The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

DOC said:
Name some good archaeological evidence from Jewish websites that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with this, I just don't know where to start.

1. There's no archaeological evidence for Jesus one way or the other.
2. Jews really aren't interested in preaching, so you'd be hard-pressed to find Jewish websites devoting a lot of time to explaining why they don't think Jesus was the messiah.
3. You can't prove a negative; even from a theoretical standpoint, I can't imagine how archaeological evidence would show that Jesus wasn't the messiah. (I don't know how it would show that he was, either.)

What I deduce from this is that you really have no coherent argument, you don't know what "archaeological evidence" really is, and for some reason, you've got a problem with Jews.
 
DOC said:
Well then it makes sense for "you" to bring in God believing Jew websites to counter my arguments but it doesn't make sense for someone who does not believe in God to do so.
Click to expand...
DOC, by this logic a person would only refer to an anti-semetic website if they were an antisemetic.

If you are not antisemetic, then you must also admit that it is fully acceptable for a non-jewish person to reference a jewish website.


I must admit, this is a rather telling statement
DOC said:
in God believing Jew websites
Click to expand...
It may be an honest typo, it may not be. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (Although, I'm having less and less reason to do so).

But For future reference, the adjective of Jew is Jewish.
It is a rather strong pejorative to use "Jew" as an adjective.
 
Cleon said:
There are so many things wrong with this, I just don't know where to start.

1. There's no archaeological evidence for Jesus one way or the other.
2. Jews really aren't interested in preaching, so you'd be hard-pressed to find Jewish websites devoting a lot of time to explaining why they don't think Jesus was the messiah.
3. You can't prove a negative; even from a theoretical standpoint, I can't imagine how archaeological evidence would show that Jesus wasn't the messiah. (I don't know how it would show that he was, either.)

What I deduce from this is that you really have no coherent argument, you don't know what "archaeological evidence" really is, and for some reason, you've got a problem with Jews.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with Jews. Joseph, Mary, Jesus, all 12 of the apostles, and the evangelist/apostle Paul, were all Jews.

And the only reason I brought up the archaeology is that someone implied there were Jewish websites that show (thru archeology) Jesus was not the Messiah. I've already shown in the thread mentioned in post #1 of this thread that a famous archaeologist claimed Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (partly due to archaeology). And if we have archeological evidence that gospel writer Luke is a great historian, then that certainly makes it more likely that Jesus was who he said he was.
 
DOC said:
I don't have a problem with Jews. Joseph, Mary, Jesus, all 12 of the apostles, and the evangelist/apostle Paul, were all Jews.
Click to expand...
Some of my best friends are black!


DOC said:
I've already shown in the thread mentioned in post #1 of this thread that a famous archaeologist claimed Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (partly due to archaeology).
Click to expand...
1. Your claim of famous is a bit silly. Tell me what made this archeologist famous.
2. We've also shown that the source for htat quote was a quote mine. The archeolgist wasn't implying that what Luke wrote in the bible regarding Jesus was true.

DOC said:
And if we have archeological evidence that gospel writer Luke is a great historian, then that certainly makes it more likely that Jesus was who he said he was.
Click to expand...
And this is why your quote mine is fullly and WHOLEHEARTEDLY dishonest.

You lose credibility when ever you do this
and you make everyone take a drink.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I don't have a problem with Jews. Joseph, Mary, Jesus, all 12 of the apostles, and the evangelist/apostle Paul, were all Jews.

And the only reason I brought up the archaeology is that someone implied there were Jewish websites that show (thru archeology) Jesus was not the Messiah. I've already shown in the thread mentioned in post #1 of this thread that a famous archaeologist claimed Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (partly due to archaeology). And if we have archeological evidence that gospel writer Luke is a great historian, then that certainly makes it more likely that Jesus was who he said he was.
Click to expand...

Have you mentioned this before?
 
joobz said:
I must admit, this is a rather telling statement

It may be an honest typo, it may not be. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (Although, I'm having less and less reason to do so).

But For future reference, the adjective of Jew is Jewish.
It is a rather strong pejorative to use "Jew" as an adjective.
Click to expand...

I'm known for making short succinct posts. Jew is easier to write than Jewish. As I've said I have nothing against Jews. Christians should hold the Jewish people in high esteem because God used the Jews to give us Jesus and all the apostles.

And if you really wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt I think you would have said nothing instead of a making a post that came across as negative.
 
DOC said:
I'm known for making short succinct posts.
Click to expand...
no, you're not.
DOC said:
Jew is easier to write than Jewish.
Click to expand...
And ass is easier to write than assume. But the meanings are clearly different. The fact that you'd defend your usage is telling.

DOC said:
As I've said I have nothing against Jews. Christians should hold the Jewish people in high esteem because God used the Jews to give us Jesus and all the apostles.
Click to expand...
This is more telling than you know.

DOC said:
And if you really wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt I think you would have said nothing instead of a making a post that came across as negative.
Click to expand...
You're right. I think the benefit of the doubt is no longer deserved.
 
DOC said:
I don't have a problem with Jews. Joseph, Mary, Jesus, all 12 of the apostles, and the evangelist/apostle Paul, were all Jews.

And the only reason I brought up the archaeology is that someone implied there were Jewish websites that show (thru archeology) Jesus was not the Messiah.
Click to expand...

Nobody implied any such thing, as far as I can see.

I've already shown in the thread mentioned in post #1 of this thread that a famous archaeologist claimed Gospel writer Luke was a great historian (partly due to archaeology).
Click to expand...

The claim, as I recall (I have no intention of sifting through your thread), is that Luke was a "great historian" based on the fact that the Bible mentions places that were real.

Which frankly isn't particularly impressive as evidence. I can name a dozen fictional works right off the top of my head that mention real cities, states, regions, and countries.

And if we have archeological evidence that gospel writer Luke is a great historian,
Click to expand...

We don't.

then that certainly makes it more likely that Jesus was who he said he was.
Click to expand...

Does not follow.


Here's a tip, DOC, that you will likely ignore. You know nothing about archaeology; this much is obvious. Don't try to discuss a topic you know nothing about. You will only look foolish as a result.
 
DOC, if Joobz didn't want to give you the benefit of the doubt he would have just said you're anti-semetic, instead of carefully explaining what you said that was offensive and offering you a plausible excuse--a typo. Overlooking your mistake, as you clearly seem to prefer, would have done no-one any good.
 
I am SO drunk right now. I'm toddling off to the hospital to take care of this slight case of alcohol poisioning that I now have thanks to this trhead. Could a kind-hearted mod pleez put it on pause so our livers can recover?

Thx.
 
Belz... said:
Actually, we'd have to establish that he {Jesus}actually existed, first.
Click to expand...

I think most scholars believe Jesus actually existed. We have more non-Christian written sources for Christ and/or Christians (10) than we have written sources for Tiberius Caessar(9). And we have the following facts all from non-Christian sources:

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4633677#post4633677
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom