

and you have given no reason to disagree with it

Here is actual interviews with archeologists, including the one you referred to. Their scientific POV says the events are absolutely correct, including the alignment of a host of descriptions in the writings, including that of King David - which was at one time said to be myth:
MORE: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Research.aspx

I mentioned the case of Jericho as one example of where the Hebrew Bible was historically inaccurate, but since then I've mentioned another example, about which you've had nothing to say--as well as examples of its mathematical, scientific, and geographic inaccuracy, about which you've also had nothing to say.

J-D · 08-08-2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Hence your answer that there were guards over the tomb in the text is correct if you're referring to the text of Matthew (they aren't mentioned in Mark, Luke, or John).

This assumes that the Apostles john and mathew are historical people and wrote before 300 CE. What proof exists?

No, it doesn't assume that. I was using 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke', and 'John' as the accepted titles of the books, independently of the question of authorship. If you prefer, I can refer to them differently and say that the first canonical gospel mentions guards over the tomb but the other three canonical gospels don't. Do you find that clearer?

IamJoseph · 08-08-2009, 11:25 PM

It appears that a prominent apostle's only proof of being a historical person relates to a writing by a far removed person in Europe dated 200 years later. But seriously:

Quote:

Authorship

The tradition is unanimous, from the earliest records that we have. There are some small variations in the wording and the emphasis, but there are no real contradictions. In this case, we can even trace our knowledge of the information back to John the Apostle, by way of Irenaeus by way of Polycarp. This alone is enough to establish John as the author. http://www.systematicchristianity.or...dingtoJohn.htm

Quote:

Irenaeus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Irenaeus

Saint Irenaeus (Greek: Εἰρηναῖος), (2nd century AD - c. 202) was a Christian Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyons, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist.

IamJoseph · 08-08-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

This assumes that the Apostles john and mathew are historical people and wrote before 300 CE. What proof exists?

No, it doesn't assume that. I was using 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke', and 'John' as the accepted titles of the books, independently of the question of authorship. If you prefer, I can refer to them differently and say that the first canonical gospel mentions guards over the tomb but the other three canonical gospels don't. Do you find that clearer?

It will be very impressive and avoid all the confusion if a single entry in the Gospel is proven - anything at all. In the absence of this - there is no way it can be denied that it was wholly and completely written by Europeans much later, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with history or reality and truth. It appears that apart from the belief - nothing else is genuine. How wrong am I?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.