Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:31 pm

Convenient, huh?

Of course that is right around the time that the Emperor told them to get him a religion that would "unify" the empire. A great example of why church and state should be kept separate because when those two groups of scumbags get together watch out!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:25 pm

wow what a source to use. just tells you what you want to hear and you believe it.

i would love o see you put the same academic requirements you place on scriptures and believers to your own sources and see what you come up with.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth

why would nazareth need to be mentioned prior to Christ's birth?

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:27 pm

It apparently wasn't mentioned for a long time after his alleged birth, either.

Seems to be just a figment of someone's imagination.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:29 pm

BTW, feel free to present archaeological or textual evidence (other than the phony gospels) to refute the claims of those who say it wasn't mentioned until the 4th century.

I'll even wish you better luck than with your OT efforts.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:50 am

did i say it was? you guys feel that since nothing was mentioned in history it must not exist. it is a good escape clause to ignore the truth.

i actually feel sorry for you all because you exclude that which can help you.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:09 am

It's called corroborating evidence. Something which supports your.bible's claims. None exists. If it does then show it to us.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:31 am

So then it is Archaeology -1
Arch -0

You know what is ironic, arch. As bad as it is, the OT seems to have more actual historical fact (at least later on) than the NT. How do you suppose that happened?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:36 am

Minimalist wrote:So then it is Archaeology -1
Arch -0

You know what is ironic, arch. As bad as it is, the OT seems to have more actual historical fact (at least later on) than the NT. How do you suppose that happened?

No no! Remember it's all or nothing so it all has to be bullshit. But I agree that the NT is all rubbish. If there was a jesus, and I highly doubt it, he was an outlaw and troublemaker and was executed like the criminal he was. Just like countless other criminals.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:41 am

I allow that the OT gets some of the larger political events correct, which, in retrospect is probably unavoidable. When you are sitting there writing the damn thing and the Babylonians are outside getting ready to sack and burn the city it would be hard not to mention that they were out there.

I read a treatise one time which indicated that there were actually 3 rebels who were crucified or stoned at different times in the first century AD and the Jesus story is a composite of those....although ironically Pontius Pilatus had nothing to do with any of them. I'll have to see if I can find it. It isn't archaeology but then again, neither is arch's bible.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:03 am

Oh damn! I've been drawn into this discussion again. I know I said, at least 3 or 4 times that I was done trying to convince the fence post (arch) of anything. I say let him believe what he wants as long as he don't push it off on others.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:28 am

On Religion and Beliefs

In the First Century of the Common Era (CE) there lived a traveling sage who taught among the people in the Middle East. He performed numerous 'works' and 'miracles'; healed the lame and paralyzed, raised the dead, and cast away evil spirits. This Prophet taught the way of salvation and the Laws of the One True God. He walked on the Sea of Erythra (Red Sea) and was esteemed by many as the Son of God and born of a virgin, although he claimed to be only a son of man. He was arrested for inciting the people and after his death it was alleged that he had risen, walked with his followers, and then ascended to Heaven. We all know who this was, right? Of course we do; his name was Apollonius, and his story is found in Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus. However, for some, predisposed to a particular religion and its theo-beliefs, may have thought the above person was someone else.

http://www.ontosophy.com/onreligion.html

http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/apollonius.html

Jesus is not an historical character. The great historians of the first two centuries do not mention him. As Moncure D. Conway says in Modern Thought:

"The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus. In the fourth gospel it is said: 'There are also many other things that Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.' The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."
Apollonius of Tyana was, on the contrary, a well-known historical figure. The parents of Jesus -- whoever they were -- were obscure and humble people. Apollonius belonged to a prominent and well-known family, whose ancestors had founded the city of Tyana where he was born.

Just some light reading.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:19 am

It's called corroborating evidence. Something which supports your.bible's claims. None exists. If it does then show it to us.

i have but you keep rejecting it so there is little i can do for you.

than the NT.

it is easy to explain but i think i will sit on that for awhile.

the only evidence you have against the Bible is someone's opinion, as i quoted earlier, kenyon picked a date out of thin air and then built her theory upon that. yet people believe her over the Bible. that isn't scientific, just a rush to believe something that relieved one of the requirements of the Bible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:50 am

the only evidence you have against the Bible is someone's opinion

The only "evidence" for it is the bible itself....which in law is called a self-serving document.

The evidence against the bible is profound, convincing and growing.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:21 pm

The only "evidence" for it is the bible itself....which in law is called a self-serving document.

up to you but again you place your faith in fallible humans which is a mistake.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:33 pm

archaeologist wrote:
The only "evidence" for it is the bible itself....which in law is called a self-serving document.
up to you but again you place your faith in fallible humans which is a mistake.

Fallible humans wrote the books of the bible. Fallible humans compiled those books into the bible you read today. Fallible humans enterpret it for you in church every sunday. How stupid are you?