This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

  • Archaeology and the Bible 5 1
Rating:  
Topic: Archaeology and the Bible  (Read 16086 times)

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3108 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #120 on: May 03, 2012, 05:03:30 pm »
Quote
I gaffawed and posted the textual version of it, does that count?

I suppose so. I was slightly dumbstruck for a moment and then literally chuckled. I think this thread is dying though, but I eagerly await Waterbearer's response to Jumblejohnnie (I'm sure your informing post was ignored just like what any good xtian would do). That, and I'm beginning to think we're arguing with someone who has not matured yet considering his answers to Waterbearer were very....uninformed. Like I said earlier, I was giving answers like that when I was a youngling.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #121 on: May 03, 2012, 05:09:41 pm »
I think this thread is dying though, but I eagerly await Waterbearer's response to Jumblejohnnie (I'm sure your informing post was ignored just like what any good xtian would do).

As I recall, "johnnie" previously claimed to put my posts on "ignore", (which means that he can't see them while all those who haven't pulled the wool over their own eyes can).  Since he hasn't done this with your posts, people, (like you), can always quote my responses to "johnnie" as part of their reply and - shazzam - he sees that he can't respond coherently to them once again.

That, and I'm beginning to think we're arguing with someone who has not matured yet considering his answers to Waterbearer were very....uninformed. Like I said earlier, I was giving answers like that when I was a youngling.

Your hypothesis has merit given one of "johnnie's" slips about books being down in the basement, (which could be a reference to living in his parent's basement and those being books belonging to them, not to "johnnie").
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3108 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #122 on: May 08, 2012, 03:38:49 pm »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 04:09:41 pm by Falconer02 »

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #123 on: May 09, 2012, 12:43:45 am »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

Could be a toss-up there since 'johnnie' enjoys arguing such 'how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin' nonsense but, there's that propensity for him to bible-thump-and-bail too, quickly change the subject, or silently back out, (rather than back up).
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

Abrupt

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1034 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #124 on: May 09, 2012, 06:55:58 am »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

Could be a toss-up there since 'johnnie' enjoys arguing such 'how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin' nonsense but, there's that propensity for him to bible-thump-and-bail too, quickly change the subject, or silently back out, (rather than back up).

That coming from a child that would actually change the name of the person indicated in the quote for no purpose other than Ad Hominem.  You cannot win your argument or prove what you are saying so you stoop to personal attacks upon JediJohnie while you spend all too much time patting others on the butt that agree with you (which demonstrates weakness on your behalf).  It doesn't get any more pathetic than that. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world:  those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3108 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #125 on: May 09, 2012, 10:58:50 am »
Quote
That coming from a child that would actually change the name of the person indicated in the quote for no purpose other than Ad Hominem.  You cannot win your argument or prove what you are saying so you stoop to personal attacks upon JediJohnie while you spend all too much time patting others on the butt that agree with you (which demonstrates weakness on your behalf).  It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.  

Abrupt- you do not have to if you don't want to, but I'd recommend staying out of this one since we're purposefully putting Jedijohnnie in the spotlight as he has found himself in a corner. As you may have noticed, he's constantly doing drive-by irrational ad hom attacks in threads without adding anything to them, but we were able to get him to respond here after showing how he must as his beliefs command it. This is just a unique situation and, given this specific user's history, I think it's fair game to say whatever considering his record here. Your thoughts do count though, so don't think they will be disregarded if you disagree. I do recommend reading the last 3-4 pages though for some entertaining proof of what I mean here.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 11:09:11 am by Falconer02 »

JediJohnnie

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4231 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 150x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #126 on: May 09, 2012, 11:18:58 am »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my universe.Again,you resort to name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

If some would actually put children like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith in this forum.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 11:55:10 am by JediJohnnie »

Google JediJohnnie and May the Force be with you!

JediJohnnie

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4231 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 150x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #127 on: May 09, 2012, 11:53:17 am »
ok you answered them... and i'm not just disagreeing... i'll show you were i think those answers or at least some of them are false...

as for the first religion in the first question... hinduism was the first religion! you can look it up or ask your pastor so you were mistaken in your answerIdol worship was popular as well in those days.That doesn't make it a true religion.

also if a mentally challenged person did things such as sin... it no where says they would have an excuse... it says no man is left without excuse... but what if you cant percept it right and your mind cant grasp it... maybe back then all mental disabilities were looked at as demonic possession or maybe there werent as many due to all the new diseases we have today... you can so oh god is good he would do that... but if he doesnt say then you are making up his actions and adding to the words in his book which is a sin!!!Demonic possession is not the same as mental illness

and god says he doesnt tempt man so you are wrong there... you are agreeing he was tempting... so you are either mistaken or calling him a liar Read what I said again.God ALLOWED them to be tempted.He did not tempt them by putting the Tree in the Garden. That's like blaming a father for having a stove in the house as the reason his kid burned his hand.

and you say what the puritans did was messed up... well how did your christianty start here??? (i'm pretty sure they brought it over)
The relationship between the settelers and Indians were not always contentious.Read the "Thanksgiving" story.
ok what if there is a christian who is in another county we are at war with? should he kill the christians here or should the christians here kill him?

and as for pharoah... if you really think about it... he was predestined and as a baby god could have basically told him you are going to hell when you are older... so say if god knew you were gunna fall and go to hell later in life, how could you change what he knew? he saw how his plan was going to turn out before he did it because he is all knowing... therefore it was like a movie script he could of editied it or he could have not made it but he did and it can't be changed... so how could someone change what he knows... say he made one more man named james who was gunna go to hell... james cant change what god knows... sure god knows james is gunna "choose" hell but GOD HIMSELF DIDNT HAVE TO CHOOSE TO MAKE JAMES... so god curses him cus james has no say in it The fact that God knows the beginning from the end in no way takes away Free Will.As the Bard put it "The fault lies not in the stars,but in ourselves."

and as for the wife beating it says a wife must now leave but if she does she must stay unmarried... so she must but she doesnt have too? sounds hypocritical... so its basically a sin How do you get it's a Sin? ??? God is very strict on marriage and divorce,because an Oath is taken in His name.That is something that is meant to be honored.That's why you should consider marriage very seriously before committing to it.

and god could have peace... why couldnt he just have the nonbelievers go to the grave and have no consciousness for eternity? or does he have to make his point and be a tyrant... Because there must be Justice.If you don't want to except Jesus taking away your sins,you must pay for them yourself.How could a just God not punish the guilty?

exactly godhood is not earned he just is... but i'm made up and i have to earn his respect? why should i earn somethings respect that hasnt earned its own title?? God doesn't need to earn his title of godhood any more than you have to earn the title of "human being".It is self evident

so there was wickedness in heaven inside of lucifers heart? i thought evil couldnt go in heaven?There will be no evil in Heaven after the Final Judgement

and for the government ours is one nation under god and its had corrupt ways for a long whileMan is fallible

what i'm saying about the age is... if no sin is allowed in heaven and all kids who die and are sinners are just washed clean before they go in... why cant everybody be washed clean like that? if everyone died as a kid then everyone would go to heaven even the ones who are devil worshippers so i dont think thats fair... i would have rather been killed as a babyThe sins of a child are usually not very severe.

and as for all the bad things.. think about this... why did god make us seprate from him like heaven and earth??? its a test to get to him! and without the tree of knowledge tempting there was no test... then once that was gone there needed to be new tests... god knew he was going to use lucifer and the demons to do his dirty work before he ever made them into angels... and god says he gives ppl trials to make them stronger... how could there be a trial without things like sickeneess and cancer? if the world is perfect and its all goody goodies and there is no things to tempt then there is no test... the bad are gods pawns Well,I wouldn't put it that way,but the Bible tells us Job was tested for example.God makes use of many things to strengthen our faith.

and as for the cursed generation... do you think it was fair for god to curse the ppls next generation who werent even born and hadnt done anything to him??? how is that just?The curse of "Original Sin" was caused by Adam & Eve.He allowed tham to choose to obey or disobey and the world was shaped by their action.

i think i got every single one of your answers pretty much rebuttaled
most of yours werent biblically answered just what you think god would do

I don't know where you get that reasoning,but you're intitled to your opinion.



















Google JediJohnnie and May the Force be with you!

walksalone11

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #128 on: May 09, 2012, 12:00:07 pm »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my universe.Again,you resort to name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

If some would actually put childeren like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith in this forum.
D&D, is debate and discuss. It's not defend any thing. Since coming on this site a couple years ago, I have encountered exactly 2 xtians who wished to do either in an reasonable manner. Everyone else just wants to make dead end statements, of the "I have the only right answer and everyone else is wrong, period" variety. If you want to defend your belief system in here, you should come up with some intelligent answers and not get all butt hurt when you can't and resort to "spinning" in circles.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #129 on: May 09, 2012, 12:06:33 pm »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

...resort to... name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

It isn't name-calling if it's accurate, (and it is an accurate description of your usual response patterns).  It isn't a "calling out" thread since it doesn't target a particular member by 'nym, (and isn't a "calling out" post because individual members are often addressed by 'nym within a on-going discussion on a thread).  The only "unrelenting" thing about my challenges to your specious claims has been their consistancy.  No known 'child' has employed the lines of reasoning which I have herein therefore, your characterization is as false as your others.

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

In other words, you reply not to respond to content so much as to evangelize religious superstitions.

If some would actually put childeren like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith.

Now who's name-calling, ("childeren"[sic] indeed, that's the pot calling the kettle black).  Neither has "Abrupt" put anyone "in their place" by using failed arguments, strawman arguments, unsubstantiated premises, (like the false premise of "atheism is a religion"), and specious rhetoric.

It's noted that you opted for the predicted 'change the subject' and 'pin-dancing-angels' options.  That's your perrogative.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 04:36:43 pm by falcon9 »
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #130 on: May 09, 2012, 12:21:14 pm »
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

Could be a toss-up there since 'johnnie' enjoys arguing such 'how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin' nonsense but, there's that propensity for him to bible-thump-and-bail too, quickly change the subject, or silently back out, (rather than back up).

That coming from a child that would actually change the name of the person indicated in the quote for no purpose other than Ad Hominem.

How can that be an ad hom when "johnnie" is included in his 'nym and he's certainly no "Jedi"?  Although falsely characterizing me as a "child" is definitely an ad hominem since your premise is an unsupported one and my refutations of it have not been presented by any known "child".  If what you stated concerning ad hom being a 'weak form of argument' is valid, surely that applies to your usage of ad hominem as well.

You cannot win your argument or prove what you are saying ...

False; I've previously done both and have the ability to continue doing so, (despite your baseless nay-saying, the archived record of my doing so contradicts your 'bearing false witness').

so you stoop to personal attacks upon JediJohnie ...

Nope, I posted some options extrapolated from "johnnie's" previous posting patterns, (and wouldn't you know, he selected two of them when he did reply) so, how does an accurate extraploation constitute "personal attacks"?  Further, how are you 'justifying' the "personal attacks" you weakly fling my way?  They can't be 'retalitory' since you initiated them, (it's archived but, deny it if you wish).  I could speculate however, your dissembling tangential diversionary attempts nominally speak for themselves.

It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.  

Regarding your "Black Knight" from Monty Python contentions, I'd agree, ("... no you haven't, it's just a flesh wound ..." self-deceptions).
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 04:39:14 pm by falcon9 »
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

JediJohnnie

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 4231 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 150x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #131 on: May 09, 2012, 01:30:34 pm »
I dug up an old book to add to the discussion-just for kicks I suppose,since the agenda of several here are likely to attempt to discredit it from the first word.lol

This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.Eventually,he found the evidence for the Gospel so great,it would be admissible in a court of law.Some exerpts,


"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.
The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them.The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.  The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings.

These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof.

 In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.  

Let the evangelists be tried by these tests.

And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication.


There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred.

 Thus much, however, may here be remarked; that in almost every miracle related by the evangelists, the facts, separately taken, were plain, intelligible, transpiring in public, and about which no person of ordinary observation would be like to mistake. Persons blind or cripple, who applied to Jesus for relief, were known to have been crippled or blind for many years; they came to be cured; he spake to them; they went away whole. Lazarus had been dead and buried four days; Jesus called him to come forth from the grave; he immediately came forth, and was seen alive for a long time afterwards. In every case of healing, the previous condition of the sufferer was known to all witnessed the act of Jesus in touching him, and heard his words. All these, separately considered, were facts, plain and simple in their nature, easily seen and fully comprehended by persons of common capacity and observation. If they were separately testified to, by different witnesses of ordinary intelligence and integrity, in any court of justice, the jury would be bound to believe them; and a verdict, rendered contrary to the uncontradicted testimony of credible witnesses to any of these plain facts, separately taken, would be liable to be set aside, as a verdict against evidence. If one credible witness testified to the fact, that Bartimeus was blind, according to the uniform course of administering justice, this fact would be taken as satisfactorily proved. So also, if his subsequent restoration to sight were the sole fact in question, this also would be deemed established, by the like evidence. Nor would the rule of evidence be at all different, if the fact to be proved were the declaration of Jesus, immediately preceding his restoration to sight, that his faith had made him whole. In each of these cases, each isolated fact was capable of being accurately observed, and certainly known; and the evidence demands our assent, precisely as the like evidence upon any other indifferent subject. The connection of the word or the act of Jesus with the restoration of the blind, lame and dead, to sight, and health, and life, as cause and effect, is a conclusion which our reason is compelled to admit, from the uniformity of their concurrence, in such a multitude of instances, as well as from the universal conviction of all, whether friends or foes, who beheld the miracles which he wrought. Indeed, if the truth of one of the miracles is satisfactorily established, our belief cannot reasonably be withheld from them all.


Miracles, say the objectors, are impossible; and therefore the evangelists were either deceivers or deceived; and in either case their narratives against the possibility of miracles, was founded on the board and bold assumption that all things are governed by immutable laws, or fixed modes of motion and relation, termed the laws of nature, by which God himself is of necessity bound. This erroneous assumption is the tortoise, on which stands the elephant which upholds his system of atheism. He does not inform us who made these immutable laws, nor whence they derive their binding force and irresistible operation. The argument supposes that the creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of his own power to change them. the scheme of Mr. Hume is but another form of the same error. He deduces the existence of such immutable laws from the uniform course of human experience. This, he affirms, is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; and whatever is contrary to human experience, he pronounces incredible. Without stopping to examine the correctness of this doctrine, as a fundamental principle in the law of evidence, it is sufficient in this place to remark, that it contains this fallacy: it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone, and thus depriving us of any knowledge, or even rational belief, or the existence or character of God. Nay more, it goes to prove that successive generations of men can make no advancement in knowledge, but each must begin de novo, and be limited to the results of his own experience. But if we may infer, from what we see and know, that there is a Supreme Being, by whom this world was created, we may certainly, and with equal reason, believe him capable of works which we have never yet known him to perform. We may fairly conclude that the power which was originally put forth to create the world is still constantly and without ceasing exerted to sustain it; and that the experienced connection between cause and effect is but the uniform and constantly active operation of the finger of God. Whether this uniformity of operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation, is a point we cannot certainly know. Its existence in all things that ordinarily concern us may be supposed to be ordained as conducive to our happiness; and if the belief in a revelation of peace and mercy from god is conducive to the happiness of man, it is not irrational to suppose that he would depart from his ordinary course of action, in order to give it such attestations as should tend to secure that belief. "A miracle is improbable, when we can perceive no sufficient cause, in reference to his creatures, why the Deity should not vary his modes of operation; it ceases to be so, when such cause is assigned."

"Had the evangelists been false historians," says Dr. Chalmers, "they would not have committed themselves upon so many particulars.   They would not have furnished the vigilant inquirers of that period with such an effectual instrument for bringing them into discredit with the people; nor foolishly supplied, in every page of their narrative, so many materials for a cross-examination, which would infallibly have disgraced them.  Now, we of this age can institute the same cross-examination.  We can compare the evangelical writers with contemporary authors, and verify a number of circumstances in the history, and government, and peculiar economy of the Jewish people.  We therefore have it in our power to institute a cross-examination upon the writers of the New Testament; and the freedom and frequency of their allusions to these circumstances supply us with ample materials for it.  The fact, that they are borne out in their minute and incidental allusions by the testimony of other historians, gives a strong weight of what has been called circumstantial evidence in their favor.  As a specimen of the argument, let us confine our observations to the history of our Savior's trial, and execution, and burial.  They brought him to Pontius Pilate.  We know both from Tacitus and Josephus, that he was at that time governor of Judea.

A sentence from him was necessary before they could proceed to the execution of Jesus; and we know that the power of life and death was usually vested in the Roman governor.  Our Savior. was treated with derision; and this we know to have been a customary practice at that time, previous to the execution of criminals, and during the time of it.  Pilate scourged Jesus before he gave him up to be crucified.  We know from ancient authors, that this was a very usual practice among Romans.  The accounts of an execution generally run in this form:  he was stripped, whipped, and beheaded or executed.  According to the evangelists, his accusation was written on the top of the cross; and we learn from Suetonius and others, that the crime of the person to be executed was affixed to the instrument of his punishment.   According to the evangelists, this accusation was written in three different languages; and we know from Josephus that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all public advertisements written in this manner.  According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know from other sources of information, that this was the constant practice of those times.  According to the evangelists, the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of friends. We know that, unless the criminal was infamous, this was the law or the custom with all Roman governors."

It should be remembered, that very little of the literature of their times and country has come down to us; and that the collateral sources and means of corroborating and explaining their writings are proportionally limited.  The contemporary writings and works of art which have reached us, have invariably been found to confirm their accounts, to reconcile what was apparently contradictory, and supply what seemed defective or imperfect. We ought therefore to conclude, that if we had more of the same light, all other similar difficulties and imperfections would vanish.   Indeed they have been gradually vanishing, and rapidly too, before the light of modern research, conducted by men of science in our own times.  And it is worthy of remark, that of all the investigations and discoveries of travelers and men of letters, since the overthrow of the Roman empire, not a vestige of antiquity has been found, impeaching, in the slightest degree, the credibility of the sacred writers; but, on the contrary, every result has tended to confirm it.

All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other things;; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals.   Let the the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination.  The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.  In the course of such an examination, the undesigned coincidences will multiply upon us at every step in the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration."

 :wave:

Google JediJohnnie and May the Force be with you!

ptfunds

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #132 on: May 09, 2012, 01:48:12 pm »
Thank you for posting this interesting article.  Yes, Archaeology is enabling us to confirm and correct a lot of historical information which has been passed down through the generations.  It is wonderful and amazing to have an opportunity centuries and centuries later to know more of our history not just around religious writings, but many other historical writings as well. I think we live in an amazing time and are so fortunate to see these wonderful secrets being unlocked for our knowledge today.   

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #133 on: May 09, 2012, 02:19:53 pm »
This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists."

Hardly someone "who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible", (being a xtian apologetic).  He may be a potential source of the misapprehension/misapplication of the burden of proof requirement which some religious adherents are desparately grasping at, however.

Some exerpts,


"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

The 'uncorrupted and unaltered' Dead Sea scrolls refute Greenleaf's contention in that they don't match either the toran or, "old testiment' variations of latter "bibles".  Contention refuted.


"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever."
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.


This presumption would be contested in any court on the basis of being an illogical premise since an "ancient document", whether unforged or not, cannot be assumed to be non-fictional just because it appears to be unaltered. An unaltered work of fiction does not confer accuracy to its contents by dint of being a "genuine ancient document, (e.g. Homer's Odyssey is a genuine work of poetic fiction however, the events described cannot be substantiated as genuine themselves).  The same applies to 'biblical content' in that the burden of proof regarding the genuine accuracy of its contents rests with those who either claim those contents are accurate, (religious adherents), or those who make a positive assertion that they are not, (which does Not include those who question the validity nor, apply the burden of proof as a challenge to those who do make such positive assertions).


The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.
[/quote]

Conversely, the burden of proof devolves onto the party making the initial assertion/claim to support the validity of that asserted claim.  An "objection" can only arise after such initial claims are made, (since there needs to be a prior contention/assertion to object to).  Therefore, the initial burden of proof remains with the party who initiated an asserted claim.


" ...as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government ..."
[/quote]

I'm surprised Greenleaf resorted to such an obvious appeal to authority fallacy, (and this guy was a law professor? sheesh).


it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity.
[/quote]

That's a nice 'legalistic' dodge however, it isn't just the "genuineness or authenticity" of the religious "documents" which are being questioned, it's mainly been the "genuineness or authenticity" of their content which has been challenged on the basis of lack of supporting evidence. If the 'esteemed law professor' is inherently suggesting that the burden of proof requires that challengers produce evidence that there is a lack of evidence supporting the validity of the content of 'biblical documents', then that's inherently a logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion.

 
"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

Since such 'witness testimony' does "generate suspicion" as to the credibility of what was allegedly witness in the first place, (which constitutes making an initially asserted claim and therefore, falls under the burden of proof requirement), such challenges are not made regarding whether or not the 'witness' "believes" their testimony to be accurate - especially when such 'testimony' relies entiely upon "faith" being an opinion which lacks evidence - they challenge the ones making such asserted claims to produce evidence supporting them.  Essentially, the one making an initially-asserted claim in a debate, (not a "court of law"; which is why "religion" itself isn't "tried" in such courts), in a debate isn't presumed to be telling the 'truth' by default.  The burden of proof remains with the claimant in a debate.


"And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted ..."

The "ground of their faith" assertion invalidates itself due to being based upon beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

"There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them ..."

Any discrepencies in 'testimony' cast considerable doubt as to the validity of such testimonies. This constitutes "circumstances which generate suspicion" under Greenleaf's own parameters.

I'm relieved that I didn't go to Harvard and have Greenleaf spouting such dubious nonsense as one of my law professors when I aced torts and my first year of law school elsewhere.  I would probably would have 'flunked' Greenleaf's class since the same refutations made here would have been made there.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 12:15:04 pm by falcon9 »
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #134 on: May 09, 2012, 02:28:32 pm »
Yes, Archaeology is enabling us to confirm and correct a lot of historical information which has been passed down through the generations.  

Neither the excerpts from Greenleaf's legal opinions applied to "ancient documents", nor nonsecular (religiously-biased) 'archeologists' "confirm or correct" religious assumptions/contentions made.  Greenleaf danced around confirming the validity of the content of religious documents by talking about whether or not the documents themselves were "genuine", (again, not whether their contents were genuine).  It's a sophist dodge sometimes used by xtian apologetics. Greenleaf is an outspoken figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of xtian belief.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
190 Replies
28899 Views
Last post September 06, 2011, 07:48:02 pm
by mardukblood2009
0 Replies
593 Views
Last post August 21, 2010, 05:46:04 pm
by marieelissa
2 Replies
965 Views
Last post August 23, 2010, 07:50:53 pm
by amyrouse
16 Replies
2594 Views
Last post October 14, 2010, 02:27:01 pm
by shernajwine
bible

Started by nicchargers « 1 2 ... 5 6 » in Off-Topic

82 Replies
8870 Views
Last post September 27, 2012, 04:27:52 pm
by ten7der