Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Gary I guess since your posts are under moderation I missed this before (by the time its approved then we are on to the next page looking at responses) . Obviously we disagree more than we agree but as you have stated I can't buy the kind of double standard. If Christianity needs to invoke a changing of what the immediate biblical context states by conjecture and assuming outside contexts overrules then yes I have noticed that it only slows people becoming disillusioned with faith but it sets the path on solid footing for the future. I cant look any of my children in the face and tell them. You cant trust Genesis , Kings or chronicles because they have an agenda but boy you sure can trust the Gospels because they don't. IF I did and they bought it I'd set my calendar for the day that will run out as a rational explanation for them.

Now let me be clear - I could potentially tell them theres a book in the Bible I don't accept and leave their faith just fine (because the books were all written independently) but it couldn't be on such assumptions and mental gyrations. the skeptic idea that one book off and the whole thing comes tumbling down is false. Frankly I'd prefer them to reject kings entirely or Genesis rather than using those assumptions because its only a matter of time before that shoots the other way. As a Matter of fact I know of a few messianic Jews that reject the NT as innerrant. They are Christians accepting virgin birth, death burial and resurrection they just don't buy that any greek documents are inspired - historical and trustworthy as to basic message but not inerrant.

However no doubt you will want to cherry pick that issue rather than deal with the other issue I raised which I think is pretty obvious and self evident - Biblical criticism and scholarship is NOT science and alot of it which even you draw from on the skeptic side is included. That includes your heroes of Bart and other sources. You'd like it to be all your way but thats a dishonest approach . Bart's no scientist and he wallops a conjecture as well as anyone. When has history ever been science? Never. It may contain some science methods like in archaeology but its NOT a science. When has studying a text been a science? Never. We might use some science methods looking at paper and ink. When has determining a contradiction or lie in what someone states been a science? NEVER.

Though you want to see the wrong in Stein and Nick appealing to things as almost science fact you are an even greater offender. During the core of this thread you appealed over and over to nothing but consensus and scholars who agreed with you many of which have no science degree in sight and which make just as faulty arguments in criticism of the BiBle as Stein might make for it. If Biblical Criticism and scholarship is not a science and is given to conjecture then your canard about Christianity having to reject all that science and rationality states is just nonsense. On what planet does my rejecting what isn't scientific and is based on conjectures denying Science and rationality?

NO what you hypocritically do is accept the assumptions and conjectures your skeptic sides floats and then claim when Christians reject them and give alternative explanations that they are spinning or reworking the verses. No we are rejecting an assumption that was never science or even on solid grounds. Your laziness just says - well they are scholars so I will go with what they say or the equally silly they are Jews so they know (until they say something about genesis then they become just religious superstitious people again with no idea of how silly their books is lol)



NO the best response is to call you on your nonsense when you claim with almost science like authority that you have good points because some scholars who aren't even scientists say so. From a scientific authority standpoint can you prove even one contradiction in the Bible? Nope. What we really have is assumptions of skeptics verses assumptions of theists and who has the burden of proof in an accusation of lying as in contradictions? The side making the accusation.

Bottom line is The day that Christianity has to deny something that can be repeated and proven in a lab is the day Christianity would really be in trouble. There is no such science. Admit it or not most everything you posted in this thread was conjecture and assumption



That IS an incoherent position. However As you know I don't buy you were a Christian and the fact that you found yourself at a church that would have such a pastor is even more evidence I am on the right path on that. You've posted enough on this thread for me to be certain of two things of why you reject Christianity

A) Your skepticism is only of Christianity. You will buy any and every argument as long as its skeptical of Christianity and reject any thing to the contrary
B) Regardless of your denials to the contrary you DO have a necessary condition in your mindset that the supernatural is impossible

B by the way is totally logically incoherent with not claiming to be an atheist. IF you believe in ANY kind of God it makes zero sense to take issue with miracles. IF God (who by definition is a supernatural being) has ever made contact with men it would have to be a supernatural experience. It could not be anything else. the longer the contact was the more of the supernatural you would expect to see. So claiming the supernatural is unlikely is just the same as saying there is no god that would make contact with men. It makes no sense to claim what you claim (even beyond your silliness of ducking from the supernatural origins of the universe)

Archeology isn't science?

The overwhelming majority of archeologists reject the historicity of the Biblical stories of the Hebrew slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, and the Forty Years in the Sinai. There is zero archeological evidence for these events. There was no Moses. There was no Passover. There was no giving of the Law to millions of Hebrews camped around the Sinai. Jesus believed all these events were historical facts.

Jesus made a mistake. The God of the Hebrews says in the OT that he does not make mistakes. Therefore Jesus was not the God of the Hebrews. He was a man who made mistakes.

Archeology alone proves the Bible and Jesus false.

[tabibito]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...php?136-Ugarit

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rah-Discovered

Two threads that deal in reasonable depth with archaeological finds' relevance to Exodus (and other matters of the Pentateuch).

The final few pages of the second link will make it clear that I don't dismiss Genesis as mythological.

My statements regarding Genesis are:

either the chronologies of Genesis are a mess, or the book is mythological.
Traditional interpretations of the record of Genesis would make the second option the only viable opinion.
Traditional interpretations can be (at least in some cases) shown to be invalid.
I say "in some cases" because I haven't examined all of the record of Genesis in detail.

[Gary]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...php?136-Ugarit

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rah-Discovered

Two threads that deal in reasonable depth with archaeological finds' relevance to Exodus (and other matters of the Pentateuch).

The final few pages of the second link will make it clear that I don't dismiss Genesis as mythological.

My statements regarding Genesis are:

either the chronologies of Genesis are a mess, or the book is mythological.
Traditional interpretations of the record of Genesis would make the second option the only viable opinion.
Traditional interpretations can be (at least in some cases) shown to be invalid.
I say "in some cases" because I haven't examined all of the record of Genesis in detail.

Here's the thing about evangelical Christian claims of evidence for the Exodus: No one in secular academia believes them. So either the claims are most likely based on weak evidence, or, all of secular academia is involved in a conspiracy to discredit the Bible, as fundamentalists have always claimed. Bottom line: If several million ancient Hebrews wandered the Sinai for forty years as the literal reading of the Bible states, there should be MASSIVE evidence of this alleged event. But there is none. Nada. Zip.

If you want to base your Faith on evidence of the historicity of the events alleged in the books of Genesis and Exodus, you are going to be disappointed. Modern archeology and technology have repeatedly indicated that these events are fiction. The safest bet is to take a strictly faith-based line of defense: "The evidence exists...it just hasn't been discovered yet. My faith does not need external, objective evidence. I have subjective proof of the reality of the resurrected Jesus Christ in my heart...and that is all I need."

[Mikeenders]

Archeology isn't science?

Its pretty remarkable how you can never apply yourself to any basic logic Gary. Who said Archaeology was not a science? The nature of archaeology however is by its very nature incomplete. Archaeology can only tells us what is left of a settlement and analyze it. Events and even settlements can happen with nothing left behind at all or nothing we can properly analyze. Thats the nature of history. Even when we do find something its only because we went looking and digging and the facts are a great deal is still left undone in Israel and in many other biblically related places. The idea that there is still not tons more to excavate is a myth.

Thats precisely why your own skeptic archaeologists were claiming not many years ago that there was no Davidic or Solomon monarchy at all. Same foolish non science claim you are making now = absence of evidence is proof of absence. then what happened? we started digging up the evidence. What was supposed to not exist at all and had been Proven by previous absence (lasting decades) was sitting right there in Israel. So sorry - The only part of archaeology that can be properly stated to be science is that part that analyzes what we have. Conjecture based on what we don't have is not science. It will never be science. You can beg until the cows come home.

The overwhelming majority of archeologists reject the historicity of the Biblical stories

get it through your noggin Gary consensus is not science. Nick and stein entertained that logic erroneously. There are plenty of archaeologists that don't agree but Consensus is not part of the true scientific process. In science you do not vote to see which idea comes out on top. Thats not science. Thats appealing to authority a known fallacious argument. Now if you can show in any science how absence of evidence establishes a theory then be my guest but of course You cannot. Even if you could the incomplete nature of history and archaeology would be still standing in the way.

There is zero archeological evidence for these events. There was no Moses. There was no Passover. There was no giving of the Law to millions of Hebrews camped around the Sinai.

Yawn

the same was said for the existence of David
then it was said for the monarchy
The same was said of the hittites that were supposed to be mythical people made up by the Bible
and on and on

the record of people making up claims that have been proved to be wrong by subsequent finds makes the continuing assertion that absence of evidence proves absence in reality down right ..ROFLable

Sorry gary.

[tabibito]

Time was that even Pilate was touted as a tale dreamt up by the Biblical authors on account of there were no records outside the Bible attesting his existence.
Take a note of the facts that were known -

• No records outside of the Bible attested to Pilate as procurator in Judea.
• It was known that procurators were appointed to Judea during the relevant time period
• No records were available to identify the relevant procurator.

Therefore, Pilate was not the procurator.
Even the absence of any (external) evidence for a given alternative person being procurator, even in the face of the knowledge that someone was the procurator. The absence of independent corroborating evidence was declared definitive proof of the non-existence of Pilate the procurator in Judea.

Could Moses have existed? I regard the evidence as sufficient to warrant the conclusion that he did, and sufficient to establish the reign of Amenhotep III as a viable hypothesis for the time frame.

Could Abraham have existed? I regard the evidence as supporting the possibility.

Could Adam and Eve have existed? I regard the evidence as not ruling out the possibility.

Could the record of Genesis be free of error?
I consider that the evidence establishes that to be impossible.

Reason for considering that the record of Genesis cannot be free of error: Science - the description of the flood would mean that Noah (on the basis of the findings of genetic research) cannot have lived in any time more recent than 120 000 years ago.

[psstein]

Archeology isn't science?

The overwhelming majority of archeologists reject the historicity of the Biblical stories of the Hebrew slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, and the Forty Years in the Sinai. There is zero archeological evidence for these events. There was no Moses. There was no Passover. There was no giving of the Law to millions of Hebrews camped around the Sinai. Jesus believed all these events were historical facts.

Jesus made a mistake. The God of the Hebrews says in the OT that he does not make mistakes. Therefore Jesus was not the God of the Hebrews. He was a man who made mistakes.

Archeology alone proves the Bible and Jesus false.

Archaeology isn't a science in the strict sense.

On the Exodus, Hebrew slavery, 40 years in the desert, I agree. The evidence we'd expect is conspicuously absent, and the dates are a total mess. The Exodus is a theological construct existing for a lot of fairly obscure reasons. The question, however, is how those parts were really meant to be taken.

If Christianity is correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, it makes sense that Jesus would use language that the vast majority of Jews, as well as Jesus, would be familiar with. Something can be theologically important (i.e. the perpetual virginity of Mary) without being literally true.

[psstein]

Time was that even Pilate was touted as a tale dreamt up by the Biblical authors on account of there were no records outside the Bible attesting his existence.
Take a note of the facts that were known -

• No records outside of the Bible attested to Pilate as procurator in Judea.
• It was known that procurators were appointed to Judea during the relevant time period
• No records were available to identify the relevant procurator.

Therefore, Pilate was not the procurator.
Even the absence of any (external) evidence for a given alternative person being procurator, even in the face of the knowledge that someone was the procurator. The absence of independent corroborating evidence was declared definitive proof of the non-existence of Pilate the procurator in Judea.

Could Moses have existed? I regard the evidence as sufficient to warrant the conclusion that he did, and sufficient to establish the reign of Amenhotep III as a viable hypothesis for the time frame.

Could Abraham have existed? I regard the evidence as supporting the possibility.

Pilate is a different case, as Pilate is attested in several non-Christian sources, even disregarding the NT.

Moses and Abraham I am completely agnostic about. The Exodus narrative is notoriously problematic, and whatever kernels of truth the patriarchal narratives have are buried behind sources and traditions.

[tabibito]

Pilate is a different case, as Pilate is attested in several non-Christian sources, even disregarding the NT.

Not so different: The attestation in each case was deemed irrelevant because each drew on the Biblical record. There was, until 1961, no corroborating evidence from any independent source. The claim that there was never a procurator Pilate was still being made in the early 1990s - that claim being found on the kind of sites as Gary considers authoritative.

The Exodus narrative is notoriously problematic, and whatever kernels of truth the patriarchal narratives have are buried behind sources and traditions.

Problematic in what regard?

[Mikeenders]

Not so different: The attestation in each case was deemed irrelevant because each drew on the Biblical record. There was, until 1961, no corroborating evidence from any independent source. The claim that there was never a procurator Pilate was still being made in the early 1990s - that claim being found on the kind of sites as Gary considers authoritative.

If we were to look up every claim made based on the absence of evidence we would have scores of false claims. This is ARCHAEOLOGY we are talking about. We really have only talked about the big ones. At this point Stein's claims are really no different from Gary's. the logic is the same. Its a totally failed evidential concept that has been proven wrong over and over and over again. If that were not enough to distrust the assumption its also based on a bit of deception. To illustrate by analogy supposed there were an alleged murder (neighbors heard an argument and two bangs), Two detectives that work under you come back and report to you that they found nothing at the home the sounds alleged came from. They were allowed entrance but - No weapon no body no signs of a murder. You close the case. Done - matter settled. Imagine your outrage at the detectives when you find out the detectives had not searched the whole house. You'd probably fire them.

Think this analogy doesn't fit? Then why are we overturning these assumptions and still digging up finds that alter our views? How many digs have we actually done in the desert?? How many can we do say in the area of Jerusalem?? When you hear skeptics and even some Biblical scholars tell it - its as if we have combed every square mile of the desert and found nothing. Totally false, relatively few digs have been done in the desert (for obvious reasons)and its deceptive to paint the picture otherwise. Shucks just in the last couple years new finds have been made regarding the Davidic kingdom and they were NOT in some far away remote area either. Just an area we finally got around to excavating. It really is incredible that people are still even using this failed logical construct. There was probably no more heralded absent of evidence claim made than that there was and never had been ANY Davidic Monarchy. Scholars just like Stein and reasoning just like Gary LAUGHED at the idea. Scholars MOCKED any archaeologist that claimed the matter had not been settled. YOU can sill find book excerpt and article excerpts where they were interviewed and claimed the matter was settled using the same absence of evidence claim. Now we know different. But does Biblical "scholarship" or archaeology learn from such a public and total repudiation of their logic? Nope.

The lack of evidence claim for the exodus relies heavily on what dates you pick and what Pharoah you think is being discussed. its also relies on the proper identification of key cities. What you will seldom hear is that dates across the board are problematic for many issues. Much of our dating system relies on Chronologies that believe it or not - we KNOW are problematic. We rely on them because the are the best we have. Alternate chronologies are not proposed just because the scholars who propose them are quacks (some might be mind you) but because there are real issues (and anyone who wishes to do research on the subject will find it easily). I really don't have a problem with "scholars" and archaeology going with what they think is the best they have. However there is a world of intellectual rigor and honesty difference between saying - okay this is the best we have now and yes it problematic and ignoring the issues and making sweeping conclusions about what we know is not certain.

[Mikeenders]

Could Moses have existed? I regard the evidence as sufficient to warrant the conclusion that he did, and sufficient to establish the reign of Amenhotep III as a viable hypothesis for the time frame.

Could Abraham have existed? I regard the evidence as supporting the possibility.

Could Adam and Eve have existed? I regard the evidence as not ruling out the possibility.

Of all three the only one I would not be surprised to find evidence for would be Moses but the problem is it would be a shocker if it were found in Egypt (I just can't see Egypt leaving record of him). The claims against Abraham are nonsensical and when I hear "scholars" claiming he was made up/fictional I take it as a SURE sign of bias. Absence of evidence for Abraham or for that matter any of the patriarchs means the sum total of nothing. hundreds of years from now there will be no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people (particularly in low tech areas). Abraham was mostly nomadic, never a king and a leader of no formal nation. why would archaeology or any other non Jewish source leave much about any Patriarch?

I shake my head when I read and hear people making claims based on the lack of evidence for Abraham or the patriarchs. They should get out of the field if they have no idea of what gets recorded in history and what does not

[37818]

. . .

Jesus of Nazareth: 30-33 AD ? (We think...maybe)

What???

God himself, in human form, is publically executed for high treason by the personal decree of the Roman prefect of Judea, three days later his tomb is found empty along with multiple claims of post-resurrection appearances, accompanied by earthquakes, sightings of angels, a three hour eclipse, the tearing down the middle of the Temple veil, and, scores of dead people roaming the streets of a major city...and no one remembers the exact date of this event???

Give me a break.

Now, I'm not saying that the lack of knowledge regarding Jesus' date of death proves that he didn't exist, but to me it proves, without a doubt, that we do NOT have any eyewitness testimony of the life and death of this man.

The stories about Jesus in the Gospels are stories passed down by word of mouth, over many years, to be later written down by people who had never met Jesus. (They never mention even one physical characteristic of Jesus, for Pete's sake!) These four stories are not eyewitness testimony nor can anyone credibly claim that they are even accurate second hand testimony. They are embellished stories about a man who (most probably) lived and died in first century Palestine.

If the Gospels were really eyewitness accounts, the Church would know the exact date of the death of the most important human being who ever lived.

But they don't, do they?

Based on the NT record and the Jewish calendar two main years and a number of dates. 30 AD April 7th or 5th or 6th. 33 AD April 3rd. [From my personal study of this issue I came to the (a minority) view of 30 AD April 6th.]

[Gary]

Its pretty remarkable how you can never apply yourself to any basic logic Gary. Who said Archaeology was not a science? The nature of archaeology however is by its very nature incomplete. Archaeology can only tells us what is left of a settlement and analyze it. Events and even settlements can happen with nothing left behind at all or nothing we can properly analyze. Thats the nature of history. Even when we do find something its only because we went looking and digging and the facts are a great deal is still left undone in Israel and in many other biblically related places. The idea that there is still not tons more to excavate is a myth.

Thats precisely why your own skeptic archaeologists were claiming not many years ago that there was no Davidic or Solomon monarchy at all. Same foolish non science claim you are making now = absence of evidence is proof of absence. then what happened? we started digging up the evidence. What was supposed to not exist at all and had been Proven by previous absence (lasting decades) was sitting right there in Israel. So sorry - The only part of archaeology that can be properly stated to be science is that part that analyzes what we have. Conjecture based on what we don't have is not science. It will never be science. You can beg until the cows come home.




get it through your noggin Gary consensus is not science. Nick and stein entertained that logic erroneously. There are plenty of archaeologists that don't agree but Consensus is not part of the true scientific process. In science you do not vote to see which idea comes out on top. Thats not science. Thats appealing to authority a known fallacious argument. Now if you can show in any science how absence of evidence establishes a theory then be my guest but of course You cannot. Even if you could the incomplete nature of history and archaeology would be still standing in the way.



Yawn

the same was said for the existence of David
then it was said for the monarchy
The same was said of the hittites that were supposed to be mythical people made up by the Bible
and on and on

the record of people making up claims that have been proved to be wrong by subsequent finds makes the continuing assertion that absence of evidence proves absence in reality down right ..ROFLable

Sorry gary.

You have zero proof of the existence of the biblical mini-empires of David and Solomon. Zero. All you have is one stellae that says "House of David". That would be like digging up a monument in France that said "House of Louis". What does it prove other than there was a royal house of a man named David? You have no proof that the David referred to in the stellae is the biblical David, son of Jesse, slayer of lions and giants. None.

Here is the thing about powerful empires, even if they are mini-empires: surrounding countries talk about them. There is zero mention of an Israelite king named David or Solomon. Nada. Zip. We have evidence in the writings of other nations of Israelite kings such as Ahab and Omri, but nothing about the two greatest kings of Israel whose empires stretched "from the Nile to the Euphrates".

Not one word.

So you still have zero evidence for any of the biblical stories stretching from Adam all the way down to Solomon. Nada. Having one stellae with "House of David" proves nothing.

Your best defense is to fall back on the tried and true fundamentalist response: "The evidence is there. It just hasn't been found yet. I trust in the Word of God over the word of men, including archeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, linguistic experts, and all other scientists."

[Gary]

Archaeology isn't a science in the strict sense.

On the Exodus, Hebrew slavery, 40 years in the desert, I agree. The evidence we'd expect is conspicuously absent, and the dates are a total mess. The Exodus is a theological construct existing for a lot of fairly obscure reasons. The question, however, is how those parts were really meant to be taken.

If Christianity is correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, it makes sense that Jesus would use language that the vast majority of Jews, as well as Jesus, would be familiar with. Something can be theologically important (i.e. the perpetual virginity of Mary) without being literally true.

So Jesus only pretended that Adam was a real historical figure? Jesus only pretended that Abraham and Moses were real historical people? Jesus only pretended that he was the "Passover Lamb" for an event that never took place?

So by your logic, how do we know that the bodily resurrection of Jesus story was not just a theological construct, not meant to be believed literally?

Once you start down the slippery slope of Higher Criticism, how do you stop?

[psstein]

Not so different: The attestation in each case was deemed irrelevant because each drew on the Biblical record. There was, until 1961, no corroborating evidence from any independent source. The claim that there was never a procurator Pilate was still being made in the early 1990s - that claim being found on the kind of sites as Gary considers authoritative.

Problematic in what regard?

I wouldn't really say Tacitus, Philo, or Josephus drew on the Biblical record.

The Exodus has a huge number of problems. First, if you had 3 million people wandering the wilderness, you'd expect some type of record indicating it. Second, there's very good evidence that the early Israelites were Canaanite. Third, there are a number of cities mentioned that don't exist (in any palpable form) at the time of the Exodus, regardless of which dating system you choose.

[psstein]

Of all three the only one I would not be surprised to find evidence for would be Moses but the problem is it would be a shocker if it were found in Egypt (I just can't see Egypt leaving record of him). The claims against Abraham are nonsensical and when I hear "scholars" claiming he was made up/fictional I take it as a SURE sign of bias. Absence of evidence for Abraham or for that matter any of the patriarchs means the sum total of nothing. hundreds of years from now there will be no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people (particularly in low tech areas). Abraham was mostly nomadic, never a king and a leader of no formal nation. why would archaeology or any other non Jewish source leave much about any Patriarch?

I shake my head when I read and hear people making claims based on the lack of evidence for Abraham or the patriarchs. They should get out of the field if they have no idea of what gets recorded in history and what does not

The claims against Abraham make sense, though they're not enough to say with any conclusive evidence that he didn't exist. There are a huge number of anachronisms in the patriarchal narratives, and Abraham's name itself (father of many) suggests theology, not history. The belief is, however, that since Exodus-Joshua are so wrong on the history of the Israelites, there's no real reason to trust Genesis.