Sven

OK, no problem! Nice that you can admit mistakes - does not happen that often when discussing things like this with theists.

Perhaps you don't know, but "myth" does not mean "entirely fictious". Many myths have a true core - Noah's flood very well may be one of them. This does not change the fact that it's a myth. You also might want to check the dictionary on this. You'll find that only one of the definitions given says "fictious".

Since I read your source even before you mentioned it, I think it's another one who needs to "catch on".

True American

Julian,
YES! I admit, you've all been very civil. The only facts I've seen however, was a link for The Bible Unearthed. I've read the link. I've also been doing a ton of research since this thread began. I have never bothered to do this research before because frankly, it means nothing to me. I find NOTHING conclusive.
All I know is that through language translations and exagerations, the bible stories have become incredibly different from what appears to be the actual truth.

Hell, Moses could have led 10 people out of Egypt and lived in the desert for 4 years for all I know. Noah could be a name that was misprinted due to translation problems. Jesus could have just been a guy with a nice set of morals. All the rest is hogwash. However, I never said most of it wasn't hogwash. I simply said I believe these people existed.

Sven

Depends on how you define "conclusive"
BTW, writing in caps is considered bad form in fora, perhaps you want to try to bold-face the text instead? Just put [ b ] ... [ /b ] (without the blanks) around it. Using i instead of b gives you inverse text and u underlined text.

In the end, nothing is conclusive - even not your existence. Thus one simply has to adapt some standard how many evidence one needs for a given claim to accept it as most likely true.

In other words: myth

Well, then you believe that some people with this name existed. Since this isn't an extraordinary claim at all, we can all agree on this. See - not even the need to agree to disagree.

True American

What I mean by "Catching On" is:
It's very easy to change the original story. It's exageration. We've been doing it as homosapiens since the beginning of man.

Just like those who wrote the Bible I presume.

Sven

Of course. I understood this long before you proposed it as an explanation.
Does not change the fact that calling it "myth" is entirely justified.

Diogenes the Cynic

Theories by who? Freud?

Historians now understand the Exodus story to be created history designed to give the Jewish people a unified narrative, identity and mythos. The kernels of history, such as they are, are probably rooted in the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt. Moses himself may be based on the Egyptian Pharaoh, Ahmose I (Amosis in Greek) who drove the Hyksos out of Egypt and chased them to Canaan where he lay siege.
Well, don't speak for all of us. Some people have been looking for it but those people tend not to be archaeologists or historians. There has been no serious scientific attempt to find it and the fact that a few Biblical literalists still go looking for it is hardly proof of its existence. People go looking for Atlantis as well. They go looking for aliens at Roswell. They go looking for the Loch Ness Monster. What does that prove?
The Shroud of Turin is a Medievel forgery. This was proven by carbon dating in 1988.
There are two problems with this paragraph. The first is that the burden of proof is upon the person making the assertion. If you want to claim that two million Israelites were led out of Egypt by a man named Moses and wandered in the desert for 40 years, then it is your responsibility to prove it, not ours to disprove it.

The second problem is that hard research can and HAS shown unequivocally that certain specific EVENTS never happened. There was definitely no global flood, for instance. There was no 6 day creation. Humans were not "created" separately from animals. There was no first woman created from the rib of a first man. etc.

We have also essentially proven that the Isrealites were never enslaved in Egypt, that there was no mass migration across the Sinai and no Isrealite conquest of Canaan.

Without the flood, it follows ipso facto that there wasn't a Noah. Without an Exodus there wasn't a Moses. So you're simply flat wrong about what the evidence is.
If you've been paying attention to the thread, you'll see that this is pretty much exactly what we've been telling you all along. The historicity of Jesus is undetermined.

You also need to realize that when the article talks about historians concluding that Jesus probably existed, that doesn't mean they think he was the son of God or that he performed any miracles or came back from the dead, it only means they think a real guy named Jesus got mythologized and deified after his death.
You just haven't been reading, I think.
No, it's a case of facts. You just don't seem willing to look at them.
I'm sure you probably mean Galilee, not "Galili." Galilee was not a city but the northern part of Palestine during the time of Jesus. It was never lost.

The exact town you probably saw must have been Capernum, where Jesus supposedly began his ministry and which is the traditional hometown of Peter. Archaeological excavations have uncovered the remains of a synagogue and a 1st century house. Although the house is sold to tourists as the home of Peter, there is absolutely no reason to believe this other than that it is a house in Capernum. If you ever go to Israel, you'll find any number of dubious places and things which are alleged by locals to be the authentic Biblical site of this or that. Virtually none of them have any solid evidence to back them up, not even the really big stuff like the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. But people want to believe and Bible tours bring in a lot of revenue.

True American

DUH!!!!
This is what I've been saying.

I doubt very much he walked on water or healed the cripple. I find it hard to believe he rose from the dead. I find it impossible that he was born to a virgin mother and it's extremely unlikely he was the son of God. However, I believe this man did exist and I believe he had some wonderful morals and I believe he preached them. This is what witnesses to his speeches attest to and I think the morals he preached are pretty good ones.

Wallener

It's the little details that trip things up: the text does not say the Ark landed on Mount Ararat.

Sven

I believe this is possible. After all, Jesus was a common name, and there were many preachers running around.

Which witnesses are you talking about? :huh:

There are exceptions.

Wallener

It's a bit more than that, IMO. What makes the Hebrew flood story unique is that it is the only one we have that attributes moral signficance to the event. The others are more or less acts of divine capriciousness, but with Noah, there are specific human (im)moral behaviors that bring on the catastrophe.

It's a myth, for sure, but we should be careful not to conflate "myth" with "no useful purpose".