Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

There is a big difference between the level of sophistication of record keeping for an event 3,500 years ago (the volcanic eruption you refer to) and an event in the first century Roman Empire, 2,000 years ago, occurring in the heart of a country (Judea) that had developed a tradition of excellent recording keeping.

ROFL.....EPIC fail. what?? in the difference of 1500 years the printing press was invented? HAHAHAHA

You do like to babble nonsense as you proofs go more like "poof" in smoke. Every scholar in the world knows there was a high degree of illiteracy at that time. The fishermen and ordinary folk were not part of the "Roman Empire" that had a high degree of literacy. As usual you have fallen on your head!! Record keeping??...yes it was the habit of people to record the time of death of all the people who died in Jerusalem....HAHAHAHA

Boy stop watching too much CSI

You are a complete joke and the fact tht you have to be hanging on to such a ridiculous point tells us all how weak your box of proof is

Carry on entertaining us. only in your dreams are you converting anyone in this thread to the rank stupidity you peddle.

[Gary]

ROFL.....EPIC fail. what?? in the difference of 1500 years the printing press was invented? HAHAHAHA

You do like to babble nonsense as you proofs go more like "poof" in smoke. Every scholar in the world knows there was a high degree of illiteracy at that time. The fishermen and ordinary folk were not part of the "Roman Empire" that had a high degree of literacy. As usual you have fallen on your head!! Record keeping??...yes it was the habit of people to record the time of death of all the people who died in Jerusalem....HAHAHAHA

Boy stop watching too much CSI

You are a complete joke and the fact tht you have to be hanging on to such a ridiculous point tells us all how weak your box of proof is

Carry on entertaining us. only in your dreams are you converting anyone in this thread to the rank stupidity you peddle.

You are really in full spin mode, Mike. You are in full spin mode because you realize that the issue I am raising strikes a death blow to the reliability of the Gospels: The thousands of Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost were not all poor peasants and fishermen. Poor people did not travel across the Mediterranean nor from Persia to celebrate a holiday. These were Jews with means. And if they were Jews with means, there is a high probability that a substantial number of them were literate. The fact that no one remembered or wrote down the events of Pentecost demonstrates the story in Acts 2 regarding thousands of devout Jews converting on a single day is pure fiction! And if the story of Pentecost in the Book of Acts is embellished fiction, what does that say about the Gospel of Luke? Answer: A very high likelihood of more embellished fiction.

We know that Matthew's gospel is riddled with embellishments (even most educated evangelical Christians don't believe the story of dead people roaming the streets on Resurrection Day) and the Gospel of John bares little if any resemblance to the stories of Jesus in the Synoptics. Put it all together and what do you get:

1. Jesus most likely lived.
2. Jesus most likely was an apocalyptic prophet.
3. Jesus most likely was crucified.

After that, it is all one big embellished tall tale because out of all the alleged thousands of converts to this new faith just fifty days after his death and resurrection, no one can remember even the year of these miraculous, never-heard-of-before events!

And let's turn Nick's "Honor Shame" society back on him: Are we really to believe that thousands of Jews have converted to a very "shameful" belief system, all based on the death and alleged Resurrection of one man, and no Jew on the planet bothered to write down the year of this event???

Preposterous!

[psstein]

So I was away all weekend at a conference. Anyway, with regard to the Exodus, what is supposed to be left behind? A nomadic group of former slaves wandered in the wilderness, already unfriendly conditions, for 40 years. This would have been around 3,500-4,000 years ago? Not much survives in that climate. What about the Scythians by comparison? They were a large group that wandered for 1,000 years. What do we have of them? Tombs of their kings. Why is that important? Those were things built to last. The Israelites built nothing to last.

I recommended Gary long ago read Hoffmier on this. He chose not to. He preferred to just watch a video.....of course.

I really don't find Hoffmeier's arguments particularly convincing; I read the book some time ago and don't remember much of it. He wrote an article in Biblical Archaeology Review not too long ago, but most of what he discusses has already been shown wanting or problematic. There are better alternative explanations than the Exodus.

I think the question really is what the nature of the OT is. I think the Exodus is largely a theological narrative, which is fine. Something can be theologically true and not literally true. This is the minimalist position, but it's one I'm almost convinced is correct.

[psstein]

Hoffmeier is an idiot. He finds the ruins of one city that is mentioned in the Exodus, and then excitedly exclaims to the world: "I have just confirmed the entire Biblical story of the Exodus!"

Fundamentalist nonsense.

I don't think it's that simple. Hoffmeier's evidence is problematic, I'd say. I think his book, Israel in Egypt is very open to the charge of making the evidence fit the narrative, rather than the other way around.

[Gary]

I don't think it's that simple. Hoffmeier's evidence is problematic, I'd say. I think his book, Israel in Egypt is very open to the charge of making the evidence fit the narrative, rather than the other way around.

That is the problem with conservative/evangelical apologetics for the Old Testament. Just because one uncovers the ruins of an ancient Egyptian city that is mentioned in the Exodus story, is not proof of the Exodus. For instance, if someone writing in the seventh century BCE, decides to write a nationalistic, fictional story that involves the flight of a certain people out of Egypt, who so happen to pass by a city that existed during the seventh century so that the author can include that city in his fictional story to make the story look historical, or, include the name of a city which at the time of his writing was in ruins but which existed during the era he is feigning to be describing, that does not prove that the fictional story is describing a real historical event.

There is no solid evidence of several million Hebrew leaving Egypt in one great Exodus. None.

[Mikeenders]

So I was away all weekend at a conference. Anyway, with regard to the Exodus, what is supposed to be left behind? A nomadic group of former slaves wandered in the wilderness, already unfriendly conditions, for 40 years. This would have been around 3,500-4,000 years ago? Not much survives in that climate. What about the Scythians by comparison? They were a large group that wandered for 1,000 years. What do we have of them? Tombs of their kings. Why is that important? Those were things built to last. The Israelites built nothing to last.

Thats a key issue nick and to add to that is another central archaeologically reality. How often are you even going to get funding to do digs in the wilderness and where?? Its one thing if you are looking for a particular settlement and have some clues its another to dig without references. There are very few to go off. I may be wrong but my understanding is that little has been done and almost surely not enough to claim theres nothing to be found.

I recommended Gary long ago read Hoffmier on this. He chose not to. He preferred to just watch a video.....of course.

Hoffmeir is one I was referring to having new work coming out by the end of the year and from what little he has shared its based far more than on what Gary claimed (no surprise there at all)

[Gary]

Thats a key issue nick and to add to that is another central archaeologically reality. How often are you even going to get funding to do digs in the wilderness and where?? Its one thing if you are looking for a particular settlement and have some clues its another to dig without references. There are very few to go off. I may be wrong but my understanding is that little has been done and almost surely not enough to claim theres nothing to be found.



Hoffmeir is one I was referring to having new work coming out by the end of the year and from what little he has shared its based far more than on what Gary claimed (no surprise there at all)

The Sinai is one of the most excavated pieces of real estate on planet earth. If two to three million Hebrews walked in circles in that small peninsula for forty years we should find SOMETHING. However, the facts are: we have found NOTHING.

It's a fable. Either that, or magic angels walked behind the millions of ancient Hebrews, erasing all traces of them.

[Mikeenders]

I think the question really is what the nature of the OT is.

No thats not the issue. Calling a spade a spade there is Nothing, NADA, in Exodus that claims that its just largely theological narrative and historicity should be ignored. Thats a made up outside of the text understanding applied to the text (whether its right or wrong). THe issue is whether its supported as a historical narrative AND if we can rule out a historicity based on solid evidence not mainly absent evidence. This is where the whole issue of dates comes up because as would be obvious - you have to make sure you are looking in the right time period.

Thats why I look forward to some evidence to your claim that Dates do not matter on the issue of the Exodus. My project has been put on hold for day so I have spare time.

Something can be theologically true and not literally true.

Whenever I find myself muttering beatitudes that I am honest enough to realize I may have just kidded myself into believing (where a rational person outside my biases would see it otherwise) I try to find a teenager or young adult. IF nothing else it gives me a perspective of how long my beatitudes are going to be taken seriously in society. I've yet to meet anyone outside of pontificating theologians that really buys that you can spin a yarn as literally true (and yes exodus does do that) be essentially lying and still be theologically true. Maybe in can work in a religion that does not believe in honesty.

[Gary]

No thats not the issue. Calling a spade a spade there is Nothing, NADA, in Exodus that claims that its just largely theological narrative and historicity should be ignored. Thats a made up outside of the text understanding applied to the text (whether its right or wrong). THe issue is whether its supported as a historical narrative AND if we can rule out a historicity based on solid evidence not mainly absent evidence. This is where the whole issue of dates comes up because as would be obvious - you have to make sure you are looking in the right time period.

Thats why I look forward to some evidence to your claim that Dates do not matter on the issue of the Exodus. My project has been put on hold for day so I have spare time.




Whenever I find myself muttering beatitudes that I am honest enough to realize I may have just kidded myself into believing (where a rational person outside my biases would see it otherwise) I try to find a teenager or young adult. IF nothing else it gives me a perspective of how long my beatitudes are going to be taken seriously in society. I've yet to meet anyone outside of pontificating theologians that really buys that you can spin a yarn as literally true (and yes exodus does do that) be essentially lying and still be theologically true. Maybe in can work in a religion that does not believe in honesty.

The Book of Mormon claims that ancient Hebrews came to North America and used horses. Archeology has not found one trace of ancient Hebrews anywhere in North America nor have they found any fossil evidence of horses in North America prior to the arrival of the Spanish. When presented with this lack of archeological evidence for their claims, Mormons do one of two things:

1. They reinterpret the meaning of the words used in the BOM. For instance, they say that "horse" doesn't really mean "horse" as we know it today. Etc..
2. They smugly respond: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The evidence for the ancient Hebrews and their horses lie somewhere in the soil of North America. It just hasn't been found yet."

Sound familiar?

[psstein]

That is the problem with conservative/evangelical apologetics for the Old Testament. Just because one uncovers the ruins of an ancient Egyptian city that is mentioned in the Exodus story, is not proof of the Exodus. For instance, if someone writing in the seventh century BCE, decides to write a nationalistic, fictional story that involves the flight of a certain people out of Egypt, who so happen to pass by a city that existed during the seventh century so that the author can include that city in his fictional story to make the story look historical, or, include the name of a city which at the time of his writing was in ruins but which existed during the era he is feigning to be describing, that does not prove that the fictional story is describing a real historical event.

There is no solid evidence of several million Hebrew leaving Egypt in one great Exodus. None.

As much as it pains me to agree with you, you're not far off.

Let's just take one example. The ancient Israelites spent 38 years at Qadesh, just before entering the Promised Land. When excavations were done at Qadesh after the 1967 war, there was a lot of evidence from the Middle Bronze Age I, which spanned roughly 2100-1900 BC, or about the time of Abraham. There was absolutely no evidence of anything from the Late Bronze Age, which is when the Exodus allegedly happened.

I have read Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament, which read like W.F. Albright back from the dead. I have a fairly open week, so I'm going to do the following: I will reread Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt and read his Israel in Sinai. I don't recall either one being particularly long, so it shouldn't take me too long (and I'm a fast reader). After I read them, Nick, Gary, Mike, and I can resume the conversation with the knowledge that we've read the other side's opinions and positions. That sounds like a fair arrangement to me.

[Mikeenders]

The Sinai is one of the most excavated pieces of real estate on planet earth. .

Theres nothing to do with that statement but.......................... ROFL


id bet money Gary has Mount Sinai confused with the Sinai

[Gary]

So I was away all weekend at a conference. Anyway, with regard to the Exodus, what is supposed to be left behind? A nomadic group of former slaves wandered in the wilderness, already unfriendly conditions, for 40 years. This would have been around 3,500-4,000 years ago? Not much survives in that climate. What about the Scythians by comparison? They were a large group that wandered for 1,000 years. What do we have of them? Tombs of their kings. Why is that important? Those were things built to last. The Israelites built nothing to last.

I recommended Gary long ago read Hoffmier on this. He chose not to. He preferred to just watch a video.....of course.

Here is the reason why I do not respect the opinion of Dr. James Hoffmeier regarding his "evidence" for the Exodus: He admits he has an agenda---to prove the historicity of the Biblical story of the Exodus, and, he has the very unprofessional audacity to accuse non-evangelical Christian scholars such as Finkelstein of having an agenda to deliberately change the dating of the evidence to discredit the Biblical story!

Dr. Hoffmeier is a Christian fundamentalist. He admits the agenda of his research/scholarship is to look for evidence to fit his preconceived conclusion, not to look for evidence from which to form an hypothesis, as is the proper method of doing research. In addition, he is a participant in the fundamentalist Christian conspiracy theory industry: "Every scientist and scholar on the planet who does not agree with us is biased and out to destroy the Bible and Christianity."

If you don't believe that Hoffmeier admits he has an agenda, listen to the following video interview of him at a Christian college. Specifically listen to time point: One hour, sixteen seconds:

[Mikeenders]

As much as it pains me to agree with you, you're not far off.

As an already self confessed minimalist and OT skeptic it doesn't pain you at all. Lets not try pretend you are being forced to agree with Gary. As I have said before you are not that far from Gary in logic or in conclusions. I agreed with Gary on that several pages ago. At this point we should not have to be pretending otherwise. Let just be who we are.

Let's just take one example. The ancient Israelites spent 38 years at Qadesh, just before entering the Promised Land. When excavations were done at Qadesh after the 1967 war, there was a lot of evidence from the Middle Bronze Age I, which spanned roughly 2100-1900 BC, or about the time of Abraham. There was absolutely no evidence of anything from the Late Bronze Age, which is when the Exodus allegedly happened.

A)Nick's point would still stand. You are a minimalist fantasizing that Kadesh was a city of the israelites. You stated the above like it was an inhabited city when at best it was more like a frequent stop over for nomads
B) You are really still relying on identifications of 40 years ago to make your absence of evidence equals conclusion of absence work??????

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ere-is-kadesh/ (with the amount of new information coming to light I would not be surprised if the exodus is the next Davidic Monarchy for biblical (non) scholarship and it happens within the next five years)

c) How could you not know the location is disputed? How can anyone make an absence of evidence argument by pointing to one excavation of a location still in dispute??

Or does this highlight yet another weakness of the consensus argument? even when things are in dispute we just do a head count and whoever comes out on top the issue is settled? That not scholarship. That's laziness and inattention to reality.

I think his book, Israel in Egypt is very open to the charge of making the evidence fit the narrative, rather than the other way around.

For some disingenuous season this is always the claim when any writer writes of facts that may support the Biblical narrative. Outside of straight archaeological reporting there is not a book coming out on Biblical scholarship that doesn't fit the evidence to their narrative. Every writer has multiple theories. As far out as on a limb as any writer gets as long as he/she is skeptical of the Biblical narrative he is far less (almost not at all) likely to be slapped with that accusation.

After I read them, Nick, Gary, Mike, and I can resume the conversation with the knowledge that we've read the other side's opinions and positions. That sounds like a fair arrangement to me.

Better late than never but for someone so settled of being right shouldn't you already be aware?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary doesn't understand that when people give lectures, they have to condense a lot of material in a book.

I find people who don't read books very weak.

[Gary]

As an already self confessed minimalist and OT skeptic it doesn't pain you at all. Lets not try pretend you are being forced to agree with Gary. As I have said before you are not that far from Gary in logic or in conclusions. I agreed with Gary on that several pages ago. At this point we should not have to be pretending otherwise. Let just be who we are.



A)Nick's point would still stand. You are a minimalist fantasizing that Kadesh was a city of the israelites. You stated the above like it was an inhabited city when at best it was more like a frequent stop over for nomads
B) You are really still relying on identifications of 40 years ago to make your absence of evidence equals conclusion of absence work??????

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ere-is-kadesh/ (with the amount of new information coming to light I would not be surprised if the exodus is the next Davidic Monarchy for biblical (non) scholarship and it happens within the next five years)

c) How could you not know the location is disputed? How can anyone make an absence of evidence argument by pointing to one excavation of a location still in dispute??

Or does this highlight yet another weakness of the consensus argument? even when things are in dispute we just do a head count and whoever comes out on top the issue is settled? That not scholarship. That's laziness and inattention to reality.



Better late than never but for someone so settled of being right shouldn't you already be aware?

Mike,

You are a fundamentalist.

At least Stein is using his brain...most of the time...when examining the evidence. You on the other hand have already decided what is and what cannot be Truth. You resist any and all evidence that counters your preconceived worldview. You are like Hoffmeier: You have an agenda and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change your agenda.