S
Sante
Guest
Gary, you are sadly misinformed. You have to stop limiting yourself to tainted sources with an agenda. Here is a good start to open your eyes a bit.
bandoli.no/archaeology.htm
bandoli.no/archaeology.htm
- Status
W
Windfish
Guest
Where to begin?
EDIT: I just read more of your post history. Do you really hold that Christ was a composite figure of previous “dying, rising gods?” You know that whole thing has been exploded since the early 20th century, right? It only finds currency among really young (sometimes old) ignorant atheists.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Sante if thats a link to open our eyes we will see more with our eyes closed lolol.
Your bring me a site that compares Jesus to santa lol. The majority of historians (and listen to this next part very carefully) agree that the historical Jesus exists, This goes for historian experts that are theists as well as atheists? Would you like me to bring quotes from expert atheist historians that agree with theists on the historical Jesus? Jesus mythers are laughed off every debating stage by even their atheist contemporaries so that link that you brought is automatically debunked by that case alone.
As I said before Josephus is a great early source for Jesus. The first passage was only considered a partial interpolation by the majority of expert historians but the second passage leaves no doubt that is was 100% authentic and in Josephus’s style.
William Ramsey was an expert historian who was an atheist and by the time he was done on his archeological investigation he became a christian:thumbsup:
Next time you decide to link us up to a site please bring us something from expertsthat are not considered among the lunatic fringe of academia.
If you wanna know a bit more then I would suggest reading up on Doctor William Lane Craigs research as he studied under some of the best new testament historians ever.
Also read up on the gospel of Luke whose historical accuracy is much better then even secular accounts and have been confirmed through archeological digs.
Good luck my friend
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Correct Windfish. Sante whatever you say please dont tell us that your a Jesus Myther. As I said in my previous post they are even considered dangerous by contempory Atheist historians
Where to begin?
EDIT: I just read more of your post history. Do you really hold that Christ was a composite figure of previous “dying, rising gods?” You know that whole thing has been exploded since the early 20th century, right? It only finds currency among really young (sometimes old) ignorant atheists.
. You need to update your link information, and it is just the opposite: Most archeological digs are coming up in favor of the new testament. Please read up on the historical accuracy of the gospel of Luke, which is supported by numerous archeological finds. Once I read that link that Sante brought up this thread should have been closed. Jesus Mythers are considered on the same level as David Koresh followers:thumbsup:
W
Windfish
Guest
Also for Sante: There really are no contradictions in the Bible. Contradictions are things that cannot both be true at the same time, and we really don’t see that in the Bible at all. If we’re talking about the Gospels, there has been a lot of talk about discrepancies, but not contradictions. Even there, though, the majority of them present no problem, and many of them, I have found, are fabricated by critics (most of them atheists). In any case, the Gospels are works of ancient historiography, and it would be a mistake to judge them as modern historical works. Historians from that era arranged their content along very different criteria. Today, it is common sense to arrange them chronologically, but then, events could be arranged thematically, etc.
Ancient history is a tough field. We place so much confidence and trust in modern methodologies and technologies, but when we’re dealing with ancient history, things are not so clear-cut. Just because there may not be corroborating evidence for a particular claim in the Bible that happened thousands of years ago does not mean 1) that it never happened or 2) that there isn’t any evidence at all - it may yet be discovered. And if we look at all the discoveries that have been made, especially in the 20th century, we have found that the Bible is quite a remarkably accurate historical text. Every discovery we’ve ever made has supported it, not disproven it. Just the other day I was reading about how they found Sodom and Gomorrah, and found traces of, I think, brimstone! Yikes!
When it comes to Genesis, which is usually a controversial topic among Protestants and atheists, we take the view of the earliest Christians and the Church. That is, Genesis presents a cosmology, sure, but not a scientific one. It has a theological purpose, not a scientific one, and we see this view from the earliest Christians like St. Augustine. If you take a look at the Catechism, it goes deeper into the do’s and don’ts of Biblical interpretation.
When it comes to the historical claims of Christianity, we’re on pretty good, remarkable even, footing. No other people, let alone other religions, have as a reliable a history as Jesus Christ. It astounds me that an otherwise obscure figure (he was a very poor man in a very obscure part of the empire, after all) would merit the attention of historians like Tacitus. Ancient history is simply not for people like Jesus. Ancient history is for conquerors, rulers, and military conquests. And so it is saying something about the impact of Christ that he merited such documentation despite being none of these things.
Anyway, I’m actually doing a lot of research on the history. Can anyone recommend some good books?
Ancient history is a tough field. We place so much confidence and trust in modern methodologies and technologies, but when we’re dealing with ancient history, things are not so clear-cut. Just because there may not be corroborating evidence for a particular claim in the Bible that happened thousands of years ago does not mean 1) that it never happened or 2) that there isn’t any evidence at all - it may yet be discovered. And if we look at all the discoveries that have been made, especially in the 20th century, we have found that the Bible is quite a remarkably accurate historical text. Every discovery we’ve ever made has supported it, not disproven it. Just the other day I was reading about how they found Sodom and Gomorrah, and found traces of, I think, brimstone! Yikes!
When it comes to Genesis, which is usually a controversial topic among Protestants and atheists, we take the view of the earliest Christians and the Church. That is, Genesis presents a cosmology, sure, but not a scientific one. It has a theological purpose, not a scientific one, and we see this view from the earliest Christians like St. Augustine. If you take a look at the Catechism, it goes deeper into the do’s and don’ts of Biblical interpretation.
When it comes to the historical claims of Christianity, we’re on pretty good, remarkable even, footing. No other people, let alone other religions, have as a reliable a history as Jesus Christ. It astounds me that an otherwise obscure figure (he was a very poor man in a very obscure part of the empire, after all) would merit the attention of historians like Tacitus. Ancient history is simply not for people like Jesus. Ancient history is for conquerors, rulers, and military conquests. And so it is saying something about the impact of Christ that he merited such documentation despite being none of these things.
Anyway, I’m actually doing a lot of research on the history. Can anyone recommend some good books?
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
You know, from the links you’re posting, you are not exactly the best representative for freethought. “I know the Bible is wrong because the skeptics annotated bible says so!” Seriously, these skeptics’ sites are put together for one reason - to mock what they can’t be bothered to understand. If you are truly interested in thinking for yourself, research both sides of the story.
First, you should understand - even if you can point to a clear contradiction between the Genesis account and cosmology, that does not hurt the theology of the Church in any way. You ask how the Bible can be inspired in the face of such problems?
Catechism quote:
That’s the primary purpose of the Scriptures. Not to be a science textbook or a math textbook or even a history textbook. It has good history in it, to be sure, but the point that you can take to the bank is: Scripture is intended as a vehicle for that which is necessary for our salvation. In that light it is infallible. Whether it meets modern engineering standards for precision when describing the construction of pools… absolutely beside the point.
Now, having said that, you still don’t have a case. In “God created the heavens and the earth,” earth is generally understood to be our universe, not our planet. Light in the universe did indeed predate the sun’s creation, by several billion years.
B
buffalo
Guest
T
twb1621
Guest
Sante, The only time scripture conflicts with itself is when someone offers a personal interpretation of one verse based on their individual opinion which ends up conflicting with another verse. When that happens, it is not scripture that conflicts with itself, but the reader conflicting with scripture. In other words, your interpretation is wrong if it conflicts with another verse, commonly found in protestant generated beliefs.
Respectfully, you are a “lapsed Catholic” due to your lack of knowledge in the faith and scripture, which may or may not be your own doing. But certainly it would be a great benefit to you to properly learn what you lack knowledge of so you may make the most informed decision for what you choose. God’s Grace and peace.
W
Windfish
Guest
Awesome.
T
twb1621
Guest
If I may interject;
That’s odd, that’s why I am on these forums also… Yours is a rather arrogant position for someone who has no scholarship in most likely any relevant field of study. What do you support your opinions and adopted beliefs on and what is your professional experience if you don’t mind my asking?
Sante, How can the earth exist from nothing? think grasshopper, how insignificant your question truly is in the scheme of things. How can anything be created from nothing; that is a question much deeper than these questions you are asking. If God created all from nothing which more and more scholars are concluding that all “matter” has in fact been created intentionally and in an organized method not possible by chance alone, but only by a supernatural intelligence (as atheistic scholars prefer to put it), how could you or anyone understand, being mere physical beings with vastly limited knowledge… the most “brilliant” minds of our times can’t fathom it. And when you understand this in itself you will no longer be asking “how can there be light before the sun”…
As I responded to you before, scripture does not conflict with itself, but the reader may certainly conflict with scripture. God is not the author of error, He is the Creator and author of man’s free will. Man is the author of error. I would be most eager to know your experience and qualifications in presenting the opinions you post here. Perhaps you can provide the sources you obtained your adopted conclusions on. I sincerely ask this of you.
T
twb1621
Guest
I agree… Thank you my brother…
Peace
T
twb1621
Guest
Hi Anti, first I must point out to you that if we all followed the principles you follow in accepting or rejecting information provided us (such as recorded history in general), none of your opinions would have any basis for consideration whatsoever. In fact, we would have to disregard most of recorded history regardless of subject.
In any event, you must have over looked some posts as you responded to this but not the others. I presented you quotes from ancient non-Biblical text information that you may or may not have been presented before. Regardless, any time you are ready to credibly refute these posts, please feel free. I anticipate our continued discussions.
B
buffalo
Guest
Is all light visible?
G
Garyjohn2
Guest
Sante,
Thank you for your concern of my knowledge and well-being. I wasn’t able to reply sooner, but it looks like my peers have largely answered for me, and have done a good job in doing so. You would be wise to listen to their posts!
I am a huge fan and reader of history and anthropology, and I think for myself in these respects. I know for a fact that archeological discoveries have supported events in the Bible time and time again, both from the new and old testaments. It’s really kind of amazing. You can get this information online, from books, or on the history channel even. It’s not hard or hidden.
The book of Genesis is a history, but it’s an allegory at the same time. Look into how the church interprets this book! If it were as simple as saying “look the earth was created before the sun, this whole book is bunk” then why would anyone believe in Christianity, or Judiasm for that matter? Respectfully, you are obviously missing something here.
It’s not too late the come back Sante. I will pray for you.
Thank you for your concern of my knowledge and well-being. I wasn’t able to reply sooner, but it looks like my peers have largely answered for me, and have done a good job in doing so. You would be wise to listen to their posts!
I am a huge fan and reader of history and anthropology, and I think for myself in these respects. I know for a fact that archeological discoveries have supported events in the Bible time and time again, both from the new and old testaments. It’s really kind of amazing. You can get this information online, from books, or on the history channel even. It’s not hard or hidden.
The book of Genesis is a history, but it’s an allegory at the same time. Look into how the church interprets this book! If it were as simple as saying “look the earth was created before the sun, this whole book is bunk” then why would anyone believe in Christianity, or Judiasm for that matter? Respectfully, you are obviously missing something here.
It’s not too late the come back Sante.
I will pray for you.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
You are lying on purpose (or ignorant of the facts). We have archeological evidence of the genealogy of the Israelites from Mesopotamia to Caanite to Israel, disproval of the “Zoroastrian Influence” myth, evidence for most of the prophets and judges’ existence, and all this New Testament stuff mentioned earlier. You also shouldn’t dismiss what hasn’t been found as being disproved. Here’s a good link:
mindspring.com/~mamcgee/grace_archaeology.html
H
humble_catholic
Guest
I love you guys. God bless you all. this was some of the best appologetics work I have ever seen. My guess is that this case is closed big time
T
Tuno
Guest
With all due respect to faith and its exigencies, and as a former well catechized RC, it would appear that the posters on here claiming increasing evidence for the substantiality of Biblical events have created a world quite different than the one most of us, including Biblical scholars, live in. The majority of these, not having a stake in a purely Roman Catholic outcome, would appear to agree with Northrop Frye that Biblical coincidences with history are just that: coincidental. Further, that the authors of the Gospels had no intention of historicity, only of such mythology as might be useful in the transmogrification of ordinary human awareness into a state susceptible of Divinity. And that though there were individuals of accomplishment like a Jesus, He or those were not historic figures as mistakenly understood to by Christendom today in its hundreds of facets. He and they are much more likely exemplars of an ages old model of transformation polished at last by Greek influence into an alleged historic person whose popularized and therefore disempowered “teaching” in later times was politically and forcefully imposed on the Western world.
As for the references posted by twb1621, etc, even Josephus, earliest on the list, was born as many as four years after Jesus’ alleged physical or likely spiritual resurrection and possible departure for points East with his Mother. Thus even Josephus second and more likely reference to an historic Jesus is not eye witness. As to his calling him the “one who was called Christ,” I do not dispute that there may have been such a person, but claim that the teachings attributed to Jesus are ancient and esoteric ways, not the religious practices of the Church we know today. This is indeed the crux, if you will, of the matter: mistaking the exemplification of parables for history.
And once again, it is critical to note that in this society we equate the word “myth” with “fairy tale.” In the original sense it was no such thing. Myth/Mythos is the stuff of such psycho-spiritual maps as in the right hands can guide one to spiritual accomplishment. If the Gospels as such, and those teachings as presented by the Church “worked” for various Saints after great exhaustive diligence, it is because inherent in them is the pattern of transformation, NOT because a particular person allegedly originated them. The same goes for scholars who might have gotten “faith” as a result of studying Luke or whatever. Yeheshua at best, and gloriously!, properly utilized those parables and succeeded, and is therefor a transcendent exemplar of such teachings.
He was later saddled with singularity by decree of the Church, and thus we are robbed of the kinds of possibilities inherent in the very parables ascribed to Him as they were originally intended. So a reversion of the Church to is actual origins would be in fact of inestimable benefit to its members though there might be a temporary loss of face. But which of us has no closeted skeletons? Y’all on here have all read history. Please don’t tell me that all the Biblical themes and the sayings of Jesus didn’t pre-date Him by even thousands of years, even his very name as Iosos, and everything from a virgin birth in a manger to a resurrection.
So it is well and good that the Church is what it is for the most part, save the horror inflicted by it and other religions on innocents in the name of God. But it ought to be recognized that while the Church fulfills a wonderful and useful form of worship called “ascending exoteric” its actual foundations are “descending esoteric.”* It is just a matter of history and the structural possibilities of human awareness growing into it maturity as Conscious Awareness. So have a religion if you like; that’s fine. But there is an aspect of growth the RC and other faiths don’t rightly account for and tend to distort for those who accomplish or who serendipitously receive a grace of insight and may feel forced to contort it into an inadequate dogma which stems from historicizing Myth in its proper sense.
As for the references posted by twb1621, etc, even Josephus, earliest on the list, was born as many as four years after Jesus’ alleged physical or likely spiritual resurrection and possible departure for points East with his Mother. Thus even Josephus second and more likely reference to an historic Jesus is not eye witness. As to his calling him the “one who was called Christ,” I do not dispute that there may have been such a person, but claim that the teachings attributed to Jesus are ancient and esoteric ways, not the religious practices of the Church we know today. This is indeed the crux, if you will, of the matter: mistaking the exemplification of parables for history.
And once again, it is critical to note that in this society we equate the word “myth” with “fairy tale.” In the original sense it was no such thing. Myth/Mythos is the stuff of such psycho-spiritual maps as in the right hands can guide one to spiritual accomplishment. If the Gospels as such, and those teachings as presented by the Church “worked” for various Saints after great exhaustive diligence, it is because inherent in them is the pattern of transformation, NOT because a particular person allegedly originated them. The same goes for scholars who might have gotten “faith” as a result of studying Luke or whatever. Yeheshua at best, and gloriously!, properly utilized those parables and succeeded, and is therefor a transcendent exemplar of such teachings.
He was later saddled with singularity by decree of the Church, and thus we are robbed of the kinds of possibilities inherent in the very parables ascribed to Him as they were originally intended. So a reversion of the Church to is actual origins would be in fact of inestimable benefit to its members though there might be a temporary loss of face. But which of us has no closeted skeletons? Y’all on here have all read history. Please don’t tell me that all the Biblical themes and the sayings of Jesus didn’t pre-date Him by even thousands of years, even his very name as Iosos, and everything from a virgin birth in a manger to a resurrection.
So it is well and good that the Church is what it is for the most part, save the horror inflicted by it and other religions on innocents in the name of God. But it ought to be recognized that while the Church fulfills a wonderful and useful form of worship called “ascending exoteric” its actual foundations are “descending esoteric.”* It is just a matter of history and the structural possibilities of human awareness growing into it maturity as Conscious Awareness. So have a religion if you like; that’s fine. But there is an aspect of growth the RC and other faiths don’t rightly account for and tend to distort for those who accomplish or who serendipitously receive a grace of insight and may feel forced to contort it into an inadequate dogma which stems from historicizing Myth in its proper sense.
Code:
* The Star of David is such an excellent symbol for the proper use of both ascending exoteric and descending esoteric. No wonder that Jesus, though allegedly not the biological son of Joseph whose geneology is given, not Mary's (???) is from the line of David, and a Star in that succession in the Order of Melchisedek. Do you remember Him, who was never born nor died? What do you suppose *that* story is all about, in fact and practice? Wachet Auf!
B
buffalo
Guest
The purpose of the Gospels are to record faithfully that which Jesus said and did.
“these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Dei Verbum
The apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they and others of the apostolic age, handed onto us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundation of our faith: the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain,** that the four Gospels just named, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation**, until the day when he was taken up…The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form, others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.
T
Tuno
Guest
Yes, of course; Buffalo. That is your belief.
faith [feyth]
–noun
be·lief [bih-leef]
–noun
My interpretation stands at least as worthy of consideration. Are you saying it isn’t on the grounds that you believe it isn’t?
My own added definition: Beleive: “to live as if… The adult word for ‘let’s pretend.’”
I’m not saying don’t believe. We all do to some degree or other. I’m just saying be honest about it. Own your choice, and own that it is a choice. Who would have a problem with that?
faith [feyth]
–noun
- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
- belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
- belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
- a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
- the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
- the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
- Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
be·lief [bih-leef]
–noun
- something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
- confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
- confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
- a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
My interpretation stands at least as worthy of consideration. Are you saying it isn’t on the grounds that you believe it isn’t?
My own added definition: Beleive: “to live as if… The adult word for ‘let’s pretend.’”
I’m not saying don’t believe. We all do to some degree or other. I’m just saying be honest about it. Own your choice, and own that it is a choice. Who would have a problem with that?
B
buffalo
Guest
All beliefs are not equivalent. The Catholic Church alone possess the “fullness of truth”.
Padding the Case for the New Atheism
Recently there has been a flurry of books from the “New Atheists.” Such figures as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have been holding forth to state . . . well, not anything new.
The reason there is nothing new to say is that there cannot, by the nature of the discussion, be anything new to say. When it came to the question “Does God exist?,” St. Thomas could only think of two reasonable objections in the whole history of human thought.Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist, because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.
Every reasonable atheistic argument is a restatement of one or both of these basic points.
more…
- Status