Tango

http://www.agnosticforums.com/bible/...html#post13623

read what i wrote here you silly little boy

historically accurate...give me a break

__________________
I hope it feels so good to be right. There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there?

jaej

Seriously. I don't know where you get your delusions of the bible being historically accurate, but it's widely accepted by the academic community how irreliable the bible is in terms of history. Maybe you should stop reading christian literature, which twists words and sometimes even holds blatant lies.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

Aaron

Duck, change your user name to "hammer" because you just hit the nail on the head.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

duck

I think I could stand to be around fundies, and other proclaimed christians, if they would get over the nonsense of the bible being the "infallible word of god."

I don't know about you, Aaron, but I find that so darn tiresome.

alexie

hi Tango

silly boy! I have never been called that! Thank you.
I believe Jesus was called that in a comedy skit.
You had to be there.
I do not get your point in your Caesar Salad and census thing and where is this evidence coming from?

alexie

alexie

Hi you fundy skeptical athiests/agnostics

Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Skeptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I'm not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of skeptical critics.
There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem.
According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death. IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE? Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents. By the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date. Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80.” Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.
"I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics, Auckland University
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. F. F. Bruce, Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. A. N. Sherwin-White, Classical Roman Historian

Here are only a fraction of digs which have supported the Old Testament writings.
Excavations in the north have also revealed the city of Dan, The southern boundary of Israel was Beersheba, which became a fortified city during the period of King Solomon. Excavations between 1969 and 1976 have revealed massive walls, gates, wells and storehouses consistent with biblical accounts. The ancient city of Jerusalem, dating to the time of King David's initial conquest, was discovered and excavated between 1978 and 1985. The ancient ruins of Gibeah were discovered about three miles north of Jerusalem. Gibeah was the home to Saul and the tribe of Benjamin, and later became King Saul's capital city.
Megiddo was a Canaanite city conquered by Israel in the north. Megiddo (also known as Armageddon) has now been extensively excavated, revealing such treasures as the Canaanite religious "high places" mentioned throughout the Old Testament. I was never disappointed! I have found that the "archaeological evidence" for the ancient cities mentioned in the Bible was absolutely compelling.
The foundations of the Jewish Temple Mount built by Herod the Great still stand in Jerusalem. The "Southern Steps" where Jesus and his followers entered the Temple are preserved in an active excavation site. The huge Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is also considered a reliable historical site covering the locations of the crucifixion and burial of Christ. These sites were covered over (and thus, preserved) by the Romans in the second century AD.
On the Sea of Galilee, towns such as Nazareth are still active. Capernaum and Chorazin, two sites Jesus visited often, have been excavated and preserved. Sites of famous teachings such as Kursi (the swine miracle), Tabgha (loaves and fishes), Mount of Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) and Caesarea Philippi (Peter's confession) are all preserved as reliable historical sites.
The synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit and delivered the sermon on the bread of life. The house of Peter at Capernaum where Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and others. Jacob's well where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman. The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a crippled man. The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a blind man. The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried. The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred. Herod's palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard. 1 It goes on and on...

alexie

Og

Cute. Let me translate:

"I could stand to be around fundies if they weren't there"

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

duck

For the second night in a row, the first on a different forum, ....touche

Since this issue is the first of the very main--yes, fundamental if you wiill , cornerstones of their faith, ain't hapenin any time soon.

Aaron

More than agree.

I used to work with a devout christian. We frequently discussed religion to pass the time. The reason we could discuss, rather than argue, was because recognised his faith as his belief rather than holding it as the ultimate truth. He also respected my agnostic beliefs even though he didn't agree.

He aknowledged that even though he chose to place his faith in the bible as the word of god, he wouldn't argue that it was the word of god either.

Point is - there are fundies out there capable of rational discussion. They're just hard as hell to find.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

duck

Aaron, I have been tremendous friends with deeply devoted christians. I tend to keep religion to myself, and if in a situation where I can't avoid it, I tend to just nod and agree.

There have only been a few situations where a person who was determined to spread the word just would not stop with the proselytizing and witnessing that I had to get rather rude.

The young one that ruffled my feathers so well over the last couple of days was one of those.