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 tabibito View Post
    An interesting issue arises from findings of archaeological digs.
    The Merneptah Stele refers to Israel by name, which means that at the time the Stele was erected in commemoration of a military victory over various (at the least) city states. Of Israel the stele "makes reference to the supposed utter destruction of Israel in a campaign prior to his 5th year in Canaan: "Israel has been wiped out...its seed** is no more."
    ** seed being in all likelihood, crops and grain stores. Seemingly, Egypt did not refer to people as seed.


    Mernetaph succeeded Ramses II as pharaoh, in 1213 BC and ruled until 1203.

    The stele commemorates a battle in 1208/1207 against the people of Israel, among others.

    The exodus supposedly occurred during the time of Ramses II.

    Ramses II held power for 67 years.

    Nothing of the record concerning Ramses II seems to be a reasonable match for the description given in Exodus of the Pharaoh of Moses' time.

    Why is Ramses II touted as the relevant Pharaoh?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ETA - and even more interesting information on the archaeological front. Archaeological evidence for habitation of the upper Sinai region is not regarded as absent, but as missing. All logical expectation says the evidence should be there.
    Israeli archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog:

    "The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction – made in the seventh century [BCE] – of a history that never happened."

    William Dever, a more conservative archeologist, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.”

    Again I ask: If Christians demand that skeptics accept the majority scholarly consensus (circa 70%) on the historicity of the Empty Tomb, then to be consistent, Christians must accept the overwhelming scholarly consensus (>90%) that the Exodus is a fable; it didn't happen; it is fiction.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
      Israeli archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog:

      "The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction – made in the seventh century [BCE] – of a history that never happened."

      William Dever, a more conservative archeologist, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.”

      Again I ask: If Christians demand that skeptics accept the majority scholarly consensus (circa 70%) on the historicity of the Empty Tomb, then to be consistent, Christians must accept the overwhelming scholarly consensus (>90%) that the Exodus is a fable; it didn't happen; it is fiction.
      Gary, why did you even reply to this post? You ignored everything in it and merely reasserted your argument.
      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 One Bad Pig View Post
        Gary, why did you even reply to this post? You ignored everything in it and merely reasserted your argument.
        You can invent all kinds of hypothetical explanations for why the Exodus happened, but left no evidence. I'm not going to chase after your hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the Exodus is a fable. It did not happen. And if the Exodus is a fable, Jesus was mistaken in believing that the Exodus, the Passover, Moses, the giving of the Ten Commandments, the Wandering in the Sinai, the Conquest of Canaan were all historical facts. And if Jesus was mistaken, Jesus was not Yahweh because Yahweh says over and over again in the Hebrew Scriptures that he is perfect and all-knowing. So Jesus was not Yahweh, but a man. Even if Jesus was resurrected from the dead, he was not Yahweh. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead by the power of Yahweh, then you should be worshipping Yahweh, not Jesus. Yahweh has allegedly taken other humans to heaven(Enoch and Elijah) in miraculous ways, and no one considers them gods, so why should we consider a man, who made mistakes, to be a god simply because he was taken to heaven in a miraculous way??

        Bottom line: Jesus made a mistake. Jesus is not Yahweh. Jesus was a man. His resurrection, if it happened (which is doubtful as the evidence is very weak, so weak it hasn't yet made it into history books as an historical event) is NOT proof that anyone should worship Jesus.

        Comment


        • What evidence do you have of the Scythians?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            What evidence do you have of the Scythians?
            Yes, yes. The old "Scythian Challenge" argument.

            "From eighth to the second century BCE, the Scythians represented the most terrifying military power in Asia, defeating large armies and dominating substantial parts of what is now Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the Eurasian plains. These warring nomads were well-known throughout the continent for their fierce bravery and innovative battlefield tactics. Yet because the Scythians had no written language, most of what is known about them comes from the fifth century BCE recordings of the Greek historian Herodotus. It is only through modern-day archaeological finds that Herodotus's seemingly unbelievable claims of Scythian war practices are finally being verified

            (Encyclopedia of Warrior Peoples and Fighting Groups, Paul Davis and Allen Hamilton, Eds. 2nd ed. Millerton, NY: Grey House Publishing, 2006. 683 pp.)

            Emphasis mine.

            The problem for inerrantist Christians, Nick, is the advanced state of archeology. Archeologists aren't just using picks and shovels today. They are using sonar and satellite imagery. And yet with all these sophisticated methods of analyzing the archeological and geological record, NO EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT HEBREWS IN THE SINAI HAVE YET BEEN DISCOVERED.

            So, yes, maybe the evidence hasn't been discovered yet. Maybe the cooking utensils, pottery, arrow heads and other weaponry, children's toys, mass deposits of human excrement, and the bones of 1,999,998 Hebrews (only two of the original two million Hebrews entered Canaan, if the Bible is correct) still lie buried in the sands of the Sinai and one day some shepherd will stumble upon them. But the same lame excuse can be used by the Mormons for the lack of evidence of horses in North America during the alleged period of Hebrew migration and occupation of large swaths of our continent in the "inerrant" Book of Mormon. And I'm sure the Muslims use the same logic for some of their "inerrant" holy books claims.

            Folks. Please! Use your brains: If 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 million ancient Hebrews walked in circles for forty years in the small geographic area of the Sinai peninsula, and thirty-eight of those years in one known location, Kadesh-Barnea, there should be SOME evidence of them. Something! But there is NOTHING!

            Modern archeologists HAVE found evidence for the Scythians; they have found the evidence of a lost army from Persia; they have found Mayan ruins that had never been known before---all using modern techniques not available for the previous tens of thousands of years of human existence. But they haven't found the evidence for the Exodus. You can hold out hope and shout the tired mantra, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but the stark facts are these: the overwhelming consensus of experts say that the Exodus did NOT happen. Stop behaving like fundamentalists and accept the facts: the Exodus is an ancient Hebrew fable, and Jesus fell for it. Jesus made a mistake. Jesus is not God.

            Comment


            • And what have we found of the Scythians?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                And what have we found of the Scythians?
                Nick, you are being evasive: Why do you repeatedly insist that I and other skeptics accept the majority scholarly consensus regarding the Empty Tomb, but refuse to accept the overwhelming majority scholarly consensus regarding the non-reality of the biblical Exodus of several million Hebrews from Egypt?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  You can invent all kinds of hypothetical explanations for why the Exodus happened, but left no evidence. I'm not going to chase after your hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that the Exodus is a fable.
                  The scholarly consensus is based on some questionable assumptions, one of which is addressed by the post you were ostensibly replying to. That the identification of a biblically-attested event with an otherwise historically-attested event doesn't cause other positive alignments should be a good indicator that perhaps that identification should be re-thought. I'm well aware that you're more happy to spin your own hypotheticals than address evidence that controverts them.
                  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 One Bad Pig View Post
                    The scholarly consensus is based on some questionable assumptions, one of which is addressed by the post you were ostensibly replying to. That the identification of a biblically-attested event with an otherwise historically-attested event doesn't cause other positive alignments should be a good indicator that perhaps that identification should be re-thought. I'm well aware that you're more happy to spin your own hypotheticals than address evidence that controverts them.
                    I am not presenting any of my own hypotheticals. I am presenting the overwhelming consensus position of the overwhelming majority of scholars on the subject in question. You are asserting that the overwhelming majority of experts on this subject are wrong. Therefore you are attempting to convince us that you know more than the overwhelming majority of experts.

                    If 99% of the worlds historians stated that the Empty Tomb of Jesus is a historical fact, I would not have the arrogance to disagree with them. I would accept the Empty Tomb as historical fact.

                    I think that most educated people around the world would agree with me that disagreeing with such an overwhelming percentage of experts in a field of which one is not an expert, makes one look like a fool and may well indicate that one is.
                    Last edited by Gary; 10-09-2015, 03:39 PM.

                    Comment



                    • Oh vey.........Sorry Gary I regularly read that blog and what you failed to do was scroll down where the writer explains himself and states that he is not in disagreement that there is good evidence for both an early or late date

                      Largent
                      "Cee, thanks so much for adding to the conversation. I want to be clear that I have not completely dismissed the possibility of an early date for the exodus. I think there are good arguments for both an early date and a late date. "

                      And he goes onto clarify his disagreement with the video is in the mechanism for changing egyptian chronology

                      Largent
                      " I agree that a 1446 BC date for the exodus is tenable but we do not have to revise the entire chronology of Egypt and the southern levant in order to make the biblical text match the archaeological data we have. There are good reasons to support the early exodus without having to slide the relative chronology of archaeological remains anywhere. I am also looking at more evidence than that simply offered in the film (a central part of my criticism of the film)."

                      Finally he gives a nod to an author soon to publish more data

                      "In one respect I want to say "Yes, there is a pattern" as the conversation with Douglas Petrovich on this page shows, there are good reasons to connect the time of the Exodus with the reign of Amenhotep II"

                      So as usual if you simply read instead of doing quick google searches you would have realized that the blog you quoted from SUPPORTS the idea that archaeologist may well have been looking in the wrong time period

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                        Oh vey.........Sorry Gary I regularly read that blog and what you failed to do was scroll down where the writer explains himself and states that he is not in disagreement that there is good evidence for both an early or late date

                        Largent
                        "Cee, thanks so much for adding to the conversation. I want to be clear that I have not completely dismissed the possibility of an early date for the exodus. I think there are good arguments for both an early date and a late date. "

                        And he goes onto clarify his disagreement with the video is in the mechanism for changing egyptian chronology

                        Largent
                        " I agree that a 1446 BC date for the exodus is tenable but we do not have to revise the entire chronology of Egypt and the southern levant in order to make the biblical text match the archaeological data we have. There are good reasons to support the early exodus without having to slide the relative chronology of archaeological remains anywhere. I am also looking at more evidence than that simply offered in the film (a central part of my criticism of the film)."

                        Finally he gives a nod to an author soon to publish more data

                        "In one respect I want to say "Yes, there is a pattern" as the conversation with Douglas Petrovich on this page shows, there are good reasons to connect the time of the Exodus with the reign of Amenhotep II"

                        So as usual if you simply read instead of doing quick google searches you would have realized that the blog you quoted from SUPPORTS the idea that archaeologist may well have been looking in the wrong time period
                        Wrong, Mike.

                        My use of that article was solely for the purpose of debunking any respectability for the preposterous claim by a couple of non-archeologists that two to three millions Hebrews fled ancient Egypt in one mass exodus to wander for forty years in...Saudi Arabia...and that this is the explanation for the lack of evidence of the Exodus in the Sinai. I am well aware that the authors of the article are conservative Christians who believe in the historicity of the Exodus, but at least they have the integrity to NOT invent a new Exodus story out of thin air as does the author of the article that Dr. Turek referred me to (Cornucke). They at least stick to the original story and the original translation of the Hebrew, that six hundred and fifty THOUSAND fighting Hebrew men and their families left Egypt in mass, on one day, and wandered for forty years in the SINAI, just as every Bible translator of every Bible ever translated has said.

                        I am not going to try to debunk ad hoc hypothetical stories of Hebrews wandering in Saudi Arabia or the revised interpretation of the text that "six hundred and fifty thousand" means "six hundred and fifty clans". If you want to be a biblical revisionist, you can always create "spin" to explain away the literal reading of the text. But if one has integrity and sticks by the original interpretation of the Hebrew text, a story maintained for thousands of years in Jewish oral tradition, then one must believe that two to three million Hebrews traipsed around the Sinai for forty years...but left no trace of their presence.

                        Christian lay persons may claim that no evidence would remain after this long of time, but experts in the field say otherwise. Experts in the field say that if the story is true, there would be evidence, and since there is none, the story is a fable.

                        Jesus believed that a fable was historical fact.
                        Therefore Jesus made a mistake.
                        Therefore Jesus could not have been Yahweh.
                        Therefore Jesus was a man.
                        Therefore, even if Jesus was resurrected, he was a resurrected man, not a god.
                        Tthe Hebrew Bible says that Yahweh's people should NEVER worship a man.
                        If Jesus was resurrected it proves the divinity of Yahweh, not of Jesus.
                        Stop worshipping Jesus and worship the ancient Canaanite god, Yahweh.
                        Last edited by Gary; 10-09-2015, 06:33 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          If 99% of the worlds historians stated that the Empty Tomb of Jesus is a historical fact, I would not have the arrogance to disagree with them. I would accept the Empty Tomb as historical fact.
                          I am calling that a lie in two ways

                          A) 99% as a comparison to the exodus "consensus" is fabrication. No? then tell us this percentage you claim is "overwhelming". I would put down money you don't even have a figure
                          B) if for some reason tomorrow 99% of bible scholars claimed there were no contradictions in the BIble you would want to see the evidence not go off consensus

                          Especially on B I am calling you out - liar liar pants on fire......lol

                          I think that most educated people around the world would agree with me that disagreeing with such an overwhelming percentage of experts in a field of which one is not an expert, makes one look like a fool and may well indicate that one is.

                          I think just about all educated people on the planet value facts and data over votes. The entire reason why people laud science is because it is self correctable. If Consensus as you claim should be accepted as unquestionable fact nothing would ever be self correctable. So as a skeptic you are talking out of both sides of your mouth

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                            I am calling that a lie in two ways

                            A) 99% as a comparison to the exodus "consensus" is fabrication. No? then tell us this percentage you claim is "overwhelming". I would put down money you don't even have a figure
                            B) if for some reason tomorrow 99% of bible scholars claimed there were no contradictions in the BIble you would want to see the evidence not go off consensus

                            Especially on B I am calling you out - liar liar pants on fire......lol




                            I think just about all educated people on the planet value facts and data over votes. The entire reason why people laud science is because it is self correctable. If Consensus as you claim should be accepted as unquestionable fact nothing would ever be self correctable. So as a skeptic you are talking out of both sides of your mouth
                            You are a fundamentalist. There is no point in debating you, Mike. You have no respect for evidence, facts, research and scholarship.

                            Michael Dever, a "maximalist" archeologist, has said that the theory that the Exodus was an historical event is "dead" among archeologists and Near East scholars. "Dead" means that the debate is over, Mike. I know that you and your fundamentalist brethren will NEVER accept that conclusion because the truth is that you do not care about evidence. You only care about maintaining your precious belief system; a belief system based on your perception that an "inerrant" holy book from the Bronze Age supercedes any and all evidence, no matter how convincing.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Wrong, Mike.

                              My use of that article was solely for the purpose of debunking any respectability for the preposterous claim by a couple of non-archeologists that two to three millions Hebrews fled ancient Egypt in one mass exodus to wander for forty years in...Saudi Arabia...

                              Great for me and since that is the case I don't have to read your whining and characteristic rhetoric any further

                              Double GOOD!!

                              Why? Because in your EXTREME ignorance you missed that the documentary QUOTES other specialists in the field and some of them SURPASS your blogger in credibility. People might not like or agree with Rohl but no one questions his background as an egyptologist. Sohow does quoting one person debunk everyone or even Rohl. Thats idiocy

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

                              You can have issue withe the DVD but that doesn't make all the facts quoted in it go away.
                              Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-09-2015, 07:57 PM.

                              Comment


                              • You are a fundamentalist. There is no point in debating you, Mike
                                Which being interpreted means "no mike I have no idea of the percentage of people who reject exodus my 99% comparison was just my usual hueey"


                                Originally posted by Gary View Post

                                Michael Dever, a "maximalist" archeologist, has said that the theory that the Exodus was an historical event is "dead" among archeologists and Near East scholars. "Dead" means that the debate is over, Mike.
                                ROFL.....Gary You ought to do stand up Comedy...... So you have gone from appealing to the consensus of the overwhelming majority to begging your case on the consensus of one. No? then can we have the percentage that makeit a majority consensus that its "Dead"?

                                Don't duck now. You appeal to the authority of ONE person to say its dead to prove its dead but MULTIPLE people say otherwise so if you have no other consensus that its DEAD then you are full or nonsense and hot air (ahem.....as usual).Of course the whole claim is just stupid. Finkelstein said the same thing about David Monarchy - no evidence - preposterous nonsense biblical tale and then? BLAM! in the last three years the dead has been brought back to life with multiple discoveries that show otherwise. Same thing said of the Hittites - Blam! no turns out the issue wasn't dead and they did exist. Its happened over and over and over again and each time its like your side NEVER learns. Absence of evidence as proof of absence has an abysmal track record

                                Truth is you never claim something in history is dead because it takes just one discovery for it to be right back on the table and worse consensus means little when youa re still learning and researching. Dead issue all settled?

                                let me put a stake in your argument

                                http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ere-is-kadesh/

                                ongoing discussion and research affecting the issue

                                Gary - You didn't get any better when you were away (no surprise there) Patterns of evidence is not without its issues but no one says no evidence is in there and even the source you quoted and relied on admits the dates might in fact align even if they don't agree with one way to realign the chronology.

                                Just another fail post in a line of many
                                Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-09-2015, 08:05 PM.

                                Comment

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