Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

Atheists always reject all evidence!

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

I don't know of any atheist that rejects all evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

Religious people become atheist because they realize there is a lack of evidence.

I know of no atheist that rejects all evidence.
You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

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).

I'm aware of the Judaism party line!
I get it, You don't recognize Jesus as Messiah.
In that case who is the Highest Priest ever so far in Judaism?

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

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

Experience

 

[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.

Actually no! I believe Paul was out of line,over stepped any authority he had saying Women can't lead a Church! Jesus didn't make women second class Christians!

 

[Into the Night]

While terms like "lacking" and "shitty" and "insufficient " are subjective, they also have definitions and, as such, commonly understood uses.

NONE of your subjective descriptive statements of evidence will ever make evidence just disappear.

The evidence for gods, today, is circumstantial.

So is the evidence for no god or gods.

There are no old men parting bodies of water with sticks.

It's easy to part water with a stick.

There are no talking bushes.

There certainly is. Speakers are made in the shape of rocks, beer cans, and of course, bushes.

The skies aren't parting

Every time clouds break up the skies are parting.

and angels floating down from the heavens.

Why would angels float down from anywhere?

(Nevermind that we know the skies aren't "heaven", anyway.)

Nothing in the Bible says it was.

Or, if you're Muslim, there are no prophets riding into the sky on a flying horse.

There was recently a model airplane company called 'Flying Horse'. Who is to say an aircraft never existed that could've carried a person?

The lack of evidence for gods,

You can't make any evidence just disappear.

when compared to the evidence for a great white whale,

YARP

which I've never seen in person but I'm quite certain exists, is more than circumstantial. It's not lacking. It's not shitty, etc.

You can't make any evidence just disappear.

 

[Into the Night]

Numerous, multiple times I have.

Life experience, science, and logic all inform me that:

1) Every physical effect has an cause.
2) The rational can only come from a rational cause.
3) Something does not come from nothing.
4) Organization and lawful order does not arise from chaos or random chance.

Try English. It works better than mindless chanting.

 

[Into the Night]

I spoke to a Lutheran pastor who agrees with me that Noah's Ark is a story with a moral twist, it's not a historical biography.

So you deny the Bible.

 

[Into the Night]

In your world of "well, according to you, but you don't know if unicorns are flying around the sky in another part of the world", nothing is verifiable.

We live in a world where just under 6 billion people have portable video recording devices, yet not ONE has produced any convincing or authentic video of a miracle, god, etc. So, you can live in your world of "You don't know....". I'll live in a world of evidence.

No, you don't. You try to make evidence just disappear. That is not possible.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Argument from randU fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.
You don't know what happened billions of years ago.

 

[Into the Night]

This all goes back to faith. Religious people have faith, which means they believe based on bad evidence.

Evidence is neither good nor bad. It is simply evidence.

Your religion is based on faith, just like any other religion.

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

What 'fairytales' are you referring to?

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.

Evidence is not conviction. No one is being convicted here.
Your religion is based on faith just as much as his is.

 

[Into the Night]

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

And your religion is no different.

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

There are no debates on JPP. Just conversations.

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

There are no debates on JPP. Just conversations.

There are standards and norms for evidence.

Evidence is not a 'standard'.
Evidence is not a 'norm'.
Evidence is simply evidence.
You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

I can absolutely point out where evidence is lacking.

You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

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

You don't get to decide what is 'sub par' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Faith is not evidence.

All faith is based on a circular argument, also called the Argument of Faith. Your faith is no different.
All religion is based on faith. Your religion is no different.

 

[IBDaMann]

If I told a Christian that...

Note: The correct grammar for this is "If I were to tell a Christian that ..."

It is completely irrelevant what you tell a Christian. If the existence of the Illyiad and the discovery of your car keys convinced you of the existence of Apollo, then your evidence would obviously be sufficient to convince you of that belief, and nobody would get to declare your evidence "insufficient."

... they would likely struggle to keep a straight face.

Completely irrelevant to the question of the sufficiency of your evidence.

 

[IBDaMann]

Life experience,

Misconception.

science,

You don't understand any science; you don't even know what science is. You can't possibly draw from it.

and logic

You know that your grasp of logic is practically non-existent.

1) Every physical effect has an cause.

Too funny. It wouldn't be a "cause" if there were no "effect", per the definition. You therefore didn't really say anything.

If you are saying that all conditions have an effect, you would have to show that.

2) The rational can only come from a rational cause.

Meaningless. You haven't defined "rational." Your definition includes "completely random" which ultimately includes everything, and when your definition includes everything, it includes nothing. All rational adults become obligated to wonder what you mistakenly believe you are saying.

3) Something does not come from nothing.

You have no idea what "nothing" is; you have no experience of nothing.

4) Organization and lawful order does not arise from chaos or random chance.

... unless it does. You have never seen chaos and your mathematical incompetence precludes you from understanding what "random" is.

 

[Cypress]

Too funny. It wouldn't be a "cause" if there were no "effect", per the definition. You therefore didn't really say anything.

Thanks for tacitly admitting that something can't come from nothing.
Something coming from nothing is logically incoherent. Which is precisely why I use it as a premise in the abstractive deduction I presented.

You haven't defined "rational"!

Rationally intelligible, mathematically and lawfully organized; aka the visible universe.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

No. Einstein was essentially an atheist.

Nonsense statement. Try English. Go learn what 'rationality' means and where to use this word.

Because it is.

There is no 'universal natural law'.
There is no 'universal constant'.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your mathematics or science illiteracy on me or anybody else.

Zionist are always truing to claim every jew scientist is an orthodox jew.

Truth is they're more likely to be a satanic frankist nihilist pedo.

 

[Cypress]

Einstein was essentially an atheist!

Albert Einstein rejected the atheist label, and is widely considered a Pantheist. He definitely aligned himself with Spinoza's god.
A Pantheist is a type of theist, so atheists cannot claim Einstein as one of their own.

 

[Cypress]

You don't know what happened billions of years ago!

Earth's rock record contains observable geologic, geochemical, and isotopic data rendering a picture of conditions on Earth hundreds of millions to billions of years before present.

 

[Cypress]

Actually no!

The evidence is unequivocal that many Christians leaders, clergy, and members of the laity believe the Job and Noah are stories not historical biographies, and that Genesis 1 is a poem, not a scientific report.

I believe Paul was out of line,over stepped any authority he had saying Women can't lead a Church! Jesus didn't make women second class Christians!

Paul explicitly referred to women he knew and collaborated with who were deacons, leaders of house churches, even a female apostle.
I believe the misogynistic language added in one of the Epistles is a later addition to Paul's letter written by people who came after Paul.

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks for tacitly admitting that something can't come from nothing.

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you are logically inept as well as being scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent.

Something coming from nothing is logically incoherent.

There is no such thing as logical incoherence. Logically, a statement is either true or false, i.e. binary and discrete, not an analog spectrum of coherence.

So yes, you have basically been babbling gibberish this entire time.

Which is precisely why I use it as a premise in the abstractive deduction I presented.

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you have been babbling gibberish this entire time.

Rationally intelligible, mathematically and lawfully organized;

You are on the record as officially describing a random dust cloud as "organized" and "rationally intelligible." You have falsified your own arguments. Stupid.

aka the visible universe.

Is all that is unseen specifically not included in the visible universe?