True American

There were not only tons of preachers, but magicians of sorts who did certain tricks. This has also been brought up by many discovery searches. Chances are this was a guy who had some pretty good ideas and could do a few tricks.

The witnesses I'm talking about are the ones who heard him speak and remembered the words to his Prayer... "Our Father who art in Heaven" and so on. Of course, it was in Aramaic so God only knows what the actual wording was.

As for the Crucifiction and the Resurrection and all the other nonsense, I wasn't intending on even getting into this. My initial post was, Jesus, Moses & Noah were not Myths!

My Belief, and "mine alone" is: These people existed and the stories about them through translations and exagerations have made the story so unbelievable we then have to question the existence of the people themselves. I believe they existed. Nothing More!

I have said over and over, I'm not very religious.

I have never spent this much time talking about this subject because personally, I really couldn't give a shit, but like anything else in life, it's worth researching because I enjoy soaking in knowledge. I am soaking in plenty.

I've admitted I was wrong about certain things and I'm researching. I'm finding no absolute evidence for or against the existence of these three entities.
Therefore I cannot possibly come to any one conclusion. So, how can you?

"The Bible Unearthed?" That's it?

People have been spending a whole lot of time and money doing everything they can to discredit or prove the Bible. This book disproves a lot of it. 5 Years from now, something will come along to discredit "The Bible Unearthed." Come on folks. I've been paying attention here. You're all smarter than that.

Sven

Hmm, how many flood stories have you read to be able to make such a claim of uniqueness? There are hundreds, you know? I certainly have not read them all.

Certainly not. From the dictionary definition I linked to above:

myth. 1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

Sven

So you know some writings of these witnesses? Could you point me to them? It's news to me that there are any!

Did you look up the definition of "myth" meanwhile? I'm still holding to the claim that they are myths.

In other words: They are myths.

Did I say I did? :huh: In the case of Jesus, I specifically said I'm an agnostic.

It's written by actual archeologists who have done actual research. So your "that's it" seems a bit misplaced. And it's the only book I've read myself - I would not recommend books I've not read. But look at the sticky thread at the top of this forum, there are recommendations for other resources.

The two archeologists who wrote the book are Jews themselves. So it isn't because of any bias that they set out to review the evidence against the stories of the OT.

Go read the book. Then tell me how exactly the evidence therein is going to be discredited. *shrug*
It's about the evidence, not about someone throwing around assertions.

Julian

I only listed that (was it me?) because I didn't see the need to inundate you with tons of literature. TBU is a good starting point that covers many of the points you raised initially. It wasn't meant as the end all be all answer to all things biblical. I doubt that this book will be discredited. It will surely be expanded upon and parts may be disproven but I do not think that the book will fall apart wholesale.

Also, you tend to see all evidence as being equal, or so it comes across. The evidence for the bible, and the personages in it, is not equal in quality to the evidence against it. It is not an even split. If it was, I might be a believer.

Julian

True American

Well, let's try something...
I'll write this first to show you how little I know about religious beliefs...
Then I'll search the meanings in the dictionary and see how much I really know. I could very likely be wrong.

I think that Agnostic means you question the existence of God.

I think that Atheist means you basically believe in nothing.

let's now search, shall we?

2 entries found for agnostic.
To select an entry, click on it.
agnostic[1,noun]agnostic[2,adjective]

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun



One entry found for atheist.


Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Just so we're absolutely clear, let's now check out Deity...

One entry found for deity.


Main Entry: de·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'dE-&-tE, 'dA-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English deitee, from Old French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English TIw, god of war, Latin divus god, dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, god
1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful


Atheist must mean one is non a believer of any heavenly being. Agnostic means they question the existence of GOD. <(yes, I used upper case... sue me.)

I actually fall into both of these categories... or maybe I don't. I'm not sure. I believe there is Something out there watching over me. I question the existence of the God of Abraham, The God of Jesus and the God of the Muslims. But, there's something. If not, I would have been dead by now ten times over.

As for the existence of these three entities, I would only say... I believe they existed. Is there something wrong with the translation on this thread? It's written in plain English. I believe they EXISTED. Nothing more.

Diogenes the Cynic

Agnostic does not mean you "question," the existence of Gods, it means you don't believe their existence can be verified one way or the other. In popular usage, it is often used to designate a position of "I don't know" towards the existence of God.

Atheism simply means "without belief in gods." It doesn't necessarily mean a positive belief that there aren't any gods, although it often does. For that reason, you will find that many people distinguish between "weak atheism" (no positive belief that gods exist, but not necessarily a postive belief that they don't. Weak atheism is pretty much interchangeable with agnosticism), and "strong atheism," which the belief that gods definitely do NOT exist.

Now that we've got that out of the way, you should know that the existence of a Historical Jesus (often abbreviated in this forum as "HJ") is frequent and ongoing subject of debate here. Some of us think that a real guy existed (though, obviously, none of the "infidels" think he was God), some subscribe to the "Mythicist" school, i.e the belief that Jesus was wholly a myth with no historical human existence. Some of us are undecided about the matter or don't believe there is enough evidence to make a conclusive determination one way or the other. When you see an Infidel say he is "agnostic" on the HJ question, that's what he means. He is either undecided about it or does not believe we have enough data to know the truth.

I think pretty much everyone in this thread has conceded that, of the three Biblical figures under discussion (Noah, Moses and Jesus), Jesus has at least a chance of being based on a real historical figure.

The other two, though, both not only lack any kind of historical evidence for their existence, but the events which the Bible describes them as participating in are demonstrably ahistorical. Since both of those characters are almost entirely defined by those events, when you take those events away, you have no characters left. With no flood, what is Noah? With no Exodus, what is Moses?

Amaleq13

While I accept that this is your stated position now, it is quite a bit different from your original assertions:

These are not, unlike your current position, statements of your beliefs but assertions of fact. We have since learned that you actually know of no "conclusive" evidence that any of the three existed. Despite this, you continue to hold a firm belief in their existence. In other words, you have faith in their existence (ie Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence).

It is not "well documented" that Moses freed his people from Egypt.

It is not a "fact" that Jesus walked the earth.

Noah's Ark has not been found.

By your own admission, there is no conclusive evidence that any of the above are "in fact true".

You obtained opposition to your original claims precisely because they were not presented as beliefs lacking any compelling evidentiary support but were asserted as proven facts. I suspect your current position will obtain no similar opposition because there can be no effective rational argument against a position held on faith because evidence is irrelevant.

True American

Again...
Plain English... one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

They are not commited either way. The existence or Non-existence is in question.

True American

So to this I have to ask...
Are you saying that because there is no factual evidence that these entities do exist that you simply don't believe in them?
I at least I have a belief they existed because they were mentioned extensively in a book that is supposed to be the honest truth.
This is what I base my belief on. If they weren't ever mentioned in this book, this discussion would never have even taken place, would it?

Avatar

Why believe in something that there is no evidence for? I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either. There's as much evidence for those entities as for God, Jesus, and Moses.

The keyword being "supposed". There is no reason to believe that this book is truthful at all. It describes events that are not confirmed by history, geology, archaeology, or any other science. Despite the Bible's claim of a massive migration from Egypt to Cannan, there is no trace of such an event--no pottery, no campfire remains, no ancient latrines, nothing. The Bible claims that the Hebrews were slaves of the Egyptians for years, yet there isn't a shade of Egyptian influence in any of the pottery, constructs, art, or anything else. The Bible claims that in the space of just over a month, enough water rained down on the Earth to flood ALL of it everywhere. That's not "rain", that's hydraulic mining...there would scarecly by any mountains left! The Bible claims that snakes could talk, that the sun could be stopped by a man, that the dead can spontaniously rise, and that slavery isn't a bad thing.

Are there any extrabiblical sources mentioning Jesus? The Exodus? The Flood? Any Roman historians mentioning some guy wandering around the Middle East performing miracles...or even a whisper about such a man going on trial or being executed? Any single, worldwide mile-deep layers of sediment? Nope.

The only reason you have to believe any of this is because someone (parents, preacher, minister, cultural tradition) said so.