Current Biblical Archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 19, 2006 2:24 pm

no i am done with that as i am tired of your ability to focus on minor unimportant details that you use to justify your position.

read the books and maybe you will learn something.

as far as i am concerned this topic and discussion are over, as i have a real good read on you and it would be a waste to continue...

suffice it to say you are following those who have no intention of proving the Bible true so what do you have to consider? just more of what you want to hear and not enough of what is true.

maybe when you concede the faulty dating system or the bias that takes place in archaeology, then there might be hope for a decent discussion but until then...

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri May 19, 2006 2:31 pm

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, arch.

Keep diving into your bible...you deserve it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 19, 2006 11:48 pm

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, arch.

i will still be around, just not in this topic.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 am

You're no loss....you have added nothing except biblical drivel to what was supposed to be a discussion of modern archaeology in Syria-Palestine.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 21, 2006 2:19 pm

well all you added was close-mindedness, discrimination, bias and a refusal to acknowledge sources other than your accepted 'list' which tells me you are not interested in discussion but brow-beating anyone who would dare disagree with you.

your superiority complex certainly got inthe way of discussing anyting of value, like the arbitrary dating system, muchof which is based upon conjecture and not fact. i think i pointed that out with the quote about kathleen kenyon.

then there is the fact that the limited sources non-religious researchers will accept, well that tells me that they are not interested in the truth but to further their own ends. i had some quotes on that as well but decided not to use them because minmalist is onlyinterested in protecting hisown beliefs and not proper discussion.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun May 21, 2006 2:26 pm

You have no evidence for your fairy tales and call every one else "closed-minded!"

It's time to grow up and stop believing in magic, arch. Every culture has a magical myth to explain itself and all of them are horseshit. Including yours.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:07 pm

You have no evidence for your fairy tales

that is a mantra from those who refuse to accept any evidendce whatsoever.

having a discussion with those who refuse to accept religious documents, ancient writings that have religious connections or even scholars who are religious as viable sources is just retarded.

it is like me requiring you to prove to me that evolution works but you CANNOT use darwin or any other original evolutionist, you CANNOT use science NOR research from those who are not believers in the Bible, NOR can you use any material that does not meet the accepted criteria of those who believe the Bible. BUt you have to do it scholastically, objectively and so on.

unless you are willing to level the playing field, there is no point in providing you with sources or perspectives that are contrary to your position. james long made a similar comment in his book.

you all think you are so smart but in reality, all you have done is loaded the dice so you get what you want. when you can be honest,then come talk to me.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:36 pm

I do not want 'sources or perspectives' from bible-thumping morons who have a vested interest in keeping ignorant people believing in fairy tales and magic so they keep dropping their hard earned money in the collection plate.

I want real physical evidence that any of this happy bible horseshit ever happened. There is so much horseshit in it that there should be something.

I've given you examples such as inscriptions of David's empire from the far reaches of Syria or Davidic pottery along the Euphrates. Even a comment from other nations that they had sent emissaries to a great king in Jerusalem would be some proof.

However, the only diplomatic correspondence from Jerusalem in the 15th century BC is the Tel Amarna correspondence which shows that all of the Canaanite kingdoms were pathetically weak and firmly under Egyptian control.

Find some actual evidence that Israelites were in Egypt... I'll even give you a pass on the bullshit miracle stories like the parting of the Red Sea or the 10 plagues because clearly no thinking person could believe that but just an inscription from Egypt which indicates that the Israelites were ever there.

Doesn't it bother you that in nearly 150 years of intense research in Egypt they have never found a single reference to your precious Israelites before Merneptah's stele which announced that he kicked the crap out of them in the very late 13th century in Canaan...not Egypt?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:14 pm

want real physical evidence that any of this happy bible horseshit ever happened. There is so much horseshit in it that there should be something

you have been given evidence and you have rejected it. it is all you are going to get.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:22 am

Some jerkoff saying "I Love Jesus" is not 'evidence' of anything except perhaps arrested development.

Evidence is tangible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 23, 2006 11:21 am

BTW, arch, while castigating you for presenting only unscientific opinion to support your 'case,' I would be remiss if I failed to point out that others do the same thing from the opposite side. This write-up of the book "Deconstructing Jesus" would seem at its face to be as guilty of the same thing as you in that there is no actual evidence that Jesus ever lived. One cannot argue about artifacts which do not exist but one can argue about the motivations of authors...whether they lived 20 centuries ago or today.

In DECONSTRUCTING JESUS, author Robert M. Price argues that liberal Protestant scholars who produce reconstructions of the "historical Jesus" are, as Albert Schweitzer pointed out long ago, creating their own Jesus icons to authorize a liberal religious agenda. Christian faith, whether fundamentalist or theologically liberal, invariably tends to produce a Jesus capable of playing the role of a religious figurehead.
In this way, "Jesus Christ" functions as a symbolic cloak for several hidden agendas. This is no surprise, Price demonstrates, since the Jesus Christ of the gospels is very likely a fictional amalgam of several first-century prophets and messiahs, as well as of purely mythic Mystery Cult redeemers and Gnostic Aions. To show this, Price follows the noted scholar Burton Mack's outline of a range of "Jesus movements" and "Christ cults," showing the origins of each one's Jesus figures and how they may have finally merged into the patchwork savior of Christian dogma.

Finally, Price argues that there is good reason to believe that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and that responsible historians must remain agnostic about a "historical Jesus" and what he stood for.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 23, 2006 2:22 pm

Finally, Price argues that there is good reason to believe that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and that responsible historians must remain agnostic about a "historical Jesus" and what he stood for.

even thoughhe points out the motivationsof theother side, the conclusion remains the same.

just because liberals may do what he says, what proof does he have that the original gospels writers did the same thing?

it is also noteworthy that these dissents about Jesus being real came long after the eyewitnesses were dead. which tells me that again that the gospels are true, while the dissenters have something to hide or simply cannot bring themselves to a point of belief in Jesus Christ

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 23, 2006 5:43 pm

Maybe because there is no actual evidence?

BTW, your so-called gospels were also written well after the fact and the ones which are accepted were the ones which passed muster with a church committee.

You know about church committees don't you, arch? They're the ones who were trying to figure out if sodomizing children was okay!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:24 pm

your so-called gospels were also written well after the fact and the ones which are accepted were the ones which passed muster with a church committee

actually they weren't. the council of nicea just but together officially what was already accepted as scriptures

You know about church committees don't you, arch? They're the ones who were trying to figure out if sodomizing children was okay!

i believe that is the roman catholic church youare refering to. it isnot my church.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:10 pm

archaeologist wrote:
your so-called gospels were also written well after the fact and the ones which are accepted were the ones which passed muster with a church committee
actually they weren't. the council of nicea just but together officially what was already accepted as scriptures

Nonsense. One of the major issues of the Council was to deal with the Arian heresy. Having done that, nothing which was outside of what the power-brokers wanted was allowed to seep into the final book. In fact, it is about as holy as a House-Senate Conference Committee Report on pork barrel projects for highway construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The purpose of the council (also called a synod) was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, the divinity of Jesus. The council went back into history for inspiration:

Gautama Buddha - Born of the virgin Maya around 600BC.

Dionysus - Greek God, born of a virgin in a stable, turned water into wine.

Quirrnus - An early Roman saviour, born of a virgin.

Attis - Born of the virgin Nama in Phyrgia around 200BC.

Indra - Born of a virgin in Tibet around 700BC.

Adonis - Babylonian God, born of the virgin Ishtar

Krishna - Hindu deity, born of the virgin Devaki around 1200BC.

Zoroaster - Born of a virgin sometime between 1500BC and 1200BC.

Mithra - Born of a virgin on December 25 around 600BC.

St. Alexander of Alexandria took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians. Another result of the council was an agreement on the date of the Christian Passover, now called Easter, the most important feast of the Church's life. The council decided in favour of celebrating Passover on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism), and authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops. Also, the final version of the Bible was decided on.

You know about church committees don't you, arch? They're the ones who were trying to figure out if sodomizing children was okay!
i believe that is the roman catholic church youare refering to. it isnot my church.

I consider them all equally guilty.