-->
@Shila
It forces us to question the Bible as a historically reliable source.
Historically reliable sources are sometimes hard to discern
but I wouldn’t have included the Bible amongst them.
Proof Of Exodus
Posts
Total:
64
-->
@Elliott
It forces us to question the Bible as a historically reliable source.
Historically reliable sources are sometimes hard to discern but I wouldn’t have included the Bible amongst them.
If the bible is not historically accurate and the events in it are fabrications. Then what credibility does the Bible have.
-->
@Shila
If the bible is not historically accurate and the events in it are fabrications. Then what credibility does the Bible have.
I never said that all the events were fabrication as some
can be verified. The Bible’s credibility is mostly down to the faith of the believer
and what is considered credible may very depending on belief.
-->
@Elliott
If the bible is not historically accurate and the events in it are fabrications. Then what credibility does the Bible have.
I never said that all the events were fabrication as some can be verified. The Bible’s credibility is mostly down to the faith of the believer and what is considered credible may very depending on belief.
The faith of the believer in a liar and lunatic named Jesus hardly adds any credibility to the believers beliefs.
-->
@Shila
The faith of the believer in a liar and lunatic named Jesus hardly adds any credibility to the believers beliefs.
Religious belief doesn’t have to be credible as it doesn’t require
proof.
-->
@Elliott
The faith of the believer in a liar and lunatic named Jesus hardly adds any credibility to the believers beliefs.
Religious belief doesn’t have to be credible as it doesn’t require proof.
Religious believers require proof.
Jesus is reacting to a request from some Pharisees and Sadducees; they have demanded a miraculous sign to validate the claims that Jesus is the long-promised Messiah of Israel (Matthew 16:1–3).
Religious beliefs are based on credible proof. Thomas only believed after he was given credible proof.
John 20:24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
-->
@Shila
Religious believers require proof.Jesus is reacting to a request from some Pharisees and Sadducees; they have demanded a miraculous sign to validate the claims that Jesus is the long-promised Messiah of Israel (Matthew 16:1–3).Religious beliefs are based on credible proof. Thomas only believed after he was given credible proof.John 20:24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Quoting the Bible to prove the credibility of the Bible is
circular reasoning.
-->
@Elliott
Religious believers require proof.
Jesus is reacting to a request from some Pharisees and Sadducees; they have demanded a miraculous sign to validate the claims that Jesus is the long-promised Messiah of Israel (Matthew 16:1–3).
Religious beliefs are based on credible proof. Thomas only believed after he was given credible proof.
John 20:24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Quoting the Bible to prove the credibility of the Bible is circular reasoning.
The Gospels were eyewitness accounts.
To quote Jesus one has to go to eyewitness accounts.
The Gospels were eyewitness accounts.To quote Jesus one has to go to eyewitness accounts.
Most biblical scholars date the gospels to have been written
around 68-110 AD, so not eyewitness accounts. The gospel events are believed to
have been acquired from accounts passed on by oral tradition, but then again
they may be total fiction, there is little contemporary evidence that Jesus
even existed, it is all down to faith.
-->
@Elliott
The Gospels were eyewitness accounts.To quote Jesus one has to go to eyewitness accounts.Most biblical scholars date the gospels to have been written around 68-110 AD, so not eyewitness accounts. The gospel events are believed to have been acquired from accounts passed on by oral tradition, but then again they may be total fiction, there is little contemporary evidence that Jesus even existed, it is all down to faith.
That still puts the Gospel Authors closer to Jesus than our generation.
That still puts the Gospel Authors closer to Jesus than our generation.
Our generation didn’t write the gospels so I fail
to see the relevance,
-->
@Elliott
That still puts the Gospel Authors closer to Jesus than our generation.
Our generation didn’t write the gospels so I fail to see the relevance,
That is why we have to rely on the generation that witnessed Jesus, such as the Gospel Authors.
-->
@Shila
That is why we have to rely on the generation that witnessed Jesus, such as the Gospel Authors.
I thought we had agreed that the Gospels are not eyewitness
accounts.
-->
@Elliott
That is why we have to rely on the generation that witnessed Jesus, such as the Gospel Authors.
I thought we had agreed that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
The Gospels were written in the Jesus generation. It’s accounts are based on eyewitness accounts. The Gospel writers were there documenting these eyewitness accounts.
-->
@Shila
That is why we have to rely on the generation that witnessed Jesus, such as the Gospel Authors. The Gospels were written in the Jesus generation. It’s accounts are based on eyewitness accounts. The Gospel writers were there documenting these eyewitness accounts.
Definitely false. Jewish fisherman were almost certainly not literate enough to write and definitely not in Koine Greek. The Gospel were written in Koine Greek, the language of Alexandrian Egypt.
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four canonical gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Minor changes and redactions may have continued as late as the 3rd century. The gospels appear to be anonymous; the modern titles ("Gospel according to Matthew", etc.) do not appear to have been part of the earliest forms of the work. They were eventually ascribed to Matthew the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, and John the Apostle.
Every early Christian church had its own unique collection of Gospels that were written in secret and hidden in the church for reading. Every church's collection of gospels were radically different from the next and tended to reflect the place and time as much as the Jesus story. There were hundreds of different gospels- Jesus was Zoroastrian Magi in some of them, resurrected songbirds in some, had a wife and kids in some, etc. Over time, some stories began to be condensed, the more outlandish versions got thrown out, the Trinitarians tossed out the Monophysite literature, etc. until Constantine started standardizing and streamlining the story of Christ at the First Council of Nicaea in 325AD.
-->
@Shila
The Gospels were written in the Jesus generation. It’s accounts are based on eyewitness accounts. The Gospel writers were there documenting these eyewitness accounts.
Oral tradition was one possibility but it would have been rather
unreliable given that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the
death of Jesus
Alternatively, many New Testament Scholars agree that the Gospels were not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses but on the theology of the Gospel writer’s communities.
Alternatively, many New Testament Scholars agree that the Gospels were not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses but on the theology of the Gospel writer’s communities.
-->
@Elliott
The Gospels were written in the Jesus generation. It’s accounts are based on eyewitness accounts. The Gospel writers were there documenting these eyewitness accounts.
Oral tradition was one possibility but it would have been rather unreliable given that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of JesusAlternatively, many New Testament Scholars agree that the Gospels were not based on the testimony of eyewitnesses but on the theology of the Gospel writer’s communities.
Modern Christians still base their theology on the Gospel writers just like the Gospel writers based their accounts on the eyewitness accounts of their generation. But those eyewitness accounts were from the Jesus generation and therefore more closer to the events and facts surrounding Jesus.
-->
@Shila
The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.
The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Written a generation after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E), none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.
-->
@FLRW
The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.
Actually the Gospel authors are named Mark, Matthew, Luke and John who knew Jesus and the apostles.
-->
@FLRW
The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Written a generation after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E), none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.
You are expression the opinions of modern day biblical scholars 2000 years removed from Jesus’s generation.
The scholars don’t challenge what was said in the Gospels but argue when it was said, fully aware the oral tradition was how eyewitness accounts were preserved. Scholars even accept there are no original manuscripts available to back their claims.
-->
@Shila
Therefore we end up with typical mythology.
A mix of people, places and fantasy.
-->
@zedvictor4
The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Written a generation after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E), none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.
You are expression the opinions of modern day biblical scholars 2000 years removed from Jesus’s generation.
The scholars don’t challenge what was said in the Gospels but argue when it was said, fully aware the oral tradition was how eyewitness accounts were preserved. Scholars even accept there are no original manuscripts available to back their claims.
Therefore we end up with typical mythology.A mix of people, places and fantasy.
If that is your definition of Academia. A mix of people, places and fantasy ending up with typical mythology.
Rejecting the Gospel as a collection of eyewitness accounts of Jesus from his generation leaves you with nothing but speculation.
-->
@Shila
Rejecting the Gospel as a collection of eyewitness accounts of Jesus from his generation leaves you with nothing but speculation.
Exactly.
-->
@zedvictor4
Rejecting the Gospel as a collection of eyewitness accounts of Jesus from his generation leaves you with nothing but speculation.
Exactly.
Conversely, academia speculation is also fuelling rejection of the Gospels as a collection of eyewitness accounts of Jesus from his generation.
The oldest painting of Jesus comes from the Dura Europos Synagogue in Syria and was painted 200 years after his death.
-->
@FLRW
The oldest painting of Jesus comes from the Dura Europos Synagogue in Syria and was painted 200 years after his death.
Jesus looked terrible on the cross all punctured and bleeding. Hate to think what he looked like 200 years after his death. Might be the reason why he didn’t want to be seen again and has been missing since.
Isaiah describes the suffering saviour.
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
wow this thread blew up.
-->
@Shila
Sorry but Finkelstein is just wrong. Why Would Egyptians depict a failure committed by their own Pharaoh? Remember that artisan painters in Egypt were under strict jurisdiction of the central monarchy, so why would they risk their lives by painting an Egyptian defeat?
Also, Jericho has been inhabited since the early Bronze Age, so another lie from Mr. Finkelstein. He's disproving his own religion how sad
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sorry but Finkelstein is just wrong. Why Would Egyptians depict a failure committed by their own Pharaoh? Remember that artisan painters in Egypt were under strict jurisdiction of the central monarchy, so why would they risk their lives by painting an Egyptian defeat?Also, Jericho has been inhabited since the early Bronze Age, so another lie from Mr. Finkelstein. He's disproving his own religion how sad
“Among scholars, the case against the Exodus began crystallizing about 13 years ago. That’s when Finklestein, director of Tel Aviv University’s archeology institute, published the first English-language book detailing the results of intensive archeological surveys of what is believed to be the first Israelite settlements in the hilly regions of the West Bank.
The surveys, conducted during the 1970s and 1980s while Israel possessed what are now Palestinian territories, documented a lack of evidence for Joshua’s conquests in the 13th century BC and the indistinguishable nature of pottery, architecture, literary conventions and other cultural details between the Canaanites and the new settlers.
If there was no conquest, no evidence of a massive new settlement of an ethnically distinct people, scholars argue, then the case for a literal reading of Exodus all but collapses. The surveys’ final results were published three years ago.
The settlement research marked the turning point in archeological consensus on the issue, Dever said. It added to previous research that showed that Egypt’s voluminous ancient records contained not one mention of Israelites in the country, although one 1210 BC inscription did mention them in Canaan.
Kadesh Barnea in the east Sinai desert, where the Bible says the fleeing Israelites sojourned, was excavated twice in the 1950s and 1960s and produced no sign of settlement until three centuries after the Exodus was supposed to have occurred. The famous city of Jericho has been excavated several times and was found to have been abandoned during the 13th and 14th centuries BC.
Moreover, specialists in the Hebrew Bible say that the Exodus story is riddled with internal contradictions stemming from the fact that it was spliced together from two or three texts written at different times. One passage in Exodus, for instance, says that the bodies of the pharaoh’s charioteers were found on the shore, while the next verse says they sank to the bottom of the sea.
And some of the story’s features are mythic motifs found in other Near Eastern legends, said Ron Hendel, a professor of Hebrew Bible at UC Berkeley. Stories of babies found in baskets in the water by gods or royalty are common, he said, and half of the 10 plagues fall into a “formulaic genre of catastrophe” found in other Near Eastern texts.
Carol Meyers, a professor specializing in biblical studies and archeology at Duke University, said the ancients never intended their texts to be read literally. “People who try to find scientific explanations for the splitting of the Red Sea are missing the boat in understanding how ancient literature often mixed mythic ideas with historical recollections,” she said. “That wasn’t considered lying or deceit; it was a way to get ideas across.”
Virtually no scholar, for instance, accepts the biblical figure of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including women and children. The ancient desert at the time could not support so many nomads, scholars say, and the powerful Egyptian state kept tight security over the area, guarded by fortresses along the way.
Even Orthodox Jewish scholar Lawrence Schiffman said “you’d have to be a bit crazy” to accept that figure. He believes that the account in Joshua of a swift military campaign is less accurate than the Judges account of a gradual takeover of Canaan.”