Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 03-12-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Quote:

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.

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.

And who said that Aramaic came from the Jewish people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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.

Right. You should take your own advice. The fact of the matter is, if Jesus and his disciples were living in Galilee in the 1st century CE, then they spoke Aramaic. And my point about the absurdity of them as grown men ditching Aramaic and learning fluent Greek to write eyewitness reports is stretching plausibility in a culture where literacy was a luxury.

archaeologist · 03-12-2010, 12:05 PM

You did:

Quote:

According to the gospel narratives, the "eyewitnesses" were Aramaic fishermen native to Galilee.

Since Jesus picked all Jewish people to be His disciples there was not one foreigner in the lot.

Quote:

You should take your own advice. The fact of the matter is, if Jesus and his disciples were living in Galilee in the 1st century CE, then they spoke Aramaic

That is an assumption you cannot prove but then you are saying they were educated because they would be bi-lingual even tri as they wrote in Greek.

Quote:

And my point about the absurdity of them as grown men ditching Aramaic and learning fluent Greek to write eyewitness reports is stretching plausibility in a culture where literacy was a luxury.

Again you are making an assumption you cannot prove. Here is a historyof the languages used and where:

http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/BiblicalLanguages

Quote:

For a time Aramaic was considered a universal language. It followed Akkadian (an East Semitic language) as the diplomatic language for the Persian Empire of the ancient Near East from the eighth to the fourth centuries B.C. It was also one of the most common languages spoken during the emergence of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Jesus probably spoke a dialect of Western Aramaic.

Quote:

Koine was the everyday language in the ancient world for over one thousand years: from the fourth century B.C. to the sixth century A.D.

You are a little behind in your thinking for when Aramaic was used. If anything the disciples spoke Greek and Hebrew

spamandham · 03-12-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

At least a few things are right in the Bible. The only mistake I've made in this thread is to bother reading past the opening sentence of your opening post...a mistake I will no longer make

Quote:

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.

This particular conversation is now over anyway, so I no longer care.

Kapyong · 03-12-2010, 01:56 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

they were certainly eye-witness to many of the events

Rubbish.

There is NO evidence of ANY eye-witness to Jesus.
None.
But you completely ignored my post where I pointed that out.

Why do you bother preaching here?
Everyone here can see you are a faithul believer with almost no knowledge of the actual historical facts.

K.

Kapyong · 03-12-2010, 01:59 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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.

Rubbish.

There is NO evidence for the exodus.
None.
Which is why you failed to cite any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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.

What evidence?
What evidence looks like egyptians, but was really the exodus?
Tell us.

The facts are clear - there is NO evidence of large numbers of people in that place and time. None

And there WOULD be if it had happened - we HAVE found evidence of other groups - NONE for the exodus.

And there WOULD be a VAST mountain of evidence left behind - such as milllions of tons of dried shit. Where did it all go, archeologist?

K.

schriverja · 03-12-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

You did:

Quote:

According to the gospel narratives, the "eyewitnesses" were Aramaic fishermen native to Galilee.

Since Jesus picked all Jewish people to be His disciples there was not one foreigner in the lot.

That is an assumption you cannot prove but then you are saying they were educated because they would be bi-lingual even tri as they wrote in Greek.

Again you are making an assumption you cannot prove. Here is a historyof the languages used and where:

http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/BiblicalLanguages

Quote:

Koine was the everyday language in the ancient world for over one thousand years: from the fourth century B.C. to the sixth century A.D.

You are a little behind in your thinking for when Aramaic was used. If anything the disciples spoke Greek and Hebrew

According to Bible, Mary Magdalene and the Apostle Paul spoke Aramaic. There are several references to the Aramaic language in the Gospel of John. See for yourself: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...lewordsonly=no

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 03-12-2010, 02:09 PM

[STAFFWARN]Please keep this discussion civil and on topic. Personal comments will be infracted.

Thanks everyone.

[/STAFFWARN]

schriverja · 03-12-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Quote:

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?

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.

I find it, ummm, 'amusing' that you dismiss wikipedia, which has peer review mechanisms, provisions to dispute entries (and an open-to-the-public dispute page), as well as editors that do their best to allow only properly cited sources to be used as information sources, yet you have no problem citing what are apparently private webpages as 'valid' sources...

archaeologist · 03-12-2010, 06:03 PM

Quote:

There is NO evidence of ANY eye-witness to Jesus.

If you are simply looking for evidence what kind do you expect to survive 2,000 years? You can't even present evidence that you had an eye-witness for your post, so what do you expect christians or the Bible to provide?

Quote:

Why do you bother preaching here?
Everyone here can see you are a faithul believer with almost no knowledge of the actual historical facts.

Not preacing and you would be wrong.

Quote:

There is NO evidence for the exodus.

Let's do a test: the walls of ancient Jericho have been uncovered and shown to have fallen exactly as the Bible said, and when it said. Kenyon was wrong.

Quote:

What evidence looks like egyptians, but was really the exodus?
Tell us.

I am just pointing out to you the common sense things. I will support by point by referring to the slaves of the american past. Not one of them left any trace, or cultural material and they lived in a time where records were kept. You pick up an artifact from the 16th- 18th centuries AD America and you would not be able to tell who owned or made it.

Quote:

And there WOULD be a VAST mountain of evidence left behind - such as milllions of tons of dried shit. Where did it all go,

What evidence are looking for? Their clothes and shoes did not wear out. They ate manna, and on occasion meat. drank water and after 4,000 +/- years of natural disasters, wars, construction, subsequent nomads and so on, where do you expect to find this 'evidence'?

archaeologist · 03-12-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

According to Bible, Mary Magdalene and the Apostle Paul spoke Aramaic

Mar used 1 word. That is like me using 'heil' and everyone thinks i can speak German. One word a mastery of a language does not make.

Paul was an educated man, you would expect him to be able to speak aramaic because many of the OT books were written in that language. Thern sayng one word means this in Aramaic does not necessarily mean that he had complete mastery of the language either.

I am not aware of all the languages the disciples spoke, but with the help of the Holy Spirit nothing is impossible and they could have learned, been given the translation or some other reason. I wouldn't read into scriptures if I were you because sometimes we just do not know everything.

Quote:

I find it, ummm, 'amusing' that you dismiss wikipedia, which has peer review mechanisms, provisions to dispute entries (and an open-to-the-public dispute page), as well as editors that do their best to allow only properly cited sources to be used as information sources, yet you have no problem citing what are apparently private webpages as 'valid' sources

I do not accept peer review either, it is too easily manipulated as well. Read the mormon entries and all you will find are contributions from Mormons, no independent thought, it is all Mormon and whatthey are saying is not true.

You cannot count on wikipedia.

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

03-12-2010, 02:09 PM	#97
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	[STAFFWARN]Please keep this discussion civil and on topic. Personal comments will be infracted. Thanks everyone. [/STAFFWARN]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.