Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

gain, you are espousing the fringe of the fringe. Rohl is considered a crackpot, even by Christian archeologists and scholars:

Oh I am not endorsing all that Rohl says oh clueless one - I am saying if you are in his time period then you should at least go read up on what he reports on -I've said it like three times now - People have issues with how he adjusts the egyptian chronology but no one doubts all the things he reports on so its worth a read. This is the difference between you and stein and myself - I like the evidence and facts. I don't have to buy all the theories.

I wonder at what point Gary will figure out that ABR as his new favorite source is going to bite him in the rear (again)

[tabibito]

Which part of "also known as" do you fail to understand Gary?
Perhaps you think I didn't check whether there might be an alternative site known as Kadesh?
Kadesh Barnea.jpg

[Gary]

On many occasions I don't have to say that because the person I am discussing issues with some who already knows the issues. In your case....what can I say....can't blame me for your lack of education on things you go barreling into without a clue




ROFL.....Moah Gary. More. I had the cojones thats why you are so frustrated. The BAR article torched your the debate is over claim and now your frustration is palpable. Entertaining me with these name calls just makes it funnier

Heres what has you and to a bit lesser degree Stein stumped - Its Obvious - oh let me use stein's phrase - BLATANTLY obvious - that research is still being done, data is still coming in, previous thoughts are being shown to be wrong and we are still learning as is the nature of a history that has faded on us. You and Stein's position However REQUIRES certainty that the debate is over , you NEED the matter settled and the consensus to be unchangeable so you can make your certainty pronouncements.

Problem is the reality of archaeology and history just bites you in the rear every few months and like the BAR article face palms your certainty which angers the living daylights out of you..... and then....like now...it becomes all comedy hour

You pathetic milly-mouthed little whiner: Pick a date for this tall tale, defend that date, or shut your trap!

[Mikeenders]

Ah, yes, the ol' Christian standby: Don't give the evidence yourself, just tell your critic to go read yet another Christian book or article

On many occasions I don't have to say that because the person I am discussing issues with some who already knows the issues. In your case....what can I say....can't blame me for your lack of education on things you go barreling into without a clue

No, Mike, have the cojones to put up the evidence yourself, you rabid little fundamentalist weasel.

ROFL.....Moah Gary. More. I had the cojones thats why you are so frustrated. The BAR article torched your the debate is over claim and now your frustration is palpable. Entertaining me with these name calls just makes it funnier

Heres what has you and to a bit lesser degree Stein stumped - Its Obvious - oh let me use stein's phrase - BLATANTLY obvious - that research is still being done, data is still coming in, previous thoughts are being shown to be wrong and we are still learning as is the nature of a history that has faded on us. You and Stein's position However REQUIRES certainty that the debate is over , you NEED the matter settled and the consensus to be unchangeable so you can make your certainty pronouncements.

Problem is the reality of archaeology and history just bites you in the rear every few months and like the BAR article face palms your certainty which angers the living daylights out of you..... and then....like now...it becomes all comedy hour

[Gary]

Actually I don't - even though I go for around the 15th. IF you say there is no evidence and the debate is over pointing at the 1200s then I show you Kadesh. If you say no evidence and point to 14-15 hundreds I say - ahem then have you read Rohl yet and laugh at your claims.

Either way you lose both in your claims of no evidence and in claiming the debate is over. Good thing for you is you are so uneducated in what the various issues are you don't realize what a fool you are making of yourself in all theses twists and gyrations to get out of your blunder. The bad news is everyone that is educated is pointing at you and laughing. Let me give you a hint and see if the lightbulb can go off. You are now appealing to the date that many evangelical conservatives that you love so much point to - do you really think they are pointing to that because it makes their case weaker or stronger?

ROFL..........You flat out rejected Patterns of Evidence as thoroughly debunked and you have now put yourself right within sight of one of their timelines.


If you ever get to Vegas and need work consider being a stand up comic....lol

Ah, yes, the ol' Christian standby: Don't give the evidence yourself, just tell your critic to go read yet another Christian book or article. No, Mike, have the cojones to put up the evidence yourself, you rabid little fundamentalist weasel.

Once again, you are espousing the fringe of the fringe. Rohl is considered a crackpot, even by Christian archeologists and scholars:

In his book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (1995a; it was first published in England as A Test of Time: The Bible - From Myth to History [1995b]), David Rohl purports to have produced a better correlation between the findings of archaeology and the Bible by revising Egyptian chronology. One is tempted to dismiss Rohl as simply another crackpot and get on with more important issues. Rohl, however, cannot so easily be brushed aside. As opposed to most who attempt to revise ancient history, Rohl has some scholarly training - he has studied Egyptology and ancient history at University College, London. Moreover, the lay public, largely as the result of a three-part video series based on his book, have become enamored with his supposed Biblical correlations.

...Rohl attempts to lower Egyptian chronology by several hundred years for the period before 664 B.C. The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal in 664 B.C. is accepted as a fixed date by Rohl and becomes the starting point for his revised chronology (119). He accomplished this by shortening the 20th Dynasty and overlapping the 21st and 22nd Dynasties (144, 384). Several scholars have critiqued the Egyptological aspects of his ideas (Bennett 1996; Brissaud 1996; Kitchen 1996: xlii-xlvi; van Haarlem 1997), but no one has evaluated the impact of his theory on Palestinian archaeology and the resulting correlations, or lack thereof, with Biblical history.

...Regarding the date of the Conquest, Rohl vacillates between the early date (ca. 1410 B.C.) and the late date (ca. 1210 B.C.) as it suits his purposes.

Source: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...Palestine.aspx

Gary: Sounds a lot like our Mike. Vacillating between dates as it suits his purposes. Make up your mind, Mike. When was this alleged tall tale!

[Gary]

Kadesh or Qadhesh in Classical (Hebrew: קָדֵשׁ), also known as Qadesh-Barneaʿ (קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ),[1] is a location mentioned in the Hebrew Bible where a number of historical events took place. Kadesh was an important site in Israelite history.

Kadesh was a city in what is today the country of Syria, an important center of trade in the ancient world, and site of the famous battle between Pharaoh Rameses II (The Great) of Egypt and King Muwatalli II of the Hittite Empire, usually dated to 1274 or 1273 BCE (though Durant, and others, assign a date of 1288 BCE).

You were saying?

Yes, two different geographical locations. Just because Kadesh in Syria was occupied in the fifteenth century doesn't mean that Kadesh-Barnea in the Sinai was.

[Cerebrum123]

Good for you C. I just couldn't bother proving that utter nonsense wrong but sometimes people think that response is rhetoric when you say that. It really was just soo silly of a claim. You have to have a clear emotional bias to make such a ridiculous claim. He identifies as catholic so I guess some ( not all or even most I know) still have it in for luther.

I get that, but every once in a while that same type of claim is made when it's easily demonstrated to be false. It gets to a point where I just can't take it anymore, and have to say something, otherwise I'll explode .

This is always claimed by those who say that evidence and reason are their highest priorities(science is often thrown in there too). Yet, the evidence I've just given is usually ignored with some kind of ad-hoc explanation of how those examples don't fit.

[tabibito]

You are conflating a "Kadesh" in Syria with Kadesh-Barnea in the Sinai.

That is like saying Berlin, New Jersey was occupied by the four powers in 1945.

Kadesh or Qadhesh in Classical (Hebrew: קָדֵשׁ), also known as Qadesh-Barneaʿ (קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ),[1] is a location mentioned in the Hebrew Bible where a number of historical events took place. Kadesh was an important site in Israelite history.

Kadesh was a city in what is today the country of Syria, an important center of trade in the ancient world, and site of the famous battle between Pharaoh Rameses II (The Great) of Egypt and King Muwatalli II of the Hittite Empire, usually dated to 1274 or 1273 BCE (though Durant, and others, assign a date of 1288 BCE).

You were saying?

[Mikeenders]

Now, Mike needs to pick a date of the Exodus: Fifteenth century BCE or thirteenth century BCE. And whichever date he picks, he then needs to explain the following:

Actually I don't - even though I go for around the 15th. IF you say there is no evidence and the debate is over pointing at the 1200s then I show you Kadesh. If you say no evidence and point to 14-15 hundreds I say - ahem then have you read Rohl yet and laugh at your claims.

Either way you lose both in your claims of no evidence and in claiming the debate is over. Good thing for you is you are so uneducated in what the various issues are you don't realize what a fool you are making of yourself in all theses twists and gyrations to get out of your blunder. The bad news is everyone that is educated is pointing at you and laughing. Let me give you a hint and see if the lightbulb can go off. You are now appealing to the date that many evangelical conservatives that you love so much point to - do you really think they are pointing to that because it makes their case weaker or stronger?

ROFL..........You flat out rejected Patterns of Evidence as thoroughly debunked and you have now put yourself right within sight of one of their timelines.


If you ever get to Vegas and need work consider being a stand up comic....lol

[Mikeenders]

The underlined is blatantly false. Here are some examples from well before Martin Luther ever existed.

Good for you C. I just couldn't bother proving that utter nonsense wrong but sometimes people think that response is rhetoric when you say that. It really was just soo silly of a claim. You have to have a clear emotional bias to make such a ridiculous claim. He identifies as catholic so I guess some ( not all or even most I know) still have it in for luther.

[Gary]

Gary theres no other way to say it - you are a fool (edited to be more biblically accurate)- the Kadesh Barnea article was published in 2008 the year is now 2015 the BAR article was two months ago

the pottery article is about several places Kadesh Barnea being just one. not a piece on the exodus - That piece is the BAR article. Like I said alleged doctor if you are too broke to get a subscription you can try your library

I don't give a rip about what you believe. You are just showing yourself to be even more silly than you already have and about to have even more egg on your face

I made a mistake in saying that there was no archeological evidence of a settlement at Kadesh-Barnea during the time of the Exodus. Period.

Why was I wrong? Answer: Because Christians are divided on the dates of the Exodus. I assumed they had one date, the fifteenth century. Christians have two (at least) dates, the fifteenth century and the thirteenth. The authors of Mike's articles state that there is evidence of settlement at Kadesh-Barnea during the "traditional" dates of the Exodus, "if one believes in the Exodus". They are referring to ONE of the two alleged dates of the Exodus, the thirteenth century.

Now, Mike needs to pick a date of the Exodus: Fifteenth century BCE or thirteenth century BCE. And whichever date he picks, he then needs to explain the following:

1. If he picks the thirteenth century, he needs to explain a lack of evidence for a devastated, weakened Egypt after the effects of the plagues and the defeat at the Red/Reed Sea, when the historical record indicates that this period was the zenith of Egyptian power and territorial expansion.

He also needs to explain why the Israelites would flee from Egypt...to Egyptian-occupied Canaan, and, why the Egyptians are not mentioned in the Conquest of THEIR occupied territory of Canaan.

2. If he picks the fifteenth century, he needs to explain a lack of evidence of any settlement at Kadesh-Barnea.

You can't have it both way, Mikey.

[Gary]

Like a line up of dominoes, Gary's assertions tumble one by one.

Lily Singer-Avitz: Lachish Section A, Area P

The ceramic assemblage of the Interim LB I Phase at Tel Lachish is limited. ...
The site was apparently abandoned at the end of the 16th century and settled anew no later than Level S-3, during the later part of the 14th century BCE. Only the Fosse Temples, built during the 15th century, remained in use throughout the entire period (see Singer-Avitz, Chapter 18, Section B).

Great Soviet Encyclopaedia 1979:

an ancient city in Syria on the Orontes River (near the modern city of Horns). It is known from hieroglyphic (Egyptian) and cuneiform sources from the 16th century B.c. Kadesh was inhabited by Semites. In the 15th century B.C. it was conquered by Egypt, and from the beginning of the 14th century to about 1200 B.c. it was subordinate to the Hittite empire. In the late 14th or early 13th century B.C., a battle between the Egyptian forces of Rameses II and the Hittites under the leadership of King Muwatallis occurred at Kadesh’s walls. The city was apparently destroyed at the beginning of the 12th century B.c. by the Sea People. Kadesh is again mentioned in a document from 565 B.C. as the center of a district bearing the same name in the Neo-BabyIonian Kingdom.

GARDINER, Alan - The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (commentary)

The heretic king Akhenaten(1367-1350B.C.)was too deeply absorbed in his religious reforms to harbour any dreams of foreign expansion. Meanwhile, however, there had emerged to the northwest of Syria a power infinitely stronger than any which Egypt had ever been obliged to face. After a long period of impotence the Hittite king Domunder Suppiluliumas (1375-335B.C.) began to develop its potentialities, subjugating its neighbours one after another until, about 1370B.C., it finally suppressed and replaced the hitherto so important Mitannian kingdom. In the course of this campaign Suppiluliumas pushed even as far as Damascus, overwhelming the small principality of Kadesh en route. That city-state on the left bank of the northward flowing river Orontes owed its great strategic importance to its position near the exit from the high-level valley between the Lebanons called the Bika’. Along this valley every north-bound army had necessarily to pass if it was to avoid the narrow route, intersected by river-mouths, along the Phoenician coast. Already under Tuthmosis *** Kadesh had proclaimed its leadership by forming a coalition to check the Egyptian advance. Although defeated at Megiddo and seeing his city captured on more than one later occasion, the Prince of Kadesh never ceased to occupy a position of outstanding importance among the petty rulers of northern Syria until under Muwatallis (1306-1282 B.C.), the grandson of Suppiluliumas, he became no more than one of the allies whom that Hittite king suborned to stem the advance of Rameses II.

Sad, innit?

You are conflating a "Kadesh" in Syria with Kadesh-Barnea in the Sinai.

That is like saying Berlin, New Jersey was occupied by the four powers in 1945.

[Cerebrum123]

Mike, if you want to insult me, then get in the arena with me.

The early Church Father Origen distinguished among three levels of reading the Bible: the literal, the metaphorical, and the transformational. The literal meaning was considered the least important. Luther was the first major proponent of literalism, and prior to him, it more or less didn't exist in any major way.

If you're stuck in the very wrong belief that much of the OT was designed as strict history, then you really don't know what you're talking about.

Ignoring criticism is done at your own risk. I'll tell you that most of what I believe as a Christian is based on what I know as a scholar.

This is another reason I tend avoid those who tend to proclaim the loudest that "evidence and reason" are their highest priorities. They always get so many basic things that can be easily checked vastly wrong.

John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

You got the earthly things wrong, why should I believe your theology?

[Cerebrum123]

Again, you're reading the text in a very presentist sense. The early Christians did not read Genesis in the strictly literal fashion that you seem to read it in. Biblical literalism comes from Martin Luther. Before him, it was fairly common to interpret the Bible in metaphorical or typological ways, hence the focus on the prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

Unfortunately, you're being a fundamentalist who's changed sides. If one thing is false (e.g. the Census of Quirinius), it doesn't render the entire Bible false.

The underlined is blatantly false. Here are some examples from well before Martin Luther ever existed.

Source: St. Basil: Hexaëmeron:Homily 2

Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day— we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Source: St. Basil=Hexaemeron: Homily 6

2. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the night. Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Source: St. Basil=Hexaemeron:Homily 9

I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. For I am not ashamed of the gospel.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Let's go back even further, near the time of Jesus Himself.

Source: Flavius Josephus:Against Apion

8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Source: Flavius Josephus:Antiquities of the Jews

Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

He goes on to say that Adam and Eve were real, and that Eve was made out of Adam's rib, and Adam out of literal earth, specifically red earth.

[tabibito]

Like a line up of dominoes, Gary's assertions tumble one by one.

Lily Singer-Avitz: Lachish Section A, Area P

The ceramic assemblage of the Interim LB I Phase at Tel Lachish is limited. ...
The site was apparently abandoned at the end of the 16th century and settled anew no later than Level S-3, during the later part of the 14th century BCE. Only the Fosse Temples, built during the 15th century, remained in use throughout the entire period (see Singer-Avitz, Chapter 18, Section B).

Great Soviet Encyclopaedia 1979:

an ancient city in Syria on the Orontes River (near the modern city of Horns). It is known from hieroglyphic (Egyptian) and cuneiform sources from the 16th century B.c. Kadesh was inhabited by Semites. In the 15th century B.C. it was conquered by Egypt, and from the beginning of the 14th century to about 1200 B.c. it was subordinate to the Hittite empire. In the late 14th or early 13th century B.C., a battle between the Egyptian forces of Rameses II and the Hittites under the leadership of King Muwatallis occurred at Kadesh’s walls. The city was apparently destroyed at the beginning of the 12th century B.c. by the Sea People. Kadesh is again mentioned in a document from 565 B.C. as the center of a district bearing the same name in the Neo-BabyIonian Kingdom.

GARDINER, Alan - The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (commentary)

The heretic king Akhenaten(1367-1350B.C.)was too deeply absorbed in his religious reforms to harbour any dreams of foreign expansion. Meanwhile, however, there had emerged to the northwest of Syria a power infinitely stronger than any which Egypt had ever been obliged to face. After a long period of impotence the Hittite king Domunder Suppiluliumas (1375-335B.C.) began to develop its potentialities, subjugating its neighbours one after another until, about 1370B.C., it finally suppressed and replaced the hitherto so important Mitannian kingdom. In the course of this campaign Suppiluliumas pushed even as far as Damascus, overwhelming the small principality of Kadesh en route. That city-state on the left bank of the northward flowing river Orontes owed its great strategic importance to its position near the exit from the high-level valley between the Lebanons called the Bika’. Along this valley every north-bound army had necessarily to pass if it was to avoid the narrow route, intersected by river-mouths, along the Phoenician coast. Already under Tuthmosis *** Kadesh had proclaimed its leadership by forming a coalition to check the Egyptian advance. Although defeated at Megiddo and seeing his city captured on more than one later occasion, the Prince of Kadesh never ceased to occupy a position of outstanding importance among the petty rulers of northern Syria until under Muwatallis (1306-1282 B.C.), the grandson of Suppiluliumas, he became no more than one of the allies whom that Hittite king suborned to stem the advance of Rameses II.

After expelling the Hyksos 15th dynasty, the native Egyptian New Kingdom rulers became more aggressive in reclaiming control of their state's borders. Thutmose I, Thutmose III and his son and coregent Amenhotep II fought battles from Megiddo north to the Orontes River, including conflict with Kadesh.

Many of the Egyptian campaign accounts between c. 1400 and 1300 BC reflect the general destabilization of the region of the Djahi. The reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III were undistinguished, except that Egypt continued to lose territory to Mitanni in northern Syria.

During the late Egyptian 18th dynasty, the Amarna Letters[13] tell the story of the decline of Egyptian influence in the region. The Egyptians showed flagging interest here until almost the end of the dynasty. Horemheb, the last ruler of this dynasty, campaigned in this region, finally beginning to turn Egyptian interest back to this region.

Sad, innit?