Archaeology of the New Testament

[ZenMode]

... and circumstantial evidence is evidence. You don't understand this, do you?

You are still trying to play "absolute evidence judge."


Inventing games that are not being played doesn't change anything. You aren't the "absolute evidence judge."


Nope. No believer needs to justify his beliefs. You, on the other hand, must explain your assertion that subjective evidence is somehow lacking in an absolute sense.


FTFY. You haven't met your burden of support.

This all goes back to faith. Religious people have faith, which means they believe based on bad evidence. Yes, only circumstantial evidence, combined with fairytales from 2000 years ago, is bad evidence.

See, the way this works is that the two sides present their case. They give their opinion and generally speaking, structuring your life around a being based on ONL circumstantial evidence is just silly. Circumstantial evidence, legally speaking, is largely insufficient for a conviction.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

The oceans were on the primordial Earth billions of years before humans were around.
Pastor Brian is a dedicated and highly educated graduate of seminary school.

Nice Resume!
Mine is Melchizedek

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

This all goes back to faith. Religious people have faith, which means they believe based on bad evidence. Yes, only circumstantial evidence, combined with fairytales from 2000 years ago, is bad evidence.

See, the way this works is that the two sides present their case. They give their opinion and generally speaking, structuring your life around a being based on ONL circumstantial evidence is just silly. Circumstantial evidence, legally speaking, is largely insufficient for a conviction.

You're confusing Faith with Blind Faith

 

[IBDaMann]

Religious people have faith, which means they believe based on bad evidence.

Nope. Religious people find the evidence to be solid enough for them to absolutely conclude the beliefs they hold. How are you confused about this?

Yes, only circumstantial evidence, combined with fairytales from 2000 years ago, is bad evidence.

You don't get a say.

See, the way this works is that the two sides present their case.

Nope. You don't get any say in anyone's beliefs. You don't get any say in whether the evidence is lacking. Religious people determine the solid nature of what they consider to be evidence.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. Religious people find the evidence to be solid enough for them to absolutely conclude the beliefs they hold. How are you confused about this?

Of course they find it to be solid enough. That's part of "faith" .

You don't get a say.

Of course I do. That's how debates work.

Nope. You don't get any say in anyone's beliefs.

It's a debate....and exchange of opinions.

You don't get any say in whether the evidence is lacking.

There are standards and norms for evidence. I can absolutely point out where evidence is lacking.

Religious people determine the solid nature of what they consider to be evidence.

Nope. The determine sub par evidence to be acceptable for belief. Hence "faith".

 

[IBDaMann]

Of course they find it to be solid enough. That's part of "faith" .

OK, then stop trying to declare it to be insufficient somehow.

Of course I do. That's how debates work.

Nope. A debate has rules, and if you commit fallacies, you lose.

At the moment, you have lost this debate.

It's a debate....and exchange of opinions.

Actually, you and I are not holding a debate; we are having a discussion.

There are standards and norms for evidence.

Nope. You are trying to get "evidence" declared to be absolute when it is purely subjective.

I can absolutely point out where evidence is lacking.

Not when it isn't lacking per the people relying on it. See the first point. You keep contradicting yourself.

 

[ZenMode]

OK, then stop trying to declare it to be insufficient somehow.

Under normal conditions and if "you" were reasoning normally, not with faith, it would be insufficient. If I told a Christian that the existence of The Iliad, and the fact that I found my lost car keys, was proof of the existence of Apollo, they would likely struggle to keep a straight face.

 

[Cypress]

Nice Resume!
Mine is MelchizedekView attachment 87277

In addition to the Lutheran pastor, I also heard a conservative evangelical theologian say you do not have to believe Noah's Ark is literally a historical biography to be a Christian. It could just be a story with a moral lesson.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

In addition to the Lutheran pastor, I also heard a conservative evangelical theologian say you do not have to believe Noah's Ark is literally a historical biography to be a Christian. It could just be a story with a moral lesson.

I can name drop too! Of course you know I could list 100's with equal resumes,that would contradict your two weak Faith clergy!

 

[Cypress]

I can name drop too!

I didn't write anyone's name.
I'm saying it takes about 20 seconds of research to understand there are ministers, pastors, theologians, and laity who think one does not have to believe that everything in the Bible is literally historical biography.

The Bible is self consciously presenting itself as primarily not a work of history. Proverb, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Wisdom of Solomon, Song of Songs, are not historical works. They are wisdom literature which use the literary style of poetry, philosophy, narrative fiction. Job and Noah have all the hallmarks of story-telling, not historical biography.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah because he did not fulfill the literal messianic prophecies laid out in the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish tradition, the Messiah must bring about universal peace, gather all Jewish people back to Israel, rebuild the Temple, and usher in a worldwide knowledge of the one true God.

The primary reasons for this fundamental divergence in belief can be broken down as follows:

• Unfulfilled Prophecies: The Messiah must bring an era where nations "shall not lift up sword against nation" and universally worship the One God. Jews note that these conditions were never met during or after Jesus's lifetime.
• Genealogical Requirements: The Jewish Messiah must be a patrilineal descendant of King David (through King Solomon). As discussed on subreddits like r/religion, the Christian genealogies are problematic in Judaism because tribal affiliation is determined by the biological father and their Jesus had no earthly father.
• The Concept of God: Judaism is strictly monotheistic, and the worship of a human—or belief in a Trinity where a part of God takes human form—is viewed as idolatry.
• No "Second Coming": While Christians point to a "second coming" to fulfill the remaining prophecies, Judaism does not have a concept of a second coming; the Messiah must fulfill the requirements during their first and only earthly life.

Do Jews Believe in Jesus? | Aish

What do Jews believe about Jesus? While the figure of Jesus holds significant importance in Christianity, Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Here’s why.

aish.com

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

I didn't write anyone's name.
I'm saying it takes about 20 seconds of research to understand there are ministers, pastors, theologians, and laity who think one does not have to believe that everything in the Bible is literally historical biography.

The Bible is self consciously presenting itself as primarily not a work of history. Proverb, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Wisdom of Solomon, Song of Songs, are not historical works. They are wisdom literature which use the literary style of poetry, philosophy, narrative fiction. Job and Noah have all the hallmarks of story-telling, not historical biography.

You mentioned two individuals! Don't play semantics

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah because he did not fulfill the literal messianic prophecies laid out in the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish tradition, the Messiah must bring about universal peace, gather all Jewish people back to Israel, rebuild the Temple, and usher in a worldwide knowledge of the one true God.

The primary reasons for this fundamental divergence in belief can be broken down as follows:

• Unfulfilled Prophecies: The Messiah must bring an era where nations "shall not lift up sword against nation" and universally worship the One God. Jews note that these conditions were never met during or after Jesus's lifetime.
• Genealogical Requirements: The Jewish Messiah must be a patrilineal descendant of King David (through King Solomon). As discussed on subreddits like r/religion, the Christian genealogies are problematic in Judaism because tribal affiliation is determined by the biological father and their Jesus had no earthly father.
• The Concept of God: Judaism is strictly monotheistic, and the worship of a human—or belief in a Trinity where a part of God takes human form—is viewed as idolatry.
• No "Second Coming": While Christians point to a "second coming" to fulfill the remaining prophecies, Judaism does not have a concept of a second coming; the Messiah must fulfill the requirements during their first and only earthly life.

Do Jews Believe in Jesus? | Aish

What do Jews believe about Jesus? While the figure of Jesus holds significant importance in Christianity, Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Here’s why.

aish.com

 

[Cypress]

You mentioned two individuals! Don't play semantics

You and the militant atheists are insisting the entire Bible must be treated as literal historical biography.

It's remarkable how much atheists and fundamentalists have in common.

I am allowed to make reference to Christian pastors and theologians who agree with me in saying you don't have to treat the entire Bible as a literally accurate historical report.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Nice Resume!
Mine is MelchizedekView attachment 87277

Mistranslated Torah Verses "Referring" to Jesus​

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text – which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

Virgin Birth​

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

Suffering Servant​

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.

When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).

 

[Into the Night]

Agree. Faith...blind faith....all the same. It's convincing yourself to believe something despite shitty evidence.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your word games on anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

"Evidence"! Atheist favorite word

Why do you think 'evidence' is an atheist's favorite word?

 

[Into the Night]

You and the militant atheists are insisting the entire Bible must be treated as literal historical biography.

It's remarkable how much atheists and fundamentalists have in common.

I am allowed to make reference to Christian pastors and theologians who agree with me in saying you don't have to treat the entire Bible as a literally accurate historical report.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'.
The Bible is a book of history, along with various councils and teachings of God and Jesus Christ.

Your denial of the Bible is your problem. You cannot blame it on any pastor or theologian.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes. That should be everyone's favorite word when it comes to what you believe and how confidently you believe it.

'Evidence' does not mean 'belief'.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

You and the militant atheists are insisting the entire Bible must be treated as literal historical biography.

It's remarkable how much atheists and fundamentalists have in common.

I am allowed to make reference to Christian pastors and theologians who agree with me in saying you don't have to treat the entire Bible as a literally accurate historical report.

And I can mention plenty disagree ! I don't take Spiritual advice from atheist!