Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Can Bible stories be proved historicaly?

Patok
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).
Excalibur
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 3:04:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

http://www.prevailmagazine.org...

List of just a few things for "some of the stories." I'm not going to post every artifact that has been unearthed, tested, dated and proven to be what the Bible claimed it was, as that would take a long time. Most of the answers you seek can very easily be found on Google.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 3:48:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why beat a dead horse? Israeli archeologists Israel Finkelstein and historian Neil Silberman have already established the historical fact the writers of the Bible told whoppers, tall tales about a "Hebrew" history that never occurred. Abrahamic religionists do not want to hear or think about real history of Jews as that undoes the Bible stories which are used to shore up Abrahamic religious doctrines. But the historical truth remains the same: Bible story events and people are most all fictitious, man-made creations to give their religious doctrines a phony "historical" foundation. Biggest example is the Moses and Exodus myth which covers up the true history of Israelites kicked out of Egypt as members of the failed Hyksos invaders. Archeologists found Israelite dwellings in their Egyptian capital of Avaris(!) Egypt. Instead of telling Jews the truth, Jews and Christians and Muslims are taught a complete LIE about ancient Israelites being slaves of Egypt. Again archeology debunked that myth as well as graves of Egyptian monument builders are most all Egyptian from dna sampling. Judaism is base on deceit after deceit of priests and scribes of Judah.

Now we have Celestial Torah Christianity that is pure of man-made political pollution of spiritual information from God. Don't need the man-made stuff except as reference material showing how God embedded Celestial Torah information within Bible stories, knowing someday that Abrahamic religions will fail due to historical discovery which has already happened to those of us paying attention to the historical roots and doctrines of Abrahamic believers.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 12:06:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 3:48:32 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Why beat a dead horse? Israeli archeologists Israel Finkelstein and historian Neil Silberman have already established the historical fact the writers of the Bible told whoppers, tall tales about a "Hebrew" history that never occurred. Abrahamic religionists do not want to hear or think about real history of Jews as that undoes the Bible stories which are used to shore up Abrahamic religious doctrines. But the historical truth remains the same: Bible story events and people are most all fictitious, man-made creations to give their religious doctrines a phony "historical" foundation. Biggest example is the Moses and Exodus myth which covers up the true history of Israelites kicked out of Egypt as members of the failed Hyksos invaders. Archeologists found Israelite dwellings in their Egyptian capital of Avaris(!) Egypt. Instead of telling Jews the truth, Jews and Christians and Muslims are taught a complete LIE about ancient Israelites being slaves of Egypt. Again archeology debunked that myth as well as graves of Egyptian monument builders are most all Egyptian from dna sampling. Judaism is base on deceit after deceit of priests and scribes of Judah.

Now we have Celestial Torah Christianity that is pure of man-made political pollution of spiritual information from God. Don't need the man-made stuff except as reference material showing how God embedded Celestial Torah information within Bible stories, knowing someday that Abrahamic religions will fail due to historical discovery which has already happened to those of us paying attention to the historical roots and doctrines of Abrahamic believers.

Go to almost any Atheist forum and you, who from your written words, appear to be a Atheist Palestinian supporter and Jew hater, will find all the support you need for your so-called great scholars of the Hebrew religion, Israel Finkaistein and Neil Silberman.

But we can supply many, many archaeologist who oppose their views, and many, many archaeological discoveries that support the Hebrew OT account of early Hebrew history.

Although it is said in Exodus 12: 40; that the Israelites had lived in Egypt for 430 years, in Galatians 3: 17; Paul makes it quite clear that they were in the land of Egypt for only 225 years.

Gal 3: 17; "God made a covenant with Abraham and promised to keep it. The Law that was given 430 years later, cannot break that covenant and cancel God"s promise."

And so, the reason why there are no records of the Exodus in the time period in which our historians have searched and which the bible students, who believe the erroneous statement that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years and must therefore have departed somewhere in the time period of the 1300 B.C, is because the Exodus and the expulsion of the old Hyksos Kings in the 15TH century B.C, are one and the same event.

Abraham was 85 when God first made his covenant with him, Isaac was born 15 years after the covenant, when Abraham was 100. Isaac was 60 when his son Jacob was born and Jacob was 130 when he was reunited with his son Joseph in the land of Egypt. 15+60+130=205. So we see that there was a period of 205 years between the covenant and the entry of the family of Israel into Egypt, where they dwelt for 225 years before departing 430 years after God's covenant was made with Abraham.

From the Encarta encyclopedia: "During the Middle Kingdom, the pharaohs developed a standing army and extended Egypt"s influence toward Libya and Palestine and deep into Nubia. The period ended in the early part of the 17TH century B.C, when Semetic invaders (Called Hyksos) swept into Egypt, most likely from Palestine and Syria. They would control Egypt for roughly two centuries." --- (which is pretty close if we are to believe the Bible.) And the establishment of a Hyksos dynasty in northern Egypt marked the beginning of the Second Intermediate period, a time of turmoil and disunity that lasted for more than 214 years etc.

This is practically spot on according to our reckoning of 225 years that the Israelite shepherds sojourned in Egypt.

From "The World Book Dictionary," (Hyksos) "A succession of
six foreign rulers of Egypt"from about 1730 B.C. to about 1570 B.C; Shepherd Kings."

And from the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Hyksos", invaders who were also called the Shepherd Kings, who in the time of "King Tutimaios" entered Egypt and took possession of it without striking a blow and it is said here that Joseph the historian, identifies them with the Israelites and that their reign ended in 1567B.C.

See the last verse of Gen 46; Because the Egyptians who were agriculturists, frowned on shepherds, after the Israelites moved into the land and had informed the king that they were shepherds, he gave to them the best land in the region of Goshen, and put them in charge of all his livestock, which, after Joseph had forced all the Egyptians to sell their livestock for grain, they, the Israelite shepherds were in control of all the animal herds and flocks in the land of Egypt.

Genesis 41: 44; The King said," I am the King---and no one in all Egypt shall so much as lift a hand or foot without Joseph"s permission. Without striking a blow, "Joseph" the first of the Shepherd Kings, who wore the King"s ring and was subject to no man other than the king, made all the people in the land of Egypt, except for the priests, sell their livestock and their lands in exchange for their own grain which, during the seven years of plenty, they had paid in tax, to the controlling authority of Egypt, of which authority, Joseph was the figurehead.

Gen 50: 23; Joseph lived to nurse his great grand children, the children of Machir, and Machir, according to the Good News Translation Joshua 17: 1; was a great military hero, while in Egypt, and more than likely one of the six Hyksos rulers. It was long after Joseph and all that generation had died that the King who had no memory of Joseph and who would later expel the Israelite shepherds, began to rule in Lower Egypt.

And it was he who ordered that all male Israelites were to be exposed on the river Nile, and who then made slaves of the Israelites, see Exodus 1: 8 to 12.

Encarta encyclopedia".. Sweeping south into Egypt, probably from Palestine and Syria, they and their nomadic followers captured Memphis and exacted tribute from the rest of the country. They established a stronghold at Avaris (possibly the later Tanis), on the northeastern border of the Nile delta, but left the territory above Memphis under the rule of tributary princes of the old nobility. These vassals started the nationalistic revolt that finally, under Ahmose I (reigned 1570-1546 BC), founder of the 18th Dynasty, drove out the foreign rulers."

According to Eusebius and Josephus, this is the time that the Israelites were ordered to get out of Egypt, and it was Ahmose, the ruling king of Egypt at that time who said to Moses and his brother Aaron, "Get out, you and your Israelites! Leave my country etc.

Kathleen Kenyon, a most respected archaeologist dug at Jericho over the seasons between 1952 to 1958, her results were confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction of Jericho to 1562 BC (Plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.

If the exodus of the Shepherd Kings did occur, according to Josephus, in 1567 BC, and Jericho was destroyed 40 years after the exodus, this would mean that Jericho fell in the year of 1527 BC, 1562- 38=1524. This is within 3 years of Kathleen Kenyon"s date of 1562 (plus/minus 38 years). The Exodus of the Israelites, was the expulsion of the Shepherd Kings.

The Hebrew OT don't lie, me old mate celestialtorahteacher, but you do.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:16:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

Some can, try googling "Bible archaeology".

Most cannot.

However, it is significant that nothing can be proven historically, or scientifically false despite the fervour with which some like to think it can..
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:31:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 4:16:21 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However, it is significant that nothing can be proven historically, or scientifically false despite the fervour with which some like to think it can..
That is yet another of your malignant lies!

I have challenged you many times to take your Paranormal/Supernatural claims of a literal ' holy-spirit ' presence / influence to the James Randi Educational Foundation & have your jebus prove it literally exists!

Like your predecessors who tried and failed, when you think you have grown a back-bone & want to try, JREF are still waiting for those like YOU!

Meanwhile, you remain as always a proven LIAR, DECEIVER, Botchtower Vomit and an all round jebus' reject! (1 John 3:6, 8) KJV Story book
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:40:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.

Acts 22: 6; "As I (Saul=Paul) was traveling and coming near Damascus, about midday a bright light from the sky flashed suddenly around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you Lord?' I asked; I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute,' he said to me."

It was then that Saul, realised that the man Jesus from Nazareth, who had founded the religious body, which he was now persecuting, had been given divine glory by his own God, the God of Abraham, and was then incontestably divine.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:46:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I am a muslim and I believe Qur'an which is the last book from God and it is authentic.

Do I believe that The Bible true archeologically and historically? Maybe.
But I believe that The Bible of today has been written by men, It is not God's book.
I say this, because I read books about the history of Christianity.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 5:05:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 4:40:08 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.

Acts 22: 6; "As I (Saul=Paul) was traveling and coming near Damascus, about midday a bright light from the sky flashed suddenly around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you Lord?' I asked; I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute,' he said to me."

It was then that Saul, realised that the man Jesus from Nazareth, who had founded the religious body, which he was now persecuting, had been given divine glory by his own God, the God of Abraham, and was then incontestably divine.

Thank you for confirming my point. No human Jesus. You aren't even quoting Paul himself but 'Luke' who wrote much, much later. Lol.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."

Relevance?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 5:47:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 5:05:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:40:08 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.

Acts 22: 6; "As I (Saul=Paul) was traveling and coming near Damascus, about midday a bright light from the sky flashed suddenly around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you Lord?' I asked; I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute,' he said to me."

It was then that Saul, realised that the man Jesus from Nazareth, who had founded the religious body, which he was now persecuting, had been given divine glory by his own God, the God of Abraham, and was then incontestably divine.

Thank you for confirming my point. No human Jesus. You aren't even quoting Paul himself but 'Luke' who wrote much, much later. Lol.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."

Relevance?

The fact that Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul is revealed in Col 4: 14; and Philemon verse 24. While 2nd Timothy 4: 11; shows that Luke was the only believer who was still with Paul just before he died, which can be seen in verse 6..

Acts 9: 1-6; Luke speaks of Saul's conversion when he was confronted by the glorified body of Jesus, "As Saul was coming near Damascus, etc, "HE" fell to the ground, etc: The voice said to "HIM", etc.

But Acts 22: 6-8; is written in the first person, Paul is dictating to his companion Luke, As "I" was traveling near Damascus, etc, "I" fell to the Ground, etc: The voice said to "ME" etc, etc.

So my friend, I was quoting Paul, who dictated verbatim to Luke, what had happened to him on the road to Damascus.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 6:01:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 5:47:23 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:05:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:40:08 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.

Acts 22: 6; "As I (Saul=Paul) was traveling and coming near Damascus, about midday a bright light from the sky flashed suddenly around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you Lord?' I asked; I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute,' he said to me."

It was then that Saul, realised that the man Jesus from Nazareth, who had founded the religious body, which he was now persecuting, had been given divine glory by his own God, the God of Abraham, and was then incontestably divine.

Thank you for confirming my point. No human Jesus. You aren't even quoting Paul himself but 'Luke' who wrote much, much later. Lol.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."

Relevance?

The fact that Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul is revealed in Col 4: 14; and Philemon verse 24. While 2nd Timothy 4: 11; shows that Luke was the only believer who was still with Paul just before he died, which can be seen in verse 6..

Acts 9: 1-6; Luke speaks of Saul's conversion when he was confronted by the glorified body of Jesus, "As Saul was coming near Damascus, etc, "HE" fell to the ground, etc: The voice said to "HIM", etc.

But Acts 22: 6-8; is written in the first person, Paul is dictating to his companion Luke, As "I" was traveling near Damascus, etc, "I" fell to the Ground, etc: The voice said to "ME" etc, etc.

So my friend, I was quoting Paul, who dictated verbatim to Luke, what had happened to him on the road to Damascus.

You have to be kidding. Modern scholarship does not accept that 'Luke' was a companion to Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Do you really believe that Luke could know the full story of a human Jesus and not say a word to Paul? It's obvious that Paul has not a single detail about the life of Jesus and what he taught. Instead he gets all his information from OT scripture and Greek philosophy. How can that be if Luke and Paul were companions? It's not possible.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 7:02:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 4:46:24 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I am a muslim and I believe Qur'an which is the last book from God and it is authentic.

Do I believe that The Bible true archeologically and historically? Maybe.
But I believe that The Bible of today has been written by men, It is not God's book.
I say this, because I read books about the history of Christianity.

Neither is Muhammad's book God's book as Muhammad fell for all our Jewish myths of origin that archeological science has debunked as historical documentation of Jews. So in order for Muhammad to have anymore spiritual credibility than the mythical Jews he believed to be real people, Muhammad would have said in his book not to believe in mythical people -- but he didn't. He was taken in by the myths so his book is spiritually worthless as you cannot derive spiritual authority from man-made myths.

These are the End Times for all Abrahamic religions and that's a good thing for future generations. Abrahamic believers refuse to look morally at their religious foundations, such as the character of Abraham thought to be a model of "righteousness". Why? Because this mythical person was willing to sacrifice the most cherished of human love bonds -- the bond between parents and their children. This is an act of INSANITY and if Abe tried his murderous intent of Isaac in our times, Abe would be rightfully locked up in a mental hospital prison for the criminally insane for many years for attempted murder of his child. And yet Abrahamic believers, all three sets of them, Jews, Pauline Christians, and Muslims, are told to believe Abraham represents righteousness. A willingness to murder your family is considered piety. And that is insanity, plain and simple. Abrahamic believers all have their insane side of belief in bad religious ideas that when acted out cause death and destruction of innocents. Or do I lie and the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims is filled with brotherly love and respect for human life?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 7:43:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 6:01:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:47:23 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:05:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:40:08 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.

Acts 22: 6; "As I (Saul=Paul) was traveling and coming near Damascus, about midday a bright light from the sky flashed suddenly around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you Lord?' I asked; I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute,' he said to me."

It was then that Saul, realised that the man Jesus from Nazareth, who had founded the religious body, which he was now persecuting, had been given divine glory by his own God, the God of Abraham, and was then incontestably divine.

Thank you for confirming my point. No human Jesus. You aren't even quoting Paul himself but 'Luke' who wrote much, much later. Lol.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."

Relevance?

The fact that Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul is revealed in Col 4: 14; and Philemon verse 24. While 2nd Timothy 4: 11; shows that Luke was the only believer who was still with Paul just before he died, which can be seen in verse 6..

Acts 9: 1-6; Luke speaks of Saul's conversion when he was confronted by the glorified body of Jesus, "As Saul was coming near Damascus, etc, "HE" fell to the ground, etc: The voice said to "HIM", etc.

But Acts 22: 6-8; is written in the first person, Paul is dictating to his companion Luke, As "I" was traveling near Damascus, etc, "I" fell to the Ground, etc: The voice said to "ME" etc, etc.

So my friend, I was quoting Paul, who dictated verbatim to Luke, what had happened to him on the road to Damascus.

You have to be kidding. Modern scholarship does not accept that 'Luke' was a companion to Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Do you really believe that Luke could know the full story of a human Jesus and not say a word to Paul? It's obvious that Paul has not a single detail about the life of Jesus and what he taught. Instead he gets all his information from OT scripture and Greek philosophy. How can that be if Luke and Paul were companions? It's not possible.

Colossians 4: 14; Luke our dear doctor, and Demas send you their greetings.

Philemon verse 23- 24; Epaphras, who is in prison with me for the sake of Christ Jesus, sends you his greetings, and so do my fellow workers Mark (Who is believed to be the son of Peter), Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke.

2nd Timothy 4: 6; "As for me, the time has come for me to be sacrificed; the time is here for me to leave this life, etc. Then in verse 11; Only Luke is with me, etc.

In each and everyone of his letters, Paul claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. He speaks of the fact that God rose Jesus from death. He speaks of the spiritual Jesus that he only had any experience with, as having once been a man.

What more do you want of Paul? He never met the man Jesus, the only scriptures that he could refer to in order to support his belief in Jesus, was the OT, as in his day, there was no other book of scriptures.

Why do you continue to attack, that, to which you are totally blind, death, and dull of mind?
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:09:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 7:43:25 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:01:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:47:23 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:05:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:40:08 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/24/2015 12:26:07 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).

I always find it interesting how critical and skeptical people will be of religious texts compared to other ancient texts. Much of what makes up both the Torah (Old Testament too) and the New Testament are considered to be valid and valuable historical works.

In fact, ironically, most of our historical data and information that is put into text books were derived from these ancient religious texts (dates, names, places etc) but then we scrub out the stuff that scares us or that we don't understand or particularly like.

Most of the ancient writings regarding the life and deeds of Alexander the Great were written hundreds of years after his death and none were written right after his conquests yet everyone venerates him and takes his story as historical fact. Yet when the Bible has passages written mere decades after (~20 years is the earliest) everyone freaks out and demands more proof.

There were indeed contemporary accounts of Alexander, unlike Jesus. Unfortunately these have been lost although we have texts based on those sources. The same cannot be said for Jesus even though Jesus is markedly closer to us in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[1] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[1] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of his works survived, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[1]

The problem with the Jesus story is that there were contemporary historians around who we have preserved writings from, and they should have recorded something if Jesus did a fraction of things that are claimed. And yet, nothing. In fact Paul was a contemporary and obviously should have known the entire story, and yet there is not a single detail about an Earthly life for a human Jesus.

Acts 22: 6; "As I (Saul=Paul) was traveling and coming near Damascus, about midday a bright light from the sky flashed suddenly around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you Lord?' I asked; I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute,' he said to me."

It was then that Saul, realised that the man Jesus from Nazareth, who had founded the religious body, which he was now persecuting, had been given divine glory by his own God, the God of Abraham, and was then incontestably divine.

Thank you for confirming my point. No human Jesus. You aren't even quoting Paul himself but 'Luke' who wrote much, much later. Lol.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."

Relevance?

The fact that Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul is revealed in Col 4: 14; and Philemon verse 24. While 2nd Timothy 4: 11; shows that Luke was the only believer who was still with Paul just before he died, which can be seen in verse 6..

Acts 9: 1-6; Luke speaks of Saul's conversion when he was confronted by the glorified body of Jesus, "As Saul was coming near Damascus, etc, "HE" fell to the ground, etc: The voice said to "HIM", etc.

But Acts 22: 6-8; is written in the first person, Paul is dictating to his companion Luke, As "I" was traveling near Damascus, etc, "I" fell to the Ground, etc: The voice said to "ME" etc, etc.

So my friend, I was quoting Paul, who dictated verbatim to Luke, what had happened to him on the road to Damascus.

You have to be kidding. Modern scholarship does not accept that 'Luke' was a companion to Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Do you really believe that Luke could know the full story of a human Jesus and not say a word to Paul? It's obvious that Paul has not a single detail about the life of Jesus and what he taught. Instead he gets all his information from OT scripture and Greek philosophy. How can that be if Luke and Paul were companions? It's not possible.

Colossians 4: 14; Luke our dear doctor, and Demas send you their greetings.

Philemon verse 23- 24; Epaphras, who is in prison with me for the sake of Christ Jesus, sends you his greetings, and so do my fellow workers Mark (Who is believed to be the son of Peter), Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke.

2nd Timothy 4: 6; "As for me, the time has come for me to be sacrificed; the time is here for me to leave this life, etc. Then in verse 11; Only Luke is with me, etc.

Oh for pity's sake. Did you even click on the link I provided? Philemon just lists some Luke who was a co-worker. Big deal. The other two letters aren't authentic Pauline texts.

In each and everyone of his letters, Paul claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. He speaks of the fact that God rose Jesus from death. He speaks of the spiritual Jesus that he only had any experience with, as having once been a man.

Still no detail about his life and teachings. Not a one.

What more do you want of Paul? He never met the man Jesus, the only scriptures that he could refer to in order to support his belief in Jesus, was the OT, as in his day, there was no other book of scriptures.

Pay attention. If he had Luke, the author of Luke-Acts, as a companion as you claim, then Luke would and should have told him everything about Jesus. Surely Luke would not have withheld this information. Paul had no need to meet Jesus if he had an eye-witness to everything as a travelling companion. Yet Paul knows nothing of the gospel story other than the crucifixion/resurrection which, for him, happened in a heavenly realm, not on Earth.

Why do you continue to attack, that, to which you are totally blind, death, and dull of mind?

You are the one making mistakes, not me. In your first response you tried to pass off hearsay (at best, more likely fabrications) as evidence. Read back through the above and tell me who is really "blind, death[sic], and dull of mind". I'm fairly sure it isn't me.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:18:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 2:52:49 PM, Patok wrote:
This is the question especially for theists. Prove me that your holy book contains historical and archeological facts. Prove me that some of the stories from the Bible might occurred. No matter if it's Maccaben uprising, Moses going through the Red Sea (of course if it really was a Red Sea, not the Reed Sea as we can read in some verses of the Bible) or Jesus performing his miracles (I'm interested especially in this last one).: :

Those who use history to find the Truth will remain very confused. All you have to do is listen to the voice of the Lord and obey all His commandments. Then you will learn who you are and how you got here.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Much of the Bible is not historical. There is no proof any deity exists, or anything attributed to Jesus is true!