Evidence for the Bible / God (1 Viewer)

[tarheel]

Evidence for the Bible / God

Critics claim there is no evidence for God or the Bible / New Testament. Many scholars have been refuting that idea for centuries, noting archaeological evidence, fulfilled Messianic prophecies, and so on.

This thread is for debate on those issues.

p.s. This thread is being created again because we can't argue for the existence or non-existence of God in the religion forum. Here in the philosophy forum we can.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Care to share with us the "scholars" and the "archaeological evidence" that means direct evidence of God?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Evidence for the Bible / God

Critics claim there is no evidence for God or the Bible / New Testament. Many scholars have been refuting that idea for centuries, noting archaeological evidence, fulfilled Messianic prophecies, and so on.

This thread is for debate on those issues.

p.s. This thread is being created again because we can't argue for the existence or non-existence of God in the religion forum. Here in the philosophy forum we can.

Okay, as far as I know, there is evidence for some of the events and people mentioned in the Bible, from the writings of Historians, but there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the religious scriptures and there is every reason to believe a great deal of the Old Testament is etiological in nature.

 

[CMPancake]

Adding onto OrphanSlug's questions, what about these so called "fulfilled Messianic prophecies." Because if I remember correctly, the old testament predicted that Egypt would be a barren wasteland.

 

[Logicman]

Okay, as far as I know, there is evidence for some of the events and people mentioned in the Bible, from the writings of Historians, but there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the religious scriptures....

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - bethinking.org

and there is every reason to believe a great deal of the Old Testament is etiological in nature.

The origins of Christianity are found in the person of one Jesus Christ of Bethlehem / Nazareth, and the Old Testament scriptures.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Rebutted wishful thinking. Next?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - bethinking.org



The origins of Christianity are found in the person of one Jesus Christ of Bethlehem / Nazareth, and the Old Testament scriptures.

That's what I said - all references come from the religious scriptures. I'm just pointing out that there are no outside, contemporary, verifications.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Adding onto OrphanSlug's questions, what about these so called "fulfilled Messianic prophecies." Because if I remember correctly, the old testament predicted that Egypt would be a barren wasteland.

For some odd reason, I can't find OrphanSlug's comments - maybe my settings or something - but it bears note that not all the prophecies were fulfilled. In addition, the person named Jesus in the Bible descends through the cursed king, Jeconiah. God's curse was that NO descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne of Israel.

That right there bumps Jesus out of the running.

 

[zyzygy]

Care to share with us the "scholars" and the "archaeological evidence" that means direct evidence of God?

Presenting something that does not exist certainly is a challenge.

 

[zyzygy]

Adding onto OrphanSlug's questions, what about these so called "fulfilled Messianic prophecies." Because if I remember correctly, the old testament predicted that Egypt would be a barren wasteland.

According to yet another failed bible prophecy the city of Tyre should not exist.

 

[Paralogic]

p.s. This thread is being created again because we can't argue for the existence or non-existence of God in the religion forum. Here in the philosophy forum we can.

We can and we have and we have settled on it. By "we" I mean the intelligent among us.

No claim for any supernatural being has ever been substantiated. Therefore no claim for any supernatural being is true, call it Bible or Mountain god or spirit god of the pacific seas or anything you want.

There's no poing in arguing the specifics of a book written by goat herders 2,000 years ago. No gods could exist, did exist, do exist, or will ever exist. The idea of a god is a human creation, therefore not real by definition.

Why do people keep on asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

 

[Summerwind]

We can and we have and we have settled on it. By "we" I mean the intelligent among us.

No claim for any supernatural being has ever been substantiated. Therefore no claim for any supernatural being is true, call it Bible or Mountain god or spirit god of the pacific seas or anything you want.

There's no poing in arguing the specifics of a book written by goat herders 2,000 years ago. No gods could exist, did exist, do exist, or will ever exist. The idea of a god is a human creation, therefore not real by definition.

Why do people keep on asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

I wouldn't mind them asking if they had any intention of letting facts into their dialog, but they don't, that's the truly annoying part.

 

[Paralogic]

I wouldn't mind them asking if they had any intention of letting facts into their dialog, but they don't, that's the truly annoying part.

That's a polite way of dealing with this. But the fact is that people are ignorant and they want to impose their will and their fantasies upon everyone else.

Thank the universe for the Greek philosophers that taught us logic and reason and how to separate fiction from statements of true importance.

 

[Summerwind]

That's a polite way of dealing with this. But the fact is that people are ignorant and they want to impose their will and their fantasies upon everyone else.

Thank the universe for the Greek philosophers that taught us logic and reason and how to separate fiction from statements of true importance.

OMG! I don't think I've ever been pegged as "polite" in this forum. I'm swooning or reeling, I'm not sure which.

 

[Paralogic]

OMG! I don't think I've ever been pegged as "polite" in this forum. I'm swooning or reeling, I'm not sure which.

If you get the same drones asking the same stupid questions over and over and over again, you'd have to be polite, at the least, for still talking to them.

 

[Logicman]

That's what I said - all references come from the religious scriptures. I'm just pointing out that there are no outside, contemporary, verifications.

I'd like to remind folks in this thread that in the first century there was no New Testament per se. But there were over two dozen independent Gospels and/or Epistles that either directly or indirectly confirmed Jesus Christ and first century Christianity. And that is independent verification.

 

[Somerville]

I'd like to remind folks in this thread that in the first century there was no New Testament per se. But there were over two dozen independent Gospels and/or Epistles that either directly or indirectly confirmed Jesus Christ and first century Christianity. And that is independent verification.

NO, it is not independent verification. The text we have today was created, edited or interpolated in the second century. Most scholars will agree that some of the Epistles were composed in the first century but probably not in the format we presently know. In the academic, non seminary world, those who study the New Testament say that only seven of the Epistles attributed to Paul were written by one person; however, the epistles we know today are in every instance actually amalgamations of several letters which have resulted in the ones we now have.

 

[Logicman]

NO, it is not independent verification.

Yes, it is.

The text we have today was created, edited or interpolated in the second century. Most scholars will agree that some of the Epistles were composed in the first century but probably not in the format we presently know. In the academic, non seminary world, those who study the New Testament say that only seven of the Epistles attributed to Paul were written by one person; however, the epistles we know today are in every instance actually amalgamations of several letters which have resulted in the ones we now have.

Sorry, not buying it. According to the opinions of dozens of scholars the Gospels and Epistles are all first century.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

 

[HowardBThiname]

I'd like to remind folks in this thread that in the first century there was no New Testament per se. But there were over two dozen independent Gospels and/or Epistles that either directly or indirectly confirmed Jesus Christ and first century Christianity. And that is independent verification.

The gospels/epistles are religious documents. What I am saying is that no historians that lived in the time and region of Jesus, ever noted that there was a man who was causing quite a stir among the Jews. These historian make note of many others who lived in that time, others who are mentioned in the religious documents, but there is no outside contemporary evidence that makes any sort of mention of any son of God.

The story of Jesus closely follows the earlier accounts of Dionysos and Mithras. And, to some extent, Osiris.

 

[spud_meister]

For some odd reason, I can't find OrphanSlug's comments - maybe my settings or something - but it bears note that not all the prophecies were fulfilled. In addition, the person named Jesus in the Bible descends through the cursed king, Jeconiah. God's curse was that NO descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne of Israel.

That right there bumps Jesus out of the running.

Christ is not a descendent of Jeconiah.

 

[spud_meister]

The story of Jesus closely follows the earlier accounts of Dionysos and Mithras. And, to some extent, Osiris.

Bull****. Christ was neither sewn to his fathers leg, a God of oaths, or chopped into pieces and ****ed by his wife.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Christ is not a descendent of Jeconiah.

The bible states that he is in Matthew 1-12.

 

[spud_meister]

The bible states that he is in Matthew 1-12.

Let's do some reading:

12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of [n]Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of [o]Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been [v]conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Christ was of the house of David through the marriage of his mother to Joseph, but Joseph was not his father.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Bull****. Christ was neither sewn to his fathers leg, a God of oaths, or chopped into pieces and ****ed by his wife.

Splitting hairs. Tiny details only reflect the individual myths. The overall themes are the same.

In all the myths, we have godmen who are born of virgins. They are half man - half god, just as in the Jesus story. They lead exemplary lives. They stand up for the downtrodden - and eventually - they are all killed. But, that does not stop them - they spend some time in the underworld before rising again.

Many pagan myths feature eating the dead godman. That played a strong and vital role in "internalizing" the myth. The blood and body of the Christ is signified by wine and bread, but the myth remains on course. Even today, the RCC insists on the doctrine of transubstantiation, meaning the wine and wafer really do turn to Christ's blood and flesh in the tummy.

Interesting, no?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Christ was of the house of David through the marriage of his mother to Joseph, but Joseph was not his father.

That makes no difference. The prophecy insists that he be born of the house of David, and as genealogy was only traced through males, the genealogy in Matthew links him to the house of David. Unfortunately, it also passes through Jechoniah.