Johnny Skeptic

You made three claims. Let's discuss each of them.

1. The disciples were eyewitnesses to many of the events that took place.

Please state several examples of eyewitness testimonies in the book of Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

2. Even if they weren't at 100% of the events, the Holy Spirit was and helped them.

Please provide historical evidence that the Holy Spirit helped them.

3. After all the books are not written by men but by God.

No, humans wrote the Bible. The only issue is whether or not a God inspired them to write the Bible. Are you an inerrantist? If so, what evidence do you have that the Bible is inerrant?

show_no_mercy

Ummm, no. You think that "Aramaic" is a race. That makes me realize that I'm having a conversation with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. You might as well have said "The disciples were NOT Yiddish, they were Jewish. BIG difference!"

aa5874

The argument was not an HJ versus MJ. The argument was about the physical appearance of the DIVINE Jesus. In other words, what was the appearance of MJ?

Jesus was regarded as a GOD without doubt only his flesh was in question. The NT Jesus was God who later became fleshly man and Marcion's Jesus was a God who had the image of a man.

HJ is not regarded as a God. HJ refers to an only human and neither the Jesus of the NT or Marcion's Jesus was considered only human.

This is found in a writing entitled "On the Flesh of Christ" You must never forget that Polycarp's Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. We are dealing with all MJ.

spamandham

How can we realistically discuss anything on this topic when your argument is rooted in your religious beliefs that I don't share, have no respect for, and come across to me as a form of mass insanity (...or Mass insanity if you're Catholic ).

Would you engage Tom Cruise in a discussion of Dianetics if he started out by attesting to the veracity of the work because L. Ron was channeling aliens and thus we know it's all true? This is what your Holy spirit talk sounds like to me. It's sounds a whole lot like crazy talk.

But anyway, ok. No, the Gospel writers certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events they record. We can know this with certainty because the Gospels record impossible accounts which no-one witnessed, because they didn't happen.

As a favor to the rest of us, it would be helpful if when you use quotes, you leave the name in the quote so we know at a glance whether or not we are being addressed. To do this, inside the opening quote tag, instead of just having it say "quote", you use the syntax "quote=spamandham", for example

LouisSA

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic, with my bold:
My bold. As I said: Magic!

Not always. Read the definition above.

If things like talking snakes and donkeys, virgin births, global floods, etc. happened, it can be described as magic. There is no evidence for any of these however. If these things didn’t happen, your Babble is trying to fool people.

Prove it. My experience and all the available evidence say is that it doesn't.

archaeologist

if you are going to respond, please make sure you clearly read what was written. no one mentioned his book and the evidence called negligable was for the nomads in the deserts. it is like talking to <edited> people who read only what they want then respond to their own ideas of what someone else said.

i have read both finkestein and dever, listened to many of dever's lectures, have encountere hawass many times and they all mis-apply the evidence they discover and assume things based upon silence. finkelstein loves to down date everything because he does not believe the Bible so he plays with the subjective area of dating, he is a dishonest archaeologist.

it is clear that you know very little as the aramaic language came from 'Aramean kingdoms, in the territories of modern Syria and Southeast Turkey', not the jewish people. though it is a form of a semitic language it does not mean the two are the same. that would be like saying german and french are the same language because they are on the same continent.

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

if you are going to engage me in a discussion, the least you could do is get your facts straight and grassp what someone is saying instead of manipulating their words and distorting history.

archaeologist

the Bible has already stated that ''the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe', but at least we can make sure you get your facts straight so you don't assume and continue to make mistakes.

they were certainly eye-witness to many of the events and the Holy Spirit plus God were to all but then you create a unrealistic demand so you have an excuse not to believe the Bible or Jesus.

as i said, i am not taking the names out and i prefer this method as i am dealing with the words and points made more than addressing the person who said it.

it would have been better to bold it all instead of a piece as the whole explantion rules out God. He allows you free choice and does not cast a spell on you nor does He force you against your will to accept His Son thus the influence part would not apply in accordance to the definition given.

there is a lot you do not understand.

there is no evidence you wrote that post yet you want us to believe you exist.

don't have to, it has already been done. but if you need a couple examples: all humans and animals produce after their kind. the hybrid experiments have proven this so.

israel was re-established in 1948, just as the Bible said it would and no nation has ever returned to being a country after being destroyed especially after 2,000 years of dispersement.

Rooster

Just to clarify, is it your position that because Bedouin tribes of the fairly recent past do not leave much archaeological evidence, we should not expect to see any for the Exodus?

To be comparable, surely you would need to point to nomadic tribes of 600,000 (plus accompanying women, children and livestock). When you consider that the book of Numbers claims all of those who left Egypt died during their time in the wilderness, does it still seem reasonable to you to believe that say 1 million people lived and died within a 40 year period in that desert and didn't leave anything behind?

archaeologist

Here are a couple of papers to read:

http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage109.html

http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage1.html

To be realistic, most evidence discovered is rejected or dismissed by those who do not believe. It is not that there isn't any evidence but that unbelievers do not want there to be any evidence.

Remember the Israelites were slaves for almost 400 years and wandered for 40, there is no way that they would have any culturally distinct materials to leave behind and show that they were in the desert. all the evidence, and graves, would look like or contain egyptian materials. If you look at the scenario correctly, andf objectively then you will see the true picture emerging.

Rooster

archaeologist,

You cannot be serious.

Your first link uses the Bible to justify there being no evidence to support the Bible's story of the Exodus. Surely you can see how ridiculous that is.

From the second link:

Again, the Bible is used to verify the Biblical story of the Exodus.

I find it strange for you to reject Wikipedia as a source but refer to those two links.

Then you would expect to find around 1 million* 'Egyptian looking' graves in the Sinai desert, all dating from within the same 40 year period, correct?

Please present some of that evidence. I think you'll find that goes down much better than links that essentially consist of "There is no evidence, but the Bible explains why!".

*It would be useful for you to provide an actual number for us to work with. I actually think 1 million would be a conservative estimate, if there are 600k men, but I suppose that isn't too important.