|
Post by DKTrav88 on Oct 13, 2018 4:02:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on Nov 5, 2018 22:56:44 GMT
Jesus is the man, that’s all I need to know.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 23, 2018 12:12:34 GMT
How it possible to prove something in Bible? There are interpretations, not facts in Bible. Facts are build upon numbers, an objective info. We can't see anything in Bible. Well-known historical facts about Pilates, or Agrippa or the other, or their meetings, or some traditional celebrating as the wedding, or travelling of Apostles don't require any falsification procedure, because there are no unusual there.
Miracles, strangeness, and the other weird things as the Resurrection are required to be proved. They say that these facts are false, and these facts are needed to be checked. How anthropology, or paleontology is going to prove something like that? I see no correct and objective connections there.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 23, 2018 16:38:42 GMT
How it possible to prove something in Bible? There are interpretations, not facts in Bible. Facts are build upon numbers, an objective info. We can't see anything in Bible. Well-known historical facts about Pilates, or Agrippa or the other, or their meetings, or some traditional celebrating as the wedding, or travelling of Apostles don't require any falsification procedure, because there are no unusual there. Miracles, strangeness, and the other weird things as the Resurrection are required to be proved. They say that these facts are false, and these facts are needed to be checked. How anthropology, or paleontology is going to prove something like that? I see no correct and objective connections there. As if the record of events in the Bible isn’t enough, archeological discoveries of Noah’s ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Red Sea crossing show that the stories in the Bible are true. There are other geological discoveries that show the record of the Bible is true. Is a record of eyewitness testimony not enough? Many would say the eyewitnesses lied, but what would they have to gain by lying? If they did lie, what did they gain?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 24, 2018 1:19:58 GMT
How it possible to prove something in Bible? There are interpretations, not facts in Bible. Facts are build upon numbers, an objective info. We can't see anything in Bible. Well-known historical facts about Pilates, or Agrippa or the other, or their meetings, or some traditional celebrating as the wedding, or travelling of Apostles don't require any falsification procedure, because there are no unusual there. Miracles, strangeness, and the other weird things as the Resurrection are required to be proved. They say that these facts are false, and these facts are needed to be checked. How anthropology, or paleontology is going to prove something like that? I see no correct and objective connections there. As if the record of events in the Bible isn’t enough, archeological discoveries of Noah’s ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Red Sea crossing show that the stories in the Bible are true. There are other geological discoveries that show the record of the Bible is true. Is a record of eyewitness testimony not enough? Many would say the eyewitnesses lied, but what would they have to gain by lying? If they did lie, what did they gain? Actually, I think that the other data like Red Sea crossing and Sodom and Gomorrah else can increase the price of Apostles (or the previous writers of Bible, to this case) words, and get their words to be more trustful. Yes, it is. I think that eyewitness testimony isn't enough, but - in Christ's case - it is enough. Reading Gospels we can see that it would be nonsense if Jesus started to use magic or some kind of spell to prove his divine origins. So, I think that the Christ case is special. There's no necessary for such case to be. Usually, archaeological, or anthropological facts about Bible might just get more lower, or more higher a Christian view on this events. Even a lack of facts wouldn't collapse, I presume, a Christian's total view (or belief position) of the Bible events.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 24, 2018 1:29:16 GMT
As if the record of events in the Bible isn’t enough, archeological discoveries of Noah’s ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Red Sea crossing show that the stories in the Bible are true. There are other geological discoveries that show the record of the Bible is true. Is a record of eyewitness testimony not enough? Many would say the eyewitnesses lied, but what would they have to gain by lying? If they did lie, what did they gain? Actually, I think that the other data like Red Sea crossing and Sodom and Gomorrah else can increase the price of Apostles (or the previous writers of Bible, to this case) words, and get their words to be more trustful. Yes, it is. I think that eyewitness testimony isn't enough, but - in Christ's case - it is enough. Reading Gospels we can see that it would be nonsense if Jesus started to use magic or some kind of spell to prove his divine origins. So, I think that the Christ case is special. There's no necessary for such case to be. Usually, archaeological, or anthropological facts about Bible might just get more lower, or more higher a Christian view on this events. Even a lack of facts wouldn't collapse, I presume, a Christian's total view (or belief position) of the Bible events. Well, the archaeological discoveries only help support what is recorded in the Bible. As far as eyewitness testimony goes, in a court of law, it would be enough to substantiate themselves as they are not all exactly the same yet they are matching.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 10, 2019 18:52:16 GMT
FAKE
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Mar 23, 2020 16:11:35 GMT
(I'm attempting to bring this thread back to topic since Diamond is going of into other threads and into Protestantism which no one cares about.) Anyway, you'd be surprised how many people don't believe that certain people existed and then would argue over it. You as far as I know, you believe Jesus existed while being atheist, while another atheist I know would argue nonstop with me that He never existed. I'd personally leave such things at an agree to disagree kind of thing but even little things can be hard to convince people with I think Shrug It still doesn't say anything about Bible being reliable. The deleted Romeo was right, but why do I say so??? Let me approach the issue in a new way.
There are writers of CHRONICLES and writers of HISTORY. The Bible contains chronicle materials, such as a flood, infestations of Egypt by locusts, etc. Much of the chronicle material can be verified by modern research. The Bible is written in the style of a history (the history of the Hebrews), as it presents or explains the reasons for such catastrophic events: human faults, divine protection. etc. The correctness of the chronicle materials does NOT imply the correctness of the historical explanations. The writers appropriated common Mideastern knowledge and contrived a history of God and His people. That's all.
|
|