Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    Mike,

    You have stated that you do not believe that I ever was a true Christian. In your flavor of Christianity, what are the requirements of being a true Christian? Do you believe that a Roman Catholic who believes and adheres to the core teachings of the RCC, can be a true Christian?

    Gary save yourself the typing. You've been on 15 different subjects and as each flopped you've tried to run off to another. I have no intention of getting into another off point subject debate with you. However since you may have been confused (when are you not?) and/or lest i gave the wrong impression to anyone else - I compared Stein to you in skepticism in the OT and in logic in that regard. Stein is LIGHT YEARS ahead of you in general Logic, dealing with the issues as they arise, ahem READING BOOKS, theology,and on and on. I have no reason either to doubt his Christianity (even though I consider him on slippery slopes we have not got into that). However I don't affirm anyone's online either until I know more. Perhaps Stein will give reason later to doubt his status but you already have multiple times. if anything Stein surprised me by going to such weak evidence and not being aware of certain key facts.

    In your case its pretty obvious regardless of views on the endurance of salvation you were not a Christian. IF a man loved his wife dearly and meant his vows from the bottom of his soul I would expect him to ONLY cite solid reasons why he was divorcing her. If he came to me and told me one of the surest reasons he knew he had to divorce his wife was because he concluded she lied about an event because she didn't record a date for it then I'd KNOW the man was a total fake to his marriage vows, had his own issues, really had no firm commitment to her and seeing her for who she is and was just looking for any weak kneed excuse to divorce her he could find. As they say actions speak louder than words. To buy such silliness as PROOF just shows your root was about 1mm deep.

    All I need to say on the subject ramble on to a debate with the air on it.
    Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-29-2015, 02:14 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
      Gary save yourself the typing. You've been on 15 different subjects and as each flopped you've tried to run off to another. I have no intention of getting into another off point subject debate with you. However since you may have been confused (when are you not?) and/or lest i gave the wrong impression to anyone else - I compared Stein to you in skepticism in the OT and in logic in that regard. Stein is LIGHT YEARS ahead of you in general Logic, dealing with the issues as they arise, ahem READING BOOKS, theology,and on and on. I have no reason either to doubt his Christianity (even though I consider him on slippery slopes we have not got into that). However I don't affirm anyone's online either until I know more. Perhaps Stein will give reason later to doubt his status but you already have multiple times. if anything Stein surprised me by going to such weak evidence and not being aware of certain key facts.

      In your case its pretty obvious regardless of views on the endurance of salvation you were not a Christian. IF a man loved his wife dearly and meant his vows from the bottom of his soul I would expect him to ONLY cite solid reasons why he was divorcing her. If he came to me and told me one of the surest reasons he knew he had to divorce his wife was because he concluded she lied about an event because she didn't record a date for it then I'd KNOW the man was a total fake to his marriage vows, had his own issues, really had no firm commitment to her and seeing her for who she is and was just looking for any weak kneed excuse to divorce her he could find. As they say actions speak louder than words. To buy such silliness as PROOF just shows your root was about 1mm deep.

      All I need to say on the subject ramble on to a debate with the air on it.
      Is it possible that the real reason for believing that I was never a true Christian is that your preconceived belief system does not allow for "true Christians" to deconvert?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
        At this point I don't know what Stein follows. I think its pretty obvious its not recent research and debate issues. when I entered into conversations with him it was because I assumed he was conversant on the issues but when he flat out denied that dating was a key issue in the exodus debate he lost huge credibility points as he would with ANYONE who even has a passing knowledge of that issue. To use his earlier phrase to me - thats either ignorance or dishonesty - only in this case the shoe actually would fit.
        To be fair, I am not nearly as competent in OT as I am in NT.

        Based on the evidence we have (i.e. the text), the Exodus can best be dated to around 1450, more specifically, I think it's 1448, if I'm not mistaken. The dating is less of a problem than you make it out to be. Regardless, we're missing evidence that should exist. In Israel, there are Iron Age villages with a population of 50 that we have evidence of, from bones (animal and human) as well as garbage dumps, etc.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          There's also the question of if it was 3 million. The word I understand for thousand could also be translated as chiefs.
          Yes, if you mean "eleph," that's the word. It can mean thousand, tribes, or troops.

          I still don't see how that deals with the problem, however.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
            Is It Realistic To Expect That Archaeologists Could Find 3,500 Year Old Artifacts?
            Is it realistic to expect Gary to answer a question without doing more than copy/paste from a random skeptic website? Your cite didn't even address my post - it only argued from silence.

            Oh, and a word of advice. When in moderation, you can't edit your posts, so it would behoove you to make the effort to complete the post before posting it.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
              To be fair, I am not nearly as competent in OT as I am in NT.
              thats fair enough so why be dogmatic in an area you are not as conversant on? Remember this IS and WAS my point. IF people want to go with a theory and even one they think supports the evidence they see then fine but we can do that while still admitting that set conclusions cannot be drawn. Without saying this didn't happen like we have the certainty of science when we do not.

              Based on the evidence we have (i.e. the text), the Exodus can best be dated to around 1450, more specifically, I think it's 1448, if I'm not mistaken. The dating is less of a problem than you make it out to be.
              Stein its better to just admit you don't know what you are talking about and have not read through on the issues. Many scholars do not even accept those years opting for dates more in 1200s. The dating is critical because you have to know what you are looking for and when. Depending on that you can have no correlation or some interesting correlations. This is the entire point that Rohl and others are making. Trying to fudge dating is of little consequence is just utter nonsense


              Regardless, we're missing evidence that should exist. In Israel, there are Iron Age villages with a population of 50 that we have evidence of, from bones (animal and human) as well as garbage dumps, etc.
              OF course....VILLAGES..where people build homes and infrastructure and settlements persists for hundreds of years continuously or intermittently and yet it would be poppycock to proclaim because we find some that some have not vanished from our knowing. You are somewhat off point. Just because we have some does not mean that we are able to find everyone that actually existed and it should be obvious to all the difference between a village and a nomad's rest point.

              Did you even read the BAR article or are you just switching now to a particular evidence that must show itself rather than no evidence being shown at all as true?
              Last edited by Mikeenders; 09-29-2015, 05:43 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Wrong. There was a subjugated people, called the hyksos, who during the Second Intermediate Period had held strong positions in Egypt. Egyptian records show that they were expelled in 1539 BC, but not that they were expelled from the country. These people (at least a proportion of them) were thereafter a subjugated race. True enough, they were not slaves in the technical sense.
                Nomadic peoples do not generally leave lasting traces of their presence. Not that there have been extensive searches of the Sinai for such remains - in part because no remains can be reasonably expected to exist.
                Egypt had a habit of expunging records that became embarrassing, and not recording events that were embarrassing. - Record of the pharaohs Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare, were lost to history until the 19th century. They didn't appear on any lists of the kings. and the location of Tutankhamun's tomb was not recorded.
                The Bible does not record that the entire Egyptian army was lost at the Red Sea - it records that the entire pursuing army was lost.
                Relying on memory of the Biblical texts without double checking, that was about 600 chariots and others. By no means a significant proportion of the entire army.

                As more evidence comes to light, this absence of evidence that you are so fond of shrinks.
                Does The Hyksos Expulsion Account For The Exodus Story?

                Manetho, 3rd century BCE Egyptian writer, using unnamed "sacred books" and "legend", describes a brutal invasion by foreigners from the east called Hyksos meaning "foreign rulers". The Hyksos reportedly made Avaris their capital and allegedly ruled Egypt 500 years. Excavations by Manfred Bietak, Univ. of Vienna, discovered Hyksos pottery, architecture, and tombs dating from 1800 BCE at Tel ed-Daba (Avaris) indicating the Hyksos were Semites (Canaanites, but no mention of them being Israelites), and that their migration had been a gradual process over many years rather then at a specific date in time.

                Egyptian manuscripts recount the 18th Dynasty Pharoah Ahmose sacking the Hyksos in 1570 BCE and chasing the Hyksos to their citadel Sharuhen (Jerusalem?) in southern Canaan. These manuscripts indicate the Canaanite influence terminated at this time.

                Though some parallels to Israel’s Exodus story are present, there are obvious anomalies such as: brutal invasion, 500 year rule of Egypt, and the Hyksos being defeated and chased by the Egyptian army into southern Canaan. Thus, the Hyksos expulsion is disqualified as the bible’s Exodus by Israel.

                Source: http://articles.exchristian.net/2002...t-actually.php

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                  thats fair enough so why be dogmatic in an area you are not as conversant on? Remember this IS and WAS my point. IF people want to go with a theory and even one they think supports the evidence they see then fine but we can do that while still admitting that set conclusions cannot be drawn. Without saying this didn't happen like we have the certainty of science when we do not.



                  Stein its better to just admit you don't know what you are talking about and have not read through on the issues. Many scholars do not even accept those years opting for dates more in 1200s. The dating is critical because you have to know what you are looking for and when. Depending on that you can have no correlation or some interesting correlations. This is the entire point that Rohl and others are making. Trying to fudge dating is of little consequence is just utter nonsense




                  OF course....VILLAGES..where people build homes and infrastructure and settlements persists for hundreds of years continuously or intermittently and yet it would be poppycock to proclaim because we find some that some have not vanished from our knowing. You are somewhat off point. Just because we have some does not mean that we are able to find everyone that actually existed and it should be obvious to all the difference between a village and a nomad's rest point.

                  Did you even read the BAR article or are you just switching now to a particular evidence that must show itself rather than no evidence being shown at all as true?
                  "Stein its better to just admit you don't know what you are talking about..."

                  Why are you so rude and nasty, Mike? Is that what having Jesus in your "heart" does for "true Christians" like yourself?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    I have never included EGYPTIAN records of the Exodus in this discussion as I know that Christians are absolutely certain that Egyptians would never record such a defeat. Let's assume that is true. It doesn't explain why the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Greeks, or the Libyans say nothing of this massive Egyptian defeat at the hands of their runaway slaves.
                    What massive defeat? All of six hundred chariots. (I have checked).
                    1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • Oxford Encyclopaedia
                      Despite textual attestations to a Bedouin presence throughout South Sinai during the pharaonic and later periods, archaeological surveys have uncovered only traces of a few seasonal campsites in South Sinai during Early Bronze Age IV (Egypt’s late Old Kingdom through First Intermediate Period: 2300 – 2040 BCE).

                      Bedouins were present in the southern Sinai for centuries, their presence attested by Egyptian records - and almost nothing has been found except for a few traces dating to (roughly) 500 to 1 000 years before the exodus. What would be strange about not finding archaeological traces of a people's presence that spanned a mere 40 years.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 09-30-2015, 09:50 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Oxford Encyclopaedia
                        Despite textual attestations to a Bedouin presence throughout South Sinai during the pharaonic and later periods, archaeological surveys have uncovered only traces of a few seasonal campsites in South Sinai during Early Bronze Age IV (Egypt’s late Old Kingdom through First Intermediate Period: 2300 – 2040 BCE).

                        Bedouins were present in the southern Sinai for centuries, their presence attested by Egyptian records - and almost nothing has been found except for a few traces dating to (roughly) 500 to 1 000 years before the exodus. What would be strange about not finding archaeological traces of a people's presence that spanned a mere 40 years.
                        First, the Bedouins are nomadic. They rarely stay in one place for long periods of time. I don't know much about Bedouins beyond that, so I can't really speak as to their burial customs.

                        It's strange because, if you spend 38 years in one place, you generally provide some evidence of your being there. Presumably, the Ancient Israelites would've offered sacrifices, and would have had to dispose of the bones. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers have massive numbers of people dying. You'd expect some sort of burial ground near the site. The Exodus may have some basis in reality. I can easily believe that a group of Semitic slaves escaped Egypt and came into what was known as Canaan. YHWH is not part of the Canaanite pantheon, so YHWH had to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else seems to be NW Arabia, where (if Sinai exists) it's likely Sinai actually is.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by psstein View Post

                          It's strange because, if you spend 38 years in one place, you generally provide some evidence of your being there.
                          Thats quite an if considering the most consistent description of what the Jews were doing during that time is wandering not parked in one spot. to be honest I am not even sure the term refers to one place but to a general area. We do that to this day. People go and come bacck from Miami / los angeles that never technically entered the city limits

                          Comment


                          • I also think that in archaeology, we are said to usually have 1% of 1%. I can understand bones and metals and such surviving some, but clothing isn't of the same material always. Furthermore, the Scythians were a larger group and roamed for a thousand years and all we have are the tombs of their kings, which they built to survive.

                            Comment


                            • I understand the focus on archaeology, but I think there are more damning issues with the traditional Exodus story, largely based around what we know of Iron Age Canaan and Ancient Israelite religion.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                                I understand the focus on archaeology, but I think there are more damning issues with the traditional Exodus story, largely based around what we know of Iron Age Canaan and Ancient Israelite religion.

                                The problem is you keep alluding to things that are "damning" and when we hear them they are not anywhere near what you claim. Worse some of it just doesn't even make sense. How you re going to talk about "what we know of Iron age Canaan" without a focus on archaeology is beyond me.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X