Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › Archeological Finds.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Archeological Finds. (Read 12,903 times)
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #50 - Sep 14th, 2015 at 10:57am
Print Post  
Quote:
Then you are not saying "they have a pretty good idea where it is"


Figure of speech. They know where it is.

Quote:
Don't think so. The largest collection of FRAGMENTS which are used as evidence of NT scripture are the Beatty collection, and the Bodmer collection. Of the Beatty fragments 3 are possibly from the 1rt. Century. Of the Bodmer collection there may be one from the 1st. Century, and then others from the late 3rd., or early 4th. Century.


That doesn't mean they were written in the 3rd or 4th century. Are you suggesting that Caesar's Gallic Wars was written about 1000 CE?

Quote:
Doesn't matter. Either way you are failing to prove anything.


It isn't about "proving something to somebody."

Christianity is not "timeless philosophy." Without the historical existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Christianity is nothing.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Just An Independent
Ex Member


Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #51 - Sep 14th, 2015 at 7:06pm
Print Post  
Mercy For All wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 10:57am:
Figure of speech. They know where it is.


Make up your mind. Either they have a "good idea" where it is, or they know without a doubt where it is.


Quote:
That doesn't mean they were written in the 3rd or 4th century. Are you suggesting that Caesar's Gallic Wars was written about 1000 CE?


First off, they are fragments and could be part of any book.

If the fragments, along with the other fragments found with them (they were not just setting there by themselves), were dated to that era one could conclude they were written at that time, not centuries earlier.

Next, I don't have a clue as to what Gallic wars has to do with this topic. More of your distractions?

Quote:
It isn't about "proving something to somebody."


Of course it is. Without proof your comments are worthless.

Quote:
Christianity is not "timeless philosophy." Without the historical existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Christianity is nothing.


So, you want proof just as Thomas did. Wrong as usual. You ignore faith:

John 20: 27-29

"Then saith He to Thomas, 'Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing'.

And Thomas answered and said unto Him, 'My Lord and my God.'

Jesus saith unto him, 'Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.'
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #52 - Sep 15th, 2015 at 1:33pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Make up your mind. Either they have a "good idea" where it is, or they know without a doubt where it is.


There's rarely such thing as "without a doubt" when it comes to historical evidence, just as in personal experience.

Quote:
First off, they are fragments and could be part of any book.

If the fragments, along with the other fragments found with them (they were not just setting there by themselves), were dated to that era one could conclude they were written at that time, not centuries earlier.


How likely is that? Do you believe that the New Testament documents are "late dated"? Do you really believe that the purported historical events are irrelevant?

Quote:
Next, I don't have a clue as to what Gallic wars has to do with this topic. More of your distractions?


It's a comparison. It was written before Jesus. The earliest extant copies are dated from roughly 1000CE and yet their veracity is not seriously challenged. Why would we have a different standard for biblical documents?

Quote:
Of course it is. Without proof your comments are worthless.


You're demanding that I "prove this to you"? Weird argument.

Quote:
So, you want proof just as Thomas did. Wrong as usual. You ignore faith:

John 20: 27-29

"Then saith He to Thomas, 'Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing'.

And Thomas answered and said unto Him, 'My Lord and my God.'

Jesus saith unto him, 'Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.'


And so once again you default to an Enlightenment distortion of the word pistis, which means trust and faithfulness as much as it does "belief." Even the demons believe...and shudder.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Just An Independent
Ex Member


Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #53 - Sep 16th, 2015 at 1:47am
Print Post  
Mercy For All wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 1:33pm:
There's rarely such thing as "without a doubt" when it comes to historical evidence, just as in personal experience.


However, you have used two different scenarios. One which involved a guess, and the other with a certainty ("I was there").

Quote:
How likely is that? Do you believe that the New Testament documents are "late dated"? Do you really believe that the purported historical events are irrelevant?


Well, now that you see the hole you dug for yourself you go off on some tangent. If I find 3500 fragments, which is what they found, and only a few relate to the scripture, and the rest relate fo business activities of a certain period of time, one can conclude with a certain amount of certainty that they were written in the same time period. Has nothing to do with a date on the fragments relating to scripture.

As to the "evidence", as I said before, none of it was written at the time of Christ. It is all hearsay.

Quote:
It's a comparison. It was written before Jesus. The earliest extant copies are dated from roughly 1000CE and yet their veracity is not seriously challenged. Why would we have a different standard for biblical documents?


Uhhh, because we have an entire collection of the works in its original form.


Quote:
You're demanding that I "prove this to you"? Weird argument.


Not demanding anything. Either you can, or you can't. You are making certain claims that demand proof.

Quote:
And so once again you default to an Enlightenment distortion of the word pistis, which means trust and faithfulness as much as it does "belief." Even the demons believe...and shudder.


Trust, and faithfulness, are necessary parts of belief when there is no other evidence. Like you, Thomas required proof. Christ told him that those who believed without that proof were more blessed. " blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.' "
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #54 - Sep 16th, 2015 at 8:30am
Print Post  
Quote:
However, you have used two different scenarios. One which involved a guess, and the other with a certainty ("I was there").


Why are you doing this? It is known where Jesus was crucified and buried.

Quote:
Well, now that you see the hole you dug for yourself you go off on some tangent. If I find 3500 fragments, which is what they found, and only a few relate to the scripture, and the rest relate fo business activities of a certain period of time, one can conclude with a certain amount of certainty that they were written in the same time period. Has nothing to do with a date on the fragments relating to scripture.


Missed the point. The preponderance of documents (yes, even complete documents) of the New Testament books far outweighs what we have of Gallic Wars and is far closer to the events they describe. So...why accept Gallic Wars at face value but not the New Testament documents?

Quote:
As to the "evidence", as I said before, none of it was written at the time of Christ. It is all hearsay.


Irrelevant. Direct eyewitness reports is not hearsay.

Quote:
Uhhh, because we have an entire collection of the works in its original form.


We have entire collections of complete New Testament documents within a couple of hundred years of the original date of writing. Caesar's Gallic Wars (those 12 copies) are dated more than a thousand years after the original document was written.

So....

Huh

Quote:
Not demanding anything. Either you can, or you can't. You are making certain claims that demand proof.


That Jesus died and rose again? If you don't believe that, why are you on this forum?

Quote:
Trust, and faithfulness, are necessary parts of belief when there is no other evidence. Like you, Thomas required proof. Christ told him that those who believed without that proof were more blessed. " blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.' "


Ouch. He didn't say "more blessed."

I think I've mentioned this before but you may have taken scissors and cut it out of your Bible:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3, italics added)

Why would this matter if "blind faith" is what is essential?
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Just An Independent
Ex Member


Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #55 - Sep 16th, 2015 at 7:38pm
Print Post  
Mercy For All wrote on Sep 16th, 2015 at 8:30am:
Why are you doing this? It is known where Jesus was crucified and buried.


Then you should be able to prove it aside from saying "they have a pretty good idea", or "I was there".

Even the experts don't know what you claim to know:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/30/march-30-2012-where-was-jes...

Quote:
Missed the point. The preponderance of documents (yes, even complete documents) of the New Testament books far outweighs what we have of Gallic Wars and is far closer to the events they describe. So...why accept Gallic Wars at face value but not the New Testament documents?


Since I know nothing of the "Gallic Wars", and could care less, I make no claims about it. It is your red herring, you go with it.

As to the NT manuscripts, to the best of my knowledge we have only fragments that are dated to the same time period as the objects they are found with. And if there are any complete original manuscripts of the NT I am unaware of them.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Quote:
Irrelevant. Direct eyewitness reports is not hearsay.


Paul was not even there. As to the Apostles, this is the Catholic version:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALWROT.HTM


Quote:
We have entire collections of complete New Testament documents within a couple of hundred years of the original date of writing. [quote]

Copies of copies, of copies. And how many errors in the copies?

[quote]That Jesus died and rose again? If you don't believe that, why are you on this forum?


Another red herring. Point of me being here is to see how much you believe, and why, along with others. IMO, you don't believe much without the need for proof.

Quote:
Ouch. He didn't say "more blessed."

I think I've mentioned this before but you may have taken scissors and cut it out of your Bible:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3, italics added)

Why would this matter if "blind faith" is what is essential?


Ahhh, you always have to resort to the ad hominem.

Do you believe that there is only one way to Jesus? Can a man isolated on an island come to believe in Jesus Christ? Just suppose there was an island with people who had never heard of Jesus. One day this box washes on the shore, and within there are copies of the Bible. The people then begin reading the books. After months of careful study, they come to believe in Jesus, turn from their sins, confessed their faith in Jesus as the Son of God, are baptized, and begin worshiping God, and acting in accordance with the moral standards contained in the Scriptures.

Are they saved, and just what event compelled them to believe in Jesus?

Faith is all they have. It is not blind, it just does not have the trappings you seem to need.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #56 - Sep 17th, 2015 at 8:45am
Print Post  
Quote:
Then you should be able to prove it aside from saying "they have a pretty good idea", or "I was there".

Even the experts don't know what you claim to know:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/30/march-30-2012-where-was-jes...


PBS. Solid, unbiased source.

Quote:
Since I know nothing of the "Gallic Wars", and could care less, I make no claims about it. It is your red herring, you go with it.


It's a clear comparison example. It is generally undisputed. 12 extant texts from 1000 years after the original was written. Undisputed.

Look it up.

Or stay ignorant.

Quote:
As to the NT manuscripts, to the best of my knowledge we have only fragments that are dated to the same time period as the objects they are found with. And if there are any complete original manuscripts of the NT I am unaware of them.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html


Nobody is saying there are complete original manuscripts. There are complete manuscripts dated from much earlier than, say, Caesar's Gallic Wars, which are undisputed.

Quote:
Paul was not even there. As to the Apostles, this is the Catholic version:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALWROT.HTM


I didn't say "Paul."

Quote:
Another red herring. Point of me being here is to see how much you believe, and why, along with others. IMO, you don't believe much without the need for proof.


"Proof" only really exists in mathematics. Evidence is essential. Pointing out Jesus' statement to Thomas does not negate the evidence that is appealed to all throughout the New Testament, not the least being eyewitness testimony, but also including miracles, direct revelation from Jesus, etc.

Quote:
Ahhh, you always have to resort to the ad hominem.


IRONY!

What was "ad hominem" about that? Please be specific.

Quote:
Do you believe that there is only one way to Jesus?


Nope.

Quote:
Can a man isolated on an island come to believe in Jesus Christ?


Yes.

Quote:
Just suppose there was an island with people who had never heard of Jesus. One day this box washes on the shore, and within there are copies of the Bible. The people then begin reading the books. After months of careful study, they come to believe in Jesus, turn from their sins, confessed their faith in Jesus as the Son of God, are baptized, and begin worshiping God, and acting in accordance with the moral standards contained in the Scriptures.

Are they saved, and just what event compelled them to believe in Jesus?

Faith is all they have. It is not blind, it just does not have the trappings you seem to need.


Faith in what? The book they read? The book that documents historical events? The book itself is evidence, testimony, etc. Notice that the book describes historical events, not timeless philosophy. The word "Gospel" mean "good news," not "good advice."
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Just An Independent
Ex Member


Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #57 - Sep 17th, 2015 at 9:29am
Print Post  
Mercy For All wrote on Sep 17th, 2015 at 8:45am:
PBS. Solid, unbiased source.


For which you have no rebuttal.

Quote:
It's a clear comparison example. It is generally undisputed. 12 extant texts from 1000 years after the original was written. Undisputed.

Look it up.

Or stay ignorant.


Ahhhh, you gotta play the fool, as usual. I have known of the comparisons for decades. I just don't care.

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm

C. WHAT LENGTH OF TIME PASSED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE EARLIEST
      COPIES?
      1. We saw in the previous lesson that several PAPYRI FRAGMENTS
         have been dated to within 50-100 years
      2. We have several nearly complete New Testament GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
         which were copied within 300-400 years, for example:
         a. Codex Sinaiticus, found near Mt. Sinai
         b. Codex Alexandrinus, found near Alexandria in Egypt
         c. Codex Vaticanus, located at the Vatican in Rome

And this:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm

Quote:
Nobody is saying there are complete original manuscripts. There are complete manuscripts dated from much earlier than, say, Caesar's Gallic Wars, which are undisputed.


Not interested in ancient manuscripts as proof of the validity of scripture, and the common person knows nothing of their existence. That is for historians, archaeologists, whatever.

Quote:
I didn't say "Paul."


Paul is the writer of the majority of the NT.

Quote:
"Proof" only really exists in mathematics. Evidence is essential. Pointing out Jesus' statement to Thomas does not negate the evidence that is appealed to all throughout the New Testament, not the least being eyewitness testimony, but also including miracles, direct revelation from Jesus, etc.


None of which can be proven since all parties are now dead. If one wants to see a miracle where do you go?

Point is, and you choose to remain ignorant of, Christ recognized that Thomas required "proof", and yet those who come after will not have access to that "proof".

That belief is based on faith, and faith alone.

Quote:
IRONY!

What was "ad hominem" about that? Please be specific.


Do you even know what an ad hominem attack is?

"I think I've mentioned this before but you may have taken scissors and cut it out of your Bible:"

Quote:
Faith in what? The book they read? The book that documents historical events? The book itself is evidence, testimony, etc. Notice that the book describes historical events, not timeless philosophy. The word "Gospel" mean "good news," not "good advice."


http://www.gotquestions.org/guidance-Holy-Spirit.html
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #58 - Sep 17th, 2015 at 10:44am
Print Post  
Quote:
For which you have no rebuttal.


"Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes....The positive argument for the authenticity of the site is the tradition of the Jerusalem community, which held liturgical celebrations at the site until AD 66. Even when the area was brought within the walls in AD 41-3 it was not built over. The memory of the site remained, and was probably reinforced by bitterness when Hadrian in 135 filled in the quarry to provide a level base for his Capitoline temple, which was flanked by a shrine honouring Aphrodite. The value of the Jerusalem tradition must have been scrutinized very carefully when in the early C4 the emperor Constantine decided to build a church commemorating the Resurrection. Acceptance of the tradition involved a double expense: substantial buildings had to be torn down, and a new one put in their place. And just to the south was the open space of Hadrian's forum!"

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, OP, in Oxford Archaeological Guides: The Holy Land, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1998, pp. 45-47.

Quote:
Ahhhh, you gotta play the fool, as usual. I have known of the comparisons for decades. I just don't care.

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm

C. WHAT LENGTH OF TIME PASSED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE EARLIEST
      COPIES?
      1. We saw in the previous lesson that several PAPYRI FRAGMENTS
         have been dated to within 50-100 years
      2. We have several nearly complete New Testament GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
         which were copied within 300-400 years, for example:
         a. Codex Sinaiticus, found near Mt. Sinai
         b. Codex Alexandrinus, found near Alexandria in Egypt
         c. Codex Vaticanus, located at the Vatican in Rome

And this:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm


Not interested in ancient manuscripts as proof of the validity of scripture, and the common person knows nothing of their existence. That is for historians, archaeologists, whatever.


Irrelevant what the "common person knows." Are they trustworthy? Caesar's Gallic Wars are...but the NT documents are not?

Quote:
Paul is the writer of the majority of the NT.


Irrelevant. We were talking about eyewitnesses. Paul surely heard from eyewitnesses although he wasn't one (except for his experience of Jesus' self-identification to him).

Quote:
None of which can be proven since all parties are now dead. If one wants to see a miracle where do you go?


Proof belongs in mathematics. We're talking about history. All of history is "dead." So...Napoleon didn't exist?

Quote:
Point is, and you choose to remain ignorant of, Christ recognized that Thomas required "proof", and yet those who come after will not have access to that "proof".

That belief is based on faith, and faith alone.


Faith does not mean "blind faith." Blind faith is useless.

Quote:
Do you even know what an ad hominem attack is?

"I think I've mentioned this before but you may have taken scissors and cut it out of your Bible:"


I'm not attacking the messenger to devalue his message. I'm creatively pointing out that you consistently ignore 1 John, which I've pointed out to you at least three times now.

Quote:


Absolutely, the Holy Spirit guides. But...what? If people were on an island and got copies of scripture, why should they believe it? What should they believe?

Because the message of the New Testament is specifically tied to historical events.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Just An Independent
Ex Member


Re: Archeological Finds.
Reply #59 - Sep 18th, 2015 at 1:31am
Print Post  
Mercy For All wrote on Sep 17th, 2015 at 10:44am:
"Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes....The positive argument for the authenticity of the site is the tradition of the Jerusalem community, which held liturgical celebrations at the site until AD 66. Even when the area was brought within the walls in AD 41-3 it was not built over. The memory of the site remained, and was probably reinforced by bitterness when Hadrian in 135 filled in the quarry to provide a level base for his Capitoline temple, which was flanked by a shrine honouring Aphrodite. The value of the Jerusalem tradition must have been scrutinized very carefully when in the early C4 the emperor Constantine decided to build a church commemorating the Resurrection. Acceptance of the tradition involved a double expense: substantial buildings had to be torn down, and a new one put in their place. And just to the south was the open space of Hadrian's forum!"


Constantine? Really?

Quote:
Irrelevant what the "common person knows." Are they trustworthy? Caesar's Gallic Wars are...but the NT documents are not?


As much as you are.

Now, why do you keep repeating the same lie, over, and over? I have constantly said that I could care less about the story of Caesar, yet you keep bringing it up as if I cared.

Quote:
Irrelevant. We were talking about eyewitnesses. Paul surely heard from eyewitnesses although he wasn't one (except for his experience of Jesus' self-identification to him).


Do you know what "hearsay evidence" is?

Look it up, or remain ignorant.

Quote:
Proof belongs in mathematics. We're talking about history. All of history is "dead." So...Napoleon didn't exist?


Now you are really acting desperate.

Quote:
Faith does not mean "blind faith." Blind faith is useless.


So, how does one believe in God if not for "blind faith"? Can you see Him, touch Him, hear Him?

Quote:
I'm not attacking the messenger to devalue his message. I'm creatively pointing out that you consistently ignore 1 John, which I've pointed out to you at least three times now.


Since there is no 1 John.....Anyway, since you posted it I must what? John does nothing to take away from what I have said.


Quote:
Absolutely, the Holy Spirit guides. But...what? If people were on an island and got copies of scripture, why should they believe it? What should they believe?

Because the message of the New Testament is specifically tied to historical events.


So, when I asked if a man on an island could believe in Christ, when you said yes you were just BSing me.

And yet you provide no evidence of those historical events, in particular the miracles, for one to believe on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › Archeological Finds.

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules